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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6534763" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Sorta depends on class and/or build. Barbarians get away with it by having decent defenses and good HP (or ablative THP or whatever), and Avengers generally have stellar AC. Sorcerers, for example, usually get their attack stat to AC (Dex as normal, Str from a feature for Dragon and Cosmic Sorcerers). So there are some Strikers that fall into the "tanky bruiser" category, to appropriate a League of Legends term. In general, I'd say (most) Strikers are less fragile than (most) Controllers, but more fragile than (most) Leaders, and all of them are much more fragile than even a low-HP Defender.Generally agreed. IMO, Bard, Fighter, and Monk are sort of the "barometer" for an edition. Do they, statistically speaking, fall noticeably behind other classes? Do they have access to a similar (NOT THE SAME) breadth of mechanical impact? In 3e, in general, they do fall behind and do not have the same breadth of mechanical impact. In 4e, they're all strong classes (Monk is the weakest of the three, and that really isn't saying *that* much) and they have access to a pretty impressive array of things, both solely within their own resources, and through things like Ritual Casting, Martial Practices, and Skill Utilities. In 5e, I personally feel that the Bard is great, the Monk is acceptable, and the Fighter falls behind--other classes can easily match its damage output (e.g. Paladin) while having both excellent passive benefits and/or additional active/selective-use effects that provide far greater breadth.And that--again, IMO--is the problem of designing classes without deciding on a foundation (role) first. Let the player build whatever they like on top of it--and do whatever they want inside that building. That's the player's business. The designer's business should be just as you've said: Avoid "good at all/most things" and "good at few/no things," which means seeking "good at some things." Deciding which things in particular is deciding what role, even if you don't formally call it anything whatsoever.</blockquote>

Verification