Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9291666" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>This, to me, is exactly the same mistake made in 3.X/5e multiclassing - assuming that it is even a desirable thing to have every option work with every other option in the game. This mistake massively lowers the design space because you need to take account not just of all abilities but all combos rather than embracing the strength of a class-based system.</p><p></p><p>None of which would have hit the same highs as the thief.</p><p></p><p>For one a class without ready made showstoppers in the form of daily attack powers. A thief always needs to be on the ball and needs to constantly keep one step ahead without the safety. And when you get the showstopper you have earned it. Just the way someone overmatched should.</p><p></p><p>Diverging from AEDU into AEU therefore makes the thief feel more like a reflection of something very specific.</p><p></p><p>Oh, indeed. Thieves actually do have encounter powers in the form of Backstab, of course, and there are ways to trade that for a more normal encounter power.</p><p></p><p>There was a reason I singled out Str and Int builds other than that both are inherently rogue-y. Strength doesn't need a feat at all and Intelligence has a separate class-based feat (IIRC that requires the swordmage multiclass feat) that was never nerfed.</p><p></p><p>You can build Int, Str, or Cha as your secondary stat easily. What you can't do is have a non-thief rogue who doesn't have Dex as their primary stat; Str/Int and Int/Cha both work effectively for an off-beat mugger and grifter respectively (Str/Cha runs into AC trouble unless you also get heavy armour - but that's possible).</p><p></p><p>Why? Why must we burn something good and effective and enjoyable to the ground just because not everyone gets it? Why must all abilities be put on a Bed of Procrustes? For that matter why not allow 3.X style multiclasses. After all it's unfair that wizards can't wear plate armour and mark. Surely that access should exist for all builds </p><p></p><p>Artillery isn't unclear in its real function - and is no narrower than soldier. They blur into controllers.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. But rogues haven't been lurkers since they got Sneak Attack in 3.0</p><p></p><p>It was your comparison.</p><p></p><p>It's pure glass cannon. They do monstrous damage ... before they go down.</p><p></p><p>Cross-compatibility is always, always a secondary function. The primary function is to work well by itself and to give a positive play experience by itself.</p><p></p><p>The thief does that, then offers cross-compatibility with the utility powers because there is no reason they shouldn't be. It deliberately broke AED in a way that strengthened the theme by contrast and didn't offer cross-compatibility there.</p><p></p><p>I disagree. The core problem was that the design space from AEDU and power source/role was almost mined out after three PHBs, five splatbooks, a few settings, and Dragon. At this point you can either (a) end the edition, (b) break the edition into a .5 to try to force everyone to rebuy the same products, (c) mostly produce Extruded Fantasy Product like wizard subclass #16 and spell#753, or (d) take risks by seeing what happens when you deliberately break AEDU or hybrid across roles (berserker) or sources (ranger, berserker, skald).</p><p></p><p>And they chose a bit of all-of-the-above</p><p></p><p>Speaking of mediocre AEDU classes...</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile who's crowing about the Witch or the Sha'ir? Or even the pre-Essentials runepriest and seeker? Those are after all fully AEDU and fully compatible with prior classes. They are what we'd have had more of if WotC hadn't gone for cracking AEDU and power/role.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9291666, member: 87792"] This, to me, is exactly the same mistake made in 3.X/5e multiclassing - assuming that it is even a desirable thing to have every option work with every other option in the game. This mistake massively lowers the design space because you need to take account not just of all abilities but all combos rather than embracing the strength of a class-based system. None of which would have hit the same highs as the thief. For one a class without ready made showstoppers in the form of daily attack powers. A thief always needs to be on the ball and needs to constantly keep one step ahead without the safety. And when you get the showstopper you have earned it. Just the way someone overmatched should. Diverging from AEDU into AEU therefore makes the thief feel more like a reflection of something very specific. Oh, indeed. Thieves actually do have encounter powers in the form of Backstab, of course, and there are ways to trade that for a more normal encounter power. There was a reason I singled out Str and Int builds other than that both are inherently rogue-y. Strength doesn't need a feat at all and Intelligence has a separate class-based feat (IIRC that requires the swordmage multiclass feat) that was never nerfed. You can build Int, Str, or Cha as your secondary stat easily. What you can't do is have a non-thief rogue who doesn't have Dex as their primary stat; Str/Int and Int/Cha both work effectively for an off-beat mugger and grifter respectively (Str/Cha runs into AC trouble unless you also get heavy armour - but that's possible). Why? Why must we burn something good and effective and enjoyable to the ground just because not everyone gets it? Why must all abilities be put on a Bed of Procrustes? For that matter why not allow 3.X style multiclasses. After all it's unfair that wizards can't wear plate armour and mark. Surely that access should exist for all builds Artillery isn't unclear in its real function - and is no narrower than soldier. They blur into controllers. Agreed. But rogues haven't been lurkers since they got Sneak Attack in 3.0 It was your comparison. It's pure glass cannon. They do monstrous damage ... before they go down. Cross-compatibility is always, always a secondary function. The primary function is to work well by itself and to give a positive play experience by itself. The thief does that, then offers cross-compatibility with the utility powers because there is no reason they shouldn't be. It deliberately broke AED in a way that strengthened the theme by contrast and didn't offer cross-compatibility there. I disagree. The core problem was that the design space from AEDU and power source/role was almost mined out after three PHBs, five splatbooks, a few settings, and Dragon. At this point you can either (a) end the edition, (b) break the edition into a .5 to try to force everyone to rebuy the same products, (c) mostly produce Extruded Fantasy Product like wizard subclass #16 and spell#753, or (d) take risks by seeing what happens when you deliberately break AEDU or hybrid across roles (berserker) or sources (ranger, berserker, skald). And they chose a bit of all-of-the-above Speaking of mediocre AEDU classes... Meanwhile who's crowing about the Witch or the Sha'ir? Or even the pre-Essentials runepriest and seeker? Those are after all fully AEDU and fully compatible with prior classes. They are what we'd have had more of if WotC hadn't gone for cracking AEDU and power/role. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity
Top