Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 5939832" data-attributes="member: 54843">The issue isn't whether the cleric can go &quot;toe-to-toe.&quot; It's whether their class abilities (spells) match up with the paladin archetype (inspirational knight).This is true, and it's one reason I think they're going to end up changing the fighter class to have at least some basic &quot;stickiness&quot; built in. Maybe the mark thing from 4e, maybe something better. (Mearls and others have suggested this as a possibility in various comments and interviews.)Well, to keep it in 4e terms you hate, that's pretty much every striker. Except the rogue mechanics focus on gaining combat advantage for sneak attack, whereas thematically a ranger doesn't focus on backstabbing his enemies while they're distracted.Again, the current fighter seems too vanilla to me, with nothing defining its mechanical role other than &quot;good with weapons.&quot; It's like have a &quot;spellcaster&quot; class that just got bonuses to spell DCs and attack rolls and we were using themes to pick between cleric and wizard spell lists. As that class get a bit more defined, I think the differences from a ranger will stand out more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 5939832, member: 54843"] The issue isn't whether the cleric can go "toe-to-toe." It's whether their class abilities (spells) match up with the paladin archetype (inspirational knight). This is true, and it's one reason I think they're going to end up changing the fighter class to have at least some basic "stickiness" built in. Maybe the mark thing from 4e, maybe something better. (Mearls and others have suggested this as a possibility in various comments and interviews.) Well, to keep it in 4e terms you hate, that's pretty much every striker. Except the rogue mechanics focus on gaining combat advantage for sneak attack, whereas thematically a ranger doesn't focus on backstabbing his enemies while they're distracted. Again, the current fighter seems too vanilla to me, with nothing defining its mechanical role other than "good with weapons." It's like have a "spellcaster" class that just got bonuses to spell DCs and attack rolls and we were using themes to pick between cleric and wizard spell lists. As that class get a bit more defined, I think the differences from a ranger will stand out more. [/QUOTE]

Verification