Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malisteen" data-source="post: 5397003" data-attributes="member: 44380">I for one don't mind the 'essentials-ness' of the book.&nbsp; Just the lack of any actual shadow classes for the shadow power source.&nbsp; Did necromancer have to be it's own class?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Was it it's own class in previous editions?&nbsp; Not particularly.People like to point to the Seeker and Runepriest, both duds I'll admit, and say 'we have too many classes, why would you want any more?I would instead point to the Warlord and the Shaman.&nbsp; Were either their own class in previous editions?&nbsp; Not particularly.&nbsp; Did they have to be new classes?&nbsp; No, the warlord could have been a leader-secondary build of fighter, and the Shaman could have been a summoning-oriented build of druid.&nbsp; Less class glut, right?&nbsp; And yet the Warlord and the Shaman are two of the coolest classes in 4e, they really brought something new to the table and expanded the game.&nbsp; Heck, were it not for how cool the Warlord is, I might never have tried 4e in the first place. I'd gladly accept the cost of having a few more Seekers and Runepriests if it meant we also got more Warlords and Shamen.That's what HoS costs us.&nbsp; HoS will come and go, and no it won't hurt the game.&nbsp; But it won't expand the game, either.&nbsp; It doesn't enable any new characters that we couldn't already play, it doesn't add anything more meaningful then a few new powers for the wizard (because if there's anything the wizard needs, its more powers).&nbsp; It gives us nothing, and all it cost was any potential the Shadow power source might have had to add anything cool or new or unique to the D&amp;D experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malisteen, post: 5397003, member: 44380"] I for one don't mind the 'essentials-ness' of the book. Just the lack of any actual shadow classes for the shadow power source. Did necromancer [i]have[/i] to be it's own class? No. Was it it's own class in previous editions? Not particularly. People like to point to the Seeker and Runepriest, both duds I'll admit, and say 'we have too many classes, why would you want any more? I would instead point to the Warlord and the Shaman. Were either their own class in previous editions? Not particularly. Did they [i]have[/i] to be new classes? No, the warlord could have been a leader-secondary build of fighter, and the Shaman could have been a summoning-oriented build of druid. Less class glut, right? And yet the Warlord and the Shaman are two of the coolest classes in 4e, they really brought something new to the table and expanded the game. Heck, were it not for how cool the Warlord is, I might never have tried 4e in the first place. I'd gladly accept the cost of having a few more Seekers and Runepriests if it meant we also got more Warlords and Shamen. That's what HoS costs us. HoS will come and go, and no it won't hurt the game. But it won't expand the game, either. It doesn't enable any new characters that we couldn't already play, it doesn't add anything more meaningful then a few new powers for the wizard (because if there's anything the wizard needs, its more powers). It gives us nothing, and all it cost was any potential the Shadow power source might have had to add anything cool or new or unique to the D&D experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification