Obryn said:A class is just a bundle of stuff - proficiencies, class skills, hit points, and powers. The name is descriptive, but it's kind of window dressing. For the ranger, this seems to be especially true.
In 4e, Rangers are no longer expert trackers. They don't get druidy-type spells. They don't get animal buddies. If you saw one in 3e, you'd guess they were a Fighter specializing in archery.
But I want rangers to be the expert tracker nature guy, that is what should (in my opinion) separate him or her from other classes, how he or she fights is secondary to that - why else have a class called ranger? Why else play one?
Why not just get rid of class names as they have existed altogether then and just have the four roles with different builds that represent the different power sources if the game went in that direction? In other words have a the class be "Striker" with three option, archer striker (ranger), magic striker (warlock) and sneaky striker (rogue)? Or something like that?
I want to play a tough fighter guy who is an expert at ranged combat who doesn't care about the woods and nature and tracking - but I can't do that because a fighter is only a melee fighter now, and while I can be a ranger and call myself whatever, that just means when I do feel like playing a ranger, it is not going to feel like one to me because the things that should make him rangery are no longer essential to the class.
I am just having a hard time making the new game paradigm fit with my view of what D&D should be like.