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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5598341" data-attributes="member: 71571">Buhwhah?Would you have prefered if they just made new classes with some new abilities and some same abilities, and absolutely no connection at all to the old classes, including no ability to use already established powers and feats, and have nothing but essentials feat support, while adding nothing to existing classes?Because THAT is the situation you describe, where the new Essentials stuff has no 'cross-compatability'.  That's what that situation is.  Is it because you don't like the deviation from requiring Daily/Encounter/At-Will/Utility basic structure?  That's a valid concern.  Is it because you think there's no support for older classes?  Because that is incorrect, there is.  A perfect example is in the Blackguard class.  They have an at-will attack power that is Strength based, and deals bonus damage based on adjacent enemies.  It is a Paladin Attack 1 power.  Are you aware that this power is now an option for the classic Paladin?  That the blackguard class added a bunch of options for Paladins that want to do damage, like the Ardent?  That's support for classic classes.  That every single Warpriest power can be taken by a Cleric/Templar?  That's support for classic classes.  That there's a smattering of new utility powers for the Fighter/Weaponmaster that fit perfectly with its own strategy?  That's support for classic classes.  That there's a LOT of new at-will, encounter, and daily powers for the Wizard that is absolutely 100% usable (read: awesome) in the hands of the classic wizard?  That's support for classic classes.These aren't opinions.  Those are solid facts.  You have your reasons for disliking them, and the facts are diametricly opposed to it.Now you're claiming that because the classic classes' class types are given names so it's easier than saying 'classic mage' 'classic fighter' etc, that therefore 4th edition is broken forever?I mean... does adding 'weaponmaster' (a very appropriate name) after fighter on your character sheet will change the fact that you have Cleave, Tide of Iron, mark with each attack, have great OAs, and in every meaningful way are exactly the same as you were before the update was printed?  (Come and Get It was gonna get nerfed anyways)You're being demonstrably irrational about this.  You asked if it was compatible, people who've tried both have said it is.  Then you said 'but it's not cross-compatible' and it's been proven that it is.  Now you're complaining about class-type names being applied to classic classes?Chicken Little had a better world perspective.PS:Jhaelen, you've been one of the most vocal and analytical proponents of 4th edition since the very beginning.  I have a lot of respect for you, so I'm going to try a different tack.Remember back in the beginning when people were trying to grok 4th edition, and the best advice we could give was 'Don't just try to read it and grok it... play with it.  Once you play it, it all clicks and you realize the game's depth and fun.'That advice applies to Essentials class types.  Don't just sit there and scoff them.  Play them in a mixed game, give them the old college try.  You'll find everything works nice and smoothly.  You can play the classic class you love and your buddy can play the essentials class, and I guarantee that there's going to be no problems.  You can grab an essentials feat, he can grab a classic feat, no problem.Just... try it.  It's really not that bad.  The new classes are very cohesive, and they're solid performers.  I prefer the classic power structure myself so I wouldn't play a slayer or thief... but the blackguard was very fun, and VERY new.  It plays better than it seems on paper.</blockquote>

Verification