Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6875932" data-attributes="member: 48965">Even in 2e you had to get past the levels were no one had much in the way of survivability.... same with 5e, no one is all that hardy in the first 3 or 4 levels.&nbsp; And again since 5e readily calls out level 1 as an apprentice level... why would you expect all of this out the gate at level 1?&nbsp; Basically you want to be a tank without devoting (not specializing in it but purposefully neglecting the resources the game gives you to accomplish it) any resources towards it... but you're willing to devote those same resources into offense.&nbsp; Well what that tells me is that you want to be a striker not a tank.&nbsp; So again is it that tanks &quot;suck&quot; or that you don't know how/won't build an effective one?I call bull.&nbsp; In 4e you couldn't tank without a whole class worth of specialization... it was called being a defender and yeah you could go for a defender secondary role but that's exactly what it was secondary to those who had it as a primary role.&nbsp; THe only difference in 5e is that you (as opposed to the designer of a particular class) have to decide how many resources you're willing to devote to a particular role.&nbsp; As for 2e I don't know enough about it to comment.No one is claiming it's an excuse... but 5e promotes a particular playstyle at these levels and the game as well as the designers are pretty transparent about what it is and the fact of the matter is it does it pretty well at those levels.&nbsp; The fact that you expect it to be/do something else isn't a failure on their part that needs an &quot;excuse&quot;... and I think there may be more to this since apparently you were willing to play through these levels in 2e but not 5e.&nbsp; Why is that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 6875932, member: 48965"] Even in 2e you had to get past the levels were no one had much in the way of survivability.... same with 5e, no one is all that hardy in the first 3 or 4 levels. And again since 5e readily calls out level 1 as an apprentice level... why would you expect all of this out the gate at level 1? Basically you want to be a tank without devoting (not specializing in it but purposefully neglecting the resources the game gives you to accomplish it) any resources towards it... but you're willing to devote those same resources into offense. Well what that tells me is that you want to be a striker not a tank. So again is it that tanks "suck" or that you don't know how/won't build an effective one? I call bull. In 4e you couldn't tank without a whole class worth of specialization... it was called being a defender and yeah you could go for a defender secondary role but that's exactly what it was secondary to those who had it as a primary role. THe only difference in 5e is that you (as opposed to the designer of a particular class) have to decide how many resources you're willing to devote to a particular role. As for 2e I don't know enough about it to comment. No one is claiming it's an excuse... but 5e promotes a particular playstyle at these levels and the game as well as the designers are pretty transparent about what it is and the fact of the matter is it does it pretty well at those levels. The fact that you expect it to be/do something else isn't a failure on their part that needs an "excuse"... and I think there may be more to this since apparently you were willing to play through these levels in 2e but not 5e. Why is that? [/QUOTE]

Verification