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: 5665499" data-attributes="member: 61155">Ok, let's try and clarify something. Your initial point was not that Essentials is more complex than some hypothetical alternate approach. "E-classes are significantly MORE complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are." So we aren't talking about a change to the ruleset - we are comparing what we have with Essentials vs what we had before. And many folks find Essentials classes much, much simpler to play. From the start, I've said that a different approach could probably have made things simpler without moving as far mechanically from the base system - but I also believe that doing so would require a lot more work than you are suggesting. It would entail tearing the system apart and rebuilding it from the ground up, which many folks would have found far more disruptive than simply presenting alternate builds via Essentials. If you make everyone choose one At-Will as the default, it still doesn't cut down on decision making between using that vs using Encounters. To do that, you need to turn Encounters into Power Strike 'add-ons', which requires a significant rebalancing of the entire system. You propose they could just add Power Strike itself (and presumably make it work with At-Wills rather than just basics) - but you have also indicated that you would want Power Strike to have multiple levels of it (a level 7 version, level 17 version, level 27 version, etc) to keep its power balanced. Which again presents more decisions for the user. And we also haven't gotten into considering Dailies, either.  You also need to make those default At-Wills work on OAs and Charging - but that again would probably require a good bit of reworking them so that balance is maintained.  Feel free to stat out your proposed hypothetical system that keeps things balanced, uses a single consistent mechanical approach, and allows both those wanting simple characters and those wanting complex ones to build characters via the exact same process. I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying that it won't be as handwavingly trivial as you imply.   Again, the point from the beginning was your claim that Essentials classes are significantly more complex to play than their PHB equivalents. You have in fact cited Barbarians and PHB Fighters as classes which one could present to a player and have them just use an easy list of powers each combat. I'm calling you on that claim - even with the simplest choices available, it will still require a lot more decision making on each action than a Slayer needs to deal with.  Your point about players getting 'used to' the Slayer and thus not learning the rest of the game... hmm. I understand where your concern is coming from. But I don't think that transitioning from the Slayer to the PHB Fighter (or the Barbarian) will be that difficult - for those who want to make that transition. The entire point is that some folks prefer the simpler option. Saying we should just remove it and toss them in the deep end so they can learn to swim... doesn't seem a better approach, at least to me.   I don't see any of these as especially common concerns (especially when the Slayer doesn't need to spend his minor every round), and even if they were, the availability of item powers and utilities is just as relevant to the non-Essentials character.   Again, you seem to be making your comparisons to your hypothetical system rather than the one that actually exists. In the actual situation, Encoutners are still an issue, and dailies that give encounter long buffs would usually, one imagines, run into your same criticism as stances. Look, I'll lay this on the table right now - if you want to recant your original claim, admit that Essentials classes are simpler to play than pre-Essentials classes, and change your position to "WotC could have taken an alternate approach to Essentials that was closer to the current mechanics but still simpler to use?" I am more than willing to leave it at that. We might disagree over how easy such a system would have actually been to create, but I will certainly accept that WotC had alternate approaches available.  What I have been contesting is your claim that Essentials is more difficult to use than the current system, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge that others folks do not find that to be the case. If you truly no longer believe that, and have moved the goalposts entirely to compare things only against your hypothetical alternate system? That's perfectly fine.   Tells him nothing of how to play other characters? Yes, there are differences. For those who want to switch to more complex characters, I really don't think the learning curve is as insurmountable as you are claiming. If you believe characters could be dropped in and learn the power system initially, why do you think it somehow becomes impossible for them to learn simply because they played a different character for a bit?  Honestly, the individual natures of classes themselves (barbarian rages vs wild shape vs fighter marking vs paladin challenging vs everything psionics, etc)... require much more getting used to, for anyone changing classes, than figuring out the power system. The point isn't that the power system is impossible to learn, the point is that it is an approach that some folks don't like dealing with.  And, of course - getting back to your example, a system that does not have 4 uses of Power Strike, but instead has four different similar powers the player needs to choose from... is still not going to yield the benefits that Essential has offered in terms of fast, smooth, simple play.   Just to be clear - your contention is that, "Do I have a minor action available if I want to use it?" is a vastly harder question to answer then "Which of these half-dozen powers is most appropriate to the situation?"  If so... ok, that might be the case for you. Once again, are you truly unwilling to acknowledge that it is not the same for everyone else?  You pointed out that you have three different posters basically telling you the same thing. Shouldn't that indicate that your feelings about the relative complexity here is not universal?   Again, I have never run into a player overwhelmed by this issue. I have run into folks who were... I won't say "overwhelmed", but rather, "didn't want to deal with" the options presented by the normal AEDU classes, and as such, did indeed play at much reduced effectiveness. Essentials actively addresses that and made it so they could play without having to deal with such things and still remain effective.  I still am not sure how you can claim that a PHB Fighter who never uses Encounter powers and only uses one Default At-Will is 'good play' and remains effective, but a Slayer who never changes stances (and thus always has "+4 damage" instead of "slide 1 square" or "+1 to attack") is somehow crippled in effectiveness and playing badly.   So just so we are clear, your advice for the player using the Barbarian is now: "The first round of every combat, always use a Rage power. Start combat 1 with Black Dragon Rage, combat 2 with Red Dragon Rage, and combat 3 with Blue Dragon Rage. After you rage, you should use your Encounters. (List of Encounters). After all that, use this one Default At-Will and never use anything else." You can totally do this, yes. But I'm pretty sure it remains more complicated than playing the Slayer, and also results in operating at much lower effectiveness since you will be using powers when they aren't necessarily a good choice.   I don't disagree that we could have taken such an approach. I don't think we would automatically gain all the supposed benefits of the e-martial classes. I'd have to see your hypothetical alternate system to be sure... and I suspect that it either would require a complete rewrite of the existing classes, or it wouldn't actually give us the benefits that Essentials did, or it would end up even more unbalanced with the rest of the game.  Either way, it still doesn't support your original claim, which was about comparing Essentials to the current system.   I thought that was what I said. >_>   Er... it depends on class, build, and what the other options are. And what those effects are. The best [W] dailies are often multiple attacks or have encounter long buffs. Even the ones that are raw damage still probably come out ahead - knocking prone and pushing a few squares is probably worth 1[W], but not 2.  Either way, you didn't address my point - the various benefits of normal encounter powers are decently balanced against the raw damage (but lack of those benefits) for Slayers.   I still see no indications that a well-built Slayer is ineffective just because you say so. And you keep insisting that a handful of feats kicks it into game-breaking, without acknowledging the fact that many similarly optimized characters exist in the PHB classes as well.   Ok, here is a hint: If you don't want folks like Matt James to call you a troll, you probably should avoid arguments that imply that those who disagree with you are bad players who suck.  I play a Sentinel. It is a perfectly effective class, and I have enjoyed playing it. Saying that any success I have with it is because my DM is bad at challenging PCs or using decent tactics is an insult.  I have heard people claim that every single one of the 4E classes is flawed beyond use or overpowered beyond reason. I've found such claims to be pretty much universally wrong. Some classes are stronger than others, yes. Nothing is unplayable, nothing is automatically game-breaking.  You don't like the Sentinel or feel you would be effective at playing it - fine. But, as seems to be the point we keep trying to get you to acknowledge - your opinions and experiences are not universal.</blockquote>

Verification