Community

Because those kinds of things only happen in films.

Even if an archer could shoot accurately enough to hit someone's foot, there's no guarantee that it will punch through flesh, muscle and bone, embed half of the shaft into the ground, and somehow wedge itself in there so that it can't be pulled out easily. It's the kind of thing that might work once in a thousand times, but it's not something any archer can contrive to do whenever he felt like it.

If a player wanted to attempt something specific like that, it would be a GM FIAT thing, and a GM would say "Okay, give me an attack roll, but disadvantage, and at -2, because you're trying a very difficult shot." Not an innate ability that every archer can just do on a whim.

Giving improved accuracy and negate cover abilities is fine, but specific things like "pin a cloak to a tree" (i.e. things that depend on a cloak, a tree, and the person to be conveniently placed so that the cloak is right next to the tree) should be a GM ruling, not a specific skill.

I think it would be fine for the NEXT to be without a ranger if the fighter or the rouge could choose a background of something like a clan, living among beasts or other outdoory past, giving them the ranger's skills, and then choosing speciality (or feats) that gives them the companion/tracking/two weapon wielding/fast moving but without heavy armour/animal empathy/ and even some druidic spells and rituals that have an still have impact at these high levels.

 Well, What I've acualy said have been said before: if you can make a ranger from another basic class, it will be acceptable.

 I want to say it would be better! Because with this option you will have more aproaches for been a ranger (or any other profficiency). You can be a renger that is more scout like if your basic class is rouge, and you can be one more like a skirmisher if you are a fighter. And you could even be a nature priest by that way, much like a druid or a shaman, if your basic class was Cleric.

By going that way, you can be anything. When you choose your class you actualy choose mainly your role in combat. by choosing your proficiency and background you choose the way you do that role, and at the same time, you choose your role in the world.

Neat, ain't that? 

Sep 29, 2012 -- 9:52PM, captpike wrote:

because then I have a Specialty/Feat tax to play the class I want, while the fighter and wizard do not.

this is the problem with the "core four" idea, even if you can make any class from one of the four, it would mean that you have to alot of reasorces just to get your concept off the ground, let alone have some cool stuff

there's no feat/speciality tax if you get something that brings you to the same level with other specialties. lets say you choose the 2 weapon fighting specialty of the ranger, that gives you something close to three feats at a time at the cost of you can't wear heavy armour or your sneak-attack halves?
Well, it need more balance, but in principle that brings you to the same starting point.

On the other hand, if you choose the prebuild ranger class, you still don't get your concept off the ground, you get the designer of the ranger concept off the ground. Well, lets say one wants to be a forest warrior that know how to track a target and then one-shot kill it? wouldn't it be better if he chose the one-shot killer (the rouge) and add to it the forest tracker?
For we already were at the stage of making a Ranger class with some abbility to sneak-attack. Although I learned to enjoy that, we are not here to make another 4th edition. And I don't think that making a new class with some other class's special abbility gives credit to either of them.
My advice is to stay open minded. That's the main advantage of pen and paper RPGs. It's like real life - You start on one road but with many turns and junctions that you can choose to switch in the middle. you know they say all humanity have at most 0.2% difference each individual's genes (if I recall right), but look how many different personalities, looks, talnets and professions you can choose from by your lifetime!

If we call the main classes as their main role, Fighter - Defender, Cleric - leader and so on, and then call the Specialties: Ranger, Soldier, Paladin, Priest, Bard and so on, would any player claim there is no Ranger in D&D?
Moreover, you would then have a Battelion's Spearhead Ranger, A Scout-Assasin Ranger, A Guiding Ranger and a Trigger-Finger Ranger.

What do you say? 

Sep 29, 2012 -- 9:03PM, CarlT wrote:

This comes down to:  Is D&D a reality simulator?  Or is it a legend/genre fiction simulator.

Are trying to tell reality stories - or we trying to tells that stand alongside the stories of film and book?

Because unless you are trying to tell a strict reality based story (in which case I have to wonder why you have dragons and wizards) - "that only happens in films  (and books)" sounds more like an argument for the exact kind of thing we ought to looking for - not an argument against an idea.

This comes down to personal preference, with varying degrees of believability. I can suspend my disbelief to accept the existence of fantastical creatures and magic, but I want the rest of the world to behave logically around the existence of those things.

There's nothing to stop a player saying "I want to try and pin his cloak to the tree with an arrow!", and the GM can either say "okay, roll to hit!" or "Er...no." But if you make it an innate ability of the ranger, it's harder for a GM to say "actually, you're not having one of the key abilities of your class, because I don't like it!"

Keep the abilities simple, and believable. Let GMs decide if those abilities can be used creatively to gain a tactical advantage.

f we call the main classes as their main role, Fighter - Defender, Cleric - leader and so on, and then call the Specialties: Ranger, Soldier, Paladin, Priest, Bard and so on, would any player claim there is no Ranger in D&D?
Moreover, you would then have a Battelion's Spearhead Ranger, A Scout-Assasin Ranger, A Guiding Ranger and a Trigger-Finger Ranger.

But this comes down to: is the ranger a "defender" or a "rogue"? Should he get heavy armour, or sneak attack? Should he get the rogue's skills, or the fighter's expertise? I'd be loathe to make him a "fighter+1", but unless there's a mechanic for specialities removing core aspects of a class, the only other way is to make him a rogue, at which point he loses access to many weapons and things that would make the ranger useful as a skirmisher.

Also, I really don't want to use those names!