Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[FireLance]

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

To be fair, the PP augmentation mechanic was basically a slightly more flexible encounter power mechanic in that:

1. You could use the same encounter power more than once per encounter; and

2. You could opt for smaller but more frequent power boosts by choosing the lesser augmentation option or (at higher levels) augmenting a lower-level at-will power instead of a higher-level at-will power. This last bit was probably the source of most of the balance issues, though.

Nonetheless, the basic idea of expending an encounter resource to get an encounter-level effect from an at-will power is (IMO) an interesting one, and it influenced one of the default paragon path features for my striker paladin (not uploaded yet; check my blog in about a week if you're interested).

 

[Incenjucar]

The main issues with psionics were a few abilities that scaled far too well, and the scaling cost to powers which made it possible to spam slightly-weaker encounter powers every single round. Had they avoided those pitfalls, it wouldn't have been that big a deal.

 

[Dice4Hire]

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

You do not thin psionics has encounters? Well, it does. Just check out the PPs.

Yes, I always wondered why, also.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

The above is complete and utter nonsense. With the exceptions of the paladin and arguably the warlock, none of the above work better as defined builds. I assume you are unfamilliar with the term Analysis Paralysis?

There are people who look at a superficially similar list of powers, all usable as a standard action and struggle. Badly. On the other hand a slayer, knight, scout, hunter, or thief splits this into fragments. Instead of eight attack powers at high heroic to pick between, it's a tiny handful of stances (or a handful of tricks) at one point and then target selection at a second.

Essentials martial classes were designed for people who don't like having too many options because they get locked in analysis paralysis and don't think in an abstract tactical manner. They are no more designed for you than left handed scissors are (assuming you are right handed) or bras are (assuming you are male). Do you complain about the existance of both left handed scissors and bras?

And I can tell you from the table I run, they are much more useful for people who don't naturally get tactical combat or who easily fall victim to analysis paralysis. These classes have improved the play experience for people in both my groups massively in a way the old classes wouldn't. Therefore they do what they do better than the old classes.

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.

And the fake Es are where they break.

Seeker is a good concept poorly implemented

Unfortunately the concept is neatly covered by the word "ranger".

and the Runepriest is an excellent class in need of expansion that has fallen victim to the abandonment of 4e design.

The Runpriest is fiddly, complex, and annoying. It's not elegant and the level of detail you need is not worth the output.

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.

Your classic classes are still alive and well. As are interesting new classes like the Bladesinger. However many people have interests other than combat and want classes that run simply in combat so they can get it out of the way and get back to planning, social interaction, exploring, and everything else. Giving them choices that suit them is in no way reducing the diversity of choice. And ceasing to force them to play games which bore them is apparently now "boring game design".

 

[Marshall]

The above is complete and utter nonsense. With the exceptions of the paladin and arguably the warlock, none of the above work better as defined builds. I assume you are unfamilliar with the term Analysis Paralysis?

Yes, and the E-classes do next to nothing to stop it. All that changed was a shift from 'powers' to 'stances' and 'tricks' that simulate powers but use extra actions to make use of. IOW, E-classes are significantly MORE complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are.

There are people who look at a superficially similar list of powers, all usable as a standard action and struggle. Badly. On the other hand a slayer, knight, scout, hunter, or thief splits this into fragments. Instead of eight attack powers at high heroic to pick between, it's a tiny handful of stances (or a handful of tricks) at one point and then target selection at a second.

Uh, huh. Thats the same process that 4e classes go thru. Sorry, theres no improvement here. You want a simple, easy to use FTR? You pick the simple, easy to use powers. You dont bring in the "Use a minor action to change your stance, use a standard to attack, check back to see what your stance does, oh yeah, make sure you activate your defender aura". Thats just oh so much simpler than choosing between Attack once with at-will or Attack twice with encounter, mark.

All of the above listed classes have better and simpler options under the base classes. The e-classes are a waste of space and designers time for what were better handled by making pre-gens within the existing class structure.

Essentials martial classes were designed for people who don't like having too many options because they get locked in analysis paralysis and don't think in an abstract tactical manner. They are no more designed for you than left handed scissors are (assuming you are right handed) or bras are (assuming you are male). Do you complain about the existance of both left handed scissors and bras?

Hah.
But if that was a goal, they failed miserably. Theives are much more tactically intensive than Rogues. Slayers need more optimization to be played effectively, Knights require tactical ability to be even remotely functional, and several of them are just badly designed for their role(sentinel, cav, I'm looking at you)

The Runpriest is fiddly, complex, and annoying. It's not elegant and the level of detail you need is not worth the output.

..and some people enjoy that. Of course a little more support would be fantastic to make sure its worth the fiddly bits.

Your classic classes are still alive and well. As are interesting new classes like the Bladesinger. However many people have interests other than combat and want classes that run simply in combat so they can get it out of the way and get back to planning, social interaction, exploring, and everything else. Giving them choices that suit them is in no way reducing the diversity of choice. And ceasing to force them to play games which bore them is apparently now "boring game design".

Really? Sticking us with classes that rehash old content, ONLY support the railroad style and that criss-cross all over the role system to no particular end and by-the-way reduce everything down to a subclass of wizard isnt boring game design?

 

[mneme]

*sigh* This old chestnut?

Anyway...

"E-classes have just as many choices to make as basic classes" (in play) comes from someone who hasn't ever played a paragon game -- or has put on rosy tinted glasses so he no longer remembers what it's like. In paragon, you're typically using 3 powers a turn for at least the first three rounds of combat, picking from a laundry list of at -least- 4 encounter powers, 3 dailies, 3 utility powers, and your at wills--plus maybe 5 or more item powers ("I forgot to use bloodclaw -again?-"). Add in "do I spend an action point" and remembering your AP feature, and you've got a minimum of 16 options you have to manage throughought pretty much every combat. Play an E-class, and you reduce this down to a laundry list of 3 (what stance/trick do I use?), plus 9 sundry other powers. And since E-classes gain fewer options over time, the gulf only increases.

"Everything's a wizard" is both refreshing and frustrating, actually. By formulating everything they can into subsets of the Wizard, Wizards can leverage the existing substantial support for the wizard. Moreover, the Mage is the one E-class that has -more- options than its PH1 version, not fewer--enough that nearly every Arcanist is stronger if converted to a Mage (obvious exceptions where the character is seriously leveraging Implement Mastery aside). OTOH, the wizard is second only to the fighter in getting support, and it would be nice to see more support for other classes.

 

[Vael]

Yes, and the E-classes do next to nothing to stop it. All that changed was a shift from 'powers' to 'stances' and 'tricks' that simulate powers but use extra actions to make use of. IOW, E-classes are significantly MORE complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are.

That hasn't been my experience. I regularly DM DnD Encounters, and I've introduced many players to DnD 4e. And Essential classes have made that experience much easier for me. Slayers are my go-to class for newcomers.
They're fun, and easy to build. Sure, to get top-tier performance out of them requires some optimization tricks, but they're completely playable out of the box without those tricks. I've given an Epic Slayer to someone who's only experience with DnD was a couple of sessions at 2nd level, and she jumped right in without any problems.

Uh, huh. Thats the same process that 4e classes go thru. Sorry, theres no improvement here. You want a simple, easy to use FTR? You pick the simple, easy to use powers. You dont bring in the "Use a minor action to change your stance, use a standard to attack, check back to see what your stance does, oh yeah, make sure you activate your defender aura". Thats just oh so much simpler than choosing between Attack once with at-will or Attack twice with encounter, mark.

The joy of these classes is that it's a toggle class vs. a button class. In other words, you switch on the stance and it's done. You can pretty much forget about it until you feel you need to switch stances. AEDU classes require you to pick a button (power) and press it each turn. Essentials classes answer the question: "Why can't I just attack?" And I've gotten that question.

Also, personally, as much as I enjoy AEDU classes, even I find a lot of enjoyment out of rolling up a Slayer or Scout and just going to town on monsters.

..and some people enjoy that. Of course a little more support would be fantastic to make sure its worth the fiddly bits.

And some people would enjoy something even simpler. Why are they not worth supporting?

Really? Sticking us with classes that rehash old content, ONLY support the railroad style and that criss-cross all over the role system to no particular end and by-the-way reduce everything down to a subclass of wizard isnt boring game design?

To be honest, the big advantage of the Bladesinger is that it is a Wizard subclass. It inherits a heck of a lot of support from the beginning. Seekers and Runepriests are left waiting for support. But a DDI article with a bunch of Seeker powers only helps Seekers. I pitch a few themed encounter powers for wizards, and I've provided support for Arcanists, Bladesingers and Mages. It's efficient and limits the sprawl of powers. I don't need 30 levels of brand-new Bladesinger Daily powers to sift through, find I don't have one I like, and have to wait for "Arcane Power 2" and a bunch of DDI articles to get some more interesting Bladesinger powers.

 

[Terramotus]

There are people who look at a superficially similar list of powers, all usable as a standard action and struggle. Badly. On the other hand a slayer, knight, scout, hunter, or thief splits this into fragments. Instead of eight attack powers at high heroic to pick between, it's a tiny handful of stances (or a handful of tricks) at one point and then target selection at a second.

Essentials martial classes were designed for people who don't like having too many options because they get locked in analysis paralysis and don't think in an abstract tactical manner. They are no more designed for you than left handed scissors are (assuming you are right handed) or bras are (assuming you are male). Do you complain about the existance of both left handed scissors and bras?

I've seen this trotted out before, but who, seriously, has problem with "use these at-will powers, and these others are limited use, but better". If these people exist, I've never met them. Are they playing D&D? My wife is about the opposite of a "rules monkey" or whatever you want to call it, and while she spends more time building her character and selecting her powers than many other people, she has no problem with it at the table.

Also, at the risk of offending people, there's a point to be made about gaming groups. I've met many people that will do anything to get their gaming fix - PUGs at game shops, conventions, or even regular groups with people they don't like. I'm too old for that. I only game with friends, people who are worthy of the time I put into running a game every week. If I didn't have enough friends for that, I'd hang up gaming for a while and do something else with my time.

This is the part that I'm sure is really going to upset some people - I have difficulty believing that a person who can't understand the difference between Encounters and At-Wills, even after instruction, would be able to contribute anything positive to my games, or that I would spend my time on them.

That doesn't make them bad people. Everyone is born differently, and if they simply can't grasp the mechanics of the AEDU classes, that's certainly no fault of theirs. However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.

 

[FireLance]

This is the part that I'm sure is really going to upset some people - I have difficulty believing that a person who can't understand the difference between Encounters and At-Wills, even after instruction, would be able to contribute anything positive to my games, or that I would spend my time on them.

That doesn't make them bad people. Everyone is born differently, and if they simply can't grasp the mechanics of the AEDU classes, that's certainly no fault of theirs. However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.

In the first place, I would separate the ability to distinguish between at-will and encounter powers from the willingness to do so in a recreational setting. I'm a bit of a gearhead myself, and I'm fine with managing fairly complex rules, but not everyone has the same focus; some are in it more for the social or the roleplaying aspects rather than the mechanics of the combat sub-system.

In addition, there are other reasons for the introduction of the Essentials martial class types like the knight and slayer. Some people (through conditioning, or whatever) just aren't comfortable with the idea of martial daily attack powers, even if they are perfectly able and willing to handle the complexity. So for them, the knight and slayer are closer to their concept of how a fighter should play than the PH weaponmaster.

Now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someday, it might be possible to unite the weaponmaster, knight and slayer under a single class structure: for example, by giving the player a choice between a daily attack power, or a bonus to the damage rolls of all weapon attacks. IMO, that would be ideal.

 

[The Little Raven]

I've seen this trotted out before, but who, seriously, has problem with "use these at-will powers, and these others are limited use, but better".

Half of my group, because they suffer from option paralysis when choosing powers, then end up not using a bunch of powers because they're afraid to blow them before they "need them." They grasp the structure, it just doesn't work in their favor.

If these people exist, I've never met them.

I've never met a Sikh. Doesn't mean anything except your experiences and my experiences are both limited and are not representative of anything but our own experiences.

However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.

Wonderful, I think we've found the 4e equivalent of "Thac0 keeps the riffraff out." Like we needed a resurgence of elitism in this hobby.