Jhaelen said:
Okay, I could see that, however: Wouldn't it have been a lot nicer then, if _all_ Essentials classes had the same, reduced complexity of a Slayer?
Then you could play every class the game has to offer instead of just a few!
I guess, I would have liked Essentials better if it wasn't the same game as 4e. Imho, Essentials should have been what BECMI D&D was to AD&D. A separate line for those who didn't care about the complexity of 'classic' 4e.
I think they all are reduced complexity, just to different degrees. The Slayer might be the poster child for "as simple a class as 4e can probably do," but it STILL has fiddly bits and unexpected synergies. The mage is a little closer to the default 4e classes, but it STILL revolves around a single thematic choice (school, in this case) that presents clear and unambiguous options to choose from when gaining new ones. Anyone who wants complexity would be better served, in all cases, choosing a 4.0 build. No Mage is going to be as complex as a core PHB fighter is.
But, to your broader point, I don't grok why 4e having different levels of complexity is a bad thing. If you like complexity, no one is forcing you to pick an Essentials class, and you still have a galaxy of options for the majority of your 4.0 classes (PHB3 classes perhaps aside), options that are still being expanded, even if it is at a slower rate than before. Fighters especially are an embarrassment of riches when it comes to options and features (and, in large part, the Essentials Slayer and Knight benefit from these riches, too).
If you DON'T like complexity, I don't see why shoving you into some not-true-D&D ghetto is the best solution. There shouldn't be any reason a complexity-loving gearhead and a beer-n-pretzels mage player shouldn't be able to sit at the same table, have fun, and contribute equally. D&D is not an activity purely for the dorky elite who get all excited over the fact that the rules for OAs have over 1,000 points of interaction with other rules that you can memorize and debate over. It is also for the lady who likes to hang out with her buddies and pretend to be Dwarfbeard the Slayer for a few hours, who wouldn't know an OA if one of her dorky buddies didn't keep pointing them out.
As someone closer to Dwarfbeard in my playstyle, I don't want to rule out Dorky McRulesman from my games. I also don't want to be ruled out of HIS. What is so awful about playing together?
AbdulAlhazred said:
I'm sure I don't understand what you mean. We don't know how HoS options are structured, except for one small sample we saw a while back before the book was delayed. As written the N*mancer options we saw and the Blackguard were based on Essentials builds, not compatible with pre-Essentials classes. I'm not saying that is still true or that other material doesn't exist for that compatibility. We shall see. In the case of Mage vs Wizard it is not really a big deal IMHO, but with the Martial classes or Cleric vs Warpriest it is more significant. I'm hoping.
You realize that Essentials builds are compatible with pre-essnentials classes? That they can play alongside each other? That E-classes can make use of non-E powers and feats, and that non-E classes can make use of E powers and feats? That the Blackguard can swap out certain Paladin powers, and that the Paladin can swap out certain Blackguard powers? That they can both take the (usually quite solid) Essentials feats?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that HoS is going to contain feats and powers.
There should be no reason your current characters shouldn't be able to make use of at least some of them.
Waiting to see what a book has in it before actually buying it is the most rational thing to do, and I'd question why anyone would do it differently (unless they just are a completist and want a book regardless of what's actually in it).
