Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8633209" data-attributes="member: 23751">For starters, I can't play a Rogue.&nbsp; Bards are a musical, spellcasting lore class, not a skill monkey, sneaky thief type Rogue.&nbsp; Monks are monastical, martial arts using, hand punching holy men.&nbsp; Totally not a Rogue.&nbsp; Fighters are front line, weapon master, beat sticks, not Rogues.There is no class that fits the Rogue concept than a Rogue.&nbsp; Perhaps your conflating the rogue attitude(Han Solo, Swashbuckler, etc.) with the Rogue class.While other classes can say they are wilderness warriors, scout things, etc., not one of them can fit the Ranger concept.&nbsp; Not a single one.&nbsp; Rangers go beyond those simple tags.A studious spellcaster that learns magic through learned words, symbols and gestures.&nbsp; Who relies on his spellbook for much of his power.&nbsp; A seeker of ancient knowledge.Sorcerer fails to be a Wizard.&nbsp; Innate magic doesn't fit the above.&nbsp; Bard fails terribly.&nbsp; Warlock?&nbsp; Nope. Wizards don't need a pact and Warlocks don't use spellbooks.&nbsp; There isn't another caster that can fit the Wizard concept.Those are options, though, for weapon beat sticks.&nbsp; They have spells, yes.&nbsp; That doesn't change their weapon using tough guy concept.&nbsp; And to be honest with you.&nbsp; I played a Paladin to 14th level and I think Misty Step was the only spell I ever used and then only sometimes.&nbsp; Smiting was generally a far better option for those spell slots.&nbsp; If I wasn't Oath of the Ancients, I wouldn't have even cast that.I bet you are right.&nbsp; 5e for whatever reason, went very heavy on the magic for classes/subclasses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8633209, member: 23751"] For starters, I can't play a Rogue. Bards are a musical, spellcasting lore class, not a skill monkey, sneaky thief type Rogue. Monks are monastical, martial arts using, hand punching holy men. Totally not a Rogue. Fighters are front line, weapon master, beat sticks, not Rogues. There is no class that fits the Rogue concept than a Rogue. Perhaps your conflating the rogue attitude(Han Solo, Swashbuckler, etc.) with the Rogue class. While other classes can say they are wilderness warriors, scout things, etc., not one of them can fit the Ranger concept. Not a single one. Rangers go beyond those simple tags. A studious spellcaster that learns magic through learned words, symbols and gestures. Who relies on his spellbook for much of his power. A seeker of ancient knowledge. Sorcerer fails to be a Wizard. Innate magic doesn't fit the above. Bard fails terribly. Warlock? Nope. Wizards don't need a pact and Warlocks don't use spellbooks. There isn't another caster that can fit the Wizard concept. Those are options, though, for weapon beat sticks. They have spells, yes. That doesn't change their weapon using tough guy concept. And to be honest with you. I played a Paladin to 14th level and I think Misty Step was the only spell I ever used and then only sometimes. Smiting was generally a far better option for those spell slots. If I wasn't Oath of the Ancients, I wouldn't have even cast that. I bet you are right. 5e for whatever reason, went very heavy on the magic for classes/subclasses. [/QUOTE]

Verification