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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6518287" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I agree with your earlier post that 4e builds in a relatively high degree of specialisation as a default, but when it comes to mixed melee/ranged combat I think that the STR/DEX ranger is a perfectly viable option for straddling those two modes. The overall play experience shouldn't be radically different from playing a mixed modes AD&D fighter (except to the extent that 4e, in general, is different) with one exception: the mixed mode ranger won't be very sticky in melee. But for a mixed mode character, who is likely to want to play as a skirmisher rather than a "tank", that is probably a net benefit.</blockquote>I'm not sure how much a STR/DEX fighter in AD&D is a "boutique" build.  Given the lack of an explicitly defined "defender" role for AD&D fighters, I think it's just as likely for a player -- new or veteran -- to put their second highest stat in DEX for both the AC bonus and the missile to-hit bonus, as it is for them to stick it into CON.But ultimately, I'm just trying to get you to rephrase "mediocre". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Would you agree that an AD&D fighter has decent-to-good ranged ability as a default, with options for players to make them highly effective melee specialists or alternatively into missile specialists?As for 4e, needless to say, I'm a fan.  But I think you bring up one of my (admittedly entirely personal and subjective) issues with it, in that the mixed mode character must be a ranger, rather than a fighter, and that ranger won't have the stickiness of a fighter -- nor will he have access to chain or scale mail without a feat.  (Let alone plate; any ideas why this was denied even to fighters, and given only to paladins?)  It's a different way of looking at the game and its classes, which can cause some friction for someone looking for continuity.To be honest, I don't think this is specifically a 4e thing.  It's a fighter thing.  The fighter's heyday was the 70s (and of course the Basic/Expert lines).  There's been movement throughout history to chip away at the class's versatility to give derivative classes bells and whistles.  Barbarians, Cavaliers, Paladins, Rangers are all classes that have taken away from the fighter, and when a new edition comes out they have to find away to make those classes shine, it's often at the fighter's expense.  This wasn't so bad in core AD&D, when the Paladins and Rangers were just fighter subclasses, with most of their uniqueness coming from magic and non-combat features (or obviously non-fighter combat features, like divine smiting).  Once the cavalier and barbarian showed up, it's been a slow slide down hill.  I think some aspects of 4e are symptomatic of that, but I don't think 4e was the cause.[/QUOTE]

Verification