Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4049961" data-attributes="member: 32164">As I mentioned above, Khur is (Fourth Edition Designer and WotC employee) Chris Sims. So he, at least, does have a pretty good idea &quot;what 4E characters are.&quot;We may not have a good basis for comparison, but Chris certainly does.&nbsp;Emphasis mine. Just because you could do it in Third Edition doesn't mean you should have.By requiring the character to spend feats in order to &quot;compensate&quot; for his choice of lighter armor and inferior weapons, you're essentially saying &quot;this is a bad choice for the fighter class.&quot; The character would be more effective without picking those weapons, or that armor. That's because if they make different choices, they can spend those feats on getting &quot;better&quot; rather than on &quot;catching up&quot; to where they're supposed to be.Fourth Edition makes this explicit, rather than hoping people figure it out. If you want to play an effective skirmish character, fighter just isn't the class to pick, and it never has been. From what we've been told, in Fourth Edition, if you want to be the most effective at filling that role, you're better off with a rogue or ranger. Now, it's been suggested that if you want to do it with a fighter, the answer is to multiclass or take the appropriate class training feats. In other words, a multiclassed fighter/rogue, or a rogue with fighter training feats (or a fighter with rogue training) will be a better &quot;swashbuckler&quot; than a straight fighter could ever be. And from what we've heard, ranger will be a good choice for achieving that goal as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4049961, member: 32164"] As I mentioned above, Khur is (Fourth Edition Designer and WotC employee) Chris Sims. So he, at least, does have a pretty good idea "what 4E characters are." We may not have a good basis for comparison, but Chris certainly does. Emphasis mine. Just because you [i]could[/i] do it in Third Edition doesn't mean you [i]should have[/i]. By requiring the character to spend feats in order to "compensate" for his choice of lighter armor and inferior weapons, you're essentially saying "this is a bad choice for the fighter class." The character would be [i]more[/i] effective without picking those weapons, or that armor. That's because if they make different choices, they can spend those feats on getting "better" rather than on "catching up" to where they're supposed to be. Fourth Edition makes this explicit, rather than hoping people figure it out. If you want to play an effective skirmish character, fighter just isn't the class to pick, and it never has been. From what we've been told, in Fourth Edition, if you want to be the [i]most effective[/i] at filling that role, you're better off with a rogue or ranger. Now, it's been suggested that if you [i]want[/i] to do it with a fighter, the answer is to multiclass or take the appropriate class training feats. In other words, a multiclassed fighter/rogue, or a rogue with fighter training feats (or a fighter with rogue training) will be a better "swashbuckler" than a straight fighter could ever be. And from what we've heard, ranger will be a good choice for achieving that goal as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification