Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5529595" data-attributes="member: 38357">Well, personally, I feel that using feats to fix trap options is worse than the anti-errata crowd complaining... But that is just my opinion. And what's key here (for me) is that I want players to be able to create their characters to the best of their ability and, despite differences in that ability level, all play together and have fun. I agree that WotC has so far done a fairly good job of this, but I have seen some players who where less savvy (or perhaps more specifically, less well-informed) make some really huge blunders. Like several LFR characters made by first-time players that just couldn't perform to the point that it was just painful to watch.And I don't mean to come off like I don't want to see new feats (Well, OK, I kind of don't because there's already too many to pick through) and powers and stuff. I just don't think that's enough, and I see a possibility that we could end up just throwing "support" at classes that need more than that to be really good. It may be that I'm just being paranoid... And I would ideally really, really love something to make me actually like the mechanical concept of the runepriest more. But I don't really expect that will happen... As is I'm just not interested in playing a class that fiddly, and while I'd like to be glad that it's there for those players who do want that extra complexity, I'm kind of worried that it would "rub off" enough that it wouldn't be any fun to play in a group including a runepriest.Well, what I mean by "at the table" is, in part, that if you actually tell the other players "hey I picked up power X" and what it is and why you picked it up (and even better if you can fold it into the story) that means a heck of a lot more than just having it on your character sheet. With the speed at which 4e PCs level, most players seem to have enough on their plates keeping up with their own characters, without actually trying to figure out what everyone else's characters can do. RPGs are games of communication, and if you aren't communicating then IMO you really aren't playing the game. And, yes, I do kind of expect that to extend to collaboration, at least to the point of caring what everyone else is doing and making choices that take that into account. If it's the players' responsibility to "get the group together" the they should not be creating characters that don't / can't / won't fit together. (And I consider it part of my responsibility when I DM to help with this and also to create a space for the party to fit into within the world.)Initially, back in early 2009 (IIRC?) that was the case. The more recent changeover from offline to online versions of the tools is the big issue right now. I think there was a particular reason for the change, but I'm not sure exactly what it was, if it was ever stated (for VTT compatibility?).Well, I never really dug the concept of the seeker, but I can sympathize to at least some extent. I think the thrown-weapon seeker should be fixed, and while I'm not convinced that more powers and feats is the best way to go about that it would be better than not fixing it at all. Now if WotC is actually not planning on ever touching on the seeker again, it would be appropriate (at the least) for them to say so, but I don't think that's actually the case. I do think that we might be more likely to see a thrown-weapon version of the hunter first. Which would be neat for me, but I can see where it would kind of suck if you just don't like the essentials stuff...The thing is, I don't actually see where the seeker is getting "shafted" here, or at least no more than any other class. The product schedule is based on a lot of things, and it can't actually cover everything. There was never a Primal Power 2 on the schedule (and actually, with the stuff in HotWS, it would seem to be more appropriate now than before essentials), and HotWS wasn't ever going to have stuff for the actual seeker. So it doesn't seem more reasonable to me to complain about lack of "support" for the seeker than to complain that the publication of the other power books instead of just martial power 3, 4, 5, etc. "shafted" the fighter.Well, the big issue I see is the expertise feats. When they came out I argued that they where feats, and not simply an errata of some sort, for a reason and it wasn't just a goof-up on WotC's part. Well, even if that was true it did turn out to be a goof-up, because they've become mandatory, and now the second round of them in essentials has just mucked things up even more.I agree that there needs to be an acceptance that power-creep exists, but more in the sense that I believe that it can be dealt with and that it's worthwhile to try and extend the life of the system as long as possible.Class Compendium, actually.<a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dra/201103warlord" target="_blank">Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Warlord)</a></blockquote>

Verification