Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Little Raven" data-source="post: 5517430" data-attributes="member: 10095">Your &quot;go back to 3e/AD&amp;D if you want an Essentials-type Fighter&quot; argument misses the remarkable difference between the Knight/Slayer and the 3e/AD&amp;D Fighter: the Essentials classes don't become obsolete by mid-levels because other classes can take care of things without them.I'm a huge fan of 4e, and the AEDU setup, but I also like experimenting, and after years of playing with that system, they can give us non-standard class structures that allow the class to operate at the same basic level of proficiency within their role as the original 4e ones.The old structure is still being supported, as evidenced by the warlord article (and the upcoming other ones over the next few months) which included errata and updates to powers and features. And we're getting feats for it next month. How often do you see a 2 year old game element get support like that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Little Raven, post: 5517430, member: 10095"] Your "go back to 3e/AD&D if you want an Essentials-type Fighter" argument misses the remarkable difference between the Knight/Slayer and the 3e/AD&D Fighter: the Essentials classes don't become obsolete by mid-levels because other classes can take care of things without them. I'm a huge fan of 4e, and the AEDU setup, but I also like experimenting, and after years of playing with that system, they can give us non-standard class structures that allow the class to operate at the same basic level of proficiency within their role as the original 4e ones. The old structure is still being supported, as evidenced by the warlord article (and the upcoming other ones over the next few months) which included errata and updates to powers and features. And we're getting feats for it next month. How often do you see a 2 year old game element get support like that? [/QUOTE]

Verification