Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7849155" data-attributes="member: 996">I mean, conceptually, an Outlander Fighter covers the archetypes the spell-less Ranger is meant to pretty well, no spellcasting really called for, and, if MCing weren't optional, throw in some Druid and there's no need for spell-full, Ranger, either.Conceptually.&nbsp; As far as actual breadth &amp; depth of abilities and resources, OTOH, there's really no comparison.&nbsp; A 5e Outlander Fighter Battlemaster doesn't come anywhere near a 4e Archer Ranger.&nbsp; A 5e Ranger wildly out-magicks a classic 1e Ranger. 4e never did get a handle on any sort of ranged defender, so, yeah, little point to a fighter using, let alone specializing in, the bow - thrown weapons suited it much better. The Ranger made a great archer, though, had no supernatural and virtually no woodsy baggage left - you had to choose between nature and dungeoneering when picking skills, that was the last vestige of woodsiness - so, yeah, covered the same concepts as an archery-specialized fighter in past editions, quite handily.&nbsp; Really, a lot better, considering what it could do.&nbsp; So, yeah, you got good advice.&nbsp;It's d20, everything uses the same mechanics.&nbsp; What you do with 'em differentiates one class from another.&nbsp; For instance, say a character casts Shield &amp; Burning Hands.&nbsp;&nbsp; What class is he?&nbsp; Well, in 1e Magic-User, no question, but at least 2nd level.&nbsp; In 4e?&nbsp; Likewise.&nbsp; In 3.x, could be a Sorcerer or a Wizard of 1st level or higher - wait for him to cast Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer to be sure.&nbsp; In 5e, again, could be Sorcerer or Wizard of 1st level or higher......but, in this specific instance,3rd level Fighter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7849155, member: 996"] I mean, conceptually, an Outlander Fighter covers the archetypes the spell-less Ranger is meant to pretty well, no spellcasting really called for, and, if MCing weren't optional, throw in some Druid and there's no need for spell-full, Ranger, either. Conceptually. As far as actual breadth & depth of abilities and resources, OTOH, there's really no comparison. A 5e Outlander Fighter Battlemaster doesn't come anywhere near a 4e Archer Ranger. A 5e Ranger wildly out-magicks a classic 1e Ranger. 4e never did get a handle on any sort of ranged defender, so, yeah, little point to a fighter using, let alone specializing in, the bow - thrown weapons suited it much better. The Ranger made a great archer, though, had no supernatural and virtually no woodsy baggage left - you had to choose between nature and dungeoneering when picking skills, that was the last vestige of woodsiness - so, yeah, covered the same concepts as an archery-specialized fighter in past editions, quite handily. Really, a [I]lot[/I] better, considering what it could do. So, yeah, you got good advice. It's d20, everything uses the same mechanics. What you do with 'em differentiates one class from another. For instance, say a character casts Shield & Burning Hands. What class is he? Well, in 1e Magic-User, no question, but at least 2nd level. In 4e? Likewise. In 3.x, could be a Sorcerer or a Wizard of 1st level or higher - wait for him to cast Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer to be sure. In 5e, again, could be Sorcerer or Wizard of 1st level or higher... ...but, in this specific instance,[I]3rd level Fighter[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification