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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5661246" data-attributes="member: 61155">It... explicitly says you can do it in the book. In the FAQ. In WotC's discussions on the website. On what grounds is the opposing viewpoint based?  The work done on the original class hasn't been to show a distinction - it has been to clear up existing areas in need of errata. One may or may not feel the need for that Errata, but basically nothing we've seen of the Class Compendium articles has been in any way tied into Essentials or in response to Essentials - aside from the name change.  Which, yes, is silly. And probably did not take the tremendous amount of design resources you seem to believe.    Ok, I will politely request that when someone disagrees with you - and outright says, "I find that these are a cool mechanic that improves the play experience" - that you not respond by calling their view garbage, and dismissing their position by declaring everything that have argued "inarguable". That is just poor form. I'm not flagging the post right now, because I think you just got heated about a subject you feel strongly about.  But please, truly at least try and understand - you don't believe that added anything to the play experience. Others do. You cannot claim that you opinion is "inarguably" correct. If you are truly unwilling to even acknowledge the opinions of those discussing the matter with you... then yeah, we're probably done here.    That could have been one approach - but, as noted, others find the stances are an easier concept to grok for some players. (At least, that has been my personal experience). It genuinely is simpler - for them - to always use one attack and have abilities that modify it - abilities that they can 'fire and forget' - than deal with differently named attacks that need to be explicitly chosen every round.  I get that you don't find it to be that way. I get that you believe that everyone will find stances more complicated than At-Will powers. But that is not the case, and for those folks who feel otherwise, the stance approach is a good one.   Well, I haven't seen any indications at all that Power Strike is a failure. I have seen that the classes that use it make it more interesting, at higher levels, when new players will have gotten used to it and not find it too complex to deal with additional benefits from the power.  Either way, having it as a default, along with the benefits of its simplicity (which have been covered several times in this thread) are useful for new players. I suppose you could have made it some alternate option to using encounter powers in the normal fashion, but I don't see an easy way to do so without redesigning the power system or providing a more complex set of options for players who don't want to deal with that.   Being "new ground" isn't relevant. Being interesting to players of the game is. Even if I don't like Psionics, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. (In your case, because it breaks new ground.) But in the exact same fashion, even if you don't like Essentials, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. Same exact thing.  The game shouldn't be defined by your preferences alone, in the end. Or mine, or any other one person. The fact it can provide content for a variety of tastes without undermining the balance of the system (which I don't believe anything we've seen in 4E truly does) is a good thing.   A new edition would be a book that replaced the former material with such content. A book that adds to that content is generally considered a supplement.   Er... yes? That's precisely what some folks were asking for. I've enjoyed playing a Sentinel while I wasn't a fan of the wild shape druid. We have one player (who played a shadow Assassin in a previous game) who is thoroughly enjoying an Executioner. We have a player who found the Warpriest domain approach very inspiring, despite having previously sworn he was done with clerics for good.  You find that the answers to all those questions are "no". Other folks find that they are "yes". It is really that hard to acknowledge that others feel differently from you?    We had Heroes of Sahdow which was focused on e-content but had a healthy amount of other material. Focusing on the most recent book isn't too odd - Psionic Power was only useful to PHB3, for example.  We have the new Neverwinter book. I don't have it yet, myself. My understanding is that it has the Bladesinger, which is a new Essentials class/build/etc, and a variety of themes, mostly focused for Essentials again, but not exclusively so.  And then we have DDI, which has had a small amount of pre-Essentials content. And a... slightly larger amount of Essentials content. In short, not much content in general, and again, a slightly focus on the most recent project.  Aside from the reduction of content across the board, really no different than the approach taken with PHB2 and PHB3, honestly. So... no, not a disaster.   I don't think that time was wasted, though. Again, a company not exclusively producing for you and you alone is not an inherent flaw. As it is, I'd like to see more content, but that is as a whole - things have been slow in general. I wouldn't be guaranteed to be more satisfied with different content in place of Essentials, especially with no way to know that they would have spent that design space solely providing additional support for existing options. As it is, I have gotten quite a few new classes out of it in my own games, so - again, not wasted effort.   That's not true at all. It is totally possible to produce support that can enhance both the Scout and other Rangers in general (or other PCs in general). It is also possible to produce support that only assists the Scout. Just like, say, the dozens of feats for various types of tactical warlords that are useless to anyone outside of those specific builds.  The problem already existed, and is not in any way tied to Essentials. Aside from the specific lack of support they've given in certain areas (hybrid, etc), which isn't tied into the core of the mechanics themselves.</blockquote>

Verification