See I don't find this true... it is pretty common knowledge that the ranger is objectively a better striker than the warlock thus to play a warlock is to choose to play a sub-optimal striker... now that's not to say one can't have fun playing a warlock or survive with one but it is a sub-optimal choice for doing it's designated role as opposed to a ranger.
I think it is quite a bit less clear-cut than this. Rangers are highly effective. OTOH if I am well versed in playing a Warlock, my tactical proclivities favor the sort of play that the Warlock excels at, and the Warlock fits better into the particular party then the Warlock is a perfectly good choice. I'd also say that it heavily depends on the level you're playing at. During low heroic tier a Ranger will most likely outperform any Warlock most of the time. OTOH at mid-paragon and higher that becomes less and less true. A well-built high level Warlock is NASTY. Not to say high level Ranger isn't, but the relative strengths of the two classes do change a good bit. It is hard to make entirely general statements about which class is better.
That isn't to say all classes are made equal of course. That would be an ideal for 4e in theory, but it will never be achieved. You just have to accept that small variations will exist and decide what is important to you.
Hmmm, I could see a case for this but is this really why the math was made this way or is this an emergent property of the fact that the game was made to have less swinginess and more accurate tools for designing appropriate challenge levels for tactical combat? I would say it's an emergent property because this type of stuff isn't discussed in the core rules for 4e. It's great that this is possible but is this the default expectation for how the game is suppose to be played?
Also, as a side note, I think you are discounting the vast difference in HP's that still exsist as well as healing surges... One good hit on a Striker can mean more than half his HP's are gone and he's bloodied while the same hit doesn't bloody a defender.
Eh, still, it is MUCH more possible for any arbitrary character to manage in a situation not conducive to its main role than in say AD&D.
But this is still ultimately determined by the DM... not the rules. The DM picks the damage expression, DC, etc. and thus he decides whether the action to perform stunts, the damage from stunts, and conditions (which there aren't really good guidelines for on page 42) are worse, better or equal to encounter powers. I feel that the DM decision mode is further reinforced by the fact that this table isn't mentioned or noted in the PHB.
It might be good if it was called out more explicitly in the PHB, yes.
Well couldn't anyone who finds a way to increase his AC in previous editions do this (and the HP thing works itself out once a level or two are under a character's belt), and again I still think the disparity in hp's and healing surges still place pretty big restrictions on certain classes being able to take these types of out-of-role actions, unless it's theri secondary role and well then it's not so much you're making thematic decisions for your character as much as you are fulfilling the role you were given in the game.
Well, consider the 1e AD&D Magic User. He's got d4 hit points. Even at 6th level that means average 15 hit points. He's WELL within the range of single hit kill by any melee monster even close to his level. What his AC will be at that point is hard to say, it will depend heavily on the treasure received. He could be anywhere from AC 10 to AC 4. Most likely he's still far from the fighter's AC, which at that point is unlikely to be worse than 4 and is probably below that. As a level 6 MU I wouldn't in any circumstances risk moving into melee range. I MIGHT survive a round or two of it, with luck.
OTOH the 4e wizard will have an AC that is probably only a couple points off from the fighter. He will have a bunch less hit points, but he's still certain to survive a couple of hits, has effective attacks he can use from close range (or really really should), etc. And this is true from level 1. It may not have been an outright design goal for 4e that was stated up front, but I suspect it was a welcome effect of the design and encouraged the devs to go in that direction.
I'm not saying this can't be done by a creative DM with 4e (though in turn I would argue that it cold be done in virtually any edition by a creative DM)... what I do think is that it wasn't designed with this specific style of gameplay as it's driver.
It is hard to say, but simply by making the game less swingy you get that effect and I'm thinking this was pretty obvious to the 4e devs when they designed the game. I can hardly imagine they never noticed this effect.
Honestly the type of game you're in is going to make a big difference in how much you feel you have to optimize and what you can risk doing. There's a pretty good chunk of variability in 4e play. If you play with a whole slew of tactical optimizers and the DM is throwing tons of super tough combat encounters at you, then you probably want to optimize, may not want to play a concept that is a bit lower down on the optimization scale, and might not take so many risks. In most casual games though? You can afford to do pretty much what you feel like and not worry about it. In AD&D? You better play to type, Magic Users DO NOT get caught in melee, and fighters better be expecting to stand on the front lines and take most of the hits. 4e seems more flexible this way to me.
) taken up "adventuring" as a career, I would absolutely have wanted to get myself schooled in "optimal tactics"; I think it's only reasonable to assume that most D&D characters will focus on it, to some extent, too. Even though this describes a limitation on the characters played, I think that is already implicit, in that the characters played are automatically assumed to be "adventurers", or "Heroes". In other words, the focus on tactics is tied to the game "fiction" through the assumed topic of both characters and in-game activities.
.
