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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5264328" data-attributes="member: 78116">I was? I don't recall that actually <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />. I recall making that point and then certain people pretending that the Knight would always have the right stance anyway or derailing into a tangent about charging. Neither of these were a convincing argument, well except maybe the argument that someone will always have the right stance. I think it's going to be easy for one general stance to be in 99% of the time and never change it anyway given the way the class is designed. Yes, this seems to be a common flaw of all the martial characters in essentials from what I can tell. If they are all "take X to modify Y basic attack", then effectively they lose access to all their at-will powers when dazed. It's worth noting that depending on the DMs interpretation of tricks, if the rogue is immobilized or restrained he may similarly lose his ability to use them as well (personally I don't think you need to move to trigger the effect of these powers - but some DMs may do so).The reason I don't mind the rogue so much though is because it actually accomplishes what I feel the knight utterly fails to do. It IS a genuinely simple class to play. You find something and stab it until it dies. There is nothing complicated about the thief in any manner - except maybe that your additional stabbing needs combat advantage. I do approve of that and again, it's another MBA using class so you can use melee training to make a con burly thug type, int to make a very intelligent crafty type or whatever else. If there is something I do like about the essentials martial classes, it's that concept.</blockquote>

Verification