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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5358588" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, then what happens when my magic user picks up a sword? He CANNOT DO IT by any rules prior to 3e (well, perhaps some 2e character option, I don't know). Even in OD&D he simply CANNOT swing the sword, there is a VOID in the rules there because the rules say he can only use a dagger, staff, or sling (IIRC). This is FINE as long as your 'pirate M.U.' doesn't want to be flavored with using some other weapon now and then.You're talking about refluffing within the mechanics, which can be done with ANY edition of D&D, though 4e is more careful to avoid making assumptions about fluff in its mechanics than 3.x or AD&D was. In OD&D (and mostly in BECMI) the mechanics were so thin that it rarely presented a problem.Well, I'll stay away from skill questions as that isn't really on topic, but NO the 'peltast' CANNOT move silently, there is no rule for it. You can't use a DEX check either because there IS a rule for thieves to move silently and if you use your DEX check to do it then you're stepping all over the thief (rogue in 2e). His chance to do it is quite a lot less than a DEX check would give him (or maybe more in some cases). Thus there is a giant gulf in the rules when it comes to what anyone EXCEPT a thief can do WRT to all the theif's class feature based abilities. Of course if you play pre-Greyhawk OD&D there IS no thief, but I think that is a bit beside the point.I think that is totally untrue. I think the problem is that EVEN OD&D has already added a very large number of things that ONLY a specific class can do. You thus can't really put together different features in a modular way and get the character type you want. You can be a fighter and in OD&D indeed you can fluff that fighter almost however you want, etc. but you CANNOT have a sneaky fighter, or a fighter that can climb a wall, or Wizard that uses a sword, etc. Some of those things you can sort of clunkily achieve in AD&D with multi-classing at the cost of being a specific race, etc. In fact if you bring race into the equation AT ALL with any of those systems you're talking being HIGHLY restricted. You CANNOT make a dwarf wizard, it is simply forbidden. Again you can toss out those rules (race/class restrictions and level limits) but they did exist for a reason, at least to some extent (making humans a worthwhile race to play).Pretty much ALL of those issues are dealt with by 4e (and they were dealt with in 3.x as well, though some might say more or less elegantly).Essentials removes flexibility that existed in core 4e. Classes are now 'baked in' to certain features and can't vary them. That narrows the amount of conceptual space each class can occupy. I cannot make an Essentials ranger that is a veteran archer of the king's army because he HAS to be some kind of woods roving guy. It is baked into his class. The core 4e PHB1 Ranger has NO such restriction, he's basically just a bow/two-weapon using warrior. His other characteristics are pretty much whatever you want and the 'Ranger' label is just a name to put on the sheet so you know where to look up the rules you're using for that character. The same can be said for most of the other core 4e classes. They each certainly have limits and a minor wart or two as far as that kind of thing goes like the Ranger MUST take either Dungeoneering or Nature by RAW, but the concept was fairly well executed. The Essentials classes are MUCH MUCH more pigeonholed. In that respect Essentials is purely a step backwards.Now, if they continue to coexist on an equal footing then there's no real issue. We can all have what we want, and if Slayer suites your character concept then added flexibility there is not wanted or needed, so fine. OTOH the core classes are nice in that if you really want to have your concept evolve over time you can do it. Honestly though it isn't a big deal.</blockquote>

Verification