Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 1091437" data-attributes="member: 1251">Uh, no. Read again. Specifically where i note that versatility is only rewarded in a very specific set of circumstances, i.e the ability to effect non-combat situations is highly dependent on what the DM decides to throw at you, and is thus passive. The core of the game and survivability of the party is determined mostly in combat. Combat is the 'spotlight'.Also please note that damage/round means on the part of the party. Combat has firms 'roles' and this is the place where it is most appropriate to discuss role balance. I aknowledged this in my intial post, but you decided to simplify it for whatever reason. Givin the extreme limitations on time in most encounters, most abilities simply don't show up in play, so an EK or MT have little chance to show anyone else up, and what role they do decide to fill in any given combat, they tend to do so poorly. The only ability that I can think of that has the possibility to dominate an encounter is turn/rebuke undead, but for the MT, this is pretty much not a credible option.Note also I said that versatility translates into power, just very little. There is a comparitivly small aggregate effect of have a range of extra abilities over the course of a campaign, but I don't think anyone has made the argument in the case of either the MT or EK that it doesn't come at a significant price.</blockquote>