Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7519558" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think it is useful to have pillar archetypes in a system: they help define the space for viable strategies. The question that CEx SS poses for me is whether it was a design error, or a pillar? I believe many would agree that it was a frank mistake, but why?Perhaps for many groups, the melee character who discards defense to go all in with the heaviest weapon they can wield, fits their narrative in regard to repeatable massive damage to single-targets. So if that is the pillar, one really wants to see ranged doing less than that. The pillar for ranged could be the Archer Ranger, or the Agonizing Warlock. Maybe both.But... if the thesis is that ranged damage is equal to melee damage (i.e. ranged has no intrinsic advantage over melee), then clearly CEx SS could with as much justice take over that system pillar for repeatable massive damage to single-targets. It turns out not to be a design mistake, but a boundary. That would be its importance. For me, that causes dissonance: it sounds wrong. Therefore I think that contrary to the original thesis, it must be the case that ranged damage has some ratio advantage over melee.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7519558, member: 71699"] I think it is useful to have pillar archetypes in a system: they help define the space for viable strategies. The question that CEx SS poses for me is whether it was a design error, or a pillar? I believe many would agree that it was a frank mistake, but why? Perhaps for many groups, the melee character who discards defense to go all in with the heaviest weapon they can wield, fits their narrative in regard to repeatable massive damage to single-targets. So if that is the pillar, one really wants to see ranged doing less than that. The pillar for ranged could be the Archer Ranger, or the Agonizing Warlock. Maybe both. But... if the thesis is that ranged damage is [I]equal [/I]to melee damage (i.e. ranged has no intrinsic advantage over melee), then clearly CEx SS could with as much justice take over that system pillar for repeatable massive damage to single-targets. It turns out not to be a design mistake, but a boundary. That would be its importance. For me, that causes dissonance: it sounds wrong. Therefore I think that contrary to the original thesis, it must be the case that ranged damage has some ratio advantage over melee. [/QUOTE]

Verification