Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5733125" data-attributes="member: 336">I like playing lightly armored characters, rangers and duelists fit the bill.&nbsp; They are two of the character concepts I like most.&nbsp; Rangers are currently a class in the game, duelists are not a class, or build in the game.I LIKE to play characters that are good at both melee combat, and ranged combat.&nbsp; So I CHOSE to build my ranger to be capable at both.&nbsp; To do that I had to split my ability scores for STR and DEX, and because WIS is important I also put some points there.&nbsp; Now, a ranger is a striker.&nbsp; If I split my abilities so that I can do both of the things I enjoy, he still does a lot of damage WHEN HE HITS.&nbsp; But because I CHOSE to split my abilities I hit less often. These are all choices I MADE.I don't go around complaining about the game and the rules because my ranger misses, or is not an effective striker.&nbsp; I also don't go around complaining that I can't wear heavy armor without expending feats.&nbsp; The rules support the character I wanted to play, but there are tradeoffs.&nbsp; I don't go blaming the rules or the designers because of the CHOICES I MADE.I'm happy to be playing the character I wanted, and don't worry about the times when I do miss.Every class has trade offs. The class names are labels, and sometimes not very accurate labels.&nbsp; You want to call them archetypes but as soon as someone starts assigning mechanics to the class they might not have the same archetype in mind as you have.&nbsp; For example I can play a perfectly capable duelist with the ranger class, if I don't get hung up on the labels.If the concept I like is an arcane dude with horns, and he fights with a sword, heavy armor, and shield.&nbsp; I go look for a Tiefling, and select&nbsp; a role/class that fits that.&nbsp; Like maybe a hybrid fighter/wizard, or a bladesinger, or whatever fits my concept.&nbsp; I don't select a gnome illusionist and then complain that I don't have horns, can't wear armor, use a sword, or a shield.There are paladin builds now that are more strikerish, there are multiclass options to increase damage, and there are feats and a ton of powers to select from.&nbsp; You've decided to get hung up on &quot;A paladin is NOT a defender&quot;, instead of looking for ways to complement the character concept you want to better achieve what you want.&nbsp; And your only complaint is that you don't do as much damage as a &quot;first rate striker&quot;.&nbsp; My ranger misses often, and doesn't get to wear heavy armor...&nbsp; If you want a character with no trade offs then you are not looking for a class based, level based game.&nbsp; At this point I think your argument really boils down to unrealistic expectations, and nitpicking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 5733125, member: 336"] I like playing lightly armored characters, rangers and duelists fit the bill. They are two of the character concepts I like most. Rangers are currently a class in the game, duelists are not a class, or build in the game. I LIKE to play characters that are good at both melee combat, and ranged combat. So I CHOSE to build my ranger to be capable at both. To do that I had to split my ability scores for STR and DEX, and because WIS is important I also put some points there. Now, a ranger is a striker. If I split my abilities so that I can do both of the things I enjoy, he still does a lot of damage WHEN HE HITS. But because I CHOSE to split my abilities I hit less often. These are all choices I MADE. I don't go around complaining about the game and the rules because my ranger misses, or is not an effective striker. I also don't go around complaining that I can't wear heavy armor without expending feats. The rules support the character I wanted to play, but there are tradeoffs. I don't go blaming the rules or the designers because of the CHOICES I MADE. I'm happy to be playing the character I wanted, and don't worry about the times when I do miss. Every class has trade offs. The class names are labels, and sometimes not very accurate labels. You want to call them archetypes but as soon as someone starts assigning mechanics to the class they might not have the same archetype in mind as you have. For example I can play a perfectly capable duelist with the ranger class, if I don't get hung up on the labels. If the concept I like is an arcane dude with horns, and he fights with a sword, heavy armor, and shield. I go look for a Tiefling, and select a role/class that fits that. Like maybe a hybrid fighter/wizard, or a bladesinger, or whatever fits my concept. I don't select a gnome illusionist and then complain that I don't have horns, can't wear armor, use a sword, or a shield. There are paladin builds now that are more strikerish, there are multiclass options to increase damage, and there are feats and a ton of powers to select from. You've decided to get hung up on "A paladin is NOT a defender", instead of looking for ways to complement the character concept you want to better achieve what you want. And your only complaint is that you don't do as much damage as a "first rate striker". My ranger misses often, and doesn't get to wear heavy armor... If you want a character with no trade offs then you are not looking for a class based, level based game. At this point I think your argument really boils down to unrealistic expectations, and nitpicking. [/QUOTE]

Verification