Removing homogenity from 4e

[Imaro]

Of course they can. I never said otherwise.

Well you never said otherwise because I wasn't addressing you originally... I was addressing Mustrum and assumed you decided to answer because you agreed with his points... otherwise why answer the question?

Edit: I think you're jumping onto comments concerning other points in this thread... I'm not even sure what your point is if it differs from Mustrum's...

 

[Mallus]

Isn't that starting with an idea/archetype (thief with bow) and rooting through books to find the best mechanic to represent it (archer-ranger with rogue-skill training)? while absolutely ignoring the rangers own archetype fluff?

Yup. Note there's less rooting involved in 4e, giving the changes made to multiclassing.

Pot, meet kettle.

Don't know what you mean by this, Rem. I think you're reading in what isn't there.

I made two claims...

1) 3e classes aren't really archetypal, primarily because there are so damn many of them, which dilutes the concept of 'archetype'. They're better seen as ability packages which can be used and/or combined to create characters that fit broader archetypes (which are no longer well-resented by the ever-increasingly fiddly and specific 3e classes/PrC's).

2) You can make a thief with a bow in 4e using ranger + Thievery. I didn't mean to suggest 4e classes can't be viewed as mere ability packages.

This is hypocrisy?

 

[Mallus]

I'm not even sure what your point is if it differs from Mustrum's...

I think our points are basically the same.

Mainly, I think 3e's flexibility in character creation is significantly overstated --it's robust in the way it can be used to represent a wide variety of characters, it's not because quite a few of them won't be very good at the things they're supposed to be good at-- while 4e's is often understated --hence my chipping in with an easy 4e bow-rogue.

Mustrums's spot-on about one of 4e's weakness, BTW. Either an outlier character concept is obvious and easy to create (ie, bow-rogue) or it's not supported at all (barring the release of some future supplement).

edit: I should probably add that I'm running 2 campaigns right now, 4e and fantasy M&M2e, so I get the best of both worlds, a more strongly class-based game and an extremely flexible game.

 

[Freakohollik]

2) You can make a thief with a bow in 4e using ranger + Thievery. I didn't mean to suggest 4e classes can't be viewed as mere ability packages.

Imaro asked for a "rogue whose competent with a shortbow" not a ranger. Being a ranger carries with it 30 levels worth of ranger powers. Is your argument that to be a shortbow rogue, all he has to do is give up all his rogue powers?

 

[SSquirrel]

So why is it okay to sub "Ranger" for my "Rogue" in 4e... especially since he doesn't get the Rogue's utilities... or backstab... or Paragon Paths, or...well you get the point. But a diplomatic fighter can't be a swashbuckler, bard, or rogue in 3.5?

It was Hussar who was complaining about somehow ending up with backstab and such.

There are 4 core archetypes for D&D and they are the Cleric (healer), Wizard (damage spells and utility), rogue (stabby death), fighter (2H or sword and board). All other classes are permutations of these, by and large.

Rangers in 4E are pretty much your go-to if you want to be a ranged guy or TWF. Paladin is Fighter+Cleric, Barbarian is a more wild Fighter, less tactics, bigger weapons generally, Sorceror is internalized instead of learned magic ability, etc etc. Take one of the 4 base classes and add a schtick to them or combine them with another to some degree and you generally end up with any other class in the game. You have to decide for yourself if the attachment is to the class name, all of the class abilities for sure or if you just need part of it. If you want the thievery kind of abilities and to be a good character in a fight, plus lots of ranged focus, a Ranger cum Thief works well.

3E was a game that ended up being able to be broken down to point buy w/o too many problems. Dr Spunj had a great 3.5+Arcana Evolved point buy variant here on ENWorld too. 4E has gone another step toward point buy IMO, I'm just waiting for someone to produce the numbers.

 

[Mallus]

Imaro asked for a "rogue whose competent with a shortbow" not a ranger.

Isn't the character you wind up with more important than the names of the classes used to create them?

Being a ranger carries with it 30 levels worth of ranger powers.

30 levels of ranger powers that are primarily combat abilities. So this thief is really damn good with a short bow.

Is your argument that to be a shortbow rogue, all he has to do is give up all his rogue powers?

What makes a rogue a rogue? If you want the 4e rogue powers, play a 4e rogue and use a short bow. Nothing prevents you from doing that. You'll have a high DEX, so you're basic ranged attack with be pretty good.

Now if you want a character than can sneak and steal, who also happens to be really damn good with a short bow, go the ranger route.

edit: actually, if you want to play a short-bow shootin' rogue in 4e, play a rogue, then ask your DM to allow you to use the ranged rogue powers w/a bow instead of throwing stars (but only out to throwing star range). It's mechanically the same, a simple re-skinning. Like I said, easy-peasy!

 

[fanboy2000]

Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...". Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...

Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype

Rogue + Weapon Proficiency feat. Common man, you're not even trying.

Of course, most of the rogue's powers in 4e require a specific list of weapons, hence the ranger suggestion. But what's important to you? The label, or the ability to play the kind of character you want?

 

[SSquirrel]

Rogue + Weapon Proficiency feat. Common man, you're not even trying.

Actually most Rogue abilities are quite specific that they are for Melee Weapons. The ones that mention Ranged weapons are then quite specific to crossbow, light blade or sling. So discussion with your DM or a possible feat/etc in another supplement would be needed. Straight, by the book PHB, you won't get too many really neat bow shots off as a Rogue. Weapon proficiency does not allow you to sub it in for a weapon listed in one of your powers just b/c you would like to use it.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The issue here though is that 3e's being praised for it's extensive character creation method - but that character creation method is hampered by the fact it's highly dependent on supplements.

I wouldn't say it is "highly dependent on supplements" at all. I can make a perfectly good Suave McFightswell using nothing but the Player's Handbook.

A wealth of supplements makes it even easier to create whatever type of character you want, but that will be true in any game system.

 

[fanboy2000]

Actually most Rogue abilities are quite specific that they are for Melee Weapons. The ones that mention Ranged weapons are then quite specific to crossbow, light blade or sling. So discussion with your DM or a possible feat/etc in another supplement would be needed. Straight, by the book PHB, you won't get too many really neat bow shots off as a Rogue. Weapon proficiency does not allow you to sub it in for a weapon listed in one of your powers just b/c you would like to use it.

I edited my post before I saw your response.