Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5271830" data-attributes="member: 996">That is a better comparison.&nbsp; The Sorcerer and Warlock are both arcane strikers, they're even both arguably secondary controllers.&nbsp; Functionally, they're a little different, though.&nbsp; The Sorcerer is more about straight-up damage than the Warlock, and it's secondary controller aspect is more focused on area attacks, while the Warlock controller aspect is more about conditions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Conceptually, though, there's a greater difference.&nbsp; The Warlock is sinister (the arcane 'bad boy'), which apeals to a lot of players, and gains his power from a perilous pact with arcane entities of vast power.&nbsp; The Sorcerer, OTOH, is self-contained (an 'arcane entity' in his own right), with power 'in his blood' or otherwise more or less innate, rather than learned, like the Wizard, or borrowed, like the Warlock.So, even though they're both arcane-strikers-secondary-controllers, they're functionally and conceptually distinct.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMHO, the Sorcerer is the superior class, and the Warlock survives mainly on his 'bad boy' image.&nbsp;Very true.&nbsp; While the Warlock is arguably edged out on the power scale by the Sorcerer, and the Ranger is arguably the most potent striker, the Warlock and other non-ranger strikers still see plenty of play.&nbsp; It's because they have conceptual differences that make them interesting beyond the DPR calculations - and, because, really, the disparity between 'best' and 'worst' strikers, when considering builds that might actually see play, aren't all that great.With the Knight and the Shield Fighter, OTOH, they share not only role and function, but concept, as well.&nbsp; The 'Knight,' by virtue of it's name, alone, might be said to have a definite concept, even though it has no features that hint at chivalry.&nbsp; The Shield Fighter (and Paladin) cover the same concept, though.&nbsp; So, there's nothing to choose between them beyond the effectiveness of their respective mechanics.&nbsp;The STR Cleric, similarly, has one shot at a concept the Warpriest doesn't cover, and that's the 'Priest of Kord.'&nbsp; STR-primary when you worship a god of strength just makes too much sense.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Yes.&nbsp; One could argue it has already done so, making the Warpriest more of a final nail in the STR Cleric's coffin, than a threat.&nbsp; I say one /could/, because I've seen the arguement made.&nbsp; I haven't so much as glances at the Runepriest, myself - psionics 'poisoned' the PH3 for me, so I haven't picked it up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5271830, member: 996"] That is a better comparison. The Sorcerer and Warlock are both arcane strikers, they're even both arguably secondary controllers. Functionally, they're a little different, though. The Sorcerer is more about straight-up damage than the Warlock, and it's secondary controller aspect is more focused on area attacks, while the Warlock controller aspect is more about conditions. Conceptually, though, there's a greater difference. The Warlock is sinister (the arcane 'bad boy'), which apeals to a lot of players, and gains his power from a perilous pact with arcane entities of vast power. The Sorcerer, OTOH, is self-contained (an 'arcane entity' in his own right), with power 'in his blood' or otherwise more or less innate, rather than learned, like the Wizard, or borrowed, like the Warlock. So, even though they're both arcane-strikers-secondary-controllers, they're functionally and conceptually distinct. IMHO, the Sorcerer is the superior class, and the Warlock survives mainly on his 'bad boy' image. Very true. While the Warlock is arguably edged out on the power scale by the Sorcerer, and the Ranger is arguably the most potent striker, the Warlock and other non-ranger strikers still see plenty of play. It's because they have conceptual differences that make them interesting beyond the DPR calculations - and, because, really, the disparity between 'best' and 'worst' strikers, when considering builds that might actually see play, aren't all that great. With the Knight and the Shield Fighter, OTOH, they share not only role and function, but concept, as well. The 'Knight,' by virtue of it's name, alone, might be said to have a definite concept, even though it has no features that hint at chivalry. The Shield Fighter (and Paladin) cover the same concept, though. So, there's nothing to choose between them beyond the effectiveness of their respective mechanics. The STR Cleric, similarly, has one shot at a concept the Warpriest doesn't cover, and that's the 'Priest of Kord.' STR-primary when you worship a god of strength just makes too much sense. ;) Yes. One could argue it has already done so, making the Warpriest more of a final nail in the STR Cleric's coffin, than a threat. I say one /could/, because I've seen the arguement made. I haven't so much as glances at the Runepriest, myself - psionics 'poisoned' the PH3 for me, so I haven't picked it up. [/QUOTE]

Verification