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: 5297465" data-attributes="member: 78116">I absolutely agree with you in some ways, even if I fundamentally disagree with some of what you write next so I can understand your original point. I think the Knight and Slayer are absolutely awful. I can't understand why I want them or why Wizards have made them like that. At the same time, there are more than enough people on this forum who think they're a great idea and want to play them. I mean, I'm a DM and I don't play 4E at all (sadly <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />) so in reality what they do with classes like the knight will barely effect me. I know if I did play 4E I would never go near those classes with a 10 ft pole, but I won't stop anyone who wants to play one in my games.So that's where I basically have the same opinion (albeit on hearsay, not direct experience and that's a fundamental difference) about the changes to things like martial classes. So long though as they keep making a diverse array of classes and support older ones still (EG don't just write them out of the game) I am fine with the changes to essentials - in fact I see some as required even.The other thing is, IMO they should be making every change essentials makes to the core rules available for free. Nobody should have to pay for 'errata' and I agree with those who say that is what essentials does feel like, regardless of if I think it improves/ruins 4E forever. So if they do that I will feel a lot happier about it as well.</blockquote>

Verification