|
Froghammer posted:It was Darkfire, it's the Drow racial power, and it doesn't deal any damage, it just makes the target glow so you or your allies can hit it more easily. Were I the DM I would have said the exact same thing. You probably would have too.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
ritorix posted:And then in Adventurer's League, the official 5e organized play, they explicitly ban rolling for stats. Go figure. He'd have been running games this weekend, but ended up having to usher instead. Poor guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Sometimes it really is okay to say no to people when the thing they're doing makes no sense and you know they're psychologically and emotionally stable enough that you know you won't crush them or ruin their night by explaining that they can't use an ability that makes things glow to burn things. I tend to subscribe to the school of "yes, but" as the default answer, and I've never understood why "yes always" people bother with games as rules-heavy as Dungeons & Dragons to begin with. Like half the text in any given edition is power blocks or spell descriptions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
A pretty interesting article about the design process behind 5e.quote:Dungeons & Dragons, the quintessential fantasy role-playing game, has been foundering. The fourth edition, released in 2008, was collectively panned. While its parent companies Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro don’t publicize figures, they also don’t try to hide the fact that the game was ill-received critically and sold poorly. quote:In 2008, D&D's parent company Wizards of the Coast [had] just released D&D 4. The wildly imaginative fantasy game--which Time once categorized as giving pop culture itself “the confidence that through imagination, [we] could become anyone”--was honed to focus on combat, and people hated it. quote:D&D characters had always been classified by their fighting abilities, but D&D 4 took the idea further, ignoring multifaceted parts of one’s character, like their 9-to-5 jobs, to focus on their specific role and abilities within a battle grid. Combat took longer to complete. And each player had a very specific job to fulfill in the battle. quote:“[The performance of D&D 4] prompted us into a direction that was, what we really need to do is create the best rule system for a tabletop RPG,” he says. “Okay. We can do that. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:The good Fighters were renamed "War Clerics" and "Warlocks," just like the good Rogues were renamed "Bards." Well it is more that I was concerned I was some how making a bad(der) Fighter. I am still passive aggressively making a Fighter, as I am pretty sure it will be a giant disappointment. Is this where MontrousEnvy tells me that is is just a bad class and that no one will care about bad classes? I am a little sad Warforged aren't in yet, as Weapon Swinging Unit 18-B would have been entertaining to play. Beep Boop LOVE ME *swings sword* On the plus side though, after he meets his inevitable doom there will be one more skeleton for the skeleton throne. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The idea that D&D characters are meant to have 9-5 jobs makes me want to play a campaign where quests and dungeon delves are just a bunch of bakers and merchants LARPing on weekends
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:WotC has been rather explicit that rolling them is the "proper" way. Point buy is the optional path, and it's half finished to boot (no way to buy stats over 15). Every twitter post has reinforced that in 5e, you roll your stats, and you only use the other options if your DM "lets you." I agree that rolling for stats is the dumbest thing, but earnestly the ability to not buy stats above 15 is something I really enjoy. Stats should be a way to help you express the character you want to have, but in practice being optimal meant that there was pretty much a one correct way to stat out (4e was especially bad for this since you had to pick a well-defined secondary and sometimes tertiary). Saying that you don't have to put a high score in your primary stat is kind of a stupid non-answer, because no one wants to be gimped for the whole game because of the concept in their head. So instead, it just now happens that the highest score you can put in to something is only a third of your point-buy pool, so if I want to be a Muscle Wizard, I'm not stymied by the obligation to put a high score in INT, because 15 INT still means I can have 15 STR and 15 CON. I like that!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I agree and I also like the base 20 cap, which means most people who are minmaxing and don't need a particular feat to do so will max out their primary stat by level 8 (taking +4 or +2 and a +1 stat feat). I like having that sort of boundary on character parameters, which naturally Polymorph spells will gently caress up. Another kind of neat thing I thought of last night: a Fighter can use his two extra ability score bonus levels to grab Resilient Wis/Dex and end up with proficiency in all three of the major saves. At 17-20 this provides a larger bonus to those saves than a Paladin with 20 Charisma has, with the only downside being that it doesn't extend to melee-range allies. It's not FIGHTER SUPREMACY, but it helps a little. Baku fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
I've wondered how long it was going to take before a lot of the foundationless edition war rhetoric became enshrined as gospel fact...4E sold poorly because a bunch of people on ENWorld said so over and over again, therefore despite lacking any solid sales figures we must conclude that 4E was a critical and commercial failure...and I guess now that Next is out we're going to see this more and more. Five years from now "4E was a tremendous flop that nearly killed D&D if it wasn't for Mike Mearls taking over and saving the brand" is going to be such an ubiquitous idea that even gamers who don't give a poo poo about D&D or edition warring are going to be repeating it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
The vague "Wizards doesn't try to hide that..." doesn't actually give us any evidence that it's true. The best evidence I can find is that I assume that if 4e had been more successful than 3e, they'd have stayed on that path. And that's pretty circumstantial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Really all it takes for the company to go "maybe we need to not pursue this course" is for 4E to be less successful than 3E, a thing that is probably true for a whole bunch of reasons many of which have nothing to do with the quality or content of either game. That doesn't make 4E a market failure anymore than Pepsi is a market failure or inferior product because it has a smaller market share than Coke, but I also find it hard to believe 4E was equally or more financially successful than 3E. The idea that it almost destroyed D&D because it was bad is crazy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Really all it takes for the company to go "maybe we need to not pursue this course" is for 4E to be less successful than 3E, a thing that is probably true for a whole bunch of reasons many of which have nothing to do with the quality or content of either game. That doesn't make 4E a market failure anymore than Pepsi is a market failure or inferior product because it has a smaller market share than Coke, but I also find it hard to believe 4E was equally or more financially successful than 3E. I know a handful of people who disliked 4e enough that they've basically gone entirely to Pathfinder and have shown no interest in 4e or 5e. Although 5e's getting some converts back, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Crazy enough to remind grogs of the last time the brand almost killed itself only to be saved, I guess. Maybe just as Rulings > Rules, Spin > Facts. Gotta give the consumers the familiar story again, a chance to be part of a glorious rebirth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
"If 4E had been a success then why is Wizards making Next?" is the kind of argument that falls apart with a moment's thought because if 3E was so successful (which it was) then why did it need a 3.5 revision (and holy poo poo there was a lot of nerd rage over 3.5) and then why didn't Wizards just stick with 3.X in perpetuity instead of moving on to 4E? The idea that the only reason an RPG publisher ticks the edition counter over is some kind of binary success/failure metric isn't borne out by anything substantial. As long as WotC keeps sales figures to itself, which they will, there's no way that anybody on the internet (myself included) knows anything more than fragmentary bits of information about how one elfgame might have sold over another. Any statement to the effect of "4E was a commercial failure" is, just as it is in that article, unfounded guesswork being dressed up as "obvious facts."
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
I thought games came out with new editions to sell more core books since they sell the most/best. Is there anything more to it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
They don't release sales figures, but they did release Insider subscription numbers and 4e was making serious bank for a product with no physical overhead. This of course isn't mentioned anywhere because it doesn't fit the huge flop narrative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I've wondered how long it was going to take before a lot of the foundationless edition war rhetoric became enshrined as gospel fact...4E sold poorly because a bunch of people on ENWorld said so over and over again, therefore despite lacking any solid sales figures we must conclude that 4E was a critical and commercial failure...and I guess now that Next is out we're going to see this more and more. Five years from now "4E was a tremendous flop that nearly killed D&D if it wasn't for Mike Mearls taking over and saving the brand" is going to be such an ubiquitous idea that even gamers who don't give a poo poo about D&D or edition warring are going to be repeating it. 4E was so unpopular, Wizards reprinted the core books for their old editions rather than make new books for it. 4E was so unpopular, Pathfinder outsold it for three years. Wizards might not announce sales figures but Amazon releases ranks, and 4E stunk 'em up. 4E was so unpopular that it not only didn't last for the six years between the release of 4E and Next, it took only two and a half years before it was basically cancelled. Zombies' Downfall posted:Really all it takes for the company to go "maybe we need to not pursue this course" is for 4E to be less successful than 3E, a thing that is probably true for a whole bunch of reasons many of which have nothing to do with the quality or content of either game. That doesn't make 4E a market failure anymore than Pepsi is a market failure or inferior product because it has a smaller market share than Coke, but I also find it hard to believe 4E was equally or more financially successful than 3E. Pepsi isn't 4E, Pepsi is an off-brand based on the same basic formula, like Pathfinder. 4E is an attempt to revitalize a popular and long-lived brand by doing something different, that some people liked a lot and others hated. 4E is New Coke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I've wondered how long it was going to take before a lot of the foundationless edition war rhetoric became enshrined as gospel fact...4E sold poorly because a bunch of people on ENWorld said so over and over again, therefore despite lacking any solid sales figures we must conclude that 4E was a critical and commercial failure...and I guess now that Next is out we're going to see this more and more. Five years from now "4E was a tremendous flop that nearly killed D&D if it wasn't for Mike Mearls taking over and saving the brand" is going to be such an ubiquitous idea that even gamers who don't give a poo poo about D&D or edition warring are going to be repeating it. It was inevitable, really. It's already basically Official Nerd Canon that TSR was a wondrous altruistic company of fun gamer friends brought to ruin by the machinations of the sneering wicked witch Lorraine Williams. The canon of 4e will be that it was an all-out assault by Call of Duty frat bros trying to turn D&D into World of Warcraft, just barely driven back by the wondrous altruistic company of fun gamer friends at Paizo who kept D&D alive long enough for it to be restored to its true and proper form. D&D isn't a product; it's dogma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
seebs posted:I know a handful of people who disliked 4e enough that they've basically gone entirely to Pathfinder and have shown no interest in 4e or 5e. Although 5e's getting some converts back, I think. I played 3e heavily, drifted away, and came back to D&D because of 4e. Not buying 5e -- I don't think it's evil or totally crappy, it's just not in my wheelhouse. Mmm, anecdotal evidence! I personally think that lack of metaplot/setting was as much a problem for 4e as anything else. When you've got a bunch of Forgotten Realms fans, why would you tell them they can't buy 2-3 nice Forgotten Realms setting hardcovers each year? I am mildly surprised that 5e won't have a big Forgotten Realms setting book. Possibly I am wrong in my assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:"If 4E had been a success then why is Wizards making Next?" is the kind of argument that falls apart with a moment's thought because if 3E was so successful (which it was) then why did it need a 3.5 revision (and holy poo poo there was a lot of nerd rage over 3.5) and then why didn't Wizards just stick with 3.X in perpetuity instead of moving on to 4E? The idea that the only reason an RPG publisher ticks the edition counter over is some kind of binary success/failure metric isn't borne out by anything substantial. It's not so much "ticks the version counter over" as "radically overhauls the game". 1e to 2e was a cleanup pass, 3e was an overhaul, 3.5e was cleanup, 4e was overhaul... That there wasn't really a 4.5e before the overhaul makes me think they weren't super happy with 4e. Dunno whether 5e will do better for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Mimir posted:Wizards might not announce sales figures but Amazon releases ranks, and 4E stunk 'em up. Where did you read this? It's the opposite of true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The idea that the only reason an RPG publisher ticks the edition counter over is some kind of binary success/failure metric isn't borne out by anything substantial. They didn't just "tick the edition counter over" though, they radically reinvented the game rules, and then radically reverted almost all of those changes with the following edition. Stock 3.0 and 3.5 are virtually identical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I thought games came out with new editions to sell more core books since they sell the most/best. Is there anything more to it? Sure, there's the fact that when you get a bunch of nerds together in the same room working on the same thing you're bound to have the nerdy equivalent of office politics. Just about every story I've ever heard from people who worked for WotC or White Wolf or even something like Palladium have made it abundantly clear that there's a lot of that sort of thing going on all the time away from the public eye...so-and-so is pissed that the line editor vetoed his really great idea for a sourcebook or is pissed that the line editor didn't veto someone else's stuff or somebody left and another person got promoted to take their place and suddenly sourcebooks start catering to that guy's fetishes, old blood going out and new blood going in means a "bold new direction" for the line just like when a television network changes executives, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:They didn't just "tick the edition counter over" though, they radically reinvented the game rules, and then radically reverted almost all of those changes with the following edition. That is so much only true if you weren't paying attention at the time. Go back and read the commentary. Sean K. Reynolds says: quote:Converting stuff is a major pain. Not as bad as converting 2E AD&D to 3.0 D&D, but still a tedious struggle. And it's not insignificant changes. Entire skills went away, so some characters need a bunch of skill points redistributed. Ranger HD decreased, so suddenly all ranger characters have a lot fewer hit points. And several classes gained skill points per level, so using those characters as-is from a 3.0 book means they're going to be underpowered compared to 3.5 members of that class.Some feats changed or went away, so characters based on using those feats had to be redone. Key spells went away or changed spell level, so spellcasters need to be updated, spells based on those spells need to be changed, and magic items using those spells or spell effects need to be altered or redescribed. Monsters now have standardized skill points and feats just like characters do (good) but that means that 3.0 monsters can be very different (weaker or stronger). And they haven't had as much time to playtest these new rules as they did with the 3.0 rules, which means that the CRs you see in the MM are closer to the estimate side of the scale than the "playtested and proven" side of the scale. Or read 190+ pages of changes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Also, any discussion is hugely complicated by the tendency people have of taking it personally when something they like is unpopular. So people who like 4e are usually unwilling to believe it sold poorly, and people who dislike it are usually unwilling to believe it sold well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
A lot of it also comes down to anecdotal accounts, with 3.5/PF people/groups thinking 4e sucked because no one they knew bought it/played it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Actually, assuming we're going by ICv2, Pathfinder didn't start to outsell WotC until Mearls took over and created Essentials. When Pathfinder was first released it immediately claimed...the second place spot behind 4e. It wasn't until Mearls took the wheel and steered in the opposite direction that PF took first. I think people are applying far too much actual marketing thought to the forgotten loser of WotC's IPs. Nerds always assume D&D is super important, when in reality it is at best a footnote in WotC, much less Hasbro, financial dealings. It's far more likely that a lot of the sudden changes that lead to Essentials - and then to 5e - had little to do with Hasbro's grand masterful plan of recapturing the grognards, and far more to do with "Well now Mearls is in charge and he says make AD&D." EDIT: Mimir posted:Pepsi isn't 4E, Pepsi is an off-brand based on the same basic formula, like Pathfinder. 4E is an attempt to revitalize a popular and long-lived brand by doing something different, that some people liked a lot and others hated. 4E is New Coke. This will eternally be my favorite grog example because literally every test, both in house and out of house, every poll, every single consumer they asked, stated that New Coke was the better product, it tasted better, the preferred it by a landslide, but they were terrified of "COKE" changing. If 4e is new coke, that means it is literally and objectively better then previous editions, but nerds were terrified by it being "new." ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
There's also the fact that "sold poorly/well" is a contextless statement without, again, any sort of sales figures backing that up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Mimir posted:4E was so unpopular, Wizards reprinted the core books for their old editions rather than make new books for it. Always surprised me that they didn't do this earlier. After all a niche deluxe market is a useful thing to have. quote:4E was so unpopular, Pathfinder outsold it for three years. If you mean Pathfinder started outselling it when WotC stopped producing books you're right. And this despite a lot of 4e fans not buying 4e books due to DDI and plenty of material available from the much higher profit margin online subscription model. quote:Wizards might not announce sales figures but Amazon releases ranks, and 4E stunk 'em up. Interesting euphemism for selling pretty well. quote:4E was so unpopular that it not only didn't last for the six years between the release of 4E and Next, it took only two and a half years before it was basically cancelled. I'm getting consistent books released up to the end of 2011 - which puts it on a par with 3.5 and well ahead of 3.0. And that despite that tens of thousands of people were paying a subscription. As of a couple of months ago, the turnover from DDI alone was around half Paizo's total turnover. Just short of $6 million/year assuming everyone had the cheapest possible DDI Subscription. (Two years ago Paizo's total turnover was $11.2 million). This is DDI subscriptions six months after there ceased to be any new product for 4e at all - and with almost no overheads. Which wasn't nearly a match for 4e's sales targets of an utterly unrealistic $50 million/year. And Lisa Stephens might well be the smartest person in the entire industry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
moths posted:Where did you read this? It's the opposite of true. Amazon's sales rank had Pathfinder supplements selling above 4E for years. I don't think they show old rankings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Mimir posted:4E was so unpopular, Wizards reprinted the core books for their old editions rather than make new books for it. Quote your sources here. (just kidding, you don't have any - these two things don't have anything to do with one another) quote:4E was so unpopular, Pathfinder outsold it for three years. Please tell me you're citing ICv2  quote:4E is New Coke. Holy poo poo, it's been a long time since I've heard this stupid crap regurgitated. This is fantastic. Mimir posted:Amazon's sales rank had Pathfinder supplements selling above 4E for years. I don't think they show old rankings. Really? Because I was following these ranks until about halfway through last year and 4e was pretty much always dominating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
e: oops
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
I heard some people are working on custom classes for the system, if you want, I can link them in the OP. Also, I forgot to tell Monsterenvy before, but I can't edit a topic title. Only a mod can so ask Ettin if you want that. I did, however, add that official adventure to the OP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Actually, assuming we're going by ICv2, Pathfinder didn't start to outsell WotC until Mearls took over and created Essentials. When Pathfinder was first released it immediately claimed...the second place spot behind 4e. It wasn't until Mearls took the wheel and steered in the opposite direction that PF took first. Indeed. And Mike Mearls has a consistent record of writing the most hated books for 4e. Off the top of my head Mearls has been lead author on the following books: Monster Manual 1: The Monster Manual always brought up to say 4e has terrible monsters (OK, so it's underrated - I'll compare it in terms of fluff to the vastly overrated 2e Monstrous Manual) HS1: Keep on the Shadowfell (terrible adventure) HS3: Pyramid of Shadows (even worse - the less said the better) Primal Power: The single least inspiring of the *Power books Player's Handbook 3: The only book that contains classes I ban - and that's three hard bans and a soft ban out of six classes. Monster Manual 3: Finally they got the math right - but the monsters are frequently too obscure to use Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms: OK, I like this one. Heroes of the Forgotten Lands: Where to start? Four weak classes out of five (Sentinel Druid doesn't scale properly, the Cavalier is a poor defender - not sticky at all, and Hunter and Hexblade have known performance issues). Heroes of Shadow: The single most bitched about splatbook by 4e fans in the lifespan of the game. Vampires and Binders especially. Of the books I've just listed, Mearls was lead author on every single one (except possibly HS1 and HS3). Precisely one of those books (Primal Power) doesn't get bitched about by 4e fans. And the only book I've heard 4e fans bitch about as being poor that's not on that list is the DMG1. And most 4e fans haven't put two and two together. And this is who they turned first 4e and then D&D Next over to. quote:I think people are applying far too much actual marketing thought to the forgotten loser of WotC's IPs. Nerds always assume D&D is super important, when in reality it is at best a footnote in WotC, much less Hasbro, financial dealings. Yup. D&D is roughly 10% the size of Magic: The Gathering. And probably less than that by now. quote:This will eternally be my favorite grog example because literally every test, both in house and out of house, every poll, every single consumer they asked, stated that New Coke was the better product, it tasted better, the preferred it by a landslide, but they were terrified of "COKE" changing. Part of this (at least according to Gladwell, who I don't exactly trust) was that New Coke failed to account for sip tests not being representative of normal tests. Another part of that was indeed a grognard reaction. A third part is that the change to and back from New Coke covered the change to HFCS. Coca-Cola as a company did very well out of the New Coke "fiasco" by just about all measures that mattered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Player's Handbook 3: The only book that contains classes I ban - and that's three hard bans and a soft ban out of six classes. Hrm? Most of those classes are pretty underpowered comparatively...or is that why you ban them out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Player's Handbook 3: The only book that contains classes I ban - and that's three hard bans and a soft ban out of six classes Which ones? And why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Yeah, and none of this had anything to do with Pathfinder, either.  seebs posted:It's not so much "ticks the version counter over" as "radically overhauls the game". 1e to 2e was a cleanup pass, 3e was an overhaul, 3.5e was cleanup, 4e was overhaul... That there wasn't really a 4.5e before the overhaul makes me think they weren't super happy with 4e. Dunno whether 5e will do better for them. Pretty sure this was Essentials. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Aug 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms: OK, I like this one. I don't, so I'll complain about it for you. Of all the Player's Handbook-type books in 4e, Heroes of the Fallen Kingdom is the one that gets why 4e does what it does the least. It lets elves be Dex/Int and Eladrin be Int/Cha without thinking about why Eladrin get +1 Will and Elves don't. (It's because the Eladrin's main stats both boosted Reflex so they needed a bonus in a second defense so their math checked out.) They gave Elves an Intelligence bonus, even though the whole point of the Elf/Eladrin split in the first place was so they didn't have to shove the Smug Wizard Elves and the Woodsy Ranger Elves into the same race. They sold the book as being simpler than default 4e and gave us the Mage, which is just the default 4e Wizard with different class features. They went back to having fighters that had almost no options and wizards that had more options than anyone else. I'd complain about every Heroes of __ book other than Heroes of Forgotten Lands also having a wizard subclass that is just the Wizard with different class features, but that's not specifically a Fallen Kingdoms thing. It's just something Fallen Kingdoms started. I really dislike some of the design choices in Essentials, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Covok posted:Which ones? And why? Generic Octopus posted:Hrm? Most of those classes are pretty underpowered comparatively...or is that why you ban them out? Well, not the dude in question, but Psionics as a power source in 4e are boring and shittily designed on the whole, so that accomodates three of the bans (Ardent, Battlemind, Psion). Runepriest is absurdly fiddly even by 4e standards, Seeker is pretty boring and unsupported, and Monk is cool but maybe he wants to be consistent on banning psionic classes???
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
I can see banning the seeker because it's just that awful, and runepriests are basically just remashed clerics but more fiddly. The psionic classes are mostly fine, though battlemind has some truly stupid hybrids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:31
|
|