NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6078525" data-attributes="member: 7635">But Fighters were proficient in plate armor from inception. Even in Basic, where plate armor was dirt-cheap (60 gp, or about what one orc camp has) plate was the hallmark of the fighter. Requiring a feat to do something that was inherent to the class previously is a feat tax. Medium armor and martial weapons? I think you mean simple weapons and heavy armor. Anyway, feats were what you did if you wanted to go outside the box, and they're still a good place if you want armored mages, clerics with martial weapons, or greatsword weilding rogues. Or a Scout. Or a Wilderness Rogue, or a Barbarian. But lets take your example for a minute. In 3e, I get TWF as a bonus feat. I am also still proficient in all martial weapons and medium armor, and I still get 1 feat every 3 levels. I could devote my feats to power-attack and that chain, wield a bastard sword and shield, and still be on par with a paladin or slightly below a fighter in terms of combat and let TWF languish on my character sheet alone and neglected. I can't really do that in 4e, can I? If I want to be a ranger; I better use a bow, two weapons, or an animal companion or else my powers are pretty much reduced to basic attack, aren't they? Ah, the reflavoring canard. A tired cliche that role-proponents use when they have to justify hardwiring combat styles into classes. First off, Classes aren't generic. I almost wish they were; it'd be easier to have a "defender" class that gives power like "Mark", "Shielding Strike" and "Push Foe" and then let the player decide if he's a paladin, warlord, ranger, warden, Swordmage, or whatnot. A ranger is NOT just "good with a bow" class. I don't WANT to have to re-write 30+ levels of paladin powers because I want to be able to wear plate. (And explain how my Imposing Presence HEALS WOUNDS WITH A TOUCH? Wait, don't. Refluffers could justify making Orcus LG if they need to). It'd have been a lot simpler to have rogues use shortbows (as they did for 3+ other editions) than to have to rewrite another class to become a rogue (and sacrifice roguish powers like tumble for rangerish ones like Owl's Wisdom) with a bow. Its one thing to change magic missile into necrotic shooting skulls or make a Warden part of a Barbarian tribe, its quite another to say my rogue's crossbow shoots necrotic shooting skulls or make a Paladin part of a Barbarian Tribe... 1e and 2e had their fair share of nonsensical rules (clerics using bludgeoning weapons being prime) but 3e did a lot to allow flexibility. Rogues could use any weapon and SA. Clerics could gain proficiency in their deities weapon, even if was an edged weapon. 4e pulled that back and by taking away options (or making them sub-optimal; IE basic attacks only) in the interest of hard-coding certain styles to certain classes. Its exclusive, not inclusive and lazy.</blockquote>

Verification