Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMforPowergamers" data-source="post: 6505800" data-attributes="member: 67338">The roles were never so hard coded as to ONLY be one thing per class... ever not even 4e...(although 4e could have explained that better...because in the most up front designed D&D ever, they still hid things arg!)A fighter in 4e PHB1 with great weapon style and the fight powers could keep up with the rogue and surpace the warlock from that same book... (but not the best ranger...it was DPR king, heck a poorly built ranger was still doing great DPR) The entire idea that "Beecuse if you purposely build against type you can play more then one role" or "Because you are secondary X role" means there are no roles then there were none in 4e...the two best argument against roles is that the controller role is ill defined (and I agree) and the farther back you go the less combat focused classes are so there combat role sometimes takes a back seat (I can understand and see some points to this) How ever...waeither you liked roles or not, no one can answer why every con man PC gets persicion training in melee combat that trained warriors don't (AKA why can't fighters backstab sneak attack?)</blockquote>