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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5241036" data-attributes="member: 2067">I read that as saying, essentially, "We're going to use Essentials to give options to people who think that a wall of 200 powers is too complex of an experience. In previous editions, the fighter provided that experience, but these days, we don't currently have an option for the player who doesn't have the level of rules mastery that we assumed with the 4e launch, since with the 4e launch, we were more targeting current players, and now we're targeting newbies, who could really benefit from a "just hit things" class that is as effective, in its own way, as any other. We're also gonna make the classes play more differently. In earlier editions, a fighter and a wizard played very differently, but right now, everyone uses the same power scheme. Feedback has told us that people are bored with that, and like stuff that changes it up a bit.""Rules mastery" is not, AFAICT, code for "Now all wizards will be more fun than all fighters, because we've decided all of our previous findings about how people actually enjoyed playing fighters and wanted more options was wrong, and clearly they are only meant to be effectively hirelings for the omnipotent Wizard. Also, we will give arcane spellcasters cake, and fighters will get no cake, ever, and will have to eat wizard-poo, which, in the Essentials line, smells like cinnamon, because Wizards are perfect and Fighters suck."I believe you're jumping at shadows. FWIW, it would suck if they made all fighters less fun than all wizards. I don't think there's even a remote chance of that happening. Take a deep breath, and repeat to yourself, swords are awesome, swords are awesome, swords are awesome...</blockquote>

Verification