Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 4661236" data-attributes="member: 14506">Quite honestly you guys have been splitting hairs for pages...Martial character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is all pretty interchangeable. A duelist really is simply a rogue with some multi-classed fighter powers or a ranger with some fighter powers or a fighter with some ranger powers etc. Mix it as you will to get the character you desire.The real problem with character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and roles is when you get into arcane, divine, primal, shadow, psi and ki power sources. They don't easily translate into different character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff. Each one is set up to be pretty distinct now. Warlocks are different from Wizards which are different from Swordmage which is different from a Bard which is different from a Sorcerer. These are all different roles and different tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff.I like all of those characters tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and think that they should be distinct. However, the problem is that they are hardwired into a single way to play them (role). I may want to play a Necromancer (A wizard leader), an Enchanter (A wizard controller), an Abjurer (A wizard defender), or an Evoker (A wizard striker). I could go on and on with each and every class in this way but the point is made. That wizard's tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is the important part here (cantrips, spellbooks, scholarly pursuit, etc) not that all wizards are controllers and must be played in that way.Also several pages back someone asked if their was a specific way they could have split the PC roles up in a better way and there is. Look at the monster roles (minus minion, elite and solo of course). See post #1 for more specifics on this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 4661236, member: 14506"] Quite honestly you guys have been splitting hairs for pages... Martial character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is all pretty interchangeable. A duelist really is simply a rogue with some multi-classed fighter powers or a ranger with some fighter powers or a fighter with some ranger powers etc. Mix it as you will to get the character you desire. The real problem with character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and roles is when you get into arcane, divine, primal, shadow, psi and ki power sources. They don't easily translate into different character tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff. Each one is set up to be pretty distinct now. Warlocks are different from Wizards which are different from Swordmage which is different from a Bard which is different from a Sorcerer. These are all different roles and different tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff. I like all of those characters tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff and think that they should be distinct. However, the problem is that they are hardwired into a single way to play them (role). I may want to play a Necromancer (A wizard leader), an Enchanter (A wizard controller), an Abjurer (A wizard defender), or an Evoker (A wizard striker). I could go on and on with each and every class in this way but the point is made. That wizard's tropes/shtick/flavor/fluff is the important part here (cantrips, spellbooks, scholarly pursuit, etc) not that all wizards are controllers and must be played in that way. Also several pages back someone asked if their was a specific way they could have split the PC roles up in a better way and there is. Look at the monster roles (minus minion, elite and solo of course). See post #1 for more specifics on this. [/QUOTE]

Verification