Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5272490" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, of course there are - just less fundamental differences than between the Fighter and the Knight.&nbsp;I guess I'm concerned about the representation and balance of martial classes.&nbsp; 4e did an excellent job of balancing the classes, and really put the martial classes, especially the fighter, on truely equal footing with all others for the first time.&nbsp; A remarkable accomplishment.&nbsp; Essentials turns the clock back on the martial archetypes, and if /that's/ part of the 'new direction,' well, keep heading in that direction and you could lose that afore-mentioned remarkable accomplishment.&nbsp;You're thinking of two individuals, I'm thinking of two 'camps.'&nbsp; Like there are those who liked 4e and those who didn't.&nbsp; There will be those who like the new matial classes, and those that don't.&nbsp; There are already those who dispise the 4e martial classes, and they should be encouraged to see alternatives to them that encroach less on the specialness of casters.&nbsp; There are those who were impressed with the 4e martial classes, and don't want to see them ruined.&nbsp; If the two aproaches to the martial power source coexist for a while, you can expect some arguments over which aproach is 'right.'&nbsp; Since the 4e aproach was very new and slightly controversial, and the Essentials aproach is back to the old statud quo...It's very different.&nbsp; The existing fighter builds all use the same aproach, and expand what can be done with the fighter class - they add new archetypes.&nbsp; The Essentials builds use a retro aproach, and offers the same archetypes as the PH1 fighter builds.&nbsp; The Tempest Fighter is in no way a candidate to replace a Greatweapon Fighter, for instance.&nbsp; The Knight could easily become a replacement for the Defender Fighter.&nbsp; Wherever it occurred, the dislike of the 4e aproach to the martial power source was virulent and vocal enough to convince WotC to provide an alternative aproach in Essentials.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5272490, member: 996"] Well, of course there are - just less fundamental differences than between the Fighter and the Knight. I guess I'm concerned about the representation and balance of martial classes. 4e did an excellent job of balancing the classes, and really put the martial classes, especially the fighter, on truely equal footing with all others for the first time. A remarkable accomplishment. Essentials turns the clock back on the martial archetypes, and if /that's/ part of the 'new direction,' well, keep heading in that direction and you could lose that afore-mentioned remarkable accomplishment. You're thinking of two individuals, I'm thinking of two 'camps.' Like there are those who liked 4e and those who didn't. There will be those who like the new matial classes, and those that don't. There are already those who dispise the 4e martial classes, and they should be encouraged to see alternatives to them that encroach less on the specialness of casters. There are those who were impressed with the 4e martial classes, and don't want to see them ruined. If the two aproaches to the martial power source coexist for a while, you can expect some arguments over which aproach is 'right.' Since the 4e aproach was very new and slightly controversial, and the Essentials aproach is back to the old statud quo... It's very different. The existing fighter builds all use the same aproach, and expand what can be done with the fighter class - they add new archetypes. The Essentials builds use a retro aproach, and offers the same archetypes as the PH1 fighter builds. The Tempest Fighter is in no way a candidate to replace a Greatweapon Fighter, for instance. The Knight could easily become a replacement for the Defender Fighter. Wherever it occurred, the dislike of the 4e aproach to the martial power source was virulent and vocal enough to convince WotC to provide an alternative aproach in Essentials. [/QUOTE]

Verification