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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5554200" data-attributes="member: 78116">Well, that does explain why you think the vampire is a viable striker and you must really not care about mechanics! Because the BMR pet is best as basically a flanking buddy for a bow ranger.No, you should read my point again. My point is that it should support all three tiers. Other books did, why not the two MVs? Nonsense. Heroic tier monsters WERE THE LEAST AFFECTED by the maths changes.I never called it bad, I called it disappointing while simultaneously praising its high quality monsters. One can do BOTH at exactly the same time. Shocking I know!I have and maybe you should. Maybe you should consider that epic has the LEAST viable monsters (that aren't demons, I mean if you REALLY like demons you are set at epic tier. Hope your PCs REALLY enjoy fighting demons for 10 levels). Maybe you should consider epic monsters are MOST damaged by the new maths changes, desperately need the most work in terms of updating their powers and that epic solos especially are the most worthless monsters in 4E.I can gladly sacrifice a few heroic monsters out of the hundreds of viable heroic tier creatures. I'm not lacking for choice in heroic tier and wasn't even before MV. I AM lacking for choice in epic tier and still am.I disagree. I like flavor/fluff as much as anyone, but fluff is malleable but mechanics are how that fluff is expressed in game terms. If the fluff is poor, who cares because good mechanics can save it. I can put my own fluff on it if I want and fix it. Poor mechanics are harder to solve (as debates like this thread show). It means having to fiddle with rules directly, something I've rarely had to do in 4Es lifespan before recently.But if mechanics are bad, then the class or concept cannot support what it is trying to do in game terms. This is the problem with the animal master who has the worlds most vulnerable minion and when it pops, he basically can't make any use of his powers for an entire adventure (which could be 3 levels or so. That's a LONG time). He's really not that much of an "animal master".lol.You mean the damage type that nobody takes because it's generally regarded as useless? Because that's probably what you meant. I can't tell you the last time I saw a PC took a necrotic keyword power - for obvious reasons.And CONCEPTS that fail entirely on their MECHANICS are utterly worthless.Um. It really doesn't and perhaps you should actually try a Binder before making such comments. It's actually a stripped down warlock that can't deal damage OR out control a regular warlock (it's fixed encounters powers are not good and its dailies can be equally pinched by the standard warlock).If you want to add CB filler and options that are strictly inferior to the game, sure. Mechanics are important, because if a character concept is wonderful but cannot express that concept mechanically, then it is worthless. There are too many examples in 4E of having a concept and expressing it with A+ results mechanically. I simply think you have too narrow a view of the game, where you think that classes must be mechanically gimped/worthless to express a concept. In good design, mechanics are not sacrificed for concepts: Instead they express them extremely well.Nope.Sorry, but that's just you projecting and without a valid point either. I mean MM3 last year supported epic tier brilliantly. So did the book that followed it right after (Dark Sun Creature Catalog). So did Demonomicon (though we have enough demons already). All three were fantastic books.Then there was Dark Sun Campaign Setting: Really, do you NEED me to say any more here? Psionic Power was fantastic, really adding some great options and actually changed my opinions about psionics I loved it that much. I also liked Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. My objections to books like HoS and these themes are MECHANICAL. I've explained my position multiple times, but suffice to say you are simply wrong on this point.I've been extremely happy with 4E for over 2 years, so this is nonsense. Heck, I've repeatedly said what I want and it's not even that hard.Of course it was, never argued otherwise but back then Dragon content wasn't "rigorously" tested by Wizards R+D. In addition to this, Student of Caiphon was poached because Radiant - unlike necrotic just so you know - is one of the best damage types in the game and has excellent support. Now that SoC is Warlock only it is perfectly fine, because Warlocks could use the PP and its great for them. At the same time, mechanically, Student of Caiphon was a great PP. Flavorwise AND mechanically. It was a complete success. I can tell you now: Not many classes are going to be poaching *anything* from HoS classes. Except maybe some half-elves that want to take the vampires +2 accuracy charm powers (but that's a corner case and probably not worth the feat investment).Of which the stuff from HoS is neither. That's the problem, because when something is poor mechanically that has direct repercussions at the game table: It's less fun. There are reasons certain things are left to die in 4E. I disagree so vehemently here I cannot disagree any harder. The game HAS changed and so has its quality. I'm just not acting like an ostrich about it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Have you ever considered that the problem there is a normal warlock can take the binders dailies, be better at them than a binder, do more damage AND has better control powers in its encounters? <a href="http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/27475981/Ties_That_Bind:_A_Binders_Handbook" target="_blank">I suggest reading through this thread to get an idea just what the problem with the binder is</a>.Quite frankly, I don't think you think about the mechanics or how they impact the game. Mechanics are what is expressed directly at a table. Flavor and thematics do not save poor mechanics - otherwise nobody would be asking wizards for support for Runepriests/Seekers (who desperately need it). That is an undeniable fact.Edit:You can tell stories without rules, but you cannot play a game without them.That's kind of where your entire argument falls over <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification