Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SabreCat" data-source="post: 5595824" data-attributes="member: 76245">I don't know about the Seeker and Swordmage guides, but it's hard to think of why a character of any role wouldn't at least want to consider those feats, so I'd scratch my head if they weren't included. The main arguments are &quot;hitting is usually better than missing&quot; and &quot;'dead' is the most powerful status effect&quot;--what's the refutation of those?Defender: Role's shtick is to keep damage off your companions. If you help the monsters die faster, by hitting more often and doing more damage when you do, thus letting them attack fewer times, you perform your role better.Controller: Role's shtick is to hit wide arrays of targets at once and/or inflict debilitating status effects upon them. Hitting more often helps you deliver these effects more reliably, and if some extra damage kills the monster outright, that's even better than the daze or whatever would have come along with the damage.Leader: Role's shtick is to help allies fight more effectively, by granting them extra actions, keeping them conscious/unafflicted by conditions, and buffing their attacks. Hitting typically gives better buff effects, and killing a monster outright helps keep your allies in the fight.Striker: Pretty self-evident.There are some cases where you don't care much about personal hit chances (hardcore Lazy Warlord) or where damage output can be back-seated or ignored (pacifist Cleric), but the CharOp guides usually take these into account when recommending feats etc. It puzzles me why it's a criticism of the guides that they steer you to these options that in the vast majority of cases do help your class perform better at its role.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SabreCat, post: 5595824, member: 76245"] I don't know about the Seeker and Swordmage guides, but it's hard to think of why a character of any role wouldn't at least want to consider those feats, so I'd scratch my head if they weren't included. The main arguments are "hitting is usually better than missing" and "'dead' is the most powerful status effect"--what's the refutation of those? Defender: Role's shtick is to keep damage off your companions. If you help the monsters die faster, by hitting more often and doing more damage when you do, thus letting them attack fewer times, you perform your role better. Controller: Role's shtick is to hit wide arrays of targets at once and/or inflict debilitating status effects upon them. Hitting more often helps you deliver these effects more reliably, and if some extra damage kills the monster outright, that's even better than the daze or whatever would have come along with the damage. Leader: Role's shtick is to help allies fight more effectively, by granting them extra actions, keeping them conscious/unafflicted by conditions, and buffing their attacks. Hitting typically gives better buff effects, and killing a monster outright helps keep your allies in the fight. Striker: Pretty self-evident. There are some cases where you don't care much about personal hit chances (hardcore Lazy Warlord) or where damage output can be back-seated or ignored (pacifist Cleric), but the CharOp guides usually take these into account when recommending feats etc. It puzzles me why it's a criticism of the guides that they steer you to these options that in the vast majority of cases do help your class perform better at its role. [/QUOTE]

Verification