Also, how is it defending? Yeah, the aura marks, but you can't do anything with the mark. Now monsters just stay away from the fighter.
Does anyone else have some opinions? I dislike this new fighter, I liked the old fighter, I thought he was the quintessential defender. This new one just seems like a guy with a sword.
If it's not (and there isn't some other "punishment" feature elsewhere), then yeah, I'll get right up there with you and start complaining.
"Now monsters just stay away from the fighter."
Well, they would try, but the knight would stick close to his allies to protect them. I think this defender feature will work very well. If you're defending against melee enemies, you stick close to your allies. If you're defending against ranged enemies, you just charge and get up in their face.
It would be cool if 'battle guardian' worked like some kind of reverse mark where you make one of your allies the target of the feature. Then whenever that ally is attacked, you can can make a melee basic or charge attack against the enemy who attacked your ally.
Yeah, the aura marks
It doesn't, actually. It imposes the same -2 attack penalty as a mark, and with the same conditions (more or less), but it's not actually a 'real' mark.
It doesn't benefit from any feats, items or other powers that boost the effect of marks. The invoker's Mantle of the Infidel doesn't improve the penalty to -4, for example. It also doesn't trigger any monster powers or traits that normally interact with marks. Some monsters do extra damage against characters that have marked them, for example, or have powers that cancel marks on them. None of these will work against this Defender Aura.
I'm ambivalent on this new fighter. The mechanics seem interesting, but not as innovative or truly different as I was hoping. My opinion is currently tending towards "different for the sake of being different, rather than actually making any significant difference to how the class plays". I'm also a little worried about how the "no at-will attacks, but you get at-will stances to modify your basic attacks instead" will interact with the human bonus at-will power. Will somebody wanting to play an Essentials human fighter have to buy a non-Essentials book just to get a 'real' fighter at-will attack power to take as his human bonus power? Because that's just stupid. The obvious alternative would be that the Essentials version of the human doesn't get a bonus at-will power, which is perhaps even worse. Or a human fighter gets an extra at-will stance, but that's going to mean additional rules text to clarify how this particular race/class interaction works. I thought Essentials was supposed to be cutting out unnecessary complications like that?
I also think 'Defender Aura' is an utter wallbanger of a name for a martial class feature. 'Aura' strongly implies 'magic' IMO. But that's obviously not a mechanical issue, so it's less of a concern to me ("flavour is mutable" etc.)
I thought Essentials was supposed to be cutting out unnecessary complications like that?
Essentials is 4.5e. This is demonstrated by the fact that everything is getting much more complicated then PHB1 4th ed. They keep trying to say its simpler, but its not. I don't think we've seen a single preview where it made things simpler. The only simple thing is that Fighters lose Dailies and seem to have a limited number of Encounters. So while simpler to play in theory, everything you've learnt about D&D playing other classes is useless when playing a fighter.
A defender, which has two primary stats that boost the same defense, and also gets a bonus to that same defense is totally pointless.
Why don't they hire someone who actually understands how rules are designed and work?
Bottom line:
You see after five seconds that they start all over, and they make the same mistakes as before... or even more mistakes.
Sad. So many good ideas (i.e. not everybody has dailies, more differences between the classes)
going down the drain, because they still don't have people who understand the simple primitive basics of the math in their system :P
I thought Essentials was supposed to be cutting out unnecessary complications like that?
Essentials is 4.5e. This is demonstrated by the fact that everything is getting much more complicated then PHB1 4th ed. They keep trying to say its simpler, but its not. I don't think we've seen a single preview where it made things simpler. The only simple thing is that Fighters lose Dailies and seem to have a limited number of Encounters. So while simpler to play in theory, everything you've learnt about D&D playing other classes is useless when playing a fighter.
I personally think choosing 2 at will, 1 encounter and 1 daily at level one is good enough to teach the basics for a newbie. By level 2 he should be able to play "normal" 4e.
I thought Essentials was supposed to be cutting out unnecessary complications like that?
Essentials is 4.5e. This is demonstrated by the fact that everything is getting much more complicated then PHB1 4th ed. They keep trying to say its simpler, but its not. I don't think we've seen a single preview where it made things simpler. The only simple thing is that Fighters lose Dailies and seem to have a limited number of Encounters. So while simpler to play in theory, everything you've learnt about D&D playing other classes is useless when playing a fighter.
I personally think choosing 2 at will, 1 encounter and 1 daily at level one is good enough to teach the basics for a newbie. By level 2 he should be able to play "normal" 4e.
But I appreciate that they made all the classes different.
But I appreciate that they made all the classes different.
After I heard the podcast I was pretty excited about what they want to do.
As I said, the only problem is, that they still don't make their minimum of statistics homework. I have the impression that these things where designed in the fashion of "Yeah we have so cool ideas" but there was no real play testing involved.
It's sad that a company makes the same mistake again and again... and again...
It is sad, after the last erratas I thought they have at least some guys who know what they are doing, but it seems that they don't ask these guys when they create new stuff...
Well, we haven't seen the rest of the powers. Perhaps it will turn up to be tactical and interesting? But for now, I do think a level PHB1 Fighter is more interesting than the Knight.
Yep. I know it's suppose to be "basic" for the D&D newb but I'm not impressed with the design thus far.
Someone around here theorized the Essentials fighter would use basic attacks augmented by class features and they were spot on. However, I thought it would be better than this. The Essentials wizard looks more powerful than the fighter (as they hinted it would) thus reminding me of older editions of D&D. But, I don't know if this will lure lapsed players back in based on this preview.
Now I'm definitely going down to the local Borders and thumbing through this before I order it off Amazon.
I understand where Tomson is coming from with his attribute complaint, but Str/Con is standard fighter. He needs the con for his hit points. Is this version weak to reflex and will attacks? Yes it is, but the classic fighter's job is to stand against the thing that attacks AC or Fort, and that is what this guy does.
If you want to sacrifice some of the damage for more surviability, by all means, buy up your other stats. They just likely will not boost your other powers. Otherwise, welcome back to being Reflex/Willpower cheese. The Mindflayers have missed you.
However, as plain as this fighter seems, I think I'm warming up to him in rpg terms. Its easier to swalow that I can only swing with amazing force once per encounter. Its not so easy to swallow that I can only do that spining attack, or that trip that I do once per encounter.
Fighters hit things. Less rules leaves more room for RP, and it is a great class to introduce DnD to that friend or nephew who was a bit leary about all those complicated powers and choices from when 4e started up.
edit - the nice thing about power attack is that its a trigger, so you do not waste it.
Also I'm going to guess that Shield finnesse might give Knights a reflex bonus vs. anything in their front arc/ not on their 6
I've been waiting for them to touch on a stance-based class for a while now. Didn't think it would be the fighter though.
Oh, and instead of getting to pick an encounter power, we get it picked for us.
This seems a lot like a vanilla fighter with the power choices largely predetermined.
So basically it's exactly what it says on the tin. Easy mode D&D.
This is a classic dnd fighter, as vanilla as can be.
And there is a reason that the classic vanilla fighter was one of the first casualties of the rise of 4th edition. I am saddened that the developers have forgotten that. Although ironically, from what I've seen on CharOp, this might end up being the most broken thing to come out of essentials.
And I am now questioning whether I want to cancel my preorder for the the two Heroes of books. I was originally on-board with Essentials, but now that they are revealing details I have lost pretty much all interest even in just swiping powers, feats, and items from the books.
Also, the Melee Training feat makes your Fighter whatever you want it to be – Intelligent, Charismatic, Wise, Dextrous – you could even dump everything but Constitution and spike it really high with just that feat.
it will be interesting to see what can be done with that.
Also, the Melee Training feat makes your Fighter whatever you want it to be – Intelligent, Charismatic, Wise, Dextrous – you could even dump everything but Constitution and spike it really high with just that feat.
it will be interesting to see what can be done with that.
Can pump up Dex and use a bow I think..
I'm ambivalent on this new fighter. The mechanics seem interesting, but not as innovative or truly different as I was hoping. My opinion is currently tending towards "different for the sake of being different, rather than actually making any significant difference to how the class plays". I'm also a little worried about how the "no at-will attacks, but you get at-will stances to modify your basic attacks instead" will interact with the human bonus at-will power. Will somebody wanting to play an Essentials human fighter have to buy a non-Essentials book just to get a 'real' fighter at-will attack power to take as his human bonus power? Because that's just stupid. The obvious alternative would be that the Essentials version of the human doesn't get a bonus at-will power, which is perhaps even worse. Or a human fighter gets an extra at-will stance, but that's going to mean additional rules text to clarify how this particular race/class interaction works. I thought Essentials was supposed to be cutting out unnecessary complications like that?
I also think 'Defender Aura' is an utter wallbanger of a name for a martial class feature. 'Aura' strongly implies 'magic' IMO. But that's obviously not a mechanical issue, so it's less of a concern to me ("flavour is mutable" etc.)
i think that the knight build is significantly easier for a newbie to play. you switch something on and don't have to worry about it again, until you decide to switch to something else (fire and forget). also, power strike is a guaranteed effect. all very easy stuff. me likes a lot.
i am guessing that the human bonus at-will might be sacrificed to give humans +2 in two stats of the player's choice. this, too, would be a simpler feature for a newbie to contend with.
perhaps "defender's presence" be a more acceptable name for the aura.
Also, the Melee Training feat makes your Fighter whatever you want it to be – Intelligent, Charismatic, Wise, Dextrous – you could even dump everything but Constitution and spike it really high with just that feat.
it will be interesting to see what can be done with that.
Can pump up Dex and use a bow I think..
I wish, but the class focuses on MBAs, not just BAs in general. Battle Wrath gives bonuses to all BAs, but the other exploits we've seen deal chiefly with MBAs. If there's a significant number of neutral BA bonuses amongst the stances and other exploits, it might be exploitable.
Unfortunately they still did not understand their own rules system.
A defender, which has two primary stats that boost the same defense, and also gets a bonus to that same defense is totally pointless.
Its possible the Rules Compendium will get some kind of universal fix for ALL redundant ability scores. This could be why the Knight class doesnt care about its redundant Str:Con. If so, it would also help many other classes and races, like Str:Con Warforge, Int:Dex Wand Wizard, Eladrin, Wis:Cha Cleric, Kalashtar, etcetera.
This is a classic dnd fighter, as vanilla as can be.
And there is a reason that the classic vanilla fighter was one of the first casualties of the rise of 4th edition.
I am going to respectfully disagree. I think the old style DnD Magic User of, "Well, that was my magic missile for the day, I'm done!" was what really needed the 4e treatment.
The 4E fighter should have been less about frilly lotus blossom attack powers, and more about what weapon he was holding. They told us when 4e was coming that would how the fighters worked, but they really didn't play off that way.
Now there is more of a chance to let their equipment, which was always the halmark of the fighter; the guy who can use EVERYTHING, help them shine.
I also think that DnD4e's "everything is a power" mentality took the game more into being a casual minature tactics game than an actual roleplaying game.
Unfortunately they still did not understand their own rules system.
A defender, which has two primary stats that boost the same defense, and also gets a bonus to that same defense is totally pointless.
Shield Finess. I can't imagine it being anything other then +Ref while wielding a shield.
The knight is definitely something more for "newbie" players. Though an advanced player might be able to make one as deadly as a PHB Fighter.
What I'm curious about is how would you mix and match. Say you wanted a fighter with those at-will stances, but still used encounter and daily abilities.
4e fighter was one of the strongest classes in the game. They could take a beating, had a nice stop power, and could dish out near striker level damage.
The cleric and wizard previews looked pretty compatible with what was around already, but this fighter doesn't. This fighter also looks weak. And simplistic to the point of being completely boring.
I can't give a full opinion until the rest of the class is available, but this is one preview that definitely has be less excited for essentials, rather then more.
I know we haven't seen all the class features yet, but at the moment this guy just doesn't perform his defender role, as any enemy can just shift away from him and attack someone else without any penalty at all.
I expect the Battle Guardian to have something about this.
"If an enemy affected by your defender's aura shifts, make an MBA against it as a free action".
Nice, simple, and effective.
This is also the first previewed essentials class that it looks like you won't be able to mix & match any aspects of it with any aspects of the current 4e fighter at all.
I believe he'll be able to swap Utility powers (they're on the list as normal, and in the normal places), but given how different everything else is, that may not even be true.
This is also the first previewed essentials class that it looks like you won't be able to mix & match any aspects of it with any aspects of the current 4e fighter at all.
I believe he'll be able to swap Utility powers (they're on the list as normal, and in the normal places), but given how different everything else is, that may not even be true.
As we heard on the last podcast you will be able to swap everything out later. Even Class-Feature-Powers.
I'm more wondering what will be happening with Daily-Utility-Power-Stances
This is a classic dnd fighter, as vanilla as can be.
And there is a reason that the classic vanilla fighter was one of the first casualties of the rise of 4th edition.
I'm afraid that I have to agree with this. It seems to me that they are trying to make the essentials classes similar to the 3.5 classes to battle the Pathfinder craze, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Changing the fighter from a class that had only its unflavored attacks going for it to using powers was one of the selling points of 4e, and the reason why they came out with The Book of Nine Swords towards the end of 3.5.
This fighter looks like it might have some potential though provided the exploitation of basic attacks was intended in the design and not an after thought. It would be nice to be able to build a fighter that doesn't rely on Str.
This fighter looks like it might have some potential though provided the exploitation of basic attacks was intended in the design and not an after thought. It would be nice to be able to build a fighter that doesn't rely on Str.
I hadn't thought about it, it looks like changing from Strength to whatever is only one feat away! Which is also especially dangerous if you choose Con with Melee Training. But I guess not all the powers will be like these. Maybe the very mark punishing ability (for now unseen) will be something different from a MBA but will require Str. Kind of inverting the actual Fighter, which relies on MBAs exactly for mark punishing.
Who knows.
For now this might be the worst class change I've seen, but I was so happy with the Wizard that I think they can't be too far off the mark (pun?) with the Fighter...
Then again, this is only part of the class, the rest could be great, and I could still just play PHB1 Fighter. We will see!
Its possible the Rules Compendium will get some kind of universal fix for ALL redundant ability scores.
This would shift game balance completely and make Str/Con fighters with a Str/Con race completely uber.
It seems that they are just messing around (again) and hoping it will work out fine. They should have learned that it never did. However, we haven't seen everything, so there is a slim hope that they know what they are doing (Well I remember that it was noticed about 5 minutes after they posted starship stats in a preview for Star Wars d20 1st edition, that the damage reduction of the Imperial Star Destroyer was far to low. It took them a couple of years until they fixed that :P )
All I know is that I loved the marking mechanic
I also liked it, but I agree that it is too complicated. However, the new mechanic doesn't seem to be much simpler - and it is far worse. Again there is the hope that just the extract of the preview was a bad choice, but IMO the Str/Con thing is enough to reduce my expectations from "this will be great" to... "well... whatever".
What I see is that they nailed down the problems of 4e pretty well:
- Too complicated for starters
- Classes are not distinct enough
- Three required stats don't work because you usually only get two stat raises.
Unfortunately the solution they came up with seems to be lacking.
If they really want to create a useful defender, he should have required stats from two different defenses and some serious utility to boost his lacking defense (perma stunned/dominated fighters are not much fun to play)
Even if it would overlap with the cleric Str/Wis would be my favourite choice
Str/Dex would be interesting if you get stances - or better at will powers that boost your Will.
Much of the class imbalance of earlier eds was due to such a difference. It was alot more extreme, of course, but it was well-known. Casters got very powerful daily spells, non-casters got much less powerful unlimitted-use weapon attacks and feats. The game was balanced if there were many and varied challenges throughout the day, so the casters couldn't just unload their nastiest stuff in every fight, secure in the knowledge they could re-load when they needed to, and the non-casters thus had real contributions to make. That rarely happened. Far more typically, the party would 'rest' after each challenge or otherwise whenever the first PC ran out of potent daily abilities, leaving the unlimited-ability classes profoundly underperforming, and the DM wondering why even Level+4 challenges were lasting 1 round.
The Knight certainly seems to be continuing the trend of Essentials. It is both a simplified version of the class - the sort of thing that a jaded gamer or designer would /think/ might apeal to newbies - and a throwback to earlier editions (backpeddling in response to all the 3.5/Pathfinder players who haven't embraced 4e). Will it please both nubes and grognards? Time will tell. (Not that Time has a strong record of telling us what we want to hear).
Dropping dailies plays to both the simplification and retrofication aims. The problem is that it may also just plain make the class suck, in which case, it'll see very little use as everyone opts for the existing Fighter builds, instead. If it turns out that it's other features or the abuseability of basing everything of basic attacks or whatever else make it competative with characters who have dailies, even in nova situations, then, when the pendulum swings the other way and others are running out of dailies, the class will start to dominate.
And I hope Weapon Talent and that line works like 4e previews had us hoping the original fighter would: making weapon a huge part of character, with definitive benefits. Class, race, and theme: those seem to be the three elements of a character now. With the fighter, weapon of choice ought to be a fourth part.
One last note: everyone's been assuming that Defender Aura is the mark. But it's also been pointed out that it doesn't count as a mark. Well, whoever says it is the new mark? We haven't seen Battle Guardian yet, and it's possible that it is both a mark and punishment. So what's the point of Defender Aura then? To make the fighter better at multi-marking. A fighter can do a little bit of defending against the entire horde surrounding him, and then focus on one particular enemy. I'm picturing something like Combat Challenge. Defender Aura makes the fighter the quintessential defender by protecting allies even from unmarked foes. At least, this is a possibility that hasn't been ruled out.
The Defender Aura looks like a mark and quacks like a mark. It gives the same -2 penalty as a makr and doesn't work on marked enemies. It's clearly an attempt at a more user-friendly mark.
I'm not 100% on clearly. Like I was trying to say in my last post, an alternative is that it's providing a way to still defend against enemies you haven't marked. But you do make a good point about it being a simpler alternative to a mark: Essentials was working to simplify. So you're probably right. But I do have one problem with it: unless a weapon talent expands it to aura 2 with reach weapons, specialists in reach weapons don't have that better control at a distance aspect that is the whole point of reach weapons. As an aside, that's a problem I have with battlemind's mind spike as well: no way to expand it to a range of melee: weapon.
If you did exert that much control in a 5x5 square around you, well, you'd be edging in on the controller role. Having to be adjacent gaurantees that the enemy always has the option of hitting you.
It's not like the Fighter's Combat Challenge works well with reach weapons, either.
If you did exert that much control in a 5x5 square around you, well, you'd be edging in on the controller role. Having to be adjacent gaurantees that the enemy always has the option of hitting you.
The fighter has a PP that fixes it for reach weapons. If i remember correctly, it works perfectly fine for Knights too, due to practicly giving you the feature a second time.
i am guessing that the human bonus at-will might be sacrificed to give humans +2 in two stats of the player's choice. this, too, would be a simpler feature for a newbie to contend with.
Well, I hope not.
perhaps "defender's presence" be a more acceptable name for the aura.
Yes, but I think it's too late now.
unless a weapon talent expands it to aura 2 with reach weapons, specialists in reach weapons don't have that better control at a distance aspect that is the whole point of reach weapons.
The knight looks like it's supposed to be exclusively a shield-using build, so I don't think that's really an issue. The slayer might well use a different mechanic entirely, especially as it's been described as a two-hander build.
Every round, your Knight gets to make a free extra attack using a Melee Basic, Battle Wrath, and your Warlord's Commanding Strike. You get your Melee Basic, +2 damage from Battle Wrath, +your Warlords INT mod in damage.
Aren't opportunity attacks Melee Basics?
The more I think about this, the more evil it gets.
I also think it's as simple if not simpler than the PHB1 fighter. Instead of "powers" you simply attack and whatever "mode" you happen to be in gives you a bonus.
I also don't think the Knight is too MAD. Str + Con seems like it'll be neglecting Reflex and Will, but Con isn't that essential as a secondary other than for HP. And with melee training, you don't even have to have a high Str.
Human, Knight, 18, 14, 14 build with a shield and the feat that applies you shield bonus to will and you start at 20 AC, 16 Fort, 15 Ref, 15 Will. Those are some outstanding defenses at level 1.
EDIT: As for the name for the Defender's Aura, I think Defender's Threat is what I'll call it.
+ The Knight seems a solid class ... if ... one of the mystery powers makes it sticky in some way.
− However CharOp worries about 'break it or dont take it', turning out subpar for beginners but conducive to convoluted feat-item builds that require extensive rules mastery and that break the game. The jury awaits more info.
+ The Knight is user-friendly for beginners. The legal term 'I attack' is natural, sufficient, and effective.
± For beginners, the simplest class possible is the Ranger: Archer. The Fighter tactics are necessarily complex because of the battlefield Controller aspects that the Defender role requires.
− Mechanically, the Knight and the Fighter seem incompatable. The Knight cant benefit from Fighter atwill, encounter, or daily powers, nor can the Fighter get any new ones of these from the Knight.
− The Knights dependence on the 'melee basic attack' keyword means the Knight and the Fighter may turn out to not even share the same feats and magic items, especially for optimal builds.
± They customize differently. The Knights abilities are customizable, but not the powers. The Fighter is highly customizable, especially the auxillary abilities.
The point is, the Knight and the Fighter occupy different niches in the gaming ecology. Therefore, the Knight cannot outmode the Fighter. Therefore discontinuing future support for the Fighter would be traumatic for Fighter enthusiasts.
+ The Knight and the Fighter can coexist in the same game, even in the same party. Therefore both remain genuine options.
− Their close-but-no-cigar relationship within the same class will remain a source of contention among its respective players, and mechanically while competing for gaming resources.
± The Knight deviates from the Standard Advancement Table. This is fine if carefully sustaining equivalencies of power, but inevitably will become disasterous for gaming balance if not.
− The new design philosophy with its baked-in flavor and resistance to refluffing seems unfriendly to players who need to customize the character mechanics to build a personal character concept or a character that is appropriate in a 'non-Essential' campaign setting.
I share the same concerns that many players do. The more WotC can *satisfy* these concerns, the more welcome the new Knight class subclass will become.
It appears someone under the effect of multiple Defender's Auras will suffer the effects of all of them (the aura excludes marked enemies from being effected, but then the aura doesn't technically mark) so if three knights were standing shoulder to shoulder like so:
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
The ememy (X) would take a -4 penalty for hitting the middle knight, and depending on the wording of the knight's "mark" enforcement feature, may be subject to two melee basic attacks.
In this way, a party of all knights, lined up shoulder to shoulder, would be nearly immune to melee attacks (-4 to attacks plus heavy armor+heavy shield)
It makes sense, tactically, but balance-wise I'm not convinced it's a good idea.
The ememy (X) would take a -4 penalty for hitting the middle knight, and depending on the wording of the knight's "mark" enforcement feature, may be subject to two melee basic attacks.
I don't think so.
While in the aura, any enemy takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls when it makes an attack that does not include among its targets either you or an ally of yours who has this aura active.
I share the same concerns that many players do. The more WotC can *satisfy* these concerns, the more welcome the new Knight class subclass will become.
I can see where you're coming from. I even agree with some of your points. But I really don't see how this will be so much different than introducing the Beastmaster option for Rangers. You trade away some class features and get some different ones.
The difference is the design philosophy: the meta-level concerning the game as a whole. There are 'concerns' about the future. It is still possible to stave off any negative consequences before they ever happen.
For example, the devs say, 'the future of D&D' 'going forward', the Essentials line 'will always remain in print' (but the PH1 wont remain in print?), etcetera. They seem to imply they will discontinue future support for any classes that dont cohere with the 'Essential' design philosophy. That would be indeed different if there are no more Fighter powers besides in Dragon articles.
Of course, the devs can easily remedy the concern by saying, future books like some Heroes Of Martial will also support the Fighter as well as subclasses like the Knight, Slayer, and so on. (But the devs havent said this.)
The thing is, the popularity of the Essentials classes depends on a class-by-class basis. I think the Warpriest will outmode the Battle Cleric, so fewer would feel the impact if the devs discontinue support for the latter. However, the Knight because of its railroading mechanics cannot outmode the popular customizable Fighter, so the need of many players for Fighter support persists.
If you're defending against ranged enemies, you just charge and get up in their face.
Until the enemy learns it can shift
To me, the essentials fighter looks to break the supposedly primary goal of compatibility with existing material, and I'm actually concerned about future support for the existing fighter in ways that I wasn't after the cleric and wizard previews. Well, apart from Strength clerics, but I wasn't expecting much in the way of future support for them anyway, due to Y stat issues.
But whatever. I can see this class as being a usefull class for new players playing for the first time. And I can see oldschool D&D fans liking the oldschool feel of the class...
The difference is the design philosophy: the meta-level concerning the game as a whole. There are 'concerns' about the future. It is still possible to stave off any negative consequences before they ever happen.
Isn't this meta-perception of the game by the community rather than actually being about the game? If all the current stuff is completely valid and compatible with the new stuff that's coming out, isn't it just unfounded fear that we're going to lose access to what's currently in print in favor of the type of stuff with the "Essentials" design approach?
For example, the devs say, 'the future of D&D' 'going forward', the Essentials line 'will always remain in print' (but the PH1 wont remain in print?), etcetera. They seem to imply they will discontinue future support for any classes that dont cohere with the 'Essential' design philosophy. That would be indeed different if there are no more Fighter powers besides in Dragon articles.
It wouldn't be so bad if the PHB1 went out of print. It's full of Y-classes that use multiple attack stats, some pretty lame feats and lots of errata'd stuff. I think a Rules Compendium book and DDI make for a far better version of the "Core Books" than the actual PHB. It was a great book at the time, but I also think it was full of stuff that the designers have since learned not to do.
Of course, the devs can easily remedy the concern by saying, future books like some Heroes Of Martial will also support the Fighter as well as subclasses like the Knight, Slayer, and so on. (But the devs havent said this.)[emphasis mine]
Isn't that just reassurance? What does it matter what the devs say? Doesn't it matter more what the rules actually end up being?
I think the devs are saying things like that. In the Ampersand articles there's loads of stuff about how essentials doesn't invalidate current stuff, they just add more options, blah, blah, blah. I don't think they should bother trying to convince anyone who's afraid of change to like the change that's coming up.
The thing is, the popularity of the Essentials classes depends on a class-by-class basis. I think the Warpriest will outmode the Battle Cleric, so fewer would feel the impact if the devs discontinue support for the latter. However, the Knight because of its railroading mechanics cannot outmode the popular customizable Fighter, so the need of many players for Fighter support persists.
How much new stuff is needed? Was there sufficient options with just the PHB? What about after a bunch of Dragon issues? What about after Martial Power? Martial Power 2? Does publication of more builds, feats, features and powers have to continue on infinitely for the class to be properly "supported" as useful in the game? If all we have now for the PHB Fighter is all we ever get, how many sessions and characters could you make the amount of currently available options before you've done it all? Maybe the answer to what constitutes proper support for a class isn't endless new powers, feats and rules until an edition change comes and they start the cycle all over again?
To me, the essentials fighter looks to break the supposedly primary goal of compatibility with existing material, and I'm actually concerned about future support for the existing fighter in ways that I wasn't after the cleric and wizard previews. Well, apart from Strength clerics, but I wasn't expecting much in the way of future support for them anyway, due to Y stat issues.
I'm just not sure endless new powers, feats and rules for a class until there are so many for every class spread over countless volumes and then an edition change is the only real option to consolidate it and start again is the answer.
If you find yourself afraid of the current rate of new builds, feats, etc., for your class coming out might slow down, is that really about playing the game? If the current fighter becomes "no good" in your mind because that treadmill of new stuff has drastically slowed or stopped, does that mean the class is incomplete or bad right now? If you're afraid of what it will mean for the class to not get new options, doesn't it mean that for the class is like in its current state? After all, you don't have that possible future material for the class right now do you? If you want to know what the class is like in play in the actual game with all future rules cancelled, you simply have to play it in it's current state.
If you're defending against ranged enemies, you just charge and get up in their face.
Until the enemy learns it can shift
Then you use your battle guardian feature. Which obviously let's you teleport charge anyone who makes an attack from outside your aura as a no-action. Right?
But whatever. I can see this class as being a usefull class for new players playing for the first time. And I can see oldschool D&D fans liking the oldschool feel of the class...
Please explain how you think the Essentials Fighter is going to teach newbies how to play a non-essentials fighter?
Whats wrong with a 1st level Pre-Essentials fighter with 2 At-wills, I Encounter and 1 Daily chosen for them? How is this class supposedly any easier, and how does it teach the defender role?
But whatever. I can see this class as being a usefull class for new players playing for the first time. And I can see oldschool D&D fans liking the oldschool feel of the class...
Please explain how you think the Essentials Fighter is going to teach newbies how to play a non-essentials fighter?
Whats wrong with a 1st level Pre-Essentials fighter with 2 At-wills, I Encounter and 1 Daily chosen for them? How is this class supposedly any easier, and how does it teach the defender role?
I don't think this class teaches anything. It just looks easier to play, that is all. You have an aura that automatically effects everyone next to you. Otherwise, you pretty much just use basic attack over and over again. Reminds me of everything I hated about the 3e fighter...
But whatever. I can see this class as being a usefull class for new players playing for the first time. And I can see oldschool D&D fans liking the oldschool feel of the class...
Please explain how you think the Essentials Fighter is going to teach newbies how to play a non-essentials fighter?
Whats wrong with a 1st level Pre-Essentials fighter with 2 At-wills, I Encounter and 1 Daily chosen for them? How is this class supposedly any easier, and how does it teach the defender role?
I don't think this class teaches anything. It just looks easier to play, that is all. You have an aura that automatically effects everyone next to you. Otherwise, you pretty much just use basic attack over and over again. Reminds me of everything I hated about the 3e fighter...
What's wrong with giving them 2 At-Wills that they can use over and over again? Why go this route when Pre-Essentials 4th edition can teach them the game just fine?
What's wrong with giving them 2 At-Wills that they can use over and over again? Why go this route when Pre-Essentials 4th edition can teach them the game just fine?
There's nothing wrong with that, but there's already a class they can do that with. I think this class is for brand new players that haven't even had a chance for a good rules introduction, someone that has trouble grasping the rules, or that casual gamer that isn't really involved with the system.
I have initiated quite a few players to D&D with 4e, heck most of my group is new players. Unfortunately some came in higher tier, so had alittle more on their plate to get used to, but they still managed it.
I can imagine this class being useful for a very, very short term before that player gets bored of doing the same thing over and over, and wants to use a more fun class (especially after seeing everyone else do cool stuff).
I think the problem then arises in that normal classes don't function like the Knight...at all. Even the other essentials shown so far behave like normal classes for the most part. So all this will cause is more confusion as the player has to re-learn the game...again.
I have to agree with XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek, 2 at-wills, 1 encounter power, and 1 daily is not hard to learn.
I don't think it will naturally lead to or introduce a player to playing a Nonessential Fighter, but then...if they give you 30 levels of Knightlyness to play with, that player likely won't care too much.
Hmm. Knights are good for hench... 'henchfolk'. If a player needs to play more than one character, em can focus on the main character, and not think too hard about what the Knight is doing during combat.
I feel the Knight fills a niche in the game, Im just not sure it belongs in the Fighter class. Id rather it split off of the Fighter and become its own Knight class.
But in the future, I'd hate to see the fighter pigeonholed as the "dumb class for dumb players". When 5e arrives, I want the option for my fighter to be as fully customisable as any other class.
Hmm. Knights are good for hench... 'henchfolk'. If a player needs to play more than one character, em can focus on the main character, and not think too hard about what the Knight is doing during combat.
I've been thinking lately about one day doing a campaign with a sort of 'mercenary ensemble' theme, where only a couple of the PCs are 'proper' roleplaying characters, but there are also a bunch of relatively simple 'backup' characters that can be taken along for specific missions (and can easily be replaced if they die). It looks like the Essentials fighter would be perfect as one of those backup characters for missions that require an extra defender or two. So, even if everyone's misgivings prove correct, it's still not a total loss.
I also don't think the Knight is too MAD. Str + Con seems like it'll be neglecting Reflex and Will, but Con isn't that essential as a secondary other than for HP. And with melee training, you don't even have to have a high Str.
The problem is, that with the current system, your character will get worse and worse every few levels, because two of his defenses lack behind the monsters to hit more and more.
This works for the beginning of heroic tier, will get a little annoying at paragon and force your character to spend most of his feats to boost his defenses at epic.
The trick to circumvent the bad design by giving the fighter melee training, focus on con and drop Strenth is a great idea, but it is just proof that this "build" is flawed.
I prefer classes where the primary and secondary are in different defense groups, but I think Str-Con builds are viable enough. Especially when you have a shield bonus to Reflex, two unknown shield abilities and potential access to fighter feats that add your shield bonus to Will and Fort if you're inclined to take them.
It's not as ideal as having separate defense stats groups for primary and and secondary, but I want to know what Shield Finesse and Shield Block do before I'd declare the build to be flawed.
I feel like this class would bore a new player out of his/her skull. I mean, you wait five minutes for your turn, and your turn winds up cosnisting of "I hit it with my sword"... it seems to equal "I'll just be over here on my iPhone guys."
What's the difference between:
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I use "Cleave"
Rolls Dice
9 Damage and the minion is toast too.
and
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I have my "Cleave" mode on.
Rolls Dice.
9 Damage and teh minion is toast too.
Are people even reading the article before they comment on it?
What's the difference between:
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I use "Cleave"
Rolls Dice
9 Damage and the minion is toast too.
and
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I have my "Cleave" mode on.
Rolls Dice.
9 Damage and teh minion is toast too.
Are people even reading the article before they comment on it?
The difference between those is that in one you say "the minion," yet in the other you say "teh minion." Clearly this means the knight is far too different from the fighter and must be exiled.
Really though, the new fighter-type class seems good enough to me. I would be willing to play one and see what he can do.
I feel like this class would bore a new player out of his/her skull. I mean, you wait five minutes for your turn, and your turn winds up cosnisting of "I hit it with my sword"... it seems to equal "I'll just be over here on my iPhone guys."
What's the difference between:
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I use "Cleave"
Rolls Dice
9 Damage and the minion is toast too.
and
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I have my "Cleave" mode on.
Rolls Dice.
9 Damage and teh minion is toast too.
Are people even reading the article before they comment on it?
Because next turn the Fighter uses Come and Get it to pull all enemies adjacent to him and strike all of them.
The knight uses his cleave stance again.
What's the difference:
Knight: I attack the boss and cleave, taking out the minion. Now there's no minions left, so for the rest of the battle all I can do is switch to the extra damaging stance and wail away.
Fighter: I attack the boss and cleave, taking out the minion. Only the boss is left. But I've got tricks left. I can lure him into a trap, I could daze him, knock him to the ground, or just hit him extra hard. Or oh, I've got that immediate interrupt daily for when he attacks my allies.
There's the difference. The knight has fewer options. Good for a newbie player, but it gets boring fast. But hopefully I'm overestimating the knight's simplicity - that the availability of several stances gives the knight enough tactical options. And if that fails, get creative. When I play a character, I'm not limited to just powers for combat stuff. Swing on the chandelier. Pull the carpet down. Run up the owlbear's face. And yes, I have actually done that last one. No regrets.
Now, maybe there's too many people crying doom a bit too early.
Yeah, funny thing is it seems like just a few months ago that there were folks complaining about how overly complicated the fighter had become as compared to its incarnations of editions past. I can remember at least one DM that was having to deal with an old school player that didn't even like using his fighter's at-will powers because he felt they were abilities best saved for special occasions. Now players like that have been in the minority for most of 4e's run, and probably at least some of the latter half of 3e, but now I'm left wondering were they've all disapeared to.
Good for a newbie player, but it gets boring fast.
I can't really agree with that. Fewer options is not inherently boring. When playinga knight I might not have as many options in what kinds of actions I take each round, but instead of being bored I could use the my time figuring out how to make the most of the options at my disposal. Like any class/build, the knight is what each player chooses to make of it.
4e has evolvedD&D into a very tactical skirmish game, something I mostly enjoy, but I know there have been complaints from folks that aren't interested in the chess-like strategies involved in a typical 4e combat encounter. For them the knight could be something of a god send, a simple and straight forward class that they can mostly auto-pilot through the sometimes/often too long combat encounters.
Which brings me to what I think is the most important point. How many tactical combat options a class has shouldn't have any impact on roleplaying options, and while I enjoy a more tactical combat field, I still think it's the first two letters of RPG that should matter most.
And if that fails, get creative
This too, and in that sense the knight is probably a good beginners build not just because it has fewer power options, but also because of the mind set that can put a player into. Even veteran players can easily forget that charters are more than an acumulation of attribute scores and feat/power selections. A class with few spelled out options can encourage players (new and old) to get creative.
And if that fails, get creative
This too, and in that sense the knight is probably a good beginners build not just because it has fewer power options, but also because of the mind set that can put a player into. Even veteran players can easily forget that charters are more than an acumulation of attribute scores and feat/power selections. A class with few spelled out options can encourage players (new and old) to get creative.
Something about this isn't quite adding up for me. And it's not just the tired "bad rules make good games" bit, either...
So, the Knight is supposed to be a good 'beginner class' because it has fewer options, which is what essentials is about?
But, then, the Mage has just as many powers to choose as the Implement Wizards, plus, he gets to swap out his encounters as well as dailies and utiities - everything but his at-wills and cantrips. Isn't that /more/ options?
But, the Knight is more like the pre-4e fighter. And the Mage is just slightly more like the pre-4e wizard.
Fewer options is not inherently boring. When playinga knight I might not have as many options in what kinds of actions I take each round, but instead of being bored I could use the my time figuring out how to make the most of the options at my disposal. Like any class/build, the knight is what each player chooses to make of it.
This. The Knight is like sushi. The Mage is like gumbo. Both are good, but for different reasons.
And if that fails, get creative
This too, and in that sense the knight is probably a good beginners build not just because it has fewer power options, but also because of the mind set that can put a player into. Even veteran players can easily forget that charters are more than an acumulation of attribute scores and feat/power selections. A class with few spelled out options can encourage players (new and old) to get creative.
Something about this isn't quite adding up for me. And it's not just the tired "bad rules make good games" bit, either...
So, the Knight is supposed to be a good 'beginner class' because it has fewer options, which is what essentials is about?
But, then, the Mage has just as many powers to choose as the Implement Wizards, plus, he gets to swap out his encounters as well as dailies and utiities - everything but his at-wills and cantrips. Isn't that /more/ options?
But, the Knight is more like the pre-4e fighter. And the Mage is just slightly more like the pre-4e wizard.
The theory the're operating on is that essential classes will have a range of complexity. Wizards are for people who like to have all the options available in 4e, while fighters are for people who like a simpler "button masher" type of game.
The problem: WotC is barely capable of balancing classes that folow the same progression pattern; are we really so hopeful that they can balance classes that are built so differently? Wasn't this the problem with 3/3.5 in the first place?
The problem: WotC is barely capable of balancing classes that folow the same progression pattern; are we really so hopeful that they can balance classes that are built so differently? Wasn't this the problem with 3/3.5 in the first place?
Balance doesn't have to be perfect, just close enough that everyone feels capable of contributing to the shared experience. As you said the knight is kind of for the button mashing type. As long as they get the opportunity to make plenty of attack and damage roles they aren't necessarily concerned with the nitty griity of just how "effective" they are compared to their teammates.
That said, I too have my concerns as to the balance between the Essentials classes, but I'll reserve my judgement until the product is released and I have a more complete picture.
Wizards are for people who like to have all the options available in 4e, while fighters are for people who like a simpler "button masher" type of game.
This still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. IMO, fighters should be for the players who want their character to wear cool armor and fight with a sword, and wizards should be for the people who want to wear robes and cast spells with their magic staff. You play the class you want based on theme, not based on your experience level. I don't want to tell the new guy who wants to be a wizard that he can't play the character he wants because the designers made it extra complicated for experienced players. Neither do I want to let the new player play his wizard only to get frustrated and eat table time trying to figure out what his dozens of powers do and which ones he knows today.
Likewise, I don't want my experienced player who wants to play a sword-swinging warrior to get bored and stop paying attention, or even stop coming to games, because his character doesn't present him with interesting choices to make during or between combats.
Further, I don't like the idea of completely different classes with the same class name. IMO, that's going to cause some real headaches. I liked the cleric and wizard previews because they showed us sub-classes that added thematic elements without compromising compatibility. The fighter does compromise compatibility, to the point that I just wish they had called the new class something else to begin with.
The theory the're operating on is that essential classes will have a range of complexity. Wizards are for people who like to have all the options available in 4e, while fighters are for people who like a simpler "button masher" type of game.
OK, that's plausible. I still think it looks suspiciously like backpeddling to try to re-capture some of the 3.x/Pathfinder crowd.
The problem: WotC is barely capable of balancing classes that folow the same progression pattern; are we really so hopeful that they can balance classes that are built so differently? Wasn't this the problem with 3/3.5 in the first place?
Heh, you make it sound like incompetence. Balancing a list-based game like D&D is nightmarish. Even building a complete 4e class is quite an undertaking thanks to all the powers. IMHO, it's not that WotC isn't competent to balance a class that's a lot like 2e fighters with classes that are a bit like 3e casters, it's that it just can't be done 'out of the box,' it requires expert DMing to present challenges that work for both without one overshadowing the other. And that is /definitely/ not the kind of thing to attempt in an indtraductory product.
This still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. IMO, fighters should be for the players who want their character to wear cool armor and fight with a sword, and wizards should be for the people who want to wear robes and cast spells with their magic staff. You play the class you want based on theme, not based on your experience level. I don't want to tell the new guy who wants to be a wizard that he can't play the character he wants because the designers made it extra complicated for experienced players. Neither do I want to let the new player play his wizard only to get frustrated and eat table time trying to figure out what his dozens of powers do and which ones he knows today.
Well, we don't know what the Slayer does yet. It could be a normal complexity build. And then there's also the existing 5 builds. A brawling or tempest fighter with combat agility who specializes in multi-target attacks is still more than available. I don't think it's going to disapear out of the character builder nor your printed books.
As for the Wizard, even the most complicated 4E wizard is nothing like the magic users, mages and wizards of previous editions. A normal PHB1 Wizard is there and has the choice of one daily or another and that's it. Check out the Critical Hit actual play podcast put out by Major Spoilers and you'll see it starts with someone 100% new to D&D starting a wizard and doing fine with it.
Likewise, I don't want my experienced player who wants to play a sword-swinging warrior to get bored and stop paying attention, or even stop coming to games, because his character doesn't present him with interesting choices to make during or between combats.
Once we have the full knight and the full slayer, he'll have to take a look and see if they'd hold his interest or if he'd be better off with taking one of the five other existing builds. They're not going anywhere.
Further, I don't like the idea of completely different classes with the same class name. IMO, that's going to cause some real headaches. I liked the cleric and wizard previews because they showed us sub-classes that added thematic elements without compromising compatibility. The fighter does compromise compatibility, to the point that I just wish they had called the new class something else to begin with.
This is a fair concern. The Knight is quite a departure in terms of amount of choice. We'll have to wait and see about the Rogue and the Slayer. I still think the Knight is very much a Fighter. But it is as different as an archer ranger and a marauder ranger-- which feel very different in actual play.
Well, in ye olden days, choice for a fighter meant equipment, and I don't mind a return to this. I wouldn't mind seeing weapons work differently for them. Maybe Maces in a neo fighter's hands attack Fort, Axes stay with AC, blades. flails and spears hit reflex.
It would also be nice to see a knight get a one-handed reach weapon, (1d8 to keep it reasonable) so they could fight like a Spartan Phallanx
I also wouldn't mind seeing weapon speed come back, but that goes in the opposite direction of trying to make the game easy.
Well, in ye olden days, choice for a fighter meant equipment, and I don't mind a return to this. I wouldn't mind seeing weapons work differently for them. Maybe Maces in a neo fighter's hands attack Fort, Axes stay with AC, blades. flails and spears hit reflex.
It would also be nice to see a knight get a one-handed reach weapon, (1d8 to keep it reasonable) so they could fight like a Spartan Phallanx
I also wouldn't mind seeing weapon speed come back, but that goes in the opposite direction of trying to make the game easy.
I don't think I would classify a spartan phalanx as having reach. They still attack adjacent targets. They just have so much cover from those adjacent targets that it is virtually impossible to hit the target's behind the shield wall. It would be like fighting in a maneuver where every man in the phalanx received improved cover... IE: a +5 bonus to AC.
And then let's not even bring up that Alexander the Great's phalangites used a large shield and a 14-20 foot sarissa in the other hand:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
More than the front rank of hoplites attack with their spears when they made contact with their enemies.
And then let's not even bring up that Alexander the Great's phalangites used a large shield and a 14-20 foot sarissa in the other hand:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa
Except they could only use it on a charge, and it wouldn't fit in a dungeon.
Seems like it would make a pretty fun enemy though.
In other words, making basic attacks is not "boring" if you can augment those attacks to go above and beyond simple damage.
In 3rd edition, you could charge an enemy, sunder his weapon, hit him, push him back X squares, crash him into another enemy, knock them both prone, attack both of them again, and gain a bonus to attacks and damage against your original target next turn for your troubles.
That's off a simple charge/power attack but supported by great feats.
If the Knight has enough interesting Stances that affect his MBAs in significant ways, I think it will be a blast to play. In this case, the Stances will take the place of what Fighter Feats did in 3rd edition (but also in this case you can still benefit from feats that augment your MBAs as well).
I think being able to do different things with your MBAs, at-will, is a better approach to the fighter archtype than choosing powers and only being able to pull them off once per encounter or once per day.
Now, if they pull it off well is another story, but I'm hoping they do. I'm peeved with the Str/Con ability score combination, but if I'm able to wave that away with Melee Training it won't be too bad (or rather, it will be bearable).
I feel like this class would bore a new player out of his/her skull. I mean, you wait five minutes for your turn, and your turn winds up cosnisting of "I hit it with my sword"... it seems to equal "I'll just be over here on my iPhone guys."
What's the difference between:
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I use "Cleave"
Rolls Dice
9 Damage and the minion is toast too.
and
I move next to that guy and that little minion puke.
I have my "Cleave" mode on.
Rolls Dice.
9 Damage and teh minion is toast too.
Are people even reading the article before they comment on it?
For one thing, the loss of daily powers is a significant blow to the narrative pace of an encounter. When a someone says their whipping out a daily power, the rest of the table stops what their doing, leans in, and pays attention. I'm not thriller with the fighter losing that in 4eE, and I'm concerned it represents a change to the martial power source as a while. Will rogues lose their daily powers? Rangers? If so, the lack of daily powers from 3 classes is going to reduce interest for everyone else at the table. Why pay any attention to Slash the Fighter, when he never does anything interesting? Further, when to use your daily power is an important and exiting decision point that's lost to fighters now.
I'm not saying the two types of melee basics will be any more or less interesting than comperable at-will powers, the problem comes with the OTHER options the fighter is losing.
For one thing, the loss of daily powers is a significant blow to the narrative pace of an encounter. When a someone says their whipping out a daily power, the rest of the table stops what their doing, leans in, and pays attention.
Absolutely. But we don't know what he's getting in the daily's place. He also has no encounter powers, but then he got a class feature that is an... encounter power.
But yeah, I love that about daily powers.
I'm not thriller with the fighter losing that in 4eE, and I'm concerned it represents a change to the martial power source as a while. Will rogues lose their daily powers? Rangers? If so, the lack of daily powers from 3 classes is going to reduce interest for everyone else at the table.
Why would you extrapolate from one build for one class out of one book out of 10 Essentials products that ALL future martial classes will not have dailies?
Let's say the Knight doesn't have a daily, and whatever they give him instead doesn't equal a show stopping moment like when people use their dailies. Then you have one build out of 6 Fighter builds that you don't like. I don't like the Battlerager. I don't think the publication of the Battle Rager ruined fighters for all time. And it would certainly have been foolish to then think that all future Martial classes were suddenly going to be about generating temporary hit points as their main shtick, wouldn't it?
Why pay any attention to Slash the Fighter, when he never does anything interesting?
Different people find different things interesting. Some people get jazzed about daily nova strikes, other people get jazzed about a constant level of effectiveness. I don't know if I'm going to like the Knight, but I'm sure some people will. And just like how I don't like Battle Ragers, I'm not going to assume those who will enjoy it are somehow doing some sort of bad wrong fun by choosing that build.
Further, when to use your daily power is an important and exiting decision point that's lost to fighters now.
Lost to fighters now? When did that happen? Gaurdian, Great Weapon, Tempest, Battle Rager, Brawler. 5 Builds. The Slayer is also coming out as a new Fighter build and could have dailies as well. Could be 6 different fighters that still do dailies out of a possible 7.
I'm beginning to wonder if people either read what Bill Slaveseck wrote about the Essentials line or listened to the podcast. They aren't invalidating current stuff. At all.
He even explicitly said that the Heroes of X books are like Martial Power type books with new builds and options for a couple different classes during the book cast. When Martial Power 2 came out, did you suddenly conclude that all fighters everywhere now have to fight with one hand free to grapple with?
I'm not saying the two types of melee basics will be any more or less interesting than comperable at-will powers, the problem comes with the OTHER options the fighter is losing.
That is totally fair. And when we find out what they are gaining instead, some of us will like it and others will not.
What I don't understand is this idea people have in their heads that what's true of the knight suddenly becomes true of all fighters everywhere. Or even extrapolate it onto other classes in the same power source.
True, they're not going away for me, because I have the books.
But they're presenting Essentials as never going out of print for the rest of 4e. Doesn't that imply that the other books, including the PHB and various X Power books, will be going out of print?
So for new players without DDI, those builds DO cease to exist.
Just sayin'...
People keep saying the old builds aren't going away.
True, they're not going away for me, because I have the books.
But they're presenting Essentials as never going out of print for the rest of 4e. Doesn't that imply that the other books, including the PHB and various X Power books, will be going out of print?
So for new players without DDI, those builds DO cease to exist.
Just sayin'...
Until they play the game with somebody who does have DDi or the various books and they go "damn, those are some sweet options! I'm totally going to subscribe to DDi for a month to get access to the character builder and all these awesome builds!"
D&D after all is a social game, it's not like these people will be playing by themselves and thus never find out about the other source books.
Until they play the game with somebody who does have DDi or the various books and they go "damn, those are some sweet options! I'm totally going to subscribe to DDi for a month to get access to the character builder and all these awesome builds!"
D&D after all is a social game, it's not like these people will be playing by themselves and thus never find out about the other source books.
True, a one-time purchase of DDI solves that issue of crunch. But as anyone who has ever read a book can tell you, it's not the same.
Perhaps I put too much stock in actual paper (as said by the guy who has DDI yet still buys pretty much every book that comes out)...
But they're presenting Essentials as never going out of print for the rest of 4e. Doesn't that imply that the other books, including the PHB and various X Power books, will be going out of print?
No. All it means is that they'll always have the Essentials available. If they run out of PHB#, they might decide to wait a few months before ordering another print run. They'll just always make sure they have the Essentials titles on hand.
Until they play the game with somebody who does have DDi or the various books and they go "damn, those are some sweet options! I'm totally going to subscribe to DDi for a month to get access to the character builder and all these awesome builds!"
D&D after all is a social game, it's not like these people will be playing by themselves and thus never find out about the other source books.
True, a one-time purchase of DDI solves that issue of crunch. But as anyone who has ever read a book can tell you, it's not the same.
Perhaps I put too much stock in actual paper (as said by the guy who has DDI yet still buys pretty much every book that comes out)...
I also have nearly every player crunch book out there. Yet you see my opinion.
People keep saying the old builds aren't going away.
True, they're not going away for me, because I have the books.
But they're presenting Essentials as never going out of print for the rest of 4e. Doesn't that imply that the other books, including the PHB and various X Power books, will be going out of print?
So for new players without DDI, those builds DO cease to exist.
Just sayin'...
Until they play the game with somebody who does have DDi or the various books and they go "damn, those are some sweet options! I'm totally going to subscribe to DDi for a month to get access to the character builder and all these awesome builds!"
D&D after all is a social game, it's not like these people will be playing by themselves and thus never find out about the other source books.
Never mind that there's probably going to be a pamplet in the new Red Box and a page in the back of the Heroes of ... books advertising DDI.
Everyone's going to know about DDI who buys any of the Essentials stuff. I just can't see Wizards passing up that marketing opportunity.
New Player grabs the red box and subscribes to DDI and gets the character builder. Sees all the options. Ow!! My Brain!!
And a casual player looking to expand his options beyond his current book would sooner look for another book than sign up for a subscription that he might not fully grasp.
It's not like WotC is showing potential subscribers how they can buy 1 month, download the CB with all the crunch printed so far, and then cancel. We figured that out, but WotC didn't tell us.
If I saw a subscription service for content I didn't feel I need, and all I want is more Rogue options for my Thief I built with Essentials, I don't think I'd sign up, even if I really would get more for less.
Oh I'm sure it'll be advertised. But I know several people (anecdotal, I know) who don't have DDI and don't plan on getting it, because they have the books.
And a casual player looking to expand his options beyond his current book would sooner look for another book than sign up for a subscription that he might not fully grasp.
It's not like WotC is showing potential subscribers how they can buy 1 month, download the CB with all the crunch printed so far, and then cancel. We figured that out, but WotC didn't tell us.
If I saw a subscription service for content I didn't feel I need, and all I want is more Rogue options for my Thief I built with Essentials, I don't think I'd sign up, even if I really would get more for less.
Then we get back to my previous statement of how D&D is a social game. These people aren't going to be playing in their basement all alone. Odds are very good that at some point they're going to end up playing the game with somebody who has access to the other books and then they'll get to see all the wonderful crunch they've been missing out on. Then they can actually go and figure out how to get it themselves.
Really, it's sounding like you're one of those slippery slope types of people. That argument just doesn't work.
Just tossing out thoughts...
Slippery slope? No, I don't think so. I'm just trying to imagine the process a group of new players who bought a Red Box and some tiles and monster tokens might do. Maybe one would get DDI, maybe not.
Just tossing out thoughts...
Well, I think the natural progression will be to get a copy of Heroes of the Fallen Lands. It has the classes that are in the Red box so they can keep going with their characters past level 2.
Perhaps someone will grab the Rules Compendium. The DM's kit would probably be a natural purchase for whomever wants to be the DM.
Then the group might want more tiles. Dice for everyone. More monster tokens.
People will be able to get a lot of play out of just sticking with the Essentials for a long time.
But during that time, they're going to be bombarded with DDI ads and Wizards trying to sell them new releases like Arcane Power 2 or Heroes of the Arcane or whatever it'll be called.
But it is as different as an archer ranger and a marauder ranger-- which feel very different in actual play.
Which is kind of exactly the problem. The archer and marauder were almost two entirely separate classes, sharing only utilities and some feats, under the same class name. That was the problem with Y classes to begin with. And Y classes were a problem - which is why WotC doesn't do them anymore.
To me, the Knight is creating a new kind of Y class - it's a completely different class, sharing only utility powers and some feats (not even that many, since they don't share any class features). To me, that's not another build, it's another class. The existance of Str/Dex thrown weapon builds allowed more overlap between the Y branches of a ranger then the new fighter is allowed with the old fighter.
Again, it's just a completely different class. I'd really have preferred if it got a different name.
It would also be nice to see a knight get a one-handed reach weapon, (1d8 to keep it reasonable) so they could fight like a Spartan Phallanx.
Yeah, that would've been nice in 3.5, too. Briefly, in 3.0, the lance could /theoretically/ be used that way.
The consistent fear of one-handed reach weapons really mystifies me.
I'm not thriller with the fighter losing that in 4eE, and I'm concerned it represents a change to the martial power source as a while. Will rogues lose their daily powers? Rangers? If so, the lack of daily powers from 3 classes is going to reduce interest for everyone else at the table.
Why would you extrapolate from one build for one class out of one book out of 10 Essentials products that ALL future martial classes will not have dailies?
There were initially a lot of complaints about the 4e martial classes. That the presence of dailies didn't make sense or didn't 'feel' martial, or that it didn't make sense for martial exploits to pull enemies or heal allies.
Really, what those complaints were was that fighters didn't suck anymore, and that made everyone else a little less awesome. Remember the line from 'The Increadibles?' "Everyone is special is just a way of saying no one is." To some D&Der's mind-sets, the casters and the like are only cool because there's a spell-less fighter-type in the group (or was, until his player switched to a caster) for them to be better than.
It's clear that Essentials is trying to bring in 'new' players from both the never-heard-of-D&D and the still-playing-older-versions sets. The latter demand a game more like the one they're used to. One where the fighter sucks and casters rule. If they hold out long enough, they might get it.
The Martial Power Source has already been denied a Controller. Who knows what else it will be denied or stripped of.
Different people find different things interesting. Some people get jazzed about daily nova strikes, other people get jazzed about a constant level of effectiveness.
Sorta. I liked the 3.x fighter because it was highly customizeable, and the options it collected were always available. I liked the Sorcerer because, for a caster, it's options were also comparatively high-availability.
I'm not actually crazy about dailies, myself. They're a tease. They're great in theory, but you miss with them, or blow them too early or hold onto them too long and end up using them at a mechanically or tactically or dramatically sub-optimal moment.
Other people don't feel that way, they string a couple of dailies together into an unbeatable nova and they're happy, even if they never get around to playing the character.
I'm beginning to wonder if people either read what Bill Slaveseck wrote about the Essentials line or listened to the podcast. They aren't invalidating current stuff. At all.
Well, they did 'update' the Wizard's Magic Missle to match the retro Magic Missle of the Mage. It seems unthinkable that they'd go as far as emasculating all the martial classes. But, if it seems like that's what it'll take to bring back the half of D&Ders who didn't make the switch, they might find a de-facto way of doing it.
But it is as different as an archer ranger and a marauder ranger-- which feel very different in actual play.
Which is kind of exactly the problem. The archer and marauder were almost two entirely separate classes, sharing only utilities and some feats, under the same class name. That was the problem with Y classes to begin with. And Y classes were a problem - which is why WotC doesn't do them anymore.
To me, the Knight is creating a new kind of Y class - it's a completely different class, sharing only utility powers and some feats (not even that many, since they don't share any class features). To me, that's not another build, it's another class. The existance of Str/Dex thrown weapon builds allowed more overlap between the Y branches of a ranger then the new fighter is allowed with the old fighter.
Again, it's just a completely different class. I'd really have preferred if it got a different name.
I don't think any class with the same primary attack stat is a Y Class.
But I agree.
We could pretty much call almost every build a separate class and the game would function just fine.
I don't think the Knight will be a real problem. I think it'll have the same impact on future fighter design as the battle rager did. I think it's just another Build in the most supported class there is.
Are you confidently predicting WotC will continue the support the Fighter with future powers, and tailored builds, feats, paths, etcetera?
Or are you a saying WotC will discontinue the support for the Fighter, and you dont care?
Froze, your pretty sanguine about the pre-Knight Fighter. I have to ask.
Are you confidently predicting WotC will continue the support the Fighter with future powers, and tailored builds, feats, paths, etcetera?
Or are you a saying WotC will discontinue the support for the Fighter, and you dont care?
I think there will continue to be feats, powers and builds for the existing fighter. I think most of them will be semi-accidental. Like they'll make a feat for the Slayer or the Knight and it'll work just fine for previous builds. An example of this is Combat Agility. It might be made for the Brawler, but any fighter can take it and it actually can work pretty awesomely for a good portion of the builds.
At the same time, I'd be okay if the rate of release of such things slowed. There's already so much stuff for martial characters that I don't think I'll ever be able to play it all. The stuff I feel is missing is more stuff for MP2 builds. There needs to be more grappling/unarmed powers of all levels for the brawler. The ranger needs more melee powers that use dex for the hunter ranger (and to fix the Y class problem. I can't believe they let two books go and didn't give the ranger two melee at wills using dex. WotC has been so good doing away with the Y class problem. I think the dex based ranger doing melee is the last thing that needs to get fixed.
I'm really not sure what a reduced availability of the PHB1 is going to do for the fighter. There's always DDI, but some people like books. It'd be strange to get MP3, have a bunch of powers for the Brawler, look at MP2 and see that the brawler can swap combat superiority for combat agility but have no idea what combat agility does because there's no PHB1.
I think a Heroes of the Points of Light book that takes all the PHB1 classes, applies all errata, fixes the Y class problems and presents the PHB1 builds would be the best way to solve the problem.
If the PHB1 through 3 and associated books go out of print, you can rest assured that down the road they will reprint them in one format or another, especially if a demand from an influx of new players is present. 4E Classics: Martial Heroes, 4E Classics: Arcane Heroes, etc, etc.
As far as future feat support, if Dragon continues to take outside submissions, I'm sure the old classes will continue to have champions who build ideas for them and they will see print.
Beyond that though, I think two martial powers books supported the fighter more than any other edition ever has in the past, and I think they would have been hard pressed to put out another volume and still make it worth purchasing.
I think there will continue to be feats, powers and builds for the existing fighter. I think most of them will be semi-accidental.
I cant help but interpret your response as follows:
You know WotC will discontinue support for the Fighter. (Except for a few scraps that 'accidentally' fall from the Knights table.)
You simply dont care about the many players who like the Fighter.
I guess that explains why your being sanguine.
Thats odd too. They give the Fighter so much support ... at the expense of other class that didnt receive the same amount of attention and design space ... and then they dump the class ... despite the number of its enthusiastic fans?
I think there will continue to be feats, powers and builds for the existing fighter. I think most of them will be semi-accidental.
I cant help but interpret your response as follows:
You know WotC will discontinue support for the Fighter. (Except for a few scraps that 'accidentally' fall from the Knights table.)
I don't think I'd put it that harshly.
If the Knight is anything to go on, it's not the type of class that needs new powers or abilities. It seems that the design goals for it are such that it'll be pretty self contained. I'm not sure that Heroes of Might (or whatever they call the Heroes of Shadow version of Martial Power 3) will be chocked full of Knight stuff. I think it'll end up having maybe one new build and then a bunch of powers, feats, etc., for all fighter stuff. Really, what kind of options can they give for a class that is about not having options?
The Slayer will be what shows where things are headed. If it is just as locked down and optionless as the knight, I don't think Heroes of Might (who knows what it will be called) might just introduce completely new builds and do very little for the Slayer and Knight. Just like Martial Power 2 was not all about Tempest figthers and Battleragers.
For all we know, Heroes of (Might) might reintroduce the PHB1 fighter with a cleaned up description, erratad powers, etc.,. Or perhaps a build that is so close to the PHB1 fither than it's effectively the same thing.
You simply dont care about the many players who like the Fighter.
The Fighter is probably my favorite class to see played. I DM more than I play and my favorite class to see amongst the group is a Fighter. They're awesome.
I just think there's already an awful lot of stuff out for them. I think it'll be okay if their support slows a bit and other classes get some love.
That said, Essentials is providing two more Fighter Builds. People are complaining that they don't work like current Figther builds, but I think you're going to end up making the same sort of decisons in game. And while you might be fairly locked down at level 1, Mearls made it sound like you can swap out your level 2 and on Knight Class Features for appropriately leveled regular Fighter Powers.
I just don't think it's reasonable to see the addition of two more builds for a class as Wizards not supporting it. They may be very different builds. You may not like the one you've seen so far. But I don't like Battleragers. And it would have been foolish of me had I only seen the Battlerager before Martial Power came out to complain that Wizards is dropping the existing Fighter and switching to them to be all about Temporary Hit Points.
I guess that explains why your being sanguine.
I don't think the impact will be that bad. I think the Essentials fighters are still going to offer stuff for pre-essentials Fighters to take. After that, I think we'll see a lot of stuff that works for all fighters. I don't think whatever ends up being Martial Power 3 will be all about providing more stuff for the Knight and Slayer. Just like Martial Power 2 wasn't about just providing more stuff from the Battle Rager and the Tempest Fighter (though it did give them some stuff).
Mel: 'Honestly the current fighter has more support then any other class.'
Thats odd too. They give the Fighter so much support ... at the expense of other class that didnt receive the same amount of attention and design space ... and then they dump the class ... despite the number of its enthusiastic fans?
I don't think they're dumping the class. I think that's a faulty conclusion to come to given the current information. The Knight sounds really, really self contained. I don't think everything after the Essentials products is going to be all about supporting the Knight and not pre-essentials fighters. I think it's going to introduce even more builds, which will as a byproduct support both the Knight/Slayer and pre-essentials Fighters. Like how the brawler's Combat Agility is also great support for the Tempest Fighter and any Weapon Talent Fighter who has a reasonable Dex bonus.
Does that make sense?
Fighters have a total of 6 builds as of the 17th of this month. 6 builds. They've been supported in 4 books (if you include Dark Sun Campaign Guide), as well as being featured in four Class Acts/Essentials articles (note that they changed the term X Essentials to X Basics now that they're recycling that term for a product line); as well as having support in several other articles that aren't solely about them.
There's years and years of options in that alone. But no. You'll get more options, because you'll be able to pilfer from Knight, Slayer, and whatever other kits for the Fighter that are released, because THEY'RE ALL FIGHTERS.
WotC isn't "ignoring the Fighter to go give someone else love;" no, they actually felt that the Fighter can be improved and feel more unique and thematic in the new way of presenting it. They're giving it more attention than, say, the Warlord: the only other class to have 6 builds until now; though granted, if you call the Illusionist Mage and the Illusionist Wizard different builds, and call each Mage school a different build, the Wizard will have 7 builds by Essentials… but the Fighter will have 8.
If the Knight is anything to go on, it's not the type of class that needs new powers or abilities. It seems that the design goals for it are such that it'll be pretty self contained. I'm not sure that Heroes of Might (or whatever they call the Heroes of Shadow version of Martial Power 3) will be chocked full of Knight stuff. I think it'll end up having maybe one new build and then a bunch of powers, feats, etc., for all fighter stuff. Really, what kind of options can they give for a class that is about not having options?
New at-will stances (that mimic different at-will attack powers), new encounter riders (that provide effects other than a minor damage boost).
As I see it the knight isn't defined by limited options, rather its options in the Essentials product line are limited to keep it simple for new players. There's certainly interesting prospects on how to expand upon its new style of resource management.
Either way, we're going to have 8 (EIGHT!) Fighter Builds after the first Heroes of X book hits the street. Guardian, Great Weapon, Battlerager, Tempest, Brawler, Arena Fighter, Knight and Slayer.
Anyone who loves fighters should be celebrating such extensive and massive support for the class. Not cowering if fear that it's all going to come crashing down or something.
Either way, we're going to have 8 (EIGHT!) Fighter Builds after the first Heroes of X book hits the street. Guardian, Great Weapon, Battlerager, Tempest, Brawler, Arena Fighter, Knight and Slayer.
wow...
now lets really put this in perspective too we already have 349 fighter powers (as of the comp right now) 16 of them are level 1 at wills:
Wicked Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Dragon Magazine 379
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 2); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Resolute Shield
Fighter
1
Standard
Dragon Magazine 382
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 3); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Weapon Master's Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Dragon Magazine 382
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 4); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Shield Feint
Fighter
1
Standard
Dragon Magazine 385
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 5); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Brash Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 6); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Crushing Surge
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 7); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Dual Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 8); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Footwork Lure
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 9); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Grappling Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power 2
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 10); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Slash and Pummel
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power 2
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 11); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Threatening Rush
Fighter
1
Standard
Martial Power 2
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 12); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Knockdown Assault
Fighter
1
Standard
PH Heroes: Series 1
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 13); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Sure Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Player's Handbook
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 14); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Tide of Iron
Fighter
1
Standard
Player's Handbook
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 15); " style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Cleave
Fighter
1
Standard
Player's Handbook
..." ...:return GB_showFullScreenSet(page_set, 16); " style="background-color: #dadada; font-family: arial,sans-serif; height: 34px; color: #000000; font-size: 12px; cursor: pointer; font-weight: bold;">
Reaping Strike
Fighter
1
Standard
Player's Handbook
so yea, they are the king of customization... infact if WotC said no more fighter powers at all in 2011... I bet warden and Battlemind (two newer defenders) still would not catch up...
That's what makes the Knight such a challenge. If the Knight simply isn't as good a Fighter, people won't play it. It'll be a 'newbie' 'training wheels' class that'll get you laughed at. If the Knight /is/ as good as the Fighter, it won't have the 'feel' that the disgruntled non-adopters of 4e are longing for.
Why would you extrapolate from one build for one class out of one book out of 10 Essentials products that ALL future martial classes will not have dailies?
...
What I don't understand is this idea people have in their heads that what's true of the knight suddenly becomes true of all fighters everywhere. Or even extrapolate it onto other classes in the same power source.
Well, the thief is up, and doesn't have daily powers. My concerns seem justified, at this point.
I'm beginning to wonder if people either read what Bill Slaveseck wrote about the Essentials line or listened to the podcast. They aren't invalidating current stuff. At all.
Here's what I think, and I posted this in another essentials thread as well.
There have already been mentioned a wealth of balance issues that crop up when you combine 4e and Essentials elements, such as how a Taclord would interact with the basic-attacking martial classes we're seeing, and all the feats and items which support a melee basic attack. It puts a DM in the position of having to deal with an astoundingly powerful array of PCs or banning either 4e or Essentials elements.
WotC gets to be the good guy, releasing a "totally compatible" game, while letting the DMs be the bad guys and ban old 4e material, forcing their players to find 4e DMs or buy the new books. This will split the community, just like 4e and 3.5 and 3 did, and in a way it will be worse because there won't be a clear mandate from WotC. Will RPGA allow mixed sources? I suppose that will be the real test.
I actually don't mind the Essentials classes, by themselves , but the claims of 4e compatibility seem less and less believeable the more we see. The classes we're seeing right now appear to require signifigant changes before they would be playable with 4e content, and I'm not holding my breath.
Well, the thief is up, and doesn't have daily powers.
Thanks for the link. It wasn't showing up on my main page.
WotC gets to be the good guy, releasing a "totally compatible" game, while letting the DMs be the bad guys and ban old 4e material, forcing their players to find 4e DMs or buy the new books.
I don't see this as an issue. GMs I've had, and the GM that I've been in the past occasionally have to look at a rule or class, or race, or weapon from a game, (any game) and make a judgement call.
Its not being a bad guy, its setting ground rules for your table. You talk with your players, and explain your greviences, and listen to their counterpoints.
And this applies to either side of the Screen. If you pull out a monster that your players find is completely unballanced, you might decided to alter its rules or replace it completely because it doesn't add to the fun of the game.
Well, the thief is up, and doesn't have daily powers. My concerns seem justified, at this point.
So one build for the fighter and one build for the rogue don't have dailies and suddenly it's what, true of the other 7 fighter builds and the other 5 rogue builds? That's like saying when the battlerager came out that being a fighter is suddenly all about getting temporary hit points. Or when the ruthless ruffian came out, that rogues are all about using maces now.
Why are you taking what's true of one build and extrapolating a concern about the entirety of the class? Just think about that for a second. Just stop and ask yourself if that's really a reasonable concern. Did the battlerager make fighters all about temp hp or the ruffian make rogues all about maces? If not, then why would a new build that has a new unique characteristic make the class all about that now when it never has in the past?
There have already been mentioned a wealth of balance issues that crop up when you combine 4e and Essentials elements, such as how a Taclord would interact with the basic-attacking martial classes we're seeing, and all the feats and items which support a melee basic attack. It puts a DM in the position of having to deal with an astoundingly powerful array of PCs or banning either 4e or Essentials elements.
Half of the people are complaining that these classes will be too strong because of the taclord. Half are complaining they'll be too weak because of the lack of dailies.
The game already has a range of power levels that the different builds produce. You can I can both make Half Orc Tempest Fighters and come out with very different power level characters based on how we choose our attributes, feats, powers and equipment.
The DM already has to deal with characters of differing power levels. They're all in a range of power levels that is more than manageable given how robust 4e's encounter and monster design systems are.
Once again, people are taking a small piece of a spoiled class from one book and pronouncing vast changes to the whole of the play experience. And once again, those things that are supposedly different are already present in the current game.
Well, the thief is up, and doesn't have daily powers. My concerns seem justified, at this point.
So one build for the fighter and one build for the rogue don't have dailies and suddenly it's what, true of the other 7 fighter builds and the other 5 rogue builds? That's like saying when the battlerager came out that being a fighter is suddenly all about getting temporary hit points. Or when the ruthless ruffian came out, that rogues are all about using maces now.
Why are you taking what's true of one build and extrapolating a concern about the entirety of the class? Just think about that for a second. Just stop and ask yourself if that's really a reasonable concern. Did the battlerager make fighters all about temp hp or the ruffian make rogues all about maces? If not, then why would a new build that has a new unique characteristic make the class all about that now when it never has in the past?
I don't think that's what he means, and it certainly is not what I meant when I said similar things.
We're not really concerned about old builds being changed to match new builds/subclasses. That would be silly.
What has us worried is that new stuff for the fighter will be non-daily, MBA modifing stuff that doesn't really fit with the older design.
For example, when the Battlerager came out, there was a plethora of new powers with the Invigorating keyword. Many of these powers had bonuses with Hammers and Axes. They were clearly designed with the Battlerager in mind. But there was nothing about these powers that limited them to Battleragers. A Great Weapon Fighter might choose an invigorating power because he was swinging a Maul around and liked the Hammer benefit, or because his party lacked a healer and he could use the THP; no matter the reason, the power for one build could be chosen by another.
The concern is that when MP3 (whatever it will be called) rolls out, instead of new encounter powers, there will be class features that can be taken instead of Power Strike. These things are impossible for the old fighter to take, AT ALL, unless there is some sort of feature to power swap (of which I am doubtful, considering Mearls said only that some features may be swappable and Bill has outright said that you can swap if it has levels, which Power Strike does not).
The concern is that instead of new daily powers, there will be new *insert unrevealed Knight Daily replacement feature* that is essentially irrelevant.
Maybe a new build comes out, with new stances and features. Using the Knight, the Thief, and Mearls comments about the Martial power source, we can infer a pattern. No dailies (as we know them), MBA modifications through at-will mechanics, and "encounter" features. If this is representative of the "new direction", we will not get anything new that follows the older paradigm. Nothing new will be directly compatible (in a "plug and play" sort of way) with older fighters (and rogues and other martial classes). If we want to use new material for our pre-Essential characters, we have to modify the core mechanics of our characters (via swapping if that's even an option), thus negating the whole reason of building or maintaining a pre-Essential character.
Yeah, the new stuff is/will be compatible, if we sacrifice everything about what we liked about the old way of doing things. And if we don't like the new way, we're stuck with an unchanging, undeveloping set of options (those that were already in print before Essentials). Essentials may not be a new edition, but it is a dividing line.
Maybe the above won't come to pass, but THAT is what we fear. While it all may be speculation, it is drawn from direct observation and logical inference from what has been presented so far.
How much would be enough? Say MP3 comes out (Heroes of Class Features or Heroes of the Basic Attack :D ). Say it's 80% stuff for the non-daily, MBA type Martial Classes, but then has one more fighter at-will and one fighter encounter/daily/utility for each level that is specifically designed to work with pre-essentials stuff (likely the brawling fighter). In the Rogue section, there's 80% stuff for the Thief (and perhaps another build or two as narrow in choice) and then an at-will and a power of each level designed to specifically work with the pre-essentials rogue. Would that be too little?
How long do you need to scroll through the available at-wills in the character builder to feel like it's a fully supported class? The martial classes already have huge lists of powers in the character builder. I think they should look at all the different builds for each of the martial classes and make sure they each have enough powers to choose from (Hunter Rangers need more melee attacks that use Dex for example) and design those.
A better question might be how frequently would you need to see stuff that works perfectly with the pre-Essentials martial classes be published to be happy that they are supported? How many at-wills/encounters/dailies per year? How many feats per year? How many new builds each year? Will anything but the current rate (or faster?) be enough?
I think that's actually a really important question for everyone who's worried about the impact of Essentials on their favorite class. How much stuff per year do you need released to feel that your favorite class is still be supported?
How much stuff per year do you need release to feel that your favorite class is playable? Is it playable now? Is it awesome now? How much stuff is needed to make it even better? How much stuff would be enough options that you reasonably can't play them all assuming a relatively normal gaming schedule? When would you feel a class is well developed? Is it ever complete?
One thing I will concede though. I think it is now a reasonable conclusion that Martial builds in the Heroes of Fallen lands and Heroes of Forgotten Kingdoms could be designed closer to the Knight and the Thief than to the pre-Essentials builds for those classes. I don't know if I like that yet or not. But we do have more than one example of martial characters in Essentials.
I'd like to add that Mearls said on EnWorld that he personally loves the synergy between TacLord and the new martial builds, and that it ties them more neatly to their leader class, which isn't getting "Essentialised."
If WotC themselves are enjoying "broken" combos, then they aren't broken – they're done purposefully that way.