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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Silverblade The Ench" data-source="post: 3977354" data-attributes="member: 19083">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!   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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!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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sorry for the derial <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Anyway, back to the wizards! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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.FLy over that booby trapped hall? Fine, did you Spot the trip wire further up the hall? Ah well...too bad... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />etcThe 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification