Wolfspider said:Amusing enough, but also really quite unfair to the people who are complaining about "pigeon-holing."
Their opinions are nowhere near this silly.

Wolfspider said:Amusing enough, but also really quite unfair to the people who are complaining about "pigeon-holing."
Their opinions are nowhere near this silly.
This is illusory. Its like arguing that the Fighter is a more diverse class than the Warblade because the Fighter can use ranged weapons. Its true that the fighter has the option of ranged weapons while the Warblade does not (unless he spends a feat), but the only way it makes sense is if you disallow consideration of the Warblade's maneuvers.Arkhandus said:Yeah. Never you mind that the 3.0 PHB had fewer pages and allowed for several different kinds of rogue, fighter, ranger, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, monk, etc. :\
Cadfan said:This is how I see this forum:
Imagine taking the 3e rogue. Give it a first level choice of +1 hit point per level or +5 feet of movement. Call the first one "thuggish rogue" and the second one "fleet rogue." This forum would then shriek that they DO NOT WANT to be pigeonholed into thuggish or fleet characters- they want to go back to the good old days when they had ALL KINDS of rogues they could play. The idea of playing exactly the same rogue they did before except now with an extra ability simply would not occur to them.
This language would be going too far. Just too far.Wolfspider said:So, in other words, you think they're idiots, unable to "simply" accept this way of looking at the rogue?
Everyone who wants very specific campaign restrictions or should be doing serious considerations of the rules that they will be using. The example of the "swimming pro" is one involving a very high level character. The idea of the general skill bonus is that the DM can create difficult situations that do not hopelessly leave behind most PCs and that give PCs a feeling of competence commensurate with a certain general fantasy approach.I think the problem many people are having is that this new "special ability" that they have to choose may not fit into their character concept at all. For some people, it is hard to simply ignore an ability (like a non-thieving rogue automatically having the ability to steal things or a desert-born character being able to swim like a pro) if it flies in the face of character concept.
The real problem, as Cadfan has pointed out, is that people are demanding things from D&D 4E that no game system can provide.Of course, all this has been explained before and better than I can, so I guess you'll just lump me in with the folks who have cognitive problems.
mach1.9pants said:Sorry, you only get 6 skills, 2(thievery and stealth) + four others- in total
Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity)
Raduin711 said:Take another look!![]()
Stealth and thievery
plus four others.
From the class list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.
I wouldn't assume that's a typo. How else would you expect to get cross class skills in 4e?
You're only fooling yourself. You don't go into 3e and say "I want to build X" and then try to make fighter or rogue or wizard work with that concept. You look at the classes first, digest the rules, then determine what you can play based on that.
DSRilk said:I agree with many of your points. Not this one, however. I pretty much always come up with a concept first.
Kwalish Kid said:This language would be going too far. Just too far.