Problem is – there are only a few rare items, and NONE of them are at the heroic level of play.
> and then using the Internet to distribute them like so much Halloween candy,
> WotC has decided to add this to the vast list of things no longer on PDF.
Individual articles are also released as PDFs.
Unfortunately loss, imho, but I'll deal.
Problem is – there are only a few rare items, and NONE of them are at the heroic level of play.
Actually there is one, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power (DM's book). But it is so terrible I wouldn't be surprised if you argued they didn't deserve to be called rare.
After looking these up I can't possibly see why they are rare.
I would think that Bracer's of Mighty Striking would be rare because of its flat +2 damage bonus for Slayers and Thieves on every attack.
Problem is – there are only a few rare items, and NONE of them are at the heroic level of play.
Actually there is one, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power (DM's book). But it is so terrible I wouldn't be surprised if you argued they didn't deserve to be called rare.
After looking these up I can't possibly see why they are rare.
I would think that Bracer's of Mighty Striking would be rare because of its flat +2 damage bonus for Slayers and Thieves on every attack.
They want people to play the Slayer instead of the barbarian, who's Iron Armbands of Power, are now uncommon.
That said, without the melee basic attack crazy classes, their rating of Common makes sense. Its yet another reason why they shouldnt have brought basic attacks to power, it becomes harder to rate things because now classes view the same item in very different ways.
After looking these up I can't possibly see why they are rare.
I would think that Bracer's of Mighty Striking would be rare because of its flat +2 damage bonus for Slayers and Thieves on every attack.
The intent at one point was for common items to just have flat bonuses, uncommon to have a daily or maybe an encounter or something, and dailies to just make you go wow. So Bracers of Mighty Striking are where they are intended. The problem is that they never followed through with reclassifying old items to appropriate rarity(making them all uncommon was supposed to be a temporary slution) and the anemic release of items has made the system pretty much unmanagable as written....not that it was ever a particularly great idea to begin with.
As for Gauntlets of Ogre Power....I got nothing, they should be uncommon and that is only because of the daily.
Actually the shadow book is not an essentials book. It is not one of the ten essentials products.
It may not be a part of the "big 10" but everything previewed is 4.5 content.
Only to the whiner crowd.
Actually the shadow book is not an essentials book. It is not one of the ten essentials products.
It may not be a part of the "big 10" but everything previewed is 4.5 content.
Only to the whiner crowd.
Says the apologist? Seriously, if you're going to ad hominem, at least make it look as such.
I still view the "Essentials change" as a step towards a new edition and a break away from the original system, and though I truly desire to call it 4.5, WotC doesn't call it that. I can still see where Thunder is coming from. If you can't view from both sides before judgement, don't judge.
Actually the shadow book is not an essentials book. It is not one of the ten essentials products.
It may not be a part of the "big 10" but everything previewed is 4.5 content.
Only to the whiner crowd.
Says the apologist? Seriously, if you're going to ad hominem, at least make it look as such.
I still view the "Essentials change" as a step towards a new edition and a break away from the original system, and though I truly desire to call it 4.5, WotC doesn't call it that. I can still see where Thunder is coming from. If you can't view from both sides before judgement, don't judge.
You're no better than the strawman you've tried to make to attack me. In fact, you may even be worse, since you're completely fabricating what you think are my views and points in order to oppose them. Kind of pathetic, really.
You have, of course, blindly made the assumption that I'm an "apologist" when you don't know me or my views on Essentials at all. You know so very little, and are looking at such a narrow picture of the game that I'm surprised you can even acknowledge that there are multiple sides to the argument.
No, as a matter of fact, I don't care for a lot of Essentials material. I violently dislike the BMA-only martial classes, the warpriest is okay, the mage is not thrilling, and the new Ranger with his aspects and Warlock with summoned allies remind me too much of WoW (and I was one of the people who NEVER said "4e is too much like WoW" back in the day).
That said, I'm looking at both sides a hell of a lot more than you or Thunder is.
Actual Essentials material, that is, material that is new to the game as of Essentials, is all supplementary. The new classes are not replacing anything. A Knight and a Slayer can be in a party with an Ardent, a Swarm Druid, and Sorceror. The material does not contradict. People seem to forget that 3.5 was intended to replace and overwrite the 3.0 material. Essentials does not do the same with 4e.
People have been citing the errata we recieved to make 4e "forwards compatible" with essentials as actual changes to the game which make it 4.5. THIS IS RUBBISH.
The changes to feats, like Melee Training, are no different than the kinds of errata we've been getting since 2008. In fact, with the single exception of the Item Rarity rules, none of the actual changes made in the errata have been so sweeping that they eclipse, or even compare to the changes we've recieved to feats, powers, and even skills in the past. And the devs came out and said that the new treasure system and item rarity are completely optional if you don't want to use them.
We've been getting errata for YEARS, and people just now want to claim that it's "4.5"? Please. What a bunch of whiney crybabies. You see something new in the game you don't like, so it must be the herald of a new edition, right? Well, I didn't like the errata to the Blood Mage, was that 4.4? Was the June 2008 errata 4.1? Feb 2009 errata 4.3.2? If the errata we've been recieving since the start of 4e hasn't been updating the "edition number" gradually since release, then the changes that came with Essentials are [u]NOT[/u] 4.5e.
Actually the shadow book is not an essentials book. It is not one of the ten essentials products.
It may not be a part of the "big 10" but everything previewed is 4.5 content.
Only to the whiner crowd.
Says the apologist? Seriously, if you're going to ad hominem, at least make it look as such.
I still view the "Essentials change" as a step towards a new edition and a break away from the original system, and though I truly desire to call it 4.5, WotC doesn't call it that. I can still see where Thunder is coming from. If you can't view from both sides before judgement, don't judge.
You're no better than the strawman you've tried to make to attack me. In fact, you may even be worse, since you're completely fabricating what you think are my views and points in order to oppose them. Kind of pathetic, really.
You have, of course, blindly made the assumption that I'm an "apologist" when you don't know me or my views on Essentials at all. You know so very little, and are looking at such a narrow picture of the game that I'm surprised you can even acknowledge that there are multiple sides to the argument.
No, as a matter of fact, I don't care for a lot of Essentials material. I violently dislike the BMA-only martial classes, the warpriest is okay, the mage is not thrilling, and the new Ranger with his aspects and Warlock with summoned allies remind me too much of WoW (and I was one of the people who NEVER said "4e is too much like WoW" back in the day).
That said, I'm looking at both sides a hell of a lot more than you or Thunder is.
Actual Essentials material, that is, material that is new to the game as of Essentials, is all supplementary. The new classes are not replacing anything. A Knight and a Slayer can be in a party with an Ardent, a Swarm Druid, and Sorceror. The material does not contradict. People seem to forget that 3.5 was intended to replace and overwrite the 3.0 material. Essentials does not do the same with 4e.
People have been citing the errata we recieved to make 4e "forwards compatible" with essentials as actual changes to the game which make it 4.5. THIS IS RUBBISH.
The changes to feats, like Melee Training, are no different than the kinds of errata we've been getting since 2008. In fact, with the single exception of the Item Rarity rules, none of the actual changes made in the errata have been so sweeping that they eclipse, or even compare to the changes we've recieved to feats, powers, and even skills in the past. And the devs came out and said that the new treasure system and item rarity are completely optional if you don't want to use them.
We've been getting errata for YEARS, and people just now want to claim that it's "4.5"? Please. What a bunch of whiney crybabies. You see something new in the game you don't like, so it must be the herald of a new edition, right? Well, I didn't like the errata to the Blood Mage, was that 4.4? Was the June 2008 errata 4.1? Feb 2009 errata 4.3.2? If the errata we've been recieving since the start of 4e hasn't been updating the "edition number" gradually since release, then the changes that came with Essentials are [u]NOT[/u] 4.5e.
You're right, I did make the assumption that you attacked Thunder personally (at least it seemed that way). *Shrug* Hair trigger reaction, I suppose. If you were making a blanket statement, then I'll apologize outright.
Game balancing errata, however, is quite different than altering the way the core system functions. You modify a magic item that's too strong, that's errata. You add or subtract a [W] from a power, that's errata. You change or remove certain words from effect or prerequisite descriptions (or even skills), that is errata. Introduction of magic item rarity? Major game change. Introducing an alternate class structure so that fewer powers are chosen and features are replacing them? Major game change.
Also, we're at a crossroads here of what can be officially utilized. I'm not involved in RPGA, but as far as I've heard, "Essentials" is all that's supported. I've often thought of jumping into the system (was never sure of my schedule; working retail leaves much to be desired in the form of steady hours) but if it is all "Essentials", I will have to decline the desire to join. The official sanctioned games of Dungeons & Dragons I refuse to join because I dislike where the product has gone and, so far, looks to be continuing. WotC has stated that they are "taking this direction forward".
Regarding the view of supplementary material... Kind of subjective, but I see where you are coming from. No, they have not removed the old classes. New classes are there as a choice, absolutely. However, the focus has shifted away from the old class structure to the newer. Is this simply D&D "getting with the times" or is this whole change of the game something more? And why is RPGA removing non-Essentials from the equation instead of keeping all the options together? This I may be misinterpreting or have even received false information about.
(On a note, can you point to me where the item rarity rules were stated as "optional"? It better not be the article they were introduced in... I might just have to slap myself. I do not believe that the CB would enforce the ruling on item rarity if it were entirely optional, though they have many alterations to make to their builder before I'll consider it close to complete)
And probably most humorously of all... I like the "flavor" of the builds. I like this "specialist fire mage", this "defender of all druid" and so on. All I can see, though, is the shoehorning (Mage being a... minor exception). You make one choice in the beginning and are stuck with it.
Actually the shadow book is not an essentials book. It is not one of the ten essentials products.
It may not be a part of the "big 10" but everything previewed is 4.5 content.
Only to the whiner crowd.
Says the apologist? Seriously, if you're going to ad hominem, at least make it look as such.
I still view the "Essentials change" as a step towards a new edition and a break away from the original system, and though I truly desire to call it 4.5, WotC doesn't call it that. I can still see where Thunder is coming from. If you can't view from both sides before judgement, don't judge.
You're no better than the strawman you've tried to make to attack me. In fact, you may even be worse, since you're completely fabricating what you think are my views and points in order to oppose them. Kind of pathetic, really.
You have, of course, blindly made the assumption that I'm an "apologist" when you don't know me or my views on Essentials at all. You know so very little, and are looking at such a narrow picture of the game that I'm surprised you can even acknowledge that there are multiple sides to the argument.
No, as a matter of fact, I don't care for a lot of Essentials material. I violently dislike the BMA-only martial classes, the warpriest is okay, the mage is not thrilling, and the new Ranger with his aspects and Warlock with summoned allies remind me too much of WoW (and I was one of the people who NEVER said "4e is too much like WoW" back in the day).
That said, I'm looking at both sides a hell of a lot more than you or Thunder is.
Actual Essentials material, that is, material that is new to the game as of Essentials, is all supplementary. The new classes are not replacing anything. A Knight and a Slayer can be in a party with an Ardent, a Swarm Druid, and Sorceror. The material does not contradict. People seem to forget that 3.5 was intended to replace and overwrite the 3.0 material. Essentials does not do the same with 4e.
People have been citing the errata we recieved to make 4e "forwards compatible" with essentials as actual changes to the game which make it 4.5. THIS IS RUBBISH.
The changes to feats, like Melee Training, are no different than the kinds of errata we've been getting since 2008. In fact, with the single exception of the Item Rarity rules, none of the actual changes made in the errata have been so sweeping that they eclipse, or even compare to the changes we've recieved to feats, powers, and even skills in the past. And the devs came out and said that the new treasure system and item rarity are completely optional if you don't want to use them.
We've been getting errata for YEARS, and people just now want to claim that it's "4.5"? Please. What a bunch of whiney crybabies. You see something new in the game you don't like, so it must be the herald of a new edition, right? Well, I didn't like the errata to the Blood Mage, was that 4.4? Was the June 2008 errata 4.1? Feb 2009 errata 4.3.2? If the errata we've been recieving since the start of 4e hasn't been updating the "edition number" gradually since release, then the changes that came with Essentials are [u]NOT[/u] 4.5e.
You're right, I did make the assumption that you attacked Thunder personally (at least it seemed that way). *Shrug* Hair trigger reaction, I suppose. If you were making a blanket statement, then I'll apologize outright.
Game balancing errata, however, is quite different than altering the way the core system functions. You modify a magic item that's too strong, that's errata. You add or subtract a [W] from a power, that's errata. You change or remove certain words from effect or prerequisite descriptions (or even skills), that is errata. Introduction of magic item rarity? Major game change. Introducing an alternate class structure so that fewer powers are chosen and features are replacing them? Major game change.
Also, we're at a crossroads here of what can be officially utilized. I'm not involved in RPGA, but as far as I've heard, "Essentials" is all that's supported. I've often thought of jumping into the system (was never sure of my schedule; working retail leaves much to be desired in the form of steady hours) but if it is all "Essentials", I will have to decline the desire to join. The official sanctioned games of Dungeons & Dragons I refuse to join because I dislike where the product has gone and, so far, looks to be continuing. WotC has stated that they are "taking this direction forward".
Regarding the view of supplementary material... Kind of subjective, but I see where you are coming from. No, they have not removed the old classes. New classes are there as a choice, absolutely. However, the focus has shifted away from the old class structure to the newer. Is this simply D&D "getting with the times" or is this whole change of the game something more? And why is RPGA removing non-Essentials from the equation instead of keeping all the options together? This I may be misinterpreting or have even received false information about.
(On a note, can you point to me where the item rarity rules were stated as "optional"? It better not be the article they were introduced in... I might just have to slap myself. I do not believe that the CB would enforce the ruling on item rarity if it were entirely optional, though they have many alterations to make to their builder before I'll consider it close to complete)
And probably most humorously of all... I like the "flavor" of the builds. I like this "specialist fire mage", this "defender of all druid" and so on. All I can see, though, is the shoehorning (Mage being a... minor exception). You make one choice in the beginning and are stuck with it.
Essentials is not all that is supported in RPGA. That's only true for encounters, which has a tendency to only use the latest material. Before essentials, it was Dark Sun only.
Also, we're at a crossroads here of what can be officially utilized. I'm not involved in RPGA, but as far as I've heard, "Essentials" is all that's supported. I've often thought of jumping into the system (was never sure of my schedule; working retail leaves much to be desired in the form of steady hours) but if it is all "Essentials", I will have to decline the desire to join. The official sanctioned games of Dungeons & Dragons I refuse to join because I dislike where the product has gone and, so far, looks to be continuing. WotC has stated that they are "taking this direction forward".
I do play LFR (witch is rpga) and I play a paragon sword mage (Multi to wizard) and a warlord so I can tell you we only have 1 player as an essential character, and that is the slayer fighter in my warlord game...
You make one choice in the beginning and are stuck with it.
You know I am getting sick of hearing this...
I have a whole essential group that I play in, I have a slayer in the LFR game, and a warlock and slayer in my game I run... so I have seen 3 diffrent slayers that play diffrently. 1 has an excution axe, one use a double sword, and one withthe weird brutal hand axe from darksun... they all play diffrently and all look very diffrent rangeing from level 4-9
Also, we're at a crossroads here of what can be officially utilized. I'm not involved in RPGA, but as far as I've heard, "Essentials" is all that's supported. I've often thought of jumping into the system (was never sure of my schedule; working retail leaves much to be desired in the form of steady hours) but if it is all "Essentials", I will have to decline the desire to join. The official sanctioned games of Dungeons & Dragons I refuse to join because I dislike where the product has gone and, so far, looks to be continuing. WotC has stated that they are "taking this direction forward".
I do play LFR (witch is rpga) and I play a paragon sword mage (Multi to wizard) and a warlord so I can tell you we only have 1 player as an essential character, and that is the slayer fighter in my warlord game...You make one choice in the beginning and are stuck with it.
You know I am getting sick of hearing this...
I have a whole essential group that I play in, I have a slayer in the LFR game, and a warlock and slayer in my game I run... so I have seen 3 diffrent slayers that play diffrently. 1 has an excution axe, one use a double sword, and one withthe weird brutal hand axe from darksun... they all play diffrently and all look very diffrent rangeing from level 4-9
Sure they all look differently from an RP perspective, what we are talking about is the whole charge it, hit it, hit it a little harder, hit it, hit it, hit it.
While the wizard is going shift, slide, stun, push, pull, paralyze.
The cleric is going hit n heal, hit n temp hp, hit n penalize, blast with light
See where I'm going with this?
Not really.
Care to rephrase your point?
You know I am getting sick of hearing this...
I have a whole essential group that I play in, I have a slayer in the LFR game, and a warlock and slayer in my game I run... so I have seen 3 diffrent slayers that play diffrently. 1 has an excution axe, one use a double sword, and one withthe weird brutal hand axe from darksun... they all play diffrently and all look very diffrent rangeing from level 4-9
Show me the part where they can swap class features with other class features from "fighter builds" or with... anything. That is what I mean by "stuck with it." There is also, as lokiare states, a pattern of usage. I'm not stating that it's as straight forward as what he mentions, however. I have no access to the book and its material, just the character builder. Powers-wise, I made a total of 7 selections. Differences in builds are... minor, but present. Class features encompass the rest of the player choices.
With the book that would have allowed "swapping" of features for powers and/or other features disappearing from the lineup (I certainly hope that it appears in a Dragon article for everyone, I really do), I'm currently at a loss. I still see "make one choice, grab a couple powers, the rest is decided for you." If that book had made it out, I probably would've been ecstatic about Essentials... Well, happier I suppose. I might've considered grabbing a feature here and there for whatever I happened to be playing. Actually, I really think they should have released rules on how to swap features for powers from the beginning.
And Haldrik, I believe he's trying to state that Slayers (or perhaps, Essentials strikers as a whole) so far utilize basic attacks that are modified with a couple different powers. With the limit of one free action per round, that limits boosting an attack with, at most, three different actions, assuming you sacrificed your move action for a minor. Choice of actions per round are very limited. Simplicity is nice for those who enjoy simplicity. Complexity (amongst the 40 some powers that the CBC did with an auto build of a barbarian, 18 with a cunning sneak rogue) is nice for those who enjoy complexity (read: not difficulty, but multiple options for every action/reaction).
Heck one of them carries a long bow and goes range 30-40% of the time, the others are melee only...
And Haldrik, I believe he's trying to state that Slayers (or perhaps, Essentials strikers as a whole) so far utilize basic attacks that are modified with a couple different powers. With the limit of one free action per round, that limits boosting an attack with, at most, three different actions, assuming you sacrificed your move action for a minor. Choice of actions per round are very limited. Simplicity is nice for those who enjoy simplicity. Complexity (amongst the 40 some powers that the CBC did with an auto build of a barbarian, 18 with a cunning sneak rogue) is nice for those who enjoy complexity (read: not difficulty, but multiple options for every action/reaction).
Yeah, thats probably what he was getting at. Heh, while he was referring to e-classes, he did actually mention them, so what was being compared and what was being contrasted couldv gone either way.
Most of there attacks are similar... but not much diffrent then most fighter powers just have diffrent Ws... the rider for axe or sword is diffrent, the stances they use, one of them is multi classed...they all use diffrent tactics...
Heck one of them carries a long bow and goes range 30-40% of the time, the others are melee only...
Except the normal fighter does different things with his encounter powers, while a slayer just hits harder with a rider and once of his stances. Not to mention, the fighter also has dailies.
aMost of there attacks are similar... but not much diffrent then most fighter powers just have diffrent Ws... the rider for axe or sword is diffrent, the stances they use, one of them is multi classed...they all use diffrent tactics...
Heck one of them carries a long bow and goes range 30-40% of the time, the others are melee only...
Except the normal fighter does different things with his encounter powers, while a slayer just hits harder with a rider and once of his stances. Not to mention, the fighter also has dailies.
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
Coincidence. When you use powers, you're still just hitting the target over and over... with situational bonuses.
Huh. Sounds familiar....
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
Coincidence. When you use powers, you're still just hitting the target over and over... with situational bonuses.
Huh. Sounds familiar....
Except your not just hitting them, your tripping them, pushing them, pulling them, hitting multiple enemies, causing status effects, all kinds of stuff... See big difference...
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
Coincidence. When you use powers, you're still just hitting the target over and over... with situational bonuses.
Huh. Sounds familiar....
Except your not just hitting them, your tripping them, pushing them, pulling them, hitting multiple enemies, causing status effects, all kinds of stuff... See big difference...
Not really. My Avenger does pretty much what you say the Slayer does. Charges in, beats face until it's dead and then repeats. The hunter ranger in my games did about the same thing. Oh, and when he was a Ranger|Warden too. His powers are, for the most part "Shift X, then hit it harder!" Basically, a charge. Sure, he has some neat tricks with static bonuses (Aspect of Might), but that's the same as the Slayer grabbing his +3 damage while engaging alone stance, in the long run. I can't even make anything witty or comparitive about his utilities because the slayer has access to ALL of the fighter's utilities, as well as he own set, and thus, is free to swap that about.
However, I think you missed the fundamental point: The slayer does stuff when he hits things. So does the Knight.
Every class does "Hits stuff over and over", and then has 'situational bonuses' applied after. For example, the Knight in his Hammer Hands stance hits with an MBA and can push the target 1 square! How's this different from Eldritch Strike, or Overwhelming Assault? Oh, wait. It's not. Eldritch Strike is a slide 1, and is an MBA! Thus, it's a go-to power for builds that use it. Likewise, Overwhelming Strike is a 'shift 1, slide target into square' power, making it the same thing, only slightly different (thanks to the added mobility that comes with being an Avenger).
The Slayer's static bonus to damage is no different than the Sorcerer's and, in fact, scales better. Power Strike is the same thing as "I use an encounter power", as it gains Weapon Specialization/Mastery as it levels, thus resulting in it having on-use effects, such as: Immobilize+CA, or Shift 1+CA, or Slide each adjacent enemy 1. Sounds pretty much like an encounter power to me.
These classes DO have these effects, your gross ignorance of this is sad and makes me doubt that you have done your homework. Guilty parties often points fingers... right? ;)
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
Coincidence. When you use powers, you're still just hitting the target over and over... with situational bonuses.
Huh. Sounds familiar....
Except your not just hitting them, your tripping them, pushing them, pulling them, hitting multiple enemies, causing status effects, all kinds of stuff... See big difference...
Not really. My Avenger does pretty much what you say the Slayer does. Charges in, beats face until it's dead and then repeats. The hunter ranger in my games did about the same thing. Oh, and when he was a Ranger|Warden too. His powers are, for the most part "Shift X, then hit it harder!" Basically, a charge. Sure, he has some neat tricks with static bonuses (Aspect of Might), but that's the same as the Slayer grabbing his +3 damage while engaging alone stance, in the long run. I can't even make anything witty or comparitive about his utilities because the slayer has access to ALL of the fighter's utilities, as well as he own set, and thus, is free to swap that about.
However, I think you missed the fundamental point: The slayer does stuff when he hits things. So does the Knight.
Every class does "Hits stuff over and over", and then has 'situational bonuses' applied after. For example, the Knight in his Hammer Hands stance hits with an MBA and can push the target 1 square! How's this different from Eldritch Strike, or Overwhelming Assault? Oh, wait. It's not. Eldritch Strike is a slide 1, and is an MBA! Thus, it's a go-to power for builds that use it. Likewise, Overwhelming Strike is a 'shift 1, slide target into square' power, making it the same thing, only slightly different (thanks to the added mobility that comes with being an Avenger).
The Slayer's static bonus to damage is no different than the Sorcerer's and, in fact, scales better. Power Strike is the same thing as "I use an encounter power", as it gains Weapon Specialization/Mastery as it levels, thus resulting in it having on-use effects, such as: Immobilize+CA, or Shift 1+CA, or Slide each adjacent enemy 1. Sounds pretty much like an encounter power to me.
These classes DO have these effects, your gross ignorance of this is sad and makes me doubt that you have done your homework. Guilty parties often points fingers... right? ;)
Looking at the Slayer at-will powers there is only one that does something other than give an attack or damage bonus. You get to move a couple extra squares after hitting...woo big deal... its not even a shift. The level 2 encounters give bonuses, give temp hp, and grant CA. Basically you get to hit better and take a hit... woo huge versatility there...Level six lets you grant an ally a heal (which makes no sense from a striker), you get bonuses and move... woo impressive...Level 7 you get another at-will that gives you a bonus or lets you move when you charge... again no versatility... Do you see where I'm going with this?
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
Coincidence. When you use powers, you're still just hitting the target over and over... with situational bonuses.
Huh. Sounds familiar....
Except your not just hitting them, your tripping them, pushing them, pulling them, hitting multiple enemies, causing status effects, all kinds of stuff... See big difference...
Not really. My Avenger does pretty much what you say the Slayer does. Charges in, beats face until it's dead and then repeats. The hunter ranger in my games did about the same thing. Oh, and when he was a Ranger|Warden too. His powers are, for the most part "Shift X, then hit it harder!" Basically, a charge. Sure, he has some neat tricks with static bonuses (Aspect of Might), but that's the same as the Slayer grabbing his +3 damage while engaging alone stance, in the long run. I can't even make anything witty or comparitive about his utilities because the slayer has access to ALL of the fighter's utilities, as well as he own set, and thus, is free to swap that about.
However, I think you missed the fundamental point: The slayer does stuff when he hits things. So does the Knight.
Every class does "Hits stuff over and over", and then has 'situational bonuses' applied after. For example, the Knight in his Hammer Hands stance hits with an MBA and can push the target 1 square! How's this different from Eldritch Strike, or Overwhelming Assault? Oh, wait. It's not. Eldritch Strike is a slide 1, and is an MBA! Thus, it's a go-to power for builds that use it. Likewise, Overwhelming Strike is a 'shift 1, slide target into square' power, making it the same thing, only slightly different (thanks to the added mobility that comes with being an Avenger).
The Slayer's static bonus to damage is no different than the Sorcerer's and, in fact, scales better. Power Strike is the same thing as "I use an encounter power", as it gains Weapon Specialization/Mastery as it levels, thus resulting in it having on-use effects, such as: Immobilize+CA, or Shift 1+CA, or Slide each adjacent enemy 1. Sounds pretty much like an encounter power to me.
These classes DO have these effects, your gross ignorance of this is sad and makes me doubt that you have done your homework. Guilty parties often points fingers... right? ;)
Looking at the Slayer at-will powers there is only one that does something other than give an attack or damage bonus. You get to move a couple extra squares after hitting...woo big deal... its not even a shift. The level 2 encounters give bonuses, give temp hp, and grant CA. Basically you get to hit better and take a hit... woo huge versatility there...Level six lets you grant an ally a heal (which makes no sense from a striker), you get bonuses and move... woo impressive...Level 7 you get another at-will that gives you a bonus or lets you move when you charge... again no versatility... Do you see where I'm going with this?
That you get what you want and aren't happy? That's about what I see. I just proved to you that the powers do exactly what you want, that there are riders on Power Strike, and that they consistently get new effects, and you still aren't happy. We get it. You hate hate hate hate hate hate hate HATE Essentials, and will never like it. Shut up. Seriously. You make this argument over and over again, and because you think you have some high ground, you're the victor. Give it up.
Also, the Slayer has access to every Fighter utility. Ever. We're not in an Essentals Vacuum here. If you can't find something to get in Essentials (You missed 3+Dex Mod damage reaction, btw) for utilities, go to the PHB1, or MP1/2. Level 6 sees to have a no action save. That's pretty valuable.... I see Prone for axes at 7 (oh, hey. Tripping), and the AoE slide, like I pointed out. I see damage when you miss in Paragon... and a 3 square push... and an auto damage power at Epic.
Wow, so, we missed out on.. oh, hey. None of your criteria. Round 3?
EDIT: As for your at-wills, yes. You get damage bonuses... that apply to different situations, actually making the Slayer more versatile, as they can deal with enemies solo (Duelist's Assault), if they're hard to hit (Poised Assault), Bonus speed and accuracy when charging, and a two flat damage stances (a +2 scaling, and a -2 Attack, +4 Damage, scaling) bonus. So... they have options to switch to a stance when charging, back when hitting a single enemy, to gain extra damage against an easy-to-hit target, movement when necessary, and an all-around usage stance.
....Where are they less versatile now?
I'm wondering if they even looked at the stances. They grant situational bonuses to attack, they don't do anything else. You are still just hitting the target over and over...
Coincidence. When you use powers, you're still just hitting the target over and over... with situational bonuses.
Huh. Sounds familiar....
Except your not just hitting them, your tripping them, pushing them, pulling them, hitting multiple enemies, causing status effects, all kinds of stuff... See big difference...
Not really. My Avenger does pretty much what you say the Slayer does. Charges in, beats face until it's dead and then repeats. The hunter ranger in my games did about the same thing. Oh, and when he was a Ranger|Warden too. His powers are, for the most part "Shift X, then hit it harder!" Basically, a charge. Sure, he has some neat tricks with static bonuses (Aspect of Might), but that's the same as the Slayer grabbing his +3 damage while engaging alone stance, in the long run. I can't even make anything witty or comparitive about his utilities because the slayer has access to ALL of the fighter's utilities, as well as he own set, and thus, is free to swap that about.
However, I think you missed the fundamental point: The slayer does stuff when he hits things. So does the Knight.
Every class does "Hits stuff over and over", and then has 'situational bonuses' applied after. For example, the Knight in his Hammer Hands stance hits with an MBA and can push the target 1 square! How's this different from Eldritch Strike, or Overwhelming Assault? Oh, wait. It's not. Eldritch Strike is a slide 1, and is an MBA! Thus, it's a go-to power for builds that use it. Likewise, Overwhelming Strike is a 'shift 1, slide target into square' power, making it the same thing, only slightly different (thanks to the added mobility that comes with being an Avenger).
The Slayer's static bonus to damage is no different than the Sorcerer's and, in fact, scales better. Power Strike is the same thing as "I use an encounter power", as it gains Weapon Specialization/Mastery as it levels, thus resulting in it having on-use effects, such as: Immobilize+CA, or Shift 1+CA, or Slide each adjacent enemy 1. Sounds pretty much like an encounter power to me.
These classes DO have these effects, your gross ignorance of this is sad and makes me doubt that you have done your homework. Guilty parties often points fingers... right? ;)
Looking at the Slayer at-will powers there is only one that does something other than give an attack or damage bonus. You get to move a couple extra squares after hitting...woo big deal... its not even a shift. The level 2 encounters give bonuses, give temp hp, and grant CA. Basically you get to hit better and take a hit... woo huge versatility there...Level six lets you grant an ally a heal (which makes no sense from a striker), you get bonuses and move... woo impressive...Level 7 you get another at-will that gives you a bonus or lets you move when you charge... again no versatility... Do you see where I'm going with this?
That you get what you want and aren't happy? That's about what I see. I just proved to you that the powers do exactly what you want, that there are riders on Power Strike, and that they consistently get new effects, and you still aren't happy. We get it. You hate hate hate hate hate hate hate HATE Essentials, and will never like it. Shut up. Seriously. You make this argument over and over again, and because you think you have some high ground, you're the victor. Give it up.
Also, the Slayer has access to every Fighter utility. Ever. We're not in an Essentals Vacuum here. If you can't find something to get in Essentials (You missed 3+Dex Mod damage reaction, btw) for utilities, go to the PHB1, or MP1/2. Level 6 sees to have a no action save. That's pretty valuable.... I see Prone for axes at 7 (oh, hey. Tripping), and the AoE slide, like I pointed out. I see damage when you miss in Paragon... and a 3 square push... and an auto damage power at Epic.
Wow, so, we missed out on.. oh, hey. None of your criteria. Round 3?
Your quoting auto-damage powers doesn't help your cause. It just proves mine. Sure you get 2-3 powers over the career of the entire 30 levels of the class that allows you to what move a target a couple squares? Sure I never said they weren't effective, just "hit it, move, hit it, hit it harder, hit it". That's what they do.Prone is purely a bonus to attack as it grants a bonus to hit, and on their turn they use a move to stand up. Its not that big of a deal. The fighter utilities would be the only real way to grant the slayer versatility. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference. You should check out the pre-E martial classes. Each level their powers do something versatile, like stun, push, pull, slide, imobilize, multi-attack, etc etc...
Also I never said I hate Essentials. I just hate that Essentials is eating my pre-E.
Your quoting auto-damage powers doesn't help your cause. It just proves mine. Sure you get 2-3 powers over the career of the entire 30 levels of the class that allows you to what move a target a couple squares? Sure I never said they weren't effective, just "hit it, move, hit it, hit it harder, hit it". That's what they do.Prone is purely a bonus to attack as it grants a bonus to hit, and on their turn they use a move to stand up. Its not that big of a deal. The fighter utilities would be the only real way to grant the slayer versatility. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference. You should check out the pre-E martial classes. Each level their powers do something versatile, like stun, push, pull, slide, imobilize, multi-attack, etc etc...
Also I never said I hate Essentials. I just hate that Essentials is eating my pre-E.
Except that half of the usual suspects for Martial Paragons in the PHB have Autodamage features. Pot, meet kettle. Pit Fighter, Stormwarden. Hi.
Also, I love the little Lucy Pulls The Football from Charlie Brown act. there. "Man, I wish the slayer had some tripping powers!" 'Look at what Reaping Axe does!' "Prone sucks, what good is tripping anyway?"
I'd like you to take a gander at my Avenger post. I noted that he has a bunch of powers that give out static bonuses, and shifts + damage. They're not all that impressive. The Slayer isn't a defender like, say, the Fighter. And thus, has less control. It's also Striker with a leader secondary, rather than controller, thus, resulting in.... less control? Seems like an obvious thing. We're not looking at the Rogue, here.
As a final thing: The Slayer gets 4 uses of the Power Strike feature. That's more than 1 instance of a control feature like you want. In fact, the Slayer is BETTER than other classes at his chosen features, because he can do it more reliably, and doesn't waste his power when he misses with his MBA. Say what you like, the Pre-E classes don't have this going for them. If they miss on a non-reliable power (which is pretty often), it's gone. They have to go through some pretty impressive hoops to get powers back after expending them. (Avengers can do it as a daily, Demigods do it once an encounter, I believe? There's a couple of items that do it. A Solitaire, I'd imagine).
That said, I don't like the HotFL classes, I don't think they're a good direction. I just think you're dismissing them because you're a moron and read what you like. That's all.
It also occurs to me that they may be able to poach Knight stances since all of them are classified as "Fighter Utility", and those add more options, such as an at-will slow (normally a fighter encounter power).
On top of that, they're stances, so they apply to OAs and granted attacks as well, unlike a typical fighter who has to spend a paragon tier feat to get that just for OAs (and has to wield the right kind of weapon to do it at all).
Likewise, their utility slots can be filled by any valid fighter utility, not just the ones listed under Slayer (or even just the ones in Essentials books).
The Weapon Specialization feature chain involves a choice each time it comes up; you aren't even required to make the same weapon choice each time. The first one adds a 2+/encounter rider to your attacks (and that will never be wasted by a miss) that's comparable to high-end encounter powers or even low-end dailies - and you're not limited to doing it once per day.
--
Does the Slayer involve making as many level-up choices as a 'standard' fighter? No, but it's hardly "everything predetermined" and "does nothing but hit for damage", and in some ways has more tactical flexibility than the standard fighter does.
I'm not fond of everything that Essentials did to the system, but the Slayer isn't one of its faults.
Not really. My Avenger does pretty much what you say the Slayer does. Charges in, beats face until it's dead and then repeats. The hunter ranger in my games did about the same thing. Oh, and when he was a Ranger|Warden too. His powers are, for the most part "Shift X, then hit it harder!" Basically, a charge. Sure, he has some neat tricks with static bonuses (Aspect of Might), but that's the same as the Slayer grabbing his +3 damage while engaging alone stance, in the long run. I can't even make anything witty or comparitive about his utilities because the slayer has access to ALL of the fighter's utilities, as well as he own set, and thus, is free to swap that about.
No, it doesn't. It has level 16's and level 22's utility powers chosen for it and, according to the character builder, is NOT capable of swapping them out via retraining.
Except that half of the usual suspects for Martial Paragons in the PHB have Autodamage features. Pot, meet kettle. Pit Fighter, Stormwarden. Hi.
I didn't say they didn't, I said they have variety.
Also, I love the little Lucy Pulls The Football from Charlie Brown act. there. "Man, I wish the slayer had some tripping powers!" 'Look at what Reaping Axe does!' "Prone sucks, what good is tripping anyway?"
I never said i wish they had tripping powers. I may have listed trip as one of the MANY effects that pre-E classes can cause on targets.
I'd like you to take a gander at my Avenger post. I noted that he has a bunch of powers that give out static bonuses, and shifts + damage. They're not all that impressive. The Slayer isn't a defender like, say, the Fighter. And thus, has less control. It's also Striker with a leader secondary, rather than controller, thus, resulting in.... less control? Seems like an obvious thing. We're not looking at the Rogue, here.
Shifts + damage is "move, hit it". sure but look at the pre-E strikers you'll see they do a lot more than "move, hit it"
As a final thing: The Slayer gets 4 uses of the Power Strike feature. That's more than 1 instance of a control feature like you want. In fact, the Slayer is BETTER than other classes at his chosen features, because he can do it more reliably, and doesn't waste his power when he misses with his MBA. Say what you like, the Pre-E classes don't have this going for them. If they miss on a non-reliable power (which is pretty often), it's gone. They have to go through some pretty impressive hoops to get powers back after expending them. (Avengers can do it as a daily, Demigods do it once an encounter, I believe? There's a couple of items that do it. A Solitaire, I'd imagine).
That said, I don't like the HotFL classes, I don't think they're a good direction. I just think you're dismissing them because you're a moron and read what you like. That's all.
the only things that power strike do (if you have the right weapon) is either prone or slide 1. Prone like I said before is pretty much get a bonus to attack. The slide requires the use of a specific weapon, the target must be right next to you and you slide it 1 square. Color me not impressed...
Strange. I thought name calling fell under flaming/baiting of the ToS and CoC...
Also strange, I'm reading the online compendium and not seeing what your talking about. Lets look at some pre-E strikers.
Warlock
Dark Pact - damage + weakened (occasionally)
Fey Pact - damage + invisible to target.
Infernal Pact - Temp HP, Conditional Damage.
Sorcerer King Pact - CA + damage.
Star Pact - Damage, conditional damage, bonus to attack
Vestige Pact - Grants an ally a save or attack bonus or ally bonus to defenses or attack bonus or based on daily power used.
Powers:
Fortunes reversal - Target penalty to saves or target penalty to attacks
Arms of Hadar - Push 2+
Clarion Call - Target deafened + temp hp
Darkworm Feast - Slowed
Decree of Kirad - Slide 2 and target makes MBA against another target
Life Bind - Cannot regain hp, penalty to saves
Sprite War Call - Slowed + CA
Tyranny of Flame - Prone and can't get up from prone (SE)
Vestige of Khaeleth - Reduce damage to allies or Ally gains temp HP
Vestige of Mount Vaelis - (equivalent most of the time) immobilized and Vulnerable to thunder
Ashen Scourge - pull 2 + CA
Cruel Bounty - Allies gain bonus to attack
Hand of Blight - CA
Star Shackles - Grabs multiple opponents
The Lashes Bite - Target loses all Immunities and resistances
Vile Brand - Penalty to attack.
These are all level 1 powers...
I'm running out of time and have to go, but you see what I'm saying yet? Find me a pre-E class that just "moves, hit it, hit it harder"...
Except that half of the usual suspects for Martial Paragons in the PHB have Autodamage features. Pot, meet kettle. Pit Fighter, Stormwarden. Hi.
I didn't say they didn't, I said they have variety.Also, I love the little Lucy Pulls The Football from Charlie Brown act. there. "Man, I wish the slayer had some tripping powers!" 'Look at what Reaping Axe does!' "Prone sucks, what good is tripping anyway?"
I never said i wish they had tripping powers. I may have listed trip as one of the MANY effects that pre-E classes can cause on targets.I'd like you to take a gander at my Avenger post. I noted that he has a bunch of powers that give out static bonuses, and shifts + damage. They're not all that impressive. The Slayer isn't a defender like, say, the Fighter. And thus, has less control. It's also Striker with a leader secondary, rather than controller, thus, resulting in.... less control? Seems like an obvious thing. We're not looking at the Rogue, here.
Shifts + damage is "move, hit it". sure but look at the pre-E strikers you'll see they do a lot more than "move, hit it"As a final thing: The Slayer gets 4 uses of the Power Strike feature. That's more than 1 instance of a control feature like you want. In fact, the Slayer is BETTER than other classes at his chosen features, because he can do it more reliably, and doesn't waste his power when he misses with his MBA. Say what you like, the Pre-E classes don't have this going for them. If they miss on a non-reliable power (which is pretty often), it's gone. They have to go through some pretty impressive hoops to get powers back after expending them. (Avengers can do it as a daily, Demigods do it once an encounter, I believe? There's a couple of items that do it. A Solitaire, I'd imagine).
That said, I don't like the HotFL classes, I don't think they're a good direction. I just think you're dismissing them because you're a moron and read what you like. That's all.
the only things that power strike do (if you have the right weapon) is either prone or slide 1. Prone like I said before is pretty much get a bonus to attack. The slide requires the use of a specific weapon, the target must be right next to you and you slide it 1 square. Color me not impressed...
Strange. I thought name calling fell under flaming/baiting of the ToS and CoC...
Also strange, I'm reading the online compendium and not seeing what your talking about. Lets look at some pre-E strikers.
Warlock
Dark Pact - damage + weakened (occasionally)
Fey Pact - damage + invisible to target.
Infernal Pact - Temp HP, Conditional Damage.
Sorcerer King Pact - CA + damage.
Star Pact - Damage, conditional damage, bonus to attack
Vestige Pact - Grants an ally a save or attack bonus or ally bonus to defenses or attack bonus or based on daily power used.
Powers:
Fortunes reversal - Target penalty to saves or target penalty to attacks
Arms of Hadar - Push 2+
Clarion Call - Target deafened + temp hp
Darkworm Feast - Slowed
Decree of Kirad - Slide 2 and target makes MBA against another target
Life Bind - Cannot regain hp, penalty to saves
Sprite War Call - Slowed + CA
Tyranny of Flame - Prone and can't get up from prone (SE)
Vestige of Khaeleth - Reduce damage to allies or Ally gains temp HP
Vestige of Mount Vaelis - (equivalent most of the time) immobilized and Vulnerable to thunder
Ashen Scourge - pull 2 + CA
Cruel Bounty - Allies gain bonus to attack
Hand of Blight - CA
Star Shackles - Grabs multiple opponents
The Lashes Bite - Target loses all Immunities and resistances
Vile Brand - Penalty to attack.
These are all level 1 powers...
I'm running out of time and have to go, but you see what I'm saying yet? Find me a pre-E class that just "moves, hit it, hit it harder"...
...Except... I did? The Pursuit Avenger. I play one. I'm pretty sure I know how it works. Also, the Warlock isn't a Weapon-based Striker, using it as a comparision for the Slayer is pretty dirty. Comparing the Warlock to the Hexblade would be much more realistic, and then you'd realize that the Hexblade also has effects on their powers... Exactly like you want...
The Rogue is "Move, hit it." There are effects on powers, exactly the same as the Slayer... The Barbarian is also move, hit it, hit it harder. It's baseline feature, Rage Strike, is the epitome of this: "Give up Effect for moar damagez." Rageblood's slaying feature is a charge buddy. One of their at-wills is Charge+More Damage. I guess... the Barbarian is move, hit it, hit it harder, if you kill something, you move and hit it again! I guess, once again.... debunked?
No, it doesn't. It has level 16's and level 22's utility powers chosen for it and, according to the character builder, is NOT capable of swapping them out via retraining.
The Character Builder isn't a rules source. Regardless, the former is from Mythic Slayer, thus, if you take a different Paragon Path, it doesn't get that level 16 Utility, but instead, a different one. As for the level 22, I have no idea why this is, given that it pretty clearly states you can swap them at any level you gain a utility from the Slayer for another one from the Fighter. I chalk it up to the CB being a buggy PoS, and once again reiterate, it is not a rules source. If you treat it as such, that's your business. It's not, however.
That, or every hexblade can just use Eldritch Blast (instead of its lesser version, Eldritch Bolt) anyway, or any other Lock at-will for that matter. And a mage might as well say "You get 1 extra at-will power".
There's some debate over it on this forum, its not just a CB thing.
The Character Builder isn't a rules source. Regardless, the former is from Mythic Slayer, thus, if you take a different Paragon Path, it doesn't get that level 16 Utility, but instead, a different one. As for the level 22, I have no idea why this is, given that it pretty clearly states you can swap them at any level you gain a utility from the Slayer for another one from the Fighter. I chalk it up to the CB being a buggy PoS, and once again reiterate, it is not a rules source. If you treat it as such, that's your business. It's not, however.
Actually, I did a bit of searching to find the wording. It states that "Whenever you [b]choose[/b] a new class power, you can select it from the list presented in this book or you can take a power of the same class, level, and type (attack or utility) from another source." Emphasis mine, of course, and that would be highly subject to interpretation for the sake of the Slayer. After all, at level's 16 and 22, you are GIVEN powers, not told to make a choice.
Also, paragon paths grant utility powers at level 12 usually... Level 16 is a defining point class feature of the path (well, probably; regardless, I'm pretty sure all non-Essentials PP's have a class feature at that level). They may have just taken it a step further and said "For your class feature, here's a power!" I've seen it on a couple ED's.
...Except... I did? The Pursuit Avenger. I play one. I'm pretty sure I know how it works. Also, the Warlock isn't a Weapon-based Striker, using it as a comparision for the Slayer is pretty dirty. Comparing the Warlock to the Hexblade would be much more realistic, and then you'd realize that the Hexblade also has effects on their powers... Exactly like you want...
The problem with this argument is that yes you can CHOOSE to be a "run up and hit it, hit it again" character you are not locked into it like you are with the slayer. Just looking at the channel divinity powers you have the option of variety. You can pull an undead or give an ally a free attack. That's right off the bat, so your Pursuit avenger even CHOOSING powers that are "hit it" powers you still have variety. The fact you can CHOOSE powers that do more than "hit it" proves you wrong. I have no problem that you CHOOSE to play a pursuit avenger like this, I do have a problem that you can't play a slayer any other way...
Avenger Powers:
Bond of Censure - pull
Celestial Fist - Immobilized + slowed
Compelling blade - shift + slide
Pass at arms - ally shift or you shift + slide
Relentless Attack - Push + shift
Speed and Stillness - shift + temp hp
Thunder and Echo - push
Rictus Grin - Penalty to attack
Avenging Shackles - Slowed
Seeking Brand - Slowed
These are all 1st level powers.
The Rogue is "Move, hit it." There are effects on powers, exactly the same as the Slayer... The Barbarian is also move, hit it, hit it harder. It's baseline feature, Rage Strike, is the epitome of this: "Give up Effect for moar damagez." Rageblood's slaying feature is a charge buddy. One of their at-wills is Charge+More Damage. I guess... the Barbarian is move, hit it, hit it harder, if you kill something, you move and hit it again! I guess, once again.... debunked?
I really wish you were open to debate, rather than constantly saying "debunked" or the like. While the rogues class features to point to a "Hit it, run and hide, Hit it again" the powers do allow a large variety of effects.
Rogue powers:
Duelists assault - shift + slide
Palming Strike - Draw an item as a free action
Checking Jab - CA + slowed
Confounding Attack - Target makes an MBA
Fox's Gambit - shift + negate marks
Handspring Assault - shift
Impact Shot - push
Pommel Smash - penalty to attack
Sky Lunge - CA
Termination threat - immobilized
Unbalancing shot - slowed
These are all level 1 powers.
I could go on and on and on. The rogue has a huge variety of attacks.
I'd do the Barbarian, but I'm tired. Someone else can do it, or you can do it if you want.
The fact of the matter is that yes you can CHOOSE to play a "hit it, move, hit it, hit it harder" character in pre-E. With the slayer you can't play anything but that...
> The slide requires the use of a specific weapon, the target must be right next
> to you and you slide it 1 square. Color me not impressed...
You need a two-handed blade, of which there are several. More significantly, the slide affects each adjacent enemy, not just the one you hit. Add some slide-enhancing tricks to that and you can send entire groups of enemies careening across the battlefield multiple times per encounter as a perk on top of everything else you're doing. (And, as noted earlier, this will never be wasted by a miss.)
That's enough to make many controllers jealous.
bluh bluh worthless post
Thank you for making my point. Especially on the Avenger. Nearly every one of the powers listed is "Move and hit it", with the occasional flavour of "Move it to me and hit it!" Also, I like how you convienently ignore 'Pursuit' in Avenger. If you actually had any idea at all of how a Pursuit Avenger functions, then you'd know it has feats like Invigorating Pursuit, which reinforces it's "Charge it harder!" mechanic. It's base deterrant feature is "If an enemy moves away from you...", again, making Charging it's best possible option. Bond of Censure is largely niche for Implement Avengers, Pass At Arms is for Leadership Avengers, I'm positive you've gone ahead and added in Retribution rider powers as well. Meaning you have a distinct lack of awareness, and again, are reading exactly what you want and nothing else. Pursuit Avengers are based on charging and target lockdown. They are secondary defenders. They function entirely as "Hit it, hit it harder, and if if runs away, you should probably charge it and hit it even harder!" That is it's role.
Let me make this clear: Every single class in the game functions on hitting it's target every round, in some form. Got it? Even the Lazy Warlord, who makes no attacks of his own, uses his ALLIES to move, hit it and hit it harder. This is the base premise of the game. To hit things and damage them. Every class, even the Pacifist Cleric has the capability, and powers to do so. The Slayer's been adamantly PROVEN to have incredible control effects tied to Power Strike, and you like you ignore it. It gets some pretty good choices too. It's tied to a weapon type, which is absolutely no different from many Fighter powers. Also, the Slayer has a flat +1 bonus with ALL weapons, whereas, the Fighter must either choose +1 with one-handed weapons, 2-handed weapons, or another class feature. Versatility is pretty much the Slayer's thing. Because it has fewer (see: no) powers reliant on specific weapon types (A Fighter that builds into Execution Axes cannot pick up a power designed for heavy blades and be just as effective, sorry), the Slayer functions better, because it can go from Long Bow, to Greataxe, to Execution Axe, to Fullblade, with minimal loss.
Now, would you like to keep being wrong? Because there isn't 'debate' here, there's "Preconcieved notion" and "Factual evidence".
bluh bluh worthless post
Thank you for making my point. Especially on the Avenger. Nearly every one of the powers listed is "Move and hit it", with the occasional flavour of "Move it to me and hit it!" Also, I like how you convienently ignore 'Pursuit' in Avenger. If you actually had any idea at all of how a Pursuit Avenger functions, then you'd know it has feats like Invigorating Pursuit, which reinforces it's "Charge it harder!" mechanic. It's base deterrant feature is "If an enemy moves away from you...", again, making Charging it's best possible option. Bond of Censure is largely niche for Implement Avengers, Pass At Arms is for Leadership Avengers, I'm positive you've gone ahead and added in Retribution rider powers as well. Meaning you have a distinct lack of awareness, and again, are reading exactly what you want and nothing else. Pursuit Avengers are based on charging and target lockdown. They are secondary defenders. They function entirely as "Hit it, hit it harder, and if if runs away, you should probably charge it and hit it even harder!" That is it's role.
Let me make this clear: Every single class in the game functions on hitting it's target every round, in some form. Got it? Even the Lazy Warlord, who makes no attacks of his own, uses his ALLIES to move, hit it and hit it harder. This is the base premise of the game. To hit things and damage them. Every class, even the Pacifist Cleric has the capability, and powers to do so. The Slayer's been adamantly PROVEN to have incredible control effects tied to Power Strike, and you like you ignore it. It gets some pretty good choices too. It's tied to a weapon type, which is absolutely no different from many Fighter powers. Also, the Slayer has a flat +1 bonus with ALL weapons, whereas, the Fighter must either choose +1 with one-handed weapons, 2-handed weapons, or another class feature. Versatility is pretty much the Slayer's thing. Because it has fewer (see: no) powers reliant on specific weapon types (A Fighter that builds into Execution Axes cannot pick up a power designed for heavy blades and be just as effective, sorry), the Slayer functions better, because it can go from Long Bow, to Greataxe, to Execution Axe, to Fullblade, with minimal loss.
Now, would you like to keep being wrong? Because there isn't 'debate' here, there's "Preconcieved notion" and "Factual evidence".
And you missed my point completely. Yes you can choose to play a few pre-E classes as "hit it, run up, hit it harder", but you don't have to. You are not locked into that. You have the options of variety even if you CHOOSE that build. With slayers you have little or no options to do this throughout the entire 30 levels of the class. Like I said you can CHOOSE to build your Pursuit Avenger that way, but you do not have to do that, you can give them powers that provide a variety of effects that make them a more effective striker that do not deal with "hit it, run up, hit it harder". The Avenger is not limited to "pursuit" build powers. You can choose the occasional power that is outside that builds "best interest" this is the core of my gripe with Essentials, you lose the ability to have variety in your builds (with the exception of the mage, which has its own problems)...
bluh bluh worthless post
Thank you for making my point. Especially on the Avenger. Nearly every one of the powers listed is "Move and hit it", with the occasional flavour of "Move it to me and hit it!" Also, I like how you convienently ignore 'Pursuit' in Avenger. If you actually had any idea at all of how a Pursuit Avenger functions, then you'd know it has feats like Invigorating Pursuit, which reinforces it's "Charge it harder!" mechanic. It's base deterrant feature is "If an enemy moves away from you...", again, making Charging it's best possible option. Bond of Censure is largely niche for Implement Avengers, Pass At Arms is for Leadership Avengers, I'm positive you've gone ahead and added in Retribution rider powers as well. Meaning you have a distinct lack of awareness, and again, are reading exactly what you want and nothing else. Pursuit Avengers are based on charging and target lockdown. They are secondary defenders. They function entirely as "Hit it, hit it harder, and if if runs away, you should probably charge it and hit it even harder!" That is it's role.
Let me make this clear: Every single class in the game functions on hitting it's target every round, in some form. Got it? Even the Lazy Warlord, who makes no attacks of his own, uses his ALLIES to move, hit it and hit it harder. This is the base premise of the game. To hit things and damage them. Every class, even the Pacifist Cleric has the capability, and powers to do so. The Slayer's been adamantly PROVEN to have incredible control effects tied to Power Strike, and you like you ignore it. It gets some pretty good choices too. It's tied to a weapon type, which is absolutely no different from many Fighter powers. Also, the Slayer has a flat +1 bonus with ALL weapons, whereas, the Fighter must either choose +1 with one-handed weapons, 2-handed weapons, or another class feature. Versatility is pretty much the Slayer's thing. Because it has fewer (see: no) powers reliant on specific weapon types (A Fighter that builds into Execution Axes cannot pick up a power designed for heavy blades and be just as effective, sorry), the Slayer functions better, because it can go from Long Bow, to Greataxe, to Execution Axe, to Fullblade, with minimal loss.
Now, would you like to keep being wrong? Because there isn't 'debate' here, there's "Preconcieved notion" and "Factual evidence".
And you missed my point completely. Yes you can choose to play a few pre-E classes as "hit it, run up, hit it harder", but you don't have to. You are not locked into that. You have the options of variety even if you CHOOSE that build. With slayers you have little or no options to do this throughout the entire 30 levels of the class. Like I said you can CHOOSE to build your Pursuit Avenger that way, but you do not have to do that, you can give them powers that provide a variety of effects that make them a more effective striker that do not deal with "hit it, run up, hit it harder". The Avenger is not limited to "pursuit" build powers. You can choose the occasional power that is outside that builds "best interest" this is the core of my gripe with Essentials, you lose the ability to have variety in your builds (with the exception of the mage, which has its own problems)...
Yes, you are. If you play a melee character, you run up, and you hit it. You use dailies and encounters to hit it harder. Sure, your powers have riders at times, but largely, and by far your shtichk is "I get in close and beat face". Implement users don't have this problem, but Essentials has only 1 of those. The Mage's only problem is that while it has versatility, it's School feature is hands-down better than Implement Mastery, thus, negating the Wizard (like everyone argues Essentials doesn't). You could play one, but why?
I left you a rather large section on variety via the Slayer vs. the Fighter that you outrightly ignored. Go back, read it again, and tell me I'm wrong. Seriously. Do it. Dare you.
Yes, you are. If you play a melee character, you run up, and you hit it. You use dailies and encounters to hit it harder. Sure, your powers have riders at times, but largely, and by far your shtichk is "I get in close and beat face". Implement users don't have this problem, but Essentials has only 1 of those. The Mage's only problem is that while it has versatility, it's School feature is hands-down better than Implement Mastery, thus, negating the Wizard (like everyone argues Essentials doesn't). You could play one, but why?
I left you a rather large section on variety via the Slayer vs. the Fighter that you outrightly ignored. Go back, read it again, and tell me I'm wrong. Seriously. Do it. Dare you.
Oh you mean the part where you say the slayer can use any weapon to use any of its effects and the Fighter has to use a specific weapon to get theirs. Yes I ignored that. Within each weapon fighters still have way more variety than the Slayer. Look at the power list, you'll see what I'm talking about. Since the fighter is a defender it will have different styles of attacks anyway. Actually short of a few "hit it harder" powers almost all powers of pre-E classes have some kind of rider, which just because there are so many available means that it will always have more options than the Slayer.
Yes, every class deals damage, that is core to the combat of the game. Which means those classes that deal decent damage and get riders and effects have variety. The slayer only has two options for their encounter riders. The pre-E classes have 10+ at first level.
I agree with you on the mage. It invalidates the Wizard while at the same time limiting what you can do with new Arcane classes with WotC trying to shoe-horn every new arcane build into a school (i.e. Necromancer, Nethermancer, kitchensinkmancer etc..etc...) because they have to balance with another school's powers to make up the effect of a single class feature.
If you still don't think that pre-E has more variety and less "hit it, run up, hit it harder" then please provide a bulleted list of what each power/class feature grants for the slayer, and I will provide a bulleted list of what the pursuit avenger gets. Limit it to one bullet for each power/class feature...
If you still don't think that pre-E has more variety and less "hit it, run up, hit it harder" ...
Not going to happen because obviously that is all he uses.
I'd rather have the choice.
I have no problem with people that want that out of a character. I do have a problem with they want everyone to want that out of a character.
The fact that you could do this pre-E (if you chose) is just more proof that if they really wanted to introduce new players, they would have just created characters with feats and powers already chosen, rather than create Essentials. This tells me the primary motivation for Essentials was money...
If you still don't think that pre-E has more variety and less "hit it, run up, hit it harder" ...
Not going to happen because obviously that is all he uses.
I'd rather have the choice.
I have no problem with people that want that out of a character. I do have a problem with they want everyone to want that out of a character.
The fact that you could do this pre-E (if you chose) is just more proof that if they really wanted to introduce new players, they would have just created characters with feats and powers already chosen, rather than create Essentials. This tells me the primary motivation for Essentials was money...
Or more likely, that it was an attempt to snag older players who ran from the original 4th edtion and get them to teach Essentials to their kids. The kids find out about 4th ed and, being more open to new games and designs, decide to take up original 4th edition as their hobby. But to help make it "easier" to transition between the two, all future products will at least resemble the hideous layout and design implementation as Essentials, instead of counting on those same kids to "get it" and just run with it.
This is my guess at what was being attempted in Essentials. I have a feeling that it did not work for the same reason that we Americans got offended when Japan gave us Final Fantasy IV:Easy Mode; "we ain't stupid, don't treat us like we are" kicked in.
And then there are those of us who genuinely love what essentials adds to the game, because it has all the balance and concise rules of 4e, but with a whole lot more Dungeons and Dragons in it.
What exactly did post-E add to the game? The only thing (and I'm being serious here) I see that was added was a badly supported item rarity system that was really not needed if people actually bothered to read the item rules.
The only features the post-E classes bring to the game are class features above level one. Everything else was already in the game.
The lack of options is not a feature.
And then there are those of us who genuinely love what essentials adds to the game, because it has all the balance and concise rules of 4e, but with a whole lot more Dungeons and Dragons in it.
What exactly did post-E add to the game? The only thing (and I'm being serious here) I see that was added was a badly supported item rarity system that was really not needed if people actually bothered to read the item rules.
The only features the post-E classes bring to the game are class features above level one. Everything else was already in the game.
The lack of options is not a feature.
Quality of options is.
And lack of options is a feature, in fact. You spout that line out without thinking about it. Tell me: how many feat options are there for a 1st level character, not even taking into account prerequisite feats? How many racial options are there total to consider when making a new character?
There is a vast, vast swath of the D&D community who enjoy sitting down at a table, making characters, and not taking over four hours to do so; there are Dungeon Masters out there who, for some strange reason, actually like being able to (off the top of their head) know roughly what everyone's powers do because they only have a small stack of books to memorize.
I can tell anyone at my essentials game how their striker ability works, how their at-wills work, what the bonus provided by backstab is, and so on. In a completely open setting provided by D&Di, with more options than any player could ever use in his entire life, and most of which he wouldn't want to because they kind of suck, the Dungeon Master doesn't know what anyone's abilities are by heart, nor do the players for that matter. Everyone loses out, and it takes four times as long to make a character who inevitably turns out to be a rogue, a fighter, a ranger, and a cleric.
Here's another thing you're not considering: Essentials, being paperback, is cheap enough that you can get both player books for less than the price of a single PHB. And what do you get for that?
Ten fully fleshed out classes (since fighters are divided into striker fighters and defender fighters, and rangers are divided into striker rangers and controller rangers, I count them both). These classes have no fewer (and often more) at-will options. Spellcasters have an equal number of encounter options to the PHB, and equal number of dailies.
In addition, as I mentioned, the quality is higher: those classes, for all their being cheaper and more plentiful and just as filled with options as any PHB, are written with a wonderful blend of fluff and crunch. There is more focus on their roles in the world, of course, but what I really like is that each class feels more roleplayish.
People used to constantly rant and rave that 4th Edition doesn't allow for roleplaying, that it's purely about combat. Well guess what? Beast empathy. Out-of-combat rogue at-wills. Suggestion cantrip. Essentials doesn't just beautifully polish to a mirror shine the most classic of classes from 4E, into what old-school DMs remember fondly from their older games, but they also fix the problem of lacking the roleplay options people always wanted in 4E, but conveniently forgot about that complaint when Essentials rolled around.
Continuing: the races all received errata, tons of fluff, tweaks to make them more customizeable and make your racial choice less about minmaxing your class (due to fixed ability scores) and more about picking what you wanted to play. Highly polished.
Feats? Hahahahahahahhaa. Look at the feats in the PHB sometime. Those were mostly useless; people in 4E depend upon sources besides the PHB for 90% of their feats. Well, in Essentials, they took all of the best feats, rebalanced the value of a generic feat, polished kind of bad feats that they wanted to make desirable again, errata'd overpowered feats... and plopped them down into the book. And, while this is only a guess (i don't feel like counting) I get the feeling that between the two Essential player's books, there are more feats of substantially higher quality and value than there were in the PHB.
Skills... skills all received errata at some point, and Essentials compiled all of that in one place. Arcana, Stealth, knowledge skills... the vastly, vastly improved DCs from the stock PHB/DMG set..
* * * *
I do not only see just as many options as a PHB, I see them to be higher quality... an extremely polished product. Something that, if Wizards of the Coast wanted to put D&D on a resume, they'd throw on there in a heartbeat over the PHB I.
"But, that's restricting options because I play with the PHB I, II, III, Adventuerers Vaults, Dragon and Dungeon, three Campaign Settings and a stack of Power books!"
You are technically correct, using Essentials over using all of those books is, technically, a decrease in the number of available options.
But I reiterate. Essentials DMs aren't looking for so many options that their players can't make decisions--and they aren't looking for 20 pounds of books, 75% of which are sub-par options or options that'll never be used or which Wizards will only release the class for but never any support for.
Essentials DMs find Essentials to be vastly improved because it's a higher polished product, and it's about (or greater) than the size of a single Player's Handbook... and Essentials DMs are perfectly happy with DMing with only one Player's Handbook worth of contents. I did that for years as a 3.5 DM, with only the PHB in hand--and now that I have Essentials, I'm finally satisfied that I can do it again, without D&Di paralyzing my players with choices, confusing me with what their powers mean, etc. etc.
What exactly did post-E add to the game? The only thing (and I'm being serious here) I see that was added was a badly supported item rarity system that was really not needed if people actually bothered to read the item rules.
The only features the post-E classes bring to the game are class features above level one. Everything else was already in the game.
Objectively false. Essentials introduced the notion of builds that can be distinctly different from parent classes, including their role and power source designations. Essentials introduced the ability to create mixed power source classes. Essentials also built on the foundation the PHB 3 introduced, namely in terms of classes that do not follow the traditional AEDU schematic. As a result essentials expands the creative parameters of the game in terms of its class design space. Moreover, Essentials did all of this with an eye for resurrecting a lot of flavor and fluff from older editions of the game while simultaneously maintaining 4e's balance. Nothing like the scout existed in the game until essentials. And I have to say, considering the fact that I am playing a scout in one of the two D&D games I am participating in right now (I am DMing a Dark Sun game with my other group), that is really enhancing my enjoyment of the game. The scout is, so far, fitting me like a glove.
Quick note: I do have one complaint about beast empathy. Instead of giving me a +2 bonus to my social skills with animals, I really wish it allowed me to roll nature checks instead of social skills when trying to socially communicate with animals.
Nothing like the scout existed in the game until essentials.
Just want to make sure I'm not incorrectly interpreting it... but you speak of ONLY 4th edition, right? Also, despite the Seeker's lack of support, does it not qualify as such an option? Having none of the Essentials books, I find comparison difficult, to say the least.
Nothing like the scout existed in the game until essentials.
Just want to make sure I'm not incorrectly interpreting it... but you speak of ONLY 4th edition, right?
I was speaking only of 4e, though to be honest, the statement would be accurate of any edition. The scout is an amazing class. It is not, in any shape or form, underpowered. While much of the scout is inspired by 2e and 3e, in those editions you played second fiddle to the spellcasters. If you play a scout, you don't.
Also, despite the Seeker's lack of support, does it not qualify as such an option? Having none of the Essentials books, I find comparison difficult, to say the least.
No, it doesn't. The seeker is more like a hunter than a scout. A scout is more like a two weapon ranger. However, there are a number of important features that differentiate them from such similar alternatives, and which make the scout a lot more fun for me to play than the two weapon ranger.
You know one of the guys we try not to play with anymore sounds alot like lokiare. He tries to tell my brother in law all the time how many more options he would have if he switched his slayer out... what he doesn't seam to get no matter how mayn times we try to explain it...
HE HAD ALL THE CHOICES... between us we have every single book, he used my online creater...and spent hours looking...
HE CHOSE THIS...
If I want a fighter with a kopesh and shield, and Weapon Master strike, and come and get it, and dailys...I can choose that, or I can choose to throw more damage, and have way more accuracy (never miss with an encounter)and play a slayer...
WHY can't the players that CHOOSE to play a slayer have that option?
by the way I have seen phb 1 rangeres who do nothing but multi attack...80-90% of the time through twin strike...
and I have a player who goes levels without spending daily powers (Example: from level 9-14 in my shadow world game kurt spent not 1 daily, and ended no encounter out of encounter powers... he always feels he needs to 'save' powers)
No, it doesn't. The seeker is more like a hunter than a scout. A scout is more like a two weapon ranger. However, there are a number of important features that differentiate them from such similar alternatives, and which make the scout a lot more fun for me to play than the two weapon ranger.
Ah! Okay, I thought the Scout was the controller. My bad.
Also, the scout did exist in other editions... Complete Warrior, I think, introduced it in 3.5. Obviously the incarnation has changed over time. The name has remained the same, at least for that edition.
I would be able to follow this conversation a bit better if the builds were referred to properly, which class is the Scout's base class?
To differentiate the Scout from all the other 4E Scouts? Now, I am assuming here, but I think Cyber-Dave is referring to the Scout Ranger from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. I don't think it needed explanation, but you know what the heck, it couldn't hurt.
New rule, guys! From now on, when you refer to the Scout, call it the Scout Ranger so thaX doesn't get confused.
(Actually, I think the Essentials classes should be refered to as their name, such as Mage, Hunter, or Warpriest since they are much more stand alone, and the rest should show up as Hunter Ranger, Staff of Defense Wizard, or Great Weapon Fighter).
I would be able to follow this conversation a bit better if the builds were referred to properly, which class is the Scout's base class?
To differentiate the Scout from all the other 4E Scouts? Now, I am assuming here, but I think Cyber-Dave is referring to the Scout Ranger from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. I don't think it needed explanation, but you know what the heck, it couldn't hurt.New rule, guys! From now on, when you refer to the Scout, call it the Scout Ranger so thaX doesn't get confused.
(Actually, I think the Essentials classes should be refered to as their name, such as Mage, Hunter, or Warpriest since they are much more stand alone, and the rest should show up as Hunter Ranger, Staff of Defense Wizard, or Great Weapon Fighter).
I would actually prefer it to be stated as Ranger Scout. That way I know what class it is based off of.
If you still don't think that pre-E has more variety and less "hit it, run up, hit it harder" ...
Not going to happen because obviously that is all he uses.
I'd rather have the choice.
HURRHURR, I'm so glad you know how I play. My Avenger uses Temple of Shadow. My Warlord is a Lazy Archer. My Rogue is a master of CA. Perhaps you'd like to assume considerably less about how I play and concern yourself with your innate needs to judge others? I qualify every class in the "hit it, hit it harder" category. Even controllers. Because that's everyone's job. To contribute.
If you still don't think that pre-E has more variety and less "hit it, run up, hit it harder" ...
Not going to happen because obviously that is all he uses.
I'd rather have the choice.
HURRHURR, I'm so glad you know how I play. My Avenger uses Temple of Shadow. My Warlord is a Lazy Archer. My Rogue is a master of CA. Perhaps you'd like to assume considerably less about how I play and concern yourself with your innate needs to judge others? I qualify every class in the "hit it, hit it harder" category. Even controllers. Because that's everyone's job. To contribute.
Hit it harder, or damage it more? because the distinction is important. Though controllers are useful with damage (and some players prefer the blasting damage route) the point of a controller is to contribute to a battle by **** with the ability of a monster to function while the monster still has HP.
No, it doesn't. The seeker is more like a hunter than a scout. A scout is more like a two weapon ranger. However, there are a number of important features that differentiate them from such similar alternatives, and which make the scout a lot more fun for me to play than the two weapon ranger.
Ah! Okay, I thought the Scout was the controller. My bad.
Also, the scout did exist in other editions... Complete Warrior, I think, introduced it in 3.5. Obviously the incarnation has changed over time. The name has remained the same, at least for that edition.
Complete Adventurer as it was essentially a wilderness rogue variant with a different damage feature based on movement. The ranger-scout from 4e has more in common with the previous ranger classes than the scout class of 3.5. In fact I cannot think of anything in the current scout class that came directly came from the old scout class that could not be explained as coming from the ranger classes of today and yesterday. I think they just used the name to get a build name for a two weapon fighting ranger.
No, it doesn't. The seeker is more like a hunter than a scout. A scout is more like a two weapon ranger. However, there are a number of important features that differentiate them from such similar alternatives, and which make the scout a lot more fun for me to play than the two weapon ranger.
Ah! Okay, I thought the Scout was the controller. My bad.
Also, the scout did exist in other editions... Complete Warrior, I think, introduced it in 3.5. Obviously the incarnation has changed over time. The name has remained the same, at least for that edition.
Complete Adventurer as it was essentially a wilderness rogue variant with a different damage feature based on movement. The ranger-scout from 4e has more in common with the previous ranger classes than the scout class of 3.5. In fact I cannot think of anything in the current scout class that came directly came from the old scout class that could not be explained as coming from the ranger classes of today and yesterday. I think they just used the name to get a build name for a two weapon fighting ranger.
I understand that. Was just stating that "Scout" has existed before, in accordance with his comment. He might be intending to specify "as it is now", but he didn't state as such.
By the way, the best evidence that your opposition in a debate doesn't have any tenable ground to stand on is when they use semantics to create a strawman, because they can't actually assail your point.
I'll take a stab at it...replying to rants is fun!
First of all, I think the Essentials line is fully out. Even if later products contain builds that match the Essentials format doesn't automatically make those books part of the Essentials line. (Yes, I know everyone is free to come up with their own definition, but I am using the important one...the definition WotC uses.)
"First of all, the removal of the Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium completely destroys any hope for fixing the major magic item rarity system blunder."
I had to quote you here, because it is just such a wonderfully dramatic statement that certainly doesn't overstate the issue at all. From your tone, I am going to assume that you don't even like the new rarity system, and thus don't use it. As a result, I don't understand why you would be upset at the loss of a product which was geared toward extending that system.
Regarding the separation between common, uncommon, and rare items, you are correct in that there is no clear easy formula to determine what a certain magic item will be. But there also wasn't such a thing when 4th edition came out. What made a certain magic item level 7 instead of level 8? It has always been as much art as science. My own general rule: items that just have a property are common, items with a daily power are uncommon, and items with multiple stuffs are rare.
Hasbro is going to destroy D&D by releasing video games and board games? That one really cracked me up...thank you. It might surprize you to know that in 1975 TSR released a D&D board game. Yeah, I said TSR and 1975. But you are right...how dare Hasbro ruin D&D by continuing this long tradition!
The end was the best part! I also hope they start listening to the gamers before they destroy D&D completely...wow, I said that with a straight face.
Actually, what I stated was that, and I quote, "Nothing like the scout existed in the game until essentials." My statement remains accurate, insofar as the word "scout" is used to reference a balanced class capable of potent and meaningful contribution equal to the contribution provided by any spellcasting character who uses one large weapon, one smaller weapon, fights by making melee basic attacks that are modified by stances and powers, and has a striker damage feature which comes in the form of the ability to make a second attack with your offhand weapon when your primary weapon hits.
By the way, the best evidence that your opposition in a debate doesn't have any tenable ground to stand on is when they use semantics to create a strawman, because they can't actually assail your point.
Not trying to create a strawman... Simply trying to point out that the class "Scout" has existed before, which as you've just pointed out, was not your intended statement. You clarified it, so I have no further qualms with your statement. Technically, it wasn't even really a qualm... More my own version of a request for clarification (I know, I'm horrible at it).