Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4726727" data-attributes="member: 48965">This will most likely be my last response to your posts as it's at best tangential to the topic and I really don't want to get into edition war territory...Let me only say this, since a Fighter can lock a particular target down... why would it be necessary for him to be able to chase it down?  And since the fighter is built to be durable... why does he have to avoid attacks.  In the end his role helps cancel out the mobility need of a true striker, so that if he produces as much damage as a striker he can cover the Strikers role and his own easily, and is better at it than a striker who does less damage than him.  You don't have to do everything a class or role can do to overshadow it.  A wizard in earlier editions couldn't wear plate mail or wield a Greatsword yet many claim he could overshadow the fighter.Exactly my point and with a PHB every year this is bound to happen with more than just the Wizard.  While it could be argued this is because the designers are human, I think it's also or even moreso the fact that the type of balance WotC have chosen to go for with 4e gets harder and harder to maintain as more elements are added to the game.  As far as other editions, I think the fact that the marketing of 4e stressed how balanced it is and how much this will improve your game as opposed to the earlier "unbalanced" editions have made it so that this is one of the main selling points of 4e and if it's not maintained then it decreases one of the main draws of the game for many.Note: I've never seen the Warlock argued as the best striker and have only seen him labeled as mediocre to sub-par at best (perhaps this will be corrected in Arcane Power along with the Wizard).  Pretty close is subjective and I have actually listed why the Ranger is an all-around  better Striker than Warlock or Rogue.  He has a higher average damage output... his Hunters Quarry is not subject to attaining a condition... He is proficient in more weapons & armor, than the Rogue  and more weapons are applicable to his actual powers as opposed to the Rogue.No offense but your actual argument here is hard to follow.  Spotlight Balance in combat is hindered by the simple fact that teamwork is so important in combat.  Who gets to stand out and shine on their own when their decisions need to be based on how best to help the others in their group?  Really your arguing that Spotlight balance is present and easier to maintain in D&D 4e (I think)... but Spotlight balance is where one character gets to showcase his abilities in return for allowing others in different situations to do the same during other times.  Combat is about teamwork so how do these two ideas coincide?So in specialized conditions and if he picks the right power (using thievery in combat) the Rogue is slightly faster than the Ranger, but overall the Ranger can do what the Rogue can (by spending one feat) and do all the things he can and use more weapons with his powers and wear better armor and do more damage on average, etc.I don't believe in absolutes, but we are talking majority here and the game... for all intents and purposes tries to balance itself around Concept Balance and not Spotlight or Naturalistic Balance.  All I'm saying in the end is that I don't think games that become as subsystem and splat heavy as D&D always eventually becomes can effectively maintain balance based on concept.  However there is no way to tell until we're looking back and naming the "unbalanced" things in the game 4 or 5 years from now.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>[/QUOTE]

Verification