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: 5742865" data-attributes="member: 48965">Of course there is less distinction betwen a rogue and ranger as opposed to a rogue and wizard... but this is only due to the fact that they have the same combat role hardcoded into the class... If say one player could pick a defender role for the ranger and another could pick a controller role for the rogue there would be more distinction... which is exactly the point. Whether you hard code combat role in or don't, there are a finite (4) number of combat roles so there will always be overlap in characters (unless you have exactly 4 characters who all want to play each of the 4 combat roles, which seems kind of unlikely, but definitely possible if the stars align correctly.), dissassociating combat role neither increases or decreases this.   Hmmm, that's not exactly what I took away from that Rule-of-Three. IMO, they were moreso saying that there were so many powers (which is a seperate thing from class) that there were no powers associated with a particular class that were considered iconic. With the exception of a few...(Twin Strike anyone!!) I am in agreement with this.  Furthermore they were arguing that there should have been overlap lists containing powers that had the same mechanical effect... similar to the same way that the Sorcerer and Wizard spell lists were in 3.5 (Yet I don't often see the claim that these classes were too homogenous).    Now that you've clarified...I realize this is the strawman. No one in this thread is asking for all classes to do the same thing, combat role is a single piece of what classes encompass, not the entirety. EDIT:  Thinking about this even more... even concerning combat role, classes might cover all the combat roles but it would still be the player who decided which role(s) he would be trying to cover through his own choices of build, feats, etc..  See above about strawmen and such...   *sigh* again there are only 4 roles... the fact that a ranger can now be a controller or striker is actually diversifying the class, not homogenizing it. Homogenizing it is exactly the problem before the hunter was created...when ranger = striker no matter what build or choices one selected.  Why would a wizard be a front line defender? Why would he wear platemail and why would he use a polearm? This seems like such a limited view of the possibilities in the defender role that, even though I'm not the biggest fan of 4e, I have to ask do you play 4e?   Why would I have to do this? We have an arcane defender (which, IMO, for all practical purposes should have been a wizard build like the Bladesinger) called the swordmage and it is mechanically different from the fighter... especially the shielding build. The shielding swordmage doesn't wear plate mail, doesn't fight on the frontline, doesn't punish with attacks, and doesn't have to use a polearm. He uses alot of teleportation, he reduces damage taken, he wears cloth armor, and so on.   Uhm...the slayer with his high Dex is already competent enough to be a ranged fighter. It would seem that all your complaints above would apply equally to the hunter as well and yet we now have a ranger controller that is mechanically different from a wizard.  Uhm yeah... and the fact that they have done it with certain classes would seem to indicate my line of thinking is correct. What actual proof do you have that this wouldn't work? I mean outside of unsupported opinion?   Okay, I'm going to try this again... it's already being done. You're claiming it can't be done but we already have builds that have taken on combat roles outside of those their particular class has been assigned. On top of that we have classes that have the same combat role and yet use different mechanics to accomplish it. A Paladin's divine challenge is different form a Knight's aura, is different from a Swordmage's aegis... and so on. I'm unclear on why you are assuming it can't work?  Then you must be willfully ignoring what I've posted as well as what already exists in the game.</blockquote>

Verification