pawsplay's dealbreaker list

Baen said:
No, the classes are named for D&D Archetypes, not after singular character concepts. However the names of a class mean nothing when trying to actually create such character classes. By your logic, Fighter should be a Fighter, Paladin a Fighter, Ranger a Fighter, Rogue a fighter, and in some cases Cleric a Fighter. The names are but the package of traditional D&D abilities they contain.

I don't recall saying anything that would imply that. Perhaps you can elaborate.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pawsplay said:
Are you being cute, or what? If the name of the class to which Musashi belongs is ranger and not fighter, then the classes have been badly named and should be corrected.
The name of the class that Dr*z'zt belongs to is ranger, and Dr*z'zt has been around for nearly 20 years (curse him). The name of the class that Legolas -- who pranced around with 2 shortswords in between surfing down stairs and climbing up mumakil legs -- belongs to is unknown, but looks a lot like ranger. The idea that TWF <--> ranger seems too stupid to die, unfortunately.
 

What I am saying is that their is ONE character in all of Fantasy that is traditionally attributed to as a Ranger. Paladin's are practically unheard of. You are implying that because of just Musashi is not referred to as a ranger by legend, that even if it is the best class fit it is wrong, since the NAME is wrong. The problem is that a Ranger is just a Fighter attached to nature, a Paladin one with divine inspiration. They are all warriors who have slightly different combat styles or motivations. Even if we go back to the origin of the ranger, Aragorn, he wasn't incredibly attune with nature. He had good survival skills, but wasn't a tree hugger. Nor were any semi-historical characters that could be considered such (Robin Hood for one.) The names are meaningless except as a representation of the abilities attributed to them in previous additions.

EDIT: To clarify, fantasy not inspired by D&D
 
Last edited:

Baen said:
What I am saying is that their is ONE character in all of Fantasy that is traditionally attributed to as a Ranger. Paladin's are practically unheard of. You are implying that because of just Musashis is not referred to by a ranger by legend, that even if it is the best class fit it is wrong, since the NAME is wrong.

Well, he sure isn't a Wizard, is he?
 

hong said:
The name of the class that Dr*z'zt belongs to is ranger, and Dr*z'zt has been around for nearly 20 years (curse him). The name of the class that Legolas -- who pranced around with 2 shortswords in between surfing down stairs and climbing up mumakil legs -- belongs to is unknown, but looks a lot like ranger. The idea that TWF <--> ranger seems too stupid to die, unfortunately.

Well, I always thought of Legolas as the 18 Dex elven fighter with AC of -1 I once played in AD&D, but now that I think about it, he did a lot of tracking. Of course.... so did Gimli.
 


Baen said:
Does that point actually mean anything? I never stated that he could be modeled by ANY class.

No, but you have argued that he should be modelled by a class named after something he is not.

I play GURPS. In GURPS, if I turn to a page that says Ranger of the North, or something like that, I find a package written for a character who is, in fact, a Ranger of the North. If I look in Fantasy Hero, by Hero Games, and I find a package deal for a Ranger, or a Kung Fu Master, or whatever, I see the concept supported by appropriate abilities.

Why is D&D, a class-based game, exempt from the basic logic that a class archetype should be named for what it is, and a character concept based on that archetype should most comfortably fit within that class? If I am forced to choose a class called Ranger in order to build one of the most famous fighters in history, something has gone awry. It is easier to rationalize than if the class were, say, Wizard, but it's still just as wrong. It's a class straightjacket that serves no purpose; it improves neither the Fighter class nor the Ranger class. It exists purely to artifically create niche protection while at the same time protecting The Drow's herd of sacred cows.

What makes it especially painful is that Drizzt's original AD&D stats made him a special NPC with levels of fighter. Just as Conan the Barbarian is recognized as an archetypal barbarian, but is actually just as much thief and fighter in background and abilities, Drizzt is the uber-ranger achetype, yet his swordfighting skills and distinctive style come from his background as a Drow fencer.

So in other words, there are approximately zero rangers in all of history, myth, fantasy fiction, and even D&D novels that are renowned primarily as expects in using two swords, whereas there are numerous examples of historical fighters, such as gladiators, many samurai, and medieval knights, that used two weapons.
 

pawsplay said:
No, but you have argued that he should be modelled by a class named after something he is not.

I play GURPS. In GURPS, if I turn to a page that says Ranger of the North, or something like that, I find a package written for a character who is, in fact, a Ranger of the North. If I look in Fantasy Hero, by Hero Games, and I find a package deal for a Ranger, or a Kung Fu Master, or whatever, I see the concept supported by appropriate abilities.

Why is D&D, a class-based game, exempt from the basic logic that a class archetype should be named for what it is, and a character concept based on that archetype should most comfortably fit within that class? If I am forced to choose a class called Ranger in order to build one of the most famous fighters in history, something has gone awry. It is easier to rationalize than if the class were, say, Wizard, but it's still just as wrong. It's a class straightjacket that serves no purpose; it improves neither the Fighter class nor the Ranger class. It exists purely to artifically create niche protection while at the same time protecting The Drow's herd of sacred cows.

What makes it especially painful is that Drizzt's original AD&D stats made him a special NPC with levels of fighter. Just as Conan the Barbarian is recognized as an archetypal barbarian, but is actually just as much thief and fighter in background and abilities, Drizzt is the uber-ranger achetype, yet his swordfighting skills and distinctive style come from his background as a Drow fencer.

So in other words, there are approximately zero rangers in all of history, myth, fantasy fiction, and even D&D novels that are renowned primarily as expects in using two swords, whereas there are numerous examples of historical fighters, such as gladiators, many samurai, and medieval knights, that used two weapons.

The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS. We are not talking about looking through a book, seeing a ranger, and making a ranger. We are talking about taking a character concept, looking through the book, and finding one that matches him the best. As you said above, the classes are simply Archetypes. However they are Archetypes of D&D fantasy, not of real fantasy (or life for that matter.) When I create a character, I think of a concept then look for a class that works best for it. It is sad that you cannot create a character outside of a simple naming convention. My characters almost never refer to themselves as rangers, paladins, or fighters.
Now of course your complaint seems to largely lie on rangers having twf, and not fighters. In that case you would have to back to Basic, or ignore D&D entirely. TWF is identified with Rangers from a D&D standpoint, has been that way for 2.x editions and is likely going to stay that way. That is a D&D complaint, not a 4th edition one.
 

Baen said:
The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS. We are not talking about looking through a book, seeing a ranger, and making a ranger.

We're not? Because I thought that was basically class-based character creation, in a nutshell. If you don't have that, what do you even have? Is it even D&D any more?

TWF is identified with Rangers from a D&D standpoint, has been that way for 2.x editions and is likely going to stay that way. That is a D&D complaint, not a 4th edition one.

Considering how many things have been completely altered, like succubi going over to the devil side, gnomes turning into some kind of reclusive fey and high elves changing their name to something hard to pronounce and learning to teleport, I think revisiting TWF would be fair game. Is/was/will be is not a convincing design argument for 4e. I am supposed to just accept a bad design decision and like it, because the designers didn't have a taste for sacred beef the day the day they looked at that?
 

I guess to make it more clear:
Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Barbarian are but Subsets of Fighter/Warrior
Druid and to some extent Paladin are subsets of the Cleric
Enchanters, Necomancers, Illusionists, Sorcerors, and Psions are all subsets of the Wizard
Ninja, assassin, swashbuckler, and Bard are subsets of the Rogue.

If you want generic fantasy, here is where you go to. The names mean just as little as they do in 3rd and 4th edition. The non basic classes just evolved from them to allow for abilities not strictly defined within those archetypes (animal companions for instance) to exist. These classes have evolved over time to what they are now. However still, when you create a character he is NOT a Ranger. He is a character, with a Name (John for instance) who has a certain set of abilities and a story attached to him describing who he is.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top