Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="-Avalon-" data-source="post: 4537761" data-attributes="member: 66363">I think you mistake the differences in roles... sure there are major differences between striker and defender, but there are also subtle differences between the strikers themselves.&nbsp; If there wasn't, we would have a generic archetypal striker, with options of flavor text, they would all basically do the same thing.&nbsp; Instead, they are very different from each other.Actually, balance wise, yeah rogues may pour out damage, that is their job.&nbsp; A Fighter's job is to soak up damage... a wizard's job is not pure damage, it is control.&nbsp; And they do that through numerous methods, damage is the least of those.&nbsp; So why should the wizard's damage be a main concern again?&nbsp; Warlocks do more damage and have less control than wizards, thus striker, but they still do not do as much damage as a rogue.&nbsp; And, both of those classes (wiz/lock) do their damage from ranged, AND affect multiple creatures from around 10-20 squares away.There are enough feats to boost your abilities, shape your spells, lengthen your range, expand your burst, etc...I am sure there are some mathematicians that can assist in showing the differences in damage between using 3d6 and 3d8 vs a number of mobs (15-25 of them) and what a fighter swinging a sword can do...As for specializing in an element... isn't that sort of like what a fighter does?&nbsp; starts out a bit generic, and eventually is focused on a singular weapon (a la Kensai?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="-Avalon-, post: 4537761, member: 66363"] I think you mistake the differences in roles... sure there are major differences between striker and defender, but there are also subtle differences between the strikers themselves. If there wasn't, we would have a generic archetypal striker, with options of flavor text, they would all basically do the same thing. Instead, they are very different from each other. Actually, balance wise, yeah rogues may pour out damage, that is their job. A Fighter's job is to soak up damage... a wizard's job is not pure damage, it is control. And they do that through numerous methods, damage is the least of those. So why should the wizard's damage be a main concern again? Warlocks do more damage and have less control than wizards, thus striker, but they still do not do as much damage as a rogue. And, both of those classes (wiz/lock) do their damage from ranged, AND affect multiple creatures from around 10-20 squares away. There are enough feats to boost your abilities, shape your spells, lengthen your range, expand your burst, etc... I am sure there are some mathematicians that can assist in showing the differences in damage between using 3d6 and 3d8 vs a number of mobs (15-25 of them) and what a fighter swinging a sword can do... As for specializing in an element... isn't that sort of like what a fighter does? starts out a bit generic, and eventually is focused on a singular weapon (a la Kensai?) [/QUOTE]

Verification