FinalSonicX
First Post
My thought is that the Fighter and Barbarian should be the best warriors, hands down. The Paladin and Ranger can be runners up, and the Rogue sits beneath them, with most of his combat potential requiring good positioning and tactics/cleverness.
I have no issue with keeping the Rogue and Cleric capable of contributing in a fight, but I don't like the idea of somehow equating their melee capabilities with that of the Fighter's. The fighter's whole gig is to fight things, and if someone else can do the fighting itself better than him then he has no purpose. The cleric, rogue, or other classes contribute too but they do it in different ways - the cleric heals, buffs, debuffs, and can smack a few things when necessary, the rogue can position himself to do a lot of damage, take out some more protected foes, or help others gain bonuses in combat through positioning. The classes should have distinct abilities that do not step on each other's toes.
I have no issue with keeping the Rogue and Cleric capable of contributing in a fight, but I don't like the idea of somehow equating their melee capabilities with that of the Fighter's. The fighter's whole gig is to fight things, and if someone else can do the fighting itself better than him then he has no purpose. The cleric, rogue, or other classes contribute too but they do it in different ways - the cleric heals, buffs, debuffs, and can smack a few things when necessary, the rogue can position himself to do a lot of damage, take out some more protected foes, or help others gain bonuses in combat through positioning. The classes should have distinct abilities that do not step on each other's toes.