Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5819340" data-attributes="member: 87792">And yet I've retired a 4e wizard for overwhelming the DM with all his tricks and stunts. At third level. It just took more work than overwhelming him with a previous edition one would.&nbsp;&nbsp;Aragorn is the iconic 1e ranger right down to their ability to use crystal balls as he used the Palantir. What he is not is a twin sword waving dervish of the 2e ranger. Or even that much of a 3.0 ranger whose defining feature was two weapon fighting. The ranger has changed over the years and it's only the 1e ranger that's a good fit.&nbsp;&nbsp;Who used maybe half a dozen spells in the whole of LoTR. But DMPC qualifies. &nbsp;&nbsp;Pre 4e it fails even at Jack Vance despite the &quot;Vancian&quot; casting. It fails to get the Grey Mouser at all. Ritual Caster being a 4e inovation.&nbsp;&nbsp;When was he up in the face of enemies so if they took their attention off him he'd slice them open? A much better reflection of the defender. And what marking represents.&nbsp;&nbsp;No. She just made sure that people dealt with her not those she was protecting. Which is what defenders do. The marks are a mechanical representation of this.&nbsp;&nbsp;But he was better at getting in the way, being a meatshield, and making sure people attacked him and not his brother.&nbsp;&nbsp;Jocelyn was a trained bodyguard.&nbsp;&nbsp;And the defender mechanics give you the tools to do the job. Rather than just standing there like a stuffed lemon as people play splat the mage.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because getting up in someone's face is an entirely gamist construction? Because being alert of anything that's going on round you so you can punish a moment of inattention is a gamist construction?&nbsp;Marking as a term isn't meant as in &quot;with a highlighter pen&quot;. It's meant as on the football field or basketball court.&nbsp;&nbsp;Given that role has no direct mechanical input, I don't understand the question. The roles are made explicit because it makes things easier for new players. Marking from a fighter is a physical reflection of what they do, crowding, and making sure that if their targets stop paying attention they are dead.&nbsp;It also gives more of a reminder for the designers to stay focussed so you don't end up with the 3.X Monk (Jack of No Trades) or the 3.X Druid.&nbsp; Whether you need to explicitely say which role people have at the end is neither here nor there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5819340, member: 87792"] And yet I've retired a 4e wizard for overwhelming the DM with all his tricks and stunts. At third level. It just took more work than overwhelming him with a previous edition one would. Aragorn is the iconic [B]1e[/B] ranger right down to their ability to use crystal balls as he used the Palantir. What he is not is a twin sword waving dervish of the [B]2e[/B] ranger. Or even that much of a [B]3.0[/B] ranger whose defining feature was two weapon fighting. The ranger has changed over the years and it's only the [B]1e [/B]ranger that's a good fit. Who used maybe half a dozen spells in the whole of LoTR. But DMPC qualifies. Pre 4e it fails even at Jack Vance despite the "Vancian" casting. It fails to get the Grey Mouser [I]at all[/I]. Ritual Caster being a 4e inovation. When was he up in the face of enemies so if they took their attention off him he'd slice them open? A much better reflection of the defender. And what marking represents. No. She just made sure that people dealt with her not those she was protecting. Which is what defenders do. The marks are a mechanical representation of this. But he was better at getting in the way, being a meatshield, and making sure people attacked him and not his brother. Jocelyn was a trained bodyguard. And the defender mechanics give you the tools to do the job. Rather than just standing there like a stuffed lemon as people play splat the mage. Because getting up in someone's face is an entirely gamist construction? Because being alert of anything that's going on round you so you can punish a moment of inattention is a gamist construction? Marking as a term isn't meant as in "with a highlighter pen". It's meant as on the football field or basketball court. Given that role has no [I]direct[/I] mechanical input, I don't understand the question. The roles are made explicit because it makes things easier for new players. Marking from a fighter is a physical reflection of what they do, crowding, and making sure that if their targets stop paying attention they are dead. It also gives more of a reminder for the designers to stay focussed so you don't end up with the 3.X Monk (Jack of No Trades) or the 3.X Druid. Whether you need to explicitely say which role people have at the end is neither here nor there. [/QUOTE]

Verification