Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 4793139" data-attributes="member: 8158">By what virtue does someone decide for every barbarian or monk what they need? If a fellow player is looking through the barbarian just for one lousy ranged encounter power, he's probably the best arbiter of what he needs. Maybe they feel they need a counter to immobilizes, slows, dazes, and similar anti-melee effects; neutralizing the movement of a melee-only character is as crippling as crit-immunity ever was to a rogue in 3e.When the pool of powers to draw from is small, the &quot;properly focused&quot; argument has merit, but with the size of the pool of 4e powers, &quot;focused&quot; is just putting positive spin on a lack of options--especially considering that a single given power can have both melee and ranged options. In fact, the rogue and ranger both have a balance of melee and ranged options--are they &quot;improperly focused&quot;?To act as if there's some metric for feats based on whether they're &quot;active&quot; or &quot;passive&quot; seems rather spurious. Moreover, you are only telling part of the story: you receive access to an ability you would otherwise not have and you lose access to an ability you would otherwise have. You don't just gain, you gain and lose. See, this remark is a sign of dated material, as is the &quot;feats aren't that powerful in 4e&quot; assertion. Distant Advantage patched the CA-at-range issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felon, post: 4793139, member: 8158"] By what virtue does someone decide for every barbarian or monk what they need? If a fellow player is looking through the barbarian just for one lousy ranged encounter power, he's probably the best arbiter of what he needs. Maybe they feel they need a counter to immobilizes, slows, dazes, and similar anti-melee effects; neutralizing the movement of a melee-only character is as crippling as crit-immunity ever was to a rogue in 3e. When the pool of powers to draw from is small, the "properly focused" argument has merit, but with the size of the pool of 4e powers, "focused" is just putting positive spin on a lack of options--especially considering that a single given power can have both melee and ranged options. In fact, the rogue and ranger both have a balance of melee and ranged options--are they "improperly focused"? To act as if there's some metric for feats based on whether they're "active" or "passive" seems rather spurious. Moreover, you are only telling part of the story: you receive access to an ability you would otherwise not have [B]and[/B] you lose access to an ability you [B]would[/B] otherwise have. You don't just gain, you gain and lose. See, this remark is a sign of dated material, as is the "feats aren't that powerful in 4e" assertion. Distant Advantage patched the CA-at-range issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification