Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4536244" data-attributes="member: 7635">So the answer to creating a specific concept in 4e is...a.) Use an already existing rule in the game and change its physical appearance.b.) Have a friendly DM house rule it (and hope your DM isn't a RAW stickler)c.) Ignore all the pre-existing fluff in the game.Wow. Thanks guys. Guess I don't need those supplements after all... If the answer to How do I play a viable concept from previous CORE RULES versions of D&amp;D is &quot;You can't, but you can look like you are.&quot; that smacks of poor design process. I understand they had limited space in the PHB and they needed to sell Martial Power, PHB 2, and D&amp;Di subscriptions, but some of these ideas (fighters and rogues who can't use bows with their powers, non-damaging magical attacks) just seem arbitrary and superficial.And I'm not sure I like the &quot;a fighter who uses a bow is really a ranger&quot; idea. If that were really true, they should have just gone with generic classes and generic powers (like Mutants &amp; Masterminds did). Unfortunately, a ranger comes with baggage a fighter doesn't (such class skill selection) and doesn't come with things I want (like fighter hp) so I'm stuck.And this is coming from someone who LIKES 4e!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 4536244, member: 7635"] So the answer to creating a specific concept in 4e is... a.) Use an already existing rule in the game and change its physical appearance. b.) Have a friendly DM house rule it (and hope your DM isn't a RAW stickler) c.) Ignore all the pre-existing fluff in the game. Wow. Thanks guys. Guess I don't need those supplements after all... If the answer to How do I play a viable concept from previous CORE RULES versions of D&D is "You can't, but you can look like you are." that smacks of poor design process. I understand they had limited space in the PHB and they needed to sell Martial Power, PHB 2, and D&Di subscriptions, but some of these ideas (fighters and rogues who can't use bows with their powers, non-damaging magical attacks) just seem arbitrary and superficial. And I'm not sure I like the "a fighter who uses a bow is really a ranger" idea. If that were really true, they should have just gone with generic classes and generic powers (like Mutants & Masterminds did). Unfortunately, a ranger comes with baggage a fighter doesn't (such class skill selection) and doesn't come with things I want (like fighter hp) so I'm stuck. And this is coming from someone who LIKES 4e! [/QUOTE]

Verification