NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AndrewRogue" data-source="post: 4245067" data-attributes="member: 60448">This is fairly arguable when you consider what realistically constitutes an option. I'll yield that, in the most literal sense with the most open classes? Sure. Generally though, I'm not seeing a huge decrease in options.They suck pretty hard in point buy games too. Even real life isn't too kind to them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Of course, the only way to really have this option be supported is to multiclass and PrC. Core Fighter doesn't make a great light fighter. But, then again, why should every class necessarily need to support multiple play styles? Why can't there be... say... multiple classes dedicated to filling out multiple concepts.Like, say, a class for heavy types who are all defendery and a class for the swift and clever swashbuckler?To simplify the question... why does the Fighter (class) have to be able to support both archetypes, when the swashbuckler type is better supported by the Rogue (class). Your class title isn't everything. It is simply the means to an end. I don't see anything stopping you from doing this in 4th. Feel free to ignore your combat abilities and suck it up in a fight. Again, this isn't new. Even a diplomatic scoundrel who barely ever touched a weapon, spent all his time talking his way out of problems and the like still had a 3/4 BAB and 10d6 worth of sneak attack under his belt. Show me a concept that can be realized in the core of 3rd that is somehow explicitly prohibited by the 4th Ed design model, and I'll give this to you.</blockquote>

Verification