Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[FireLance]

No, I'm saying the poor player who thinks he has a simple class is going to be out of his depth the first time he is reduced to 0hp and has to decide between standing and activating a stance or an aura or attacking or...

Eh? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the choices that the player of a slayer or knight needs to make will put him out of his depth, even if the character has just been revived from 0 hp or below and all his stances have ended.

It really is quite straightforward for a slayer:
Move action -> Stand
Minor action -> Activate S1 or S2
Standard action -> Basic attack or charge

It's more complicated for a knight:
Move action -> Stand
Minor action -> Activate S1, S2 or defender aura
Standard action -> Basic attack or charge

In all but a few corner cases, using the standard action to attack and the move action to stand up are easy choices to make because they will be better than anything else that the player could do with his standard and move actions.

A weaponmaster fighter is also about as complicated as a knight:
Move action -> Stand
Minor action -> Not always usable
Standard action -> AW1, AW2, charge, (possibly) E1 or D1
-> When attacking each opponent, mark? (Y/N)

The difference is, even if the knight and the weaponmaster have choices of similar complexity to make after reviving from being dropped to 0 hit points or below, the knight has simpler choices the rest of the time. If the level of complexity of the knight reaches that of the weaponmaster only occasionally, it is still simpler to play on average.

So is a Swordmage, didnt stop the new "Everything is a Wizard" design paradigm from taking over the Bladesinger.

...

Please, NO. The poor Sorc already has enough of his design space stolen by the Wizard and no real support outside a couple Dragon articles for the Chaos Mage. Making the Sorc an Abyssal Pact warlock is almost as bad an idea as an article on weapon powers for him.

These seem to me to be judgements based on distinctiveness of surface appearances only. It's like arguing that the seeker is taking over the ranger's design space because both are wilderness-based ranged weapon users, or that the runepriest is taking over the Strength cleric's design space because both are weapon-wielding divine leaders. I think that even if we put a melee bard, a swordmage, a bladesinger and a hexblade in the same party, it's not going to be too difficult to tell them apart, even if they are all melee-weapon using arcane spellcasters (hint: one is healing with majestic word, one is marking with an aegis of some sort, one is using bladespells to move and inflict conditions on the enemy and the last is savaging his opponents with a weapon forged out of arcane magic).

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's rediculous. Just because it's the same action, doesn't mean it can't be taken in two steps. Who are you going to attack? Oh, the guy right in front of me. Or, I guess I'll move to flank that one. Separate decision from. 'OK, what're you going to attack him /with/?' Power X... no wait, Y.

It isn't ridiculous and that's the point. There are twenty options down there and the system doesn't have natural break points. Breaking one big decision point into several small ones that are easier to assess is a good way of speeding up decision making. And there very definitely are people who look at that as 20 options - and have to re-read their powers because they are slightly different. Splitting the attacks into stances and power attack forces this 5 and 4 rather than 20 split on people who otherwise would be looking at 20 options.

Saying "They could take it in two steps" is precisely the point. Things would often be much better if they did. But not everyone will. Actively splitting the action into stances makes them take the split if they are at the level they wouldn't automatically.

Conversely, two different actions may be need to be considered together to make a meaningful decision.

To find the best option, absolutely. But a good option is all we need, not necessarily the best.

Each of those constitutes all three actions for the round, and, as you point out, the inexperienced player might well need to consider and discard the various 'bad' choices (drawing a dagger, entering Berserker Charge stance, throwing the dagger, for instance, or, slightly less obviously, charging in Poised Assualt stance).

Charging in Poised Assault I'd expect. And it's not that bad a choice - merely a suboptimal one. But throwing a dagger isn't something I'd expect a newbie to think of because it's not really part of the character concept of a slayer. If you've got the great big two handed sword or axe and can hit with it you're going to want to.

 

[MrMyth]

True. However, forgetting to choose is pretty easy, and stances and power attacks are pretty forgiving of that. So if a player goes. "I hit da orc wit ma ax! 17!" He did so in whatever stance he last turned on, without even needing to remember that his character could change - or even /has/ - stances. Of course, he'll lose the benefits of the stance if no one reminds him he's in Battle Wrath...

Yeah, I mentioned it before, but (with some players), this is one of the elements I've found the most useful with Essentials classes - the ability to offer atfer-the-fact reminders without needing to retcon what happened.

It's much easier to say, "You're still in Battle Wrath stance, so +2 damage, right? And did you want to Power Strike?" vs "Which At-Will was that? Or did you want to use one of your Encounter powers? Oh, I guess you've already rolled, so we'll assume you just made a basic attack..."

 

[Raikun]

I kinda find it amusing that while some in this thread are trying to assert that Essentials somehow makes playing more complicated, there's another thread started where someone is complaining that it makes the game too simple. =)

 

[Tony Vargas]

It isn't ridiculous and that's the point. There are twenty options down there and the system doesn't have natural break points.

'Who do you attack?' (4 options) vs 'what do you attack with?' (5) isn't a natural breakpoint? You only arrive at 20 by multiplying together the two /independent/ choices!

It's much easier to say, "You're still in Battle Wrath stance, so +2 damage, right? And did you want to Power Strike?" vs "Which At-Will was that? Or did you want to use one of your Encounter powers? Oh, I guess you've already rolled, so we'll assume you just made a basic attack..."

Exactly. The e-martial classes aren't so much less complex as they are (a) more familiar to lapsed AD&Ders (who 'know' that fighter is the 'easy class') and (b) more forgiving/easier to teach.
They're trainging-wheel classes.

I kinda find it amusing that while some in this thread are trying to assert that Essentials somehow makes playing more complicated, there's another thread started where someone is complaining that it makes the game too simple. =)

Essentials makes the game as a whole more complex and thus, ultimately, steepens it's learning curve. However, it does give individual options that are blindingly simplistic. That breaks up the learning curve. First you play a Martial class, dealing with few options while learning the basics. Then you un-learn the simplistic aproach to learn a more complex class (divine or arcane). Then repeat to finally learn a full-featured AEDU class (Mage). Then you're ready to un-learn the now deeply-engrained lesson that Martial classes are for clueless nubes and Wizards are /the/ choice for new-fledged system-masters, and learn how pre-E classes work, and (finally) play whatever concept you want.
(Or you throw in the towel at some point, and never take the training wheels off.)

 

[Raikun]

Essentials makes the game as a whole more complex and thus, ultimately, steepens it's learning curve.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree there. It's a series of new character options that in no way, shape, or form complicates older character options. Someone playing 4e from the beginning can have a new player join with an Essentials character without having to learn anything new...it's completely seamless.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have to wholeheartedly disagree there. It's a series of new character options that in no way, shape, or form complicates older character options.

We're not actually in disagreement. You're repeating something I said - that there are some Essentials options that are much simpler, taken by themselves.

As a whole, though, Essentials added to the game, and it added not just more options that were consistent with existing ones, mechanically (the way PH2 did), it also added options that were mechanically novel (the way PH3 did - but much more so). Adding both options and novel sub-stystems increased overall complexity. That's a separate issue from how simple some of those new options and mechanics may be.



(Edit: OK, now that I think about it, Essentials /did/ complicate some existing classes. It added new and differently-resolved powers to the Wizard via the mage, and it raised issues about how powers might be swapped between sub-classes - once it became clear that it had introduced sub-classes - and led to classes being re-written to fit the sub-class(class) model. While that last is mostly cosmetic - oh, your class has one name instead of two - it is still a bit of added complexity.)

 

[Raikun]

W Adding both options and novel sub-stystems increased overall complexity. That's a separate issue from how simple some of those new options and mechanics may be.

Except it doesn't complicate the game, or add a steeper learning curve. The game plays the same overall as it always did, except that the higher percentage of Essentials characters there are in the game, the simpler, smoother, and faster it plays.

It'd be like saying that every Dragon article makes the game more complicated, and that's just silly. Having a wider array of potential options does not significantly add to the complexity/learning curve of a system when effectively the same number of options are used.

 

[MrMyth]

Exactly. The e-martial classes aren't so much less complex as they are (a) more familiar to lapsed AD&Ders (who 'know' that fighter is the 'easy class') and (b) more forgiving/easier to teach.
They're training-wheel classes.

I think they've got a couple different approaches that help with the lower complexity. 'Fire and forget' stances, default choice char-gen, post-attack encounter powers, static bonuses - all of these do make them simpler to play, which is good both for newcomers and those who want that simplicity. (Whether due to old-school familiarity or simply not wanting to have to look over a page of powers every round.)

I think they do have their place... but that place is most certainly as a part of a larger whole, rather than as their own thing. Whenever 5E comes along, it may well be possible to more seamlessly integrate both designs into one overall architecture, but doing so in the current environment isn't really possible - at least, no more than we have now.

 

[MrMyth]

Except it doesn't complicate the game, or add a steeper learning curve. The game plays the same overall as it always did, except that the higher percentage of Essentials characters there are in the game, the simpler, smoother, and faster it plays.

It'd be like saying that every Dragon article makes the game more complicated, and that's just silly. Having a wider array of potential options does not significantly add to the complexity/learning curve of a system when effectively the same number of options are used.

I bolded the key word there, because... well, yeah, a single Dragon article won't add a huge deal of complexity to the system. But it does often make it just that much more complicated for someone designing a character - more decisions to make when creating their PC.

That isn't to say this is a bad thing, and again - most of this complexity is added in the char-gen process, rather than actual play. But a group just using the PHB will undeniably have a simpler experience than a group using PHB1-3, all the Power books, all the campaign books, etc. And the group that uses all that plus Essentials does, indeed, add a bit more complexity.

But that is the natural course of new options, and doesn't mean Essentials itself is of significantly more complexity. And it is entirely possible to slim down to more limited options, such as with those who play 'Essentials-only' or whatever.