4E Class Survivor - Round 8

[Garthanos]

Whiffing is unfun... and really unfun on dailies... so OoE is even available in MC form to allow somebody to go all biblical on the bad guys!!!! - and do so with surity.

I kind of like that should I put in my non existant sig.

"Hero of Faith: Going All Biblical on the Bad Guys With Surity."
​

 

[Jack99]

Rumor has it that he has too many abusive static damages blowing his damage dealing out of proportion to everyone elses (and yeah that means all the other strikers) combining with the characters multi-attack capability(TS or otherwise) ... but that is just inuendo.

Any class can be broken - next argument!

 

[FireLance]

Well, Paladins in general. They harsh the mellow.

More so than any other defender class? Or any other divine class? Or is there something about the intersection between the defender role and the divine power source that I'm just not seeing?

Plus, it's not like they're a mechanically fun class in 4E. Might as well just be a fighter that talks about his/her god a lot.

Well, "fun" is subjective. I like having a bit of divinely-fuelled healing and radiant power in my defender but I do recognize that it's personal preference.

Anyway, back on topic. At this point it's a question of which class I like the least since I think they are all fine additions to the D&D game. For this round, I think I will go with the ranger because:

1. I think it really ought to be primal, not martial.
2. There already is another martial striker, so there's a certain amount of redundancy.
3. With the benefit of hindsight, I think that some of its powers could be better phrased and balanced.

 

[Herobizkit]

Haha I just read the order in which the classes were voted off... are there REALLY that many Leader haters? Is there something intrinsic about the Leader type that turns people off? I haven't played 4e, but I know that I would likely play any of the Leader types (except maybe Warlord - unless they change the name to Marshall *lol*) in preference to the others.

I also forked this thread for further Leader discussion.

 

[Maggan]

It was an experiment for this round, and likely this round only.

I do find it interesting that the votes don't add up. Can you block your appearance on the list? It is an odd glitch. There is only one reason why I think that the votes could be deliberately wrong.

It is possible to vote if you're not logged on. And then you can clear your cookies and vote again, if you are so inclined.

/M

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Stop picking on the ranger. He does his job.

Thank you! Ranger is one of the few things I like about 4E. The class does what it's supposed to without any porblems, and is possibly the first D&D edition where archers are still viable after level 6 or so (why shoot a bow when the wizards have fireball and the fighters are getting fly spells and pounce?) -- I really like archers. Far as flavor goes...it's a Ranger! They may not have the whole natural warrior / suvivalist / antisocial loner vibe in the new edition, but that's a LOT easier to add to them than new mechanics, if they weren't able to fight like they were supposed to. You even have the previous editions to look at to replace their crappy fluff text with, so you don't even need to do the work yourself!

Haha I just read the order in which the classes were voted off... are there REALLY that many Leader haters? Is there something intrinsic about the Leader type that turns people off? I haven't played 4e, but I know that I would likely play any of the Leader types (except maybe Warlord - unless they change the name to Marshall *lol*) in preference to the others.

I also forked this thread for further Leader discussion.

Yeah, I don't know what happened. By the time I noticed the polls, leaders were all gone already. I'mgoing after defenders because I think it's a dumb unnecessary role, if roles are defined solely by combat (as opposed to 3E, where the "rogue" was equally defined by combat and non-combat, if none of the other 3 were). Leader seems like the most important role to me, it would be the last I vote off (Striker following closely behind, sine you do need to eventually kill your enemies). As far as the "fun" factor... I'd take playing a healer and buffer over playing a glorified punching bag any day of the week.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Well, Paladins in general. They harsh the mellow.

My #1 reason for liking Paladins since 1981.

I vote for the rogue. This game has been going downhill since this class was introduced.

 

[ScorpiusRisk]

Darn you all. You've made me reconsider my sorcerer hate.

 

[Tallifer]

Galahad, Percival, Joan of Arc, Brienne of Tarth, Britomart fromthe Faerie Queen, Orlando Furioso, the paladins of Roland, Bors, Pierre de Bayard (le chevalier sans puer et sans reproche), Sir Phillip Sidney ...

Paladins were the most popular archetype in mediaeval literature which is the basis of all fantastic literature. Even in the Middle Ages, the Age of Faith, all men were lecherous dissemblers, wretched thieves and foul backstabbers, but at least they looked up to heroes who could transcend the petty world about them.

 

[Tilenas]

We should never forget the fallen...so I volunter to record the events leading to their last moment with us:

Could you make one more column to include the power sources?

I think I'm sensing a pattern here...