-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The Essential Knight
- Thread starter fanboy2000
- Start date
Jack99
Adventurer
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think you missed my point entirely. The point I'm making is that when you have 2 classes which have radically different resource use and depend on different aspects of the mechanics to do basically the same thing then you have to design each feat and item (and other 'extras') such that they AT LEAST don't break EITHER of them. Now, this sort of consideration exists with the current 4e set of classes, BUT most of those classes pay attention to different types of things. Knight and FWT fighter OTOH care about exactly the same kinds of considerations, except they interact differently with the rules. This creates extra constraints on the design of elements going forward (and it has already been pointed out in charops that there are probably a whole laundry list of feats and items that will not interact well with the Knight and thus need errata).
I'm also a bit puzzled by all this talk about how players will only have to worry about 1 or 2 things with this new fighter. How is that true? These players that object to using anything but an MBA are going to be happier now because their attack masquerades as an MBA? I don't think so. They still need to decide when to toss on an encounter add-on effect, etc. Its no different from having powers. The same basic sorts of choices will face knight players as those of any other fighter.
AbdulAlhazred said:
I don't think any of these will be errata'ed personally. The knight is likely to have its own subset of feats and other things that support it, without needing to interact with older fighter feats (And thus requiring errata).
I could be wrong on that, but it seems like an awful amount of work for a very minor benefit.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, except there are feats and items that already exist that they CAN use (obviously if you are mixing Essentials with existing 4e). Ongoing if Essentials is ACTUALLY compatible with 'classic' (we need a name for this) then none of the feats in Essentials can be overpowered for existing characters, even if they would work fine for an Essentials character. They can always just restrict them all to various Essentials classes, but at a certain point that becomes a kind silly sort of "compatibility". Honestly I don't know how much of a big deal it is. That was why I posed the question to Mike, just wondered what his view on that was (though obviously replies are fairly unlikely).
The only thing that would concern me is things that boost stances, which aren't limited by a Knight class feature fighters could potentially get. Being able to make the fighters already incredibly good stances like Rain of Steel better doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If they limit this to improving the Knights stances that will work pretty well overall. Additionally, as his "mark" powers require the aura this is an immensely easy way of preventing the original fighter stealing any of those feats.
I do agree though that I cannot see how the Knight can be "compatible" with the original Fighter on reflection. If the Knight can take Fighter stances, he basically removes all his at-will powers - albeit probably for a better benefit - for the whole encounter. If the knight can't, then I wonder if they get improved encounter length stances of their own or what they replace things with. Given that they have moved most of their powers into class features, it's easy to make the knights feats and similar completely exclusive.
It is harder IMO to make the knight compatible with other things like existing feats (Mark of Warding) and items (Oathkeeper Weapon IIRC). Particularly those elements that rely on a mark unless he can mark an enemy and I wouldn't be surprised if he has his aura and a dedicated mark too (one class feature sounds distinctly mark like).
The question has to be if everything in essentials should be compatible with previous material or not. It's pretty clear the Mage and Cleric are, so maybe if something really wants to be different like the knight for the benefit of the game it should be relatively incompatible with portions the existing fighter class and vice versa for balance.
Edit: Also, hilariously I just realized that some PPs like Pit Fighter are much reduced in effectiveness for the Knight. Because melee basic attacks don't count as being from your class the main feature of the pit fighter - wisdom to damage - doesn't work at all for the knight who only has a melee basic attack. So that's an example of a pretty silly "incompatibility". I imagine though the Knight will have its own PPs that probably boost its aura or change how that works.
I do agree though that I cannot see how the Knight can be "compatible" with the original Fighter on reflection. If the Knight can take Fighter stances, he basically removes all his at-will powers - albeit probably for a better benefit - for the whole encounter. If the knight can't, then I wonder if they get improved encounter length stances of their own or what they replace things with. Given that they have moved most of their powers into class features, it's easy to make the knights feats and similar completely exclusive.
It is harder IMO to make the knight compatible with other things like existing feats (Mark of Warding) and items (Oathkeeper Weapon IIRC). Particularly those elements that rely on a mark unless he can mark an enemy and I wouldn't be surprised if he has his aura and a dedicated mark too (one class feature sounds distinctly mark like).
The question has to be if everything in essentials should be compatible with previous material or not. It's pretty clear the Mage and Cleric are, so maybe if something really wants to be different like the knight for the benefit of the game it should be relatively incompatible with portions the existing fighter class and vice versa for balance.
Edit: Also, hilariously I just realized that some PPs like Pit Fighter are much reduced in effectiveness for the Knight. Because melee basic attacks don't count as being from your class the main feature of the pit fighter - wisdom to damage - doesn't work at all for the knight who only has a melee basic attack. So that's an example of a pretty silly "incompatibility". I imagine though the Knight will have its own PPs that probably boost its aura or change how that works.
Last edited:
I honestly think you are a bit too far removed from your beginning days into the hobby. That, or your superior IQ prevents you from seeing the issue that some people have with complex tactics (and just so you know, I am not trying to be insulting here).
The reality is this - the knight maintains a 4e design tenant that choice is important. Therefore, stances, encounter powers and class features still exist and the player still has to choose when to use what. However, the dynamics of when to use what, and the impact they will have on the combat are much more obvious to new players, or to players who struggle with understanding the benefits of certain tactics.
Sure, the new guy can make mistakes and not use his kicker powers to add damage at the right time - but he also can't constantly hamstring himself (and his party) by using up all his daily's (or not using them) because the complexity of understanding when to use them is so great that he basically freezes up and doesn't do anything but spam a single power.
Hell, I have a guy who has played for quite some time, loves the game, but doesn't have the time to devote to reading a lot of the books, and to be honest has a slight reading comprehension problem. He has easily grasped earlier editions, but he constantly struggles with what is the right thing to do at the right time in 4e. When is a daily appropriate, when is it not? Hell, every time he uses his power, he has to read the entire thing just so he can remember all the nuances of it. The knight, from what I can tell, is just plain simpler to run. Do you want to add damage on this attack? Yes or no? You don't have to wrestle with other effects and trying to understand the impact they will have on the fight. Its simply not there (or much more limited) than what is currently there.
This is where the Knight appeals to new players and where it is much easier to run.
On the flip side, I DO agree with your concerns about the class design with regards to feats, items, etc that WotC will have to be very careful with lest they accidently break the intended design.
Guys, you're blowing this way out of proportion, really. I bet 10 bucks that the number of feats that will be updated for Essentials classes is zero. Yes, there is the odd chance that Charop will come up with something ueberbroken but I don't see it yet.
The "worst" they have come up with yet is a Knight who can slide an enemy one square with every hit. Oh, and they can make him attack Ref instead of AC when using a light blade. Now don't get me wrong, slide 1 at-will is nice, but it's no reason to draw the nerf bat. It's about as broken as Tide of Iron / Footwork Lure and Piercing Strike, stuff PHB characters gain at-will at first level.
At least we can wait until we've seen the complete writeup before we panic about possible brokenness.
As for compatibility: Essentials is aimed at beginners.
In other words, it's aimed at people who don't own PHB1, PHB2, Martial Power etc. They are busy with learning the ropes of the game instead of building a swiss army knife character.
Yes, the Essentials Fighter doesn't work with the errata'd Pitfighter, yes, it doesn't work with Weapon Style Feats, and we don't know yet if he's able to switch out his class features for existing powers. It's good that the developers keep the game consistent and keep the new classes within the existing rules framework, but it it's completely sufficient if you can combine stuff that makes sense. Even if that stuff is only 10% of the options available to PHB fighters. After all, you can still play a PHB fighter if a broad range of build options is important to you (in which case you're not a beginner, so you're not the intended player of the Essentials Fighter anyway.)
There two type of compatibility that really matter:
* Essentials characters can play in one group with PHB characters
* Players who learn D&D with an Essentials character don't have to relearn the game when they buy other products
These are the yardsticks by which I will measure the books. Everything else, whatever.
The "worst" they have come up with yet is a Knight who can slide an enemy one square with every hit. Oh, and they can make him attack Ref instead of AC when using a light blade. Now don't get me wrong, slide 1 at-will is nice, but it's no reason to draw the nerf bat. It's about as broken as Tide of Iron / Footwork Lure and Piercing Strike, stuff PHB characters gain at-will at first level.
At least we can wait until we've seen the complete writeup before we panic about possible brokenness.
As for compatibility: Essentials is aimed at beginners.
In other words, it's aimed at people who don't own PHB1, PHB2, Martial Power etc. They are busy with learning the ropes of the game instead of building a swiss army knife character.
Yes, the Essentials Fighter doesn't work with the errata'd Pitfighter, yes, it doesn't work with Weapon Style Feats, and we don't know yet if he's able to switch out his class features for existing powers. It's good that the developers keep the game consistent and keep the new classes within the existing rules framework, but it it's completely sufficient if you can combine stuff that makes sense. Even if that stuff is only 10% of the options available to PHB fighters. After all, you can still play a PHB fighter if a broad range of build options is important to you (in which case you're not a beginner, so you're not the intended player of the Essentials Fighter anyway.)
There two type of compatibility that really matter:
* Essentials characters can play in one group with PHB characters
* Players who learn D&D with an Essentials character don't have to relearn the game when they buy other products
These are the yardsticks by which I will measure the books. Everything else, whatever.
Last edited:
