Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 6711675" data-attributes="member: 891">You can go down this route and start knocking off the classes that are not critical. And once you do you can then start wondering why have classes at all. Plenty of RPGs get by without them.Then you can look at the success of those RPGs versus DnD. Sure DnD has much of its success from being first... But why didn't MMOs go the classless route - they can even abstract away all the math of the added complexity of fully customizable characters.And that's when it comes back to... the ease of sitting down to some archetypes for the way many people actually play as opposed to how they claim they play.Hack and slash gaming is pretty predominant. I'm sure we've all seen the "great roleplayer" who has lots of stories about their character and about being a great improv actor... only to sit down at the table, pick up a die, and go off to kill some elves.Archetypical concepts facilitate that better because you don't need to figure out how you fit in and what you're supposed to do when its written on your handout sheet. But they're also pretty confining by nature and miss a lot of concepts - so we need more classes... and then it is just a tricky game of finding when the new classes are unique enough (ranger versus rogue), or just another 20 flavors of the same old class (sorcerer versus wizard).The ranger is the only woodlands concept - but this is a background so sure, OP has a point there.But the ranger is also the only beast master - and this is the critical role that makes the class unique.As to twin swords angle, that role better fits rogue or maybe fighter, and should have been kept over there. But a certain Mary Sue Drow has kind of corrupted the class concept for a while now...The archer... is actually best as a fighter concept. The ranger is really a fighter with pets and woodlands skills.If you see the ranger as a special forces unit, like an Army Ranger or Navy Seal - then it is a background, mostly for Fighters and Rogues.If you see the ranger as an archer, then it is a fighter, straight out of the gate.If you see the ranger as twin sword, then after I am done smacking you with a rolled up copy of an Ed Greenwood poster, I'd suggest you're really wanting to play a fighter/rogue character.If you see the ranger as a beastmaster... then it has something unique, but only because they failed to put this concept on druid, or to put druid as a subconcept of 'cleric-like' ranger.</blockquote>

Verification