Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6068139" data-attributes="member: 58416">My point is that I believe being good in one area should cost some ability in a different area.  I also believe -if we're going to have classes- they should also each have an area they are geared toward by default.  I'm perfectly fine with a character being able to choose options which change that default, and I'm also perfectly fine with one class having the ability to dabble in what other classes do.  That being said, some of the posts in this thread (not necessarily by you) and in other related threads seemed to imply that 4th Edition is wrong because it gave a more solid definition to fighters while also allowing for rangers to have theirs.  I may not necessarily like the ideals the game is built upon, but I also don't necessarily view it as a bad thing as a design goal if I'm designing a game which has those two classes as core concepts.  There are also those who responded negatively to the suggestion that they write down ranger on their character sheet, but then simply just roleplay that they are a fighter.  While I agree that there are things unique to a fighter and things unique to a ranger -which I then offered the solution of working something out with the GM- I see no reason why a character needs to refer to himself inside the game world in the same manner than a player talks about the character outside the game world.  My point for bringing that up was to illustrate that there are still options to play the character you want to play.  Behind refluffing, you can ask the GM to allow for some class tweaks; beyond that, there are also the options of multiclassing and/or hybrid classes.  If that's still too much of a straight jacket, then I lean toward feeling the D&D class/race model might not be what is the best fit for the desires of the table.  Going forward, I'm looking at the concepts which were talked about as being fundamental to the next edition.  I think themes and backgrounds were an excellent way to define some of the classes (ranger) while still allowing for the flexibility and customizability that you want out of a fighter class.  It seems reasonable to me that a rogue could take a wilderness package if someone wants a stealthy skirmisher and hunter; a fighter could take a similar package to create a wilderness warrior.  Unfortunately, what I've seen from the latest directions seems to indicate to me that we've moved beyond where doing that would be deemed (by the designers and the community) the way the game should go.  Going back to what I've said previously, I might be inclined to agree that it may have been one edition which 'nerfed the ability of the class to use a bow.'  You're right, that does more it the outlier.  However, it's also the outlier in that it's the only edition in which I felt I could choose fighter as my class and not feel completely useless beyond a certain level of the game.  Which is more important?  That answer is going to vary depending upon who you ask, but it's a question which needs to be asked. Which brings us to the current thread...Is the current state of the fighter the real problem or are there other areas of the game which need to be looked at?  I still argue that other things need to be fixed and that the fighter will improve (as will many other classes) by those other areas of the game receiving better design efforts.  If -after that- the fighter still seems to need work, it should get it, but I feel that the game is currently better served by looking at things as a whole rather than putting such a focus on just one part; a part which may not even really need fixed if some of the larger issues were taken care of.</blockquote>

Verification