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="catastrophic" data-source="post: 5398455" data-attributes="member: 81381">Certainly knights and slayers pale compared to earlier versions of the fighter, there's no comparison. But that's more an issue of how much the designers overcompensated, and the loss of powers, and not what i'm talking about here.  It isn't a matter of wether or not a class has essentials style mechanics (and those mechanics vary greatly). It's a matter of what mechanics Avengers, Invokers and other such classes have.  These classes are designed around the idea that, regardless of subtype, classes have a distinct mechanic that sets them aside from other classes. Different subtyped have their own take on the mechanic, but every subtype has that similar language in it's design. This is a very positive design element, and it's not a very good idea to abandon it.  It's certainly not a good idea to pretend that such differences are irelevant in the face of a vague summary of what a class supposedly is.  There are good reasons to reduce the degree to which powers are exclusive to a given class, but that's not really what essentials are doing. I'm also not a big fan of class bloat, and I do think that there's a lot of content alreayd released for every class.  Regardless, the core class mechancs remain a solid piece of design, and ignoring them makes for inferior class design, and classes which a player will find it harder to get to grips with. For all the dogma and backslash to the contrary, 4e made very positive gains in design, and those gains should be retained.</blockquote>

Verification