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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5661904" data-attributes="member: 3424">I think you will need to substantiate this remark. Most of the changes I've seen to the cleric's powers are either fixes to powers which are arguably overpowered (I've read at least one thread highlighting a problem with consecrated ground), or making the powers more useful to the character (e.g. converting a couple of Strength-based powers to Weapon powers instead of Implement powers since Strength clerics tend to be more weapon-based).Oh, I'm sure that tweaking the powers takes up resources (the usual errata process would be expected to apply), but the name change? Not as much. The problem with your post was, instead of highlighting mechanical changes which you disagreed with (and your reasons), you chose to focus on the name change. It makes it look like you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.I think it's been mentioned before, but statements like these make it seem as if you are dismissing another's opinions and experiences instead of addressing them, and could give others the impression that you are hostile, narrow-minded and unreasonable (IMO, of course). They are great when you are grandstanding in front of a crowd of your own supporters, but they don't really work as persuasive arguments.Because some people do want to keep playing in that mode. They're not all that keen on the fiddly bits and are satisfied to just keep up with and keep playing with their friends.Again, the relevant questions are: How much more power? Enough to be obviously overpowered? How does it compare as an entire package? As I've said before you can't analyze a single element in isolation to the rest."Completely" is, IMO, hyperbole. Even from the start, all classes had similarities between the pre-Essentials and the Essentials versions and some scope for sharing utility powers. As for multiclassing Slayer and Cavalier, what would be the point? To pick up fighter and paladin powers? There are feats that already allow you to do that.New options given for the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric. Or are you talking about errata?I agree that domains didn't require the warpriest. Smite undead could have been presented as an alternative to turn undead for weapon-using clerics. Holy cleansing and resurrection could have been presented as an alternative to the free Ritual Caster feat. Domains could also be an alternate class feature, exchanging Healer's Lore and divine fortune for fixed at-will and encounter powers, a domain-specific Channel Divinity power and the other domain features. The warpriest then becomes a cleric with these pre-selected features. (Wait a minute ... did I just unify the templar and the warpriest under one umbrella cleric class? Hmm... maybe I did.)I think the sentinel is there for people who want to play druids as primal leaders and/or want to play a primal leader but don't like the mechanics or flavor of the shaman. My answer is: options."Accidental"? I'm sure it was deliberate. I'd call it reaching an untapped market myself. Have you heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy" target="_blank">blue ocean strategy</a>? It essentially means innovating in a way that gives your products value to those who were previously non-customers. And perhaps by making these changes, D&D becomes less of a "thinking man's game" and more of an "every man's game". That might not be a bad thing.Even if the pre-Essentials and Essentials classes don't share some powers, class is not the whole of the character. Game material like generic feats, magic items and themes can support characters of any class.</blockquote>

Verification