Class Compendium: Heroes of Legend

[I'm A Banana]

I like the idea of playing a whole pack of wolves as one character.

Meee tooooo.

I kind of hope someday, instead of getting an extra [w] or whatever, I get ANOTHER ANIMAL FRIEND.

 

[Jhaelen]

When the Book of Nine Swords came out, we sampled a bit of it, decided it wasn't to our liking, and simply didn't use its material in our games.

Indeed. Now imagine for a second that every new supplement had been based on the awesomeness that was the Book of Nine Swords. _That's_ what we're facing here. Unless you liked what you've seen in the BoNS, the game wouldn't have anything new to offer for you.

Sure, nobody is going to take away the pre-Essentials classes from me, but I sure won't get any new classes in the style I prefer. Everything after Essentials will be Essentialized.

Nothing is going to change the game you love unless you wish it to.

The problem is: I _want_ the game that I love to change (in the sense that I'd like it to expand, to provide new options). I don't want the game I love to stagnate. I just don't want it to change in the direction Essentials is taking it.

For example, I like the new concept of themes that was introduced with the Dark Sun setting. That's a change to the game I liked.

I don't like any of the Essentials classes I've seen so far, though (except maybe the Wizard who's close enough to the pre-Essential version that I still recognize it as a 4e class). Why is it so difficult to understand that I am worried I will never see a new class again that I like? Someone once said, Essentials is like D&D 3.9. And that seems to be accurate: It's a step back. A step in the wrong direction (for me).

I would have been happiest if they had just continued to churn out a new PHB every year.

 

[Tallifer]

I for one am stuffed full of pre-essentials classes and builds. Never in my lifetime of gaming could I hope to play every class and build from the three Players' handbooks and the Campaign Settings. I do not see why anyone would be "afraid" never to see another new pre-essentials class.

Furthermore, with multi-class feats and hybrid characters, you can build any conceit with the regular classes.

Therefore, I do not see any problem if Essentials classes take away from the potential to create new pre-essentials classes.

Indeed one of the problems pre-essentials, was that many builds and classes started to resemble each other too closely. Strength Clerics, Ardents, Warlords and Runepriests for example: all Leaders smacking enemies to inspire their allies. Hopefully Essentials can breathe some novelty into class design while keeping the same overall game system.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Indeed one of the problems pre-essentials, was that many builds and classes started to resemble each other too closely. Strength Clerics, Ardents, Warlords and Runepriests for example: all Leaders smacking enemies to inspire their allies. Hopefully Essentials can breathe some novelty into class design while keeping the same overall game system.

I agree that 4E needs innovation, but why do we need essentials to do it? Essentials might help, but I think it could have been/still could be done with the existing pre-essentials stuff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree that 4E needs innovation, but why do we need essentials to do it? Essentials might help, but I think it could have been/still could be done with the existing pre-essentials stuff.

So that lapsed players who pick up the Red Box out of nostalgia find a connection to their own experiences inside.

This "grow the hobby" thing is targeted as much at people who stopped playing D&D as it is at people who have never played D&D. And that's what Essentials is trying most to do.

 

[Scribble]

I agree that 4E needs innovation, but why do we need essentials to do it? Essentials might help, but I think it could have been/still could be done with the existing pre-essentials stuff.

I don't believe that Essentials means nothing will be done with/for pre-essentials stuff. I think it just opens the game up to go in various directions.

From what I took from the various gencon seminars and such I listened to it sounds like they're really trying hard to get the "base" of the game as solid as possible so they can stick with it for a long time. (Like MTG.)

This way they can layer options, and such on top to give players that want them new experiences without rebooting the base each time.

 

[Almacov]

I would have been happiest if they had just continued to churn out a new PHB every year.

Would you have? They were already starting to experiment heavily with power structure in PHB3 - how are you sure they wouldn't have gone as far in PHB4 as the Hot books did? What was to stop them from deciding to preferentially design feats as heroic tier and scaling?
They may have even decided to make flavour text more of a priority.
(Though it would seem a little backwards to do that in a fourth PHB when the first one, which is the point at which prospective buyers would be turned away by the lack of it, was dry as dust.)

Am I in love with the essentials format? Believe it or not, no. I think the flavour text was wasted on the wrong areas in many cases, the tables seem confusing, I wish the Hot books could have featured rituals somehow (though that's being remedied in my eyes with the item which is the topic of this thread), and I don't agree with all their design choices.
That said, I think the game is growing naturally, and following the trends it had already been taking.

I think they needed a core reboot with flavour and affordability as priorities, because too many people turn away repulsed by the solid block of statistics and rules-speak that the initial 4e PHB was. (Not to mention its choppy, uncohesive art direction.)

I want more people to play the game. If that means not everything that comes out will be to my liking... well hell, not everything was before!
I was excited for psionics when it was announced, but looking at the final product, the whole thing sortof fell flat for me. For that matter, there are areas in any of the PHBs (any of the books) that disappointed me.

But I digress...

---------------

Just musing here for a moment, what would you like a potential second Class Compendium to cover, folks?

I'd personally like to see the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, as well as the Bard, brought back. Having the Druid and Bard reprinted opens the door for more rituals to be included, which could be a good opportunity for some non-PHB rituals to see print again (Thematically appropriate things like "Share Husk", in particular), or for the first time. (There are a number of great, fitting ones from Dragon, like "Explorer's Fire", "Spirit Fetch", and "Hunter's Curse".)

 

[Jhaelen]

I do not see why anyone would be "afraid" never to see another new pre-essentials class.

Imho, it certainly beats getting a rehash of all classes we already had.

I was excited for psionics when it was announced, but looking at the final product, the whole thing sortof fell flat for me. For that matter, there are areas in any of the PHBs (any of the books) that disappointed me.

To a certain degree that is true for me, as well. I was a bit underwhelmed by the psionic classes, too (and psionics has always been my favorite part of the game!).
I also disliked the Hybrid rules, way too complicated and clunky - but then I was happy with the regular multi-classing, so I basically ignored Hybrids.

The funny thing is, though, Mr. Mearls mentioned that their attempts to tweak the standard class framework to create psionics and hybrids formed the groundwork for the Essentials classes.

In other words, exactly the things I disliked most in pre-Essentials 4e are the basis of Esentials! Isn't that great?

I was hoping - at least - for another set of nice Shadow classes. I'm not sure what we're going to get instead.
I also don't think all of the interesting archetypes are already covered. 3e had many more base classes than 4e without giving me the impression they were all treading on each others' toes.

For someone sold on certain key features of 4e, like the equal complexity of classes, Essentials is a setback. I don't feel resurrecting slaughtered sacred cows will bring the game forward.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't like any of the Essentials classes I've seen so far, though (except maybe the Wizard who's close enough to the pre-Essential version that I still recognize it as a 4e class). Why is it so difficult to understand that I am worried I will never see a new class again that I like? Someone once said, Essentials is like D&D 3.9. And that seems to be accurate: It's a step back. A step in the wrong direction (for me).

I don't think the Essential Fighter and Rogue will become the only type of new class there is. But then, we might not see any more standard at-will/encounter/daily classes either. Essentials carved out new space in class design.

I am personally not really a fan of the Essential Martial classes so far. Too simply for my taste. But I am beginning to see how this time, classes without "daily powers" will not be shafted nor OP. 3E and earlier editions failed at that.

 

[Zaran]

I reread the entry Amazon.com has. I doubt there is much in the way of reprinting of older material in this book. They might print out the errata'd powers but I think this is just going to have a way to make the two kinds of characters share abilities. I expect a large portion of the book to be dedicated to an eWarlord. I really wish they would get off this Essentials kick because frankly I'm uninterested in simplified characters. If I wanted that I would have stayed with older editions.

It's comparible to making Mac's and PCs work together.