That's funny, I really prefer the original 4e martial striker ranger and I like their AEDU set up with their ton of ED interrupt type powers as my favorite implementation of the class. It really makes a good striker warrior as a competent mobile D&D combatant different from the ninja rogues. Tastes vary.
Agreed. If I could pick classes from any edition of D&D that best demonstrate the "class fantasy" the ones that would definitely come from 4e would be the warlord, the elementalist, and the fighter as the tactical fighter (but might use the 2e and/or 5e fighter as well).
The only place I disagree is that I don't think that "martial striker warrior" and "ranger" are synonyms.That's funny, I really prefer the original 4e martial striker ranger and I like their AEDU set up with their ton of ED interrupt type powers as my favorite implementation of the class. It really makes a good striker warrior as a competent mobile D&D combatant different from the ninja rogues. Tastes vary.
Well, what WOULD it be? Is it a defender? Doesn't seem like one. A leader? Hard to really fit it into 4e's concept of a leader, though maybe not impossible. I was never sold on the idea of 'martial controller' as a separate concept from defender, myself. The Seeker kind of tries to do 'range attacking bow controller' but I always felt like the thematics were a bit off on that one. In any case it would be hard to call it a 'ranger' in any classic D&D sense. Certainly you need a 'Robin Hood' type class, and the core PHB1 4e Ranger fills that niche really well! We had a lot of fun with that one, though I admit it is tactically less diverse than the other PHB1 classes OOTB.
And here is where I feel the 4e power source trips over its own feet. Rangers are to me normally much more primal than the 4e PHB ranger who's kinda a "fighter-type (but not a Fighter) who's been in a scout troop for six months".
Isn't Tanis an archer warlord?
Warlord could work too for primarily leadership stuff with a bit of martial, but he has been mistaken for a ranger for decades and leather and bow seems more iconically ranger.
Archer warlord (complete with longbow proficiency) was added in Martial Power 2. And possibly it's an iconic weapon combination, but it's one allowed for warlords and Tanis behaves like one.Warlord could work too for primarily leadership stuff with a bit of martial, but he has been mistaken for a ranger for decades and leather and bow seems more iconically ranger.
I forget, do warlords have ranged weapon friendly options? When I played one it was all melee stuff I did for my own attacks that I remember.
Meh, I think the strong thematic implications of role and power source is the primary reason 4e classes are so uniformly solid. I mean, ok, spinning a ranger as a mix of 2 sources is not some big problem. Maybe then it is less of a leap to controller? But then we're not talking martial controller either. Still I never thought there was some need to implement every permutation.
