Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nellisir" data-source="post: 4285732" data-attributes="member: 70">Hrm.&nbsp; You're right, that wasn't a very fair retort on my part.&nbsp; I'll try to work out a marginally comprehensible response, though (let's be frank) I resorted to juvenile behavior last time because I couldn't.First, I consider &quot;optimal&quot; to be a sort of pinnacle, whereas &quot;effective&quot; is a sort of middle ground, and the norm.&nbsp; An archer-ranger, or a twf ranger, is &quot;effective&quot;, and with the right race and right feats and right skills, might even be &quot;optimal&quot; (though I think 4e has flattened the bell curve -alot-).&nbsp; Simply being able to hit a foe with a weapon is not &quot;effective&quot;.&nbsp; It's a four-point scale: useless, ineffective, effective, optimal.Second, you might be right.&nbsp; Maybe a (melee) spear wielding ranger is just as effective (or &quot;optimal&quot;) as an archer or a twf ranger.&nbsp; I have not memorized the rules yet.&nbsp; Life is busy.Third, the name/tltle &quot;ranger&quot; has certain meta-game connotations, just like &quot;swashbuckler&quot; and &quot;paladin&quot;.&nbsp; In this case, those connotations are nature-oriented/wilderness warrior.&nbsp; Exploiting those connotations used to be the reason for playing a ranger, and that &quot;flavor&quot; was built into the class.Now, while it looks like some of the flavor is still optional in the class, the main reason to choose a ranger isn't the meta-game connotations, but combat style.&nbsp; It doesn't matter if your character is nature-oriented or not; if you want to be a ranged attacker or a two-weapon fighter, you play a ranger.&nbsp; Dwarven artillerist?&nbsp; Ranger.&nbsp; Urban duelist?&nbsp; Ranger.&nbsp; Woodsman with an axe?&nbsp; Uh, fighter.&nbsp; Do fighters and rangers have the same starting skills?&nbsp; I haven't examined the paladin; maybe the same thing has happened there.&nbsp; If you want to play a mounted knight, play a paladin without religion.And 3e sucked at rangers too; I tend to forget that since I houseruled them.&nbsp; 1e wasn't bad, though.&nbsp; And 2e was decent, I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nellisir, post: 4285732, member: 70"] Hrm. You're right, that wasn't a very fair retort on my part. I'll try to work out a marginally comprehensible response, though (let's be frank) I resorted to juvenile behavior last time because I couldn't. First, I consider "optimal" to be a sort of pinnacle, whereas "effective" is a sort of middle ground, and the norm. An archer-ranger, or a twf ranger, is "effective", and with the right race and right feats and right skills, might even be "optimal" (though I think 4e has flattened the bell curve -alot-). Simply being able to hit a foe with a weapon is not "effective". It's a four-point scale: useless, ineffective, effective, optimal. Second, you might be right. Maybe a (melee) spear wielding ranger is just as effective (or "optimal") as an archer or a twf ranger. I have not memorized the rules yet. Life is busy. Third, the name/tltle "ranger" has certain meta-game connotations, just like "swashbuckler" and "paladin". In this case, those connotations are nature-oriented/wilderness warrior. Exploiting those connotations used to be the reason for playing a ranger, and that "flavor" was built into the class. Now, while it looks like some of the flavor is still optional in the class, the main reason to choose a ranger isn't the meta-game connotations, but combat style. It doesn't matter if your character is nature-oriented or not; if you want to be a ranged attacker or a two-weapon fighter, you play a ranger. Dwarven artillerist? Ranger. Urban duelist? Ranger. Woodsman with an axe? Uh, fighter. Do fighters and rangers have the same starting skills? I haven't examined the paladin; maybe the same thing has happened there. If you want to play a mounted knight, play a paladin without religion. And 3e sucked at rangers too; I tend to forget that since I houseruled them. 1e wasn't bad, though. And 2e was decent, I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification