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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5251310" data-attributes="member: 63763">There is a reason they did not call them "just" builds. X Power contains builds ... and in those books, you do not have enough information to play those classes without also using the appropriate PHB book as well. However, with the Essentials line, you will see all the information you need to play the class. While explaining it on DDi as new builds would probably be a better idea, the distinction has to do with how much information is included in the book.  A couple points: (a) Different strokes for different folks. If the goal is to expand the game, bring in new players, and get as many people playing as possible, diversity is a good thing. Is it better to have TONS of classes that one type of player likes or to have a few classes for each type of player. You have a level of complexity you like. But do new classes change your existing options which you are happy with? As the saying goes, it's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. You can only play one class at a time (unless you are a bard, hybrid, etc) so does it matter if some of the classes (or some of the builds) aren't to your liking as long as the class you do build IS to your liking? (b) Your last point about having a character forced upon you ... I would blame the GROUP for saying "you have to play this character" more than I would the system. I have seen some groups/DMs who assume their players aren't "ready" to play anything more advanced than a human fighter and have to "earn" the ability to become more advanced classes/races by proving themselves. However, a reasonable group would work with a player to find out not only what kind of character they wanted to play, but also what kind of complexity they are comfortable with. (c) I can see where your frustration lies ... specifically in that, if you want to play a character of type X, you don't want the game to then tell you "well, that means the complexity level is Y". With the older classes in 4e, there are enough builds that they create a range of complexities to choose from. The newer classes are less so, but even then, some of the "classes" are more like VERY different builds of existing classes, such as the runepriest as a weird type of cleric, or the seeker as a more magical ranger. The druid, the shaman and the warden are all similar in concept, but different in execution, sort of various aspects of older versions of the druid. In many cases, a character theme can be figured out in a number of ways. A dual wielder can be a fighter or a ranger or a barbarian and each has it's own nuances and complexities. A spellslinger doesn't have to be a wizard as both warlocks and sorcerers offer both a thematic similarity while being mechanically quite different. The Essentials line isn't the END of the line... there is going to be a Player's Options book which is introducing Shadow magic beyond just the assassin class. It will likely be a bit meatier in terms of complexity than the Essential books. But, ultimately, the goal is to make the game more accessible, get more players, etc. Making a small group VERY happy vs. making them slightly less happy to try to make other people happy enough to play the game, the latter is the better option. The game started with the "everyone is equal" idea, wanting to get the baseline understood before they started to riff on it. Since then they have mostly gone with more complicated (although the Barbarian is probably a good example of a "less complex" class as they made a striker whose ability to deal extra damage didn't come from having to spend minor actions and tracking which enemy is your prey, or on getting into the right position. They just have a big weapon, do lots of damage with their powers, and do extra stuff when they crit/kill/rage. Making the game more diverse makes it more interesting to more people.</blockquote>

Verification