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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6104111" data-attributes="member: 37579">....I like how you're clearly on a computer that has the Internet and you couldn't pause posting for ten second to Wiki "Dying Earth".The first two collections or stories were published in the 1950s and 1960s respectively. And were stories Gygax knew of and enjoyed. This is irrelevant.Yes it was balanced for play with the other two classes. Of course it was designed and fine-tuned for gaming. But the inspiration and basis for a religious warrior was there first. This contradicts several design statements. They played around with mechanics for a potential martial controller specifically because the game lacked one. They created the battlemind quickly because their original (more story based) psionic defender didn't work out and they still wanted a psionic defender. There were many grid filler classes that existed because there was a game gap. The invoked doesn't add much in terms of story either. Classes like the invoker and avenger and warden exist because they hadn't yet made the leap of classes with multiple roles. We would have just seen a controller build of the cleric.This is the crux here. 5e is neither 3e nor 4e. It can fold those classes back into the fold but do so without making the class overpowered. The sorcerer should go away too.I would disagree for 3.0 but agree for 3.5, which was so much worse for needless classes than 4e. I think both editions have taught us class bloat is bad. And that the designers should work hard to make each class that does need to exist mechanically interesting and worthy of taking at all levels. Quality not quantity.Tactics yes, preparation no. Earlier editions were much more strategic and less tactical in than you can buff before a fight and mitigate much through careful forethought. And the edition is much more forgiving for being unprepared for certain monsters as powers and spells and abilities are always useful. Silver might help you speed up killing a werewolf but it's not ignoring 5 damage every attack but regaining 5hp every round so it's possible to just skip silver and hit harder.Which is getting me to change my game to fit the edition and not playing the game I want. Suddenly the quaint English fishing villiage haunted by a single ghost suddenly has zombies, lesser ghosts, and traps because of the needs of the game. And solos were very poorly designed back when I was playing 4e (I stopped just after MM3 came out) so I have horrible memories of trying to use boss monsters.Dungeons. Ugh.Again, the game is change my campaign rather than letting me do what I want. And I don't want tacked on encounters designed just to weaken. Nothing derails a story faster.Was it OD&D that had conversion rules for Boot Hill?Plus Ravenloft had guns back in 2e and the rules were also in the 3e DMG. 4e could do them quite easily. But the designers never did. How many optional rules are there for 4e? Alternate play styles just weren't considered.Your make my point for me. Because the 9the level fighter was unprepared, they have squat. That's a feature not a bug.4e struggles over low magic games. You get four +1 items at first level (never a level 1 though. You will never see the most common magic item on previous editions: a straight +1 long sword) and get a +2 item at second level. And it struggles over low combat games or even non-dungeon crawls with encounters every few days (such as travel or exploratory games). Low combat games can be troublesome as almost every power, feat, and option grants combat bonuses. So the player is looking at their suite and combat powers that are taunting them, screaming to be used.</blockquote>

Verification