PrecociousApprentice
First Post
muffin_of_chaos said:
Yeah, I think that it rocks, I was mostly being over-dramatic.
D&D 4E Character conversion problems for 4e (Short Essay)
- Thread starter PrecociousApprentice
- Start date
Yeah, I think that it rocks, I was mostly being over-dramatic.
Barbarian
The UA version was a fighter-type with very slow advancement (slower than a Magic-User), lots of HP, faster movement, better AC in non-bulky armor, and a bunch of proto-proficiencies (this is before non-weapon proficiencies), as well as some things that were like thieving abilities. They had a lot of the abilities and attitudes of the Forsaker in 3E (ability to hit creatures with immunity to various level of magical and non-magical weapons, save bonuses).
They had no "Rage" ability. I think that comes from the 2nd ed "Berserker" kit.
Barbarian was originally a class in Dragon, which was re-printed (slightly changed) in Unearthed Arcana (1st ed AD&D). If you're referring to OD&D, then you've forgotten the Halfling class.katahn said:Prior to 3e, in fact even prior to 2e, there was only "fighter" (well, ok, there was "elf", and "dwarf" too).
The UA version was a fighter-type with very slow advancement (slower than a Magic-User), lots of HP, faster movement, better AC in non-bulky armor, and a bunch of proto-proficiencies (this is before non-weapon proficiencies), as well as some things that were like thieving abilities. They had a lot of the abilities and attitudes of the Forsaker in 3E (ability to hit creatures with immunity to various level of magical and non-magical weapons, save bonuses).
They had no "Rage" ability. I think that comes from the 2nd ed "Berserker" kit.
Last edited:
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
To bring up the bard again, I was thinking about the iconic bards from literature that I know, and my favorite one is Thom Merrilin from Wheel of Time. I think that no-one who has read those stories would say that Thom is not a bard, but no one would ever stat him out as the 3.x bard class. He never did anything during combat that was bard-like. He did do a massive amount of stuff out of combat that was bard-like. Combat is just one facet of your character, and it appears that class really mostly applies to combat now. What a fantastic relief.
BaenEndkind
First Post
Just one quick note on ranged weapons, where does it say that a Warlord for instance COULDN'T use ranged weapons? Their is a big difference between being able to use ranged weapons and being good with them. If a charachter in 3ed wanted to be as good at ranged weapons as the ranger, they had to take feats. In 4th it will come down to that as well.
So yes, you can have a warlord that focuses on using ranged weapons (I remember one of his powers form a while back was allowing everyone to make a ranged attack against an opponent, so thematically it would make sense as an archer captain even) but he would be losing out on using his melee powers by doing so. Taking feats however to multiclass in some ranger powers and you will have a strong ranged leader that can still be deadly at close.
So yes, you can have a warlord that focuses on using ranged weapons (I remember one of his powers form a while back was allowing everyone to make a ranged attack against an opponent, so thematically it would make sense as an archer captain even) but he would be losing out on using his melee powers by doing so. Taking feats however to multiclass in some ranger powers and you will have a strong ranged leader that can still be deadly at close.
muffin_of_chaos
First Post
The problem, BaenEndkind, that they have is that the Warlord's powers that we've seen are all melee-based.
Of course, they could just change it to include ranged in their game, but they don't want to. Because they think that the new PHB should have forty or fifty playtested and balanced classes to cover the gamut of what players want.
Of course, they could just change it to include ranged in their game, but they don't want to. Because they think that the new PHB should have forty or fifty playtested and balanced classes to cover the gamut of what players want.
BaenEndkind
First Post
The lack of powers does not mean they can not fire a bow for instance, just that they won't be good at it. With multiclassing power swap feats they can exchange a ranger power in. So technically a Warlord with ranged effectiveness is COMPLETELY viable in game, just not as good as a Ranger with archery focus. Remember, basic attacks can still be made with whatever weapon you wish, they will just be without any large bonuses.
GnomeWorks
Adventurer
raven_dark64 said:
Fail.
At this hypothetical table, the point of playing an unusual character or something that isn't a flipping Gandalf-ripoff is because I am tired of these sereotypes. I don't do it to be "more special" than everyone else, I do it because I want to explore something different from what's been explored hundreds of times before.
PrecociousApprentice
First Post
Different is the new same.
Another case were it would be nice if the existing archetypes would be dropped for less flavourful, more meaningful names.
This is partially a cross post. I've not read most of this thread, as I already agree with the OP, for the most part. What is missing. from the mechanics so far, is the ability to be 50/50.
Personally, I'm ok with that missing. It shouldn't, IMO, work, anyway. Its too ineffectual.
WRT my original statement, however..
Martial Defender (Not 'fighter')
Divine Defender (Not 'paladin')
Stealthy Melee Striker (Not 'rogue')
Specialist Melee Striker (Not 'ranger')
Arcane Striker (Not 'warlock')
Arcane Controller (not 'wizard')
Divine Leader (Not 'cleric')
Martial Leader (Not 'warlord')
Due to (Intelligent, IMO) way that WOTC have structured the classes, we have a fairly large amount of character flexibility.
Unfortunately, they persisted in holding onto names that have a large amount of history, and while I understand their reasons, it was still, IMO, a poor decision, as it locks the fluff behind fantasy archetypes into the combat archetype.. which need not be similiar at all.
Things like the Barbarian/Berzerker comments above only demonstrate how serious a problem this is.
For one, the class definately should have been called Berzerker, under the 3.5 system. I suspect it was politics/history that caused this, personally.
Lastly, somebody who can enter a rage is rare. They don't make up whole villages, for instance. A bloodlust is self destructive.
Even better, once you seperate the concept of the role away from the fantasy archetype, you can successfully create Berzerkers like Rhodry Maelwaedd.
A high-born lord, charismatic, intelligent and personable, who was a berzerker on the field of battle.
This is partially a cross post. I've not read most of this thread, as I already agree with the OP, for the most part. What is missing. from the mechanics so far, is the ability to be 50/50.
Personally, I'm ok with that missing. It shouldn't, IMO, work, anyway. Its too ineffectual.
WRT my original statement, however..
Martial Defender (Not 'fighter')
Divine Defender (Not 'paladin')
Stealthy Melee Striker (Not 'rogue')
Specialist Melee Striker (Not 'ranger')
Arcane Striker (Not 'warlock')
Arcane Controller (not 'wizard')
Divine Leader (Not 'cleric')
Martial Leader (Not 'warlord')
Due to (Intelligent, IMO) way that WOTC have structured the classes, we have a fairly large amount of character flexibility.
Unfortunately, they persisted in holding onto names that have a large amount of history, and while I understand their reasons, it was still, IMO, a poor decision, as it locks the fluff behind fantasy archetypes into the combat archetype.. which need not be similiar at all.
Things like the Barbarian/Berzerker comments above only demonstrate how serious a problem this is.
For one, the class definately should have been called Berzerker, under the 3.5 system. I suspect it was politics/history that caused this, personally.
Lastly, somebody who can enter a rage is rare. They don't make up whole villages, for instance. A bloodlust is self destructive.
Even better, once you seperate the concept of the role away from the fantasy archetype, you can successfully create Berzerkers like Rhodry Maelwaedd.
A high-born lord, charismatic, intelligent and personable, who was a berzerker on the field of battle.
