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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Freakohollik" data-source="post: 4932184" data-attributes="member: 43938">This argument isn't about the names, it's about the feel of the class. If I want to be a shortbow rouge, I shouldn't have to be a ranger. There should be some significant difference between a rouge and ranger. A difference that goes beyond a ranger is a rogue who uses a bow.If your definition of McFightsWell means does not give up a single point of BaB, then you can look up thread for my core pure fighter Suave McFightsWell. But, I've played plenty of 3e and I don't believe that never giving up a single point of BaB is a hard requirement for being a good fighter. This guy is still a good fighter with his sneak attack. I would argue that having sneak attack is actually better than having the iterative attack in many cases. Once he does get his second iterative attack (the only one that matters) he'll actually do more damage with his attacks because of sneak attack.On the concept part, I'm not sure why this goes against your concept. Forgive me if I missed it in another post.On the armor part, the only rogue ability that won't work is evasion. He's still better against fireball than the pure fighter because of the bonus to reflex saves. If you want to be like Henry V and wear leather armor, go ahead then, your evasion still works. Don't worry about accidentally finding any traps and breaking your character concept, finding traps requires you to put ranks in search and actively search for traps. Neither is required.Well suppose I'm playing 4e and I want to be a McFightsWell, but I want access to a lot of the rogue skills. I'm looking at burning a lot more than one feat.In 3e, I just take a few levels of rogue.Both 3e and 4e have this issue, and it's one of the reasons I don't like the skill system in either edition.If you want to bring in non-core, then forget swashbuckler and go to Pathfinder. You're still essentially playing 3e.If your definition of options means, "what skills can I take". Then maybe you have a point. But, 3e's options comes not from skill choices, but from its multiclassing and feat systems. Both of which are downplayed a lot in 4e.I wouldn't go so far as to claim that homogenity in 4e is a large flaw with the edition though. I think thats part of the reason why some see it and some don't. Someone upthread made this point too, it's a good insight. Those who like the system won't see this one aspect of it, if others are claiming that it is a big problem. Homogenity is a pretty subjective term, and if you don't perceive it now, after 20+ pages, then I don't think anything more in this thread is going to convince you. I don't mean that as an insult or anything negative. It just means it's not there when you play the game.</blockquote>

Verification