Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MwaO" data-source="post: 6703463" data-attributes="member: 12749">DiscoveryIn terms of what I call Interesting Builds, this reflects one(or more) of the following rules in play:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reasonably competent at both roles, such that the build easily makes a party work. Classic 5th party member. Striker|X and Leader|X work here. Examples: Sorcerer|Warlord or Swordmage|Artificer. 
</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Extremely competent at one of the roles, such that the build can be slotted into the party as that role. It either has to do something unique via synergy or do it better than either of the base classes. Defender|X, especially involving Fighter or Striker as the X work well here. Examples: Battlemind|Fighter or Warden|Barbarian. 
</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Be good at one of the roles, but be more fun than the base class that defines that role. Ranger|not-striker or Leader|X are examples of this. Examples: Archer Ranger|Bard, Monk|Cleric.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="MwaO, post: 6703463, member: 12749"] [b]Discovery[/b] In terms of what I call Interesting Builds, this reflects one(or more) of the following rules in play: [LIST] [*]Reasonably competent at both roles, such that the build easily makes a party work. Classic 5th party member. Striker|X and Leader|X work here. Examples: Sorcerer|Warlord or Swordmage|Artificer. [*]Extremely competent at one of the roles, such that the build can be slotted into the party as that role. It either has to do something unique via synergy or do it better than either of the base classes. Defender|X, especially involving Fighter or Striker as the X work well here. Examples: Battlemind|Fighter or Warden|Barbarian. [*]Be good at one of the roles, but be more fun than the base class that defines that role. Ranger|not-striker or Leader|X are examples of this. Examples: Archer Ranger|Bard, Monk|Cleric. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification