Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cbas_10" data-source="post: 4049932" data-attributes="member: 55767">Regarding &quot;what 4E characters are&quot;....we really don't know yet.&nbsp; Sure, we have hints and some overall ideas, but I really don't think we have enough of an idea of what each class encompasses to make such definitive statements.&nbsp; Thus, I still have to &quot;think&quot; in somewhat 3.5 terms.&nbsp; That being said, I'll elaborate on my lightly armored fighter idea and how it applies to Mearls' statement.First of all....I'm not at all an optimizer, min-maxer, or whatever you'd like to call a player that mixes numbers and abilities primarily for maximum power.&nbsp; Yes, I know that is part of the game...but there are varying degrees and different playing styles.&nbsp; Second; I'm not saying 3E is better - nor am I even doing anything that compares the two editions.&nbsp; It's just the only frame of reference to draw from so far.Fighters are extremely versatile.&nbsp; They are all based upon a few common traits: they can take a hit (good hit points), they can land a hit more often than many others (BAB +1/level), and they know of a boatload of ways to land that hit (all of the weapon &amp; armor proficiencies).&nbsp; Beyond that....nobody was there to tell you, &quot;The game expects [something]&quot; or &quot;The rules will have to be modified if you want to [do something]&quot;.&nbsp; With the number of feats at a fighter's disposal...we were free to play the maul-swinging tank, the classic sword &amp; board knight, the agile swashbuckler, or even the elven storm-of-arrows.&nbsp; No rules implied a certain way to play the class.&nbsp; Feats allowed for a player to use his common sense and compensate for his choice of lighter armor or his choice of inferior weapons that make sense in a given setting or concept.Hearing things like, &quot;play a rogue if you want to do this&quot; or &quot;play a ranger if you want to do that&quot; or &quot;you will have to wait for a future book to play the other idea&quot; makes it seem like character concepts are specifically nailed into specific classes.Seems a bit more like Pre-gen characters with a few blanks for filling out the character's name, chosen weapon, and magic item slots.&nbsp; However, if Mearls' comment about classless D&amp;D being possible by picking and choosing abilities is actually in the book.....WOW.&nbsp; We would again have the options to get creative, allowing the stats to follow the concept instead of cramming a concept into a couple of possible stats.Not complaining because I love to complain about 4E....just skeptical and playing a bit heavier of devil's advocate to see if someone says something that gets me to think of something I haven't let my mind open up to yet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cbas_10, post: 4049932, member: 55767"] Regarding "what 4E characters are"....we really don't know yet. Sure, we have hints and some overall ideas, but I really don't think we have enough of an idea of what each class encompasses to make such definitive statements. Thus, I still have to "think" in somewhat 3.5 terms. That being said, I'll elaborate on my lightly armored fighter idea and how it applies to Mearls' statement. First of all....I'm not at all an optimizer, min-maxer, or whatever you'd like to call a player that mixes numbers and abilities [i]primarily[/i] for maximum power. Yes, I know that is part of the game...but there are varying degrees and different playing styles. Second; I'm not saying 3E is better - nor am I even doing anything that compares the two editions. It's just the only frame of reference to draw from so far. Fighters are extremely versatile. They are all based upon a few common traits: they can take a hit (good hit points), they can land a hit more often than many others (BAB +1/level), and they know of a boatload of ways to land that hit (all of the weapon & armor proficiencies). Beyond that....nobody was there to tell you, "The game expects [something]" or "The rules will have to be modified if you want to [do something]". With the number of feats at a fighter's disposal...we were free to play the maul-swinging tank, the classic sword & board knight, the agile swashbuckler, or even the elven storm-of-arrows. No rules implied a certain way to play the class. Feats allowed for a player to use his common sense and compensate for his choice of lighter armor or his choice of inferior weapons that make sense in a given setting or concept. Hearing things like, "play a rogue if you want to do this" or "play a ranger if you want to do that" or "you will have to wait for a future book to play the other idea" makes it seem like character concepts are specifically nailed into specific classes. Seems a bit more like Pre-gen characters with a few blanks for filling out the character's name, chosen weapon, and magic item slots. However, if Mearls' comment about classless D&D being possible by picking and choosing abilities is actually in the book.....WOW. We would again have the options to get creative, allowing the stats to follow the concept instead of cramming a concept into a couple of possible stats. Not complaining because I love to complain about 4E....just skeptical and playing a bit heavier of devil's advocate to see if someone says something that gets me to think of something I haven't let my mind open up to yet. [/QUOTE]

Verification