Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 811150" data-attributes="member: 10397">Well one little problem...if you do away with the Ranger, Bard(!?), Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer(!?), Druid(!?), and Barbarian, its no longer DnD. You might as well just go for a classless system. DnD is a class based system...its also a heavily class based system. An Archtypal class system.  Not a three or four base classes that lead you into various advanced classes game. Several of the classes you mention, particularly Bard Ranger and Druid are very standard fantasy archtypes and have always been part of DnD.  Now granted it would be interesting for WOTC to do a base classes leading to advanced classes game...and even a classeless system of some kind. but those things would not be Dungeons and Dragons.  Now, I am all for the core classes being made more and more generic and getting away from certain restrictive sterotypes held over from the early days of DnD(such as alignment restrictions) just for the record.  However as to your saying that the ranger needs to be removed because no one can agree on what it is what it should have etc etc...well for the most part I say the solution to that is that people need to understand that the game designers CAN NOT PLEASE EVERYONE. Wether you want to believe that they are trying to do the best they can or not is your own choice but that fact...that they cant please everyone...is indisputable. Some times that have to try to either please as many people as they can, or avoid displeasing as many as they can. And some times they may fail even at that. But nothing's perfect.  Now I have complained about things they have done myself, frequently. but I still love a good 80% of the stuff. and most of what I dont like is easily changeable. I agree, their should have been a couple more combat styles(and perhaps a line of non combat feats) for the ranger. but such a thing is hardly hard to come up with. And it is DEFINTILY an improvement over the 3.0 ranger...that to is beyond denial as far as I am concenred.</blockquote>

Verification