That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier to use and simpler to use for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach.
I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.
Since you like Power Strikes mechanics so much, why not make
real at-wills that act the same way?
Oh, wait. They did, they just call them Bladespells now. Yet, another new mechanic that should have just been folded into the standard at-will.
It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character.
Thats one option for a simple power, or you could have just made
Power Strike an encounter 1 and
Imp Power Strike an encounter 3 and etc. etc.
Exactly the same playability and no new class nonsense.
Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage.
That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it.
Sure. You use the "Battle Wrath" at-will every round and activate your "Power Strike" when you hit. If its really a nasty fight you use your "Slayers Advantage" Daily instead that does +2[W] and adds +DEX to damage for the rest of the encounter.
That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game.
You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me.
Not necessary, most single target, single attack at wills can be made basics without any increase in the power level of the game other than obsoleting a couple already worthless at-wills(Eldritch Blast, I'm looking at you) and a couple magic items that probably shouldnt exist to start with(BoMS, Rapidstrike Bracers). The AoE and multi-attack powers wouldnt change, and most of the move-and-attack powers wouldnt get the rider, but nearly everything else can
and should.
No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender.
No, they'll be a turtle. Hard to hit, harder to kill but otherwise completely ignorable since they do almost no damage. The DM needs to go out of his way to make them relevant.
Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding the entire system from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better experience. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over.
I favor it, also. There are a series of holes that could have been patched by the e-revision. Instead they built an entirely semi-compatible system with enormous gaping holes in it and tried to pawn it off as a completely compatible beginner version.
We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves.
I dont see any reason to throw out the AEDU system when it was and is completely compatible with everything you're trying to do
and doesnt create the huge gaping holes that suddenly making Basic Attacking a viable primary attack mode did.
But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design.
No, hes not. He's giving up his versatility for simplicity of play. Its the exact trade the slayer is making.
Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks.
Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?
Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character.
Uh huh. They want to play dumb. So you select powers that let you play dumb or you follow the list of powers on your BDF build cert. Whether that is called Power Strike I thru Power Strike XXVII or Solid Hit thru Cataclysm Strike is up to the player.
I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight.
And I'm saying that the supposedly simple Essentials play experience could have been accomplished
better using the established 4e class structure rather than introducing an entirely new set of complexities and incompatibilities that came at the expense of actually improving 4e. Especially when its comparatively easy to see where those ideas should have meshed perfectly instead of tossing in the monkey wrench.
You are misreading what I am saying. A Slayer playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Slayer. A Knight playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Knight. A Weaponmaster playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Weaponmaster. A Barbarian playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Barbarian.
I'm saying a "Weaponmaster" playing simply is easily as effective as a Slayer or Knight(and likely both at the same time) and a Barbarian playing simply will be both more effective and more fun to play than a Slayer.
If a Slayer only stays in one stance and makes basics every round, and uses Power Strike each round until he runs out, he remains an effective character. A Weaponmaster who never uses his encounter powers? Is going to be severely hindered. And certainly won't compare favorably to an average Knight, even one played as simply as possible.
You'd be surprised, but the only difference in effectiveness is going to be Power Strike. PS designed as a Fighter Encounter 1, and therefore stacking with the Fighters at-wills, would match the simplicity and effectiveness of the Knight and
not have required two new subclasses, a whole host of feats, countless pages of new rules and errata further division of the player base
Look at the Slayer options for stances. Look how simple some of them are. A few bonus points of damage, a +1 bonus to attack. If a Slayer chooses one of those, and sticks with it all day long, in what way is he not being effective?
In what way is he being more effective than a Fighter or Barb using his at-wills all day long?