Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aloïsius" data-source="post: 3862728" data-attributes="member: 1191">OoT//They are not bastard, and there is nothing bad about it. It's just that one of the wellknown incentive to sell new book is power. People like to have more.My players are all min-maxers. Those with access to the more recent books have more powerfull PC.Sure, an aspect of this power come from "more option" (eg : cleric), but more often that not it's "more powerful options". Of course, as I said, not everything will be more powerful in latter books : it's not possible. But a great deal of the new material is. I'm not even sure this is completely conscious : we are all gamers, and the designers are gamers, too. When they design something "new and interesting" it's often "interesting" from a player point of view : more powerful. //OoTWhat bugs me with the warlord is its healing ability. Seems really NOT logical. And I fail to see which kind of fantasy archertype it fills. Aragorn the healer ? But D&D healing is "insta-magic" and it looks like 4e will be even worse (immediate action, so you don't "waste" your time healing someone). I don't like that. I would rather reduce the damage output thus reducing the healing requirements. I don't like healing to take place during the fight. It should happen after, when the adrenaline stop to erase the pain. It should be more dramatic and -gasp- less video-gamey (I said it ! i'm feeling dirty now)</blockquote>