Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6103820" data-attributes="member: 40233">I don't even want that.&nbsp; Want a dog?&nbsp; Go spend the gp to buy one and train it.&nbsp; Want a gryphon? Go out and find an egg.&nbsp; Pets and companion should be something that anyone can acquire through roleplaying.&nbsp; I don't want a pet class...I want pets.Now to veer into a complete other subject.&nbsp; As I said above, the nonspell using ranger is the fighter with the woodsman background.&nbsp; I'm serious about this.&nbsp; There should not be a single non-magical thing that the ranger can do better than a fighter who has taken the right options to be a woodsman; tracking, woodlore, stealth-the fighter ought to be able to do all of those things as well as a ranger class.&nbsp; I shouldn't ever need to have a ranger, if I don't want a magical wood guy class.&nbsp; Skilled skirmish fighter ought to be an archetype of fighter, not a type of ranger.Same with the paladin; if I want to play a non-magic, secular knight in shining armor, I should be able to do that with the fighter class.&nbsp; My campaigns shouldn't need paladins to have knights, rangers to have valiant woodsmen, or barbarians to have savage &quot;men of the north.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Salamandyr, post: 6103820, member: 40233"] I don't even want that. Want a dog? Go spend the gp to buy one and train it. Want a gryphon? Go out and find an egg. Pets and companion should be something that anyone can acquire through roleplaying. I don't want a pet class...I want pets. Now to veer into a complete other subject. As I said above, the nonspell using ranger is the fighter with the woodsman background. I'm serious about this. There should not be a single non-magical thing that the ranger can do better than a fighter who has taken the right options to be a woodsman; tracking, woodlore, stealth-the fighter ought to be able to do all of those things as well as a ranger class. I shouldn't ever [I]need[/I] to have a ranger, if I don't want a magical wood guy class. Skilled skirmish fighter ought to be an archetype of fighter, not a type of ranger. Same with the paladin; if I want to play a non-magic, secular knight in shining armor, I should be able to do that with the fighter class. My campaigns shouldn't [I]need[/I] paladins to have knights, rangers to have valiant woodsmen, or barbarians to have savage "men of the north." [/QUOTE]

Verification