Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 6339781" data-attributes="member: 5889">Yes, and I think it comes to a measure of degrees.In 4e, strikers were very efficient at killing things, and defenders were very efficient at preventing damage. But the defenders often felt they couldn't kill monsters reliably without striker damage.**In 5e, if the fighter can drop enemies just fine...but the rogue does it a bit quicker I think that's okay. **Note: The 4e fighter wasn't a pure defender, he was actually a defender/striker. The 4e fighter wouldn't do rogue damage, but he was no slouch either. A swordmage or a charisma paladin are better examples of the pure defender vs striker argument.</blockquote>