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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5651912" data-attributes="member: 87792">No one is saying it's hard to grasp.  But it's not transparent.  It takes them out of the narrative to engage with the system to pick the power.  This isn't a matter of brains.  It's a matter of gear selection.No one is saying that all experiences should be discounted.  That is a straw man.  What people are saying is that some people respond much better to Essentials mechanics than they do classic 4e mechanics.  I can think of people in both games I run right now that do.  Not all of them.  That you are not one of them does not change the argument.  I am not one of them either.  But I know some that are.  If even ten percent of D&D players respond better to Essentials style classes than classic ones, that's ten percent having a better game.  And that makes my game better because I play with players in those categories.  If they have a better play experience and more fun at the table then so do I.Which leads to my question.  Those of you who hate the presence of Essentials classes, why are you so adamant that other people shouldn't get more enjoyment out of the game than they do without?Games should be no more complex than they need to be for the desired result.  Simple is an aesthetic goal - and well thought out and simple design makes it easier for me to focus on other parts of the game that I want to focus on.Stances that people can stay in and just focus on what they want to hit make peoples lives easier and improve the play experience of a significant number of players.  Improved play experience is IMO the only metric that matters for what the designers should be working on.No.  But it actually fits with the difference in theme and playstyle between a fighter and a knight.  A fighter looks at his foe, says "You're mine", and his target of choice is doomed.  A knight on the other hand owns the space around him, and anyone who gets too close is in hot water.  That the fighter can't take out someone else other than his intended target while a knight can negligently brush aside a minion who's in the area he owns might not be intended, but it's less of a bug than you think.  Apparently improving the play experience of some people while hurting almost no one's play experience because they don't have to use these classes isn't something you consider a benefit.Because all the player needs to focus on doing is saying "I hit it."  He does not need to go through a five step arbitary pattern that he needs to learn for his character that breaks his immersion.  For you, either mechanics are easy.  But not everyone thinks this way.  You do not get to call one of the best roleplayers at either of my tables actively disengaged from the combat scenario.  But he finds it massively easier to hit it and describe how he hits it.  And just use a melee basic attack while in a stance.  Squares on a board and adding concrete details to abstract numbers are not how he thinks.  And once more you show your understanding of how 4e is played to be narrow.  I don't pay much attention to the line of descriptive text other than as a potential suggestion.  I refluff powers on the fly based on what's going on.  Robotically going through the exact descriptive text ont he power is IMO tedious.  So not only do you not understand why people play stance based classes despite many people's best efforts, you fail at understanding how to play a knight.  Sometimes fighters are better, sometimes knights.  And I've seen a Cavalier mince a MM3 solo in a way a fighter would have failed utterly at (and a knight would have just been overkill).  Knights fail against two things - forced movement and teleportation.  But they have one immense advantage Fighters don't.  A Fighter's Combat Challenge is an Interrupt so he can use it once per round.  Which means if someone shifts away you can't then use combat challenge from someone else.  A Knight in the middle of a pack on the other hand can guard against them all as his are opportunity attacks and he can do one of them on each bad guy's turn.  And one of them on an ally turn as well if your team is into provoke-tactics (as some of us are).  So a Knight adds more flexibility to the team even while he doesn't have the range of actions of a fighter.  However if you're going to write off the knight before you've started you won't see the added flexibility your team mates bring.Knight in Defend the Line with World Serpent's Grasp.  Sticky as hell - one hit for slow, two for knockdown.  Combine that with provoke-tactics from one other PC  Thief with Tactical Trick and thrown daggers for permanent combat advantage against the focus fire target of choice.  Because Perma CA is all rogues need to be effective.  Human Hunter with Twin Strike, Hidden Sniper, and a lot of ways of getting concealment.  Oh, and in a stance for +2 damage with CA - slightly more effective than a Twin Strike spamming ranger would have been without the interrupts.  (He was being NPCd that session).</blockquote>

Verification