Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5517590" data-attributes="member: 38357">Well, I disagree with you. Admittedly, I mostly DM, the only essentials sub-class I've actually played is the scout, and the last &quot;retro-gaming&quot; I've done is Labyrinth Lord (I last played AD&amp;D some time in the late 80s). But my experience of playing essentials has been that it's still 4e, and as such is not the same game as AD&amp;D, does not have the same feel as AD&amp;D, and is focused on completely different things than 4e.Furthermore, I don't think that essentials has &quot;butchered&quot; the balance and consistency of 4e, if it's touched on them at all it's been an improvement, IMO. If you really feel that way then our experiences are just vastly different; and if you mean that you fear that going forward further support for essentials and pre-essentials classes, or for martial and non-martial classes, then you might try saying that, instead.I don't see that essentials is &quot;angling&quot; for any such thing. For you this intent to change the face of 4e seems to be writ large across the essentials material, for myself I just don't believe it's there.I'm not sure I understand what you mean by &quot;robust class balance&quot;, but if it's anything like &quot;all classes had a similar level of importance and made a similar level of contribution to the game across all levels&quot;, then my answer is basically &quot;yes&quot;. That was true of my AD&amp;D experiences as a player and as a DM. If anything fighters and clerics where more generally important, while magic-users and thieves had more stand-out moments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kaomera, post: 5517590, member: 38357"] Well, I disagree with you. Admittedly, I mostly DM, the only essentials sub-class I've actually played is the scout, and the last "retro-gaming" I've done is Labyrinth Lord (I last played AD&D some time in the late 80s). But my experience of playing essentials has been that it's still 4e, and as such is not the same game as AD&D, does not have the same feel as AD&D, and is focused on completely different things than 4e. Furthermore, I don't think that essentials has "butchered" the balance and consistency of 4e, if it's touched on them at all it's been an improvement, IMO. If you really feel that way then our experiences are just vastly different; and if you mean that you fear that going forward further support for essentials and pre-essentials classes, or for martial and non-martial classes, then you might try saying that, instead. I don't see that essentials is "angling" for any such thing. For you this intent to change the face of 4e seems to be writ large across the essentials material, for myself I just don't believe it's there. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "robust class balance", but if it's anything like "all classes had a similar level of importance and made a similar level of contribution to the game across all levels", then my answer is basically "yes". That was true of my AD&D experiences as a player and as a DM. If anything fighters and clerics where more generally important, while magic-users and thieves had more stand-out moments. [/QUOTE]

Verification