Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Swords" data-source="post: 4411897" data-attributes="member: 74581">This is what me group is struggling with most.&nbsp; Mechanically we have no real problem with any of the classes, but the lack of non-combat fluff has led us to see them as styles rather than careers.&nbsp; A ranger is just a warrior trained with a bow or two swords, a rogue just a skirmisher who moves into and out of combat quickly, a fighter is a solder trained in defensive fighting.&nbsp; What you do in the world is no longer defined by the class you choose.&nbsp; There is no reason why the thief who steals from noble manors cant be trained as a ranger.I've even been thinking about allowing players choose skills from the full list rather than the restricted one in the class description.I think wizards did this deliberately to allow players to run the character any way they like, I'm looking forward to seeing if the new FR campaign guide creates world specific fluff for each class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Swords, post: 4411897, member: 74581"] This is what me group is struggling with most. Mechanically we have no real problem with any of the classes, but the lack of non-combat fluff has led us to see them as styles rather than careers. A ranger is just a warrior trained with a bow or two swords, a rogue just a skirmisher who moves into and out of combat quickly, a fighter is a solder trained in defensive fighting. What you do in the world is no longer defined by the class you choose. There is no reason why the thief who steals from noble manors cant be trained as a ranger. I've even been thinking about allowing players choose skills from the full list rather than the restricted one in the class description. I think wizards did this deliberately to allow players to run the character any way they like, I'm looking forward to seeing if the new FR campaign guide creates world specific fluff for each class. [/QUOTE]

Verification