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: 6078667" data-attributes="member: 7635">Agreed, the Essential's ranger does a great job AT BEING A RANGER. It wouldn't cut the mustard if you asked it to be rogue though, which is my problem with the refluffing movement. Seriously? Its not a direct quote ("master of combat" got used in several edition)Yeah, 2e went stupid and removed some options that 3e restored. Something about even numbered editions? Bar in mind that "fighter" is a profession, but not necessarily a job. A fighter was trained by someone (probably someone with military training) in his profession, but he can take jobs as a mobster, soldier, mercenary, knight, gladiator, or whatever. To whit: I'm a teacher, which is my profession. But my job is to teach English and drama in a High school. Good. We agree that there were some real bone-headed choices. Yeah, as you know my 4e is rusty. I just used it as another example of refluffing X to make it something its not. It can't be a balance rule, since its origin was in Original D&D and all weapons in OD&D do the same damage dice (1d6) regardless of size and type. Different weapon dice is an optional rule that comes later. There's no balance issue; it was a fluff rule from inception.  I get him and his buddy mixed up. Never much of a Lankhmar fan. Oh, I hated the class. But it was an obscure class in a late era supplement and it was easy to ban and ignore. Not so with one of the cornerstone classes of D&D. The character is retired, having reached max level. Feel free to see what you can do (barring in mind he's 20th at last blush).Remathilis[ATTACH]56117[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification