|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:42AM
#11
|
|
|
It used to be
Fighter
--> 1-Hand
--> 2-Hand
--> Tempest
--> Battlerager
--> Brawler
Now it's
Fighter
--> Weaponmaster
--> 1-Hand
--> 2-Hand
--> Tempest
--> Battlerager
--> Brawler
--> Knight
--> Slayer
Yes, it's a totally unnesecary distinction that could have been avoided if the essentials classes were actually new classes instead of the decision for them to piggyback all of the old stuff.
If you look past the plot and the voice acting, Metroid: Other M was an okay game. Not a great game, but an adequate one.
Not using the Metroid item collect jingle though? That, was a mistake.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:42AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Its no longer a subclass if you cant just pick the basic thing.
What do you mean? They've just divided it into seperate subclasses is all. It's still the same thing.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:46AM
#13
|
|
|
Ok what is with the name changes? Cleric to Templar, Fighter to weapon-master, Wizard to Arcanist. Why? There names were just fine for 37 years and now you change it?
This bug the hell out of anyone else but me?
Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
It is simply an adjustment of the nomenclature to simplify adding new material in the future. Essentials added the concept of a 'sub-class' which is basically a somewhat more diverse build than most of the classic 4e builds. In 4e originally you had 'Fighter' and within that "Fighter Weapon Talent" builds (and subdivisions of that with 1 and 2 handed), then you had "Tempest", "Battle Rage Vigor", etc. When Essentials was released they created the "Knight" and "Slayer", which are fighters but with considerably different mechanics, much more so than the existing fighter builds. So they are considered sub-classes, and that begged the question of what sub-class existing fighter builds belonged in. This would be irrelevent except WotC probably really didn't want to have to keep putting phrases in the rules like "Fighters except for Slayer and Knight" or other such nonsense. So they invented a sub-class name for the classic 4e fighter, "Weaponmaster". CB now lists all classes that have Essentials sub-classes by sub-class name instead of the top level class name.
So there is no choice of 'fighter' in CB, just slayer, knight, and weaponmaster. ALL of them are fighters and belong in the fighter class. Anything rules-wise that works with fighter works with all of them. Stuff that works with weaponmaster, knight, or slayer only works with that specific sub-class.
Nobody is abandoning any existing traditional names for classes. They're just making up additional terms to differentiate sub-types. Presumably at some future time 5e will show up and the hierarchy of source -> class -> sub-class -> build will probably get flattened somewhat.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:46AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
It used to be
Fighter
--> Weaponmaster
--> 1-Hand
--> 2-Hand
--> Tempest
--> Battlerager
--> Brawler
--> Knight
--> Slayer
Yes, it's a totally unnesecary distinction that could have been avoided if the essentials classes were actually new classes instead of the decision for them to piggyback all of the old stuff.
Thank you!
Note how you can not do any changes from weaponmaster on. Thus the name Fighter is now useless. Everything is now based off of the Weaponmaster class, not the fighter. Its not a subclass unless something about it is different.
There slowly phasesing out the names Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:47AM
#15
|
|
|
The problem is, the name “Arcanist” already has a meaning, its the only name that refers to anyone that uses the Arcane power source, including Artificer, Bard, Wizard, etcetera.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:50AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
It is simply an adjustment of the nomenclature to simplify adding new material in the future. Essentials added the concept of a 'sub-class' which is basically a somewhat more diverse build than most of the classic 4e builds. In 4e originally you had 'Fighter' and within that "Fighter Weapon Talent" builds (and subdivisions of that with 1 and 2 handed), then you had "Tempest", "Battle Rage Vigor", etc. When Essentials was released they created the "Knight" and "Slayer", which are fighters but with considerably different mechanics, much more so than the existing fighter builds. So they are considered sub-classes, and that begged the question of what sub-class existing fighter builds belonged in. This would be irrelevent except WotC probably really didn't want to have to keep putting phrases in the rules like "Fighters except for Slayer and Knight" or other such nonsense. So they invented a sub-class name for the classic 4e fighter, "Weaponmaster". CB now lists all classes that have Essentials sub-classes by sub-class name instead of the top level class name.
So there is no choice of 'fighter' in CB, just slayer, knight, and weaponmaster. ALL of them are fighters and belong in the fighter class. Anything rules-wise that works with fighter works with all of them. Stuff that works with weaponmaster, knight, or slayer only works with that specific sub-class.
Nobody is abandoning any existing traditional names for classes. They're just making up additional terms to differentiate sub-types. Presumably at some future time 5e will show up and the hierarchy of source -> class -> sub-class -> build will probably get flattened somewhat.
This makes it make somewhat more sense. But still it bugs me. I know its a stupid nerd rage. thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:51AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
The problem is, the name “Arcanist” already has a meaning, its the only name that refers to anyone that uses the Arcane power source, including Artificer, Bard, Wizard, etcetera.
Also in my mind when I think templar, I do not think Cleric, I see more of a pally or something along those lines.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:54AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
It used to be
Fighter
--> Weaponmaster
--> 1-Hand
--> 2-Hand
--> Tempest
--> Battlerager
--> Brawler
--> Knight
--> Slayer
Yes, it's a totally unnesecary distinction that could have been avoided if the essentials classes were actually new classes instead of the decision for them to piggyback all of the old stuff.
Thank you!
Note how you can not do any changes from weaponmaster on. Thus the name Fighter is now useless. Everything is now based off of the Weaponmaster class, not the fighter. Its not a subclass unless something about it is different.
There slowly phasesing out the names Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard.
You're not getting it. Nothing is based off of the weaponmaster. They are based off of the Fighter. The Weaponmaster is based off of the Fighter archetype. That is why they changed the name. I'm not a fan of it either, but that's how it is. They restructured class design under archetypes.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 8:56AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
It's not like it's the first time.
IIRC the 2nd edition classes were under groups also, and wider groups that is.
The Warrior group was composed of the Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin I think.
I have not played 3rd edition long enough to remember if it was the case in that edition too.
After all it's only a name to me, call it "platemail guy with sword" and I'd be fine with it. You can still use the term fighter to identify your character in-game.
It's all about semantics, and I don't think everyone will agree on anything, so might as well accept the current naming convention for this edition and take it only as that: names to identify a class and sub-class.
I hope this does not ruin anyone's genuine fun playing the game, it is probably one of the easiest things to fix at your table. Happy gaming.
-Realize You are your own source of all Creation, of your own master plan.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 25, 2011 - 9:00AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
It's not like it's the first time.
IIRC the 2nd edition classes were under groups also, and wider groups that is.
The Warrior group was composed of the Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin I think.
I have not played 3rd edition long enough to remember if it was the case in that edition too.
After all it's only a name to me, call it "platemail guy with sword" and I'd be fine with it. You can still use the term fighter to identify your character in-game.
It's all about semantics, and I don't think everyone will agree on anything, so might as well accept the current naming convention for this edition and take it only as that: names to identify a class and sub-class.
I hope this does not ruin anyone's genuine fun playing the game, it is probably one of the easiest things to fix at your table. Happy gaming.
yes you are 100% right. It just bothers me to think that the Terms that I know and love for the classes I like are going to be phased out. And right now thats what it seems like there doing.
|
|
|
