Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4008057" data-attributes="member: 42582">From what I know of WoW and similar games, I think there are several differences bewteen what you describe and the designers' intentions for 4e:*First, in 4e the Fighter and Paladin will be significant damage dealers.*As a result, and second, the Striker will probably not be taking down the same foes as those the Fighter is holding in a lock, but rather behind-the-lines foes like monster controllers or artillery which the Defender cannot reach (due to crappy mobility).*Third, in 4e the Leader will not necessarily be spending the bulk of his or her actions on healing and buffing, because these will be side effects of other actions (like successfully damaging a foe).*Fourth, a significant aspect of Wizards' control seems to be AoE damage, which creates incentives for enemies to avoid clustering (and therefore flanking, once the Wizard has Golden Wyvern Adept). The point of this cannot be to lock those monsters down, but is rather (I assume) to open up space for the Defenders, and even more so the Strikers, to move through the battlefield.There may be the threat here of wash, rinse, repeat - it's hard to know without looking at the rules and playing the game. But to me it seems different from WoW play.True, though for me I have a stronger resonance with a different 1st ed scenario (in the combat section of the PHB): while the Fighter fights the Orcs, the Thief sneaks behind the lines and backstabs the Illusionist who is in charge of the Orcs.I agree with your substantive claim, but I think it's unfair to say the claim to the contrary is "disingenuous at best". It's false at best, disingenuous (or, really, lying) at worst - but there's no evidence of any intended falsehood.</blockquote>

Verification