4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Ratskinner]

However, we're not really talking about my or your table though BRG. Is there a more problematic class in D&D than a paladin? Has any class caused anywhere near as much drama at tables? About the only thing I can think comes close is the party stealing thief. And even that's usually not as big of an issue. Maybe a Kender thief might come close to causing as much table drama.

But a paladin? Good grief, I would think that the paladin should be the poster child for how NOT to design classes in a class based game. Anything that causes that many problems at a table should not be part of the game.

Do not forget the brief life of the "Wild Mage" from 2e. (Often very brief, when the rest of the party found out your specialization.) Man, you either loved or hated that class.

Otherwise, yeah, the paladin is tops for table disruption. A few of the other classes could be bad (Assassin, Thief) on occasion, but they seem to require a jerk player. The paladin just required a player who isn't nearly perfect.

Play what you want, though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know that I agree that it's least true in 4e. 3e multiclassing alone gives so much more character variety than 4e is really functionally capable of, and 3e's introduction of feats makes it much more flexible than any e that came before it.

You can re-fluff stuff easily in 4e, but that's kind of dodging the point. You can call a smeerp a rabbit and make something an X in name only, but why is my archer fighter capable of learning nature magic and apparently skilled with natural beasts? Rangers are made to support a different archetype.

Huh? First of all lots of characters are likely to have Nature as a skill. I mean it isn't exactly unlikely that farmers, priests of various types, etc would all be quite familiar with nature and animals. Prior to the 20th Century most people in the world had close contact with Nature and at least some understanding of it. Its only today that people wall themselves up indoors and don't. In your pseudo-medieval D&D world 99% of the population don't even live in a town, probably never go to one, and probably have ventured into the forest as part of their living at some point.

If your character concept STILL can't live with having the Nature skill then take Dungeoneering. If you REALLY feel disturbed by these choices, talk to your DM and see if something else, like Diplomacy or Streetwise might fight your character concept better (but noting you can probably have these as well anyway, so again most characters won't be invalidated by taking Nature).

Other than that there's NOTHING much in the Ranger that demands you mix in aspects of a wilderness warrior archetype. Certainly that's a major thing the class is meant to let you cover, but you can make a perfectly fine "urban ranger" without any problem (or whatever, fluff how you want).

3e is pretty flexible, but at a severe price. System mastery is ugly and a vital skill if you plan to actually take advantage of the flexibility offered. I don't want to edition war, but suffice it to say that for many of us 3e's approach gave too much. If I want a point-buy system there are much better ones than 3e...

 

[Keldryn]

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.

It was a balance issue; you're neglecting the fact that clerics could not use magic swords.

Magic swords were much more common on the magic weapon tables than were any weapons permitted to clerics. Even through to AD&D, you didn't tend to see many non-swords above +2 on the treasure tables. Also, I believe that OD&D's magic swords were all intelligent, though I can't verify that.

Magic swords were generally better than other magic weapons until 3e ( at least in the core rules), which was a disadvantage for clerics.

 

[Manbearcat]

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 movementView attachment 56117

There are so many alternate (I think?) theses going on (I tried to engage two of them in the scene-framing thread) regarding "the refluffing movement" that its impossible for me to pin down who is saying what and what people are saying specifically. Is this below some insight into what you're referring to?

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

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.

A ranger is NOT just "good with a bow" class.

Well, I definitely agree that the ranger is not just "good with a bow" class.

You want (certain? all?) classes to have less thematic and tactical orthodoxy/default hard-coded into their build schematic? You want more intra-class, vanilla thematics or internal malleability so you can build to archetype within each singular class, rather than changing keywords or using different classes/themes/feats to build to archetype? Is that the case?

And what is the bit about not being to build an urban ranger with the AEDU ranger? Are you certain? Are you sure you can't build a wilderness rogue/bandit off of the AEDU chassis? I'll bet I can do that with just the default class, but if you let me take a theme (Explorer or Outlaw for wilderness rogue and Guttersnipe for urban ranger), multi-class, and feats, I guarantee that I can do it.

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?

Not true. Just using the basic AEDU Ranger chassis and not getting into themes, I can make a great weapon Ranger. Or how about this guy who is kind of Aragorn-ey (Throw the Guardian theme with Frodo as his charge and you're good to go). Not a single 2-weapon aspect or prereq to this guy. He's got quick draw (for cycling through weapons; throwing, 2h weapon, bow) and tons of mobility. Give him a knife for throwing or melee fighting, a bastard sword, and a short bow and he's good to go. He's got quick-draw, he's a ridiculous tracker, skirmisher, stalker, living off the land guy, a little primal healing poultice deal. This feature and power setup is very different than that Scout above.

[sblock]
Originally posted by WotC
Hunter Fighting Style
You gain Quick Draw as a bonus feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites. In addition, you can sheathe a weapon as a free action and gain a +4 bonus to AC against opportunity attacks you provoke by making a ranged attack.

HUNTER'S QUARRY
1st–10th +1d6
11th–20th +2d6
21st–30th +3d6

RUNNING ATTACK
If you use a standard action that lets you move (such as a charge or the skirmish shot power), and you end that movement at least 2 squares away from where you began that move, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made as part of that standard action.

Throw and Stab
You fling a weapon at one foe and then charge another enemy.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding both a thrown weapon and a melee weapon.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (thrown weapon)
Hit: 1[W] damage.
Level 21: 2[W] damage.
Effect: You move up to your speed and make a melee basic attack against a creature other than the target.

Marauder's Rush
You rush forward, trusting instinct to guide your attack.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier + Wisdom modifier damage.
Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier + Wisdom modifier damage.
Special: When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack.

Fox's Cunning
Using the momentum from your enemy’s blow to fall back or slip to one side, you make a sudden retaliatory attack as he stumbles to regain his composure
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Immediate Reaction Melee or Ranged weapon
Trigger: An enemy makes a melee attack against you
Attack: You can shift 1 square, then make a basic attack against the enemy.
Special: Gain a power bonus to your basic attack roll equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Skirmishing Stance
You adopt a defensive, highly mobile combat stance. Your speed helps you catch opponents unprepared and inflict greater damage.
Daily Martial, Stance
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the stance ends, whenever you move at least 4 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain a +2 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the start of your next turn, and your next attack before the end of your next turn deals 1d8 extra damage.

Crucial Advice
You are wise in all things. The sooner your friends realize this, the safer and better off they’ll be.
Encounter Martial
Immediate Reaction Ranged 5
Trigger: An ally within range that you can see or hear makes a skill check using a skill in which you’re trained
Effect: Grant the ally the ability to reroll the skill check, with a power bonus equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Disruptive Strike
You thwart an enemy’s attack with a timely thrust of your blade or a quick shot from your bow.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Immediate Interrupt Melee or Ranged weapon
Trigger: You or an ally is attacked by a creature
Target: The attacking creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged)
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage (melee) or 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage (ranged). The target takes a penalty to its attack roll for the triggering attack equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.

Snarling Wolf Stance
Like an animal backed into a corner, you become deadlier in your desperation.
Daily Martial, Stance
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Until the stance ends, whenever an enemy hits or misses you with a close or a melee attack, you can make a melee basic attack against it as an immediate reaction. You can then shift 3 squares but must not end the shift adjacent to any enemy.

Healing Lore
The primal power you call upon allows access to the deepest reserves of strength.
Daily Healing, Primal
Minor Action Close burst 5
Target: You or one ally in the burst
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge.

Toppling Rush
You dart forward and slash at your foe’s legs, unbalancing the creature.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Effect: Before the attack, you move your speed.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you knock the target prone.

Marked for Death
A carefully aimed shot imperils your quarry.
Daily Martial, Reliable, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Target: One creature designated as your quarry
Attack: Strength (melee) or Dexterity (ranged) vs. AC
Hit: 3[W] + Strength modifier (melee) or 3[W] + Dexterity modifier (ranged) damage, and you mark the target until the end of your next turn. Until the end of the encounter, your Hunter’s Quarry deals two extra dice of Hunter’s Quarry damage against the target.

Resume the Hunt
You drop a foe and then sprint away in search of the next fight.
Encounter Martial
Free Action Personal
Trigger: You reduce an enemy to 0 hit points
Effect: You move your speed. You don’t provoke opportunity attacks for leaving a square at the start of this movement. Until the end of your next turn, you gain a +2 bonus to all defenses.[/sblock]

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.

You could get the job done within the Ranger class with the above build; don't even need any themes or feat chains.

 

[S'mon]

On paladins and bows:

Umm, glancing through my PHB, not counting any additional sources, Paladins straight up get ranged powers at almost EVERY SINGLE LEVEL that you get new powers. There are a few you don't - obviously the at-wills are melee, for example. But, pretty much every time you get powers, you can choose a ranged power.

Granted, the powers are not tied to weapons. That's true. But, then again, why not simply refluff? You use On Pain of Death (1st level daily, range 5) and say that you are shooting with your bow. Granted, you wouldn't get the bow's damage or attack bonus, but, we're role players aren't we? We shouldn't care about getting those additional bonuses.

You could very, very easily reskin a bow using paladin. Might not be the most effective paladin ever, but, for a Cha based paladin, it would work pretty darn well.

Does help to actually read the books once in a while.

Switching from sword & shield to bow is three minor actions - two with master of arms feat. And if you have a bow in hand your opportunity attacks & melee interrupts will be crappy. So this is a 'refluff' that does not work if you're using the rules at all.

 

[S'mon]

I am certainly biased, but IMO, one of the best arguments in favor of 4e is the quality and class of its proponents.

On a related point, I find that to learn about a game and how to use it well, it's important to read people who like, play, and seem to understand the game. Eg I don't get much of value from Justin Alexander when he's talking about 4e, but if I'm looking to run 3e (or Pathfinder) he has a lot of useful insights. Same as with Pemerton and 4e, per my Scene Framing thread.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think my problem is the inflexibility of the older approach. You got exactly one interpretation of holy warrior and if you didn't like it, well you weren't one anymore. Ouch. It was the problem with the whole proscriptive design concept from the start. Everything was defined by what it wasn't. Yes, your 3e paladin has some "fight evil" powers, the most defining characteristic is that he can't do this or that or the other thing.

I like very defined classes. I won't run or play in a D&D game with non-LG Paladins. But, on the other hand, I don't get why Barbarians and Bards can't be Lawful. So, I definitely see how people think the same way about Paladins. Mine is just preference; so your preference is understandable. And reasonable.

I don't really agree that the 4e classes powers and features don't reinforce the RP either.

Disagree with who? I'm not sure if you mean me, because I didn't say this.

Sure, you can come up with some fairly stretched logic that "oh, you're not brave, you're just foolish!" etc, but I can as easily play a 3e paladin as some that's stuck with a curse! Neither one really makes a lot of sense.

First, can you try not to use the smileys at me? I can only guess at what you wrote. This means that there's less clarity, and you're cursing. I don't want to deal with either, if I can help it. Thank you.

Secondly, you think the idea of a foolish paladin doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think a non-LG paladin makes much sense (in my games). And yet, people probably want to be able to play either. Playing a "survival-oriented" or "rash" paladin are probably fine interpretations, based on the power's mechanical effects. Just like playing a non-LG paladin isn't unreasonable, either.

If you carry it too far then someone can always just denigrate ANY mechanics on that sort of basis. What's the point of "Your wizard isn't really a master of magic, he's just a lucky poser!" I mean those could be fun off-label character concepts, but they aren't a reasonable basis for criticism of the mechanics or flavor of a class.

We're speaking of what the mechanics inherently imply, not what refluffing might mean. I'm not changing anything when I say "the paladin might just be foolish" or "he might do it purely for survival, not bravery". I'm just talking about motivations. I think you might be getting the conversations I mentioned earlier crossed, but maybe I'm wrong. As always, play what you like

The Knight? The character class that gets Come and Get It with a 100 foot radius?

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?

Not that I like the Knight's ability at all (and I never used Knights), but your claim is pretty contentious when people object to Come And Get It making thoughtless and weak-melee creatures attack. From the Knight (in your link):

Any target of this ability must have a language of some sort and an Intelligence score of 5 or higher.

Creatures that fail this save are forced to attack you with their ranged or melee attacks in preference over other available targets. If a foe attacks by casting a spell or using a supernatural ability, he must target you with the attack or include you in the effect's area.

An opponent compelled to act in this manner is not thrown into a mindless rage and does not have to move to attack you in melee if doing so would provoke attacks of opportunity against him. In such a case, he can use ranged attacks against you or attack any opponents he threatens as normal. If anyone other than you attacks the target, the effect of the test of mettle ends for that specific target.

That would eliminate a lot of the "mindless enemies" and "wizards and archers in melee" objections. Again, I don't like the ability, but I think you comparing it directly is either a disingenuous or ignoring those objections to Come And Get It. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

There are a number of Dwarven feats, racial powers, themes, and Paragon Paths that promote just such a thing;

- Stone Stubborn, Mountainborn Tenacity, Dwarf Battle Priest, Delzoun Trueborn, Immovable Mountain Fighter Utility & Shield Bash Fighter Exploit feats and powers
- Earthforger Theme
- Dwarven Defender/Firstborn of Moradin/Earthheart Defender/Master of the Forge & Soulforger Paragon Paths (specifically the Weapon of the Dwarf-Father Path Feature)

That is just a few among many and they all synergize with Fighter. I suspect the pemerton's player's character has one of more of those amidst his build.

The PC in question has just picked up Earthforger. PP is actually Warpriest, but ED will be the more predictable Eternal Defender. Healing is second wind with Cloak of the Walking Wounded and Dwarven Durability.

I'm almost certain that even if he said that the mechanics inherently create the theme he'd agree with the clarification that mechanics reinforce, support, and encourage a theme - and that there are many consistent ways to play e.g. a Lazy Warlord - but in almost all those cases the lazy warlord powers and a refluff support the theme.

Upthread I actually mentioned the lazy warlord as supporting a wide range of themes/stories, from stereotypical princess through to grizzled but aging warrior veteran. I suggetsed fighter and wizard as also being noticeably broader than paladin.

On a different note, I followed a link from Margaret Weis Productions to DriveThruRPG and found the MHRP basic set for $US9.99 (which is about the same in Aus$ - we're a little above parity but my bank charges a modest foreign currency transaction fee). So I've got the "core" datafiles too!

 

[pemerton]

you were playing rolemaster and the campaign you describe is not a very typical D&D game

Yet it was run using almost exclusively D&D material: several of the OA series modules (for AD&D), other elements of Kara-Tur and the AD&D OA book (eg Constables of Hell - the two celesital Oni types - are from there), Bastion of Broken Souls, Monte Cook's Requiem for a God, plus probably other stuff I can't remember.

RM has different PC build, and some noticeable differences in action resolution, but the game I described could have been run pretty easily in AD&D, I think, and probably 3E as well, provided you ignore the alignment rules.

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.

I've nothing against GM adjudication of action resolution. I'm not such a big fan of GM adjudication of the moral legitimacy of the players' choices for their PCs.

 

[S'mon]

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.

My Trosk Barbarians make some of the best plate armour around. I based them on the Vikings in the Pathfinder movie, with a touch more Warhammer Chaos Warrior. So they wear lots of black iron plate armour covered in barbaric spiky bits.