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: 5667390" data-attributes="member: 61155">"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." Note your final statement there - a declaration that the Essentials abilities are indeed simpler to play.  Look, you claimed that at-wills could be used 'by default' just as easily as stances. We've given half-a-dozen reasons why not everyone would find that the case. You've ignored addressing those points on two seperate occasions, with your only response eventually being that, while Essentials is simpler, your hypotethical system would be simpler without the potential problems of Essentials.  When I point out your original point was comparing Essentials with the previous structure, you have now returned to claiming "they are more complex to actually play" - again, without addressing any of our reasons for why we don't find that to be so. (Or even acknowledging the fact that you had, moments before, conceded that Essentials was indeed simpler.)  Look, I've been continuing this discussion on the assumption that you genuinely feel a different system could have been better and are trying to explain why. But when your position shifts so constantly, it is hard to feel like you are having this discussion in good faith.  How in the world are they less effective?  You keep making this claim without backing it up. A Slayer who stays in one stance all day long is operating at near full effectiveness. Compare it to a Barbarian (who seems the closest equivalent) spamming howling strike - who gives up all their dailies and encounters while doing less damage with their at-will than the Slayer is dealing with their basic attack.  This myth that a Slayer is an inneffective striker doesn't seem grounded in either numbers or experiences. They have a striker damage bonus equivalent to that of other strikers. They are able to wield large weapons and gain boosts to damage and attacks via their stances and their class features. And they have reliable bonus damage via Power Strike.  A Fighter who only spams Reaping Strike all day? Is giving up a lot of effectiveness, and is not somehow magically more effective than a Slayer for no reason.   Again, I don't see your hypothetical system as being as easy to implement as you suggest, nor do I see it solving most of these problems - as in this case, which again presents more decisions than you have with Essentials.  You like that style, that's fine. Are you still not willing to accept that others have different preferences than you do??  Because the Slayer stance benefits have specifically been chosen with the knowledge they can be used in that situation?  We do have some At-Wills that are considered to be balanced for use in such fashions. We have others that aren't. I suspect many of the ones with multiple targets, movement effects, area effects, etc, would need significant reevaluation before being implemented as such. Could you do so? Sure. Just not with the ease you suggest.   Not even remotely. You criticize the fact that the Slayer/Knight/etc are slightly apart from the existing rules. That's what allowed them to be developed in a balanced fashion. What you propose would require much more integration with the basic rules. Which I agree would be a benefit in the long run - but in an immediate sense, would have required vastly more design work and been far more disruptive to current games.  If you really feel otherwise... feel free to stat out your alternate system in the House Rules section, and we'll see. Until then, I don't think you can complain that such a vast undertaking would accomplish all your goals while simultaneoulsy requiring few resources and having minimal impact on the existing system.   Archer Rangers are probably among the easiest classes to play, yes - you can sit back and just shoot things all day long. Of course, this requires giving up a good bit of effectiveness (quarry options, prime shot), and choosing encounters for ease of use rather than choosing the strongest ones. And probably requires more maintenance of quarry, since it only lasts as long as each target, rather than the entire combat - and when you forget and want to have used it before the attack, retcon time! And requires, per your advice, using Encounters in a set order, rather than using whichever one is appropriate at a given time. And ignoring dailies.  It still is not difficult to play, but it also remains more complex than the Slayer and still doesn't address many of the problems that folks have with the AEDU system. It's only real advantage in terms of ease of play is by virtue of being ranged, which is hardly a legitimate divide between Essentials and the PHB classes.  Once again, to compare:  "Ok, you are playing a Slayer. You stay in Battle Wrath Stance, and every attack you make is this modified basic attack. The first two times you hit an enemy each fight, you can add 1d10 extra damage via Power Strike." vs "Ok, you are playing an archer Ranger. Never use your dailies unless I tell you to. Each round, use Hunter's Quarry on your target. If it isn't the closest enemy, move so if it is. If you can't do so safely, choose between shooting someone else or giving up your bonus damage. Anyway, round 1 use Thundertusk Boar Strike, which does this damage and pushes the target. (And pushes extra if both hit.) Round 2 use Two-Fanged Strike, which is the same damage as last time. But extra damage if both hit. After that, every round, use Twin Strike, which is similar, but lower damage." It is not the most complex thing in the world, not by any means. But it is more complexity and decision making and tracking than some folks want to deal with. They don't want to have to remember to quarry, they don't want to have a half-dozen different attacks with similar but subtly different stat lines. They want one attack they can use every round, and a few uses of an encounter power that boosts it in a very simple fashion.  Once more, in the forlorn hope you will actually answer this: Are you really unwilling to accept that some folks find that simpler and prefer that approach?   Once, again, a poor analogy - the difference between checkers and pawns are very significant. The differences betwen Essentials and the rest of the rules are not. They are part of the same ruleset, and I still don't think you've proven that someone who learns the game with a Slayer will be unable to learn how to play a different build if they wish to do so.   Aside from the many 4E classes that do use minor actions, often on a much more regular basis than the Slayer. And, as previously noted, this is pretty much a corner case compared to the decisions a PHB class needs to make every round by virtue of their class structure.  Honestly, the thing with minor action magic item uses is that typically they are very conditional. Which will mean the player doesn't really need to consider it until that circumstance comes up (I'm immobilized and need to teleport, etc.) In that event, the Slayer says, "Yeah, this is worth using", and doesn't even need to consider changing his stance (since being able to leave it in place is a benefit of the class).  Whereas the number of times I've seen a Warlock player dither for 5 minutes because their life saving magic items requires giving up cursing enemies or triggering shadow walk of the like? Much more common.   Except that you can activate that minor action at the start of the day and never deal with it again. Your argument wasn't the power level (at least not previously), it was the difficult of having to consider the use of that minor action. Why do you now insist that those minor actions are trivial for PHB classes to use, but completely crippling for Essentials classes? Again, you seem to have a bit of a double standard in terms of what you are criticizing.   A Slayer who stays in one stance and spams his basic attack and uses Power Strike when available is not playing poorly. They are operating as a fully effective Striker. You haven't offered a single shred of proof for why this is somehow being crippled. You have even tried to claim that a PHB class spamming an At-Will and never using encounter powers and daily powers is somehow more effective than this character. Again, without offering any evidence as to why.  Even for the player who does change stances when appropriate, you consider this "significantly more complex". Which I still don't get- even if you find stances more complex (which I don't, but can certainly accept it if they are for you), you have to admit that Power Strike is much simpler than dealing with the normal Encounter system.  Your argument previously was to keep insisting that WotC could have instead made Power Strike part of the normal system somehow. Let's ignore that. All that matter is that you did accept Power Strike as a simpler option. So why do you feel that a class with Power Strike is significantly more complex than a class with 4 different encounter powers to choose from? Again, we're not comparing to your hypothetical system. We're talking Essentials vs the existing classes. Here's the challenge - choose a ranger, a barbarian, a fighter, whatever. Build it for me. Let's go with level 5 or 7 or 9 - something mid to late Heroic. Build me your character as simple as you can, and we'll compare whether a Slayer is actually significantly more complex than it in actuality.   Why was it wasted time? If they enjoyed playing the character and were effective with it, isn't that good enough? If it gave them a simple option to play while learning every other aspect of the system, and all they need to do now is learn the AEDU power format, doesn't that make the transition easier anyway?   No it doesn't. How does "mastery of the AEDU structure" help you figure out the different benefits between a druid vs a warden vs a barbarian?   Fast, smooth, simple play. That is the goal. The people we are talking about can absolutely do so, but that doesn't mean it isn't another level of complexity they don't want to bother with.  Having a page filled with a half-dozen different powers with subtly different effects, and needing to check on each one what damage they deal is going to take longer than having one power, four check-boxes, and the same exact effect each time.   The situations which require those choices are not especially common, can be easily ignored, and are ultimate less complex than choosing even once between 2 At-wills, 4 Encounters and 4 Dailies. Honestly, the character who is trying to keep things simple probably won't bother choosing Hammer Hands, and just stick to the stances that just boost attack or damage. Meaning basically no complexity to any choice they make... ever.   Even as I accept that you find the structure more complex than the existing system, I don't think your hyperbole is helping. "Ridiculously complex"? Really? As for your other point, the same one we've covered before several times, it is simply untrue. The Slayer "played stupidly" gives up a single stance by choosing to always stay in an effective stance. (The equivalent of "always use twin strike.") Rarely using your weaker or more situational At-Will is not considered "playing stupidly" - it is how most people play most of the time, honestly.  What most people do not do is, as you suggest, never use a single Encounter or Daily Attack power. That is giving up a vast amount of effectiveness, and leaves you far, far behind an Essentials character in power level. And, honestly, is why I am glad for Essentials - because that is the behavior I would occasionally see by those who don't want to deal with the AEDU system. And those characters were a bane to the entire party, while the Essentials characters they play now are effective characters that contribute significantly to party success.  Once again, if you are going to insist on these genuinely absurd claims, let's see some proof. Stat up your "stupidly played" Essentials character and "stupidly played" pre-Essentials character, and we'll see how they actually compare.   We're not talking about someone who isn't invested in the game. We're talking about someone who would rather have a single effective attack than have to spend their time looking through powers and saying a silly power name. They want to just say, "I get up in his face and smash his face in" rather than spending time choosing between options and eventually saying, "I get up in his face and then... I Sudden Sweep of Storms him... in the face. Which I guess means I trip him, or something."  I keep asking you, and you keep refusing to answer, my question: Are you willing to acknowledge that other people find these classes simpler to play, while still being effective, and that your experiences are not universal? Because given this last response, it seems your answer is, "Anyone who plays different than me doesn't deserve to play the game or have classes designed for them", which strikes me as a pretty terrible attitude to have.   So, just so we are clear... When, with a pre-Essentials character, the character doesn't want to deal with the AEDU system, ends up playing slowly and poorly, and gets frustrated and quits the game... vs when, with an Essentials character, they play simply and quickly, are effective in combat and enjoy contributing to the party, and are thus able to actually enjoy the game... ... the difference in those two characters, in your opinion, is entirely irrelevant to that player?</blockquote>

Verification