This is an opinion piece and nothing more. I certainly don’t claim to have any deeper insight into the workings of D&D4E than anyone else here. While I have the benefit of my time as a freelance RPG writer, developer, and playtester, perhaps the most important lesson that those years have taught me is that most of the nuances of this hobby are ultimately a matter of personal likes and dislikes. Accordingly, I enthusiastically welcome any and all constructive and well-considered discussion.
So, with no further ado…
I recognize the appeal of the Essentials design philosophy to a number of players – whether lapsed, current, or brand-new – but it is not my cup of tea. Aside from the obvious points of comparison to earlier editions of the game (all of which I greatly enjoyed on their own merits, but which I have no desire to see repeated in the current edition), it is the very simplicity of the thing that I dislike. I will not dispute that Essentials classes (or sub-classes, or kit builds; whatever one prefers to call them) have added options to the game, but they, indisputably, add significantly fewer options than previous classes and are primarily designed to offer a more linear character progression with fewer significant decision points than the “traditional” AEDU classes. This, I am aware, is actually part of their appeal to those who enjoy them. I will stress that this is all right, as I neither require nor expect that everything published for 4E be intended to cater to my personal tastes.
That said, I enjoy mechanical complexity in my 4E; the more, in fact, the better. Speaking solely for myself, I wish to see an ever-expanding repertoire of AEDU classes and PC races, as well as the powers, feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and the like that go along with such. As a personal preference, I would like AEDU classes to be single-source (as I feel that doing so helps to establish and maintain a clear identity for a class, and I feel that power source is and should be, unto itself, very important) and, further, would like to see a full spread of classes for both the shadow and elemental power sources, as well as any other sources that might occur to the development team in the future. (I saw mention recently of a theoretical incarnum power source, and – as one of maybe a half-dozen people on the planet who found incarnum interesting back in 3.5 – that’s definitely a product for which I’d happily shell out money.) I happen to prefer the “grid-based” approach to source/class development, because I value symmetry and I enjoy the intellectual challenge of deconstructing the way in which certain sources have to be manipulated to fulfill certain roles. Likewise, also as a purely personal preference, I hope that the existing monster races – all of them, without exception – will be granted full PC race status, with the attendant write-ups. (Failing that, I’d gladly settle for kobolds and hobgoblins and count myself fortunate.)
Why?
Because I actually rather like sitting down to create a character and having to choose from between scores of options – from race and class, to build, to powers and feats, and the innumerable interactions between all of these categories. I want to have obviously appealing choices, as well as seemingly sub-optimal choices that can, with some ingenuity and creativity, be turned into potent advantages (or just end up breaking even in some interesting way.) I feel that the design space of the edition is actually a great deal broader than some believe it to be, with more ground yet-unexplored than that which has, to date, been covered, and that a heavy focus upon the Essentials format is not the ideal vehicle through which to advance that journey. It is a vehicle, to be sure, but one that is intentionally quite limited – not inferior, to be sure, but just limited – in certain aspects of its approach.
Now, I understand that my preferences are exactly those which are most demanding upon the time, intellectual resources, and imaginations of the developers, but I don’t apologize for having them. In my ideal 4E, we would have at least fifty distinct AEDU classes, each with as many options as, say, the fighter or wizard, and a hundred or more races, all as mechanically fleshed-out as dragonborn or eladrin. It’s an unrealistic hope and it won’t happen, but I can dream, and at least express my interest in seeing things move a little more to that end of the spectrum.
Look at the D&D For Kids article. Leveling Up is the scariest thing, because ALL the kids' attention spans lasp. The truth is, only someone extremely interested in making the exact right choice for their class is going to spend the hours it takes to pour through all the options and make the appropriate decision. Most people are overwhelmed.
My opinion is that that much diversity and complexity is not only demanding upon WotC's resources, but also draining and exhausting for most players. Most.
I spent five hours last night creating five level 1 characters with CharBuilder, choosing exactly what options are right for them. Furthermore, three of them are characters I've spec'd before – characters very close to my stories – so it's a bit different than creating new characters from scratch.
This was extremely involving for me, because I thrive on that. But it was also an exhausting process, and I wish it would have been simpler. In fact, I got a lot of inspiration when I opened the Red Box, and was limited to what I had to work with in that box to play with in the Solo Adventure. It actually informed the development of one of my most used characters into a new form (she may not be a Wizard; she's still a Sorcerer, but Alchemy and botanical research is now a key element in her story). A dearth of options can be just as helpful as it is hindering, in my opinion.
This all was my opinion and preferences. I don't appologise for having them either. I'm glad that we're getting both more complex and less complex options, more choices to make and less choices to make, depending on our preferences, as we go forward.
My opinion is that that many options is overwhelming. I can take the heat at times, but it's still overwhelming, and makes character creation and leveling up a real chore.
I can see that; as I said, the increased simplicity of Essentials is a draw for some people, precisely because it removes some of that (admittedly elaborate) decision-making process.
For my part, I don't play D&D with kids and have no intention of doing so in the foreseeable future, so a child's attention span is a non-issue for me. Option paralysis exists, I know (it's a bane of several people with whom I regularly play), but I've never quite understood the reasoning behind it. Of course, I derive a probably-unhealthy amount of glee from poring over options in the character builder, until a PC looks exactly how I want it to look. The more choices at my disposal, the more freedom I have to attain that objective.
i love building the class of my choice with all the options and things you say. 50 classes and 100 races all designed with the intensity and diversity of fighters and dragonborn YES PLEASE
essentials i feel is a good thing, however it should not be the only thing i would like to see more of a mix between AEDU and essentials things in the future and i would like to see more powers from each.
that said i agree whole heartedly that the essentials classes need more options. as a cavilier you make 3 class options by level 5 while AEDU makes 7-10 class opptions by that point (class options meaning stuff that everybody dosent already do, like feats, ability scores, etc)
i like essentials the knight is probably one of my top favorite classes with paladin and warlord, but not everyone does. everyone here however likes 4e (or i dont think you would be looking at the 4e forum) and they should probably bear that in mind.
i would like to see new build options, like a bard that plays like the bards of old and could combo up from whatever class it wants (more so then the infinite multiclass bard we have now)
4e needs diversity, i got no problem with classes that break the mold (like psionics or essentials) but that dosent mean we should lose the origional format. i would like both and if i had to pick one i would pick AEDU.
Nocturnalchemy, I too enjoy the Character Building game, but I don't think the level you want it to be at should be the goal of the designers. At best, it should be a by-product of years of products at the end of a robust edition. But once again, thank you for stating your desires so well!
on the flip side level 9 added a +2 to initiave while everyone else got their daily powers
the dead levels is a real issue i mean +2 to initive vs a level 9 daily power,
building a character is fun and exciting and 1/2 the game is you sitting on your computer, with your books and imagining a person who you want to be if you lived in a magical world of wonder, magic and mystery how you would act and treat things, a lawful good paladin or a homocidel kleptomaniac executioner. and it helps to build that guy if you have 5000 choices to make.
that said i like essentials, because it added something new, diffrent and intresting to the game (my opinion, not fact)
but they should of taken more care to not only entice the new guys but to give the experanced players something to play with, the mage, hexblade and warpriest did this (since they do have dalies and the ability to dip into their former classes pool of powers) some levels give you +2 to damage, why not make an option to trade that +2 damage for a +1 to hit, +1 move, +1 to a defense, or maybe some utility power.
i like the essentials, its great for new players and it is something that a store guy can sell and let a new guy get into D&D out of the box, the violation of the norm is a good thing, same old same old isent going to move us along, but for gods sake gimmie something more then +2 initiave at level 9!!!!!!
And in practice, it does. A Knight is no less powerful than a Weaponmaster. But the power is allocated differently, and the Knight might not be as fun to someone who wants to do something different every round and have to make difficult tactical choices based on what powers the Fighter might have.
I think the idea is that the Shield Block utility power at 8th plus the +2 initiative at 9th adds up to something equivalent to a 9th level daily.
And in practice, it does. A Knight is no less powerful than a Weaponmaster. But the power is allocated differently, and the Knight might not be as fun to someone who wants to do something different every round and have to make difficult tactical choices based on what powers the Fighter might have.
oh i dont doubt the knights power, i play one alot since its a very good class, just not that exciting at some levels
Alter_Boy, I get where you're coming from and, really, my “ideal 4E” is a dream made unattainable by the constraints of available time, energy, and funds (both on the part of WotC and on that of the consumer.) If an open and rational discourse can help to ever-so-slightly nudge things in that direction, however, so much the better (from where I stand, anyway.) I'll happily take a half-dozen more full AEDU classes over the life of the edition if the alternative is none (though I'd certainly prefer, in that case, not to also see twenty or more additional Essentials-style classes in the same timeframe.)
And, Marandahir: no harm, no foul. I, too, have strong opinions about gaming, in general, and 4E, specifically. It's part and parcel with loving the game. The written word doesn't always convey context and nuance as well as we'd like, but I definitely got the gist of your initial response.
Overall, I do feel that the game should tend to guide people towards the more complex, standard 4E classes, but that the way should be made as easy as possible for those who, no matter how long they play or how passionate they are about D&D, will simply never develop an interest in fiddly bits. This can be done by providing clear, official, publicly-available guiding documents for a variety of common archetypes, and for future material to include such guides for every new class within.
Ultimately, I feel that the only way that the game can truly thrive is if everyone wins.
I could certainly be mistaken; I don't have the sales numbers in front of me and I don't know what plans for the future the development team has up its collective sleeve. I, too, would like for everyone to be able to win, but I have to wonder if giving the new player a dozen or more different options for an Essentials-style striker (just as an example) is truly an ideal step toward that objective.
what i used to learn 4e was the free builder (rembember the one you could download without subscribing to DDI and mess with the 1st 3 levels of PHB 1 and 2)
it allowed me to screw around with a paladin that i now commonly use in LFR. it wouldent be a bad idea to post that one again for new players, it seemed counterproductive to take that off when your making products directed at new players.
that said at our store we allow any legal D&D character to be used in encounters we give out essentials pregens and each time a guy came back with a character of his or her own creation, it was a phb class. (with 1 exeption, one guy loved the sentinal)
but it accomplished its goal to lure them in and pickup a character, and it accomplishes the goal of giving charopers something to play with (you seen what the theif can do?)
AEDU is the roots and foundation, i think we will see an even batch in the next few classes, it appears the vampire will follow essentials, witch is not really a good idea because the vampire dosent have a parent class to grab feats, utilitys and powers from.
The idea would be that Essentials should never have to be errata'd…
i really hope so... im not on board with the idea of errata from the get go
How about a class with selectable class features like cavalier gets at 4th level?
Personally the only classes that seem to have few options are the martial essentials classes.
Take the cavalier and encounter powers for example. Yes you don't get to choose 3 out of four encounter powers and you only close one at will power out of two. But when it comes to a fight you get choose what combos you use and in what preportions like maybe one battle you use 3 three one combo and in the next two of the other and one of the first ect...
On top of that with the Power of Feats to change one of your at will powers up, now your changing things up even more, while valiant strike is techiquely one power with some power of feats its functions like several different at wills with common elements, which can be combined with your encounter power.
Pick human or half-elf as your race and the combos possible expand. For example take virtue strike and power of arcana and now not only do you have arcana at will, you have arcana encounter powers which contain at will powers which means with multiclassing you can you can use white locus feats on it giving it more options.
Or take half elf. Take commanders strike, add your mount and now you have a power that can be used to give your mount his own attack and it can be used with holy smite to make it into an encounter power as well. It makes you practically a warlord!
The cavalier does get certain powers daily and utility powers choosen for, but it is not that many and most of it is key to mantaining the basic theme that makes the Cavalier unique.
Btw some things I would change to improve this is I would allow Domain feats apply to any divine at will. I would have a feat like Olocks get that give a cavalier an extra at will from the paladin list.
If they meld both Essentials sub-classes and the AEDU in future products, I will be very happy about that. Getting a few printed core style AEDU classes a year will good enough for me. But, the Essential design philosophy is new si I imagine the main focus will about subclasses. Just as long they dont ignore the core classes, both previous and future ones, I'll breath a sigh of relief.
I know that it has at least one of each. Because it seems to replicating the powers of a D&D vampire by the end the heroic tier, it might have more power in later tiers. However I cannot really be sure.
The fact that most of the powers are named powers worries me. It could mean that at later levels instead of getting new powers, they instead get multiple uses. This would pretty much seal the deal for me that Essentials ate my pre-E...
Its easy to reduce intimidating newbie players by publishing AEDU class builds with preselected powers. Then those who want to customize can easily swap out the powers for something else, while the newbie can just take it as is.
Yeah, they could have easily republished the PHB1 classes with errata and preset choices. Its not like martial daily powers are had for a new player. Heck, throw in the extra fluff still.
On the topic of Essentials Errata, WoTC did say they were going to fix Powerstrike. That said, the problem is the Free Action change.
I know that it has at least one of each. Because it seems to replicating the powers of a D&D vampire by the end the heroic tier, it might have more power in later tiers. However I cannot really be sure.
The fact that most of the powers are named powers worries me. It could mean that at later levels instead of getting new powers, they instead get multiple uses. This would pretty much seal the deal for me that Essentials ate my pre-E...
Yes because the pre-E vampire class was... Wait, what?
Its easy to reduce intimidating newbie players by publishing AEDU class builds with preselected powers. Then those who want to customize can easily swap out the powers for something else, while the newbie can just take it as is.
Yeah, they could have easily republished the PHB1 classes with errata and preset choices. Its not like martial daily powers are had for a new player. Heck, throw in the extra fluff still.
On the topic of Essentials Errata, WoTC did say they were going to fix Powerstrike. That said, the problem is the Free Action change.
What exactly is wrong with Power Strike- what is being erratted about it?
What exactly is wrong with Power Strike- what is being erratted about it?
I'm not sure, but I believe that it was mentioned in either a Rule of Three article or an editorial on errata that is was scheduled for errata.
[edit] Here it is. The limit of one free action attack power per turn causes problems. See page 194 of the Rules Compendium and the hunter ranger's Power Strike and striker power.
I know that it has at least one of each. Because it seems to replicating the powers of a D&D vampire by the end the heroic tier, it might have more power in later tiers. However I cannot really be sure.
The fact that most of the powers are named powers worries me. It could mean that at later levels instead of getting new powers, they instead get multiple uses. This would pretty much seal the deal for me that Essentials ate my pre-E...
Yes because the pre-E vampire class was... Wait, what?
Yes, and now we never will...
What exactly is wrong with Power Strike- what is being erratted about it?
I'm not sure, but I believe that it was mentioned in either a Rule of Three article or an editorial on errata that is was scheduled for errata.
[edit] Here it is. The limit of one free action attack power per turn causes problems. See page 194 of the Rules Compendium and the hunter ranger's Power Strike and striker power.
the scout from the 2ed essentials book has a free action that functions as a free action, so does power strike
as such since its striker power is stronger, the only use for it is on an oppertunity attack
Then again, all those items/feats that also give you an attack as a free action also behave oddly with powerstrick classes.
I know that it has at least one of each. Because it seems to replicating the powers of a D&D vampire by the end the heroic tier, it might have more power in later tiers. However I cannot really be sure.
The fact that most of the powers are named powers worries me. It could mean that at later levels instead of getting new powers, they instead get multiple uses. This would pretty much seal the deal for me that Essentials ate my pre-E...
Yes because the pre-E vampire class was... Wait, what?
Yes, and now we never will...
Well, I believe you mean you'll never get it under the old format, because you will never have anything pre-E ever, even if they go back to 100% of the old style
Now to the meat, you skipped right over the possibility that the vampire would not be made under the older class structure even if essentials style formating never existed and assumed that it would. Neither of us can be sure that it either would or would not be done.
Also the latest rule of three article out today addresses your concern about essentials eating your pre-E.
What saddens me is that the designer decided that the new character design philosophy used in Essentials should become the norm, and not an exception to the "typical" character building rules. The product was thought as a way to make the game more easy to learn and play for some players - forcing its design philosophy to players who already played the game, and liked it that way, was a very bad move in my opinion.
As an "option", Essential class design is a good, valuable tool for players and DMs. But as "the new direction", it is disappointing.
It is funny to see how a product that could have been a way to expand the player base became a "base breaker", driving away some players at the same time it seduced new ones. The entry point became a breaking point - and exit point for me
I know that it has at least one of each. Because it seems to replicating the powers of a D&D vampire by the end the heroic tier, it might have more power in later tiers. However I cannot really be sure.
The fact that most of the powers are named powers worries me. It could mean that at later levels instead of getting new powers, they instead get multiple uses. This would pretty much seal the deal for me that Essentials ate my pre-E...
Yes because the pre-E vampire class was... Wait, what?
Yes, and now we never will...
Well, I believe you mean you'll never get it under the old format, because you will never have anything pre-E ever, even if they go back to 100% of the old style
Now to the meat, you skipped right over the possibility that the vampire would not be made under the older class structure even if essentials style formating never existed and assumed that it would. Neither of us can be sure that it either would or would not be done.
Also the latest rule of three article out today addresses your concern about essentials eating your pre-E.
Ah yes, if Essentials never came out they might have made the vampire like Essentials anyway. I see your faulty logic.
The latest rule of three article pretty much says we are only going to get support for pre-E through post-E classes. That means the Essentials Wizard, Cleric and one other class that can actually share powers. Really disapointing.
I'm not impressed, and when I do start buying again it won't be post-E with a bone thrown to pre-E like they are doing now. I'll just waste my money on video games instead...
Yeah, its only an issue for the Scout. And only an issue because of the summer errata that made free action attacks 1/attack.
Then again, all those items/feats that also give you an attack as a free action also behave oddly with powerstrick classes.
Its also an issue for any Half-orc that plays a class with Power Attack
Ah yes, if Essentials never came out they might have made the vampire like Essentials anyway. I see your faulty logic.
That is not what I said so the fault is your. I guess it is possible you simply misunderstood me so I'll rephrase it. Neither of us can be sure if the vampire class would have been made at all if the essentials format never existed.
The latest rule of three article pretty much says we are only going to get support for pre-E through post-E classes. That means the Essentials Wizard, Cleric and one other class that can actually share powers. Really disapointing.
Lets see what was said.
It looks like all of the content for Heroes of Shadow will conform with the "Essentials" model. Is that true?
"Essentials model" could mean a couple of different things. For purposes of this answer, we’re going to assume it refers to two things:
- The format of presentation, with framing text and descriptions included outside of a power’s stat block.
- The introduction of classes that lack daily powers or that use a single encounter power repeatedly.
The new text format helps readability and in guiding players through character creation and in leveling. It has no bearing on the mechanics. To the second point, the answer is that we support both models.
The bolding is mine.
That is not actually what was said and even limiting you statement to non-utility powers. The paladin, druid, and warlock would all get to share powers making your statement false.
Ah yes, if Essentials never came out they might have made the vampire like Essentials anyway. I see your faulty logic.
That is not what I said so the fault is your. I guess it is possible you simply misunderstood me so I'll rephrase it. Neither of us can be sure if the vampire class would have been made at all if the essentials format never existed.The latest rule of three article pretty much says we are only going to get support for pre-E through post-E classes. That means the Essentials Wizard, Cleric and one other class that can actually share powers. Really disapointing.
Lets see what was said.It looks like all of the content for Heroes of Shadow will conform with the "Essentials" model. Is that true?
"Essentials model" could mean a couple of different things. For purposes of this answer, we’re going to assume it refers to two things:
The format of presentation, with framing text and descriptions included outside of a power’s stat block.
The introduction of classes that lack daily powers or that use a single encounter power repeatedly.
The new text format helps readability and in guiding players through character creation and in leveling. It has no bearing on the mechanics. To the second point, the answer is that we support both models.
The bolding is mine.
That is not actually what was said and even limiting you statement to non-utility powers. The paladin, druid, and warlock would all get to share powers making your statement false.
i like how you conveniently leave out the part of the quote where it says the wizard, cleric and other non-martial characters will get support through their post-E counterparts by being able to use their powers.... nice bone to thow us WotC
i like how you conveniently leave out the part of the quote where it says the wizard, cleric and other non-martial characters will get support through their post-E counterparts by being able to use their powers.... nice bone to thow us WotC
You mean the part where they where replying to the contents of a single book.
Heroes of Shadow introduces new builds for classes introduced in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. However, the majority of the at-will, encounter, and daily powers they use are also open to warlocks, clerics, paladins, and wizards created using Player’s Handbook.
Or the part where they mentioned the new builds as support but do not limit it to non-martial classes.
The idea is similar to the summoner build from Arcane Power. This approach allows us to create a flavorful, new type of character while also creating powers that existing characters of the appropriate class can use. The only difference here is that in addition to the new powers, we’ve also included new feature options for the Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms classes. In the case of the necromancer, we took this path because it made more sense to treat necromancy as a school rather than try to map a specific implement type to it, via the Arcane Implement Mastery class feature from Player’s Handbook.
If WotC introduces as new E-style build that's largely incompatible with its parent class's AEDU power structure, then the past support of the parent class isn't available to that build, putting it at an immediate disadvantage outside of Essentials+ only games (like D&D Encounters). But, going forward, to 'support both' would mean splitting new content for that class between the new build and the old ones. Meanwhile, classes whose E-builds are highly compatible recieve the full benefit of all their new material, and their E-build gets the benefit of prior material.
Having more choices isn't just about customization, it also allows you to find nifty little synergies that make your character more effective. On top of that, new material is often made a little better than old - it makes it 'interesting' and 'unique' and 'useful' (all things that players demand), some of the Feats in Essentials, for instance, are clear cases of such 'power creep.' So, the class that has it's material split between pre- and post-E builds is going to 'benefit' from less synergy and less power creep, going forward.
It's a phenomenon much like that experienced by the split-primary classes from the PH1. Split-primary seemed like a cool idea at the time, I guess, but it didn't work out so well, and more recent classes don't use the model. Similarly, splitting a class between AEDU and Essentials style power structures is likely going to prove detrimental to the class, even if support is made available for both types.
But, even the pledge to continue to support both isn't a gaurantee. For instance, if WotC were to make all future support for the Fighter in the form of Knight & Slayer stances and feats that key off Night & Slayer class features, and all future support for the Cleric melee-oriented WIS powers for the Warpriest, both the pre- and post-E models would be being supported, but the AEDU Fighter and STR Cleric would be getting zero support, and falling behind the power-inflation curve.
1. Narrow Class concepts are still useable without requiring lots of redundant powers. Consider the Vampire, that probably isn't getting a lot of choice in its power choices. If the table is accurate, there is no power selection outside of at-wills. The encounter, daily and utility powers look preselected for you. And that's fine, the Vampire is a fairly narrow concept for a class. I don't really feel I need a dozen Vampire Encounter Attack powers to choose from. If I'm going to play a Vampire, I just need the class to be suitably Vampiric.
2. Even simpler classes can still have a fair amount of depth. Between the suite of Paragon Paths (you don't have to take the one offered), and a large number of feats, the simpler Essentials classes still can take time to build. And they still tend to offer an interesting tactical experience, I've enjoyed playing these classes, even though, like the OP, I love the complexity of AEDU classes as well.
3. It is possible we'll be seeing non AEDU classes that are more complicated than AEDU. Essentials proved you can go simpler, more streamlined. I could see experimental classes going the other way. One class I keep monkeying with in idle times is a remake of the Truenamer, a class that doesn't get powers, he has pieces of powers, and creates his attack powers on the fly.
4. Breaking away from AEDU allows for power replication. In other words, I like the idea of Cavaliers and Slayers having a singular Encounter power that they gain more uses of. Not always, but it's nice. Especially since they have either effects or trigger after you've hit ... I've played many AEDU classes, and it sucks when your best encounter power simply fizzles and misses.
Yeah, its only an issue for the Scout. And only an issue because of the summer errata that made free action attacks 1/attack.
Then again, all those items/feats that also give you an attack as a free action also behave oddly with powerstrick classes.
Its also an issue for any Half-orc that plays a class with Power Attack
Furious Assault is a free action, but it's a utility, not an attack. So you can throw that down on top of Power Attack without a care in the world.