Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 4536746" data-attributes="member: 1879">This is kind of missing the point. Of course I can make my own class out of whole cloth or by mutating an existing class, but it sure as heck ain't RAW, and if won't fly past many GMs.The question was &quot;What could you do in an earlier edition you an't do in 4e?&quot; The answer is druids/nature priests.Another answer is make an effective unarmed fighter. (I'm aware of the online stopgap solution, it's still not core book material.)It's deceptive I think to insist that mechanics don't matter in terms of characters. If you squint hard enough almost any PC can be described as an air breathing humanoid who 'does stuff'. So what? That also describe Pee Wee Herman and Alf. Let's suppose that you want to make an agile Spear weilding fighter who wears light armour but uses speed and reach to stay out of harms way.No edition of D&amp;D really supports that fully due to the AC system. But you could make him in any edition. In 1st and 2nd ed he'd be a patsy using a fighting style the game didn't support well. In 3rd he'd be a semi-viable character but far from optimal. The 'stand still' feat and combat reflexes would at least help. In 4e he'd either be a fighter or a ranger, but either way suboptimal since as a ranger few of his powers would work well and as a fighter he'd be great at keeping foes off of others but lousy at self defence until he finally manages to get polearm gambit. So the difference between the editions might not ever effect the idea of 'guy with light armour and a spear' but they portray it very differently mechanically. To say those mechanical differences don't matter is disingenuous at best.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andor, post: 4536746, member: 1879"] This is kind of missing the point. Of course I can make my own class out of whole cloth or by mutating an existing class, but it sure as heck ain't RAW, and if won't fly past many GMs. The question was "What could you do in an earlier edition you an't do in 4e?" The answer is druids/nature priests. Another answer is make an effective unarmed fighter. (I'm aware of the online stopgap solution, it's still not core book material.) It's deceptive I think to insist that mechanics don't matter in terms of characters. If you squint hard enough almost any PC can be described as an air breathing humanoid who 'does stuff'. So what? That also describe Pee Wee Herman and Alf. Let's suppose that you want to make an agile Spear weilding fighter who wears light armour but uses speed and reach to stay out of harms way. No edition of D&D really supports that fully due to the AC system. But you could make him in any edition. In 1st and 2nd ed he'd be a patsy using a fighting style the game didn't support well. In 3rd he'd be a semi-viable character but far from optimal. The 'stand still' feat and combat reflexes would at least help. In 4e he'd either be a fighter or a ranger, but either way suboptimal since as a ranger few of his powers would work well and as a fighter he'd be great at keeping foes off of others but lousy at self defence until he finally manages to get polearm gambit. So the difference between the editions might not ever effect the idea of 'guy with light armour and a spear' but they portray it very differently mechanically. To say those mechanical differences don't matter is disingenuous at best. [/QUOTE]

Verification