Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 4793191" data-attributes="member: 4892">I didn't decide that, the designers did.Then within the current rules there are options for that player through multiclassing. What entitles you to say that every class should be able to combat every shortcoming? That kind of attitude of "there's always a counter" led to 3E orb spells that bypassed SR because someone thought spellcasters "needed" to get around that one thing that put a speedbump in their way.Well I do always look on the bright side of life....The designers decided that the focus of rogues and rangers had room for both. Why another striker, the barbarian, doesn't have similar options built in I'm not sure. Or sometimes you just gain. In my feat list above you could multiclass from Warlock to Fighter to take the 2nd level utility that gives you 2d6+Con temp hit points over the warlock 2nd level utility that gives you 5+Con temp hit points. A feat for an (on average) improved (equal to or better 83% of the time) version of the warlock power. [Statistically that's a +2 bonus to the warlock version. Seems on par with most 4E feats.]That's an objective comparison of powers that provide the same benefit to the character. There are subjectively better options depending on what you want to do with your PC.You're right I didn't know about that feat. Have a cookie.My point still stands that there are synergies that can be had through multiclassing that aren't always available to the base class. And Distant Advantage doesn't leave your opponent with a single action per turn or no actions like Daze and Stun do. It also doesn't give you CA against the enemy artillery that isn't currently flanked by the melee PCs in the party. So that feat is one way to accomplish what you want, multiclassing is another. Which is better? That's subjective to the effect you desire. The reasons can be both mechanical and style-based.</blockquote>

Verification