Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4661481" data-attributes="member: 20998">Long time lurker throwing in my 2 coppers…I’d say a lot of this boils down to how important theme is to you and how much house ruling you and your group is willing to do. I think most people will agree that 4th ed places role first and theme second for its class definitions. If I want to play a fighter that uses a bow in 4th ed, I can’t do that without tweaking things a bit. For starters, you're creating a slew of powers for fighter or taking a different class. Since you’re best bet is a different class (since you probably don’t want to be a defender at this point), you have to retool the fluff, likely change up some skill choices, maybe rework some of the class abilities, and so on. So, yes, I /can/ play a fighter archer in 4th ed, but not without futzing with the rules. Just like I can’t play a cleric who doesn’t heal without gimping myself or playing a warlock and inventing a new pact for my character’s god. If I come to the game table wanting to play someone who’s good at healing his party in the name of his god – if that’s my primary concern – then 4th ed has me covered. But if I want to play a guy who worships a god of plunder and plans to adventure for personal gain, calling upon the powers of his god to perform miracles of deception and thievery, I’ve got to do some work to figure out how best build him in 4th ed because the RAW doesn’t provide me that option. If I want to play a tactical mastermind that aids my party by pointing out weak spots and openings, I’m good to go. But as soon as I look at a bow, I’m in trouble. For all the flexibility 4th ed claims to have, it’s backbone is seems to be as stiff as a board. And as soon as you try to bend it, that thing is going to break.•    You can’t take role out of 4th ed or you’d have a bloated list of class powers, although arguably we already do. We needed a rules supplement to allow for support of dual wielding fighters. •    A 4th ed class really needs to focus on using a specific ability score for its powers or it’s going to have trouble. This is especially true of martial classes since they rely on an external device, aka weapon, to deal damage. But by doing that, you lock the class into specific weapon types.•    A fighter is a guy who defends people by being a melee pain in the butt to the enemies. He’s not a “fighter” in the traditional sense. A warlord is a tactical master who wades into combat with his comrades, not a tactical master who stays back and takes pot shots as he sees them. A wizard is someone skilled at taking out many easy opponents at once, not a master summoner, or a necromancer, etc. •    A lot of mundane maneuvers and skills are too embedded in the classes. For example, if you want to play a fighter than tumble, you've got your work cut out for you.(As an aside, they really shouldn’t have called the class “Fighter” or “Wizard.” Perhaps something that better described the redefined purpose of the classes would have done a lot, like say, “Guardsman” and “Large Blasty Type Mage.” The 4th ed Fighter isn’t the fighter we’ve known from all earlier editions of DnD, so it’s frankly a misnomer to keep the name. Nearly 100% of the “sacred cows” are gone, so I’m somewhat surprised this one stuck around. But to take this even further, the class definitions and power suites are so focused, that all the classes could use rebranding; well at least the iconics. )</blockquote>

Verification