Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6078623" data-attributes="member: 7635"><p>Granted, I can think of a few weapons removed in 3e (clerics lost warhammers, while rogue lost longsword) but I can't for the life of me really come up with mechanical reason why the "master of weapons and armor" can't wear all armor. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah yeah, Splatbooks. Selling us options we had in the PHB just an edition ago...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a purely philosophical difference I have with later-edition D&D (and 3e and Next will probably be dragged into this to). </p><p></p><p>Classes, as defined in TSR-era D&D, were a profession. You were Bob the cleric or Suzy the wizard. Most classes (at least from 2e on) defined a title that meant something in the world. In Basic, it went further; clerics belonged to an Order (and perhaps a Church) while thieves were assumed to belong to a Guild. If you were a ranger, its because you trained for years to become one; not because you wanted to wear light armor and dual-wield. You took on a class because that class was your life (going back further, BD&D your class could even define your RACE, which is a pretty big step in defining your character). Due to that, it was completely common in-game to call PCs by their profession (aka class). </p><p></p><p>WotC slowly let that erode in later d20. Free multiclassing into any number of classes deluded the value of the name of each class. A Rog4/Ftr2/Bbn1/GuildThf4/Shadowdancer9 is a build-code, not a profession anyone can understand (You started as a scoundrel, then learned to fight, joined a barbarian tribe, left to join a thieves guild, and then found your calling in a shadowdancer troupe?). Terms like "ranger" or "cleric" or "sorcerer" stopped being professions or titles and started being the name of certain builds, and that weakened the solidarity a class was. Before, you were a class for life, now, you can be any and all classes as long as you have the XP to pay for them. </p><p></p><p>Its probably a fault of mine that I still view class names as something the character is consciously aware of (I set out to learn to be a ranger and that's why I'm now a ranger). However, it irks me to no end that class titles (and power titles) have no inherent meaning in the fiction. Bob might have "rogue" on his character sheet (to represent his current build mechanic) but he isn't viewed, by himself or others, as having any roguish traits. Its one step above generic. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>An AD&D/3e hybrid would be best. Classes are fairly rigid, but feats allow branching out. A cleric might begin proficient in simple weapons (rigid) but it only costs a feat to learn swords or axes (and there is no bludgeon-only rule). Similarly, a rogue might begin proficient in crossbows, light blades, and simple weapons; but there is no penalty if he spends a feat to learn to use a bow or a longsword (his sneak attack and weapon tricks work fine with them). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As stated above; they're builds. Archer guy. Commander Guy. Defender Guy. Two-weapon Guy. Finesse Weapon Guy. IF you allow refluffing, all "ranger" means is "I'm using the archer-guy build from PHB1 with the nature guy skillset." You can call it the Stormageddon Build for all "Ranger" means. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The ranger has had different mechanical expressions of the same archetype: A survivalist, man of the wilderness, expert tracker and hunter, and master of the tricks of nature. He's Orion, Jack the Giant Killer, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Drizzt and the Green Arrow. Its a calling; a duty to serve as guardian of the woodlands. He doesn't worship nature, but he respects it and gains its blessing anyway. Animals are calmed in his presence. He can slip through the woods with great stealth. He is a natural tracker and hunter. He understands his chosen foes and can deliver punishing blows to them. He can command wild beasts to aid him. He can even master simple druidic magic. That is a ranger. Two weapon fighting and archery dovetail nicely with it, but he is FAR MORE than an archer or dual-wielder build to be refluffed into swashbucklers, thieves, and fighters. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why does the ranger want to wear plate? He's defending Helm's Deep from 10,000 orcs? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> </p><p></p><p>If it wasn't a big deal, why remove it? What was gained by removing the last armor type from fighters? If it wasn't broke, why fix it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Great, it took nearly three years to give my elven rogue back his damn shortbow. More reason why I still think Essentials was WotC pulling its head out of its hiney on class design (giving knights plate is another. Noticed the game didn't break giving the fighter plate?)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which was why I called it out. Its always been an option to wear inferior armor than your proficiency allows (esp when armor is expensive) but it seems hard to justify a barbaric paladin coming in with plate armor, training in Diplomacy and History and not survival.</p><p></p><p>I know! I'll make him a Warden and refluff him and call him a paladin. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Um... it was because Christian Knighthoods in the Crusades were forbidden to shed blood and thus stuck to bludgeoning maces and hammers. It was totally a fluff rule that suffers the minute you realize clerics of Thor, Loki, Hades, and Orcus all had the same prohibition against shedding blood as Christian knights...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Marshal, though its a bit on the weaksauce. It could've used a revision in power, but the concept is sound. The Grey Mouser was a Fighter/Thief. The Lazy Warlord is sitting on the recliner with the Cheetos and the remote (See? I found him!) The Knight did a great job of being a proto-defender. All those concepts are doable, but if you want 100% conversion of the 4e options back to 3e, I remind you I wanted 100% conversion of my platemailed fighter and elven thief with his bow. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I already answered what a class is. And yes, 4e did a great job of selling us options in supplements we had before in the core books (See: Druids, Metallic Dragons, and dual-wielding fighters). And I'm not going to argue AD&D is less restrictive, but we had advanced beyond that, didn't we? I can build an armored wizard in 3e (a bunch of different ways too!) I could build a cleric with edged weapons. I could rebuild any of my early 2e (or even basic) characters in 3e and get something resembling what they were before (usually with more options to boot). I can't say I could convert my namesake elven thief from 2e over to 4e and keep his signature two weapons (longsword and short bow) and make him playable. It was a stupid oversight that they fixed in 2010, like a lot of problems they fixed when Essentials came out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6078623, member: 7635"] Granted, I can think of a few weapons removed in 3e (clerics lost warhammers, while rogue lost longsword) but I can't for the life of me really come up with mechanical reason why the "master of weapons and armor" can't wear all armor. Ah yeah, Splatbooks. Selling us options we had in the PHB just an edition ago... This is a purely philosophical difference I have with later-edition D&D (and 3e and Next will probably be dragged into this to). Classes, as defined in TSR-era D&D, were a profession. You were Bob the cleric or Suzy the wizard. Most classes (at least from 2e on) defined a title that meant something in the world. In Basic, it went further; clerics belonged to an Order (and perhaps a Church) while thieves were assumed to belong to a Guild. If you were a ranger, its because you trained for years to become one; not because you wanted to wear light armor and dual-wield. You took on a class because that class was your life (going back further, BD&D your class could even define your RACE, which is a pretty big step in defining your character). Due to that, it was completely common in-game to call PCs by their profession (aka class). WotC slowly let that erode in later d20. Free multiclassing into any number of classes deluded the value of the name of each class. A Rog4/Ftr2/Bbn1/GuildThf4/Shadowdancer9 is a build-code, not a profession anyone can understand (You started as a scoundrel, then learned to fight, joined a barbarian tribe, left to join a thieves guild, and then found your calling in a shadowdancer troupe?). Terms like "ranger" or "cleric" or "sorcerer" stopped being professions or titles and started being the name of certain builds, and that weakened the solidarity a class was. Before, you were a class for life, now, you can be any and all classes as long as you have the XP to pay for them. Its probably a fault of mine that I still view class names as something the character is consciously aware of (I set out to learn to be a ranger and that's why I'm now a ranger). However, it irks me to no end that class titles (and power titles) have no inherent meaning in the fiction. Bob might have "rogue" on his character sheet (to represent his current build mechanic) but he isn't viewed, by himself or others, as having any roguish traits. Its one step above generic. An AD&D/3e hybrid would be best. Classes are fairly rigid, but feats allow branching out. A cleric might begin proficient in simple weapons (rigid) but it only costs a feat to learn swords or axes (and there is no bludgeon-only rule). Similarly, a rogue might begin proficient in crossbows, light blades, and simple weapons; but there is no penalty if he spends a feat to learn to use a bow or a longsword (his sneak attack and weapon tricks work fine with them). As stated above; they're builds. Archer guy. Commander Guy. Defender Guy. Two-weapon Guy. Finesse Weapon Guy. IF you allow refluffing, all "ranger" means is "I'm using the archer-guy build from PHB1 with the nature guy skillset." You can call it the Stormageddon Build for all "Ranger" means. The ranger has had different mechanical expressions of the same archetype: A survivalist, man of the wilderness, expert tracker and hunter, and master of the tricks of nature. He's Orion, Jack the Giant Killer, Robin Hood, Aragorn, Drizzt and the Green Arrow. Its a calling; a duty to serve as guardian of the woodlands. He doesn't worship nature, but he respects it and gains its blessing anyway. Animals are calmed in his presence. He can slip through the woods with great stealth. He is a natural tracker and hunter. He understands his chosen foes and can deliver punishing blows to them. He can command wild beasts to aid him. He can even master simple druidic magic. That is a ranger. Two weapon fighting and archery dovetail nicely with it, but he is FAR MORE than an archer or dual-wielder build to be refluffed into swashbucklers, thieves, and fighters. Why does the ranger want to wear plate? He's defending Helm's Deep from 10,000 orcs? :) If it wasn't a big deal, why remove it? What was gained by removing the last armor type from fighters? If it wasn't broke, why fix it? Great, it took nearly three years to give my elven rogue back his damn shortbow. More reason why I still think Essentials was WotC pulling its head out of its hiney on class design (giving knights plate is another. Noticed the game didn't break giving the fighter plate?) Which was why I called it out. Its always been an option to wear inferior armor than your proficiency allows (esp when armor is expensive) but it seems hard to justify a barbaric paladin coming in with plate armor, training in Diplomacy and History and not survival. I know! I'll make him a Warden and refluff him and call him a paladin. Um... it was because Christian Knighthoods in the Crusades were forbidden to shed blood and thus stuck to bludgeoning maces and hammers. It was totally a fluff rule that suffers the minute you realize clerics of Thor, Loki, Hades, and Orcus all had the same prohibition against shedding blood as Christian knights... Marshal, though its a bit on the weaksauce. It could've used a revision in power, but the concept is sound. The Grey Mouser was a Fighter/Thief. The Lazy Warlord is sitting on the recliner with the Cheetos and the remote (See? I found him!) The Knight did a great job of being a proto-defender. All those concepts are doable, but if you want 100% conversion of the 4e options back to 3e, I remind you I wanted 100% conversion of my platemailed fighter and elven thief with his bow. I already answered what a class is. And yes, 4e did a great job of selling us options in supplements we had before in the core books (See: Druids, Metallic Dragons, and dual-wielding fighters). And I'm not going to argue AD&D is less restrictive, but we had advanced beyond that, didn't we? I can build an armored wizard in 3e (a bunch of different ways too!) I could build a cleric with edged weapons. I could rebuild any of my early 2e (or even basic) characters in 3e and get something resembling what they were before (usually with more options to boot). I can't say I could convert my namesake elven thief from 2e over to 4e and keep his signature two weapons (longsword and short bow) and make him playable. It was a stupid oversight that they fixed in 2010, like a lot of problems they fixed when Essentials came out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.
Top