Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DM_Blake" data-source="post: 3894137" data-attributes="member: 57267">I'm not sure I understand what you want.The 3.x fighter is not a generic adventurer. He's a generic combatant. He fights well but doesn't do anything else well.I would define &quot;adventurer&quot; as someone who has the abilities to meet many, preferably most, challenges of an adventure. An adventurer should be able to fight, handle traps, find lairs, cast healing and protective magic, and probably also cast other adventuring magic (light, detect magic, find trap, find the path, knock, etc.).Fighters don't fit that role.In fact, no class in the core books fits that role, though bards come fairly close.Since D&amp;D doesn't provide core classes that do all this stuff, they provide a different mechanic: specialized classes joined together as an&nbsp; adventuring party.The party consists of several characters. None of them does &quot;it all&quot;, but each has a role, and all the roles are covered (if the party is a good one). Gaps might be filled with NPCs if necessary, or magic items if needed.So, with this mechanic, every class becomes an adventurer, without being a generic adventurer class.Now, if you want to take 4e, with all its talent trees and character development, and strip that down to create a class like a 3e fighter, or expert, then you're creating a very limited class that can't pull its own weight in the talent-treed 4e adventuring party. I doubt anyone would want to play that. I wouldn't even suggest it to a new player, because it will take no time at all before he feels like he got robbed when he sees what everyone else can do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DM_Blake, post: 3894137, member: 57267"] I'm not sure I understand what you want. The 3.x fighter is not a generic adventurer. He's a generic combatant. He fights well but doesn't do anything else well. I would define "adventurer" as someone who has the abilities to meet many, preferably most, challenges of an adventure. An adventurer should be able to fight, handle traps, find lairs, cast healing and protective magic, and probably also cast other adventuring magic (light, detect magic, find trap, find the path, knock, etc.). Fighters don't fit that role. In fact, no class in the core books fits that role, though bards come fairly close. Since D&D doesn't provide core classes that do all this stuff, they provide a different mechanic: specialized classes joined together as an adventuring party. The party consists of several characters. None of them does "it all", but each has a role, and all the roles are covered (if the party is a good one). Gaps might be filled with NPCs if necessary, or magic items if needed. So, with this mechanic, every class becomes an adventurer, without being a generic adventurer class. Now, if you want to take 4e, with all its talent trees and character development, and strip that down to create a class like a 3e fighter, or expert, then you're creating a very limited class that can't pull its own weight in the talent-treed 4e adventuring party. I doubt anyone would want to play that. I wouldn't even suggest it to a new player, because it will take no time at all before he feels like he got robbed when he sees what everyone else can do. [/QUOTE]

Verification