"Essential" Support

Two parts of the same rules system.
Various gamers don't like the Essentials line for various reasons; martial classes without daily powers and limited choices being among the top two that I have seen. That I can get behind. Some people are very happy with the diverse choices available to classes following the original progression method.

What I do not get is gamers who dislike Essentials because they think that it is taking support away from "original 4th Edition" content. I dislike this stance it because it not only implies that the content out of Essentials and the books that came before it is somehow incompatible or different, but also because it is wrong.

First, new content for the cleric was fairly recently released, but material for the ardent has also appear post-Essentials as well. This is indicative that WotC has not "abandoned" older classes, and I would expect to see new stuff for older classes at some point in the future, not that some classes--particularly the fighter or wizard--exactly need it.

Another important thing that I have seen willfully dismissed is content that is compatible for both subclasses and the parent class. For example, exploits for knights and slayers can be taken by fighters, and vice versa. Some people were upset because Heroes of Shadow allegedly lacked support for older classes. They had been expecting a necromancer class, or a necromancer build for wizards.

Unfortunately, they had to "settle" for a slew of new spells for wizards and warlocks, prayers for the cleric, a vampire class, and more. I know Mearls has stated that the new design would be used going forward, but that does not mean that they won't revisit older classes, create a class using the "classic" design, or try something new; they are not forced stick to one method. I am glad that they decided to branch out and give something new a shot, and actually like some of the subclasses and the vampire class (which works out when you actually play it).

No comments

Powered by Blogger.