Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="karolusb" data-source="post: 5346815" data-attributes="member: 83359">While I appreciate what you are going for here, as stated the vast majority of non D&amp;D players would have a hard time distinguishing most of the things we actually consider distinct.&nbsp; Certainly Sorceror, Warlock, and Wizard would be cause for confusion.&nbsp; &nbsp;I overall agree with you though, PHB3 had a lot of issues for me.&nbsp; The Runepriest also in my mind fails the test.&nbsp; I don't mind the battlemind as much, not that I think it is actually a good class, but at least it uses the &quot;psionic&quot; power structure, which gives it some distinct hook (Though it begs the question of why monks don't work like psionic characters).&nbsp; It is no worse than several generations of Psionic Warriors that came before it.&nbsp; &nbsp;There is the practical problem that The runepriset and Seeker came out after thier power books, both duplicate role power combos, niether has gotten or likely will get much Dev love, and both seem to have problems (at least to my eye) really telling me what I am supposed to be getting from them.&nbsp; &nbsp;They also have flavor problems, why do I care?&nbsp; In a different world where &quot;rune&quot; wielding races had some distinctive element (say a world where dwaves couldn't wield traditional magic, ala warhammer) maybe they would matter, but in a world where all races can belong to all classes the runepriest just brings nothing to the table I couldn't get from a cleric with a couple feats.&nbsp; &nbsp;Essentials hasn't replaced PHB1-2 for me, but I suspect (since I have no love for the psionic power source, or crystal and plant people) that it will do away with PHB 3 entirely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="karolusb, post: 5346815, member: 83359"] While I appreciate what you are going for here, as stated the vast majority of non D&D players would have a hard time distinguishing most of the things we actually consider distinct. Certainly Sorceror, Warlock, and Wizard would be cause for confusion. I overall agree with you though, PHB3 had a lot of issues for me. The Runepriest also in my mind fails the test. I don't mind the battlemind as much, not that I think it is actually a good class, but at least it uses the "psionic" power structure, which gives it some distinct hook (Though it begs the question of why monks don't work like psionic characters). It is no worse than several generations of Psionic Warriors that came before it. There is the practical problem that The runepriset and Seeker came out after thier power books, both duplicate role power combos, niether has gotten or likely will get much Dev love, and both seem to have problems (at least to my eye) really telling me what I am supposed to be getting from them. They also have flavor problems, why do I care? In a different world where "rune" wielding races had some distinctive element (say a world where dwaves couldn't wield traditional magic, ala warhammer) maybe they would matter, but in a world where all races can belong to all classes the runepriest just brings nothing to the table I couldn't get from a cleric with a couple feats. Essentials hasn't replaced PHB1-2 for me, but I suspect (since I have no love for the psionic power source, or crystal and plant people) that it will do away with PHB 3 entirely. [/QUOTE]

Verification