New Posts For Thread: Ranger gone?http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29402703/Ranger_gonedo you think the Sharpshooter style for fighter, and the specialties Archer and Dual Wielder is going to eliminate a Ranger class?I wouldn't want the monk to be a fighter option. I prefer it as a rogue option. I also would prefer the paladin as a fighter option (though I like the idea of having the shaman as an "innate caster" variant of the cleric). I'd do something like:Warrihttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29402703/Ranger_gone?post_id=524810839#524810839I wouldn't want the monk to be a fighter option. I prefer it as a rogue option. I also would prefer the paladin as a fighter option (though I like the idea of having the shaman as an "innate caster" variant of the cleric). I'd do something like:WarriSat, 06 Oct 2012 02:45:35 -0500Some DM, unfortnately, go from town to dungeon with only a single check (for a random encounter) inbetween. And if the aventure is located all in on area, you might never step into the wild.---This springs up an idea. What if Rangers were the anti-rahttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29402703/Ranger_gone?post_id=524781633#524781633Some DM, unfortnately, go from town to dungeon with only a single check (for a random encounter) inbetween. And if the aventure is located all in on area, you might never step into the wild.---This springs up an idea. What if Rangers were the anti-raFri, 05 Oct 2012 07:02:33 -0500Some DM, unfortnately, go from town to dungeon with only a single check (for a random encounter) inbetween. And if the aventure is located all in on area, you might never step into the wild.---This springs up an idea. What if Rangers were the anti-rahttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29402703/Ranger_gone?post_id=524779889#524779889Some DM, unfortnately, go from town to dungeon with only a single check (for a random encounter) inbetween. And if the aventure is located all in on area, you might never step into the wild.---This springs up an idea. What if Rangers were the anti-raFri, 05 Oct 2012 05:39:34 -0500I would put forth the reason why Rangers are seen as the dual-weilding class is because of Drizzt. He became popular, was a ranger, and dual-weilded, so therefor every ranger had to dual weild (i don't think there was even a mechanic for it beforehahttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29402703/Ranger_gone?post_id=524779241#524779241I would put forth the reason why Rangers are seen as the dual-weilding class is because of Drizzt. He became popular, was a ranger, and dual-weilded, so therefor every ranger had to dual weild (i don't think there was even a mechanic for it beforehaFri, 05 Oct 2012 05:06:54 -0500But exploration is part of D&D - the world is supposed to be interactive. I fail to see how falling danger (for example) can be considered any less optional than sword damage.What I can see as optional however is the lethality of the environment. Somhttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29402703/Ranger_gone?post_id=524766593#524766593But exploration is part of D&D - the world is supposed to be interactive. I fail to see how falling danger (for example) can be considered any less optional than sword damage.What I can see as optional however is the lethality of the environment. SomThu, 04 Oct 2012 16:23:12 -0500