Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Otakkun Aug 18, 2010 20:25:08	I was just browsing some forums when I came into knowledge about the upcoming D&D essentials ... also called by most 4.5E I'm sensing this means that these books will change what we're currently playing in a big way ... but how will that be exactly? If anyone knows and is kind enough to bullet point the upcoming changes (with links if  possible) I'd be really grateful.
#2 The_Crimson_Dawn Aug 18, 2010 20:31:30	I dont know if I would say most but some have been saying that. 1) New fighter builds use basic attacks only. 2)new rogues are the same 3)rogues gain move powers like the monk 4) classes are no longer just one role (slayer fighters are strikers) 5) priests gain domain powers instead of standard encounter powers 6) mages can put encounter powers in their spell book and gain magic missile instead of implement mastery.
#3 Rustmonster Aug 18, 2010 22:47:53	I was just browsing some forums when I came into knowledge about the upcoming D&D essentials ... also called by most 4.5E It's called 4.5 mostly by doomsayers. For the most part those are the only types of people who can see options books as "a new edition". I'm sensing this means that these books will change what we're currently playing in a big way ... but how will that be exactly? In no way whatsoever. The Essentials line is a selection of new splatbooks, no different than PHB2 or Martial Power, as well as some other products like dice. If anyone knows and is kind enough to bullet point the upcoming changes (with links if  possible) I'd be really grateful. The Essentials line will not change anything about the current game. A few posters believe that the erreta coming out in October is a part of Essentials, which is usually why you get the "4E is over! Run!" sentiment. The erreta is, as always, free of charge, and usable at you groups discretion.
#4 Gazra Aug 18, 2010 22:54:42	Agreed. It's actually a small number of people. And it's way worse on this messageboard than others. This one, being the official board of D&D, has a huge target painted on it. But messageboards aren't usually a good sampling of reality, so don't worry about the vocal minority. Just because they're loud doesn't mean they're right or plentiful. Here's a good, official summary of the upcoming changes: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d... Nothing really major, and mostly things a lot of us have been asking for. Most of the other stuff are just new options (class builds, feats, powers, items) like you would find in Martial Power or similar supplements. The changes are part of the continually evolving 4E D&D game that have been being made since the beginning of the game. And you don't have to buy Essentials to have access to any of them. The free errata will be updated with any changes made just like normal. You don't have to buy new books to keep playing like in an edition change. Hope this cleared some things up for you. EDIT: Rust made a good point. The changes aren't from the Essentials; it's the errata. The designers just like to find books to put new changes into when it is possible. The Rules Compendium is their opportunity now, just like Monster Manual 3 was their opportunity to show off the new and improved formulas for monster stats. So while some are seeing the situation as the Essentials making changes and those changes going into the October errata document, it's actually the other way around, with the October errata being put into Essentials so that there is an actual offline, print source for the most up to date rules.
#5 Thomson Aug 19, 2010 4:06:13	The Essentials line will not change anything about the current game. A few posters believe that the erreta coming out in October is a part of Essentials, which is usually why you get the "4E is over! Run!" sentiment. The erreta is, as always, free of charge, and usable at you groups discretion. Basically we really don't know. What has been previewed of essentials gives me the impression of an nother set of "cool" stuff that wasn't playtested well and rushed for release. The good thing is that you can completely ignore it if it doesn't work. The errata in October will have to change a lot of stuff, since the essential approach shifts the game balance in a huge way (example: all races get a choice for their boosted stats) For example, a lot of dwarf feats where balanced by dwarves not gaining a bonus to strength. Dwarves will now be able to get a bonus to strength. So they have several choices: - Nerf all the feats that where balanced by dwarves having no bonus to strength - Give everybody else something to balance them against the overpowered dwarves - Leave everything as it is and just allow dwarves to be the only really suitable race choice for fighters. Bottom line: Either they errata a lot, or a lot of choices that made sense in 4e until now will now be deprecated.
#6 vzzrrkktiberias7 Aug 19, 2010 6:04:32	Essentials is a shift in a new direction in 4th but doesn't replace anything before it. Store owners now have it easier to carry the correct material for new players to buy needed books. Essentials make it easier for the new player- has stuff for the veteran too.
#7 mellored Aug 19, 2010 10:47:04	1) New builds that don't follow the old rules.  Some don't get dailies, some arn't the same role as their class, they all get new features as they level, ect.  These are purely additive.  Nothing changes except you get new options.  They are also "less complex" and are supposed to be easier for new people to understand. 2) Rules Compendium:  All the core rules in one place.  Their also taking the opertunity to re-write a few of them, how much is changing remains to be seen (IMO we've seen most of it already in the june update), but the rules will recive at least some errata's (specificly the Pacel system and daily item useage). 3) Power/Feat updates: 3a) Rebalanced: some powers, specificly the wizards (more specificly burning hands and charm of misplaced wrath), and feats, specificly Melee Training, are supposed to be updated to mesh/balance with the new classes better.   (This is the source of most complaints.) 3b) Interesting math feats: A few other "math" feats are going to be obsolete with feats that gives the bonus as well as something else (superior will and bludgeoning expertise are previewed). 3c) Reorganizaton of feats: Feats won't be divided into tiers, they'll be devided by function (defense, offense, ect... excact organization isn't known) 3d) Scaling feats: More/Most feats will scale and be availible from level 1. 4) DM book: more or less a rewrite of the DMG. 5) DM screen: DM screen, reorganised (bigger?) 6) Tiles: core tiles that will stay in print 7) Dice: a way to generate random numbers in a range.  (the color may be updated) 8) Variable Stats: all the races will get the PHB3 flex stats. *As mentioned, Somethings (like flex stats) arn't really "essentials" but will be lumped with same release.
#8 Tony_Vargas Aug 19, 2010 16:05:16	I was just browsing some forums when I came into knowledge about the upcoming D&D essentials ... also called by most 4.5E Called by some.  WotC is really adamant that this major change to the rules, ushered in by a new set of books that serve the traditional function of core books (minimal set you need to start playing the game), is not to 4.5 - if they want to save face with a bit of plausible deniability, I suppose we should let them.  3.5 was a fiasco, it would have been nice if they'd learned more than 'don't call it .5' from it, but oh well, they're trying. I just call 4e '4e' and Essentials 'Essentials.'  I'm sensing this means that these books will change what we're currently playing in a big way ... but how will that be exactly? To all indications, yes.  We've only had previews and hints, though, so it's mostly speculation. The overall effect seems to be moving the game, not in a 'new' direction (as advertised), but back in an 'old' direction, where there's more mechanical differentiation between casters and melee types, and less emphasis on class balance and party balance (roles).
#9 MalakLightfoot Aug 19, 2010 18:12:35	The overall effect seems to be moving the game, not in a 'new' direction (as advertised), but back in an 'old' direction, where there's more mechanical differentiation between casters and melee types, and less emphasis on class balance and party balance (roles). Where do you get this idea? I have seen nothing to indicate that the Mage or Warpriest builds fill anything other than the Controller or Leader roles. The Slayer is specifically a Striker build, and fills the "heavily armed and armored Striker" that many have requested. Since it has no marking mechanic or punishment mechanic, it can only sub as a Defender in that no one wants to provoke an opportunity attack from it. The Knight is still a Defender (though I wish they had worded the "Defender's Aura" as a Mark instead of having "essentially" be a Mark). The Thief is still a Striker. It looks like each build will be able to stand with their other 4E counterparts and be neither more nor less effective, just different. What they (possibly) lose out on in secondary roles, they make up for in a focus on their primary role.
#10 Gazra Aug 19, 2010 19:05:46	The problem is that some are taking the class builds in Essentials and assuming that every future class build will work the same way. There is no reason to believe this unless you take that over-used quote about "new design moving forward" completely out of context. They never said "we are going to design every future class build for people completely new to the game". That's what the Essentials classes are for, and is why we don't have to worry about new options being made this way. What they said about class design is that they are no longer limiting their selves to arbitrary design constraints. This allowed them, for example, to make a few simple builds for a product designed to get new people into the game. It might also allow them to make an Advanced Player's Handbook full of builds for those with extremely high system mastery. But what it won't do is keep them from supporting old builds and making new stuff that works just like before.
#11 Damon_Tor Aug 20, 2010 1:25:17	IMO, it's more like "D&D vs AD&D" than "3E vs 3.5E".  It bears elements of both blunders, though.
#12 Tony_Vargas Aug 20, 2010 4:05:25	The overall effect seems to be moving the game, not in a 'new' direction (as advertised), but back in an 'old' direction, where there's more mechanical differentiation between casters and melee types, and less emphasis on class balance and party balance (roles). Where do you get this idea? The very last 'roles' bit, you mean?  Because they came right out and said that, going forward, the emphasis on developing classes would be on the class concept, not having it strictly fill one of the roles.  The designers grabbing a little artistic freedom, as it were. It looks like each build will be able to stand with their other 4E counterparts and be neither more nor less effective, just different. The point is that they're mechanically different, and that's going to make them balance less robustly and in a narrower range of play styles and scenarios.
#13 Thomson Aug 20, 2010 5:16:25	It looks like each build will be able to stand with their other 4E counterparts Wizard and Cleric? Seems to work. Thief? Maybe. Slayer? Can't say, because there is nothing we can compare it to, but from what we know there is at least a chance for this build to be interesting. Knight? Well - if the class powers/features we don't know are really awesome and do something that really allows the knight to have useful defenses *and* be able to keep the enemies from just running away from him *and* allow him to do something more to an enemy that attacks his allies besides giving them a -2 to hit then there is a chance that he will be similar in power to a weak classic fighter build. I acknowledge that the fighter was a little to strong compared to the other classes - especially a dwarven fighter could have been equal to about two or even three average built characters. So nerfing the fighter isn't a bad thing. I am very sure they will do it in the October update, since I don't see a chance how a Knight can be balances vs the classic fighter by any other means. However, since dwarves became even stronger than before, it seems they made the mistake to balance the new fighter to works with the overpowered dwarves, leading to the problem that only Dwarf fighters will be balanced vs the other classes while other races can't make useful fighters anymore. Bottom Line: I really hope that essentials works, because there are tons of really cool ideas in it. But from what I have seen I seriously doubt it. And about the "it's just additional builds" argument: 1.) They have to errata a lot or balance will go down the drain, that we know for shure (since we already know that they will change a lot) 2.) have you never run into the problem that a player made a character that was far less effective than other characters in the group? If this player isn't a very very mature player this will have a serious impact on his enjoyment of the game. So I as a DM would have to ban essentials builds from my game to make sure that a new player won't come into the group with a character he won't enjoy. And all this makes the entire idea of essentials rather pointless, since it was directed at new players in the first place! Second Bottom Line: From what I have seen essentials does the exact opposite from what it is supposed to do. It gives new players underpowered characters that they won't enjoy to play in a group with players that know how to build a character. Again, why the guys responsible for essentials didn't look at the char op boards, get a list of all the sky blue options for a class and just gave the new players a good build is absolutely beyond my understanding. From the pre build characters we got from WotC we know that most of them lack the understanding of the game that the really talented, idealistic and devoted members of the community have. (Btw, I of course don't count myself among them! I am just amazed by their work)
#14 AvonRekaes Aug 20, 2010 11:15:26	Actually I've heard before that WotC has intentionally non-optimized pregen characters. Because they don't want to engender the idea that you HAVE to have an COMPLETELY PERFECT CHARACTER to play. Because you don't. Also, easing players into the game with a less complex character build is a perfecty valid design decision. It won't work for everyone, but you know the saying. "You can't please everyone all of the time." And in case the player starts to resent only having ways to augment his one attack, while everyone else has powers out the wazoo, that's when the player has "graduated" from Essentials to the larger game. You let him retrain his Fighter build from Slayer to Battlerager, or Brawler, or Arena Fighter, or whatever. While the regular retraining rules might not allow something like that, I'd to point out the RPGA has more lenient retraining rules that you might like to adopt. From the RPGA Character Creation Guide: Whenever your character gains a level, you may retrain out any and all character-based rules options, except for the following: • Your character race (you may retrain race-based options that you chose) • Your character class (you may retrain your build)
#15 vzzrrkktiberias7 Aug 20, 2010 11:50:23	IMO, it's more like "D&D vs AD&D" than "3E vs 3.5E".  It bears elements of both blunders, though. Meh, D&D vrs AD&D were two different game mechanics. Essentials has the same game mechanics as the core books.
#16 AvonRekaes Aug 20, 2010 16:36:04	Actually I've heard before that WotC has intentionally non-optimized pregen characters. Because they don't want to engender the idea that you HAVE to have an COMPLETELY PERFECT CHARACTER to play. Because you don't. There is a huge difference between non optimized, and WotC pre-gen characters. Non optimized would be playable and not seem like garbage. Lets face it ~90% of the players out there make these because they like the flavor of the powers they choose.  A WotC pre-gen needs to be completely rebuilt just to meet the unoptimized players needs. I'm pretty sure you're just being hyperbolic. Yeah, not having an 18 in your primary stat is pretty bad, but it's not as if they presenting any Fighters with a 10 in Strength. A 16 in your primary stat might seem unforgivable, but the characters given are still perfectly playable.
#17 vzzrrkktiberias7 Aug 20, 2010 17:32:12	We have characters in our group who have 16s at their highest score. A Fighter and Battle Cleric. They function just fine as another in our group who has a 20 high ability. The 20 stat Paladin actually has pretty bad Fort and Rex saves.
#18 The_Crimson_Dawn Aug 21, 2010 7:12:32	Part of the problem is that the pregens have a knack for having typos, usually in a way thats bad for a character.
#19 Vael Aug 21, 2010 23:06:08	I'm pretty sure you're just being hyperbolic. . Goddamnit WotFC! fix your server farm..... No I'm not, not really. You seem to think they are making pre-gens less than optimal. I have no problem with that. My problem stems from pre-gens that cannot function at their roles. Huh. I ran the Dark Sun adventure, and the party actually seemed pretty darn good. The Warlock's damage was really good, the fighter did his stickiness and pain bringing. The interrupt second wind was really good. The four PCs tore up the elven encounter so easily I didn't reduce the subsequent encounters. It was really only some bad luck on the skill challenge that lead to a double encounter at the mouth of the cistern that 'caused them trouble.
#20 Thomson Aug 22, 2010 16:51:10	, the fighter did his stickiness and pain bringing. Ok, I would be really interested in what makes the knight sticky. From the previews I have seen no power that gives the knight any stickiness. It can't do anything against an enemies movement. Just dealing a little damage if a Monster moves away from you doesn't make you sticky. "Classic" 4e fighters in combination with a daze vs the monsters are the epitome of stickiness. Also, melee monsters are usually reduced to charges and basic attacks they are next to a fighter. Can a knight do anything (besides dealing the beforementioned little amount of damage) against a monster that attacks its ally? (-2 to attacks isn't worth mentioning because usually non defenders have a defense of more than 2 less than defenders...)
#21 thax Aug 22, 2010 18:50:50	To be honest, I think the Change started with the PHB3, with the races getting pick and choose stats and the change up with the Power Points and a couple of classes not having dailies. (I don't agree with the developers that the augmentations are a replacement for dailies, I think it is more of a class power) The fighter not having dailies in the new builds is something that scares most, but I didn't think Dailies was a right fit for the class to begin with. Not sure how it is gonna be implimented with the level chart, but I look forward to this. Gazra, thank you for linking to the article, it was very informative. (Surprised you didn't need to be logged in DDi to view it) If any has not read it yet, please do.
#22 ranadiel Aug 22, 2010 19:02:23	To be honest, I think the Change started with the PHB3, with the races getting pick and choose stats and the change up with the Power Points and a couple of classes not having dailies. (I don't agree with the developers that the augmentations are a replacement for dailies, I think it is more of a class power) O_o All PHB3 classes have dailies. Augmentations are supposed to be a replacement for encounter powers since PPs are an encounter based resource.
#23 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 5:43:04	The fighter not having dailies in the new builds is something that scares most I think martial classes not having dailies is a cool idea. The problem is that the knight is totally incapable of being a defender (at least from what we know - just tossing around a -2 to hit and dealing a little damage agains foes that are stupid enough to not circumvent the defenders aura...), deals mediocre damage and has ultra lame encounter powers (1 weapon die additional damage? That's all? Come on) No controll, no serious defending, no serious striker and of course no leader powers. This class can't do anything. The 3.5 fighter was *much* more interesting than this.
#24 Gazra Aug 23, 2010 6:06:18	The fighter not having dailies in the new builds is something that scares most I think martial classes not having dailies is a cool idea. The problem is that the knight is totally incapable of being a defender (at least from what we know - just tossing around a -2 to hit and dealing a little damage agains foes that are stupid enough to not circumvent the defenders aura...), deals mediocre damage and has ultra lame encounter powers (1 weapon die additional damage? That's all? Come on) No controll, no serious defending, no serious striker and of course no leader powers. This class can't do anything. The 3.5 fighter was *much* more interesting than this.   Ampersand Preview "Fighters learn a number of stances—special powers that combine positioning, footwork, and combat tactics to maximum effect. A stance allows you to customize your approach for fighting different enemies. For example, duelist’s assault lets you unleash your full fury against foes that try to slip away..." I think it's a bit too early to say the build can't do anything, especially when we don't even know everything it can do at 1st level.
#25 vzzrrkktiberias7 Aug 23, 2010 8:23:11	Knights have high AC and great HP; makes them a defender in my book. My only concern about Essentials is cosmetic. I don't know for sure how I feel about the name of the 2 players books. I'd probably prefered a more generic term like Starters Players Handbook and Advanced Players Handbook instead of Heroes of Fallen Lands & Heroes of Forgotten Lands.
#26 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 9:38:41	Knights have high AC and great HP; makes them a defender in my book. My only concern about Essentials is cosmetic. I don't know for sure how I feel about the name of the 2 players books. I'd probably prefered a more generic term like Starters Players Handbook and Advanced Players Handbook instead of Heroes of Fallen Lands & Heroes of Forgotten Lands. They really can't harm everybody. Each monster with an int of 6+ first kills the leader, then the striker, then the controller. At at the end it laughs at the so called knight. Well and finally he will die too, because he has no serious offensive capabilities. A tin can with high AC is worth nothing, since no monster will ever bother with it. If you want to defend anybody you need abilities to make the monsters attack you. The knight has no such abilities. His plate armor proficiency is good for nothing - in fact it makes it even worse, since it just encourages the monsters even more to attack the other characters! The entire concept of the knight is completely pointless.
#27 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 9:44:54	I think it's a bit too early to say the build can't do anything, especially when we don't even know everything it can do at 1st level. Except for shield finesse we know what its class features do. The cleave stance is funny, the other stance is rather pointless (+2 to damage? Yeah... ) If shield finesse doesn't allow you something insane like switching your defenses with an ally that is attacked or knocking prone an enemy that tries to get away from you, the entire class is good for nothing. Maybe there are some feats that improve your class features, but this would be a small redeeming factor, since it would just make the knight a weak class with even less real feat choices than other classes - because it has to spend feats just to fulfill its role...
#28 Gazra Aug 23, 2010 10:12:02	I think it's a bit too early to say the build can't do anything, especially when we don't even know everything it can do at 1st level. Except for shield finesse we know what its class features do. The cleave stance is funny, the other stance is rather pointless (+2 to damage? Yeah... ) If shield finesse doesn't allow you something insane like switching your defenses with an ally that is attacked or knocking prone an enemy that tries to get away from you, the entire class is good for nothing. Maybe there are some feats that improve your class features, but this would be a small redeeming factor, since it would just make the knight a weak class with even less real feat choices than other classes - because it has to spend feats just to fulfill its role... I suppose posting this again will do no good since you failed to acknowledge it and purposefully clipped it from your quote, but here goes: Ampersand Preview "Fighters learn a number of stances—special powers that combine  positioning, footwork, and combat tactics to maximum effect. A stance  allows you to customize your approach for fighting different enemies.  For example, duelist’s assault lets you unleash your full fury against foes that try to slip away..." There are more than two stances. They describe one (bolded above) that allows you to "unleash your full fury against foes that try to slip away".
#29 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 10:19:02	I suppose posting this again will do no good since you failed to acknowledge it and purposefully clipped it from your quote, but here goes: Sorry, I should have been more specific: From the two stances we know, we see that the power level of the stances is lower than that of typical fighter at will attacks (which can do such nasty things as pushing your enemy a square in addition to dealing damage) So I assume with "unleashing your full fury" they just mean you can deal even more of you punny damage, making the monsters laugh even more at you.
#30 Gazra Aug 23, 2010 11:01:06	I suppose posting this again will do no good since you failed to acknowledge it and purposefully clipped it from your quote, but here goes: Sorry, I should have been more specific: From the two stances we know, we see that the power level of the stances is lower than that of typical fighter at will attacks (which can do such nasty things as pushing your enemy a square in addition to dealing damage) So I assume with "unleashing your full fury" they just mean you can deal even more of you punny damage, making the monsters laugh even more at you. We have seen stat-blocks for: Berserker's Charge Unfettered Fury Battle Wrath Cleaving Assault We have seen the names of: Measured Cuts Duelist's Assault Mobile Blade Both of these fighter builds get to use their stance effects on all opportunity attacks, battle guardian attacks and granted attacks. A daily attack power for a fighter usually does 3[W] + an effect or some added damage. Getting to add effects or deal extra damage (or both) on all of your MBAs could definitely close that gap. And you seriously underestimate power strike. A fighter encounter power is usually 2[W] + an effect or added damage. With the new builds, you get the effect or added damage from your stance, more added damage from your class feature as a slayer, and the extra [W] from power strike. And the best part? Your encounter power never misses.
#31 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 11:32:01	With the new builds, you get the effect or added damage from your stance, more added damage from your class feature as a slayer, and the extra [W] from power strike. And the best part? Your encounter power never misses. Well, a fighter usually doesn't miss (With a little leader support and decent tactics you hit on a 4 or 5+ with a classic fighter, I have a build that has hit with a 2 several times and we where playing RPGA High Tier with Low Tier chars...) So this is not a bonus. Compare that to stuff like Steel Serpent Strike or Come and Get it (which has an effect which is far more impressive than anything the knight can do on a hit) and it is easy to see that this is lameness deluxe. I know no encounter power (which is used by anybody) from any class that is so lame that it just deals extra damage. 1d10 extra damage during an encounter makes totally no difference in the encounter, except in very very unlikely circumstances. Pushing a monster 1 square can make a huge difference. So, Tide of Iron, a classic fighter at will power, is more powerful than the new fighters encounter power. That is the sad truth.
#32 yellerSumner Aug 23, 2010 11:43:30	I suppose posting this again will do no good since you failed to acknowledge it and purposefully clipped it from your quote, but here goes: Sorry, I should have been more specific: From the two stances we know, we see that the power level of the stances is lower than that of typical fighter at will attacks (which can do such nasty things as pushing your enemy a square in addition to dealing damage) So I assume with "unleashing your full fury" they just mean you can deal even more of you punny damage, making the monsters laugh even more at you. We know of a third stance, Defend the Line, which slows an enemy you hit till the end of your next turn. It, as well as the Knight's Battle Guardian ability, another Thief trick, and the human racial power was featured here.
#33 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 12:01:58	We know of a third stance, Defend the Line Defend the line would be an extremely cool thing if it wouldn't make all other fighter stances irrelevant. An class that makes *all* its at-will powers useless by picking one utility power is really bad designed. Also it uses up one of the few interesting options a fighter has by blocking an utility slot. As an at-will stance it would have been awesome. As an utility power it is another fail.
#34 Gazra Aug 23, 2010 12:27:36	Well, a fighter usually doesn't miss (With a little leader support and decent tactics you hit on a 4 or 5+ with a classic fighter, I have a build that has hit with a 2 several times and we where playing RPGA High Tier with Low Tier chars...) So this is not a bonus. Compare that to stuff like Steel Serpent Strike or Come and Get it (which has an effect which is far more impressive than anything the knight can do on a hit) and it is easy to see that this is lameness deluxe. You're talking about a specific build with a specific ally in the party and comparing it to a level 1 knight/slayer with no allies, no feats, and only being able to choose from 2 of the stances you are willing to acknowledge rather than the 8 we know about. You say usually doesn't miss, but this attack never misses. Fine, I'll compare it to Steel Serpent Strike: SSS: 2[W] + Str damage and target slowed and can't shift until eont. You can use this only on your turn as your standard action. If you miss, the power is expended. Slayer MBA in Defend the Line stance with Power Strike: 2[W] + Str + Dex damage and target is slowed until eont. You can use this attack on any melee basic attack, including opportunity attacks, granted attacks, and so on. If you miss, you can try again next attack. Knight MBA in Defend the Line stance with Power Strike: 2[W] + Str damage and target is slowed until eont. You can use this attack on any melee basic attack, including opportunity attacks, granted attacks, battle guardian attacks, and so on. If you miss, you can try again next attack, and if you use this attack as part of your battle guardian attack, you deal Str damage on a miss. It looks pretty even to me, and you're putting a known, good fighter encounter up against a couple of the knight/slayer options that have been statted out for us. I know no encounter power (which is used by anybody) from any class that is so lame that it just deals extra damage. 1d10 extra damage during an encounter makes totally no difference in the encounter, except in very very unlikely circumstances. Pushing a monster 1 square can make a huge difference. That's because when you use power strike to augment one of your MBAs that is already augmented by your stance and class features, it's exactly like an encounter power. So, Tide of Iron, a classic fighter at will power, is more powerful than the new fighters encounter power. That is the sad truth. No, you're just looking at it completely wrong. Slayer MBA + added Dex damage + stance effect + power strike = fighter encounter attack power. Getting to do it on any attack you ever make for any reason is just icing on the cake.
#35 yellerSumner Aug 23, 2010 12:33:24	We know of a third stance, Defend the Line Defend the line would be an extremely cool thing if it wouldn't make all other fighter stances irrelevant. An class that makes *all* its at-will powers useless by picking one utility power is really bad designed. Also it uses up one of the few interesting options a fighter has by blocking an utility slot. As an at-will stance it would have been awesome. As an utility power it is another fail. Both Battle Wrath and Cleaving Assualt stances are labled as "Fighter Utility" powers without a level attached to them.
#36 Gazra Aug 23, 2010 14:35:01	Dude, your defending this horrible design like its your child. Stop, its getting old. There is quantifiable evidence that the designs in this new revision are sub par. With the dubious exception of races with variable stats, which was brought in PHB3. I have yet to read a single post where you say something was better in the old 4.0 rules over the new & improved 4.5 rules. I have yet to see changes that were needed. What;are you one of the design team? Is that why you seem to have so much love for the "change things just to change team" approach 4.5 is taking? Show me this quantifiable evidence then. That would work a lot better than basically saying, "If you love Essentials so much, why don't you marry it?" I posted a comparison of a fighter encounter attack power and a slayer/knight fighter stance + power strike augmented MBA. What did you do? The only thing you've quantified is that 4 + .5 = meaningless buzz word used in place of evidence. You want to talk about getting old? How about you be different from the rest and actually post something that supports your opinion? Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling out the newest anti-Essentials slogan isn't cutting it.
#37 vzzrrkktiberias7 Aug 23, 2010 16:40:41	Knights have high AC and great HP; makes them a defender in my book. My only concern about Essentials is cosmetic. I don't know for sure how I feel about the name of the 2 players books. I'd probably prefered a more generic term like Starters Players Handbook and Advanced Players Handbook instead of Heroes of Fallen Lands & Heroes of Forgotten Lands. They really can't harm everybody. Each monster with an int of 6+ first kills the leader, then the striker, then the controller. At at the end it laughs at the so called knight. Well and finally he will die too, because he has no serious offensive capabilities. A tin can with high AC is worth nothing, since no monster will ever bother with it. If you want to defend anybody you need abilities to make the monsters attack you. The knight has no such abilities. His plate armor proficiency is good for nothing - in fact it makes it even worse, since it just encourages the monsters even more to attack the other characters! The entire concept of the knight is completely pointless. Isn't the very notion of a defender to absorb damage, have a high AC? Damage output isn't their role- that's the striker's. If the defender is the last one down then the defender is being played right.
#38 ak1287 Aug 23, 2010 17:18:23	Dude, your defending this horrible design like its your child. Stop, its getting old. There is quantifiable evidence that the designs in this new revision are sub par. With the dubious exception of races with variable stats, which was brought in PHB3. I have yet to read a single post where you say something was better in the old 4.0 rules over the new & improved 4.5 rules. I have yet to see changes that were needed. What;are you one of the design team? Is that why you seem to have so much love for the "change things just to change team" approach 4.5 is taking? See, this is the goddamn problem. You are doing the forum equivalent of 4 year old bickering.  Gazra actually posts SOMETHING that supports his idea. Whether or not I agree, I can see that. It's QUANTIFIABLE. Whereas.... I haven't seen any evidence from you.  You can't just insult the integrity of the poster because he posts something you disagree with. If Gazra was posting something that I could see as false, I'd be right there with you (no offense, Gazra), but he's not.
#39 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 17:35:45	Both Battle Wrath and Cleaving Assualt stances are labled as "Fighter Utility" powers without a level attached to them. I just talked with a friend and he mentioned the same thing. I guess/hope you are right. Indeed, this stance is the redeeming factor for the knight I was desperately looking for. So, I happily admit that I will propably be wrong and I won't have to freeze my character builder on the last update ;)
#40 Thomson Aug 23, 2010 17:45:20	Isn't the very notion of a defender to absorb damage, have a high AC? Damage output isn't their role- that's the striker's. If the defender is the last one down then the defender is being played right. Well I don't think so. IMO the defender is responsible to protect the remainder of the party. I had a few encounters where my fighter was running around with single digit HP and the remainder of the party was barely scratched. Very bad for the monsters, since the Strikers killed them without much effort. A defenders high defenses are only useful if the monsters actually attack him. However, with Defend the Line (and similar powers) the Knight will indeed be capable of doing this - under some circumstances he is even more effective than a classic fighter - which he should be, since he is lacking in some other areas.
#41 XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek Aug 25, 2010 17:59:39	The problem is that the knight is totally incapable of being a defender (at least from what we know - just tossing around a -2 to hit and dealing a little damage agains foes that are stupid enough to not circumvent the defenders aura...), deals mediocre damage and has ultra lame encounter powers (1 weapon die additional damage? That's all? Come on) Bingo!!  See the problem with not having a Fighter that can stop enemies in their tracks is the sheer fact that creatures to a DM are expendable.  We care about our characters so we try very hard to make sure they survive.  Well to a DM his monsters are like bullets, once you fire a bullet you don't care what happens to it.  If you hit great and if you don't then it's no big deal because you don't have an attachment to that bullet.  The same goes with monsters, if one takes a lot of damage as he steps away from the Knight then who really cares?  He could still sharge that lonely Wizard and do some damage or even kill before he goes down.
#42 Gazra Aug 25, 2010 20:12:50	We care about our characters so we try very hard to make sure they survive.  Well to a DM his monsters are like bullets, once you fire a bullet you don't care what happens to it.  If you hit great and if you don't then it's no big deal because you don't have an attachment to that bullet.  The same goes with monsters, if one takes a lot of damage as he steps away from the Knight then who really cares?  He could still sharge that lonely Wizard and do some damage or even kill before he goes down. How is this different from a regular fighter? A monster can still shift away and charge the wizard. The regular fighter only stops movement on opportunity attacks; not immediate action attacks. The knight can, however, slow a monster on any attack, which would prevent the target from shift-charging. Monster attempts shift. Knight slows as immediate interrupt. Monster's speed is now 2. Monster completes shift, using up 1 square of movement. Monster attempts charge, which requires at least 2 squares of movement. Monster only has 1 square of movement left, and cannot charge. The monster could just charge without shifting, but he would only be able to get 2 squares away, and would risk provoking OAs from any other players threatening him. I think it's a fair trade-off all in all.
#43 Nyke Aug 25, 2010 23:37:11	How is this different from a regular fighter? A monster can still shift away and charge the wizard. The regular fighter only stops movement on opportunity attacks; not immediate action attacks. The knight can, however, slow a monster on any attack, which would prevent the target from shift-charging. Monster attempts shift. Knight slows as immediate interrupt. Monster's speed is now 2. Monster completes shift, using up 1 square of movement. Monster attempts charge, which requires at least 2 squares of movement. Monster only has 1 square of movement left, and cannot charge. The monster could just charge without shifting, but he would only be able to get 2 squares away, and would risk provoking OAs from any other players threatening him. I think it's a fair trade-off all in all. Well, there's a little error. The slow speed of 2 is per action. Charging is a new action, so he could shift and charge, but he'd only be able to charge 2 squares. The wizard could easily walk out of range.
#44 Gazra Aug 26, 2010 9:11:16	Yeah, didn't think about that. So, a monster could get up to 3 squares away from a knight with a shift-charge, and up to its total speed away from a PHB1 fighter.
#45 CelticPaladin Aug 26, 2010 9:53:15	Dude, your defending this horrible design like its your child. Stop, its getting old. There is quantifiable evidence that the designs in this new revision are sub par. With the dubious exception of races with variable stats, which was brought in PHB3. I have yet to read a single post where you say something was better in the old 4.0 rules over the new & improved 4.5 rules. I have yet to see changes that were needed. What;are you one of the design team? Is that why you seem to have so much love for the "change things just to change team" approach 4.5 is taking? There are no old 4.0 rules. There are no new 4.5 rules. That is where the problem in all of this lies... you are assuming they are releasing a new rules set. They are not. Essentials adds options. It also adds a system for which newer players can more easily integrate into DnD. Let me repeat. Essentials doesn't change any of 4e's fundemental rules. IT DOES add eratta. This eratta are minor tweaks to the game's mechanics that the design team would probably have added in anyway. The fact that this eratta coincides with a new line of splatbooks, of completely optional splat books, does not make this game OMG4.5!!!111. There is no 'quanitifiable' evidence that Essentials is the new 4e. They are selling it as 4e Basic, not 4.5. Other than a few minor tweaks, what evidence do you have that 4e is fundementally changing the ruleset so as to make all earlier material obsolete? Because every post made by every game designer or employee says the exact opposite.
#46 Otakkun Aug 26, 2010 13:16:54	I found something that just seems to explain what is happening with Essentials... at Penny Arcade.
#47 vzzrrkktiberias7 Aug 27, 2010 7:38:50	Dude, your defending this horrible design like its your child. Stop, its getting old. There is quantifiable evidence that the designs in this new revision are sub par. With the dubious exception of races with variable stats, which was brought in PHB3. I have yet to read a single post where you say something was better in the old 4.0 rules over the new & improved 4.5 rules. I have yet to see changes that were needed. What;are you one of the design team? Is that why you seem to have so much love for the "change things just to change team" approach 4.5 is taking? There are no old 4.0 rules. There are no new 4.5 rules. That is where the problem in all of this lies... you are assuming they are releasing a new rules set. They are not. Essentials adds options. It also adds a system for which newer players can more easily integrate into DnD. Let me repeat. Essentials doesn't change any of 4e's fundemental rules. IT DOES add eratta. This eratta are minor tweaks to the game's mechanics that the design team would probably have added in anyway. The fact that this eratta coincides with a new line of splatbooks, of completely optional splat books, does not make this game OMG4.5!!!111. There is no 'quanitifiable' evidence that Essentials is the new 4e. They are selling it as 4e Basic, not 4.5. Other than a few minor tweaks, what evidence do you have that 4e is fundementally changing the ruleset so as to make all earlier material obsolete? Because every post made by every game designer or employee says the exact opposite. I 100% agree!
#48 Rustmonster Aug 27, 2010 11:55:52	I found something that just seems to explain what is happening with Essentials... at Penny Arcade. More informative would be to look at Gabes post about his Essentials play experience: www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/23/ Specificlly interesting is this part: I never played the older versions and so I don’t long for some return to the “good old days”. I don’t have a group of friends torn apart by edition wars. Essentials isn’t a new edition or even a dramatic departure from the current game. It’s really just a slightly different way to play 4e. I think it’s worth picking up and showing to your players. I say get it and run it as a one off some night. Who knows, maybe one of them will fall in love with it and want to play an Essentials character in your regular game. There is certainly no harm in exploring different ways to play D&D and in the end that’s all Essentials is doing.
#49 MindWandererB Aug 27, 2010 14:10:47	The Essentials line will not change anything about the current game. Well, it will change some things.  The treasure parcels and daily item uses, we know.  We've seen some previews that suggest that the +NAD feats and Expertise feats will, at least for some characters, become defunct and replaced with new feats that are just plain better.  It's simply unknown by those of us not on the inside how extensive these changes will be. For what it's worth: There's been a lot of brouhaha about Essentials, but one question left unaddressed is whether the Rules Compendium will be a necessary purchase. Clearly there are some rules changes (e.g. magic item distribution), but it's unclear whether, for current players, this will be addressed in the form of errata, or we'll need to buy the RC to have current and accurate rules. (Which, of course, will only remain current and accurate for about 2 months, but still.) Hello [MindWandererB], Thank you for contacting us. It won't be something you need to play, such as the Player's Handbook if you're a player. But it'll definitely be a helpful tool in vanquishing those hordes. Let us know if you have any other questions. Which doesn't even seem like a real answer, since players shouldn't benefit from the RC like they will from the Heroes books.  I guess we'll just have to find out. I really hope they release the relevant errata the same day Essentials launches (Sep. 21), or even a couple of days in advance, so we know whether it's a must-have for games going forward.
#50 thax Aug 27, 2010 17:50:59	Ack! Another new term!! What on this great green globe is NAD?
#51 The_Crimson_Dawn Aug 27, 2010 18:02:33	NAD=Non AC defence Done as an easy to remember acronym and it is funny to say"You hit him in the NADs" haha hilarity ensues.
#52 Gazra Aug 27, 2010 20:25:14	I really hope they release the relevant errata the same day Essentials launches (Sep. 21), or even a couple of days in advance, so we know whether it's a must-have for games going forward. A staff member said on the general forums that a list of anything changing in Essentials will be released sometime in September, and that the October update will be mostly clarifications and typo-correction completely unrelated to Essentials.
#53 abyssaldeath Aug 28, 2010 10:12:30	Nope, next errata is sometime in October. I think I heard that its not even on the normal day of the month. There is going to be a small update in September that will be on the 21st that will deal with the Essentials stuff and then the normal update in October.
#54 Kaviyd3 Aug 29, 2010 23:22:34	Nope, next errata is sometime in October. I think I heard that its not even on the normal day of the month. The July update file gives October 5th as the date for the next rules update.  Have there been any official announcements since then?
#55 abyssaldeath Aug 30, 2010 8:09:23	Nope, next errata is sometime in October. I think I heard that its not even on the normal day of the month. The July update file gives October 5th as the date for the next rules update.  Have there been any official announcements since then? A couple of devs have said that there is going to be an update September 21st to coincide with the release of the Essentials material. The closeness of the two updates is causing some confusion.
#56 jim11735 Aug 31, 2010 9:48:56	My 2 cents before this thread gets locked down, too. 4e is getting another massive update, and it sounds like the Essentials books will have those changes.  WotC will never call anything ".5" again and 4.5 is just an easy slam on having to buy Essentials material if you want to play the most updated version of the game from the books.  Personally, I don't think it matters which came first - the massive updates or Essentials - because they were probably planned to go hand in hand from the start.  I was looking forward to PHB4 and the Shadow power, I think it's now going to be a soft cover now.  There will probably be a 2 and maybe 3 book for all the other powers, I think that line was selling.  But at some point you run out of D&D to print and need to reprint it all over again.  3rd, then 3.5rd, then 4e, and now 4E ("E" for Essentials).  I really doubt there will be a 5th edition for many many years.  They will come out with a 4E Advanced in a couple years (or something sexier like Essentials is to Basic).  Magic Missiles will always hit and target multiple minions based on your level, just like it used to.  5th edition will do away with the stupid Powers as MMOs will get more and more like really old school D&D, and we'll pay for 5th edition updates that will instantly update the books we read on our iPads and Kindles.
#57 vzzrrkktiberias7 Sep 01, 2010 7:38:48	The power abilities are stupid to some, very popular to others. One opinion will not dictate the course of D&D. I like the powers but I would in no shape or form impose my opinion on speculating about 5th when Essentials is just coming out.
#58 Garthanos Sep 01, 2010 9:48:51	How is that helpful or informative? Come on, man. You're better than that. ;) Sorry,  in way too snarly of mood to be posting apparently. Deleted for posterity.
#82 MartianAlien Sep 04, 2010 4:20:49	That these two people are lying about the compatibility of Essentials with the rest of 4th Edition and future of class design is the opinion held by the folks who are dead set against Essentials, threatening to ragequit, and trying to drag everyone with them. The new builds are just that. They are builds. They play with the mechanics a little, just like the Psionic classes did. And we can expect them to continue to tweak with mechanics for new Class and Build design. This does not mean that all Martial builds in the future will look like this, no matter how much the folks who are nerdraging try to tell you otherwise. No offense, Malak, but all of that is your interpretation of what they said. These new builds play with the Power structure (At-Will/Encounter/Daily) far more than Psionic Power Points did (and there are a number of people that think that those are unbalanced as it is). They've explicitly said that they've changed their class design philosophy: Structure has fallen far down the list. You can expect to see different  progressions in classes and the return of class features as a common  element for some classes as they advance in level. we made a number of changes in our approach to  class design. We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials  products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out. What we do know is that they're pushing out an Essentials-style Assassin in DDI (as well as other Essentials-style class material), and that the Bladesinger in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide is an Essentials-style build (many guess it's for Swordmage). They've also said that there aren't any powers for Fighters in Heroes of Shadow, only Feats. That's consistent with the interpretation that the Essentials way is the way they're doing classes "going forward" (that does not mean "for new players" - that means "more class features, fewer power choices"). What they have not done is state - straight out - that they're going to continue to publish PH-style builds for future classes. They could shut this whole debate down by saying just that. They haven't. So, the speculation continues. My feeling is that we won't see any options in print that aren't available to Essentials-style builds. Compatibility isn't the question. They've said "compatibility" so much I'm sure they're sick of the word. Sure, they'll be compatible. But there are also changes to the existing rules coming at the same time. They've stated that the changes they made were ones they would have made anyway, but having classes that operate on boosted basic attacks wasn't something expected in 4e before now so there are a number of other elements (other class powers, feats, items) that became more potent than when all classes were based around at-will attack powers. They could have chosen to not have them be based around stance-boosted basic attacks and given them a build-specific at-will attack that was modified, but instead we get other things changed to make it work. Melee Training is the one they've announced; we are forced to speculate what other changes may have been made to fit stance-boosted basic attacks into the existing paradigm (what's the over-under on how long until the Master's Blade weapon enchant gets changed? ;)). It also doesn't mean they're balanced with each other. It doesn't mean that they're not going to favor the Essentials builds from here on out. (My VHS player and DVD player are both compatible with my TV, but there's no support for VHS now, nor is the picture quality of DVDs artificially limited to be on par with VHS.) They acknowledge that they've increased the importance of world flavor, up to #3 on their list, at the expense of structure, where that structure has provided pretty good balance for the classes. They've also changed #2 - it's now at character creation rather than at each level as it was in the initial 4e design. There's also the "update document" slated to be released on 21 September, ahead of the October errata release. Do you know what the update booklet for 3.5 said? I'll quote the first paragraph: The purpose of this booklet is not to provide a comprehensive list of everything that has changed with the 3.5 revision. The changes are too large in number and varied in scope to be able to provide an all-inclusive inventory. Instead, what we want to do is to show you a broad picture of what has changed and to provide you with support for updating our most popular product. It was six pages of "uh, lots of stuff changed, you really should just buy the new books." Now, the upcoming October update should include the actual changes (even if the September document doesn't), but I hope that helps you understand why many people have a strongly negative reaction towards something that bears a resemblance to the 3.0-to-3.5 revision. "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you." Of course, there is no reason to take my word for it, I'm just a player. The designers, on the other hand, should only be discounted as "mere opinion" if you believe that they are lying to us through their teeth. If that is the case, then nothing that anyone can say will console you, and you will just have to wait for the books to come out. Be prepared to eat some crow, but that would be your choice. I don't believe they are lying. I believe they are emphasizing what marketing wants them to emphasize. Some of them witnessed the 3.5 revision debacle, so they have an interest in emphasizing compatibility and downplaying any notion of a change in direction. We really won't know the state of things until next year. We're all just speculating until then. If you're going to tell others to be prepared to eat some crow, you should also think about how you'd like yours prepared, just in case... ;)
#83 Gazra Sep 04, 2010 4:37:25	Fine, fine. What I meant to say was that his opinion was just as obnoxious as the oppositions. Good lord- everyone is trying to prove points....very annoying and supressive. The whole 'I'm superior because my non-opinion is better than your opinion' thing is fairly obnoxious as well. It's almost like you're trying to prove some point. And yes, you are completely right in saying my post was an opinion; however, likening the content of that post to the 'opinions' of someone like TDB is insulting. If you're going to set the bar for what is an opinion that low, then calling what I said an opinion would be on the same level as constantly asking yourself if this is all real or if you're in the Matrix. It's like you want this to be one of those little league baseball games where they don't keep score and every kid gets a trophy.
#84 Garthanos Sep 04, 2010 5:05:28	Faldorin: Welcome to the forums, Its always good to hear from new voices. It may seem rather heated around here some of the time, but most of the time it is one of the more pleasant forums to go to.   En-World ranks higher in politeness.... but their moderators sometimes nerf things which might be questionable - I think its a toss up. I second the Welcome
#122 mellored Sep 07, 2010 15:32:27	The ONLY thing that bothers me is the upcoming Heroes of Shadow book and the possibility of the Hexblade and Necromancer not being it's own level 30 class like we saw for the PHB 1/2/3. I think the Necromancer could work as an Essential to the Wizard but the Hexblade needs it's own fluff, mechanics, and powers that aren't based on any pre-existing class. I've seen nothing to suggest this. There is supposed to be a PHB: Heroic Tier (or whatever the new names are), specificly giving heroic options, but that's a different book from the PHB: Shadows.  Also, PHB: Forgoten Kingdom does go all to 30, including a few PP's and a (very generic) ED. Only the red box stops at level 3.
#123 MartianAlien Sep 07, 2010 16:01:17	In various posts from the designers, you can take a Knight and give him the Tide of Iron power and feats that help a shield-based fighter from the PHB. I think you've misread - the only things the Knight and Slayer have access to from previous material are Feats and Utility Powers. At-Will Attack Powers, Encounter Attack Powers, and Daily Attack Powers are unaccessible by the Knight and Slayer, they have either different mechanisms (their At-Will Stances are Utility powers) or are locked in to their Encounter Attacks (which seem to be Power Strike, Power Strike, and more Power Strike). The ONLY thing that bothers me is the upcoming Heroes of Shadow book and the possibility of the Hexblade and Necromancer not being it's own level 30 class like we saw for the PHB 1/2/3. I think the Necromancer could work as an Essential to the Wizard but the Hexblade needs it's own fluff, mechanics, and powers that aren't based on any pre-existing class. I've seen nothing to suggest this. There is supposed to be a PHB: Heroic Tier (or whatever the new names are), specificly giving heroic options, but that's a different book from the PHB: Shadows.  Also, PHB: Forgoten Kingdom does go all to 30, including a few PP's and a (very generic) ED. Only the red box stops at level 3. I believe Diffan is pointing out that because the Warlock subclass build in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is named Hexblade, it brings into question just what's in Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow. Some are speculating that the Necromancer included in that book will be a subclass of Wizard, rather than being its own new stand-alone class.
#124 jim11735 Sep 07, 2010 16:01:34	4E is compatible with all your 4e books once you apply all the errata WotC will be making.  That 4E will be reprinting some 4e stuff with the errata already applied is where "revision" and "edition" talk comes up.  I wonder what Dungeons & Dragons roadmap looks like.  When they released 3.5, you sort knew 4 was coming a lot sooner than it took to go from 2nd to 3rd.  I get impermanence, they can only publish so much "iconic" content before having to do something else.  Was there a change from hardcover PHB4 Shadow source to this new Essentials line?  Is that why it feels like a reset? Going forward, I would be suprised if you see numbers at the end of books.  Once there was a Martial Power 2, everyone started salivating for their Power 2 books.  And it can be a little overwhelming walking up to a series of Monster Manuals from 1-20 for someone new to the hobby.  If everything just has some fantastic name to it, you might not realize they canceled a line of books or have begun to reprint stuff. How long is long enough to invest in an edition and short enough to turn over the game so you can continue to sell book after book of the same stuff from decades ago?  If you told me 4e was going to be 3 or 4 years long, I might have skipped it.  If it was going to be 10 years long, how would you pace it? Having not seen 4E yet, my best hope is they have found a way to cycle the content we have now with themes and if there is some sense of "we got the math right this time" to the whole thing.  That would essentially prolong 4th Edition and instill some confidence in the product they are asking me to continue to invest in.
#125 Tony_Vargas Sep 08, 2010 0:57:30	Tell you what. You were not here for the 3.0, 3.5 BS. They repeatedly said the same **** then. From experience in the time the company has owned the rights, they have already proven my point. I do not have to. But you can go ahead and believe them if you wish. I've already been down that road. Ahh, so this isn't rage about Essentials, it is leftover rage about 3.5. Forgive me for having some faith. I think they would have learned from the 3.5 debacle, which is why compatibility became priority one. ... I expect things to integrate seamlessly, because I have seen nothing previewed to suggest otherwise. So it's Rage vs Blind Faith, then.
#126 Diffan Sep 08, 2010 8:07:36	In various posts from the designers, you can take a Knight and give him the Tide of Iron power and feats that help a shield-based fighter from the PHB. I think you've misread - the only things the Knight and Slayer have access to from previous material are Feats and Utility Powers. At-Will Attack Powers, Encounter Attack Powers, and Daily Attack Powers are unaccessible by the Knight and Slayer, they have either different mechanisms (their At-Will Stances are Utility powers) or are locked in to their Encounter Attacks (which seem to be Power Strike, Power Strike, and more Power Strike). Ok, even if that's the way it's going to play out you still need previous material to have all the additional content available to 4E players. Had this been a true revision to the likes of 3.5, we would've seen the fighter completly re-done along with all the other classes not just specific builds like knight or slayer. And they can still use feats, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies designed for fighters pre-Essentials. And I hate judging a whole class based on a few snippets we've got on DDI. The ONLY thing that bothers me is the upcoming Heroes of Shadow book and the possibility of the Hexblade and Necromancer not being it's own level 30 class like we saw for the PHB 1/2/3. I think the Necromancer could work as an Essential to the Wizard but the Hexblade needs it's own fluff, mechanics, and powers that aren't based on any pre-existing class. I've seen nothing to suggest this. There is supposed to be a PHB: Heroic Tier (or whatever the new names are), specificly giving heroic options, but that's a different book from the PHB: Shadows.  Also, PHB: Forgoten Kingdom does go all to 30, including a few PP's and a (very generic) ED. Only the red box stops at level 3. I believe Diffan is pointing out that because the Warlock subclass build in Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is named Hexblade, it brings into question just what's in Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow. Some are speculating that the Necromancer included in that book will be a subclass of Wizard, rather than being its own new stand-alone class.
#127 mellored Sep 08, 2010 9:27:29	Tell you what. You were not here for the 3.0, 3.5 BS. They repeatedly said the same **** then. From experience in the time the company has owned the rights, they have already proven my point. I do not have to. But you can go ahead and believe them if you wish. I've already been down that road. Ahh, so this isn't rage about Essentials, it is leftover rage about 3.5. Forgive me for having some faith. I think they would have learned from the 3.5 debacle, which is why compatibility became priority one. ... I expect things to integrate seamlessly, because I have seen nothing previewed to suggest otherwise. So it's Rage vs Blind Faith, then. Which drowns out any logical debate. So when did D&D turn into politics?
#128 hunterian7 Sep 08, 2010 10:35:31	apparently when essentials came along and drove a stake in the community- or something melodramtic like that. rage- haters of essentials faith- lovers of essentials
#129 hunterian7 Sep 08, 2010 10:41:46	I view essentials as a revision of the rules that is compatible with what has come out before.
#130 mvincent Sep 09, 2010 15:41:36	I had a chance to run some intro to D&D sessions at PAX. I gotta say, the Red Box (which they let me borrow) was probably one of the best products I've seen in a long time. I usually gripe about flaws (indeed, my career in software QA revolves around such), but I gotta give out kudos when something pleasantly surprises me. - the tokens were well chosen and very usable - I liked the dice (i.e. my preferred style: black with white lettering... easy to read from a distance while still being somewhat cool) - the maps (2 generic and one oversized dungeon) were exceptional - the pre-made adventure was easy to run and very fun. In fact, thanks to how the provided map could be folded to show one encounter at a time (or unfolded to show the entire dungeon) I enjoyed running the dungeon more than any of the other (hundreds, possibly 1000+) adventures I've run. - the new classes seemed fairly simply and intuitive. I can't really speak much to character creation, but adding a few more alternate character classes doesn't affect my other on-going campaigns any more than any other splat book did. Indeed, I want some simple classes available so I can bring newbs in (and have them play side-by-side with my veterans). - the cardstock, perforated power cards for each class were a nice touch. - the 'choose your own adventure' was a clever way to introduce new players to the game. Pretty darn good value for $20 ($15 in some places). I hadn't planned to get one... but heck, the map itself was worth it. I highly recommed it for starting players & DM's (or for a DM that wants a good 1st level adventure). Rules-wise (i.e. outside of class specific abilities), it's just stuff I already use in my on-going games.
#131 ian_demagi Sep 11, 2010 15:03:46	Just playd essentials at WWD&DD-Hated it-allthe guys at the table who were experienced D & D players hated it. There were 6 tables playing it and I think every group ended up in TPKS-no thanks. The Magic Missile errata so that its always hits is being housed ruled out with impunity with every DM that was there. Ian
#132 MalakLightfoot Sep 11, 2010 21:35:56	Just playd essentials at WWD&DD-Hated it-allthe guys at the table who were experienced D & D players hated it. There were 6 tables playing it and I think every group ended up in TPKS-no thanks. The Magic Missile errata so that its always hits is being housed ruled out with impunity with every DM that was there. Ian The Wizard was doing more damage than they should have with Magic Missle. The Game Day pregen could target one or two creatures with it. On the other hand, the same Wizard should have had another At-Will, because the Mage Build is supposed to get Magic Missle for free. The Mages damage was postively anemic. Many of the Warpriest's powers said they targeted Will when they should have been targetting AC. The lack of a Defender was plainly felt. Looking at the Dwarf, it is obvious that they statted him as if he were a Knight, but then they turned him into a Slayer at the zero-hour. The final battle would have been a TPK, had I not had the Dragon make bite attacks rather than claw attacks on the last three players standing. They knew I switched tactics on them, and they thanked me for not slaughtering them all. Until that battle, they did very well. My table had fun, veteran players all, two new to fourth edition, the other three were experienced 4E players. One was confused by the Rogue's movement tricks. There was another table going when I left, they had just started, and the Wizard was dead (three failed saves) after the first encounter. It probably comes down to DM styles. I'm a light touch at these events because I want everyone to have fun, and make the experience fun for any new players at the table. I tend not to use the monsters to their full effectiveness and let new players know when they are about to provoke  an Opportunity Attack or if they have actions (move, minor, etc). left that they can use. Being a "killer DM" at these events is horrible for the hobby, so I don't do it. I'm just sorry so many people have had bad experiences, and can't help but think that part of that is the DM's fault when I hear about all these TPKs.
#133 Garthanos Sep 12, 2010 7:36:54	Just playd essentials at WWD&DD-Hated it-allthe guys at the table who were experienced D & D players hated it. There were 6 tables playing it and I think every group ended up in TPKS-no thanks.   Wow, I dont like essentials based purely on design, but that is not something I would have expected.