Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Baen" data-source="post: 4216491" data-attributes="member: 61662">Why a fighter though? You seem very caught up on the names of the classes. I would consider Aragorn a Fighter by the D&D definition as well. Musashi did far more wandering and training then other samurai of his era, maybe not a natural woodsman but spent far more time then others of the warrior caste outside of cities. Even thematically he fits the ranger best. Besides, no one introduces their character in D&D by a Class1/Class2/Class3. The classes themselves are not the roleplay definition of the character. They are simply the definition for their skills and how they work in combat. The class system in 4e is more about the mechanics then the true fluff involved. It has always been that way really. The goal is always to take a character concept in mind and turn that into something to play at the game table. In most respects 4e seems to have the potential to be far better about that then in 3rd edition. Same as everyone else then. My question is this then, how many rounds does it take for one of your pcs to kill a single opponent four levels below them? An how much of a threat are those characters to your pcs? The new minion rules give them the potential to do level appropriate damage while still dying easy, a threat if mobbed by them since they can actually hit, but one easily dealt with. However the hookup over the minions is rather pointless. You can still do the same thing you are doing now. Actually it is far easier to delevel foes in this edition, so you can even mix a group of orcs with far lower level versions to fill things up. The deal is that the books that the vancian system is based off of are the ONLY example of such a system. Even in this case they don't rely on crossbows. Making them better at the sword would only invalidate the fighter. So what then would you suggest?True, however Gandalf was at lowest level 17 fighting level 2 orcs. I would personally put him in the epic tier. The Mouser was a multiclass rogue/wizard and therefore doesn't apply. Even when a wizard does get in combat in fantasy, they are in some way enhanced by their magic. Do you really think Gandalf could fight that well hand to hand as old as he was? He wasn't neglecting magic for the sake of hand to hand, he was using magic efficiently to boost his own capabilities at hand to hand.  A while back they were talking about the wizard having some melee powers, attacks enhanced by their magic.I still don't see though how you see two weapon fighting as completely diminished. What is really so different now? The same requirements are there to use it effectively. No class cannot use it. Being able to use it(especially naturally like the ranger) will grant a Huge advantage most likely in damage output (considering that is the rangers job.)EDIT: Actually, didn't they in a way make a wizard better in melee in this edition? Now all BAB scale equally, so it will not be impossible for a wizard to hit in melee. So sure they made it so a wizard can always cast some spell. However how does that in any way go against traditional fantasy? It seems to me at least that the new wizard is a better representation of a traditional wizard then in any other edition. They won't be able to throw down meteor showers all day, but they won't be left completely defenseless in every encounter after the second fight of the day.</blockquote>

Verification