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: 5664804" data-attributes="member: 765">So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities. No, that next decision point is only as complex as you make it. You keep going  back to "4e classes have to decide between multiple encounter powers and dailys and at-wills" when the point from the beginning has been that all those simplifications would have actually been simplifications if they had been applied to the existing class w/the existing class mechanics. Instead they created a entirely new system whose only result is to make it more complex to actually play the game, let alone teach it.  or "Hmm, I really want to move him over there, but I need my minor to activate this item. Of course, then I cant use this utility. I could do both, but then I cant move and I really want to shift over..."All stemming from the "Who do I attack?" phase.No, the distinction is :"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Do I want to activate an encounter long buff(Daily 1, Daily 5)? I guess Reaping Strike it is."Maybe 1/2 an option more to decide and the major advantage is that those options are innately compatible and available to the 4e classic classes. Suddenly, essentials actually becomes a supplement instead of a revision. Which are still relatively complex options, mostly because you're comparing a defender to a striker, switch those out for real leveled but PS-like powers(really PS is another way to say a power has the "Reliable" keyword) and you get a simple-to-play, nearly decision free class that has broadened the base 4e fighters options and left itself open to being played by those that dont want a railroad. Great, PS has jumped in power level to multiple copies of a 7th level encounter power, while the 4e class is using his 1,3 and single 7th. If you actually had PS1, PS3 and PS7(Hammer Strike, Blade Strike, Axe Strike, Staff Strike....) you'd have real control over the power level at this point(yes, they'd likely screw it up), but the most important part is the Slayers player would know the basics of 4e's power system instead of having spent 7+ levels learning how to play a Slayer which MAY carry over somewhat to playing a Knight, but tells him nothing of how to play a FTR, PAL, BRB, ROG, WRD....etc. Who do I attack?What do I attack with?Yes, the same two choices that 4e (single target) PCs have. The difference is that 4e PCs get to do the second over one action and with one choice, Slayers have to figure out if they have the actions to make the attack they want to. Then he's still making a decision, the same one as a 4e class using his "default" power. On top of that, he's being led by the nose to make that choice, since he has to consider every option his character has to see if he even can make that choice. By spreading the attack action over two 'actions' he has to even consider what he wants to do with his move action to decide what to attack with. A 'simple' player can get so overwhelmed that he decides not to decide and goes with what could be a bad option. Encouraging poor play is not a good way to grow the game. Dailies need to be relevant or the player isnt learning the game. That doesnt mean they need to be encounter defining and cant be simple encounter length buffs. Rages are actually a good example, +[W], +X damage, extra move all could be excellent simple daily attack powers.  You're going back to the current power lists again.. Whats better for the game? Adding a power that one build of one class can EVER use? or Adding a power to an entire classes power list? Whats better? Adding a new class with the same name as an existing class, but entirely different abilities, benefits, power lists, roles and selections? or Adding a new build to an existing class that shares power lists, some abilites, most benefits, etc...?If Slayer had been Barbarian(Slayer) and Knight had been Fighter(Knight) we wouldnt need to have this argument and all the supposed benefits of the e-martials would have still been there.It all comes down to all the e-martial classes needing to spend multiple actions to simulate a 4e class selecting an at-will. Its the basis of all those classes and its absolutely unnecessary and unnecessarily complicated.  You've got that backwards. Its the scaling of the low-level at-wills without having to pay any more PP for them thats broken. If Dishearten was a fixed -1 or -2 instead of -Stat you'd have to upgrade to the Paragon at-will with its correspondingly increased cost to get that benefit. I see your point about the encounters up to a certain point. There are a lot of  classes that would be better off with 4 17s instead of a 17,23 and 27. Usually thats because their 27s are crap and their 17s are really good. I'd say thats more an issue with the assigned levels and the abject fear that the Devs have for scaling encounters. Tho, they are getting better at allowing that, I'd love to see 13 and 17 get pick a 3rd or 7th level at-will and add 1[W] or 1 die to the damage along with 23 and 27 getting the same +2.And the best [W] dailys are what? 7[W] attacks with no effects? 8[W] with a penalty? Thats compares to a 5[W] with at least two effects. pffft. The Slayer is a bug compared to a decently built FTR because of the above reasons. Optimizing it by piling on the damage feats and the new PS boosting feats quickly sends it over the top and then you get to charge monkeys who dont normally get to throw daily level effects on their attacks. Just one feat adds a top tier status effect to ALL 4 of his encounters I suppose so. I've just never heard of Druid considered a Healer other than a desperation back-up and Sentinel is.....bad if you're DM even wants to try using Tactics.</blockquote>

Verification