So, that leaves me wondering what they will do with classes that aren't really broken in the first place. Take the rogue. It works fine out of the PHB1. I've seen many of them since 4e came out, by new and experienced players, and they worked fine. So what is there to "fix?" Ruthless Ruffian from Martial Power is kind of screwy (MAD, primarily) but that's only an option. Of course, essentials doesn't have to be just about fixing classes, but still, what is going to make a new "thief" build different from the existing builds?
Obviously, we won't know until they preview it (and know completely until they actually release it) but I'm interested in some speculation!
A rogue that's good at climbing and finding traps, like a classic D&D Thief (I believe they've let slipped that's the name) would be another obvious possiblity, since they're clearly trying to apeal to the old school holdouts, as well as attract new players. The classic Thief was very good at climbing, and as good at finding traps as disarming them. One thing that shocks older players when they first try a 4e rogue is that they're not that good at finding traps (Search was folded into Perception, which is WIS-based, and WIS is the classic dump stat for the rogue /and/ is very much a dump stat for the 4e rogue, too). Only slightly less shocking is that Climbing is strictly Athletics, while Rogues get Acrobatics. 4e rogues are very unlikely to be able to climb well - they can land on their feat when they inevitably fall, but that's slight consolation. The classic rogue had climbing as his best skill from 1st level.
Also Dex/Wis monks being poor at Athletics (although I think there is a feat to fix that?).
I myself am hoping for a wisdom or perceptive/trap finding build. Maybe even a trap-setter! But really, anything will be nice. A new take on my favorite class is always welcomed.
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.
If the fighter and rogue sub-classes go that route, they'll likely just suck sufficiently that they won't see much play. OTOH, if they go that rout, but are power-inflated enough to stand up to the one-encounter workday, then they'll be prone to dominate if the game ever swings in the other direction, and other classes start to run out of or must hold back too much on their dailies.
The prospect of classes with different resource-management issues than the standard setup of at-will/encounter/daily powers is daunting.
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.
If the fighter and rogue sub-classes go that route, they'll likely just suck sufficiently that they won't see much play. OTOH, if they go that rout, but are power-inflated enough to stand up to the one-encounter workday, then they'll be prone to dominate if the game ever swings in the other direction, and other classes start to run out of or must hold back too much on their dailies.
Very good point, which hadn't occurred to me. There is a mitigating factor that in earlier editions, wizards usually had little to no options after their spells ran out, whereas classes in 4e have lots of good options left over after their dailies have been used. However you are right that this creates a disparate incentive for the classes which might cause a return to the 5 minute work day we had in 3e.
So long as the Essentials builds remain just options, instead of replacement, this shouldn't be that big an issue, since fighters could just use the more powerful builds from PHB1, MP, and MP2. It could be something of a problem if they stop providing new material for earlier builds, but at least the existing material would still be available.
We should expect the essentials rogue to have trap sense, evasion, and uncanny dodge.
Oh yeah, evasion and uncanny dodge! Uncanny dodge would actually be kinda limited in 4e -- monsters getting CA against you usually only means +2 to hit. Evasion would be neat, although there aren't that many monsters attacks with miss lines (which is why the evasion like feats in PHB1 don't get seen much).
I do always love how they depict evasion in Order of the Stick, with Haley, the rogue, just casually jumping over fireballs and stuff.
We should expect the essentials rogue to have trap sense, evasion, and uncanny dodge.
So one MP1 Heroic feat, and two PH1 Paragon feats?
So one MP1 Heroic feat, and two PH1 Paragon feats?
Yes feats as class features....wait no that is going to be the knight or the other fighter build.
So one MP1 Heroic feat, and two PH1 Paragon feats?
Yes feats as class features....wait no that is going to be the knight or the other fighter build.
The prospect of classes with different resource-management issues than the standard setup of at-will/encounter/daily powers is daunting.
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.
If the fighter and rogue sub-classes go that route, they'll likely just suck sufficiently that they won't see much play. OTOH, if they go that rout, but are power-inflated enough to stand up to the one-encounter workday, then they'll be prone to dominate if the game ever swings in the other direction, and other classes start to run out of or must hold back too much on their dailies.
Very well said...and this is my fear. Please don't let 4e become what 3/3.5e did, WotC.
3.x started in the right direction to fix things, but largely failed. Too much AD&D hold over left in the system.
4E has a level and encounter design system that actually works. The new builds with their independant mechanics are still doing roughly the equivilant of the other builds. Look at the Knight. It has atwill stances that basically give it the same as at-will powers in their MBAs. I don't see a completely different subsystem of rules like 3.x spell casting going on here.
I think if anything, the Essentials classes are going to be more balanced between one another than the PHB1 builds.
Item dailies are not hugely consequenctial, but daily attack powers are quite potent to make up for their limitted use.
Introducing classes, like the new Knight class, that don't have the high-power/limitted-availability option of dailies creates a class imbalance in and of itself. Such a class is less potent compared to conventional classes the fewer and more predictable the encounters per day get. Days when you are certain you will face only one encounter, for instance, heavily favor classes with access to potent single-use dailies over classes who have the same power availability in all encounters throughout the day.
It's still possible to achieve class balance, but it puts the onus on the DM to design whole adventuring days around keeping the PCs balanced with eachother.
The Knight supposedly doesn't have encounter powers, but it got a power that it uses once per encounter. The Knight also supposedly doesn't have daily powers, but what if it has a power that it uses once per day?
I think it's just too early to come to any real conclusions on the viability of the Knight at this point. We still don't know what Shield Finesse, Battle Guardian, Weapon Talent, the other Stances, Improved Power Strike, Weapon Mastery, Weapon Specialization, Shield Block and Greater Combat Readiness actually do.
That's a huge number of things we don't know about when we loftily sit and judge the build as not being viable. It might be the very definition of speaking out of ignorance.
My position is "looks very promising, but I want to know more before I come to any conclusions." I like the design goals they listed for the Essentials classes and if they keep to them, I see a lot of potential. I've been enjoying 4E for quite some time and aside from the occasional screw up, unseen combination and bad wording, the designers and developers have done a good enough job that I'll trust their track record at this point.
The balancing of encounters vs PCs is different if you have 5 minute adventuring 'days,' but class balance is more or less retained, because everybody has dailies to 'go nova' with. The DM who leans that way just has to throw down a much encounter each time.
If the Knight turns out to have de-facto daily powers that are on par with other classes in terms of number and power, sure, it won't have much of a problem. And, yes, it does have de-facto encounter powers, which is a good sign.
I have to go with "what I've seen so far looks like it could be a step backwards." Of course, I think that's part of the point, that Essentials isn't just gunning for new players, it's trying to win back some older ones who offended by the lengths to which 4e went to achieve balance.
I have to go with "what I've seen so far looks like it could be a step backwards." Of course, I think that's part of the point, that Essentials isn't just gunning for new players, it's trying to win back some older ones who offended by the lengths to which 4e went to achieve balance.
Excellent point.
They've been very explicit of trying to return some concepts from previous editions to the game. I'm not convinced doing so will be a step backwards though. I loved OD&D, BECMI, AD&D and AD&D 2E, but hated 3.x. I'm alright with a return of some of the truly classic concepts as long as they're redesigned for 4E rules rather than converted or ported in.
Do Wis build, they still seem to have Dex/Cha and Dex/Str.
www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Weapon Finesse is presumably free Melee Training (DEX), possibly restricted to the standard Rogue weapons.
I will wait until I can see the essentials book to pass final judgement. And maybe I am really overreacting. I mean, at first level you get "rogue trick." So, pretty much 2 at-will attack powers. Except, a lot of the already existing rogue attack powers seem more interesting. After that, who knows. Some of those abilities might give you the ability to choose from a list of options. Some might not.
Man, I really don't know. I appreciate the attempt to make martial classes work with basic attacks. I appreciate the attempt to recreate the effects of attack powers, but as "utilities" that buff your basic attack. But I REALLY worry it will not work as well as what we already have. It sort of feels like they are trying to fix something that was never broke...
I will have to wait and see. I don't want to be a naysayer. And again, who knows. Maybe, once I actually have my hands on the essentials products, I will really like what I have. I certainly really like the backstab power! That is neat...
I see the pattern too. And Backstab is the rogue's version of Power Strike. Only better, but more situational.
But considering that you'll have Combat Advantage nearly every single attack due to move action use at-wills, and when you don't, you get bonuses from other move-action at-wills. CA is much easier to get, so Sneak Attack is more usable then ever, and you can throw your Backstab at some point out as well.
It's a fun system, and I'm seeing it playing very well.
I will have to wait and see. I don't want to be a naysayer. And again, who knows. Maybe, once I actually have my hands on the essentials products, I will really like what I have. I certainly really like the backstab power! That is neat...
One of the tricky things in designing essentials was how to handle powers. For some new players, the concept of martial powers is a hard one to understand. The idea of a spell functioning as a power seems easy to grasp, but when it comes to weapon users it can throw a wrench into people's minds.
For instance, there has been plenty of times that I've demoed or taught the game to a new player, and that player's intuitive approach is to say "I swing my sword" and roll a die to attack. It's easy to grasp that to cast a spell you need to pick a spell and read its rules. That relationship isn't as clear when it comes to weapon attacks. After all, if you think of it purely in terms of the story you're just hacking at your foe. There doesn't seem like there should be a big difference between how you attack with the same weapon.
So, that's why you see things like tricks and stances. Those are high level concepts that you can explain to a new player the action taking place in the D&D world. It's easier to understand that a fighting stance, or a trick you use, modifies your attacks.
Obviously, plenty of existing players do grasp the idea of using weapons and powers. That's one of the many reasons why it was critically important for the new and old builds to work together.
In a way, while we'd love it if every D&D player loved everything we published, we accept that some veteran players would look at the essentials classes and not be particularly moved by them. That's why we keep emphasizing that the PH 1 classes and other, earlier material is still fully functional.
The pattern is clear: Martial classes can't have attack powers, just basic attacks.
Not necessarily. Going forward, a class's flavor, story, and world ties will dictate its mechanics. For example, I could see a martial weapon master built with a strong martial arts theme that uses at-will attack powers to represent different techniques and dailies that represent a truly superhuman efforts.
Mike Mearls, you are always welcome here! We appreciate it.
Based on what you said, future Martial 'subclasses' may come that will continue to have atwills andor encounters andor dailies. It all depends on build.
Does this mean, future *Fighter* subclasses may also have these atwills, encounters, or dailies?
By extension, can there be Wizard subclasses that dont have dailies, for example?
One of the tricky things in designing essentials was how to handle powers. For some new players, the concept of martial powers is a hard one to understand. The idea of a spell functioning as a power seems easy to grasp, but when it comes to weapon users it can throw a wrench into people's minds.
I've got to be totally honest with you. If a player's mind gets wrenched (metaphorically speaking) that easily, my first suspicion would be that this player's mind must have had a lot of literal wrenches colliding with it during their development stage. :P
After all, if you think of it purely in terms of the story you're just hacking at your foe. There doesn't seem like there should be a big difference between how you attack with the same weapon.
By that line of reasoning, you could just as easily say that the sorcerer is just blasting at his foe with magic. I don't think I could disagree with the rational here any more strongly.
But... oh well. I see Essentials as a missed opportunity, but it's not like my favoured classes (the Fighter and Ranger) are that lacking in support pre-Essentials.
Obviously, plenty of existing players do grasp the idea of using weapons and powers. That's one of the many reasons why it was critically important for the new and old builds to work together.
I don't think there's any need to be familiar with D&D or even PnP gaming to "get" powers. It's an easy concept to pick up from scratch. It's an especially easy concept to pick up if you've ever played any kind of computer or video game that has featured combat with melee weapons or hand-to-hand. Whether they're ancient classics like Zelda, recent super-blockbusters like God of War, fighting games like Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter, Blizzard games (from WoW to Diablo to StarCraft), or anything else - all perfectly well illustrate the concept of weapon powers.
Even films will demonstrate the concept. Have you seen Gladiator? Great, Russell Crowe has given you some examples of martial attack powers.
Unless the new and wider audiences you're attempting to bring in are primarily seniors, I think it's safe to say that any prospective D&D players probably have exposure to media that shows martial attacks beyond "I hit it with my sword." The only people I can imagine having trouble grasping this concept are old edition die-hards who have a pre-existing concept drilled in that "I swing my axe" is the only thing you can do with a weapon user.
One of the tricky things in designing essentials was how to handle powers. For some new players, the concept of martial powers is a hard one to understand. The idea of a spell functioning as a power seems easy to grasp, but when it comes to weapon users it can throw a wrench into people's minds.
I assume you've got more experience/data than I do, but to me, it doesn't seem like Essentials really does much to alter the "You've got to grok Powers" issue. Everything they do is still a power (heck...basic attacks are powers).
I like Essentials just fine (well, most of it). But it seems that Essentials just shifts the conceptual load from "here's how I hit it" to "here's how I wiggle before I hit it."
Obviously, plenty of existing players do grasp the idea of using weapons and powers. That's one of the many reasons why it was critically important for the new and old builds to work together.
Unless the new and wider audiences you're attempting to bring in are primarily seniors, I think it's safe to say that any prospective D&D players probably have exposure to media that shows martial attacks beyond "I hit it with my sword." The only people I can imagine having trouble grasping this concept are old edition die-hards who have a pre-existing concept drilled in that "I swing my axe" is the only thing you can do with a weapon user.
Honestly i've seen several people who have trouble with it. And not just new people. There are people who just don't remember to use their encounter powers, or dailes. They're good at RP, but having 10+ powers is really is to much for them. Having a few simplier classes to play will be a big boon. Personally i think their boring, but these classes arn't for me, their for the other people. And that's ok.
Obviously, plenty of existing players do grasp the idea of using weapons and powers. That's one of the many reasons why it was critically important for the new and old builds to work together.
In a way, while we'd love it if every D&D player loved everything we published, we accept that some veteran players would look at the essentials classes and not be particularly moved by them. That's why we keep emphasizing that the PH 1 classes and other, earlier material is still fully functional.
Thanks for the info. I think you posted something similiar at ENWorld or RPG.net, but I do like this caveat very much. As an experienced player, I don't have any problem with at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers on martial classes, but I have seen other players with that kind of problem. I think it is an interesting idea to cater to those players as well. Plus, I might like the new builds and want to try them! I'll wait until Essentials is out to see. If I don't like them, I can stick with the previous builds.
I will have to wait and see. I don't want to be a naysayer. And again, who knows. Maybe, once I actually have my hands on the essentials products, I will really like what I have. I certainly really like the backstab power! That is neat...
One of the tricky things in designing essentials was how to handle powers. For some new players, the concept of martial powers is a hard one to understand. The idea of a spell functioning as a power seems easy to grasp, but when it comes to weapon users it can throw a wrench into people's minds.
For instance, there has been plenty of times that I've demoed or taught the game to a new player, and that player's intuitive approach is to say "I swing my sword" and roll a die to attack. It's easy to grasp that to cast a spell you need to pick a spell and read its rules. That relationship isn't as clear when it comes to weapon attacks. After all, if you think of it purely in terms of the story you're just hacking at your foe. There doesn't seem like there should be a big difference between how you attack with the same weapon.
So, that's why you see things like tricks and stances. Those are high level concepts that you can explain to a new player the action taking place in the D&D world. It's easier to understand that a fighting stance, or a trick you use, modifies your attacks.
Obviously, plenty of existing players do grasp the idea of using weapons and powers. That's one of the many reasons why it was critically important for the new and old builds to work together.
In a way, while we'd love it if every D&D player loved everything we published, we accept that some veteran players would look at the essentials classes and not be particularly moved by them. That's why we keep emphasizing that the PH 1 classes and other, earlier material is still fully functional.
Thank's for the response Mike! I see your point. I don't know. I guess I am just a little scared of change right now, perhaps because I finally feel like 4e got so many things right. All I want to see is more "non-combat" options in 4e. It is the only thing I really feel like the edition has been missing. The skill challenge system is great. But I would love to see more utility powers that enhance the skill system... but yea.
I appreciate what you guys are trying to do with essentials. As an old 2e player, I may even love it once I get to see the final product (as long as the martial classes still have plenty of choices to make in terms of class ability acquisition; I really don't like it when classes are pegged into largely gaining fixed benefits at fixed levels). I am just a little apprehensive right now...
Honestly i've seen several people who have trouble with it. And not just new people. There are people who just don't remember to use their encounter powers, or dailes. They're good at RP, but having 10+ powers is really is to much for them. Having a few simplier classes to play will be a big boon. Personally i think their boring, but these classes arn't for me, their for the other people. And that's ok.
I've seen people that are intimidated by all of their power selections each turn, yes. However, I haven't seen anyone who is comfortable with powers in general (on wizards, clerics, etc), but suddenly becomes dumbfounded at the concept of powers that use a sword.
I can definitely see some players who will pick a knight, go into Wrath stance and never leave it. They'll put out good damage, they'll block monsters from their friends and they'll go to town. And they'll love it. Just like the players that have great fun with archer rangers and using twin-strike every single turn.
Not my cup of tea, but I've accepted the fact that not every build has to appeal to every person who plays the game.
Some people don't want tons of options. Some people don't want to use "powers". They just want to attack the monster with their sword. It's not that they become dumbfounded when confronted with a power that uses a sword, but with their associate of "powers" with the supernatural. Which is an intuitive and natural association to make.
I can definitely see some players who will pick a knight, go into Wrath stance and never leave it. They'll put out good damage, they'll block monsters from their friends and they'll go to town. And they'll love it. Just like the players that have great fun with archer rangers and using twin-strike every single turn.
Not my cup of tea, but I've accepted the fact that not every build has to appeal to every person who plays the game.
What puzzles me about the whole "we're trying to keep people from being confused about powers" angle is that all of these builds still have powers. It's just that the power's payload is now in (for instance) the Move Action instead of the Standard action.
I can imagine someone saying, "Why can't I just move around him and hit him with sneak attack? I have to use a power?" Perhaps moving the "power" part out of the "I hit it with my stick" part is sufficient to help players who have cognitive dissonance over the word "powers," but...they still gotta decide what power to use every turn, usually.
They'll use their "Rogue trick" to move around. Or if just a move action does it, they'll just move.
It sort of makes sense, especially for people who are new to D&D, but not the fantasy genre.
Imagine a fantasy world, with wizards and magic and dragons and the like. Now imagine if I described someone as having "powers" in that setting. You'd think it was supernatural.
The Essentials martial builds just have that conception built into their designs so that anyone who has that hang up won't have any problems. For those who do get that they're all "powers" anyway, it won't matter.
Heh. To think, Essentials would have been entirely unnecessary if they hadn't picked "Powers" as their catch-all word. ;)
Fair enough. For me it was no big deal (they don't even call 'em powers in the classes, it's stuff like "Exploits" and whatnot, so I guess I "got it" at that point). But hey, if it helps someone else, why not?
Heh. To think, Essentials would have been entirely unnecessary if they hadn't picked "Powers" as their catch-all word. ;)
IMO they still need some "easy to play" classes. And i do like the "build your own power" thing.
The essentials martial classes seem to be an attempt at eliminating that kind of 'mental gymnastics' for new players (or returning old players) trying to conceptualize what's happening in-game. Some mental gymnastics (looking at you hit points) are familiar to old-schoolers from way back, but others (non-magical powers that are usable only occasionally, in player-determined situations) are not.
At-will powers are actually LESS of a problem for newbies than Encounter and Daily powers. But if you're going to re-invent, why not go whole-hog and change the conception of how at-wills work too (it also plays into the ability to "build your own encounter power" - more on that below). Fighters use "stances" that change their attacks, whereas rogues get "tricks." A given character gets to pick 2 (I assume humans will get a third stance/trick, in line with their racial feature of getting a "bonus at-will power"). My guess is that the higher-level class features provide enhancements that are mathematically equivalent to what a given character gets from encounter and daily powers. For instance, the once-per-encounter first-level "backstab" gives a thief roughly the equivalent of a "[2W]" encounter power. Combined with the stances that lets him move, that's just like creating 3 new encounter powers that combine that extra damage with whatever the trick benefit is. I would imagine that the higher-level versions are things that add the equivalent of getting an extra daily at the level in question on-average.
It also allows you to cover more options with fewer choices. The martial classes effectively end up with attacks that can be built to cover the current situation. Since their encounter power is an enhancement to an at-will, it becomes something they can do in any situation where one of their stances apply. No longer are you sitting there and defaulting to an at-will because you don't have the "right" encounter power (the enemy is 3 squares away, but you bought the [2w] power that let you hamstring a nearby opponent instead).
Yes, it's a simplification compared to how things work in the PHB. But that's kinda the point. Look at how they're marketing Essentials. The "Red Box Starter Set" is obviously trying to appeal to the vast numbers of fallen-away D&D players. Clearly, the hope is that they'll take the game up again, or buy it for their kids to play (ideally, both). IF you're marketing the game to those people, you want some things about the game to be familiar to them on a conceptual level. If you played "Red Box D&D" back then, fighter was the "easy" starter class, followed by thief, then cleric, and finally magic-user. Fighter and Cleric are still the same names, so that's good. Then the game recaptures the old magic-user and thief by naming the wizard and rogue builds "mage" and "thief" respectively. But in PHB-based 4e, all the class mechanics are pretty similar: there is no "easy" class.
From a brand-identity perspective, you want to build off the preconceptions people bring to the game, rather than contradicting them. You want to design the options in an intro game targeted at leveraging nostalgia in such a way that when mom or dad tells their kid that "fighter is the most straight-forward class to play in D&D," it's actually true.
You want a more complex, less straight-forward fighter? It already exists: in the PHB. A player who wants one of those can still play it. For the nostalgia types coming back to the game for the first time in 20 years, the Essentials versions are a bit more like what they remember - but with some pleasant surprises, like feats for everyone; cantrips, encounter and at-will powers for the wizard; stances and advanced class features for the fighter; tricks and so forth for the rogue; and so on.
The thing I look forward to seeing is the guidelines for "swapping" the class features between the Essentials and PHB versions of the classes. I'm sure it'll be doable, but I look forward to seeing how it's presented.
What? LOL! Like 'button mashing' isnt video gamey?
Some people don't want tons of options. Some people don't want to use "powers". They just want to attack the monster with their sword. It's not that they become dumbfounded when confronted with a power that uses a sword, but with their associate of "powers" with the supernatural. Which is an intuitive and natural association to make.
It is that they become dumbfounded, or can't grasp the concept of martial exploits. At least, according to Mike Mearls that's the reason for it. I was specifically addressing the developer comment that martial classes (and from what we've seen so far, only martial classes) no longer have powers because too many people can't grasp the concept of martial characters having powers.
Otherwise, if the reduction to basic attacks is just to give a "simple" alternative, then why does it appear that only martial characters are getting the simple alternative?
Also, I reject the notion of the Essentials fighter and rogue being "simpler" or "easier" than the original classes. They're simpler and easier to build, sure, because they don't really get any choices in how the character is built. I'd argue that they will be more complicated to play, though.
After all, if you think of it purely in terms of the story you're just hacking at your foe. There doesn't seem like there should be a big difference between how you attack with the same weapon.
By that line of reasoning, you could just as easily say that the sorcerer is just blasting at his foe with magic.
I agree, which is why any new Sorcerer stuff needs to be more like an Arcane version of the Thief than the existing Sorceror builds. Seriously.
But... oh well. I see Essentials as a missed opportunity
What opportunities seem to be missed? There is are identified issues with learning the game which WotC took steps to solve. How else could they have done it?
Obviously, plenty of existing players do grasp the idea of using weapons and powers. That's one of the many reasons why it was critically important for the new and old builds to work together.
I don't think there's any need to be familiar with D&D or even PnP gaming to "get" powers. It's an easy concept to pick up from scratch. It's an especially easy concept to pick up if you've ever played any kind of computer or video game that has featured combat with melee weapons or hand-to-hand. [SNIP] Unless the new and wider audiences you're attempting to bring in are primarily seniors, I think it's safe to say that any prospective D&D players probably have exposure to media that shows martial attacks beyond "I hit it with my sword." The only people I can imagine having trouble grasping this concept are old edition die-hards who have a pre-existing concept drilled in that "I swing my axe" is the only thing you can do with a weapon user.
Then it's good that WotC baked this button-pressin' functionality in with the Knight and Thief. I do think that both 12-year olds and 65-year olds can get it.
Knight: Press Hotkey #2 to activate Cleave buff. Right-click (choose from drop-down) to shift next to mob. Left-click on mob to attack. [Wait for Mob's Turn] Twitch-left-click if/when Mob flashes red due to Battle Guardian.
Thief: Press Hotkey #1 to move to cursor and activate Ambush buff. Pulsing target appears above mob's head. Hold down [Shift] and left-click on mob at the same time to trigger Backstab combo attack. A giant red number floats up from the dying mob.
Mage: Press Hotkey #7 to Dimension Door to cursor. You remember what you had as Hotkey #7, right? What? You enabled Ritual Savant (Hotkey #8) instead for today? Whoops. Oh Well. Press Hotkey #11 to use Fireball on cursor. What? You don't remember which key you mapped for that one, either?
As shown, Martial characters already do things with powers. It doesn't mean that they need a ton of attack powers. Also, these grognards you dismiss are the other folks Essentials is tailored toward (besides 12-year olds).
I think the reason folks familiar with 4e are troubled by some of the changes (besides the "Where's my Maypo?" stuff) is that we have been conditioned by 4e that some of the weird assumptions it makes are perfectly rational.
- Melee Basic Attacks are one of the worst Standard actions a character can make on its own turn; not because MBAs stink, but because we are used to better alternatives in at-will attack powers. This includes classes which are geared to chargin', as they have at-wills which are designed to short-circuit MBAs in a charge. On the other hand, your MBAs are ironically one of the best things that can happen on someone else's turn.
- At-will attack powers are where it's at on your own turn (relative to MBAs). On someone else's turn? Almost all are useless. Why? You can't use 'em. Why? Uhh.... you forget? [wince] Unless you use a Heavy Blade? [double-wince]
Essentials turns this on its head. MBAs are just fine on your own turn, because at-will attack powers get integrated into the other things (utilities) you are also doing that turn. MBAs are still fine on other people's turns, but there are less reasons why you can't do cool stuff there, either (via stance or SA). This seems weird for us, but it's OK and makes more sense. In most respects the above is also true for RBAs (especially for Thieves!). I won't even get started on Daily powers....
And you know what? It's not 100% our own fault if we get weirded out. Were we not told about a couple years back that adding at-will attack powers to classes like the Fighter was SO MUCH BETTER than the way things were because it gave more options? And that just swinging away every round was the weak Old Way of doing things and at-will attacks & other attack powers were the way things were gonna be from now on? Because it was the best way of doing stuff? Who did we hear that from, again? Ohhhhh.... Live & Learn, I guess.
I was specifically addressing the developer comment that martial classes (and from what we've seen so far, only martial classes) no longer have powers because too many people can't grasp the concept of martial characters having powers.
It's not about having powers. It's about just swingin' a sword _not_ being an optimal power. Why? Why is it not an optimal power? See above for MBA discussion.
Also, I reject the notion of the Essentials fighter and rogue being "simpler" or "easier" than the original classes. They're simpler and easier to build, sure, because they don't really get any choices in how the character is built. I'd argue that they will be more complicated to play, though.
Oh Wow. I gotta hear this. Why? Why will they be more complicated to play? By your own admission Knights and Rogues[Edit:Thieves] appear to have the same or less options per round. How is that more complicated than a la carte Fighters and Rogues?
It is that they become dumbfounded, or can't grasp the concept of martial exploits. At least, according to Mike Mearls that's the reason for it. I was specifically addressing the developer comment that martial classes (and from what we've seen so far, only martial classes) no longer have powers because too many people can't grasp the concept of martial characters having powers.
I don't think it's a matter of whether or not they can grasp it. For example:
"You and your friends play heroes, exploring a medieval fantasy world. Your goals are to complete quests, explore ancient ruins and dungeons, fight monsters, find treasure, and become more powerful."
-- Chris Perkins
Now imagine you know about the fantasy genre, but your experience with D&D is limited. You've just been told the above and then told your fighter has powers. It's intuitive and natural to then think, "You mean, like magic powers?".
Conceptually, the Essentials martial builds simply avoid the new person's natural assumptions based on genre knowledge that "powers" in a fantasy setting usually means some sort of supernatural ability.
I agree, which is why any new Sorcerer stuff needs to be more like an Arcane version of the Thief than the existing Sorceror builds. Seriously.
Mike Mearls has already stated (I can't remember if this was here or at ENworld) that he could easily see a sorcerer build that worked like this.
I actually like the idea so much that I'm working up a rough draft of how such a thing might work to post in the homebrew forum.
EDIT: Here's my attempt so far. The forum screwed up the formatting a bit, but I think the essence (ha!) of it is clear. I actually think this "basic attacks modified by features and other powers" mechanic works pretty well for the sorcerer, especially as it makes it very easy to turn it into a gish or an arcane archer.
I'm glad WotC employees (including big names like him), are showing up around here as well as EnWorld, emphasising more, since apparently we can't get it when they repeat every week the same thing over and over again.
It's nice to see the guy explain somethings, but unfortunately, being the busy man he is, he probably won't be able to pop back down here to answer our questions (at least not right away; and I'm sure some information they want to keep under wraps! ;) ).
Otherwise, if the reduction to basic attacks is just to give a "simple" alternative, then why does it appear that only martial characters are getting the simple alternative?
Finally an easy one!
Two reasons. Firstly, it makes sense in a game targeted at new players to have classes of varying degrees of complexity. While you want some of the classes to be simple, you also want something for those players who get more into the details and options from the very beginning to sink their teeth into. Once you decide that, why should you make the more complex classes the cleric and wizard and the simpler ones the fighter and rogue? The answer to that ties into the second reason.
Which is that Essentials is clearly intended to appeal to (and meet the expectations of) old-school players. And while those players aren't the SOLE target market for D&D Essentials, they (and their offspring) are clearly a primary target. Or the nostalgia packaging (the new "Red Box") would be pointless. To those people, Wizards and Clerics have ALWAYS had spells, so that's nothing new to someone whose last D&D experience was the Mentzer Red Box. A couple of additions are fine, but if wizards didn't have spells (powers), you wouldn't be living up to their expectations.
Meeting those expectations is also (I think) partially why Essentials Wizards prepare Encounter powers as well as their Daily and Utility ones. I also expect the Apprentice Mage ties into the ability to perform some rituals free of cost, so that, for example, (Tenser's) Floating Disc doesn't cost anything.
To those old school players, Fighters and Rogues with suites of "powers" would be radically different. Feats and some cool moves that you can activate (like tricks and stances, or backstab and power strike) are more complex than the old versions, but not so much that it's hard to grasp.
So, once you decide that a starter set needs both some simpler classes and some more complex ones (and as stated above, there are good reasons for that), it's the martial classes that get the simplification treatment and the spellcasters that don't.
Also, I reject the notion of the Essentials fighter and rogue being "simpler" or "easier" than the original classes. They're simpler and easier to build, sure, because they don't really get any choices in how the character is built. I'd argue that they will be more complicated to play, though.
I don't know that they'll be more complicated to play. I imagine that character optimization will be hard, but effectiveness should be pretty easy. And, if they're well-designed, you get plenty of options out of several, discrete decisions among a small number of choices. That can actually be "easier" or "simpler" than making a single decision among a larger number of options.
I used the decision tree argument before (can't recall if it was elsewhere here or over on ENworld). Picking a stance (A or B), followed by "Do I use Power Strike? Y/N" gives me 4 options to start with. Do I make a Cleave attack or a Battle Wrath attack? Once that's done, is this an opponent worth using Power Strike on? Those are easy, discrete choices. And, in a sense, it's far easier than choosing, "Do I use Cleave, Slash & Pummel, or Steel Serpent Strike? Or is this opponent important enough for me to pull out all the stops and use Brute Strike?" Too may options can lead to decision paralysis, where the player just has trouble deciding what to do in a particular situation.
I think it's obvious there's some complexity to the Essentials Fighter we haven't seen yet, since right now he just doesn't stand up to his PHB counterpart (there's nothing to match the daily power, even on average, that we know the mechanics of). But my guess is that probably comes in the form of an always on feature, a "do I or don't I" choice, or at most a choice between 3 options (a human probably gets 3 stances). At first level, the difference obviously isn't huge, but 2 options at any point is still easier to make a choice from than 4. And as you go up in level and gain more "powers," the decision paralysis potentially gets worse - way worse.
Which form of complexity will be easier in play? If the choices in Essentials at each step are small in number and reasonably intuitive, I think that will be easier for new players than making a single choice of action between a larger number of mutually exclusive (and non-obvious) options.
One of the tricky things in designing essentials was how to handle powers. For some new players, the concept of martial powers is a hard one to understand. The idea of a spell functioning as a power seems easy to grasp, but when it comes to weapon users it can throw a wrench into people's minds.
For instance, there has been plenty of times that I've demoed or taught the game to a new player, and that player's intuitive approach is to say "I swing my sword" and roll a die to attack.
I obviously haven't dealt with nearly as many new players as you have, but that did happen once. A player given a pre-gen archer-ranger (very simple to play), leafed through her power cards until she found the card for her magic longbow, then started using the 'ranged basic attack,' off of that card. It wasn't a new-to-D&D player, though, but a new-to-4e player who last played 2e. For genuinely /new/ players, the concept comes easily, and the consistency of how classes work as they level is pretty easy to grasp, too.
These new classes, especially the 'Thief,' which harkens back all the way to the 1e name of the class, seem much more likely to apeal to long-time D&Ders who didn't jump on the 4e bandwagon initially, than to help ease new-to-gaming players into D&D. Of course, after happily playing Pathfinder for two years, I doubt it'll apeal to them /enough/ to bring them back into the fold.
Frankly, by giving new players the impression that martial characters all use basic attacks, you're making it /harder/ for them to ever make the jump to gaming alongside established players who's fighters are using 'powers.' That could further damage the viability of 4e. Though, I'm guessing, at this point 'not making things worse' just isn't good enough.
Otherwise, if the reduction to basic attacks is just to give a "simple" alternative, then why does it appear that only martial characters are getting the simple alternative?
Finally an easy one!
Two reasons. Firstly, it makes sense in a game targeted at new players to have classes of varying degrees of complexity. While you want some of the classes to be simple, you also want something for those players who get more into the details and options from the very beginning to sink their teeth into. Once you decide that, why should you make the more complex classes the cleric and wizard and the simpler ones the fighter and rogue?
Indeed. Why not have a simple Sorcerer, a complex Warlord, a simple Paladin, and a complex Rogue, for instance?
The archetypes are all very familiar. The mighty warrior who leads men in battle, the crusading knight in shinning armor, the mage who blasts his foes with fire & lightning, the dashing swashbuckler.
Indeed, the Warlord archetype is much more familiar to the uninitiated than the mace-wielding armored priest who makes wounds vanish with a touch. Try finding one of those in any fantasy book or movie.
And, while making a class 'simple' by making it work differently than most other classes, makes /that one class/ simpler, it makes the game as a whole more complex and harder for a new player to grasp!
The answer to that ties into the second reason.
Which is that Essentials is clearly intended to appeal to (and meet the expectations of) old-school players. And while those players aren't the SOLE target market for D&D Essentials, they (and their offspring) are clearly a primary target. Or the nostalgia packaging (the new "Red Box") would be pointless.
While that's obviously true, the claim is that it's to attract 'new' players. Not old players who pitched a fit when 4e was announced and embraced Pathfinder (or pitched a fit when /3e/ was announced).
Yeah, I cant help but get the impression, Essentials isnt 'dumbing' the classes down for newbies but rather 'dumbing' them down for pre-4e grognards.
Say I don't get essentials, I don't have the rules for new builds, the new system of builds. The rules for swapping in/retraininf old and new powers.
What happens when there is a new Class acts:rogue is released? Are the powers going to be compatible with my halfing artful dodger? Will i need rules support from essentials books to let me do this? to use and understand the new powers as i see them in compendium/character builder? Will powers appear in the character builder alongside the old powers? presumably. Will they make sense if you don't have the essentials books?
If i don't get the essentials players books, are the following "source" powers books going to be any use. Or are "essentials" essentially essential if you want to continue buying books going forward?
What happens when there is a new Class acts:rogue is released?
If it's "rogue" you get to use it with your rogue. If if's Class Acts: Thief, then you get some Thief stuff. No different then when a class act Artificer get's released and you don't have the eberon guide.
I actually don't expect much class act: essentals. Some, like adding new stances for the knight, or tricks for the thief, and the more classes/sub-classes you have the less each individual class gets, but the old stuff isn't going anywhere.