Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6887619" data-attributes="member: 6834463">That's not what I said, what I said is true, whereas you clearly contradicted yourself and fail to recognize it.Instead of responding to what I wrote, you are simply repeating yourself, almost verbatim. You are ignoring basic logic because it contradicts your point. I will try to word it differently. Saying that "pemerton" is excellent at X, does NOT mean that he isn't good at Y, saying he relies on Q does not mean he cannot also use M. A more similar example would be 5e, a class (or even a character) that "excels at melee" and "relies on strength", can be good with a bow, assuming proficiency and relevant stats.Obviously the ranger is miles ahead with twin-strike, because the the fighter is doing basic attacks, which are sub-standard in 4e. That is not even half the problem though, nor is primeshot and hunter's quarry, or the many other features that go to the ranger, which would also put the ranger miles ahead. The real problem is that while basic attacks are ineffective compared to at-wills, that is not the extent of the problem because even fighting with just at-wills in 4e was relatively ineffective against the encounters and dailies that the "tightly balanced mechanical system" counted on.Anyways, this conversation is going nowhere. Can we agree on this? Let me know where we agree and where we diverge;A 4e fighter with reasonable dex, using a bow, is going to be less effective than a 4e ranger with a bow, within the 4e RAW and RAI system which obviously includes AEDU, regardless of the stats and proficiencies.A 4e fighter with reasonable dex, using a bow, will be less effective (relative to the system) than 5e fighter of the same dex, using a bow.A 4e fighter with reasonable dex, using a bow, will be less effective (relative to the system) than ANY 5e class with the same dex, using a bow.Saying that a class is exceptional at something doesn't preclude it being effective with something else. In 5e specifically, saying that a class is exceptional at something does not preclude it being effective with something else.In 5e, saying that a class relies on a particular stat does not preclude them from being effective with another one.In 5e, things that you argued clearly "demonstrate" that using a bow was not an option with the 4e fighter, would not demonstrate that. The wording that was argued as clearly demonstrating that a 4e fighter was not effective with a bow, if taken the way you describe, in 5e would lead to the mistaken assumption that any class that was excellent at something else, would not be good with a bow (stats and proficiency providing).</blockquote>

Verification