Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 9158255" data-attributes="member: 996">Not at all (not unpopular, not really a tangent), the Knight was just inferior to other defenders (that's the fighter's story in other editions, too:&nbsp; most popular class, but often a starkly inferior class - a trap choice).&nbsp; Lacking dailies, and getting only one encounter power (and that being striker rather than defender support) hurt the Knight, and the aura, without combat superiority, was pretty easy to bypass, sometimes literally without trying.&nbsp;&nbsp; I found that it was a good idea to have the monsters hold back a bit, tactically, when the party has only an aura defender.&nbsp; It's actually kinda typical of D&amp;D design (and on-topic), if a class or feature is designed to be 'simple,' it's also seems to be lacking.&nbsp; IDK why it is that relative ease of play needs to be penalized, but it seems like a deep assumption.&nbsp; Similarly, popularity seems to be penalized, and unpopularity rewarded - the Cleric and Bard were deeply unpopular classes for a long time, but the Cleric got buffed to the nines in 3e and the Bard has gone from a second-rate MU in 2e &amp; 3e to a solid leader in 4e to a Full Caster in 5e ... all while continuing to endure horny bard memes.... (is it just &quot;people don't like this class, must be because it's underpowered?&quot;&nbsp; I mean, maybe players just don't want to rp holy rollers and singing cowboys?&nbsp; maybe?)[spoiler=&quot;tangent, pefferences&quot;]I found the Knight entertaining for about 2 hrs, and after that it was, like, why am I here.&nbsp; So it's about twice as interesting as the Slayer. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; But, I like Leaders and Controllers, Defenders if they're particularly interesting, which the 4e Fighter was.&nbsp; Strikers just don't appeal to me, at all.&nbsp; The Hunter primal/martial, it wasn't a very engaging controller, and its best control was from its primal utilities, so it was disappointing, as a 'martial controller,' in concept.&nbsp; But, tho it was no wizard, it was not badly underpowered - in my 4e campaign, someone played a Hunter into Epic, and did have some worthwhile tricks even at that level.&nbsp; Personally, I found Fighter and Warlord pretty awesome.&nbsp; I was disappointed that there was no real attempt at a martial controller - I did have fun with an intentionally retro Eladrin Wizard McFighter, leaning into &quot;elven fighter/magic-user,&quot; though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; [/spoiler]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 9158255, member: 996"] Not at all (not unpopular, not really a tangent), the Knight was just inferior to other defenders (that's the fighter's story in other editions, too: most popular class, but often a starkly inferior class - a trap choice). Lacking dailies, and getting only one encounter power (and that being striker rather than defender support) hurt the Knight, and the aura, without combat superiority, was pretty easy to bypass, sometimes literally without trying. I found that it was a good idea to have the monsters hold back a bit, tactically, when the party has only an aura defender. It's actually kinda typical of D&D design (and on-topic), if a class or feature is designed to be 'simple,' it's also seems to be lacking. IDK why it is that relative ease of play needs to be penalized, but it seems like a deep assumption. Similarly, popularity seems to be penalized, and unpopularity rewarded - the Cleric and Bard were deeply unpopular classes for a long time, but the Cleric got buffed to the nines in 3e and the Bard has gone from a second-rate MU in 2e & 3e to a solid leader in 4e to a Full Caster in 5e ... all while continuing to endure horny bard memes.... (is it just "people don't like this class, must be because it's underpowered?" I mean, maybe players just don't want to rp holy rollers and singing cowboys? maybe?) [spoiler="tangent, pefferences"] I found the Knight entertaining for about 2 hrs, and after that it was, like, why am I here. So it's about twice as interesting as the Slayer. ;) But, I like Leaders and Controllers, Defenders if they're particularly interesting, which the 4e Fighter was. Strikers just don't appeal to me, at all. The Hunter primal/martial, it wasn't a very engaging controller, and its best control was from its primal utilities, so it was disappointing, as a 'martial controller,' in concept. But, tho it was no wizard, it was not badly underpowered - in my 4e campaign, someone played a Hunter into Epic, and did have some worthwhile tricks even at that level. Personally, I found Fighter and Warlord pretty awesome. I was disappointed that there was no real attempt at a martial controller - I did have fun with an intentionally retro Eladrin Wizard McFighter, leaning into "elven fighter/magic-user," though. ;) [/spoiler] [/QUOTE]

Verification