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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5733846" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Well, Dungeoneering comes from 3.5 (it wasn't in 3.0), and I expunged it from my game. So, I (personally) don't want to take it when it comes to taking it with any character. What class features does the Ranger have? Does he have any sort of wild or animal empathy? A companion (is that a separate build)? I'm not completely sure whether or not the class abilities are nature-oriented, and if they are, that'd be why. If not, I don't see why that wouldn't work.Yeah, when I said great tactician, I meant excelling at both tactics and strategy. In what way does being a Warlord help you achieve your long, overall aim? On the battlefield, having forced movement powers and having buffs helps out on the tactics front, but what reinforces strategy? And it's not like 3.X was any better here. I'm not arguing that 4e fails where 3.X succeeded. I'm saying that I prefer broad archetypes, and I don't see how being "a great mundane tactician and leader" should innately throw you into the Leader role (healing and buffs) automatically. Why can't a great tactician and leader be a striker, defender, or controller?I know you said that you can mix and match as appropriate, but at the end of the day, I run across the same problem with that philosophy that I had with 3.X: why not just let someone build their character to concept? If you still had classes but only worried about flavor mechanics (Rangers are nature-oriented, Paladins have Lay on Hands and can evil creatures, Clerics serve a god and can affect undead, etc.), you could just break down different pools, and let people pick their primary pools at character creation. You could let them choose one power source pool, one role pool, etc. Allow feats or the like to grab a few options from other pools.I'm sure you can play a lot of concepts with 4e. I'm not saying it's not doable. And I mean play those concepts well, and to a satisfactory end. I'm just saying that I don't see why roles are innately tied to class (not to get rid of roles, necessarily).See, this is where we differ. I am going to fuss about how to get PCs their powers. I did when I made my RPG. What I prefer, personally, is being able to assemble the PC you've conceptualized and envisioned. I think that separate pools of powers to choose from really help towards that goal. A Ranger with the Leader role and Primal power source will be nature-oriented, and perhaps better tactically and perhaps more capable of healing than his fellow rangers, or just more inspiring. It'd also allow for PCs to advance different stats, as appropriate (the Ranger might want to boost Cha, now).As for what class someone is called, it depends on what they are. The more focused the class, the more I care. I'm going to be picky about Paladins, because they're a very flavorful class. I'm not picky about a Fighter (though he has his place flavor-wise). The broader the archetype, the less I'll be picky about it. Yes, the warrior archetype can include the paladin, and I'd like to see the archetype reflect that. Be a warrior, grab some powers to reflect your paladin-ness, and we're good (Role of whatever, Divine power source). Or, be a warrior, grab some powers to reflect your barbarian-ness, and we're good (Role of whatever, Primal or Martial power source). Have class abilities that reflect the flavor of the class, as described previously. Just my preference.And this is how I feel about "paladin" and associated class abilities. To me, a paladin is clearly different from a cleric, especially since I hated that paladins were no longer tied down to Lawful Good and their devotions. They basically made paladins warriors of specific gods, which is similar to what a cleric was already fulfilling. Personally, I'd like to see a paladin be a Warrior with the divine power source. Or a cleric be a Spellcaster with a divine power source, while a wizard or sorcerer a Spellcaster with an arcane power source. It's my preferred breakdown, if you're going to have pools of powers (which I'm also kind of against). Then again, as someone who plays a fantasy game and prefers point-buy for abilities, I don't think I speak for most people.I do like that you take keywords into account. They seem anchored in the fiction to me, too, but so does a paladin. It's just where someone draws that line. I dislike having narrow archetypes (or subtypes, as you called them) like the paladin (even the Lawful Good paladin), but if you're going to make them, don't make paladin "warrior of a god" and cleric "priest of a god". Make a "servant of a god" archetype and let you tweak it to fit your concept. The Servant of a God class with a Divine power source and Role might be a cleric, but he might be a paladin if he has the Martial power source.Personally, I'd prefer working in potential secondary power source or role powers, too. Something like every 4-5 levels, you can pick a new power that you qualify for. It can be from any power source. That way, you can stay focused on your concept, whether it's purely martial (and grabbing a new Martial power) or hybrid-oriented (this really helps bards, clerics, paladins, rangers, and the like). Just my opinions on how I'd prefer it if roles are going to be used in a game like 4e. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Who said it was? I've even mentioned that I might like to play a paladin controller some time. And I could see that either martially or through spells.Because I'd like to see all the "warrior" archetypes under one class, ideally. And playing a nature-charged classed like the Ranger may not fit my concept of an archer.If you had to pick and choose powers (therefore still making sacrifices), probably, yes. You wouldn't get to fulfill all four roles simultaneously, or at least not to any significant degree. Why not let all those powers fall under one class if you still have to pick powers? If my concept lines up with the Warlord, won't I still pick healing and buff powers? When addressing pemerton, above, I go more in-depth as to how I'd like to see that goal fulfilled. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification