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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Obryn" data-source="post: 5517170" data-attributes="member: 11821">My main point is this:As long as a new option doesn't overshadow the old options (and as I've said, I don't think the Essentials classes do), adding new options doesn't decrease the scope and flexibility of a game.  So, your argument doesn't hold water for me - just like there was room in 3.5 for complex martial classes (Bo9S), there's room in 4e for simple ones.  And adding them doesn't subtract options from anybody.From the DM side, I'd add on... multi-creature encounter design, workable math, less swingy combats, less save-or-die, concise monster stat blocks, self-contained monster stat blocks, a robust system for improvisation, no need to reference books during play, and a powerful ability to fairly customize monsters.These aren't irrelevant to the game as a whole, and are noticeable from the players' side.  I disagree that your short list is all that differentiates a 4e game from a 3.5 game, because I think the most significant innovations were on the far side of the screen.I think your concern about future support is potentially valid.  I can completely see that argument.  (I disagree that more future support is needed, but I can see where you're coming from.)  Where I disagree is ... well, most other stuff.  I simply disagree that there's enough data to say that your concern is actually founded.(1) I disagree that the Cleric saw any improvement whatsoever from the existence of the Warpriest.  I disagree that the Paladin saw much of any improvement from the existence of the Cavalier.  Likewise, the Warlock with the Hexblade.  I think the Druid benefited (more specifically I think the Sentinel benefited from the existence of the shapeshifter druid), and the Wizard got new toys.  I am fine with the Rogue, Ranger, and Fighter seeing little benefit, because they had an entire extra book of options that non-Martial classes didn't.At best, Wizards got the equivalent of an Arcane Power 2 out of HotFL with a few new build options and a stack of new powers.  Druids got the close equivalent of a Primal Power 2.  This is parity to me, not favoritism.  The guys who should be mad are the Warlocks, Clerics, and Chaladins! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />(2) I disagree that the baseline for Knights is significantly stronger than the baseline for Fighters.  I agree that Thieves may start out a bit beefier given their crazy ways to get CA, but I don't think you can disregard the strength of options like Sly Flourish and the like.  (I also don't think an expanded weapon range helps the Thief much; they have no multi-[W] powers whatsoever.)I just think we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I simply don't think the new Martial classes are beefier than the old ones, even at low levels, with the possible exception of the Thief.  (But even there I'm unconvinced, because a good party should be giving the Rogue CA every round anyway.)I don't think there's enough evidence for a trend here, even if you include Heroes of Shadow.  I also don't think that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls - who's a complex martial class fanboy if there ever was one - is going to reverse course like that.-O</blockquote>

Verification