4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Bedrockgames]

Interpretations of the paladin code in AD&D was a pretty common topic of discussion in the "Letters" and "Forum" sections of Dragon magazine. It may have worked well in your groups, and I never experienced any significant issues firsthand, but paladins seems to have worked poorly for many other groups due to differences of interpretation in how they should be played. From a modern perspective, with RPG design having been refined over the past 40 years, I think that it's a poor design in general. The AD&D ranger, druid, cavalier, and barbarian classes are marred by a similar design philosophy (to varying degrees).
.

I am not denying some people had complaints, nor am I saying the 4E approach is wrong. I am rejecting the idea that it is bad design. Some players might not like mechanics where GM interpretation matters. Others see it as an enormous feature. T me that is one of the reasons you have a GM in the first place. It is the strength of the rpg medium that you can have such mechanics. Clearly not everyone loves them,but neither that nor the fact that it is an established mechanic makes it bad. The fact that it was taking out of the game and you have large numbers of people comlplaining shows the mechanic was working just fine for many. To dismiss it as outdated or not modern enough, when these kinds of innovations met with such a mixed respnse in 4E, seems odd to me. I anything, I think it just shows there is a big split in the gaming community on what powers the GM should have and the workability of sujective mechanics like this. I totally get that some people dont want those things in the game, they view it as unfair or inconsistent. But that feeling isn't universal. And the constant appeal to "the needs of modern" design when people want something different from you in the game feels a bit like a rhetorical hammer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have no idea why your archer fighter is capable of learning nature magic and skilled with natural beasts. My archer fighter using the ranger class doesn't have nature trained and all his utility powers are to do with movement or resilience. The utility powers I didn't choose for him are not a part of the character.

Edit: And this is one of the reasons why 4e character creation is much more flexible than 3.X in most cases. With the exceptions of fighter, bard, and sorceror, one member of any of the PHB character classes looks pretty much like another. Two members of the same class share almost all the class features of each other. Any cleric can prepare and cast all the non-domain spells any other cleric can cast. The monk's class features (other than the feats) are identical to all other monks. In 4e there is no reason two rangers or two barbarians have to share any powers in common. Literally all they need to share are hit dice, basic defences and proficiencies, and the Rampage and Rage Strike abilities.

Great. So, we don't need any spellcaster other than Vancian, either, because it can always be "refluffed" to be daily recharge magic that you happen to have. And we don't need the Rogue class because your Fighter can easily use all the rogue weapons and armor if they want and call themselves a theif. And we don't really need a Monster Manual, just a table that generates the right math and a DM that can describe different things as goblins or beholders. Screw the Warlord, just be a cleric and re-fluff yourself. In fact, why bother to have classes at all? Just have your character pick one of five basic abilities (hit one thing hard, hit a lot of things, hit things with a debuff, heal a lot, and heal with a buff) and use the power of your imagination to pretend like there's a difference. Heck, do we really need different settings? Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, who cares, it's all just a palette swap! Do we even actually need rules for combat? Can't we just flip a coin and fluff it as being a tough fight? In fact, why do we need to show up to game night at all? I can tell a perfectly good fantasy story in my own head without leaving bed.

There's value in these distinctions, and 4e's class distinctions aren't particularly flexible when compared with 3e's (though they're a HELL of a lot more flexible than 2e's, which also relied on the "Just pretend your Fighter is a barbarian!" canard). If the lack of such distinction is a problem for someone, "Just pretend like it isn't!" is not a useful response.

 

[Bluenose]

I think that the good alignment restriction and giant-class creature bonus come from the LOTR-inspired ranger archetype: not so much a woodland scout but a hardy, commando-like warrior operating on the fringes of civilization, keeping the evil creatures at bay. Given the assumed setting implicit in Gygax's D&D, this would be human civilization (hence the racial restriction to human or half-elf and not allowing elves) and the evil creatures assaulting the borders would be giants, orcs, goblins, and the like. They are "good" because their primary purpose is to protect civilized lands at great risk to their own lives.

It's a pretty narrow archetype, but the ranger's connection with nature wasn't really much more than a side effect of operating away from cities and towns.

I've sometimes suspected if Tolkien hadn't been a medieval scholar we'd have had a different name for the class. Warden, Borderer, perhaps Keeper. But Tolkien knew what a Ranger was, and the D&D Ranger based on Aragorn got the name he used.

 

[Remathilis]

No. It isn't a feat tax. It's a use of a feat. Classes change between editions - and fighters are no exception.

Granted, I can think of a few weapons removed in 3e (clerics lost warhammers, while rogue lost longsword) but I can't for the life of me really come up with mechanical reason why the "master of weapons and armor" can't wear all armor.

No. No they aren't. They haven't been that way for almost three years - Martial Power 2.

Ah yeah, Splatbooks. Selling us options we had in the PHB just an edition ago...

But I'm going to ask you a question I'd really like an answer to. You do not want to use a bow. You do not want to use two weapons. You do not want an animal companion. Why do you want to play a ranger in 4e? Because you're getting close to the territory of "I want to play a cleric but I don't want to cast any spells". A 4e class isn't about who you are underneath. It's about what you do on the outside - and on the outside you don't want to fight, move, or behave like the 4e ranger class.

This is a purely philosophical difference I have with later-edition D&D (and 3e and Next will probably be dragged into this to).

Classes, as defined in TSR-era D&D, were a profession. You were Bob the cleric or Suzy the wizard. Most classes (at least from 2e on) defined a title that meant something in the world. In Basic, it went further; clerics belonged to an Order (and perhaps a Church) while thieves were assumed to belong to a Guild. If you were a ranger, its because you trained for years to become one; not because you wanted to wear light armor and dual-wield. You took on a class because that class was your life (going back further, BD&D your class could even define your RACE, which is a pretty big step in defining your character). Due to that, it was completely common in-game to call PCs by their profession (aka class).

WotC slowly let that erode in later d20. Free multiclassing into any number of classes deluded the value of the name of each class. A Rog4/Ftr2/Bbn1/GuildThf4/Shadowdancer9 is a build-code, not a profession anyone can understand (You started as a scoundrel, then learned to fight, joined a barbarian tribe, left to join a thieves guild, and then found your calling in a shadowdancer troupe?). Terms like "ranger" or "cleric" or "sorcerer" stopped being professions or titles and started being the name of certain builds, and that weakened the solidarity a class was. Before, you were a class for life, now, you can be any and all classes as long as you have the XP to pay for them.

Its probably a fault of mine that I still view class names as something the character is consciously aware of (I set out to learn to be a ranger and that's why I'm now a ranger). However, it irks me to no end that class titles (and power titles) have no inherent meaning in the fiction. Bob might have "rogue" on his character sheet (to represent his current build mechanic) but he isn't viewed, by himself or others, as having any roguish traits. Its one step above generic.

The whole point of classes is to package things together. You have three options - effectively play point buy (as 3e did), treat the classes as a straightjacket (as AD&D often did) or reflavour when you want to come up with something that's outside the realms of what the designers anticipated (as 4e actively encourages).

An AD&D/3e hybrid would be best. Classes are fairly rigid, but feats allow branching out. A cleric might begin proficient in simple weapons (rigid) but it only costs a feat to learn swords or axes (and there is no bludgeon-only rule). Similarly, a rogue might begin proficient in crossbows, light blades, and simple weapons; but there is no penalty if he spends a feat to learn to use a bow or a longsword (his sneak attack and weapon tricks work fine with them).

4e classes aren't generic. They are packages of behaviours. You want to play a "ranger" that doesn't fit with the behaviours that 4e thinks go with a ranger.

As stated above; they're builds. Archer guy. Commander Guy. Defender Guy. Two-weapon Guy. Finesse Weapon Guy. IF you allow refluffing, all "ranger" means is "I'm using the archer-guy build from PHB1 with the nature guy skillset." You can call it the Stormageddon Build for all "Ranger" means.

What a ranger is has been different in every single edition of D&D. The 1e ranger wasn't the 2e ranger. The 3.0 ranger was a waste of space. The 3.5 ranger was different again. And the 4e ranger is different yet again. So what is a ranger? Someone with light armour, scouting skills, some connection to nature appears to be the only common thread.

The ranger has had different mechanical expressions of the same archetype: A survivalist, man of the wilderness, expert tracker and hunter, and master of the tricks of nature. He's Orion, Jack the Giant Killer, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Drizzt and the Green Arrow. Its a calling; a duty to serve as guardian of the woodlands. He doesn't worship nature, but he respects it and gains its blessing anyway. Animals are calmed in his presence. He can slip through the woods with great stealth. He is a natural tracker and hunter. He understands his chosen foes and can deliver punishing blows to them. He can command wild beasts to aid him. He can even master simple druidic magic. That is a ranger. Two weapon fighting and archery dovetail nicely with it, but he is FAR MORE than an archer or dual-wielder build to be refluffed into swashbucklers, thieves, and fighters.

Assuming this is a fighter we're talking about, you don't have to. You can spend one feat. Is one feat really that high a price? And if that was really part of the paragraph of complaints about the ranger - why does your ranger want to wear plate armour anyway? So he can drown in a peat bog. Forgive me for being unsympathetic.

Why does the ranger want to wear plate? He's defending Helm's Deep from 10,000 orcs?

If it wasn't a big deal, why remove it? What was gained by removing the last armor type from fighters? If it wasn't broke, why fix it?

Which is why they fixed this problem. The thief can use a shortbow. This has been the case for over two years. So that's one complaint that hasn't been true for almost three years and one that's not been true for over two. As for your complaint about sacrificing roguish powers like tumble for rangerish powers like owl's wisdom, there is nothing saying that Owl's Wisdom (which is a Druid power anyway) needs to go anywhere near your character sheet at all. Instead you can sacrifice skirmishy powers like tumble for skirmishy powers like Yield Ground (which lets you shift back when hit in melee). There's no way Yield Ground is incompatable with being a rogue.

Great, it took nearly three years to give my elven rogue back his damn shortbow. More reason why I still think Essentials was WotC pulling its head out of its hiney on class design (giving knights plate is another. Noticed the game didn't break giving the fighter plate?)

What's wrong with the idea of a Paladin being part of a Barbarian tribe? Do barbarian tries not have driven champions of causes? Or do the gods just hate them? The biggest problem I see with it is justifying why the Barbarians have plate armour.

Which was why I called it out. Its always been an option to wear inferior armor than your proficiency allows (esp when armor is expensive) but it seems hard to justify a barbaric paladin coming in with plate armor, training in Diplomacy and History and not survival.

I know! I'll make him a Warden and refluff him and call him a paladin.

Actually that wasn't non-sensical. That was quite explicitely for balance purposes as edged weapons did more damage against large targets, thus giving the fighter a subtle boost precisely when the spells were starting to edge the clerics out. Contra B.T. if you find a non-sensical rule from Gygax it was probably for balance purposes. If it's in 4e it's, more likely than not, fluff.

Um... it was because Christian Knighthoods in the Crusades were forbidden to shed blood and thus stuck to bludgeoning maces and hammers. It was totally a fluff rule that suffers the minute you realize clerics of Thor, Loki, Hades, and Orcus all had the same prohibition against shedding blood as Christian knights...

What you mean is that 3e had a lot of flexibility on straightforward options and spells. Find me the effective non-spellcasting warlord in 3e. Find me The Grey Mouser. Find me the Lazy Warlord. Find me the defender - and no, just being able to put a shield in the way won't cut it. I could go on - but after 4e trying to create a non-caster in 3e feels extremely cramped.

Marshal, though its a bit on the weaksauce. It could've used a revision in power, but the concept is sound. The Grey Mouser was a Fighter/Thief. The Lazy Warlord is sitting on the recliner with the Cheetos and the remote (See? I found him!) The Knight did a great job of being a proto-defender. All those concepts are doable, but if you want 100% conversion of the 4e options back to 3e, I remind you I wanted 100% conversion of my platemailed fighter and elven thief with his bow.

What is a class? And what options were removed from non-casters that were not brought back later? 4e splatbooks all added breadth rather than power. And all the complaints I recall you raising in this post haven't been issues for more than two years. But if we want to talk about options not there, how about going back to AD&D. Taking a human and trying to play an armoured wizard. Or a cleric with edged weapons. The point of a class system is to have styles mixing with classes.

I already answered what a class is. And yes, 4e did a great job of selling us options in supplements we had before in the core books (See: Druids, Metallic Dragons, and dual-wielding fighters). And I'm not going to argue AD&D is less restrictive, but we had advanced beyond that, didn't we? I can build an armored wizard in 3e (a bunch of different ways too!) I could build a cleric with edged weapons. I could rebuild any of my early 2e (or even basic) characters in 3e and get something resembling what they were before (usually with more options to boot). I can't say I could convert my namesake elven thief from 2e over to 4e and keep his signature two weapons (longsword and short bow) and make him playable. It was a stupid oversight that they fixed in 2010, like a lot of problems they fixed when Essentials came out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Great. So, we don't need any spellcaster other than Vancian, either, because it can always be "refluffed" to be daily recharge magic that you happen to have.

The first rule of refluffing is that the refluffed version must work under the rules of the game. If you want to refluff a Vancian Caster as Harry Potter you are going to run out of whatever you are using as Expelliarmus in a hurry under normal combat conditions. Therefore the refluff fails. So no you can't. As a general rule, refluffing from a broad general set of rules to very specific rules is easy, refluffing from specific flavour to the general is hard.

And we don't need the Rogue class because your Fighter can easily use all the rogue weapons and armor if they want and call themselves a theif.

The question is can the fighter behave like a thief. Can you make a fighter skilled enough to call himself a thief (rather than one strong enough no one argues when they call themselves a thief). In 3e with 2+Int skills? Not a chance. In 4e you actually can without seriously compromising your fighter as a fighter. But that still doesn't mean they behave like a member of the rogue class.

And we don't really need a Monster Manual, just a table that generates the right math and a DM that can describe different things as goblins or beholders.

Been there, done that. It's very hard work in D&D (I speak from experience), although I would do it in something like Legends of Anglerre or another Fate based game, and I'll run Leverage or hacks of it without any prep.

Screw the Warlord, just be a cleric and re-fluff yourself. In fact, why bother to have classes at all? Just have your character pick one of five basic abilities (hit one thing hard, hit a lot of things, hit things with a debuff, heal a lot, and heal with a buff) and use the power of your imagination to pretend like there's a difference.

I believe you're talking about Leverage: The Dungeon Job here.

Heck, do we really need different settings?

"If it exists in the D&D world then it has a place in Eberron"

Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, who cares, it's all just a palette swap! Do we even actually need rules for combat? Can't we just flip a coin and fluff it as being a tough fight?

Why do you even need the coin? Amber Diceless doesn't. Neither does Montsegur 1244. And personally I'd prefer to use a Jenga tower.

There's value in these distinctions, and 4e's class distinctions aren't particularly flexible when compared with 3e's (though they're a HELL of a lot more flexible than 2e's, which also relied on the "Just pretend your Fighter is a barbarian!" canard). If the lack of such distinction is a problem for someone, "Just pretend like it isn't!" is not a useful response.

The problem here is that you are taking metagame information like the name of a character's class and equating it with in character and mechanical information. There is value in the distinctions between classes - it allows for different approaches, stronger themes, and to have abilities in the game that should not be combined in a way you couldn't with a point-buy system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Granted, I can think of a few weapons removed in 3e (clerics lost warhammers, while rogue lost longsword) but I can't for the life of me really come up with mechanical reason why the "master of weapons and armor" can't wear all armor.

"Master of weapons and armour"? Where does that come from. Because I don't think it's 4e.

Ah yeah, Splatbooks. Selling us options we had in the PHB just an edition ago...

Options like the assassin and the monk that were in the 2e PHB? Oh wait. Or options like the warlord and the warlock that were in the 3e PHB?

This is a purely philosophical difference I have with later-edition D&D (and 3e and Next will probably be dragged into this to).

Classes, as defined in TSR-era D&D, were a profession. You were Bob the cleric or Suzy the wizard. Most classes (at least from 2e on) defined a title that meant something in the world. In Basic, it went further; clerics belonged to an Order (and perhaps a Church) while thieves were assumed to belong to a Guild. If you were a ranger, its because you trained for years to become one; not because you wanted to wear light armor and dual-wield. You took on a class because that class was your life (going back further, BD&D your class could even define your RACE, which is a pretty big step in defining your character). Due to that, it was completely common in-game to call PCs by their profession (aka class).

Fascinating, thank you. And I mean that seriously. Because this is not and has never been a way I have played or visualised a world. This actually explains quite a lot about some differences - when I think of a fighter, I think of someone who fights. Not a member of the fighter's guild. And I'd assume that the thieves guild had some fighters on hand (muggers and enforcers), some bards (distractions, pickpockets), and might even have a priest or two or a wizard or two.

If it wasn't a big deal, why remove it? What was gained by removing the last armor type from fighters? If it wasn't broke, why fix it?

I've explained what was gained - and why I consider it to be a mistake. Were all the design decisions in the PHB good ones? No. Were they trying to get at something? Normally.

Which was why I called it out. Its always been an option to wear inferior armor than your proficiency allows (esp when armor is expensive) but it seems hard to justify a barbaric paladin coming in with plate armor, training in Diplomacy and History and not survival.

Who's been fluffing a barbarian as a paladin and why? (And survival isn't a skill in 4e - you mean Nature, which is easy enough to pick up through any one of a number of feats).

Um... it was because Christian Knighthoods in the Crusades were forbidden to shed blood and thus stuck to bludgeoning maces and hammers. It was totally a fluff rule that suffers the minute you realize clerics of Thor, Loki, Hades, and Orcus all had the same prohibition against shedding blood as Christian knights...

Um... it was a balance rule that exploited fluff unique to Christians and makes no sense with the pantheons D&D has.

Marshal, though its a bit on the weaksauce. It could've used a revision in power, but the concept is sound. The Grey Mouser was a Fighter/Thief.

He was also a wizard's apprentice.

The Knight did a great job of being a proto-defender.

The Knight? The character class that gets Come and Get It with a 100 foot radius? That lasts "for a number of rounds equal to 5 + your Charisma bonus" As an automatic 4th level ability? And gets to do this up to "a number of times per day equal to 1/2 your class level + your Charisma bonus". I suppose if you count mind control with a half minute duration rather than the couple of seconds of making a mistake CAGI takes.

Out of curiosity, why wasn't there rioting in the streets when the knight was published in the PHB2 given the way it takes every single criticism of the 4e fighter and turns it up to 11?

And no, it didn't do a great job. It simply did a job that wasn't completely terrible.

I can't say I could convert my namesake elven thief from 2e over to 4e and keep his signature two weapons (longsword and short bow) and make him playable. It was a stupid oversight that they fixed in 2010, like a lot of problems they fixed when Essentials came out.

Post his character sheet.

 

[Manbearcat]

The ranger has had different mechanical expressions of the same archetype: A survivalist, man of the wilderness, expert tracker and hunter, and master of the tricks of nature. He's Orion, Jack the Giant Killer, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Drizzt and the Green Arrow. Its a calling; a duty to serve as guardian of the woodlands. He doesn't worship nature, but he respects it and gains its blessing anyway. Animals are calmed in his presence. He can slip through the woods with great stealth. He is a natural tracker and hunter. He understands his chosen foes and can deliver punishing blows to them. He can command wild beasts to aid him. He can even master simple druidic magic. That is a ranger.

You just described this guy perfectly:

[sblock]- Trained in Nature; Forage, Calm Animal, Train Animal

- Trained in Perception; Find Tracks, etc

- Trained in Stealth; Um. Stealth.

WotC - Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
- Beast Empathy (Ranger)
You gain a +2 bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks against beasts. You can communicate simple concepts and commands to such creatures, though they are under no compulsion to obey you. With a successful Insight check (DC determined by the DM), you can read a creature’s body language and vocalizations enough to understand basic messages from it.

- Wilderness Tracker (Ranger)
During a short rest, you can make a Perception check (DC determined by the DM) to inspect the area around you. This area can be as large as 10 squares on a side. If your check succeeds, you determine the number and nature of the creatures that have moved through the area in the past 24 hours. You ascertain when and where they entered the area, as well as when and where they left.

- Aspect of the Regal Lion
You fight with the courage of a lion, taking on a larger foe without a sliver of doubt or fear.
At-Will Primal, Stance
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You assume a stance, the aspect of the regal lion. Until the stance ends, you gain the following benefits.
* When you make a basic attack against an enemy that is Large or larger, you gain a +2 power bonus to the attack roll.
* You gain a +2 power bonus to all defenses against such enemies.

- Aspect of the Lurking Spider
Like a spider, you lie in ambush and wait until your foe comes near before launching your attack.
At-Will Primal, Stance
Minor Action Personal
Effect: You assume a stance, the aspect of the lurking spider. Until the stance ends, you gain the following benefits.
* You gain a +2 power bonus to Stealth checks.
* You gain a +5 power bonus to Athletics checks made to climb.
* While you have combat advantage against an enemy, you gain a +2 power bonus to damage rolls against it.

- Bridge of Roots
The primal energy you draw from the ground calls forth a churning mass of great roots that can cover even the most dangerous ground.
Daily Primal, Zone
Minor Action Area burst 2 within 10 squares
Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of the encounter. At least one square of the zone must be on a solid surface. You and your allies can ignore hindering terrain and difficult terrain in the zone. In addition, any portion of a pit, chasm, or similar feature within the zone becomes safe, passable ground.
Move Action: You move the zone up to 5 squares, keeping at least one square on a solid surface.

[/sblock]
That's a level 2 Essentials Ranger with no feats invested.

Also, the classic AEDU Ranger can do the same thing. They're obviously ridiculous hunters by default, great foragers and trackers, can handle beasts and train them, and stealthy and then some. With some minor assembly required/feat & utility investment you can go even further:

- feat investment for Rituals (Nature rituals more than cover every angle of the classic druid/nature/animal spellcasting)
- feat investment for 1 or more Nature Skill Powers that cover all of, and give you more on demand punch within, the classic tropes.
- multi-class Druid and get Nature's Growth 1/day (which would let you take Dungeoneering as you get Nature for free).
- Spend your utilities on a suite of primal powers from HotFK

 

[Remathilis]

You just described this guy perfectly:

[sblock]- Trained in Nature; Forage, Calm Animal, Train Animal

- Trained in Perception; Find Tracks, etc

- Trained in Stealth; Um. Stealth.

[/sblock]
That's a level 2 Essentials Ranger with no feats invested.

Also, the classic AEDU Ranger can do the same thing. They're obviously ridiculous hunters by default, great foragers and trackers, can handle beasts and train them, and stealthy and then some. With some minor assembly required/feat & utility investment you can go even further:

- feat investment for Rituals (Nature rituals more than cover every angle of the classic druid/nature/animal spellcasting)
- feat investment for 1 or more Nature Skill Powers that cover all of, and give you more on demand punch within, the classic tropes.
- multi-class Druid and get Nature's Growth 1/day (which would let you take Dungeoneering as you get Nature for free).
- Spend your utilities on a suite of primal powers from HotFK

Agreed, the Essential's ranger does a great job AT BEING A RANGER. It wouldn't cut the mustard if you asked it to be rogue though, which is my problem with the refluffing movement.

"Master of weapons and armour"? Where does that come from. Because I don't think it's 4e.

Seriously? Its not a direct quote ("master of combat" got used in several edition)

Options like the assassin and the monk that were in the 2e PHB? Oh wait. Or options like the warlord and the warlock that were in the 3e PHB?

Yeah, 2e went stupid and removed some options that 3e restored. Something about even numbered editions?

Fascinating, thank you. And I mean that seriously. Because this is not and has never been a way I have played or visualised a world. This actually explains quite a lot about some differences - when I think of a fighter, I think of someone who fights. Not a member of the fighter's guild. And I'd assume that the thieves guild had some fighters on hand (muggers and enforcers), some bards (distractions, pickpockets), and might even have a priest or two or a wizard or two.

Bar in mind that "fighter" is a profession, but not necessarily a job. A fighter was trained by someone (probably someone with military training) in his profession, but he can take jobs as a mobster, soldier, mercenary, knight, gladiator, or whatever.

To whit: I'm a teacher, which is my profession. But my job is to teach English and drama in a High school.

I've explained what was gained - and why I consider it to be a mistake. Were all the design decisions in the PHB good ones? No. Were they trying to get at something? Normally.

Good. We agree that there were some real bone-headed choices.

Who's been fluffing a barbarian as a paladin and why? (And survival isn't a skill in 4e - you mean Nature, which is easy enough to pick up through any one of a number of feats).

Yeah, as you know my 4e is rusty. I just used it as another example of refluffing X to make it something its not.

Um... it was a balance rule that exploited fluff unique to Christians and makes no sense with the pantheons D&D has.

It can't be a balance rule, since its origin was in Original D&D and all weapons in OD&D do the same damage dice (1d6) regardless of size and type. Different weapon dice is an optional rule that comes later. There's no balance issue; it was a fluff rule from inception.

He was also a wizard's apprentice.

I get him and his buddy mixed up. Never much of a Lankhmar fan.

The Knight? The character class that gets Come and Get It with a 100 foot radius? That lasts "for a number of rounds equal to 5 + your Charisma bonus" As an automatic 4th level ability? And gets to do this up to "a number of times per day equal to 1/2 your class level + your Charisma bonus". I suppose if you count mind control with a half minute duration rather than the couple of seconds of making a mistake CAGI takes.

Out of curiosity, why wasn't there rioting in the streets when the knight was published in the PHB2 given the way it takes every single criticism of the 4e fighter and turns it up to 11?

And no, it didn't do a great job. It simply did a job that wasn't completely terrible.

Oh, I hated the class. But it was an obscure class in a late era supplement and it was easy to ban and ignore. Not so with one of the cornerstone classes of D&D.

Post his character sheet.

The character is retired, having reached max level. Feel free to see what you can do (barring in mind he's 20th at last blush).

RemathilisView attachment Remathilis.rtf

 

[Sunseeker]

The Knight? The character class that gets Come and Get It with a 100 foot radius? That lasts "for a number of rounds equal to 5 + your Charisma bonus" As an automatic 4th level ability? And gets to do this up to "a number of times per day equal to 1/2 your class level + your Charisma bonus". I suppose if you count mind control with a half minute duration rather than the couple of seconds of making a mistake CAGI takes.

Out of curiosity, why wasn't there rioting in the streets when the knight was published in the PHB2 given the way it takes every single criticism of the 4e fighter and turns it up to 11?

The Knight who also loses pretty much every trick in his book if he violates his knightly code of honor(which was actually worse than the Paladin, the Paladin could at least beat the stuffing out of people or even kill them if they did evil deeds, the Knight couldn't even do that!).

And while we're at it, lets take some tidbits here:
The Knight can't get combat advantage...because it's dishonorable.
The Knight never attacks a flat-footed opponent because that's dishonorable.(So the Knight basically never acts first in an encounter or gets the jump on anyone.)
The Knight never deals lethal damage against a helpless foe....so any demons up for channeling their evil power through Little Timmy?

The Knight, by their Paladin-esque restrictions, basically sucks as a Defender. The whole POINT of a defender is to take advantage of the enemy, defend your allies, and ya know, stuff like that. But the Knight can't do any of that. He's a cool concept for single combat, but he can't do any of the things the 4e Knight can do, therefore he sucks as a defender.

At least the Knight doesn't have to be the Lawful Jerk and not tolerate bad deeds in others. But violations of his code still cost him uses of his powers(a little better than the Paladin punishment), but enough violations and you'll probably get there, or like Paladins, a serious enough offense.

Yeah, I like honorable, valiant-styled characters. I play a Paladin, Avenger or something along those lines of a semi-divine, semi-martial striker with a ray of holy sunshine up his rear pretty much any chance I get. But I can RP honor, valor, a desire to protect and help others with ANY class. I don't need to be beaten with a rod on a regular basis in order to do so. I may not deal out radiant/holy/divine damage while doing so, but nothing is really stopping me from playing an honorable, valorous, caring 3X Archer-Fighter or 4e Ranger.

I don't think every class needs the amount of inlaid fluff the Paladin has, but I think some classes do, because without the codes and the alignments and all of that sort of stuff, what is a Paladin but a fighter-cleric? 4e is certainly no exception to editions that have long fluffed the Paladin as a holy warrior, so the complaints that someone can't make a non-holy, non-valorous, non-honorable warrior with a Paladin is sort of weird. It's like complaining that you can't make dirt into water.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But Fighters were proficient in plate armor from inception. Even in Basic, where plate armor was dirt-cheap (60 gp, or about what one orc camp has) plate was the hallmark of the fighter. Requiring a feat to do something that was inherent to the class previously is a feat tax.

So, what you are saying is that in EVERY particular where 4e differs from whatever your reference edition is that's a bad thing. Truthfully 4e is enough different from 3e etc that using this sort of narrow statement doesn't work. Plate Armor Proficiency isn't equivalent to the hard-coded armor allowances of previous editions.

Or a Scout. Or a Wilderness Rogue, or a Barbarian. But lets take your example for a minute. In 3e, I get TWF as a bonus feat. I am also still proficient in all martial weapons and medium armor, and I still get 1 feat every 3 levels. I could devote my feats to power-attack and that chain, wield a bastard sword and shield, and still be on par with a paladin or slightly below a fighter in terms of combat and let TWF languish on my character sheet alone and neglected.

Well, sure, but since the TWF feat you get for free is balanced against whatever the fighter gets for free instead you ARE missing out. Its possibly worth it to get some specific set of things together that makes your character work for some concept, but you MIGHT want to start with the most mechanically appropriate base.

I can't really do that in 4e, can I? If I want to be a ranger; I better use a bow, two weapons, or an animal companion or else my powers are pretty much reduced to basic attack, aren't they?

What is 'ranger' though? Suppose you want to be a ranger with a single great weapon. You could use various classes as the basis for that. A Slayer would work pretty well for instance, so would a weapon master, maybe a barbarian, or even a warden. Any of those can easily be equipped with the Nature, Perception, and Stealth skills that would probably cover what you consider "ranger" functions, and there are plenty of ways to pick up utility powers that work for your concept.

Ah, the reflavoring canard. A tired cliche that role-proponents use when they have to justify hardwiring combat styles into classes.

'Canard' means a tall tale, something which is false and ridiculous, which I suspect you don't really mean.

First off, Classes aren't generic. I almost wish they were; it'd be easier to have a "defender" class that gives power like "Mark", "Shielding Strike" and "Push Foe" and then let the player decide if he's a paladin, warlord, ranger, warden, Swordmage, or whatnot.

Eh, I think it would be better to have pools of powers based on power source and then a few class/theme/etc specific ones. Actually 4e already is pretty close to per-role mechanics. Certainly EVERY leader for quite a while had the same basic heal mechanic, every striker had a variation on a damage bonus mechanic, etc. Still, they weren't identical and the differences are useful. Frankly if we go further down this line of discussion it ends at 'classless modular'. That's OK, but it isn't ANY version of D&D yet...

A ranger is NOT just "good with a bow" class. I don't WANT to have to re-write 30+ levels of paladin powers because I want to be able to wear plate. (And explain how my Imposing Presence HEALS WOUNDS WITH A TOUCH? Wait, don't. Refluffers could justify making Orcus LG if they need to). It'd have been a lot simpler to have rogues use shortbows (as they did for 3+ other editions) than to have to rewrite another class to become a rogue (and sacrifice roguish powers like tumble for rangerish ones like Owl's Wisdom) with a bow.

Its one thing to change magic missile into necrotic shooting skulls or make a Warden part of a Barbarian tribe, its quite another to say my rogue's crossbow shoots necrotic shooting skulls or make a Paladin part of a Barbarian Tribe...

I'm not sure I follow the single thought which unites all these... Of course I can refluff Orcus to be LG, what there's some sort of sacred cow of fluff that I'm not to violate? I think I discussed THAT with B. T. upthread. I don't think Orcus would refluff to LG very well, so its not a serious question, but I could see MANY things that can refluff a LOT. I'll use an example that worked great in my game. I needed to make a Solo low level bad guy shadowy lycanthropic boss monster. You know what I did? I refluffed a young white dragon. It was PERFECT. Nobody in that campaign will ever suspect (unless they happen to read this which I doubt). Nor would they care. Vuulthar was fantastic. Its howl was downright nasty (breath weapon refluff), and its deadly axes were scary (claw attacks), etc. Not Orcus, but it was a cool refluff (and only one of a number like it).

Again, I don't know what the logic of the shortbow was, it seems silly to me, and at one point they at least partly reversed it. IMHO it was just overlooked at the start. Nothing is perfect. OTOH it is an incredibly small house rule to let it work as a rogue weapon. If you want to be incredibly pedantic take the light crossbow stats and call it a short bow. Honestly it seems to me that your other issues apply more against previous editions than against 4e. I can only repeat that nothing is really perfect and most of these kinds of things in 3e and 4e were both probably not intended. The designers of both editions seem to have been less than fully cognizant of how their rules would be used in practice.

1e and 2e had their fair share of nonsensical rules (clerics using bludgeoning weapons being prime) but 3e did a lot to allow flexibility. Rogues could use any weapon and SA. Clerics could gain proficiency in their deities weapon, even if was an edged weapon. 4e pulled that back and by taking away options (or making them sub-optimal; IE basic attacks only) in the interest of hard-coding certain styles to certain classes. Its exclusive, not inclusive and lazy.

I don't think they were lazy at all. I think by default they decided to have 'thematic' weapons, armors, fighting styles, etc. They knew that most players would identify with that, and they could change stuff or add more stuff later. To a large extent that's what happened. Rogues at this point in 4e can use a short bow and get SA, they can also use a club, a mace, any one-handed heavy blade, and probably a few other things if I dig around for feats. We could do this exercise with other classes, and there are some gaps, etc, but I think it is overly harsh to say that as a general statement 4e classes are overly rigid.