Essentials Rogue is up!

[MrMyth]

I think this all looks pretty cool. I like the flavor and the mechanics.

I am incredibly amused over one thing, though. When the Essentials Knights preview hit, one poster objected because he felt reliance on stances made Knights too vulnerable to losing At-Wills while Dazed. Now, he was proven wrong in pretty much every possible way...

...at which point we see the Rogue, who absolutely does lose all their At-Will tricks while Dazed.

Which I don't think is the end of the world, but did find it entertaining...

 

[Aegeri]

I am incredibly amused over one thing, though. When the Essentials Knights preview hit, one poster objected because he felt reliance on stances made Knights too vulnerable to losing At-Wills while Dazed. Now, he was proven wrong in pretty much every possible way...

I was? I don't recall that actually . I recall making that point and then certain people pretending that the Knight would always have the right stance anyway or derailing into a tangent about charging. Neither of these were a convincing argument, well except maybe the argument that someone will always have the right stance. I think it's going to be easy for one general stance to be in 99% of the time and never change it anyway given the way the class is designed.

at which point we see the Rogue, who absolutely does lose all their At-Will tricks while Dazed.

Yes, this seems to be a common flaw of all the martial characters in essentials from what I can tell. If they are all "take X to modify Y basic attack", then effectively they lose access to all their at-will powers when dazed. It's worth noting that depending on the DMs interpretation of tricks, if the rogue is immobilized or restrained he may similarly lose his ability to use them as well (personally I don't think you need to move to trigger the effect of these powers - but some DMs may do so).

The reason I don't mind the rogue so much though is because it actually accomplishes what I feel the knight utterly fails to do. It IS a genuinely simple class to play. You find something and stab it until it dies. There is nothing complicated about the thief in any manner - except maybe that your additional stabbing needs combat advantage. I do approve of that and again, it's another MBA using class so you can use melee training to make a con burly thug type, int to make a very intelligent crafty type or whatever else. If there is something I do like about the essentials martial classes, it's that concept.

 

[mkill]

* Bracers of Mighty Striking- permanent +2 damage to MBA's
They're cheaper than Bracer's of Iron Might, no big deal

* Dantrag's Bracer's- MBA's target 2 enemies (!) permanently
Ouch. At level 18, they're still pretty much required for every Essentials martial character. Incoming nerf alert.

* Golden Crown of Battle Command- permanent +2 to hit and damage on MBA's granted by a Warlord
Very good, but rewards teamplay so keep

* Avalanche Hammer- permanent MBA used on a charge does extra [W] damage
There's a whole bunch of charge stuff, but most PCs use an MBA on charge. Nothing new.

* Master's Blade- while in stance (permanent for a Knight) +1 to hit with MBA
The good part about this weapon is the daily. It's still a keeper.

* Weapon of Myrdoon's Shard- At-will Reach+1 on MBA's
Uh-oh... Change to 1/enc but at-will or MBA

* Dread Reaper PP
@ level 16 MBA's with 2-Handed Weapon get Cleave-like bonus (STR damage to an adjacent enemy)
No prob, it's just bonus damage and you can cleave at lvl 1 already anyway

* Polearm Master PP
@ level 16 permanent extension of reach to +2 while using a polearm to punish those who violate your mark
Knight has probably no mark anyway

Feats:
* Righteous Fury- At-will -2 to attack adds "Rattling" to MBA
* Hammer Shock- At will add "Rattling" to MBA when using a hammer
* Impaling Spear- At-will MBA's target Reflex when using spear
* Lashing Flail- At-will MBA's slide 1 when using flail
* Piercing Pick- At-will MBA's target Fortitude when using Pick
* Wicked Blade- At-will MBA's gain "High Crit" when using Heavy Blade

Keep the feats or this miniature Giant Space Hamster gets it!

Seriously, they're a good way to make weapon choice meaningful for the Knight and others. (For future expansions, give them the Style keyword so that you can only apply one such feat, in case there are more of them later)

 

[MrMyth]

Yes, this seems to be a common flaw of all the martial characters in essentials from what I can tell. If they are all "take X to modify Y basic attack", then effectively they lose access to all their at-will powers when dazed. It's worth noting that depending on the DMs interpretation of tricks, if the rogue is immobilized or restrained he may similarly lose his ability to use them as well (personally I don't think you need to move to trigger the effect of these powers - but some DMs may do so).

It isn't an issue of modifying basic attacks - that's missing the point entirely. The fact they are built around basic attacks makes them better than most, in fact, while dazed. They all have access to their encounter powers, for example, and potentially whatever features they are getting in place of dailies. In the knight's case, he has access to the last round's at-will power, and probably comes out ahead of the majority of other melee classes while dazed, and certainly far ahead of anyone needing to use minors (either to heal, or get striker damage on a new target) or move actions (who can't make good use of a charge.)

In the thief's case, the issue is that to get his At-Will benefits, it requires an entire seperate action from the attack itself. Thus, daze shuts it down completely. Given it also cuts off flanking, and makes it real tough to move and hide, the dazed thief is not in the best place. Not a hopeless situation, certainly, and there are plenty of other conditions that can cause that sort of problem, but the daze is definitely felt by the thief more than most.

 

[Falstaff]

Given that I've been playing since 78 and my first ever character was a thief - I'm really, really happy to see the terms Thief and Backstab are back
I'm actually hyped for D&D Essentials in a way I was not for 4E

Yes, yes, yes! Just calling the class Thief has sold me on Essentials. I can't wait to roll up a halfling thief!

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Between Ambush Trick making Sneak Attack damage much easier to get, and allowing Sneak Attack damage one per turn instead of once per round -- wow.

I don't know why exactly, but I like these new builds. Probably because I love At-Will powers of all sorts. But overall, the builds I've looked at so far (Fighter and Rogue) are much closer to what I originally envisioned 4e might look like than what PHB1 actually contained.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

BTW, a helpful note for anyone who is still catching up:

For a list of previous Essentials preview articles, click the "Ampersand Archive" link at the top of the page, or click here.

 

[mkill]

About the daze:

Don't you guys actally play a defender at a game table? The issue about daze is that you lose a) your minor action to mark, b) your immediate action to punish or c) both.

Whether the Knight will be hampered by a daze will depend a lot on whether he uses an immediate action punishment or not.

Changing stances is irrelevant. Either there are lots of minions, in which case you cleave, or not, in which case youtake whatever other stance you have.

 

[ourchair]

Do You Plan To Use Essentials In Your Game (No '4.5 Edition Sucks' Plz, Kthx)

Oops

 

[circadianwolf]

Yes, yes, yes! Just calling the class Thief has sold me on Essentials. I can't wait to roll up a halfling thief!

Haha, thank you, that was exactly my thought on reading some of these posts. "I wasn't sure about 4E before. The design's pretty different from previous editions. It's much more complicated. So I think--wait, they renamed the rogue to the thief? And they added back a feature called 'backstab'? Well, screw those qualms about design! That's all I need to be be convinced!"

Other than that hilarity, the essentials previews are starting to win me over. I still laugh at the people who say this isn't obsoleting the old classes--you do understand it is in their corporate interest to both obsolete them and tell you that they're not obsoleting them, right?--but that's a question of business ethics (e.g., a joke) and not game design.