Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MyISPHatesENWorld" data-source="post: 4203712" data-attributes="member: 65684">This post is a lot more like trying to win the message board game than trying to help me use 4e to fit the character.You're assigning false motivation again rather than taking what I've said for exactly what it means. I'd be perfectly happy not to have sneak attack on my character sheet if there was another mechanic that worked the same way that was called something else and was balanced specifically for a higher base damage weapon or a mechanic that worked completely differently that was better for making the character feel and handle the way I want it to. No ability has been released that does that yet. From the information released, none of the "many, many ways to create a sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist" than you've suggested (use a ranger) fits the character and makes the character handle the way I want it to. I'd be happy if I can work out a way to both use a greatsword effectively and chuck some shuriken which will be pretty close how the character played in one of his 1e incarnations that used darts alongside the greatsword. And truth be told, 4e shuriken can't be any less cool than big 1e (lawn) darts.Yet another post striving for the message board win.Big sword is a 1e mechanical concept? Wow. Maybe I was wrong about you going for the messageboard win.The mechanic for Hunter's Quarry isn't one that I would enjoy using. Expending an action to mark the target closest to you, then having to either attack that target to get a bonus or spend another action to mark another target, doesn't feel opportunistic. It feels dogged and determined. The thread exists for cooperative discussion about making the character work. The real question is why are you posting in it if you don't won't to work together cooperatively toward that goal?Wow, if you weren't intent on making it an insult, saying the word 'crap' and using 'metagame concept' in a sentence, you night have made a really insightful post, you almost have it.Your flaw is that is it seems (Woot! I'm learning the message board game) you want to make an insult more than you want to discuss 4e. (Hey, if everyone else can ascribe motivations instead of asking for clarification, so can I).According to PrecociousAppretnice thare are "many, many ways to create a sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist" so I don't understand why your list of classes would have both a stealthy martial striker and a melee martial striker? And if I want a "sneaky, mobile, greatsword using opportunist" and the ranger isn't sneaky it isn't suitable.Ranger has an archery path, so it isn't just melee. And it can be stealthy...So, both Ranger and Rogue are Stealthy Ranged and/or Melee Strikers. They have different fluff and different mechanical abilities intended to give them each a different feel. And existing paragon paths seem to add more fluff and mechanics to further reinforce that feel.So as far as getting a mechanic that makes the character feel the way I want it to, ranger is crap. (EDIT -  based upon what has been released so far.)Now I just need to come up with a way to use 'metagame concept' in a sentence. Woot! I did it!Unfortunately, I really don't want to craft posts into insults about people I don't know, so I'll skip that part of the game.</blockquote>

Verification