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: 5662000" data-attributes="member: 87792">"Inarguable".  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means. In specific, if there is one single person who finds them simpler then you are just plain wrong.  Which is why a single person at one of our tables  And here you are wrong.  I didn't like Essentials until I saw it in play.  And saw how much easier some people find it than classic 4e.  My views are the result of experience and I am defending Essentials precisely because I have seen it improve some peoples play experience.  That you are doing your level best to ignore why I am defending it is a reflection of how much attention you are paying reading rather than writing.  Actual play experience. I have seen the results that some people have.  Not all.  But some.  And they do genuinely find the e-classes easier.  I have said this throughout.  Wonder all you like - but that is the answer.  And here you speak as if complexity is a goal in its own right.  It simply isn't.  Believe it or not some people get nothing out of the extra complexity.  I know this isn't true for you.  Or for me.  But not everyone shares my tastes (if they did someone would have had the Slayer class strangled at birth). And there's a world of difference between levelling up your character for 11 levels and learning them inside out and starting a new PC in paragon tier.  And by not having dailies you have less.  It comes out in the wash assuming multiple encounter days.  The Knight can not touch a Fighter with Storm of Blades for damage in his daily encounter.  That's part of the gap that this needs to close.  You mean in the way a Battlemind is incompatable with an Invoker?  Oh Noes!  It's called a Hybrid Wizard.  Hint: The difference between a Wizard and a Mage is minor.  There should probably be Hybrid Talent for mage schools -- but that's all it would take.  The Mage is just a very slightly tweaked wizard (and if it wasn't for the lack of Ritual Caster, it would be conceptually superior in every way - schools are so much more evocative than implements). Also if you want something that's in 4e that's broken and should be removed, the Hybrid rules are top of the list.  Most of what it adds to the game is a mix of stinky cheese and crap characters.  Claiming that something's incompatable because it doesn't take part in the most broken part of the game is ... dubuious at best.  Significantly less for you.  They add things for people who are not you.  People who like stances.  People who like clear thematics to guide their roleplaying and want to be given easy routes through the melange of options.  If you believe that's accidental, there's a bridge you might be interested in buying. New classes that do things you couldn't do before are new 4e content.  Although I was disappointed to see that all the attack powers for the Bladesinger were reprints.  Not only insulting, but flat wrong.  Try and play a Knight or Thief without thinking and you will be at best mediocre. And 4e is a RPG.  Not a tactical skirmish wargame.  Warmachine and Malifaux both do that job a lot better.  More complicated and harder is not an end in its own right.  If anything it's a negative; you want rules to be as complicated as needed to do the job and not more so.  And what some people want to think about isn't abstract board based tactics.  It's plans.  Like how to sneak into that temple - the fight only happens when something goes wrong.</blockquote>

Verification