Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6545183" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.&nbsp; Strikers are probably the simplest role to comprehend.&nbsp; The kill things, generally one thing at a time - but their not so tough that things don't stand a chance of killing them right back (so they need Defenders and Leaders).&nbsp;&nbsp; The stereotypical archer fits that pretty neatly.&nbsp; It's not that the archer archetype is absent in any edition (though it's not too great in early classic D&amp;D), just that which cubby it's placed in varies with how the edition is conceived and organized.&nbsp;&nbsp; Among other oddities, like 4e &amp; 5e having archers that are all about DEX, getting both attack &amp; damage from that stat, while prior eds take attack from DEX and damage from STR (iff you have the right kind of bow).&nbsp; Heck, if they had a &quot;STR bow&quot; in 4e (&quot;though it is a projectile weapon, this bow has the 'heavy throw' quality&quot;) &amp; 5e (&quot;with this custom-made bow, you can apply your STR mod instead of your DEX mod to attacks and damage, your DM will determine what happens when you use a STR bow made for a higher or lower STR than your own...&quot;), you'd be right back to the strong, heavy-armor fighter being able to be a pretty decent archer.Non-striker classes have some ranged attacks, but as far as I can remember they tend to be lower damage or shorter ranged. Some have riders which are important features of the power, especially in the case of controllers.&nbsp;The wizard could definitely be tweaked towards a secondary striker role, yes.&nbsp; So could the fighter - in melee - for that matter.&nbsp; :shrug:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6545183, member: 996"] Nod. Strikers are probably the simplest role to comprehend. The kill things, generally one thing at a time - but their not so tough that things don't stand a chance of killing them right back (so they need Defenders and Leaders). The stereotypical archer fits that pretty neatly. It's not that the archer archetype is absent in any edition (though it's not too great in early classic D&D), just that which cubby it's placed in varies with how the edition is conceived and organized. Among other oddities, like 4e & 5e having archers that are all about DEX, getting both attack & damage from that stat, while prior eds take attack from DEX and damage from STR (iff you have the right kind of bow). Heck, if they had a "STR bow" in 4e ("though it is a projectile weapon, this bow has the 'heavy throw' quality") & 5e ("with this custom-made bow, you can apply your STR mod instead of your DEX mod to attacks and damage, your DM will determine what happens when you use a STR bow made for a higher or lower STR than your own..."), you'd be right back to the strong, heavy-armor fighter being able to be a pretty decent archer. Non-striker classes have some ranged attacks, but as far as I can remember they tend to be lower damage or shorter ranged. Some have riders which are important features of the power, especially in the case of controllers. The wizard could definitely be tweaked towards a secondary striker role, yes. So could the fighter - in melee - for that matter. :shrug: [/QUOTE]

Verification