Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5279702" data-attributes="member: 996">I certainly agree there's a demographic that's been insisting that the martial power source be treated differently than the others.  I just think that demographic is mostly lapsed players and 3.x holdouts.  I also have a strong suspicion that it's mostly not about wanting to /play/ a simpler or more distinctive martial character, but about wanting to play along side martial characters on an uneven playing field.  That 4e has been percieved as stealing away some of the specialness of casters. I also don't agree that 4e is in anyway too complex for new or lapsed players.  It's actually very simple and mechanically consistent.  That new gamer had been married to an avid gamer for some time, though, so may have picked up some preconcieved notions common to long-time D&Ders.  And, that's one out of two.  I gamed with 3 completely new-to-the-hobby players last night.  No issues with martial powers.  Not even much awareness of power sources, really.I guess I'm just saying that I've seen a clear pattern, and what you related hardly challenged that pattern, just presented a different one that I don't feel qualified to comment on (I'm not confident judging 'creativity' - perhaps because I'm 'analytical.')Another thing I think I should clarify is that I don't think /all/ lapsed players balk at martial powers, rather, the vast majority of those who balk at martial powers are lapsed or long-time gamers.  The ones, I guess, who harbor some sort of 'prejudice' (too strong a word, but I can't think of a better one) against the martial power source.  Those coming with a clean slate accept martial powers blythely, unless they just have a problem with powers in general (like them making too big and structured a box to climb out of).I mean, I'm a long time avid gamer who quite likes martial powers, I wouldn't want to be a counterexample to my own supposition.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Who aparently likes martial characters.  There are several, all the result of the /way/ they've been made simpler.  They could have been made simpler in the same way as the Cleric Domain choice:  same 4e structure, but picking a 'build' ('sub class') pre-picks all your powers, which you can later switch out as you become more comfortable with the system.Instead, they've been put in a different level progression and on a different resource-management footing.  The downsides are:-  Loss of class balance.  The 4e classes are robustly balanced because they have comparably powerful abilities in virtually identical mixes of availability levels.  They are quite distinct in the nature, function, and feel of those abilities, but they're mechanically on a level playing field.  The Essentials classes aren't.  Which class ends up over- or under-powered depends on features we haven't seen yet, and could vary greatly depending on the pay style of the individual DM and group.- Loss of encounter balance.  4e classes all have similar resource management, so the degree to which a lone encounter durring a day needs to more challenging than a given encounter in a multiple-encounter day is independent of party composition.  Since Esaentials martial classes have no dailies, they can't 'pull out all the stops' and contribute to the same degree as other classes in a one-encounter day, but continue on at full effectiveness in very 'long' days.  Conversely, the Mage can swap out all but his at-wills every day, so, with a little foreknowledge or bad luck could be perfectly or badly prepared for a day's challenges, while, with any other class, you can consider the PCs capabilities when designing an encounter form them.   Depending on the mix of classes, the DM must adjust how he balances encounters, and how many encounters he uses in a day to keep things more or less balanced.  -  And, ironically, increased complexity.  4e character have one level progression chart.  When new players level up, you can tell them, "you're second level, you each pick a level 2 utility from you class and a feat."  Essentials character sub-classes each have a different level progression.  4e characters all use the same power mechanics.  Essentials classes have (so far) two distinctly different mechanics for their class abilities.  I understnd.  It's just that making all the martial classes the simplistic ones is consistent with pandering to lapsed gamers and hold-outs who rejected 4e.  Having a simplistic warlock or sorcerer - say, having the complexity line drawn (as it is in 4e) by role instead of class - would not have been consistent with that aim, but would have been consistent with the stated aim.</blockquote>

Verification