This will most likely be my last response to your posts as it's at best tangential to the topic and I really don't want to get into edition war territory...
Fair enough, I'll make this my last response as well then. I apologize if anything I said came across as encouraging edition war. In truth, I initially omitted any references to earlier editions (based on that very concern), but I upon further examination decided my point of comparison required clarification if I wanted to discourage anyone from trying to be a wiseguy. The line between disclaimer and edition war is a fine one indeed.
Let me only say this, since a Fighter can lock a particular target down... why would it be necessary for him to be able to chase it down? And since the fighter is built to be durable... why does he have to avoid attacks. In the end his role helps cancel out the mobility need of a true striker, so that if he produces as much damage as a striker he can cover the Strikers role and his own easily, and is better at it than a striker who does less damage than him. You don't have to do everything a class or role can do to overshadow it. A wizard in earlier editions couldn't wear plate mail or wield a Greatsword yet many claim he could overshadow the fighter.
Fighters can lock targets down very effectively in melee, but you can't lock down what you cannot reach. Strikers specialize in penetrating the front line. Defenders specialize in BEING the front line.
Sorry, but the Wizard wearing plate mail example is a bit shortsighted. While you are correct that a Wizard couldn't wear armor or use big weapons, he could use spells to emulate (often in a superior manner) the mechanics of a Fighter wearing heavy armor and using a powerful weapon (for example, using Shapechange to take the form of a powerful dragon with thick scales and wicked fangs). The Wizard is considered by many to have overshadowed the Fighter because
mechanically he could do everything the Fighter could do, and then some.
Exactly my point and with a PHB every year this is bound to happen with more than just the Wizard. While it could be argued this is because the designers are human, I think it's also or even moreso the fact that the type of balance WotC have chosen to go for with 4e gets harder and harder to maintain as more elements are added to the game.
As far as other editions, I think the fact that the marketing of 4e stressed how balanced it is and how much this will improve your game as opposed to the earlier "unbalanced" editions have made it so that this is one of the main selling points of 4e and if it's not maintained then it decreases one of the main draws of the game for many.
Except that this is an issue with every large, expanding system out there, whether it be the World of Darkness or Rifts. Sourcebooks add more mistakes because they add more material. Only simple, static systems (Wushu) can even begin to approach the concept of perfection.
The 4E designers, however, seem to have a basic set of guidelines that powers are created with. While individual powers may not always be perfectly balanced against each other, they will be much closer in power than they might be if they were designed for a game like Rifts, which doesn't concern itself with balance between classes at all.
While I agree that it would be nice if we could live in an idealized world with no war, famine, or design mistakes, that simply isn't the case. I would think it rather obvious that when the advertisers speak of 4E's balance, they are referring to it in real world terms as opposed to those of a Platonic ideal.
Note: I've never seen the Warlock argued as the best striker and have only seen him labeled as mediocre to sub-par at best (perhaps this will be corrected in Arcane Power along with the Wizard).
Honestly, I have. It was in a thread discussing the various Striker classes around the time that the PHB was released last year. Various people posted their opinions, and then someone summarized it nicely by saying something like, "since no one seems to agree on why any of these is the best, I think the balance between them is probably pretty good". Of course, the thread went on at least another 10 pages after that, but then, this is the internet...
Pretty close is subjective and I have actually listed why the Ranger is an all-around better Striker than Warlock or Rogue. He has a higher average damage output... his Hunters Quarry is not subject to attaining a condition... He is proficient in more weapons & armor, than the Rogue and more weapons are applicable to his actual powers as opposed to the Rogue.
I'll grant that it is subjective. Very well, I will list counter-examples for why the Rogue is his equal.
1) If most encounters involved running into a randomized armory to equip yourself for the fight at hand, I'd agree with you that the Ranger's expanded weapon list is an advantage. As it stands, it's just flavor (well, some of it is balance; Rogues who regularly get combat advantage can already put out crazy damage; being able to sneak attack with a high x[W] power while wielding a greataxe would make them absurd).
2) Between Hunter's Quarry (target's the nearest enemy) and Prime Shot, the ranged Ranger is strongly encouraged to get close, if not
as close, as the Rogue (which strongly mitigates the advantage that he gains from attacking at range).
The Rogue has only one less point of base armor than the ranged Ranger, but is designed for melee
unlike ranged Ranger. Guess who will do better in a situation where he can't get the enemy out of his face, the guy designed for melee or the guy whose attacks grant opportunity attacks most of the time?
3) Rogue sneak attack, while admittedly more conditional, deals twice or almost twice the bonus damage that Hunter's Quarry does. This means that he only needs to have it apply (combat advantage) about half as often as the Ranger's Quarry to do equivalent damage, and if he somehow is able to gain it more often, he does
more damage. It's situational, but gaining combat advantage in 4E is not very difficult in many cases. He won't have Sneak Attack as often as the Ranger will have Quarry, but Sneak Attack hits harder so in the end the odds are that it will average out.
*) IMO, Rogues have some of the coolest utility powers in the game.
There you have it. Three plus reasons that the Rogue is the Ranger's equal or better under the right conditions. It's only fair in thought experiments that if you assume ideal conditions for one class that you assume it for the other, and vise versa. So yes, such comparisons of classes tend to be
subjective, as indicated by your conclusion that the Ranger is superior, and my differing conclusion that given the right conditions they can each be superior to the other, but will most likely balance out when given a series of conditions (aka, encounters).
No offense but your actual argument here is hard to follow. Spotlight Balance in combat is hindered by the simple fact that teamwork is so important in combat. Who gets to stand out and shine on their own when their decisions need to be based on how best to help the others in their group? Really your arguing that Spotlight balance is present and easier to maintain in D&D 4e (I think)... but Spotlight balance is where one character gets to showcase his abilities in return for allowing others in different situations to do the same during other times. Combat is about teamwork so how do these two ideas coincide?
Remember, my argument is that Spotlight Balance was redefined for 4E. Taken from one perspective, yes, you are correct that everyone is now sharing the spotlight. Taken as the point that I was trying to make, if the 4E Wizard tries to stand in for the Fighter as a Defender he's probably going to have a very short career.
To explain it another way: assuming a traditional party (which, to some extent, is a generalization that D&D has always made) everyone will have a brief stint in the spotlight on their turn every round (the defender will defend, the controller will control, etc.). It isn't the type of Spotlight Balance that you might be used to seeing, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there. You just have to know where to look. Just like a chameleon, she has changed her colors to blend in.
So in specialized conditions and if he picks the right power (using thievery in combat) the Rogue is slightly faster than the Ranger, but overall the Ranger can do what the Rogue can (by spending one feat) and do all the things he can and use more weapons with his powers and wear better armor and do more damage on average, etc.
Slightly faster? Try three times as fast (more if the Rogue is an elf)! The Ranger
can keep up with the Rogue if desired, but in this case it's the equivalent of a +5 to the Rogue's check (relatively speaking).
Also, powers function perfectly fine outside of combat (see the Doppelganger race in the MM). It's the difference between, "I creep across the courtyard" and "I quickly sneak past the patrol". Meaning no offense, but have you played 4E at all, because a lot of what you are saying seems like it is based on hearsay.
Remember that the example I gave is only a 2nd level utility power. It only gets better at higher levels (Chameleon PHB pg 120). Now the Rogue can quickly sneak across a
moonlit courtyard right under the patrol's nose; let's see the Ranger do THAT.
I've already stated why I think the Rogue is conditionally the Ranger's equal, but let me go further to point out that even if he just keeps pace with the Ranger (which I already stated in my previous post puts the Rogue effectively one step ahead of him), he has one more feat to play with! So now the Rogue picks up the Backstabber feat and is dealing more damage than ever, while the Ranger cannot grab Lethal Hunter until he either decides to stop competing with the Rogue or runs out of feats to improve his thieving skills. Even if he does run out of feats, he's still not a better thief (assuming the Rogue decided to keep pace with him) but is a worse Striker. This has been termed opportunity cost, and is one of the few places where Naturalistic Balance has been somewhat retained.
I don't believe in absolutes, but we are talking majority here and the game... for all intents and purposes tries to balance itself around Concept Balance and not Spotlight or Naturalistic Balance. All I'm saying in the end is that I don't think games that become as subsystem and splat heavy as D&D always eventually becomes can effectively maintain balance based on concept. However there is no way to tell until we're looking back and naming the "unbalanced" things in the game 4 or 5 years from now.
I agree that Concept Balance was raised up and Naturalistic Balance taken down, but I still hold that while its portion of the pie may have been tweaked here or there, Spotlight Balance has primarily just changed its appearance in 4E, and is still quite evident as long as you know where to find it (in other words, it's more subtle at times). Whereas previously Spotlight Balance often was "the Wizard dominated this encounter but now we'll let the Rogue pick a lock", 4E often uses the spotlight in smaller increments "the Wizard dominated his turn of the round this encounter, but the Rogue can dominate his turn too, always assuming competent play and decent luck (which also applies to the Wizard)".
It's true, it will be a long time, if ever, before we know the accuracy of any of this. Considering that disagreements still arise about balance in editions all the way back to the original books, I doubt it will ever be completely settled. Nonetheless, it often makes for stimulating conversation and debate.
