Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4664293" data-attributes="member: 20998">I'm not saying 3e was flawless, but it's my point of reference to make my arguments. That said you could make a duelist in 3.0 with just the PHB. It might not be the best in the world, but you could play the concept. Same with swashbuckler.I have to assume you are just being silly. Yes, 4e fighters are proficient with bows. But because of the nature of powers, they're all but pointless to use. You /have/ to realize this. The same is true of a warlord. Sure he's proficient with a bow, but 4e tells us that warlords only fight melee style. Thinking about it, I'm not sure why these classes even get bow proficiency in 4e at all in the first place.I think I'll disagree with you on this. 3e has a Thievery domain at the least. That's much more support for a deception cleric than 4e provides.Not what I meant, but I think my example may have been a bit vague. Brutal Rogue lets you apply your Str bonus as a modifier to damage. I can't use it on my attack rolls, however. In 3e, a rogue/fighter works well. In 4e, it works well /if/ you have a good Str and a good Dex because by RAW rogues only know how to attack with cunning strikes and fighters only know how to smack people with brute force. These feel like arbitrary limitations to me that go against the grain of providing flexibility.Agreed, this works. And for many this is likely fine. But if you do that you don't have the same skills (easy fix), hit points, armor proficiencies, class abilities (hunter's mark etc). The catch is Ranger comes along with its own inherent playstyle based on the abilities it provides. This might not be what someone wants when they're looking to play a bow fighter. This is actually pretty good. My hat's off to you for the creativity. However, we both know it's not quite the same thing as a cleric of thievery. Which pact do you take and what does that mean exactly for the character? I presume you'd have to rationalize it's a pact with the god. Yes, I am playing devil's advocate.And I still hold that any scenario where you have to rationalize a person holding a torch as your character's light spell is going too far in houseruling to support a concept.</blockquote>

Verification