Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6593203" data-attributes="member: 5100">Quite right. Ranger is not the druidic equivalent of the Paladin. In fact, I'd almost say that the 1E Ranger is more the wizardly equivalent of the Paladin -- at least as more so than druid. Really, Ranger is another fighter archetype who, like the Paladin, is sufficiently specialized to warrant its own class.A Paladin (at least old school) is a Fighter who is so virtuous and faithful that he literally emits holiness. He doesn't have to be specially trained (though that's not uncommon). He's just that righteous. I'd say the Green Knight version is just using a different measure of righteousness (mass vs. volume?). It fits with the pantheonistic settings in D&D.A Ranger, on the other hand, is a Fighter who has taken resourcefulness and survival to a new level. They aren't Barbarians, who run on instinct and are born to the wild. Rangers are more "intellectual" in their approach, even if that still means using the Wisdom stat. Rangers get spells, not because they worship nature or the old gods, but because they've learned some tricks to survive; in that way, it's a lot more like a wizard, even if the actual list of spells looks like a druid's.</blockquote>