Countdown to Essentials - Powers, implements, feats

[vagabundo]

Lots of nice amendments there, but I can see some issues integrating them into running games and using the previous source books.

Some feats are now effectively obsolete and the level requirements are now gone. Is the big feat list going to be updated. Although I applaud the new organisation catagories, previously, unless you knew what you were looking for it was very hard to find a appropriate feat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

actually if they come and say: players have level+3 to attack, only damage is modified by attribute bonus, i would be ok with it. Would instantly remedy v-shaped classes. I really believe nerfing melee training goes a long way to make characters more interesting again.

 

[erf_beto]

There is some serious thinking going on at WOTC.

I approve.

And some serious nerd-rage to be seen on the internetz.

PS: I approve the changes

 

[Klaus]

Good article, with new info we haven't even gotten from GenCon scoops!

Hmmmm . . .

Implement Proficiency: I understand why they made the change, but I'm not sure how I feel about a multiclass wizard/cleric casting prayers through his wand (or staff, tome, whathaveyou).

Feat Categorization: One issue I see already with the new feat categories is too many feat categories . . . but I suppose I handled it in 3e well enough. I wonder if they are doing away with level restrictions on feats (tiers) altogether?

Overall, I do like what I'm hearing about the changes in Essentials. While I don't feel the changes add up to an unofficial "4.5e", the rules have changed enough that I'd like a revised Player's Handbook printed soon. Perhaps the Rule Compendium will fill that void for me.

You have to determine *why* your character is a wizard/cleric. So maybe he's a cleric of Ioun or some other magic god, and doesn't see a difference between arcane and divine. Your wand/tome/staff *is* your holy symbol.

 

[tyrlaan]

Lots of nice amendments there, but I can see some issues integrating them into running games and using the previous source books.

This line of thought has been making it's way into my brain of late. What are folks with active games going to do when Essentials comes out?

Maybe a fork-worthy discussion...

 

[abyssaldeath]

Humans still gain a +2 bonus to one attribute, but they also have a new option for a racial power. If you’ve followed along with our previews, you’ve seen that some classes no longer utilize at-will attack powers. Human characters get the option to choose from either selecting an at-will attack power from their class (if the class and the type they choose have them) or taking a new power called heroic effort.

I totally called it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I totally called it.

This was the only logical way they'd do it... actually they should have done the same with tieflings...

 

[Stalker0]

1) Implement Proficiencies: Great idea here. The implement system was needlessly complicated. If I want a warlock with holy symbol what's the harm. I also like anything that encourages multiclassing.

2) Racial changes: Also like this one. 4e does seem to have a bigger focus on stat bumps, so broadening them out allows people to use the races for more classes.

3) Feat changes. This one I'm mixed about.

On the one hand, I agree that certain feats don't have to start at paragon. And I do think the new organization may make finding feats easier than having to look by tier.

But that said, I do think the tiers provide an easy prereq system all their own for feats that are in fact too strong for heroic tier....and the fact taht it requires a massive reorganization of existing feats.

My main concern is I don't want to start seeing feats where I need 3 other feats in order to take. That was one aspect of 3e I'm not in favor of returning too.

4) Melee Training: Honestly I don't know if this is enough of a nerf, especially at low levels when your stat haven't gotten that high yet. It does allow a lot more flexibility though so I'm ready to see it in action before any final judgments.

5) Magic Items: If WOTC makes some major changes here, I will call it essential, 4.5, whatever they would like! Magic Items have probably been the biggest disappointment for me in 4e. While they met their design goals of changing items to no longer be as essential, it was done in away that made most magic items completely bland and weak.

When I offered my party a chance to take any 20th level item in the book (they were 17th level), and everyone in the party offered someone else a chance to take it, because they couldn't find anything that was that interesting to them...I knew something was up.

6) Human Change: I really like this one btw because for several classes the extra at-will just wasn't that desirable. To be able to get that other power is a nice bit of flexibility for the class.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

For instance, a slayer who uses Melee Training to attack with Dexterity matches a Strength-based slayer in damage while gaining superior mobility by relying on light armor.

Can someone explain this? If Melee Training gives only 1/2 modifier bonus to damage, how does it "match" the Strength-based slayer?

[I see the answer below. I was assuming an unspoken basis of "all else being equal", whereas the poster was assuming that the MT-Dex Slayer would go with a different point distribution.]

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I wish they organized their articles better. The other Essentials preview articles have all been under "Ampersand", so the Ampersand archive link gets you to all of them. The new one is in Features, so it is in a completely different archive list.