Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[Phaezen]

People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.

A bit dramatic seeing as the Bladesinger uses pre-essential utility and encounter powers, the "essentialised" classes may look different to the initial class structure, but for all intents and purposes they are fit seamlessly with the phb1 classes in game.

 

[frogged]

People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.

I don't believe this is correct. From the Gameday preview and the spoiler threads I've seen, Bladesingers have At-will, Daily, and Utility powers, but no Encounter powers.

 

[Marshall]

A bit dramatic seeing as the Bladesinger uses pre-essential utility and encounter powers, the "essentialised" classes may look different to the initial class structure, but for all intents and purposes they are fit seamlessly with the phb1 classes in game.

Nope, It has static class features instead of "encounter" powers and pretends to have a "daily" list by poaching off another classes encounters(which is so wrong either way you look at it). Even their encounters are just poaches from the Mage. Its one striker mechanic, a handful of class abilities and bits and pieces of another class thrown together in semi-random order. Rehash by another name.

 

[Terramotus]

Nope, It has static class features instead of "encounter" powers and pretends to have a "daily" list by poaching off another classes encounters(which is so wrong either way you look at it). Even their encounters are just poaches from the Mage. Its one striker mechanic, a handful of class abilities and bits and pieces of another class thrown together in semi-random order. Rehash by another name.

Yeah, the Bladesinger doesn't really count as AEDU. At best, it straddles the line. It has no Encounter powers, and, as said, it has horrible dailies that are actually Wizard Encounters. Now, some people might claim that class features that you don't get to choose count as Encounters, and I've even seen people claim that getting access to Utilities counts as an Encounter...

I'm OK with twists. I like Psionics. I'm not OK with the Essentials philosophy of getting rid of meaningful choices in character creation and getting rid of meaninful choices in combat other than "Should I use my daily?" and "Which rider should I use on my basic attacks".

 

[FireLance]

Yeah, the Bladesinger doesn't really count as AEDU. At best, it straddles the line. It has no Encounter powers, and, as said, it has horrible dailies that are actually Wizard Encounters. Now, some people might claim that class features that you don't get to choose count as Encounters, and I've even seen people claim that getting access to Utilities counts as an Encounter...

Actually, I would say that an encounter attack power you don't get to choose still counts as an encounter power, provided, of course, you can't use it at-will, you regain it after a short rest, and its power level is close to that of a typical encounter attack power.

Whether or not you get to choose your encounter attack powers is quite a different issue from whether or not you actually have them, IMO.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have no real problems with the essentials classes that get a class power every time a reular class gets an encounter power even if it is the same power.

But taking out all encounters seems a bit much.

 

[Neonchameleon]

People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.

Oh for crying out loud. Between the PHB, PHB2, Assassin, Artificer, and Swordmage there were 19 classes on the old structure. With about four different class types each before you even start selecting powers. They weren't just designing to AEDU, they were strip mining the design space as is obvious when we look at the PHB 3. There are attempts at six new classes in there. One (the Monk) is outstanding - and isn't classic AEDU. Three are not AEDU at all and are very simply broken - the Power Point mechanism does not work. And of the two remaining, one (the Seeker) is a solution in search of a problem and the other (the Runepriest) is simply fiddly and annoying without really adding much to the game.

A dead 4e would be one that stopped growing. One that stuck with the AEDU concept having done just about all it could with it. And the new classes it put out would be of the quality of the Seeker or the Runepriest. Instead what we have got is the game growing. Producing classes that the less tactically and mathematically adept can play (e.g. the Knight, the Slayer, or the Thief) - one of my players has recently switched from a Wizard to a Hunter and is enjoying the game so much more now. 4e has grown into design spaces it couldn't previously reach.

If you want a new AEDU class, pitch the class. And say why it can't be done as a build of an existing class. Don't point out that they have stopped strip mining the design space. They haven't stopped adding support - and Warpriest Domains add support to clerics in the way builds always should have - a selection of thematic powers with their less than optimal level offset by bonusses thrown in for locking in your build. And don't tell me it's dead when it's larger, stronger, and more versatile than ever. The Bladesinger's two rounds of mayhem as he's singing would be a squash to fit into an AEDU class. But work once the power structure's tweaked. (At least they work until Paragon when the Bladesinger gets to combine a Wizard Encounter with Bladesong...).

 

[Marshall]

Oh for crying out loud. Between the PHB, PHB2, Assassin, Artificer, and Swordmage there were 19 classes on the old structure. With about four different class types each before you even start selecting powers. They weren't just designing to AEDU, they were strip mining the design space as is obvious when we look at the PHB 3. There are attempts at six new classes in there. One (the Monk) is outstanding - and isn't classic AEDU.

Hmm, At-wills, encounters, dailys, utilities, no odd-ball class features, uh....what? full discipline? Thats a beautiful expansion of the classic AEDU, not the wholesale abandonment that these classes represent.
On top of that; Slayer, Knight, Thief, Hunter, Scout, Hexblade, Cavalier, Blackguard, Vampire looks like class bloat is worse than ever under the e-banner. When you take into account that every single one of those above classes can be done better as a defined build of an existing class(ok, maybe the Vampire is unique) it gets even worse.

Three are not AEDU at all and are very simply broken - the Power Point mechanism does not work. And of the two remaining, one (the Seeker) is a solution in search of a problem and the other (the Runepriest) is simply fiddly and annoying without really adding much to the game.

Psionics need some help to get right, thats true. They are still AEDU, tho. The E's are just hidden under the at-wills as augments. Seeker is a good concept poorly implemented and the Runepriest is an excellent class in need of expansion that has fallen victim to the abandonment of 4e design.

A dead 4e would be one that stopped growing. One that stuck with the AEDU concept having done just about all it could with it. And the new classes it put out would be of the quality of the Seeker or the Runepriest. Instead what we have got is the game growing. Producing classes that the less tactically and mathematically adept can play (e.g. the Knight, the Slayer, or the Thief) - one of my players has recently switched from a Wizard to a Hunter and is enjoying the game so much more now. 4e has grown into design spaces it couldn't previously reach.

To the contrary, 4e has been butchered to the point that boring and redundant play over 30 levels is praised and that diversity of choice is subverted to "MOAR POWAH". PCs stopped gaining new tricks and in return are just handed more and more damage as their only option. Boring game design.

 

[FireLance]

To the contrary, 4e has been butchered to the point that boring and redundant play over 30 levels is praised and that diversity of choice is subverted to "MOAR POWAH". PCs stopped gaining new tricks and in return are just handed more and more damage as their only option. Boring game design.

Ironically, there are some players who find that having only a single AEDU power structure is boring and redundant because they feel that all classes play the same. Adding classes with no daily attack powers (such as the slayer and knight) actually increases the diversity of options for such players and they are welcomed because to them, it makes the game as a whole less boring and redundant.

And of course, there are also players who would like to play D&D, but don't want to engage in the level of complexity required for the AEDU classes. I personally think it's great that there are Essentials classes that can cater for these players.

But then, I guess I'm just a generous, broad-minded, hospitable and accepting sort of chap.

 

[The Little Raven]

But taking out all encounters seems a bit much.

Take it up with the Psionic power source. It started the whole thing.