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: 7043642" data-attributes="member: 87792">You need to go a bit further than that - you'd still overpower Rain of Blows because it gets the Slayer static damage bonus. On the other hand the Slayer static damage bonus rises at fifth level partly because the Slayer doesn't have a daily power.In most cases they did.The big problem with most Slayers (and thieves) was the charge-kit.Hear, hear!On the other hand this would make the choiceless track an explicit second-class set of choices. Why do you want to do this?There's a running joke in my group that whenever I've played a striker it's ended up as a controller. (A monk, a warlock with a habit of chain-reacting minions, and a former drow priestess gloom-pact hexblade who brought the cloud of darkness down, popped her encounter power, and all anyone outside heard were the screams as the whip struck home).The knight needs something to prevent forced movement. But other than that I've found it's a great NPC class although I managed to make one hammer-knight build that was fun to play.Your alternatives are just as big monkey-wrenches in their way and make balancing actually quite a bit harder. But definitely agreed on the Elementalist (and I was agitating for something of the sort until it came out).That depends what you mean by "actual complexity". If we silo off options into what are effectively new classes that share utility powers  then they don't add anything like as much combinatorial complexity that makes for a headache to balance as people pick one thing from column A and one thing from column B and end up with the <a href="http://ihititwithmyaxe.tumblr.com/post/22331104288/breaking-dd-35-the-locate-city-nuke" target="_blank">Locate City Bomb</a> (to pick probably the second most egregious example from 3.5).If you mean complexity in play then it adds very little complexity to any actual game at any actual table because players are only playing one character. The DM doesn't have to worry about all the player's abilities. And neither does any player have to worry about other player options.This just leaves complexity for optimisers and complexity for people trying to master the totality of the game for theoretical situations. And optimisers like complexity to play with while mastering the totality of the game doesn't help much in play.Indeed. You would instead somehow have a massive amount of developer time needed to oversee every single class in the game and check about spammability for very little reward. You can not just arbitrarily say all classes can do this - you need to develop and playtest each separately.That said, I absolutely agree that the Elementalist should have turned up in HOF* (and replaced the Mage - swapping your implement expertise for a school of specialisation should have been a Dragon thing).That people who otherwise struggle with 4e have a much better time of it. There were two of them at one of my tables.And if you don't consider being able to have more people enjoying the same game to be a positive result I really don't know what to tell you.</blockquote>

Verification