+ Log in or register to post
Results 21 to 30 of 56
Saturday, 19th February, 2011, 01:54 PM #21
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I write computer software for a living. I've used assembly language extensively throughout the years, but I avoid it when I can. Abstracting away needless complexity is a large part of the art of engineering.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Saturday, 19th February, 2011, 04:42 PM #22
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
the blog's week 1 Encounters report:
I confess that I don't know the character creation rules for this season, and I know DMs have a lot of leeway in what happens in their Encounters game. However, I've beeing following the DM from the blog for a while and he appears to be an avid Encounters player who know his stuff. I could find no indication from his blog that character creation was limited to Essentials. Is there a place where the rules of character creation are listed for this season?The party consisted of Belgos the Drow Ranger, Brandis the Human Cavalier, Fargrim the Dwarf Slayer, Jarren the Human Wizard, Valenae the Eladrin Cleric and a Battlemind.
Having said all that, I have a definite preference for Essentials material. I don't think anyone is stupid or smart for wanting to play one class or the other - people just have preferences for a certain kind of gameplay or theme.
Last edited by Nahat Anoj; Saturday, 19th February, 2011 at 04:47 PM.
Saturday, 19th February, 2011, 09:52 PM #23
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
As far as the second part, I started with Red Box basic. Wasn't that the whole thing there? You had a basic set that was simpler and more streamlined w/less options and AD&D with more options. The Essentials classes are much more focused versions of the 4E classes and when I noticed my wife had made a Scout instead of a Ranger, I pointed this out to her and reminded her that knowing her, she would get bored of only having 5 moves at level 8 heh. I really don't see what the big deal is. If people want to play a more focused (and limited) version of a class, they can be my guest. I'll be playing something w/more options.
Ptolusmus was August 5th, 2006
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 04:44 AM #24
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 06:51 AM #25
Novice (Lvl 1)
this is what i would like to see more of.Originally Posted by Defcon
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 09:18 AM #26
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
Originally Posted by Agent Elrond
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 02:39 PM #27
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 03:16 PM #28
Novice (Lvl 1)
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 04:09 PM #29
Time Agent (Lvl 24)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Read 1 Reviews
- Blog Entries
ø Block I'm A Banana
"No choice" isn't how I'd describe it. The Essentials classes I've been playing have a good amount of choice, thanks to the ability to swap out same-level powers. They let me build, for instance, a Pyromancer who has more than enough stuff to stick in his spellbook that is pure fire damage dakka, even though the Heroes books don't have a whole lot in the way of that directly.It is a style of character building that has no choice, that is what everyone is worried about.
Do you not have enough daily fighter powers to make the kind of fighter you want?There may be loads of new fighter builds in the new Essentials character format, but that means there will be no more daily fighter powers.
But you see how this is a problem when people want to play at different levels of complexity, yes? I am one of those players who rarely picked up wizards in previous editions because I do not like that level of complexity. Then 4e comes along and everyone is a Vancian wizard, and I am turned off by ALL the classes, because they are ALL too complex for me.Originally Posted by Jhalen
And then we have Essentials, and suddenly I have a lot more variety in complexity, and I love it.
And just because someone actually likes to play the Slayer over the PHB fighter, this doesn't remove the option for others to play the PHB fighter in the slightest. A broad selection of appeal is a good idea. If your fighter does not have enough daily powers, write some up and submit them to Dragon. I really don't think they'll reject more powers. I just think that perhaps 12 powers/level is quite enough for meaningful options.
Honestly, as someone who has played these classes, the mage is already a lot simpler than the PHB fighter for a lot of reasons.Now the asymmetrical Essentials builds give the impression that 'beginners' or 'slow thinkers' or 'casual players' should stick to low-complexity builds like the slayer, while the high-complexity builds like the mage should be reserved for the 'pro's'.
And that's something I consider a bad thing.
But no one should be penalized for wanting to be simpler and more straightforward. In "classic" 4e, you essentially told those people who don't want to be 'pros' at pretending to be magical gumdrop elves to go get lost and play Diablo. That's not a great thing, from a business or D&D perspective.
--- Jacob J Driscoll, Ravens in his Loft---
"Mother forget me now that the creek drank the cradle you sang to"
Newest DM's Guild Poducts:
Backgrounds: The Accursed, The Cold, The Fugitive, The Ghostwatcher, The Invisible, The Knight of the Shadows, The Monster Hunter
Subclasses: The Eremite Arcane Tradition, The Burial Divine Domain
2e Complete Books conversions
Sunday, 20th February, 2011, 04:51 PM #30
Gallant (Lvl 3)
I think the new class builds are fine, even better in some respects. I just look at them as player options. It's up to them.
Personally I don't like the format, I prefer hardbound books with less reprinted information. Give me a hardbound copy with all the new class builds and racial information in one book and I'll buy it. Same goes for the Monster Vault and DM's Kit. I don't need boxes, counters, maps, and adventures I will never use. Just give me the books.
The Rules Compendium is perfect for this format however. It doesn't take up a lot of room on the table and serves it's function well as a quick rules reference.