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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5740164" data-attributes="member: 3887">I'm suggesting class-based games work better if your willing to be flexible when it comes to the relationship between mechanical class and character concept. This shouldn't be controversial post-3e, where most of player base seemed comfortable with building character concepts out of several (if not many) different base classes/PrC's.I don't recall people griping about having to dip into ranger to build a PC who was primarily conceived as a archer-warrior (sans woodlands trappings), or mighty warriors who had a bit of rogue or monk in them... Words can have more than one meaning, and multiple words can have roughly the same meaning. I'm sure some would also say: hey, they're both holy warriors, close enough. But I concede some people would have a problem.Do you suppose as many would complain about an archery-specialized fighter being build using the ranger class? If so, why weren't they complaining when 3e broke away from class-as-archetype? Granted, I'm coming at this from a certain perspective. I homebrew exclusively, which means I'm accustomed to slapping my own narrative gloss over whatever mechanics work well (enough). In our 4e campaign, the undead bureaucrat/detective was originally built as a rogue, but was rebuilt as a assassin when that class came out, because the mechanics fit the PC better, and the Pope of our homemade semi-false religion was an Invoker, not Cleric.   Neither of this mechanical redefinitions have a negative impact on the characters; they remained well-written and well-played. Sometimes. In AD&D they were frequently heavily-armored tanks with pets, and eventually, two kinds of magic spells (ie, they sure weren't Aragorn, and they strained the wise tracker-woodsman model with their penchant for traipsing around in plate mail).In 2e they became duel-wielders (and lost the M-U spells).In 3e, they became base stock for archer builds (sometimes swashbucklers).A 4e ranger can be a lot more too, if the player fleshes out of the PC with good characterization. Conversely, nothing stops AD&D & 2e rangers from being nothing more than fighting machines.</blockquote>

Verification