Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3947455" data-attributes="member: 40961">1: Classes work best when you know what you're building them to do.&nbsp; Being an archer, and being a front line armored melee combatant, are very different jobs.&nbsp; They require different class features.&nbsp; The more disparate stuff you try to shoehorn into one class, the lower the quality of the class.&nbsp; So, archer and armored melee get split into two different classes.2: The idea of decoupling out of combat roles from combat roles so that players can mix and match as they choose is a nice one, but ultimately quite difficult.&nbsp; First, the ranger's woodsman type abilities aren't strictly noncombat.&nbsp; His ability to hide, spot, and so forth are all combat relevant, and are particularly combat relevant to his archery abilities.&nbsp; Second, some noncombat abilities are pretty powerful.&nbsp; Decoupling would come close to requiring that these abilities be granted to everyone.&nbsp; Part of the purpose of a class system is to separate things out so that this doesn't happen.3: Finally, I suspect that a 4e player who wants to make a &quot;city guard archer&quot; will do much of what a 3e player might do.&nbsp; Take Ranger as a class, choose favored enemies that fit his city training, and put his skills into city related abilities.&nbsp; Spot and Listen are pretty universal, Search, Handle Animal, Ride, Use Rope... etc.&nbsp; And if all else fails, an &quot;urban ranger&quot; variant did get made eventually.I mean, honestly, a 3e fighter specializing in archery was pretty lousy.&nbsp; Sure, he could eke out a few more points of damage with Weapon Specialization, but he paid for it in spades with lost class abilities, spells, and important, class relevant skills like &quot;spot.&quot;&nbsp; And there's only so many archery feats around.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 3947455, member: 40961"] 1: Classes work best when you know what you're building them to do. Being an archer, and being a front line armored melee combatant, are very different jobs. They require different class features. The more disparate stuff you try to shoehorn into one class, the lower the quality of the class. So, archer and armored melee get split into two different classes. 2: The idea of decoupling out of combat roles from combat roles so that players can mix and match as they choose is a nice one, but ultimately quite difficult. First, the ranger's woodsman type abilities aren't strictly noncombat. His ability to hide, spot, and so forth are all combat relevant, and are particularly combat relevant to his archery abilities. Second, some noncombat abilities are pretty powerful. Decoupling would come close to requiring that these abilities be granted to everyone. Part of the purpose of a class system is to separate things out so that this doesn't happen. 3: Finally, I suspect that a 4e player who wants to make a "city guard archer" will do much of what a 3e player might do. Take Ranger as a class, choose favored enemies that fit his city training, and put his skills into city related abilities. Spot and Listen are pretty universal, Search, Handle Animal, Ride, Use Rope... etc. And if all else fails, an "urban ranger" variant did get made eventually. I mean, honestly, a 3e fighter specializing in archery was pretty lousy. Sure, he could eke out a few more points of damage with Weapon Specialization, but he paid for it in spades with lost class abilities, spells, and important, class relevant skills like "spot." And there's only so many archery feats around. [/QUOTE]

Verification