Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6876619" data-attributes="member: 7006">I dunno... I think if you feel you can make a better &quot;ranger&quot; concept character for yourself by making a Fighter (because of whatever it is you think a &quot;ranger&quot; denotes)... that's the game working as intended.&nbsp; The whole point of backgrounds was to be able to create the essence of most of the non-Core Four classes just using the Core Four classes plus an applicable background.&nbsp; Wizard + Entertainer makes you a &quot;bard&quot;.&nbsp; Fighter + Outlander makes you a &quot;ranger&quot; or &quot;barbarian&quot;.&nbsp; Cleric + Nature domain makes you a &quot;druid&quot;.&nbsp; Rogue + Acolyte makes you a &quot;monk&quot;.&nbsp; Etc. etc.The main reason for selecting the actual classes rather than creating these essences is because the actual classes get more specific things on the theme that the Core Four don't.&nbsp; Monks get better unarmed combat than Rogue + Acolyte.&nbsp; Ranger gets more mystical ties to nature and hyperawareness of their surroundings than Fighter + Outlander.&nbsp; Paladins get better smiting abilities than Cleric + Knight.&nbsp; But if those extra abilities don't do anything for you and don't really add to the essence of what you think those classes are (or if you are primarily focused on creating the most powerful combatant)... then just sticking with Core Four classes and building the best combatant is fine.&nbsp; That's the way the game was built-- so you could create your character fifteen ways to Sunday in whatever manner that works best for you.The pointless part is to get upset that of those fifteen ways to Sunday, you believe ONE of them should be the primary way to create the character you want, but that way isn't &quot;as good&quot; as one the other fourteen.&nbsp; Like &quot; I want to play a Ranger, NOT a Fighter + Outlander, but the game won't let me because the Ranger sucks!&quot;&nbsp; Which means you are completely going against the ideals of the edition, as Ranger, Fighter + Outlander, UA Spell-less Ranger, UA Ranger Variant, UA Scout subclass Fighter etc. are all equal paths towards giving players the essence of the ranger that they might want.&nbsp; And just because there is a class with the word &quot;Ranger&quot; at the top of the chapter doesn't make it the end-all-and-be all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6876619, member: 7006"] I dunno... I think if you feel you can make a better "ranger" concept character for yourself by making a Fighter (because of whatever it is you think a "ranger" denotes)... that's the game working as intended. The whole point of backgrounds was to be able to create the essence of most of the non-Core Four classes just using the Core Four classes plus an applicable background. Wizard + Entertainer makes you a "bard". Fighter + Outlander makes you a "ranger" or "barbarian". Cleric + Nature domain makes you a "druid". Rogue + Acolyte makes you a "monk". Etc. etc. The main reason for selecting the actual classes rather than creating these essences is because the actual classes get more specific things on the theme that the Core Four don't. Monks get better unarmed combat than Rogue + Acolyte. Ranger gets more mystical ties to nature and hyperawareness of their surroundings than Fighter + Outlander. Paladins get better smiting abilities than Cleric + Knight. But if those extra abilities don't do anything for you and don't really add to the essence of what you think those classes are (or if you are primarily focused on creating the most powerful combatant)... then just sticking with Core Four classes and building the best combatant is fine. That's the way the game was built-- so you could create your character fifteen ways to Sunday in whatever manner that works best for you. The pointless part is to get upset that of those fifteen ways to Sunday, you believe ONE of them should be the primary way to create the character you want, but that way isn't "as good" as one the other fourteen. Like " I want to play a Ranger, NOT a Fighter + Outlander, but the game won't let me because the Ranger sucks!" Which means you are completely going against the ideals of the edition, as Ranger, Fighter + Outlander, UA Spell-less Ranger, UA Ranger Variant, UA Scout subclass Fighter etc. are all equal paths towards giving players the essence of the ranger that they might want. And just because there is a class with the word "Ranger" at the top of the chapter doesn't make it the end-all-and-be all. [/QUOTE]

Verification