Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6510499" data-attributes="member: 22779">Why do you come to that conclusion?&nbsp; Just because the notion of roles was refined throughout the run of 4e doesn't mean that they are &quot;excessively vague&quot;.&nbsp; IMO, it's mostly the tone that people seem to be getting stuck on.&nbsp; The idea that if a class is labelled a &quot;defender&quot; that that is all it can ever be and it can be nothing else.&nbsp; Which, once you move past some of the more egregious wordings in the core 3 books, is patently false and easily falsifiable.&nbsp; After all, you can make a pretty decent striker fighter right out of the box in 4e.&nbsp; To me, essentials aren't even a real revision of the AEDU structure.&nbsp; They are still very recognizable as AEDU characters, just with a lot less D <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />.&nbsp; Essentials expanded the rules, not over wrote them.&nbsp; The basic definition of &quot;defender&quot; (for example) didn't change all that much.&nbsp; A character whose primary focus is holding the line, tying down opponents and protecting the rest of the group.&nbsp; That's what a defender does.&nbsp; How it does it varies from class to class, but, at the end of the day, that's what a defender does.&nbsp; How is my Crusader Fighter with Protection Style not a defender?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6510499, member: 22779"] Why do you come to that conclusion? Just because the notion of roles was refined throughout the run of 4e doesn't mean that they are "excessively vague". IMO, it's mostly the tone that people seem to be getting stuck on. The idea that if a class is labelled a "defender" that that is all it can ever be and it can be nothing else. Which, once you move past some of the more egregious wordings in the core 3 books, is patently false and easily falsifiable. After all, you can make a pretty decent striker fighter right out of the box in 4e. To me, essentials aren't even a real revision of the AEDU structure. They are still very recognizable as AEDU characters, just with a lot less D :D. Essentials expanded the rules, not over wrote them. The basic definition of "defender" (for example) didn't change all that much. A character whose primary focus is holding the line, tying down opponents and protecting the rest of the group. That's what a defender does. How it does it varies from class to class, but, at the end of the day, that's what a defender does. How is my Crusader Fighter with Protection Style not a defender? [/QUOTE]

Verification