Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5737462" data-attributes="member: 22779">Because it's not?A ranger's role in combat is striker.  That's what role means in 4e.  Combat only.  However, everything that you could do with a ranger outside of combat, you can still do in 4e.  All the nature bunny stuff and woodsy stuff is still there.However, as this thread shows, people equate combat role with character archtype, which is simply a misreading of how 4e actually defines role.----------MarkCMG - the above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  The problem isn't that the roles have been codified.  In my mind, that's simply recognizing what has always been there.  The problem is, people read, "striker" and presume that that's the sum total of the character.  But, that's their fault.  Perhaps it could be explained better, but, honestly, I don't think so.  I mean, page 15 of the 4e PHB says this:How much more plain can they put it?  Nothing in that says the slightest about what the character does outside of combat.  The only thing that role entails is what the character does best in combat.  Note, that it's also not the only thing it can do in combat, just what it's best at.The problem isn't a case of wanting more freeform character generation (in which case earlier editions are FAR more guilty of limitations on what your character can be) nor is it arguing against change.The entire problem stems from a misreading of what role actually means.  Role defines your specialization in combat.  That is the long and the short of it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Throughout this thread, people have tried to conflate role with archetype and they are not the same thing in any way, shape or form.</blockquote>

Verification