Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DNH" data-source="post: 5567173" data-attributes="member: 63615">This follows my own thinking so closely that I could have written it myself!When I first saw the &quot;builds&quot; thing three years ago, I thought &quot;Nah, not for me&quot; and largely ignored them, as did my players. It looks as though many other people did too (especially if you look at the CharOp forums) and so they have pretty much slid out of the game, or at least onto the periphery of most players' considerations. What we have now is an uber-class of Fighter (for example), which includes the Weaponmaster, Slayer and Knight, and then there is a third level of Battlerager, Tempest, etc. I think I would have been happier if they had made a bigger deal of the builds in the first place, presenting them as proper sub-classes perhaps (a la 2e). It's a whole nomenclature problem, which is already complex enough with Controllers, Leaders, Strikers and Defenders (not to mention the equivalent - or non-equivalent - monster roles of Artillery, Brute, Soldier and so on).Aaah, I don't know. It's certainly easy to say &quot;WotC should have done this or that from the start&quot; but we need to remember that this game is now three years old, longer if you include the pre-release period of R&amp;D, and it has expanded and evolved during that time. There are elements we have now that we didn't have in 2008 and they are being incorporated as best they can be.That said, for my money, the whole Essentials departure has caused more problems than it has solved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DNH, post: 5567173, member: 63615"] This follows my own thinking so closely that I could have written it myself! When I first saw the "builds" thing three years ago, I thought "Nah, not for me" and largely ignored them, as did my players. It looks as though many other people did too (especially if you look at the CharOp forums) and so they have pretty much slid out of the game, or at least onto the periphery of most players' considerations. What we have now is an uber-class of Fighter (for example), which includes the Weaponmaster, Slayer and Knight, and then there is a third level of Battlerager, Tempest, etc. I think I would have been happier if they had made a bigger deal of the builds in the first place, presenting them as proper sub-classes perhaps (a la 2e). It's a whole nomenclature problem, which is already complex enough with Controllers, Leaders, Strikers and Defenders (not to mention the equivalent - or non-equivalent - monster roles of Artillery, Brute, Soldier and so on). Aaah, I don't know. It's certainly easy to say "WotC should have done this or that from the start" but we need to remember that this game is now three years old, longer if you include the pre-release period of R&D, and it has expanded and evolved during that time. There are elements we have now that we didn't have in 2008 and they are being incorporated as best they can be. That said, for my money, the whole Essentials departure has caused more problems than it has solved. [/QUOTE]

Verification