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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Baen" data-source="post: 4215072" data-attributes="member: 61662">Actually this is precisely what I in my last post and others in previous posts have been talking about. Classes in 4e seem far less attached to any particular charachter so much as they are a package of abilities. Sure they have their fluff which goes on well with the D&D Archetype, but the fact that they are role based means that they are more telling for the role, then a specific class. For instance, Aragorn the Ranger would likely be a fighter with nature skills in both 2nd and 3rd, while Legolas an elven warrior would be the definition of one. Now I know D&D isn't LOTR, but the truth is that their aren't really that many heroic characters defined as rangers. Their is a distinct difference between what you call yourself, and what you play. A pure samurai would likely be a fighter, however Musashi would likely be a ranger, especially given how he was not so much a Samurai lord as he was a wandering Ronin. Also given that samurai gave high importance to the bow, more traditional samurai that followed his school of the sword would likely be rangers as well.  I just wonder what you would do in place? Minions are meant to be quickly killed foes, not memorable unless in vast numbers. They are designed to be killed fast, therefore why not give them 1hp? Where do you draw the line? If you give them hp for their level they are no longer really minions, even 1hp per level doesn't really mean anything except that no one will see an orc below 4th.  Minions should pose a threat, capable of doing damage, but should be just as easily killed. 3e didn't really do that too much, if a monster could be killed easily without expending significant mage resources, he really couldn't do that much to the pcs anyways. Not really, since it doesn't fit the image of any wizard I have ever heard of. I don't think I have ever read a fantasy novel where the wizard went, oops, no more spells for the day. I have heard them being knocked out from exhaustion maybe, but never pull out a crossbow. That is purely a D&D thing, and one done simply because the system was limited that wizards NEEDED to do it, not because it made any sense along thematic lines. Actually, in fantasy if a wizard was out of magic they tend to get their hands on a sword and wade into combat. I agree, in that they can be played very strategically. However they had nothing really unique they could do without adding on prestige classes galore. Regardless of what feats you took, you tended to just stand there and spam basic attacks over and over again. Not that it was incredibly different from others, just that it was the only thing they could do. Now of course if you have a good descriptive dm, I didn't have one as a player although try to be now that I am one, its different. Not really wanting to quote anymore, the deal is that twf will be in 4e, and will likely be a nice advantage considering it is one of the main class features of the Ranger, a heavy damage dealer. As previously mentioned, take away the name ranger and their mechanics can be interpreted in multiple ways for several character concepts. TWF is in no way shape or form gone from 4e.</blockquote>

Verification