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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 9853332" data-attributes="member: 32164">That's similar to the sort of thing that led to my thinking. There are a ton of (non-spellcasting) fighter heroes in fiction that clearly don't fit into the "Thief/Rogue" archetype. But they are still good at things like sneaking, scouting, and the like. If the Ranger has to be a spellcaster, then the fighter has to be expanded enough to cover the skirmisher character as well as the frontline combatant. If the Barbarian is built around Rage, then Fighter has to cover characters like Conan and Fafhrd, although one could work in a little Rogue/Thief as well.Similarly, "Swashbuckler" is as much a Fighter-archetype as it is a Rogue one. Madmartigan? He, too, may be multi-classed, but the "greatest swordsman who ever lived" had better be primarily a fighter, or the class is silly.Even Aragorn is primarily not a spellcaster, doesn't wear armor except for battles, and mostly (exclusively in the books) fights with a sword, not a bow. In the movies, he has a short hunting bow that he can (and does) use in battles, but it's a secondary weapon for him. But yeah, he's skilled in wilderness lore, can move stealthily, and is a learned figure, but why does any of that make him "not a fighter?"I think D&D lost its way in the start by asserting that STR is the basis for melee combat. While arguments can be made for bludgeons, axes, polearms and the like being STR-based, the ability to use swords and spears effectively is primarily not based on strength, but rather on agility (DEX in D&D terms). Because D&D lumps armor and defense into one category, an argument can be made for that (a heavy enough blow can pierce armor), but that really isn't how swords work. Swinging harder not only doesn't help with accuracy, it actively hurts.Short version: 5e has made progress by putting all the classes on a more even keel as regards proficiencies, but I wonder if some of the reasons they've had trouble making the Ranger class compelling (can't have the Ranger tread on the fighter's toes) is that a lot of the canonical characters we think of as "Rangers," like Lan, Robin Hood, Legolas, or Aragorn(*) should just be fighters. There's nothing like D&D spellcasting in their worlds, so the D&D "Ranger" doesn't fit.(*) Aragorn is a special case, because clearly the D&D Ranger was sort of modeled after him, but there's a very legitimate argument to be made that Aragorn is better represented by the OG AD&D Paladin. He can cure wounds, especially the Black Breath (Athelas is a material component), has some ability to rebuke the undead, carries an heirloom sword, and has a special bond with a horse (Roheryn in the books). But really, he's just a fighter who's also stealthy, charismatic, and learned, and all his vaguely supernatural abilities are a result of his heritage (and age), not his occupation.</blockquote>

Verification