The Vampire Class offers an option, to play a vampire, and the concept is pretty complete, drink blood, turn into mist, hypnotize, etc.
Unlike if they released just an Illusion build for the Mage, that would have had people going . . . . "WAIT, can a buddy get a fireball up in hizzere?"
PHB and Essentials styles are actually really good at working together and being modular and are starting to respond to holes for Character concepts, not trying to act symmetrical which I think is a poor design plan. Some of the weaker and somewhat wonkier fluffs came out of trying to fit everything into the Power Sources X 4 Roles. The Invoker and the Warden are great classes, but kind of feel less story grounded than the Warlock's pacts which are multiplying like avatars of Jubilex.
This modular nature is also helping with more interesting books, instead of _____ Power series that kind of felt sapped of Fluff to organzie neatly around the crunch. The Heroes of _________ let's it respond more organically to generating world based clusters of game information that allows the book to feel more interesting fluff wise and not give us that useless crunch that clogs our Character Builder. Also allows for a Game Group agree on a cmpaign th
The problem with the vampire, and the reason why it is a failure as a class, is that it is grossly underpowered as a striker. The lack of options only exacerbates this by making it impossible to improve a vampire character above its baseline through canny power choices. The vampire is perfectly playable, and I'm sure it can be a lot of fun, but it is not a competent striker. If a vampire is the only striker in a party, the DM will need to adjust combat encounters as if the party did not have a striker.
4e classes each have a defined combat role. A class not capable of fulfilling its role competently is a design failure, regardless of how cool it otherwise is. A class that is either massively better or massively worse at its role than other classes of that role is not a well-designed class and has no place in the game.
It's not about symmetry. It's about balance and keeping trap choices out of the game (which 4e has been excellent at until recently). The vampire class, like the pre-Essentials assassin and the shade race, is a trap. New players will be drawn to these options because they look cool, and will end up frustrated because their characters will be significantly weaker than the baseline. A vampire is likely to be getting out-damaged by their party's defender, and that's just pathetic.
As it is, I would recommend that anyone who wants to play a 'vampire' play a vryloka character instead, and pick a class, feats and powers that feel suitably vampiric.
Well, incompleteness is not necessarily proof of defect. If something achieves what it set out to achieve, then it's a success. If the vampire class allowed someone to play a vampire and remain approximately on par with other strikers in the game, then a lack of options when building the character would not in itself be a defect. For example, the slayer has very few options, yet it allows you to play a heavily armoured martial striker (a character concept that was previously difficult to achieve) that can kill things as efficiently as can other strikers with more choices.
The problem with the vampire, and the reason why it is a failure as a class, is that it is grossly underpowered as a striker. The lack of options only exacerbates this by making it impossible to improve a vampire character above its baseline through canny power choices. The vampire is perfectly playable, and I'm sure it can be a lot of fun, but it is not a competent striker. If a vampire is the only striker in a party, the DM will need to adjust combat encounters as if the party did not have a striker.
4e classes each have a defined combat role. A class not capable of fulfilling its role competently is a design failure, regardless of how cool it otherwise is. A class that is either massively better or massively worse at its role than other classes of that role is not a well-designed class and has no place in the game.
It's not about symmetry. It's about balance and keeping trap choices out of the game (which 4e has been excellent at until recently). The vampire class, like the pre-Essentials assassin and the shade race, is a trap. New players will be drawn to these options because they look cool, and will end up frustrated because their characters will be significantly weaker than the baseline. A vampire is likely to be getting out-damaged by their party's defender, and that's just pathetic.
As it is, I would recommend that anyone who wants to play a 'vampire' play a vryloka character instead, and pick a class, feats and powers that feel suitably vampiric.
Great post. One of the big reasons to me that the vampire is just poorly designed, it just seems to lack what it needs to do its job in a group which is the job of a striker.This would be the same for any class that cannot do its role in a group. Maybe WOTC will eratta some things but I will not be holding my breath.
To me from a mechanics point of view the first post essentials class is a flop. Maybe the classes that will come after this point will be better designed than the vampire, cause I am looking forward to the class from the neverwinter setting.
Don't hold your breath.The bladesinger will most likely be even worse as I have yet to be convinced that the current DEV team really knows how the game works.
They ask for help for fracks sake and then ignore it.
It'll likely be an Elf/Eladrin/Half-Elf only class that is based off Cha.. which would be almost as bad as the Eladrin Knight...
Don't hold your breath.The bladesinger will most likely be even worse as I have yet to be convinced that the current DEV team really knows how the game works.
They ask for help for fracks sake and then ignore it.
how do you know they ignore it? that thread has been there what? a week and a half? they have to actually sit down and discuss how they are going to deal with each issue put on the table, and asking players/customers for input is never a bad idea
Don't hold your breath.The bladesinger will most likely be even worse as I have yet to be convinced that the current DEV team really knows how the game works.
They ask for help for fracks sake and then ignore it.
It'll likely be an Elf/Eladrin/Half-Elf only class that is based off Cha.. which would be almost as bad as the Eladrin Knight...
1) The Bladesinger, as a class, will not be race restricted.
2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with one build for one class being race-restricted. It's something 4e should have been doing since day one. The Eladrin Knight is perfectly fine being restricted.
2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with one build for one class being race-restricted. It's something 4e should have been doing since day one. The Eladrin Knight is perfectly fine being restricted.
I cannot disagree with that more. Classes should not ever be racially restricted. Paragon paths, sure. But a basic class or build? No way.
2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with one build for one class being race-restricted. It's something 4e should have been doing since day one. The Eladrin Knight is perfectly fine being restricted.
I cannot disagree with that more. Classes should not ever be racially restricted. Paragon paths, sure. But a basic class or build? No way.
I couldn't agree more with you, race restricted classes seem like a form of "fantasy racism" (for lack of a better word). Those class restrictions seems to be the fantasy equivalent of saying "we have this job people can apply for, but curtain groups within our society can't apply because "they're different". This on the other hand is oke with certain amount of paragon paths as it represents a niche of a class.
To pull a equivalent from reality, fighter pilots (and commercial pilots if i'm correct) need to have a certain natural vision (so no glasses) and must fit in a certain height category to apply for such job, while other kinds of pilots don't. Or of course just clubs with its own rituals rites and secrets could also fit as an example.
All such (with race restriction) classes are based of an idea (essentials classes) not a thing where you can create your own idea with, with minor to no tweaking (pre-essentials classes).
Personal I find the essentials classes also, fluff wise, restricted because you lose allot of creative freedom with your character. (and because of that designers can make more fluff because there is less verity) So more class related fluff (not builds parse) is less creative freedom, in general. But i'm drifting off topic.
So there are race restrictions on classes its the right direction if you want a DnD with 2 options, class and race (see our friend mister Nosferatu in HoS, that already that philosophy pretty far). But thats not the DnD I want to see, as I want to create my own heroes in depth.
and just becuase they said no more racial restrictedness on classes does NOT mean that they have not changed their minds on it.
they did so with the KI power source by mixing it in with the PSi powersource and when the worlds of dnd books came out, people were saying up and down that we were going to get a ki power source.
Hope all you want. WotC has already said the Bladesinger is an e-Style class/subclass.
Yes; thank you. We know that already. That is the problem. Those of us which can actually see the daylight understand 4.5 design sucks.
Exactly, if I wanted a pre-built character I'd go to CharOp or I'd hit the random button on the OCB...
I like many others want choice...
Less options does not mean bad. Snap judgments and closed minds means bad.
OK, just so we are clear on this, for some people, less options actually does automatically mean bad. I am one of those people, so I understand it. pre-built or limited options are less good than 40 options. Even if 10 of those options suck. No, I am not kidding. Yes, it is a sickness. Or at least I think it is. But it is the way we (me and people like me) see things. More can only ever mean better, and glut has no real meaning to us.
So, speaking of snap judgments, deciding that something someone likes is a "snap judgment" without alternate input is, in and of itself, a snap judgment. Perhaps ask for clarification next time. Then, use that as a jump off to trying to start a flame war with lokiare. Not that that happens to be hard, mind you; I have him blocked for a reason. But it's just polite to get all the information before, well, making such judgments about the preferences of others.
For example, I like the new Binder, I love its flavour, and overall I think the warlock makes more sense as a controller than as a striker. However, its encounter powers and at-wills are largely locked in, and I'm not a fan of lets say about 33% of them. Not ownly is there no choice within the class on how to fix it (well, without switching to the other binder pact, and then having another bunch of powers I'm not a big fan of), but unless the CB is wrong, and im also misreading the rule about switching powers, I also can't swap in encounters/at-wills from the original warlock to help remedy it either.
I've even warmed up a bit to the essentials martial classes, but I wish there was some variety in the backstabs or powerstrikes.
With a Pre-E class, the odds of finding a power I liked at each level was higher, and if I really didn't like it I could hybrid or multi-class, or take a theme power.
I'm also not a fan of the racially restricted Eladrin knight. Not only is it more melee support for a race thats supposed to be the more academic of the elf-races, but they are not the only Int using race that can teleport.
The Eladrin Knight works pretty well. Don't knock it until you actually play it.
I'm only knocking the fact its exclusively tied to eladrin. There are atleast 2 other races with an int bonus who teleport. I really doubt WoTC is going to produce exclusive int-based teleportaiton knights for them too.
Also, I do understand that Eladrin have basis for swordsmanship, the problem is this has become pretty much their whole focus. They have alot of support for swordmages, martial classes ,and sword-based options for the wizard.
The Eladrin Knight works pretty well. Don't knock it until you actually play it.
I'm only knocking the fact its exclusively tied to eladrin. There are atleast 2 other races with an int bonus who teleport. I really doubt WoTC is going to produce exclusive int-based teleportaiton knights for them too.
Also, I do understand that Eladrin have basis for swordsmanship, the problem is this has become pretty much their whole focus. They have alot of support for swordmages, martial classes ,and sword-based options for the wizard.
I must have missed this class.
Where is it from?
I must have missed this class.
Where is it from?
It's not a class, just a build. A new option for the Defender Aura, a new stance, 3 utilities, and a Paragon Path. The aura, stance, and utilities are Eladrin only (and revolve around teleporting), while the PP is open to any Knight with the Arcana skill trained. It's from Dragon #395.
I must have missed this class.
Where is it from?
Dragon 395.
Not ownly is there no choice within the class on how to fix it (well, without switching to the other binder pact, and then having another bunch of powers I'm not a big fan of), but unless the CB is wrong, and im also misreading the rule about switching powers, I also can't swap in encounters/at-wills from the original warlock to help remedy it either.
From what I can see, the only starting Binder powers you can't switch out are the 2 Pact Boon powers (the pact Attack at-will and the pact dead-creep Utility at-will). You can switch out the Shadow Claws power. You can take other Warlock Encounter powers at 1st level. The Pact Boon powers are the only ones without levels for a starting Binder. Go all Eyebite & Grasp of the Iron Tower if you want.
1 - I don't actually mind the Eldarin Knight. It is a great way to show that each race would have their own schools teaching its members how to adapt the basics of the class to play to the race's strengths. I could see Gnome Knights altering the knight class a bit to play to their stealth, invisibility, and illusions. Seeing the racial utilities of Shade and Vryloka I would love to see DDI articles giving utility powers to the other races as well. This would help players give each class a more unique feel. I would also like to see more racial PPs for the classes as DDI articles or in something like an "Essentials Power" book that also shows racial takes on the base classes.
2 - About Essentials. Wizards stated that there would ble 10 essentials items. 8 items in the product catalogue are listed as "an essential's Dungeon & Dragon's game supplement." These are the Red Box, HFL, HFK, Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium, and 2 tiles sets. Heroes of Shadow would be a 9th which leads me to believe that Heroes of the Feywild is the 10th and final one. I sincerely hope that after essentials runs its 10 product course that wizards releases Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 to give more options and support to the Artificer, Runekeeper, and Seeker classes that weren't supported in the original Power books. I would also like to see them return to the Player's Handbook Races series. Before essentials was released I remember seeing in the product catalogue a Humans book and I would love to see that appear again. Unfortunately, since they also said essentials will influence their design going forward (an idiotic idea IMO), I'm pretty sure this is just wishful thinking.
3 - Where can I find information about the Bladesinger?
A few inputs:
2 - About Essentials. Wizards stated that there would ble 10 essentials items. 8 items in the product catalogue are listed as "an essential's Dungeon & Dragon's game supplement." These are the Red Box, HFL, HFK, Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium, and 2 tiles sets. Heroes of Shadow would be a 9th which leads me to believe that Heroes of the Feywild is the 10th and final one. I sincerely hope that after essentials runs its 10 product course that wizards releases Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 to give more options and support to the Artificer, Runekeeper, and Seeker classes that weren't supported in the original Power books. I would also like to see them return to the Player's Handbook Races series. Before essentials was released I remember seeing in the product catalogue a Humans book and I would love to see that appear again. Unfortunately, since they also said essentials will influence their design going forward (an idiotic idea IMO), I'm pretty sure this is just wishful thinking.
I agree
Not ownly is there no choice within the class on how to fix it (well, without switching to the other binder pact, and then having another bunch of powers I'm not a big fan of), but unless the CB is wrong, and im also misreading the rule about switching powers, I also can't swap in encounters/at-wills from the original warlock to help remedy it either.
From what I can see, the only starting Binder powers you can't switch out are the 2 Pact Boon powers (the pact Attack at-will and the pact dead-creep Utility at-will). You can switch out the Shadow Claws power. You can take other Warlock Encounter powers at 1st level. The Pact Boon powers are the only ones without levels for a starting Binder. Go all Eyebite & Grasp of the Iron Tower if you want.
Im curious was to what wording makes something a class feature assignment, and what makes them a power you can pick.
For example, whenever you gain an encounter power it says "You gain an encounter power associated with your pact". By that statement it'd seem i'm at the very least limited to Star or Gloom pact powers. It'd seem when I have an actual choice, it says "You get a x power of your choice".
I don't have the warpriest infront of me, but doesn't it use similar wording with its domains?
I believe there's some debate on this, but what'd stop a Mage from trading out their Bonus magic-missile for any of their numerous at-wills.
A few inputs:
2 - About Essentials. Wizards stated that there would ble 10 essentials items. 8 items in the product catalogue are listed as "an essential's Dungeon & Dragon's game supplement." These are the Red Box, HFL, HFK, Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium, and 2 tiles sets. Heroes of Shadow would be a 9th which leads me to believe that Heroes of the Feywild is the 10th and final one. I sincerely hope that after essentials runs its 10 product course that wizards releases Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 to give more options and support to the Artificer, Runekeeper, and Seeker classes that weren't supported in the original Power books. I would also like to see them return to the Player's Handbook Races series. Before essentials was released I remember seeing in the product catalogue a Humans book and I would love to see that appear again. Unfortunately, since they also said essentials will influence their design going forward (an idiotic idea IMO), I'm pretty sure this is just wishful thinking.
I agree
Problem is the '10 products' are already out and HoS and HotF are not in that list...
What are the other 2 products already released for the essentials line? The dice and DM screen?
Yup.
What are the other 2 products already released for the essentials line? The dice and DM screen?
It has the brand, right?
I must have missed this class.
Where is it from?
It's not a class, just a build. A new option for the Defender Aura, a new stance, 3 utilities, and a Paragon Path. The aura, stance, and utilities are Eladrin only (and revolve around teleporting), while the PP is open to any Knight with the Arcana skill trained. It's from Dragon #395.
This is the type of stuff that could have been put into the race books/pamphlets.
From what I can see, the only starting Binder powers you can't switch out are the 2 Pact Boon powers (the pact Attack at-will and the pact dead-creep Utility at-will). You can switch out the Shadow Claws power. You can take other Warlock Encounter powers at 1st level. The Pact Boon powers are the only ones without levels for a starting Binder. Go all Eyebite & Grasp of the Iron Tower if you want.
This is entirely inaccurate. You can only 'switch out' powers if you are presented with a choice in the first place. That's how it works. That's why mages can't switch out magic missle for another level one at will power, why wizards can't choose any of the new cantrips, why slayers and knights can't select level 22 encounter powers from the fighter, etc. It's not enough to have a class and a level, you also have to be presented with a choice between at least two options in order to have access to other options outside of your e-class description. That's how it works. Binders are thus locked into their at wills, their encounter powers, their level 9 daily power, and their level 22 utility power, and they don't get a level 25 daily power (their level 9 power improves instead). Their other daily and utility powers are all free to choose, though.
Notably there are no daily powers with binder riders, so binders are automatically worse at all of their daily powers then warlocks and hexblades are (the binder has no class features to enhance them, while warlocks and hexblades both at least get their striker damage features). Half the encounter powers you're stuck with are pretty terrible for control, a good bit worse then what a warlock who focused on control would be bringing to the table. Heck, the gloomblade's encouner attack is better then many of them for control. Your at-wills are . . . ok. Nothing to write home about. Not wizard powers. but not completely overshadowed by your warlock and hexblade cousins. Still not enough to salvage the class on the whole.
Plus, warlocks have a more reliable accuracy boost. And warlocks have a better boon trigger for a controller. And access to all the rods / paths / etc that require 'warlock's curse'. The binder doesn't really bring anything to the table that the warlock didn't already have, and in fact brings a good bit less.
If this is what abandoning symetry in class design gets us, I'm not at all convinced it's a good thing.
There's also 'essentials' the design philosophy, which is what most of us on the boards are talking about when we complain about essentials stuff. WotC has never referred to it this way, though. They did say essentials was going to 'set the tone going forward'. The design philosophy was intended to last past the specific essentials line, and they said as much to begin with.
That Heroes of Shadow, and presumably Heroes of the Feywild, look more like essentials books then pre-e books does not indicate any kind of 'lying' on the part of WotC. We may not like it, but accusations of lying, or complaining about an '11th' essentials book like its some kind of betrayal is being a touch ridiculous. Again, they did not say they were going to try a 10 product experiment and then go back to pre-e design. They said there was going to be a new 10 product starting point that was going to set the design philosophy for everything else that comes after.
There's the 'essentials' product line - that's a 10 item line, and does not include 'heroes of shadow' or anything after. That product line is called 'essentials' because its supposed to be the new starting point for new players as well as a line of 'evergreen' products that stay in production (where as HoS or pre-e books might rotate in and out of production after their existing stock is sold off).
See, I've never understood the point behind making Essentials evergren.
They already had a perfectly servicable product line for that.
PHB1, DMG1, and MM1. (Granted, MV is a far superior replacement for MM1)
The design philosophy shifts that came with essentials, however....
Look, I dislike e-design as much as anyone, but you don't need to resort to conspiracy theories or ascribe nefarious motivations to it. That's just being ridiculous.
With the people complaing that the Vampire is "incomplete." I wonder, does complete need to be symmetry? Is it "everyone has the same " or "everyone has what it needs."
While the vampire is lacking in choice, it's reasonably 'symmetrical' with 4e 'AEDU' classes. It's incomplete in the sense of not having 4 choices are so at every level it gains a power. It mostly has 1 choice at each non-decision decision point. That's odd, but not asymetrical.
PHB and Essentials styles are actually really good at working together and being modular and are starting to respond to holes for Character concepts, not trying to act symmetrical which I think is a poor design plan.
If the styles work so well together, why does WotC feel the need to re-release PH1 classes in the Essentials format? As for holes in concepts, the classes in HotFL are /all/ just re-hashes of extant concepts. Those in HotFK aren't much better.
The Heroes of _________ let's it respond more organically to generating world based clusters of game information that allows the book to feel more interesting fluff wise and not give us that useless crunch that clogs our Character Builder. Also allows for a Game Group agree on a cmpaign th
Yeah, it's fluff-over-crunch, post-Essentials. That's nice for readability, less nice for playability. Not nearly to the extent WW took it in the 90s (their books stood up very well to a cover-to-cover read, but were virtually worthless as references in play), but a nudge in that direction. Fluff-over-crunch organization isn't bad, as long as the crunch is still good. So far, Essentials+ hasn't come through in that regard.
They could always do a full reprint of the phb and dmg and make them useable again. I know this will never happen as wotc wants us playing essentials characters now.
Less than 10% of the PHB has been changed. It's closer to 5%, if you go by (# of errata pages)/(pages in PHB1)
That's far from unusable.
Edit: spelling
They could always do a full reprint of the phb and dmg and make them useable again. I know this will never happen as wotc wants us playing essentials characters now.
Less than 10% of the PHB has been changed. It's closer to 5%, if you go by (# of errata pages)/(pages in PHB1)
That's far from unusable.
Edit: spelling
But you don't know which 5-10% of the rules have been changed.
These changes are often to commonly used powers. A change to 'Come and Get It' is going to come into real play a lot more than a change to 'Griffon's Wrath'.
They could always do a full reprint of the phb and dmg and make them useable again. I know this will never happen as wotc wants us playing essentials characters now.
Less than 10% of the PHB has been changed. It's closer to 5%, if you go by (# of errata pages)/(pages in PHB1)
That's far from unusable.
Edit: spelling
But you don't know which 5-10% of the rules have been changed.
These changes are often to commonly used powers. A change to 'Come and Get It' is going to come into real play a lot more than a change to 'Griffon's Wrath'.
Then make a marking in the book an put printed out copies of the errata in the back, not a big problem.
I did it this way for a year or so, and then I through my copies of the original books in the back of the closet and never looked at them again.
As they release more and more essentials style stuff there will be a need to fix some overlooked or plain broken material.
marked-up books and messy stacks of errata print outs is itself the extra hassle that causes many players to not want to use the PHB or DMG anymore. It's annoying. Especially when every few months there's new errata, so you have to print out an entirely new packet of messy errata papers, and go through your book to make marks again.
I did it this way for a year or so, and then I through my copies of the original books in the back of the closet and never looked at them again.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but, just because you whine about a problem doesn't mean the problem exists.
Digging through multiple books and errata documents to dredge up the actual rules you need to play by in 4e is no less hasslesome then digging through paragraphs of fluff to try and find the game rules hidden in them in WoD.
Digging through multiple books and errata documents to dredge up the actual rules you need to play by in 4e is no less hasslesome then digging through paragraphs of fluff to try and find the game rules hidden in them in WoD.
At least, now, with Essentials, we can do the latter while still playing D&D.
I've oft said that there are two games to D&D: the 'playing the game' game and the 'building your character' game. In WoD there's a third game: the 'scavanger hunt for the rules on how to play the other games' game. The unnecessary double flavor text bloat is annoying, I agree, but essentials format still doesn't send you on scavanger hunts to find the rules on how to play.
to teach people the ideas behind reflavoring it yourself....sigh
For me personally I'd settle for a mechanically mediocre game with great writing and flavour over a mechanically brilliant but dull technical treatise any day.
I'd say you already have.
Yeah but my group just won't give up 3.5
(really!)
Just kidding, I think I could honestly say there are at least 3 or 4 games I rate above any edition of D&D (except perhaps the cyclopedia) mechanically, at least for what I want out of them. But I play D&D (any edition)for a particular style and feel of high octane adventure.Fluff does not make a game better. All it does is pad the page count.
But, [sings] A spoon full of fluff helps the crunch go down.[/sings]
Too much fluff is just emtpy calories and packaging peanuts.
dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-...
Some are undoubtedly going to prefer the granularity of an AEDU style build. Others are going to be drawn to the plug-and-play approach of an Essentials build. If there is one main flaw in the Essentials going forward design is the lazy design of all martial builds being simplified and magical builds having exclusive access to increasing complexity.
While the builds are demonstrably similarly mechanically effective, it causes a kneejerk association with quadratic wizards vs linear fighters. I think i lot could be done to alleviate that by introducing some simplified caster builds (sorcerer seems to be a prime place for it).
i read the class features of the PH1 and up to lvl 5 for powers...after that...it just got boring.....and what is so bad about someone wanting to play a binder...how about you let them play what they want to play? you say "lesser" choice i say a different choice to play a warlock.
Your still chosing the model-a over the phantom 2. Supposedly they both work, the other is simply better in every concevable way. They were given the same role, striker / controller, only one wasn't given the tools to succeed. Much like the 4.5 martial classes are hamstrung by bad design.
You say they are hamstrung, but the general consensus is they fall within the same range of effectiveness as the AEDU classes. Some towards the optmized in, others less so.
I'm not a fan of "charger builds" which 80% or better of the "good" 4.5 designs are. That is hamstrung to me.
I am a fan of playing the game and of as many people as possible being able to play it with me. I would prefer the system not be hamstrung in its appeal to the casual gamer.
I'm also not hung up on optimization, and I've found that 4th's tolerances are tight enought hat you can mix OP and no OP play in the same group without the major issues of earlier editions.
I'm also not so petty as to call the same set of rules (with the consitantly evolving volume of errata) a 4.5 edition in order to try and take some pot shot at design decisions that don't target my sensibilities.
i read the class features of the PH1 and up to lvl 5 for powers...after that...it just got boring.....and what is so bad about someone wanting to play a binder...how about you let them play what they want to play? you say "lesser" choice i say a different choice to play a warlock.
Your still chosing the model-a over the phantom 2. Supposedly they both work, the other is simply better in every concevable way. They were given the same role, striker / controller, only one wasn't given the tools to succeed. Much like the 4.5 martial classes are hamstrung by bad design.
You say they are hamstrung, but the general consensus is they fall within the same range of effectiveness as the AEDU classes. Some towards the optmized in, others less so.
Like I said, I'll never claim that they aren't effective. I'll just always claim that they're shoehorned like the martial classes from previous editions. They're one-trick ponies. I find that extremely boring.
the stances are what make knight and slayer great...you guys keep saying "oh they just this one blah%" and nothing else.....i see and played it different....i am always changing stances to keep up with what is going on in the battle.
They're all built around charging. Again, the stances are the only combat powers you ever get. I find that boring. Especially considering there are hardly any, vs. thousands of encouinter and daily powers of their parent classes. MBA spam is boring, charging every round is boring. Looking at what is available to the mage, and what is available to the Slayer is disheartening. The phb1 fighter is extremely dynamic and diverse. The Slayer is one dimensional.
The phb1 fighter was the best I had ever seen the class. Huge array of options available each and every level, and it has the chance to branch out and become extremely diverse. Essentials took this and said "Sorry, only the wizard can do that again" with the Slayer and Knight. It's the return of "Wizards rule, and Fighters drool".
I will fully admit that a Slayer with Rain of Blows is frightening to behold, but I will also say that I would never play one, because of the lack of dailies, and the focus on MBA's. "I swing my sword" as your only option by default stays in the past for me. It was a dark past.
am i the only one that sees fun when they read all the essentials martial classes?
I'm sure you aren't the only one... but I sure don't see it.
I am a fan of playing the game and of as many people as possible being able to play it with me. I would prefer the system not be hamstrung in its appeal to the casual gamer.
I am ceratin there are far better way to appeal to the casual player that MBA spamming.
Off the top of my head, having a choice between two simple encounter powers (ie a 2[W] or a close burst 1) and two daily powers. At higher levels you have the option of gaining new ones or just adding another use per day/encounter of the existing power. I think even the most causal player can get behind that.
I am a fan of playing the game and of as many people as possible being able to play it with me. I would prefer the system not be hamstrung in its appeal to the casual gamer.
I am ceratin there are far better way to appeal to the casual player that MBA spamming.
Off the top of my head, having a choice between two simple encounter powers (ie a 2[W] or a close burst 1) and two daily powers. At higher levels you have the option of gaining new ones or just adding another use per day/encounter of the existing power. I think even the most causal player can get behind that.
I would agree Osgood there must be a better way then MBA spamming bacause it takes all the fun out of playing a martial character. I bought essentials just to see what it was like but now that I have I will not buy anymore books with so called classes again. If they decide to go back to the pre essentials design I would buy more books happily.
but all fighters do MBA spamming....just its called exploits for weaponmaster
No, the exploits are not MBA's. They're at-will, encounter, and daily powers. Big difference there. They're all heavily modified attacks. MBA is basic. That's what it's called a basic attack. I don't like the loss of encounter and daily powers. One encoujnter power forever doesn't cut it.
However, the willful ignorance in this post has finally put you in the ignore list.
but all fighters do MBA spamming....just its called exploits for weaponmaster
No, the exploits are not MBA's. They're at-will, encounter, and daily powers. Big difference there. They're all heavily modified attacks. MBA is basic. That's what it's called a basic attack. I don't like the loss of encounter and daily powers. One encoujnter power forever doesn't cut it.
However, the willful ignorance in this post has finally put you in the ignore list.
the only thing they lose it dailies....they still have encounters....its called power strike....and again...its the same....if you pick all of them....you see a guy swing a sword...
the only thing they lose it dailies....they still have encounters....its called power strike....and again...its the same....if you pick all of them....you see a guy swing a sword...
No 4.5 fighters have 1 encounter power and no at-will powers, as well as the lack of daily powers. At-wills are better than MBA spam. Any encounter power is better than I add another die of damage atfer the fact. Daily powers are just iceing.
MBA is the str vs ac part of an At-will power and the stances are the other part of at-wills....but for some reason. your little mind cant put it together, and you forget to add in weapon specializations for power strikes and at lvl 20 if its a knight/slayer paragon path....they add something when you do power strike too
the knight is not all about damage.....cant really say that about the slayer lol.....imo MBA + power strike + stance = encounter power, so really knight only lost dailies but really people want them for the big weapon damage in one hit.
you forget the diversity in encounter powers, and the diversity in mechanical option that aren't obviously better than others. Subclasses are essentially just upgraded builds (as the new subclasses could easily be builds and some builds would be better than most subclasses).
And dont forget that stances are not a essentials only thing so dont make it look like thats there stick as for variety, its not.
the knight is not all about damage.....cant really say that about the slayer lol.....imo MBA + power strike + stance = encounter power, so really knight only lost dailies but really people want them for the big weapon damage in one hit.
you forget the diversity in encounter powers, and the diversity in mechanical option that aren't obviously better than others. Subclasses are essentially just upgraded builds (as the new subclasses could easily be builds and some builds would be better than most subclasses).
And dont forget that stances are not a essentials only thing so dont make it look like thats there stick as for variety, its not.
but they are the first at-will stances....most stances are dailies for any AEDU class.....i will say this again over and over....if you gave me a weaponmaster that is the best....or the knight....i will pick the knight every time
Repetition does not make an argument. The at-will stances are fundamentally different from standard at-will attack powers. That's not a bad thing in itself, but it is a different thing, and nothing is gained by arguing otherwise. Personally I would love to see stances that functioned more like runepriest runes, allowing them to function with the more standard array of powers. It would work quite well for that at-will elemental conjurer concept I've suggested here and there.
I wouldn't say "You should play a warlock instead of a hexblade" or vice versa, because while they share a similar core of pacts, they are pretty different both thematicly and mechanicly.
I think a Warlock with Pactblade as first magic item and Eldritch Strike from being human or a DM flexible enough to let you take it in place of the normal Eldritch Blast with various thp focused powers selected isnt that far from being thematically the same as a hexblade .... Just as a hybrid Ranger Seeker with control oriented feats is pretty darn close to the same as the essentials controller ranger
In the case of the latter you have to start out mostly still in the striker zone and spend quite a bit of resources and focus to shift it towards control it does result in an interesting character capable of a lot of striker capability right along side its somewhat limited forms of control... where as the essentials characters starts out very strongly in a well limited form of control... but lacks the role flexibility.
Shrug ... sometimes a straight forward route to an end is a good thing but lacking flexibility why? hmmmm.
I don't think it was any kind of failure on AEDU at all. Otherwise, the non martial classes wouldn't look as they do. I just think it was new designers looking to leave their footprint on the system.
I think it extends beyond a desire to season the stew. I think the fact that we won't be seeing a PHB:4 or an Arcane Power:2 or a Shadow Power books is because that business model was not producing the business results desired and expected. I chalk it up to AEDU being good design, but the support plan being a non-sustainable business plan for several reasons:
The crunch heavy AEDU support is resource intensive to develop and playtest.
It is easier to use and more valuable as a single or occasional digital purchase than ongoing book purchases. (This was especially true with the old offline character builder, even without considering pirating.)
Continued development is complicated by an inability to make assumptions about which content you can built on.
Doesn't adequately appeal to players who want something different out of playing a different class, as the mechanics and class structures are homogenized.
The AEDU support didnt' appeal to the buy and read but don't play crowd.
AEDU may not have appealed to the buy and not play niche market but what has moving in the essentials direction cost wizards? Has that cost the lead designer his job? Now what we get More AEDU style, more essentials or something different, and that is what worries me.
I guess I'm more of an optimist. What worries you excites me. I think we have seen two successive direction shifts by WotC. But I see value in each and trust that there will be added value in the future as well.
I also recognize that eventually 4th ed will wrap up and we'll get a new edition, informed by eveyrthing that 4th (and earlier editions) got right and also what they got wrong.
AEDU may not have appealed to the buy and not play niche market but what has moving in the essentials direction cost wizards? Has that cost the lead designer his job? Now what we get More AEDU style, more essentials or something different, and that is what worries me.
I guess I'm more of an optimist. What worries you excites me. I think we have seen two successive direction shifts by WotC. But I see value in each and trust that there will be added value in the future as well.
I also recognize that eventually 4th ed will wrap up and we'll get a new edition, informed by eveyrthing that 4th (and earlier editions) got right and also what they got wrong.
Well if they make one more direction change this year they'll be going back where they came from and just release a balanced 3.5E. I don't want that...
How does offering a build with one option per power level in AEDUrequire high system mastery?
because that type of build is what they're espousing.
Think Binder, except you can take other Warlock powers *IF YOU SO CHOOSE*.
Also, less sucky than Binder from the get-go.
Example: Slayer gets Reaping Strike, Cleave, Fighter Encounter Level 1, Fighter Daily Level 1, Fightewr Utility Level 2,
Where "Fighter (power type)" is a SPECIFIC power of that level. (Doing this from memory)
If you so choose, you can take Come and Get it, but in the book, you are shown exactly one list of powers.
Well I have no idea where all of my comments the last two days have gone however this concept is exactly what I wanted for the 4.5 marital classes. Give the people who don't want to read the book one option at every place where they get an option. There by giving people who like to tinker with information something to look at other than the PHB or MP books.
Simple elegent solution.
While simple and elegant, it is not a solution for several reasons.
A prebuild still requires mastery, because it going to be better or worse than a version using some of the components and some other material. A prebuild still has more options than some people want to keep track of. A Prebuild has to by definition be either sub-optimal, or the best build for its type of play.
You encourage power creep which tends to obsolete whole ranges of prior material. You are still limited in you ongoing design in print to new material only modifying material people can be assumed to have. The main reason I think the DDi is the best place for ongoing AEDU support is that you can publish powers and abilities that reference anything in game canon and know that you will never be asking someone to reference a book they don't have.
You limit the design space to material that is granular and fungible with AEDU. This prevents using a non-standard progression to address another problem that is indemic to AEDU ... the oft heard complaint that all classes feel the same.
Abandoning AEDU allows for more subsystem style classes that have driven sales historically for DnD. Maintaining compatibility with AEDU encourages continued design exclusively in an area that was not successful.
From a design point I think AEDU was a brilliant innovation. From a business perspective, I think it's reasonalbe to infer that it was less successful (in that companies tend to not fix what isn't broken.)
I think AEDU brought a lot of badly wanting balance to the game. I also recognize that the complexity is higher than a lot of players want to deal with. I think that expanding class design beyond AEDU while leaving it informed by the balance lessons of AEDU is a watershed in 4th ed design. I think the current largest issue is that the focus on simple Martial classes creates an impression that all and only martial classes can be rebuilt using the simpler end of the Essentials complexity spectrum. I think a highly complex, modular with AEDU Martial build or two alongside some magic employing class builds that are as simple as the slayer and the night would do a lot to address this.
As far as the issues of fungibility, compatibility and modularity, I think that requiring that all simplified builds be built only with features, abilities, and powers that are interchangeable with AEDU parents would be a further failure in design. It would limit design space unecessarily, It would increase complexity, require more expensive and intensive playtesting. Finally it would fail to reach as effectivly the audiences that Essentials builds do.
Which audiance is that again...the holdouts that have a living system to play. Not going to happen.
Oh and some people refuse to pay a company for material that they are in fact only renting. DDi.
The potential audience isnt' limited to people who are already invested in a single tabletop RPG. Everyone who plays now didn't always play. Everyone who has played tabletop RPGS doesn't still play. A good percentage of people who play RPGs play more than one over time.
To think your niche is the only potential market is an easy way to eventually speciallize yourself out of existance.
And at the same time that is what they were targeting. New to gaming... and holdouts. If they brought in noobs, great; those same people will eventually find the rest of the books and wonder what is going on with the diferent rules. This has already happened don't deny it.
While on the other hand the holdouts have what they want and will not switch. Why, they like to be gods at lvl 12, and have the fighters be baggage handlers. Bringing this style of design back was simply a bad move.
That's my problem. Someone comes in playing a Slayer and seeing that it's a Fighter, then they maybe want to branch out a bit with their character. They look at the PHB1 Fighter, and it's like greek to them. Mages don't have this problem. There's no consistency at all.
There is no good reason to make a design change of this magnitude mid edition.
Unless you want to:
-open up new design space
-appeal to players with tastes whose needs are not being met
-make the game more casual play friendly
-make the game more accessable to new players
-have room to provide a level of fluff that many found lacking early in 4th ed
-add new material to the game that will sell better than the ongoing support for AEDU was
For me personally that is a load of good reasons. But its subjective, and going forward we're likely to see something that is neither strictly AEDU or all Essentials (as the change in business plans both times indicate).
Unless you want to:
-open up new design space
-appeal to players with tastes whose needs are not being met
-make the game more casual play friendly
-make the game more accessable to new players
-have room to provide a level of fluff that many found lacking early in 4th ed
-add new material to the game that will sell better than the ongoing support for AEDU was
For me personally that is a load of good reasons. But its subjective, and going forward we're likely to see something that is neither strictly AEDU or all Essentials (as the change in business plans both times indicate).
-Except they didn't really open up any design space except for "lazy design" where they just produce less. Anything "innovative" or creative with essentials could have been done with AEDU.
-And they risked alienating existning players. I certainly have cut my D&D consumption down from every hardback book they released to only a single book(Rules Compendium) since Essentials, and I regret buying that book because I never use it.
-Casual players aren't morons. They don't need dumbed down builds in order to play.
-New players aren't morons. They don't need dumbed down builds in order to play.
-They did not need to change the crunch in order to provide additional fluff.
-And meh no real response because I don't know sales figures.
Unless you want to:
-open up new design space
-appeal to players with tastes whose needs are not being met
-make the game more casual play friendly
-make the game more accessable to new players
-have room to provide a level of fluff that many found lacking early in 4th ed
-add new material to the game that will sell better than the ongoing support for AEDU was
For me personally that is a load of good reasons. But its subjective, and going forward we're likely to see something that is neither strictly AEDU or all Essentials (as the change in business plans both times indicate).
-Except they didn't really open up any design space except for "lazy design" where they just produce less. Anything "innovative" or creative with essentials could have been done with AEDU.
-And they risked alienating existning players. I certainly have cut my D&D consumption down from every hardback book they released to only a single book(Rules Compendium) since Essentials, and I regret buying that book because I never use it.
-Casual players aren't morons. They don't need dumbed down builds in order to play.
-New players aren't morons. They don't need dumbed down builds in order to play.
-They did not need to change the crunch in order to provide additional fluff.
-And meh no real response because I don't know sales figures.
- the establishment that you can balance a class built on AEDU on a class built on another framework IS new design space. One could argue that it is just as lazy to sit on existing principles. Failure to innovate is a sort of laziness as well, so waht you have is a choice that you don't agree with.
- they did risk alienating their audience, but I think thye weren't too concerned witht he loss of sales for new strictly AEDU support. That sales model was abandoned for a reason, and it's most likely that reason was AEDU wasn't generating the sales to continue the business model.
- Casual and new players aren't morons, but the existing game prior to Essentials was complicated enough that WotC was writing them out of their market. Yes anyone could learn to play AEDU if it kept a roof over thier head and their belly full. When it comes to a hobby, a lot of people prefer something more relaxing that doesn't require the mental investment that AEDU does. My sister is very bright and has a MBA and hated 4th ed prior to Essentials because she always felt like she was getting something wrong.
-In a limited page count, AEDU is very space intensive. Mechanical support just takes up a greater page count, leaving less room to write for the casual RPG reader.
-You don't have to have access to sales figures to know that after about 2 years, the game plan was changed. The release plan (PHB: X, DMG: X, MM: X, and appropriate Fill_in_the_blanke Power: Y) had been abandoned for a reason. If it were making money as expected, I don't think it would have been changed. In addition to that I don't think that Essentials has driven the sales expected either, as there has been post Essentials another change in direction and mass cancelling of expected product. I don't think it is likely at all that WotC is going to cancel the Essentials "new design direction going forward" and go back to something exclusively that had already proved itself a failure. YMMV.
After doing more thinking on essentials I chime in thusly (and a year or so late, I know.)
Essentials isn't a BAD idea, it just got pulled off with all the finesse of a Jackhammer.
It may be to late for this, but what Wizards SHOULD have done is released Patched versions of PHB1 and MM1 alongside the essentials rules compendium. And they could have saved some room by cutting the fluff info out so they could have included the other Races they have changed, and then also added the new druid builds (and replaced the old builds with the updated versions from Essentials.)
That alongside a dedication to NOT change rules up any more would have been a lot easier to swallow and easier to get behind, it wouldn't have felt nearly so much like a 4.5 and it wouldn't be changing up the form.
i do like that they are releasing essential game supplies like tiles and such in starter packs. That is something 4.0 has NEEDED DESPERATELY. I only wish they would do so with miniatures. and I am talking about a large chest O'minis. So every group can have a complete set of your basic things in mini form.
My problem is they could have just listed the limited choices in the new books HotF{L/K} and left it completely compatible with the previous classes as they did with the Mage. The mage has a limited selection if you go by just the HotF{L/K} books, you can however choose any power from any other book that has the name Wizard. If all of Essentials worked that way, there would have been no outcry and no problem...
The problem they are addressing is that the AEDU structure is more involved and requires more investment in system mastery than many casual players want to make. If there is one major flaw with Essentials, it is that there aren't as man well done low complexity magical class options available too. I can hope for the future though.
Pre-builds, with, perhaps, repeated encounter or daily powers, would have addressed that just fine, without breaking the AEDU structure and degrading class balance, and would have left new players who wanted to start simple and expand their horizons as they acquired system mastery a way to do so, with their existing character when they felt like it, to the extent that they felt like it.
Since the Warpriest is pretty darn close to a two-prong pre-build, anyway, I don't think this option slipped past the designers unnoticed. Rather, it didn't fit as many of the design goals as imbalancing the game and re-introducing the old prejudice against the martial source did. Simpler game for new/casual players wasn't the only goal of Essentials - retro-apeal, by re-introducing the past 'feel' system, was also part of it. Sadly, the 'feel' that was missing from 4e was provided by some of D&Ds long-standing flaws.
For instance, a hypothetical 'Slayer' that is a pre-packaged, level-by-level build of a Greatweapon Fighter, might have Power Strike, something like it exists now, gaining multiple uses of it as it levels, a similar but more potent daily power - along the lines of Brute Strike, perhaps - also gaining more uses rather than choosing or re-training old dailies, and the usual pair of at-will powers - one default, and one based upon choice of 'weapon specialization.' Such a character would ultimately have one less power the player needed to be familiar with than a Slayer does. That's pretty simple. But, if it would also retain the AEDU structure and balance, and be 'upgradeable' to full-choice at any time the player felt up to it.
That's a superior aproach to the one taken - /if/ the intent is to provide a simpler build and play alternative for players who want such a thing. If the intent is to make martial classes boring and inferior to casters, but still apealing to less 'sophisticated' players, OTOH, the Essentials Slayer is masterful design.
My problem is they could have just listed the limited choices in the new books HotF{L/K} and left it completely compatible with the previous classes as they did with the Mage. The mage has a limited selection if you go by just the HotF{L/K} books, you can however choose any power from any other book that has the name Wizard. If all of Essentials worked that way, there would have been no outcry and no problem...
The problem they are addressing is that the AEDU structure is more involved and requires more investment in system mastery than many casual players want to make. If there is one major flaw with Essentials, it is that there aren't as man well done low complexity magical class options available too. I can hope for the future though.
Pre-builds, with, perhaps, repeated encounter or daily powers, would have addressed that just fine, without breaking the AEDU structure and degrading class balance, and would have left new players who wanted to start simple and expand their horizons as they acquired system mastery a way to do so, with their existing character when they felt like it, to the extent that they felt like it.
Prebuilds fail from the get go because they will either be the most powerful build and create power creep and remove choices or they will by definition be sub-optimal in which case you reward players who favor build complexity and punish those who want something simpler.
Since the Warpriest is pretty darn close to a two-prong pre-build, anyway, I don't think this option slipped past the designers unnoticed. Rather, it didn't fit as many of the design goals as imbalancing the game and re-introducing the old prejudice against the martial source did. Simpler game for new/casual players wasn't the only goal of Essentials - retro-apeal, by re-introducing the past 'feel' system, was also part of it. Sadly, the 'feel' that was missing from 4e was provided by some of D&Ds long-standing flaws.
The Warpriest is one point on a spectrum of complexity. Some will prefer something simpler still. My sister has been known to stand in front of the icecream freezer in the grocery for an hour, afraid she is going to get the wrong kind. If prebuilds are modular with non prebuilds, there is still decision paralysis. All you gain is less complaints from people who are upset that some builds aren't modular with others. I think its worth the gain in design space to not have modular fungible builds.
For instance, a hypothetical 'Slayer' that is a pre-packaged, level-by-level build of a Greatweapon Fighter, might have Power Strike, something like it exists now, gaining multiple uses of it as it levels, a similar but more potent daily power - along the lines of Brute Strike, perhaps - also gaining more uses rather than choosing or re-training old dailies, and the usual pair of at-will powers - one default, and one based upon choice of 'weapon specialization.' Such a character would ultimately have one less power the player needed to be familiar with than a Slayer does. That's pretty simple. But, if it would also retain the AEDU structure and balance, and be 'upgradeable' to full-choice at any time the player felt up to it.
And in the process it becomes something requiring a level of system master both to build and to play at the table that is offputting to a segment of players. Not everyone wants tactical complexity. Some prefer simplicity and security that they aren't getting it wrong. It is ok to cater to those folks. It is even OK to give them thier own builds that are reasonably effective. It is also better IMO to give them something that has been playtested and balanced for their needs. I don't see that it adds value to make that information fungible and modular for players who prefer a more tactically and choice rich play style. Their style is currently supported and will have ongoing support.
That's a superior aproach to the one taken - /if/ the intent is to provide a simpler build and play alternative for players who want such a thing. If the intent is to make martial classes boring and inferior to casters, but still apealing to less 'sophisticated' players, OTOH, the Essentials Slayer is masterful design.
Saying that a fungible modualar build is a solution is simply untrue. If the build is AEDU and simply premade, it still has to be evaulated against the more complex choices (even if said evaluation is one of 'I don't want to have to look at all of that stuff').
Lets just for the sake of argument go with the AEDU pre-build design.
1) "slayer" two handed weapon talent, both PHB1 two handed weapon at wills, one of the two handed weapon encounter powers, one of the two handed weapon daily powers. All pulled from PHB1.
2) "knight" follow the above, replace sword n board for the other optiohns.
But that is not what we have is it? We have now designs that favor old failed edition designs. No power creep, no imbalanced classes "just because" no players w/o something to spend money on. Everyone wins.
They favor the beneficial part of old editions designs (the part where classes can have varying levels of complexity), without the power issues (the effectiveness in game of Essentials is within the range of existing classes). So if you take the time to actually evaluate, you achieve the goals of historical editions of the game without the historical imbalances. Sounds like a win to me.
We also open up no AEDU design space which is good for the game. We don't have a required high complexity default with the only way to opt out being a pre0build that is most likely suboptimal.
There is no good reason to make a design change of this magnitude mid edition.
Unless you want to:
-open up new design space
Explain this one, because they in fact did not open up new design space, even when they did a whole new class, the vampire. It could have been done in the pre-E style (with a little more work).
-appeal to players with tastes whose needs are not being met
Nothing is going to appeal to 3.5E fans better than pathfinder (a warmed over 3.5E). New fans didn't have a preference (because they are new). People that wanted simpler less choices were not served (they have the same number of choices in combat according to Post-E lovers). What group am I missing?
-make the game more casual play friendly
The game is as complex as ever. With all of the complex mini rules combined with all of the other rules still present in the Rules compendium, taking away a few choices does not simplify the game enough to call it a 'more casual play friendly' game. They'd have to gut the system in order for this to work...
-make the game more accessable to new players
The game is more accessable to new players because they got it into Wal-Mart and Target, not because of Essentials. Simply putting the old boxed set in place of the new Red Box would have served the exact same purpose. Again they'd have to gut out half the rules and turn it into a slightly complex board game in order to make it 'more accessable to new players'.
-have room to provide a level of fluff that many found lacking early in 4th ed
Really, I could care less about chapters of nothing but fluff, but for those that love fluff, why not just double the size of the books or release 'fluff' books seperate? Also halving the size of the books then filling them with twice as much fluff was probably not going to help...
-add new material to the game that will sell better than the ongoing support for AEDU was
Now, I think you hit the nail on the head here. Instead of trying to expand their player base with expensive primetime commercials (whose only purpose is to get the knowledge out since they have no other effect [statistically speaking]), and getting their box game into Wal-Mart and Target and in the public eye, they did what is known in the business as a cash grab. They re-issued books to try to get everyone to buy them again. Even though they had new material in them, they were filled with excessive fluff. Now the Rules Compendium was a really good idea, they should do one of those at the end of every year (or once a year) along with a class compendium and monster compendium which would hold all of the classes and monsters created in official products to date as well as having the most up to date errata in them.
For me personally that is a load of good reasons. But its subjective, and going forward we're likely to see something that is neither strictly AEDU or all Essentials (as the change in business plans both times indicate).
Personally, I think if they don't take this time to start working on 5E in the open with a lot of public playtesting and community feedback, then they are going to founder further and eventually just cut their losses and either shelve D&D for awhile (no new content) or they will maintain a skeleton crew with 1-2 products a year and fluff filled DDi content. Really they need to assess their models...
Lets just for the sake of argument go with the AEDU pre-build design.
1) "slayer" two handed weapon talent, both PHB1 two handed weapon at wills, one of the two handed weapon encounter powers, one of the two handed weapon daily powers. All pulled from PHB1.
2) "knight" follow the above, replace sword n board for the other optiohns.
But that is not what we have is it? We have now designs that favor old failed edition designs. No power creep, no imbalanced classes "just because" no players w/o something to spend money on. Everyone wins.
They favor the beneficial part of old editions designs (the part where classes can have varying levels of complexity), without the power issues (the effectiveness in game of Essentials is within the range of existing classes). So if you take the time to actually evaluate, you achieve the goals of historical editions of the game without the historical imbalances. Sounds like a win to me.
We also open up no AEDU design space which is good for the game. We don't have a required high complexity default with the only way to opt out being a pre0build that is most likely suboptimal.
The problem is you are assuming they can't balance it with existing material. If the choices they are handed as default are equal and balanced against all the other choices at each level then guess what? it would be balanced and work. Of course this requires time and effort that we can see now that they don't want to expend on the game design.
Again AEDU design can encompass everything Essentials has thrown out there. Essentials in no way 'opened up design space'. That is a logical fallacy. I mean its fine that you like Essentials. I have no problem with that, but ignoring the problems and making things up to support their decision IS wrong...
Prebuilds fail from the get go because they will either be the most powerful build and create power creep and remove choices or they will by definition be sub-optimal in which case you reward players who favor build complexity and punish those who want something simpler.
The whole point is to reduce choice for those who don't want too many, so that's not a fail, it's a win. Power creep? Possibly, but Essentials delivered power creep anyway, so that's no worse.
But, really, you're assuming the game is already so imbalanced that optimal builds have eliminated most choice from it! I don't think 4e is there yet. Pre-builds would have the problem you describe in 3.5, for instance, because the gulf between optimal and mid-grade is so vast. In 4e, there's some brokeness, but there's a range of viable builds that aren't quite optimal.
The value of a pre-build would not just be in making chargen and level up easier for the new/casual player, it'd also help them avoid 'rookie mistakes,' like not putting a solid number in your attack stat, or choosing a real stinker of a feat instead of Expertise...
The Warpriest is one point on a spectrum of complexity. Some will prefer something simpler still. My sister has been known to stand in front of the icecream freezer in the grocery for an hour, afraid she is going to get the wrong kind. If prebuilds are modular with non prebuilds, there is still decision paralysis.
The decision is stick with the pre-build, or start pulling from other sources. When you're staring, you wouldn't have the other sources, so no decision paralysis. With Essentials, you start with a choice of classes, some are complex, some simplistic, before you start playing the simple one, you have to pick it out from the complex ones. If all classes had been 'simple' pre-builds, any class could be a starting point, and those wanting more complexity could easily get it.
All you gain is less complaints from people who are upset that some builds aren't modular with others.
Yeah, you'll gain that, while giving up nothing. And, don't you wish there weren't all these complaints?
And in the process it becomes something requiring a level of system master both to build and to play at the table that is offputting to a segment of players. Not everyone wants tactical complexity.
Tactical complexity is what you make of it. In play, a 1st level Knight has 3 powers to remember to use: Two at-will stance, and Power Strike. A 1st level Fighter has 4, two at-wills, an encounter, and a daily. That's not a vast gulf in complexity. The nature of Power Strike makes it a little more forgiving, but it could have been similarly implemented as an Encounter power - as could a similar daily power.
Some prefer simplicity and security that they aren't getting it wrong. It is ok to cater to those folks. It is even OK to give them thier own builds that are reasonably effective. It is also better IMO to give them something that has been playtested and balanced for their needs.
All of that could have been delivered with guidelines or pre-built 'kits' for existing classes & builds.
I don't see that it adds value to make that information fungible and modular for players who prefer a more tactically and choice rich play style.
The value it adds is that it makes the simpler builds better balanced with the more complex ones. Also, the player who starts out wanting a simple build while he learns the system may very well, and even quickly, become the player who wants more and more interesting and more complex options for the character he's grown attached to - and a 'modular' pre-build provides that, while a simplistic, mechanically incompatible sub-class does not.
players who prefer a more tactically and choice rich play style currently supported and will have ongoing support.
Sure, if they want to play a Mage they'll have ongonig support, and if they want to play a Warlord, they have only older material. And the player wanting a simple option is OK, as long as he doesn't want to play a Mage... or much of anything else outside of the basic martial archetypes.
If Essentials had presented 'kits' - partially pre-made builds with 'power steering' as it were - for the PH1 clases and a few new powers that were easier to use and understand in play for them, it could have delivered on everything you cite above, /and/ done it for the full range of classes for both styles of play. And been compatible and balanced.
That's a superior aproach to the one taken - /if/ the intent is to provide a simpler build and play alternative for players who want such a thing. If the intent is to make martial classes boring and inferior to casters, but still apealing to less 'sophisticated' players, OTOH, the Essentials Slayer is masterful design.
Saying that a fungible modualar build is a solution is simply untrue. If the build is AEDU and simply premade, it still has to be evaulated against the more complex choices (even if said evaluation is one of 'I don't want to have to look at all of that stuff').
Again, Essentials provides more complex AEDU choices, like the Mage, against which simpler ones must be evaluated, so there's nothing lost relative to Essentials, there. Further, completely new players are presented with the simplistic fighter/railroaded cleric/complex mage all at once in Essentials. If Essentials had used all-simple pre-builds, there'd have been no 'complex AEDU choice' to evaluate, since those choices would have stayed in the Players Handbook. So, again, the pre-build aproach would have been superior to the one used in Essentials. So, saying that pre-builds is a solution is not only true, it is a truely superior solution.
So, why wan't it chosen? Because simpler wasn't the only point - imbalancing the game in a manner reminiscent of it's past (but hopefully not /as/ bad) was also part of the point.
If the attempt was to deliver the past feel of class imbalance without actual class imbalance, if failed. But, it was a good attempt. While 3.x, for instance, could be balanced at a point, that point was precarious and the imbalances when it missed were extreme. Essentials is also balanced only at a point, but it is perhaps a somewhat less precarious point, and the consequent imbalances, though undeniable, have less potential to be extreme.
Essentials offers, on purpose a spectrum of class complexity that is far broader than the spectrum of complexity of AEDU PHB classes. The top complexity end is slightly more complex with the Mage. The bottom end is far far simpler both in levelling and in play. To say that Essentials fails because the mage is complex fails to realize the goal of creating a spectrum of complexity and allowing players to choose what suits them.
This is on purpose and a good thing. The designers want to be able to appeal to a wide range of gamers and potential gamers. They were able to do so in a way that is balanced but not symmetrical. Essentials characters footprint in the game is similar and within the same range of effectiveness as AEDU characters.
Essentials is balanced. It is not symmetrical. The thief is reasonably balanced with the scoundrel, but their design is not symmetrical. The OAssassin is symmetrical with the scoundrel, but the balance is very lacking. Ballance is not depenant on symmetry.
On top of this no AEDU content has been removed from the game. The complexity of AEDU is daunting to some and has prevented people from playing. In my opinion disguising AEDU behind a prebuild does not truely address this problem.
The major flaw in Essentials presentation is the tendancy to offer more simpliifed options for martial characters and fewer simplified options for Magic using characters. I think this will be addressed going forward. I think allowing for design outside AEDU adds to the game by allowing for design that cannot be accomplished under AEDU. You can still create and utilize AEDU material, but you can also do new things that are different and to me that is a good thing (and helps address the all classes play the same arguement).
If they keep the current model, meaning essentials going I see D&D going no where fast. Essentials was aimed at 3rd edition hold out and I think most prefer pathfinder to essentials. The best bet now is to either do a completly new edition or to continue with the AEDU line. I will not be buying a new edition but I can hope for something more in line with what AEDU tried to do which was get rid of martial clsses being useless after a certain lvl and this was a major failing of the older editions.
If they keep the current model, meaning essentials going I see D&D going no where fast. Essentials was aimed at 3rd edition hold out and I think most prefer pathfinder to essentials. The best bet now is to either do a completly new edition or to continue with the AEDU line. I will not be buying a new edition but I can hope for something more in line with what AEDU tried to do which was get rid of martial clsses being useless after a certain lvl and this was a major failing of the older editions.
You should be happy with essentials then. While not symmetrical, they are on the same power curve as AEDU classes. In addition they haven't invalidated any AEDU classes ... you can still play a any of the PHB1 MP or MP2 AEDU martial builds.
If they keep the current model, meaning essentials going I see D&D going no where fast. Essentials was aimed at 3rd edition hold out and I think most prefer pathfinder to essentials. The best bet now is to either do a completly new edition or to continue with the AEDU line. I will not be buying a new edition but I can hope for something more in line with what AEDU tried to do which was get rid of martial clsses being useless after a certain lvl and this was a major failing of the older editions.
You should be happy with essentials then. While not symmetrical, they are on the same power curve as AEDU classes. In addition they haven't invalidated any AEDU classes ... you can still play a any of the PHB1 MP or MP2 AEDU martial builds.
Actually, they unbalanced the game with regard to AEDU classes. This is because the more encounters you have the better the Essentials classes without dailies play. Around 3-4 encounters a day they are balanced. Above 4 you start seeing the Essentials classes pull ahead. So yeah they actually are unbalanced. As well as looking at the BA madness. They are clearly more powerful if you use BA enhancing feats and items, not to mention the BA granting powers of other classes or off turn attacks, and OA. Yeah... try to tell me its balanced again with a straight face...
If they keep the current model, meaning essentials going I see D&D going no where fast. Essentials was aimed at 3rd edition hold out and I think most prefer pathfinder to essentials. The best bet now is to either do a completly new edition or to continue with the AEDU line. I will not be buying a new edition but I can hope for something more in line with what AEDU tried to do which was get rid of martial clsses being useless after a certain lvl and this was a major failing of the older editions.
You should be happy with essentials then. While not symmetrical, they are on the same power curve as AEDU classes. In addition they haven't invalidated any AEDU classes ... you can still play a any of the PHB1 MP or MP2 AEDU martial builds.
Actually, they unbalanced the game with regard to AEDU classes. This is because the more encounters you have the better the Essentials classes without dailies play. Around 3-4 encounters a day they are balanced. Above 4 you start seeing the Essentials classes pull ahead. So yeah they actually are unbalanced. As well as looking at the BA madness. They are clearly more powerful if you use BA enhancing feats and items, not to mention the BA granting powers of other classes or off turn attacks, and OA. Yeah... try to tell me its balanced again with a straight face...
AEDU and Essentials are balanced. Short and long days balance out. The buff to every attack for MBA enhancers helps level out the playing field vs. nova style play. They are inside the range of effectiveness of AEDU classes. Balance for classes is a range, and Essentials play within that range. There will be points where certain classes are more or less optimal. I don't have a problem with that. Saying that a class is imbalanced because of a longer work day is kind of akin to saying that divine classes are imbalanced because they are more effective vs. undead. Having areas of strength does not in and of itself create imbalance.
Saying that a class is imbalanced because of a longer work day is kind of akin to saying that divine classes are imbalanced because they are more effective vs. undead. Having areas of strength does not in and of itself create imbalance.
Its the shorter work day that is an issue actually.
I cant at all arrange as a player so that nearly every fight is against undead....could players arrange so that most days can be really short? why yes they might be able to and it actually fits more fantasy fiction than these 4 battles and more days so the DM might be fine with it .... and without essentials classes you just up the potency of the encounters a few levels and have fun everybody interacts pretty closely with similar resource management going on.
Except that isnt true anymore... that was tossed out like bathwater.
OK I will give you this....
If the DM over estimates and one of these boosted fights is too potent (easier to do because at difficult level 3 and +4)...and the fight takes too long... the presence of steady and sure performers can make those encounters less likely to go out of control and tpk - something nobody likes ie they can lend the party staying power in that long fight where dailies have already been spent.
A part of me just resents only one play style (mr 4 battles per day) being supported while claiming they are opening it up to more styles of play.
well lets look, Cleave...swing sword and hit someone beside you......Spinning Sweep...swing sword and knock them prone.....Brute Strike....swing swrod for big damage.....yep...all looks like MBA with +.....
Better. Most fighter attacks can be described as functionally equal to a melee basic attack with extra damage and effect riders tagged on. The essentials fighters have Power Strike that gives the extra damage, a series of @willl powers with minor riders that function with the damage boost, and a few class features that tag on an additional rider to your MBA.
However, there are a few fighter powers that cannot be summed up this way, and the fighter powers in general are more varied than what the essentials fighters can do. To claim a equivalence is false, just as trying to present the essentials fighter's attacks as all vanilla MBAs, would be false.
An essentials fighter can a general fighter encounter power as the cost of a feat though.
its a favorite because it is very flavorable...
- Shin kick or Leg Sweep
- Smashing body slamb
- Trips/sweeps with a follow up strike
- Weapon Arm attack /Or numbingly hard weapon near the pommel hit, forcing them to dive after the weapon.
- Nearly a Knockout Head hit inducing a temporary black out.(can involve a hit to any sensitive spot really - though the head is particularly nice target for most creatures or anything that uses there heads as weapons) - hey sometimes a last minute dodge and their own attack will induce this.
- Spin them About aka Knock em for a Loop: Out of control dizzy they have to re-acquire there balance, minions crack there heads or impale themselves on your weapon but generally speaking
- Clipped A wing - My weapon catches on the great beasts wing just as it attempts to shift with a great flap its own might smashes itself in to the ground.(vs Dragon perhaps)
- Broken Footing - Ok the attack technically missed but it was convenient how it weakened the shale that the giant was just about to step on... and it ends up lurching to the ground with a resounding boom.
- Flipped on its wrong side - vs Gelatinous Cube - I hook the bottom edge with my sheild and shoulder slamb it over not a big deal really. The bottom just isnt good for holding its form and the sides just arent good for sliding on so it squishes down and is definitely not happy about it.
- Snake Fighting - The snakes head rises cobra-like during one of its attacks I sweep its bottom coils out from under it flipping it belly side up its head cracking on the cave floor .... it shakes and squirms eventually righting itself and snaps back at me. Stepped on its Tail - Another time the snake decides to flee instead of attacking I charge after it smash the end of its tail and its muscles twitch causing it to flip upside down and backwards (note how my fighters successful attack stops enemy movement)
i like more focus then lots of powers to pick from. that is why i would pick knight and slayer ove weaponmaster, knight and slayer know what they are...weaponmaster...does not......slayer knows they are twohanded weapon guy, knights know they are weapon/sheild guy...weaponmaster just knows
Weaponmaster knows it has a lot of versatility. It can be a lot of things. It is primarily an amazing defender. It definitely knows exactly what it wants to be, depending on build.
i know but i have to pick it....with knight and slayer...no picking, i just know
...
this statement just caused me to lose a little more hope in humanity...
i like more focus then lots of powers to pick from. that is why i would pick knight and slayer ove weaponmaster, knight and slayer know what they are...weaponmaster...does not......slayer knows they are twohanded weapon guy, knights know they are weapon/sheild guy...weaponmaster just knows
Weaponmaster knows it has a lot of versatility. It can be a lot of things. It is primarily an amazing defender. It definitely knows exactly what it wants to be, depending on build.
i know but i have to pick it....with knight and slayer...no picking, i just know
...
this statement just caused me to lose a little more hope in humanity...
because i like to know my background already with out having to pick the powers to match it? yea i could do alot of my background with weaponmaster but with knight and slayer...gets the older fighter feel back with the cool of 4th edition
it took me about an hour to pick two stances for the knight i made and that was with a background for him....so yea...with weaponmaster it takes me longer when i have no clue what his background is going to be.... but when i did like the two weapon weaponmaster i made...took me in to time..just picked teh powes that needed two weapons and with my shield weaponmaster, i just picked the powers that needed a shied to use
this statement just caused me to lose a little more hope in humanity...
Like knowing what you want for a background first has any bearing on the game in play.
the background for my chars have always had bearing on what powers i pick
Let me repeat myself; Backgrounds (the fictional account of your character prior to meeting his party) have no bearing on gameplay. With the exception of when your GM actually reads and creates a plot hook from it.
Backgrounds (from PHB 2) have a minor mechanical benifit which doesn't ammount to more than a free +2 bouns. Again they have no berring on gameplay.
Regardless of which version you mean I see no reason for them to produce your level of system paralysis. That is caused by you. Your refusal to read the book w/o the fluff heavy rewrite of these last three months. Or the choiceless version provided by your hero MM a year ago.
i always like to do my background first...after i do background then that would get my class i would pick and what powers he would go for because of everything that has happen to him from his past and how he would act and everything..even skills....nothing that was put into the rules...just how i make my chars
imo they all swing a weapon, just they do it in different ways and that is why i like all 3
so i am dumb for liking knight, slayer and weaponmaster?
imo they all swing a weapon, just they do it in different ways and that is why i like all 3
Choices at every level vs. no choices at all, except feats. No contest.
Both the knight and slayer get choices other than feats, so either you didn't bother to check the facts or you are lying.
Choices at every level vs. no choices at all, except feats. No contest.
depands on the person
Yes, it does depend on the individual. I love options. I want to make wide and varied characters. I don't get that feel from the few e-style characters I have played.
i like the new e-style, to me they have a more stable background to them then the older classes.
Yes, it does depend on the individual. I love options. I want to make wide and varied characters. I don't get that feel from the few e-style characters I have played.
i like the new e-style, to me they have more stable of what they are in the world more then the older classes
What...?
I honestly don't understand this statement here.
Could you please explain what this statement means so I can decide whether or not I agree with you?
Oooooooh my bad a few utility powers.
They still get more choices than utility powers.
Choices win over lack of choices. Regardless if I forgot something or not.
While I would prefer that the knight and slayer had more options, that falls under my opinion which is subjective. Other people might not like the same things that I or you do.
what?
He's saying he'd be perfectly happy with pre-builds and that essentials wasn't needed just simpler powers and an option where all the choices are made for you...
what?
He's saying he'd be perfectly happy with pre-builds and that essentials wasn't needed just simpler powers and an option where all the choices are made for you...
yep your right...or i could pick everything and just not care and do "pick for me" in the char builder, like with knight and slayer...i like picking the stances....takes me about an hour or so just picking those because they are all good and i can think alot of ways they all work
Oooooooh my bad a few utility powers.
Choices win over lack of choices. Regardless if I forgot something or not.
And stances. That's 4 more choices over the life of the character, though from the same pool, so fewer options with the last two...
I did the math once, and there's something in the tens of thousands of possible characters you could make with a single, basic (4 powers available each time you choose an attack) AEDU class, dozens for a Knight or Slayer, and 4 for the Vampire. :shrug:
There is just a lot more to an AEDU class, and a lot less to a class like the Slayer. Less isn't more, it's less, but sometimes people want less. Pre-gens and partial pre-builds could deliver the same savings in choice, while retaining compatibility, and becoming choice-rich if the player ever got bored with them...
Less isn't more, it's less, but sometimes people want less. Pre-gens and partial pre-builds could deliver the same savings in choice, while retaining compatibility, and becoming choice-rich if the player ever got bored with them...
Which has been my point for months now. Mearls could have chosen to actually build classes which followed the AEDU pattern. Instead he chose to not, which throws the balance off. Some people chose to ignore that for some unfathomable reason.
I think some of them just don't feel comfortable coming out and saying they hate class balance. 'Balance' carries a positive connotation, and sounds so reasonable.
Stuck in a 3.x mindset where the magi must be better than the fighter at all times after lvl 10. Always hated that mindset myself.
I agree totally I hated that about d&d. It has no place in a game, all classes should be equal and fun to play.
Stuck in a 3.x mindset where the magi must be better than the fighter at all times after lvl 10. Always hated that mindset myself.
I agree totally I hated that about d&d. It has no place in a game, all classes should be equal and fun to play.
Equal is a strong word. 4e never achieved equality, as that is impossible in a system with as many diverse ways to create a character.
It did achieve balance in that every character is viable within it's given role, and can meaningfully contribute without worrying about one class doing everything everyone else does better. It also severely narrowed the gap between underpowered and overpowered.
I mean, even unoptimimzed characters are still viable in 4e. It's really hard to make a useless character unless you purposefully try to do so. That's the balance that was achieved, and that is how all games should be designed.
Sure, 4e had its quirks, but they kept this focus, and all classes that came out were able to meet the design goals set forth (minus the Ossassin, and look at the creator of it). That hasn't been the case in the last year, though.
The balance that had been achieved appears to have been abandoned (especially in HoS) completely in favor of flavor, which is ridiculous. Flavor can be met with good mechanics, but they don't seem to think so. Just read the response to how ridiculously underpowered the Shade is in Rule of Three. They basically said that because it has good flavor, it's ok that it is underpowered.
They're designing under the Stormwind Fallacy now, and it's really disappointing to see.
Now, resorting to name calling and attacks achieves nothing. I just feel like they turned their back on those of us that defended 4e tooth and nail from the attackers that were rampant on here following the release of 4e. Now, it seems that the game is designed for them, when they already have their retro clones to play.
You had my money WotC, and now you don't. Simple as that.
Stuck in a 3.x mindset where the magi must be better than the fighter at all times after lvl 10. Always hated that mindset myself.
I agree totally I hated that about d&d. It has no place in a game, all classes should be equal and fun to play.
Equal is a strong word. 4e never achieved equality, as that is impossible in a system with as many diverse ways to create a character.
I prefer 'parity.' Each 4e class had it's role and it's own unique take on that role. They had distinctive features and different powers. Because of those differences, they might perform a little differently under different circumstances. But, they could be balanced fairly closely because their resources faced basically the same limitations on use. Everyone has dailies, encounters and at-wills, and has the same number of them. All the designer has to do is balance dailies against dailies, encounters vs encounters. It's still not easy, but it's /possible/ and can be robust, while balancing dailies vs encounters/at-wills never works well - they can balance at a point, but that balance is delicate and only supports a narrow slice of play styles (the entire history of D&D prior to 4e stands as evidence of that fact).
The balance that had been achieved appears to have been abandoned (especially in HoS) completely in favor of flavor, which is ridiculous. Flavor can be met with good mechanics, but they don't seem to think so. Just read the response to how ridiculously underpowered the Shade is in Rule of Three. They basically said that because it has good flavor, it's ok that it is underpowered.
They're designing under the Stormwind Fallacy now, and it's really disappointing to see.
Now, resorting to name calling and attacks achieves nothing. I just feel like they turned their back on those of us that defended 4e tooth and nail from the attackers that were rampant on here following the release of 4e. Now, it seems that the game is designed for them, when they already have their retro clones to play.
Nod. Whether it's to cater to the fans who rejected 4e, or to leave their own mark on the game, the current design direction is backwards and actively harming the game. Maybe when it's over, and the game has been re-shaped into whatever vision is driving all this craziness, it'll've been shaped into something that's arguably 'good' in it's own right, by some standard. Until the 'new direction' has reached its final destination, though, it's hard to see what potential upside it may be working towards.
i like more focus then lots of powers to pick from. that is why i would pick knight and slayer ove weaponmaster, knight and slayer know what they are...weaponmaster...does not......slayer knows they are twohanded weapon guy, knights know they are weapon/sheild guy...weaponmaster just knows
Weaponmaster knows it has a lot of versatility. It can be a lot of things. It is primarily an amazing defender. It definitely knows exactly what it wants to be, depending on build.
i know but i have to pick it....with knight and slayer...no picking, i just know
...
this statement just caused me to lose a little more hope in humanity...
i like more focus then lots of powers to pick from. that is why i would pick knight and slayer ove weaponmaster, knight and slayer know what they are...weaponmaster...does not......slayer knows they are twohanded weapon guy, knights know they are weapon/sheild guy...weaponmaster just knows
Weaponmaster knows it has a lot of versatility. It can be a lot of things. It is primarily an amazing defender. It definitely knows exactly what it wants to be, depending on build.
i know but i have to pick it....with knight and slayer...no picking, i just know
...
this statement just caused me to lose a little more hope in humanity...
because i like to know my background already with out having to pick the powers to match it? yea i could do alot of my background with weaponmaster but with knight and slayer...gets the older fighter feel back with the cool of 4th edition
it took me about an hour to pick two stances for the knight i made and that was with a background for him....so yea...with weaponmaster it takes me longer when i have no clue what his background is going to be.... but when i did like the two weapon weaponmaster i made...took me in to time..just picked teh powes that needed two weapons and with my shield weaponmaster, i just picked the powers that needed a shied to use
this statement just caused me to lose a little more hope in humanity...
Like knowing what you want for a background first has any bearing on the game in play.
the background for my chars have always had bearing on what powers i pick
Let me repeat myself; Backgrounds (the fictional account of your character prior to meeting his party) have no bearing on gameplay. With the exception of when your GM actually reads and creates a plot hook from it.
Backgrounds (from PHB 2) have a minor mechanical benifit which doesn't ammount to more than a free +2 bouns. Again they have no berring on gameplay.
Regardless of which version you mean I see no reason for them to produce your level of system paralysis. That is caused by you. Your refusal to read the book w/o the fluff heavy rewrite of these last three months. Or the choiceless version provided by your hero MM a year ago.
i always like to do my background first...after i do background then that would get my class i would pick and what powers he would go for because of everything that has happen to him from his past and how he would act and everything..even skills....nothing that was put into the rules...just how i make my chars
imo they all swing a weapon, just they do it in different ways and that is why i like all 3
so i am dumb for liking knight, slayer and weaponmaster?
imo they all swing a weapon, just they do it in different ways and that is why i like all 3
Choices at every level vs. no choices at all, except feats. No contest.
Both the knight and slayer get choices other than feats, so either you didn't bother to check the facts or you are lying.
Choices at every level vs. no choices at all, except feats. No contest.
depands on the person
Yes, it does depend on the individual. I love options. I want to make wide and varied characters. I don't get that feel from the few e-style characters I have played.
i like the new e-style, to me they have a more stable background to them then the older classes.
Yes, it does depend on the individual. I love options. I want to make wide and varied characters. I don't get that feel from the few e-style characters I have played.
i like the new e-style, to me they have more stable of what they are in the world more then the older classes
What...?
I honestly don't understand this statement here.
Could you please explain what this statement means so I can decide whether or not I agree with you?
Oooooooh my bad a few utility powers.
They still get more choices than utility powers.
Choices win over lack of choices. Regardless if I forgot something or not.
While I would prefer that the knight and slayer had more options, that falls under my opinion which is subjective. Other people might not like the same things that I or you do.
what?
He's saying he'd be perfectly happy with pre-builds and that essentials wasn't needed just simpler powers and an option where all the choices are made for you...
what?
He's saying he'd be perfectly happy with pre-builds and that essentials wasn't needed just simpler powers and an option where all the choices are made for you...
yep your right...or i could pick everything and just not care and do "pick for me" in the char builder, like with knight and slayer...i like picking the stances....takes me about an hour or so just picking those because they are all good and i can think alot of ways they all work
Oooooooh my bad a few utility powers.
Choices win over lack of choices. Regardless if I forgot something or not.
And stances. That's 4 more choices over the life of the character, though from the same pool, so fewer options with the last two...
I did the math once, and there's something in the tens of thousands of possible characters you could make with a single, basic (4 powers available each time you choose an attack) AEDU class, dozens for a Knight or Slayer, and 4 for the Vampire. :shrug:
There is just a lot more to an AEDU class, and a lot less to a class like the Slayer. Less isn't more, it's less, but sometimes people want less. Pre-gens and partial pre-builds could deliver the same savings in choice, while retaining compatibility, and becoming choice-rich if the player ever got bored with them...
Less isn't more, it's less, but sometimes people want less. Pre-gens and partial pre-builds could deliver the same savings in choice, while retaining compatibility, and becoming choice-rich if the player ever got bored with them...
Which has been my point for months now. Mearls could have chosen to actually build classes which followed the AEDU pattern. Instead he chose to not, which throws the balance off. Some people chose to ignore that for some unfathomable reason.
I think some of them just don't feel comfortable coming out and saying they hate class balance. 'Balance' carries a positive connotation, and sounds so reasonable.
Stuck in a 3.x mindset where the magi must be better than the fighter at all times after lvl 10. Always hated that mindset myself.
I agree totally I hated that about d&d. It has no place in a game, all classes should be equal and fun to play.
Stuck in a 3.x mindset where the magi must be better than the fighter at all times after lvl 10. Always hated that mindset myself.
I agree totally I hated that about d&d. It has no place in a game, all classes should be equal and fun to play.
Equal is a strong word. 4e never achieved equality, as that is impossible in a system with as many diverse ways to create a character.
It did achieve balance in that every character is viable within it's given role, and can meaningfully contribute without worrying about one class doing everything everyone else does better. It also severely narrowed the gap between underpowered and overpowered.
I mean, even unoptimimzed characters are still viable in 4e. It's really hard to make a useless character unless you purposefully try to do so. That's the balance that was achieved, and that is how all games should be designed.
Sure, 4e had its quirks, but they kept this focus, and all classes that came out were able to meet the design goals set forth (minus the Ossassin, and look at the creator of it). That hasn't been the case in the last year, though.
The balance that had been achieved appears to have been abandoned (especially in HoS) completely in favor of flavor, which is ridiculous. Flavor can be met with good mechanics, but they don't seem to think so. Just read the response to how ridiculously underpowered the Shade is in Rule of Three. They basically said that because it has good flavor, it's ok that it is underpowered.
They're designing under the Stormwind Fallacy now, and it's really disappointing to see.
Now, resorting to name calling and attacks achieves nothing. I just feel like they turned their back on those of us that defended 4e tooth and nail from the attackers that were rampant on here following the release of 4e. Now, it seems that the game is designed for them, when they already have their retro clones to play.
You had my money WotC, and now you don't. Simple as that.
Stuck in a 3.x mindset where the magi must be better than the fighter at all times after lvl 10. Always hated that mindset myself.
I agree totally I hated that about d&d. It has no place in a game, all classes should be equal and fun to play.
Equal is a strong word. 4e never achieved equality, as that is impossible in a system with as many diverse ways to create a character.
I prefer 'parity.' Each 4e class had it's role and it's own unique take on that role. They had distinctive features and different powers. Because of those differences, they might perform a little differently under different circumstances. But, they could be balanced fairly closely because their resources faced basically the same limitations on use. Everyone has dailies, encounters and at-wills, and has the same number of them. All the designer has to do is balance dailies against dailies, encounters vs encounters. It's still not easy, but it's /possible/ and can be robust, while balancing dailies vs encounters/at-wills never works well - they can balance at a point, but that balance is delicate and only supports a narrow slice of play styles (the entire history of D&D prior to 4e stands as evidence of that fact).
The balance that had been achieved appears to have been abandoned (especially in HoS) completely in favor of flavor, which is ridiculous. Flavor can be met with good mechanics, but they don't seem to think so. Just read the response to how ridiculously underpowered the Shade is in Rule of Three. They basically said that because it has good flavor, it's ok that it is underpowered.
They're designing under the Stormwind Fallacy now, and it's really disappointing to see.
Now, resorting to name calling and attacks achieves nothing. I just feel like they turned their back on those of us that defended 4e tooth and nail from the attackers that were rampant on here following the release of 4e. Now, it seems that the game is designed for them, when they already have their retro clones to play.
Nod. Whether it's to cater to the fans who rejected 4e, or to leave their own mark on the game, the current design direction is backwards and actively harming the game. Maybe when it's over, and the game has been re-shaped into whatever vision is driving all this craziness, it'll've been shaped into something that's arguably 'good' in it's own right, by some standard. Until the 'new direction' has reached its final destination, though, it's hard to see what potential upside it may be working towards.