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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 6077785" data-attributes="member: 2518">Complete and utter nonsense.4 Weapon profiencies. Whatever the player wants. No restriction of "you play a fighter, your role is taking hits so its sword and shield". Be it that fighting style, archery or mobile skirmishing, a fighter could do it if the player wants to play that way. 2 weapon fighting underpowered? I made different experiences. Sure if you go hardcore minmaxing you would be better with 2 handed weapons but that is imo negligible as it applies only to a rather specific playstyle. Fighter specialization? Again this is decided by the player, not the class. And at least in 3E the fighter had enough feats to specialize in several weapons.That the 4E fighter has more flexibility is complete and utterly untrue. Already at creation you choose your specialization which steers onto the path of a specific weapon combination (And the options you had were already limited by the class. Guardian or Great Weapon).And every other class is even more rigid in 4E. Rangers are 2 weapons or archery and it is nearly impossible, at least without loads of splatbooks, to even fill all your slots with powers not requiring one or the other. And while in older edition "basic attacks" were all you need which could be done with every weapon in 4E they were very sub par to power usage, powers which were linked to class and weapon type.What do we have now? Several classes (Paladins and Avenger) for practically the same concept only so you can cover different weapon types. A fighter after the 3E model could together with multiclassing eclipse both those classes with some levels of cleric, some role playing and a free decision how the character fights.General classes with options is all a role player needs. Want to be valiant? Be valiant. You do not need a special class for that. But then WotC can't sell their books full with minimally different classes so that won't happen.In the end classes only representing fighting styles wouldn't be so bad. The problem in 4E is that classes not only represent the fighting style but also define the character outside of combat.A holy warrior for a church? Take this sword and wade into melee (VALIANT!!!!). An archer without strong ties to nature? No chance.</blockquote>

Verification