Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 3973252" data-attributes="member: 54846">Emphasis mine.If limitations existed before, and they're being put back in, then they're not taking limitations from MMOs because limitations existed before.2e thieves had serious limitations. Namely, they were useless in a fight. 2e Clerics had limitations, namely that they had to prepare those healing spells, and they really didn't do much else. That also sounds like narrowing the focus of classes, to me. 3e had limitations too. 1) We don't know if the Ranger is forced to take Forest Man skills/powers, or if the Woodsy stuff will be a talent tree or other option. You may have options like 'Be Survivalist Man, or be Deadeye Archer Man'. 2) I'm not sure about armor proficiencies. I mean, it kinda breaks versimilitude if the archer is standing there in full plate. Most archers, you know, want to move around and find cover, not stand out in the middle of the field like a Panzer. Mobility is important otherwise you get rushed, and someone takes AoOs on you for using a bow in melee.3) Skills. If Fighters had to be just as good at archery, that means they need access to archery-related skills: Perception and Stealth, so they can Spot what they're shooting at from their distance, and either move in on it or hide so they can snipe. That doesn't sound very much like a fighter to me. And if the fighter got the Perception and the Stealth, and he was good with a bow and a sword... what's the point of being a ranger? So you can wield two weapons really good? Wait, what if the fighter wants to do that? So if a fighter can be great at everything... what's left for the ranger?  Eh? I don't understand "Arcane magic would have its bard". The book says, and I quote:Sounds like a bard's primary offensive abilities are illusions and enchantments.</blockquote>

Verification