Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6007981" data-attributes="member: 7006">Here's the big issue with all of this...Why is a ranger a Ranger, and not a Fighter with a nature background?It's the same query we have as to why is a druid a Druid and not a Cleric of a nature deity?Why is a paladin a Paladin, and not a Fighter with the Priest background or a Cleric of a combat domain?Why is an assassin an Assassin, and not a Rogue?Why is a monk a Monk and not an unarmed Fighter?Seems to me it's because all those classes are SPECIAL.  And more rare.  And different.  There's something about those classes as specific classes that places them separate from the more generic/universal Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards.  Especially considering you can use the F/R/C/W to build "replicas" of all those classes with the use of the right backgrounds and specialties to a certain extent?So why should the Ranger class have all these "story elements" like Code of Conduct and Ranger Organizations built in?  For my money... it's specifically BECAUSE you can build a "generic ranger" using the Fighter and the right Background and Specialty.  There NEEDS to be a differentiation between them.  Otherwise, there's no reason for both to exist.  And if the Fighter with specific B/S is the "generic" version... then the Ranger should be the one that is not generic.  And adding all of these story elements that focus the class into something unique and different from your run-of-the-mill "DEX fighter with a map"... is a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification