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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5736573" data-attributes="member: 42582">How so? Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I thought your point was that 4e players are coerced into a narrow range of activities. I have a player who does not feel coerced in this way. I'm still unclear - are you talking about adaptability in build, or in play? If you're talking about adaptability in build, I agree but don't care - it's no skin of my nose whether the important build choices are made after choosing a "class" or by choosing a "class".If you mean adaptability in play, I don't think 4e play is as narrow as you contend - witness the wizard PC I mention above, or the drow sorcerer who from time-to-time holds the front line. Nor do I think that earlier editions in play were as broad as you contend - anything from weapon proficiency choice, to equipment options, to spell choices made by other members of the party, operated to narrow the viable range of options for any given PC.I agree, although some builds - like the Binder Warlock - just seem ill-conceived. But these sub-classes are mostly just more classes with some overlapping utility powers. They are still focused builds - a Slayer can't defend anymore than a PHB Fighter can strike.I've got nothing against the lists getting longer. If the focus of each element on the list gets lost, though, then quality play will be undermined.Whereas I don't see this as any different in substance, other than marginal things like sharing utility powers and the like. I mean, suppose Slayer had been a seperate class, with the overlapping utility powers duplicated in its power list. The PC build options would be identical. The game would play identically. Making it a sub-class rather than a class has no effect except the efficiency gains from utility power and feat sharing. It doesn't provide any more flexibility in terms of building or playing your PC.The problem I've taken them to be concerned about is the "wall of powers" design - to which sub-classes are one solution. Are they concerned about having produced PC build rules that guarantee PCs with focused rather than generic expertise, thereby making a distinctive contribution to the tactical combat aspect of the game? I haven't seen that concern expressed, but maybe I've missed it.Well, that's one way of describing a game where (i) the aim of play is, in part at least, to gain level, and (ii) the GM has unilateral control over the sort of play that will earn those levels. I would say - if the GM is applying the rules of the book, and you play a cowardly fighter or a charitable thief, then you're hosed. (Although you may not know that you're hosed for some time, depending how "gotcha" your GM's approach is.)I don't see this as any less coercive than a ruleset that says - here's one thing you can do pretty well (namely, raise the effective AC of your allies by marking), here's one other thing you don't do very well (shoot arrows), now choose which one you want to have your PC do. Well, to make a cowardly fighter, or a charitable rogue, viable in AD&D a group had to houserule - that is, the GM had to ignore the rules on level training.Introducing a STR archery at will for a fighter PC strikes me as houseruling at the same level of difficulty ie none.Letting an archer-ranger wear chain armour rather than Hide (perhaps via a free feat, perhaps with the feat granted in lieu of the Nature skill) strikes me as another houserule at the same level of difficulty. (And if your archer-ranger takes the two-weapon build rather than the archer build in order to get Toughness for free, the only thing you're giving up is the opportunity to take Battlefield Archer when you get to 11th level.)Or build your armoured archer as a warlord.I'm just not seeing these tremendous obstacles in the way of these various mooted character concepts.</blockquote>

Verification