Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 5664974" data-attributes="member: 3424">Why don't you take a stab at formulating such a rule? Don't just criticize; spend some effort to help others adopt your preferred playstyle more easily! That said, my initial sense is that any such rule is going to end up sounding more like a table rule or SOP than an actual game rule since it relates to what the character does when the player does not declare an action clearly or properly and some players may not like it because it causes them to break immersion (which does matter to some players). On the other hand, the slayer solves the immersion problem by simply allowing the player to say, "I attack [target]." Everything else: stance, weapon, the possibility of using power strike just modifies the basic attack. The problem is, you seem to be steadfastly ignoring all the posts from people such as Raikun who have played 4E both pre- and post-Essentials and have reported that the Essentials classes were easier and sped up play for them. I think most people would give more weight to their actual experiences than to your theoretical arguments. Really, you are starting to sound like someone who repeatedly insists that chocolate is an objectively superior flavor to strawberry even though others have indicated that they prefer strawberry. I believe we've gone over this before. Essentials is a supplement because it adds new opotions for the players. It might not provide a lot of additional support for some existing AEDU classes, but it is not a revision because it does not replace them.You mean like the Beast keyword powers for the Beastmaster ranger in Martial Power? I actually kind of liked those. I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure that the ability to just say, "I attack [target]." (mentioned before) would have been possible without tweaking the power structure. That said, I think it may be possible to unify the slayer, knight and weaponmaster under an umbrella class in much the same way that I kindsorta unified the warpriest and the templar under an umbrella cleric class some posts back. Something along the lines of: choose between at-will attacks or at-will stances; choose between power strike (plus enhancements) and regular encounter powers; choose between daily attack powers and constant benefits (or turn the constant benefits into daily attack powers that last until the end of your next extended rest).That's not entirely true. A Reliable encounter power is still an alternative to a basic attack or an at-will attack, and the player must still choose to use it before making the attack roll. Power strike has the additional advantage that the player can attack first and then choose to use it if the attack hits. Mind you, at 7th level, the slayer and knight still only have two uses of power strike per encounter, while the weaponmaster fighter has three encounter powers of 1st, 3rd and 7th level. As I previously mentioned, I think the balance really is quite good.To a certain extent, yes. A weaponmaster's power structure is closer to the other AEDU classes than a slayer's or a knight's. That said, I don't think that learning to play a different class is that much more difficult, especially since playing a slayer or a knight would have already familiarized a player with the basic concepts of the game such as attack rolls, saving throws, hit points, healing surges, tactics, etc. Certainly not much more difficult than learning to manage a psionic augmentation class or a monk's full discipline powers after playing a more traditional AEDU class, anyway.If you can have dailies that are encounter-long buffs, why not dailies that are day-long buffs? Do that and you basically emulate the constant benefits of the knight and the slayer.Again, you need to compare the entire package. Even if a slayer's encounters are as good as a weaponmaster's dailies, are they as good as the weaponmaster's encounters plus dailies? Looking at abilities in isolation is not always meaningful. This I agree with. I thought I'd end on this point. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification