Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8258484" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think part of the problem with this whole discussion is that the OTHER non-combat aspects of the two classes are important! Rangers DO have the aspect of wilderness traveler and warrior, and rogues DO have the aspect of urban sneak/thug and generally as a stealthy trickster. Technically 4e would let another class emulate the non-combat features of a Rogue or Ranger, but the whole package is pretty iconic in each case.I think this brings us to THE fundamental question I like to ask about classes, which is why do they exist at all? I think the answer is really that they serve a deep RP purpose. They are a shorthand which allows us to articulate what the character IS. In that sense Ranger and Rogue are really good solid classes (well, we can still debate exactly what they represent, but I think it is clear there is a cluster of concepts for each one).</blockquote>