Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6599587" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Agreed...? I believe it's actually the OP's friend, but close enough.And, as I have repeatedly tried to say, the fact that they "just...aren't" but aren't billed that way is where the problem comes from. Hence why I answered the OP as I did: "You aren't playing it wrong...or, perhaps, you are playing it wrong, because what you want isn't what you're playing." Also...t's not like I'm saying there's absolutely NOTHING you can do to customize a Warlock; that's...unrelated to my argument, in fact. False: It is entirely possible to want both, and you do not have to have any absolute preferences either way. I take a great deal of offense at being called a non-roleplayer, by the way. I'm just as much a member of this hobby as you, and I think it's incredibly rude to suggest that I'm not.I do, but this doesn't match their rhetoric on the subject. They repeatedly stressed that it took them that long to get the feel of the Fighter class right. It wasn't that the class was strong or weak (though it was usually weak, and only once hit "too strong"--and even then, purely in damage output and nothing else). It's that it did not give players the experience they wanted. If mechanics are pure numbers with no emotional context, why did the Fighter's mechanical implementation matter for the "feel"?Actually--and please forgive me if I'm wrong, as I only peruse charop things for advice, not to seriously optimize (because I do value both flavor and power more-or-less equally)--the Warlock was just as optimizable as the other Strikers, it just needed more effort; there's a graph commonly bandied about that hyperbolizes the difference. The Warlock was just trickier to optimize, not strictly lower-power, but in general yes, it traded "direct" damage for greater subtlety and/or inflicted conditions (all Arcane classes were a touch Controller-y, but Warlock more strongly than most; much like how all Divine classes are Leadery, but the Paladin moreso than the rest).I'll just leave it at this: You shouldn't have to make sacrifices for fluff. Everything should be fluffy, and everything should be empowered. There is no such thing as "when everyone is special, no one is special," because such a statement is inherently self-contradictory. (It only works by exploiting different senses of "special.") Fluff should be mandatory for every class, even if people choose not to do anything with it. Ability to affect the game world should be mandatory for every class, even if people choose not to do anything with it. If the designers expect all characters to be involved in combat, that too should be a mandatory skillset even if people do not decide to use it.</blockquote>

Verification