Essentials classes - eaiser to play... at reduced tactical complexity?

[I'm A Banana]

But other than that, I don't really see how having fewer options makes it necessarily easier to focus on one's PC's character during combat. And outside combat, it's just as easy to do so (focus on your character in non mechanical terms) as it ever was, prior as well as after Essentials - that's always been a core strength of 4E.

It's kind of subtle, honestly. It's the distinction between deciding, on your turn, "What can I do?" and "What would my character do?"

With less options to juggle, and less brain space taken up by the 12 different sub-rules of your 12 different powers, you can think more about creative uses for the few powers you do have, and how your character would react to what just happened with the 3-4 different things they can do.

I've had this as a player, too. My eMage made me want to do things like blow up and cleverly use terrain elements, things that I don't bother thinking of with any of my other characters. I was thinking outside the box more often (because the box was easily understood and relatively small).

Combat RP isn't just about saying some interesting lines, re-fluffing a power, and rolling some dice. It is influenced in the actions you choose to do, and why you choose to do those actions. Choosing an action because it is something your character would do, instead of just selecting from a menu based on raw tactical choice, helps influence that. And having fewer subrules to know helps free up brainspace for that consideration.

This is just IMXP, though, I'd hardly say it's a major or universal effect.

The question becomes, is it worth it to overkill cheap monsters, or have the ability to nova huge baddies? It's a matter or proportion and system mastery.

This is more of a question of DM mastery than system mastery. How often does your DM use solos or elites? Is it worth picking a class that can hit these things a little harder, vs. picking a class that handles Standards and Minions better? Would you rather be a Controller or a Striker?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There IS something to the whole "restrictions engender creativity" thing- I've seen numerous RW examples of it in the arts- but in an RPG, I'd rather have the option of restricting myself than having the system do it for me. The Essenials classes are too restrictive for me that way...it's almost like pregens.

Don't get me wrong, such easy to use classes have a place in the 4Ed game as classes with safeguards against suck built-in and streamlined mechanics, but I'd much rather have had books of pre-tested, focused effective builds using the original 4Ed mechanics to fill that role.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...in an RPG, I'd rather have the option of restricting myself than having the system do it for me. The Essenials classes are too restrictive for me that way...it's almost like pregens.

The thing is, Essentials is "restricting yourself." If you play an eClass, you're opting to be restricted. If you'd like to be freer, you don't have to play an eClass. I heart what Essentials brings to the table, but I wouldn't say that everyone has to -- and I'm glad there's more complex options out there for them. MOST of the options, in fact. And there will be more.

I get not enjoying Essentials (even though I do) -- some folks love them some complexity, and they certainly should have it if that's what gets their rocks off. What I have trouble grokking is the eHate. It seems to come from a place of such unreasonable paranoia and didacticism about what D&D4e "should" be. As if martial dailies were some sort of sacred, untouchable ground, rather than just one possible option for expressing a given archetype's combat ability.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The thing is, Essentials is "restricting yourself." If you play an eClass, you're opting to be restricted.

True, but it does so in such a way that it doesn't teach you about the broader system. If, OTOH, they were simply complete 1st-30th builds that used the full rules, you'd have something that guards against "build traps" while teaching the whole system AND not requiring additional rules (like the supposedly forthcoming MC & Hybrid rules for essentials classes) or variant mechanics.

To use an analogy from a different WotC product, I'd rather they had supplied us with the 4Ed equivalent of starter "Theme" decks than giving us the "Portal" of 4Ed.

 

[Destil]

I would just like to point out the essentials classes have broken CharOp DPR records. Check out the 4e optimization forum for the King of Builds thread DPR King Candidates 2.0. At nearly every level, essentials classes round out the top five for pure DPR optimization.

Because charge is broken and essentials strikers are the best at it since they get everything they need on melee basics.

Someone over there made a charging wizard doing DPR in the 130s once to prove a point. Way too much stuff can be stacked up on a charge/basic attack.

 

[BobTheNob]

Our experience. We had 2 1/2 campaign I dmed using PHB1 characters (only book out when we formed that party). We have 2 power players, one being me, so one playing. The others are a bit more casual (eh, we acknowledge its more about an excuse for old friends to meet up each week) and we have families and careers now, so frequently players cannot turn up due to other commitments.

I have swapped DMing with the other power player and the new party is ALL essentials classes. For our purposes its brilliant. One player spends alot of time traveling and attends maybe half the games. He has the slayer = Hulk smash...perfect.

The guys playing the knight. Well, the changeover to adjacent=marked (sorta) is suiting him. Am I doing my job = am I adjacent. Easy to keep track of.

Do the two of them use their stances? Yes, quite well.

Im playing a hexblade. Know what Im doing and enjoying, but trying to eeek out every last little advantage? No. But ecstatically happy not to be doing so. We have a total casual party and I am so happy to not be playing keep up. We are just playing the game, NOT the rules and it is so much more gratifying.

On a side note, the essentials class that really impresses me? The hunter. Wow that is a rockin piece of design. Solid, dependable, easy to play. Which I suppose is all the essentials design, but the hunter just has it in spades.

Edit : One other thing I wanted to say. The thing I really like about essentials was that it addressed a growing concern I had. By the end, the only real difference between the classes was the weapon they used. They all had something that could control, something that could damage, something that could AOE. The more material that was released, the more the line between classes blurred. With essentials, they separated the mechanics, so now a fighter "feels" like a fighter and a mage "feels" like a mage. I appreciated that.

 

[Redbadge]

True, but it does so in such a way that it doesn't teach you about the broader system. If, OTOH, they were simply complete 1st-30th builds that used the full rules, you'd have something that guards against "build traps" while teaching the whole system AND not requiring additional rules (like the supposedly forthcoming MC & Hybrid rules for essentials classes) or variant mechanics.

To use an analogy from a different WotC product, I'd rather they had supplied us with the 4Ed equivalent of starter "Theme" decks than giving us the "Portal" of 4Ed.

I think the red box largely filled the role of your "theme decks". What part of essentials doesn't conform to the broader system or use the full rules? Essentials has variant mechanics and additional rules only to the extent that every expansion of the 4e system has.

Let me provide an example from the very designer responsible for the "essentials direction", Mike Mearls. When preparing for the Player's Handbook 3, Mearls and the other designers noticed that the power sources may not differintiated enough, and thought that this might be something that would be popular with players. Like many people recognize that Heroes of Shadow is just one part of the larger "essentials direction", it is easy to see that Player's Handbook 3 is also an essentials book in all but name.

Like essentials classes, psionic classes move away from the AEDU structure, except instead of giving up dailies (in the case of martial classes), psionic classes give up encounter powers (notwithstanding the monk).

Like essentials sources, which introduced the limited binder and vampire, PHB3 introduced the similarly limited seeker and runepriest.

Like essentials, which expanded the range of complexity for which the player base could choose from, PHB3 provided a wider range of complexity by introducing hybrid classes (which will be and have always intended to be fully compatible with essentials classes).

Like essentials sources, PHB3 provides very little support for ritual casting, and few mentions.

Like essentials sources, the races in PHB3 introduced races with variable ability scores to choose from.

Like essentials, PHB3 saw a bit of power creep with the introduction of a strictly better expertise (as well as superior implements for spell casters).

Like essentials, (some) PHB3 classes gain class features at levels other than 1.

When PHB3 did really well and received a generally positive reaction from the 4e fanbase, Mearls might have said to himself, "Man, if they like this, they'll love what we've got coming up!" If they had released all of essentials in a blue hardback book and called it Player's Handbook 4, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Understandably, WOTC figured the new players they so covet probably wouldn't be picking up something called Player's Handbook 4.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think the red box largely filled the role of your "theme decks". What part of essentials doesn't conform to the broader system or use the full rules? Essentials has variant mechanics and additional rules only to the extent that every expansion of the 4e system has.

While both psionic classes and Essentials classes vary from the AEDU structure, the psionic classes are still otherwise completely open ended.

Essentials PCs have very little variation in them beyond skill & feat selection. They are also not able to fully MC, and cannot Hybridize at all (yet)- rules that predate the release of Essentials. (Despite the variance in rules that govern them, the Psionic classes still mix fully with other classes.) Even if I wanted to, I could not have my Battlemind MC with Hexblade, though I could with a Warlock.

People talk about the large number of Essentials variants of certain classes, but as long as MC street is only one way- eClasses can MC into PHB/Campaign Setting classes, but they cannot MC into eClasses- that is a serious limitation on their functionality.

 

[Redbadge]

While both psionic classes and Essentials classes vary from the AEDU structure, the psionic classes are still otherwise completely open ended.

Essentials PCs have very little variation in them beyond skill & feat selection. They are also not able to fully MC, and cannot Hybridize at all (yet)- rules that predate the release of Essentials. (Despite the variance in rules that govern them, the Psionic classes still mix fully with other classes.) Even if I wanted to, I could not have my Battlemind MC with Hexblade, though I could with a Warlock.

People talk about the large number of Essentials variants of certain classes, but as long as MC street is only one way- eClasses can MC into PHB/Campaign Setting classes, but they cannot MC into eClasses- that is a serious limitation on their functionality.

So you're saying you'd be fine with essentials options if you could say multiclass with the following feat for the thief.

Thief of Shadows [Multiclass Thief]
Prerequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: You gain training in the Thievery skill.
Once per encounter, you can use the thief's Sneak Attack class feature. In addition, you gain the thief's ability to take rogue feats and rogue paragon paths.

or perhaps, for the mage:

Magic Initiate [Multiclass Mage]
Prerequisite: Int 13
Benefit: You gain training in the Arcana skill.
Choose a 1st-level mage at-will power. You can use that power once per encounter.
In addition, you can use mage implements. You gain the mage's ability to take wizard feats and wizard paragon paths.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So you're saying you'd be fine with essentials options if you could say multiclass with the following feat for the thief.

Not entirely. First, I'm not "anti" Essentials, just feel they could have been done better. Second, that was just one example. Third, you still can't Hybridize them.

As for the rest of your post...

Those are located where? And are there similar feats for all the eClasses?