Silverblade The Ench said:
Grr, rangers are not and never should be "masters of archery"...GAH!! Sorry, rangers are "masters of the wild/hunting/tracking/survival and non-magical combat in the wild".
The "two weapon" silliness of AD&D PO'd me off enormously. 3.5 fixed things, though why a woodsman would actually have speical stuff with dual wielding is ludicrous. They should be very good with hunting weapons, you don't hunt deer etc with two scimitars!
True, although the fact that shields and greatswords are unwieldy in undergrowth makes twf and archery good choices for forest based combat, the fact that they didn't have a spear based combat style or other woodlands appropriate combat styles was very silly.
Silverblade The Ench said:
Fighters train all the time to be masters of combat, nothing else. They, and only they, are the masters of weaponry, though other folk can of course, be very good, but not as good, note the only class to get weapon specialization!
A large part of the design concept of 4e is that all classes should be able to contribute to combat in different ways, making Fighters the best at "fighting" in general would kind of go against this.
Silverblade The Ench said:
I really hope 4th ed can fix that, and make rangers actual RANGERS and not some weird thing which they have been until 3.5 and even then to an extent. Perosnally I'd suggest giving rangers instead of two wepaon fighting and species benefits, an increasing benefit while fighting in their "chosen environment", like +2 all hit/damage/skill checks in "temperate Forest" or the like
This again goes against the design concept of 4e, since having a major combat ability that only comes up in certain areas overly restricts the DM's choices of plot so that he makes sure everyone has a fair go. A better idea would perhaps be to give the ranger abilities based on moving through and using terrain obstacles to his benefit, as this is something an outdoorsy guy would be good at, while still being helpful in multiple different situations.
Silverblade The Ench said:
Anyway, back to the wizards!
I think this is a load of hooey on the part of the designers (though we sitll don't know eveyrthing and thus I maybe wrong)
-As folk note, many people won't use/allow psionics. It's simply ridiculous to force folk to use psionics or wait months or years for books with "enchanters" etc.
-Classic fantasy/mythological wizards used charms etc. To remove that is actually MORE foolish thna removing fireballs, which are usually NOT parts of mythological wizard's arsenal!
The answer is quite easy, really, paragon/epic paths for specialization in certain areas, thus your classic "necromancer", "enchanter" etc.
We don't know the 4th ed mehcanics yet, but surely the designers can work it so that wizards can play as more than simple damned blasters! I love playing wizards as blaster's last, "thinkers, talkers and McGuyvers 1st!"
FOlk say wizards are too powerful, they cna do everything...well, duh, wizards are smart, of ocurse they iwll thus come up with ways to deal with problems
On a more seriosu note, the thing is, wizards have limited uses of these abilities in 1st to 3.5 ed, or did folk not notice that eensy wensy wee problem?
Physicists are smart, therefore they can come up with ways to deal with problems, therefore obviously Steven Hawking is the most powerful adventurer ever.
Seriously, saying "wizards are cool and smart" or "it's magic" isn't a reason to make them overpowered, and no, high level Spellcasters did not have have appreciable limits on their spell power, certainly not compared to everything else in the game.
Silverblade The Ench said:
Also I think too many DMs and the rules were a tad easy on wizards. "Knock" should never have been allowed to open any lock, I won't allow it in my games. Easy locks, npb, but well made locks, nah, give it a Open Lock with +1 per caster level +Int modifier, and problem solved.
Umn, so why do you have a problem with the designers doing similar things so that you don't have to?
Silverblade The Ench said:
FLy over that booby trapped hall? Fine, did you Spot the trip wire further up the hall? Ah well...too bad...
etc
Nobodies saying this kind of thing isn't possible, but this is what's called "working around/against the system", It's a problem you've fixed in your games, doesn't mean as designers they shouldn't fix the problem with the rules in the first place, set it up so I don't have to punish the spellcaster for using his magic in imaginative ways.
Silverblade The Ench said:
The REAL problem has been that fighters in particular, but also barbarians, paladins and rangers to increasingly lesser degrees, were stuck in a "cave man" routines, where their ability to do "useful" things was limited by game mechanics. I always let 'em roleplay, based on their characterization notes, before 3rd ed, 3rd ed, while it's superb, put a logical crimp in that: Joe the great RPer, with 2 skill point per levle fighte,r si gonna suck at negotiations....
THAT's what caused problems and resentments: some folk looked at wizards as "do anything" where in fact, it was their characters who'd been gimped by the rules.
4th ed, if it follows SWSE type rules for skills, will let everyone be useful at skills. So, Joe the fighter if he wants can Climba nd Disarm Traps. THat's cool, but it also means no more need ot be envious of wizards.
Absolutely, but remember, Rogues often also felt overshadowed by wizards at high levels (although not as much as fighters), implying this won't solve everything, the power difference was between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, not merely between Fighter-types with no skills and Wizards.
Silverblade The Ench said:
That's not to say that there may not be some problems with wizards needing redress...I'm sure there's plenty of ways munchkins use the rules to over power things, sigh.
The mechanics of 4th ed sound good, the "feel" of it, meh, feels off from what has been said.
I know the designers want to freshen it up, improve things, but for every two goods thing I hear, I hear one that's bad.
I agree with the idea that having the only controller in the PHB be mostly a "blaster" as opposed to based more off actual Crowd Control or Terrain control (or having a blaster and an atuall "controller") was a poor choice, and I'm fairly disappointed by it, although I care far less about the names of things and what class would do what than a lot of people I've heard from.
