Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 4202403" data-attributes="member: 65637">Stop being asinine.  The complaint is a legitimate one.  They want to make a support character with ranged weapons, and can't.No, it's not a bard, druid, or barbarian.  I'll go with the bard example.  The wizard/warlord has absolutely nothing that's even vaugely bard-like.  At all.  He's a warlord who also knows some magic.  That isn't a bard.  It's...ready?  A warlock that knows magic.Because having to "metagame constructs" is stupid.  LARPing is the same as the bard - you aren't a magical wizard running through a psuedo-medieval world, you're a guy in a funny robe throwing bean bags at people in your back yard.  In that same manner, a wizard/warlord isn't a bard, though it could be a warlord who just occasionally sings off-key.  But again, that's not a bard.The game should work with the players, not against it.  When the game fails at providing the players with what they want, it's done just that - failed.  Now, I'm not using "failed" in a completely negative sense, because D&D also can't provide me with the kind of gameplay Unknown Armies does, and I'm fine with that - that's why Unknown Armies exists.  Furthermore, Wizards is fine with that, because that's not a branch of gameplay they're interested in.  Hey, we're both winners there.  But why should I play fourth edition if it doesn't provide me with the kind of gameplay I want from it?  That's the issue.  Especially when 4e is SUPPOSED to provide me with that gameplay.First off, I'm not demanding anything.  Wizards doesn't have to do a damn thing I say.  In fact, they probably don't even know I exist.  Every single person who's even vaguely affiliated with WotC could go their entire lives without seeing a single word I type out, and hey, I'm fine with that.  What I am trying to do is explain the argument.Secondly, a bard isn't just a "a mostly martial character that inspires his comrades to greatness and occasionally shows some arcane power."  The idea of a bard, even long before 3.x, had some stuff surrounding it, and the wizard/warlord combo doesn't match any of it.Again, character concepts shouldn't just be easily possible - they should be pre-existent.  You shouldn't have to add super glue made of BS in order to make your class work, unless it's something extremely dumb, like "I want a ninja who farts fire and uses two greatswords and has full wizard casting abilities."Yes, too many character choices brought about some of the biggest flaws in 3.x, but those flaws weren't caused by the sheer number of options, those flaws were caused by books being used together when they hadn't been intended to do such.  More options is always a good thing, because it allows players to better represent their character.  If I had to choose between the swashbuckler class or making a dual classed rogue-fighter who purposefully gimps himself by not wearing heavy armor and has absolutely no abilities that even begin to suggest the wonderfully pulp class I love, I'm going to choose the actual class.Maybe it's just me.  Maybe I'm the only one that thinks it's lame I can't roll up the class that's been core for a decade.  But, well, I don't think it's just me.</blockquote>

Verification