Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6592183" data-attributes="member: 996">Barbarians were primal characters in 4e, and fighters were defenders, DPR was secondary to well-supported defender functions.  So, no, those are not examples supporting your stereotypes.  In 4e, it was rogues & rangers who were the 'hit hard' strikers, and they also had the non-combat skills that previously were segregated to the poor-combat-ability thief.  And, 4e also had the Warlord, a martial character who filled a much more interesting 'leader' role, and even had a build - further supported by popular demand - that didn't require him to attack, personally, at all.Even 3.x, caster-dominated as it was, gave the fighter more options than just 'hit hard,' and was appreciated for it.You're basing your stereotype on the truism that, when the game offers martial archetypes nothing but DPR, the people who settle for them will have to be satisfied with just that - not /want/ only that, but have no other choice.  And your stereotype is disparaging the intelligence, player skill, and role-playing ability of anyone who chooses to play a martial archetype.  And, I stand as a counterexample that proves it categorically false.  Nor am I alone - everyone whose ever enjoyed playing a 3.5 battlefield-control fighter build, or a 4e fighter or warlord, categorically proves your stereotype to be false.</blockquote>