Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6329942" data-attributes="member: 43019">This isn't actually true, fwiw.The rogue is innately more useful outside of combat until you examine utility powers (and feats), at which point either has a chance to focus on combat or noncombat more. Both also have vast variance in how much they choose to focus on damage, so unless your striker range is "pretty much the whole range, from tippy top to just a bit above pacifist clerics" with quite a lot of expected overlap by defenders, controllers (but not usually leaders unless you examine them in a cause-effect lens rather than personal output).Anyhow, having seen two rogues play next to each other in 4e, one of whom was a king of social challenges, batman like movement stunts, and had "meh" damage (below the fighter's) and the other of whom was basically a stealthy thug who murdered any elite he set his eyes on... and similar for sorcerers, one of whom capitalized on wackiness in and out of combat (while doing steady but unremarkable damage output), and another of whom was surrounded in a constant nimbus of death that the rest of the party worked to capitalize around (flinging enemies in to die).4e certainly made it harder to be useless in combat. Or outside of combat. That is absolutely true. It really enforced certain bare baselines of competence. Consider that an advantage or disadvantage depending what koolaid you're brewing.</blockquote>