Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[Rechan]

I guess you guys missed that these were coming out in traditional AEDU style:

Runepriest (in Dragon Sept or Oct)
Monk (Power of the Plane Below)
A new build for "the PHB1" Wizard (Power of the Plane Below)

 

[Marshall]

That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier to use and simpler to use for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach.

I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.
Since you like Power Strikes mechanics so much, why not make real at-wills that act the same way?
Oh, wait. They did, they just call them Bladespells now. Yet, another new mechanic that should have just been folded into the standard at-will.

It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character.

Thats one option for a simple power, or you could have just made Power Strike an encounter 1 and Imp Power Strike an encounter 3 and etc. etc.
Exactly the same playability and no new class nonsense.

Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage.

That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it.

Sure. You use the "Battle Wrath" at-will every round and activate your "Power Strike" when you hit. If its really a nasty fight you use your "Slayers Advantage" Daily instead that does +2[W] and adds +DEX to damage for the rest of the encounter.

That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game.

You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me.

Not necessary, most single target, single attack at wills can be made basics without any increase in the power level of the game other than obsoleting a couple already worthless at-wills(Eldritch Blast, I'm looking at you) and a couple magic items that probably shouldnt exist to start with(BoMS, Rapidstrike Bracers). The AoE and multi-attack powers wouldnt change, and most of the move-and-attack powers wouldnt get the rider, but nearly everything else can and should.

No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender.

No, they'll be a turtle. Hard to hit, harder to kill but otherwise completely ignorable since they do almost no damage. The DM needs to go out of his way to make them relevant.

Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding the entire system from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better experience. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over.

I favor it, also. There are a series of holes that could have been patched by the e-revision. Instead they built an entirely semi-compatible system with enormous gaping holes in it and tried to pawn it off as a completely compatible beginner version.

We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves.

I dont see any reason to throw out the AEDU system when it was and is completely compatible with everything you're trying to do and doesnt create the huge gaping holes that suddenly making Basic Attacking a viable primary attack mode did.

But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design.

No, hes not. He's giving up his versatility for simplicity of play. Its the exact trade the slayer is making.

Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks.

Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?

Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character.

Uh huh. They want to play dumb. So you select powers that let you play dumb or you follow the list of powers on your BDF build cert. Whether that is called Power Strike I thru Power Strike XXVII or Solid Hit thru Cataclysm Strike is up to the player.

I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight.

And I'm saying that the supposedly simple Essentials play experience could have been accomplished better using the established 4e class structure rather than introducing an entirely new set of complexities and incompatibilities that came at the expense of actually improving 4e. Especially when its comparatively easy to see where those ideas should have meshed perfectly instead of tossing in the monkey wrench.

You are misreading what I am saying. A Slayer playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Slayer. A Knight playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Knight. A Weaponmaster playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Weaponmaster. A Barbarian playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Barbarian.

I'm saying a "Weaponmaster" playing simply is easily as effective as a Slayer or Knight(and likely both at the same time) and a Barbarian playing simply will be both more effective and more fun to play than a Slayer.

If a Slayer only stays in one stance and makes basics every round, and uses Power Strike each round until he runs out, he remains an effective character. A Weaponmaster who never uses his encounter powers? Is going to be severely hindered. And certainly won't compare favorably to an average Knight, even one played as simply as possible.

You'd be surprised, but the only difference in effectiveness is going to be Power Strike. PS designed as a Fighter Encounter 1, and therefore stacking with the Fighters at-wills, would match the simplicity and effectiveness of the Knight and not have required two new subclasses, a whole host of feats, countless pages of new rules and errata further division of the player base

Look at the Slayer options for stances. Look how simple some of them are. A few bonus points of damage, a +1 bonus to attack. If a Slayer chooses one of those, and sticks with it all day long, in what way is he not being effective?

In what way is he being more effective than a Fighter or Barb using his at-wills all day long?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The effect - and, I presume, intent - of creating classes based around augmenting basic attacks via novel mechanics is simply to add arbitrary mechanical distinctiveness.

There is a mind-set that is more comfortable if there is a 'hard' mechanical distinction for each 'fluff' distinction. The kind that finds using Bastard Sword stats for a Katana unbearable, for instance. Catering to that desire /increases/ the complexity of the game, because you have more and less consistent mechanics modeling the same things.

The assertion, for instance, that Essentials 'made the game simpler' is flat-out wrong. The reality is that some Essentials classes are simpler, taken individually. Taken as a whole, the classes in HotFL, alone, give the new player more of a learning curve than pre-PH3 4e did, with it's more unified aproach to class design. /Added/ to the pre-exiting 4e, they represent a flat-out increase in complexity, making the game harder to learn for players and harder to keep balanced for DMs. But, that's largely theoretical. The /experience/ of a new player playing a Slayer or whatever is that it feels fairly simple.

(Ok, except for the stance thingy, but once they've gotten into a stance, they can more or less forget about it - and it's not like the Slayer has much else to do with his minor actions). (And, Knights are another story - on the first round of a combat a Knight generally needs to turn on his defender aura, go into a stance, move and attack - 4 vital actions with only 3 available - better hope you can charge.)

It is certainly true that everything the basic-attack spamming classes do could have been done under the AEDU model. The differences are arbitrary, and the effect of them is to create arbitrary distinctions. The common thread seems to be that any martial class, or class that hints at martial skill, is getting put 'back in it's place.' 4e-haters were very vocal in being apalled that 'Fighters cast spells in 4e' (that is, that everyone uses 'powers,' putting them on a potentially equal footing). With Essentials+, the propper order has been restored - sword-swingers are using a 'basic' ability and suitable for the less sophisticated player, while casters are more varied, flexible, complex and interesting (and 'gish' partake of some of the full-casters' privillege).

 

[The Little Raven]

The assertion, for instance, that Essentials 'made the game simpler' is flat-out wrong.

When you make an argument that you state as straight fact, it's common to provide something called "supporting evidence." Your post just keeps repeating your same thesis statement in different variations with no actual evidence. Your post is all rhetoric and no actual substance.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....

Indeed you are. And every time you do, it is pointed out why you are wrong.

Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.

How about spending no action to change your stance and then just using a basic attack? Is that simpler? Because it's what people who want simple mechanics do with knights.

If its really a nasty fight you use your "Slayers Advantage" Daily instead that does +2[W] and adds +DEX to damage for the rest of the encounter.

Which is adding overheads to the people that don't want them.

Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?

That each power is different. Or at least has a different name. And having different ones just makes it fiddlier.

You'd be surprised, but the only difference in effectiveness is going to be Power Strike. PS designed as a Fighter Encounter 1, and therefore stacking with the Fighters at-wills, would match the simplicity and effectiveness of the Knight and not have required two new subclasses, a whole host of feats, countless pages of new rules and errata further division of the player base

Um. No. People find stances simpler. Not everyone does But many do. You are doing your best to ignore this. And presenting them in the worst possible light.

In what way is he being more effective than a Fighter or Barb using his at-wills all day long?

Shall we have a look at the numbers?

Barbarian At Wills vs Slayer MBA.

Assume Howling Strike from the Barbarian (as the best overall damage At Will - no drawbacks) and Battle Wrath Stance from the Slayer. Arm both with a Maul. The Barbarian does strength based damage and gets +d6 damage. The Slayer does strength based damage, gets +dex + 2 damage, and gets a further +1 to hit. More accuracy and more damage (and better Opportunity Attacks). And normally more AC as well - unless the Barbarian has a dex of 16 or more and chooses to bump that, remembering that only Whirling Slayers are Dex secondary. (Although the Barbarian does get Rageblood vigor as its counterbalance). At higher level, the slayer damage increases, they get free bonusses to saves, Battle Guardian scales, and possibly a few things I've forgotten.

Fighter vs Knight

It's closer. Cleave vs Cleaving Assault. The Knight has better AC - plate + shield vs scale + shield. Defender Aura at low levels is more useful than marks (at higher levels not so much) and Battle Guardian is an Opportunity Attack vs Combat Challenge being an interrupt. Higher levels they get things like free initiative bonusses, and bonusses to damage of weapon rolls. Covering argument. The challenge is better, the AC is better, they get to threaten more people than just one, the damage is better, they get free initiative bonusses. The only place they lose out on is Combat Superiority - the OA that is accurate and stops people moving. And that OA doesn't IME trigger anything like as often as the interrupt.

(And, Knights are another story - on the first round of a combat a Knight generally needs to turn on his defender aura, go into a stance, move and attack - 4 vital actions with only 3 available - better hope you can charge.)

This is an active nerf on the knight, the slayer, the scout, and the hunter. There is absolutely no reason you need to wait for combat to break out for a knight to go into a stance under the Rules as Written and he can spend a minor every few minutes to renew it as an at will. And under the Rules as Intended, it would be impossible to use one Ranger At Will Stance if you had to wait for combat to put it up. Therefore Knights starting in stance (and with Defender Aura running) any time they expect trouble (which is pretty much any time they have a shield or sword in hand, and a lot of times they don't) is to be expected.

Now if you want to make the fighter draw his sword and take his shield off his back at the start of combat it might be fair to have the Knight not in stance and without the aura running as well. But that's an exceptional combat (and even then it would depend on the reason - if it was helping someone across a rope bridge in hostile terrain then the Knight would still be in stance with aura up - it's just if they thought they were completely safe when he wouldn't).

With Essentials+, the propper order has been restored - sword-swingers are using a 'basic' ability and suitable for the less sophisticated player, while casters are more varied, flexible, complex and interesting (and 'gish' partake of some of the full-casters' privillege).

This is why I am looking forward to the Essentials Sorceror. So that there is a spellcaster that's as simple to grock as the swordswingers.

 

[FireLance]

I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.

I can accept that it's not simpler for you. However, can you accept that it is simpler for some people? "Simple" is not always objective or clear-cut since everyone thinks differently.

Thats one option for a simple power, or you could have just made Power Strike an encounter 1 and Imp Power Strike an encounter 3 and etc. etc.
Exactly the same playability and no new class nonsense.

Actually, no. This changes the decision point from "Choose an encounter power? (Y/N)" to "Choose an encounter power? (Y/N) Y -> Which encounter power? (E1/E3)"

Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?

No, but having the same effect for each encounter power is simpler than choosing between four encounter powers with different effects. See above.

I dont see any reason to throw out the AEDU system when it was and is completely compatible with everything you're trying to do and doesnt create the huge gaping holes that suddenly making Basic Attacking a viable primary attack mode did.

...

And I'm saying that the supposedly simple Essentials play experience could have been accomplished better using the established 4e class structure rather than introducing an entirely new set of complexities and incompatibilities that came at the expense of actually improving 4e. Especially when its comparatively easy to see where those ideas should have meshed perfectly instead of tossing in the monkey wrench.

Frankly, I suspect that the reason why the Essentials classes are still pretty well balanced with the AEDU classes is that the AEDU structure is still mostly followed while hiding the fact that it is from the players. I don't think it's a coincidence that the slayer gets new encounter powers at levels 3, 11 and 13, improvements to his encounter powers at levels 7, 17 and 27, and his damage bonuses increase at levels 5, 15 and 25. The last, in particular, is like activating a daily power that grants an untyped damage bonus to basic attacks and lasts until the end of his next extended rest.

In what way is he being more effective than a Fighter or Barb using his at-wills all day long?

He still gets benefits from features that replicate the effectiveness of daily powers, as indicated above.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When you make an argument that you state as straight fact, it's common to provide something called "supporting evidence."

Essentials added to the game. Adding to an already-complex system can be expected to make it yet more complex, no?

Taken by itself, Essentials introduced classes that used varied progression schemes, instead of a unified one, like the 'AEDU' used in the PH1. That's, again, a more complex aproach.

It's only when you take Essentials classes one at a time that /some/ of them are 'simpler.' Some of them lack power choices. Fewer choices make a class simpler. Some of them can defer their choice to use some powers until after the die roll - that may not be 'simpler,' but it's arguably easier (when you miss there's no decision), which might well be what's meant by the 'simpler' claim.



Is that clear enough? Or do you need some sort of formal mathmetical analysis of complexity? Because, really, demanding excessive 'proof' in an informal setting such as this is as much rhetoric and smoke-blowing as anything. If you would like to give an example of the level of 'supporting evidence' you would accept, please, go ahead and support the assertion that Essentials made 4e 'simpler.'

 

[Tony Vargas]

Um. No. People find stances simpler. Not everyone does But many do. You are doing your best to ignore this. And presenting them in the worst possible light.

Stances have a few negatives, but they are simpler - or, at least easier - in play, because you can turn one on and 'forget' it.

This is an active nerf on the knight, the slayer, the scout, and the hunter. There is absolutely no reason you need to wait for combat to break out for a knight to go into a stance ... Knights starting in stance (and with Defender Aura running) any time they expect trouble (which is pretty much any time they have a shield or sword in hand, and a lot of times they don't) is to be expected.

It is odd, then, to make it an action, rather than just a "while you are conscious..." feature.

I do like the idea of a Knight getting up in the morning, armoring up, and going through a quick 'warm up' series (and one.. and Defender's Aura ... and two ... and Hammer Hands and... limbered up and ready to Battle Challenge anyone who tries to attack his buddies at breakfast). I don't mean that in an entirely sarcastic way, either - it does go to modeling the dedication fictional martial types often display.

This is why I am looking forward to the Essentials Sorceror. So that there is a spellcaster that's as simple to grock as the swordswingers.

I'm looking forward to that, too. But, 'simple' may not mean for an arcanist what it does for a martial character. :shrug: We'll see what it's like when it's previewed/published.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Perhaps a good secondary point to this whole stance and aura things would be if DMs permit the aura and stance to be on when the fight starts.

If so that is another line of actions to do, sure the same every fight, but something else to forget.

 

[Obryn]

Essentials added to the game. Adding to an already-complex system can be expected to make it yet more complex, no?

No. Certainly not from the perspective of a player who's running a Knight, Slayer, or Scout. From their perspective, why should they give a fig if their advancement is different than a Mage?

As you note, when you look at them singly inside their own silo, they are in fact simpler. I think it's fairly obvious that's what folks are talking about when they mention simpler options.

-O