Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 5928391" data-attributes="member: 33904">I agree mostly. I think spells are ok on some monsters. Sure, 3rd edition Vrock was hell to run, but when I saw the 4th edition Vrock I didn't even recognize my favorite D&D demon. However, in pretty much every older edition spell like abilities where so overused it devolved into lazy design. Make up monster, slap on some spells, call it a day. Blech. And then they did it with classes, too.This one confuses me. I never gave stats to someone who doesn't fightI really hope they learned that they can't keep out classes and monsters expected in an initial release. Much like spell like abilities, save or die is awesome, if used sparingly. Maybe the eventual release will have a "possible replacement abilities for this save or die" sidebar on monsters that have those abilities? I'd like that.I could live with classical vancian casting being a wizard only thing. In fact I like the idea that every spellcasting class does it differently.If there are any classes that for me can stay 4e style, it's definitely sorcerers and warlocks. Given the caveat that sorcerers should still have access to wizard spells and I'm not really a fan of the warlock class from a flavor standpoint.In the end, I didn't find the primal powersource worth it. The seeker and warden felt artificial and the barbarian to me didn't belong in it and wasn't the class I knew before. The shaman was fine, but carried loads of implied setting in his backpack. People (including me) played the druid as "quasi-primal" before 4th and will do so after. They haven't even stated the druid design goals so far and might have done zero work on it. It's one of the trickiest classes around, so I'm really curious how that one will turn out.</blockquote>

Verification