Search results

I think a large part of this comes with the new definition of HP. Now I don't really want to bring that whole fight in here, enough people are discussing what hp actually represents. From a 4e design standpoint though what it seems to represent is nothing truly physical or an aspect of morale...

I can actually agree with you on quite a few points, but there are a few I just don't see Yes, 4th has moved things more towards a cinematic design, although I wouldn't say quite final fantasy esque. The truth is though that it allows for a lot more built in improvisation then any edition...

I am sort of surprised you don't mention Rand Al' Thor in the top crowd, yet do mention Harry Potter? But I do agree, and their are actually several more. For instance the Protagonist of the Book entitled Wizard is one, Anasûrimbor Kellhus from the Prince of Nothing series is another. I actually...

Now I should once again clarify. I very much enjoyed 3rd edition. However I am likely different then most. I came to D&D fantasy books. In particular Wheel of Time. My first real introduction to pencil and paper RPGs was the Wheel of Time RPG that came out. From there I moved on to 3rd edition...

As I have previously said, mainstream fantasy never completely limits their spell casters (except in the case of Vance.) Wizards can always do wizard things as long as they don't knock themselves out from using a lot more power then they should. The powers system allows for more cinematic combat...

Hmmm, I would say that the changes they put in are finally in the right direction to truly mimicking fantasy outside of Dragnolance. But if you find the flaws of 3rd edition are more in line with your personal inclinations then the flaws of 4th, I won't argue with you. If 3rd's flaws are too...

So your saying that you won't pick 4th because they didn't do enough? Well I can agree with that argument, their are more things that could be changed. However how is that an argument for any edition over fourth? If every one has that same problem, why go back to 3rd for instance? It has been a...

I guess to make it more clear: Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Barbarian are but Subsets of Fighter/Warrior Druid and to some extent Paladin are subsets of the Cleric Enchanters, Necomancers, Illusionists, Sorcerors, and Psions are all subsets of the Wizard Ninja, assassin, swashbuckler, and Bard are...

The problem is that simply, this isn't GURPS. We are not talking about looking through a book, seeing a ranger, and making a ranger. We are talking about taking a character concept, looking through the book, and finding one that matches him the best. As you said above, the classes are simply...

Does that point actually mean anything? I never stated that he could be modeled by ANY class.

What I am saying is that their is ONE character in all of Fantasy that is traditionally attributed to as a Ranger. Paladin's are practically unheard of. You are implying that because of just Musashi is not referred to as a ranger by legend, that even if it is the best class fit it is wrong...

No, the classes are named for D&D Archetypes, not after singular character concepts. However the names of a class mean nothing when trying to actually create such character classes. By your logic, Fighter should be a Fighter, Paladin a Fighter, Ranger a Fighter, Rogue a fighter, and in some...

Why a fighter though? You seem very caught up on the names of the classes. I would consider Aragorn a Fighter by the D&D definition as well. Musashi did far more wandering and training then other samurai of his era, maybe not a natural woodsman but spent far more time then others of the warrior...

Actually this is precisely what I in my last post and others in previous posts have been talking about. Classes in 4e seem far less attached to any particular charachter so much as they are a package of abilities. Sure they have their fluff which goes on well with the D&D Archetype, but the fact...

I personally wouldn't feel incredibly bad if the only way to gain two weapon fighting was through ranger multiclass. TWF's philosophy has primarily revolved around sacrificing defense or power for more attacks. It seems that this time around, as mentioned further up in the thread, character...

The deal is that hitpoints are not some exact durability anymore, they are a representation of the individuals plot usefulness. All minions are is a monster that goes down with the first legitimate hit on them. However the difference between 3e and 4e in this manner is that this sort of minion...