I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere so I thought I'd bring it up. When D&D 4E first got released, there were a lot of complaints (and whining) about the classes, or lack thereof.
And then there's the announcement of the Player's Handbook 2. For me, at least from the preview's that we've seen, I think the Player's Handbook 2 came second because it's more complex (not that complexity is a bad thing) compared to the classes in the first Player's Handbook.
For example, the Barbarian is a Striker with the Hit Points and number of Healing Surges equal to that of your typical Defender (or at least the Defenders in the first Player's Handbook). The Rage mechanic is also quite unconventional.
And then there's the Druid which is a different animal altogether as far as symmetry goes. Probably the class that deviates the most--so far. It makes the Bard and the Invoker look simple despite some of their exemption-based design (i.e. the Bard's ability to take Multiclass feats).
So I do think that right now, based on the little that we've seen, the classes in Player's Handbook 2 are worthy of being in part two of the book rather than in the initial offerings. Player's Handbook 1: This is the Norm. Player's Handbook 2: Watch Us Break the Rules.
3 comments:
Well, until my group finishes our current campaign -- which does not seem likely any time soon -- we're still using 3rd ed. ;p I admire 3rd ed. a lot though am intrigued by all the positive press 4th ed. is getting.
Never knew you played D&D. =)
Since grade school. :)
Post a Comment