Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6506035" data-attributes="member: 2011">I said:"A DPR designed 5E fighter, on average, does more DPR than a DPR designed 5E rogue."and you directly replied:"Not necessarily"and gave an example of a DPR rogue against a defense fighter.And now you are claiming that this apples and oranges comparison is what you were talking about the entire time?I can say the opposite using your sentence:A fighter can specialize to do more damage than your typical rogue (or other martial class), which by (your) definition, would make him a striker.That doesn't make either CLASS a striker. If one has to optimize or minimally take certain feats/subclasses to become a certain role, then the role is not explicitly built into the class as per 4E.The very definition of the word role is function. In 4E, the 4 role functions were built in: every Rogue, even non-heavily optimized ones, were strikers. In 5E, that is no longer the case and it was not the case in 1E through 3E. The function of a rogue in 5E is not striker. It's back to being a thief, the 1E stealth/traps/locks/pick pockets/listening at doors specialist with the ability to do more damage if conditions are right, combined with evasion and other abilities gained in 3E. They can be optimized to do more damage than other typical PCs, but so can the Fighter, so can the Paladin, and so can a lot of classes, even non-martial ones.The very concept of striker classes no longer exist. The concept of a player wanting his PC to do nova damage, sure, that still exists. But some of the 4E striker classes no longer nova the best in 5E. They are no longer strikers. There is no longer a set of classes that are the absolute best at nova-ing right out of the box whose role it is to be a striker.</blockquote>

Verification