Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Expanding Roles - was Dropping Roles
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5006187" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Well, others have already mentioned the invalidity of the concept that NPCs say anything about classed PLAYER CHARACTERS at all, but I add my voice to that. The NPCs on the wall are NPCs, they don't follow class rules and in any case even if they WERE classed what makes you think they use anything but MBAs?</p><p></p><p>Rangers and Rogues are NOT "highly specialized", that's ridiculous. Both classes can use either ranged and/or melee combat powers quite effectively, thank you. Beyond that you just illustrated what I was saying in my previous post PERFECTLY. You need to stop being fixated by the names of the classes. An urban non-light weapon martial striker is perfectly well modeled by the ranger class. Only your inability to let go of Ranger = Guy in the Woods stops you from doing that. What class feature do rangers have that forces them to be non-urban type characters? WotC went to great lengths in fact to allow for exactly these kinds of uses of the ranger class by leaving out anything that forces you to tie them to a rural sort of background. They don't even have TRACKING as a class feature for crying out loud! Same with Rogues, there's nothing specific to the class that ties it to one type of environment or background, they are just light weapon experts (which admittedly is best explained by use of weapons in an urban setting, but that's NOT the fault of the class design). </p><p></p><p>Admittedly the fluff for both of these classes generically describes them in certain terms and the names are evocative of a certain sort of background, but can you really not see past that? The 4e designers wanted to provide a visualization for each class that would let someone new to the class easily create a character concept. They had to describe it in SOME fashion, yet they assiduously avoided mechanically pigeonholing them. The issue isn't the game, its the way people are using it. The presentation may have encouraged this issue but they never expected you to be chained to that fluff.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5006187, member: 82106"] Well, others have already mentioned the invalidity of the concept that NPCs say anything about classed PLAYER CHARACTERS at all, but I add my voice to that. The NPCs on the wall are NPCs, they don't follow class rules and in any case even if they WERE classed what makes you think they use anything but MBAs? Rangers and Rogues are NOT "highly specialized", that's ridiculous. Both classes can use either ranged and/or melee combat powers quite effectively, thank you. Beyond that you just illustrated what I was saying in my previous post PERFECTLY. You need to stop being fixated by the names of the classes. An urban non-light weapon martial striker is perfectly well modeled by the ranger class. Only your inability to let go of Ranger = Guy in the Woods stops you from doing that. What class feature do rangers have that forces them to be non-urban type characters? WotC went to great lengths in fact to allow for exactly these kinds of uses of the ranger class by leaving out anything that forces you to tie them to a rural sort of background. They don't even have TRACKING as a class feature for crying out loud! Same with Rogues, there's nothing specific to the class that ties it to one type of environment or background, they are just light weapon experts (which admittedly is best explained by use of weapons in an urban setting, but that's NOT the fault of the class design). Admittedly the fluff for both of these classes generically describes them in certain terms and the names are evocative of a certain sort of background, but can you really not see past that? The 4e designers wanted to provide a visualization for each class that would let someone new to the class easily create a character concept. They had to describe it in SOME fashion, yet they assiduously avoided mechanically pigeonholing them. The issue isn't the game, its the way people are using it. The presentation may have encouraged this issue but they never expected you to be chained to that fluff. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Expanding Roles - was Dropping Roles
Top