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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 6077833" data-attributes="member: 3424">I pretty much consider all of this to be irrelevant because in my view, classes are only means to an end. The real issue is not what is encompassed by a class concept, but whether I can take the character creation rules (race, class including multiclassing, and other bits if available such as feats, backgrounds, themes, etc.) and put together the character I want. Narrow classes are not a problem as long as the range of viable character archetypes remains broad. (Yes, the use of "viable" is deliberate, as I think it is one of the key strengths of 4e*.)EDIT: * I do note, however, that broad viability of character types might not actually be viewed positively by those who prefer narrower or more "realistic" archetypes - some who have very fixed ideas about paladins and chivalry might find it distasteful that it is even possible to play a paladin who is an expert archer, even though it is hard to see how they could ever be forced to make such a character themselves. But then again, if everyone stopped complaining about other people being able to make choices that they don't want, there wouldn't be any issue with come and get it.This issue has a bit more traction for me, but I don't consider it to be major becuase the flexibility of the base 4e system makes it almost trivial to fix it. Just add an archer theme and you can have a bow-wielding divine warrior and and archer-type character that does not need to have strong ties to nature (not that the 4e ranger actually has strong ties to nature, anyway - it's a Martial class, not a Primal one).</blockquote>

Verification