Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5384424" data-attributes="member: 87792">I hear people say this.&nbsp; I have yet to see evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp;You know, I've got a copy of Psionic Power.&nbsp; My wizard can't use that either.&nbsp; I see this as no issue.&nbsp; And my Monk can't use most of the powers in the previous PHBs...&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh.&nbsp; You mean that Essentials brings new classes to the table?&nbsp; Why is this any more a problem than when PHB 3 brought new classes?&nbsp;&nbsp;Um... what evidence for this do you have?&nbsp; Even the Mage is not significantly stronger than the staff or orb wizard.&nbsp; The cleric can't cut it in terms of healing vs a traditional cleric.&nbsp; Scout vs TWF ranger?&nbsp; I suppose if survivability is your measure of power the scout wins on AC.&nbsp; But not on damage.&nbsp; Slayer vs Barbarian?&nbsp; An interesting case - the Barbarian certainly has more utility.&nbsp; Knight vs Fighter?&nbsp; The knight simply can't cut it when teleports become routine.&nbsp; Before then it's close and they have different specialities - the Fighter locks down single targets, the Knight disrupts everyone but isn't as overwhelming against small numbers of foes.&nbsp;&nbsp;Putting Illusionists and Enchanters to one side for a moment, damage is what makes monsters dead.&nbsp; And I fail to see how clerics, druids, and seekers are based on extra damage.&nbsp; Strikers always have been - and all defenders except the swordmage have been.&nbsp; Because ultimately damage is what wins fights.&nbsp;The slayer I'll grant.&nbsp; That's the point.&nbsp; Some people want to Just Hit Things.&nbsp; Although I never want to play a slayer I'm glad such players have something to use.&nbsp; (And knights come close.)&nbsp; Scouts I think are more interesting than classic rangers (not that that says much).&nbsp;&nbsp;What's wrong with it as a guideline?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5384424, member: 87792"] I hear people say this. I have yet to see evidence. You know, I've got a copy of Psionic Power. My wizard can't use that either. I see this as no issue. And my Monk can't use most of the powers in the previous PHBs... Oh. You mean that Essentials brings new classes to the table? Why is this any more a problem than when PHB 3 brought new classes? Um... what evidence for this do you have? Even the Mage is not significantly stronger than the staff or orb wizard. The cleric can't cut it in terms of healing vs a traditional cleric. Scout vs TWF ranger? I suppose if survivability is your measure of power the scout wins on AC. But not on damage. Slayer vs Barbarian? An interesting case - the Barbarian certainly has more utility. Knight vs Fighter? The knight simply can't cut it when teleports become routine. Before then it's close and they have different specialities - the Fighter locks down single targets, the Knight disrupts everyone but isn't as overwhelming against small numbers of foes. Putting Illusionists and Enchanters to one side for a moment, damage is what makes monsters dead. And I fail to see how clerics, druids, and seekers are based on extra damage. Strikers always have been - and all defenders except the swordmage have been. Because ultimately damage is what wins fights. The slayer I'll grant. That's the point. Some people want to Just Hit Things. Although I never want to play a slayer I'm glad such players have something to use. (And knights come close.) Scouts I think are more interesting than classic rangers (not that that says much). What's wrong with it as a guideline? [/QUOTE]

Verification