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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6514257" data-attributes="member: 42582">Why is the analogy false? The analogy strikes me as quite apt: both are bits of advice on character building and character play located early in the relevant text (p 16 of the 4e PHB, p 8 of the Basic PDF). Both suggest that a fighter is intended to be played (at least by default) in a particular fashion.I'm not dismissing Imaro's point. I'm rebutting it.There is no difference between being told that fighters are defenders, and being told that STR matters to fighters. Both are bits of guidance offered to would-be builders and players of PCs.Similarly, there is no difference between having a more nuanced bit of text stating that fighters might focus on DEX rather than STR, and having a more nuanced bit of text that tells you how to build a fighter whose goal is maximum damage. Both add nuance to the earlier generalisation.I know Imaro thinks there is a difference, but he has failed to explain what it is. I guess you think there is a difference too; I'm keen to learn what it is. I know there is a bit in the fighter description that talks about DEX; it is found on p 24 of the Basic PDF. But I don't see how that is any more relevant than this bit of text, from p 76 of the 4e PHB in the fighter class description:You can choose any fighter powers you like for your character, but fighters naturally fall into two basic groups: the great weapon fighter and the guardian fighter. . . . [As a] great weapon fighter you’re interested in dealing out the most damage you can.In other words, a fighter can be played as a striker, and the 4e PHB tells us as much - just not on p 16 under the "roles" heading.For what it's worth, I don't think the table is an error at all. It is a simplified guideline for players new to building characters for the game. Much like the discussion in the PHB, p 16, is a simplified guideline for players new to building characters for the game. Anyone who has experience with mechanically heavy RPGs is going to be able to look over the fighter powers in the PHB and see how to build a fighter to do striker-level damage (including leveraging combat challenge to support that) or see how to build a warlock as a single-target controller.If any player, or would-be player, of 4e works out that a fighter can be played as a damage-dealer (ie a striker) but then continues to feel resentment that the PHB identified the fighter's role as defender, I am baffled. That would be like resenting the 5e designers because, in a short-cut table, they remarked that STR is important for fighters even though that is not strictly true.What part of "5e explicity says that STR is important for fighters" is hard to understand? 5e does do that. Even though it is not actually true of the game.What part of "4e expicitly calls out a fighter build as having the function of dealing as much damage as possible" is hard to understand? Much like the reference to DEX in the fighter class description in 5e, it adds a complexifying gloss to the discussion of roles on p 16. Maybe you never read that part of the fighter class description?As I have explained above, there is a good reason for the rulebook to state the narrow proposition about building and playing a fighter, even though it is false. I have explained what that is earlier in this post.I'm not ignoring 5e's core books.The existence of 5e's core books doesn't change the fact that the most accessible version of the game contains a table stating that STR is important for fighters, although that is not true (and is contradicted by p 24 of the same document).The existence of 5e's core books doesn't change the fact that some PCs built using those core books will be identical to the PCs that can be built using the PDF. Do you think a fighter build using the PDF can fill any role, depending on the desires of the player at the time? If not - and I don't see how such a character will ever act as the party's main healer - then it is not true, as some have asserted, that any 5e character can fill any role.Will a Champion fighter who pumps STR and CON, who takes the Great Weapon and Defense fighting styles, who wears heavy armour, and who is not Proficient in Stealth, be able to act as top-of-the-line archer?If not - and I think that such a character is not a top-of-the-line archer, lacking mobility and stealth - then it is even moreso not true, as some have asserted, that any 5e character can fill any role.If you look at my posts in this thread you will see that I have actually tried to analyse the mechanics of 4e and explain how those mechanics, relatively naturally (once a bit of D&D legacy is also taken into account) lead to the 4e roles. I have also tried to look at mechanical resemblances and differences between 4e and 5e which would be relevant to the emergence of similar (or perhaps different) roles in 5e - such as the greater flexibility in the combat movement rules (which makes granting free movement to allies, and imposing forced movement on enemies, less important), and the reduced mechanical duration of combat (which means that imposed non-hp-loss conditions have fewer rounds in which to make a difference).In my view, continuing that analysis has the potential to be productive. And it opens up new questions, too, about design space, viable PC builds, and their likely appeal to fans of various modes of RPG play and mechanical system. Instead, Imaro and Sacrosanct (and you?) are trying to prove some proposition that I don't fully understand, and that doesn't strike me as very important, but is something like "Classes in 5e support a wider range of builds than classes in 4e" - which is fairly obviously true but seems basically irrelevant to the question of whether or not 5e has roles like 4e, and which classes and sub-classes best, or most easily, fill those roles.Which players are you talking about? The same ones who read the table that tells them STR is important for fighters, and therefore refuse to dump STR for DEX in building their archer fighter?Personally I think these players are either very inexperienced in playing mechanically heavy RPGs, or are very hypothetical. But that's just based on my personal experience. Maybe your RPGing world is full of them. If so, commiserations.Why?Upthread I was told that a fighter who becomes a healer by taking feats X and Y is comparable to a cleric or a 4e warlord - does 4e count as more flexible because a warlord can still heal even if the player spends all his/her feat slots on skill training?Hybrids are no more optional in 4e than feats in 5e: the PC build system works fine without them, but without them not every character concept can be easily realised.It's not true that your 5e fighter with a DEX suitable for being a topline archer will be as competent in melee as any other fighter. That DEX will require sacrifcing ability scores in STR or in CON.As far as heavy armour is concerned, a 4e ranger can acquire proficiency in that with a feat (a core part of the 4e build system), although s/he has no real reason to do so given that Hide + DEX will give a comparable AC.As far as skills are concerned, the archer-ranger gets more than the fighter. The only skills to which a fighter has access but the ranger doesn't are Intimidate and Streetwise. In exchange, the ranger gets access to such skills as Perception and Stealth, both fairly core to a top-line archer. If your point is that the 5e background system is superior to 4e's pre-PHB2 approach to skills (PHB 2 introduces flexible backgrounds as a type of forerunner to 5e) I don't think that is controversial: I think the background system in 5e is acknowledged almost universally as a strong element in its PC build mechanics.Finally, as far as class abilities go - colour me confused: if the complaint is that 4e makes everyone play guitar the same way, then why is it a problem that a DEX-based archer does not get access to the defender class abilities (marking and mark enforcement, OA-movement-ending, and additional hit points and surges) that are fairly central to the f4e ighter's identity? Presumably the reason you're building a DEX-based archer is that you don't want to play a melee-oriented defender.</blockquote>

Verification