Essentual Barbarian

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

Ahrimon

Jun 21, 2011 8:03:30		Any plans to create an essentials style barbarian?  I love the flavor of the barbarian, but much prefer the simplicity of classes like the slayer.


As it is, I'm going to create a slayer and re-fluff it to barbarian, but I'd still love to see an official essentials style barbarian.  
#2

Herrozerro

Jun 21, 2011 10:17:37 		I hope so, but I couldnt see how.  I mean rages are pretty much a pretty solid mechanic and I cant see a really good way to show them in another fashion.

and even though I dont agree with Thunder_Dragonbane on pretty much anything I agree that unless it can be done in a different way I would rather them not to "re-tred" classes.
#3

trevorhock

Jun 21, 2011 10:48:06 		Perhaps make it a martial/primal class like the Essentials rangers. And give it an encounter "rage" power that maybe is only in effect while bloodied.
#4

robertread3

Jun 21, 2011 13:31:03 		im all for it, the Barbarian is IMO the nova king of 4e and using a combo of bloodied mechanics and ways to activate rages as welll as retaining the rampage class feature could make it work mechanicly 

however, there are probably no plans to add new subclasses to PHB2 at least not in the near future

essentials was made to allow players to have a basic game without having to worry about all the broken/overused things that exist within 4e, if you make it all essentials only then pretty much each class is on an equal level and you can play to epic with a greater focus on your actual play then ability to find the most OP thing in your class arsonle to compete with the other players at the table so you dont feel like a drag on the party, its more new player friendly 

on the flip side the char opers can mess with 9 more essentials classes and have made some pretty sick combos

pretty much the only people who dont win in this scnario are those who dislike simplicity in favor of high mechanical custimization or those want to feel as if they are more sophisticated because they can choose powers, 

 dont mind thunder_dragonbane, he wants to fight this as long as anyone uses the E word as far as i can tell he is pretty much trolling at this point.

 
#5

incenjucar

Jun 21, 2011 14:06:25

It would be easier to just give slayers a few primal rage stance options and an option to lose some armor in exchange for some speed or durability.

#6

Samrin

Jun 21, 2011 14:12:30 		Sure, why not. All any other e-striker does is charge, charge, charge, charge, charge. Why not add in the Barbarian to that mix, too? Then it could step on its own toes. :P
#7

Herrozerro

Jun 21, 2011 14:39:54
Sure, why not. All any other e-striker does is charge, charge, charge, charge, charge. Why not add in the Barbarian to that mix, too? Then it could step on its own toes. :P



I never understood this comment.  I have built and played a few E strikers, as well as at least 2 in my own game I have and there was not much charging at all.

I guess it depends on who you game with... Or at least the board you get your information from. 
#8

Samrin

Jun 21, 2011 14:42:50
Sure, why not. All any other e-striker does is charge, charge, charge, charge, charge. Why not add in the Barbarian to that mix, too? Then it could step on its own toes. :P



I never understood this comment.  I have built and played a few E strikers, as well as at least 2 in my own game I have and there was not much charging at all.

I guess it depends on who you game with... Or at least the board you get your information from. 



E-strikers are at their best when charging. That's the benefit of MBA's. Building around charging is the best way to get the most out of them. They're better at it than Barbarian's.

+1 to hit, plus all of the incredible charge support out there. It's a no-brainer. 
#9

Herrozerro

Jun 21, 2011 14:49:48
Sure, why not. All any other e-striker does is charge, charge, charge, charge, charge. Why not add in the Barbarian to that mix, too? Then it could step on its own toes. :P



I never understood this comment.  I have built and played a few E strikers, as well as at least 2 in my own game I have and there was not much charging at all.

I guess it depends on who you game with... Or at least the board you get your information from. 



E-strikers are at their best when charging. That's the benefit of MBA's. Building around charging is the best way to get the most out of them. They're better at it than Barbarian's.

+1 to hit, plus all of the incredible charge support out there. It's a no-brainer. 



yes, and Iron Armbands of power exist so no other arm slots are irrevelent right?

All I'm saying is there is more to the game then Charop's opinion. 
#10

Samrin

Jun 21, 2011 15:18:23
Sure, why not. All any other e-striker does is charge, charge, charge, charge, charge. Why not add in the Barbarian to that mix, too? Then it could step on its own toes. :P



I never understood this comment.  I have built and played a few E strikers, as well as at least 2 in my own game I have and there was not much charging at all.

I guess it depends on who you game with... Or at least the board you get your information from. 



E-strikers are at their best when charging. That's the benefit of MBA's. Building around charging is the best way to get the most out of them. They're better at it than Barbarian's.

+1 to hit, plus all of the incredible charge support out there. It's a no-brainer. 



yes, and Iron Armbands of power exist so no other arm slots are irrevelent right?

All I'm saying is there is more to the game then Charop's opinion. 



It isn't about CharOp. It's about playing smart. Charging is the most efficient way to play them and fill your role in the party. It's quite simple. Anyone built around MBA's should be charging whenever it is available. The Barbarian and Druid are built for it, as well. The only reason not to do it is to hurt your potential.
#11

Herrozerro

Jun 21, 2011 15:32:41

It isn't about CharOp. It's about playing smart. Charging is the most efficient way to play them and fill your role in the party. It's quite simple. Anyone built around MBA's should be charging whenever it is available. The Barbarian and Druid are built for it, as well. The only reason not to do it is to hurt your potential.



Ah, sorta like the best thing anyone could do on a single turn is attack so standard actions that dont do any damage or hamper enemies is wasting a turn.

Either way, I still disagree. :P 
#12

Samrin

Jun 21, 2011 15:40:45

It isn't about CharOp. It's about playing smart. Charging is the most efficient way to play them and fill your role in the party. It's quite simple. Anyone built around MBA's should be charging whenever it is available. The Barbarian and Druid are built for it, as well. The only reason not to do it is to hurt your potential.



Ah, sorta like the best thing anyone could do on a single turn is attack so standard actions that dont do any damage or hamper enemies is wasting a turn.

Either way, I still disagree. :P 



It's true, though. The only result you'll get is prolonging the fight. That's completely against what a striker is built for.
#13

Herrozerro

Jun 21, 2011 15:48:22

It isn't about CharOp. It's about playing smart. Charging is the most efficient way to play them and fill your role in the party. It's quite simple. Anyone built around MBA's should be charging whenever it is available. The Barbarian and Druid are built for it, as well. The only reason not to do it is to hurt your potential.



Ah, sorta like the best thing anyone could do on a single turn is attack so standard actions that dont do any damage or hamper enemies is wasting a turn.

Either way, I still disagree. :P 



It's true, though. The only result you'll get is prolonging the fight. That's completely against what a striker is built for.



a 5% chance to hit isnt going to prolong any fight for much longer then it normally would.
#14

Herrozerro

Jun 21, 2011 15:52:20 		so the idea is that unless a player hassnt squeezed out every last +1 to hit or extra 1d6 damage, all that PC is doing is prolonging a battle?
#15

robertread3

Jun 21, 2011 16:22:37
so the idea is that unless a player hassnt squeezed out every last +1 to hit or extra 1d6 damage, all that PC is doing is prolonging a battle?



While a class is at its best doing X it does not require you to do so. 

Charop is about making the character the most powerful mechanically and with MBA classes thats charging because of extra damage and to hit.

cheers mate, its all about just playing whats fun for you, your not required to do jack, just because it is what everyone thinks is suposed to do 
#16

Samrin

Jun 21, 2011 17:02:48

It isn't about CharOp. It's about playing smart. Charging is the most efficient way to play them and fill your role in the party. It's quite simple. Anyone built around MBA's should be charging whenever it is available. The Barbarian and Druid are built for it, as well. The only reason not to do it is to hurt your potential.



Ah, sorta like the best thing anyone could do on a single turn is attack so standard actions that dont do any damage or hamper enemies is wasting a turn.

Either way, I still disagree. :P 



It's true, though. The only result you'll get is prolonging the fight. That's completely against what a striker is built for.



a 5% chance to hit isnt going to prolong any fight for much longer then it normally would.



It's a free +1 that is easy to obtain on a regular basis. My question is, why are you not taking it? I see no reason not to charge when you can, and it's very easy to do. Every e-striker has plenty available to make doing this easier. Not taking advantage of it is ludicrous. I'm just saying use the tools that you have.

I suppose that if an ally is adjacent to an enemy, and directly across is an open space, you won't take the flanking position to gain CA either, right? I mean, it's only +2 to hit.

Sarcasm aside, it isn't just about the +1 to hit. It's about all of the amazing support charging has. Weapons, feats, etc. all lead to being able to end the fight much quicker by doing so. 
#17

robertread3

Jun 21, 2011 19:06:51 		to say that a striker isnt being a striker if he or she is not charging is kind of sad, but i can understand who its the way it is, there are almost no other items that give out good bonuses like horned helm, avalanche weapon, vangaurd weapon, badge of the breserker and so on. 

there really are no other items that give out bonuses for doing somthing else.

that said, you can easily make a character that dosent charge but DPR is usually who can get the most out of twin strike, Kulkor or charging also throw in frost/radiant cheese if you must.

and if you have to do the most optimal thing then you limit yourself to some very narrow options, you can just do the next best thing, its not that bad.
#18

Ahrimon

Jun 22, 2011 7:54:32

Eh, I've been around long enough to know that haters will hate.  Me, I happen to like the simplicity of the E classes for my melee characters.  But some people won't accept that others can be happy with something they don't like.

Hmm, something just occured to me.  Maybe it's because I have a 3 year old, but I'm drawing similiarities between kids and the way some people act on these boards.  Screaming bloody murder and throwing tantrums over something that, in the end, doesn't affect them in the least.  I think I just found a new way for me to handle the forums.  Yay me!

As for being a charge monkey...  Yes, you're at your absolute pinacle of damage potential when charging before taking the rest of the combat into account.  Charging may be your most powerful ability, but it could spell disaster for the rest of the group.  And in games with much more cinematic combat, charging can often be detrimental to both your character and the group.  Can we all accept that there is no "always the best option"?  I should probably mention that I play in a home game and not LFR where it seems like (my observation) everyone is judged by how much they bring to the fight.

Don't get me wrong.  I read through char-op.  But only for ideas or combos that I hadn't thought about.  DnD is too dynamic of a game to take situational exercise modeling for anything more than what it is.

I'll keep hoping for the E-barbarian.

#19

robertread3

Jun 22, 2011 10:53:04 		one thing you might like is the new theme for iron wolf barbarians, which seems to be an answer to your prayers 

Linky: wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dra/2... 

this helps you by adding fluff for barbarians who can be any class, while at the same time allowing you to pickup powers at your DMs discretion (you need to be able to swap out encounters for these powers, but maybe your DM will let you just lose a powerstrike for it)

iron wolf slayer FTW  
#20

mrpopstar

Jun 22, 2011 10:53:46 		I'm a big fan of Essentials, and I trust that a Barbarian-lover amongst the dev team will ensure that E-Barbarians will shine in one aspect or another. As long as they are differentiated from their role-peer brethren, I invite their addition to the game.
#21

Dayte

Jun 22, 2011 11:00:25

pretty much the only people who dont win in this scnario are those who dislike simplicity in favor of high mechanical custimization or those want to feel as if they are more sophisticated because they can choose powers, 

 



I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the above statement. How do those people lose? They can just not play an essentials class if they do not like them. The same way I avoid Druids because I'm not much of a fan of the class.

#22

Goken100

Jun 22, 2011 11:06:33 		My only question is: what exactly IS an Essentual Barbarian?  Is that just an implication that there will be an Eventual Essential Barbarian, or some sort of sexy sub-class, the Essential Sensual Barbarian?
#23

robertread3

Jun 22, 2011 11:20:52

pretty much the only people who dont win in this scnario are those who dislike simplicity in favor of high mechanical custimization or those want to feel as if they are more sophisticated because they can choose powers, 

 



I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the above statement. How do those people lose? They can just not play an essentials class if they do not like them. The same way I avoid Druids because I'm not much of a fan of the class.




well by lose i mean that it dosent cater to their wants,

however you are correct i hate rogues so i dont play them and if you dont like e classes no one is forcing you to play them.
#24

Dayte

Jun 22, 2011 12:46:01

pretty much the only people who dont win in this scnario are those who dislike simplicity in favor of high mechanical custimization or those want to feel as if they are more sophisticated because they can choose powers, 

 



I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the above statement. How do those people lose? They can just not play an essentials class if they do not like them. The same way I avoid Druids because I'm not much of a fan of the class.




well by lose i mean that it dosent cater to their wants,

however you are correct i hate rogues so i dont play them and if you dont like e classes no one is forcing you to play them.




It was more of a rhetorical question I guess. I was pretty sure how you felt about it based on your post.

I just don't understand the borderline irrational hatred of some posters of these "simplified" classes. Clearly there is a need for them as plenty of people have mentioned on these forums that they enjoy playing them. I also know plenty of people who enjoy them (alongside even their love of "classic" 4e- **gasp**  how is that even possible).

And yet, some people always find their way to their threads to post that they don't want anymore of these essential classes. That their garbage. There not needed. They're useless. etc, etc, etc

The only "rational" beef I can see is the argument that by working on Essential classes that the developers are not working on the original builds. But, with something like 20+ Classes and 80+ Builds (and countless Attack Powers, Utilities, Feat Support) methinks their is plenty already. but that is my opinion.

Also, some classes, like the Mage and War Priest, have powers that the original Wizards and Clerics can take. And the essentials also introduce more utilities and feats into the game.

I guess since I don't make negative posts on threads looking for more original class support because I feel there is already plenty of original class support, i can't understand the essential-haters constant negative posts on essential threads.
#25

Garthanos

Jun 22, 2011 12:57:27 		But a slayer isnt "called" a barbarian.. we cant use it that way my imagination will break.

What they arent working on when they re-furbish something we already have is something actually new.... and we all miss out.
#42

calronmoonflower

Jun 25, 2011 13:29:59
It's hardly uncommon for characters to use both of their very different at-wills in an encounter.

E-martial classes eventually get four such options, rather than just two.
#43

Garthanos

Jun 25, 2011 13:50:22
It's hardly uncommon for characters to use both of their very different at-wills in an encounter.

E-martial classes eventually get four such options, rather than just two.



That is the backend to ummm adjust for the boring encounter power (singular) ..  
#82

lokiare

Jul 07, 2011 10:35:31
hey lets fact check, shall we? 

HoS contained

1 new class



Which was Post-E design because of lack of choice and powers chosen for you...

3 subclasses



Which are Post-E design...

17 new cleric powers (non warpriest)



So none of those powers could be taken by the Essentialized Cleric? I doubt it... (if the Warpriest can take them its 'incidental' support)

1 warpriest domain



Post-E design...

9 warlock powers (PHB1 warlock)



With Warlock specific riders so only the warlock would find them useful? doubtful...

1 hexblade pact



Post-E design...

40 wizard powers (the word "mage" is never mentioned in any of the entries)



So there were Wizard err... I mean Arcanist powers that specifically required Arcanist class features or favored arcanist class features over mage class features... doubtful...

2 mage schools



Post-E design...

2 new races



N/A

1 reprinted race



N/A

3 arcane paragon paths



Which favor the Mage or don't specifically help the Arcanist over the Mage...

4 general paragon paths



Which are so general anyone Pre-E or Post-E can take them... N/A

1 gloom pact binder or hexblade pact



Post-E design...

1 primal paragon path



Does it favor Pre-E classes or Post-E classes?

1 wizard paragon path



Assuming that this one favors the Arcanist (i.e. it ties into an Arcanist class feature or benefits the Arcanist over the Mage in some way), you got 1 so far...

4 general epic destinies



Again N/A

18 general feats



Feat design didn't change (or hasn't had a controversy over the change) so N/A

2 racial feats



See above N/A

the past issues of dragon since essentials contained (this is from memory)

1 article on the cavilier (probably the most awsome article in a while, if unerrated this would be listed as "paladin")
2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless) 
2 articles on the hexblade (one of which was pretty useless) 
1 article on the bard
1 article on the ardent
1 article on the cleric



So totaled from HoS and D&D magazines...err... website blogs or whatever you want to call them... that's what 4 things that were pre-E and not incidental support. Color me not impressed...

now they seem to be dropping class suppport alltogether in favor of themes, call it what you will
but they just seem to support what they feel like supporting, essentials or no.

but the statement they have not been supporting the older classes is false, IMO the only classes begging for support are PHB3, HoFK, HoFL and Artificer



Again... barring some more specific evidence, they have not released anything but 'incidental' support for Pre-E 99% of the support has been Post-E...
#83

Herrozerro

Jul 07, 2011 11:13:12

2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless)  




Which one was useless?
#84

Dayte

Jul 07, 2011 15:22:04
There been what?, two releases sense the essentials line finished up and only one that offers any class support Heroes of Shadow and the other is The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond that as far as I know, is not essentials support but for 4E in general.

[edit]I looked it up and there is a tile set and a fortune card set in addition that have been released sense then. It seems to me the majority of printed e-class support that has come out sense Heroes of the Forgotten lands is a single book called Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.

HoS was 4.5 material. However it is fairly clear from other things you have posted you knew that already.

Your using edition war lingo to move the goal post from the poster that I responded to. It you look Darkwolf_Bloodsbane considers HoS to have pre-e support.



Sure... if you count underpowered options for over-optioned classes and incedental support (Wizard getting powers because Mage got powers) then yeah. There wasn't a single pre-E style class in the mix. (The vampire doesn't count because it has powers chosen for it at certain levels and literally has no choices in powers (as of yet))...



So let me see if I got this right. WoTC designs the new Essential style classes  to be compatible w/ the base classes (i.e. mage being a part of wizard). This enable *some* material to be swapped between the classes. This was presumably a design choice so as to not limit options. Then you call this "incedental support" So what are you saying, it doesn't count?


Then others insist on calling Eseentials 4.5e. Now I came back to DnD a year or so after 3.5e. From what I was told is that the new rules (3.5e) were not compatable (with 3e) which is why they re-released  the core three books under a new edition. In this case that is not true, but it doesn't stop some from calling Essentials 4.5e.

So WoTC can't win. When they release support for pre-essential classes it's called incidental by some. And others refuse to acknowledge the compatibality and instead call it 4.5 as if that is an auto-win button for all "Essential sucks" arguments. 
#85

robertread3

Jul 07, 2011 15:50:59

2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless)  




Which one was useless?



staff slayer/knight never heard or seen 1 build utilizing this article 

@ lokiare i disagree but dont care to engauge you, so i respect and aknowledge your opinion 
#86

Herrozerro

Jul 07, 2011 16:08:59

2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless)  




Which one was useless?



staff slayer/knight never heard or seen 1 build utilizing this article 

@ lokiare i disagree but dont care to engauge you, so i respect and aknowledge your opinion 



okay good, I hoped you wernt talking about the eladrin knight.  because that rocks!
#87

robertread3

Jul 07, 2011 16:54:42 		oh hellz no the eladrin knight rules
#88

Herrozerro

Jul 07, 2011 18:16:26
oh hellz no the eladrin knight rules



I just love the utility of eldritch abduction, made for a great time getting people in an out of trouble.
#89

Ahrimon

Jul 07, 2011 21:43:27

17 new cleric powers (non warpriest)


So none of those powers could be taken by the Essentialized Cleric? I doubt it... (if the Warpriest can take them its 'incidental' support)
9 warlock powers (PHB1 warlock)


With Warlock specific riders so only the warlock would find them useful? doubtful...
40 wizard powers (the word "mage" is never mentioned in any of the entries)


So there were Wizard err... I mean Arcanist powers that specifically required Arcanist class features or favored arcanist class features over mage class features... doubtful...
3 arcane paragon paths


Which favor the Mage or don't specifically help the Arcanist over the Mage...
4 general paragon paths


Which are so general anyone Pre-E or Post-E can take them... N/A
1 primal paragon path


Does it favor Pre-E classes or Post-E classes?
1 wizard paragon path


Assuming that this one favors the Arcanist (i.e. it ties into an Arcanist class feature or benefits the Arcanist over the Mage in some way), you got 1 so far...
4 general epic destinies


Again N/A
18 general feats


Feat design didn't change (or hasn't had a controversy over the change) so N/A


So, your definition of pre-essentials support is that it can never ever ever be used by essentials?  If that's the case, I don't think you're ever going to be happy.  But that's the point isn't it?  To twist everything into "Essentials is the Debil!" in order to feel justified in your hatred.  Have fun with that. 
#90

robertread3

Jul 07, 2011 22:05:43 		Ahrimon, you pretty much hit it on the head....
#91

Electricbee

Jul 08, 2011 12:35:07
Then others insist on calling Eseentials 4.5e. Now I came back to DnD a year or so after 3.5e. From what I was told is that the new rules (3.5e) were not compatable (with 3e) which is why they re-released  the core three books under a new edition. In this case that is not true, but it doesn't stop some from calling Essentials 4.5e. 



3.x was compatable with only a few exceptions. You could have a 3.0 ranger and a 3.x ranger at the same table and it worked just fine. Most of the 3rd party material worked regardless which version of the rules you used. 

Claiming that WotC now calls 4.5 fully compatable does not make it less of an edition change.
-New ways to make the same classes. Check. 
-Compatability. Check.
-Marketing spin to try to keep customers burned by the lack of direction. Check, check and check.

4.x is the same as 3.x they just will not call it that.     



In one case (3.5) the new way of building characters explicitly replaced the old way.  You could play a 3.0 ranger, but you weren't playing 3.5 you were houseruling.  There were comprehensive subtle changes that affected almost every area play in the change from 3rd to 3.5, not just the tweaks to specific character classes.

In 4th, a character created prior to the release of Essentials is still legal.  The rules are the same.  There were no wide ranging comprehensive changes to the rules set as part of the release of Essentials (although arguably a small bit of errata is tied to it ... errata that was likely anyway).

All Essentials changed is the assumption about the underlying chassis for how new classes would be designed.  That chassis could be AEDU, but it nolonger had to be.  But this change was even telegraphed in the development of the AEUPP psionics classes.  If change in the way you build are allowed to construct a class incicates a .5 upgrade, then 3.5 had them with Complete Acane, Complete Divine, Complete Psionic, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Dragon Magic, PHB:2 and Dungeonscape (perhaps others, but i'm going from memory).  Each of the books listed did what Essentials did.  It offered new ways to play that didn't have a parrellel in previously existing classes.
#92

lokiare

Jul 09, 2011 19:42:13
So, your definition of pre-essentials support is that it can never ever ever be used by essentials?  If that's the case, I don't think you're ever going to be happy.  But that's the point isn't it?  To twist everything into "Essentials is the Debil!" in order to feel justified in your hatred.  Have fun with that.



No, my definition of pre-Essentials support is support that is not completely passthrough support. The only suppoort we've seen is passthrough support or DDi support. DDi support doesn't really count because less than 1% of supposed D&D players have access to it (legally). Alas it is also not hatred that I feel, its abandonment, and bafflement at their willful ignorance. As far as I know I haven't said anything 'hateful' in quite a while. (of course that hasn't stopped me from getting temp-bans every few days)...
#93

lokiare

Jul 09, 2011 19:48:25
Then others insist on calling Eseentials 4.5e. Now I came back to DnD a year or so after 3.5e. From what I was told is that the new rules (3.5e) were not compatable (with 3e) which is why they re-released  the core three books under a new edition. In this case that is not true, but it doesn't stop some from calling Essentials 4.5e. 



3.x was compatable with only a few exceptions. You could have a 3.0 ranger and a 3.x ranger at the same table and it worked just fine. Most of the 3rd party material worked regardless which version of the rules you used.

Claiming that WotC now calls 4.5 fully compatable does not make it less of an edition change.
-New ways to make the same classes. Check. 
-Compatability. Check.
-Marketing spin to try to keep customers burned by the lack of direction. Check, check and check.

4.x is the same as 3.x they just will not call it that.     



In one case (3.5) the new way of building characters explicitly replaced the old way.  You could play a 3.0 ranger, but you weren't playing 3.5 you were houseruling.  There were comprehensive subtle changes that affected almost every area play in the change from 3rd to 3.5, not just the tweaks to specific character classes.



You forgot things like the MM2 that did not have any changes and worked with both 3.0 and 3.5. Many books were this way. The only thing they changed was some MM1 stuff and some classes.

In 4th, a character created prior to the release of Essentials is still legal.  The rules are the same.  There were no wide ranging comprehensive changes to the rules set as part of the release of Essentials (although arguably a small bit of errata is tied to it ... errata that was likely anyway).



Actually several classes have now been errata'd in direct response to Essentials. The Cleric being one of the most egregious (not actually needing it, but getting it anyway). So guess what Essentials is shaping up to look more like a .5 each day...

All Essentials changed is the assumption about the underlying chassis for how new classes would be designed.  That chassis could be AEDU, but it nolonger had to be.  But this change was even telegraphed in the development of the AEUPP psionics classes.  If change in the way you build are allowed to construct a class incicates a .5 upgrade, then 3.5 had them with Complete Acane, Complete Divine, Complete Psionic, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Dragon Magic, PHB:2 and Dungeonscape (perhaps others, but i'm going from memory).  Each of the books listed did what Essentials did.  It offered new ways to play that didn't have a parrellel in previously existing classes.



I couldn't care less if they made Essentials classes out of peanut butter and jelly as long as:


  1. They remain modular (interchangeable parts) with the rest of 4E

  2. They continue to support Pre-E material equally (not solely with pass-through or incidental support)

#94

Tony_Vargas

Jul 10, 2011 2:54:31
You forgot the Cleric and Warlock powers.  Not pass-through powers, but actual powers with the Cleric and Warlock headings, that the current subclasses do not have access to.

Not that those powers were anywhere near competitive in the overglut of powers that both classes had.

(I think Wizard got some as well, or were all the Wizard spells labeled Mage?  I don't remember, as I didn't waste my money on the 'book.')

The spells of the new Mage schools were all labeled wizard powers, just like all Mage spells have been.

The new Cleric powers were of the Death domain.  While Clerics can get some domain stuff via a feat...

The Warlock stuff was presumably for the Hexblade and the new Binder sub-class. 

So yeah, 'pass-through' stuff that is for a new or existing sub-class, but may be useable by an old 'parent?' class.
#95

robertread3

Jul 10, 2011 3:08:21 		i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

if i make a product, and spend a ton of time and money supporting it (MP1, MP2, DP, AP, PsiP, DDI, darksun) so much that the origional classes now have more stuff in them by level 10 then the last 2 books combined why do they need so much support? why dont new products need as much support? why cant essentials get as much support as the PHB1 classes? they got TONS of support over the years and if i never see another fighter, warlord, wizard, rogue, cleric, ranger, paladin power or feat again i am just peachy with that.

the only thing pre E that needs more support is PHB3 everything else is fine and has enough options to last the lifetime of the edition.   
#96

Samrin

Jul 10, 2011 9:35:14
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

if i make a product, and spend a ton of time and money supporting it (MP1, MP2, DP, AP, PsiP, DDI, darksun) so much that the origional classes now have more stuff in them by level 10 then the last 2 books combined why do they need so much support? why dont new products need as much support? why cant essentials get as much support as the PHB1 classes? they got TONS of support over the years and if i never see another fighter, warlord, wizard, rogue, cleric, ranger, paladin power or feat again i am just peachy with that.

the only thing pre E that needs more support is PHB3 everything else is fine and has enough options to last the lifetime of the edition.   



The Artificer, Ensnaring Swordmage. and Ossassin would like a word with you (we'll see what the assassin article brings).
#97

robertread3

Jul 10, 2011 9:53:19
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

if i make a product, and spend a ton of time and money supporting it (MP1, MP2, DP, AP, PsiP, DDI, darksun) so much that the origional classes now have more stuff in them by level 10 then the last 2 books combined why do they need so much support? why dont new products need as much support? why cant essentials get as much support as the PHB1 classes? they got TONS of support over the years and if i never see another fighter, warlord, wizard, rogue, cleric, ranger, paladin power or feat again i am just peachy with that.

the only thing pre E that needs more support is PHB3 everything else is fine and has enough options to last the lifetime of the edition.   



The Artificer, Ensnaring Swordmage. and Ossassin would like a word with you (we'll see what the assassin article brings).



ensnaring swordmage is dead in the water, i dont expect it to get touched. 

and yes i have discussed the Oassassin ad nasuim the artificer is not a class i like, but if it got support i would be glad for those who do like it.

all of these classes have trouble getting support because they are not PHB1 or PHB2 and it sucks  
#98

Tony_Vargas

Jul 10, 2011 13:26:43
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."  There's some basis for it, though, due to the phenomenon of 'power creep.'  If you stop putting out new stuff for a class, however old and well-supported it may be, and it can fall behind the curve.  OTOH, ongoing support for pre-E would be a signal that Essentials didn't constitue a '4.5e,' while future support building primarily on Essentials would be indicative of it being a de-facto half-ed.  

So there's a minor 'real' reason behind it, and a lot of symantic or emotional or I guess even 'political' ones. 

#99

calronmoonflower

Jul 10, 2011 13:46:56
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."

No kidding. I wish those "haters" would be more honest to what they actually want and have problems with. When posters complain on the forums that no support for pre-E exists they are making a false claim. Usually this is backed up by redefining what support actually is and claiming what little direct support for pre-E classes post essentials doesn't actually count.

If they instead complain about the lack of direct support made for pre-E classes and say that they want more than they have been given, I could understand that even if only one book has been put out after essentials and Dragon has actually done this in small amounts. This complaint, if listened to, could actually get them what they want instead of the first which isn't likely to be listened to because it is blatantly false.
#100

Tony_Vargas

Jul 10, 2011 14:13:27
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."

No kidding. I wish those "haters" would be more honest to what they actually want and have problems with. When posters complain on the forums that no support for pre-E exists they are making a false claim.

While it's a strong statement to say 'no support,' it is imprecise.  Really, a lot of complaints about 'Essentials' and 'support for 4e' are just complaints about the new direction.  The new direction isn't that well-defined, and it's easier to hold up Essentials as it's poster boy and sling mud at it, than it is to go into detail about the various ways the game is getting worse as a result of the change in direction that only roughly coincided with Essentials.

#101

lokiare

Jul 11, 2011 1:02:40
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."

No kidding. I wish those "haters" would be more honest to what they actually want and have problems with. When posters complain on the forums that no support for pre-E exists they are making a false claim.

While it's a strong statement to say 'no support,' it is imprecise.  Really, a lot of complaints about 'Essentials' and 'support for 4e' are just complaints about the new direction.  The new direction isn't that well-defined, and it's easier to hold up Essentials as it's poster boy and sling mud at it, than it is to go into detail about the various ways the game is getting worse as a result of the change in direction that only roughly coincided with Essentials.



There's no 'real' support for 99% of players of Pre-E. I define Real Support™ as non-DDi (because DDi accounts for around 1% of D&D gamers) and as non-pass through incidental support because it is not directed at Pre-E and only supports it accidentally. If there were direct support AND incidental support, I'd call it all good, but the Pre-E crowd gets thrown a bone everyone once in a while and that's about it...
#102

Duskweaver

Jul 11, 2011 3:34:16 		@Iokiare: For clarity, would you consider the following definition to constitute the sort of "non-passthrough pre-E" support you want to see?

"New powers, feats and/or paragon paths, published in a printed product, that require as a prerequisite belonging to a class which has no Essentials (or post-Essentials) subclass."

For example, new powers for the Artificer, Swordmage or Bard would count, while new powers for the Druid, Warlock or Vampire would not.

If new material meeting that definition appeared, would this satisfy your misgivings about the future direction of the game?
#103

ah_stormbringer

Jul 11, 2011 5:03:13
@Iokiare: For clarity, would you consider the following definition to constitute the sort of "non-passthrough pre-E" support you want to see?

"New powers, feats and/or paragon paths, published in a printed product, that require as a prerequisite belonging to a class which has no Essentials (or post-Essentials) subclass."

For example, new powers for the Artificer, Swordmage or Bard would count, while new powers for the Druid, Warlock or Vampire would not.

If new material meeting that definition appeared, would this satisfy your misgivings about the future direction of the game?



It would go a long way for me and I would also like support for classes that have essentials remakes to but to a lesser extent. A AEDU druid and essentials druid are nothing alike and could porb never share powers, abilities or feats as they are too different. As for the direction or lack there of if WOTC would just say what direction they are moving that would also go a long way to appease myself. That way I could make a decision on to keep supporting D&D or move on and just play with the products I have and love.
#104

lokiare

Jul 13, 2011 0:25:34
@Iokiare: For clarity, would you consider the following definition to constitute the sort of "non-passthrough pre-E" support you want to see?

"New powers, feats and/or paragon paths, published in a printed product, that require as a prerequisite belonging to a class which has no Essentials (or post-Essentials) subclass."

For example, new powers for the Artificer, Swordmage or Bard would count, while new powers for the Druid, Warlock or Vampire would not.

If new material meeting that definition appeared, would this satisfy your misgivings about the future direction of the game?



Yes, if it were not on DDi, but actually in a book, at that point you could then count in the 'incidental' support as well and if it totaled about 50/50 then that would make me happy.

#122

lokiare

Jul 07, 2011 10:35:31
hey lets fact check, shall we? 

HoS contained

1 new class



Which was Post-E design because of lack of choice and powers chosen for you...

3 subclasses



Which are Post-E design...

17 new cleric powers (non warpriest)



So none of those powers could be taken by the Essentialized Cleric? I doubt it... (if the Warpriest can take them its 'incidental' support)

1 warpriest domain



Post-E design...

9 warlock powers (PHB1 warlock)



With Warlock specific riders so only the warlock would find them useful? doubtful...

1 hexblade pact



Post-E design...

40 wizard powers (the word "mage" is never mentioned in any of the entries)



So there were Wizard err... I mean Arcanist powers that specifically required Arcanist class features or favored arcanist class features over mage class features... doubtful...

2 mage schools



Post-E design...

2 new races



N/A

1 reprinted race



N/A

3 arcane paragon paths



Which favor the Mage or don't specifically help the Arcanist over the Mage...

4 general paragon paths



Which are so general anyone Pre-E or Post-E can take them... N/A

1 gloom pact binder or hexblade pact



Post-E design...

1 primal paragon path



Does it favor Pre-E classes or Post-E classes?

1 wizard paragon path



Assuming that this one favors the Arcanist (i.e. it ties into an Arcanist class feature or benefits the Arcanist over the Mage in some way), you got 1 so far...

4 general epic destinies



Again N/A

18 general feats



Feat design didn't change (or hasn't had a controversy over the change) so N/A

2 racial feats



See above N/A

the past issues of dragon since essentials contained (this is from memory)

1 article on the cavilier (probably the most awsome article in a while, if unerrated this would be listed as "paladin")
2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless) 
2 articles on the hexblade (one of which was pretty useless) 
1 article on the bard
1 article on the ardent
1 article on the cleric



So totaled from HoS and D&D magazines...err... website blogs or whatever you want to call them... that's what 4 things that were pre-E and not incidental support. Color me not impressed...

now they seem to be dropping class suppport alltogether in favor of themes, call it what you will
but they just seem to support what they feel like supporting, essentials or no.

but the statement they have not been supporting the older classes is false, IMO the only classes begging for support are PHB3, HoFK, HoFL and Artificer



Again... barring some more specific evidence, they have not released anything but 'incidental' support for Pre-E 99% of the support has been Post-E...
#123

Herrozerro

Jul 07, 2011 11:13:12

2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless)  




Which one was useless?
#124

Dayte

Jul 07, 2011 15:22:04
There been what?, two releases sense the essentials line finished up and only one that offers any class support Heroes of Shadow and the other is The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond that as far as I know, is not essentials support but for 4E in general.

[edit]I looked it up and there is a tile set and a fortune card set in addition that have been released sense then. It seems to me the majority of printed e-class support that has come out sense Heroes of the Forgotten lands is a single book called Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.

HoS was 4.5 material. However it is fairly clear from other things you have posted you knew that already.

Your using edition war lingo to move the goal post from the poster that I responded to. It you look Darkwolf_Bloodsbane considers HoS to have pre-e support.



Sure... if you count underpowered options for over-optioned classes and incedental support (Wizard getting powers because Mage got powers) then yeah. There wasn't a single pre-E style class in the mix. (The vampire doesn't count because it has powers chosen for it at certain levels and literally has no choices in powers (as of yet))...



So let me see if I got this right. WoTC designs the new Essential style classes  to be compatible w/ the base classes (i.e. mage being a part of wizard). This enable *some* material to be swapped between the classes. This was presumably a design choice so as to not limit options. Then you call this "incedental support" So what are you saying, it doesn't count?


Then others insist on calling Eseentials 4.5e. Now I came back to DnD a year or so after 3.5e. From what I was told is that the new rules (3.5e) were not compatable (with 3e) which is why they re-released  the core three books under a new edition. In this case that is not true, but it doesn't stop some from calling Essentials 4.5e.

So WoTC can't win. When they release support for pre-essential classes it's called incidental by some. And others refuse to acknowledge the compatibality and instead call it 4.5 as if that is an auto-win button for all "Essential sucks" arguments. 
#125

robertread3

Jul 07, 2011 15:50:59

2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless)  




Which one was useless?



staff slayer/knight never heard or seen 1 build utilizing this article 

@ lokiare i disagree but dont care to engauge you, so i respect and aknowledge your opinion 
#126

Herrozerro

Jul 07, 2011 16:08:59

2 articles on the knight (one of which was 100% useless)  




Which one was useless?



staff slayer/knight never heard or seen 1 build utilizing this article 

@ lokiare i disagree but dont care to engauge you, so i respect and aknowledge your opinion 



okay good, I hoped you wernt talking about the eladrin knight.  because that rocks!
#127

robertread3

Jul 07, 2011 16:54:42 		oh hellz no the eladrin knight rules
#128

Herrozerro

Jul 07, 2011 18:16:26
oh hellz no the eladrin knight rules



I just love the utility of eldritch abduction, made for a great time getting people in an out of trouble.
#129

Ahrimon

Jul 07, 2011 21:43:27

17 new cleric powers (non warpriest)


So none of those powers could be taken by the Essentialized Cleric? I doubt it... (if the Warpriest can take them its 'incidental' support)
9 warlock powers (PHB1 warlock)


With Warlock specific riders so only the warlock would find them useful? doubtful...
40 wizard powers (the word "mage" is never mentioned in any of the entries)


So there were Wizard err... I mean Arcanist powers that specifically required Arcanist class features or favored arcanist class features over mage class features... doubtful...
3 arcane paragon paths


Which favor the Mage or don't specifically help the Arcanist over the Mage...
4 general paragon paths


Which are so general anyone Pre-E or Post-E can take them... N/A
1 primal paragon path


Does it favor Pre-E classes or Post-E classes?
1 wizard paragon path


Assuming that this one favors the Arcanist (i.e. it ties into an Arcanist class feature or benefits the Arcanist over the Mage in some way), you got 1 so far...
4 general epic destinies


Again N/A
18 general feats


Feat design didn't change (or hasn't had a controversy over the change) so N/A


So, your definition of pre-essentials support is that it can never ever ever be used by essentials?  If that's the case, I don't think you're ever going to be happy.  But that's the point isn't it?  To twist everything into "Essentials is the Debil!" in order to feel justified in your hatred.  Have fun with that. 
#130

robertread3

Jul 07, 2011 22:05:43 		Ahrimon, you pretty much hit it on the head....
#131

Electricbee

Jul 08, 2011 12:35:07
Then others insist on calling Eseentials 4.5e. Now I came back to DnD a year or so after 3.5e. From what I was told is that the new rules (3.5e) were not compatable (with 3e) which is why they re-released  the core three books under a new edition. In this case that is not true, but it doesn't stop some from calling Essentials 4.5e. 



3.x was compatable with only a few exceptions. You could have a 3.0 ranger and a 3.x ranger at the same table and it worked just fine. Most of the 3rd party material worked regardless which version of the rules you used. 

Claiming that WotC now calls 4.5 fully compatable does not make it less of an edition change.
-New ways to make the same classes. Check. 
-Compatability. Check.
-Marketing spin to try to keep customers burned by the lack of direction. Check, check and check.

4.x is the same as 3.x they just will not call it that.     



In one case (3.5) the new way of building characters explicitly replaced the old way.  You could play a 3.0 ranger, but you weren't playing 3.5 you were houseruling.  There were comprehensive subtle changes that affected almost every area play in the change from 3rd to 3.5, not just the tweaks to specific character classes.

In 4th, a character created prior to the release of Essentials is still legal.  The rules are the same.  There were no wide ranging comprehensive changes to the rules set as part of the release of Essentials (although arguably a small bit of errata is tied to it ... errata that was likely anyway).

All Essentials changed is the assumption about the underlying chassis for how new classes would be designed.  That chassis could be AEDU, but it nolonger had to be.  But this change was even telegraphed in the development of the AEUPP psionics classes.  If change in the way you build are allowed to construct a class incicates a .5 upgrade, then 3.5 had them with Complete Acane, Complete Divine, Complete Psionic, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Dragon Magic, PHB:2 and Dungeonscape (perhaps others, but i'm going from memory).  Each of the books listed did what Essentials did.  It offered new ways to play that didn't have a parrellel in previously existing classes.
#132

lokiare

Jul 09, 2011 19:42:13
So, your definition of pre-essentials support is that it can never ever ever be used by essentials?  If that's the case, I don't think you're ever going to be happy.  But that's the point isn't it?  To twist everything into "Essentials is the Debil!" in order to feel justified in your hatred.  Have fun with that.



No, my definition of pre-Essentials support is support that is not completely passthrough support. The only suppoort we've seen is passthrough support or DDi support. DDi support doesn't really count because less than 1% of supposed D&D players have access to it (legally). Alas it is also not hatred that I feel, its abandonment, and bafflement at their willful ignorance. As far as I know I haven't said anything 'hateful' in quite a while. (of course that hasn't stopped me from getting temp-bans every few days)...
#133

lokiare

Jul 09, 2011 19:48:25
Then others insist on calling Eseentials 4.5e. Now I came back to DnD a year or so after 3.5e. From what I was told is that the new rules (3.5e) were not compatable (with 3e) which is why they re-released  the core three books under a new edition. In this case that is not true, but it doesn't stop some from calling Essentials 4.5e. 



3.x was compatable with only a few exceptions. You could have a 3.0 ranger and a 3.x ranger at the same table and it worked just fine. Most of the 3rd party material worked regardless which version of the rules you used.

Claiming that WotC now calls 4.5 fully compatable does not make it less of an edition change.
-New ways to make the same classes. Check. 
-Compatability. Check.
-Marketing spin to try to keep customers burned by the lack of direction. Check, check and check.

4.x is the same as 3.x they just will not call it that.     



In one case (3.5) the new way of building characters explicitly replaced the old way.  You could play a 3.0 ranger, but you weren't playing 3.5 you were houseruling.  There were comprehensive subtle changes that affected almost every area play in the change from 3rd to 3.5, not just the tweaks to specific character classes.



You forgot things like the MM2 that did not have any changes and worked with both 3.0 and 3.5. Many books were this way. The only thing they changed was some MM1 stuff and some classes.

In 4th, a character created prior to the release of Essentials is still legal.  The rules are the same.  There were no wide ranging comprehensive changes to the rules set as part of the release of Essentials (although arguably a small bit of errata is tied to it ... errata that was likely anyway).



Actually several classes have now been errata'd in direct response to Essentials. The Cleric being one of the most egregious (not actually needing it, but getting it anyway). So guess what Essentials is shaping up to look more like a .5 each day...

All Essentials changed is the assumption about the underlying chassis for how new classes would be designed.  That chassis could be AEDU, but it nolonger had to be.  But this change was even telegraphed in the development of the AEUPP psionics classes.  If change in the way you build are allowed to construct a class incicates a .5 upgrade, then 3.5 had them with Complete Acane, Complete Divine, Complete Psionic, Complete Scoundrel, Complete Warrior, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Dragon Magic, PHB:2 and Dungeonscape (perhaps others, but i'm going from memory).  Each of the books listed did what Essentials did.  It offered new ways to play that didn't have a parrellel in previously existing classes.



I couldn't care less if they made Essentials classes out of peanut butter and jelly as long as:


  1. They remain modular (interchangeable parts) with the rest of 4E

  2. They continue to support Pre-E material equally (not solely with pass-through or incidental support)

#134

Tony_Vargas

Jul 10, 2011 2:54:31
You forgot the Cleric and Warlock powers.  Not pass-through powers, but actual powers with the Cleric and Warlock headings, that the current subclasses do not have access to.

Not that those powers were anywhere near competitive in the overglut of powers that both classes had.

(I think Wizard got some as well, or were all the Wizard spells labeled Mage?  I don't remember, as I didn't waste my money on the 'book.')

The spells of the new Mage schools were all labeled wizard powers, just like all Mage spells have been.

The new Cleric powers were of the Death domain.  While Clerics can get some domain stuff via a feat...

The Warlock stuff was presumably for the Hexblade and the new Binder sub-class. 

So yeah, 'pass-through' stuff that is for a new or existing sub-class, but may be useable by an old 'parent?' class.
#135

robertread3

Jul 10, 2011 3:08:21 		i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

if i make a product, and spend a ton of time and money supporting it (MP1, MP2, DP, AP, PsiP, DDI, darksun) so much that the origional classes now have more stuff in them by level 10 then the last 2 books combined why do they need so much support? why dont new products need as much support? why cant essentials get as much support as the PHB1 classes? they got TONS of support over the years and if i never see another fighter, warlord, wizard, rogue, cleric, ranger, paladin power or feat again i am just peachy with that.

the only thing pre E that needs more support is PHB3 everything else is fine and has enough options to last the lifetime of the edition.   
#136

Samrin

Jul 10, 2011 9:35:14
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

if i make a product, and spend a ton of time and money supporting it (MP1, MP2, DP, AP, PsiP, DDI, darksun) so much that the origional classes now have more stuff in them by level 10 then the last 2 books combined why do they need so much support? why dont new products need as much support? why cant essentials get as much support as the PHB1 classes? they got TONS of support over the years and if i never see another fighter, warlord, wizard, rogue, cleric, ranger, paladin power or feat again i am just peachy with that.

the only thing pre E that needs more support is PHB3 everything else is fine and has enough options to last the lifetime of the edition.   



The Artificer, Ensnaring Swordmage. and Ossassin would like a word with you (we'll see what the assassin article brings).
#137

robertread3

Jul 10, 2011 9:53:19
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

if i make a product, and spend a ton of time and money supporting it (MP1, MP2, DP, AP, PsiP, DDI, darksun) so much that the origional classes now have more stuff in them by level 10 then the last 2 books combined why do they need so much support? why dont new products need as much support? why cant essentials get as much support as the PHB1 classes? they got TONS of support over the years and if i never see another fighter, warlord, wizard, rogue, cleric, ranger, paladin power or feat again i am just peachy with that.

the only thing pre E that needs more support is PHB3 everything else is fine and has enough options to last the lifetime of the edition.   



The Artificer, Ensnaring Swordmage. and Ossassin would like a word with you (we'll see what the assassin article brings).



ensnaring swordmage is dead in the water, i dont expect it to get touched. 

and yes i have discussed the Oassassin ad nasuim the artificer is not a class i like, but if it got support i would be glad for those who do like it.

all of these classes have trouble getting support because they are not PHB1 or PHB2 and it sucks  
#138

Tony_Vargas

Jul 10, 2011 13:26:43
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."  There's some basis for it, though, due to the phenomenon of 'power creep.'  If you stop putting out new stuff for a class, however old and well-supported it may be, and it can fall behind the curve.  OTOH, ongoing support for pre-E would be a signal that Essentials didn't constitue a '4.5e,' while future support building primarily on Essentials would be indicative of it being a de-facto half-ed.  

So there's a minor 'real' reason behind it, and a lot of symantic or emotional or I guess even 'political' ones. 

#139

calronmoonflower

Jul 10, 2011 13:46:56
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."

No kidding. I wish those "haters" would be more honest to what they actually want and have problems with. When posters complain on the forums that no support for pre-E exists they are making a false claim. Usually this is backed up by redefining what support actually is and claiming what little direct support for pre-E classes post essentials doesn't actually count.

If they instead complain about the lack of direct support made for pre-E classes and say that they want more than they have been given, I could understand that even if only one book has been put out after essentials and Dragon has actually done this in small amounts. This complaint, if listened to, could actually get them what they want instead of the first which isn't likely to be listened to because it is blatantly false.
#140

Tony_Vargas

Jul 10, 2011 14:13:27
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."

No kidding. I wish those "haters" would be more honest to what they actually want and have problems with. When posters complain on the forums that no support for pre-E exists they are making a false claim.

While it's a strong statement to say 'no support,' it is imprecise.  Really, a lot of complaints about 'Essentials' and 'support for 4e' are just complaints about the new direction.  The new direction isn't that well-defined, and it's easier to hold up Essentials as it's poster boy and sling mud at it, than it is to go into detail about the various ways the game is getting worse as a result of the change in direction that only roughly coincided with Essentials.

#141

lokiare

Jul 11, 2011 1:02:40
i dont understand the argument that old products should get as much support as new ones.

In part, it's just hater 'code' for "drop Essentials like a watermellon from a skyscraper."

No kidding. I wish those "haters" would be more honest to what they actually want and have problems with. When posters complain on the forums that no support for pre-E exists they are making a false claim.

While it's a strong statement to say 'no support,' it is imprecise.  Really, a lot of complaints about 'Essentials' and 'support for 4e' are just complaints about the new direction.  The new direction isn't that well-defined, and it's easier to hold up Essentials as it's poster boy and sling mud at it, than it is to go into detail about the various ways the game is getting worse as a result of the change in direction that only roughly coincided with Essentials.



There's no 'real' support for 99% of players of Pre-E. I define Real Support™ as non-DDi (because DDi accounts for around 1% of D&D gamers) and as non-pass through incidental support because it is not directed at Pre-E and only supports it accidentally. If there were direct support AND incidental support, I'd call it all good, but the Pre-E crowd gets thrown a bone everyone once in a while and that's about it...
#142

Duskweaver

Jul 11, 2011 3:34:16 		@Iokiare: For clarity, would you consider the following definition to constitute the sort of "non-passthrough pre-E" support you want to see?

"New powers, feats and/or paragon paths, published in a printed product, that require as a prerequisite belonging to a class which has no Essentials (or post-Essentials) subclass."

For example, new powers for the Artificer, Swordmage or Bard would count, while new powers for the Druid, Warlock or Vampire would not.

If new material meeting that definition appeared, would this satisfy your misgivings about the future direction of the game?
#143

ah_stormbringer

Jul 11, 2011 5:03:13
@Iokiare: For clarity, would you consider the following definition to constitute the sort of "non-passthrough pre-E" support you want to see?

"New powers, feats and/or paragon paths, published in a printed product, that require as a prerequisite belonging to a class which has no Essentials (or post-Essentials) subclass."

For example, new powers for the Artificer, Swordmage or Bard would count, while new powers for the Druid, Warlock or Vampire would not.

If new material meeting that definition appeared, would this satisfy your misgivings about the future direction of the game?



It would go a long way for me and I would also like support for classes that have essentials remakes to but to a lesser extent. A AEDU druid and essentials druid are nothing alike and could porb never share powers, abilities or feats as they are too different. As for the direction or lack there of if WOTC would just say what direction they are moving that would also go a long way to appease myself. That way I could make a decision on to keep supporting D&D or move on and just play with the products I have and love.
#144

lokiare

Jul 13, 2011 0:25:34
@Iokiare: For clarity, would you consider the following definition to constitute the sort of "non-passthrough pre-E" support you want to see?

"New powers, feats and/or paragon paths, published in a printed product, that require as a prerequisite belonging to a class which has no Essentials (or post-Essentials) subclass."

For example, new powers for the Artificer, Swordmage or Bard would count, while new powers for the Druid, Warlock or Vampire would not.

If new material meeting that definition appeared, would this satisfy your misgivings about the future direction of the game?



Yes, if it were not on DDi, but actually in a book, at that point you could then count in the 'incidental' support as well and if it totaled about 50/50 then that would make me happy.