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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="katahn" data-source="post: 4196547" data-attributes="member: 65004">It's worth pointing out that Blizzard, in World of Warcraft, tried this exact approach (just as powerful, lacking all the versatility) in their initial design and description of the druid class.  Now in WoW the druid class is capable (depending on form and talent selection) of filling up to three roles in the 4e sense (leader, defender, and two flavors of striker) with a smattering of controllerish abilities if "outdoors" (entangling roots).The net result has been a class that has never really found its definition.  The other defenders complain because they can do more damage when acting as a striker, or are capable of being better healers when acting as a leader.  Strikers complain they can't be like leaders and the druid is too close to being as good a striker and other leaders complain similarly.The class, and the principle of "less abilities but just as capable", looks very good on paper but in practice it ends up making pure-role classes a little bit obsolete.  I played a druid in WoW to the level cap of 70 (two of them actually) and I enjoyed the class, but looking at it objectively I can absolutely see the legitimacy of the complaints.Who cares if I have a character with half the abilities of another defender and half the abilities of another controller if I am capable of filling the core roles of each just as effectively as they are?  The point is I can do what the most important, role-defining, aspect of their class can do, plus I can fulfill the most important and role-defining ability of another class can too.  And it isn't just that I can do them, in that core functionality I have equal potency.In a strongly role-defined class based game that is a counter-productive thing to have.</blockquote>

Verification