But now as I read more about it, I'm getting kind of excited about it.
Instead of replacing the class mechanics with new ones, we're getting whole variant classes that can co-exist with the ones we have already. So now there's a whole new way that one class can be different from another (and in a really fundamental way, rather than some of the more superficial changes you get in the Power books). I like that. One of my big critiques was that thin choices of powers were going to cause characters of the same class to be too much alike.
Now I'm not sure exactly what all the changes will be, and since our group tends to be very narrative (no maps or minis, heavy interaction, character-based, sandbox stories) I'm sure 90% of their decisions will go totally in the opposite direction of what I would do, were it up to me--but how's that any different than the direction 4e went in when it first came out? We'll enjoy the options we get, make the changes we need to make to tell coherent stories (we're borderline on reducing or chucking the whole power system in it's entirity as is...argh).
I can't help but see a glimmer in this of what smells like maybe a little victory (insomuch as you can have victory amid designers who seem avid in loving what you hate and hating what you love) that some of the critiques of 4e design are being listened to, at least a little. I feel this tiny tickle like maybe my insignificant Actor/Explorer voice was maybe heard--a tiny bit and sort of nudged the game I love in a direction that might be a teensy bit more friendly to my ilk.
Probably not though
.One of my big critiques was that thin choices of powers were going to cause characters of the same class to be too much alike.
Initially, I played in two campaigns. I played a Wizard in the second one. I found that unless I was careful to pick as different a spell list as possible, I ended up feeling exactly like that other wizard.
OTOH, it's great from WotC's point of view. It should have helped the ______ Power books sell, and meant some demand for new classes, since each new class represented a few more distinct characters available for play.
I don't see Essentials really expanding it much, though. The Essentials martial classes are basically one distinct character per build - they have no choices to speak of, never mind 'thin' choices. The Cleric build is conceptually identical to an existing one. I guess the Mage, with it's 3 schools, represents three distinct character possiblities...
I don't see Essentials really expanding it much, though. The Essentials martial classes are basically one distinct character per build - they have no choices to speak of, never mind 'thin' choices. The Cleric build is conceptually identical to an existing one. I guess the Mage, with it's 3 schools, represents three distinct character possiblities...
Well aside from just having a whole other kind of Cleric hanging around (which at least gives a whole 'nuther set of bones to use when building a Cleric) I've heard they're simplifying things, which I'm hoping means stepping back away from powers and hopefully introducing a mechanic that tries to do a similar thing but without some of the problems we've had with the whole powers deal.
Here's the thing. Powers came into the game with a really decent objective, to give non-casters a suite of abilities to choose from, akin to the special abilities of monsters. It was supposed to create options. The trouble we've had is that it ends up creating less options. If someone, let's say a monk, wants to sweep someone's legs out from under them, but doesn't have that power--we have to look through all the powers people have or could have to make sure our pg 42 solution to that action doesn't invalidate some power belonging to some other class--or we end up having to stretch our narrative brains to exploding trying to incorporate some impossible power into a story without it coming out dumb ("Okay the text says you shoot him in the face with a crossbow...and blood runs into his eyes, blinding him for a turn?" Uh...breathe...okay). Going in ANY other direction feels like progress for me I guess.
I think that argument is a little silly.
Uh. Okay. Well it's not so much an argument as our group's experience with them. I think the idea's a good one, but I think the application just wasn't so hot. I think largely it's that the designers got a little overloaded trying to come up with thirty levels of how to hit things with swords in different ways. A lot of the powers came out feeling a little dull, a little preposterous, or feeling like slightly different versions of ten other powers. On the whole totally unnecessary to fun gameplay or diverse characters or anything. Now that's not to say that a powers-like system couldn't add a lot of fun to the game, and I welcome a fresh new take on it, just that the current one isn't doing it for our group.
I miss real spells. I miss being able to just do cool seat of my pants swashbuckling without fighting the rules every step of the way. I miss adjudicating games more based off of whether things made tactical sense, would work, and were clever rather than how they work from a game balance perspective.
So yeah, no big attempt at persuasion here. Just fairly jazzed for the new products that are coming out because and hopefully some of the changes that are coming with it. *sniff* Ahh...victory.
So yeah, no big attempt at persuasion here. Just fairly jazzed for the new products that are coming out because and hopefully some of the changes that are coming with it. *sniff* Ahh...victory.
What victory? Essentials is doing nothing to undo what you dislike about 4ed. It isn't removing the power system. It isn't suddenly adding tons of at will options for all characters to do. It isn't adding ambiguous spells that you can say do whatever you want them to and/or one hit destroy a monster. It is doing nothing to change the game in the direction you desire. The only remotely relevant thing it is doing is decreasing the number of power options new classes will have, but since they are being introduced into a power based system, that lack of power options isn't going to result in an increase of non-power options. The new classes will just have less options for the "cool stuff" they do. Hardly seems like that should qualify as a victory from your point of view.I am just waiting now to get the preview Redbox they sent out to the premiere stores.
I mentioned this in an other thread, but its worth mentioning here.
Haldrik: Heh. Thats the main reason I dislike the Essentials railroad builds, like Knight and Slayer. Its not like the devs are actually good at picking your powers for you.
Even already with the Slayer, the devs try to force you to take high Dex for a heavy armor class. Seriously? Is this a prank?
Il stick to builds whose options I can customize myself thankyouverymuch!
I think that argument is a little silly.
Uh. Okay. Well it's not so much an argument as our group's experience with them. I think the idea's a good one, but I think the application just wasn't so hot. I think largely it's that the designers got a little overloaded trying to come up with thirty levels of ... powers
I get what you're saying here, though from a different point of view. I'm in the habbit of creating variants, like, say, new classes. Coming up with a new class in 1e or 2e was a pain, because there was little rhyme or reason to class design. 3e class design made more sense, and, unless you embarked upon creating an extensive unique spell list for a new caster class (usually, you could re-cycle many existing spells), creating a character class was a matter of a few hours concerted effort - heck, I've created classes in forum posts. With 4e, the demand for a hundred plus powers to complete a class is a crushing burden on the designer.
I can totally understand WotC wanting to get away from the model - because, while it's awesome for the DM and the Players, it must be a pure living hell of creative burnout and looming deadlines for them.
I'll take the power system of 4.0, I feel it works, if you don't why are you bitching about it to get it retconed back to 3.x? We tried that & it sucked.
Well, I liked 3.x. We had lots of fun in this system (at least up to level 12 or so)
The problem is, that the new Fighter is just worse than other classes in every aspect.
In 3.x the fighter did not get any spells, but it got more feats. It seems that the designers of essentials forgot that in 3.x getting a feat every other level made you really special.
In 4th edition everybody gets them. So, they took the dailies away from the fighter. They gave him lame and boring encounter powers and it has weaker class features than every other class.
I would expect something to compensate for that. But there is - nothing.
Wait - I forgot! It can use plate armor! Wow... +1 AC... well...
I'll take the power system of 4.0, I feel it works, if you don't why are you bitching about it to get it retconed back to 3.x? We tried that & it sucked.
Well, I liked 3.x. We had lots of fun in this system (at least up to level 12 or so)
The problem is, that the new Fighter is just worse than other classes in every aspect.
In 3.x the fighter did not get any spells, but it got more feats. It seems that the designers of essentials forgot that in 3.x getting a feat every other level made you really special.
In 4th edition everybody gets them. So, they took the dailies away from the fighter. They gave him lame and boring encounter powers and it has weaker class features than every other class.
I would expect something to compensate for that. But there is - nothing.
Wait - I forgot! It can use plate armor! Wow... +1 AC... well...
Except they didn't take dailies away from fighters. They made a couple of builds that don't use dailies. If you find them lame and boring and don't see where they are compensated, then just don't play them. They weren't made for you in the first place.
Except they didn't take dailies away from fighters. They made a couple of builds that don't use dailies. If you find them lame and boring and don't see where they are compensated, then just don't play them. They weren't made for you in the first place.
My problem is the following: To make the knight balanced with the other fighter builds they seriously have to nerf the classic fighter builds.
And if they know what they are doing, to balance the fighter with other defenders, they seriously have to nerf all the other defenders.
I am just afraid that I don't want to play this game anymore if they are done with the october errata.
My problem is the following: To make the knight balanced with the other fighter builds they seriously have to nerf the classic fighter builds.
And if they know what they are doing, to balance the fighter with other defenders, they seriously have to nerf all the other defenders.
I am just afraid that I don't want to play this game anymore if they are done with the october errata.
Andrelai said it all. You're speaking like you've done extensive play-testing. I see no reason that they need to nerf existing fighter builds or other defenders.
Except they didn't take dailies away from fighters. They made a couple of builds that don't use dailies. If you find them lame and boring and don't see where they are compensated, then just don't play them. They weren't made for you in the first place.
My problem is the following: To make the knight balanced with the other fighter builds they seriously have to nerf the classic fighter builds.
And if they know what they are doing, to balance the fighter with other defenders, they seriously have to nerf all the other defenders.
I am just afraid that I don't want to play this game anymore if they are done with the october errata.
Char-op already talked though it, overall it's decently balanced. Worse then the current fighter builds, but better then the a PHB1 paladin.
Char-op already talked though it, overall it's decently balanced. Worse then the current fighter builds, but better then the a PHB1 paladin.
Better than a PHB only paladin?
Truly; do you think that should be the benchmark as whether a class is good or not? I don't.
Without the rest of the features you can't really judge. Anyways, it's not better or worse then what's already out.
Those are some very broad statements to be making about a build you haven't even played.
Goddamnit fix your server farms! Having to copy everything I type so that when your servers do not put up what I type really pisses me off.
They are already doing everything they can to make the 4.5 material override the "core" 4.0 books. For something that was supposed to be optional material it is not following the concept of seamless integration.
Changing the entire set of printed material with unwanted errata is not seamless.
How did your reply follow from what you quoted? He said broad generalizations were being made about class builds that haven't been played. Your reply was that the designers are doing their best to replace every 4E print book with errata. I guess it does follow in that you posted another broad generalization. Also, you might want to check things on your end, because I don't know of anyone else having this repeated problem you're having with posting. But I guess you're just looking for something else to blame on WotC.
Andrelai said it all. You're speaking like you've done extensive play-testing. I see no reason that they need to nerf existing fighter builds or other defenders.
I was interpolating from what I have seen. I stand corrected, since indeed, with Defend the Line they gave the Knight something to be useful.
I am still baffled that they are still incapable of balancing their powers, but one really good at-will is enough for the knight to do its job.
I really have no idea what a defender should want with this completely useless stance that gives a +2 to damage, but well - maybe they wanted to keep the tradition they started with Sure Strike:
As a player you should have the power to gimp your character ;)