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: 5660744" data-attributes="member: 87792">The problem here is that you assume that balance is the only thing that's important in a game.  And that you assume that the whole of pre-existing 4e is perfectly balanced.  Newsflash: Brute Strike (L1 fighter daily, [3W], reliable) is strictly worse than Lasting Threat (L1 fighter daily, [3W] + Perma-mark, reliable).  Twin Strike is better than Careful Attack.  It's just near enough balanced for most purposes.  And a damn good job has been done balancing it.Also from my own observations, both DMing and playing in multiple groups, there is a relatively big difference between PCs built with a good understanding of the system and prepared to squeeze it, and those without.  When I say relatively big, it would barely be a blip on the radar in 3e.  4e does not have your hypothetical perfect balance that would be disrupted.  What it has is good balance within certain boundaries.  And in my experience unless the DM is throwing single encounter days regularly (and the PCs know they can all nova), then the Essentials martial classes fit within a band about a quarter of the width of most classes centred on the top third marker (or are charge-spammers).  Even if everyone novas, the essentials classes are not that unlike rangers in performance.You're arguing that there must be a difference without trying to work out what the difference is or whether it's a significant one.  One encounter days, yes.  Then there's the issue with pushing and teleporting away from Knights at higher levels.  But overall?  The performance except for the single big nova fight is within the bounds of established 4e classes.</blockquote>

Verification