Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5243910" data-attributes="member: 82106">Exactly, this is NO different than when MP came out and suddenly you had a battlerager and a tempest build for fighter. Now you're going to have a knight and a slayer build as well. Sure they may use a slightly different power progression and be made with beginners to the game in mind but it's still not really different from how 4e has been progressing so far.As far as existing players are concerned Essentials is really nothing more than a big splat book and a new rule book that folds in the errata.Really I fail to understand all the hand wringing about Essentials classes being 'better' or more popular. Given the framework of the game they really can't be much different. They may be more interesting to some players, maybe even most players, so what? Some people like Druid more than Fighter. Some people like tempest fighter more than great weapon fighter. Nothing new there.The hand wringing about 'lack of ongoing support' for existing classes/builds sort of puzzles me too. How much more can most of these classes need? There's a point where new options for old classes is a game of diminishing returns. You could play for 100 years with the existing rules and not exhaust all possibilities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5243910, member: 82106"] Exactly, this is NO different than when MP came out and suddenly you had a battlerager and a tempest build for fighter. Now you're going to have a knight and a slayer build as well. Sure they may use a slightly different power progression and be made with beginners to the game in mind but it's still not really different from how 4e has been progressing so far. As far as existing players are concerned Essentials is really nothing more than a big splat book and a new rule book that folds in the errata. Really I fail to understand all the hand wringing about Essentials classes being 'better' or more popular. Given the framework of the game they really can't be much different. They may be more interesting to some players, maybe even most players, so what? Some people like Druid more than Fighter. Some people like tempest fighter more than great weapon fighter. Nothing new there. The hand wringing about 'lack of ongoing support' for existing classes/builds sort of puzzles me too. How much more can most of these classes need? There's a point where new options for old classes is a game of diminishing returns. You could play for 100 years with the existing rules and not exhaust all possibilities. [/QUOTE]

Verification