Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8248583" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Why was the 1e Ranger so good?I prefer the argument from simplicity. If you wanted a martial character, and you made the prerequisites, the Ranger was a better choice in almost all aspects than the Fighter. Because it was a &quot;subclass&quot; you generally got everything the fighter got, AND MORE! Sure, it had some restrictions (no more than two in a party, limitations on &quot;stuff you can carry + your horse&quot;), but the reason it was such a good character option was that, quite frankly (and similar to the Paladin), it was just better than the Fighter at most things. It was that weird way that 1e worked sometimes- if you were already really awesome (by rolling high stats), you were allowed to be even more awesome (by being a special class).Which brings up a separate, but related question-Why did the Fighter's subclasses (Paladin, Ranger) rock so hard, while the other subclasses feel so meh?Look, I loved the Assassin, the Illusionist, and the Druid for various reasons ... but all of them (except, possibly, the Druid, which was just very different in a lot of ways but not better) were not notably better than the main class. Possibly related point- maybe it's because the Assassin, the Illusionist, and the Druid are based on thematic archetypes, whereas the Paladin and the Ranger were created based on a specific literary example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8248583, member: 7023840"] Why was the 1e Ranger so good? I prefer the argument from simplicity. If you wanted a martial character, and you made the prerequisites, the Ranger was a better choice in almost all aspects than the Fighter. Because it was a "subclass" you generally got everything the fighter got, AND MORE! Sure, it had some restrictions (no more than two in a party, limitations on "stuff you can carry + your horse"), but the reason it was such a good character option was that, quite frankly (and similar to the Paladin), it was just better than the Fighter at most things. It was that weird way that 1e worked sometimes- if you were already really awesome (by rolling high stats), you were allowed to be even more awesome (by being a special class). Which brings up a separate, but related question- Why did the Fighter's subclasses (Paladin, Ranger) rock so hard, while the other subclasses feel so meh? Look, I loved the Assassin, the Illusionist, and the Druid for various reasons ... but all of them (except, possibly, the Druid, which was just very different in a lot of ways but not better) were not notably better than the main class. Possibly related point- maybe it's because the Assassin, the Illusionist, and the Druid are based on thematic archetypes, whereas the Paladin and the Ranger were created based on a specific literary example. [/QUOTE]

Verification