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: 5662166" data-attributes="member: 61155">How so? The Errata added a few elements for the Str-Melee Cleric (which, if anything, presents a 'threat' to the Warpriest). It toned down some of the dailies that were huge bursts and more 'controllery' than 'leadery'. I don't necessarily agree all of the adjustments were ideal, but they all seemed rooted in criticism that emerged long before Essentials. Nothing about them seemed related to preventing 'threats' to the Warpriest.   Again - the core of the Class Compendium and everything in it was, initially, to simply reproduce the PHB classes with some new errata. The amount of content related to Essentials was the name changes... and the handful of feats/multi-classing material for the E-classes.  Those elements are the only resources 'drained' by Essentials. I see no indication that all the errata for the other classes, which wasn't tied to Essentials at all, would not have happened just the same with or without Essentials.   And we have given numerous responses to those reasons. You can feel our reasons are bad ones - that's fine. But claiming that your position is inarguable when people are arguing with you is just poor form. You don't get to simply declare yourself undeniably right. People will, in fact, deny that.   For myself, my ideal system would be more like Essentials, and far more focused with having a basic attack and abilities that you simply attach on top of it at any given time.  Strangely enough, two different people - you and me - have different ideas of what makes an ideal game.   Many people find the AEDU system more complicated. You can feel free to feel otherwise, but insisting that our opinions aren't valid... still isn't a reasonable form of debate.   Your argument against stances is that it involves "spending multiple actions". My experience is that those actions don't actually need to be used all that often. More importantly, the benefits I see are in the idea of powers that don't need to be chosen after the fact, don't present the player with an array of choices that must be considered (rather than can be considered), and, in the specific implementation, allow for several easy and simple benefits for those who want them.    I'm... not sure what you mean by this. Whether playing with an Essentials class or not, your character is more complicated at level 30 than at level 1. Essentials tones it down for those who want that, but still assumes some new elements can be added over the levels. How is that a problem? Again, you seem very insistent on calling out stuff as problematic in Essentials while ignoring the exact same elements existing for everyone else.   I haven't seen anything to indicate this. Encounter Powers, as you reach higher levels, tend to both increase in damage and add extra effects. WS let's Power Strike do the same thing, and typically does not give exceptionally powerful benefits compared to the conditions inflicted by standard Encounter powers.   That existed. In the PHB - set builds for new players. And they were largely useless. Hence, why I'm glad Essentials went ahead and provided a format that addressed real concerns of players who didn't have an easy time with the AEDU system.   Which is what makes it interesting to you. To others, it wasn't of interest, while the new perspective on classic builds - presented by Essentials - was. I just don't think it reasonable to declare that WotC should only produce that which interests you and you alone.  Yep, I feel that the lack of multiclassing and hybrid options has been WotC's biggest failure with Essentials! That doesn't make them incompatible with the rest of the game. They are balanced so that they can be played alongside other characters. They have some ability via feats to still dabble in other classes and abilities. The lack of pure multiclassing in char-gen is a shame, but there is no inconsistency or incompatability or imbalance at the actual table, which is what matters.   Replaced? Your PHB Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric are no longer allowed in play? They have been removed from the system? Banned, overwritten by Essentials? Wait, no, that hasn't happened. Hence, not a new edition. Not even a half-edition like 3.5. In fact, just a new set of options, just like the PHB2 and PHB3.   Isn't that basically what they did?   And yet, I'm enjoying playing one, like the mechanics of it, and finding it quite effective, and an interesting variation on the wild shape druid. You don't like the class - that doesn't mean it is a mistake.   For you. Not for others. I would take the Sentinel a hundred times over compared to another article for clerics or fighters or wizards.   Yeah, I'd say you are getting into insulting territory here.  I suspect, rather, that Essentials is aimed at a variety of crowds. And WotC is counting on also having others who aren't the ideal audience, but still willing to try the new classes. As in my case - I'm fine in general with the AEDU structure. But I also like trying something different and very much enjoy playing a Sentinel.  I'd be disappointed if WotC produced only Essentials content from here on out. Fortunately, I've seen no evidence that that is the case.   How is that harder to support than Archer vs Melee vs Beastmaster Ranger? Or the various flavors of Warlord? Etc.  There are enough similarities that they can both be supported. Just like an article for Warlords provided dozens of feats - some of them useful for all Warlords, some aimed at specific builds. Same exact thing could be done that supported both the Ranger and the Scout and the Hunter. Not as smoothly, perhaps - but less so than supporting most new classes alongside the old ones, honestly.</blockquote>

Verification