Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[Tony Vargas]

The idea that Essentials classes sacrificed balance is your idiosyncratic interpretation where you mistake mechanical form for mechanical function.

:sigh: If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior. Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily. And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.

Whether or not other games support other playstyles is completely 100%irrelevant.

How so? 4e supports the breadth of play styles that are possible in a game with robust class balance. 3.5 supported the specific play styles that are only possible in the virtual absence of class balance.

No game is ever going to support both sets of styles, because you're never going to support players who want to be part of a team were everyone makes comparable, if distinct, contributions and no one is overshadowed or overpowered /and/ players who want an uber-character who overshadows other characters, or a gimped-for-RP-purposes basket case that delivers the oodles of angst they crave. Some people just want very different things from a game experience, things that are not compatible with what others may want, and thus should play different games.

 

[FireLance]

:sigh: If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior. Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily. And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.

While this is true in a mathematical sense, minor differences in effectiveness are usually not noticeable at the table. And yes, to me, the differences are minor.

Secondly, this is why the game has a DM. The DM should stick to the expected number of encounters per day or (if he is skilled enough) ensure a good mix of encounters per day so that all the PCs' relative strengths come into play at different times.

How so? 4e supports the breadth of play styles that are possible in a game with robust class balance. 3.5 supported the specific play styles that are only possible in the virtual absence of class balance.

Playing only with AEDU classes does make it easier for the DM to balance the game (almost as if he was DMing with an "Easy" mode button). If you think that Essentials martial classes - which still have encounter attack powers and utility powers and lack only daily attack powers - are difficult to balance with AEDU classes, then it must have been impossible to balance the game when some classes had only at-will basic attacks and others had 40+ daily powers.

And yet, the game still worked. There was a theoretical "sweet spot" where the game worked exceptionally well, which was analyzed and which eventually formed the core of 4E.

Take it from me. DMing a 4E game with Essentials classes requires more attention from the DM, but it isn't significantly harder than DMing a 4E game with only AEDU classes, and it isn't anywhere near as hard as DMing a high-level game in previous editions, where the difference between linear warriors and quadratic wizards became very hard to ignore.

No game is ever going to support both sets of styles, because you're never going to support players who want to be part of a team were everyone makes comparable, if distinct, contributions and no one is overshadowed or overpowered /and/ players who want an uber-character who overshadows other characters, or a gimped-for-RP-purposes basket case that delivers the oodles of angst they crave. Some people just want very different things from a game experience, things that are not compatible with what others may want, and thus should play different games.

Well, the traditional approach has been to take your game system of choice and cut out the stuff you don't like. If you're up to it, create additional stuff you do like (there's even a forum for it on ENWorld). If you think that Essentials classes create uber and gimped characters (I don't), don't use Essentials material, and don't play with people who do.

Really, it's like the AEDU classes have made us hypersenstive to the lack of balance. It could be that I am blinded by nostalgia or by my rose-coloured glasses, but when books like Magic of Incarnum and The Book of Nine Swords were released in 3E, the general reaction from people who didn't like them seemed to be more, "They are an abomination and shall never be used in my game," instead of "They are an abomination and must be destroyed, preferably by fire."

 

[Neonchameleon]

The key part of your statement is "that they would not have had previously." You're talking about changing the game to suit people who already dislike it.

While it's highly desireable for a game to support a variety of play styles, the way to accomplish that is to present a balanced game. In a balanced game, each player can persue his style without failing to contribute or, on the other extreme, overshadowing anyone else.

The problem here is that you assume that balance is the only thing that's important in a game. And that you assume that the whole of pre-existing 4e is perfectly balanced. Newsflash: Brute Strike (L1 fighter daily, [3W], reliable) is strictly worse than Lasting Threat (L1 fighter daily, [3W] + Perma-mark, reliable). Twin Strike is better than Careful Attack. It's just near enough balanced for most purposes. And a damn good job has been done balancing it.

Also from my own observations, both DMing and playing in multiple groups, there is a relatively big difference between PCs built with a good understanding of the system and prepared to squeeze it, and those without. When I say relatively big, it would barely be a blip on the radar in 3e. 4e does not have your hypothetical perfect balance that would be disrupted. What it has is good balance within certain boundaries. And in my experience unless the DM is throwing single encounter days regularly (and the PCs know they can all nova), then the Essentials martial classes fit within a band about a quarter of the width of most classes centred on the top third marker (or are charge-spammers). Even if everyone novas, the essentials classes are not that unlike rangers in performance.

You're arguing that there must be a difference without trying to work out what the difference is or whether it's a significant one. One encounter days, yes. Then there's the issue with pushing and teleporting away from Knights at higher levels. But overall? The performance except for the single big nova fight is within the bounds of established 4e classes.

 

[FireLance]

The problem here is that you assume that balance is the only thing that's important in a game. And that you assume that the whole of pre-existing 4e is perfectly balanced. Newsflash: Brute Strike (L1 fighter daily, [3W], reliable) is strictly worse than Lasting Threat (L1 fighter daily, [3W] + Perma-mark, reliable). Twin Strike is better than Careful Attack. It's just near enough balanced for most purposes. And a damn good job has been done balancing it.

Speaking of brute strike, the difference between a fighter daily attack power and a melee basic attack is apparently ... +2[W]. A low-level half-orc slayer can get the equivalent of a fighter daily power once per encounter by expending two encounter resources: power strike and his racial furious assauilt. And if his racial encounter power scaled as well as the dragonborn's dragon breath, he'd be doing it at high levels, too.

The point I'm making is that the lack of daily attack powers is not as crippling as it's sometimes made out to be. Sure, an extra +2[W] damage once per day is useful, but then, so is getting a constant +2 bonus to damage.

 

[Obryn]

:sigh: If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior. Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily. And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.

This is complete, 100% theory-talk. It has never appeared at my table, and we've had a mix of classes for over a year now. I'd say some harm should have arisen, no?

How so? 4e supports the breadth of play styles that are possible in a game with robust class balance. 3.5 supported the specific play styles that are only possible in the virtual absence of class balance.

No game is ever going to support both sets of styles, because you're never going to support players who want to be part of a team were everyone makes comparable, if distinct, contributions and no one is overshadowed or overpowered /and/ players who want an uber-character who overshadows other characters, or a gimped-for-RP-purposes basket case that delivers the oodles of angst they crave. Some people just want very different things from a game experience, things that are not compatible with what others may want, and thus should play different games.

And yet, if you can get all those folks at the same table for a balanced and fun play experience - like a mix of Essentials and AEDU classes can - you're better off. Big tents are awesome.

The problem, Tony, is that you're basing absolutely everything off of an unproven (and IME disproven) hypothesis. Everything that branches from there is just as wrong; fruit of the poisoned tree, so to speak.

-O

 

[Obryn]

One encounter days, yes.

Even in these cases, it's negligible unless you broadcast to your players, "OK GUIZE! NOVA!" So I haven't seen it.

Even if we all agree that there's an actual, measurable, significant difference in power between classes with and without Dailies when adventure days are super-short or super-long ... wouldn't this be an argument to have a good mix of class types in one party? Just like you mix roles and make a stronger party because some classes shine in some kinds of encounters, shouldn't you want some guys who are good at novas and guys who are consistent all day?

-O

 

[MrMyth]

I'm not trying to say that boring = broken. The Slayer is 'broken' for different reasons (really, by not being as broken as classes with dailies - the same problem that plagued the Fighter through every previous edition).

You refer to balance and broken a few times here (and in your other posts), and I get that part of your concern is that the Essentials classes are not balanced alongside the pre-Essentials classes. I think that may be at the heart of our disagreement.

I can understand your concern - I had that worry when I heard that Essentials classes were messing with the resource format. The implementation of those classes, however, has removed my fears. A Slayer is, in my opinion, perfectly balanced in nearly all cases against your average Daily-using pre-Essentials character.

Yes, some characters might be really optimized with overpowered Dailies that the Slayer can't quite compare to. But... no worse than those same optimized builds vs someone taking a typical Daily that just does some extra damage.

As it is, you feel there is a fundamental imbalance, and that is why you are worried about the line. I get that. I don't agree about that imbalance, and I doubt either of us is going to convince the other otherwise, so that does probably explain why we won't be able to come to a consensus here either way.

It's an example of why "it's only an option" isn't a defense. It's sometimes the only option.

"It's only an option" is a valid defense for the game as a whole. You don't like the approach of Encounters, that's an issue with it, not with Essentials. My friend Eric likes playing divine casters. He can't do so in my Dark Sun campaign. Should WotC have never put out the Dark Sun book? Or does the issue instead rest with me for running a no-divine game, or him for choosing to play in it?

Your issue is with Encounters, and not with Essentials itself.

Lack of choice and introducing class imbalance are bad things. Closely related things, really. Essentials does a lot of that. The Slayer (and even more so Theif) being potentially boring are really just visible symptoms.

Again, I don't see any class imbalance in play. (Honestly, I see more of that with some of the Psionic classes, despite them operating on a nigh-identical resource scale. Bad implementation broke them, just like good implementation (IMO) kept the Essentials classes from emerging unbalanced.)

The other elements - lack of choice, boredom - are, again, subjective. Those who like the Slayer either enjoy the style or find it an acceptable trade-off compared to other options. Or they feel there are enough choices to be made or expanded upon via feats, multi-classing, etc. As I said before, I'd like to see more - a full hybrid/multi-class options for them - but the current options, while slim, are not nonexistent.

I have to agree. Essentials tried to do a lot. It seems most likely that 'well poisoning' will be more the well from which new players are drawn. That is, Essentials is indoctrinating new players in old prejudices that we had only just begun to overcome.

Again, we'll see. Despite all the previous editions of Fighters, we had folks who wanted more tactically complex Fighters, which led to stuff like Book of 9 Swords, and 4E itself. I don't imagine that all those folks who prefer that style will suddenly turn away from the options that cater to it, just because the newest stuff goes more towards an older style. And I imagine that new folks who (just like all the folks previously wanting more complex Fighters) feel that same urge... will be able to dig around and find what 4E has to offer that caters to that style of play.

In short, I don't think these 'prejudices' are in way forced upon the players. If folks weren't brainwashed by them when no other options existed, I don't see them somehow succumbing when they do have those options available.

But, again, I suppose only time will tell.

 

[MrMyth]

:sigh: If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior. Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily. And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.

There is mild variance, yes. I don't think it any greater than the potential variance between different builds within the AEDU structure. The reliable benefits given to the E-martial classes do seem to approximately balance against the average benefits of Daily powers.

Some AEDU builds can totally optimize for extreme novas, yes - which is just as problematic compared to other AEDU builds as it is compared to Essential builds.

By the later levels at which Daily powers are really prevalent, E-martial classes are getting other substantial benefits - and you are seeing lots of other power from feats, items, etc, many of which are especially strong in the hands of these E-martial classes.

But, the truth it... neither of us can really prove this. Nonetheless, neither by looking at the options given to these classes, nor seeing them alongside each other in actual play, I have not seen even the slightest indication that there is a problematic imbalance between the two designs.

The slight variances I have seen, honestly, are of far less concern than many of the existing balances between pre-Essentials classes (such as those with more support vs those with less support, the flawed implementation of psionic classes, etc).

 

[Lostdwarf]

Oh for crying out loud. Between the PHB, PHB2, Assassin, Artificer, and Swordmage there were 19 classes on the old structure. With about four different class types each before you even start selecting powers. They weren't just designing to AEDU, they were strip mining the design space as is obvious when we look at the PHB 3. There are attempts at six new classes in there. One (the Monk) is outstanding - and isn't classic AEDU. Three are not AEDU at all and are very simply broken - the Power Point mechanism does not work. And of the two remaining, one (the Seeker) is a solution in search of a problem and the other (the Runepriest) is simply fiddly and annoying without really adding much to the game.

A dead 4e would be one that stopped growing. One that stuck with the AEDU concept having done just about all it could with it. And the new classes it put out would be of the quality of the Seeker or the Runepriest. Instead what we have got is the game growing. Producing classes that the less tactically and mathematically adept can play (e.g. the Knight, the Slayer, or the Thief) - one of my players has recently switched from a Wizard to a Hunter and is enjoying the game so much more now. 4e has grown into design spaces it couldn't previously reach.

If you want a new AEDU class, pitch the class. And say why it can't be done as a build of an existing class. Don't point out that they have stopped strip mining the design space. They haven't stopped adding support - and Warpriest Domains add support to clerics in the way builds always should have - a selection of thematic powers with their less than optimal level offset by bonusses thrown in for locking in your build. And don't tell me it's dead when it's larger, stronger, and more versatile than ever. The Bladesinger's two rounds of mayhem as he's singing would be a squash to fit into an AEDU class. But work once the power structure's tweaked. (At least they work until Paragon when the Bladesinger gets to combine a Wizard Encounter with Bladesong...).

Completely agree. Not only are there a staggering number of classes at this point, the classes have "builds" that amount to sub-classes. Fighters are up to, what, six options for different mechanical builds? How much more do you need? Martial power 3? To continue with the previous design system would be to spin off into either more alternative class structures (like happened in PHB3) or to build increasingly niche and specialty builds. AEDU is full. Essentials is another option. You may play one or both, or neither for that matter. I don't see how endlessly cranking out character options with either experimental or unneeded mechanics is good for the game.

 

[FireLance]

To continue with the previous design system would be to spin off into either more alternative class structures (like happened in PHB3) or to build increasingly niche and specialty builds. AEDU is full. Essentials is another option. You may play one or both, or neither for that matter. I don't see how endlessly cranking out character options with either experimental or unneeded mechanics is good for the game.

Arguably, Essentials is "cranking out character options" with experimental, if not unneeded, mechanics. Really, experimentation and innovation is experimentation and innovation, whether for an AEDU class or classes which break the AEDU mold. If the designers come up with a new innovation which I don't like, I'd be certain to say that and explain why (in measured, respectful tones, of course). However, on the whole, I think that trying out new stuff can only improve the game in the long run.