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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5518105" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure, apart from the differences in thier /roles/.   Ideally, you don't send a striker after minions, because you have a controller to sweep them away.  It's a cooperative game, and that's part of the cooperation.  Though, if you must send a striker after minions, a bow ranger, with a variety of multi-attack options, can whittle down minions faster than, say, a typical rogue.You put the archer ranger in a series of long combats, he runs out of dailies and is reduced to at wills.  You put the wizard in a long series of combats, he runs out of dailies and is reduced to at wills.  You put the wizard in an alpha situation, and he can bust out a strong daily.  You put the archer-ranger in an alpha situation and he can bust out a strong daily.The comparable resource management they share under the AEDU structure - and the efforts of the designers in balancing at-wills with at-wills, encounters with encounters and dailies with dailies.  A much easier task than balancing at-wills against dailies.Above, I compared the Slayer to the Barbarian, both strikers, with similar concepts.  I have compared the level of benefits recieved from Essenitals by the Fighter class as a whole, to those reaped by the Wizard class as a whole. And, I've compared the resource management of Martial E-classes to those of 4e classes.  That necessarily includes the Slayer in one category and the Wizard in the other, but also includes the Knight, Rogue, Hunter & Scout with the former, and every non-psionic pre-Essentials 4e class in the latter.   But, when it comes to detailed comparisons, I've tried to keep it within the same role and function, to minimize any objection or 'noise.'  You can try to argue that the roles aren't perfectly balanced - and you'd be right, because a DM could tilt his campaign towards the strengths of one role and away from those of another.  He'd have to work at it - and often, DM's /do/ need to do just that, when the party is missing a role - but it's certainly possible.Thing is, that's at least as aplicable with Essentials classes.  You can build a pretty butch archer-Slayer for instance (just max dex and grab bow feats and stances that work with RBAs).  He'll put out a lot of damage vs lockdown-immune solos that frustrate the wizard (and won't care about the solo's effect-negating traits, because he has no save-ends powers to dish out), and be reduced to popping one minion of a horde at a time while a wizard sweeps them away en masse.  A stark example of a role-related imbalance. Particularly stark because of the Slayer's focused, inflexible, low-option aproach to the striker role.  The archer-ranger, compared to the wizard in the same situations, pops two or more minions every round in the latter, so isn't as imbalanced relative to the wizard as the archer-slayer.  Similarly, in the former situation, he may well find he has a daily or two that /do/ inflict save ends conditions, that would be noticeably less effective against it, so he's also less imbalanced compared to the wizard in that case - in addition to being neatly balanced with the Wizard in terms of resource management.</blockquote>

Verification