I mentioned a while back when I started on Wizards. Over the weekend I started in on Rangers from the 4e Player’s Handbook because I figured I’d made enough progress with Wizards to put them on hold so I could work on another archetype.

There’s a small matter of one effect type — the conjuration — having an awful lot of potential, probably enough to justify an entire character class archetype, which will require me to explore some of the other effect types before I can say yay or nay to some of its iterations. Especially if I give Wizard zones the ax.

I picked Rangers for a couple reasons. First, the annoying duality of Ranger combat styles needs to die. I intend to make them separate archetypes partly because learning to “shot gud with bow” does not lend itself to ambidexterity.

But mostly it has to do with the fact that both these archetypes — the archer and the two-weapon wielder — kind of die on the vine when they’re each treated as “half” a character class. There’s a lot of potential in both, and neither archetype really has much to do with the Ranger’s woodsiness.

It’s more like the class was modeled on one guy’s twinked-out character.

Anyway, I’ve found myself doing with the Ranger powers — basically what I did with the Fighter powers — most get made into encounter attacks, some get made into at-wills (though not as many so far), some get axed for being redundant, and some get made into stances. It’s pretty been encouraging so far.

What I would like to do eventually — once I’ve around to all the Martial classes (again) — is bundle some of the better ones together and, hang on this is starting to sound really familiar. Is it affirmation, or am I making empty promises? I’ll probably make new versions of the Archer and Duelist before December.

Well, maybe. I’ve been wrong before.