Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8716540" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yes, they were. DMG pg 64. The 4e RC was just a re-publication to consolidate most stuff.Skill Challenges I will absolutely admit were...imperfect. I don't remember the exact rules for how they were determined originally. I'll have to look that up.For me, Essentials is a mixed bag. I still strongly dislike the idea of cross-role subclasses, but that ship has sailed and I don't care enough to keep fighting that battle. Likewise, the noticeably much weaker design of several Essentials-era classes and subclasses (Seeker, Binder, Vampire) is not to my taste.Conversely, I am a huge proponent of offering a variety of options with different skill floor, so long as their skill ceiling is similar. (This was a thing many noted about the 4e Warlock: it had a meaningfully higher skill floor than Sorcerer, and MUCH higher than Ranger, but essentially the same skill ceiling, so it had the same top-end optimization potential but you had to work somewhat harder to get to it.) I also love the idea of the Shadow source manifesting in the form of monster classes, e.g. I would have loved to see Lycanthrope Defender, Gorgon Controller (or some other "evil eye" type being), and maybe a Witch-Doctor Leader? Stuff like that. Go all-out with the "monster of the week" stuff.</blockquote>