>>14777108>Unfortunately I think he'd make the mistake of comparing the included stuff to existing stuff, which is largely unfair when talking about classes just released vs. class now established. "New" classes should in fact start slightly weaker than old, feat-supported ones.I'll disagree here. The writers of a new class, being the developers of 4e, should KNOW what all of the other classes of 4e are like. There's no point in using the other classes as how they were first released as a measuring stick, because when this new class is released, the older, supported classes already exist as their "current" form and never as their older form.
"Eh, it's a new class, just wait maybe... three months until we give it some support to be powerful"
vs.
"Let's make it powerful out of the box so that new players don't have to fiddle with min-maxing it, and so that we don't need to give it obvious 'patch' feats to make it stronger."
In my opinion, the second one is better design.
It's like this, the way I see it. There's a maker of a video game console who's kind enough to allow customers to return to a licensed store and have the hardware of the console regularly updated and upgraded, free of charge. The console eventually becomes a totally awesome one thanks to this module. The maker then decides to make a "slim" version of the console.
Are they going to release this new, "slim" version equivalent to how the original console was when it first came out, or the most updated version of the original console?