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: 5662801" data-attributes="member: 765">The errata turned the Cleric into a healer with a weapon, or a healer with a holy symbol. The Warpriest is the 'Cleric who Fights', ironically what the historical Templars were. Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled. You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right? Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1. Which might work for weapon classes but fails when you get to implements, which would be why the original Devs went with the uniform AEDU system. Now if you want to add that kind of thinking to the current game you get Bladespells as first level at-wills that stack onto a class-feature power ala Eldritch Blast or Eldritch Strike(without the slide). Again, you have a great idea for a class feature attached to lazy designwork for the rest of the class. (and the third attempt to fill the Swordmages design space while not fixing the relatively minor problems of the SM) I think our ideas of fun are closer than you believe. I'd rather see the game they have spent 3yrs developing(and I've spent hundreds of $$ on) grow instead of a stealth reset that doesnt address many of the issues the classes actually have and instead creates new issues to deal with.   Uh huh, but youre not making an apples to apples comparison. Those many people could have been satisfied by simplifying the AEDU system instead of creating the BASPSWS, BATBSCA, etc, etc systems. So repeatedly saying "He LIKES it! Hey, Mikey!" isnt contributing to the conversation.Huh?!? You just said you liked powers that were chosen after the fact! Do you mean 'before the fact'? If so, then what is so much better about choosing a full action before the attack what kind of bonus you're going to get with the attack? IOW, How is asking "Did you want to stay in Hammer Hands stance for that attack?" any better than "What power did you use?"And, again, thats assuming that knowing you have a problem player you havent already formed a gentlemans agreement on a default at-will. Not so much a problem as pointing out that the new on-ramp to the game is actually leading to a different highway.  Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike. Not beyond level 1 it didnt.   Not what I said. Psionics doesnt interest me in the least, outside of new concepts on the game. Essentials doesnt provide that, it goes over the same concepts that are already out there. What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you arent playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly. Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.</blockquote>

Verification