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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5598308" data-attributes="member: 46713">Okay, just one more post then you're rid of me - promised! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />After writing my last post I had an epiphany:I finally understand just what WotC has done - and it makes me feel as if I'm a citizen of Orwell's Oceania. I never quite understood why they changed the names of the PHB1 classes in their Class Compendium; now I do.Once upon a time before WotC decided to rewrite history to fit their new vision of the game the PHB1 contained classes like the fighter. Then they had this idea to reinvent the fighter in a simplified form to appeal to players who felt 4e classes were too complex. Thus Essentials was born. There was only one problem: The new fighter was so unlike the old one it might as well be an entirely different class!To solve this problem it wouldn't be sufficient to build a new floor on top of the existing structure, they had to create a new foundation.What was the fighter class became the weaponmaster class type, and 'fighter' was henceforth known as an abstract class to serve as a container for class types as varied as the weaponmaster, the slayer, or the knight. No longer were classes restricted to belong to a single power source or role.So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.I guess, if I go back and edit my first post in this thread to say the opposite of what it originally said, it means I've been right from the very beginning?It's like me claiming that 6 + 7 = 42. After someone objects I simply redefine '+' to mean 'multiply'. See, I was right!The thing is: I've obviously fallen for WotCs original claim that it was safe to ignore Essentials. Well it isn't. I no longer feel fit discussing this game that once was 4e. It has been slowly and silently subverted and swallowed whole.Note that I don't claim and have never claimed that it's causing a problem if 'classic' and Essentials class types (ha!) are played alongside, except you cannot share books.But it's no longer possible to treat Essentials as something distinct from 4e when discussing the game. 'Classic 4e' has gone the way of the dodo, just like all the other editions before; it has become part of the legacy and would probably better be discussed in the forum bearing that name.I'll just keep playing the game I know until our group disintegrates or makes the switch to an 'all Essentials' game. And I'll try to avoid posting in a forum about a game I obviously no longer know. So long and thanks for all the fish! <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification