Search results

This is sort of what I am trying to say (the bolded part). Mind you I am not saying I hate 4E; or that it is an awful system. It isn't my favorite system, but I understand that is more because of taste. In terms of design, I have nothing but praise for the game from a design stand point. It is...

I guess it comes to me disagreeing with the designers on what the fighter role should be. I don't see fighters at defenders, but as defenders and or strikers. I actually loved the old 3E fighter because they were feat monkeys with large base attack bonuses. For me this fit the concept of the...

This is a matter of taste. I don't think one side is right or wrong here. It depends on what you prefer as a player. I prefer 'competition' in the character creation phase and in the battle phase. Personally I don't see it as competing against other players (if that is what you are implying). If...

I want my choices to impact outcomes, not flavor. I want suboptimal choices and optimal ones. So for the ranged example; i don't just want the option to make a crappy ranged fighter; I want to be able to create either a crappy or stellar ranged fighter depending on the choices I make. I...

Suboptimal doesn't mean they are always a bad choice; it depends what you are trying to build. But I do think it should be possible to create different power levels within a group of characters that are the same level. I realize not everyone prefers this, but that is how I like to game (and I am...

I would rather have sub optimal choices on the table; otherwise your decisions don't really matter. And sometimes things that are normally sub optimal, can end up working out in the right situation.

I really want the fighters do be able to dish out as much damage as the strikers in one blow. Or at least the ability to build my fighter that way. I basically feel like my character's role is a sponge. And making a ranged fighter is very difficult.

Being able to shift adjacent allies is one of my fighters key powers; so I end up using it a lot. This is a fair assesment. Though I think the narrow range of abilities are built around the role concept, so I do feel limited in my role as defender. So I think the role concept is somewhat to...

You may have a point here, as I only have the PHB and the DMG, so I am not familiar with the newer classes. But my understanding is that none of them blend roles (could be wrong though). That all of 4E is built around having characters that are one role. I guess what I am saying, is a...

I think what I find constraining about the roles is that I always seem to be limited to the same tactic in combat, and I just don't feel like I have enough options available to me. Even with the powers, my fighter is always getting tied up with opponents or shifting the halfing into positition...

A fighter definitely needed to do a full attack to do more damage, but their number of attacks gave them an edge; especially if you had improved critical and were a dual weilder. I don't think the non-casters were worthless. Just. You could make some pretty solid builds out of them. But I do...

I am not trying to provoke you. I was saying you are insulting me. You may think it is just being strident, I find it insulting. Good bye.

Your right, there were definitely some balance issues. But I think the point still stands, that characters were free to perform the function of multiple roles. Fighters tended to become less significant over the course of the campaign for sure. But they could serve easily as defenders and...

Yes you are.

I wont, and I am sorry we cannot carry this discussion further as it was beginning to get interesting and you made some very good points. But I refuse to continue if I am going to be insulted. If others have been rude to you in 4E debates, I appologize, but I have been nothing but polite.

But it produces something totally different. And that is the point. Yes it does. They are supposed to fight up close. It is just how you cut it. Ranged characters are supposed to fight far away. That is a role. But roles are much more specific about what actions and strategies you can...

Yes he could by using the combat options available in the game. Fighters tended to do well at things like grappling, bull rushing and tripping. There may not have been anything mechanically compelling NPCs to attack him; but he was an obvious choice, and he had lots of HP which allowed him to...

Sure it is. It is a transporter. He is good at getting around the field of battle. This is all in how you cut it. They could have divided the game into two roles: melee and ranged combatants. Once you establish roles, and then build a game around those roles, people who want other options will...

Exaclty. A fighter could function as a striker and a defender. Or a Wizard a controller, leader and a striker. In 4E it is like you have 4 roles to choose from and you have to stay within the confines of your role. In 3e, and even AD&D, it was more like you had ratings in each of the 4 roles...

Not saying it is easy. It took them a long time to settle on the roles. But I did provide you some additional examples: the guy who has tons of HP but can move all over the field. Also saying that instead of 4, they could have had 6, but cutting it up differently. Also, if you could please...