Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voss" data-source="post: 3946746" data-attributes="member: 57593">No, I'm not. I've never seen a classless system that was, in my view, any good in any way at all.This isn't a matter of fluff.&nbsp; This is the design team saying 'Fighters can't be awesome with bows, just because we said so.&nbsp; Neener, neener, neener!'&nbsp; Really, I'm not just being snide.&nbsp; They seem to have designed the fighter to be a master of weapons, but then went back and pulled certain weapons out, saying 'But not *these* weapons'.&nbsp; At least thats what having warhammer derived abilities, spear based abilities (and sword and axe) says to me.&nbsp; You get to the next weapon group (bows, or daggers), and suddenly its, oh, we didn't write those abilities for you, Mr. Fighter.&nbsp; Your mastery of weapons is limited to what we give you.Same with trapfinding in 3e.&nbsp; It was tied to the rogue (at least to begin with), but there wasn't any fluff reason why it couldn't have been a feat, or, you know, as it is in other d20 based games, just part of the search skill.&nbsp; It was an arbitrary design decision.@captaincursor- Nope.&nbsp; Frankly, we have no indication that the woodsman/archer thing is a separate 'tree'.&nbsp; It what few hints we've gotten suggest that its a woodsy guy who can select archery powers (or TWF powers).&nbsp; There hasn't been any indication that you can opt out of the rural tracking woodsy abilities.&nbsp; So its not the name.&nbsp; Its that these specific abilities (woodsman) are packaged with those specific abilities (good archery).&nbsp; And, because rangers have good archery abilities, fighters can't.&nbsp; Much like Wizards losing a lot of enchantment stuff so psions can have design space.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voss, post: 3946746, member: 57593"] No, I'm not. I've never seen a classless system that was, in my view, any good in any way at all. This isn't a matter of fluff. This is the design team saying 'Fighters can't be awesome with bows, just because we said so. Neener, neener, neener!' Really, I'm not just being snide. They seem to have designed the fighter to be a master of weapons, but then went back and pulled certain weapons out, saying 'But not *these* weapons'. At least thats what having warhammer derived abilities, spear based abilities (and sword and axe) says to me. You get to the next weapon group (bows, or daggers), and suddenly its, oh, we didn't write those abilities for you, Mr. Fighter. Your mastery of weapons is limited to what we give you. Same with trapfinding in 3e. It was tied to the rogue (at least to begin with), but there wasn't any fluff reason why it couldn't have been a feat, or, you know, as it is in other d20 based games, just part of the search skill. It was an arbitrary design decision. @captaincursor- Nope. Frankly, we have no indication that the woodsman/archer thing is a separate 'tree'. It what few hints we've gotten suggest that its a woodsy guy who can select archery powers (or TWF powers). There hasn't been any indication that you can opt out of the rural tracking woodsy abilities. So its not the name. Its that these specific abilities (woodsman) are packaged with those specific abilities (good archery). And, because rangers have good archery abilities, fighters can't. Much like Wizards losing a lot of enchantment stuff so psions can have design space. [/QUOTE]

Verification