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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6078543" data-attributes="member: 87792">The PHB contained the rapier - a 1d8 light blade as an exotic weapon which could be used for Sneak Attack.  The designers had no problem including that despite the fact it could get rogues d8s with their sneak attack.  They also had the simple crossbow - another weapon rogues could use with their sneak attacks and that did d8 damage.  The rapier is, however, much more telling because it's a superior weapon in the PHB - but the only class that would take it in 4e other than as a pure flavour feat is the rogue (almost anyone else who wants to be in melee would just take the longsword and shrug).I therefore can not agree that the designers didn't expect rogues to use d8 weapons when there is a d8 weapon obviously put in for rogues to wield.No.  It isn't a feat tax.  It's a use of a feat.  Classes change between editions - and fighters are no exception.No.  No they aren't.  They haven't been that way for almost three years - Martial Power 2.But I'm going to ask you a question I'd really like an answer to.  You do not want to use a bow.  You do not want to use two weapons.  You do not want an animal companion.  Why do you want to play a ranger in 4e?  Because you're getting close to the territory of "I want to play a cleric but I don't want to cast any spells".  A 4e class isn't about who you are underneath.  It's about what you do on the outside - and on the outside you don't want to fight, move, or behave like the 4e ranger class.The whole point of classes is to package things together.  You have three options - effectively play point buy (as 3e did), treat the classes as a straightjacket (as AD&D often did) or reflavour when you want to come up with something that's outside the realms of what the designers anticipated (as 4e actively encourages).4e classes aren't generic.  They are packages of behaviours.  You want to play a "ranger" that doesn't fit with the behaviours that 4e thinks go with a ranger.What a ranger is has been different in every single edition of D&D.  The 1e ranger wasn't the 2e ranger.  The 3.0 ranger was a waste of space.  The 3.5 ranger was different again.  And the 4e ranger is different yet again.  So what is a ranger?  Someone with light armour, scouting skills, some connection to nature appears to be the only common thread.Assuming this is a fighter we're talking about, you don't have to.  You can spend one feat.  Is one feat really that high a price?  And if that was really part of the paragraph of complaints about the ranger - why does your ranger want to wear plate armour anyway?  So he can drown in a peat bog.  Forgive me for being unsympathetic.Which is why they fixed this problem.  The thief can use a shortbow.  This has been the case for over two years.  So that's one complaint that hasn't been true for almost three years and one that's not been true for over two.  As for your complaint about sacrificing roguish powers like tumble for rangerish powers like owl's wisdom, there is nothing saying that Owl's Wisdom (which is a Druid power anyway) needs to go anywhere near your character sheet at all.  Instead you can sacrifice skirmishy powers like tumble for skirmishy powers like Yield Ground (which lets you shift back when hit in melee).  There's no way Yield Ground is incompatable with being a rogue.What's wrong with the idea of a Paladin being part of a Barbarian tribe?  Do barbarian tries not have driven champions of causes?  Or do the gods just hate them?  The biggest problem I see with it is justifying why the Barbarians have plate armour.Actually that wasn't non-sensical.  That was quite explicitely for balance purposes as edged weapons did more damage against large targets, thus giving the fighter a subtle boost precisely when the spells were starting to edge the clerics out.  Contra B.T. if you find a non-sensical rule from Gygax it was probably for balance purposes.  If it's in 4e it's, more likely than not, fluff.What you mean is that 3e had a lot of flexibility on straightforward options and spells.  Find me the effective non-spellcasting warlord in 3e.  Find me The Grey Mouser.  Find me the Lazy Warlord.  Find me the defender - and no, just being able to put a shield in the way won't cut it.  I could go on - but after 4e trying to create a non-caster in 3e feels extremely cramped.What is a class?  And what options were removed from non-casters that were not brought back later?  4e splatbooks all added breadth rather than power.  And all the complaints I recall you raising in this post haven't been issues for more than two years.  But if we want to talk about options not there, how about going back to AD&D.  Taking a human and trying to play an armoured wizard.  Or a cleric with edged weapons.  The point of a class system is to have styles mixing with classes.</blockquote>

Verification