The Essential Knight

[Remathilis]

Umm... no, I don't.

Write what you want to write... WoTC is in a better position to know what people are clammering for, they'll let you know if they want your article.

Again... if the majority of people prefer one thing, and WoTC gives them that thing, then how is this a bad thing?

Then your going to divide your fanbase. Some will perfer (and use) only Essentials, others will use only stuff that follows the PHB line. You're creating a BD&D vs. AD&D scenario again; a basic game that uses different rules (and a high degree of interchangeability) vs. the more complex and better supported "bigger" cousin.

If it worked so well before, I don't get why WotC folded both lines back into one with 3e?

Take a look at the compendium. A search for Goblin on the creatures tab brings up 174 entries!

They seem to mess with the stats whenever a monster is needed to make it better suit whatever adventure/environment it's needed in.

There aren't really "official" monsters in 4e, just stats for various versions of an idea.

So if they change how Goblin Tactics, or Shifty, or Dragon Fire works, that doesn't invalidate the MM monsters somewhat?

Your right, I'm not getting this. I think I'm remembering why I quit in the first place...

 

[Shazman]

We've had one major rule update from the PHB, which is stealth. How many other basic elements have seen significant overhauls? Some slightly modifications here and there, but the core rules in the PHB remain completely intact.

I can understand the worry about too many updates to feats and powers. On the other hand, I prefer playing a balanced game, so I am glad they come out with errata. If you don't want to 'audit' your character (which, in our group, involves the DM taking a few minutes to scan the errata and then mention any changes to the group... once every two months) - then you can honestly feel free to not use it.

If you end up using a power that got updated, chances are either:
1) The power is broken enough the group will realize it is a problem and come up with a fix for it anyway;
2) Someone else is aware of the update for the power, and can tell you how it was changed;
3) It wasn't a big enough issue for your group, and so no one cares if you are still using the original power.

Or are you speaking from personal experience - do you have a character who has had elements changed that has actively caused problems at the table or with your DM? I'm assuming you do play 4E, right?

I haven't seen anything on the PC side of things in play that was unbalanced. Certainly, nothing that required an update. What some call unbalanced, others see as further unbalancing a system that wasn't properly balanced to begin with. Have the rules updates shut down char-op builds which few people actually use in play? Yes. Have the "rules updates' fixed any problems I 've had with the game? No. Have the rules updates detracted from my enjoyment of the game? A bit, and I know others that it has really upset. How many people have decided to ditch their characters when they were seriously nerfed? How many character concepts have been made mechanically subpar? Is this really necessary, and is it good for the game, or does it just produce further aggravation at a company that seems to care little for putting out a balanced, quality game, and wants to let the char-op boards do their "playtesting" for them?

 

[MrMyth]

One hopes so. However, lets say I want to write an article with new fighter powers to submit to Dragon. What am I going to base it off; use the current fighter at-will/encounter/daily system or Essentials "MBA-modifying Stances with no dailies" build?

If you say the PHB one; then the Essentials line is a one-off with no official support going forward beyond what can be interchanged between it and "core".

If you say Essentials one; the PHB fighter becomes obsolete, again barring power-swapping between the two "builds"

If you say write powers for both, you're doubling the chances of something going haywire or someone only using 1/2 of your article.

See?

No... not really. There are cleric articles for specific gods - that doesn't mean all "non-Sehanine" worshippers are not longer supported. It means that one article might not deal with them.

What build should you focus your article around? The answer to that is entirely dependant on what your article is. I'm assuming it isn't simply a 'Fighter' article - most have more of a concept than that. If it is an article for a new Knightly-order, maybe you use the Essentials build. If it is an article about the Gutbuster dwarves, maybe you focus on the Battlerager build.

Or maybe it is a more general fighter article - and yeah, you go ahead and include options for both. The basic Warlord 'Class Acts' article included a ton of feats - some for Bravura Warlords, some for Insightful Warlords, some for Resourceful Warlords, some for Tactical Warlords.

So your generic fighter article might have a handful of feats and utility powers that work fine for all fighters, plus specific options and stances for the knight, and specific options and attack powers for other fighters.

Both can easily be supported without either being sidelined, just like is true of every other class with multiple builds.

Same deal: I'm writing a module for Dungeon. Which goblin minion am I going to use; the original one in the MM1 (which has been errata'd and rebuilt to meet MM3 standards) or the new, already-fixed one in the MV?

Granted, both are kinda corner-case, as a DM I can mix in whatever I like (I used 3.0 PrCs and monsters in my 3.5 and Pathfinder games too) but the official line forward can't support two "cores"; either PHB/DMG/MM 1 is still the Core and Essentials is a one-off product never to be expanded upon OR Essentials is the New Core and the PHB/DMG/MM lines slowly fades into the sunset.

Again, really weird question here. If I'm using a Bugbear, do I use the Bugbear Strangler from MM1, or the Bugbear Wardancer from MM2?

Answer: I use whichever one feels appropriate to the plot, or caught my eye as an interesting enemy, or whatever criteria I want to use to decide. Neither is a more 'official' Bugbear than the other.

I suspect most enemies in the Monster Vault will again just be different types of enemies of those we've already seen. There might be some weird cases with more unique enemies like dragons.

But asking a purely hypothetical question about that, and trying to use that as proof that Essentials will have rendered the PHB/MM/DMG obsolete... yeah, I don't think so.

In short, there aren't two "cores" being supported. There is one game, and a variety of resources for it. Given that those resources don't contradict or overwrite each other, they are all able to exist alongside each other. The Monster Vault doesn't render the MM1 null and void any more than the Draconomicon did, or the MM2, or the MM3. Other Essentials books don't make the PHB classes 'fade away' any more than Martial Power did.

Future lines and products will continue to support whatever is appropriate. Just like we've seen Warlord articles supporting both the PHB Warlord builds and the Martial Power Warlord builds, we'll see future articles supporting both PHB Fighters and Essentials Knights, and there really isn't any reason to assume otherwise. And there certainly isn't any support for the claim that they somehow can't support both at the same time.

 

[MrMyth]

So if they change how Goblin Tactics, or Shifty, or Dragon Fire works, that doesn't invalidate the MM monsters somewhat?

If they put in a "Goblin Blackblade" that is identical to the MM1 Goblin Blackblade, except it has different stats and a different version of Goblin Tactics, then... yes, you are absolutely correct and that would cause compatibility issues with MM1.

There is zero indication they would do anything like that.

What I expect to see are other goblins, that likely use the same Goblin Tactics, and have some unique tricks and names of their own. Thus providing something for both current DMs (who can always use more monsters) and new DMs starting with Essentials.

 

[MrMyth]

I haven't seen anything on the PC side of things in play that was unbalanced. Certainly, nothing that required an update. What some call unbalanced, others see as further unbalancing a system that wasn't properly balanced to begin with. Have the rules updates shut down char-op builds which few people actually use in play?

I've seen them fix many issues that were genuine problems in my own game. Maybe not always major problems - sometimes just irritations, but sometimes also really powerful choices that very much needed a fix. Now, sometimes I fixed such things on my own. But having them provide those updates for me is absolutely something that has been good for my game, and without any crazy char-op builds anywhere in sight.

Yes. Have the "rules updates' fixed any problems I 've had with the game? No. Have the rules updates detracted from my enjoyment of the game? A bit, and I know others that it has really upset. How many people have decided to ditch their characters when they were seriously nerfed? How many character concepts have been made mechanically subpar?

Very few builds have been made subpar by updates. In fact, quite a few updates boost the power of weaker options to make them viable.

That said, one player in my game did completely change his build after an update. He was a Blood Mage, and his character was designed specifically to abuse Blood Pulse. Now, I had already previously changed the power on my own so his tricks to abuse it were only doing a hundred or so automatic damage to enemies, rather than several times that. But it was still rather a relief when it was fixed.

Without it, the character would still have been a very powerful wizard and controller. But he couldn't quite take on entire encounters on his own, and so wanted to rebuild his character. That's fine - that's his choice, and what makes the game fun for him. So be it. But the 'nerf' to his character didn't make him in any way unplayable - just not more powerful than the other PCs in the party.

That's been true with most updates. Which have you seen that have genuinely crippled characters so they were not actually playable?

Is this really necessary, and is it good for the game, or does it just produce further aggravation at a company that seems to care little for putting out a balanced, quality game, and wants to let the char-op boards do their "playtesting" for them?

It is absolutely good for the game. I think any allegations that WotC doesn't care about "a balanced, quality game" are pretty clearly absurd. Obviously that is their goal, and one of the big ones of 4E. Do they always succeed? Nope.

But I don't think you can really just claim that this is because they throw out rules slap-dash and assume the gamers will find the problems for them. You just can't forsee every possible use of a power, or feat, or other options. Sometimes thinks do just slip through.

I certainly wish they always got things right the first time. I've definitely seen options that I instantly will shake my head at and know are broken. I'm still frustrated with Expertise.

But I am absolutely glad that when something comes out that is in need of fixing? That they care enough to sit down and do so. That definitely demonstrates a care for the balance of the game, and I find it really odd for anyone to claim otherwise.

 

[Scribble]

Then your going to divide your fanbase. Some will perfer (and use) only Essentials, others will use only stuff that follows the PHB line. You're creating a BD&D vs. AD&D scenario again; a basic game that uses different rules (and a high degree of interchangeability) vs. the more complex and better supported "bigger" cousin.

I think you're creating a problem that hasn't happened, based on limited knowledge here.

Either way, the question still remains... If wizards is providing support for what the majority of their fans want, how is this bad?

Should they deny what people are asking for?

So if they change how Goblin Tactics, or Shifty, or Dragon Fire works, that doesn't invalidate the MM monsters somewhat?

No... as long as they give me a stat block that tells me how whatever power works I'm good to go.

Your right, I'm not getting this. I think I'm remembering why I quit in the first place...

So you don't play 4e, but you're commenting on how the game should be designed?

 

[Abraxas]

Well, sure - but at the same time, if the group is casual enough that you don't care about the updates, then does it matter if they are done in the CB for you?

It does when they use a power or item the way they have before, but when they look at the card its says something different - this has happened on a couple cases where we needed to check the wording on a Wizard power and one of the player's weapon Power. We had a pretty good memory of what it used to say, but the new version was different enough that we had to retcon actions during the game. The Wizard also swapped out the power in question (I wish I could remember what is was - I'll have to ask the player) after the session. Was this a game breaker? No, but it was annoying.

But this is neither here nor there . . . Its a side effect of the progressive revision and a pretty dandy CB tool.

 

[Remathilis]

I think you're creating a problem that hasn't happened, based on limited knowledge here.

Either way, the question still remains... If wizards is providing support for what the majority of their fans want, how is this bad?

Should they deny what people are asking for?

No, not at all. I'm asking what happens to the PHB Fighter when the Essential Fighter becomes the favored/supported Fighter or Vice Versa. Which one gets supported?

No... as long as they give me a stat block that tells me how whatever power works I'm good to go.

So no problems in they reprint/update Orcus in the MV, right?

So you don't play 4e, but you're commenting on how the game should be designed?

Yes. Yes I am.

I'm one of the Lapsed Players. I tried 4e for a year roughly under a bunch of different DMs (myself one also) and our group owned every major release between PHB1 and Divine Power. I had ad DDi Subscription during that period too.

I gave 4e more than its fair-share of time to wow me. It didn't. However, as I've read more about the Essentials line, I've seen more and more evidence they are extending an olive branch to people like me. Do you really think today's teenagers care the Red box uses the vintage logo and Errol Otis artwork? (I work with kids for a living; 1983 might as well be pre-history to them.) For the first time since literally PHB 2 came out, I'm excited about a D&D product again; after I thought I had been left in the dust, content to spend my cash on Pathfinder and similar d20 material. Here is WotCs only chance to win me back; so far I like what I see.

If WotC wants my money, as well as the money that came from my gaming group (some of which were collectors until 4e) and dozens of other gaming groups like mine, they better damn well here what I say. So far, I'm giving props as to their design ideas, and am eager to see if this heralds a new direction for 4e (one I might be able to get behind again) or merely a one-off product designed to trick a handful of lapsed players into buying their stuff again.

So far, I like what WotC is doing. I can't say the same for their apologists.

Man, you were doing so well until the "apologist" cheap shot at the very end. Your argument is just as strong without an insult attached to it. Please don't do that again. ~ PCat

 

[MerricB]

No, not at all. I'm asking what happens to the PHB Fighter when the Essential Fighter becomes the favored/supported Fighter or Vice Versa. Which one gets supported?

It has been stated that future books will have new classes in both Essentials and PHB-style formats.

Cheers!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Do you really think today's teenagers care the Red box uses the vintage logo and Errol Otis artwork? (I work with kids for a living; 1983 might as well be pre-history to them.)

Um.. That is an Elmore Redbox cover. Turn in your D&D geek card.