dontmazemebro
First Post
Let me begin by saying that I really appreciate the changes to character advancement that 4E has made. I like how paragon paths and epic destinies give every character "prestige class" options. I also like how paragon and epic advancement help differentiate characters within a class. However, I think Wizards has made a mistake with the implementation. Namely, there are releasing far too many of them.
There are currently 60 epic destinies and over 300 paragon paths on the D&D Compendium. This glut of paths and destinies leads to a variety of problems. With so many classes, it's harder to "vet" them to ensure game balance - some are grossly overpowered, others are woefully underpowered. Another issue I have is that with so many of these paths and destinies, the archetypes they represent tend to lack motivation; some of the archetypes are just plain bizarre. The obvious solution is just to ignore these paths and destinies, but I feel this "kitchen-sink mentality" where anything goes leads to lower product quality. I'd rather a book have only three paragon paths and extra pages of fluff then reams of useless paths I would never consider using.
The Kensei. The Divine Oracle. The Battle Captain. The Great Elder. The Adroit Explorer. The Entrancing Mystic. These are the types of paragon paths I can get behind. Their names are evocative, the archetypes they represent are interesting, and the abilities they possess are functional. Unfortunately, not all paragon paths follow this trend. I'm tempted to name off the 100+ paragon paths I feel are lacking in form and/or function, but I want to avoid the inevitable thread degeneration when people try to defend their beloved paragon path ("... but Demonskin Adept is my favorite path you big jerk!").
With respect to epic destinies, I felt the PHB1 got it just about right. They stuck to four recognizable and interesting archetypes that were reasonably well balanced (the Deadly Trickster could use a slight buff and Demigod could use a slight nerf, but I digress). After PHB1 they upped the amount of epic destinies and, surprise surprise, the quality of the destinies plummeted. The destinies in PHB2 were particularly awful. The Harbinger of Doom was a particularly disappointing one because the archetype was so interesting, yet they failed to deliver any interesting or functional mechanics with that one.
Anyways, I just thought I'd get that off my chest. If I were the D&D Lead, I'd would have done three paths per class per book and five or fewer destinies per book. Hopefully Wizards scales back a bit on the paths and destinies and ensures the ones they do release are of a higher quality.
There are currently 60 epic destinies and over 300 paragon paths on the D&D Compendium. This glut of paths and destinies leads to a variety of problems. With so many classes, it's harder to "vet" them to ensure game balance - some are grossly overpowered, others are woefully underpowered. Another issue I have is that with so many of these paths and destinies, the archetypes they represent tend to lack motivation; some of the archetypes are just plain bizarre. The obvious solution is just to ignore these paths and destinies, but I feel this "kitchen-sink mentality" where anything goes leads to lower product quality. I'd rather a book have only three paragon paths and extra pages of fluff then reams of useless paths I would never consider using.
The Kensei. The Divine Oracle. The Battle Captain. The Great Elder. The Adroit Explorer. The Entrancing Mystic. These are the types of paragon paths I can get behind. Their names are evocative, the archetypes they represent are interesting, and the abilities they possess are functional. Unfortunately, not all paragon paths follow this trend. I'm tempted to name off the 100+ paragon paths I feel are lacking in form and/or function, but I want to avoid the inevitable thread degeneration when people try to defend their beloved paragon path ("... but Demonskin Adept is my favorite path you big jerk!").
With respect to epic destinies, I felt the PHB1 got it just about right. They stuck to four recognizable and interesting archetypes that were reasonably well balanced (the Deadly Trickster could use a slight buff and Demigod could use a slight nerf, but I digress). After PHB1 they upped the amount of epic destinies and, surprise surprise, the quality of the destinies plummeted. The destinies in PHB2 were particularly awful. The Harbinger of Doom was a particularly disappointing one because the archetype was so interesting, yet they failed to deliver any interesting or functional mechanics with that one.
Anyways, I just thought I'd get that off my chest. If I were the D&D Lead, I'd would have done three paths per class per book and five or fewer destinies per book. Hopefully Wizards scales back a bit on the paths and destinies and ensures the ones they do release are of a higher quality.