Rule of Three 14 NOV 2011...
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Yep, not a fan of the overly popular striker concept. I think the other 3 roles should pretty much bash it over and take its stuff. Doesn't make much sense that a fighter isn't a 'striker' either. Am I to believe that the fighter dude brought up on martial warfare is less lethal than the sneaky rogue? The roles themselves need to go back to the drawing board.
Historically imo they've been:
- Tank, frontliners
- Scout, choose the battleground & ambush
- Healer, win the battle of attrition
- Caster, debilitate the monsters
Striking features in 3 of these 4 roles, and healers shouldn't miss out on too much of the action. WoTC have proven their ability to make 100 different strikers that maintain the math is different ways. Good, now apply that to the rest of the classes.
Oh yeah, and I miss fireball.
Role protection has been too strongly implemented in 4E. My Paladin's missile weapon is not a bow, or a spear, but a javelin. And none of my powers work with it. Even if it was a bow, his dex is too poor particularly from paragon+ You know it's these little things that make me wish I could have the best of 3E & 4E merged together - in 3 core books.
Historically imo they've been:
- Tank, frontliners
- Scout, choose the battleground & ambush
- Healer, win the battle of attrition
- Caster, debilitate the monsters
Striking features in 3 of these 4 roles, and healers shouldn't miss out on too much of the action. WoTC have proven their ability to make 100 different strikers that maintain the math is different ways. Good, now apply that to the rest of the classes.
Oh yeah, and I miss fireball.
Role protection has been too strongly implemented in 4E. My Paladin's missile weapon is not a bow, or a spear, but a javelin. And none of my powers work with it. Even if it was a bow, his dex is too poor particularly from paragon+ You know it's these little things that make me wish I could have the best of 3E & 4E merged together - in 3 core books.
WalterKovacs
First Post
Martial Practices should probably be given as a bonus feat to some martial characters, just like they give ritual caster as a bonus class feature.
Zaran
Adventurer
I think they will see Martial Practices used more now that we can add extra feats in the builder.
D'karr
Adventurer
Their "mistake" was to separate damage from every role and make it seem like that was the "strikers" only province.
In a redesigned game I'd like to see the 4 roles still be as they are today, but the defender should be the heavy armor/high defense striker, and the striker should be the light armor/high defense striker. The leader should be the "inspiring" striker, and the controller should be the "controlling" striker.
Multi-ability dependent classes should be taken to the shed and.... Remove the dependency on multiple abilities from classes. Each class can have one or two abilities that are primary for it. Pick one and that is your primary ability. No muss, no fuss.
The heavy armor and light armor paths should be "features" of the martial classes. So you could select either, and still be well protected because of your choice. If there is a shield for the heavy armor defender then there should be a parrying blade for the light armor defender. Both grant a "shield" bonus that is non-stacking. Or you could make a "shielding/defending" style that covers both and you don't depend on equipment at all. If you pick up a shield you're protected, if you pickup a parrying blade, the same.
All classes should have some viable melee and long range combinations(builds), with specialist builds that are slightly better in either role (sniper, duelists, etc.)
Doing damage is what ALL classes should be able to do. This would start taking care or the perceived grind. If a wizard uses an area spell they should do average damage to multiple creatures, but if he uses a single creature spell is should do STRIKER damage to that creature. Both options should be viable. Some of the long range attacks from other classes should work like area attacks, doing average damage to multiple creatures.
There should be no class skills in the "restricted" sense. Every skill is available to every class, there are some classes that are simply better at certain skills. So a fighter that wants to spend some time studying arcana is fine. He's already limited in his skill points so if he wants to spend them in that fashion that is the player's prerogative. The wizard would still be better with inherent "class features" for Arcana.
In a redesigned game I'd like to see the 4 roles still be as they are today, but the defender should be the heavy armor/high defense striker, and the striker should be the light armor/high defense striker. The leader should be the "inspiring" striker, and the controller should be the "controlling" striker.
Multi-ability dependent classes should be taken to the shed and.... Remove the dependency on multiple abilities from classes. Each class can have one or two abilities that are primary for it. Pick one and that is your primary ability. No muss, no fuss.
The heavy armor and light armor paths should be "features" of the martial classes. So you could select either, and still be well protected because of your choice. If there is a shield for the heavy armor defender then there should be a parrying blade for the light armor defender. Both grant a "shield" bonus that is non-stacking. Or you could make a "shielding/defending" style that covers both and you don't depend on equipment at all. If you pick up a shield you're protected, if you pickup a parrying blade, the same.
All classes should have some viable melee and long range combinations(builds), with specialist builds that are slightly better in either role (sniper, duelists, etc.)
Doing damage is what ALL classes should be able to do. This would start taking care or the perceived grind. If a wizard uses an area spell they should do average damage to multiple creatures, but if he uses a single creature spell is should do STRIKER damage to that creature. Both options should be viable. Some of the long range attacks from other classes should work like area attacks, doing average damage to multiple creatures.
There should be no class skills in the "restricted" sense. Every skill is available to every class, there are some classes that are simply better at certain skills. So a fighter that wants to spend some time studying arcana is fine. He's already limited in his skill points so if he wants to spend them in that fashion that is the player's prerogative. The wizard would still be better with inherent "class features" for Arcana.
In my home game I instituted something I called "utility feats" which are basically all the feats that are primarily useful outside of battle. PCs get a bonus utility feat at 5/15/25th level, and in return their 10/20/30th level feat has to be a utility feat.
I think something like this, separating combat and non-combat resources, can help increase the number of interesting but mechanically inferior feats in play.
I think something like this, separating combat and non-combat resources, can help increase the number of interesting but mechanically inferior feats in play.
