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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 4767324" data-attributes="member: 58401">I think you've got a correct assessment: it's not that they're too similar, but that they both might be just a bit too good.OTOH, comparing whether or not Defender and Striker are too similar by comparing the Fighter and the Rogue is not totally helpful; both share the same power source in 4E (Martial), and thus share a number of traits on that basis. Defenders from other power sources accomplish the same role in dramatically different ways, and require entirely different combat strategies to be effective. If nothing else, it's certainly true that a Fighter's secondary role is Striker, which accounts for a substantial part of the overlap between them and Rogues.As for whether or not I like the change? Yes, definitely; being a skill-monkey is boring as hell when that's the only thing your party needs you for, and too often that was the case. In 4E, a Rogue is automatically trained in both Thievery and Stealth, allowing them to function effectively as "thieves", but they also have capabilities to function in a variety of other capacities, including as an "assassin", a "face", and even a versatile, skirmishing warrior. Along with this, skill training allows members of other classes to serve as "thieves" as well. (3.5E did this too, but I think that the skill system in 4E puts less pressure on characters and their parties.)In short, I think it's important to distinguish between the class, "Rogue", and the role "thief"; they aren't the same, though they aren't mutually exclusive; Rogue certainly opens up more character variety, though.</blockquote>

Verification