Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4536703" data-attributes="member: 63272">Vyvyan answered this well.  That's how you bring a concept to life - in any edition.  No rules system, not even the versatile 3e, can possibly cover every concept with its own set of unique mechanics.  Stretching things to fit varying concepts is a core part of character creation in any RPG.  3e was all about ignoring the fluff and grabbing the mechanics to fit your own fluff.  Picking up barbarian at 5th level for the movement boost and rage is ignoring the fluff of the class.No, its called change.  Converting from any edition to any edition there are things that don't fit the molds of that edition and require a bit of retooling.  That's not poor design.  At each new edition, decisions are made on what to include.  Not everyone will be happy with those choices. That's life.Some wanted them to do just that, others would think it was a complete slaughter of a very sacred cow (classes). What is the point of playing a second fighter with different weapons when it all comes down to full attack, full attack, full attack?  Play what you want.  Much of the difference between certain character types have always been little more than flavor differences.  In other editions of D&D, spells all act within the same general set of rules.  Doing divine and fire damage with flamestrike is not really any different than doing fire damage with several wizard spells.  Just the numbers change a bit, the look is flavor.  If a player chooses blandness in his presentation of his actions, that's his choice.  But, take a spell, change its look, damage types, targets and you have an entirely different spell.  Heck, that's the basis of three quarters of the spells in any edition of the game, they're just reflavorings of other spells with a boost in power and a different look.  The earlier splatbooks didn't often present entirely new mechanics.  New classes were just focused differently, with different skill choices, some unique feats maybe, set spell lists of existing spells with a few new ones, but they worked just like other classes.  Warmages cast spells just like sorcerers, and those spells use the same general rules from the Magic chapter.  It was later that they started introducing whole new systems of magic and other new mechanics and those met with a lot of mixed reaction.  Some loved new sub systems, more room for rules mastery, more options, etc.  Others hated them and saw it as a big area of rules creep (I was in the latter category).  Right now, 4e, like previous editions, is all about one set of rules to rule them all.  Maybe down the road, it will go with the different mechanical subsystems.  Maybe they won't.  I hope the latter.Neither was the guy you quoted.  And I didn't say "mere flavor changes".  There are lots of ways to approach concepts.  I think the tendency of some has been to see 4e as limited in options for characters and I don't feel its that limited at all.  3e was very versatile, but that has certainly not been a core design component throughout D&Ds history.  It's history has been quite rigid and there wasn't this idea that every concept had to be represented by a unique character class/prestige class with extremely liberal multiclassing.  You simply made the mechanics fit the concept.  We've always done this and its very doable in 4e.</blockquote>

Verification