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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6078179" data-attributes="member: 82106">There seems to be a small, but at times vocal, school of thought that somehow the rules have to be used "as intended" in some fashion. I actually had a guy on WotC DDN forum bash on me for DAYS because I told him that there was no reason why a ranger wasn't a perfectly good example of a bow 'fighter' and 4e really just didn't need ANOTHER fighter class option to depict the same thing again. I was told that we were 'perverting' the rules and that the game was 'meaningless trash' if we didn't stick to the exact intent of things (IE that it was a horrible badwrongfun to play the captain of the king's archers using ranger because that HAD to be a 'wilderness warrior' and blah blah blah). The guy literally got perma-banned finally from WotC forums (VERY hard to do, lol). Anyway, I'm not saying you're that guy. I mean I don't know, but what you've said is certainly somewhat less extreme. Still, fluff IS just fluff. If a piece of mechanics can work just as well as thing X instead of thing Y, there's no reason not to appropriate it. We could 'copy' the ranger and call it "Archer Fighter" class, but its a PITA and easier to just write on my sheet what the books call it so I can look stuff up. So IMHO any statements that are fundamentally "there's a 'correct' way to use a game element" just seem pointless to me. They are nothing but empty semantics really. I am not telling anyone how to play, but when people say for instance that a set of rules to a game are poor because said person won't extrapolate fluff even the tiny bit needed to call their 'archer' a 'ranger' I would say they might be cutting out some good fun. Its your game to play as you wish. I only offer advice, can't make anyone do anything, and don't want to.Well, my objection to using the barbarian class instead of the paladin class was "the mechanics are less suited to showing how the character acts". My objection to the barbarian class always being hooked to 'anger problems' is more just a quibble I have with the way the archetype is usually implemented. It may well be more semantic than anything. I would call the 4e barbarian a "berzerker" and relegate the concept of 'barbarian' to theme/background/rp where it seems to belong. However, it is not that big a deal, my non-raging-barbarian-warrior can be made using ranger or fighter classes, or even rogue perhaps.</blockquote>

Verification