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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 3782888" data-attributes="member: 5435">How is a Ranger unlike a Rogue?To get at the "essence" of a class, I think we need to look at a wide range of archetypes cultural settings to find the common points.What is it about a ranger that crosses cultural boundaries and edition wars?1. The ranger is self-sufficient. This is the class capable of surviving indefinitely in the most rugged wilderness, based on only their own resources. This capacity makes them useful scouts and explorers. 1a. As a corollary to point 1, the ranger is a consummate hunter. This means stealth and tracking at a minimum, and a ranged sneak attack would also be appropriate.  2. More than any other class, the ranger "goes his own way". The very independence of this class implies to me that there could be enormous differences between one ranger and the next. Some might learn a little magic, others might learn their territory by heart to gain an enormous "home advantage". Some will have animal companions, others will be the bane of all wild beasts. Their choice of weapons and combat abilities should be just as idiosyncratic as a fighter's.3. When interacting with society, or an adventuring party, the ranger might be a bounty hunter or vigilante, or one who protects a "point of light" from the wilderness, without anyone ever knowing it. They might be explorers, military scouts, treasure hunters, or spies.Where does that leave us?Combat/skill roles: Good combat abilities, striking from ambush, superb stealth, and athletic skills. A higher base move would not be out of place. I woud suggest a class ability that lets them use skills to get an advantage in combat or give an advantage to their allies.Other abilities: The Ranger should have a wide array of combat talents/maneuvers to choose from--"Favored Enemy" could be one of these, to supplment another source of bonus damage (akin to sneak attack). Spells could be another component of the class, but an optional one.But I think the question we should really be asking is this:WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE RANGER FROM THE ROGUE?Aside from the wilderness/urban division, their skill sets are nearly identical. In 3E, the ranger gets favored enemies and the rogue gets sneak attack. There are other differences, but I really believe that almost all ranger abilities are compatible with the rogue archetype and vice versa. Almost all of the above discussion could have referred to the rogue as well--substitute "thieving" for "hunting", and you're good to go.To set the two classes apart in 4th edition, perhaps one of the two could be made more of a "Jack of all Trades".  The rogue seems particularly suited to this: in exchange for their (presumably) lower HD and BAB, the rogue gains access to an even wider range of talents/abilities. Perhaps a few times during their career, the rogue could even pillage some abliities associated with another power source--picking up a few spells, for example, or gaining specialized benefits from a weapon of choice. Honestly, I would prefer if the Ranger were a purely mundane "fighting rogue", while the rogue were capable of casting minor spells if the player chooses that path.</blockquote>

Verification