Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5733556" data-attributes="member: 4892">The Striker can do lots of damage consistantly. The 3E paladin runs out of Smite Evil uses. The wizard runs out of spells. The 3E rogue can keep Sneak Attacking as long as he has a team and isn't fighting certain creatures. The 3E rogue has the only class feature that compares to 4E strikers in a meaningful way.In my humble opinion your actions were similar to those of an someone who is being an asshat. You can take my in my humble opinion comments with a big old grain of salt, in my humble opinion.Mod note:  That's more than enough of that, thanks very much.  ~UmbranAnd keep twisting my words if it makes you feel better. The only concrete expectation given, so far, was a paladin striker. The 3E "paladin striker" example was more equivalent to a 4E paladin that chooses class features and feats that focus on dealing more damage. You still end up with marking, but what's the real difference between 3E and 4E here? In 3E since you were up front dishing damage, the creatures you attacked were most likely going to attack you back. Now in 4E they have more incentive to attack you instead of your buddy who's come to the front to help and if they do decide to take the penalty and actually hit him you get to dish out more damage. How terrible!I'd buy this argument about conceptual archetypes if people were able to more easily step outside the box and see 'agile wilderness warrior' in more classes than just the one labelled Ranger. Instead it seems that people are unable to think outside the box and pigeonhole the class themselves because it's labelled Ranger.And that's a problem. Like I said, in 3E I played a big-city noble-born character that was a Barbarian/Sorcerer. It's not the game's fault if people can't mold fluff material to their liking.Not improbable. Existing without need for multiclassing, hybridization, or feats. The answers to your specific questions are: Rogue. Ranger or Rogue. Artificer.Luckily 4E doesn't tell me what to do either.Me too. That's kind of my whole argument on demanding one's concept to be forced upon a class while ignoring others that will fit the concept better.It's usually spoken of as DPR. The terminology may have come from computer games, but the original concept was stolen by them from the way people tended to play TTRPGs.I've seen it too. In every edition of D&D from OD&D to 4E. IME it's the group, not the game.FYI - casting spells is not a requirement of controlling the battlefield.Yes, the Weaponmaster Fighter (capital F) must be that guy, but there are other fighters available to you that don't have to be that guy. Why would you insist to play a Weaponmaster Fighter if that's not what you want to play? Why would you eschew other fighting classes that match what you want?If they had made Rogue, Ranger and Warlord builds under Fighter so he could fulfill all four roles [Ranger has a Controller build] would that have been more to your liking?That's what we do when we play 4E, so I'm not sure WotC's mind control lasers are as honed as you imagine. By some people's comments, 3E certainly seemed to tell you this was your job by allowing all clerics to freely swap prepared spells for healing spells. But I don't believe the 4E roles tell you how to play, so I certainly don't believe 3E cleric abilities told you how to play. No one is saying that now. The designers are telling you what toolset they used to design the character. Instead of having to infer what your character is desinged for they instead called it out. Its a matter of transparency, not forcing anyone to play a character a certain way.I do agree that exploration has seen a diminishing spotlight since the start of 3E. Problem solving by its very nature challenges the player instead of the character. This started eroded late in 1E with the introduction of non-weapon proficiencies.But, I believe that 3E complex task resolution (or whatever it was called) and 4E skill challenge rules were an honest attempt to revitalize problem solving and NPC interactions without discarding the skill system. The concept was good, but it needs alot more work.The designers have been working on creating more options for non-combat applications. There are utility powers driven by skills, etc. I still think non-combat situations are too broad a spectrum to define and any system that tried to codify non-combat roles for D&D would fail. I don't think it's a coincidence that the four roles of 4E coincide with the four main classes of D&D. Comabt is easier to codify and make solid rules for. Non-combat is too wide open and can only really benefit from advice. I think the 4E DMG is the best D&D guide since the 1E DMG for this advice.He most likely did it less effectively though. Just like a 4E Fighter. This can and often does happen in my games all the time. Sometimes the best course of action isn't what your character is best at doing. The shooting a bow example (or throwing a javelin) is one. Another was the front-line fighter taking an action to tend to the wounds of the dropped leader. He was best at attacking, not even trained in Heal, but he dtermined that his best course of action to survive was to attempt to revive the fallen leader. He was right. That choice was the turning point of a seeming TPK. This is where some of us talk about trade-offs. You can do other things, just not as effectively (similar to the bow-using 1E Fighter - unless he was lucky enough to have high Str and Dex). If you want to be more effective at both, then you need to make trade-offs.I'm not sure I understand. Fluff without rules is a constant reminder that you're playing a game? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you're not pretending to be a character? Fluff without rules makes you feel like you are numbers on a sheet? Is that what you're saying?I think back to 1E when the Fighter was basically a decreasing THACO and the only real difference mechanically between two fighters was their stats, armor they could afford, and weapon choice. Yet we still imagined our characters as saracens, bodyguards, barbarians (before the class actually existed), etc.I would be higly interested in seeing this too. But who's going to be the company that risks entering uncharted territory?</blockquote>

Verification