Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
On whether sorcerers and wizards should be merged or not, (they shouldn't)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7915875" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Sure as a class, lots of past editions went there, either officially or off in the boonies. There actually was an Archer class for 1e -"unofficial NPC class" in the pages of The Dragon - early attempts at modeling some sort of swashbuckler or duelist were classes, the Cavalier was a class, etc. It was only with 3e that we even started to get some build flexibility with martial characters, even then, we seemed to need, Knight and Scout classes.</p><p>Actually a Slayer could be lethal with a two-hander in melee, <em>and</em> a longbow at range. Rogues worked fairly seamlessly at melee & range, and while, as a V class, Rangers were a little fraught in doing so, they could combine the two, as well - and there was a build for just that. Even an MP2 Warlord build could do melee or ranged from round to round with little issue. </p><p></p><p>It was really the fighter that went from un-supported at many things to really good at it's traditional meatshield role - glorified, in 4e, as "Defender" - with the side effect of making it very melee-focused.</p><p></p><p>Not too consistently, no. Monk, Ranger, Druid (TBH, even though it's my favorite 5e class), Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock - all could as easily have been sub-classes.</p><p></p><p>As it stands, if you use feats, anyone w/o Sharpshooter might as well not use a bow, at all, by comparison, so it wouldn't be that big a difference, functionally. So if you created an Archer that was as good with a bow as <em>that</em>, feats or no feats allowed, it wouldn't break the game. It'd just be untenably narrow.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7915875, member: 996"] Sure as a class, lots of past editions went there, either officially or off in the boonies. There actually was an Archer class for 1e -"unofficial NPC class" in the pages of The Dragon - early attempts at modeling some sort of swashbuckler or duelist were classes, the Cavalier was a class, etc. It was only with 3e that we even started to get some build flexibility with martial characters, even then, we seemed to need, Knight and Scout classes. Actually a Slayer could be lethal with a two-hander in melee, [I]and[/I] a longbow at range. Rogues worked fairly seamlessly at melee & range, and while, as a V class, Rangers were a little fraught in doing so, they could combine the two, as well - and there was a build for just that. Even an MP2 Warlord build could do melee or ranged from round to round with little issue. It was really the fighter that went from un-supported at many things to really good at it's traditional meatshield role - glorified, in 4e, as "Defender" - with the side effect of making it very melee-focused. Not too consistently, no. Monk, Ranger, Druid (TBH, even though it's my favorite 5e class), Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock - all could as easily have been sub-classes. As it stands, if you use feats, anyone w/o Sharpshooter might as well not use a bow, at all, by comparison, so it wouldn't be that big a difference, functionally. So if you created an Archer that was as good with a bow as [I]that[/I], feats or no feats allowed, it wouldn't break the game. It'd just be untenably narrow. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
On whether sorcerers and wizards should be merged or not, (they shouldn't)
Top