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: 5661787" data-attributes="member: 765">I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out. Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it." I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.The absolute best solution would have been to DELETE the basic attack powers from the game and make it a game term that is attached to at-wills. The idea of a "default power" is also simple to implement if you "feel" a need for it. There, every problem you or any of your players have with power declaration is gone and there is no conflicting mechanic to have to deal with.  .....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated only because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier. Some peeps may have a problem grokking the classic 4e at-will structure. I've never seen it, and I play with quite a few who cant keep their head on straight from one action to the next, but people come in all shapes and sizes. However, all "stances" accomplished was naming the wrong game element "default".  Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level. ...and from post number 1 in this thread I said that the e-classes should have just been a list of pre-selected powers in existing class structure. All your 'defaults' are set AND all the other options are still available. Basically, the Mage and Warpriest are the only e-classes to come close to getting it right. Of course, the Mage went two steps too far and jumped the power curve while the Warpriest had to reset the Clerics class features and lock down the encounter lists.Shrug, they cover concepts that hadnt been done before in this edition and at least tried to be compatible with what came before. LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools? Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class? Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement. Executioner is a still weak but better take on a badly implemented 4e class with its primary e-nod being the weakest part of it(single encounter).The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster  Hybrid that needs a lot of help.The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.Neverwinter has a new "Wizard" build, that isnt and e-themes that 4e classes can steal, but again, a dearth of dedicated 4e content. Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game. Its like designing checkers for chess players. Yes, there are those that want a simpler game and they are played on the same board, but is there really a market for that? And once you find out there isnt one, is it really a good idea to market the new "Blue and Pink!" checkers to the chess players?No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the exact same design space. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.</blockquote>

Verification