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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Terramotus" data-source="post: 5241696" data-attributes="member: 7220">So, reading over the Ampersand preview, this one paragraph stuck out at me, particularly the part I've bolded:That's very troubling, as this whole Essentials line seems like a pretty radical departure from the existing 4e class structure, and it gives lie to the idea that Essentials is the "beginners" version and regular 4e is AD&D.  It also makes sense given the lack of "traditional" 4e product that's coming down the pipe.  And it's rather frustrating.I was one of the guys that was on board with 4e from the beginning.  I love the powers for the martial classes, and, in fact, I thought that the Book of Nine Swords was the best thing that ever happened to 3.5e.  I agreed with almost all of the self-criticisms they gave of 3.5e and was ready to make the change.  Now it seems that many of those design elements are being shoved aside to make room for Essentials.I'm not interested in simplified classes.  I understand they intend to maintain compatibility going forward, but we all know that such compatibility becomes increasingly clunky as time goes on with the new direction.  I know they've said that Essentials isn't 4.5.  That's fine, if they don't want brand it that way.  But honestly, 3.5 was just rule changes, but design-wise it was more of the same.  Essentials seems more fundamental than that.I understand that the game moves forward, and that you have to choose if you're going to continue to move with it.  I hope this post doesn't start any kind of flamewars.  I guess to sum things up I'll say, Damn, I expected more than 2 years.</blockquote>

Verification