"Heroes of Shadow introduces new builds for classes introduced in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms"
First, those two books Didn't even introduce new classes!!!
So now, some of the kit builds in HoS are builds of the builds from the other Essentials books? Really?
Or are they more like the Power Book builds going off of the Kit Builds from the books that can be used by the builds and classes both?
This raises more questions than what it answers. I wish they would stop calling Kit Builds "Classes."
Builds of Builds only becomes a weirdism when you start calling the new subclasses builds, which they aren't. They're more substantially different than builds, and they actually have their own builds within them. For example, the Bow Hunter and the Crossbow Hunter have different class features depending on which you choose. Those are two builds of the Hunter subclass of Ranger.
Sub-class = Class
More or less
Kit Builds is more like what we have, though having them be self sustaining seems to be confusing a lot of people. These are not, in my mind, separate classes. They are tied to the base class in function, the more that a build deviates from the role and to a lesser extent power source, the less effective it becomes, and less choice for everyone all around. (Build has less to choose from the base class, base class can't use the mixed role power from the build)
Then this product has builds that use a base of a build that has a base class. It further delutes the overall structure of that class.
My question is why weaken the Shadow Power Source like this, make it into a joke? Couldn't this product be canceled instead, so resources can be put into actual D&D product instead of half arsed lazy design shoving the Shadow Power Source into a side closet?
It seems the purpose of each succeeding products since Essentials was introduced is to tear apart all the structure of Power Sources started in the first PHB, and to regulate roles into the FOUR CLASSES.
Sub Classes is a 2nd edition thing, not something that should be in this edition. That is a huge step backwards.
In your opinion. Not WotC's. Not a lot of peoples'.
Kit Builds is more like what we have,
There is no such thing as a kit build. We already covered this.
though having them be self sustaining seems to be confusing a lot of people.
Namely you.
These are not, in my mind, separate classes.
Which you're wrong about.
They are tied to the base class in function, the more that a build deviates from the role and to a lesser extent power source, the less effective it becomes, and less choice for everyone all around. (Build has less to choose from the base class, base class can't use the mixed role power from the build)
Then this product has builds that use a base of a build that has a base class. It further delutes the overall structure of that class.
Nothing is diluted. And you just admitted they're different enough to be different classes.
My question is why weaken the Shadow Power Source like this, make it into a joke? Couldn't this product be canceled instead, so resources can be put into actual D&D product instead of half arsed lazy design shoving the Shadow Power Source into a side closet?
You truly are selfish, aren't you?
It seems the purpose of each succeeding products since Essentials was introduced is to tear apart all the structure of Power Sources started in the first PHB, and to regulate roles into the FOUR CLASSES.
That would make things more stream-lined, wouldn't it? But that's not what's happening, since as you just pointed at things are getting less stream-lined. And no mythical power source structure has been torn apart, since there was never a power source structure to begin with.
Sub Classes is a 2nd edition thing, not something that should be in this edition. That is a huge step backwards.
snip...
Did this much fuss get made when MP and MP2 and DS all release bifferent builds for the fighter? I didn't frequent the D&D boards much back then. IF they had called them sub-class options or kits would it have been worse?
Seriously, a rose is a rose is a rose, and a tomato is a tomato is a tomato, and sometimes a cigar is a cigar is a cigar. Does it matter if these are called sub-classes, builds, kits, omni-chassis (ps, they are called synonyms)? Some are more restrictive than others (the two weapon fighter and brawling fighter are signifigantly restrictive if you want to stay thematic, with few powers to support those styles by comparison). That the Slayer is the most restrictive is largely immaterial. It's still in it's essence a fighter.
I admit, the parent article isn't too clear, but it's not hard to piece together.
i.e. There is a necromancy school of magic. That is an aspect/feature/build/option/choice for the Mage version/build/kit/sub-class of the wizard class.
Repeat this statement with most of the options presented.
... What are you arguing Thax?
More I think about it...I bet they design new builds from the Player's Option Books that obviously mix well with the Essentials classes. As time goes on there will be more and more paths to take when picking a class. A Mage can be now an Enchanter, Illusionist, Nethermancer, Necromancer, Evoker. With the fey wild supplement maybe another build will present itself.
In time Essential classes will have a ton of options. Perhaps narrow in power selection once your build is determined but the odds of running into two exact Knights will diminish. Already the Eladrin Knight plays a lot different than the E Knight. Damn flexible.
Did this much fuss get made when MP and MP2 and DS all release different builds for the fighter? I didn't frequent the D&D boards much back then. IF they had called them sub-class options or kits would it have been worse?
I think the biggest problem here is the changing of mechanics. There were certain things that it seems everyone got used to with certain class builds; the WotC decided to turn that on its ear with Essentials. Some like the utter break from previous builds that, while giving further options (to the Fighter, for example), still existed within the frame of doing certain things at-will, others once per encounter, and lastly once per day. With Essentials, classes not only have builds that discard previous class abilities and features totally, but have even changed their primary role in battle. Again, some players and or DMs were looking for this kind of break from structure, others preferred the structure the way it was. This included having a single, solitary power source as a base for each class, and then allowing for power source mixing through multi-class feats and the hybridizing system. Again, some believe that the change in adding together power sources lessened not only their overall flavour, but the mechanical impact that seemed to be previously tied to more pure power sources.
As in any debate, there are those that prefer pure structure (I myself am more on this side), and those that would argue that structure has little to no place in a game about playing roles, and all the multifarious shades of grey in-between, such as those that think the structure should be there, but always be challenged. While the original structure of 4th edition was just that, a strucutre, I think most people who enjoy the new Essentials direction are those that prefer the structure to always be challenged, and a fair amount of the people who are anti-Essentials prefer the structure as it had been being built in the first place.
So as a long answer to your short question, I don't remember seeing any great uproar to the MP and MP2 and DS Builds, but then again those builds did not rework the mechanical roots of the classes, right down to the presence of daily powers or lack thereof, and the class features that for many before Essentials had defined 4th edition classes for them.
Sub Classes is a 2nd edition thing, not something that should be in this edition. That is a huge step backwards.
Actually, sub-classes were a 1e AD&D thing. The Paladin and Ranger were sub-classes of the Fighter, the Assassin of the Theif, and so forth. In 2e, there were over-arching 'groups' - Warrior, Priest, Wizard & Rogue, IIRC - and the actual classes were grouped under them. So there was no Warrior class, but the Fighter, Paladin and Ranger were 'Warrior' Classes.
Details aside, the analogy holds. Roles, Classes & Builds were 4e constructs. Sub-classes are paleo-D&D. The 'new direction,' is, in fact, backwards.
It seems the purpose of each succeeding products since Essentials was introduced is to tear apart all the structure of Power Sources started in the first PHB, and to regulate roles into the FOUR CLASSES.
Refresh my memory: weren't you one of those 'the sky is not falling' people?
If the concepts of the Kit Builds are new, why not just make a new class? Seems backwards to crowbar a concept into an already existing base class.
Essentails by itself was not so bad, self sustaining builds was made to introduce new players into the game, though why Rituals were excluded, new mechanics from the old edition introduced into a clunky sub set, and roles/power sources were changed from what the Base class had in various builds is beyond my understanding. That this is being used for a new players book that is supposed to be introducing a new power source, but instead kills it, that is my problem.
Kit builds do not exist. They are a figment of your imagination.
I given this some thought, and I think I know where thaX got confused.
Originally, and still at times, Wizards staff refers to the Essentials classes as "builds."
However, Mike Mearls likened them to "subclasses" from AD&D and AD&D 2E in the very first preview.
Not long after, when discussing themes which came out in Dark Sun, he likened them to "kits," also from AD&D 2E.
thaX has combined these two references into "kit-builds," completely forgetting where and how Mike Mearls and crew brought "kits" back into D&D.
Did this much fuss get made when MP and MP2 and DS all release different builds for the fighter? I didn't frequent the D&D boards much back then. IF they had called them sub-class options or kits would it have been worse?
I think the biggest problem here is the changing of mechanics. There were certain things that it seems everyone got used to with certain class builds; the WotC decided to turn that on its ear with Essentials. Some like the utter break from previous builds that, while giving further options (to the Fighter, for example), still existed within the frame of doing certain things at-will, others once per encounter, and lastly once per day. With Essentials, classes not only have builds that discard previous class abilities and features totally, but have even changed their primary role in battle. Again, some players and or DMs were looking for this kind of break from structure, others preferred the structure the way it was. This included having a single, solitary power source as a base for each class, and then allowing for power source mixing through multi-class feats and the hybridizing system. Again, some believe that the change in adding together power sources lessened not only their overall flavour, but the mechanical impact that seemed to be previously tied to more pure power sources.
As in any debate, there are those that prefer pure structure (I myself am more on this side), and those that would argue that structure has little to no place in a game about playing roles, and all the multifarious shades of grey in-between, such as those that think the structure should be there, but always be challenged. While the original structure of 4th edition was just that, a strucutre, I think most people who enjoy the new Essentials direction are those that prefer the structure to always be challenged, and a fair amount of the people who are anti-Essentials prefer the structure as it had been being built in the first place.
So as a long answer to your short question, I don't remember seeing any great uproar to the MP and MP2 and DS Builds, but then again those builds did not rework the mechanical roots of the classes, right down to the presence of daily powers or lack thereof, and the class features that for many before Essentials had defined 4th edition classes for them.
I hear what you're saying, and I can sympathize. But I can see the forest for the trees (not saying you can't) in that the essentials classes do something very specific with those elements of class design that appear to have been discarded.
Take at-wills. Those were removed for the fighter (knight/slayer) but the stances were put in their place. So the function of the at-will choices are now choosing what stance you want to be in, affecting your basic attacks (and in effect all attacks). If you really felt like it, what would stop you from hybriding with a slayer and selecting a stance in place of an at-will attack?
Oh, yeah, there are no rules for it...but can't you see the similarity of structure, the parity? or can you (generic you) only see the differences for what they are, differences?
Take at-wills. Those were removed for the fighter (knight/slayer) but the stances were put in their place. So the function of the at-will choices are now choosing what stance you want to be in, affecting your basic attacks (and in effect all attacks). If you really felt like it, what would stop you from hybriding with a slayer and selecting a stance in place of an at-will attack?
Oh, yeah, there are no rules for it...but can't you see the similarity of structure, the parity? or can you (generic you) only see the differences for what they are, differences?
There is a similarity, but it's not useable. For one thing, because there are no rules for it. For another, because they simply aren't balanced. Stances are a bit more potent than at-wills, both slightly better in what they do, and significantly better in when they let you do it - stances affect basic attacks (often either type, not just MBAs), meaning they're useful as OAs, charging, and free attacks, and making a character with stances about equally good in melee and at range. Presumably, that greater at-will power is meant to balane the lack of dailies. It /can't/ - at least not consistently, because the relative value of at-wills and dailies varies with the number of encounter/day and rounds/encounter (both of which, thanks to power inflation and the beefing up of monsters are likely going down) - but it's meant to. So, swapping at-wills for stances would not be an even trade.
Until useable, balanced rules for wapping stances/tricks & power attack/backstab, with at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers are established, the Essentials-style martial builds and 4e martial builds are effectively, well, a 'separate but equal' proposition, and support for one will not be support for the other. The schism would, other factors being equal, result in both sorts of builds falling behind the power-inflation curve relative to classes not so divided. Of course, all other things are rarely equal, more likely, one sort would recieve more support than the other...
So as a long answer to your short question, I don't remember seeing any great uproar to the MP and MP2 and DS Builds, but then again those builds did not rework the mechanical roots of the classes, right down to the presence of daily powers or lack thereof, and the class features that for many before Essentials had defined 4th edition classes for them.
BUT THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE 2008 FIGHTER. They made a new Fighter that could share utilities with it. There are still 5-6 different builds for the PHBI Fighter, and the existence of the two Essential fighter builds don't make them go away.
If you want to say that every piece of support the Essential fighter gets is taken away from the PHBI fighter, then you could say the same for every piece of support for the Swordmage, Warlord, Half-Elf, campaign fluff, and editoral page.
So as a long answer to your short question, I don't remember seeing any great uproar to the MP and MP2 and DS Builds, but then again those builds did not rework the mechanical roots of the classes, right down to the presence of daily powers or lack thereof, and the class features that for many before Essentials had defined 4th edition classes for them.
BUT THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE 2008 FIGHTER. They made a new Fighter that could share utilities with it. There are still 5-6 different builds for the PHBI Fighter, and the existence of the two Essential fighter builds don't make them go away.
If you want to say that every piece of support the Essential fighter gets is taken away from the PHBI fighter, then you could say the same for every piece of support for the Swordmage, Warlord, Half-Elf, campaign fluff, and editoral page.
If the only thing a Fighter gets from the new builds is the ability to share utilities, that's some pretty piss-poor support. Also, though those two builds do not replace the earlier ones, if that is the road going forward then there is only going to be piss-poor support for the earlier classes going forwards.
Last thing, campaign fluff is worthless to me, and I would much rather see more crunch, so yeah, I could see saying that any focus on anything I don't want is taking away from what I want. Selfish it may be, but hell, we're all selfish anyways. And yes I know life is unfair. I'd just prefer if it was unfair in my favour. ;)
Calling them Sub Classes is taking terminology from past editions and making a self sustaining build seem like something other than what it actually is. It is more like the Kits in the slim leather covered books near the end of 2nd edition's run by TSR that were mostly awful (It is where 2nd edition got the Assassin, overpowered and game breaking) and not worth using.
The most frustrating thing about them is the old mechanics that they use as "class features" that replaces the power placement set in the PHB, but much like Power Points, doesn't translate well in the conversion to the new edition. This is on top of the more defined and narrow path the character has and the little choice of powers as they advance in level. The worst cases are those that mix power sources and roles, further limiting choices as other powers they may be able to be gotten are useless for the build.
So now, in HoS, we have some builds that use a Kit Builds from the Essentials books as a Base Class. This make no sense to me.
My beef isn't involved with terminology, they can call it anything they like, these are still elaborate builds, not new classes. To make builds that are based on other builds of a class is asinine.
Calling them Sub Classes is taking terminology from past editions and making a self sustaining build seem like something other than what it actually is. It is more like the Kits in the slim leather covered books near the end of 2nd edition's run by TSR that were mostly awful (It is where 2nd edition got the Assassin, overpowered and game breaking) and not worth using.
The most frustrating thing about them is the old mechanics that they use as "class features" that replaces the power placement set in the PHB, but much like Power Points, doesn't translate well in the conversion to the new edition. This is on top of the more defined and narrow path the character has and the little choice of powers as they advance in level. The worst cases are those that mix power sources and roles, further limiting choices as other powers they may be able to be gotten are useless for the build.
So now, in HoS, we have some builds that use a Kit Builds from the Essentials books as a Base Class. This make no sense to me.
It makes no sense because you choose for it not to. You have decided not to like it, and rationalize your stubborness by saying it is stupid and doesn't make sense.
My beef isn't involved with terminology, they can call it anything they like, these are still elaborate builds, not new classes. To make builds that are based on other builds of a class is asinine.
Calling them Sub Classes is taking terminology from past editions and making a self sustaining build seem like something other than what it actually is. It is more like the Kits in the slim leather covered books near the end of 2nd edition's run by TSR that were mostly awful (It is where 2nd edition got the Assassin, overpowered and game breaking) and not worth using.
The most frustrating thing about them is the old mechanics that they use as "class features" that replaces the power placement set in the PHB, but much like Power Points, doesn't translate well in the conversion to the new edition. This is on top of the more defined and narrow path the character has and the little choice of powers as they advance in level. The worst cases are those that mix power sources and roles, further limiting choices as other powers they may be able to be gotten are useless for the build.
So now, in HoS, we have some builds that use a Kit Builds from the Essentials books as a Base Class. This make no sense to me.
It makes no sense because you choose for it not to. You have decided not to like it, and rationalize your stubborness by saying it is stupid and doesn't make sense.
Willful ignorance has run rampant on these boards since essentials. I'm not a fan of the majority of essentials, but I haven't resorted to that, at least.
My beef isn't involved with terminology, they can call it anything they like, these are still elaborate builds, not new classes. To make builds that are based on other builds of a class is asinine.
Calling them Sub Classes is taking terminology from past editions and making a self sustaining build seem like something other than what it actually is. It is more like the Kits in the slim leather covered books near the end of 2nd edition's run by TSR that were mostly awful (It is where 2nd edition got the Assassin, overpowered and game breaking) and not worth using.
The most frustrating thing about them is the old mechanics that they use as "class features" that replaces the power placement set in the PHB, but much like Power Points, doesn't translate well in the conversion to the new edition. This is on top of the more defined and narrow path the character has and the little choice of powers as they advance in level. The worst cases are those that mix power sources and roles, further limiting choices as other powers they may be able to be gotten are useless for the build.
So now, in HoS, we have some builds that use a Kit Builds from the Essentials books as a Base Class. This make no sense to me.
It makes no sense because you choose for it not to. You have decided not to like it, and rationalize your stubborness by saying it is stupid and doesn't make sense.
Willful ignorance has run rampant on these boards since essentials. I'm not a fan of the majority of essentials, but I haven't resorted to that, at least.
Kudos to you. I can fully understand not liking the change, as long as one is honest with themselves over the reason why.
there are new options for classes, just read what they are before starting to argue against your assumptions of what they will be. either ignore it or read it and play with it.
if you dont like it, that is fine. but inventing arguments over semantics is pointless they have every right to make a submultikithybrid class and what you want to call it is irrelavent it is what it is.
My beef isn't involved with terminology, they can call it anything they like, these are still elaborate builds, not new classes. To make builds that are based on other builds of a class is asinine.
Calling them Sub Classes is taking terminology from past editions and making a self sustaining build seem like something other than what it actually is. It is more like the Kits in the slim leather covered books near the end of 2nd edition's run by TSR that were mostly awful (It is where 2nd edition got the Assassin, overpowered and game breaking) and not worth using.
The most frustrating thing about them is the old mechanics that they use as "class features" that replaces the power placement set in the PHB, but much like Power Points, doesn't translate well in the conversion to the new edition. This is on top of the more defined and narrow path the character has and the little choice of powers as they advance in level. The worst cases are those that mix power sources and roles, further limiting choices as other powers they may be able to be gotten are useless for the build.
So now, in HoS, we have some builds that use a Kit Builds from the Essentials books as a Base Class. This make no sense to me.
It makes no sense because you choose for it not to. You have decided not to like it, and rationalize your stubborness by saying it is stupid and doesn't make sense.
This.
Essentials style classes at this point ARE separate classes that are simply capable of sharing some powers and feats without having to multi-class. That is it. And they sure as hell do not "weaken" or "dilute" the parent class. That is simply ridiculous. And they most definietly are worth taking in place of the older classes.
Take at-wills. Those were removed for the fighter (knight/slayer) but the stances were put in their place. So the function of the at-will choices are now choosing what stance you want to be in, affecting your basic attacks (and in effect all attacks). If you really felt like it, what would stop you from hybriding with a slayer and selecting a stance in place of an at-will attack?
Oh, yeah, there are no rules for it...but can't you see the similarity of structure, the parity? or can you (generic you) only see the differences for what they are, differences?
There is a similarity, but it's not useable. For one thing, because there are no rules for it. For another, because they simply aren't balanced. Stances are a bit more potent than at-wills, both slightly better in what they do, and significantly better in when they let you do it - stances affect basic attacks (often either type, not just MBAs), meaning they're useful as OAs, charging, and free attacks, and making a character with stances about equally good in melee and at range. Presumably, that greater at-will power is meant to balane the lack of dailies. It /can't/ - at least not consistently, because the relative value of at-wills and dailies varies with the number of encounter/day and rounds/encounter (both of which, thanks to power inflation and the beefing up of monsters are likely going down) - but it's meant to. So, swapping at-wills for stances would not be an even trade.
I disagree. In what i've seen, the at-will stances are just as limited by not applying to powers that they might otherwise benefit from. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll see if I can bring more substance to my point, but for now i'll say nuh-uh and be done with it. :p
There is a similarity, but it's not useable. For one thing, because there are no rules for it. For another, because they simply aren't balanced. Stances are a bit more potent than at-wills, both slightly better in what they do, and significantly better in when they let you do it - stances affect basic attacks (often either type, not just MBAs), meaning they're useful as OAs, charging, and free attacks, and making a character with stances about equally good in melee and at range. Presumably, that greater at-will power is meant to balane the lack of dailies. It /can't/ - at least not consistently, because the relative value of at-wills and dailies varies with the number of encounter/day and rounds/encounter (both of which, thanks to power inflation and the beefing up of monsters are likely going down) - but it's meant to. So, swapping at-wills for stances would not be an even trade.
I disagree. In what i've seen, the at-will stances are just as limited by not applying to powers that they might otherwise benefit from.
Powers cannot normally be combined, so, no, E-stances not stacking with other powers (not that anyone with those stances /has/ other powers) is not a disadvantage relative to at-will attack powers, which also do not stack with other powers.
So now, in HoS, we have some builds that use a Kit Builds from the Essentials books as a Base Class. This make no sense to me.
It's not unique to HoS. The Warpriest is a Cleric build. The Sun and Storm warpriests are builds of the Warpriest. The Mage is a Wizard build. The Enchanter, Illusionist, Evoker, and Pyromancer are builds of the Mage. They've been doing it since HotFL.
Show
There is a similarity, but it's not useable. For one thing, because there are no rules for it. For another, because they simply aren't balanced. Stances are a bit more potent than at-wills, both slightly better in what they do, and significantly better in when they let you do it - stances affect basic attacks (often either type, not just MBAs), meaning they're useful as OAs, charging, and free attacks, and making a character with stances about equally good in melee and at range. Presumably, that greater at-will power is meant to balane the lack of dailies. It /can't/ - at least not consistently, because the relative value of at-wills and dailies varies with the number of encounter/day and rounds/encounter (both of which, thanks to power inflation and the beefing up of monsters are likely going down) - but it's meant to. So, swapping at-wills for stances would not be an even trade.
I disagree. In what i've seen, the at-will stances are just as limited by not applying to powers that they might otherwise benefit from.
Powers cannot normally be combined, so, no, E-stances not stacking with other powers (not that anyone with those stances /has/ other powers) is not a disadvantage relative to at-will attack powers, which also do not stack with other powers.
since most of the essentials stances grant power bonuses there are a multitude of powers (and bonuses from powers) that won't stack with these.
Ah, I see your point. Yeah, if power, stance or otherwise, grants a named bonus, it won't stack with other named bonuses. A number of Slayer stances, at least, do just that. That doesn't substantially detract from the overall power of stances, and their ability to stack up with the various basic-attack boosts out there, but it's a valid point.
Of those 6 only 1 can be used with non-BA and 5 of the 6 use power bonuses, the kind that are used in about every buff and don't stack.
Charge is a basic... oh, I see. OK, in theory. If you could ever get one of those useable-as-a-charge powers. Which, so far, you can't.
And to say that something can't be done because there is no rule for it is asanine. We can make rules.
Yes we can make rules, but when you're discussing the relative merits of an actual rule, the assertion that a hypothetical rule could, in theory, be made to make up for the shortcomings of the rule being discussed absolves that rule of the need to be balanced and workable in the game, as it actually exists, is, well, assinine (and known as the 'Oberoni fallacy,' for some reason). Besides, adding rules to fix incompatibilities introduced by rules that added unneeded complexity to the game just compounds the problem.
Take at-wills. Those were removed for the fighter (knight/slayer) but the stances were put in their place. So the function of the at-will choices are now choosing what stance you want to be in, affecting your basic attacks (and in effect all attacks). If you really felt like it, what would stop you from hybriding with a slayer and selecting a stance in place of an at-will attack?
Oh, yeah, there are no rules for it...but can't you see the similarity of structure, the parity? or can you (generic you) only see the differences for what they are, differences?
There is a similarity, but it's not useable. For one thing, because there are no rules for it. For another, because they simply aren't balanced. Stances are a bit more potent than at-wills, both slightly better in what they do, and significantly better in when they let you do it - stances affect basic attacks (often either type, not just MBAs), meaning they're useful as OAs, charging, and free attacks, and making a character with stances about equally good in melee and at range. Presumably, that greater at-will power is meant to balane the lack of dailies. It /can't/ - at least not consistently, because the relative value of at-wills and dailies varies with the number of encounter/day and rounds/encounter (both of which, thanks to power inflation and the beefing up of monsters are likely going down) - but it's meant to. So, swapping at-wills for stances would not be an even trade.
There is a rule for that, here. And before you say anything, I am aware that a blog-post I made does not constitute an official rule in anyone's games but my own. For the time being, WotC has not done as much as we would like to integrate the two product lines more fully. Some people whine about it (not you), some people stick with the letter of the official rules (you, and that's fine to choose to do it that way), and some of us decide that it's ok for us to fix something when WotC drops the ball. In the absence of offical rules however, homebrew becomes the only word on the subject.
Until useable, balanced rules for wapping stances/tricks & power attack/backstab, with at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers are established, the Essentials-style martial builds and 4e martial builds are effectively, well, a 'separate but equal' proposition, and support for one will not be support for the other. The schism would, other factors being equal, result in both sorts of builds falling behind the power-inflation curve relative to classes not so divided. Of course, all other things are rarely equal, more likely, one sort would recieve more support than the other...
I agree, but with the caveat that we have to be proactive instead of just waiting for WotC to fix it. The company has dropped the ball on further integration. That means it's up to us. A lot of things fail to happen without popular instigation and disruption of the status quo (most notably, I'm thinking of the civil rights movement), why should we believe WotC is any different?
you really are overthinking this,
there are new options for classes, just read what they are before starting to argue against your assumptions of what they will be. either ignore it or read it and play with it.
if you dont like it, that is fine. but inventing arguments over semantics is pointless they have every right to make a submultikithybrid class and what you want to call it is irrelavent it is what it is.
It would be a bit easier to digest if the Builds where based on the classes we have, but from this quote (In my first post) it seems that some of the builds are not based on a class at all, but on another build elsewhere. New options are nice, but it makes not one lick of sense to keep stringing out a concept to the point of unusability.
I am thinking to hard? Right? My point is that the developers are not thinking enough, not seeing how weak it makes the structure become, or how confusing it can become. Now, people are not even using the correct names to refer to the builds, but only the single build name. Executioner instead of Assassin/Executioner.
These are not separate classes, that is the point. It is an elabrate build that is self contained in the books they are in. (Kit Builds)
These are not separate classes, that is the point. It is an elabrate build that is self contained in the books they are in. (Kit Builds)
Would you just give it up already? They are separate classes and you know it. If they weren't separate classes, then all the fighter sub-categories would be defenders when they clearly aren't. The only thing they did was change how broad the superclasses (fighter, cleric, wizard, etc) are. They form a simple hierarchy that most people seem to be able to grasp.
I. Original 4e Classes (fighter, etc.)
A. Original 4e Builds (guardian fighter, etc.)
B. E-Classes (knight, etc.)
1. E-Builds (hammer knight, etc.)
These are not separate classes, that is the point. It is an elabrate build that is self contained in the books they are in. (Kit Builds)
Would you just give it up already? They are separate classes and you know it. If they weren't separate classes, then all the fighter sub-categories would be defenders when they clearly aren't. The only thing they did was change how broad the superclasses (fighter, cleric, wizard, etc) are. They form a simple hierarchy that most people seem to be able to grasp.
I. Original 4e Classes (fighter, etc.)
A. Original 4e Builds (guardian fighter, etc.)
B. E-Classes (knight, etc.)
1. E-Builds (hammer knight, etc.)
Exactly, even a child can understand it. But I doubt ThaX doesn't understand it, he is just refusing to accept it.
I mean hell, they don't all even share the same skill/weapon/armor/implement lists. Hexblades have a different list from Warlocks for everything except maybe skills, and I'd have to double check that to be sure.
I'd say they are entirely separate classes with built in multi-classing options. But the important point is separate classes.
I mean hell, they don't all even share the same skill/weapon/armor/implement lists. Hexblades have a different list from Warlocks for everything except maybe skills, and I'd have to double check that to be sure.
Hexblades are proficient with the same implements as the original Warlock.
I'd say they are entirely separate classes with built in multi-classing options. But the important point is separate classes.
I mean hell, they don't all even share the same skill/weapon/armor/implement lists. Hexblades have a different list from Warlocks for everything except maybe skills, and I'd have to double check that to be sure.
Hexblades are proficient with the same implements as the original Warlock.
Oh right, I was thinking of daggers as an implement, but that's only if they're specifically Pact Daggers. Still, different weapon and armor proficiencies.
I'd say they are entirely separate classes with built in multi-classing options. But the important point is separate classes.
I mean hell, they don't all even share the same skill/weapon/armor/implement lists. Hexblades have a different list from Warlocks for everything except maybe skills, and I'd have to double check that to be sure.
Hexblades are proficient with the same implements as the original Warlock.
Oh right, I was thinking of daggers as an implement, but that's only if they're specifically Pact Daggers. Still, different weapon and armor proficiencies.
Not to mention different secondary ability scores.
For the time being, WotC has not done as much as we would like to integrate the two product lines more fully. Some people whine about it, some people stick with the letter of the official rules, and some of us decide that it's ok for us to fix something when WotC drops the ball. In the absence of offical rules however, homebrew becomes the only word on the subject.
Acknowledging there are problems with the new class designs is plenty in my book. My solution would be to scrap them, rather than add another layer of complexity in the form of parralell multi-classing/power-swapping rules.
I agree, but with the caveat that we have to be proactive instead of just waiting for WotC to fix it. The company has dropped the ball on further integration. That means it's up to us. A lot of things fail to happen without popular instigation and disruption of the status quo (most notably, I'm thinking of the civil rights movement), why should we believe WotC is any different?
Good point.
The implication of the latter argument is that the term 'class' has a fundamentally different meaning post-Essentials than it did pre-Essentials. If I actually agreed that (for example) the knight was a new class and not really a fighter (yet could still take fighter feats, utility powers, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, etc. etc. without multiclassing), then I'd say we have a new half-edition.
I don't agree with that at all, though. Whether we call the knight, mage, slayer, etc. 'builds' or 'subclasses' or 'kit builds' or whatever, I will never agree to calling them 'classes'.
I also seem to recall Mike Mearls stating before the Essentials books were released that the knight, slayer, etc. were emphatically not new classes.
Face it, the argument that Essentials = 4.5e is a lot of idiotic crap.
Essentials does not change the math – it does not invalidate anything old. Everything can be played side by side. Back in 3.5e, you were lucky to get support if you weren't one of the classes from the original Player's Handbook. In 4e, everything is core, but they're focusing on supporting these Essentials classes at the moment, because they're newer, and Weaponmaster Fighters have already gotten a huge amount of support. But support (or lack thereof) and design change doesn't mean Edition change or even Half-Edition change. It means their design choices are different right now than how you want them to be.
It's still 4e. We've just got Essentials in the mix now. It's no different from when we got Psionic classes in the mix. They changed how everything worked as well. Before multiclassing rules for Psionic classes were published, people complained about how it would never work because of how multiclassing works. But they made it work. We're just in that period again now. We don't know how multiclassing will work with the Essentials-type design choices (R.J. Schwalb said they're reevaluating the entire Multiclassing system and might do introduce a different way of MCing), but it will happen.
The sky is not falling, 4e is not over, everything's fine. It's just not the design YOU want. But OTHER people like this design.
I find it hilarious that people keep whining about the new classes making it 4.5e. Why wasn't PHB2 4.5e? Or PHB3? Or the errata? Because each one made changes, had new classes, etc.
Face it, the argument that Essentials = 4.5e is a lot of idiotic crap.
This. And in addition, it's not an edition change if they're still supporting the old stuff. Look back at Dragon. I know they've had some articles supporting O4e after Essentials came out. I can't think of an example right now, but a few weeks ago, I used the newest article as an example. Can I cite something more recent? No, but content has nearly ground to a halt. Now, does Heroes of Shadow do more for Essentials style stuff? Yeah. But it's new and more options-starved than most new stuff. It's like Psionic Power coming out shortly after PH3. Were people crying doom that all classes are going to use power points and have halos from then on? No. It just made sense to support the new guy. Duh.
I find it hilarious that people keep whining about the new classes making it 4.5e. Why wasn't PHB2 4.5e? Or PHB3? Or the errata? Because each one made changes, had new classes, etc.
Face it, the argument that Essentials = 4.5e is a lot of idiotic crap.
This. And in addition, it's not an edition change if they're still supporting the old stuff. Look back at Dragon. I know they've had some articles supporting O4e after Essentials came out. I can't think of an example right now, but a few weeks ago, I used the newest article as an example. Can I cite something more recent? No, but content has nearly ground to a halt. Now, does Heroes of Shadow do more for Essentials style stuff? Yeah. But it's new and more options-starved than most new stuff. It's like Psionic Power coming out shortly after PH3. Were people crying doom that all classes are going to use power points and have halos from then on? No. It just made sense to support the new guy. Duh.
But you forget that PHB3 was sold as a supplement to PHB1, which added a power source (and thus new classes) with it own mechanics, but with the same freedom of creation and it was marketed that way.
Essentials on the other hand was a product with existing classes remade in a simpler more linear form in such a way that not everything was compatible with the other classes, but still equal in power as the old versions. It didn't add anything new (no power sources, classes or races only other versions of it). And essentials was marketed as a product line (of 10) to attract new players without them worrying about a tsunami of choices.
Naturally you would expect essentials to end after those 10 products, or just add the other classes that hadn't an essentials variant would appear in the magazines and when new classes where introduced they would be printed next to the O4e version (as they dont need allot of pages especially in the O4e book format).
(this part is purely based on th looks of the previews) But what we see now with HoS is a new class to be essentials only (straying from the path that appeared as a easier version off O4e) and class support for essentials builds (that probably only support O4e at some levels). While O4e stays pretty starved in the Shadow power source. If there was a PHB4 release close the date of HoS with shadow power source in it, it wouldn't get this doom and gloom talk.
And when HoS got announced it seemed to be a replacement of PHB4 (and as essentials wasn't announced yet, if I remember good) it was assumed to be O4e. But when HoS looked like it would become essentials, it created the effect that essentials would become the main focus of dnd (And less releases making it look worse).
So indirectly making it seam like making a new dnd that flows over from O4e making it look like 4.5 with compatibility with O4e.
So to me (and probably most of the essentials gloom talkers) it looks like E4e is the main focus now with now confirmation in the future releases only HoS that looks to support Essentials mainly. While Essentials was marketed differently. It creates the effect that they are trying to slowly killing O4e to let people drift over to essentials (as real edition changes would lose a large player base and drifting over far less).
So this is my deduction and suspicions.
The atmosphere in this place is getting downright toxic lately.
... And nobody on either side of the argument got the point I was making. I give up. Just keep on flaming each other over bloody semantics.
The atmosphere in this place is getting downright toxic lately.
Let's see if I get your point: it's semantics. Who cares if you call it a new class or a subclass? It's different mechanics. It is new. And if I read between the lines a little more, the fact that the meaning of some basic terms has changed between pre- and post-Essentials suggests that it is a pretty big change.
That it? Saying it that way, it seems pretty obvious, but the (near) flame war shows that we get too caught up in semantics to really get it.
... And nobody on either side of the argument got the point I was making. I give up. Just keep on flaming each other over bloody semantics.
The atmosphere in this place is getting downright toxic lately.
Let's see if I get your point: it's semantics. Who cares if you call it a new class or a subclass? It's different mechanics. It is new. And if I read between the lines a little more, the fact that the meaning of some basic terms has changed between pre- and post-Essentials suggests that it is a pretty big change.
That it? Saying it that way, it seems pretty obvious, but the (near) flame war shows that we get too caught up in semantics to really get it.
He is right about one thing though, the toxic atmosphere around here. Of course, you largely have the E-haters to thank for that (not that there aren't some pro-E people that give others a bad name).
3.0e was nearly impossible to use with 3.5e material, due to the massive changes introduced.
Not really. I remember playing a 3.0 Barbarian in a 3.5 game with no particular issues. The mechanics remained the same, there was just a lot of very small details changed. The main difference is that 3.5 re-published existing material with rule changes, and explicitly said 'don't use the old stuff once the new stuff is out.' But, until a 3.5 version of something hit, the 3.0 version remained 'legal.' The difference between 4e at its outset and post-Essentials 4e is not particularly less than that between 3.0 and 3.5, it's just the vast majority of the rule changes were incremental, via 'updates,' and they don't explicitly say you can't keep playing a 4e Greatweapon Fighter, just because the Slayer has been published. Frankly, even though I consider the 'new direction' to be 'backwards' and thus highly undesireable, that use of 'updates' was a much more reasonable aproach to re-tuning the system than was taken with the 3.5 transition.
I think it's hilarious that the pro-Essentials people have gone from "There are no new classes in Essentials, they're just new builds for existing classes that don't invalidate anything in PHB1, therefore Essentials is not 4.5e!" to "Of course they're new classes, and if you don't agree then you just don't understand anything!" in the space of just a few months.
This is because we modified our stance based upon reality. We have begun referring to them as subclasses, because that is what they are. They share common elements, either conceptually, mechanically, or both, with another class, while having their own identity as well. Similar to how the Cavalier was a subclass of Fighter in the AD&D Unearthed Arcana.
There are still a bunch of people who insist that Essentials is 4.5 or that the Essentials classes break the game who have not modified their stance based upon reality.
The implication of the latter argument is that the term 'class' has a fundamentally different meaning post-Essentials than it did pre-Essentials. If I actually agreed that (for example) the knight was a new class and not really a fighter (yet could still take fighter feats, utility powers, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, etc. etc. without multiclassing), then I'd say we have a new half-edition.
I don't agree with that at all, though. Whether we call the knight, mage, slayer, etc. 'builds' or 'subclasses' or 'kit builds' or whatever, I will never agree to calling them 'classes'.
I also seem to recall Mike Mearls stating before the Essentials books were released that the knight, slayer, etc. were emphatically not new classes.
In the first previews article, Mike and Bill used all three terms. They used Build, they used Class, and they likened the new Classes to the subclasses of AD&D. For all intensive porpoises (yes, I know what it really is, but I saw this on the web once and it tickled my funny bone), it is the latter that seems most appropriate.
Re: the toxic environment on the forums:
We created the toxic environment by enciting a non-existant edition war. For my part, I have stopped using the term hater and tried to make peace with the folks on the other side of my position. I recognize that we are all fans, and that we all love the game. We simply differ in our opinions of the current state of health of the game. I'm optomistic, which makes it easier for me to unclench my sphincter and accept the opinions of others.
And while it may have been the pro-Essentials camp that first broke out the term "hater," I find "apologist" to be the far more offensive term. "Hater" is a recent term that can apply to any difference of opinion regarding any part of pop culture, and is not usually used to expressed a deep flaw in a person's character, but is merely a ismple way to disregard an marginalize an opposing opinion. (This is still rude, and I have been guilty of it in the past. I have sinced resolved to stop doing so.)
On the other hand, "apologist" has a history, and I have only seen it used in a few very select negative connotations. I have never seen it used for its definition of "someone who apologizes for something." The few times the word really comes out are in reference to people who rationalize the atrocities that the Nazis commited against the Jews (and other "undesireables") as either necessary or understandable (and thus, acceptable) in the context of the times. The term is used less frequently in relation to the similar atrocities commited against Japanese Americans by the USA in World War II. We, as Americans, tend to try to forget that this ugly part of our history happened, but it may be something the rest of the world remembers more keenly than we do. Not only does using "apologist" as an pejorative marginize our position as much as "hater" does, it also likens us to people who find racial intolerence and genocide acceptable.
I think it's hilarious that the pro-Essentials people have gone from "There are no new classes in Essentials, they're just new builds for existing classes that don't invalidate anything in PHB1, therefore Essentials is not 4.5e!" to "Of course they're new classes, and if you don't agree then you just don't understand anything!" in the space of just a few months.
This is because we modified our stance based upon reality. We have begun referring to them as subclasses, because that is what they are. They share common elements, either conceptually, mechanically, or both, with another class, while having their own identity as well. Similar to how the Cavalier was a subclass of Fighter in the AD&D Unearthed Arcana.
There are still a bunch of people who insist that Essentials is 4.5 or that the Essentials classes break the game who have not modified their stance based upon reality.The implication of the latter argument is that the term 'class' has a fundamentally different meaning post-Essentials than it did pre-Essentials. If I actually agreed that (for example) the knight was a new class and not really a fighter (yet could still take fighter feats, utility powers, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, etc. etc. without multiclassing), then I'd say we have a new half-edition.
I don't agree with that at all, though. Whether we call the knight, mage, slayer, etc. 'builds' or 'subclasses' or 'kit builds' or whatever, I will never agree to calling them 'classes'.
I also seem to recall Mike Mearls stating before the Essentials books were released that the knight, slayer, etc. were emphatically not new classes.
In the first previews article, Mike and Bill used all three terms. They used Build, they used Class, and they likened the new Classes to the subclasses of AD&D. For all intensive porpoises (yes, I know what it really is, but I saw this on the web once and it tickled my funny bone), it is the latter that seems most appropriate.
Re: the toxic environment on the forums:
We created the toxic environment by enciting a non-existant edition war. For my part, I have stopped using the term hater and tried to make peace with the folks on the other side of my position. I recognize that we are all fans, and that we all love the game. We simply differ in our opinions of the current state of health of the game. I'm optomistic, which makes it easier for me to unclench my sphincter and accept the opinions of others.
And while it may have been the pro-Essentials camp that first broke out the term "hater," I find "apologist" to be the far more offensive term. "Hater" is a recent term that can apply to any difference of opinion regarding any part of pop culture, and is not usually used to expressed a deep flaw in a person's character, but is merely a ismple way to disregard an marginalize an opposing opinion. (This is still rude, and I have been guilty of it in the past. I have sinced resolved to stop doing so.)
On the other hand, "apologist" has a history, and I have only seen it used in a few very select negative connotations. I have never seen it used for its definition of "someone who apologizes for something." The few times the word really comes out are in reference to people who rationalize the atrocities that the Nazis commited against the Jews (and other "undesireables") as either necessary or understandable (and thus, acceptable) in the context of the times. The term is used less frequently in relation to the similar atrocities commited against Japanese Americans by the USA in World War II. We, as Americans, tend to try to forget that this ugly part of our history happened, but it may be something the rest of the world remembers more keenly than we do. Not only does using "apologist" as an pejorative marginize our position as much as "hater" does, it also likens us to people who find racial intolerence and genocide acceptable.
Quoted for truth. And if I may be an optimist, it seems like we have more and more people taking reasonable stances like this. I hope I'm right here. If I am, then either:
A) The toxic environment is becoming a little less toxic, or
B) The toxic environment is the result of fewer and fewer people. If it becomes a scarce enough minority, we can learn to ignore the flamers from both sides.
And while it may have been the pro-Essentials camp that first broke out the term "hater," I find "apologist" to be the far more offensive term.
Really? 'Hate' in current American parlance, is a near synonym for racism, pulling it together with every other form of biggotry and intollerance imaginable, and using it to dismiss dissenting opinions and stiffle debate.
'Apologist,' is, as you point out, equally negative, but you have to be aware of the term's past usages to really apreciate the depths of its connotations - which go back centuries, and include religous biggotry, as well as racism, jingoism and other forms of intollerance.
While how you feel about Essentials is trivial compared to the broader social issues the two terms have been appended too, they're not innaccurate. Haters hate, and Apologists uncritically accept and reflexively defend.
Besides, if the debate is creating a 'toxic environment,' then the negative labels are just that much more apropriate.
And haters/apologists aren't just essentials related. I recall one poster saying he wanted WotC to never publish rules for guns in 4e because he didn't want to have to say no to his players when they asked for them.
So yes, there are flat out haters and apologists (it's naive to assume otherwise); but they're not terms that should just be bandied about because we disagree with people.
Second that stance.
The most disturbing thing about this is the possibility of having three power sources represented in one of the Tri Builds in the book.
It seems that some have an itch about Kit Builds and how they are gonna save 4th edition somehow, or somehow be the second coming for the brand. It isn't, not by a long shot. It seems to be a format that is inserted into the already existing material, but there is a square hole for a round peg, and the peg needs to be small enough to fit in the square hole.
Perhaps a mallet would help.
Perhaps a mallet would help.
Perhaps that would help you overcome your obsession with non-existent kit-builds.
I tend to call a spade a spade, not a shovel or a mower.
Ok. But in this case you're calling a spade a set of nosehair clippers. So maybe you should take that policy and actually apply it here.
I'm an equal opportunity hater, so I'm not prejudiced...
If you either...
- Judge things before hand.
- Judge things without all the evidence.
- Hold an opinion without regards of fact that contradict that opinion.
- Hold an opinion formed on irrational grounds
- Hold an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
- Or show partiality
Then you are prejudiced.
I'm an equal opportunity hater, so I'm not prejudiced...
If you either...
- Judge things before hand.
- Judge things without all the evidence.
- Hold an opinion without regards of fact that contradict that opinion.
- Hold an opinion formed on irrational grounds
- Hold an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
- Or show partiality
Then you are prejudiced.
None of the above. I just generally hate everything...
I was being snarky and funny... I know I failed miserably. Its why I'm a programmer and not a comedian...
I'm an equal opportunity hater, so I'm not prejudiced...
If you either...
- Judge things before hand.
- Judge things without all the evidence.
- Hold an opinion without regards of fact that contradict that opinion.
- Hold an opinion formed on irrational grounds
- Hold an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
- Or show partiality
Then you are prejudiced.
None of the above. I just generally hate everything...
I was being snarky and funny... I know I failed miserably. Its why I'm a programmer and not a comedian...
Nothing says you can't do both. Recently deceased comedian Greg Giraldo was a laywer; getting a degree from harvard law school before becoming a comedian.
None of the above. I just generally hate everything...
One number four plater it is.
I was being snarky and funny... I know I failed miserably. Its why I'm a programmer and not a comedian...
I actually suspect that this might be the case but wasn't sure. When you make a joke you should try using a emoticon to replace the audio and visual ques that text lacks. ;)
It seems that some have an itch about Kit Builds and how they are gonna save 4th edition somehow, or somehow be the second coming for the brand.
The idea seems to be to try to make each class/build/sub-class/whatever 'unique' by just dreaming up arbitrarily different mechanics. I think there's been some intimation that they're trying to get away from anything that suggests a systematic aproach.
For instance, in the PH, there were 3 sources, one used weapons, one used implements, one used both. Over time, most sources got to cover all 4 roles. It created a sort of matrix with Source along one dimension, Role along another, and Class at the intersections. Very neat. The problem with a neat, systematic aproach is that holes are immediately evident. In a less structured design aproach, such holes are presented as features, not bugs.
It seems that some have an itch about Kit Builds and how they are gonna save 4th edition somehow, or somehow be the second coming for the brand.
The idea seems to be to try to make each class/build/sub-class/whatever 'unique' by just dreaming up arbitrarily different mechanics. I think there's been some intimation that they're trying to get away from anything that suggests a systematic aproach.
For instance, in the PH, there were 3 sources, one used weapons, one used implements, one used both. Over time, most sources got to cover all 4 roles. It created a sort of matrix with Source along one dimension, Role along another, and Class at the intersections. Very neat. The problem with a neat, systematic aproach is that holes are immediately evident. In a less structured design aproach, such holes are presented as features, not bugs.
Astute observation. They had already done a similar thing with Alignments at the beginning of 4e.