Essentials: which new players?

[Tony Vargas]

It is just the idea of Martial encounter and dailies does not sit well.

In the sense that you'd rather not play such a character, or in the sense that a game that allows such characters is less apealing to you?

I have seen skilled fighters use feints to create openings to successfully repeat attacks like spinning back kicks against a skilled opponent. I have seen them spam attacks like sweeps, throws and, again, spinning back kicks against a lesser skilled foe. We just want the option of our characters to do similar things.

You have it. You just /also/ have encounter and daily powers that let you do other things at a dramatic moment, or choose when a certain ploy will finally work. You have some implied control of the narrative, in choosing when to use such powers. It's cool, a lot of players love that sort of thing.

But, the Essentials martial classes don't seem to address your concern. They have have an encounter power, a simple damge boost, that they can't repeat. They have two stances with which to enhance their basic attacks. The 4e martial classes, in addition to the offending encounters and dailies, have two at wills, in addition to the options available with basic attacks. They can spam just as much as the Essentials guys can. More, in fact, in the case of humans. Humans get a third at-will attack power, but, when taking an Essentials martial class, there are no at wills, so they instead get a racial /encounter/ power.

And, we don't intelligent foes to automatically fall for things like "Come and get it".

Of course, it's an Encounter power, so they'll only fall for it /once/.

Other encounter exploits are quite similar to an at-will, only better, so you could look at the various uses of the at-will as prior attempts to use the exploit.

Some martial daily exploits are 'Reliable,' so you can attempt it repeatedly in a given day, it's just a low-percentage manuever that you'll be lucky to ever pull off to the extent modeled by a successful use of the daily mechanic.

Come and Get It often rears it's awesome head in these discussions. That and Martial Healing really throw some people. It's a fantasy game. In fantasy - and in 'action' oriented genres in general - heros without extraordinary powers do extraordinary things all the time. It's standard fare. Of course, there's always some spoilsport who will explain why it's impossible to outrun an explosion or save yourself by grabbing a vine mere feet from the ground.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to handle when you're fighting dragons and evil sorcerers, afterall, if you point out the it's physically imossible to outrun an explosion, you might want to point out how physically impossible it is for something as big as a dragon to fly. Perhaps it's because /some/ of what a martial character does can be done in reality, while nothing in a wizard's repetoir is subject to 'reality testing?'

 

[JohnSnow]

I also don't agree that 4e is in anyway too complex for new or lapsed players. It's actually very simple and mechanically consistent.

...

I guess I'm just saying that I've seen a clear pattern, and what you related hardly challenged that pattern, just presented a different one that I don't feel qualified to comment on (I'm not confident judging 'creativity' - perhaps because I'm 'analytical.')

I agree. 4e IS very simple and mechanically consistent. But it's still a beast of a game where the simplest character still has to worry about things like flanking, positioning, pushing, pulling, sliding, OAs, flanking...The list goes on and on.

For some people, adding "what do I do next" to that level of tactical battlefield gaming is just too much. Your players may just all be people for whom that's not a problem. I've played with people for whom it IS. I've had discussions with people who want to play D&D, but think it's too complicated. I think they can get it, but if I could hand them a nice easy class to play while they're learning the game rules, it would facilitate things.

You say you're not well-qualified to evaluate analytical versus creative players. Fine. I'll ask this. What do your people DO for a living? How about for fun other than D&D? What did they study?

The ones I qualify as "creative" are artists, or literature and drama majors. For fun, they read and play act. The ones I qualify as analytical also enjoy acting and music, but tend to be highly technical as well - computer programmers, engineers, software designers, and the like.

The latter group grasps gamist concepts intuitively. The former doesn't. They're good at D&D, but for them it's the roleplaying that comes easy, not the combat game. And making the combat more fiddly for them (which is what more powers does) doesn't help.

There are several, all the result of the /way/ they've been made simpler. They could have been made simpler in the same way as the Cleric Domain choice: same 4e structure, but picking a 'build' ('sub class') pre-picks all your powers, which you can later switch out as you become more comfortable with the system.

This approach doesn't really solve the problem of complexity in play. Sure, it's easier when you level, but the player still faces as many choices in play as before. Sure, it's less of an issue at 1st-level, but we're talking about ~10 powers (not counting utilities) by mid-levels. That's a LOT. It can very quickly get overwhelming.

You make a lot of assertions about how changing resource management alters class balance. I acknowledge that it could, but I'm less convinced than you are that it DOES.

I freely admit that the easiest way to balance classes is to give everyone an equal number of powers that they can use the exact same number of times. And then those powers have to do the exact same thing, and the classes have to have the exact same role in the game.

The minute you start fiddling, absolute class balance is out the window. So is absolute power balance. At that point, it's a matter of balancing within degrees. Within those broader definitions, does Essentials break that balance? I don't see it.

- And, ironically, increased complexity. 4e character have one level progression chart. When new players level up, you can tell them, "you're second level, you each pick a level 2 utility from you class and a feat." Essentials character sub-classes each have a different level progression. 4e characters all use the same power mechanics. Essentials classes have (so far) two distinctly different mechanics for their class abilities.


I understnd. It's just that making all the martial classes the simplistic ones is consistent with pandering to lapsed gamers and hold-outs who rejected 4e. Having a simplistic warlock or sorcerer - say, having the complexity line drawn (as it is in 4e) by role instead of class - would not have been consistent with that aim, but would have been consistent with the stated aim.

Sorry, using "different level progressions" to claim increased complexity is a fallacy. That's because the complexity of levelling up happens out of game. What these classes are about is addressing complexity in play. That's two totally different things. Nobody I know has ever been horribly confused when leveling up in 4e.

I freely admit that simplifying the martial classes is catering specifically to the nostalgia crowd. I guess I just see that as a judgement call. Assuming you want classes of varying complexity (and I realize you don't agree, but bear with me), you have to pick which ones to simplify based on some criteria. You know that some people in your existing customer base (and among lapsed players) have expressed conceptual problems with martial powers. You have not heard anything similar with regards to the spellcasters. You also know that your nostalgia customers will be expecting fighters and rogues to be simpler classes to play than clerics and wizards. If you fight these expectations too much, the game will not feel like D&D to those people.

By contrast, any new players you recruit don't care about the game's history, or that some current 4e fighter players are feeling like they've finally gotten fair treatment. Some of them just want to play simpler classes than others do. They don't care which ones. You also know that, back in the days of the original Red Box, people who wanted more complex classes embraced spellcasters. Did they pick spellcasters because they were more complex? Or did Gary et. al. design spellcasters that way because the concept seemed to embrace the complexity? No way to know which came first. But there's nothing here that explicitly contradicts what your nostalgia players want, so you go with that.

Now, I've heard you and others claim that there's no need for varying levels of complexity. Maybe you're right. I've seen evidence that a demand exists, and I think WotC wouldn't be doing this unless they possessed that evidence in spades, but maybe we're wrong.

I think part of this is some current 4e customers feeling proprietary about THEIR edition of D&D. They love 4e, and they were loyal damnit! So WotC should cater to them, and only them. By their thinking, the grognards and old-timers can just like it or lump it. After all, for those who want old school gaming, there's Pathfinder.

And I suppose that's a fine attitude for someone to take. But as a business, WotC HAS to be interested in ways that it could, just maybe, win back some old customers without totally alienating current ones. And when I say "old," I don't necessarily mean just people who last played 3.5 or 3e, but maybe people whose last D&D purchase was BECMI, or had an "A" before "D&D."

There's a LOT of those players out there. And many of them now have kids, nieces, nephews. Some even have grandkids! Appealing to their nostalgia is a good way to recapture old players (them) and gain new ones (their spawn).

I think they've found that some of the same things that will appeal to the nostalgia crowd will go over as well with certain kinds of newbies. In keeping with the Red Box, Essentials is D&D for those who might be put off or intimidated by the core rules. By my earlier definition, those people tend to be less "analytical" - the kind where lots of tables and charts make their eyes glaze over. You have to hook them with the narrative, rather than a bunch of rules. It also means as much effort to cater to inexperienced players as possible. Which means if there's any kind of significant demand for simpler classes, there'd better be some in there.

And now we get back to it. Does that demand exist? WotC says yes. I'm inclined to take them at their word. After all, it's their business, not mine.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I must add that the fighter and rogues in essentials are simpler becaus

1) they don't have to - also - plan on when to use their dailies (strategy)
2) they don't have to wrestle the idea of martial powers

but this don't make them less interesting tactically in each single encounter

so saying they are simpler don't mean they are dumber to play or with less option

we could say that they are getting MORE options since we have seen from the preview that they are getting more stance and tricks than every other class at-wills at highter levels

beyond class features both fighter and rogue gain nother stance/trick at 7th level and maybe yet more at highter levels

so while he will not add dailies or many encounters they will have more choice on how acting each and every round.... and every stance and trick can get various rider (power strike, sneak attack and ....)

 

[Garthanos]

For some people, adding "what do I do next" to that level of tactical battlefield gaming is just too much. .

Answering that question is roleplaying too isnt it? it shouldn't stop when the dice come out. The question is either still there ... or it isnt. That removal of the daily is simplification that takes away a choice and removes planning for the future..Not being able to plan for the future is that something we want to encourage or a deficiency.

That daily ought to be providing a cinematic... climax like zing... taking it away ought to make playing the fighter more boring even if it simplifies choices a little.. or that daily isnt being done right itself and that mechanic and associated powers need looking at and improving not removed.

To me it still gets down to OMG its called a "power", the game mechanic word. AND...
OMG its called "healing" it must mean wounds stitching together.

We are even calling them things stances... but they are still OMG an at-will power.(they are disguised attack powers ... nothing less).

 

[Garthanos]

Oh and what makes the characters stupid is that they have no mental attribute needs it doesnt accomplish anything for their class (in my experience discipline and perception are massively important) it makes martial look stupid... not needing to plan for the future makes it... yeah that is the word.... un-wise.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

NO.

They created a new design structure to exist alongside the original one. They are creating more options for the sliding scale of player-types (from the super-tactical fiddly players to the simpler, point-and-shoot players), so that no matter what your preference, you've got something to play that is on par with everything else without having to have the same level of simplicity/complexity.

Don't deliberately trim quotes to straw man what I said. It's dishonest and irritating.

They are "creating options" whereby people with swords automatically have less resource management and seemingly fewer mechanical and tactical options than people with spells. This is NOT a case of "no matter what your preference, you've got something to play." They are introducing the game to new audiences with the old "Fighters are simple, casters are complex" nonsense as the baseline.

As a new Essentials player, to find a complicated martial class, you'll have to get a DDI subscription and work without books or seek out old, relatively cumbersome books.

As a pre-existing player, I'm fine because they haven't taken anything away from me. But new players are stuck with the presentation they are given, which is needlessly conflating the words "martial" and "simple."

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm glad something in D&D now has fewer options and less resource management than the default. I've seen Analysis Paralysis too often - and PCs not remembering their characters capabilities.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Oh and what makes the characters stupid is that they have no mental attribute needs it doesnt accomplish anything for their class (in my experience discipline and perception are massively important) it makes martial look stupid... not needing to plan for the future makes it... yeah that is the word.... un-wise.

Wisdom giving a bonus to fighters OAs was the best thing ever. Not so much that you need it at all costs, but a great bonus for making your figher perceptive.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I'm glad something in D&D now has fewer options and less resource management than the default. I've seen Analysis Paralysis too often - and PCs not remembering their characters capabilities.

Agreed. And I was looking forward to it for when I teach my nephews the game. But I didn't expect to be looking at a situation where maybe the older brother can handle a caster without help, but I better make sure the younger one plays not merely one of "the newbie classes" but "the newbie role."

That's a brand of nonsense I really thought we had moved beyond. If they're going to go with "noob classes" and "advanced classes", they could at least have had the decency to spread them out across roles and themes.

I really don't think I can emphasize that enough. What the heck would be wrong with a plug-and-play caster and a complex, tactical soldier class? How many new players did I see in the old days who wanted to play a wizard and promptly crashed and burned?

 

[Scribble]

They are introducing the game to new audiences with the old "Fighters are simple, casters are complex" nonsense as the baseline.

You could look at it that way, or you could look at it along the lines of:

1. To make the game easier for people to enter, we give them options for "level of complexity" in class building.

2. The slayer (and knight) fill the "simple" role.

I think they chose the slayer and knight for this , yeah partly out of tradition, but I think there are some other reasons as well...

If you follow the podcasts and such where Mike Mealrs talks about the design philosophy, one of the key elements they wanted was "story first" kind of.

They wanted it to be easy for a new player who knows nothing about the game to simply say something like: "Oh- I like attacking stuff." or "Oh I like defending my friends from attacks" and be able to directly map that into the game quickly and easily.

I think the fighter classes have the easiest time with this.

Sure they could have done it with other classes to, but I don't see it as a big deal. (Certainly not to the extent you seem to see it...)

As a new Essentials player, to find a complicated martial class, you'll have to get a DDI subscription and work without books or seek out old, relatively cumbersome books.

I think you might be conflating this a bit larger then it is... They've already indicated the old books aren't going out of print for one thing.

For another, gamers are kind of notorious for collecting stuff related to gaming. Shrug, so it's in another book?

The game is designed to work with the rest of the game, so the more complex fighter builds aren't going away.

As a pre-existing player, I'm fine because they haven't taken anything away from me. But new players are stuck with the presentation they are given, which is needlessly conflating the words "martial" and "simple."

I wouldn't say that. At most I'd say conflating "slayer and knight" with simple build.

As above the old class builds aren't going away, so it's just opening up the idea:

Slayers are a simple build.

Guardian fighters are more complex.


Really I think the idea that they are now conflating martial with simple only works if you accept they are doing away with the other already existent parts of the game. I do not accept that idea. I think nothing could be further from the truth.