Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6077607" data-attributes="member: 87792">This is simply incorrect.  The AD&D Fighter was proficient in what?  Four different weapons at first level?  Of which in core 2e they could specialise in a grand total of one.  And the secret to their power in 2e was Weapon Specialisation.  The highly mobile skirmisher simply didn't exist as opportunity attacks in AD&D were absolute murder.  And the claim that "none of these fighting styles were more effective than others" is incredibly dubious at best and falls apart the second you take two weapon fighting into account.  So a much more accurate statement would be "When you look at editions before 4e, a fighter could pick any of the mechanically supported ways of fighting".Even if we restrict "editions before 4e" to 3.X the statement makes no sense.  Almost every feat is a tool of specialisation.  A fighter can be built to specialise in whatever they like.  But a sword and board specialist with the feats Weapon Focus: Longsword, Weapon Specialisation: Long Sword, Power Attack, and Cleave is much more effective with sword and board than he is with a bow - whereas the fighter with Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Weapon Focus: Longbow is penalised for ending up in melee.4e did not "start to hard code fighting styles for every class where you are actively penalised by not fighting the way the game designers envisioned your class to fight".  You try taking a dashing and agile swashbuckler wielding rapier and dagger and wearing a doublet as a fighter into an AD&D session.  It's a complete Darwin Award. Your AC is going to suck hard and you're going to go down fast, whatever your dex.  In 3e it's going to be a challenge to make such a character playable as a fighter until you can get a prestige class - your AC is going to suck and two weapon fighting is a feat intensive chain. In 4e, you need the Unarmoured Agility feat to make up for no armour (you still are a point or two below expected AC but this isn't so terrible), your at wills are dual strike and footwork lure (already making you a seriously effective skirmisher), IIRC you take funnelling flurry as your L1 encounter power, and you've basically given up a point or two of AC and a feat and you're good.Alternatively let's say you've been watching too much 90s TV and in particular Hercules and Xena.  Your character idea is based on Kevin Sorbo's Hercules.  Sword and fist.  Occasionally grapling, often just punching people out.  I really wouldn't recommend this combat style for AD&D. It just isn't going to work.  In 3.X you're better off - you can at the very least invest in Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, and the TWF tree - it's decidedly sub-optimal, but viable.  In 4e this works readily as a brawler fighter from first level.4e fighters have more flexibility to fight the way you want them to than in any other edition as long as you stick to Melee Badass.  AD&D is far more punishing for breaking out of expected combat roles than either 3e or 4e - and 4e has a vast amount of flexibility.  It's simply that the techniques for getting at this flexibility are different from the feat-centric 3e methods.Um... no.  "Before 4e" is not synonymous with "In 3e."  3e seriously reduced the restrictions on the Paladin.  In AD&D it was a Lawful Good Divinely Empowered Warrior with very high stats (including a charisma of 17+) that follows a specific set and tightly restricted code that included from memory:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Giving all excess wealth beyond personal needs to the church, and always tithing at least 10%</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Never owning more than 10 magic items (with the types tightly controlled)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Only associating long term with good aligned people</li> </ul>In 4e it's a divinely empowered warrior who stands as a living exemplar.The living exemplar (the essentials version being the embodiment of a virtue) is really helped by one.Better GM: My misunderstanding.  In that case Paladin isn't the best choice.  You're thinking of Robin Hood or even Green Arrow rather than Sir Galahad?  Or even a Batman or Leverage style character, walking the line and using the tools of evil against actual evil?Better GM: I'm sorry, there's been a misunderstanding.  I said that a paladin would be good for exploring thematic paladin narratives.  Those aren't the ones you want to explore?  Robin Hood or Batman style characters would be better played as a ranger, a rogue, or even an assassin.Better GM: This isn't a problem.  The PHB ranger need not have any supernatural connection or even training in Nature.  Instead they can take Dungeoneering, which sounds as if it will suit your stealthy ways with knowledge of catacombs.  Or possibly an archer-rogue would suit you better?The whole conversation arose out of two miscommunications.  The first was the DM not understanding what the player wanted to play and suggesting something inappropriate, and the second was the player taking the DM's suggestion that Paladin might be a good idea as a statement that Paladin was the only possible way to do this.</blockquote>

Verification