Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4203376" data-attributes="member: 61449">I am curious what you feel is ad hominem. I strictly stayed away from any personal attacks, I addressed many points of contention with my stance, I even conceded some points. I did restate my position, with examples that were sound, and in the end admitted that I may have been ambitious with my original goal. I did allow a little too much frustration to show through in my text, and if you find that ofensive, I appoligise to you directly ProfessorCirno. While you don't have to close your eyes, pretending is the essence of roleplaying. I will agree that it doesn't make it a 3.x barbarian by class, but this is not the 3.x forum. I am suggesting a way that someone who loves their character can continue to play that character through the edition change. If you do not want this, by all means continue to just complain. My advice will just be useless to you. As I have admitted previously.Agreed. This can be accomplished through various means, with explicit game mechanics being just one. Even the explicit game mechanics of the 3.x Barbarian class did not     guarantee a barbarian character though.I have to commend this player for some obviously fun RPing, but I have to disagree with the assertion that the player actuall made a fighter and pretended that he was a barbarian. He actually played a fighter that pretended he was a barbarian. This is different because the character pretended, not the player. Fun RP none the less, but these are very different things.  Contrary to your assertion, my argument is not that you should ignore mechanics. I argue that you should ignore 3.x mechanics if you are playing 4e. 3.x is non-existent as far as 4e is concerned. I am simply stating that in a RPG, not all options are statted out, nor should they be. It takes a little creativity to connect character concept to game mechanics, but this has aways been the case. To port a character from a different game to 4e, you just need to jettison the mechanical representation of the character and bring in the character itself. Mechanics can be fitted to most any concept, and these mechanics are self contained and internally consistent. To progress, we only need to get over 3.x.EDIT: Alas Graf, you are correct. The entire attempt has failed pretty miserably for many. I have had fun in the attempt though, and I feel like there is much support for my premise. I am utterly optimistic about the options presented in 4e and can hardly wait to try the new rules.</blockquote>

Verification