Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pentius" data-source="post: 5677679" data-attributes="member: 6676736">I don't 'get' this.&nbsp; There's no Martial Striker Reference Section.&nbsp; There's no Defender Chapter.&nbsp; Under Fighter, there's a line telling you that Fighters were designed to be tough melee guys.&nbsp; And think that's the difference in how I see it from how you see it.&nbsp; When I see &quot;Defender&quot; or &quot;Controller&quot; I don't think of it as a pigeon holing, or hard coding what a class can do.&nbsp; I see it as the designers saying, &quot;So, hey, here is what we had in mind when designing this, just so you know where we're coming from.&quot;&nbsp; And here, let me lay out an example situation.You want to make a swashbuckler type character.&nbsp; So you take a Fighter, you give him high dexterity and lighter or no armor.&nbsp; You give him, let's say a rapier.&nbsp; You maybe look at some fiddly bits that give more mobility or whatever.&nbsp; Maybe another player suggests that a Rogue or Ranger might be a better class to make a swashbuckler from.&nbsp; But Fighter can do it.&nbsp; You might find it beneficial to look to some splat book for more fiddly bits, but you can build it out of the PHB.&nbsp; The splat book's fiddly bits are just icing on the cake.So, here's the thing.&nbsp; That example, that could be 3.x or 4e, either one.&nbsp; Probably Pathfinder, too, but I don't really know Pathfinder very well.&nbsp; I know PF doesn't have a lot of splat, but you mentioned the core, and the APG.&nbsp; I know a book called Ultimate Combat is out there somewhere, I imagine it has at least one fiddly bit a swashbuckler might like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pentius, post: 5677679, member: 6676736"] I don't 'get' this. There's no Martial Striker Reference Section. There's no Defender Chapter. Under Fighter, there's a line telling you that Fighters were designed to be tough melee guys. And think that's the difference in how I see it from how you see it. When I see "Defender" or "Controller" I don't think of it as a pigeon holing, or hard coding what a class can do. I see it as the designers saying, "So, hey, here is what we had in mind when designing this, just so you know where we're coming from." And here, let me lay out an example situation. You want to make a swashbuckler type character. So you take a Fighter, you give him high dexterity and lighter or no armor. You give him, let's say a rapier. You maybe look at some fiddly bits that give more mobility or whatever. Maybe another player suggests that a Rogue or Ranger might be a better class to make a swashbuckler from. But Fighter can do it. You might find it beneficial to look to some splat book for more fiddly bits, but you can build it out of the PHB. The splat book's fiddly bits are just icing on the cake. So, here's the thing. That example, that could be 3.x or 4e, either one. Probably Pathfinder, too, but I don't really know Pathfinder very well. I know PF doesn't have a lot of splat, but you mentioned the core, and the APG. I know a book called Ultimate Combat is out there somewhere, I imagine it has at least one fiddly bit a swashbuckler might like. [/QUOTE]

Verification