Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6670756" data-attributes="member: 92511">&quot;Built around&quot;is a combat centric perspective, yes. But not necessarily on a playstyle level, if you get my meaning. One of the &quot;differentiating/central&quot; features of classes, in mechanics and story, is the &quot;How&quot; the class does what it does that makes it different than other clases ( and in theory, &quot;justifies&quot; the class' existence in the first place).PART of this differentiation, is what/how the class does in combat. What makes it stand up to/in [general] line with the other classes? A Fighter has their various fighting/&quot;in combat&quot; features. The paladin has some fighting style, oath powers, and spells. The rogue gets its sneak attack. The wizard gets spells. The clerics and druids get decent armor, some channeling/mystic powers, and spells. The ranger...instead of just getting a xeroxed sneak attack, which would only solidify the ranger's place as a rogue archetype instead of warrior one, have [have had] FE as their &quot;This is what the ranger does [gets to do] in combat. This is how they stand up/are balanced for combat ability among the other warrior classes.&quot; AND, most importantly, &quot;This is what they get to do that no other class does!&quot;Is it situational? Yes. Same as a rogue getting in a sneak attack or a wizard having that spell slot left or right spell prepared or a cleric having a &quot;turning&quot; left in them when the undead again.Does it dictate a specific flavor/backstory for the class? Yes.Does it make the ranger a powerhouse comparable to other classes in combat when their specific circumstances [i.e. the favored enemy] are met? Yes.Does it make rangers &quot;worthless&quot; in other combats or out of combat situations? Not even a little.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6670756, member: 92511"] "Built around"is a combat centric perspective, yes. But not necessarily on a playstyle level, if you get my meaning. One of the "differentiating/central" features of classes, in mechanics and story, is the "How" the class does what it does that makes it different than other clases ( and in theory, "justifies" the class' existence in the first place). PART of this differentiation, is what/how the class does in combat. What makes it stand up to/in [general] line with the other classes? A Fighter has their various fighting/"in combat" features. The paladin has some fighting style, oath powers, and spells. The rogue gets its sneak attack. The wizard gets spells. The clerics and druids get decent armor, some channeling/mystic powers, and spells. The ranger...instead of just getting a xeroxed sneak attack, which would only solidify the ranger's place as a rogue archetype instead of warrior one, have [have had] FE as their "This is what the ranger does [gets to do] in combat. This is how they stand up/are balanced for combat ability among the other warrior classes." AND, most importantly, [I]"This is what they get to do that no other class does!"[/I] Is it situational? Yes. Same as a rogue getting in a sneak attack or a wizard having that spell slot left or right spell prepared or a cleric having a "turning" left in them when the undead again. Does it dictate a specific flavor/backstory for the class? Yes. Does it make the ranger a powerhouse comparable to other classes in combat when their specific circumstances [i.e. the favored enemy] are met? Yes. Does it make rangers "worthless" in other combats or out of combat situations? Not even a little. [/QUOTE]

Verification