Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6074124" data-attributes="member: 87792">In part.&nbsp; We already had 19 classes before the PHB 3, and most of them covered a lot of ground.&nbsp; Thinking of the AEDU classes produced after the PHB 3 we have: In Essentials: The Hexblade.&nbsp; Fits much better with the limited options Essentials model. The Warpriest.&nbsp; A cleric for all practical purposes. The Sentinel.&nbsp; Let's not go there. The Mage.&nbsp; A slightly tweaked and polished wizard. The Cavalier.&nbsp; A paladin - better fluff but orthodox.&nbsp; After Essentials: The Vampire.&nbsp; Very linear and a subversion of a number of major 4e elements (mostly healing surges) The Executioner.&nbsp; Not orthodox AEDU as only one encounter power. The Blackguard.&nbsp; A striker-Paladin.&nbsp; No reason it couldn't have been produced pre-Essentials. The Binder.&nbsp; A Warlock that sucks harder.&nbsp; Neither rhyme nor reason. The Beserker.&nbsp; A hybrid defender/striker (defender until it gets mad) The Skald.&nbsp; A tweaked Bard.&nbsp; No major reason to be a separate class. The Bladesinger.&nbsp; Definitely not orthodox AEDU. Whatever the silly wizard variant was in HoEC&nbsp; All the AEDU classes post PHB 3 either somehow subverted the AEDU structure or some other major structure (the defender/striker barbarian or the weird vampire healing surges) or were only minor tweaks on existing classes.&nbsp; And 4e has more feats than WotC produced for 3.5.&nbsp; &nbsp; A Sigil Book is something I'd have wanted before the #@%&amp; Faction War.&nbsp; A Sigil book with a rollback replacing the Birthright book, possibly.&nbsp; Ravenloft doesn't fit 4e that well thematically.&nbsp; And with two books for Eberron and three (counting Neverwinter) for the Realms, we've enough Realms stuff to be very usable without being overwhelming.&nbsp; Too much fluff can be a problem.&nbsp; &nbsp; It wasn't hated.&nbsp; As the splatbooks and redone Monster Manual it was, it was well received eventually.&nbsp; The thought it would be the new direction for 4e on the other hand was scary.&nbsp; We don't want the &quot;Mages can do anything, Fighters are just dumb brutes who hit stuff and have no narrative control&quot; back.&nbsp; The slayer adds to the game.&nbsp; The thought they'd even consider dropping the Weaponmaster is anathema to most 4e fans.&nbsp; Fluffy, effective fighters with control over their environment and tactical decisions for the people who are on the sharp end tactically is something we like.&nbsp; Wizards being worse at roguery than rogues is something we like - and Essentials even managed to walk that back a lot.&nbsp; &nbsp; Nope.&nbsp; The Player books have the PHB rules.&nbsp; The Rules Compendium amongst other things has some basic magic item treasure tables.&nbsp; &nbsp; No.&nbsp; But the correlation is there.&nbsp; And DDI gives WotC money even when they are producing nothing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6074124, member: 87792"] In part. We already had 19 classes before the PHB 3, and most of them covered a lot of ground. Thinking of the AEDU classes produced after the PHB 3 we have: In Essentials: The Hexblade. Fits much better with the limited options Essentials model. The Warpriest. A cleric for all practical purposes. The Sentinel. Let's not go there. The Mage. A slightly tweaked and polished wizard. The Cavalier. A paladin - better fluff but orthodox. After Essentials: The Vampire. Very linear and a subversion of a number of major 4e elements (mostly healing surges) The Executioner. Not orthodox AEDU as only one encounter power. The Blackguard. A striker-Paladin. No reason it couldn't have been produced pre-Essentials. The Binder. A Warlock that sucks harder. Neither rhyme nor reason. The Beserker. A hybrid defender/striker (defender until it gets mad) The Skald. A tweaked Bard. No major reason to be a separate class. The Bladesinger. Definitely not orthodox AEDU. Whatever the silly wizard variant was in HoEC All the AEDU classes post PHB 3 either somehow subverted the AEDU structure or some other major structure (the defender/striker barbarian or the weird vampire healing surges) or were only minor tweaks on existing classes. And 4e has more feats than WotC produced for 3.5. A Sigil Book is something I'd have wanted before the #@%& Faction War. A Sigil book with a rollback replacing the Birthright book, possibly. Ravenloft doesn't fit 4e that well thematically. And with two books for Eberron and three (counting Neverwinter) for the Realms, we've enough Realms stuff to be very usable without being overwhelming. Too much fluff can be a problem. It wasn't hated. As the splatbooks and redone Monster Manual it was, it was well received eventually. The thought it would be the new direction for 4e on the other hand was scary. We don't want the "Mages can do anything, Fighters are just dumb brutes who hit stuff and have no narrative control" back. The slayer adds to the game. The thought they'd even consider dropping the Weaponmaster is anathema to most 4e fans. Fluffy, effective fighters with control over their environment and tactical decisions for the people who are on the sharp end tactically is something we [i]like[/i]. Wizards being worse at roguery than rogues is something we like - and Essentials even managed to walk that back a lot. Nope. The Player books have the PHB rules. The Rules Compendium amongst other things has some basic magic item treasure tables. No. But the correlation is there. And DDI gives WotC money [i]even when they are producing nothing[/i]. [/QUOTE]

Verification