I would like:
Sorcerer
Bard
Swordmage
Monk
Psion
But they don't NEED (or to put it softer, GREATLY DESIRE) to be Essentialised; that's what's important. These 8 classes had a lot more trouble from the get-go, in various ways.
Essentials is a chance to update certain classes to a format better fitting them and smooth out the rough spots. Not every class needs to undergo this.
Now, if they were phasing-out all old books, I'd want a reprint of all the other classes as well, so they don't get left in the dust. But WotC have not said they're doing that. They've even clarified: they have enough copies of PH1 that it'll be around for a long time. It's not that they're pulling it off the shelves, just that, it's old and probably before it gets reprinted, it should have all the new errata Rules Updates applied to it.
Essentials isn't an Insiders-only club for the best of the best in classes and races. It's just certain classes and races that were deemed important for introducing new players to the game, which happened to have problems that they could fix to make them more desirable classes to play as well, for the demographics they're shooting for and hopefully for everyone else too.
Of all the martial classes, the Warlord seems the most dependant on the powers structure - not surprising, since it was new with 4e, rather then translated from previous editions. I can't imagine a Warlord keeping anything like its play style within the essentials framework for martial classes of at will augments to basic attacks.
After seeing how essentials is working with martial classes, I'm glad the warlord was left out. Oh, I don't exactly dislike the new classes - my existing warlords would love to work with them and their fantastic basic attacks, but he doesn't want to be one of them.
I would like to see an essentialized version of the bard, and I'm rather dissapointed that it didn't make it into the essentials books - as I think the greater freedom of essentials design could do a lot to work the musical themes of the class back in. Not to mention the fact that the essentials product line includes only a single leader class out of the eight classes presented, which is a mistake in my mind. I know warlock, as a Y-stat class, needed the second look, but I think as a stand alone product set with the goal (one among many) of reviving pre-4e flavor, the essentials books would have been better off including the bard instead, and leaving the warlock retool for a future product.
I look forward to the already announced release of the assassin in Heroes of Shadow next march. If there's any class that needs some buffing in its primary area of expertisse, it's the assassin. Their secondary role of controller is quite supported, but as strikers they're sadly and noticeably lacking by the time you hit paragon levels.
I wouldn't mind an essentialized monk with completely redesigned core mechanics. The full disciplines system is pretty clunky, imo.
Not Avengers or Monks, though; they don't have enough of a classic D&D feel to me...
The omission of the Bard in favor of the Warlock was quite a bruise at first, given that the Bard is more than essential to my own D&D experience. However, I think that Bard-lovers sometimes forget that Bards are by-and-large the red-headed stepchild of D&D. 4E has done wonders for them, no one is arguing their efficiency or effectiveness, but the class itself is niche and it appeals to a very specific subset of gamers. Bards are forever the quintessential fifth wheel, which is why we love them, and thus they are given second-thought status when considering all that defines D&D. Warlocks, on the other hand, define a generation of D&D gamers. They represent all that is classic about 3XE, and their inclusion is sensical given the premise of Essentials.
Do I still want to see what the Essential Bard has to offer? YES! Though I'm willing to wait, as long as careful attention to detail and affectionate retooling result in emphasis on all that is awesome about my favorite class. I love virtues, I loved bardsongs, and I trust that all of this will retain its majesty once they modify it for the essential experience. I have faith that the Bard, when they finally get around to him, will be given the workup he deserves. From what I've seen done in 4E, someone amongst the powers that be is really looking out for the Bard; and I don't see that changing anytime within the tenure of this edition.
And yet monks have been around in D&D since ages back, while Warlords are new with 4e (or, at the earliest, 3.5 if you count the marshall). :p
I wouldn't be suprised if, once the essential Warlord is released, "Marshal" is the name of the build presented.
If you're looking for a friendly introduction to skeptical new players, then bard is a better choice then warlock because warlock explicitely sells its soul to the devil for magic powers, and that's going to put some people off. Further, the bard fits better as an introduction to the game's heroic themes for the same reason.
If you're looking for a functional stand alone product set, such that the 10 products in the essentials line work well as a game in and of themselves without adding any additional material, then the bard works better then the warlock because it presents a second class option for leaders, where strikers already have two class options in the ranger and the rogue.
No matter how you slice it, the bard was a better call for inclusion in essentials. The only reasoning favoring the Warlock over the Bard was that the warlock was in more need of a re-tool.
It doesn't 'ruin' essentials to me, but I do think it was a wrong design choice. As a stand alone product line, essentials simply would have been better with bards instead of warlocks, and probably with gnomes instead of tieflings as well (gives a small race for each of the player books, the book with tieflings already has dragonborn as a monstrous race, keeps an iconic focus on pure heroics for the introductory material, with dark heroes and anti heroes reserved for supplementary materials, etc). Not much use to complaining about it, though, it's too late to fix.
Popstar: 'Bards are by-and-large the red-headed stepchild of D&D.'
Yeah, seems to me too, this is the real reason for what became (or didnt become) 'essential'.
'4E has done wonders for them, but the class itself is niche and it appeals to a very specific subset of gamers.'
Actually, in an extensive 3e poll, the Bard was the most favorite class, being in the personal top three favorite classes of most players. I was surprised, but probably shouldnt have been.
If you're looking for a classic feel, bard is a better choice then warlock because it has deeper D&D roots. Even if it has an 'odd man out' history, that's still more of a history then warlocks.
More of a history, in your opinion. To many (if not the majority) of modern players, Bards have no history beyond 3XE because they didn't play the game prior to this time.
The relevance of Bards, and the applicable history, is a matter of context.
If you're looking for a friendly introduction to skeptical new players, then bard is a better choice then warlock because warlock explicitely sells its soul to the devil for magic powers, and that's going to put some people off. Further, the bard fits better as an introduction to the game's heroic themes for the same reason.
I am unaware of the designer's intent to market Essentials as a "friendly introduction" with respect to a kindly, amiable, cordial, genial, affectionate or kind-hearted group of classes. I think the mastermind behind Essentials is more a "friendly introduction" with respect to an easy to understand, deal with and use game mechanic.
The difference is significant.
Also, the same skeptics who harbor a reservation towards classes who explicitly sell their souls to the devil for magic powers are also the same skeptics who will harbor reservations towards classes that worship fictional gods and/or revere fictional primal spirits. The Cleric, Paladin and Druid are just as malign in the eyes of those who view D&D as a gateway to damnation.
As an aside, in explicit terms, a Warlock who has entered a pact with Fey, Star, Dark or Vestige forces/entities have not sold their soul to the devil.
If you're looking for a functional stand alone product set, such that the 10 products in the essentials line work well as a game in and of themselves without adding any additional material, then the bard works better then the warlock because it presents a second class option for leaders, where strikers already have two class options in the ranger and the rogue.
I am unaware of the designer's intent to market Essentials as a standalone product set.
Actually, I'm quite sure that it is being marketed as an introduction to the greater product set that is the dynamic and living game of D&D; of which, it is the hopes of WotC, that you enjoy, love and buy into forever more.
No matter how you slice it, the bard was a better call for inclusion in essentials. The only reasoning favoring the Warlock over the Bard was that the warlock was in more need of a re-tool.
In your opinion.
It doesn't 'ruin' essentials to me, but I do think it was a wrong design choice. As a stand alone product line, essentials simply would have been better with bards instead of warlocks, and probably with gnomes instead of tieflings as well (gives a small race for each of the player books, the book with tieflings already has dragonborn as a monstrous race, keeps an iconic focus on pure heroics for the introductory material, with dark heroes and anti heroes reserved for supplementary materials, etc). Not much use to complaining about it, though, it's too late to fix.
In my opinion, Warlocks made the cut because they are near-and-dear to the powers that be. It was WotC who added Warlocks to the game, and they have accrued a decade's worth of history as a sexy, badass class that inspires creativity and a desire to pick up the dice. In addition, Tieflings are the intellectual property of WotC, and, as such, they set the game apart from all other RPGs. This makes them "essential" to the D&D experience.
Gnomes, much like Bards, have been an afterthought for most the game's tenure. Truly, non-essential.
Yeah, seems to me too, this is the real reason for what became (or didnt become) 'essential'.
Bummed me out, man! But the Bard is so perfect in this edition, I'm almost hesitant to let them mess with it.
Actually, in an extensive 3e poll, the Bard was the most favorite class, being in the personal top three favorite classes of most players. I was surprised, but probably shouldnt have been.
Polls are useless. They only measure those who contribute to the poll, which hardly reflects the sentiments of game-players at large.
Bard-lovers, in terms that we like to toss around the boards, are a vocal minority. Thus, poll results are easily skewed in their favor.
Gnomes love internet polls.
And the Bard-lovers have powerful allies from the Anti Gnome Defamation League.
Gnomes love internet polls.
LOL Yes!
More of a history, in your opinion. To many (if not the majority) of modern players, Bards have no history beyond 3XE because they didn't play the game prior to this time.
The relevance of Bards, and the applicable history, is a matter of context.
This isn't debatable. In both 3rd and 2nd editions, the bards were core class and the warlock was not, In 2nd it didn't exist, in 3.0 it didn't exist, and in 3.5 it didn't exist until splat material. Bards, and more specifically jokes about bards, are a D&D staple. Warlocks are only closer to the game in 4e. One of the goals of essentials is to hook in players from previous editions who didn't make the jump to 4e because it didn't feel enough like D&D to them. Including the Bard in the essentials products would contribute more to that then the Warlock. There's no arguing that one.
In your opinion.
What reasons existed to support the inclusion of Warlocks over Bards? In what way were warlocks a better fit then Bards, for a product set meant to evoke classic (ie, pre-4e) D&D feel, and for a product set that already had two strikers, but only has a single leader class to choose from for every new party that starts with the essentials product line as their introduction to the game?
In my opinion, Warlocks made the cut because they are near-and-dear to the powers that be.
Really? They don't seem to have gotten any more support then any other class. They don't seem to show up in the fiction or the artwork more. I don't see them as any more 'near and dear' to the powers that be then any other class in the game. Heck, warlords seem to have gotten noticeably more support from designers then warlocks, although I would not have preferred warlords for essentials - as they also lack that 'classic' element, and I don't think they would have fit as well into the 'augmented basic attack' mold of the essential martial classes.
Gnomes, much like Bards, have been an afterthought for most the game's tenure. Truly, non-essential.
And I would argue that warlocks have been an afterthought as well. in 3e didn't show up until 3.5, and then in a splat book with minimal support in later products. In 4e they're the classic 'not very good at their job' strikers, eclipsed only relatively recently by assassins. They're difficult to build well, boast less support then many other PHBI classes classes, are rarely if ever a major part of the fluff or fiction, are rarely seen at game tables (admitedly purely my experience). There simply doesn't seem to be much indication of the designer love that you speak of, at least that I can see.
I'm glad the Warlocks are getting the essential treatment, don't get me wrong. That class needed a rethink, IMO. I just think the essentials product line would have been stronger with bard instead, with essentialized Warlocks left for a future 'Heroes of the Arcane' book or dragon article.
Bummed me out, man! But the Bard is so perfect in this edition, I'm almost hesitant to let them mess with it.
I don't know, I really think the bard could do with the essential treatment. It lost a lot of its musical flavor in their translation to 4e, leaving them feeling a bit bland on the table top, imo.
If you're looking for a classic feel, bard is a better choice then warlock because it has deeper D&D roots. Even if it has an 'odd man out' history, that's still more of a history then warlocks.
My AD&D Players Handbook says your wrong (Wizard Title, 8th Experience Level).
If you're looking for a friendly introduction to skeptical new players, then bard is a better choice then warlock because warlock explicitely sells its soul to the devil for magic powers, and that's going to put some people off. Further, the bard fits better as an introduction to the game's heroic themes for the same reason.
I find it a little offensive that you don't consider a redemption arch heroic. So what if he got his power from a devil? It was a mistake, and how he plans to use his dark gift to set things right.
Sounds damn heroic to me.
If you're looking for a functional stand alone product set, such that the 10 products in the essentials line work well as a game in and of themselves without adding any additional material, then the bard works better then the warlock because it presents a second class option for leaders, where strikers already have two class options in the ranger and the rogue.
Grid filling for the sake of grid filling is bad game design.
No matter how you slice it, the bard was a better call for inclusion in essentials. The only reasoning favoring the Warlock over the Bard was that the warlock was in more need of a re-tool.
Actually, since you've sliced it pretty damn weird to prove your point, I say it does in fact matter how you slice it. Plus, the Warlock is not in need a "retool." All it can't really do as far a striking goes is nova, and I'm starting to think that Nova tactics may not be what the designers had in mind when it came to dailies. Not to say that it isn't effective mind you. Just, not necessarily wanted. The Warlock being a poor striker or in need of a re-tool is an old Char-Op meme that refuses to die, more or less because people don't do any research into the subject and just ape the sounds over and over again. At best, the Warlock could use a few new powers, at-wills mostly and maybe some higher tier dailies, and either a new paragon path or better crit-fisher support. Either one could easily push them over the top. This can be done with another dragon article and does not warrant a total retooling of the class.
The real reason the Warlock probably made it in is most likely two-fold. One, the Warlock is popular. Its a very neat idea with an interesting execution. Back when all out PHBs had 1s behind them, the Warlock was one of the neater classes in the book, if not the most powerful. Its in Essentials because people liked it. The second reason is that if your looking for a game that resonates with classic fantasy, a musical wizard is by far the odd man out when he has to fight against the Faustian Archetype. The idea of trading something of great value for power and then going on a quest to redeem yourself and make things right with this power is a very, very, very old story. It goes back to at least the Enlightenment when Goethe re-imagined Faust as a tragic hero instead of a childish philanderer, and people have been telling it over, and over, and over again since. Heck, look at the new Fullmental Alchemist Anime. The Faust story live on to this very day.
It doesn't 'ruin' essentials to me, but I do think it was a wrong design choice. As a stand alone product line, essentials simply would have been better with bards instead of warlocks, and probably with gnomes instead of tieflings as well (gives a small race for each of the player books, the book with tieflings already has dragonborn as a monstrous race, keeps an iconic focus on pure heroics for the introductory material, with dark heroes and anti heroes reserved for supplementary materials, etc). Not much use to complaining about it, though, it's too late to fix.
Remember that grid filling thing? Why are people so obsessed with "One Small Race Per Book?"
just clarifying my inconsequential opinion
But grid filling for the sake of player options is good design. Players starting with the essentials material will be stuck with clerics only as their choice of healer - one of the four core party roles that the game assumes every party has access to. If no one wants to play a rogue, someone might still want to try a ranger. If no one wants to play a fighter, someone still might want to try a paladin. But if nobody wants to play a cleric, then your hypothetically-new-to-the-game D&D party won't have a leader, and the also-hypothetically-new-to-the-game DM likely won't have the skills necessary to adjust his encounters for that fact, which could leave players with a less then fulfilling game experience as their introduction to D&D.
A) I'm confused. I'm arguing that the warlock could really use the essentials treatment, but that it would have been better to include it in another product. Are you arguing that it was the right choice for this product, but that it shouldn't have been done at all? :/
B) A casually-built warlock can also fall rather easily and rather noticeably behind in round to round damage, not just nova damage. And that's from my gameplay experience with new players playing warlocks at the table, not just regurgitated charop memes. Admitedly, an opped Warlock does just fine, but they're tricky to build right, and, imo, really stand to benefit a lot in playability from a more straight-forward essentials type rebuild. Again, though I would have rather seen it in an expansion book, rather then one of the new core books, especially if it comes at the cost of giving new players only a single choice for leader classes.
Still, this is not a major complaint, just a slight annoyance
Is it? Maybe I just play in a weird, warlock-free dead zone. I've seen everything except some of the PHBIII classes at least once, but Warlock is definitely on the less common side of things where I am, and certainly not any more popular then bards, certainly not among the grognards who have, to this point, shunned 4e, and who are supposedly part of the target audience for essentials. If it's more popular among the brand new players, it's only because they're in the PHBI and the Bard isn't.
Who's obsessed? Why do you feel compelled to fill the 'devil-person' grid? I just think gnomes would add a bit more variety to the book that tieflings were included in, since the tiefling seems to overlap a bit with dragonborn, both visually and conceptually. Not that they look the same, but they both look draconic to new players, particularly the male tieflings, which most of the new players I've played with assume are dragon-people at first glance. And then there's the bit of gnomes having more of a classic D&D feel - especially alongside the reintroduction of wizard schools and illusion in particular (imo, admitedly). And, of course they would fit better with the class I would have rather seen in the book. ;) Obviously, if you've already made the decision to include warlocks instead of bards, then tieflings are a better choice.
Grid filling for the sake of grid filling is bad game design.
But grid filling for the sake of player options is good design. Players starting with the essentials material will be stuck with clerics only as their choice of healer - one of the four core party roles that the game assumes every party has access to. If no one wants to play a rogue, someone might still want to try a ranger. If no one wants to play a fighter, someone still might want to try a paladin. But if nobody wants to play a cleric, then your hypothetically-new-to-the-game D&D party won't have a leader, and the also-hypothetically-new-to-the-game DM likely won't have the skills necessary to adjust his encounters for that fact, which could leave players with a less then fulfilling game experience as their introduction to D&D.
Plus, the Warlock is not in need a "retool." All it can't really do as far a striking goes is nova, and I'm starting to think that Nova tactics may not be what the designers had in mind when it came to dailies.
A) I'm confused. I'm arguing that the warlock could really use the essentials treatment, but that it would have been better to include it in another product. Are you arguing that it was the right choice for this product, but that it shouldn't have been done at all? :/
B) A casually-built warlock can also fall rather easily and rather noticeably behind in round to round damage, not just nova damage. And that's from my gameplay experience with new players playing warlocks at the table, not just regurgitated charop memes. Admitedly, an opped Warlock does just fine, but they're tricky to build right, and, imo, really stand to benefit a lot in playability from a more straight-forward essentials type rebuild. Again, though I would have rather seen it in an expansion book, rather then one of the new core books, especially if it comes at the cost of giving new players only a single choice for leader classes.
Still, this is not a major complaint, just a slight annoyance
The Warlock is popular.
Is it? Maybe I just play in a weird, warlock-free dead zone. I've seen everything except some of the PHBIII classes at least once, but Warlock is definitely on the less common side of things where I am, and certainly not any more popular then bards, certainly not among the grognards who have, to this point, shunned 4e, and who are supposedly part of the target audience for essentials. If it's more popular among the brand new players, it's only because they're in the PHBI and the Bard isn't.
Remember that grid filling thing? Why are people so obsessed with "One Small Race Per Book?"
Who's obsessed? Why do you feel compelled to fill the 'devil-person' grid? I just think gnomes would add a bit more variety to the book that tieflings were included in, since the tiefling seems to overlap a bit with dragonborn, both visually and conceptually. Not that they look the same, but they both look draconic to new players, particularly the male tieflings, which most of the new players I've played with assume are dragon-people at first glance. And then there's the bit of gnomes having more of a classic D&D feel - especially alongside the reintroduction of wizard schools and illusion in particular (imo, admitedly). And, of course they would fit better with the class I would have rather seen in the book. ;) Obviously, if you've already made the decision to include warlocks instead of bards, then tieflings are a better choice.
Now if you ask me which of the remaining classes would be suited for that essential treatment i would say the Monk just because of the old flurry of blows and the unarmed attack progression.
As the title say... what class would you like to see in the essential format beyond the annouced ones?
None of them, not even the announced ones. I'm irritated by Essentials.
Swordmage. Work it similar to the fighter but have stuff similar to spell schools (Abjuration, Transmutation, and one other[probably Divination]).
While I like (no, love!) the Bard, I'm sure WotC has calculated this. Heroes of the Fallen Lands contains the iconic D&D classes and races of human, dwarf, elf (and eladrin) & halfling and cleric, fighter, rogue & wizard. Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms contains the most popular non-iconics, which at the present are the dragonborn, drow, tielfling, half-elf, & half-orc and druid, paladin, ranger...and warlock. I'm willing to take WotC at their word that those are the most popular races and classes in the game right now. So the warlock gets the nod over the bard and the tiefling and dragonborn both trump the gnome. The bard may have more history than the warlock does, just like the gnome has more than the dragonborn, but you go with what's popular.
I imagine if the Essentials Line stays in print long enough (looking potentially many years ahead here), the second Heroes of... book will probably see changes to both its content and title as it responds to the changing market.
But classes that aren't already getting the Essentials treatment... Shaman. While there's a flying eagle shaman build and whatnot, I'd like to see it broken up into different kinds of spirit companions very clearly. The difference between an Eagle Spirit and Bear Spirit ought to be quite great. Essentials has the potential for that. Also, maybe to make more powers that give the Shaman something to do. Right now, he's kinda like the Pokémon Trainer in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
The second essentials fighter build is a flat out striker, not a defender at all. Given that information, much of my objection to warlocks instead of bards may be set aside if one of the paladin or druid builds is a leader.
I think a leader paladin would be too close to the warpriest, since they decided to go scale armor and melee with it already.
The Slayer's unique in that its the only heavy armor striker in the game.
That said, I wouldn't be upset about a striker paladin to fill the gap of the missing avenger.
If they had plate proficiency they could at least get 'the same' ac out of heavy armor that they'll get out of light, although it would cost them a point of movement for no real benefit to do so, but as it is they don't come with plate proficiency, and to get it they'd have to not only burn a feat but also take a hit to either their primary or secondary stat to qualify. Which means they won't do it, which means their AC and speed is better in hide then it is in scale, which means, again, the Slayer is a light armored class, proficiencies not-at-all-withstanding.
*or even Dex primary, if they don't nerf melee training, which I really hope they don't, as it would seriously damage the playability of like half a dozen classes if they did.
tangent: are leaders 'essential'?
I would just like there to be a leader build in the forgotten kingdoms book, so that new players who start with that book have at least one option for the leader role, and so that new groups who start with the essentials books have an option for leaders if nobody wants to play the cleric class.
That isn't 'pointless symetry' or 'needless gap filling'. That's providing the necessary options to give players a choice for filling one of the four enshrined D&D party roles that the game's fundamental encounter design and published adventures assume every party has access to in order to function properly.
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is a Player's Essentials book. It's supposed to have the essential options for players. Leaders are essential to 4e parties. If the book doesn't present some option for a leader, then imo there is an essential player option that the book is failing to provide.
That isn't 'pointless symetry' or 'needless gap filling'. That's providing the necessary options to give players a choice for filling one of the four enshrined D&D party roles that the game's fundamental encounter design and published adventures assume every party has access to in order to function properly.
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms is a Player's Essentials book. It's supposed to have the essential options for players. Leaders are essential to 4e parties. If the book doesn't present some option for a leader, then imo there is an essential player option that the book is failing to provide.
- Artificer
- Assassin
- Barbarian
- Bard
- Cleric (including a Runepriest subclass)
- Druid (including a Warden [defender] subclass)
- Fighter
- Invoker (possibly as a Cleric subclass, but I like the flavour of Invokers distinct)
- Monk
- Paladin (including an Avenger [striker] subclass)
- Psion (possibly including an Empath/"Ardent" [leader] subclass)
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Shaman
- Sorcerer
- Warlock (these should be based on pacts rather than builds or subclasses)
- Warlord (this could probably be a Fighter subclass, but I like my TacLord way too much)
- Wizard (including a Swordmage [defender] subclass, and many specialist Mage subclasses)
My grand list of stuff I'd like to see "Essentialised" is as follows. (I'm including things that are already confirmed, for completeness' sake.)
- Artificer
- Assassin
- Barbarian
- Bard
- Cleric (including a Runepriest subclass)
- Druid (including a Warden [defender] subclass)
- Fighter
- Invoker (possibly as a Cleric subclass, but I like the flavour of Invokers distinct)
- Monk
- Paladin (including an Avenger [striker] subclass)
- Psion (possibly including an Empath/"Ardent" [leader] subclass)
- Ranger
- Rogue
- Shaman
- Sorcerer
- Warlock (these should be based on pacts rather than builds or subclasses)
- Warlord (this could probably be a Fighter subclass, but I like my TacLord way too much)
- Wizard (including a Swordmage [defender] subclass, and many specialist Mage subclasses)
Pretty complete, but let me just add a nature priest (leader) build for the druid. Always felt so right.