Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5508221" data-attributes="member: 63763">Then again, outside of the newest options (runepriest and seeker), most of the old styles have bloated up so much it will take a very long time for Essentials to catch up.  They aren't as good a striker as other strikers, or as good a controller as other controllers, but they are somewhere in the middle. They ARE getting an update, they are going through all the PHB classes and doing a sort of "all errata so far, and a bit more" articles, basically using the stuff that would have been in the class compendium and putting it up in Dragon magazine. There was a hint that one thing it may do is update curse damage to be more like the rogue's sneak attack (change it to per turn vs. per round). And, what can they do that they haven't already? They got support in Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Arcane Power and Dragon Annual. They do lack some options (i.e. an easy way to get heavy armor for con/cha build, or a cha based at-will for star locks) but over time they have at least made a con focused starlock possible with tons of powers (and they always have the option of dabbling, the powers are only labelled for flavor reasons unless they have rider text explicitly linking it to a pact for added benefit), especially since they have a con based paragon path, not to mention the ones available to all warlocks. On top of all that, they've recently put the new racial flex stats, so that there are PC races with Con/Int available.  I'm assuming you are referring to the Binder. The gloom pact for the hexblde will provide more of the same as the other hexblades had ... some utilty powers and daily powers that are strikery and some should not require an implement. Since in both cases the striker damage is seperate from the powers, they should be usable by both [outside of any that require the weapon to use ... but hexblades seem to restrict those to the encounter and at-will powers other characters couldn't take anyway]. The binder is a controller build for the warlock, and from what I've heard, has encounter powers that any (non-hexblade) warlock can take. As a controller, that would mean these powers lean in that direction, giving an old school warlock the option to be even more controllery instead of more strikery. We don't know yet, but there is a good chance the binder will also be charisma based, which does mean that Con based warlocks probably won't see much in the way of support going forward. We'll have to wait and see what comes of the "Class Compendium"-esque articles.   Of course, they had a lot of time to fix the warlock, and they didn't. Having a new/better Warlock might mean they aren't going to fix the old warlock ... but considering they didn't fix the old warlock when they had the chance, it's assuming they would have got around to it if not for Essentials. Since book 2, they already seemed to have figured out they made mistakes. They never really corrected for dual attack stat classes. Ranger is probably the closest to ok, but it did get two martial power books, and lots of powers could be used for either build, effectively increasing the number of options available to either class. Despite including more powers, builds and options in power books and Dragon, they never fixed it. It's quite possible that they never would have, barring a complete reboot.   Of course, the same could be said of anything else. When they put out PHB3 with psionic stuff, they focused on psionic stuff for a while, and weren't rushing to do PHB material again. The X Power books only started to go onto a second cycle with Martial Power 2, and it's possible that as a result, they didn't see a big demand for Arcane Power 2 or Divine Power 2. The question of when they are going to focus on the old stuff again is fair, but it's a bit unreasonable to assume that, if not for Essentials, they would have finally figured out what needed to be done to fix all their old mistakes. Or even that their next step would be not to build upon the newest classes with the least support, but instead of focus on the oldest classes with the most support.  While some should probably be cut out [like paragon defenses which is entirely replaced by the Essential version which is avaiable at heroic tier and scales with tier, giving a greater benefit in all ways], there are going to be some people who have reasons for liking their subpar choices. And in the case of the stuff that should be replaced, they are left mostly so as not to render someone's existing character illegal because the feat he has no longer exists, and he needs to get ddi, or purchase the new book to access that feat, etc. Consider if their solution was that the starlock was a trap, so they just errata'd it out of the game. While traps are bad in terms of requiring a level of rules mastery to make new players, the whole idea of Essentials is to give a trap free option for players. Some people like rules mastery, and by not eliminating the old stuff, they still have access to it. With lots of options comes options that are better than others. The alternative is a narrow list of good options ... as presented in the Essentials books.   Yeah, basically this. The old stuff is still getting indirect support to some extent, and considering the amount of support it already has, adding more to it probably won't solve any problems they didn't solve yet. Still, thhey have said that with the upcoming Class Compendium articles they'll not just be compiliing errata or adding new stuff on top of the old, but actually changing some of the older stuff, hopefully improving it. Heck, they could give a lot of the star pact powers the sorceror king's pact treatment and make them con or cha to attack powers. They might also give them hide and chainmail prof like the hexblade gets, etc. [Also, speaking of AC issues ... the shaman could use some help in that regard as well].</blockquote>

Verification