Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4150797" data-attributes="member: 1054">A simpler method would be to:a)Allow a weapon proficiency with guns.b)Specify that someone can learn any bow-related exploit as an equivalent gun-related one (to do it with both, take it twice, or maybe have a feat which lets you flip between them)c)Create a small number of talents which require gun proficiency and which emphasize the difference between bullets and arrows -- high armor penetration. (You could also do this by making most gun attacks target reflex defense instead of armor defense)Of course, this is my design philosophy -- broad, customizable, base classes instead of focused ones. To my mind, it should be easier to build a &quot;gun totin' ranger&quot; variant or add that option to the power picks than to create a whole new class which is basically &quot;ranged combat specialist, but with a gun instead of an arrow&quot;. (On a personal note, I don't think we've seen enough of 4e to build classes yet. We don't know what concepts are currently 'doable' with the existing abilities, or what gaps exist. It's been hinted by Mike Mearls that the light-armored fighter is not currently viable, for example, so that's a likely region for early class design.) (It might be that it could be done with a rogue and some 'dipping' into fighter, but since we don't know how multiclassing works yet, who knows?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4150797, member: 1054"] A simpler method would be to: a)Allow a weapon proficiency with guns. b)Specify that someone can learn any bow-related exploit as an equivalent gun-related one (to do it with both, take it twice, or maybe have a feat which lets you flip between them) c)Create a small number of talents which require gun proficiency and which emphasize the difference between bullets and arrows -- high armor penetration. (You could also do this by making most gun attacks target reflex defense instead of armor defense) Of course, this is my design philosophy -- broad, customizable, base classes instead of focused ones. To my mind, it should be easier to build a "gun totin' ranger" variant or add that option to the power picks than to create a whole new class which is basically "ranged combat specialist, but with a gun instead of an arrow". (On a personal note, I don't think we've seen enough of 4e to build classes yet. We don't know what concepts are currently 'doable' with the existing abilities, or what gaps exist. It's been hinted by Mike Mearls that the light-armored fighter is not currently viable, for example, so that's a likely region for early class design.) (It might be that it could be done with a rogue and some 'dipping' into fighter, but since we don't know how multiclassing works yet, who knows?) [/QUOTE]

Verification