Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 4727071" data-attributes="member: 53980">Fair enough, I'll make this my last response as well then.  I apologize if anything I said came across as encouraging edition war.  In truth, I initially omitted any references to earlier editions (based on that very concern), but I upon further examination decided my point of comparison required clarification if I wanted to discourage anyone from trying to be a wiseguy.  The line between disclaimer and edition war is a fine one indeed.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Fighters can lock targets down very effectively in melee, but you can't lock down what you cannot reach.  Strikers specialize in penetrating the front line.  Defenders specialize in BEING the front line.Sorry, but the Wizard wearing plate mail example is a bit shortsighted.  While you are correct that a Wizard couldn't wear armor or use big weapons, he could use spells to emulate (often in a superior manner) the mechanics of a Fighter wearing heavy armor and using a powerful weapon (for example, using Shapechange to take the form of a powerful dragon with thick scales and wicked fangs).  The Wizard is considered by many to have overshadowed the Fighter because mechanically he could do everything the Fighter could do, and then some.Except that this is an issue with every large, expanding system out there, whether it be the World of Darkness or Rifts.  Sourcebooks add more mistakes because they add more material.  Only simple, static systems (Wushu) can even begin to approach the concept of perfection.The 4E designers, however, seem to have a basic set of guidelines that powers are created with.  While individual powers may not always be perfectly balanced against each other, they will be much closer in power than they might be if they were designed for a game like Rifts, which doesn't concern itself with balance between classes at all.While I agree that it would be nice if we could live in an idealized world with no war, famine, or design mistakes, that simply isn't the case.  I would think it rather obvious that when the advertisers speak of 4E's balance, they are referring to it in real world terms as opposed to those of a Platonic ideal.Honestly, I have.  It was in a thread discussing the various Striker classes around the time that the PHB was released last year.  Various people posted their opinions, and then someone summarized it nicely by saying something like, "since no one seems to agree on why any of these is the best, I think the balance between them is probably pretty good".  Of course, the thread went on at least another 10 pages after that, but then, this is the internet...I'll grant that it is subjective.  Very well, I will list counter-examples for why the Rogue is his equal.  1) If most encounters involved running into a randomized armory to equip yourself for the fight at hand, I'd agree with you that the Ranger's expanded weapon list is an advantage.  As it stands, it's just flavor (well, some of it is balance; Rogues who regularly get combat advantage can already put out crazy damage; being able to sneak attack with a high x[W] power while wielding a greataxe would make them absurd).2) Between Hunter's Quarry (target's the nearest enemy) and Prime Shot, the ranged Ranger is strongly encouraged to get close, if not as close, as the Rogue (which strongly mitigates the advantage that he gains from attacking at range).  The Rogue has only one less point of base armor than the ranged Ranger, but is designed for melee unlike ranged Ranger.  Guess who will do better in a situation where he can't get the enemy out of his face, the guy designed for melee or the guy whose attacks grant opportunity attacks most of the time?3) Rogue sneak attack, while admittedly more conditional, deals twice or almost twice the bonus damage that Hunter's Quarry does.  This means that he only needs to have it apply (combat advantage) about half as often as the Ranger's Quarry to do equivalent damage, and if he somehow is able to gain it more often, he does more damage.  It's situational, but gaining combat advantage in 4E is not very difficult in many cases.  He won't have Sneak Attack as often as the Ranger will have Quarry, but Sneak Attack hits harder so in the end the odds are that it will average out.*) IMO, Rogues have some of the coolest utility powers in the game.  There you have it.  Three plus reasons that the Rogue is the Ranger's equal or better under the right conditions.  It's only fair in thought experiments that if you assume ideal conditions for one class that you assume it for the other, and vise versa.  So yes, such comparisons of classes tend to be subjective, as indicated by your conclusion that the Ranger is superior, and my differing conclusion that given the right conditions they can each be superior to the other, but will most likely balance out when given a series of conditions (aka, encounters).Remember, my argument is that Spotlight Balance was redefined for 4E.  Taken from one perspective, yes, you are correct that everyone is now sharing the spotlight.  Taken as the point that I was trying to make, if the 4E Wizard tries to stand in for the Fighter as a Defender he's probably going to have a very short career.  To explain it another way: assuming a traditional party (which, to some extent, is a generalization that D&D has always made) everyone will have a brief stint in the spotlight on their turn every round (the defender will defend, the controller will control, etc.).  It isn't the type of Spotlight Balance that you might be used to seeing, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.  You just have to know where to look.  Just like a chameleon, she has changed her colors to blend in.Slightly faster?  Try three times as fast (more if the Rogue is an elf)!  The Ranger can keep up with the Rogue if desired, but in this case it's the equivalent of a +5 to the Rogue's check (relatively speaking).  Also, powers function perfectly fine outside of combat (see the Doppelganger race in the MM).  It's the difference between, "I creep across the courtyard" and "I quickly sneak past the patrol".  Meaning no offense, but have you played 4E at all, because a lot of what you are saying seems like it is based on hearsay.Remember that the example I gave is only a 2nd level utility power.  It only gets better at higher levels (Chameleon PHB pg 120).  Now the Rogue can quickly sneak across a moonlit courtyard right under the patrol's nose; let's see the Ranger do THAT.I've already stated why I think the Rogue is conditionally the Ranger's equal, but let me go further to point out that even if he just keeps pace with the Ranger (which I already stated in my previous post puts the Rogue effectively one step ahead of him), he has one more feat to play with!  So now the Rogue picks up the Backstabber feat and is dealing more damage than ever, while the Ranger cannot grab Lethal Hunter until he either decides to stop competing with the Rogue or runs out of feats to improve his thieving skills.  Even if he does run out of feats, he's still not a better thief (assuming the Rogue decided to keep pace with him) but is a worse Striker.  This has been termed opportunity cost, and is one of the few places where Naturalistic Balance has been somewhat retained.I agree that Concept Balance was raised up and Naturalistic Balance taken down, but I still hold that while its portion of the pie may have been tweaked here or there, Spotlight Balance has primarily just changed its appearance in 4E, and is still quite evident as long as you know where to find it (in other words, it's more subtle at times).   Whereas previously Spotlight Balance often was "the Wizard dominated this encounter but now we'll let the Rogue pick a lock", 4E often uses the spotlight in smaller increments "the Wizard dominated his turn of the round this encounter, but the Rogue can dominate his turn too, always assuming competent play and decent luck (which also applies to the Wizard)".It's true, it will be a long time, if ever, before we know the accuracy of any of this.  Considering that disagreements still arise about balance in editions all the way back to the original books, I doubt it will ever be completely settled.  Nonetheless, it often makes for stimulating conversation and debate.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification