Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[MrMyth]

Then they are not experiencing analysis paralysis, because the stances and auras are offering more decision point and more options. The entire concept of a "default stance" is farcical. Theres exactly zero difference between using the same stance for every attack and using the same at-will for every attack. Again, you're introducing more complexity in play for something that could have and should have simply been a preselected build path.

Once again, an Essentials character can declare they have a stance always on, and then rely on one single attack for the entirety of the session. It doesn't matter if they are charging, making OAs, whatever. All that matters is that they can jot down a single entry for their attack, and use it all the time, and occasionally call out "Power Strike!" for extra damage.

A pre-Essentials character, even if they choose a default At-Will, still has to deal with switching gears in situations where they can't use At-Wills - and they will tend to simply not use their Encounter or Daily powers unless you regularly prod them to do so before they decide what to do on their turn. Which, from experience, I can tell you will usually be a frustrating thing for them - feeling like another person is telling them how to play their character.

I have not run into a single person who finds the Slayer or Knight 'more complex' to use than a standard Fighter. They might be out there, I suppose. But I have encountered several folks for whom the design of the Knight actively addresses many of the issues I've seen crop up during play.

If they are indistinguishable, than what does it matter which one you choose? Yes, simple effects often look similar. If you actually have that much "analysis paralysis" you are having the same problem trying to decide whether or not actually USE your PA or BS or DS. Again, e-classes dont solve any problems, they create their own.

Except, again, the virtue of Power Strike and the like is that it is easier to prompt their use. They get to see they hit, and you can say, "Do you want to Power Strike?" It is much less intrusive, and much easier for them to reach a decision point.

If you instead stop their attack before they roll it, and say, "Hey, did you want to use an Encounter Power?" ... it usually involves them having to pause and figure out the benefits of the encounter power, and then making a decision. And feeling like you steered them to it, and being additionally disappointed if the power misses. Or already having started to roll, which means you can either back off, or you can try and have them decide after they've already rolled the dice, which adds its own complication. And, often, the result of this is that their encounter power will never get used.

I can get preferring the options of the classic system for your own use. But insisting that somehow Power Strike is more complex and adds more problems for folks as compared to the standard system... I just don't get that. What are these additional problems that they create?

Really, Is your only experience with these classes in Encounters sessions? After third level, every single one of those "easy choices" starts to come into conflict with the other aspects of the game. Once you hit paragon, the question devolves to how do I order my actions to hit this guy with one stance and end my turn in this one?

For you, perhaps. For the player who favors a simple character, once he hits Paragon, he continues to just use a default stance. Maybe his friends occasionally point out when a different one will be useful, but he can stay in his simple +damage stance all day, and be perfectly effective. He can never have a single question come up about when to switch stances.

If he's playing a PHB Fighter? By that point, he has 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers. Which yes, he can just ignore entirely, and maybe stick with his default at-will... and he functions as a much less effective character. If he is prompted to use his encounter powers, I guarantee he is having to pause for many more decisions and considerations than the Slayer who is gleefully swinging away with a basic attack every round, using Power Strike on every attack that hits until he runs out, and whose turn takes a fraction as long as even the simplest PHB Fighter build.

"Does my default stance work?" hah, "Which of these 4 stances is best for this attack? and do I have the action to change it?" vs. "Which of these two at-wills?"

Yes, please do compare like items.

Comparing like items ignores all the important context, though. For example, the fact that many of the stances offer very simple benefits. If my stance just gives me +4 damage, I don't need to ask "Does this work" - of course it does! More damage is pretty much always effective. As such, I don't need to even bother with switching to other stances unless, as a player, I want to. And the loss in my effectiveness is generally very, very small.

The guy choosing at-wills, meanwhile, also has encounters and other options pressing upon him. And isn't likely to have At-Wills with quite as simple the benefits of the easiest stances. And needs to keep in mind that some situations won't allow those At-Wills. And the one who plays very very simply and avoids all these decisions... has a much, much bigger hit to their effectiveness.

YOU seem to believe that the only point of the e-classes is to spam the same powers over and over. Guess what? Its significantly more complex to play e-classes in that manner than it is to play 4e classes as spam-bots. Ever watch a ranger in play? Quarry, TS, TS, TS...... Rogue? Flank, Riposte, Riposte, Riposte... The e-classes are inferior at being what they were designed to be to the base classes.

How so?

If my 15th level Slayer only ever has one stance active, only ever makes basic attacks, and uses Power Strike on every hit until he runs out... that is pretty easy to do, and has a relatively small loss of effectiveness vs choosing appropriate stances every round and carefully hoarding my Power Strikes for ideal moments.

A Thief might be slightly more complicated with Tricks, but not overwhelmingly so.

A 15th level Ranger who does nothing but Twin Strike? Is losing out on a ton of effectiveness by never using encounter powers. And has a bit more to trick via Quarry, for that matter.

Same with the Rogue. Yes, you can play them by spamming a single At-Will, but handicapping them to do so doesn't really seem like they are being more effective at such things than Essentials characters who are built to spam a single attack and not cripple their effectiveness to do so.

 

[Zaran]

This thread has turned into another "Why are there Essentials Classes?" thread.

We all know they are there to both make it easier for people who want easier and reduce the amount of support needed for these classes.

The OP was asking if there there was new content for the core classes and happily there seems to be some. I'm actually looking forward to these books and I haven't had that feeling for a while.

 

[Marshall]

Once again, an Essentials character can declare they have a stance always on, and then rely on one single attack for the entirety of the session. It doesn't matter if they are charging, making OAs, whatever. All that matters is that they can jot down a single entry for their attack, and use it all the time, and occasionally call out "Power Strike!" for extra damage.

...and if the devs had decided to continue to support the 4e versions of these classes youd have the same options as a 4e class. Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex).

Power Strike and its cousins are 1st level encounter powers. Thats it. You then have a series of odd class abilities that do nothing but make that power into a 3rd, 7th, 13th+ level power. Instead, if done correctly, this would have been a part of a selection of simple powers available in the heroic tier to all FTRs with a preselected build in the book(and an appendix for How to integrate with 4e). You seem to think that all encounter powers need to be fantastically complex mechanics. On the contrary, Power Attack is fine example of a simple power and fits perfectly in the 4e AEDU. Its the Slayer/Knight that are complete wastes of the designers time and pages of print. A set of "beginner powers" that meshed perfectly with 4e would have been ideal. Power Attack I-XXVII and the designers would be viewed as heroes.

A pre-Essentials character, even if they choose a default At-Will, still has to deal with switching gears in situations where they can't use At-Wills - and they will tend to simply not use their Encounter or Daily powers unless you regularly prod them to do so before they decide what to do on their turn. Which, from experience, I can tell you will usually be a frustrating thing for them - feeling like another person is telling them how to play their character.

False, or more accurately, WotC finally figured out that most at-wills should be basic attacks. Tagging an addendum onto the already massive essentials errata document that added the "This power counts as a basic-attack" to around 75% of at-wills out there would have had the same effect of removing that confusion from ALL CLASSES instead of just the chosen few.
Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot?

I have not run into a single person who finds the Slayer or Knight 'more complex' to use than a standard Fighter. They might be out there, I suppose. But I have encountered several folks for whom the design of the Knight actively addresses many of the issues I've seen crop up during play.

The Slayer is actually comparable to a Barbarian build, but the Knight is one of the most complex classes to play to actually get anything out of. Defenders Aura is a joke unless you can plan multiple turns ahead and without that you dont actually DO anything(Yes, there are people who like to sleep thru the combats).

Except, again, the virtue of Power Strike and the like is that it is easier to prompt their use. They get to see they hit, and you can say, "Do you want to Power Strike?" It is much less intrusive, and much easier for them to reach a decision point.

So? What does the presence of Power Strike like powers have to do with the e-classes? 4e Fighters can use Power Strike just as effectively as e-classes and thats the point. The simplicity that you are pointing out with the e-classes comes from simple power design. Something that should have been added to the 4e classes instead of having an entirely new chassis built to house them.

If you instead stop their attack before they roll it, and say, "Hey, did you want to use an Encounter Power?" ... it usually involves them having to pause and figure out the benefits of the encounter power, and then making a decision. And feeling like you steered them to it, and being additionally disappointed if the power misses. Or already having started to roll, which means you can either back off, or you can try and have them decide after they've already rolled the dice, which adds its own complication. And, often, the result of this is that their encounter power will never get used.

You're back to power design, not class design. I like reactive powers, that was a great concept. I'm being redundant here, but building the Knight/Slayer/Cav/Hunter/Thief/Scout.....to house those powers IS the boondoggle when they fit easily into the pre-existing class/power structures.

I can get preferring the options of the classic system for your own use. But insisting that somehow Power Strike is more complex and adds more problems for folks as compared to the standard system... I just don't get that. What are these additional problems that they create?

Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes.

If he's playing a PHB Fighter? By that point, he has 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers. Which yes, he can just ignore entirely, and maybe stick with his default at-will... and he functions as a much less effective character. If he is prompted to use his encounter powers, I guarantee he is having to pause for many more decisions and considerations than the Slayer who is gleefully swinging away with a basic attack every round, using Power Strike on every attack that hits until he runs out, and whose turn takes a fraction as long as even the simplest PHB Fighter build.

Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will or when comparing a slayer to a Barb RageStrike,ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will.
You're talking mindless dice rolling here, not any type of analysis paralysis. This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario. Again, 4e classes can be built for mindless combat as well.

Comparing like items ignores all the important context, though. For example, the fact that many of the stances offer very simple benefits. If my stance just gives me +4 damage, I don't need to ask "Does this work" - of course it does! More damage is pretty much always effective. As such, I don't need to even bother with switching to other stances unless, as a player, I want to. And the loss in my effectiveness is generally very, very small.

So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:
Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs AC
Damage : 1d10+Level

and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.

The guy choosing at-wills, meanwhile, also has encounters and other options pressing upon him. And isn't likely to have At-Wills with quite as simple the benefits of the easiest stances. And needs to keep in mind that some situations won't allow those At-Wills. And the one who plays very very simply and avoids all these decisions... has a much, much bigger hit to their effectiveness.

Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.

Same with the Rogue. Yes, you can play them by spamming a single At-Will, but handicapping them to do so doesn't really seem like they are being more effective at such things than Essentials characters who are built to spam a single attack and not cripple their effectiveness to do so.

I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".

 

[Thac0 the Barbarian]

That's not exactly what I meant. I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of players who would LOVE to get into D&D were it not for the complexity. I find it even more doubtful that you'll be able to dumb down the system enough to convince them. Maybe there are some old gamers in that group that play 1E, 2E, or even OD&D.

How are you going to get them to switch now? They were left behind way back when 3E came out. People not exposed to pen and paper RPGS? They're probably into video games instead. You'll need a good ad campaign to hook them, and something more like the red box for them. That doesn't mean the whole game needs to be the red box. Was it back in the day?

But a market for rules-heavy, complex games? What about WoW? (Pre-Cataclysm, at least. That's my main knowledge of it). Wow has a huge market, and its complexity ramps up ridiculously as you get towards the top of the game. You have to make complex choices about talents pretty early on in the game, too. WoW has millions and millions of subscribers. I'm sure if WotC had numbers anything approaching WoW levels for DDI... well, let's just say that the face of the hobby would look a bit different.

There's a proven market for fun, complex games. Simple? Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?

Not that I would count myself as a huge market, (although I spend more money than I should ) but I actually got back into playing d&d after a hiatus during 3rd edition due to the release of essentials. I am a bright analytical fellow ( a physician in fact) but I admit I suffered from a version of the "analysis paralysis". The ability to have fewer choices of the powers I would use allowed me to focus on the other tactical elements of combat (positioning etc.). The fact that the essential classes gained abilities at different rates and with different formats made them feel more distinct to me than the aedu classes did and I've had a great time playing them. While it is certainly true that the pleural of anecdotes is not data, in my case WOTC got several hundred dollars out of me that they would not have gotten without essentials.

 

[Raikun]

Switching from the older classes to Essentials classes caused our group to be able to go from 3 encounters in a 4 hour session to 5 or 6 encounters.

The simplicity of the Essentials classes led to much less of people studying their powers trying to decide what to use, and that's sped up encounters significantly.

 

[The Little Raven]

I stand by my point that the AEDU system is very very easy to grasp.

Nobody is saying that it is, so stop arguing like we are. We're saying that the number of decision points both at character creation and during gameplay causes a number of players to suffer analysis paralysis and by offering options that reduce those decision points to prevent that paralysis, everyone at the table is happier.

But I have difficulty even imagining a reasonably intelligent person having the problems you're describing over a long period of time barring some very opaque DMing.

My players are all professionals or grad students who make decisions all day before coming to D&D. Not everyone can operate at 100% capacity all the time

Fair enough, but if you discount your experiences completely for the purposes of making judgments you render them near meaningless. What matters, raw numbers? Numbers are nothing without our knowledge and experience to knit them into conclusions.

Don't discount your experiences, but don't assume they are an absolute. That's what you appear to be doing.

That's not exactly what I meant.

Then you should phrase it better. Normally, when someone presents a scenario involving a type of person and someone else says "Well, I've never met one," they're usually really saying "I don't believe you that these people exist."

I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of players who would LOVE to get into D&D were it not for the complexity.

When did this suddenly become about using these options to market to new players? We were explicitly talking about existing players who have trouble with the number of decision points in character creation and the number of tactical options in combat.

How are you going to get them to switch now?

What's with shifting the conversation away from what we were talking about, existing players with analysis paralysis, to an entirely different demographic? You've done it twice now.

What I'm getting from your arguments is "Simpler options will not draw in new/lapsed players, so why bother?"

What about WoW? (Pre-Cataclysm, at least. That's my main knowledge of it). Wow has a huge market, and its complexity ramps up ridiculously as you get towards the top of the game. You have to make complex choices about talents pretty early on in the game, too. WoW has millions and millions of subscribers. I'm sure if WotC had numbers anything approaching WoW levels for DDI... well, let's just say that the face of the hobby would look a bit different.

Well, you should have spent at least five minutes Googling Cataclysm's features before using WoW for your argument. Blizzard just changed the talent system significantly in order to (wait for it) make it easier for players to use. They reduced the number of talent points, have you pick a single spec at level 10 and lock you into using the majority of your talent points in that tree until you are high enough level to have developed enough mastery of the game to spread the last few points around.

Simple? Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?

So, we say "We know players that have trouble making decisions with so many decision points" and you equate them to mindless players of a matching game? It's hilarious that you said you didn't want to insult my players, then whip out this gem.

And this post of yours reeks of elitism even more strongly than your previous one, where you merely implied you think Wizards shouldn't support simpler character options. Bravo.

 

[MrMyth]

...and if the devs had decided to continue to support the 4e versions of these classes youd have the same options as a 4e class. Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex).

That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier to use and simpler to use for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach.

...Power Strike and its cousins are 1st level encounter powers. Thats it. You then have a series of odd class abilities that do nothing but make that power into a 3rd, 7th, 13th+ level power. Instead, if done correctly, this would have been a part of a selection of simple powers available in the heroic tier to all FTRs with a preselected build in the book(and an appendix for How to integrate with 4e). You seem to think that all encounter powers need to be fantastically complex mechanics.

It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character.

Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage.

That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it.

False, or more accurately, WotC finally figured out that most at-wills should be basic attacks. Tagging an addendum onto the already massive essentials errata document that added the "This power counts as a basic-attack" to around 75% of at-wills out there would have had the same effect of removing that confusion from ALL CLASSES instead of just the chosen few.
Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot?

That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game.

You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me.

The Slayer is actually comparable to a Barbarian build, but the Knight is one of the most complex classes to play to actually get anything out of. Defenders Aura is a joke unless you can plan multiple turns ahead and without that you dont actually DO anything(Yes, there are people who like to sleep thru the combats).

No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender.

So? What does the presence of Power Strike like powers have to do with the e-classes? 4e Fighters can use Power Strike just as effectively as e-classes and thats the point.

Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding the entire system from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better experience. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over.

Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes.

We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves.

Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will or when comparing a slayer to a Barb RageStrike,ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will.
You're talking mindless dice rolling here, not any type of analysis paralysis. This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario. Again, 4e classes can be built for mindless combat as well.

But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design.

Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks.

So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:
Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs AC
Damage : 1d10+Level

and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.

Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character.

I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight.

Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.

You are misreading what I am saying. A Slayer playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Slayer. A Knight playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Knight. A Weaponmaster playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Weaponmaster. A Barbarian playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Barbarian.

If a Slayer only stays in one stance and makes basics every round, and uses Power Strike each round until he runs out, he remains an effective character. A Weaponmaster who never uses his encounter powers? Is going to be severely hindered. And certainly won't compare favorably to an average Knight, even one played as simply as possible.

I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".

... a single attack is all most Essentials characters get. It's called a basic attack. I assume what you are actually saying that in order to be effective, they need to actively be switching stances and using tricks and other abilities appropriate to the situation.

And... I think you are wrong.

Look at the Slayer options for stances. Look how simple some of them are. A few bonus points of damage, a +1 bonus to attack. If a Slayer chooses one of those, and sticks with it all day long, in what way is he not being effective?

 

[Neonchameleon]

If it's just that they're hyper-sensitive to making bad choices... well... I stand by my point that the AEDU system is very very easy to grasp.

No one is saying it's hard to grasp. But it's not transparent. It takes them out of the narrative to engage with the system to pick the power. This isn't a matter of brains. It's a matter of gear selection.

Fair enough, but if you discount your experiences completely for the purposes of making judgments you render them near meaningless. What matters, raw numbers? Numbers are nothing without our knowledge and experience to knit them into conclusions.

No one is saying that all experiences should be discounted. That is a straw man. What people are saying is that some people respond much better to Essentials mechanics than they do classic 4e mechanics. I can think of people in both games I run right now that do. Not all of them. That you are not one of them does not change the argument. I am not one of them either. But I know some that are. If even ten percent of D&D players respond better to Essentials style classes than classic ones, that's ten percent having a better game. And that makes my game better because I play with players in those categories. If they have a better play experience and more fun at the table then so do I.

Which leads to my question. Those of you who hate the presence of Essentials classes, why are you so adamant that other people shouldn't get more enjoyment out of the game than they do without?

There's a proven market for fun, complex games. Simple? Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?

Games should be no more complex than they need to be for the desired result. Simple is an aesthetic goal - and well thought out and simple design makes it easier for me to focus on other parts of the game that I want to focus on.

Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex).

Stances that people can stay in and just focus on what they want to hit make peoples lives easier and improve the play experience of a significant number of players. Improved play experience is IMO the only metric that matters for what the designers should be working on.

Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot?

No. But it actually fits with the difference in theme and playstyle between a fighter and a knight. A fighter looks at his foe, says "You're mine", and his target of choice is doomed. A knight on the other hand owns the space around him, and anyone who gets too close is in hot water. That the fighter can't take out someone else other than his intended target while a knight can negligently brush aside a minion who's in the area he owns might not be intended, but it's less of a bug than you think.

Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes.

Apparently improving the play experience of some people while hurting almost no one's play experience because they don't have to use these classes isn't something you consider a benefit.

Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will

Because all the player needs to focus on doing is saying "I hit it." He does not need to go through a five step arbitary pattern that he needs to learn for his character that breaks his immersion. For you, either mechanics are easy. But not everyone thinks this way.

This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario.

You do not get to call one of the best roleplayers at either of my tables actively disengaged from the combat scenario. But he finds it massively easier to hit it and describe how he hits it. And just use a melee basic attack while in a stance. Squares on a board and adding concrete details to abstract numbers are not how he thinks.

So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:
Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs AC
Damage : 1d10+Level

and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.

And once more you show your understanding of how 4e is played to be narrow. I don't pay much attention to the line of descriptive text other than as a potential suggestion. I refluff powers on the fly based on what's going on. Robotically going through the exact descriptive text ont he power is IMO tedious.

A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.

So not only do you not understand why people play stance based classes despite many people's best efforts, you fail at understanding how to play a knight. Sometimes fighters are better, sometimes knights. And I've seen a Cavalier mince a MM3 solo in a way a fighter would have failed utterly at (and a knight would have just been overkill).

Knights fail against two things - forced movement and teleportation. But they have one immense advantage Fighters don't. A Fighter's Combat Challenge is an Interrupt so he can use it once per round. Which means if someone shifts away you can't then use combat challenge from someone else. A Knight in the middle of a pack on the other hand can guard against them all as his are opportunity attacks and he can do one of them on each bad guy's turn. And one of them on an ally turn as well if your team is into provoke-tactics (as some of us are). So a Knight adds more flexibility to the team even while he doesn't have the range of actions of a fighter. However if you're going to write off the knight before you've started you won't see the added flexibility your team mates bring.

I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective

Knight in Defend the Line with World Serpent's Grasp. Sticky as hell - one hit for slow, two for knockdown. Combine that with provoke-tactics from one other PC Thief with Tactical Trick and thrown daggers for permanent combat advantage against the focus fire target of choice. Because Perma CA is all rogues need to be effective. Human Hunter with Twin Strike, Hidden Sniper, and a lot of ways of getting concealment. Oh, and in a stance for +2 damage with CA - slightly more effective than a Twin Strike spamming ranger would have been without the interrupts. (He was being NPCd that session).

 

[Zaran]

Any news on DDI ?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Will any of the upcoming content in either Dragon or in the relatively few books announced actually be non-Essentials? ... I know it's probably a forlorn hope.

There really is no such thing as non-Essentials at this point. There is pre-Essentials, Essentials, and post-Essentials. Pre-Essentials id over. Essentials is also, technically, over, but indicative of the 'new direction going forward.' Post-Essentials will resemble Essentials. There are two rather obvious reasons for this:

1) They came right out and said it would.

2) With Essentials as the new 'evergreen' flagship of the line, it doesn't make much sense to release new material that doesn't build on and bring compatibilty with Essentials. If you buy a new book, and you need PH2 to use it - and you can't /find/ PH2 in a store because it's not 'Evergreen,' that could turn you off if you're relatively new to the game. Thus, everything will be virtually 100% Essentials-referent, barring the occassional mistake by a developer...