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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5735564" data-attributes="member: 48965">The Slayer is the killer-with-a-bow-fighter in 4e... he's a heavily armored, high hit point, striker build under the fighter class that uses Dex as a secondary and most/many of his powers can be used with ranged or melee weapons. He isn't a woodsman, he isn't lightly armored, he doesn't specialize in traps and thievery, and he doesn't provide support for other characters that hit harder then him... he is a warrior who kills things using the best weapon for the situation wearing the best armor he can afford and is tough as nails (compared to other strikers).  See the problem with tying combat role to a class is that it's needlessly confining. The slayer is a facet of the fighter(martial warrior) archetype that couldn't have existed if all fighters were tied to the defender role. It's just a shame that it took 3 years to get a fighter who primarily... fights as opposed to defends... even though it's been possible in every other edition.  The thing I find strange is the claim that permeton made that at this point, 3-4 years down the road we have the flexibility that this isn't a major problem... well no, it's not if you're willing to buy a ton of books, comb through a gigantic number of feats and kinda, sorta squint while ignoring the things that don't fit your concept and still be on the low end of effectiveness if that's not the role you should be tackling... and/or wait a couple years in the hopes (because it wasn't a sure thing) that the developers of the game would realize how silly hardcoding a combat role into a class/archetype really was. Looking at just PHB 1 vs. the first PHB of earlier editions 4e is alot more restrictive and confining because it went the route of hardcoding combat roles in the beginning. All IMO, of course.</blockquote>

Verification