Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Runepriests are why we have 5e…
ack.... what a thing to lay on a class
Runepriests are why we have 5e…
Runepriests are why we have 5e…
I've never looked much at the class beyond a few poachable powers. Why do you say this (even, I assume, at least partly in jest)?
It's often seemed to me that the most significant levels are those ending in 1 & 6 (not that any levels are 'dead'). 1st, obviously, hello, welcome to your character. By 6th you're rounded-out with two each of encounter, daily & utility. 11th & 16th pick up PP features. 21st, obviously, starts your epic destiny.
I've had players drop into paragon and even epic games, though, it is doable, even without being eased into it in any way - beyond having a pregen ready for them, that is.
Yeah, I had a player do well entering play with a ca 22nd level Warlock! Depends on the player.
Replaying earlier scenes is a nice idea if you have the time. I think early paragon is where things really step up in the number of choices/powers.
But I think a lot depends on class/role you get the newbie to play. Some classes are so much easier than others, and this becomes a big issue in epic. But 4E upset the old idea that fighters are simple classes. The fighter in my epic campaign is probably the most complex in the party and has so many choices and a character sheet that requires a microscope to read. My guess is that strikers, especially martial types of strikers, may be the best to get starters to play. I think defenders require a lot of knowledge of positioning and keeping track of enemy movement, etc. Leaders maybe a possibility but tend to become a party resource ("heal me now!") which may be annoying to a new player or an advantage to a new player.
If I were going to start a player off in Epic, I'd go with one of the less complex Strikers - Ranger, Sorcerer, possibly hybrided to a class that fixed some of the basic issues without costing too many feats and allowing options if they feel up to it. Dex/Cha Sorcerer|Cavalier as an example is a fun build. The aura doesn't do a lot, but it gets the player used to the idea that targets can't shift near him. Or Ranger|Cleric with Battle Cleric's Lore. Again, nothing too complicated, but lets the player think about the usefulness of healing.
Runepriests are why we have 5e…
Also, not especially clear why Runepriest isn't just a sub-build of Str-Cleric where Runepriest is a substitute for Healer's Lore or Battle Cleric's Lore.
Anyway, the point was - they were doing stupid stuff for complexity's sake. That's usually a sign that there's some creative unhappiness.
I think it is more fair to say that PHB3 is why there was Essentials. It is really mostly a heap of crap and adds little to 4e IMHO, though the hybrid rules are an exception (and there are some perfectly decent feats and various other individual elements). About the only GOOD thing it has is the Monk. Psionics could have just been left on the roadside dead for all it did for 4e, the implementation was sub-par, none of the psionic classes was memorable or much of a success.
I'm not sure I'd go that far. I think the issue was twofold. There's two good options(Monk, Hybrid) and two decent options(Battlemind, Psion), but they each have their issues due to R&D not really understanding the balance of 4e. Namely:
Battlemind's a Defender who can shift when their mark shifts. They need a mechanic that lets them punish a marked target who decides to charge. Aka melee basic. Easily fixed with Melee Training for free or give a feat such as Intelligent Blademaster that functions on Constitution if you don't want to go that far.
Hybrid has a couple of wacky areas due to how sometimes armor and skills fall out. Again, not a hard fix - anyone proficient with any light armor in either class gets Leather. Anyone proficient in any heavy armor in either class gets Chain. If a class feature grants armor proficiency of some kind, you only get the armor part if you spend your hybrid talent on said armor proficiency. If you gain a bonus skill in a specific skill and so does the other side, then you get to pick a bonus skill from those two choices. So a Cleric/Warlock would be proficient in Chain armor and would get to pick from Religion or Arcana as a skill choice. Nothing particularly broken there, but now said Cleric/Warlock who has Con/Wis as primary stats and Leather Armor is functional at 1st level without needing to spend hybrid talent feat on AC.
Psion: They really don't understand that +/- stat is a really bad idea. All +/- stats should change to +3 if option gained in Heroic, +4 if gained in Paragon, +5 if gained in Epic. So when you augment Dishearten by 2, if your Charisma is at least 16, then you penalize by 3. This will let people realize that the really fun options of Psion such as Dishearten, Thunder Tether, Kinetic Burst, etc...are really a lot of fun.
Monk works mostly as is. Just needs to beef up that Monk Unarmed Strike with - get inherent bonuses to hit with it, use Dexterity as a melee basic attack, and if one hits with it off-turn, gets to use Flurry of Blows with it even if it already worked that round. That gives Monks reasons to not have a weapon in one hand, which is the opposite of what is true now - you want two weapons to be optimized.
But yeah, the rest is mostly a waste - and clearly skimped on playtesting. I like the Githzerai as that's a classic AD&D battle between them and the Githyanki, but kind of limited for such as a specific book and everything else is too.