Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 5747189" data-attributes="member: 60075">The remainder of your post was really well put and convincing, so thank you, but this point I wanted to correct:It's not just the number of options that made the Essentials cleric a 'snooze fest' for me. I found I had nothing interest to do. Whether that's two not-interesting things or eight is here peripheral. I found each of the options lacked punch. That's not something I'd say about the Essentials wizard or rangers, some of whose powers I like. But the cleric - much like the Class Compendium variants of the PH 1 cleric and wizard - lack some of the oomph that the classes had right out of the gate in June 2008.Finally, I've myself expressed sentiments similar to yours before, and before Essentials was even a rumour, <a href="http://rpggeek.com/article/4771830#4771830" target="_blank">here</a>. (I'll add that the group soon abandoned the houserule with poker chips, because it did alter the game too much.) In the end we agree about most of the underlying philosophy that makes playing an RPG great. It's 5% mechanics and 95% group dynamics. It's just that I don't think Essentials gives us an interesting 5%. I also feel that it solved (what in the linked to post I call) the 'complexity dial' in a very, very heavy handed way, and that it doesn't offer enough by way of upward complexity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 5747189, member: 60075"] The remainder of your post was really well put and convincing, so thank you, but this point I wanted to correct: It's not just the number of options that made the Essentials cleric a 'snooze fest' for me. I found I had [I]nothing [/I]interest to do. Whether that's two not-interesting things or eight is here peripheral. I found each of the options lacked punch. That's not something I'd say about the Essentials wizard or rangers, some of whose powers I like. But the cleric - much like the Class Compendium variants of the PH 1 cleric and wizard - lack some of the oomph that the classes had right out of the gate in June 2008. Finally, I've myself expressed sentiments similar to yours before, and before Essentials was even a [I]rumour[/I], [url=http://rpggeek.com/article/4771830#4771830]here[/url]. (I'll add that the group soon abandoned the houserule with poker chips, because it did alter the game too much.) In the end we agree about most of the underlying philosophy that makes playing an RPG great. It's 5% mechanics and 95% group dynamics. It's just that I don't think [I]Essentials [/I]gives us an interesting 5%. I also feel that it solved (what in the linked to post I call) the 'complexity dial' in a very, very heavy handed way, and that it doesn't offer enough by way of upward complexity. [/QUOTE]

Verification