Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5270893" data-attributes="member: 32164">But the martial classes aren't being &quot;gimped&quot; just because they lack daily powers. Classes don't need daily powers in order to keep up with those that do have them. They need somthing equivalent to daily powers. IF the fighter and rogue end up weaker than the cleric and wizard, it will be because the design failed to some degree. I'm astounded people can't comprehend that this isn't a foregone conclusion.And the design principle is to simplify some of the classes so they can offer different levels of class complexity. I admit that the 4e classes aren't super-complex, but they're all complex to roughly the same degree. WotC has customer feedback and surveys that say some people want this. If you accept that, it just comes down to picking which class or classes to simplify. So why the martial ones? Well, reason one is because some people have a problem with how they work, and reason two is the nostalgia one: they used to be simpler. Fortunately, that's not at war with reason 1.The cleric, as unique to D&amp;D as it originally was (but isn't now - I'll get to that), can be explained conceptually with a single sentence. &quot;Clerics are divine warriors who channel divine power to heal and cast other magical spells.&quot; &quot;Divine warrior&quot; is understandable, and cleric spells work pretty much the same way wizard ones do in concept, so there's no mental gymnastics there. Martial &quot;powers&quot; aren't even comparable. You just can't explain or justify them in a single sentence, and some people have a problem with them conceptually. So if you can fix that problem while offering a simple class, you've met two worthy design objectives.Some people may disagree these are worthy design objectives, to which I just have this to say: WotC is a business and they have surveys. I assume they've read them.One final point about the cleric, is that while it was weird when the game started, it now has around 30 years of precedent, including the fighting priest characters in numerous fantasy novels as well as World of Warcraft and other online games. I grant that most of those things were modeled on and inspired by D&amp;D - but at this point, that's largely immaterial. So, while the cleric may still not be considered &quot;standard fantasy,&quot; it's hardly a &quot;new&quot; concept to most people these days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 5270893, member: 32164"] But the martial classes aren't being "gimped" just because they lack daily powers. Classes don't [I]need daily powers[/I] in order to keep up with those that do have them. They [I]need somthing equivalent[/I] to daily powers. IF the fighter and rogue end up weaker than the cleric and wizard, it will be because the design failed to some degree. I'm astounded people can't comprehend that this isn't a foregone conclusion. And the design principle is to simplify [I]some[/I] of the classes so they can offer different levels of class complexity. I admit that the 4e classes aren't super-complex, but they're all complex [I]to roughly the same degree[/I]. WotC has customer feedback and surveys that say some people [I]want this[/I]. If you accept that, it just comes down to picking [I]which[/I] class or classes to simplify. So why the martial ones? Well, reason one is because [I]some people[/I] have a problem with how they work, and reason two is the nostalgia one: they [I]used[/I] to be simpler. Fortunately, that's not at war with reason 1. The cleric, as unique to D&D as it originally was (but isn't now - I'll get to that), can be explained conceptually with a single sentence. "Clerics are divine warriors who channel divine power to heal and cast other magical spells." "Divine warrior" is understandable, and cleric spells work pretty much the same way wizard ones do in concept, so there's no mental gymnastics there. Martial "powers" aren't even comparable. You just can't explain or justify them in a single sentence, and some people have a problem with them conceptually. So if you can fix that problem while offering a simple class, you've met two worthy design objectives. Some people may disagree these are worthy design objectives, to which I just have this to say: WotC is a business and they [I]have surveys[/I]. I assume they've read them. One final point about the cleric, is that while it was weird when the game started, it now has around [I]30 years[/I] of precedent, including the fighting priest characters in numerous fantasy novels as well as [I]World of Warcraft[/I] and other online games. I grant that most of those things were modeled on and inspired by D&D - but at this point, that's largely immaterial. So, while the cleric may still not be considered "standard fantasy," it's hardly a "new" concept to most people these days. [/QUOTE]

Verification