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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6015433" data-attributes="member: 1465">D&D is a game about parties of adventurers. Not one ranger OR a party of everybody else. But there is some truth in the idea that the Ranger is more self-reliant compared to others. Only in the wilderness tho. There is no reason why a Ranger should be completely self reliant in a dungeon, or in a city. And in the wilderness you certainly don't normally need social skills for instance, so at least a Ranger shouldn't by default be good at them, he should be able to pick them up at best just like everybody else is, but others can definitely be better.Rogue is not thief (at least hasn't be so since 3ed).Rogue is someone who compensates for lack of competence with a mix of ingeniousness, sleight of hand, improvisation... anything that works.You are right that he's never been particularly good at working, fighting, spellcasting. He uses "workarounds" for those: tricks, fighting dirty, hacking devices and (in some editions) even magic items. The fact that he is NOT good but he CAN make it, is practically the definition of "jack-of-all-trades, master of none", although it's not true that the Rogue is master of none... traps and stealth at least are definitely something he excels at.If you're trying to say that there should really be a jack-of-all-trades that is really good at everything (to the point that he can play alone like you seemed to mention about the Ranger), that's not really acceptable in a role-play game, IMHO.I also want the Bard to have something he excels at compared to anyone else, social skills and songs are definitely the best choice.But in retrospective, the Bard IIRC started off in earlier editions as part druid - part warrior, then got a more travelling/wandering flavor, and only later was commonly associated with courts.</blockquote>

Verification