they have given a subclass to each of the PHB1 classes exept warlord, looks like they are moving to PHB2.
they also announced that they are not making new classes for the near future, i think this means they will focus on subclassing so that every class has its own subclass.
however i recall in a rule of three mearls stating that they have no subclass planned for artificer and swordmage so i think they will only subclass PHBx classes
i have no prefrance for AEDU or essentials, a class is a class and ill probably play it or consider playing it if its shiney and new.
Now that we've seen previews of the Power Strike specialization feats in MME, I hope that DDI releases more weapon specializations for the classes that use Power Strike (Knight, Slayer, Scout). Right now knights only get benefits from hammers, swords, and quarterstaffs; slayers benefit from 2 handed axes, heavy blades, and staffs, and scouts get benefits from having a sword or axe in their off hand.
Bard - Melee Leader with songs (aura 5 with some either beneficial effect for his allies or detrimental effects for enemies). It sounds like we might be getting something like this with Heroes of the Feywild.
Sorcerer or Wizard - Simple blaster type arcane user. Has a ranged basic attack modified by a "focus" on one of the damage types. It sounds like we might be getting something like this in Heroes of the Planes Below (and they could call it Elemental Chaos?).
Monk - Melee Striker using stances or tricks to modify basic attacks. Power Strike rider effects would be based on weapon used (or chosen). Basically, I want a martial / psionic Monk that has a reason to use Unarmed Strike.
Lycanthrope - This could essentially be built on the Vampire "chassis." It would also have regen, a weakness to "silvered" weapons while in beast form, and a different selection of powers. Different builds or stat modifiers would be determined by choice of animal form.
AEDU style classes I want before the edition is over:
Psionic Striker that uses the Power Point mechanic - Soulknife or whatever.
Psionic Defender that uses the Full Discipline mechanic, a sticky defender can also use unarmed strike. The Full Discipline would interact with the mark, with two different effects depending on whether the triggering action is movement or attack.
Shadow Defender - a Thrall, that absorbs damage from adjacent allies to give himself a damage boost.
Shadow Controller - a Spectre - melee / ranged controller, specializes in weaken and other debuff effects, most attacks having the Fear keyword.
Shadow Leader - a Taskmaster - would grant attacks almost on order with the Warlord, but instead of having the traditional Healing Word, it would allow one ally to expend healing surges to benefit another, with rider effects dependant on the sacrificing character's role (i.e.; a Defender allowing one of his healing surges to be used to heal an ally would grant that ally a defense bonus, while a Striker doing the same would grant the ally a damage bonus).
Elemental Striker - the Sorcerer - seriously, this is how the Sorcerer was originally conceived, and all of the fluff pretty much supports this. It should be errata'd to be Elemental once Heroes of the Plane Below is released.
Elemental Striker / Defender - The Dedicate - Lightly armored melee class, role dependant on build. Air, Fire and Water would be striker builds, Stone, Iron and Void would be Defender builds.
Elemental Leader / Controller - the Chaositect - Buffs / debuffs handed out would be randomly determined. Choice of build would determine range of effects.
Things that still need to be finished before the end of 4E for classes that are already released:
At least one more build for every AEDU class released prior to September 2010 (Martial classes excepted, two more builds needed for Assassin, Artificer, Runepriest and Seeker).
Heck, the Assassin needs to be redesigned, as does the Binder.
More weapon options for Knight, Slayer, Thief, Hunter and Scout, similar to the Staff article released almost a year ago.
Autumn and Winter builds for the Sentinel.
The other two Virtues for the Cavalier (Compassion and Justice, to oppose Fury and Domination?).
The other two Vices for the Blackguard (Fear and Avarice, to oppose Valor and Sacrifice?).
Gloom Pact for the Warlock.
Dark, Vestige and Sorcerer-King Pacts for the Hexblade.
Dark, Fey, Infernal, Sorcerer-King and Vestige Pacts for the (hopefully redesigned) Binder (particularly Vestige, as the Vestige Pact owes it's existence to the 3.5 Binder class).
A Divine Pact for all Warlocks. Why is it that arcanists only seem to make deals with sinister forces?
Some more power choices for the Vampire. I am actually content with the basic mechanics of the class, but vampire lore contains many more powers atttributed to vampires (and similar entities around the world) that could be translated into D&D terms.
That's all I got for now.
Essentials style classes are ok by me as long as they have no dead levels, meaning that on every level where you don't get a feat, you get to select a power or class feature from a list of at least 4. So far only Mage satisfies this condition.
Eh, I dont see why there needs to be 4.
For me 2 is enough for print and with more options in dragon.
Essentials style classes are ok by me as long as they have no dead levels, meaning that on every level where you don't get a feat, you get to select a power or class feature from a list of at least 4. So far only Mage satisfies this condition.
Eh, I dont see why there needs to be 4.
For me 2 is enough for print and with more options in dragon.
Well, I don't care where the options are as long as they are available.
I don't think however, that they should just create new E style classes willy nilly - there's enough bloat as it is, better to just support existing classes with new options once we get the last few essentials versions of core classes.
what the classes gave you at each level at 4e release was a whole bunch of dead lvls.
not a whole lot of class features, even at paragonand epic( Man I hate how wotc uses that word)
I like the essential classes becuase they givea few more class features( or at tleast it feels that way to me).
the revampt core classes as sseen in the class compendium articles were pretty good too.
each their own and we are all welcome to it
I'd like to see the rest of the core classes get that treatment...
the traditional 4e classes, the amount of powers were attached to the character sheet. the actual powers, were stuck to classes by other means.
what the classes gave you at each level at 4e release was a whole bunch of dead lvls.
not a whole lot of class features, even at paragonand epic( Man I hate how wotc uses that word)
I like the essential classes becuase they givea few more class features( or at tleast it feels that way to me).
the revampt core classes as sseen in the class compendium articles were pretty good too.
each their own and we are all welcome to it
I'd like to see the rest of the core classes get that treatment...
I don't get what you mean by dead lvls the original 4th edition classes have something at every lvl be it a new power or at least a feat. That is not a dead lvl. The over simplification in essentials is a step backwards in game design not a step forward.
I won't ever get why some like the aedu builds, nor will everyone understand why I say its a bunch of dead levels.
its all opinions and at the end of the day, it won't matter tommorrow
To the long, millions-of-requests post, I don't see what you'd really do with an e-monk unless you just made it a more fiddly cross between a rogue and a slayer/scout. Scouts are a highly-mobile Dex-based stance class, and the Rogues use their move actions (tricks) to augment their attacks. You'd have to invent an entirely new mechanic for it to not be redundant in some capacity. You're better off fluffing scout attacks as karate chops.
PS. omg thanks for explaining what AEUD stands for i've wondered for the longest time while by context understanding that it meant pre-essentials i was too chicken to ask for what the abreviation stood for.
For the classes in the two e-players books i'd like to see those classes get more builds in dragon magazine so that encounters players have more options each season. A slayer that uses con instead of dex, the two missing sentinal seasons, new mage schools, hexblade pacts, stances for the rangers knight and slayer, etc. Dragon helps expand the amount of options available to encounters players. I'd rather see essentials stuff there and allow AEUD stuff to appear in new releases.
PS. omg thanks for explaining what AEUD stands for i've wondered for the longest time while by context understanding that it meant pre-essentials i was too chicken to ask for what the abreviation stood for.
i had no idea what AEDU ment for a long time, but in the context of what people say i figured it meant non essential style classes
the traditional 4e classes, the amount of powers were attached to the character sheet. the actual powers, were stuck to classes by other means.
what the classes gave you at each level at 4e release was a whole bunch of dead lvls.
not a whole lot of class features, even at paragonand epic( Man I hate how wotc uses that word)
I like the essential classes becuase they givea few more class features( or at tleast it feels that way to me).
the revampt core classes as sseen in the class compendium articles were pretty good too.
each their own and we are all welcome to it
I'd like to see the rest of the core classes get that treatment...
There were no dead levels with classic 4e classes. Dead levels are by definition levels where you don't get anything new to pick. No classic 4e class had such levels. Many Essentials classes do, and that's why I don't play them because leveling them up is boring.
There were no dead levels with classic 4e classes. Dead levels are by definition levels where you don't get anything new to pick. No classic 4e class had such levels. Many Essentials classes do, and that's why I don't play them because leveling them up is boring.
Actually, "dead levels", by definition, are levels where you don't get anything.
We were simply spoiled by 4E at the outset because we not only got something at every level, we got to pick which of several somethings we got at each level.
Now we feel entitled to it.
But the original definition of a "dead level", which is a 3.x concept (I don't think I ever heard the term "dead level" in 2E or before, since there were more dead levels than live ones in AD&D and BECMI), still stands.
There were no dead levels with classic 4e classes. Dead levels are by definition levels where you don't get anything new to pick. No classic 4e class had such levels. Many Essentials classes do, and that's why I don't play them because leveling them up is boring.
Actually, "dead levels", by definition, are levels where you don't get anything.
We were simply spoiled by 4E at the outset because we not only got something at every level, we got to pick which of several somethings we got at each level.
Now we feel entitled to it.
For me, a level is dead if you don't get to select anything. Eliminating dead levels by this definition was one of the most brilliant innovations in 4e and I am saddened to see they are pulling it back with E-style classes.
There were no dead levels with classic 4e classes. Dead levels are by definition levels where you don't get anything new to pick. No classic 4e class had such levels. Many Essentials classes do, and that's why I don't play them because leveling them up is boring.
Actually, "dead levels", by definition, are levels where you don't get anything.
We were simply spoiled by 4E at the outset because we not only got something at every level, we got to pick which of several somethings we got at each level.
Now we feel entitled to it.
For me, a level is dead if you don't get to select anything. Eliminating dead levels by this definition was one of the most brilliant innovations in 4e and I am saddened to see they are pulling it back with E-style classes.
A step backwards for sure and one we will never get out from under as it seems, too bad I had high hopes for this addition but I have enough books now to play D&D for years and still be happy and it will not cost me a dime to continue to play or keep current anymore.
I thought the entire point of the leveling and power mechanics was to demonstrate that you could do cool things. Since when has leveling up become more fun than the actual RPG? Or are some people just game theorists, who spend hours building characters they're never going to use a game? Because that's not the target demographic of ANY D&D system, even if it is a real demographic, as evident by the CharOps board.
Now, let's start at level 1. You pick whatever your feat(s), powers, race, class, background, and theme. And that is terrific. There's an entire package of things going on here. You're planning stuff out. You're building a concept of what your character is. And it builds anticipation. That anticipation is important, because honestly, the more you anticipate something good the better it is when you get something good. Now, maybe something thinks that the 4e character creation is too many/little choices or whatever, but I think it's absolutely perfect. It builds up the most anticipation it can without being a hassle.
Now, you play that character. You're now off on an important quest. But of course, that quest is going to take time. It's important to be able to maintain your players interest. Moving the plot along definitely works, but often, it's going to be tough to move the plot along without making the plot go too fast or get too intricate. Tossing an interesting magic item to the players works; but there's a limit to how much you can do that without making the players overpowered. An especially interesting combat or skill encounter can work, but it can be difficult for a DM to deliver on such a consistent basis. Now, combined, all of these should be able to maintain interest if used effectively. But I think a level up also does a lot to maintain interest as long as the level up gives you a similar experience as character creation and grants the player a measure of control that is absolutely necessary in making the game enjoyable.
In essentials you have only 2 options for a defender. Shield using fighter or generic paladin. And thats it. No real options at all.
In AEDU you have almost 20 unique builds each customizable to a theme and concept.
I like having the option of exploring many different concepts and builds for a character.
In essentials you have only 2 options for a defender. Shield using fighter or generic paladin. And thats it. No real options at all.
In AEDU you have almost 20 unique builds each customizable to a theme and concept.
Feats, themes and racial utilities differentiate the Essentials builds quite nicely IMO.
I like having the option of exploring many different concepts and builds for a character.
In essentials you have only 2 options for a defender. Shield using fighter or generic paladin. And thats it. No real options at all.
In AEDU you have almost 20 unique builds each customizable to a theme and concept.
Feats, themes and racial utilities differentiate the Essentials builds quite nicely IMO.
Not to presume too much of Macrocosm's opinions, but I don't think the problem is differentiation. I think the problem is that there isn't a choice every level. And my theory fits in well with some of the other "problems" you see with the game. Feat Taxes: Not real choices, because you have to have them. Wide disparity in how strong powers are at each level: Not real choices, because the stronger power can easily fit your concept (it's in your class power list, it should be able to rather easily) and easily out performs the other powers.
Not to presume too much of Macrocosm's opinions, but I don't think the problem is differentiation. I think the problem is that there isn't a choice every level. And my theory fits in well with some of the other "problems" you see with the game. Feat Taxes: Not real choices, because you have to have them. Wide disparity in how strong powers are at each level: Not real choices, because the stronger power can easily fit your concept (it's in your class power list, it should be able to rather easily) and easily out performs the other powers.
I agree that there are pitfalls and hazards encountered in character creation and subsequent leveling.
It can be argued, however, that the vast majority of those issues can be avoided if you restrict options to the Essentials line; which some view as lackluster and uninspiring. In which case, your character can be differentiated through the selection of feats, themes and racial utilities. The ability to make a selection every single level is an argument of personal preference, which we can contest until we're blue in the face without changing anything. ;)
Not to presume too much of Macrocosm's opinions, but I don't think the problem is differentiation. I think the problem is that there isn't a choice every level. And my theory fits in well with some of the other "problems" you see with the game. Feat Taxes: Not real choices, because you have to have them. Wide disparity in how strong powers are at each level: Not real choices, because the stronger power can easily fit your concept (it's in your class power list, it should be able to rather easily) and easily out performs the other powers.
I agree that there are pitfalls and hazards encountered in character creation and subsequent leveling.
It can be argued, however, that the vast majority of those issues can be avoided if you restrict options to the Essentials line; which some view as lackluster and uninspiring. In which case, your character can be differentiated through the selection of feats, themes and racial utilities. The ability to make a selection every single level is an argument of personal preference, which we can contest until we're blue in the face without changing anything. ;)
I... just said that differentiation wasn't a problem. Read what I said again. Read the blog I posted earlier.
Wait, wait, are some people suggesting the real fun of the game comes from PICKING their powers rather than PLAYING them?
I thought the entire point of the leveling and power mechanics was to demonstrate that you could do cool things. Since when has leveling up become more fun than the actual RPG? Or are some people just game theorists, who spend hours building characters they're never going to use a game? Because that's not the target demographic of ANY D&D system, even if it is a real demographic, as evident by the CharOps board.
The entire point for some people, myself included, is to have the chance to make meaningful choices regarding your character's progression at every opportunity. Essentials classes do not offer this, while everything before essentials does... at every level.
I would also argue that a majority of players probably do enjoy sitting down and creating characters they'll never use. A lot of people find character creation fun. Myself included.
I... just said that differentiation wasn't a problem. Read what I said again. Read the blog I posted earlier.
I agreed with you.
My reference to differentiation discussion is a bridge from my reply to Macrocosm156, who lucidly stated that Essentials provides very few options in terms of role. -- You infer that he is referencing level options, and I infer that he is speaking more generally.
I addressed your submission, acknowledged and agreed, and I further expounded upon my own -separate- position, which was submitted in response to Macrocosm156.
The entire point for some people, myself included, is to have the chance to make meaningful choices regarding your character's progression at every opportunity. Essentials classes do not offer this, while everything before essentials does... at every level.
I would also argue that a majority of players probably do enjoy sitting down and creating characters they'll never use. A lot of people find character creation fun. Myself included.
You state that pre-Essentials character building is more desireable based upon the "chance to make meaningful choices regarding your character's progression at every opportunity," but the pre-Essentials classes largely follow the same pattern of development due to no-brainer feat options, glaringly obvious power options, and taxes that need to be addressed. -- None of which amount to anything meaningful.
Also, there are a handful of Pre-E classes that suffer from lack of options, limited scope and other such pitfalls comparable to the percieved Essentials railroad.
The Essential classes take most of what isn't meaningful and bakes it right into the class, freeing up later selection for more meaningful (ie. differentiating, defining, characterizing) options. The end result is the same, if one adopts a less polarizing perspective.
All the above based upon opinion, of course.
See your expertise and superior defenses are a feat tax but now you get a whole new choice to take that feats places
I can do a mean... evil laugh in real life tooo.
Seriously though. Is it that odd that people like making characters? I don't just prep with crunch, I prep with fluff. And for me, that's linked, whether I C&P from the book or I do it myself.
You young whippasnapper! That isn't what I was meaning! :P
Seriously though. Is it that odd that people like making characters? I don't just prep with crunch, I prep with fluff. And for me, that's linked, whether I C&P from the book or I do it myself.
LOL
I find it counterintuitive that someone would spend twice the amount of time building as opposed to playing, yes, but I'm also fully supportive of anyone's joy wrought from any aspect of the hobby. My intent here is merely to play devil's advocate in support of an OP who merely expressed a desire for more Essentials classes, only to have their thread littered with par for the course "Essentials lacks options and undermines my game because of X, Y and Z, therefore it teh suxxorszz11!1" contributions.
I further submit that exploring a rich background for your character is not the same as "building", which I view as being a numerical endeavor.
I like having the option of exploring many different concepts and builds for a character.
In essentials you have only 2 options for a defender. Shield using fighter or generic paladin. And thats it. No real options at all.
In AEDU you have almost 20 unique builds each customizable to a theme and concept.
Feats, themes and racial utilities differentiate the Essentials builds quite nicely IMO.
Not to presume too much of Macrocosm's opinions, but I don't think the problem is differentiation. I think the problem is that there isn't a choice every level. And my theory fits in well with some of the other "problems" you see with the game. Feat Taxes: Not real choices, because you have to have them. Wide disparity in how strong powers are at each level: Not real choices, because the stronger power can easily fit your concept (it's in your class power list, it should be able to rather easily) and easily out performs the other powers.
The problem actually is differentiation and not choices per level.
The problem I have with Essentials subclasses is the lack of compatibility with their parent classes.
If they had created builds instead of subclasses they could have enriched the class as a whole, adding more variety and playstyles within the class.
Instead they create subclasses that seem to limit variety, hinder design continuity, and are mostly redundant.
But the main thing I really don't like about Essentials classes is the fact that WOTC seems to promote Essentials classes at the expense of AEDU classes. It seems like WOTC would rather pretend that the AEDU classes don't even exist and I find that disheartening. If WOTC actually supported the AEDU classes I think there would be a lot less animosity towards essentials from the people who prefer the AEDU style.
Though it occurs to me, now that i know AEUD stands for at-will-encounter-utility-daily wouldnt the hexblade be considered AEUD? it has all four kinds of powers it just doesn't have much of a choice for those powers. then again, your choice of pact determines those options so infact there is a choice involved it's just a package deal. same goes for the warpriest.
Even so a no brainer character design would also be a no imagination required... here let me do it for you from the game devs.
Imagination is intended for game play, and not to be wasted on game prep. ;)
What are character backgrounds?
I guess we are all tabla rasa... beginning the world as clones from 1e gaming experience that meant low player investment and uninteresting characters for 8 out of 10 (still happens now but the choices made during design seem to undermine that for a lot of players)
"Wasted" shista, what a load. Being in to your character because you made choices and used that imagination is so normal... I think the premise of easy characters being better because pregame imaginations use is wasted is shear poppycock.
Some characters are going to be an easy fit and some just arent.. Huge numbers of premade concepts (like making more and more no choice Vampires) is not more efficient than including flexibility in the ones you design.