Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5271871" data-attributes="member: 61155">I totally get what you are saying here, but we definitely saw the same arguments over flavor at the time. We saw a lot of threads when the Sorcerer was coming about it rendering the Warlock obsolete, both in mechanics and in flavor - and no matter how many times I might point out that Warlocks power comes from without, and Sorcerer power from within, the difference was lost on many. But for all those complaints, many others still did see the differences between them, and thus far, both remain viable, both in concept and mechanics. &nbsp;That's why I'm not too concerned here. I think plenty of people will either go with the Sword and Board Fighter because that seems natural, and they don't feel the allure of the Knight - or even just find the name 'Knight' doesn't fit their concept as well. Or they will play a Strength Cleric because they want to play a really strong cleric that both heals friends and beats up enemies, and making Wisdom-driven melee attacks just doesn't work for them. &nbsp;And honestly, I think what we'll see is that people getting into the hobby with Essentials will play Knights and Warpriests, and tend towards them as default even if they later pick up the PHB; while those who have been playing for a while will probably try out the new sub-classes (if they pick up Essentials), but tend to default to the PHB builds out of instinct. And for others it won't even be an issue - they will only have one book or the other, and use whatever they happen to have. And enough of those who have both will still have their own preferences for the subtle differences in flavor or mechanics that both versions will see plenty of play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5271871, member: 61155"] I totally get what you are saying here, but we definitely saw the same arguments over flavor at the time. We saw a [I]lot[/I] of threads when the Sorcerer was coming about it rendering the Warlock obsolete, both in mechanics [I]and in flavor[/I] - and no matter how many times I might point out that Warlocks power comes from [I]without[/I], and Sorcerer power from [I]within[/I], the difference was lost on many. But for all those complaints, many others still did see the differences between them, and thus far, both remain viable, both in concept and mechanics. That's why I'm not too concerned here. I think plenty of people will either go with the Sword and Board Fighter because that seems natural, and they don't feel the allure of the Knight - or even just find the name 'Knight' doesn't fit their concept as well. Or they will play a Strength Cleric because they want to play a really strong cleric that both heals friends and beats up enemies, and making Wisdom-driven melee attacks just doesn't work for them. And honestly, I think what we'll see is that people getting into the hobby with Essentials will play Knights and Warpriests, and tend towards them as default even if they later pick up the PHB; while those who have been playing for a while will probably try out the new sub-classes (if they pick up Essentials), but tend to default to the PHB builds out of instinct. And for others it won't even be an issue - they will only have one book or the other, and use whatever they happen to have. And enough of those who have both will still have their own preferences for the subtle differences in flavor or mechanics that both versions will see plenty of play. [/QUOTE]

Verification