Ranger should be a theme.

For some people, the defining characteristic/fluff of the Ranger class is 'wanders around the forest protecting trees'.  That's not really a class concept, though ... anybody can do that regardless of their abilities.  Train Nature, Stealth, Perception, pick out a bunch of pine trees you like hugging, and *boom* call yourself a Ranger.

So, make Ranger a theme with skill bonuses and abilities related to forestry and such.  Nature, Perception, Stealth bonuses, movement in woods, that sort of thing.  Slap it on any class and you have a Ranger.

Want the 4e style martial ranger?  Slap it on a fighter or warlord.
Want the 3e style mixed magic-martial ranger?  Slap it on a multiclass martial/druid or cleric character.
Want a purely 'mystic ranger'?  Slap it on a cleric or druid.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Sure, but you could break down just about any class like that and attach it to any other class.

Regardless, your definition is based on "some people," and is not really representative of what the class truly is.  Rangers are far more than the tree-huggers you have alluded to.

Celebrate our differences.

Umm...

Ranger has been a class since 2nd edition.
Fighters and Warlords have been taught thier skills (usually).

Rangers are a martial class that trains itself. Mostly better than fighters in combat, but wears less armor.
It's true that they're similar to each other, but Rangers are more of the "lone wolf" type character.
I am Blue/White
I am Blue/White
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and rational. I value control, information, and order. I love structure and hierarchy, and will actively use whatever power or knowledge I have to maintain it. At best, I am lawful and insightful; at worst, I am bureaucratic and tyrannical.
It all depends where D&D Next plans to go with the classes. How much will the classes and themes contribute to overall character.

You could go with Just the Core:
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Or you could go with an expanded list:
Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Ranger
Paladin
Assassin
Bard
etc...

Technically speaking,
A ranger could be a theme for a Fighter/Rogue
A paladin could be a theme for a Fighter/Cleric
A assassin could be a theme for Fighter/Rogue
a bard could be a theme for Rogue/Mage

There is alot of options... personally I prefer a very tight list of Core Classes with a bunch of different themes or 'sub-classes' , like they did in video games like Reckoning or maybe Dragon Age.

But I don't mind if they introduce all the classes from the core books, I don't think that will make a huge difference in the end... I just don't want tons of classes introduced in later modules, I think they should just keep to a core list and add different themes instead. Classes like the Ranger and Bard are pretty iconic though, so I don't think they would cut them from the core.

Anyways, if they DO come up with a Core List that doesn't change, then they need to make sure that Core List represents every Core Element of the game, so that the themes CAN represent any other unique character you can think of, without the need of creating a new class.
Salla, your opening premise defines what some people want. However, there are others of us who want a wide variety of mechanically interesting classes. While I have no objection to a "wilderness protector" type theme that could be applied to any class, I certainly don't want to axe the ranger.

More classes, not fewer classes, please!
Umm...

Ranger has been a class since 2nd edition.
Fighters and Warlords have been taught thier skills (usually).

Rangers are a martial class that trains itself. Mostly better than fighters in combat, but wears less armor.
It's true that they're similar to each other, but Rangers are more of the "lone wolf" type character.



Yes, but some people say the Ranger is just the dual-wielding class, or the archer.
Some want it to be a mix of martial and nature magic.
Some want it to be mostly nature magic with a sprig of martial.

The Ranger is practically undefinable; it's like no two people agree on exactly what it means, or what it should be.  This, to me, indicates that it shouldn't be a class, it's a concept that you use mechanics to build, in the same way you could try to build 'a pugilist' with the Monk class.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Just because people may have differing opinions on something does not make it undefinable.

Now matter how 5E defines it will not prevent you from flavoring it to your taste, or flavoring any other class with a hint of ranger. 

Celebrate our differences.

I would prefer if each class had its own set of unique mechanics. A ranger should not be a class of it is defined as fighter with nature skills and a bow. I feel the same way about sorcerer and wizard. If they can give these classes unique and pertinent abilities then yes make a brand new class. If not, leave it as a theme or subclass.
Ranger = Hybrid fighter|druid.
Paladin = Hybrid fighter|cleric.

More classes, not fewer classes, please!

Disagree... sorta...

More options, less overlap.
More classes just leads to 28 copies of "i parry the attack".

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Ranger = Hybrid fighter|druid.
Paladin = Hybrid fighter|cleric.

More classes, not fewer classes, please!

Disagree... sorta...

More options, less overlap.
More classes just leads to 28 copies of "i parry the attack".

Yes I think the key term is less overlap

Every aspect of a class should be completely unique, if the class is just a mix of two other classes, then it should simply be an advanced Theme.

A Ranger is iconic yes, but it has to be distinct enough to warrant a class and be able to have ITS OWN set of Themes... else to me it should just be a theme.

If all a sorcerer does is not use a vancian system compared to the wizard, then it shouldn't be a class, it should be a theme.
Umm...

Ranger has been a class since 2nd edition.
Fighters and Warlords have been taught thier skills (usually).

Rangers are a martial class that trains itself. Mostly better than fighters in combat, but wears less armor.
It's true that they're similar to each other, but Rangers are more of the "lone wolf" type character.



Yes, but some people say the Ranger is just the dual-wielding class, or the archer.
Some want it to be a mix of martial and nature magic.
Some want it to be mostly nature magic with a sprig of martial.

The Ranger is practically undefinable; it's like no two people agree on exactly what it means, or what it should be.  This, to me, indicates that it shouldn't be a class, it's a concept that you use mechanics to build, in the same way you could try to build 'a pugilist' with the Monk class.



Just today I have seen people here disagree on what a fighter is, and if an assassin and an avenger is just a rogue sub-build or not.  Hell, people can't even seem to agree on what defines a rogue.

No one can agree on anything around here, let alone a class that has been around since the 70s/80s.  If every class that is too broad should be a theme, then I think most classes would just become themes.

Which besides changing the entire system of D&D (not that it would be a bad thing) and getting 'teh fanz' in an uproar, would be an unholy hell of a headache.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
No one can agree on anything around here



I disagree.

No one can agree on anything around here

I disagree.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It is a question of where to draw the line. Theoretically you could build the entire game around one class, and make warrior, rogue, wizard, cleric and all of the classes themes. It wouldn't be a good idea, but it would work.

Ranger is a particularly problem case, because people have such different things in mind when they say ranger. The WotC designers are simply going to have to pick one particular concept or set of concepts and build the class around that, if they make it a distinct class at all. Depending on how they build fighters, ranger could be a fighter option. I don't expect that though unless they are going for a build your own class via options system for building characters. If they go that way, we could end up with as few as 3 top level classes (fighter, cleric, wizard). In this system, rogue is simply a fighter built around precision damage boosting options rather then big weapon options.

The other side of the problem is that you seem to want highly generic classes with little or no distinct mechanics so you can apply whatever flavor/name you want. I would rather have classes with distinct mechanics and the flavor mechanically built in becuase the game feels more natural and imersive that way to me. Neither view is objectively correct. That is another factor where the designers are going to have to find the right balance to appeal to as many people as possible.
I agree with Slygamer who mentioned it is going to depend on what they are doing with classes.  Right now the information leads me to believe we have a mish mash (broad fighter represents lots of archtypes, specific wizard can only represent one).  If most classes are going to be like the fighter, yes I would prefer the ranger to be a theme, if most classes resemable the wizard, I would rather have it be a class.

Anyways to help shuffle this off topicWink, I've actually preferred imagining my rangers as scouts, more like a wilderness rogue then a fighter.
Anyways to help shuffle this off topic, I've actually preferred imagining my rangers as scouts, more like a wilderness rogue then a fighter.


Scouts = Hybrid Fighter|Rogue|Druid

 


But yea... it really depends on how they do it.

If it's 3.5 style, where you just get a feature or 2 when you level, then you need lot's of classes to cover lot's of concepts.
If it's 4e style, where you pick a power when you level, they need alot less classes, since each can encompass several concepts in itself.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Druid = Hybrid Ranger|Cleric



Classes, at their core, are really just themes anyhow.  Kind of like themes on steroids.  They simply have additional features added to the theme because those themes are more "popular" and/or unique as to warrant more attention.

Celebrate our differences.

I say just go classless and not worry about any of these problems.
I say just go classless and not worry about any of these problems.



I agree, but with 5e being the Grognard Edition, not gonna happen.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Meh, I like a class based system, and I don't think that makes me a grognard. I like being able to sit down with Tim for the same time and have him tell me "I'm playing a wizard", and from that short statement give me a general idea of what Tim can do.

That's why I don't like a classless system, and I don't like characters with a ton of multi-classing and hybridization.

But that's not to say that class is a mandatory requirement for me. It's just to say that my personal preference is a lot of classes that go about adventuring in a lot of different ways.
If fighter/Fighting Man really is going to have viable builds for two weapon striking and archery, wouldnt that step on the Ranger's toes, mechanically? Making Ranger a theme, that grants wilderniss skills and an Animal companion, suddenly you have Classic rangers as fighters with Ranger theme-  but a wizard with ranger theme becomes some kind of natural adept, and a Cleric basically becomes a druid.
Yeah, I got into D&D for the class system.  I know it locks people down, but I want and expect that.  If I wanted a "build your own" game, I'd go play Oblivion or Skyrim or something.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I think a few core classes plus lots of subclasses and themes be the best direction to go. Rangers are basically fighters with a woodsman theme.
I'd rather not go classless, and I prefer 4e so I don't think it's got anything to do with being a grognard.

I like having classes simply because it's fun to have a system to tweak with. I mean classless systems, like M&M for example, just aren't as much fun to pervert, it's too easy. Also I think keeping the classes is a good idea just because it's brand recognition. I mean even people who've never held a d20 know to think dnd when someone says elf-fighter, or dwarf cleric. Plus I do admit to a bit of sentimental attachement to classes.
What if themes were the primary multiclass system?

We could still have the esoteric themes we have now but also Ranger, Rogue, Wizard, etc... themes.
The themes system looks a little weird in D&DN so far...

Apparently, there are "background" themes like commoner, noble, knight, apprentice, pub crawler, potion-makers and blacksmiths. Then you have some that work like sub-races: planetouched (e.g., Tiefling), deva. Then you have some that work like class kits: apparently there's an "avenger" theme, so you can have an avenger-themed paladin. Also, you can customize your own theme by combining skills and feats.

Anyway, what is the Ranger's mechanical identity, as a class?


  • Archery or two weapon combat style

  • Animal companion

  • Racial enemy

  • Hunting/tracking skills

  • Wilderness survival skills

  • Minor priest spells


What about its flavorful identity?



  • Hunter

  • Wilderness survivor

  • Iconic Rangers, pre- and post-D&D: Aragorn, Drizzt, Minsc & Boo


I think there's enough of an identity there that it deserves to be a separate class. After all, how could you put all that into a theme?

That's the thing ... I don't see the any part of that other than 'archery or two-weapon fighting style' as part of the Ranger's mechanical identity.  I always hated the animal sidekick and spellcasting (this is why I never took more than 3 levels of Ranger until PHB2 and Complete Champion class sub abilities were released).  Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.

I also can't see where Aragorn resembles any D&D Ranger class at all.  He strikes me as a Warlord trained in Nature and Stealth.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I agree. Typical rangers had such a wide variety of skills spells and features throughout past editions and literature that one must look at the core features to see any similarity. These core features that show up throughout all rangers are stealth and nature skills. Take the ranger theme on an archer or two weapon fighter and bam it is a ranger. Take it on a warlord fighter and bam, ranger. Take it on a beastmaster Druid and bam, ranger.
The only reason a multiclass/hybrid system exists is because people want to either add a touch of another class to their primary class, or to split their abilities among two classes, evenly or unevenly. Personally, making the system more open and less worried about archaic labels like Fighter, Ranger or Wizard seems the best route to go. If the definition of class is "a concept built around particular types of abilities", then its less a matter of name, and more a matter of capability.

In this regard, classes always boil down to three categories; weapon users, magic users, or a degree of mixture of the two. I'd like to see these three concepts be the "classes" for 5e, and the abilities of what a character can do defined more by that selection, and less by words like Cleric, Paladin or Artificer. The classic ideas could still be represented as toolboxes that use such a system to build that kind of character, or you could go free form to create your own "class".

Classes are important for the limitations they breed. Without them, you could very realistically do anything. But the way classes have been handled for years has stifled player creativity more than once. A change in this direction can't hurt any worse for the game than anything else they've tried so far.
Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.
Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.



But there is a grain of truth in it. I once played a Wizard who did not own a spell book because he would always lose it somewhere during his travels. Instead, he chose to write the details of his spells all over his body so that he would never lose them. It worked the same on a mechanical level, but was drastically different on the flavor aspects.

Should pre-gen flavor leave? Not really. It helps set a tone for a first time looker, or to inspire someone who has yet to come up with an idea about their character. But it's not really needed for anything beyond that. Coming up with your own ideas about your character is half of what makes D&D great to begin with.
Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.



Why is that?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.



Why is that?

Because the stories that make up a campaign are more important than any rules.  Flavor, and stories, should never be considered irrelevant.

Yes, rules are important, but they are merely the skeleton of a campaign.  The story is the flesh. 

Celebrate our differences.

I'd rather not go classless, and I prefer 4e so I don't think it's got anything to do with being a grognard.

I like having classes simply because it's fun to have a system to tweak with. I mean classless systems, like M&M for example, just aren't as much fun to pervert, it's too easy.  


man do I resemble this! 4e hybrids though they do make things easier in some sense, are simultaneously trickier.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.



Why is that?

Because the stories that make up a campaign are more important than any rules.  Flavor, and stories, should never be considered irrelevant.

Yes, rules are important, but they are merely the skeleton of a campaign.  The story is the flesh. 



Ahh, I find the rules hold up the story and give it purpose.  Without the rules to guide, a game loses focus, and becomes a loose mishmash of somewhat interrelated detritus.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.



Why is that?

Because the stories that make up a campaign are more important than any rules.  Flavor, and stories, should never be considered irrelevant.

Yes, rules are important, but they are merely the skeleton of a campaign.  The story is the flesh. 



Ahh, I find the rules hold up the story and give it purpose.  Without the rules to guide, a game loses focus, and becomes a loose mishmash of somewhat interrelated detritus.


Yeah, that's exactly what a skeleton does.  Thanks for reiterating my point, though.

Celebrate our differences.

Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.



This sentence makes me sad.



Why is that?

Because the stories that make up a campaign are more important than any rules.  Flavor, and stories, should never be considered irrelevant.

Yes, rules are important, but they are merely the skeleton of a campaign.  The story is the flesh. 



Ahh, I find the rules hold up the story and give it purpose.  Without the rules to guide, a game loses focus, and becomes a loose mishmash of somewhat interrelated detritus.


Yeah, that's exactly what a skeleton does.  Thanks for reiterating my point, though.



But in your point, the flesh is more important.  In mine, the skeleton makes the flesh what it is.  The flesh would be nothing without the skeleton, and thus the skeleton is more important.

To me.

I hate that I have to say that, people should simply assume that a person's post is their own and only their own opinion.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]

But in your point, the flesh is more important.  In mine, the skeleton makes the flesh what it is.  The flesh would be nothing without the skeleton, and thus the skeleton is more important.

To me.

I hate that I have to say that, people should simply assume that a person's post is their own and only their own opinion.

You should have been more clear, then.  You never said which you found more important.  Now you have.

I respectfully disagree, though.  The skeleton does not "make" the flesh what it is.  They work in harmony.  The difference...  I can tell a good story around poor rules.  Good rules amplify the story.  Good rules most certainly do not cover up a poor story, however.

Celebrate our differences.


But in your point, the flesh is more important.  In mine, the skeleton makes the flesh what it is.  The flesh would be nothing without the skeleton, and thus the skeleton is more important.

To me.

I hate that I have to say that, people should simply assume that a person's post is their own and only their own opinion.

You should have been more clear, then.  You never said which you found more important.  Now you have.

I respectfully disagree, though.  The skeleton does not "make" the flesh what it is.  They work in harmony.  The difference...  I can tell a good story around poor rules.  Good rules amplify the story.  Good rules most certainly do not cover up a poor story, however.



Then we'll have to disagree, then, except that they can, indeed work in harmony.

I cannot picture even trying to tell a good game story around poor rules. And for me, the game is the highlight, not the roleplaying, though the story that both birth is indeed important.  It's just made much worse by bad rules.  And a bad story can be helped by good rules, in some instances, as when I'm not sure what to do, I look to rules for inspiration as much as I look to other stories.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]

But in your point, the flesh is more important.  In mine, the skeleton makes the flesh what it is.  The flesh would be nothing without the skeleton, and thus the skeleton is more important.

To me.

I hate that I have to say that, people should simply assume that a person's post is their own and only their own opinion.

You should have been more clear, then.  You never said which you found more important.  Now you have.

I respectfully disagree, though.  The skeleton does not "make" the flesh what it is.  They work in harmony.  The difference...  I can tell a good story around poor rules.  Good rules amplify the story.  Good rules most certainly do not cover up a poor story, however.



Then we'll have to disagree, then, except that they can, indeed work in harmony.

I cannot picture even trying to tell a good game story around poor rules. And for me, the game is the highlight, not the roleplaying, though the story that both birth is indeed important.  It's just made much worse by bad rules.  And a bad story can be helped by good rules, in some instances, as when I'm not sure what to do, I look to rules for inspiration as much as I look to other stories.

Well you're the first DM I have ever heard say that the rules are more important than the campaign, particularly one that says that they are a gentle GM that fudges dice rolls for the sake of the story. 

Celebrate our differences.

That's the thing ... I don't see the any part of that other than 'archery or two-weapon fighting style' as part of the Ranger's mechanical identity.  I always hated the animal sidekick and spellcasting (this is why I never took more than 3 levels of Ranger until PHB2 and Complete Champion class sub abilities were released).  Flavor is by and large irrelevant because you should be able to flavor your character however you want.

Maybe the issue here is that you don't like the ranger.

I also can't see where Aragorn resembles any D&D Ranger class at all.  He strikes me as a Warlord trained in Nature and Stealth.


On the contrary. He was a superior tracker, had great knowledge of wilderness survival, had some minor healing abilities, alternated between a two-handed sword and a bow (remember, pre-3e Rangers had more options than dual-wield or archery), and somewhat had a favored enemy of the orcs. The only thing he didn't have was an animal companion (which should be optional anyway, IMO). He was definitely multiclass in some regard, though, so maybe he only took 3 levels of Ranger.