Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5909924" data-attributes="member: 7635">As pointed out; I was trying to imply that if you can just re-skin whatever you like, then you only need a generic structure since everything flavorful is just going to be skin anyway. Obviously, that's not the case in 4e, or any other edition of D&D so therefore we have to decide if the title "ranger" means anything more than "archer/dual-wielder in light armor" package or if there is a meaningful piece of fluff behind it. Lets take another example as old as... well, 3e. Wizard vs. Sorcerer. In 4e parlance, we can break down both classes as such.Wizard: Arcane Controller, focus on swapping spells, debuff powers, and implements.Sorcerer: Arcane Striker, focus on massive damage effects and linked theme powers.What's missing from those descriptions? Fluff. Why does a wizard swap spells? Well, they have a spellbook which keeps some (limited) choices open to them. Why doesn't a sorcerer swap spells? He gets his powers via bloodline and they are linked to who he is. Its the reason why they have what abilities they do. THAT is important fluff. Its not just "both are mages, but one has a spellbook and the other doesn't". If I come into a game and want to play a caster who draws on power intuitively, I should pick a sorcerer because that class's fluff matches my concept and its mechanics emphasizes my fluff. I shouldn't go "well, I'd rather play a wizard, so I'll say my spellbook is really a talisman that can change my focus on powers. etc". That is akin to saying "I want to be X, but have the advantages of Y". Its really no different then my earlier example of "I want to play a human that has the mechanical advantages of a dwarf instead." To finish my point, I'll throw in an example from my (limited) 4e days. My namesake PC, Remathilis, is an elf Thief/Rogue who started in 2nd edition and was played in a variety of forms through 3e, 3.5 and finally 4e. In every edition, his signature weapon was a shortbow and he was a fairly good sniper (due to dex, magic, feats, etc). However, when 4e came out (pre essentials) shortbow was no longer the pervue of rogues; that's a RANGER weapon. Suddenly, my rogue could no longer use his shortbow for anything other than basic attacks, making it worthless. The answer, you and others seem to tell me, is that if I wanted to make my rogue be good with a shortbow; I should have picked Ranger/Archer build and just said "I'm still a rogue; never mind my loss of sneak attack, tumble, weapon finesse, or bonuses to stealth. But I can use my shortbow!"Rangers are rangers. Rogues are rogues. Mechanics back up archetype.</blockquote>

Verification