Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6193269" data-attributes="member: 78752">The ranger definitely has a strong warrior component, but it isn't his focus.  A ranged-combat-focused warrior ought to be more focused on combat than the ranger, and substantially less focused on spells and stealth than the ranger.  The ranger is a highly specialized class, and poorly represents combat archers as a whole.Class variants can solve some problems of class design but they can't really resolve issues of intent.  A variant fighter is never going to cast spells; why would a variant ranger /not/ cast spells?  I think the issue here is that people want -- and have always wanted -- the ranger to be two very disparate things, largely because there has never been a ranged fighter archetype in D&D that holds a candle to the effectiveness of the ranger.There ought to be a robust ranged option for fighters that doesn't make them second fiddles to rangers in combat.  If anything, the ranger ought to be second fiddle to the ranged fighter, because the ranger's focus is not on combat exclusively.If this robust option exists in the warrior archetype, there's no question that the ranger becomes the trickster counterpart.  No?</blockquote>