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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marshall" data-source="post: 5650871" data-attributes="member: 765">...and if the devs had decided to continue to support the 4e versions of these classes youd have the same options as a 4e class. Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex). Power Strike and its cousins are 1st level encounter powers. Thats it. You then have a series of odd class abilities that do nothing but make that power into a 3rd, 7th, 13th+ level power. Instead, if done correctly, this would have been a part of a selection of simple powers available in the heroic tier to all FTRs with a preselected build in the book(and an appendix for How to integrate with 4e). You seem to think that all encounter powers need to be fantastically complex mechanics. On the contrary, Power Attack is fine example of a simple power and fits perfectly in the 4e AEDU. Its the Slayer/Knight that are complete wastes of the designers time and pages of print. A set of "beginner powers" that meshed perfectly with 4e would have been ideal. Power Attack I-XXVII and the designers would be viewed as heroes. False, or more accurately, WotC finally figured out that most at-wills should be basic attacks. Tagging an addendum onto the already massive essentials errata document that added the "This power counts as a basic-attack" to around 75% of at-wills out there would have had the same effect of removing that confusion from ALL CLASSES instead of just the chosen few. Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot? The Slayer is actually comparable to a Barbarian build, but the Knight is one of the most complex classes to play to actually get anything out of. Defenders Aura is a joke unless you can plan multiple turns ahead and without that you dont actually DO anything(Yes, there are people who like to sleep thru the combats).  So? What does the presence of Power Strike like powers have to do with the e-classes? 4e Fighters can use Power Strike just as effectively as e-classes and thats the point. The simplicity that you are pointing out with the e-classes comes from simple power design. Something that should have been added to the 4e classes instead of having an entirely new chassis built to house them.You're back to power design, not class design. I like reactive powers, that was a great concept. I'm being redundant here, but building the Knight/Slayer/Cav/Hunter/Thief/Scout.....to house those powers IS the boondoggle when they fit easily into the pre-existing class/power structures. Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes.  Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will or when comparing a slayer to a Barb RageStrike,ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will. You're talking mindless dice rolling here, not any type of analysis paralysis. This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario. Again, 4e classes  can be built for mindless combat as well. So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs ACDamage : 1d10+Level and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.  I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".</blockquote>

Verification