Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TK Lafours" data-source="post: 4375159" data-attributes="member: 57570">I'll admit I've intentionally played my share of somewhat useless characters in 3.5 (though I never sabotaged a party or refused to help if I could). Mostly because I rebelled against the few optimal builds that totally outclassed everything else.&nbsp; And if other optimized power-gamer characters were going to dominate the combat anyway, I might as well have some fun.&nbsp; That might be what the player in question here is thinking.&nbsp; I kind of get it.That said, 4E isn't 3.5 (I don't think).&nbsp; Playing a 'paladin' who hangs in the back and throws knives doesn't prove anything about the 4E system, its limitations or imbalances.&nbsp; The name of the class is only as important as&nbsp; you make it.&nbsp; It says as little or as much about your character's ideals, background or personality as you want, it simply represents a set of skills and powers that your character is capable of.&nbsp; Choosing a class is just a step in making a character that does what you want it to do.&nbsp; So, regardless of my character's personality, background or what he calls himself, if he's going to duel wield daggers from the back of the party I'm probably going to choose Ranger.&nbsp; Thus, I'll have Wally the crazy religious-nut ranger who claims to be a paladin, observes paladin rights and even wears a holy symbol, but stays in the back and duel wields daggers fairly effectively.&nbsp; The word 'ranger' might never even come out of Wally's mouth and he'll probably get offended if you refer to him as a ranger.&nbsp; On the character sheet, it's going to say 'Ranger' but that's okay, Wally never has to know that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TK Lafours, post: 4375159, member: 57570"] I'll admit I've intentionally played my share of somewhat useless characters in 3.5 (though I never sabotaged a party or refused to help if I could). Mostly because I rebelled against the few optimal builds that totally outclassed everything else. And if other optimized power-gamer characters were going to dominate the combat anyway, I might as well have some fun. That might be what the player in question here is thinking. I kind of get it. That said, 4E isn't 3.5 (I don't think). Playing a 'paladin' who hangs in the back and throws knives doesn't prove anything about the 4E system, its limitations or imbalances. The name of the class is only as important as you make it. It says as little or as much about your character's ideals, background or personality as you want, it simply represents a set of skills and powers that your character is capable of. Choosing a class is just a step in making a character that does what you want it to do. So, regardless of my character's personality, background or what he calls himself, if he's going to duel wield daggers from the back of the party I'm probably going to choose Ranger. Thus, I'll have [b]Wally[/b] the crazy religious-nut ranger who claims to be a paladin, observes paladin rights and even wears a holy symbol, but stays in the back and duel wields daggers fairly effectively. The word 'ranger' might never even come out of Wally's mouth and he'll probably get offended if you refer to him as a ranger. On the character sheet, it's going to say 'Ranger' but that's okay, Wally never has to know that. [/QUOTE]

Verification