At first, I didn't care about essentials one way or another. I figured most of it would be reprints of the core books and I wouldn't need to even worry about it.
Now we know the classes are going to be varients of the original versions, and I'm absolutely in love with what has been discussed so far. One of my chief complaints about 4E was that the PHB was completely boring to read; classes were just this pile of powers and I only read them when I was going to build a character of that class.
The new builds will have different progressions, and best of all they will have class abilities gained past 1st level! That excites me like nothing else. The current system has class abilities hidden in with class feats, but there's something nice about automatically getting something, like how paladins used to gain this host of immunities.
But I noticed something that I'm finding particularly strange: The druid is going to be in the original essentials line and the warlord was left out. Unless the druid is changed, there's only going to be 1 essentials leader, and there will be 3 essentials strikers. Then, the Warlock stood out at me as odd; it's the only essentials class that isn't "classic" to the game.
I know it is far too late for any changes to be made, but I would have loved to see the essentials class be the classic 8: bard, cleric, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, wizard.
Now, hopefully we will see a robed cleric, hybrid role druids, archer beast master rangers, and no more A classes.
Long live Essentials!
Cleric, Warlock, Paladin, Ranger are all V-Classes that need major fixing.
Fighter, Rogue, Ranger are Martial classes that seem strange that you can only use some powers 1/day, when you'd normally use your best techniques as much as possible. Warlords are more commanders, so they wouldn't necessarily be able to do the same.
Druid and Wizard also need fixing in a number of ways.
3.5e standard classes were Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Of these, Monk is Psionic and was recently released with a different sort of encounter system, and doesn't need updating. Barbarian and Bard might be able to using updating, but probably errata can fix those.
Warlock became extremely popular even since it was released in 3.5e's Complete Arcane. 4E made it skyrocket in popularity, as well. The fact they chose it over the Bard shows where the popularity stands.
Finally, Essentials classes don't make old classes obsolete, so they'll be played alongside the Classic variations of them, as well as various other classes. It's not like you can't have a Bard in the party with Essentials characters.
AS for Essentials not making old classes obsolete, my group hates V classes and will probably forget about one half of those Vs when the new versions come out.
3.5e standard classes were Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.
You forgot Sorceror.
Sure, they could make a Bard subclass that cuts it out, but then the nostalgia hounds would whine.
Not very cool.
I was thinking after the Shadow and Elemental classes are made, what is left to produce but reprints of old classes but called "builds" instead?
Doesn't really fix the issue, though, since the essential line is supposed to stand on its own as a game in and of itself, with other products as optional add ons (hence "Players Options: Heroes of Shadow"), and as a stand alone product line the lack of options for one of the game's core player roles is a notable weakness, if one that it's too late to do anything about, now.
The Classic D&D tank are Fighters and Paladins
The Classic Healer is a Cleric ,
The Classic CC/Buffs class is Wizards
The Classic Damage Dealers are Rangers, Rogues... And Wizards. But Opps, the Wizard isn't quite so much a damage dealer now, so the Warlock is there to sub for Classic Blaster Wizard.
Now as for why they went with the Warlock instead of the Sorcerer, well people just seem to think the Warlock's fluff is more interesting than Sorcerer. Plus, it can also fill in the Demonic spellcaster archetype.
Warlock was not that great from the beginning: at-will made it even more spontaneous than the Sorcerer, but it lacked the power of other classes, but it was instantly popular due to lore around it. It's more of a compelling class.
Wel also have to look at what the two books are about. Heroes of the Fallen Lands is essentially about the heirs of the Nerath Empire. Dwarves, Eladrin, Elves, Humans, and Halfings. The four iconic races in the Red Box, plus the other form of heroic Elves. These five races were the ones most united by Nerath. The four classes in the Red Box – Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard – return in this book to guide the way in the aftermath of the collapse of major civilisation. It is a perfect set up for the beginnings of the Points of Light / Nentir Vale Campaign Setting.
I'm seeing the Core Setting being fleshed out starting with Essentials now. It started with the Nentir Vale appearing in the DMG1, and the Scales of War and Chaos Scar other PoL adventures appearing in Dungeon, and each new Player's Handbook detailed a bit more of the races and how they interacted in the core world. But now is a chance to launch the Nentir Vale as it's own Campaign Setting; with 4th Revised Edition, the Nentir Vale Gazetteer, and the Core Setting Novels.
What I'm getting to here is the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. Other iconic races that were left over amidst the 3 Empires - most notably, Arkhosia and Bael Turath, alongside Nerath. Dragonborn and Tieflings are shoe-ins. And with Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Drow, we're looking at the fringe races from the previous book: races that don't quite fit into Human, Elven, and Eladrin society. Finally, the four classes presented here: Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlock best epitomise this theme. Druids and Rangers in the wilderness, the fringe lost beyond the fallen lands in the forgotten kingdoms. Dragonborn Paladins of Bahamut still remembering the high days of Arkhosia. Tieflings Warlocks, remnants of the infernal pacts of Bael Turath.
It makes more sense to streamline Warlocks in here from a thematic prespective, especially if they're using Essentials to launch the Nentir Vale Campaign Setting in full-force now.
Int-Cha can work for diabolical flavor.
`Int: 'Sign the contract here'.
`Cha: 'What a bargain! Everything you want! And it only costs one drop of blood.'
Making something 'essential' versus 'optional' matters. It influences the life expectancy of the character concept, whether it becomes part of the venerable D&D tradition or not.
In other words, politics matters. It isnt the only thing that matters, but it matters. Its almost irrelevant whether the designers believe 'everything is core' or not. The very act of separating classes into 'essential' and 'non-essential' tends to give these categories a life of their own. The separation thus alienation becomes a reality.
The Essentials line is the 'new normal'. It has the Imprimatur for what is 'essential' to the D&D experience. Therefore, it is a kind of political event. One players favorite class gains the privilige of being an 'essential' part of the ongoing D&D tradition, while an other players favorite class becomes 'non-essential', unnecessary, and disposable.
Earlier, the mantra of the 4e designers was 'everything is core', tho this design philosophy never made it into the rules-as-written. But now, the creation of 'Essential' versus 'Optional' reverses this 4e philosophy. If Essentials are the new normal, by definition, anything else is somehow nonessential and less normal.
For this reason, it is important to decide which classes (and power sources) make it into that powerful, enduring, definitive group.
Since it isnt feasible to include every possibility in a publication that targets beginners, there should at least be some thought to making sure certain classes are 'representatives' for the other possibilities. For example, the Wizard represents well the Arcane power source, thus the inclusion of the Wizard at least helps secure other Arcane traditions, such as the Artificer. And so on.
These decisions influence which classes find play at the table in the short run, and which classes survive as part of the D&D tradition in the long run.
Then again. I predict Warlocks become an Int, Con-or-Cha race.Part of me hopes that we might see something drastic. It does suck that the second essentials class book is missing a role and has two strikers. What if the Druid becomes a leader again? What if the Ranger becomes a controller? I'll fly with euphoria, that's what'll happen.
For sure, the Essentials line will tweak the Warlock (and the Tiefling) to make the game run more smoothly. I am confident they will do a high quality job here, with whatever way they decide finetune this.
Malisteen, are you talking about Forgotten Kingdoms? It has a Leader. The Cleric appears again, there. I suspect its an other Cleric build, different from the Warpriest.
So, like the Fighter gets two builds, Knight and Slayer, the Cleric and the Ranger will also come with two builds each.
Moreover, it might well could be ... the Warlock will also include two builds, one sharing flavor with the Tiefling and one with the Drow?
What source says the Amazon data is outof date?
But I was and still am looking at the Amazon.com product description.
What source says the Amazon data is outof date?
You could take a look at the cover art which tells you the 4 classes.
Everything is core. Please stop making crazy speculations and claiming them as fact.
I know you are frustrated because I disagree with what you feel is obvious. But, as you noted elsewhere in several posts, you yourself felt you were misled, being 'fooled' by the Essentials marketing doublespeak. You said you went 'batcrazy' on realizing the deception. In fact, Essentials was something new that would change the rest of D&D 4e. That players like Makeshiftwings were correct on that point.
However, I feel, you are being misled here too, about Essentials not replacing 'core'.
To me, it is just as obvious, Essentials is the new core. Please, respect our disagreement.
By the way, the fact they dont use the word 'core' but say 'essential' ... is also stupid marketing doublespeak, intended to trick as many people as possible. The salesteam is laughing.
` 'You like Shadow? Yes, of course, it is core. Buy it, its important.'
` 'You dont like Shadow? Oh, no, of course, it has nothing to do with the essential part of D&D. Definitely, not important.'
Huh. True enough.
So, if the book cover says one thing, and product description says another, its hard to say, which one is the one mostly recently updated (or an editing typo).
Its probably easier to update the Amazon description than put together a new picture for the book cover. Then again, its obviously easier for the description to have a typo. Yada Yada Fallen Lands sounds similar to Yada Yada Forgotten Kingdoms. Could be a typo, if the data enterer could of gotten them a bit mixed up if entering them in all at the same time. (*chuckle* '4th revision edition edition', doesnt exactly inspire confidence.)
OK, I guess wel have to wait for independent confirmation, one way or the other.
3.5e standard classes were Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.
You forgot Sorceror.
In 3.5, sorcerer, wizard, same thing... just different mechanics. One of the major failings of the previous edition was to keep the "fire and forget" mechanic for most of the casters while providing a viable replacement with a half class "sorcerer."
No, he didn't forget it, he simply overlooked half of the wizard.
Come on, I have never been rude. Please, stop using words like 'crazy' and 'overblown'.
I know you are frustrated because I disagree with what you feel is obvious. But, you were already misled, being 'fooled' by the Essentials marketing doublespeak. I feel you are being misled here too, about Essentials not replacing 'core'.
To me, it is just as obvious, Essentials is the new core. Please, respect our disagreement.
By the way, the fact they dont use the word 'core' but say 'essential' ... is also stupid marketing doublespeak, intended to trick as many people as possible. The salesteam is laughing.
` 'You like Shadow? Yes, of course, it is core. Buy it, its important.'
` 'You dont like Shadow? Oh, no, of course, it has nothing to do with the essential part of D&D. Definitely, not important.'
"I've never been rude, your just an idiot being duped by Wotc, so don't get upset with me."
Reaaaal smooth. And, hmm, oh heavens, my irony meter just broke.
Heres a tip: When argueing with someone who feels that your position is ill informed and hasty at best, do not immediately say that they should stop criticizing you and then reason that the only reason they could possibly disagree with you is because they are stupid. "Newspeak" and "doublespeak" are loaded terms basically stating flat out that he's been fooled. Calling someone stupid =/= logical arguement.
What you need is evidence, like, say... the fact that there is no core in 4e. There never has been nor will there ever be. Or that WotC has said, seven or eight different ways, that the Essentials will in no way replace the old books, but expand them, or the simple fact that class variants have been a part of 4e since Martial Power. I will grant that no variant has been so extreme as what we are seeing in the Essentials, but that means very little. From the looks of it, the Warpriest is only slightly more different from the strength cleric than the Feypact Warlock is from the Infernal Pact one.
Of course, if you actually used the evidence at hand you really wouldn't be saying what your saying. This is not the Revised Edition. This is not 4.5. WotC isn't out to get you or brainwash you. The world will keep turning and the game will keep going on. There is no way in hell you know more about the future than anyone else at this point. So far we have nothing but an nth of a single build of a single class, some discussion, and a bunch people running around like chicken without heads.
Calling other people ignorant of the truth because they aren't jumping to your pet conclusions when there is no evidence is the height of stupidity. Doing so when even the smallest ammount of evidence available says your wrong, and then accuse anyone who point to such evidence of being conned by some vilanous Hasbro marketing Big Brother is just bloody funny.
I was referring to Marandahirs own posts, where he himself said he felt 'fooled' by the official doublespeak about Essentials.
He said went 'batcrazy' when he realized Essentials really was something new that would change the rest of D&D 4e.
Marandahir: 'I feel annoyed by the stealth and wishywashyness of WotC on the issue [of Essentials changing anything], going back and forth. I truly believed that this would be a small coin in the bucket by the wayside, and that I'd pick up Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms for the fluff in them. But boy, was I fooled. So, yeah, I'm upset about that. I was batcrazy last night. At the same time, after analysing the Warpriest nearly all day, and discussing Essentials and "4.5E" alongside, I feel that it's not a huge shift.'
The change doesnt bother Marandahir, but the 'stealth' does.
Im just pointing out. Not only was there marketing doublespeak about how Essentials redefines the core classes and redefines the design philosophy that determines all future classes, there is also doublespeak about how Essentials redefines what is 'core'.
I mean, while these new essentials will not invalidate the old books, but it doesn't mean that the old books will get the same support as the game runs along. Maybe a year from launch of essentials, the builds of the old PHB fighter won't get anything new, while the Knight from the Essentials line will be gangbusting with builds and feats, and etc.
I'm not painting some nightmare scenario, but it is a reasonable question:
Just what do they mean by "Essential" vs. everything else?
As for the Warlock and Bard question, Warlocks are easy, while Bards are not.
Well, at this point, do the martial classes really NEED anymore support? They are all pretty well off. There is only so much you can do given a certain set of features, MP2 even had to widen the envolope and include more possible 'alternates' for class features that were formerly static.
These classes are the same basic idea, but approached differently, and still compatible with the old ones. You can mix and match just as much as any other alternative feature.
doublespeak
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
At what point has there been double speak? At what point has WotC redifined "core?" There is no core! The term "Essential" is not some sort of nefarious psycological trap meant to trick you into buying everything, its just to denote a product sub-line meant to be the basics needed to play the game. Core as it was known in 3.5 is dead. Period. Dead and gone. Essentials is not a new game, which is what having a new "core" would imply. 4e has never had a core except in the heads of tired old grognards, and it won't start having one now.
As for "support," I more or less agree with Janx. I can't see how the new Slayer or Knight is going to somehow out-pace the current Fighter, who is one of the most versatile and effective classes in the game. Same with the Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord. All of them are at the top of their game. Now, the Essentials Warlock and Cleric might out-class certian aspects of older builds, but that has less to do with the Essentials "replacing" things and more to do with the Warlock having a narrow field of functionality, and the strength cleric being more or less behind from day two, and irrelevant with the advent of Divine Power. Furthermore, the introduction of the Essentials options will not objectively lessen the power of current options, they will only add new ones. Your Essentials books will not attack your PHB1 in the night and start erasing numbers from the original classes. People have been asking for more support and extra options for a while. Well, folks, here you are. These are extra support and options.
We know all of this will be backwards compatible, and I see no reason why it couldn't be forwards compatible either. I see no reason why generic Essential Cleric feats wouldn't work with the generic Cleric.
To reiterate, this is not a replacement, its an expansion.
Nyronus: 'At what point has there been double speak? At what point has WotC redifined "core?"'
WotC is known for its doublespeak about the word 'core'. For example,
`In the official product catalog of Wizard.com, only 3 books are called 'Core Rules'. These are the Players Handbook 1, the Dungeon Masters Guide 1, and the Monster Manual 1. Nothing else counts as Core Rules. Moreover, these three books - PH1, DMG1, MM1 - are also the only 'Core Products'. There are no other Core Products. The PH2 is neither Core Rules nor a Core Product, the catalogue calls it a 'D&D Rules Supplement' and an 'Accessory'. PH2 is extra, it isnt core.
`However, in one obscure Dragon article and nowhere else, one designer said, 'everything is core'. This is a popular sentiment that most players wish to be true and assume is true. Yet nowhere in the entire corpus of the D&D Rules As Written, does it actually say, 'everything is core'. There is no official confirmation, anywhere. And the product labels say the opposite.
So in the catalogue description, WotC says, only the PH1, DMG1, and MM1 are core. But in an obscure Dragon magazine article, WotC says, everything is core. WotC defines it one way in one place, and defines it an other way in an other place. WotC 'deliberately disguises, distorts, and reverses the meaning of the word', and that is the definition of doublespeak.
To hear some people you would think it the equivalent to those wild kids my parents warned me about or the 7th seal of the apocalypse!
I see them as before Core, for new players, for those of us using the PHBs, DMGs and MMs, they are simply new builds and mechanics.
Bel
OK, I guess wel have to wait for independent confirmation, one way or the other.
The fact that you think we're still waiting for confirmation just further drives home the point that so many of you are making baseless accusations about Essentials without first looking at the info that is available.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Areola: 'You could take a look at the cover art which tells you the 4 classes.'
Huh. True enough.
So, if the book cover says one thing, and product description says another, its hard to say, which one is the one mostly recently updated (or an editing typo).
Its probably easier to update the Amazon description than put together a new picture for the book cover. Then again, its obviously easier for the description to have a typo. Yada Yada Fallen Lands sounds similar to Yada Yada Forgotten Kingdoms. Could be a typo, if the data enterer could of gotten them a bit mixed up if entering them in all at the same time. (*chuckle* '4th revision edition edition', doesnt exactly inspire confidence.)
OK, I guess wel have to wait for independent confirmation, one way or the other.
Of course, we also have the problem that there are two sets of covers. The covers on the Wizards' product catologue both say "Iconic Races and Classes for All Players" where the Amazon covers give a list of classes.
If I remember correctly, the Amazon covers are the newer ones, but I'd really prefer someone else who has been watching to confirm that.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
love that movie.
'We know all of this will be backwards compatible, and I see no reason why it couldn't be forwards compatible either. I see no reason why generic Essential Cleric feats wouldn't work with the generic Cleric.
To reiterate, this is not a replacement, its an expansion.'
The reason that it's a replacement is that only the essentials will always be in print. PHB etc will eventually go out of print.
It may take a couple of years but WotC will move to supporting the essentials more and more, decreasing support for the older lines, back compatability or not.
It's just that it's a replacement by evolution this time and not assassination, like when 3.0 changed to 3.5.
No one like changes, especially when they seem to have been done stealthily. It's has made me suspicious but I'm going to take a look and make my mind up when I see the product.
The WotC corporation has a well-documented history of twisting words like 'core', 'fundamentals', and now 'essentials'. Theyr famous for it. I wish WotC would stop this. Debates about 'what is core?', have been going on for many years. WotC deliberately remains vague and even, at times, dishonest. Now, they choose to further misdirect the players by bandying the word 'essentials'.
Those in WotC have the same problem that politicians, diplomats, and sellers have. Their customer base is diverse with conflicting gaming styles and needs. WotC tries to appease all of their customers, while trying to disentangle themselves from any rivalries. However, this policy of vague inuendos, plausible deniability, and deliberate misuse of words, has its limits. Because it infuriates customers and can backfire. By definition, gamers must know which rules are official - 'core' (?) - and which rules are houserules - 'supplimental' (?). WotC cannot avoid answering this questioin because players must know. Adding the words, 'essential' and 'option', doesnt help!
Meanwhile behind the scenes, the designers have *already* decided which products are going to be the new 'core' and which are 'not'. This decision contradicts the extremely-popular 'everything is core' philosophy. WotC continues its historical disingenuousness on this matter, and isnt straightforward about it.
It is apparent, the designers are slowly phasing out all current classes. The Essentials line is the future. The future is divided into 'essential' and 'optional'.
Essential is the new 'core'. Everything else is 'not core' - it is nonessential, unnecessary, and nothing but an 'option'.
A note to WotC. We all understand the difficulty of meeting the needs of a diverse community. No one really blames you for trying to pander to certain groups while trying to avoid alienating other groups. But, its time to come clean here. Players need to know what the rules actually are. It is time to come up with a clear definition of 'core' that we can all live with. The policy of 'everything is core' enjoys overwhelming support. Thus a policy that calls one players favorite character 'essential' while calling another players favorite character 'optional' is unnecessarily divisive. Sometimes hurtful. Please keep these issues in mind while putting together a useful definition of 'core'. Currently, we have the confusing words 'core', 'fundamentals', and 'essentials'. Please, sort these words out. Please, include the definition of 'core' (or whichever term becomes the decisive one) in the Rules As Written, namely the Essentials Rules Compendium.
Can anyone else think of a good archetype that the essentials line is missing ?
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
That's ok. Most of the things Haldrik talks about don't mean what he thinks they do, and refuses to acknowledge the evidence that he's wrong.
`However, in one obscure Dragon article and nowhere else, one designer said, 'everything is core'. This is a popular sentiment that most players wish to be true and assume is true. Yet nowhere in the entire corpus of the D&D Rules As Written, does it actually say, 'everything is core'. There is no official confirmation, anywhere. And the product labels say the opposite.
Blatantly false. Developers have stated over and over in interviews and articles that everything is Core. You are the only one that has a problem with dealing wiwth it.
And your precious product catalogue that you hold up to prove your point? It's as error ridden as your arguments, as I believe you have finally come to realize when someone had to point out to you how wrong it is one what classes are appearing in the Heroes books.
Loonmax, unfortunately, the 'accusation' isnt 'baseless'.
The WotC corporation has a well-documented history of twisting words like 'core', 'fundamentals', and now 'essentials'. Theyr famous for it. I wish WotC would stop this. Debates about 'what is core?', have been going on for many years. WotC deliberately remains vague and even, at times, dishonest. Now, they choose to further misdirect the players by bandying the word 'essentials'.
WotC is not the one twisting worsd. And they've been vague about it? On what planet? Because here on planet earth, they've been extremely open about it, what with the repeated statements of everything is Core. That is about as far from vague as you can get.
Right now, we can all assume that everything published by Wizards is "core" while 3pp would be something else, I guess.
Big Brother is watching you play D&D!
I'm sorry the Orwellian overlords have decided to change your game rations. I've been enlightened as to your reputation and no longer wish to talk to myself in your direction.
If the "essentials" line exists to bring new players into the game, they pretty quickly need to do yet another book with some (but maybe not all) of the missing classes, especially bards. For some reason I cannot understand, a lot of people who do not usually play rpg's just gravitate to that half-elf bard type character. Maybe it is because they have a hard time imagining themselves as a hero, but a very easy time imagining themselves as a sort of Elizabethan theater-geek. Also, lets not forget all the adolescent boys who want to imagine themselves as "Barbarians".
Can anyone else think of a good archetype that the essentials line is missing ?
No, they don't!
Once new players are comfortable with the Essentials, they can move on into the various PHB classes and races. The Essentials are an I n t r o d u c t i o n to the game.
However, I still disagree with you. I believe in what people tell me. This is an official announcement from WotC about the direction of their game. Futhermore, it's more information than most designers would EVER reveal this early, let alone before the release.
Rather than grasp for anything I can use as a point for WotC lying to us (such as the Product Catalog and Amazon, which are both RIDDLED with inconsistencies), I'd rather take what they tell me with a reasonable degree of skepticism, but not cynical rejection of what they say over and over again.
I'm ready to believe in WotC.
It's true, I was upset, and you pointed it out, quoting me directly. That's because I didn't expect this at all. It was left-field, and I have been, since the announcement of 4E, devoted to the 3-Button Standardised System. But you know what? I'm not going to judge it right away. Yes, WotC said it would be a new way into the system, and that I only needed to care about it as much as I wanted to. Bill Slavicsek said this same thing mere days before this announcement.
But after days of thinking about it, I don't think he'd switch his words like that so quickly. It's the way the game's going forward. There's ways to unite these two messages, and it's by taking EVERYTHING WotC's said about Essentials as truth, rather than denying everything.
It's the way going forward, but your old builds aren't going to be abandoned by the wayside anymore than they would otherwise. Because you know what? Battle Clerics wouldn't get barely a mention in Divine Power 2 if and when the book was released, anyways. The ONLY builds that would be hurt would be more recent V-class builds for the key ability that gets the shaft – either Ardent or Virtuous Paladin (depending on direction of the class in Essentials); Vestige Warlock almost certainly, given that the next Warlock build is Charisma-based (Sorcerer-King Pact); and either Hunter or Marauder Ranger (again, depending on focus on Str or Dex in Essentials).
Builds are basically featured in 2 books: initial and expansion. They may get an article or two catering to them as well. Essentials won't invalidate this at all. New Essential kits will replace builds, probably, but the same support (2 books supporting each build/kit) remains the same.
So yeah, I'm ready now. I'm ready to believe in WotC. Are you?
they have further made the whole "everything is core" move, pretending that it was the plan all along. (it wasn't)
Yes, it was. Stop trying to mislead people. It was part of the plan since 4e was announced.
Marandahir: 'So yeah, I'm ready now. I'm ready to believe in WotC. Are you?'
Trust the WotC design team? Yeah, of course.
Trust the WotC legal team or sales team? ... Well, lets just leave it at that. 
Regarding the designers, they know this kind of thing can be distressing for players. They wouldnt make these kinds of tweaks unless they felt the players would truly benefit.
One of the things about "core" is that the division of the physical books vs. the DDi material has become blurred. I think Wizards realized that [much] in the "Magizines" would be up to the quality that is in the printed hard covers.
Thax brings up good point. The conflicting definitions of 'core' are partly due to a culture of 'physical books' versus a culture of online 'DDI'.
EDIT: Here's a thread from three years ago discussing the "everything is core" design philosophy before the game had even been released: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Except that essentials doesn't 'fix' the V classes, since the existing builds aren't changed or replaced. The off stat lock builds will be just as much of a dangling problem after the release of essentials as they were before. So if the problem isn't fixed anyway, I would have preferred to see a second leader in the essentials line rather then a third striker. Just better for the essentials as a product that way. Don't care much if they went with Warlord, Bard, or what have you. Any of them would have been a better choice then Warlock. There are four core class roles in 4e, and a player who picks up Forgotten Kingdoms instead of Fallen Lands won't have access to one of those roles. Likewise a group that starts with the essentials products will have choices for their defenders, controllers, and especially strikers, but only has one choice of class for leaders.
Not very cool.
This just says to me that the Druid (and probably also the Paladin) will be getting a leader sub-class in the second book. So, instead of one full leader, you get two half-leaders. Sounds like an okay trader to me (plus, perhaps the Guardian Druid will finally be able to fulfill its sub-role).
Also, Warlock has a lot of traction right now. Warlocks are booming with popularity.
Strikers also have more traction than leaders. Remember, Controller was in this position back in 2008. Leaders had 2, Defenders had 2, Strikers had 3, but there was only 1 controller class.
Now it's the Leader in the shaft position, except that there are 7 other Leader classes to choose from the Classic format, so it's alright.
AC issues and issues with Wild shape interacting with feats and items.
thanks for the reply.
by ac issue, i assume that you mean the swarm druid.
could you elaborate on the wild shape/feats/items issue?
what about the ac issue for the con shaman?
AC issues and issues with Wild shape interacting with feats and items.
thanks for the reply.
by ac issue, i assume that you mean the swarm druid.
could you elaborate on the wild shape/feats/items issue?
what about the ac issue for the con shaman?
Check March & May Errata for specifics.
AC issues and issues with Wild shape interacting with feats and items.
thanks for the reply.
by ac issue, i assume that you mean the swarm druid.
could you elaborate on the wild shape/feats/items issue?
what about the ac issue for the con shaman?
Check March & May Errata for specifics.
sadly, i am experiencing difficulty opening any of the wotc pdfs, including the magazines.
I'm not much of a Druid player so I didn't give it my full attention but off the top of my head Druids in Beast form cant use shieldsor 2 H items and Hide Armour Expertised was overnerfed to a flat +2 to AC.
thanks again for the helpful info.
the shield issue is an interesting point. i guess second skin is too little, too late.
the nerf to hide armor expertise was too harsh, imo. almost every character who would take that feat will have at least dex 12 by level 21, making the feat's effective benefit only +1 in epic.
the shield issue is an interesting point. i guess second skin is too little, too late.
the nerf to hide armor expertise was too harsh, imo. almost every character who would take that feat will have at least dex 12 by level 21, making the feat's effective benefit only +1 in epic.
There's also the issue that Hafted Defense and Staff Fighting probably don't work for a wildshaped druid, though there is some debate on the topic. It all comes down to whether you can still 'wield' your staff in both hands (as a weapon) while wildshaped rather than merely 'holding' it as a (one-handed by default) implement.
If the classes are that far behind it should be buit more into the class features rather than band aid feats which will only be nerfed later.
agreed
the shield issue is an interesting point. i guess second skin is too little, too late.
the nerf to hide armor expertise was too harsh, imo. almost every character who would take that feat will have at least dex 12 by level 21, making the feat's effective benefit only +1 in epic.
There's also the issue that Hafted Defense and Staff Fighting probably don't work for a wildshaped druid, though there is some debate on the topic. It all comes down to whether you can still 'wield' your staff in both hands (as a weapon) while wildshaped rather than merely 'holding' it as a (one-handed by default) implement.
that is another good point
2) WOTC aren't fixing classes, the old classes still exist, what little we've seen of the essential classes suggests they will be significantly different to existing classes and more focused in terms of how they're built.
Auralla: 'If the classes are that far behind, [the fix] should be built into the class features rather than band aid feats.'
1) Loosing a few points of AC doesn't kill the Druid, especially when you consider it's secondary stat is contributing to HP's and AC/DR
2) WOTC aren't fixing classes, the old classes still exist, what little we've seen of the essential classes suggests they will be significantly different to existing classes and more focused in terms of how they're built.
i) i thought about this. since the druid is a melee range controller, it needs to be as well protected as any other class that is intended to function at melee range.
ii) technically, you are correct. however, i suspect that the new sub-classes really are "fixes" without changing the original classes. so, you either can play a class as originally crafted or as wotc has fixed" them.
1) Loosing a few points of AC doesn't kill the Druid, especially when you consider it's secondary stat is contributing to HP's and AC/DR
2) WOTC aren't fixing classes, the old classes still exist, what little we've seen of the essential classes suggests they will be significantly different to existing classes and more focused in terms of how they're built.
[i]A Swarm Druid in particular is a sub-defender, and the swarm form class feature basically ensures that they'll always be in melee and a prime target for enemies (unlike other controllers, who generally stay back and launch fireballs), and yet are unable to get ANY of the boosts to AC that all other controllers get. Particularly Staff Fighting, Hafted Defense, and carrying shields, which is something all other controllers can do if they want to spend a feat on it, but which Druids CANNOT due to pointless restrictions from Wild Shape which, at this point, is more of a hindrance than a cool mechanic (if it actually gave you some benefit other than "now you can use the other half of your powers", it wouldn't be such a drag).
[II] Honestly, I don't really see them FIXING many classes, just neutering powerful builds and making awesome magic items completely useless. Yeah, they fixed blurred step, but how many other problems still exist with various classes?
EDIT: Come to think about it, have they ever actually even errata'd a class feature before? I can't think of any examples off-hand.
EDIT 2: Oops. Swordmage Warding.