|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 11:32AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
Honestly the ranger's real defining role to me is his spells. Besides that, he's basically just what a fighter with a woodsman background should be.
The ranger didnt get more than a handfull of innapropriate flavored mostly useless spells - wizard ones even and not till high level back in the day.
I know, but spellcasting is what really separates him from a fighter, because he's basically suppsoed to be a fighter/druid hybrid. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
And that's what Multiclassing is for.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 11:33AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
There probably is space to make a bow-focused class, which should be called archer. The problem with using ranger for this is then you need another class for characters who are nature oriented but not archers. Trying to build an archery / nature themed class is building a class around two things, both of which are enough to support a full class.
Using a bow is not sufficient as a class concept. A wizard can create illusions, cast fireballs, mind control people, read thoughts, fly and stop time.
The idea that the fighter class can't be swordsman and archer is flat out insulting when every wizard is freely handed 8 schools of magic.
This just tells me that wizards can do too much and are poorly designed. They should *not* be freely handed every spell in the game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 26, 2013 - 11:37AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
This just tells me that wizards can do too much and are poorly designed. They should *not* be freely handed every spell in the game.
Probably, but they're the wizards we're playing with, which means that having a "Sword only" and "bow only" class just don't cut it. Any fighter type should be able to use both well. We definitely do not want to break them up into swordsman and archer.
And that's what Multiclassing is for.
Yeah, in an ideal system, but that's presuming they can get 3rd edition style multiclassing to work at all.
If they can presumably make a fighter/druid work correctly, then I don't really see a role left for the ranger, unless they go with the beastmaster type concept that some people are throwing around. That at least is a unique concept and probably warrants its own class. But simply "wilderness fighter" or "archer" does not.
|
|
|
