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: 5663338" data-attributes="member: 61155">I don't see anything in the errata that actually causes that. They enhanced the role of the melee-Str cleric - how is that not a 'cleric who fights'?  It was presented in the e-class format, yes, because they felt that in general a certain part of the community wanted a change in presentation. (Which was correct, though I'm not sure the specific execution was necessarily an improvement.) Again, I think they were trying to make a book that appealed to 3 different crowds, and realized that even with that, it still wouldn't be a great seller - hence shifting it to online content.   The argument being made is that there aren't always 2-3 decision points for e-martial builds - and even when there are, they are often quicker and simpler to make than a single choice from a much larger number of options. And that, in the absence of those decisions, the class still operates at nearly full effectiveness and is easier for choices to be made after the fact, rather than halting everything beforehand.  All of those are legitimate reasons to prefer the Essentials approach (in terms of simplicity). I'm willing to accept that you find the standard AEDU mechanics simpler, but if you truly aren't willing to accept that others feel different - if you believe you have some sort of mathematical proof that all of us are 'fooling ourselves' and that our experiences are invalid - then I think the conversation is done here.   Actually, I visualized the system originally specifically for casters, and the idea that rather than having Scorching Burst as an At-Will, Fireball as a mid-heroic daily, Fire Burst as a high-heroic encounter, and assorted similar abilities throughout the levels... that you could instead have a standardized template that levels automatically.  But, again, it is just a concept for a system, and I get that it wouldn't necessarily be to everyone's liking.   I am in total agreement that if no future support comes out for pre-Essentials material, WotC has made a mistake. As it is, we've seen no indication that is the case. We have seen that support - in Heroes of Shadow, in DDI articles. In smaller quantities than Essentials support, because Essentials is the most recent release - nothing odd about that.  More importantly, we have not seen a reset - the prior material has not been replaced - and many folks find that the Essentials books do indeed address the issues they had.  You feel differently. Again, this is fine. But your insistence that other folks who agree with what they did here, find that it did simplify things and address their concerns, and was a good purchase for them... your insistence that all these folks are just lying to themselves, are misguided or wrong or incorrect or whatever... is actually rather insulting. The insistence that no one else's views about the game matter, except for your own, is simply not useful for any reasonable conversation.   I've yet to see a proposed simplification of the AEDU solution that would have actually addressed some of these concerns. Your own proposed options, honestly, only help address the issues you have - none of them have helped in the way that Essentials has, which very directly addressed the issues I've seen in play.  The point about folks liking it is in response to your absolute insistence that Essentials screwed up. That it made things more complex and that another option would have been preferable. In the end, all you can claim is that another option would have been better for you. We have other folks who are satisfied by Essentials and don't find your claims to be true, and I suspect would not have had their concerns addressed by your hypothetical alternate product.    Because he could have chosen that bonus at the start of combat and doesn't need to choose it again in future rounds. And because...  ...what often happens is that players will just roll in and roll the dice, and asking, "You were in Hammer Hands stance, right?" is worlds easier than asking, "Was that... an at-will? Or a basic? Or an encounter? You didn't decide beforehand, huh? I... I guess you can choose now, sure."  Because I find it easier to have the rules handle that default rather than need a gentleman's agreement. Because the gentleman's agreement doesn't help with encounters coming into play, and thus requires the player operating at a handicap. Because some players just forget about the agreement, or don't want to make it in the first place because it feels like you are playing their character (while asking about what stance is on feels like the power remains with them). Because the default at-will runs into confusion when charging and OAs come into play.  You find that the default at-will approach would work for your players. For myself, the stance approach is better. As I said before - if you genuinely can't accept that other folks can legitimately have different preferences than you, then I am willing to let the conversation end here.   What different highway? Again, the builds are balanced so they can play alongside existing ones. And still operate in the same system. There is no different highway at all.    Well... yes, that's by design. The reliability and consistency of the stances+Power Strike (plus other static abilities) balance out the lack of dailies, and the lack of choice among encounters (thus removing them from the most potent encounters, such as multi-attack powers, multi-target powers, and those that inflict crippling conditions or provide powerful buffs.)  What are you arguing here? Before you claimed that they were hopelessly weak. Now you are saying their powers are overwhelmingly strong. Which is it?  True. And yet, level 1 is where new players are entering the game. Did those pre-made builds help new players in anyone's experience? Maybe to some small extent. But it didn't address the concerns I've seen in actual play, and I don't think your proposal to just extend that across the line would, either.  I'm not saying I'm against it entirely - I do like the idea of it as a whole. But it would mainly just address the complexities of building a character, not playing one. Hence, Essentials was the better approach.   To rephrase, then: You think Psionics were a worthy addition to the game because they added new concepts and mechanics. Others feel that Essentials is a worthy addition to the game because it provides an interesting new perspective on classic builds, new mechanical approaches, brings back classic elements, and addresses some concerns about complexity in the game.  None of those reasons are valid for you - fair enough. That doesn't mean you get to declare them invalid for everyone else.   Sorry, but that really isn't a valid analogy. The chess pieces operate by certain rules - which govern how they move, how they can claim other pieces, etc. Checker pieces have different rules for movement and claiming pieces. They don't move the same way, attack the same way, and play similarly - thats why you aren't playing the same game.  Essentials characters move, attack, and interact with the game in the exact same fashion as other classes. Thus, you are indeed playing the same game. Nothing I've seen in the Essentials books indicates any problems with them playing alongside pre-Essentials characters, and my experience - and pretty much everyone else's I've heard - is that there are no problems with them playing alongside each other in actual games.   Perhaps you are confused by what I mean by Druid. I mean: A nature based caster with a variety of primal abilities. One of these versions has more in the way of spells along with the ability to assume the form of a beast. My sentinel has an animal companion, the ability to beat folks up with a staff, and can summon even more animals to overwhelm my foes.  I'm not sure what you are looking for in the game. For me, a flavorful class with new mechanics and interesting abilities is just the sort of thing I'm happy to have WotC create.</blockquote>

Verification