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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6514294" data-attributes="member: 48965">Okay as a common courtesy I'm going to ask that you please stop clipping parts of numerous posters replies and sticking them all in one post... Especially when they become as long as this one.  It's a barrier to communication, eliminates context (whether purposefully or not) and honestly I'm getting kind of tired of having to sift through and cut out relevant sections... that said I am just going to go through the entire thing and post replies... You haven't rebutted it, what you've done is shift goalposts...Unless of course there are mechanics that enforce this "suggestion"... like marks, no ranged powers, etc.And yet again... the mechanics enforce you being a defender... a Fighter will be a sub-par striker... I don't think you are keen to learn it because I've stated the difference numerous times and the only thing you seem keen on is ignoring the difference...Because that section there due to the mechanical enforcement in 4e is telling you how to get the most damage out of a Fighter as a defender, that still doesn't make him a striker.  Like I said earlier the Fighter ends up being a sub-par striker at best.No it tells us how to build the most damage dealing defender we can... That is not a Striker, at least not as I see them in PHB 1 for the simple fact that this "striker" fighter's damage and effectiveness drop drastically at long range (thus a sub-par striker at best)... the true strikers in 4e don't have that problem. Well neither of us will know if it's an error or not but stating you can use Dex as your primary attribute is far clearer and direct a statement than inferring that "this is how you do the most damage you can" =  "this is how you become a sriker."  Let's look at another example... page 61 under Battle Cleric..."If you choose to concentrate on melee, you find a good assortment of strikes to your liking..."  Oh wow they are telling me how to build a Cleric who is a striker... or maybe they're just trying to tell me how to make  a cleric who can do as well as a cleric can do in melee... but technically isn't a  striker in the mechanical sense.or here's one from the Wizard section  pg. 157..."Your delight is in powers that deal damage-lots of damage, to many foes at a time.  Enormous bursts of fire, searing bolts of lightning, and waves of caustic acid are your weapons."  Sounds like you can make a striker out of a Wizard as well, at leats according to how you chose to interpret the descriptive text under the fighter... Of course anyone whose played the Wizard in 4e knows that really isn't true...  That player of the 4e character is going to be pretty dissapointed once he also figures out that his so called striker, unlike the Ranger, rogue and warlock in PHB 1, isn't effective in ranged combat due to the vast majority of his powers keying of Str and being used in melee... but you keep telling them they can be a true striker (which for the record is not what the pasage you keep citing actually says.) As to your second point I disagree with you, strictly speaking Str is important for fighters since it gives you the most weapon choices and armor choices in the game... but the wider point is that they tell you upfront that it's your choice whether to be Dex primary or Str primary... plain and simple.You haven't proved it as false...Yes you are....I don't think anyone said a specific character could... I think the discussion centered around classes... and in the wide sense a class includes all of it's sub-classes... this is why the corebooks vs. the PDF is important the PDF is an incomplete subset of the game, regardless if you can play the game or not with it... and yeeah it;s kind of hypocritical to cite books 3 years down the road from the core for 4e and try to restrict 5e discussion to the PDF... If you don't have the complete game maybe you should buy and read it before jumping into debates about 5e...  Again this is a build (and a specialized one at that) not a class... Now you've shifted the goal posts again and are creating your own argument to win against...So now it's roles "like" 4e... because other 4e fans in this thread, who you've chosen to comment with and on replies to have claimed that we 5e fans don't see the 4e designe because were denying it or hate 4e so much we don't want to admit it... you start flinging accusations around like that and you should expect heavy push back... regardless of how supposedly "productive you want the conversation to be.  In essence according to the above we're either liars, deluded or to caught up so much  in our own biases we can't see the supposed "truth".  Yeah sorry but  that's not a position at all for productivity.  So they created a fighter without reading the class section... how is that even possible?This must have went totally over your head even though it seems self-evident to me let me explain... I can only Hybrid once in 5e... there are no multi-hybrids, and you can only ever multi-class throught feats once in 4e (exception being the Bard class)... so if  I can cover the competency I'm looking for in 5e without multi-classing you tell me how it doesn't afford more flexibility since I can concentrate on something else when I multi- class or take a feat...The point is he will be effective due to bounded accuracy, and the fact that his abilities aren't pre-scripted for ranged or melee combat specifically.So spending character resources to compensate, I don't have to do that in 5e... and hide is situational, come on man quit reaching.So there are differences... you've strengthened my point.  It's not generic archer warrior vs. generic melee warrior... the classes have other competencies attached to them.Wait, first you say the roles aren't enforced... but now you're listing these abilities (which seem custom made to enforce roles) and claiming they're the biggest differences in classes... which one is it?  As to your second point... because all around competent bad ass in combat has been the fighter's archetype in nearly every edition of D&D... and that's the archetype I want to play... not highly competent melee combatant who suddenly becomes mediocre man when combats go ranged...</blockquote>

Verification