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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5553863" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I think Beastmaster Rangers kick ass <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> , but yup, there's gold AND THERE'S STUFF THAT ISN'T. In EVERY book.So MV and MV2 are horribly flawed because they weren't aimed at the specific aspect of play that you're interested in seeing more support for? Lets look at MV, it has awesome monsters in it, like the new versions of the dragons. It was aimed at being a generally useful book for all players, and specifically for starting players. Low level monsters NEEDED BADLY to have another look. I realize it didn't focus on what you would have liked it to focus on, but you know that happens. Not every book focuses on what I specifically want to see next either. Calling it 'bad' is just not warranted. I thank wizards profusely for MV. I've found a vast number of excellent monsters in that book which I have been very happy to have and use eagerly and with pleasure. I'm not discounting anyone else's tastes. The fact is if you are publishing a game system you simply have hard choices to make. Every epic monster in that book means a heroic tier monster or a paragon monster that has to be dropped on the cutting room floor. Consider that. Take a balanced perspective.And I disagree. IMHO you're too caught up in mechanics. You've become far too focused on dice and numbers and your vision of the game has become too narrow. By simply making an "avoid necrotic resistance" feat or two (or whatever the exact mechanics would be) simply moves necrotic resistance from something different, interesting, SCARY, into just another damage type exactly like all the other damage types. Vampire is an awesome class because it depicts a vampire quite well. I've said it before and I will say it again. Mechanics which fail to provide any kind of CONCEPT which gives us the ability to do something genuinely new is worthless. I can say the same about most of the other material in HoS. HoS particularly of all books requires strong theme. I haven't spent much time analyzing the Binder, but I can tell you that the class works, and in fact IMHO provides a more thematically coherent warlock (albeit a somewhat narrowly defined one, I wouldn't want that to be the ONLY warlock). There are already a vast number of different mechanical options out there. An HoS which simply provided more of the same with different adjectives attached to it would have been a waste of ink. I can already refluff things myself. HoS succeeded well in its purpose, giving us options that play in genuinely new ways and open up thematic concepts which were not available before.And again, in the case of Order Adept, we agree. As when they designed Twin Strike, Rain of Blows, Blood Mage, etc etc etc they got one out of four a bit wrong. No doubt it will have to get hit with the nerf hammer, but what is that going to take? A 2 sentence errata? Ouch, that is so terrible. I will repeat what I've said before on the subject of the other themes:1) It is not necessary nor particularly advantageous for WotC to mindlessly repeat the same formula they've used before. DS and 4e in general have slightly different goals and requirements. The new themes serve a slightly different purpose from DS themes and have to work with different character types and needed to be slightly different.2) AGAIN, CONCEPT TRUMPS MECHANICS. This is a NECESSITY. I cannot repeat this enough times. An Animal Master mutilated into something that fits a highly rigid power structure at the expense of any kind of thematic appropriateness IS WORTHLESS. There is no point in putting out material that doesn't give people options that are worthwhile character development concepts. This is especially true at this later point in the 4e product lifecycle where people ALREADY have a vast array of mechanical choices and the main complaint about the game is thematic, not mechanical.And we agree on this point. My issue here is you're condemnation applies equally to every single 4e product released by WotC. The issue isn't WotC, IMHO you want to look closer to home. I really don't mean that to sound harsh, I've always appreciated your voice here. I think the super critical Aegeri that cannot be pleased though is not the voice I was enjoying. Call me selfish, I'd like to see that version of Aegeri more than the one I'm hearing here now. I realize I'm projecting my wants and desires on you. As I said, call me selfish, lol. Sure, my argument is the same one I've been making during this whole thread. This is not some kind of new phenomenon. You're going to tell me that Student of Caiphon was just fine? It wasn't obvious it would be poached? It was obvious to ME when I read it (and sure enough I had a player do that too). I won't belabor you with the vast number of examples. You know the material as well as I do and, again IMHO, I think the issue here is you've gone from focusing on what is fun and interesting to what is imperfect or doesn't satisfy specific itches.Eh, it isn't a matter of reasonable and unreasonable. It is a matter of outlook. I perceive that the outlook of some people has changed. I don't think the quality of the game system has actually changed. I think the designers have come to a point where they've said the big things they were after saying with the game as it was released in 2008. I think the aims they have now involve gaining a greater understanding of and emphasizing more the territory they were accused of abandoning with core 4e. This could be looked at as pandering to critics of the game, but it can also be looked at as a purely natural evolution. Mike Mearls and Co have pumped out basically every combat option that anyone will ever need, rehashed them, and rehashed them again. The newer material is more thematically oriented. It is the designers saying "yeah, and we can also have a class that sticks to its theme even if it won't appeal to some min/maxer." The game grew up.Honestly, we come from very different perspectives (at least so I gather). I've LONG ago been through my gaming phase where I craved new tricky mechanical stuff for its own sake. I've LONG since been down the optimizing and power gaming road, and back. I've done all that stuff. All I care about now is having a good variety of material, solid mechanics, and support for cool concepts that can be folded into my game and I don't have to invent for myself. Something like Vampire is perfect. The distinction between necrotic and elemental damage types is perfect. A Binder that manifests bound spirits is great. I eat this stuff up. I'm OK with someone saying "Oh, there's this mechanical problem, doing X instead of Y could solve this without breaking the concept." That's great, and I don't have an issue with that level of critique. I do have an issue with the idea that what we had 3 years ago (which often did NOT support many of my needs thematically) was superior to what we're getting now. It was different. It had a different emphasis. It was good stuff, but what we get now is good stuff too, better in some ways. Anyway, peace. Just think about it.</blockquote>

Verification