Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JDillard" data-source="post: 4288244" data-attributes="member: 67649">Cutting you a bit out of context here, but I bring up this point because it seems to come up *so* often, and I don't really understand it exactly, so maybe we can discuss it a bit?People complain about the lack of Druids and Bards.&nbsp; I'm totally on board with that one.&nbsp; I don't worry too much, though, we're all pretty sure WotC is working on them, and there's a lot of fun left to have with the classes we've got.However, everyone seems to grab onto the &quot;archer fighter&quot; concept.&nbsp; What is it you are missing when you say you want that? Someone (I wish I could remember who, so I could credit them) made a post a few weeks back that really, it's not the archery-based fighter that the system is lacking.&nbsp; It's the 3e Ranger.&nbsp; The 4e Ranger has the majority of the 3e Archery Fighter's abilities and none of the 3e Ranger's nature magic, animal companion or favored enemy.&nbsp; If you want to make him armored, take a couple feats and you're good to go.&nbsp; Ta-da!&nbsp; Archer fighter!&nbsp; The only difference is that where it says class on his character sheet it says &quot;Ranger&quot; instead of &quot;Fighter&quot;.Same thing with a &quot;two-weapon rogue&quot;.&nbsp; What is it you're looking for there?&nbsp; Take a Rogue, give him two weapons.&nbsp; He won't have any two-weapon specific exploits, but he can still Rogue it up with the best of them.&nbsp; That, or give a Two-weapon Ranger the Rogue multiclass feat.&nbsp; Two weapons, Thievery, and sneak attack 1/encounter, sounds like a two-weapon Rogue to me.People seem to want to avoid playing a Ranger.&nbsp; For some reason, they'd rather play another class with all his abilities.&nbsp; I guess I don't really get why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JDillard, post: 4288244, member: 67649"] Cutting you a bit out of context here, but I bring up this point because it seems to come up *so* often, and I don't really understand it exactly, so maybe we can discuss it a bit? People complain about the lack of Druids and Bards. I'm totally on board with that one. I don't worry too much, though, we're all pretty sure WotC is working on them, and there's a lot of fun left to have with the classes we've got. However, everyone seems to grab onto the "archer fighter" concept. What is it you are missing when you say you want that? Someone (I wish I could remember who, so I could credit them) made a post a few weeks back that really, it's not the archery-based fighter that the system is lacking. It's the 3e Ranger. The 4e Ranger has the majority of the 3e Archery Fighter's abilities and none of the 3e Ranger's nature magic, animal companion or favored enemy. If you want to make him armored, take a couple feats and you're good to go. Ta-da! Archer fighter! The only difference is that where it says class on his character sheet it says "Ranger" instead of "Fighter". Same thing with a "two-weapon rogue". What is it you're looking for there? Take a Rogue, give him two weapons. He won't have any two-weapon specific exploits, but he can still Rogue it up with the best of them. That, or give a Two-weapon Ranger the Rogue multiclass feat. Two weapons, Thievery, and sneak attack 1/encounter, sounds like a two-weapon Rogue to me. People seem to want to avoid playing a Ranger. For some reason, they'd rather play another class with all his abilities. I guess I don't really get why. [/QUOTE]

Verification