Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6008389" data-attributes="member: 87792">The problem here was that they actually gave the 4e fighter some flavour.  The fighter was no longer Captain Cardboard (He fights!  Just like every other PC!  He has feats!  Just like everyone else!)  Instead in 4e being a fighter actually means something.  It means someone who gets right up in the face of the enemy and is dangerous enough that no one dares turn their back on them.  The 4e fighter has more flavour in one single mechanic than the 3.X fighter has in the entire class.  So character concepts that relied on the fighter being a completely bland class no longer worked.On the other hand the pre-Essentials ranger in 4e is a little blander than his 3.X counterpart - he doesn't have to have spells and doesn't have to have two weapons. And doesn't have to have training in nature; he can choose dungeoneering instead.  So he's what you project a vanilla archer onto.  (If you want to dual wield, you can happily play a fighter).  I believe that there is a total of one PHB class where the 4e version is blander than the 3.X version, and that is the pre-Essentials Ranger.  A case can be made for the wizard because 3.X wizards could do anything whereas 4e PHB wizards were evokers and very little else.  (To be fair, there's also an argument that 3e bards have a very distinct flavour - so do 4e but it's a different flavour).And the rogue not getting shortbow proficiency was a stupid design oversight in 4e.  Fortunately fixed with the Essentials Thief (although they've never bothered to give the classic rogue the errata it needs to make the shortbow viable even if it now has proficiency with one).</blockquote>

Verification