Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 4726669" data-attributes="member: 53980">I simply said "From what I've seen...".  I've never seen the Tempest build you claim, that doesn't rely on opportunity attacks to bring up it's average damage.  Even so, assuming for the moment that it is true, you only addressed half the definition of what a Striker is.  Where is the Tempest Fighter's added Striker mobility coming from?  Paladins get some nice healing, but that doesn't make them leaders on par with a Cleric.Are you unwilling to allow for the FACT that the designers are human, imperfect, and therefore entirely capable of making mistakes?  A system as complex as D&D is going to have mistakes, and sometimes glaring ones (at least, it has in every edition I've ever owned).That the Wizard design was slightly "under-controllered" was not relevant before a few days ago, because the Wizard was the only controller in the game.  There was no one to steal the spotlight from him!I've seen some people say that the rogue is better, some the ranger, and some the warlock.  Overall I would say that that suggests they're pretty on par with each other.  People will have their preferences and say "I saw X class do this" but I would say that even if one is better than the others, they're pretty darn close.I said that the reliance on Spotlight Balance had been built in to the system to a greater degree than had been done before.  I even pointed out that it is not "out of the DM's hands" entirely, merely that the parts which are reliant upon the DM are reduced.  I even gave examples (that the Wizard could no longer buff himself to become a better Defender than the Fighter).No offense, but have you been reading what I've been writing, or just skimming a few of the words and imagining the rest?  If you're going to nit-pick sentences instead of considering the ideas as a whole, while ignoring anything that you might consider inconvenient, there really isn't much point to this conversation and I won't bother.If you're willing to completely ignore the fact that the Rogue gets class powers that forever will keep him a step ahead of the Ranger.  The Rogue, therefore, only has to keep pace with the Ranger (minus one feat that the Rogue gets for free).  He can be a feat behind and still be a step ahead forever.Thanks.  Just as when I add paprika to my gulyas, I find adding colorful words to posts helps to "spice things up".I'm not clear as to what is the "it" that you don't you know "if it was necessarily tyranny" though?  I was speaking from a theoretical place wherein I imagined a universe where the designers had bowed utterly and completely to Concept Balance (and came to the conclusion that it was a very different game than our version of 4E).  Note that I am not trying to assert that there is no Concept Balance in 4E.  I've already stated that the amount of Concept Balance has greatly increased.  It is not, however, the only Balance to be seen within the game.No, the Rogue and the Ranger approach the role of Striker from two different angles.  You can't say that the Ranger blows the Rogue out of the water without comparing and contrasting their powers in addition to their features (of which you only compared a lesser subset to begin with).The Rogue can become good at woodlore at the same opportunity cost that is required for the Ranger to become a thief; a feat (to acquire the Nature skill).  And it doesn't make the Ranger any less special.Being able to become skilled at something outside of your stereotypical role is character creation flexibility.  Look at 2nd ed.  A Fighter who wanted to learn how to sneak had to dual/multi-class into Thief.  In 3.x, spending his 2 skill points cross-class in Hide and Move Silently meant that he'd be poor at sneaking and terrible at every other skill.  In 4E, all he does is spend a feat to learn Stealth.  If that isn't increased flexibility, I don't know what is.</blockquote>

Verification