Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cryptos" data-source="post: 4538073" data-attributes="member: 58439">I don't think anyone here is arguing that 4e is perfect.The main source of frustration we're experiencing here is people who say &quot;I want a Fighter that runs around and shoots people with arrows.&quot;&nbsp; And we're saying, &quot;Ok, you use the Ranger class.&nbsp; You don't have to take the Nature skill.&nbsp; You don't have to have an animal companion.&nbsp; You don't even have to like elves or even trees.&nbsp; An archery ranger is just someone who uses the tactics of an archer.&quot;That's not quite the same as saying 4e is perfect, although there are many here that are arguing they feel 4e is better.With Rogue and Star Pact Warlock there was a bit of a backwards design approach, in my personal opinion... they have a really, really good class feature/ability (Sneak Attack or Fate of the Void, respectively.)&nbsp; Rather than making that one ability less good, they balanced the whole class on that one ability (very limited weapon choices to work with powers or SA for the Rogue, or Star Pact being the only one of four pacts that has to split their primary ability scores if they want to stay &quot;pure&quot;.)&nbsp; Instead, they could have, as an example, added a line to Sneak Attack and said &quot;You can only use Sneak Attack on a target within X squares of you&quot; so that you didn't have sniper sneak attacks.&nbsp; Instead, they could have, as an example, limited how much of a bonus you can stack up at once, perhaps by tier, for Fate of the Void.&nbsp; But for one of eight classes and one of a couple dozen build options, they went to a weird place and balanced a whole class according to one ability instead of changing that one ability.Taken as a percentage of the whole, they did pretty well.&nbsp; For the most part, they didn't take that very weird approach with every class (thankfully.) And even saying that they may have gotten some things wrong does not mean that the main point of this thread (that you can recreate most character concepts - not mechanics) is wrong.&nbsp; You can.&nbsp; Overall, they did a good job mechanically so that someone can use those mechanics and create their concept.&nbsp; The warrior with a bow might not be called a Fighter, but he's a warrior with a bow.&nbsp; There are just a few odd bits here and there.&nbsp; This thread isn't so much about the fact that a few things were done in a weird (or wrong) way, but about letting go off the meanings of class names from past editions and building your concept with the class that is right for that concept in 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cryptos, post: 4538073, member: 58439"] I don't think anyone here is arguing that 4e is [I]perfect.[/I] The main source of frustration we're experiencing here is people who say "I want a Fighter that runs around and shoots people with arrows." And we're saying, "Ok, you use the Ranger class. You don't have to take the Nature skill. You don't have to have an animal companion. You don't even have to like elves or even trees. An archery ranger is just someone who uses the tactics of an archer." That's not quite the same as saying 4e is [I]perfect[/I], although there are many here that are arguing they feel 4e is [I]better[/I]. With Rogue and Star Pact Warlock there was a bit of a backwards design approach, [I]in my personal opinion[/I]... they have a really, really good class feature/ability (Sneak Attack or Fate of the Void, respectively.) Rather than making that one ability less good, they balanced the whole class on that one ability (very limited weapon choices to work with powers or SA for the Rogue, or Star Pact being the only one of four pacts that has to split their primary ability scores if they want to stay "pure".) Instead, they could have, as an example, added a line to Sneak Attack and said "You can only use Sneak Attack on a target within X squares of you" so that you didn't have sniper sneak attacks. Instead, they could have, as an example, limited how much of a bonus you can stack up at once, perhaps by tier, for Fate of the Void. But for one of eight classes and one of a couple dozen build options, they went to a weird place and balanced a whole class according to one ability instead of changing that one ability. Taken as a percentage of the whole, they did pretty well. For the most part, they didn't take that very weird approach with every class (thankfully.) And even saying that they may have gotten some things wrong does not mean that the main point of this thread (that you [I]can[/I] recreate [I]most[/I] character [I]concepts[/I] - not [I]mechanics[/I]) is wrong. You can. Overall, they did a good job mechanically so that someone can use those mechanics and create their concept. The warrior with a bow might not be called a Fighter, but he's a warrior with a bow. There are just a few odd bits here and there. This thread isn't so much about the fact that a few things were done in a weird (or wrong) way, but about letting go off the meanings of class names from past editions and building your concept with the class that is right for that concept in 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification