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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5659312" data-attributes="member: 81381">Cool thread everyone <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I really do feel like the essentials fighters were a compromise. There is some interesting design in there, but I think the two motives- making a newbie-friendly class, and making a lapsed player friendly class- were not not nearly as compatable as people would hope.  A new player needs a pregen, power cards, and to have a cool guy to use so they have fun. If you don't like pregens well, a 'simple modular system' like mr mearls talks about would be best starting from a uniform or near-uniform base in any event.  The actual mechanics of essentials don't really back up the idea of simplicity or new players, either. Consider the essential's defender mechanic. A situational aura replacing a mark does not suit a new player nearly as well as some people would claim.  If anything, a newbie-friendly fighter would not have interupt mechanics- it would create a kind of reverse-mark that the DM would manage, as opposed to the player. Marks kind of work like this already, but by removing marks- by putting the mechanic more onto the player instead of in a space the GM could help them more readily with, the essentials defender fighter is actually less newbie friendly in my opinion. A lapsed player needs any number of things, depending on their 'ancestry', so to speak. A lot of lapsed players came back not due to the essentials fighter, but the PHB1 fighter, and other similar design successes. Moving away from the phb fighter may have brought some people back, but it wasn't good damage control, because clearly many fans of 4e like phb1 fighters, and consider them example of the early promise of the system.</blockquote>

Verification