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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5910415" data-attributes="member: 7635">I'm not re-hashing the "rangers shouldn't dual-wield" argument. If you want to cite Drizzt (incorrectly) for that, go ahead. However, for 3 editions now rangers are the dual-wielding class.That is my point. Ranger should imply a helluva lot more than "light armor and a bow". Ranger should imply some measure of specialty in stealth, perception, tracking, animal handling (domestic and wild), hunting, and perhaps some mysticism and herbcraft beyond the ken of normal hunters. There should be plenty of room in there for Aragon, Legolas, Orion, Katniss, Jack the Giant Killer, and Drizzt.D&D never emulated fantasy magic except its own. That's fine. Some magical traditions use spellbooks, some don't. The wonderful thing is we have wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, and bards (along with artificers and other mages) to emulate different takes on magic. We don't NEED to turn wizards into Gandalf; he's probably more akin to a sorcerer with celestial bloodline anyway...I'm talking about a character who is mechanically a dwarf (all the normal racial traits of), but looks and acts human. I DO have a problem with this. Humanity has set traits, dwarves have set traits. If you're going to have both races, we don't need a human that has +2 Con/Wis, Healing Surge as a minor action, bonus to poison and magic saves, etc.If you wouldn't allow a "human" to take the dwarven mechanical traits and still be a human, why would someone allow a rogue to take the ranger traits and still be a rogue?This here contradicts EVERYTHING you said above. You've reduced the ranger to "dexy-archer class" by stripping away all its fluff (and restuffing it with the rogues fluff" or decided that the crossbow and shortbow are now the same weapon (which destroys whatever dumb "rogues use crossbows" flavor they were shooting for). Why not just have weapons be "small shooty thing", "large stabby thing" or "one-handed bludgeon thing" and let the PC decide if his bludgeon is a hammer, mace, or club? I love this example because it shows how one change (I want my rogue to use a shortbow) requires 4e players to either re-write the rogue, re-fluff the ranger, or destroy any meaningful difference between bows and crossbows. I can, and it has a mechanical expression; its called Sneak Attack. 1.) No. Attacking a guy and taking his stuff doesn't make you a rogue; it makes you an adventurer. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> There is nothing inherently roguish about being a thug. Rogues are full of guile, agility, finesse and a dash of panache. What you described probably is a NE fighter or some sort, though a martial rogue could fit the bill. However, a tactic isn't a class; which is why I don't like all archers are rangers. 2.) Not at all. A wizard who only uses a dozen spells isn't acting to his full potential, but he has the ability to. I would be upset if he tried to trade away that potential though for some measure of sorcerer power though...3.) No. Depending on your devoutness, you can be a fighter with the religion skill, a martial cleric, a ranger of a nature deity, etc. They shouldn't receive the same benefits of a paladin though. Both. You pick the class that is closest to the archetype you want to emulate, but you also adhere to that class's fluff. Its the give-and-take of a class-based game. I sometimes think that 4e went the Mutants and Mastermind's route and made everything "assemble as you like." I could take the martial source, the striker role, the archer sub-build and then grab powers like "sniper shot" or "double shot" to use with my medium missile weapon, and then add my own fluff. It would have cut-down tremendously on bloat as well.</blockquote>

Verification