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
Rangers in 5e
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="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5826662" data-attributes="member: 54710"><p>Reading this thread (and others) suggests to me that WotC has similar problems with all of the traditional martial classes (fighter, ranger and rogue). Each of these classes have had significantly different mechanics through the editions, and the community understanding of "what is a ranger" (or fighter, or rogue) is varied and far from consensus. WotC simply can't pick one example of "ranger" without causing an uproar in a significant part of the community.</p><p></p><p>That suggests to me D&DN needs to have a "big tent" when it comes to these character classes. Other than light armor, tracking and better-than-average use of weapons, there isn't that much that all the ranger variants share. The game will need to accommodate archer rangers, two-weapon rangers, wilderness trick rangers, magic-dabbling rangers, and some kind of jack-of-all-trades rangers. </p><p></p><p>What's the difference between a fighter that wears light armor and decides to wield two weapons and a similar ranger build? Maybe not much. Maybe the fighter is marginally tougher and the ranger has slightly better out-of-combat abilities? But I don't have a problem if the difference is small. When we get the 4e-style tactical combat module, it's totally ok if all three martial classes access the same pool of martial exploits, just like sorcerers and wizards access the same pool of arcane spells. The "concept" of rangers and fighters overlaps and it's ok if the mechanics overlap also. Yes, the two classes need different mechanical cores, but they can overlap at the margins. Forcing the classes into truly separate buckets strikes me as foolish consistency. I wouldn't worry about it.</p><p></p><p>-KS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5826662, member: 54710"] Reading this thread (and others) suggests to me that WotC has similar problems with all of the traditional martial classes (fighter, ranger and rogue). Each of these classes have had significantly different mechanics through the editions, and the community understanding of "what is a ranger" (or fighter, or rogue) is varied and far from consensus. WotC simply can't pick one example of "ranger" without causing an uproar in a significant part of the community. That suggests to me D&DN needs to have a "big tent" when it comes to these character classes. Other than light armor, tracking and better-than-average use of weapons, there isn't that much that all the ranger variants share. The game will need to accommodate archer rangers, two-weapon rangers, wilderness trick rangers, magic-dabbling rangers, and some kind of jack-of-all-trades rangers. What's the difference between a fighter that wears light armor and decides to wield two weapons and a similar ranger build? Maybe not much. Maybe the fighter is marginally tougher and the ranger has slightly better out-of-combat abilities? But I don't have a problem if the difference is small. When we get the 4e-style tactical combat module, it's totally ok if all three martial classes access the same pool of martial exploits, just like sorcerers and wizards access the same pool of arcane spells. The "concept" of rangers and fighters overlaps and it's ok if the mechanics overlap also. Yes, the two classes need different mechanical cores, but they can overlap at the margins. Forcing the classes into truly separate buckets strikes me as foolish consistency. I wouldn't worry about it. -KS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rangers in 5e
Top