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: 5666879" data-attributes="member: 765">And they are more complex to actually play, I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills. Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes. Yes, but the 'decision' to use the higher level PS is made for you. Work your way down, high to low. Why? If its balanced for Slayers to get at-wills on OAs and Charges(and granted attacks and...) then a FTR doing so is also balanced.Trivial? No. Significantly less than it took to build the Slayer/Knight/etc.? Yes.No, I said Slayers compare more closely to Barbarians than Fighters. I was wrong there, I think they are closer to Rangers in actual play. Default to Twin Strike. Encounters are extremely simple, Twin Strike w/stats, Twin Strike with bonus damage, Twin Strike with extra attack, etc.... They even have a minor action 'stance' for Bonus Damage. Tho, there are opportunities in the Barb for the same concepts.  No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?He needs to consider spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have. Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, add to your attacks.Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on everyone else since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.Yes, WotC should have come up with a simpler, more consistant and more compatible system than what they keep pushing. No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes. Sure, but its a lot easier to learn those differences when you have mastered the basic AEDU and class structure. Really?!? You have players who cant count from high to low? Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack. "OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity.... The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly. I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them. Right, the class is better for everyone else at the table and irrelevant for the player. Its not simpler for the player, its less of a hassle for the table.</blockquote>

Verification