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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arlough" data-source="post: 5910019" data-attributes="member: 79335">To begin with, ranger didn't always mean "archer/dual-wielder in light armor", in fact it just meant archer.  Many people cite Aragorn and Legolas as the models that made the ranger "archer/dual-wielder in light armor" and the archer=Legolas part I can see. But the Aragorn or Legolas=dual-wielder seems to fail here.  I wonder where the dual-wielder even came from.Nonetheless, why would we decide that ranger means "Dex guy who does ranged and melee in combat" rather than something really flavorful (fluffy) like "Naturalist who travels far and wide knowing the land and it's creatures" or "Warden of the wild who slays the dark beasts that would pray on civilization" or "Defender of nature against the assaults of civilization" or any other meaning.  The mechanics of a fight should not tell me who I am any more than my race should tell me who I am.I don't see problems with either of these.  The spellbook is a contrivance anyway. Did we ever see Gandalf walking around with a spellbook? What about Dallben (the Book of Three was not a spellbook mind you)? The Blue Adept? Allanon (listed as druid, but effectively a wizard, though if you don't accept that example I won't get all hurt)? Even Questor Thews pulls off some amazing (if ill performed) magic without a spellbook.As for the human dwarf thing, is there any reason other than mechanics these should be different?  So long as you limit your mechanical aspects to Dwarf, this shouldn't be an issue.  Unless dwarves have additional advantages or disadvantages that do not come out in the mechanics.  Would you be upset if I played a human who was short and stocky with a large nose, long beard, and (for reasons still yet unknown) a Scottish accent?Two things:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You could have re-skinned a crossbow to look like a shortbow. 1d8 + Dexterity modifier damage plus sneak attack (2d6/3d6/5d6) damage once per round with combat advantage.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"I'm still a rogue;" yes fine "never mind my loss of sneak attack," Ranger Feature: Quarry Damage "tumble," Skill: Athletics (+5) Feat: Skill Focus [Athletics] (+3) Primary Stat [Dexterity] - now you are the best tumbler for your level in the game "weapon finesse," this was a flaw with the first ranger build breaking it into Dex (ranged) and Str (melee)  It won't help you now, but Martial Power 2 corrected that and made a viable Dex (melee) ranger.  We just houseruled this, but another choice would have been 16 Str and 17 Dex. "or bonuses to stealth." Skill: Stealth, another Feat: Skill Focus [Stealth], Primary Stat [Dexterity] "But I can use my shortbow!" Sure can, and you get to do 1d8 + Dexterity modifier damage plus quarry damage (1d6/2d6/3d6) once per round.</li> </ol>Now, since both the crossbow and shortbow are +2 prof and deal 1d8, the only difference is the crossbow requires a minor action to load. If you take option one, you do have to use a minor action to load your shortbow that is suspiciously like a crossbow (but what rogue is using their minor action most of the time).  You would also get to deal additional damage of 2d6/3d6/5d6 through heroic/paragon/epic, but you could only do that when you have combat advantage, so at range probably 1 every 2 - 3 rounds through paragon, if the terrain favors you.If you take option two, you load your shortbow that is mechanically a shortbow for free, but have to use your minor action to quarry a target, but only when choosing a new target. Then you deal 1d6 every round to the target of your quarry.Since you are an imaginative fellow playing a game of pretend <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> you can imagine that that minor action is you lining up the shot to hit your enemy's tender bits.  Or you can imagine that you are making sure to hang in your enemy's blind spot so he is caught flat footed.So now I have a question.  If I built a street thug who comes up behind you with a pipe and beats the crap out of you to take your wallet, is that guy not a rogue?  If I want to build a magic user who is very studious but unimaginative, so he always uses the same spells, am I stuck with a sorcerer? If I have a guy who is really good at fighting, but is also devout, is the only option to be a paladin?Basically, do I get to choose my character, or is my character chosen for me?I would rather 4e had not given names to each of the builds, but rather role and source.  That way you could have chosen from one of the three martial strikers and not had the seemingly terrible experience you did.</blockquote>

Verification