Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7042819" data-attributes="member: 87792">Would you mind not implying I didn't mention those two. There are, however three points about them:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They are made at a different time from deciding who to hit. Which is why I specifically said the largest choice not the only choice.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The other choices are binary - a choice of two options. Chosing between two things is easy.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There is a default in both choices meaning you barely need to think about it.</li> </ol>This means that it breaks the options down into bite-sized chunks where the largest choice is about who to attack.In short what they did with the slayer.But the way I suspect you want to force them to make that choice is to give them two at wills, an encounter power, and a daily, all of which are attack powers. This means that if there are three possible enemies on the board for a Slayer you've a choice between three options and two trivial ones. For a hypothetical Tony Vargas Slayer you need to choose your four options at the same time as choosing who to hit. That's twelve separate choices, many of which are superficially similar. Twelve separate options can send people well into the realms of analysis paralysis.I have seen this repeatedly in play at my table. Where the experience of two players I know has been utterly transformed by giving them scouts, slayers, hunters, and elementalists over classic 4e characters.How? How can the experience of a fighter get simpler in power selection than having the largest and most complex choice you make being who to hit?I get it. You, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] do not like the Slayer. You do not want to play a Slayer. And you'd be bored playing a Slayer. So would I. This is why I do not play a slayer and am never going to. But please, for the love of the Raven Queen, stop trying to claim that the character classes that transformed the experience of two players at my table when they had been playing 4e since launch are BadWrongFun and they should be taken away.I get it. You, [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], like 4e. So do I. And it meshes with how you think. It also meshes with how I think - and with the OODA loop. People, however, under-rate how much different people respond to different things. And I much prefer a broader game where I do not have 100% of it designed for my personal tastes because it allows more people to have more fun.In short the idea is that the entire thing would be built for people that think like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], and people like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] would be able to skim all the best choices off the top rather than ever have to put up with people having fun with a class that wasn't built for them. It would be tough to balance the MBA-enhancing stances with the full game and all it's little MBA-enhancing feats and items, and to balance that with the Slayer's basically OP fighter chassis and striker damage, including the double-dip-DEX-to-damage exploit.  Indeed. It wouldn't have any compensation at all to make up for the missing versatility. You are explicitly saying that here. And versatility is power as the 3.X wizard demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt. Therefore you are explicitly talking about punishing people by giving them a less versatile class that is no better at what it tries to do than a classic fighter (because you get to cherry-pick all its power).Please stop trying to ensure that my friends have less fun playing 4e and characters that are intentionally less powerful just because you don't like the fact that they get toys that you don't like playing with.</blockquote>

Verification