Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4524893" data-attributes="member: 63272">It did, but not to the extremity you think.&nbsp; Earlier editions - your class defined your character.&nbsp; A thief was not a fighter was not a wizard, but a thief was a thief was a thief.&nbsp; They were all really the same, and didn't account for character much.&nbsp; Esepcially outside of combat.&nbsp; 3rd edition attempted to account for character with the rules system, specifically skills.&nbsp; But trying to dance the line between leaving the thief role of skill monkey intact and balancing the other classes around that left the system very limiting.&nbsp; Fighters could still only fight.&nbsp; You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example.&nbsp; To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.&nbsp; 4e doesn't say all fighters are the same.&nbsp; They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat.&nbsp; But the character himself is left to the player.&nbsp; The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku.&nbsp; The most some of those take to pull off is a feat for a necessary skill, but much of that isn't confined by the encounter-centered skill system.&nbsp; Thieves are good at thievery and have a style of combat that fits them well, the thief character can be anything else and still be good at his core adventuring roles.&nbsp; He can be the face, the grifter, the bard, the burglar, the jack of all trades, whatever, and the system doesn't confine him.&nbsp; 4e says adventuring classes define adventurer roles, character is left to the player.&nbsp; No two characters have to be the same outside of combat ever again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4524893, member: 63272"] It did, but not to the extremity you think. Earlier editions - your class defined your character. A thief was not a fighter was not a wizard, but a thief was a thief was a thief. They were all really the same, and didn't account for character much. Esepcially outside of combat. 3rd edition attempted to account for character with the rules system, specifically skills. But trying to dance the line between leaving the thief role of skill monkey intact and balancing the other classes around that left the system very limiting. Fighters could still only fight. You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example. To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass. 4e doesn't say all fighters are the same. They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat. But the character himself is left to the player. The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku. The most some of those take to pull off is a feat for a necessary skill, but much of that isn't confined by the encounter-centered skill system. Thieves are good at thievery and have a style of combat that fits them well, the thief character can be anything else and still be good at his core adventuring roles. He can be the face, the grifter, the bard, the burglar, the jack of all trades, whatever, and the system doesn't confine him. 4e says adventuring classes define adventurer roles, character is left to the player. No two characters have to be the same outside of combat ever again. [/QUOTE]

Verification