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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JDillard" data-source="post: 4306378" data-attributes="member: 67649">As you said, WotC.  Why?  Because it gives each class a specific focus in combat.  Each class has a thing to do.  They can tailor all the combat powers in each class to do that thing.  Thus, you can't accidentally make a character that can't accomplish his class's combat role.  This has been mentioned, a couple times already, in this thread alone.  What is a rogue that's not a striker?  A rogue that's a defender?  What makes it a rogue at that point?  Thievery and sneak attack?  Take a fighter and give it the rogue MC feat or a rogue with fighter MC feat.I don't get what you think you're missing.  Why is it so important to have "Rogue" written in big font at the top of the section?  You can mix and match things really, really well within 4e.  With the exception of an easy 50/50 split character (as mentioned above, this is going to be done via new classes rather than multiclassing), you can pretty much mix and match anything you want.Combat roles are not limiting.  They are exhaustive.  There are four of them.  Those four roles cover basically the entirety of what you can do in combat.  You deal damage, keep others from taking damage, heal and support, or change how the enemies act to help the previous three.  If you want a rogue that's not a striker or a wizard that's not a controller then you need to pick a different role because those four are it.  And by the time you pick a different role, you're picking something that somebody else already does (or will do once the class list grows a bit bigger).  Classes = Combat role with some class specific bonus stuff added on.  Even the class specific bonus stuff often plays right into that role (sneak attack = striker power).  All that's left that makes something a rogue is what?  Thievery and a couple other class specific skills?  The combat powers are basically just "close range melee striker" with some rogue flavor thrown in. That's why people keep saying "You want a ranged rogue?  Make a ranger, give him 'Skill Training: Thievery'."  You get the ranged combat role you want, and still get the part that makes him really rogue-like.How is that fighting the system?  What you call fighting, I call using exactly as intended.  It's not like it's difficult to make those things work.  It's not like it's a struggle, or the mechanic doesn't work well.  It's easy, and the mechanic works fine.  I still don't know what you feel like you're missing.</blockquote>

Verification