Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4932459" data-attributes="member: 22779">How can I be Suave McFightswell in 3e, let me count the ways:1.&nbsp; Fighter/Rogue - unfortunately, I now have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.2.&nbsp; Paladin - umm, really?&nbsp; A LG holy warrior is not a major limitation on my concept?3.&nbsp; Fighter/Bard - Again, I have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept.4.&nbsp; Cosmopolitan feat - probably the best option of the bunch.&nbsp; However, this only gives me access to one skill (with a +2 IIRC) and I only get 2 skill ranks per level.&nbsp; Sure diplomacy gets bumped, but poor bluff or sense motive (also pretty important talky skills) get left behind.5.&nbsp; Don't play 3e.&nbsp; Play Pathfinder instead.Did I miss any?&nbsp; I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up.&nbsp; If I missed one, please link.&nbsp; I'm not ignoring any of them. I'm simply insisting that I get my character concept.&nbsp; It's not like I've got some really bizarre concept here.&nbsp; A well spoken warrior (not the class) shouldn't be all that hard.&nbsp; It's a pretty common concept in the genre.This is why I'm not terribly convinced that 3e actually gives the &quot;unlimited options&quot; that people claim.&nbsp; Yes, I can makes something that's kinda, sorta close to my concept, but, I can't actually make what I want.And, I'd point out, it doesn't matter that you can't make what you want in 4e.&nbsp; That's not my point.&nbsp; All that means is there are limitations in both systems.&nbsp; I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e.&nbsp; That's totally not my claim.&nbsp; I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse?&nbsp; heterogenous? as people are making it out to be.You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4932459, member: 22779"] How can I be Suave McFightswell in 3e, let me count the ways: 1. Fighter/Rogue - unfortunately, I now have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept. 2. Paladin - umm, really? A LG holy warrior is not a major limitation on my concept? 3. Fighter/Bard - Again, I have a suite of abilities that have nothing to do with my concept. 4. Cosmopolitan feat - probably the best option of the bunch. However, this only gives me access to one skill (with a +2 IIRC) and I only get 2 skill ranks per level. Sure diplomacy gets bumped, but poor bluff or sense motive (also pretty important talky skills) get left behind. 5. Don't play 3e. Play Pathfinder instead. Did I miss any? I thought I'd addressed each of these options as they came up. If I missed one, please link. I'm not ignoring any of them. I'm simply insisting that I get my character concept. It's not like I've got some really bizarre concept here. A well spoken warrior (not the class) shouldn't be all that hard. It's a pretty common concept in the genre. This is why I'm not terribly convinced that 3e actually gives the "unlimited options" that people claim. Yes, I can makes something that's kinda, sorta close to my concept, but, I can't actually make what I want. And, I'd point out, it doesn't matter that you can't make what you want in 4e. That's not my point. All that means is there are limitations in both systems. I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e. That's totally not my claim. I'm claiming that 3e is not as ... diverse? heterogenous? as people are making it out to be. You could be limited to one single concept in 4e and it wouldn't change my point. [/QUOTE]

Verification