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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6509513" data-attributes="member: 22779">All in all, I'm going back to what I said earlier.If a player says, "I want to make a character that can lay the boots to lots of things at once" would you point him at a fighter or a wizard?  Me?  I'd point to wizard, because, well, hitting lots of targets at once is what wizards do.  Sorcerer is a good option here too, and it's certainly not the only option, nor is it the only way to build a wizard.  But, out of the box, with the minimalist of efforts (no combining feats, classes, several levels and various weapons) I get a character that blows up lots of people at once.  Not that you can't do it with other characters, that's never been the meaning of Roles in 4e.  Just that, out of the box, this is what this class is best at.If I want to make a stalwart combatant that holds the line and protects his companions, then, sure, I'd be looking at a fighter and not, say, a rogue.  Again, not that rogue can't do it.  But, again, out of the box with the most obvious of choices, a fighter fills that roll (defender) pretty ably and better than a number of other choices.So on and so forth.  Roles are descriptive.  The problem is that in 4e, the books were written with a voice that was far too strong and far too authoritative and people took that to mean that roles were prescriptive.  ONLY fighters can be defenders goes the refrain, which simply isn't true.  It's just that fighters, out of the box, make the best defenders.</blockquote>

Verification