|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 6:42AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 13, 2007
|
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.
I have to say I'm with Nick on this one. They did not "rename" anything. They "added" a sub-class name to the PHB 1 Fighter (Weaponmaster). The fact that they are idiots for putting the sub-class name first where you can't search on the "super-class" name is a whole separate matter which I'd almost bet money on them fixing/changing as has been suggested here or in some other thread I've read.
Are you intentionally ignoring the posts I'm making, or are you really that blind?
When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you get Weaponmaster.
JUST WEAPONMASTER.
Not Weaponmaster (Fighter). Not Fighter - Weaponmaster. Not Fighter, Weaponmaster. It's not an issue of having Weaponmaster first, or primary, or whatever. It's that Fighter is gone as an entry.
And if you aren't paying attention to the magazine articles enough to know what happened, it's an easy source of confusion. I mean, I do pay attention to the articles, and was surprised when my list of entries didn't bring up Rogue when I wanted it to. Sure, it took me a little bit to find it, but in the absence of actually knowing that the Scoundrel really is the rogue I'm looking for :mindtrick: it's needlessly confusing and pointless.
Is this really that complicated?
No. And I thought I was pretty clear. It's a bug and should be reported as such.
Moderated by
ORC_Ryath
on Jun 02, 2011 - 08:21AM
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 8:24AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2009
|
I have removed content from this thread because it violates the Code of Conduct, please keep post polite, respectful, on-topic and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 8:37AM
#43
|
|
|
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.
I have to say I'm with Nick on this one. They did not "rename" anything. They "added" a sub-class name to the PHB 1 Fighter (Weaponmaster). The fact that they are idiots for putting the sub-class name first where you can't search on the "super-class" name is a whole separate matter which I'd almost bet money on them fixing/changing as has been suggested here or in some other thread I've read.
Are you intentionally ignoring the posts I'm making, or are you really that blind?
When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you get Weaponmaster.
JUST WEAPONMASTER.
Not Weaponmaster (Fighter). Not Fighter - Weaponmaster. Not Fighter, Weaponmaster. It's not an issue of having Weaponmaster first, or primary, or whatever. It's that Fighter is gone as an entry.
And if you aren't paying attention to the magazine articles enough to know what happened, it's an easy source of confusion. I mean, I do pay attention to the articles, and was surprised when my list of entries didn't bring up Rogue when I wanted it to. Sure, it took me a little bit to find it, but in the absence of actually knowing that the Scoundrel really is the rogue I'm looking for :mindtrick: it's needlessly confusing and pointless.
Is this really that complicated?
You know, I think it's pretty clear, they really don't know what's going on, and are just blindly defending WoTC. At least when I was more Pro WoTC, I would go educate myself on the subject before I dug in.
The fact is, weaponsmaster isn't a subclass of the fighter. Everything that used to fall under the fighter class, now fall under Weaponsmaster.
That's what's easy to understand.
So yeah, they really haven't looked into the issue, and are blindly defending it. Which is worse then the game haters, in my opinion. Because that means they can't see problems when there are real problems. At least with a game hater, you can often tell quickly when they are just being unreasonable right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 10:31AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
Guys, they're going to address this in the next Rule of Three article. I don't know for sure but it looks like they're going to have a poll to see what you would like "the class formerly known as Fighter" to be called, or so I hear. Supposedly the three choices will be:
1. Fighter
2. Fighting Man
3. Fighting Man/Woman
4. Fighting Woman
5. Fighting Person
6. Swordguy
7. Weaponguy
8. (CENSORED)
9. "Bob"
Yeah, I know there are nine choices. Not sure why they did that.
My vote is for 9. I hearby declare that the class formerly known as Fighter will be hereafter referred to as "Bob."
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 12:27PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2008
|
The fact is, weaponsmaster isn't a subclass of the fighter. Everything that used to fall under the fighter class, now fall under Weaponsmaster.
That's what's easy to understand.
No it really is a subclass of fighter. Do you know how I know? Because that's what the rules say. A Weaponmaster can take any Fighter power with a level. A weaponmaster can take any feat marked "Fighter". How can that be if he's not a fighter?
To wit: DDI is not an official rules source and them calling the class "Weaponmaster" is clearly a mistake that should be fixed.
And Mand, the "class/subclass" thing is exactly what we're talking about. It's not a side track. I do like your suggestion that everything was fine until I came in and disagreed. That's a really cute way of dismissing someone you disagree with and it gave me a chuckle (thanks!)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 12:32PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Your definition of sidetrack is really cute. Apparently, it's not a sidetrack if it's what you want to be talking about. Somehow I find it odd that you get to decide what the initial topic was instead of the person who actually wrote the OP.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 12:40PM
#47
|
|
|
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.
I have to say I'm with Nick on this one. They did not "rename" anything. They "added" a sub-class name to the PHB 1 Fighter (Weaponmaster). The fact that they are idiots for putting the sub-class name first where you can't search on the "super-class" name is a whole separate matter which I'd almost bet money on them fixing/changing as has been suggested here or in some other thread I've read.
Are you intentionally ignoring the posts I'm making, or are you really that blind?
When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you get Weaponmaster.
JUST WEAPONMASTER.
Not Weaponmaster (Fighter). Not Fighter - Weaponmaster. Not Fighter, Weaponmaster. It's not an issue of having Weaponmaster first, or primary, or whatever. It's that Fighter is gone as an entry.
And if you aren't paying attention to the magazine articles enough to know what happened, it's an easy source of confusion. I mean, I do pay attention to the articles, and was surprised when my list of entries didn't bring up Rogue when I wanted it to. Sure, it took me a little bit to find it, but in the absence of actually knowing that the Scoundrel really is the rogue I'm looking for :mindtrick: it's needlessly confusing and pointless.
Is this really that complicated?
No the name change is not that complicated at all. Most people when getting the results you talk about above would wonder why Weaponmaster showed up, and click on it. Thus finding out that it was, in fact, the Fighter.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 12:51PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2008
|
Your definition of sidetrack is really cute. Apparently, it's not a sidetrack if it's what you want to be talking about. Somehow I find it odd that you get to decide what the initial topic was instead of the person who actually wrote the OP.
WHY must you continue renaming existing classes?
Above is the title to this thread. Can you please explain how my response of: "They're not renaming existing classes at all" is off-topic. I'd really like to know. My gut feeling is that I got the goal posts shifted on me somewhere in here and I didn't realize it. I could be wrong which is why I'm giving you the opportunity to explain it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 12:55PM
#49
|
|
|
The fact is, weaponsmaster isn't a subclass of the fighter. Everything that used to fall under the fighter class, now fall under Weaponsmaster.
That's what's easy to understand.
No it really is a subclass of fighter. Do you know how I know? Because that's what the rules say. A Weaponmaster can take any Fighter power with a level. A weaponmaster can take any feat marked "Fighter". How can that be if he's not a fighter?
To wit: DDI is not an official rules source and them calling the class "Weaponmaster" is clearly a mistake that should be fixed.
And Mand, the "class/subclass" thing is exactly what we're talking about. It's not a side track. I do like your suggestion that everything was fine until I came in and disagreed. That's a really cute way of dismissing someone you disagree with and it gave me a chuckle (thanks!)
Um, sorry, but you are wrong about that. You look up Weaponsmaster, and it's exactly what used to be called fighter. It's not a subclass. There aren't subclasses.
There are classes and they have different builds.
So fighter was renamed Weaponsmaster, Rogue was renamed scoundrel.
Why don't you go look it up? Oh, that's right, you can't. Unless you have two forum accounts, and the other is connected to your DDi account.
In which case, this account should be deleted, because the ToS say only ONE account per person.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 02, 2011 - 12:58PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2008
|
Why don't you go look it up? Oh, that's right, you can't. Unless you have two forum accounts, and the other is connected to your DDi account.
In which case, this account should be deleted, because the ToS say only ONE account per person.
I do. Why do you care?
WotC clearly doesn't as I've explained this over and over and over again for the last three years on this forum and nobody has ever banned either of my accounts. The fact of the matter is, I don't post with my other account so it's not a sock puppet. I only use it to log into DDI due to a mistake I made when I signed up (I didn't realize that the DDI account could be linked to my already existing forums account so I created a new one). In any event, the class compendium articles are FREE so I could read the rules if I wanted to. Also, the Heroes of... books don't require a DDI account. Finally, I can still search the compendium when I'm not logged in even if I can't read the rules text so there's no reason a DDI account is pertinent.
Um, sorry, but you are wrong about that. You look up Weaponsmaster, and it's exactly what used to be called fighter. It's not a subclass. There aren't subclasses.
I'll say it again: How come all the Weaponmaster powers are called Fighter Powers? How come he can take Fighter feats? He wasn't renamed. He's still a fighter. DDI is wrong. It needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
