Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6078491" data-attributes="member: 7635">I think its not "balance" per se that drove some of 4e's weapon/armor, it was aesthetic. Simply put, they wanted to make certain classes "look" different and the best way to do that was to artificially limit his weapons and armor (and by limit, we mean have class features and powers not work with non-sactioned gear). It was done to create a clear visual key to artists, miniature makers, etc.Large weapon and scale mail? FighterLeather armor and bow or two blades? RangerSimple weapon and chainmail? ClericHide armor and large weapon? BarbarianLeather armor and crossbow? RogueHeavy blade and Plate? PaladinGranted, some of these began to double up (invokers and clerics share the same wp/armor, IIRC, as do barbarians and wardens) but 4e was very adamant you weren't supposed to wear plate if your a fighter, have a bow if your a rogue, wear metal armor if your a barbarian, or any armor if your an avenger. (If the errata for such things were any indication). It was just one more place 4e was keen on dictating that a certain class had a certain playstyle and Thou Shall Not derive from it because WotC knows best.</blockquote>