Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6193939" data-attributes="member: 78752">I see your point, but a ranged fighter ought to be doing those things, too, and he doesn't have proficiency with stealth.&nbsp; So...?I hate hybrid classes, I really do.&nbsp; This is why I thought backgrounds and specialties were so brilliant.&nbsp; You could effect a perfectly serviceable bard by rolling a wizard with the minstrel background and a skilly specialty (which specialty that was changed a lot between packets).&nbsp; Fun rangers and paladins could be similarly constructed.Fundamentally, I don't think these class groups should be /groups/ -- I think they should be the only classes.&nbsp; Classes should be broadly archetypal, with variation /within/ them.&nbsp; The ranger ought to either be a combat rogue with nature expertise or a skilly fighter with nature expertise, but probably the former.That aside, the ranger could be an archetype, but you need to focus on what makes him unique, not what makes him a warrior or a trickster.&nbsp; For me, that's his survivalism.&nbsp; He's not good with a bow because he's a warrior, he's good with a bow because you hunt with one.&nbsp; He fights in close quarters with two weapons because he developed his combat style by observing animals, who are similarly armed.&nbsp; He tracks poachers through acres of wilderness on a diet of tree bark and his own urine for an opportunity to demonstrate the principles of Darwinian evolution with a few well-placed snares and blinds.&nbsp; The underbrush parts for a druid; the ranger just moves through it like it did.These are things that do not characterize any other class, and they are why the ranger deserves to be his own beast.&nbsp; This is why I think he is a trickster and not a warrior, because his essence is skilly.&nbsp; His combat capability is not critical to his core concept.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 6193939, member: 78752"] I see your point, but a ranged fighter ought to be doing those things, too, and he doesn't have proficiency with stealth. So...? I hate hybrid classes, I really do. This is why I thought backgrounds and specialties were so brilliant. You could effect a perfectly serviceable bard by rolling a wizard with the minstrel background and a skilly specialty (which specialty that was changed a lot between packets). Fun rangers and paladins could be similarly constructed. Fundamentally, I don't think these class groups should be /groups/ -- I think they should be the only classes. Classes should be broadly archetypal, with variation /within/ them. The ranger ought to either be a combat rogue with nature expertise or a skilly fighter with nature expertise, but probably the former. That aside, the ranger could be an archetype, but you need to focus on what makes him unique, not what makes him a warrior or a trickster. For me, that's his survivalism. He's not good with a bow because he's a warrior, he's good with a bow because you hunt with one. He fights in close quarters with two weapons because he developed his combat style by observing animals, who are similarly armed. He tracks poachers through acres of wilderness on a diet of tree bark and his own urine for an opportunity to demonstrate the principles of Darwinian evolution with a few well-placed snares and blinds. The underbrush parts for a druid; the ranger just moves through it like it did. These are things that do not characterize any other class, and they are why the ranger deserves to be his own beast. This is why I think he is a trickster and not a warrior, because his essence is skilly. His combat capability is not critical to his core concept. [/QUOTE]

Verification