the CB is a useful tool and I'd like to continue to use it for my purposes (building 4th Ed characters).
The next scheduled errata hits in October. That's when melee training gets updated. I'm not trying to be contrary; I just don't want you to miss out on all of the cool stuff coming out next year because of a handful of builds maybe losing 2 damage on attacks that are made in addition to their standard action attack.
I personally am going to be backing up the September version as I do want the Dark Sun stuff more than I care about magic missle.
Well, the only nerf that has been attributed to anything in Essentials is one feat: melee training. It is a very minor nerf, and the lead designer of D&D 4E has stated that there will be upcoming options for the classes that the feat was originally intended for. So, you'll probably be seeing some new feats for rogues, battleminds and so on that work like intelligent blademaster does for swordmages. They still have time to put those options out before the new errata hits.
The next scheduled errata hits in October. That's when melee training gets updated. I'm not trying to be contrary; I just don't want you to miss out on all of the cool stuff coming out next year because of a handful of builds maybe losing 2 damage on attacks that are made in addition to their standard action attack.
You mean the only nerf that we know about. We know they are reviewing every single thing related to basic attacks released so farand odds are pretty high that more than a handful fo those will get hit with the nerf bat as well. And of course that is only what we know of right now.
And considering the product release schedule and the time neccesary for development, they really don't have time to release all those options pre-E-day.
And yes, it is the only nerf we know about. But if it is an indication of anything that might be coming, then it's worth noting that the nerf is barely noticeable. I think running for the fallout shelter is a little premature at this point. I mean assuming your whole group is going to be fine with not updating (and you plan on never playing with anyone who likes the updates), wouldn't they also be fine with just house-ruling a couple of things that might affect a handful of characters they might at some point play?
Considering we know at bare minimum there will be roughly 8200 game elements errated, I don't think running to the fall out shelter is that premature. Incidently nobody in my group is interested in essentials at all. My DM is considering buying the book just so he can laugh at how horrible of a job they did. I can't imagine this group updating ever, and I am perfectly fine with never playing with a 4es group. And house-ruling this mess would just be putting a lot of work forth to play with poor design. Effort+punishment=no way.
P.S. If the melee training thing is "barely noticeable" then why bother with it in the first place? That is basically admitting it solved nothing.
I wouldn't be surprised if the free action errata was due to Power Strike and its higher level versions, so that the knight/slayer doesn't stack them all on to one attack of doom. That said, it has no effect on the CB.
And where did he say that? Only thing I've seen him say is that they are going to look at giving such options to all those classes. That statement impies 1) they haven't started working on them yet, 2) there is no guarantee that all classes that need it will get it, and 3) there is no way it will be done in two months when it takes over half a year for simple dragon articles to be put out.
Considering we know at bare minimum there will be roughly 8200 game elements errated, I don't think running to the fall out shelter is that premature. Incidently nobody in my group is interested in essentials at all. My DM is considering buying the book just so he can laugh at how horrible of a job they did. I can't imagine this group updating ever, and I am perfectly fine with never playing with a 4es group. And house-ruling this mess would just be putting a lot of work forth to play with poor design. Effort+punishment=no way.
P.S. If the melee training thing is "barely noticeable" then why bother with it in the first place? That is basically admitting it solved nothing.
In a post on ENWorld, he said, "When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strength." That implies that as soon as they started simply talking about changing melee training, they also started talking about how to make sure the change didn't screw over the classes who need it the most.
Yes, there are about 8,200 magic items in the Compendium. But do you really think they are going to issue errata for every single item in the game? If you do, then I guess I can understand why you're panicking about this. Since the rare items are all new items that have not yet been printed, I'm thinking they can easily handle this with one simple rule instead of sweeping errata. They can just have one rule that says, "All alchemical, consumable, potion and reagent items are common. All other items without the 'rare' keyword are uncommon." Then they just create the new rares with the rare keyword and everything works. And I'm sure they have an even more elegant system for it than I just made up off the top of my head.
In a post on ENWorld, he said, "When we talked about the change to Melee Training, we also talked about feats, powers, and other options for classes that like basic attacks but don't use Strength." That implies that as soon as they started simply talking about changing melee training, they also started talking about how to make sure the change didn't screw over the classes who need it the most.
Yes, there are about 8,200 magic items in the Compendium. But do you really think they are going to issue errata for every single item in the game? If you do, then I guess I can understand why you're panicking about this. Since the rare items are all new items that have not yet been printed, I'm thinking they can easily handle this with one simple rule instead of sweeping errata. They can just have one rule that says, "All alchemical, consumable, potion and reagent items are common. All other items without the 'rare' keyword are uncommon." Then they just create the new rares with the rare keyword and everything works. And I'm sure they have an even more elegant system for it than I just made up off the top of my head.
Yeah so they started talking about it like two weeks ago. Hardly enough time to get anythign out.
Yes I do because the rules for rarity aren't going to be that simple, and I cannot iumagine they are going to leave anything with their new faux item balancing system to chance(although that might be giving them more credit than they are due). Incidently, items don't have keywords.
P.S. 8200 was number of items in compendium - number of artifacts in july char builder update + wizard encounter attack powers + 1 for melee training. In retrospect the item number was inflated due to higher level versions of the same item, but figuring out the actual number would be too much work. Oh and I forgot to add in race erratas, so 16 more assuming all PHB races(except for shifter) get eratta.
Well, the only nerf that has been attributed to anything in Essentials is one feat: melee training.
There is quite a bit that has been errata'd for the sake of Essentials. Magic Missile is another example off the top of my head.
The next scheduled errata hits in October.
Oh, I didn't realise there were so many months between errata. I thought it was monthly at one point.
I'm not trying to be contrary; I just don't want you to miss out on all of the cool stuff coming out next year because of a handful of builds maybe losing 2 damage on attacks that are made in addition to their standard action attack.
I've never actually taken melee training. This really isn't about melee training.
I have no interest in Essentials classes. They're a 3.5ism, and I do not enjoy the ruleset that is 3.5e. I enjoy playing 4th ed. So I'll be sticking with 4th ed rather then essentials, and so I'll be avoiding the cool stuff aimed at players. As long as monsters are compatible with 4th ed characters, I'll consider buying the DM "books" that come out. I say consider not from an intense hatred for Essentials, but simply because there's a number of DM books I've yet to buy. I don't even bother downloading the PDFs even more. I simply do not have time to pour through all the content that WotC produces.
That and I DO NOT like the cards WotC keeps producing. So I'm leery of the Shadowfell book coming out. I've already tossed one set of free condition cards simply from a lack of interest in them. (I've got an unopened box of Martial Cards that I got for free because I haven't found anyone to take them off my hands).
Well I can't argue with someone who already has their mind made up.
Likewise.
I'll just add that only the wizard encounters that are reprinted in "Heroes of the Fallen Lands" are having miss effects and school keywords added, and that only 10 races appear in Essentials. I just think these are things you would know if you are as well-read on this topic as you would need to be to know whether or not to panic.
The first tidbit they started bringing bad 3.5isms back through essentials is all I needed to know to know that I wasn't interested. It isn't panic. It is dislike and disinterest in the products they are going to be producing. I'm complaining on the forums so vehemetly because apparently you can get WotC to change directions by whining on the forums for two years and I want to get a good early start.
Oh and errata does not equal changes in the books.
P.S. Thanks for implying I haven't been keeping up with the Essentials news. Real good way to win over your opposition. *sigh*
Considering we know at bare minimum there will be roughly 8200 game elements errated
How are you getting those numbers?
I can count a minimum of 6.
Melee Training, Charm of misplace wrath, Burning hands, at least 1 other Wizard power, Magic Missile(already changed but i'll count it), Daily items (this may be purely additive, but that seems unlikely).
If i assume 1 wizard power per level get's changed, that's 20 or so more...
Edit: and the races, so 18(?) more.
So i see 43-48 things errated.
Well you might as well go back farther. For instance, it's been implied by the developers that PHB3 is essentially a testbed for Essentials so you may want to revert back to before that if you don't like the changes.
In no month, because 4.5 edition doesn't exist...
Denial. So beautiful. It helps keep marriages together.
By my counting, essentials is 4.2. I've never played 3, and very little of 3.5, so i don't have any adversion to any specific numbers.
They had 4 (origional print)
4.1 (delux edition)
and now 4.2 (revised edition)
It's no secret that 4th Ed is getting massive errata simply because combinations of current rules breaks stuff in Essentials. I'm wondering which month these updates started making it to the character builder? I plan to regress my CB back to the month prior to that. I have no interest in 4.5e and it's becoming abundantly clear that the only support 4th Ed is getting is to neff stuff so it doesn't break the new rules. the CB is a useful tool and I'd like to continue to use it for my purposes (building 4th Ed characters).
I know I'm a little late to the party, but you really have no support for the bolded statement.
In fact, it sounds like you have no interest in Essentials making your characters MORE powerful, not less.
What changes do we know about?
Melee training:
Okay, this is a nerf, losing non Strength melee types about 5 points of damage on Melee Basic Attacks at Epic Tier, and 1-2 points of damage in Heroic. Even if the feats / powers to compensate for this won't be in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, they are coming.
Magic Missle:
This has been mathematically proven in the Char Op and Controller boards to not be a nerf. Your maximum damage does take a hit, but your average damage is slightly higher. I would have preferred a new power be made, too, but that the myth that this is a nerf has already been busted.
Variable stats for all races:
Making your character more versatile is a nerf?
Wizard Encounter spells having some effect on a miss.
Making your Wizard spells more effective is a nerf?
Magic item rarity being introduced
This is strictly a DM enhancement. None of your current items will be taken away from you, so this doesn't affect your character at all. What this does is give the DM more control over which items the party has access to via Enchant Magic Item. It will have no effect on those games where the majority of the magic items you receive is via wish lists and DM placement.
rearrangement of Feats
The new design philosphy on Feats will result in a buff to your characters, not a nerf. Feats previously available at Paragon and Epic will be made available earlier (or equivalent new Feats will be made), and more feats will scale by level, meaning that characters will have more slots available to them.
and more...
So, yes, many game elements are changing, but for the better.
If you want to nerf your own characters by not updating, be my guest.
Also, patch feats for melee training is bad, it is ALREADY a patch feat. Its worse than Versitile Expertise's patch for Expertise, because it came into being because of expertise's flaw, not because wizards nerfed it to make sure the most boring classes in the game can't do anything cool.
Ok so its power creep.
Also, patch feats for melee training is bad, it is ALREADY a patch feat. Its worse than Versitile Expertise's patch for Expertise, because it came into being because of expertise's flaw, not because wizards nerfed it to make sure the most boring classes in the game can't do anything cool.
It's only power creep if the monsters and hazards don't keep up with the changes.
Ok so its power creep.
Also, patch feats for melee training is bad, it is ALREADY a patch feat. Its worse than Versitile Expertise's patch for Expertise, because it came into being because of expertise's flaw, not because wizards nerfed it to make sure the most boring classes in the game can't do anything cool.
It's only power creep if the monsters and hazards don't keep up with the changes.
Not if classes that got essentialized as better than off than those who weren't. Essentials is also not self-contained when it starts forcing errata on the game. Yes, you can ignore errata, but it starts getting quite annoying in the CB, which doesnt tell you if something was errata'd.
Besides, are they going to buff monsters AGAIN after MM3? Besides, if buff monsters to 'keep up' it makes other classes inferior.
I've never actually taken melee training. This really isn't about melee training.
I have no interest in Essentials classes. They're a 3.5ism, and I do not enjoy the ruleset that is 3.5e. I enjoy playing 4th ed. So I'll be sticking with 4th ed rather then essentials, and so I'll be avoiding the cool stuff aimed at players. As long as monsters are compatible with 4th ed characters, I'll consider buying the DM "books" that come out. I say consider not from an intense hatred for Essentials, but simply because there's a number of DM books I've yet to buy. I don't even bother downloading the PDFs even more. I simply do not have time to pour through all the content that WotC produces.
That and I DO NOT like the cards WotC keeps producing. So I'm leery of the Shadowfell book coming out. I've already tossed one set of free condition cards simply from a lack of interest in them. (I've got an unopened box of Martial Cards that I got for free because I haven't found anyone to take them off my hands).
There is a Shadowfell book coming out!
I really hope it'll be in the same format as Underdark, Plane Below, Plane Above and so on. I don't mind the Essentials. From what I've gathered, I'll simply ignore the line. It would be annoying, though, if the whole format would suddenly change (i.e. no Divine Power 2, books would become soft cover booklets, new monsters would be so tough that a DM would have to scale encounters to be suitable for pre-essential characters etc...). I like the 4e consistency and hope WotC will get back to it after all this Essential stuff has been released.
Besides, are they going to buff monsters AGAIN after MM3? Besides, if buff monsters to 'keep up' it makes other classes inferior.
They aren't buffing monsters again. And they were only buffed before because of the classes we already have. It was mostly due to combat taking too long and players not really feeling threatened in combat. When I look at MM3 monsters, I think oh my sweet Jeebus that is scary, instead of just wow he has a lot of hit points.
For instance, it's been implied by the developers that PHB3 is essentially a testbed for Essentials so you may want to revert back to before that if you don't like the changes.
Funny you should say that. I played a Battlemind recently and to be honest I didn't particularly enjoy the experience. The character died and I was quite eager to select any other class. While I liked the character, I didn't enjoy the mechanics.
you really have no support for the bolded statement.
Those are very good points refuting the nerf comment. The main point wasn't that I don't want the changes because they're nerfs, but because they're changes brought into being simply because of Essentials elements. I have no interest in Essentials, so I therefore have no interest in the errata it produces.
Yes, you can ignore errata
That's all this thread is about. I want to ignore the errata produced because of essentials. I do not plan to play Essentials, so I therefore do not need or want the errata that is created specifically for Essentials.
In the past errata was updated (or used) as the DM saw fit. People claim the same is true for 4th ed. This thread is simply me saying "I want to ignore this group of errata" and I instead have people debating how awesome that errata is and how I should be using it.
Debate is fine. But I'm not saying "this is the end of the world. WotC has ruined D&D forever!!!1111oneoneone." Its simply me saying "I do not want to use it, however I want to continue to use this really useful tool WotC has produced. I would like to do something that would help me use this tool without being forced to use the errata. Can someone please answer a basic question for me to help me do that?" Question answered.
There is a Shadowfell book coming out!
Well, a boxset which will come with a new set of cards (condition cards or some such thing). I don't know any more details yet.
It would be annoying, though, if the whole format would suddenly change (i.e. no Divine Power 2, books would become soft cover booklets
Err... AFAIK there aren't any hardcovers projected for the next year. Although Heroes of Shadow for example is 320 pages so I probably wouldn't call it a booklet.
new monsters would be so tough that a DM would have to scale encounters to be suitable for pre-essential characters etc...). I like the 4e consistency and hope WotC will get back to it after all this Essential stuff has been released.
WotC has been saying Essentials is contained to 10 products and that everything will go back to normal afterwards. But then they say
Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale is the main monster book for the year, containing new monsters, tokens for every monster, encounters, and poster maps.
and how Essentials is going to set the guideline for how they move forward with "4th ed." Effectively we're seeing quite a shift in design and I would be EXTREMELY surprised to see new classes or builds for old classes in the 4th ed style rather than the Essentials style.
I'm eagerly awaiting the two Monster Vault books. I'm expecting the first one not to be overpowered against 4th ed classes. But I'll be interested to see how the second Monster Vault stacks up with previous monsters and whether or not 4th ed characters can take them on. If they can, awesome I'll continue to buy DM products. Otherwise, I've got my book and I can quite easily write another 14 campaigns with what I've got
[EDIT]: Oh hey. I just saw it was "Mikron." Here is a fan's summary of GenCon. Its not straight from the horse's mouth, but it should be mostly accurate (I think there's only one or two points which may have been misunderstood).
Well, the only nerf that has been attributed to anything in Essentials is one feat: melee training. It is a very minor nerf
in your opinion, and you havent had a complaint about ANY changes so its not surprising you love it
Not only that but the "Yer either with us or again' us!" attitude you're presently projecting is just silly. Especially when taken in context (the context being a game with a legacy of encouraging house rules). Make no mistake: this is not a 0 sum game we're playing here.
Well, the only nerf that has been attributed to anything in Essentials is one feat: melee training. It is a very minor nerf
in your opinion, and you havent had a complaint about ANY changes so its not surprising you love it
How's that any different from you thinking every change is bad?
Well, the only nerf that has been attributed to anything in Essentials is one feat: melee training. It is a very minor nerf
in your opinion, and you havent had a complaint about ANY changes so its not surprising you love it
How's that any different from you thinking every change is bad?
bc i dont think every change is bad?
Well, the only nerf that has been attributed to anything in Essentials is one feat: melee training. It is a very minor nerf
in your opinion, and you havent had a complaint about ANY changes so its not surprising you love it
How's that any different from you thinking every change is bad?
bc i dont think every change is bad?
I said the nerf was minor and you twisted that into me loving it. Wow. Congratulations, you just won the award for best straw man argument in an Essentials thread. Try explaining to me why the nerf isn't minor instead of just saying it's my opinion. You obviously have an opinion of your own, so express it. Unless you're just basing your opinions on whatever the opposite of mine are, you have to have a reason to believe what you do.
It's no secret that 4th Ed is getting massive errata simply because combinations of current rules breaks stuff in Essentials. I'm wondering which month these updates started making it to the character builder? I plan to regress my CB back to the month prior to that. I have no interest in 4.5e and it's becoming abundantly clear that the only support 4th Ed is getting is to neff stuff so it doesn't break the new rules. the CB is a useful tool and I'd like to continue to use it for my purposes (building 4th Ed characters).
I know of no way to 'regress' CB. If you find one, please let us know.
The "4.5e" changes (if you care think of them that way) started with the PH3 and MM3, and have been dribbling out since. That was, I believe, March 2010. There's a major update coming in October that will complete the 'transition.' So, if you just want to avoid the serious Essentials-compatibility update, anytime before Oct is OK. If you want to avoid any hint of 'contamination,' you'll have to find a copy of CB that hasn't been updated for 5 months or so.
I have no interest in 4.5e.
That's great! 'Cause there is no such thing as 4.5E. Lucky you
I'm just curious to see what the D&D rules set will look like in another 2 years. Man I wish they would open all this stuff up to public beta testing... i know it would impact sales but would we still be running around with so much errata?
Please, stop calling it... that. It simply is not a reset like the previous edition had.
I mean, if you sat down to play with your Protecting Paladin built straight out of the PH, and the guy next to you was using a fully-errata'd PH+Divine Power Protecting Paladin, you'd hardly know it was the same class. You can't make a decent MBA because you're CHA-based, and you 'peel' one enemy at a time off your allies with Divine Challenge. He Divine Sanctions everything in sight and there's nothing wrong with his MBA(edit: yes, Virtuous Strike). How different were the 3.0 and 3.5 Paladins - didn't they get all the same features, just in a different order?
So, yeah, calling Essentials '4.5' is a little off base. You'd been playing 4.5 for months when Essentials was announced.
Not that Essentials won't be a big change in it's own right.
I mean, if you sat down to play with your Protecting Paladin built straight out of the PH, and the guy next to you was using a fully-errata'd PH+Divine Power Protecting Paladin, you'd hardly know it was the same class. You can't make a decent MBA because you're CHA-based, and you 'peel' one enemy at a time off your allies with Divine Challenge. He Divine Sanctions everything in sight and there's nothing wrong with his MBA. How different were the 3.0 and 3.5 Paladins - didn't they get all the same features, just in a different order?
So, yeah, calling Essentials '4.5' is a little off base. You'd been playing 4.5 for months when Essentials was announced.
Somewhat true, but your example is bad. The 3.x equivalent would be more like one person playing a PHB paladin and the other playing a PHBv3.5 + Complete Divine paladin. Naturally the character with an entire extra book worth of options may play differently than the other.
Also the difrences might not be all that noticible depending on the specifics of how each player built their character. The DP paladin won't have good basic attacks unless he chose Virtuous Strike as one of his two at-wills (or has Melee Training from PH2, but that's adding a third book to his already larger list of options). Also not all powers make use of Divine Sanction. I'm currently playing a Paladin whose only way to inpose a sanction is her paragon path encounter power.
As such, its not that the actual Paladin class has changed all that much, but rather that newer books have introduced additional options, which is normal growth that has nothing to do with fractional edition revisions.
That's great! 'Cause there is no such thing as 4.5E. Lucky you
My use of "4.5e" isn't so much that this is a new edition. Its that this version of D&D resembles a certain past edition to such a high degree, that it may as well share part of the same as that edition. 3.4e is somewhat misleading given that it implies it comes before 3.5e. 3.75 is often used to describe Pathfinder. So I suppose I could have used 3.85e, except that has absolutely nothing to do with 3.5e. So I just took the ".5e" and appended it to 4th edition for the end effect of "4.5e"
I still argue Essentials should have been released from the beginning. PHB1 should have contained what these Essentials books now do. That way in 2010 they could have released proper "4th ed" and we would have had a straight progression from complex to simple, instead of from complex to simple back to complex.
I still argue Essentials should have been released from the beginning. PHB1 should have contained what these Essentials books now do. That way in 2010 they could have released proper "4th ed" and we would have had a straight progression from complex to simple, instead of from complex to simple back to complex.
Well, of course, that probably should be obvious. But hindsight is 20/20. Sometimes, you can't see the mistake until you make it, at which point, all you can do is move on or correct it. 4E moved on without a true "beginner's set," that turned out to be a problem both for grognards who didn't like the radical changes and for some people who had trouble grasping all of the options in front of them. This latter problem becomes more pronounced with each PHB and Power book. Now, they are correcting the mistake (and you are taking them to task for doing so).
Essentials is giving simple options for newer players (Basic Attack focused Fighters and Rogues) as well as updating the game with some of the more recent design philosophies (variable stat bonuses for races, removing the hard Heroic / Paragon / Epic distinction from Feats that aren't that much better than Feats in previous tiers, creating Feats that scale with the character so that characters will have more options as they level instead of Feats they "need to take to stay competitive," etc.).
Everything I read about Essentials is additive, not exclusive. This is what keeps Essentials from being a new edition, and why you are getting so much flack for your choice of terms. 3.5 was a new edition, replacing 3E. Essentials is additional material to enhance your current 4E games and make the game easier for new players to grasp by giving them class builds that don't flood them with options.
That's great! 'Cause there is no such thing as 4.5E. Lucky you
My use of "4.5e" isn't so much that this is a new edition. Its that this version of D&D resembles a certain past edition to such a high degree, that it may as well share part of the same as that edition. 3.4e is somewhat misleading given that it implies it comes before 3.5e. 3.75 is often used to describe Pathfinder.
4.(-5)e ? because, it came after 4.0, but it's going backwards?
That's great! 'Cause there is no such thing as 4.5E. Lucky you
My use of "4.5e" isn't so much that this is a new edition. Its that this version of D&D resembles a certain past edition to such a high degree, that it may as well share part of the same as that edition. 3.4e is somewhat misleading given that it implies it comes before 3.5e. 3.75 is often used to describe Pathfinder.
4.(-5)e ? because, it came after 4.0, but it's going backwards?
4.-5e sounds good!
I honestly wonder how many people enjoyed the 3.5 fighter over the 4e fighter. I LOVE to conditions in 4e fighter powers. They offer so much more room for free roleplay and imaginative combat than the good old "I swing my sword!" powers. Take "Knockdown Assault" for instance. I play a goblin fighter and a warforged fighter both using that power. And I can describe it anyway I want! As long as the opponent lands on his backside, it's all good! My warforged could seize a puny halfling by his collar and slam him head-first onto the floor. Or he could smash his ironfist so hard into the orc's face that he would go down. The rather weak and sneaky goblin doesn't posses that strength and may rather fling himself full on into an opponent's knees. Or he might kick one in the groin. Or he could use some terrain feature (the carpet just being one option next to kicking things at opponents, opening a bag of marbles and littering the floor with them and whatnot). You have sooooo many varieties for every power that can make every combat unique despite using the (mechanically) same power.
In 3.5 I remember rules for everything. I I wanted to pull a carpet from underneath an opponent, my DM would calculate and look up stuff. I would then roll an ability check that would fail or the enemy would save or whatnot. If I wanted to kick some enemy in the groin, it was a special form of unarmed attack that couldn't knock prone. If I wanted to grab an enemy and throw hin to the ground... well, I won't go there.
The 4e fighter feels so much more dynamic! I have no idea why even a complete beginner would chose an old-school MBA focused guy over someone who offers to affect opponents with conditions on hits. Unless, of course, the MBA- associated feats for the "Knight" will be just all about damage. And this "new" fighter build will likely be one of the major culprits of feat errata due to its focus on MBA.
] 4.(-5)e ? because, it came after 4.0, but it's going backwards?
Uh... NO.
How does 'builds for three classes' equal the whole line going backwards? And how does a '3.5 MBA + feats fighter' equal a '4E MBA + at-will stances + encouter augmentation-powers + class features + feats fighter'? There's a difference between 'going back to something that didn't work' and 'taking something that didn't work and making it work the way it should have'.
This +1.
I honestly wonder how many people enjoyed the 3.5 fighter over the 4e fighter.
They're very different beasts, mechanically. The 3.x fighter was highly customizeable, but it's abilities were all unlimitted-use, and 3.x balanced limitted-use abiliities with /much/ greater power. More so than the difference in power between 4e at-wills and dailies. That required that the limitted-use powers be very limitted indeed, not just to 1/day each, but difficult to use in combat, limitted in aplication, and so forth. 3.x got pretty close to delivering that, but it took a lot of effort from the DM and no little restraint from the players (of casters) to make it happen.
The customizeability of the 3.x fighter made it ideal for 'concept' builds. That is, if you wanted a character that had a specific ability set and feel, fighter often made a good part of it.
The 4e fighter is much more interesting in the sense of having some dramatically different powers to choose from on a round-by-round basis, and resource-management as well as tactical decisions to make. But, it doesn't - even with all the builds currently out, even with the addition of the Slayer - cover as many concepts as the lowly 3.x fighter could.
The 3.x and 4e fighters were both balanced. The 3.x fighter just had the misfortune to be in a system where no on else was balanced. ;) The 4e fighter - like all 4e classes - was balanced through the simple expedient of having basically the same number, effectiveness, and availability of options as all other classes.
So, the 3.x fighter was a lot of fun to build and play, as long as the casters in your party hadn't gone too far around the bend, yet.
The 4e fighter is more fun though. For the reasons you site. Because it better delivers on it's iconic role. And because it's in better game.
The exception being if you want to play a mounted archer or a pole-arm master. In that case, the 3.x fighter is more fun, because it's just not an option that works with the 4e fighter.
The 4e fighter feels so much more dynamic! I have no idea why even a complete beginner would chose an old-school MBA focused guy over someone who offers to affect opponents with conditions on hits.
Conditions, close bursts, forced movement, the 4e martial classes - not just the fighter - have a lot of cool options. Really /all/ the classes do. One of the great things about 4e from a beginner standpoint is that you really need only learn the system and the roles. You don't face a steep learning curve for each class, because each class uses the same basic mechanics and progression.
Unless, of course, the MBA- associated feats for the "Knight" will be just all about damage. And this "new" fighter build will likely be one of the major culprits of feat errata due to its focus on MBA.
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that aplies to MBAs, and any of it could 'explode' in the presence of the new MBA-focused martial classes.
Take "Knockdown Assault" for instance. I play a goblin fighter and a warforged fighter both using that power. And I can describe it anyway I want! As long as the opponent lands on his backside, it's all good!
Oh so that's what you're "I slam the opponent I've grabbed into the ground" power was. I figured it was a Martial Power 2 power that had the prerequisite the target must be grabbed. And I was your DM.
I mean, if you sat down to play with your Protecting Paladin built straight out of the PH
Stop right there. The Paladin straight out of the PH was a weak class that had significant difficulty doing his job, and was vastly overshadowed by the fighter from day one. Yes, a Paladin with expansion material from Divine power is a lot stronger. This isn't some nefarious plot to sneak a new edition on you or some contemptible lack of restraint leading to power creep. This is a deliberate attempt from the design staff to prop up a floundering class in responce to real life gameplay experience and player feedback. Even with Divine Power, the paladin is still less impressive then a PHBI only fighter.
Now, I cant tell you what was going on with the Two Weapon and Temp HP fighter builds when Martial Power was in development. That was a contemptible lack of restraint leading to power creep. But if you have any beef with the Paladin, it shouldn't be with DP propping the class up, it should be with the PHBI not delivering a functional class to begin with.
Take "Knockdown Assault" for instance. I play a goblin fighter and a warforged fighter both using that power. And I can describe it anyway I want! As long as the opponent lands on his backside, it's all good!
Oh so that's what you're "I slam the opponent I've grabbed into the ground" power was. I figured it was a Martial Power 2 power that had the prerequisite the target must be grabbed. And I was your DM.
If I just slam somebody down, it's likely knockdown assault (if no damage dice are rolled - aside from a charge when there would be 1d8). If I move before the slamming and drag somebody with me, it'll be slamming rush (1d6 rolled).
Or it could be a combination of knockdown assault and forceful drag (a level 2 utility to move a grabbed target).Now, I cant tell you what was going on with the Two Weapon and Temp HP fighter builds when Martial Power was in development. That was a contemptible lack of restraint leading to power creep.
More like designers, still unfamiliar with all the ramifications of the new system, not yet knowing what is and isn't overpowered. Sort of a reverse of the problems with the PH1 paladin. I highly doubt they set out to make broken material or begin the cycle of power creep, rather they were merely pushing the boundaries to see what does and doesn't work. Given that at the time no one really knew the answer to that question, it's not at all surprising that mistakes where made.
Also, the Tempest fighter isn't broken in and of itself. It was only through the addition of double-weapons in AV1 that their damage spikes (due to having weapons that deal full one-handed damage while still having the off-hand property). As for the Battlerager, other than being nigh-unkillable it wasn't all that broken. Their are far worse things than a PC that is difficult to kill, namely a PC that auto-kills monsters without trying. The ranger is probably by far the worse offender in that category, and as a result what could have been a cool concept (the Beastmaster) ended up being lackluster. Probably because the designers were showing too much restraint.
Adventurer's vault also seemed to have a thing against 'cool abilities', restricting them to dailies, while obvious reliable items like Iron Armbands of Power and Staffs of Ruin came into being, and weren't even on the high ends of their + tier.
There's alot of early things that suffered due to it being a new system, or thinking in the old mindset, like all the weapon feats being geared for strength based melee characters, or the current implement and weapliment issues. Or the Strength Cleric's strange lack of Paragon Paths (as of today they have like 4-6 at most).
That said, it seems odd that their way of fixing all this is to think more like the old mindset...
WotC using 3.5 was to be clever and to basically announce a 4th edition was coming next. The first update is something like 3.1, that they used .5 or a half was significant. There is no way they will ever use a "." anything ever again.
4e has changed so much with each book! You can't even open your PHB1 if there is a rules question anymore.
What Essentials or any "." will do is change just enough to be different but not enough to be another edition. So they are not going to go back and fix all the published items or monsters or characters, they are going to sell your new books of items, monster and characters. Just different enough for you to have to buy them but not different enough for you to say, no thank I will stick with 4e.
My question is with CB the Compendium and perhaps some Rule thing, does the Essential version replace the 4.0 version? Do they list them both?
The other players are getting frusterated about the whole thing which is funny since some of them probably did not like 3rds way of changing things (few online erattas and more buy new books to get rules changes).
You don't know the full extent of the changes; you only know bits and pieces. If you aren't interested in the new class options, don't play them. If you are worried that they will overshadow previous builds, fine, worry. But at least wait until the product is released before judging whether it's balanced. You may find that your worries are unfounded.
I think in general, a few people are overreacting quite drastically to a product that doesn't change the core game any more than any previous release did.
If you simply hate change, period, with or without the Essentials label, what you can do is stop subscribing to Insider and stop updating your CB. Stop reading new articles and stop talking to anyone who does. Problem solved. You have your own little D&D time capsule and a totally static version of the rules preserved for all time.
Me, I'll take a game that evolves and improves as the developers learn from their mistakes and envision interesting new options.
The magical item change is not a minor change, it a complete re-write of the game system,
This puts control over which magic items the players have access to back into the hands of the GM. It is a rules based system, which can be easily ignored by DMs if their players were not abusing the system, and which can be used to defuse arguments in groups where the players were abusing the system.
How, in any conceivable way, is this change bad for the game?
The tiers being removed from feats is a complete re-write of the system.
And what about many of those Feats made them so good that they needed to be level locked the way they were. In many cases, those Feats were either not as good as available Heroic tier Feats, or they simply aren't so much better that players should have to wait for them.
The Feats are being reorganized, with level limits being removed from Feats that do not need them, and scalable Feats being introduced so that players, in some instances, will not need to take multiple Feats to enhance the same attribute.
How, in any conceivable way, is this change bad for the game?
Classes that do not have daily powers cannot possibly be balanced vs. classes that have such powers. They will either be woefully inadequate, or in a few situations like the recent DDE DS season 2 massively overpowered.
Until we see the full list of class features and play with them ourselves, we cannot say the above with any certainty. We are entitled to our opinions, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
And how does anything about Dark Sun Encounters prove your point. I've been running a table every week starting with the second chapter, and I have not noticed any imbalance between classes that have Encounter Powers vs. those that don't. I assume this is what you are talking about, as all of the characters, both pre-gen and player created, have had Daily powers all season. Has one of your tables been using Essentials rules early?
A character w/o daily powers in the DDE DS game would never have to worry about the fact that there have been no extended rests with the exception of the lvl 2, & 3 upgrades.
As is that character would be overpowered which is what I said. Which has been said by more than just me as well.
You are forgetting about two daily resources that are not changing at all; Healing Surges and Daily Magic Item uses. Even in a party composed entirely of Essentials Fighters and Rogues, extended rests will still need to be taken just to replenish Healing Surges.
You are also ignoring the rest of the party, who would have Dailies to replenish. The Dark Sun Encounters I have run and played have all had at least one player, if not more, down to Healing Surge or two by the end of the fourth Encounter. An Essentials character in Dark Sun Encounters would not be overpowered simply by virtue of the fact that there are no Dailies to expend, unless his class features more than make up for the lack of Dailies. We have not seen the truth of this yet. All we, the players who are reacting to Essentials, have is theorycraft.
The changes being made are ones that the designers decided were good for the game.
This is a major cop out.
No, it is a statement completely without emotion, and it is the absolute truth. The Designers of the game are making changes that they think are good for the game. We can agree or disagree with their assessment, but it does not change the basic motivation for the changes on the Designers' part (unless you truly believe that the Designers are actively trying to make the game fail, which is a completely senseless and stupid stance for them to take).
I think it is a poor idea to change melee training without simultaneously publishing the fix for classes that make heavy use of Melee Basic Attacks but do not use Strength as a primary score. I think Magic Missle should have been left alone and a new power created that does what Magic Missle does now.
I think the new, melee basic focused, martial builds will be boring to play. This does not bother me, as I can still play a Brawling Fighter or Artful Dodger. The new builds are just that, new builds. Having new builds in no way invalidates my ability to play older builds. I don't care for Ensnaring Swordmages, Unifying Avengers or Prescient Bards, but this does nothing to change my love of Swordmages, Avengers or Bards.
A character w/o daily powers in the DDE DS game would never have to worry about the fact that there have been no extended rests with the exception of the lvl 2, & 3 upgrades.
As is that character would be overpowered which is what I said. Which has been said by more than just me as well.
If this happens, your DM needs to look at his adventure design. The rules for daily powers were written with the expectation that you'll get an extended rest after a certain number of encounters. If you are not getting extended rests, and if certain classes are at a disadvantage because of that, it is not reasonable to blame the rules. You are to blame for not following the guidelines.
The word is the Essentials Encounters season will feature 4-encounter work days. /If/ that change from 5 to 4 per day is in response to some classes not having dailies, then it would imply that those classes are a bit more powerful in a standard encounter, and will, perhaps, at low level, tend to dominate when dailies aren't brought into play. Of course, it could also just be because Essentials should be expected to attract more new players, while the Dark Sun setting is supposed to be grim and brutal (which longer days deliver).
If this happens, your DM needs to look at his adventure design. The rules for daily powers were written with the expectation that you'll get an extended rest after a certain number of encounters. If you are not getting extended rests, and if certain classes are at a disadvantage because of that, it is not reasonable to blame the rules. You are to blame for not following the guidelines.
Again you fail to realize that was the "hook" for DDE DS. There were no places in the module as written to take an extended rest.
It has nothing to do with my GM, that was the module.
Actually, for the second chapter, there is absolutely nothing spurring the players on except between the fourth and fifth encounter. If the party wanted to rest between the second and third encounter, why couldn't they?
Even so, so what if there were a Slayer Fighter amongst the party? What is he going to do while the rest of the party takes their much needed rest and he still has four Healing Surges? Move on to the next encounter alone?
It sounds like you object to the fact that they don't have Dailies and think they are overpowered by this fact alone. The concern should be whether or not the loss of the Dailies and the damage / effects they grant is compensated for in the class features, overcompensanted for, or not compensated enough. With these things being the major concerns, why are you so concerned about the extended rest that he may not NEED to take, but will have to take anyway because the rest of the party is?
The Dark Sun D&D Encounters season has featured 5 encounter per extended rest, that's just how it's written. For a party of 5 or six, with one daily each, that means a daily could be used in each encounter, if so desired. It also means you get to spend three action points, which isn't bad, even in the absence of a Warlord.
The word is the Essentials Encounters season will feature 4-encounter work days. /If/ that change from 5 to 4 per day is in response to some classes not having dailies, then it would imply that those classes are a bit more powerful in a standard encounter, and will, perhaps, at low level, tend to dominate when dailies aren't brought into play. Of course, it could also just be because Essentials should be expected to attract more new players, while the Dark Sun setting is supposed to be grim and brutal (which longer days deliver).
The first season was 4 encounters per extended rest. I think it is far more likely that it was changed to 5 for Dark Sun because that campaign setting is supposed to be more brutal and harsh. Season 3 is simply going back to the standard, 'non-Dark Sun' amount of encounters between rests.
So let me try this yet again for the criminally ignorant in the crowd;
Character A is a standard PHB 1 character. Character B is a "standard" essentials fighter.
At 1st lvl, A has one daily power to use over the course of 4 ~ 5 fights, as per the DS encounters module. Lets just say he uses it in the third encounter. At this point he only has the one encounter power for first, and his at wills for the rest of the day.
You still with me???
B having no daily powers, but having these "stances" which last as long as needed, never runs out of powers. Ever.
This is not a balanced party. I don't care if the designers tell you otherwise. D&D has tried this before, did you play 1st, 2nd, or 3.x? Do you remember how unbalanced the classes actually were?
See, I'm with you to right about here. If you recall, the classes that consisted of "I swing my sword" as their turn were underpowered in previous editions. The classes with all the neat powers overshadowed the Fighter and the Rogue by level 6, and then never looked back.
Now you are using the same logic to present why these new builds are overpowered compared to previous builds. If your logic holds above, then these new builds will be woefully underpowered, and not overpowered. Until we see if their class features over, under, or justly compensate for the loss of Daily powers and their effects and burst damage, we simply don't know if they are overpowered or not.
You claim they will be, but your evidence suggests that they won't.
Spamming MBAsdoes not interest me, I've done that sense 85. 4.0 finally found a good balancing mechanic, and here they are two years in, tossing it out the window. And the errata is changing things even if I don't buy the book.
You don;t like the mechanic, you don't have to use it. I think it will be boring, too. The presence of the Slayer, Knight and Thief builds does not stop me from building and playing a Brawler or Artful Dodger and having just as much fun as I did before Essentials came out.
The things they are changing, with the exception of Melee Training, (magic item rarity, feat restructure, Wizard Encounter spells having Miss effects) are, in my opinion, good for the game. The new builds are not changing anything about 4E except to present new ways to play.
You seem to think my complaint was the module; no, not even close. It was about what I expected from the world where you were told 15 years ago to make at least three characters, and expect to loose all of them. I could complain about the terrible pre-gens, but whats the point, everyone knows about that issue already.
You presented as evidence a situation that could not exist (Essential build in Fury of the Wastewalker), and have yet to rationally explain how it would be a disruptive influence.
This is not a balanced party.
So, it's fundamentally impossible to get the same expected return between those two characters?
Just no way they could have tweaked MBAs enough so that a small, steady increase in damage/effect over 4 encounters could produce about the same bang as one good daily?
So every striker class is broken because no two of them get their bonus damage the same way, right? Okay, maybe the ranger and warlock are basically the same.
It's not a perfect system, but it gets the job done.
Remember the radiant avenger-warlock thing? Notice how it's gone now?
If essentials really destroys the balance to the extent that you insist it will, do you really believe they will just leave the game in a broken, unplayable state?
Most important, do you think all the doomsaying is going to keep Essentials from happening? It won't, because for all intents and purposes, Essentials has already happened.
Carrying on about how awful it is is totally meaningless until you have actual playtime experience and can share at least one non-hypothetical, real-game anecdote in which the game truly does break down.
There are other threads however to talk about this stuff... and even some suggestions on how to balance things if you have the above problem (one about spotlight time I think)
That's great! 'Cause there is no such thing as 4.5E. Lucky you
My use of "4.5e" isn't so much that this is a new edition. Its that this version of D&D resembles a certain past edition to such a high degree, that it may as well share part of the same as that edition. 3.4e is somewhat misleading given that it implies it comes before 3.5e. 3.75 is often used to describe Pathfinder.
4.(-5)e ? because, it came after 4.0, but it's going backwards?
4.-5e sounds good!
I honestly wonder how many people enjoyed the 3.5 fighter over the 4e fighter. I LOVE to conditions in 4e fighter powers. They offer so much more room for free roleplay and imaginative combat than the good old "I swing my sword!" powers. Take "Knockdown Assault" for instance. I play a goblin fighter and a warforged fighter both using that power. And I can describe it anyway I want! As long as the opponent lands on his backside, it's all good! My warforged could seize a puny halfling by his collar and slam him head-first onto the floor. Or he could smash his ironfist so hard into the orc's face that he would go down. The rather weak and sneaky goblin doesn't posses that strength and may rather fling himself full on into an opponent's knees. Or he might kick one in the groin. Or he could use some terrain feature (the carpet just being one option next to kicking things at opponents, opening a bag of marbles and littering the floor with them and whatnot). You have sooooo many varieties for every power that can make every combat unique despite using the (mechanically) same power.
In 3.5 I remember rules for everything. I I wanted to pull a carpet from underneath an opponent, my DM would calculate and look up stuff. I would then roll an ability check that would fail or the enemy would save or whatnot. If I wanted to kick some enemy in the groin, it was a special form of unarmed attack that couldn't knock prone. If I wanted to grab an enemy and throw hin to the ground... well, I won't go there.
The 4e fighter feels so much more dynamic! I have no idea why even a complete beginner would chose an old-school MBA focused guy over someone who offers to affect opponents with conditions on hits. Unless, of course, the MBA- associated feats for the "Knight" will be just all about damage. And this "new" fighter build will likely be one of the major culprits of feat errata due to its focus on MBA.
] 4.(-5)e ? because, it came after 4.0, but it's going backwards?
Uh... NO.
How does 'builds for three classes' equal the whole line going backwards? And how does a '3.5 MBA + feats fighter' equal a '4E MBA + at-will stances + encouter augmentation-powers + class features + feats fighter'? There's a difference between 'going back to something that didn't work' and 'taking something that didn't work and making it work the way it should have'.
This +1.
I honestly wonder how many people enjoyed the 3.5 fighter over the 4e fighter.
They're very different beasts, mechanically. The 3.x fighter was highly customizeable, but it's abilities were all unlimitted-use, and 3.x balanced limitted-use abiliities with /much/ greater power. More so than the difference in power between 4e at-wills and dailies. That required that the limitted-use powers be very limitted indeed, not just to 1/day each, but difficult to use in combat, limitted in aplication, and so forth. 3.x got pretty close to delivering that, but it took a lot of effort from the DM and no little restraint from the players (of casters) to make it happen.
The customizeability of the 3.x fighter made it ideal for 'concept' builds. That is, if you wanted a character that had a specific ability set and feel, fighter often made a good part of it.
The 4e fighter is much more interesting in the sense of having some dramatically different powers to choose from on a round-by-round basis, and resource-management as well as tactical decisions to make. But, it doesn't - even with all the builds currently out, even with the addition of the Slayer - cover as many concepts as the lowly 3.x fighter could.
The 3.x and 4e fighters were both balanced. The 3.x fighter just had the misfortune to be in a system where no on else was balanced. ;) The 4e fighter - like all 4e classes - was balanced through the simple expedient of having basically the same number, effectiveness, and availability of options as all other classes.
So, the 3.x fighter was a lot of fun to build and play, as long as the casters in your party hadn't gone too far around the bend, yet.
The 4e fighter is more fun though. For the reasons you site. Because it better delivers on it's iconic role. And because it's in better game.
The exception being if you want to play a mounted archer or a pole-arm master. In that case, the 3.x fighter is more fun, because it's just not an option that works with the 4e fighter.
The 4e fighter feels so much more dynamic! I have no idea why even a complete beginner would chose an old-school MBA focused guy over someone who offers to affect opponents with conditions on hits.
Conditions, close bursts, forced movement, the 4e martial classes - not just the fighter - have a lot of cool options. Really /all/ the classes do. One of the great things about 4e from a beginner standpoint is that you really need only learn the system and the roles. You don't face a steep learning curve for each class, because each class uses the same basic mechanics and progression.
Unless, of course, the MBA- associated feats for the "Knight" will be just all about damage. And this "new" fighter build will likely be one of the major culprits of feat errata due to its focus on MBA.
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that aplies to MBAs, and any of it could 'explode' in the presence of the new MBA-focused martial classes.
Take "Knockdown Assault" for instance. I play a goblin fighter and a warforged fighter both using that power. And I can describe it anyway I want! As long as the opponent lands on his backside, it's all good!
Oh so that's what you're "I slam the opponent I've grabbed into the ground" power was. I figured it was a Martial Power 2 power that had the prerequisite the target must be grabbed. And I was your DM.
I mean, if you sat down to play with your Protecting Paladin built straight out of the PH
Stop right there. The Paladin straight out of the PH was a weak class that had significant difficulty doing his job, and was vastly overshadowed by the fighter from day one. Yes, a Paladin with expansion material from Divine power is a lot stronger. This isn't some nefarious plot to sneak a new edition on you or some contemptible lack of restraint leading to power creep. This is a deliberate attempt from the design staff to prop up a floundering class in responce to real life gameplay experience and player feedback. Even with Divine Power, the paladin is still less impressive then a PHBI only fighter.
Now, I cant tell you what was going on with the Two Weapon and Temp HP fighter builds when Martial Power was in development. That was a contemptible lack of restraint leading to power creep. But if you have any beef with the Paladin, it shouldn't be with DP propping the class up, it should be with the PHBI not delivering a functional class to begin with.
Take "Knockdown Assault" for instance. I play a goblin fighter and a warforged fighter both using that power. And I can describe it anyway I want! As long as the opponent lands on his backside, it's all good!
Oh so that's what you're "I slam the opponent I've grabbed into the ground" power was. I figured it was a Martial Power 2 power that had the prerequisite the target must be grabbed. And I was your DM.
If I just slam somebody down, it's likely knockdown assault (if no damage dice are rolled - aside from a charge when there would be 1d8). If I move before the slamming and drag somebody with me, it'll be slamming rush (1d6 rolled).
Or it could be a combination of knockdown assault and forceful drag (a level 2 utility to move a grabbed target).Now, I cant tell you what was going on with the Two Weapon and Temp HP fighter builds when Martial Power was in development. That was a contemptible lack of restraint leading to power creep.
More like designers, still unfamiliar with all the ramifications of the new system, not yet knowing what is and isn't overpowered. Sort of a reverse of the problems with the PH1 paladin. I highly doubt they set out to make broken material or begin the cycle of power creep, rather they were merely pushing the boundaries to see what does and doesn't work. Given that at the time no one really knew the answer to that question, it's not at all surprising that mistakes where made.
Also, the Tempest fighter isn't broken in and of itself. It was only through the addition of double-weapons in AV1 that their damage spikes (due to having weapons that deal full one-handed damage while still having the off-hand property). As for the Battlerager, other than being nigh-unkillable it wasn't all that broken. Their are far worse things than a PC that is difficult to kill, namely a PC that auto-kills monsters without trying. The ranger is probably by far the worse offender in that category, and as a result what could have been a cool concept (the Beastmaster) ended up being lackluster. Probably because the designers were showing too much restraint.
Adventurer's vault also seemed to have a thing against 'cool abilities', restricting them to dailies, while obvious reliable items like Iron Armbands of Power and Staffs of Ruin came into being, and weren't even on the high ends of their + tier.
There's alot of early things that suffered due to it being a new system, or thinking in the old mindset, like all the weapon feats being geared for strength based melee characters, or the current implement and weapliment issues. Or the Strength Cleric's strange lack of Paragon Paths (as of today they have like 4-6 at most).
That said, it seems odd that their way of fixing all this is to think more like the old mindset...
WotC using 3.5 was to be clever and to basically announce a 4th edition was coming next. The first update is something like 3.1, that they used .5 or a half was significant. There is no way they will ever use a "." anything ever again.
4e has changed so much with each book! You can't even open your PHB1 if there is a rules question anymore.
What Essentials or any "." will do is change just enough to be different but not enough to be another edition. So they are not going to go back and fix all the published items or monsters or characters, they are going to sell your new books of items, monster and characters. Just different enough for you to have to buy them but not different enough for you to say, no thank I will stick with 4e.
My question is with CB the Compendium and perhaps some Rule thing, does the Essential version replace the 4.0 version? Do they list them both?
The other players are getting frusterated about the whole thing which is funny since some of them probably did not like 3rds way of changing things (few online erattas and more buy new books to get rules changes).
You don't know the full extent of the changes; you only know bits and pieces. If you aren't interested in the new class options, don't play them. If you are worried that they will overshadow previous builds, fine, worry. But at least wait until the product is released before judging whether it's balanced. You may find that your worries are unfounded.
I think in general, a few people are overreacting quite drastically to a product that doesn't change the core game any more than any previous release did.
If you simply hate change, period, with or without the Essentials label, what you can do is stop subscribing to Insider and stop updating your CB. Stop reading new articles and stop talking to anyone who does. Problem solved. You have your own little D&D time capsule and a totally static version of the rules preserved for all time.
Me, I'll take a game that evolves and improves as the developers learn from their mistakes and envision interesting new options.
The magical item change is not a minor change, it a complete re-write of the game system,
This puts control over which magic items the players have access to back into the hands of the GM. It is a rules based system, which can be easily ignored by DMs if their players were not abusing the system, and which can be used to defuse arguments in groups where the players were abusing the system.
How, in any conceivable way, is this change bad for the game?
The tiers being removed from feats is a complete re-write of the system.
And what about many of those Feats made them so good that they needed to be level locked the way they were. In many cases, those Feats were either not as good as available Heroic tier Feats, or they simply aren't so much better that players should have to wait for them.
The Feats are being reorganized, with level limits being removed from Feats that do not need them, and scalable Feats being introduced so that players, in some instances, will not need to take multiple Feats to enhance the same attribute.
How, in any conceivable way, is this change bad for the game?
Classes that do not have daily powers cannot possibly be balanced vs. classes that have such powers. They will either be woefully inadequate, or in a few situations like the recent DDE DS season 2 massively overpowered.
Until we see the full list of class features and play with them ourselves, we cannot say the above with any certainty. We are entitled to our opinions, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
And how does anything about Dark Sun Encounters prove your point. I've been running a table every week starting with the second chapter, and I have not noticed any imbalance between classes that have Encounter Powers vs. those that don't. I assume this is what you are talking about, as all of the characters, both pre-gen and player created, have had Daily powers all season. Has one of your tables been using Essentials rules early?
A character w/o daily powers in the DDE DS game would never have to worry about the fact that there have been no extended rests with the exception of the lvl 2, & 3 upgrades.
As is that character would be overpowered which is what I said. Which has been said by more than just me as well.
You are forgetting about two daily resources that are not changing at all; Healing Surges and Daily Magic Item uses. Even in a party composed entirely of Essentials Fighters and Rogues, extended rests will still need to be taken just to replenish Healing Surges.
You are also ignoring the rest of the party, who would have Dailies to replenish. The Dark Sun Encounters I have run and played have all had at least one player, if not more, down to Healing Surge or two by the end of the fourth Encounter. An Essentials character in Dark Sun Encounters would not be overpowered simply by virtue of the fact that there are no Dailies to expend, unless his class features more than make up for the lack of Dailies. We have not seen the truth of this yet. All we, the players who are reacting to Essentials, have is theorycraft.
The changes being made are ones that the designers decided were good for the game.
This is a major cop out.
No, it is a statement completely without emotion, and it is the absolute truth. The Designers of the game are making changes that they think are good for the game. We can agree or disagree with their assessment, but it does not change the basic motivation for the changes on the Designers' part (unless you truly believe that the Designers are actively trying to make the game fail, which is a completely senseless and stupid stance for them to take).
I think it is a poor idea to change melee training without simultaneously publishing the fix for classes that make heavy use of Melee Basic Attacks but do not use Strength as a primary score. I think Magic Missle should have been left alone and a new power created that does what Magic Missle does now.
I think the new, melee basic focused, martial builds will be boring to play. This does not bother me, as I can still play a Brawling Fighter or Artful Dodger. The new builds are just that, new builds. Having new builds in no way invalidates my ability to play older builds. I don't care for Ensnaring Swordmages, Unifying Avengers or Prescient Bards, but this does nothing to change my love of Swordmages, Avengers or Bards.
A character w/o daily powers in the DDE DS game would never have to worry about the fact that there have been no extended rests with the exception of the lvl 2, & 3 upgrades.
As is that character would be overpowered which is what I said. Which has been said by more than just me as well.
If this happens, your DM needs to look at his adventure design. The rules for daily powers were written with the expectation that you'll get an extended rest after a certain number of encounters. If you are not getting extended rests, and if certain classes are at a disadvantage because of that, it is not reasonable to blame the rules. You are to blame for not following the guidelines.
The word is the Essentials Encounters season will feature 4-encounter work days. /If/ that change from 5 to 4 per day is in response to some classes not having dailies, then it would imply that those classes are a bit more powerful in a standard encounter, and will, perhaps, at low level, tend to dominate when dailies aren't brought into play. Of course, it could also just be because Essentials should be expected to attract more new players, while the Dark Sun setting is supposed to be grim and brutal (which longer days deliver).
If this happens, your DM needs to look at his adventure design. The rules for daily powers were written with the expectation that you'll get an extended rest after a certain number of encounters. If you are not getting extended rests, and if certain classes are at a disadvantage because of that, it is not reasonable to blame the rules. You are to blame for not following the guidelines.
Again you fail to realize that was the "hook" for DDE DS. There were no places in the module as written to take an extended rest.
It has nothing to do with my GM, that was the module.
Actually, for the second chapter, there is absolutely nothing spurring the players on except between the fourth and fifth encounter. If the party wanted to rest between the second and third encounter, why couldn't they?
Even so, so what if there were a Slayer Fighter amongst the party? What is he going to do while the rest of the party takes their much needed rest and he still has four Healing Surges? Move on to the next encounter alone?
It sounds like you object to the fact that they don't have Dailies and think they are overpowered by this fact alone. The concern should be whether or not the loss of the Dailies and the damage / effects they grant is compensated for in the class features, overcompensanted for, or not compensated enough. With these things being the major concerns, why are you so concerned about the extended rest that he may not NEED to take, but will have to take anyway because the rest of the party is?
The Dark Sun D&D Encounters season has featured 5 encounter per extended rest, that's just how it's written. For a party of 5 or six, with one daily each, that means a daily could be used in each encounter, if so desired. It also means you get to spend three action points, which isn't bad, even in the absence of a Warlord.
The word is the Essentials Encounters season will feature 4-encounter work days. /If/ that change from 5 to 4 per day is in response to some classes not having dailies, then it would imply that those classes are a bit more powerful in a standard encounter, and will, perhaps, at low level, tend to dominate when dailies aren't brought into play. Of course, it could also just be because Essentials should be expected to attract more new players, while the Dark Sun setting is supposed to be grim and brutal (which longer days deliver).
The first season was 4 encounters per extended rest. I think it is far more likely that it was changed to 5 for Dark Sun because that campaign setting is supposed to be more brutal and harsh. Season 3 is simply going back to the standard, 'non-Dark Sun' amount of encounters between rests.
So let me try this yet again for the criminally ignorant in the crowd;
Character A is a standard PHB 1 character. Character B is a "standard" essentials fighter.
At 1st lvl, A has one daily power to use over the course of 4 ~ 5 fights, as per the DS encounters module. Lets just say he uses it in the third encounter. At this point he only has the one encounter power for first, and his at wills for the rest of the day.
You still with me???
B having no daily powers, but having these "stances" which last as long as needed, never runs out of powers. Ever.
This is not a balanced party. I don't care if the designers tell you otherwise. D&D has tried this before, did you play 1st, 2nd, or 3.x? Do you remember how unbalanced the classes actually were?
See, I'm with you to right about here. If you recall, the classes that consisted of "I swing my sword" as their turn were underpowered in previous editions. The classes with all the neat powers overshadowed the Fighter and the Rogue by level 6, and then never looked back.
Now you are using the same logic to present why these new builds are overpowered compared to previous builds. If your logic holds above, then these new builds will be woefully underpowered, and not overpowered. Until we see if their class features over, under, or justly compensate for the loss of Daily powers and their effects and burst damage, we simply don't know if they are overpowered or not.
You claim they will be, but your evidence suggests that they won't.
Spamming MBAsdoes not interest me, I've done that sense 85. 4.0 finally found a good balancing mechanic, and here they are two years in, tossing it out the window. And the errata is changing things even if I don't buy the book.
You don;t like the mechanic, you don't have to use it. I think it will be boring, too. The presence of the Slayer, Knight and Thief builds does not stop me from building and playing a Brawler or Artful Dodger and having just as much fun as I did before Essentials came out.
The things they are changing, with the exception of Melee Training, (magic item rarity, feat restructure, Wizard Encounter spells having Miss effects) are, in my opinion, good for the game. The new builds are not changing anything about 4E except to present new ways to play.
You seem to think my complaint was the module; no, not even close. It was about what I expected from the world where you were told 15 years ago to make at least three characters, and expect to loose all of them. I could complain about the terrible pre-gens, but whats the point, everyone knows about that issue already.
You presented as evidence a situation that could not exist (Essential build in Fury of the Wastewalker), and have yet to rationally explain how it would be a disruptive influence.
This is not a balanced party.
So, it's fundamentally impossible to get the same expected return between those two characters?
Just no way they could have tweaked MBAs enough so that a small, steady increase in damage/effect over 4 encounters could produce about the same bang as one good daily?
So every striker class is broken because no two of them get their bonus damage the same way, right? Okay, maybe the ranger and warlock are basically the same.
It's not a perfect system, but it gets the job done.
Remember the radiant avenger-warlock thing? Notice how it's gone now?
If essentials really destroys the balance to the extent that you insist it will, do you really believe they will just leave the game in a broken, unplayable state?
Most important, do you think all the doomsaying is going to keep Essentials from happening? It won't, because for all intents and purposes, Essentials has already happened.
Carrying on about how awful it is is totally meaningless until you have actual playtime experience and can share at least one non-hypothetical, real-game anecdote in which the game truly does break down.
There are other threads however to talk about this stuff... and even some suggestions on how to balance things if you have the above problem (one about spotlight time I think)