Tovec
Explorer
I assume any character with a strength score equal to the "fighter" could carry the loot as well. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.*shrug* I knew people who considered commoners to be completely valid character choices. And to be sure, they could carry the mage's loot as well as a fighter.
Um.... You should actually read my post. I was the caster. An epic-cleric in fact. And in that game when the fighter took out the construct I was unable to act before her. She did it and I sat there with my jaw-dropped and mopped up the left over (FAR WEAKER) supporting cast to the colossal plus sided construct. The construct was the real challenge and the fighter killed it in the first round, by herself. It took me far longer to kill all the little mobs that were walking around below.It was awfully nice of the caster to allow you to take out the construct all by yourself. I bet he even patted you on the head and said you did an amazing job.
I told you last time, you can keep saying it but it isn't true and isn't convincing anyone. Good luck with this tagline, maybe if you got it inked you'll be able to have it displayed to everyone from now until you die. That might convince at least some people who have never played the edition of what you are saying, though I would wager that most people still wouldn't care or agree.Like it or not, the real role for a fighter in 3rd. edition is "sidekick".
I gave an example of the fighter outpacing me the cleric at epic levels to show that "they suck only at house cat level" idea is flawed. If the fighter was able to easily outdo me then I don't see how this example can ever be true.It's quite true as the game progresses. At house cat levels, the Wizard is very vulnerable while at higher levels he "owns" the game. A lot of games start around third level to avoid the house cat levels. The Wizard tends to trivialize the other classes at high levels, especially with system mastery.
On a side note, practically every character can die to a house cat at low levels. What is your point exactly?
Two things, first, this wasn't about the various "limitations" you were talking about. This post was about how all 3e fighters were pack-carriers for wizards. So the point about the comparison is irrelevant as I'm not comparing anything, just pointing out that they WEREN'T.The "limitation" was that you're comparing options when only the PHB1 was release vs. options after years of splatbooks were out. That's not making a reasonable comparison.
Second, the characters in question - the ones in that epic game. The fighter was built using material available at 3.5 release. The cleric was using material from complete divine and I STILL was weaker.
Yes but were the hybrids in PHB1, or even 2? Or were they actually put into a book in PHB3? If they only existed in PHB3 then my point still stands regardless if they had been talking about it before.This is NOT true. Hybrid rules were announjced and always in the works. There were preliminary and "play test" versions out for some classes LONG before PHB 3 was released. Multiclassing was the way you dabble in a second class while Hybriding is how you function as two classes "equally". Not everything came out in the PHB 1, just like every other edition. That would have been overwhelming, not time-realistic and really bad for the rule book treadmill business model.
The proper comparison here would be the 5e designers talking about making 5e... versus actually releasing it! Which are we supposed to use?
You say it right here, 4e is broken (or at least rigid) as it cannot allow something as simple as a bow to be used. Previous editions didn't have this problem. My point is made by you.Obviously simply reflavoring a crossbow or the like wasn't thought of so simply allowing a bow to be used for ranged powers when all you have is the PHB 1 is an easy, minor swith of a prerequisite. House rules are pretty common in every edition, in most cases to fix the broken stuff in this case it's allowing powers to work with a similar weapon which is a miniscule change. If one can't be creative enough to say 'okay, you have a bow, it's not specifically built with a recurve or reinforced for a deeper pull to maximize damage but it's beautifully-made, extremely light and has the stats of a hand crossbow' then that's your other option until more books come out.
As far as I understand it isn't even like a bow would have been a sub-par choice, it appears as though it was not a choice at all. Having to houserule something is not a defense of any edition.
Okay, you missed my point so I'll phrase it another way.This again is looking at it backwards. All 4E did was make the game transparent and give you chassis to build character concepts around. If you didn't like the melee/battle cleric or ranged claric options in the PHB one for your holy man concept and you want to play a Defending Holy Man then you play a Paladin (either strong, charismatic or both). If you want to play a Striker Holy Man, Avenger or Blackguard. More control, Invoker.
Again, 4E just made it transparent. There's a reason those classes were suggested was to fill all the inherent roles. Which leads us too....
The roles were clarified in order to give characters better tools to do their desired job. The Fighter is usually played as a Defender because he has some great, little tricks that make him better able to draw attacks. You can't just shift away from him and charge a squishy, there are now "better" consequences for the Fighter character if you ignore him.
Controllers got more ways to mess up a monster's day in a big way. It was just about playing a blaster any more and seeing how many damage dice you could role, it was actually being able to shape a battlefield.
Prior to 4e the books suggested you play one of each of the following; fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. It often went on to say that if you didn't the game would be more difficult. It may have explained how other classes could fit these roles or substitute for these roles or layer across to cover them.
They said most of these same things in 4e, however the key difference is they never said that you need to have a wizard because he controls and you can use X to replace or cover that angle to act as controller. It added a new layer of "what is this" to the game. It codified fighters as defenders, then gave other characters who could be defenders if you didn't have a fighter. It said a fighter could be a backup striker - because you need someone who does lots of damage.
Gone were the roles of magic-guy, healer-guy, skills-guy, and fighter-guy. Now were the roles of boost-allies, limit-enemies, strike-for-extra-damage-guy, and "defender".
The roles are now too narrowly defined, and combat-centric, and some people find this off-putting. What is so difficult to agree about here?
Also, I'll ignore for the present that people have an entirely different issue calling fighters defenders, instead of some other vaguely titled role.
Actually, given that 4e is based on 3e, and 3 on 2 and 2 on 1...I see this statement made and it is completely ignorant of reality. It's not that "all that matters is combat" it's just that combat is the only place such extensive rules are needed. By that measure, 1E and 2e were "all about combat" too then. The social and exploration protions of the game don't need a tight framework and oodles and scads of rules to work, it helps to have some basic skills for adjudication in solving more difficult questions.
That is backwards. 4e has social skills for example, but places no where near as much emphasis on any aspect of them. Instead we have 95% of all pages, rules, supplements and aspects of the game focusing on COMBAT. Combat IS paramount in 4e. It is the way that 4e achieves its famed balanced. Other areas of the game took a backseat, something that 5e is seeking to remedy.
Last edited: