Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 WhiteHarness Jul 28, 2010 9:12:00	Seriously. I haven't been this excited about a D&D product in years.  I adore the Old School feel of what I've seen in the previews so far, especially the Knight.  I'm probably alone in this sentiment, but I do hope that the rules presented in Essentials completely supplant the current, heavily-errataed, vanilla 4E D&D rules.  Essentials will be, I feel, D&D 4E perfected, and I have high hopes for its success.  I can't wait to have that shiny red box in my hands!
#2 FrozenWastes Jul 28, 2010 10:28:26	While I'm going to buy the red box for sure just because that's how I got started with D&D almost 25 years ago. I hope the states goals for the products come to pass.  That it because the thing that's widely available, but doesn't invalidate current builds.  Best of both worlds.  Those like you can play the new builds and anyone who doesn't feel the same as you can play the current ones. What I am excited about is the Rules Compendium, Dungeon Tiles sets that stay in print and the idea of a monster set that includes tokens for the monsters.
#3 nightwalker450 Jul 28, 2010 10:58:16	Before it was just the Rules Compendium I was waiting for.  But now I'm definitely looking forward to the new Mage build for wizard.
#4 efutch Jul 28, 2010 11:29:53	I too cannot wait to get my hands on most products of the Essentials line. The tile sets are probably the least interesting to me. I like to draw out my maps. Other than that, I can't wait to see everything else. A class that revolves are melee basic attacks is very awesome, because no longer is my "fighter" restricted to a particular ability score (ie strength). So much more versatility. And hey, a printed rules compendium? I'll definitely take that.
#5 AvonRekaes Jul 28, 2010 12:16:33	oh WOW. I didn't even realize that... With Melee Combat Training and the Knight's attacks all being melee basic attacks... you could make a Knight that attacks completely off Charisma. Huh! (Or more likely, Dex or Con to synergize feat choices for your prefered weapon)
#6 Cyber-Dave Jul 28, 2010 13:18:23	Seriously. I haven't been this excited about a D&D product in years.  I adore the Old School feel of what I've seen in the previews so far, especially the Knight.  I'm probably alone in this sentiment, but I do hope that the rules presented in Essentials completely supplant the current, heavily-errataed, vanilla 4E D&D rules.  Essentials will be, I feel, D&D 4E perfected, and I have high hopes for its success.  I can't wait to have that shiny red box in my hands! Yea. You are definitly "alone" in that sentiment, at least as far as I am concerned. I don't think essentials is the sky falling. But from what I have seen so far, while I really do enjoy the old school feel (and wish more of that feel were incorporated in 4e from the start), I really don't like what I have seen of the Knight so far. I would much rather play a PHB 1 4e fighter. And, I can't say for sure, but I think that if these rules completely supplant the current 4e rules (which I find to be anything but vanilla) I might stop purchasing new 4e products... We will just have to wait and see. Maybe once I get to take a look at the fully published knight class I might change my mind. But right now, it is really not my cup of tea.
#7 mellored Jul 28, 2010 15:42:23	The rules arn't that heavilly errated (3%).  But anything new they print will be the updated version. I'm definatly going to pick up the rules compendium, but i'll probably skip the builds and just use them in the CB. I don't really have an opinion on the "old school feel" since i didn't play 3.5.  And while i don't mind seeing "easy" classes, i think they might be a bit boring for me personally.  Though the "build your own attack" features of the knight seem pretty neat.
#8 Cyber-Dave Jul 28, 2010 16:47:53	The rules arn't that heavilly errated (3%).  But anything new they print will be the updated version. I'm definatly going to pick up the rules compendium, but i'll probably skip the builds and just use them in the CB. I don't really have an opinion on the "old school feel" since i didn't play 3.5.  And while i don't mind seeing "easy" classes, i think they might be a bit boring for me personally.  Though the "build your own attack" features of the knight seem pretty neat. Pssst: 3e is not oldschool. When people are talking about the old school feel of essentials, they are talking about the way essentials tries to cater to the flavor of 1e and 2e AD&D. That is one aspect of the essentials line I actually reall like...
#9 salla Jul 29, 2010 0:19:05	Really? 4e is 'vanilla' when a class built around the Melee Basic Attack is not? Really?
#10 Duskweaver Jul 29, 2010 1:50:18	4e is 'vanilla' when a class built around the Melee Basic Attack is not? I think he means it in the sense of "standard, unaltered, straight-out-of-the-box" rather than "boring, simple, easy". "Vanilla" vs. "Essentials" rather than "vanilla" vs. "interesting". It is nice to see a martial (sub)class that gets plate armour proficiency for free. I don't share WhiteHarness' disdain for light armour classes, but I do like variety in class design and we've had a lot of light armour classes lately (and DarkSun looks like it might be giving us a light armour build for the battlemind, as well as yet another one for the fighter). A plate-wearing defender who isn't a god-botherer is perfectly fine by me. The "MBA+modifications" mechanic also looks interesting. My only real worry about the knight, from what little we've seen so far, is that it may be very limited in what it can poach from the larger fighter class. It doesn't have the class features some fighter feats require and it looks disturbingly as though it may not have any 'slots' it can use to take fighter powers (except for utilities). I'm interested in playing a knight, but not if I'm going to be left with no meaningful decisions to make when I level up.
#11 Cyber-Dave Jul 29, 2010 2:09:27	It is nice to see a martial (sub)class that gets plate armour proficiency for free. I don't share WhiteHarness' disdain for light armour classes, but I do like variety in class design and we've had a lot of light armour classes lately (and DarkSun looks like it might be giving us a light armour build for the battlemind, as well as yet another one for the fighter). A plate-wearing defender who isn't a god-botherer is perfectly fine by me. The "MBA+modifications" mechanic also looks interesting. My only real worry about the knight, from what little we've seen so far, is that it may be very limited in what it can poach from the larger fighter class. It doesn't have the class features some fighter feats require and it looks disturbingly as though it may not have any 'slots' it can use to take fighter powers (except for utilities). I'm interested in playing a knight, but not if I'm going to be left with no meaningful decisions to make when I level up. BANG. That is how I feel, word for word. This is also, probably, why so many people are worried about how compatible post essentials products will be with pre-essentials products. I LIKE the complexity of the existing 4e fighter. I like how you have plenty of choice when building the character. I like how you have plenty of decisions to make while playing the character. The fighter, finally, is as fun as the wizard! The knight, from what I have seen of it, does not look like it will be. It looks like someone playing the fighter might be left with virtually no real choices to make, either while building their character, or playing it. That bothers me. And it scares me that future products might not be compatible with prior existing products, because I actually REALLY like the 4e rules and classes we have so far. I mean, introducing some variety into power progression? Cool. I am ok with that. As long as a character still has plenty of meaningful choices to make, and different actions they can perform during play. What worries me is that the knight might not have either. And if that is the case, then I am worried that we might be returning to the design philosophy of 3e, which I hated. It is SO boring when the abilities you gain from your class are fixed by your level in a class. Choice makes the game SO much better.
#12 commissar Jul 29, 2010 2:14:17	oh WOW. I didn't even realize that... With Melee Combat Training and the Knight's attacks all being melee basic attacks... you could make a Knight that attacks completely off Charisma. Huh! (Or more likely, Dex or Con to synergize feat choices for your prefered weapon) Yeah, you know it's going to be CON. I don't even know how to optimize and I know that much. Probably Super-CON with that gizmo that lets your attacks go after Reflex (Master's Blade, is it?). So you'll see Ahnuld the Knight standing there with his plate armor, his bulging biceps and his tiny little epee that never misses and stabs you in half. Scary!
#13 Osgood Jul 29, 2010 8:17:14	I was initially excited about the essentails line, but now that I have seen the previews, I have lost almost all interest in it.  I'll probably pick up the Rule Compendium, and I still plan on picking up a few Red Box Sets around the holidays to donate to (grow the hobby and help a needy kid in one stroke), but I have no interest in the rest. My favorite thing about 4E is how all the classes (with the exception of psionics) work the same, and all have interesting choices.  What I have seen in the previews so far seems like a step backwards to me; a strange mix if all the editions. While I enjoy a ceratin nostalgia at times, I am about as interested in playing the essentials as I am about buying a new car with a hand crank.  Fortunately, these are all just new options, so I'll just keep playing with the rules I like, and regard this as a few months where my gaming budget can go elsewhere.
#14 mellored Jul 29, 2010 8:36:37	It looks like someone playing the fighter might be left with virtually no real choices to make, either while building their character, or playing it. This may be somewhat true for the knight/slayer, but the other 2 classes (cleric/wizards) are basicly the same as any other one.  They've even mentioned (in the pod cast) they wanted players to still make character choices.  Really the knight will be powerfull enough that it needs to be limited in it's options, if it could take encounter powers or dailes from the fighter or other classes, char-op would break the class in half with a day.
#15 Marandahir Jul 29, 2010 10:47:51	My favourite thing about 4E is that everything is balanced with each other in terms of power. Luckily, WotC officials have said that they have a mathematical equation they're using to balance each new kit's progression with the standard advancement table.  This is what they started doing with PP-using classes in the PH3. So even if they're not the standard 2 Green/4 Red/4 Black/7 Utility, they can be balance with that.  What would REALLY upset me is if some class somehow had no way of balancing against it.  Luckily, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
#16 Cyber-Dave Jul 29, 2010 11:14:35	It looks like someone playing the fighter might be left with virtually no real choices to make, either while building their character, or playing it. This may be somewhat true for the knight/slayer, but the other 2 classes (cleric/wizards) are basicly the same as any other one. Yes, that seems to be true. And you know what, if that does turn out to be true, that makes the knight/slayer a poorly designed and boring class, one which will turn me off the direction essentials is taking D&D. I like options. I like options in ALL classes. A class with no real options should never be created in the first place. Yes, I realize there are still all the old fighter options. But like it or not, essentials indicates a direction they are thinking of taking the game, a direction they are experimenting with. I don't like the direction this experiment seems to be taking the game. It promises the possibility of future classes that leave characters almost no option, in terms of class builds, when they are chosen for play. They've even mentioned (in the pod cast) they wanted players to still make character choices.  Really the knight will be powerfull enough that it needs to be limited in it's options, if it could take encounter powers or dailes from the fighter or other classes, char-op would break the class in half with a day. Really, this is the silliest argument I have ever heard. Limited options as a balancing factor!? What!? If the class is overpowered, having less options doesn't fix that. If the class is not overpowered, then having the option to choose between a variety of equally powerful options at any given level (instead of being forced to take a fixed power-analog choice) doesn't make a class any more powerful. So yea, those are my 2 cents. I plan to reserve judgement until I see the finished product. I don't mind what I see in the cleric or mage previews. The old-school feel of those builds actually tickles my fancy. I think I might really like those iterations of the cleric and wizard class. But from what I have seen so far, I really don't think I like the knight, or the direction the knight seems to be trying to take 4e. It seems like a step backwards instead of a step forwards. Perhaps, once I see the finished product, I will change my mind...
#17 efutch Jul 29, 2010 11:19:12	With the announcement of an arena fighter build in Dark Sun, that brings us to a total of 6 different fighter builds. Let me state that again. 6 builds. The only classes that come close to that are ranger (5), warlock (6 after dark sun as well) and wizard implement choices (also 6). Anyone complaining that there aren't enough options for the fighter (maybe even martial classes in general) has pretty much lost their mind. Now two more sub builds for the class brings us to 6 builds and 2 subclasses. And while a lot of feats proc off of typical class features (like combat challenge) I know just as many people who take class/general feats (for having the right ability scores). The possibility for the new fighter subclasses may be near endless (in so far as having 6 fighter builds already seems endless). Then factor in the idea that with Melee Training in the highest ability score has removed racial prejudice from the subclass entirely. Now shardminds, gnomes, halflings and so on have the chance to be amazing fighters. This is pretty bananas.
#18 Josha Jul 29, 2010 12:52:40	I can't wait for them either, mostly because of nostalgia.
#19 Marandahir Jul 29, 2010 12:57:06	With the announcement of an arena fighter build in Dark Sun, that brings us to a total of 6 different fighter builds. Let me state that again. 6 builds. The only classes that come close to that are ranger (5), warlock (6 after dark sun as well) and wizard implement choices (also 6). Anyone complaining that there aren't enough options for the fighter (maybe even martial classes in general) has pretty much lost their mind. Now two more sub builds for the class brings us to 6 builds and 2 subclasses. And while a lot of feats proc off of typical class features (like combat challenge) I know just as many people who take class/general feats (for having the right ability scores). The possibility for the new fighter subclasses may be near endless (in so far as having 6 fighter builds already seems endless). Then factor in the idea that with Melee Training in the highest ability score has removed racial prejudice from the subclass entirely. Now shardminds, gnomes, halflings and so on have the chance to be amazing fighters. This is pretty bananas. Don't forget the Warlord.
#20 ranadiel Jul 29, 2010 13:57:05	My favourite thing about 4E is that everything is balanced with each other in terms of power. Luckily, WotC officials have said that they have a mathematical equation they're using to balance each new kit's progression with the standard advancement table.  This is what they started doing with PP-using classes in the PH3. So even if they're not the standard 2 Green/4 Red/4 Black/7 Utility, they can be balance with that.  What would REALLY upset me is if some class somehow had no way of balancing against it.  Luckily, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. .....A mathmatical formula? Really? Either this formula is one of the most complex forumlas known to man or it is a load of bs(heck iot could be both). I don't even know where you would begin to try and quantify some of the options or effects in the game.....Wait. *rereads post* They've been using the math formula since PHB3? I feel like an explanation for something important that I don't care about was just delivered to me. Oh well.
#21 Tony_Vargas Jul 29, 2010 23:30:48	Seriously. I haven't been this excited about a D&D product in years.  I adore the Old School feel of what I've seen in the previews so far, especially the Knight.  I'm probably alone in this sentiment, but I do hope that the rules presented in Essentials completely supplant the current, heavily-errataed, vanilla 4E D&D rules.  So, you hate 4e and you've been wishing it would just go away, and you're hoping Essentials will do that for you? Well, I quite liked 4e, /especially/ the Fighter.  If they want to publish an inferior version of the Fighter for people who don't like having a selection of cool powers, that's fine, as long as they don't go into Character Builder one day and gank the real thing.
#22 Khan_the_Destroyer Jul 30, 2010 2:11:44	W.T.F? Are you all ****ing high or something? Get a grip. Honestly, why does there have to be a divide? So, if I like the shift in class design that the knight takes, I'm a newb? Or a grognard? Or don't support 4th edition? This just in! You can like more than one thing at the same time! Holy bat**** Batman! "Wait a second Khan... are you saying that you like the 4th edition Fighter, but are also looking forward to the Essentials Fighter builds?" "Yes I am. But please, let me explain before your feeble mind implodes on itself and all three of your neurons splatter onto your screen." I'm an optimizer and I enjoy creating characters that fit my concept. For that, the more mechanics available, the merrier. It allows me to pick and choose stuff and piece them together to get what I want. I love it. It's one of the reasons I enjoyed 3rd edition so much with it's much more lax multi-classing and prestige classing. That said, just because the Knight or Slayer lacks three different power choices for seven different builds at each level from 1 to 30, it doesn't mean the class sucks. It can offer something that perhaps other fighter builds can't. To me, mechanically basing the fighter on his most basic attack and allowing him to augment that and/or do different things with it through stances is a much more thematic and intuitive fit than hopping from Daily powers to Encounter powers to At-will powers. That alone is enough for me to see what the new class has to offer. It fits the Fighter theme much better than the other builds in my mind simply for using that different "power" progression. I'd like something explained to me as well if someone doesn't mind. It seems that people are under the impression that levelling up as a Knight will offer no choices. Which is strange because I remember people feeling the same way when 4th edition first hit the shelves. Each level has 3-4 powers and you get to pick one. Obviously that has changed with the addition of more material, but still, how is it much different to pick between three stances and to pick between three powers? How is spamming a basic attack with different stances each encounter different than spamming the same encounter powers and at-wills each encounter? These are asides. I'm interested in the perspective because honestly I don't see the big difference. When I play, I recognize that I'm using the same powers over and over and over again. Maybe the difference is that they have names, whereas basic attacks don't? The main point is that there doesn't seem to me to be any reason to assume that one must like the knight and not like the 4th edition fighter or the other way around. The current fighter and all of its builds is my favorite class in 4th edition. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a build or two with a different take on "powers". It sounds pretty elitist when people imply that their taste is better because it involves more options and choices.
#23 efutch Jul 30, 2010 18:16:24	Seriously. I haven't been this excited about a D&D product in years.  I adore the Old School feel of what I've seen in the previews so far, especially the Knight.  I'm probably alone in this sentiment, but I do hope that the rules presented in Essentials completely supplant the current, heavily-errataed, vanilla 4E D&D rules.  So, you hate 4e and you've been wishing it would just go away, and you're hoping Essentials will do that for you? Well, I quite liked 4e, /especially/ the Fighter.  If they want to publish an inferior version of the Fighter for people who don't like having a selection of cool powers, that's fine, as long as they don't go into Character Builder one day and gank the real thing. Really, man? Six fighter builds, spanning across PHB1, MP1, MP2 and a new build in Dark Sun, and multiple options presented from Dragon (which included a hilarious 2-shield fighter "build") and when they decide to try something new there's no options? Really? That's your keen observation? Obviously with only 2 subclasses appearing in Essentials, yes, there will be less options for a SUBCLASS based on the class that, hands down, has the most options, probably even before, rangers, rogues, wizards and warlocks. . . Did you guys know the Battlemind lacks options?! GASP. Breaking news!! lol Give any class (that isn't even out yet and has had a total of maybe 6 powers/options previewed) ANY time (let alone 2 years in the most popular of a declining popularity pass time), and you might like the OPTION to try something different (though I assume you're playing at least 7 or 8 fighters currently). But of course, based on fact that you've been playing Essentials for a lot longer than most of us, you know they're inferior, naturally.