Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5504105" data-attributes="member: 78116">It depends on what kind of fantasy you are trying to simulate.Edit:I felt the need to further comment on this point from Kamikaze MidgetI don't mind the slayer and similar, I just dislike the core design that makes them. That design seems to be replacing newer classes, so we end up with a less diverse game where we have "on rails" classes - something that quite a lot of people by all indications aren't that keen on. So this is clearly a case of Wizards listening to the wrong folks IMO - it's okay to have your slayers/thieves/scouts but only when you still get your new AEDU classes as well. Current indications to me is that essentialized builds that are very on rails of previous classes are going t be the norm. That bothers me and a lot of others for various reasons. It's also that I see 4E picking up aspects that to me were the worst aspects of previous editions - like pointless racial penalties (something that 4E wonderfully did away with originally). But you have to ask what the point of it is? Are they trying to win back the fanatic "I hate fighters having powers rar rar" lot? Because none of this changes anything about 4E. The original fighter is going to be there, ruining their immershuns with his come and get it - so it fixes absolutely nothing but annoys a whole lot of other people and divides the community. It also creates this silly divide, where now we have to pretend books are "essential" or "not-essential". This has the ridiculous definition of being if it has anything a previous class can't use then it's "essential" and a terrible blight. It doesn't matter that most of the original AEDU classes are getting several pages of stuff, because essential builds end up being their own little self-contained fiefdoms it apparently creates this divide. All the while nothing changes about those who dislike 4E anyway, because spellcasters are no better than anyone else and the thief arguably still outdoes your wizard for most things damage wise to begin with. Not to mention this direction has meant repeatedly recycling fighters/rogues/clerics/wizards AGAIN in 4E instead of genuinely new character classes.I mean on thinking about it, I'd sooner have interesting experiments on the traditional design like Psionics than I would redoing the bloody fighter again for the sake of gutting its options. You argue it adds to the game, I would argue it subtracts from the game because it replaces what could have originally been a new concept to 4E. We don't need to bring back sacred cows that have been firmly slain for peoples sensibilities.</blockquote>

Verification