It's not. I'm talking about a specific 3.5e character here, and his skills could not be covered by a ranger, so, while his specific style of fighting (that of a pirate who stabbed people in the back with two cutlasses) might be covered under a ranger, his skills would not, as I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.
Now, for all I know, in one of the later books there's an Urban Ranger variant that gets these skills and drops the more nature-ish ones like Nature and Heal in exchange, in which case it would be fine and I withdraw the criticism.
Also, that's exactly what I was talking about with regard to arbitrary restrictions - you're penalized for choosing something that isn't one specific type weapon.
EDIT: Another question - are the subscriptions from the old forum going to be restored, because I had a ton that I used as reference materials, and it's kinda irksome that they're all just gone.
This character concept can be done in 4e too, and there are more than one way to do it. Here is Steve the Pirate (Arrr!), done in two different ways.
First, with a multiclass feat. In order to get the skills you want, I used a background, a rogue multiclass feat, and one skill training feat.
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== Steve the Pirate, level 1 Human, Ranger Build: Two-Blade Ranger Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style Background: Saved from the Noose (for Bluff class skill), Luskan, Occupation - Criminal
FINAL ABILITY SCORES Str 18, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.
FEATS Human: Sneak of Shadows (for Thievery class skill) Level 1: Skill Training (Intimidate)
POWERS (all ranger powers that work well with two blades) Bonus At-Will Power: Shield of Blades Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike Ranger at-will 1: Nimble Strike Ranger encounter 1: Off-Hand Strike Ranger daily 1: Jaws of the Wolf
ITEMS Adventurer's Kit, Hide Armor, Longsword (2) (just call them Cutlasses) ====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
Then, with Hybrid Classes. This works even better as you don't have to spend a single feat on skills. Only one concession: he uses a longsword and a parrying dagger, because he must weild a light blade for most rogue powers. But that's piratey also. Alternately, you could weild two shortswords and call them "shorter cutlasses":
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== Steve the Pirate, level 1 Human, Ranger|Rogue Hybrid Ranger: Hybrid Ranger Reflex Hybrid Talent: Ranger Fighting Style Ranger Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style Background: Brash Duelist (for +2 to Bluff), Luskan, Occupation - Criminal
FINAL ABILITY SCORES Str 18, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 13.
ITEMS Adventurer's Kit, Leather Armor, Longsword, Parrying dagger, Dagger (5) ====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
What is nice is that you can do the concept you want from level 1. You don't have work at it for 5-6 levels like before.
I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.
Taking three skill trainings in 4e is also not such a big deal.
Although a 3rd method (if you don't care about race too much) might be to make an Eladrin rogue and take longsword finesse and two-blade warrior.
Or using the Hybrid Steve the Pirate from my previous post, take Weapon Proficiency (Rapier) instead of Weapon Proficiency (Parrying Dagger), and use two rapiers (erm, thinner cutlasses).
There are many ways to skin this rabbit.
But as you can see, Chrisasmadi, doing this guy does not require 3 feats. It's doable with 1 or 2.
I felt the multiclassing system was worse, because instead of being, say, an arcane trickster who blends thievery and magic properly, you're either a rogue with a few wizard tricks or a wizard with a few rogue tricks.
Bad example, an arcane trickster blending thievery and magic is covered without multi-classing. You could get the concept, without spending a single feat, in PHB1. Check out the book again, as you are looking at it wrong.
Personally, I prefer morally grey characters, which is why most of them are Neutral, but limiting it to goody-goody characters is bad because it reduces options, and less options is bad.
Umm, neutral characters are already covered under the system as is, they are Unaligned. also all the neutral deities are covered as well.
The only thing that was not covered for the range of character alignments was evil deities channel divinity feats, so an divine character of a evil deity is left out a little. Everything else is covered. The game is not focused on "goody-goody" character as you keep calling it, it even states that most people are unaligned. it is light on evil priests, and all you need for them is a single home brew feat per priest.
Also, a ranger who takes thievery and other urban skills is an Urban Ranger, not a Rogue. He lacks what I feel is one of the main aspects of a rogue, Sneak Attack (aka stabbing people in the back while they're not looking).
So you are defining a character concept entirely on one class feature, and you can not get the concept without that class feature. you are stuck in a mind set that the designers of 4E decided to get rid of for the game. Class does not define character concept.
Hers is the thing, the class names are just placeholders put on a set of combat tricks. they in no way define the character personality. Associating a concept with one single ability is bad as it limits your options in playing a character based game.
Also, you get get the concept of a dual wielding rogue through the 2-weapon feats, and be getting bonuses for doing so, you just do not get multiple attacks without multi-classing to ranger or fighter, unless you are a half elf, who can get twin strike as an at will in paragon tier (encounter before that)
Also, hunter's quarry, while it would make sense for an assasin type rogue focused on killing one foe, doesn't particularly work well for an opportunist type rogue who stabs whoever he can, whenever he can.
Actually it does work, if you use quarry every turn before you attack, especially since you have to quarry the closest enemy. plus it works on its own, which is better for your opportunity rogue, as he can keep it up longer since he does not need to continually generate combat advantage, and the ranger hits more ofter.
If you are looking at it from the point of view of someone who is trying to kill his target as fast as possible, a ranger with rogue multi-classing is actually a very good fit for this as you should only need sneak attack once, at the start of the encounter, and quarry is better over the duration of the encounter.
his skills would not, as I would have to, presumably, take multiple feats to get (three infact, in order to get Thievery, Bluff and Intimidate) the relevant skills.
Actually ony one feat is required, take eledrin for race and get the other through a background from PHB2
1. The 4e core cosmology has not been changed, and I don't at all agree that it sucks. It provides nearly every sort of plane or planar location you could want for an actual adventure, in an interesting and logical setup. It was designed with more of an eye for actual adventures than 3rd edition's Planescape-inspired cosmology, which was fun to think about but not nearly as functional (IE: here's a kewl plane where you explode with positive energy after a while, and here's a kewl plane where you explode with negative energy after a while, and here's a plane that's nothing more than a giant metal cube with constructs constantly fighting on it).
No planescape supplement has been announced, and it's unlikely that one will be since so many elements of planescape have been cherry-picked for the core cosmology. It's still a possibility, though.
2. Nearly every character concept imaginable is playable in 4th edition (occasionally requiring minimal reflavoring work), even with just the core 3 books. Possible exceptions include summoners and minion-heavy character concepts, since 4th edition doesn't really encourage or support a single player controlling many individual combatants, and so, taking a very long turn each round.
Gishes in particular have been possible from the beginning, with effective combinations like warlord/wizard available since release. A specific gish class, the swordmage, is also now available.
3. Forgotten Realms and Ebberon are currently supported with supplements, and Dark Sun will be next year. On Planescape, see my comment above. Updates of other older settings are possible in 2011 and beyond, but nothing has been confirmed.
4. The wizard in 4th edition is a proper and complete wizard because it is subject to 4th edition's definition of "wizard," not 3rd edition's. There are no schools of magic in 4th edition, and necromancers are separate from wizards in 4th edition. I'm honestly not sure what news we have about a specific necromancer class coming in the future. As for summoning-heavy character concepts, characters with one or two companions following them around are now possible, but characters with a whole squad of minions are still unsupported, for the reason mentioned above.
5. Psionic classes are coming in the Player's Handbook 3; several classes that were in 3rd edition were in 4th edition's Player's Handbook 2 as well.
6. 4th edition does not and never has had a focus on "goody-goody" characters. It does provide more support for lawful good, good, and unaligned characters, since campaigns with such characters are much more common than evil campaigns, and evil campaigns are often fraught with problems like player characters betraying one another. No more specific support for evil characters has been announced yet; an "evil" supplement is a possibility some time in the future.
I can already see one gaping flaw with both of those. Neither one has Athletics as a trained skill, and I would say that, well, swimming is kinda important as a pirate.
Otherwise, colour me surprised, I guess it is possible.
Using backgrounds sounds kinda dodgy, though. How widely used are they in games (or are they just variant stuff the odd person uses, like they were in 3.5e)?
6. 4th edition does not and never has had a focus on "goody-goody" characters. It does provide more support for lawful good, good, and unaligned characters, since campaigns with such characters are much more common than evil campaigns, and evil campaigns are often fraught with problems like player characters betraying one another. No more specific support for evil characters has been announced yet; an "evil" supplement is a possibility some time in the future.
A while back, I was reading a preview of the Lich epic destiny on the site, and, well, it had the flavour of "stayin' alive no matter the odds to keep fighting evil", from what I recall. This, to me, is rediculously goody-goody. It's A LICH. It's supposed to be Evil, for gods sake.
swimming important for a pirate? yes but it's not required on your resume.
it was, and still is, common for people who work on ships to not know how to swim. my father owns a fishing boat and his helper, the guy who spends most of the time on deck handling the traps, lines & netting depending on season while my dad drives & navigates, doesn't know how to swim. several others down at the wharf can't either, and a lot of them have 30-40 years expericence, starting when they were younger on their own dad's boat.
fishing (and pirating) was a job like any other. swimming was beneficial, but in the open seas without a life jacket, knowing how to swim won't always help. when you have have waves tall, or taller, as your ship, your best bet is to tie yourself to the rigging and hope the knot doesn't let go. if it does, hope your buddies come back and throw you a line.
my dad enforces a strict lifejacket policy on anyone in his boat. it's a small and easy enough to turn around boad so he can fish you quickly enough from the ocean should you fall in, but back when boats were less maneuverable in the waters (no motors and such), especially when it was rough, falling overboard is essentially handing your life to Dagon to do as he pleases.
EDIT:
the lich you're thinking of the archlich, basically the "good lich", was presented as an additional Epic Destiny
"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I can already see one gaping flaw with both of those. Neither one has Athletics as a trained skill, and I would say that, well, swimming is kinda important as a pirate.
Uhh... so train athletics? It's extremely easy to train skills. It's actually a very good use of feats. Skill checks in many styles of game will arise a lot more often than many of the other uses of feats.
Regardless, swimming is not something you need to be trained in in order to swim, nor is it necessary for a pirate to be an especially strong swimmer. Staying afloat and swimming half your speed is a DC 10, which you hardly need training for. Besides, that wasn't part of the original criteria. If somebody makes a build with athletics, somebody else will just pop in here and say, "But he doesn't have the pirate training feat, or the funny hat class feature, or the wooden leg flaw!"
A while back, I was reading a preview of the Lich epic destiny on the site, and, well, it had the flavour of "stayin' alive no matter the odds to keep fighting evil", from what I recall. This, to me, is rediculously goody-goody. It's A LICH. It's supposed to be Evil, for gods sake.
That is just fluff, one of the cornerstones of the edition is it is completly seperate from the rules.
It is only present in the EDs tagline
defending against evil does not make you good.
The Ed is really someone who took the power of a lich without using Orcus as a shortcut, you can easily use that with an evil PC, who does not want to be subservent to anyone.
The ED is primarially makeing you an enemie of orcus, guess what alignment his biggest enemy is. Hint: it starts with U.
the primary method of playing it against evil threats, this is just suporting that.
PLease stop using "goody-goody" the game is not, and the term is actually a bit too imature for use in these discussions.
Liches do not have to be evil, it is only fluff that says they do. Get over it.
Are you so stuck on 4E being "goody-goody" because of the lack of rules for evil or vilanous NPCs? If so, they do not exist because of the seperate rules for PCs and NPCs (to somplify the DMs job) and if you want an evil game you just need to change fluff and presto, it works.
