Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8785115" data-attributes="member: 18">By this logic, Rangers should never have existed in the first place, because they're based on Aragorn, who does even less &quot;Ranger stuff&quot; than Katniss (quite a lot less), and also doesn't do magic.You seem to be using an entirely circular definition of a Ranger, which is that, they have magic, and in order to be a Ranger, they have to have magic, otherwise they're just a Fighter.It's completely and profoundly missing the point of classes. Classes exist to embody fantasies. WotC have said this on multiple occasions, note. They do understand that, at least conceptually. The fantasy of being &quot;A Katniss type&quot; or &quot;An Aragorn type&quot; is not handled at all by a Rogue, and not handled well by a Fighter.Katniss' main thing is she's extremely skilled - Fighters aren't. Katniss isn't armoured. Isn't in the military. Isn't trained in any kind of tactics and doesn't have a wide range of weapons. But she's also not some kind of backstabber or Thief. And as you point out, she uses traps a ton, uses natural hazards, and particularly knowledge of nature (which her opponents are shown to lack) to defeat people. She knows and understands terrain and nature - something Rangers did in 5E, but no longer do in 1D&amp;D, I note. Something Rogues and Fighters do not do. She's absolutely what people think of when you say Ranger. Even if&nbsp; you read the 5E description of a Ranger, she's a good match for 6 of 7 paragraphs (a far better match than with Rogue or Fighter, I note), with only the two random and out of place-seeming lines about Rangers knowing magic not fitting.If we're at the point where we're denying people who obviously fit the pop-culture archetype of a Ranger are Rangers, just because they don't have magic, we can see there's a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8785115, member: 18"] By this logic, Rangers should never have existed in the first place, because they're based on Aragorn, who does even less "Ranger stuff" than Katniss (quite a lot less), and also doesn't do magic. You seem to be using an entirely circular definition of a Ranger, which is that, they have magic, and in order to be a Ranger, they have to have magic, otherwise they're just a Fighter. It's completely and profoundly missing the point of classes. Classes exist to embody fantasies. WotC have said this on multiple occasions, note. They do understand that, at least conceptually. The fantasy of being "A Katniss type" or "An Aragorn type" is not handled at all by a Rogue, and not handled well by a Fighter. Katniss' main thing is she's extremely skilled - Fighters aren't. Katniss isn't armoured. Isn't in the military. Isn't trained in any kind of tactics and doesn't have a wide range of weapons. But she's also not some kind of backstabber or Thief. And as you point out, she uses traps a ton, uses natural hazards, and particularly knowledge of nature (which her opponents are shown to lack) to defeat people. She knows and understands terrain and nature - something Rangers did in 5E, but no longer do in 1D&D, I note. Something Rogues and Fighters do not do. She's absolutely what people think of when you say Ranger. Even if you read the 5E description of a Ranger, she's a good match for 6 of 7 paragraphs (a far better match than with Rogue or Fighter, I note), with only the two random and out of place-seeming lines about Rangers knowing magic not fitting. If we're at the point where we're denying people who obviously fit the pop-culture archetype of a Ranger are Rangers, just because they don't have magic, we can see there's a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification