Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5809271" data-attributes="member: 22779">Again, see, I totally disagree with Yazman here.&nbsp; How is rules transparency &quot;min-maxy munchkin stuff&quot;?&nbsp; I mean, if I was a min-maxer, then I'll be able to recognize the roles whether or not they are transparent - that's what a min-maxer DOES.&nbsp; Crunch the numbers and create the most mechanically powerful option possible.&nbsp; But, that's not what roles do.&nbsp; A role simply acts as a guideline for what this given class does best in combat.&nbsp; Nothing more and nothing less.&nbsp; It doesn't say that fighters can never be diplomatic.&nbsp; It doesn't say that wizards make better skill monkeys than just about any other class because of their reliance on Int scores.&nbsp; All it says is that if you play Class X, then the preponderance of effects in combat will center around a given style of activity.And, it's not that difficult to play against type.&nbsp; You can play a controller or striker fighter with nothing more than the PHB.&nbsp; Sure, he'll still have some defender goodies, but, he'll make a pretty darn good striker or controller as well.&nbsp; Will he be as good of a striker as the ranger?&nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; But, then again, he shouldn't.&nbsp; But, &quot;not better than the ranger&quot; is not a metric of whether or not the character is a decent striker.Can he deal buckets of damage to single targets?&nbsp; Yup, he can.&nbsp; It might only be two and a half buckets compared to the rogue's three, but, it's still buckets.Like I said, it's presentation that is killing 4e, not actual mechanics.&nbsp; People look at the role and presume that that's all the character can ever possibly do.&nbsp; And it's utter ballocks.&nbsp; Again, I'm not a regular on the charops boards at WOTC, but 30 seconds of Google and you'll find a dozen striker or controller builds for fighters.&nbsp; You won't find leader builds, that's true, since only leaders grant healing and typically grant extra actions.But three out of four roles ain't bad.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5809271, member: 22779"] Again, see, I totally disagree with Yazman here. How is rules transparency "min-maxy munchkin stuff"? I mean, if I was a min-maxer, then I'll be able to recognize the roles whether or not they are transparent - that's what a min-maxer DOES. Crunch the numbers and create the most mechanically powerful option possible. But, that's not what roles do. A role simply acts as a guideline for what this given class does best in combat. Nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't say that fighters can never be diplomatic. It doesn't say that wizards make better skill monkeys than just about any other class because of their reliance on Int scores. All it says is that if you play Class X, then the preponderance of effects in combat will center around a given style of activity. And, it's not that difficult to play against type. You can play a controller or striker fighter with nothing more than the PHB. Sure, he'll still have some defender goodies, but, he'll make a pretty darn good striker or controller as well. Will he be as good of a striker as the ranger? Nope. But, then again, he shouldn't. But, "not better than the ranger" is not a metric of whether or not the character is a decent striker. Can he deal buckets of damage to single targets? Yup, he can. It might only be two and a half buckets compared to the rogue's three, but, it's still buckets. Like I said, it's presentation that is killing 4e, not actual mechanics. People look at the role and presume that that's all the character can ever possibly do. And it's utter ballocks. Again, I'm not a regular on the charops boards at WOTC, but 30 seconds of Google and you'll find a dozen striker or controller builds for fighters. You won't find leader builds, that's true, since only leaders grant healing and typically grant extra actions. But three out of four roles ain't bad. [/QUOTE]

Verification