A number of the classes in question were very rarely played in 3e (bards were terrible, monks were terrible)
This is so wrong.
Because someone doesn't like a race or a class doesn't mean it is [terrible] or that it [sucks].Having an opinion is fine. Making it an absolute statement is futile.
Whatever the editions of D&D, there have been many players who liked or disliked some classes, like Bards or Monks.
If you don't like them don't play them. But it doesn't mean they are [terrible].
Maybe they are just not your style.
|
We can speculate about WotC's motives for why they chose the classes they did for the original 4e PHB, but unless you were in on those meetings, you don't know.
In the end, the decision is largely an arbitrary one. It's not a backwards-compatible edition, so including the same classes that were in the 3.5 PHB does not serve any particular design requirements.
Comparing that decision to Pathfinder's core rulebook is like comparing apples and coffee. Pathfinder's stated goal is backward compatibility.
The barbarian, monk, and sorcerer in particular were not in the 2e players handbook (although they appeared popped up here and there across past editions), so their history as a "core class" is really quite short. Bards and druids have a longer history, but even they weren't in the original incarnation of D&D.
A new edition means new decisions can be made about what the essential classes are. They weren't under any obligation to keep everything that was in the 3.5 PHB.
Bards and druids have a longer history, but even they weren't in the original incarnation of D&D.
If you refer to OD&D (basic game), that's true.
But they both were in AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook.|
|
Bards and druids have a longer history, but even they weren't in the original incarnation of D&D.If you refer to OD&D (basic game), that's true.
But they both were in AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook.
That is what I was referring to.
In other words, from my perspective, the only classes they had any obligation to offer from the beginning, in order to call it "D&D", were fighter, rogue/thief, cleric, and wizard/mage/magic-user. And they gave us all of those.
|
I think of it like Chef Gusteau from Ratatouille when he states emphatically that "Anyone can cook!" What he actually means is that anyone can try their hand at cooking, and should be encouraged to give it a shot. Most people will not cook gourmet masterpieces fit for Michelin review, but that doesn't mean what they are cooking is somehow unacceptable, or that they and their families won't enjoy it.
The same goes of course for tinkering with the rules. Maybe you can create consistently good crunch.
I the spirit of Gusteau: Everyone can do crunch.Likewise, most people can write passable fluff, but only a special few can write truly excellent fluff. I happen to think that Paizo falls into this latter category.
"Passable Fluff" is something you can not qualify. What is passible for you might be crap for me but the best idea since the wheel for someone else.
Creating "good fluff" is also correlated to scale.
It is realtively easy to create an outstanding desciption of a magic item but it is much harder to create a the fluff for a town. The biggest challenge is of course the camapign setting.
The success of "plain vanilla" campaign settings like Greyhawk or Golarion or even FR shows that it is far easier to use pre-existing fluff (and maybe mold it so it fits your ideas) than to create your own campaign setting.
But the same does not hold true for mechanics. Few people can write acceptable mechanics on a consistent basis, and far too many are convinced they can.
This is because you can judge mechanics on an objective basis, while you can only judge Fluff on a subjective basis.
You will see immediately how your new Class the "Gartenzwerg" works with other classes and how his skills/feats/powers etc. interact with existing rules.Fluff is more malleable.
|
As much as I've been arguing with you in this thread, I can only wholeheartedly agree with this statement here. It really does make me sad when the avenues they already have for the fluff - the flavor text of powers and items, for example - is boring or dull. It is such a missed opportunity.
Excellent, sorry it took so long to word what I meant clearly enough. 4e has a lot of Crunch divorced from the Fluff - this lessens the game as a roleplaying game. I really don't think that if they had as you so rightly said "interwoven" Crunch and Fluff that many of the accusations of "board game" would have been leveled at 4e. I get the feeling that WotC spent too long congradulating themselves on the job well done with the mechanics and then ran out of time to do the game justice with equal effort Fluff-wise. A shame really.
S.
PS: How did this get into classes included or not included AGAIN... If we are going to continue I want to complain that the Anti-Paladin and Archer-Ranger from Dragon mag weren't included in either pfRPG or 4e. What were they thinking? No that's it I'm quiting my hobby of 24 years and taking up flower arranging.
A number of the classes in question were very rarely played in 3e (bards were terrible, monks were terrible)This is so wrong.
Because someone doesn't like a race or a class doesn't mean it is [terrible] or that it [sucks].
Having an opinion is fine. Making it an absolute statement is futile.Whatever the editions of D&D, there have been many players who liked or disliked some classes, like Bards or Monks.
If you don't like them don't play them. But it doesn't mean they are [terrible].
Maybe they are just not your style.
Oh, no, bards and monks are absolutely my style - one of my favorite play experiences involved a martial artist in a completely different system. They just were terrible in 3e. If it makes you feel better, I can certainly say "In my opinion, and that of pretty much everyone else I've encountered who has mechanically examined these classes, bards and monks are terrible."
"Passable Fluff" is something you can not qualify. What is passible for you might be crap for me but the best idea since the wheel for someone else.
Creating "good fluff" is also correlated to scale.
It is realtively easy to create an outstanding desciption of a magic item but it is much harder to create a the fluff for a town. The biggest challenge is of course the camapign setting.
The success of "plain vanilla" campaign settings like Greyhawk or Golarion or even FR shows that it is far easier to use pre-existing fluff (and maybe mold it so it fits your ideas) than to create your own campaign setting.
Yes, it certainly is easier. It's also easier to use premade crunch. Ease of use has no bearing on this discussion.
And while, yes, there is a certain amount of subjectivity involved, I think by and large people are going to tend to agree on the quality of a certain piece of fluff.
This is because you can judge mechanics on an objective basis, while you can only judge Fluff on a subjective basis.
You will see immediately how your new Class the "Gartenzwerg" works with other classes and how his skills/feats/powers etc. interact with existing rules.
Fluff is more malleable.
It's beyond me to back it up, but I firmly believe that amateur crunch is much more likely to be damaging to a play experience than amateur fluff. Certainly, outright terrible fluff or crunch will be bad. But while fluff is malleable and doesn't need to be just right to have its intended effect most of the time, crunch does need to be just right. Most people can't do "just right" with crunch.
Excellent, sorry it took so long to word what I meant clearly enough. 4e has a lot of Crunch divorced from the Fluff - this lessens the game as a roleplaying game. I really don't think that if they had as you so rightly said "interwoven" Crunch and Fluff that many of the accusations of "board game" would have been leveled at 4e. I get the feeling that WotC spent too long congradulating themselves on the job well done with the mechanics and then ran out of time to do the game justice with equal effort Fluff-wise. A shame really.S.
Thing is I agree with you but I'm not really sure that we represent all that significant a chunk of the community. It may be that we just have to be happy that we at least get some love in the form of books like DMG2 while accepting that for every book like the DMG2 there are going to be four books that emphasize new character classes, races or powers. On the upside its often not to difficult to tell the difference between a crunch heavy book and a fluff heavy one hence we can gravitate toward our favorite kind - and if you have access to the DDI you can even get access to much of this crunch without plopping down for a book thats not really any fun to read.
|
|
Bards and druids have a longer history, but even they weren't in the original incarnation of D&D.If you refer to OD&D (basic game), that's true.
But they both were in AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook.That is what I was referring to.
In other words, from my perspective, the only classes they had any obligation to offer from the beginning, in order to call it "D&D", were fighter, rogue/thief, cleric, and wizard/mage/magic-user. And they gave us all of those.
Actually, in OD&D (sans supplements), you could play a fighting man, a cleric, or a magic user. Elves had characteristics of both fighting men and magic users and had level caps, dwarves and hobbits were stuck with fighting man and also had level caps.
Thieves and druids didn't appear until the supplements were released (Greyhawk and Eldrich Wizardry, respectively, I believe).
I just looked at the upcoming releases. They appear to be going to do "race" books. Welcome back to the moronic days of 2e/3e splat book blot. Great chance for WotC to inject some sensibility into D&D after 3.x or so I thought 4e would be. I thought that the multi-PHB/DMG/MM's were quite a good idea to keep things in check - one per year, simple. Then of course the "powers" books were released, but grouped so things still weren't too overloading - but heading that way. But idea of races books just annoys 3 kinds of excretment out of me. UUURRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
Yeh, yeh I know - they need to make money, yada, yada... Doesn't make it any less annoying however.
In 1e you needed a bag to carry your books, in 2e you needed a compact car, in 3e you needed a station wagon, and now in 4e it looks like a semi would be a good investment.
S.
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers. 3E just NOW officially (counting Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine also) has over 2,000 feats, a few hundred prestige classes, I think maybe about 1,200 monsters between it's release date and the Elder Evils book, and as for spells I believe probably 2,000 of that (I'm comparing spells to 4E class powers) in a total of 7 years!
With the lineup of books I see coming, I can see that number doubling the 2nd year. Not including all the crazy, funky mechanics like Hybrid Characters and that new skill stuff coming in PHB3 and then Martial Power 2's Ritual-like martial abilities. Let's not forget Dragon Magazine adds a ton of crap. That's ridiculous. Is that what D&D will boil down to in about 5 years? Hundreds of thousands of...stuff?
2e was overload of fluff and 4e an overload of crunch...it seems only 1e and 3e had the perfect balance set. The odd-numbered editions seem to be doing great...maybe 5E will bring D&D back to normal again.
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers. 3E just NOW officially (counting Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine also) has over 2,000 feats, a few hundred prestige classes, I think maybe about 1,200 monsters between it's release date and the Elder Evils book, and as for spells I believe probably 2,000 of that (I'm comparing spells to 4E class powers) in a total of 7 years!
Can I play the make up numbers game too? 'Cause those 4e numbers certainly didn't come from the DDI.
It's also nice to know someone consolidated all the 3e feats, classes, etc., including Dragon and Dungeon, and actually made an OFFICIAL count. I guess so they could make a comparison to 4e.
I love made up facts. They add so much to the conversation.
I just looked at the upcoming releases. They appear to be going to do "race" books. Welcome back to the moronic days of 2e/3e splat book blot. Great chance for WotC to inject some sensibility into D&D after 3.x or so I thought 4e would be. I thought that the multi-PHB/DMG/MM's were quite a good idea to keep things in check - one per year, simple. Then of course the "powers" books were released, but grouped so things still weren't too overloading - but heading that way. But idea of races books just annoys 3 kinds of excretment out of me. UUURRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
Yeh, yeh I know - they need to make money, yada, yada... Doesn't make it any less annoying however.
In 1e you needed a bag to carry your books, in 2e you needed a compact car, in 3e you needed a station wagon, and now in 4e it looks like a semi would be a good investment.
S.
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers. 3E just NOW officially (counting Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine also) has over 2,000 feats, a few hundred prestige classes, I think maybe about 1,200 monsters between it's release date and the Elder Evils book, and as for spells I believe probably 2,000 of that (I'm comparing spells to 4E class powers) in a total of 7 years!
With the lineup of books I see coming, I can see that number doubling the 2nd year. Not including all the crazy, funky mechanics like Hybrid Characters and that new skill stuff coming in PHB3 and then Martial Power 2's Ritual-like martial abilities. Let's not forget Dragon Magazine adds a ton of crap. That's ridiculous. Is that what D&D will boil down to in about 5 years? Hundreds of thousands of...stuff?
Do you have any actual reason why lots of crunch is inherently bad? Or is it just the fact that it's not how things were done in your favorite edition?
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers. 3E just NOW officially (counting Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine also) has over 2,000 feats, a few hundred prestige classes, I think maybe about 1,200 monsters between it's release date and the Elder Evils book, and as for spells I believe probably 2,000 of that (I'm comparing spells to 4E class powers) in a total of 7 years!
Can I play the make up numbers game too? 'Cause those 4e numbers certainly didn't come from the DDI.
It's also nice to know someone consolidated all the 3e feats, classes, etc., including Dragon and Dungeon, and actually made a count. I guess so they could make a comparison to 4e.
I love made up facts. They add so much to the conversation.
Yeah, I was suspicious too, so I checked.
4,000 feats? Try less than half that.
5,000 monsters? More like 2,800.
Close to 1,000 paragon paths? We're not even a third of the way there.
Hundreds of epic destinies? There are 60, total.
The worst part is that the figures he gave were supposedly from GenCon, which means that what he actually saw was even less than the current numbers I provided above.
Razz, really, lying (or resorting to ridiculous, irresponsible hyperbole) doesn't do anything but make your own position look much less reasonable than it otherwise might.
Razz, really, lying (or resorting to ridiculous, irresponsible hyperbole) doesn't do anything but make your own position look much less reasonable than it otherwise might.
Razz has a reputation to consider when it comes to hyperbole. How can you expect him to be reasonable?
Razz, really, lying (or resorting to ridiculous, irresponsible hyperbole) doesn't do anything but make your own position look much less reasonable than it otherwise might.Razz has a reputation to consider when it comes to hyperbole. How can you expect him to be reasonable?
Ah, I think that was a little before my time here started.
Silly me.
snip the crazy
Oh Razz, how I have missed you *hugs*
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hey; somebody was b~%*~ing about Thanksgiving not being commercial enough; I ain't surprised by nothing no more's.
Speaking of over-commercialized holidays, I learned from a co-worker that his daughter asked why she wasn't getting a Halloween present. Halloween is already over-commercialized, but if it becomes a gift-giving holiday, the spirit of Samhain will surely rise up to destroy us all.
Razz, really, lying (or resorting to ridiculous, irresponsible hyperbole) doesn't do anything but make your own position look much less reasonable than it otherwise might.Razz has a reputation to consider when it comes to hyperbole. How can you expect him to be reasonable?Ah, I think that was a little before my time here started.
Silly me.
What's interesting, if you look at his other posts in other threads outside of 4e, Razz is actually a rational, sane human being with well-considered thoughts.
|
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers.
How many of those <*cough*> 5000 <*cough*> monsters (or however many there really are), are simply 'goblin with an ability added on', or 'skeleton, with flames!'?
Because in that case, it's no different from 3E allowing you to customise your creatures with class levels and templates. Just using core 3.5 on a level 1 goblin, I can use all 11 PC base classes, or the 5 NPC classes, and VOILA! Sixteen monsters!
Give all sixteen of those goblins the Fiendish template, and OMG! Thirty-two monsters!
See my lovely creations!
Am I not the master of life itself?
I HAVE HARNESSED THE SPARK OF THE GODS, AND INFUSED IT WITH THE PRIMORDIAL CLAY!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!11!1!!!!
IT'S ALIVE!!!!!
IT'S ALIVE!!!!!
The thing I find amusing out this thread is that Paizo's business model looks more like WoTC's every day, but 3/4 of the board has yet to notice.
Stop and think about it: Even with high expectations, Paizo was clearly taken aback at the fantastic response to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook at Gencon this year. One could almost write the transcript of the meeting! What largely started as a way to keep rules in print in support of adventure and setting products has become an end unto itself; look at the schedule: Advanced Player's Guide. Bestiary 2. I promise you there are half a dozen more waiting to be announced.
Is shift in focus a bad thing? That isn't for me to say. Paizo seems to be providing what it's customers want, just as it should be, and that's rarely a mistake. What I can say with certainty is that organizations don't emerge unchanged from periods of growth like the one Paizo is currently undergoing. This isn't a dig at Paizo, or at the path they've chosen. Nor is it a defense of WoTC, which has soundly pissed me off over the past year. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that those of you who are so quick to condemn WoTC might want to consider into what, exactly, Paizo may be growing.
How does that Kelly quotation go again? "We've met the enemy..."
Probably a bit late to the game, but excluding the AP's and Campaign Setting stuff from both companies, are you really saying that the PFRPG release schedule, both to date and future plans, is the equivalent of the D&D release schedule?
I mean, I understand that PFRPG has only officially been out since August, but we've got 2 books currently, and by next August, we'll have, what, 2 more (GameMastery Guide and the Advanced Player's Guide)? For a total of 4?
D&D 4E was release in June of 2008? Since then, we've already got 16 books (again, not counting campaign setting stuff), with 10 more slated for release by 06/10.
That's 13/year for D&D 4E, 4/year for PFRPG. Will the PFRPG schedule expand? Perhaps, but an attempt to equate the extremely limited release schedule of PFRPG with D&D 4E is rather disingenuous.
(And yes, I've excluded books like "Elves of Golarion" because that's campaign-setting specific stuff - It's not "core" or even tied to core - just like I excluded the FR or Eberron books. I've also excluded releases of things like "Power Cards" or a DM Screen.)
Considering that Paizo has yet to shift from what they announced they were going to do (3 RPG books/year), I think that Paizo's business model continues to look more like Paizo's business model every day.
|
|
Hey; somebody was b~%*~ing about Thanksgiving not being commercial enough; I ain't surprised by nothing no more's.Speaking of over-commercialized holidays, I learned from a co-worker that his daughter asked why she wasn't getting a Halloween present. Halloween is already over-commercialized, but if it becomes a gift-giving holiday, the spirit of Samhain will surely rise up to destroy us all.
What, you havn't decorated your turkey tree yet?
I'm not quite following you. What are you hinting at?
They sell all their copies of one book and have to make an immediate re-run because people are being killed for their Pathrinder books, so they do a higher print run the next time. They sell really well again. And so forth and so on. They continue to do what they're doing, since it seems to make people really happy.
All the while, they keep selling rules stuff as well as all the stuff they've been selling all the time. I haven't seen any slacking in Chronicles or APs or anything else.
Could you spell out what your concerns are? I tried to see where something bad is happening, but I got nothing.
No concerns; I'm just amused at people who criticize WoTC for making crunch books when Paizo looks to be doing the same. As WoTC seemed to figure out in the 3E era, like it or not, crunch sells, and it appears that holds true for Pathfinder RPG.
Edit: Well, the "no concerns" part isn't entirely accurate; I do think it extremely likely that Paizo will make some missteps, but ultimately I hope (and expect) that they'll find the right balance.
Wait...when did Razz come back?
Razz, really, lying (or resorting to ridiculous, irresponsible hyperbole) doesn't do anything but make your own position look much less reasonable than it otherwise might.Razz has a reputation to consider when it comes to hyperbole. How can you expect him to be reasonable?Ah, I think that was a little before my time here started.
Silly me.
Razz hates all things 4E with a burning passion. Walk away while you can... ;-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers.
How many of those <*cough*> 5000 <*cough*> monsters (or however many there really are), are simply 'goblin with an ability added on', or 'skeleton, with flames!'?
Math is hard!
|
|
4,000 feats? Try less than half that.Close to 1,000 paragon paths? We're not even a third of the way there.
Hundreds of epic destinies? There are 60, total.
Er, that is still a stupid amount of rule clutter!!! Which brings me back to the way that Crunch is being written for Crunch's (i.e. moving little badly painted and moulded figures around a battle grid) sake alone. They write the Crunch THEN as an after thought why in the name of Hades it should bein the game from a Fluff point of view.
My pet peeve - 3e I'm looking at you also buddy...
Half the anti-4e posts out there are about how limiting the game is, and how there aren't enough options to express all the different character concepts people want. Now some people think there are too many options.
Then there is always 4e Derangement Syndrome.
No concerns; I'm just amused at people who criticize WoTC for making crunch books when Paizo looks to be doing the same. As WoTC seemed to figure out in the 3E era, like it or not, crunch sells, and it appears that holds true for Pathfinder RPG.
I think the critique is "wotc makes only crunch books", not "wotc makes crunch books at all". Maybe "wotc overdoes the crunch stuff", too.
Paizo is different there: While they now start doing crunch only books (or at least books where the rules part is the important thing, and there is little flavour added), they don't abandon all their other titles.
In fact, while the RPG titles will be 3-4 months apart, the other stuff is there a lot faster.
We get a Chronicles book roughly once a month. They're mostly fluff, with only supplementary crunch (and the crunch is there to support the fluff).
You could say that APs are bit in crunch, but they were there from the start, and I'd consider them more fluff with crunch attached, since it's stories complete with the stats for the cast.
Modules, lacking the second half of the APs (which is mostly fluff), are a bit crunchier, and Companions are 50-5), but all in all, the fluff is still going very strong, with no ebbing in sight.
Edit: Well, the "no concerns" part isn't entirely accurate; I do think it extremely likely that Paizo will make some missteps, but ultimately I hope (and expect) that they'll find the right balance.
Everyone makes mistakes. In fact, Paizo has made some of them before - and I don't just speak of typos or forgetting to add Dodge to the AC or something like that.
But it's a small minority compared to all the stuff they did right. I don't think we need to be concerned.
Which brings me back to the way that Crunch is being written for Crunch's (i.e. moving little badly painted and moulded figures around a battle grid) sake alone.
This is a bit reductionist. I can use reductionism for all kinds of arguments. For instance, most boardgames are about getting to the finish line before anyone else. So why do we need endless variations of that basic objective? There should be only one board game. Well, no, because getting there is half the fun.
Actually, combat in 4e (and all other editions) is not about moving figures on a grid, but about reducing the enemy to 0 hit points before they do the same to you. Everything else is how that is done. The real question is - are all these variations of how to make it happen (i.e. crunch) fun? Does it have proper flavor, is it challenging, is there variety, etc.?
Of course, the answer is subjective. Personally, I find 4e (and its 4000 powers or however many there are) satisfies me. To me it's not crunch for crunch's sake. I get excited about how a barbarian reduces an enemy's hit points differently than a rogue - both in flavor and in crunch. I like the variation on the basic theme.
Can we frame this thread as proof of "You can't please everybody?"
Half the anti-4e posts out there are about how limiting the game is, and how there aren't enough options to express all the different character concepts people want. Now some people think there are too many options.
Well, I think it's both true: There are too many options that are too limited.
The 4e core fighter is either a twohander or a sword&board warrior. Then, there's dozens of powers for those two concepts.
Now, if you want to play a two-weapon fighter or maybe a ranged attacker, you cannot use the class as it is now: You might need a new class, and you definitely need more powers.
3e, and especially Pathfinder, on the other hand, try to have flexible classes. The fighter can use a zweihänder, or a weapon and a shield, or two weapons, or a ranged weapon, or...
Know what I mean?
The 4e core fighter is either a two-hander or a sword&board warrior. Then, there's dozens of powers for those two concepts.
Now, if you want to play a two-weapon fighter or maybe a ranged attacker, you cannot use the class as it is now: You might need a new class, and you definitely need more powers.
I would argue: what's the difference between a ranger and a fighter other than some rules differences. You can always adjust the "label" and the flavor for your campaign (i.e. call your ranger crunch a "ranged fighter" if you wish).
But here's the kicker. You argue that the core fighter is not flexible. So they create a new stat book in which fighters can now use bows. So, are we happy that the variety now exists, or are we unhappy that there is too much variety? Some people want to be unhappy both by lack of variety and by too much of it. You can't have both.
I understand better the argument that some are unhappy they have to buy supplement X to get a bow wielding fighter. But that's different from the argument of whether there are too many options.
|
|
Know what I mean?
Not really.
I don't get why anyone needs to have "an archery fighter". "Archery fighter" is not a character concept. "Archer" is, and 4e has a few different ways to make a good one of those.
"Fighter who specializes in two-handed weapons" is not a character concept either. "Guy who fights with a weapon in each hand" is, and 4e will let you build it just fine.
What's the hang up on making sure that those characters are members of the fighter class?
In other words, "When is a fighter not a fighter?"
Edit: Ninja'd by the whimsy one.
If I remember correctly, there is a 2 weapon fighter build now. As well as the two weapon fighting feat, that gives your main hand +1 damage during heroic tier. So if one fighter was using a greatsword and the other is using a longsword/shortsword with the two weapon fighting feat. One would do 1d10 and the other would do 1d8+1. I know there is a difference but it only comes up on crits and maximum dice rolls. The base average is still 5.5.
Blazej is sad.
Can we frame this thread as proof of "You can't please everybody?"
Half the anti-4e posts out there are about how limiting the game is, and how there aren't enough options to express all the different character concepts people want. Now some people think there are too many options.
Well, I think it's both true: There are too many options that are too limited.
The 4e core fighter is either a twohander or a sword&board warrior. Then, there's dozens of powers for those two concepts.
Now, if you want to play a two-weapon fighter or maybe a ranged attacker, you cannot use the class as it is now: You might need a new class, and you definitely need more powers.
3e, and especially Pathfinder, on the other hand, try to have flexible classes. The fighter can use a zweihänder, or a weapon and a shield, or two weapons, or a ranged weapon, or...
Know what I mean?
I hear that a two-weapon fighter or a ranged fighter is called a Ranger.
When WotC let the DDi Compendium free on WW D&D Day or GenCon(or whatever day it was, it was recent though) I took the liberty of looking to see how much bloat was in 4E after only a year.I don't remember the exact numbers, but I was shocked to see over 4,000 feats, 5,000 monsters, hundreds of paragon paths (now getting close to 1,000), hundreds of epic destinies, and I think over 3,000 powers...
Razz! I missed you - I see that your accuracy involving all thing 4E hasn't changed.