Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vikingkingq" data-source="post: 6011480" data-attributes="member: 66208">Fluff, nothing. The Fighter Design Goals document describes the class concept as:What makes the Fighter a Fighter is skill, training, and experience. By contrast, ever since they absorbed the AD&amp;D 2nd edition Berserker kit in 3rd edition (and even in 2nd, the Barbarian Ravager kit was described as &quot;to many, the Ravager represents the consummate barbarian-a savage, nearly invincible warrior who fights with unrivaled ferocity&quot; and given the first Rage mechanic), the Barbarian's class concept has been the berserker. In 3.X, they were described as &quot;brave, even reckless warriors...where the fighter has training and discipline however, the barbarian has a powerful rage.&quot; In 4e, they were a Primal, rather than Martial Class, whose abilities came from supernatural rage, as opposed to martial training. Now, let me be clear - I'm not opposed to a Veteran Specialty that gives a Fighter equivalent of Magic-User or Acolyte (maybe giving you a d6 CS die and two level 1 maneuvers), because that represents past experience. If a Barbarian enlisted in the Imperial Auxiliaries, or the Paladin came to the church after a battlefield conversion, or if the Rogue or Ranger is a deserter from the army, then it makes sense that they have some martial skills they've retained. At least then it still represents an investment of time and effort in training, and it keeps the class mechanics themselves distinct. And there's always multiclassing.But outside of specialties and multiclassing, having a Barbarian use Fighter Maneuvers or a Paladin using Sneak Attack goes absolutely against good design for a class-based game, and it's absolutely the opposite of what the devs are going for. Listen to the panels - their whole drive is to ensure that a Ranger feels and plays very distinctively differently from an Archer Fighter with a woodsy Background and a decent Wis score; which means you don't let class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vikingkingq, post: 6011480, member: 66208"] Fluff, nothing. The Fighter Design Goals document describes the class concept as: What makes the Fighter a Fighter is skill, training, and experience. By contrast, ever since they absorbed the AD&D 2nd edition Berserker kit in 3rd edition (and even in 2nd, the Barbarian Ravager kit was described as "to many, the Ravager represents the consummate barbarian-a savage, nearly invincible warrior who fights with unrivaled ferocity" and given the first Rage mechanic), the Barbarian's class concept has been the berserker. In 3.X, they were described as "brave, even reckless warriors...where the fighter has training and discipline however, the barbarian has a powerful rage." In 4e, they were a Primal, rather than Martial Class, whose abilities came from supernatural rage, as opposed to martial training. Now, let me be clear - I'm not opposed to a Veteran Specialty that gives a Fighter equivalent of Magic-User or Acolyte (maybe giving you a d6 CS die and two level 1 maneuvers), because that represents past experience. If a Barbarian enlisted in the Imperial Auxiliaries, or the Paladin came to the church after a battlefield conversion, or if the Rogue or Ranger is a deserter from the army, then it makes sense that they have some martial skills they've retained. At least then it still represents an investment of time and effort in training, and it keeps the class mechanics themselves distinct. And there's always multiclassing. But outside of specialties and multiclassing, having a Barbarian use Fighter Maneuvers or a Paladin using Sneak Attack goes absolutely against good design for a class-based game, and it's absolutely the opposite of what the devs are going for. Listen to the panels - their whole drive is to ensure that a Ranger feels and plays very distinctively differently from an Archer Fighter with a woodsy Background and a decent Wis score; which means you don't let class mechanics bleed across classes if you can avoid it. [/QUOTE]

Verification