Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[Tony Vargas]

Originally Posted by Tony Vargas
: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.

Inevitably, it's going to be over and above that variance among classes with similar builds. Daily-less classes aren't anymore perfectly balanced with eachother than AEDU classes are. There are always minor imbalances, no design is perfect. Having two or more structural aproaches to daily resources, though, introduces additional imbalance over and above that background 'noise.'

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?

It depends on the style of the DM's campaign. If the DM very consististently has 4-5 encounter days (assuming that's the point where all the daily-less classes adequately balance with the AEDU classes), it doesn't matter, he's attending to class balance, already. If the DM tends more towards shorter 'days' (or the players tend to seek to have shorter days, and the DM doesn't go out of his way to disuade them), maybe averaging 1-3, then the players would be wise to have an AEDU party. If the DM tends towards grueling days of 6-8 or more encounters, none of which are particularly more threatening than the others (and doesn't let the players get away with trying to sneak in extra extended rests), then the consistent performance of daily-less classes would make them a better choice.

If a DM's style was to vary encounters/day wildly and unpredicitable, then, yes, having a 'balance' of daily-less characters for consistent staying power, and AEDU classes for peak power when desperately needed could work quite well. Such a style worked well even with 3.x and AD&D, for that matter. It's not something every potential DM can handle, but for those who can, it's possible to impose balance on quite a range of classes (among other things that might be balance issues).

 

[Marshall]

Er... no it's not. They are explicitly allowed to choose from the normal list at any point where they are given a power of a listed level.

Uh, yeah. Thats the debate. Another place, another time.

How many design resources were wasted? The new powers are also usable by the cleric. It let them provide the cleric in the Essentials book that used 95% of the same design of the standard cleric, trading out ritual casters for, as you note, some preselected rituals, and a bunch of 'default' choices. That seems pretty much perfect as an offering for new players.

Quite a few, not only did they waste a crapload of design time creating a pale reflection of an existing class, they had to go back and redefine the orginal class to show a distinction. Not only are they wasting time on the Warpriest, they are wasting time renaming the Cleric into the Templar.

What would you have done to alter the 4E fighter or barbarian to provide the same benefits as the Slayer?

Remember, folks like the stances and power strike and find them simpler than the at-will/encounter/daily system. I'm confident you could have built a customized Fighter that you found easier to use than a Slayer - but clearly not one that would have helped me, or the various players I've seen who have concerns when dealing with the power system.

Garbage. Stances are, inarguably, nothing more than a complication to the system that adds exactly zero to the play experience.
I said it before, the "complexity", term used very loosely, of base 4e is that your at-wills are NOT your basic attacks when they should be. Hammer Hands, Poised Assault, Battle Wrath should all be at-wills that can be used as basic attacks.

Power Strike is so much a failure that even in the class it was introduced they had to keep piling class features on it to keep it relevant. PS is a decent 1st level encounter power, again, done right it would be the first in a series of encounter powers that naturally grow like other encounter powers. There is nothing in the power that forced them to build a new class around it.

It's absolutely true. But many folks didn't like Psionics, either - did that mean they shouldn't have produced it, since that took design space away from supporting existing options?

No, Psionics broke new ground. It added to the breadth of 4e. Even if you didnt like it, or it didnt work right(it doesnt), it wasnt a rehash of what already came before.

E-classes take the same design space, the same ideas, toss out the standard 4e mechanic and start over. If thats not a new edition, I dont know what is, but aside from that, the best that could be said for them is that they do the same thing a different way. Does that expand the game? Are your creative juices flowing? Dozens of new PC ideas? Haha.

Many folks like the Slayer, and it very directly answers concerns they had with the game. I get that you don't like it, but you seem to be going out of your way to try and insist that those WotC should not try and produce material for those folks, just because you don't like it.

You miss the point, Slayer and Knight and the rest of the e-builds are garbage not because they are simple and/or easy-to-play, its because they break design rules without adding anything new, they are individual silos that dont expand the greater game and as an effect of the previous two every second spent on them is another second spent not making the game better.

... I'm not sure I've seen this. We've had all of one PC book come out since Essentials, right? (Which hasn't supported the Slayer at all). It did support some Essentials classes... but, honestly, offered as much (or more) support for the PHB Cleric and Wizard.

Then you arent paying attention, The number of Dragon articles not dedicated to essentials in the last sixth months can be counted on one hand, HoS is entirely e-class content with only accidental lip-service paid to the Wizard/Cleric and have you seen the Bladesinger? Does disaster mean anything to you?

I'd be absolutely fine with some more support for the Slayer, myself - though I don't think it needs it. What I don't want to see is more support for the Fighter or Wizard, who have buckets and buckets of feats, powers, etc. Yes, I'd like more material for some less-supported classes, but I don't think you can blame Essentials alone for that. Yes, I'd like to see WotC ramp up the content again in general - but, again, that hardly is something somehow caused by the Slayer.

You dont think that the time wasted on creating the new e-classes wouldnt have been spent improving the other part of the 4e system?

But what is wrong with them producing new options that can support the new material and the old? For example, for those who like a middle ground? Or for those who like the Essentials classes or structure, and are happy to see more options with them, without expanding to the option inundanation of a Fighter with hundreds and hundreds of feats and powers?

Because of the new design of the e-classes, support for the Slayer doesnt carry over, support for the Knight doesnt carry over, support for the Theif, Scout, Hunter, Sentinel....doesnt carry over....

 

[MrMyth]

Uh, yeah. Thats the debate. Another place, another time.

It... explicitly says you can do it in the book. In the FAQ. In WotC's discussions on the website. On what grounds is the opposing viewpoint based?

Quite a few, not only did they waste a crapload of design time creating a pale reflection of an existing class, they had to go back and redefine the orginal class to show a distinction. Not only are they wasting time on the Warpriest, they are wasting time renaming the Cleric into the Templar.

The work done on the original class hasn't been to show a distinction - it has been to clear up existing areas in need of errata. One may or may not feel the need for that Errata, but basically nothing we've seen of the Class Compendium articles has been in any way tied into Essentials or in response to Essentials - aside from the name change.

Which, yes, is silly. And probably did not take the tremendous amount of design resources you seem to believe.

Garbage. Stances are, inarguably, nothing more than a complication to the system that adds exactly zero to the play experience.

Ok, I will politely request that when someone disagrees with you - and outright says, "I find that these are a cool mechanic that improves the play experience" - that you not respond by calling their view garbage, and dismissing their position by declaring everything that have argued "inarguable". That is just poor form. I'm not flagging the post right now, because I think you just got heated about a subject you feel strongly about.

But please, truly at least try and understand - you don't believe that added anything to the play experience. Others do. You cannot claim that you opinion is "inarguably" correct. If you are truly unwilling to even acknowledge the opinions of those discussing the matter with you... then yeah, we're probably done here.

I said it before, the "complexity", term used very loosely, of base 4e is that your at-wills are NOT your basic attacks when they should be. Hammer Hands, Poised Assault, Battle Wrath should all be at-wills that can be used as basic attacks.

That could have been one approach - but, as noted, others find the stances are an easier concept to grok for some players. (At least, that has been my personal experience). It genuinely is simpler - for them - to always use one attack and have abilities that modify it - abilities that they can 'fire and forget' - than deal with differently named attacks that need to be explicitly chosen every round.

I get that you don't find it to be that way. I get that you believe that everyone will find stances more complicated than At-Will powers. But that is not the case, and for those folks who feel otherwise, the stance approach is a good one.

Power Strike is so much a failure that even in the class it was introduced they had to keep piling class features on it to keep it relevant. PS is a decent 1st level encounter power, again, done right it would be the first in a series of encounter powers that naturally grow like other encounter powers. There is nothing in the power that forced them to build a new class around it.

Well, I haven't seen any indications at all that Power Strike is a failure. I have seen that the classes that use it make it more interesting, at higher levels, when new players will have gotten used to it and not find it too complex to deal with additional benefits from the power.

Either way, having it as a default, along with the benefits of its simplicity (which have been covered several times in this thread) are useful for new players. I suppose you could have made it some alternate option to using encounter powers in the normal fashion, but I don't see an easy way to do so without redesigning the power system or providing a more complex set of options for players who don't want to deal with that.

No, Psionics broke new ground. It added to the breadth of 4e. Even if you didnt like it, or it didnt work right(it doesnt), it wasnt a rehash of what already came before.

Being "new ground" isn't relevant. Being interesting to players of the game is. Even if I don't like Psionics, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. (In your case, because it breaks new ground.)

But in the exact same fashion, even if you don't like Essentials, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. Same exact thing.

The game shouldn't be defined by your preferences alone, in the end. Or mine, or any other one person. The fact it can provide content for a variety of tastes without undermining the balance of the system (which I don't believe anything we've seen in 4E truly does) is a good thing.

E-classes take the same design space, the same ideas, toss out the standard 4e mechanic and start over. If thats not a new edition, I dont know what is

A new edition would be a book that replaced the former material with such content. A book that adds to that content is generally considered a supplement.

but aside from that, the best that could be said for them is that they do the same thing a different way. Does that expand the game? Are your creative juices flowing? Dozens of new PC ideas? Haha.

Er... yes? That's precisely what some folks were asking for. I've enjoyed playing a Sentinel while I wasn't a fan of the wild shape druid. We have one player (who played a shadow Assassin in a previous game) who is thoroughly enjoying an Executioner. We have a player who found the Warpriest domain approach very inspiring, despite having previously sworn he was done with clerics for good.

You find that the answers to all those questions are "no". Other folks find that they are "yes". It is really that hard to acknowledge that others feel differently from you?

Then you arent paying attention, The number of Dragon articles not dedicated to essentials in the last sixth months can be counted on one hand, HoS is entirely e-class content with only accidental lip-service paid to the Wizard/Cleric and have you seen the Bladesinger? Does disaster mean anything to you?

We had Heroes of Sahdow which was focused on e-content but had a healthy amount of other material. Focusing on the most recent book isn't too odd - Psionic Power was only useful to PHB3, for example.

We have the new Neverwinter book. I don't have it yet, myself. My understanding is that it has the Bladesinger, which is a new Essentials class/build/etc, and a variety of themes, mostly focused for Essentials again, but not exclusively so.

And then we have DDI, which has had a small amount of pre-Essentials content. And a... slightly larger amount of Essentials content. In short, not much content in general, and again, a slightly focus on the most recent project.

Aside from the reduction of content across the board, really no different than the approach taken with PHB2 and PHB3, honestly. So... no, not a disaster.

You dont think that the time wasted on creating the new e-classes wouldnt have been spent improving the other part of the 4e system?

I don't think that time was wasted, though. Again, a company not exclusively producing for you and you alone is not an inherent flaw. As it is, I'd like to see more content, but that is as a whole - things have been slow in general. I wouldn't be guaranteed to be more satisfied with different content in place of Essentials, especially with no way to know that they would have spent that design space solely providing additional support for existing options. As it is, I have gotten quite a few new classes out of it in my own games, so - again, not wasted effort.

Because of the new design of the e-classes, support for the Slayer doesnt carry over, support for the Knight doesnt carry over, support for the Theif, Scout, Hunter, Sentinel....doesnt carry over....

That's not true at all. It is totally possible to produce support that can enhance both the Scout and other Rangers in general (or other PCs in general). It is also possible to produce support that only assists the Scout. Just like, say, the dozens of feats for various types of tactical warlords that are useless to anyone outside of those specific builds.

The problem already existed, and is not in any way tied to Essentials. Aside from the specific lack of support they've given in certain areas (hybrid, etc), which isn't tied into the core of the mechanics themselves.

 

[MrMyth]

Inevitably, it's going to be over and above that variance among classes with similar builds. Daily-less classes aren't anymore perfectly balanced with eachother than AEDU classes are. There are always minor imbalances, no design is perfect. Having two or more structural aproaches to daily resources, though, introduces additional imbalance over and above that background 'noise.'

Greater potential... maybe. But from what I've seen, that potential hasn't manifested - possibly due to more time to understand the system or the more focused review process or greater ease of balancing classes with fewer options. Either way, from what I've seen, the Essentials classes are more balanced at their core with existing classes than we typically have seen in the previous PHBs and supplements that 4E has produced. Which, in term, has balanced out the slight variations possible from the resource disparity. In my opinion, at least.

 

[FireLance]

And then we have DDI, which has had a small amount of pre-Essentials content. And a... slightly larger amount of Essentials content. In short, not much content in general, and again, a slightly focus on the most recent project.

I thoroughly agree with MrMyth's post, and would just like to add an additional point to the above: Essentials content doesn't only support Essentials classes. Any power with a level also supports the base class by providing additional power options. Hence, a DDI article on new warpriest domans (for example) also provides encounter attack powers that a templar cleric can take.

 

[Marshall]

The work done on the original class hasn't been to show a distinction - it has been to clear up existing areas in need of errata. One may or may not feel the need for that Errata, but basically nothing we've seen of the Class Compendium articles has been in any way tied into Essentials or in response to Essentials - aside from the name change.

I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.

Which, yes, is silly. And probably did not take the tremendous amount of design resources you seem to believe.

Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out.

Ok, I will politely request that when someone disagrees with you - and outright says, "I find that these are a cool mechanic that improves the play experience" - that you not respond by calling their view garbage, and dismissing their position by declaring everything that have argued "inarguable". That is just poor form. I'm not flagging the post right now, because I think you just got heated about a subject you feel strongly about.

But please, truly at least try and understand - you don't believe that added anything to the play experience. Others do. You cannot claim that you opinion is "inarguably" correct. If you are truly unwilling to even acknowledge the opinions of those discussing the matter with you... then yeah, we're probably done here.

Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it."
I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.
The absolute best solution would have been to DELETE the basic attack powers from the game and make it a game term that is attached to at-wills. The idea of a "default power" is also simple to implement if you "feel" a need for it.
There, every problem you or any of your players have with power declaration is gone and there is no conflicting mechanic to have to deal with.

That could have been one approach - but, as noted, others find the stances are an easier concept to grok for some players. (At least, that has been my personal experience). It genuinely is simpler - for them - to always use one attack and have abilities that modify it - abilities that they can 'fire and forget' - than deal with differently named attacks that need to be explicitly chosen every round.

.....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated only because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.

I get that you don't find it to be that way. I get that you believe that everyone will find stances more complicated than At-Will powers. But that is not the case, and for those folks who feel otherwise, the stance approach is a good one.

No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier. Some peeps may have a problem grokking the classic 4e at-will structure. I've never seen it, and I play with quite a few who cant keep their head on straight from one action to the next, but people come in all shapes and sizes. However, all "stances" accomplished was naming the wrong game element "default".

Well, I haven't seen any indications at all that Power Strike is a failure. I have seen that the classes that use it make it more interesting, at higher levels, when new players will have gotten used to it and not find it too complex to deal with additional benefits from the power.

Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!

Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.

Either way, having it as a default, along with the benefits of its simplicity (which have been covered several times in this thread) are useful for new players. I suppose you could have made it some alternate option to using encounter powers in the normal fashion, but I don't see an easy way to do so without redesigning the power system or providing a more complex set of options for players who don't want to deal with that.

...and from post number 1 in this thread I said that the e-classes should have just been a list of pre-selected powers in existing class structure. All your 'defaults' are set AND all the other options are still available. Basically, the Mage and Warpriest are the only e-classes to come close to getting it right. Of course, the Mage went two steps too far and jumped the power curve while the Warpriest had to reset the Clerics class features and lock down the encounter lists.

Being "new ground" isn't relevant. Being interesting to players of the game is. Even if I don't like Psionics, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. (In your case, because it breaks new ground.)

Shrug, they cover concepts that hadnt been done before in this edition and at least tried to be compatible with what came before.

But in the exact same fashion, even if you don't like Essentials, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. Same exact thing.

The game shouldn't be defined by your preferences alone, in the end. Or mine, or any other one person. The fact it can provide content for a variety of tastes without undermining the balance of the system (which I don't believe anything we've seen in 4E truly does) is a good thing.

LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools?

A new edition would be a book that replaced the former material with such content.

Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.

Er... yes? That's precisely what some folks were asking for. I've enjoyed playing a Sentinel while I wasn't a fan of the wild shape druid. We have one player (who played a shadow Assassin in a previous game) who is thoroughly enjoying an Executioner. We have a player who found the Warpriest domain approach very inspiring, despite having previously sworn he was done with clerics for good.

Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class?
Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement.
Executioner is a still weak but better take on a badly implemented 4e class with its primary e-nod being the weakest part of it(single encounter).
The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster Hybrid that needs a lot of help.
The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.

We had Heroes of Shadow which was focused on e-content but had a healthy amount of other material. Focusing on the most recent book isn't too odd - Psionic Power was only useful to PHB3, for example.

We have the new Neverwinter book. I don't have it yet, myself. My understanding is that it has the Bladesinger, which is a new Essentials class/build/etc, and a variety of themes, mostly focused for Essentials again, but not exclusively so.

HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.
Neverwinter has a new "Wizard" build, that isnt and e-themes that 4e classes can steal, but again, a dearth of dedicated 4e content.

I don't think that time was wasted, though. Again, a company not exclusively producing for you and you alone is not an inherent flaw. As it is, I'd like to see more content, but that is as a whole - things have been slow in general. I wouldn't be guaranteed to be more satisfied with different content in place of Essentials, especially with no way to know that they would have spent that design space solely providing additional support for existing options. As it is, I have gotten quite a few new classes out of it in my own games, so - again, not wasted effort.

Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game. Its like designing checkers for chess players. Yes, there are those that want a simpler game and they are played on the same board, but is there really a market for that? And once you find out there isnt one, is it really a good idea to market the new "Blue and Pink!" checkers to the chess players?

That's not true at all. It is totally possible to produce support that can enhance both the Scout and other Rangers in general (or other PCs in general). It is also possible to produce support that only assists the Scout. Just like, say, the dozens of feats for various types of tactical warlords that are useless to anyone outside of those specific builds.

No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the exact same design space. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.

 

[frogged]

It... explicitly says you can do it in the book. In the FAQ. In WotC's discussions on the website. On what grounds is the opposing viewpoint based?

It's based on the word "choose".

Whenever you choose a new class power, you can select it from the list presented in this book or you can take a power of the same class, level, and type (attack or utility) from another source.

The Warpriest's Encounter attack powers differ from its Daily and Utility powers in that they are not selected by the player but are instead directly granted by class features. Being given a choice when it comes to power selection is very important.

From the Warpriest section of HotFL:

Level 1: Daily Power
Benefit: You gain one of the following powers of your choice.

Level 2: Utility Power
Benefit: You gain one of the following powers of your choice.

Level 3: Domain Encounter Power
Benefit: You gain an encounter attack power associated with your domain.

This is also the same reason why PHB1 Warlocks, Cavaliers, and Blackguards aren't allowed to freely choose At-Will attack powers, even though all of those powers have a class, level, and type.

 

[FireLance]

I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.

I think you will need to substantiate this remark. Most of the changes I've seen to the cleric's powers are either fixes to powers which are arguably overpowered (I've read at least one thread highlighting a problem with consecrated ground), or making the powers more useful to the character (e.g. converting a couple of Strength-based powers to Weapon powers instead of Implement powers since Strength clerics tend to be more weapon-based).

Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out.

Oh, I'm sure that tweaking the powers takes up resources (the usual errata process would be expected to apply), but the name change? Not as much. The problem with your post was, instead of highlighting mechanical changes which you disagreed with (and your reasons), you chose to focus on the name change. It makes it look like you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point

...

Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated only because it was published in the newest book.

I think it's been mentioned before, but statements like these make it seem as if you are dismissing another's opinions and experiences instead of addressing them, and could give others the impression that you are hostile, narrow-minded and unreasonable (IMO, of course). They are great when you are grandstanding in front of a crowd of your own supporters, but they don't really work as persuasive arguments.

Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!

Because some people do want to keep playing in that mode. They're not all that keen on the fiddly bits and are satisfied to just keep up with and keep playing with their friends.

Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.

Again, the relevant questions are: How much more power? Enough to be obviously overpowered? How does it compare as an entire package? As I've said before you can't analyze a single element in isolation to the rest.

LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools?

"Completely" is, IMO, hyperbole. Even from the start, all classes had similarities between the pre-Essentials and the Essentials versions and some scope for sharing utility powers. As for multiclassing Slayer and Cavalier, what would be the point? To pick up fighter and paladin powers? There are feats that already allow you to do that.

Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.

New options given for the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric. Or are you talking about errata?

Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class?
Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement.

I agree that domains didn't require the warpriest. Smite undead could have been presented as an alternative to turn undead for weapon-using clerics. Holy cleansing and resurrection could have been presented as an alternative to the free Ritual Caster feat. Domains could also be an alternate class feature, exchanging Healer's Lore and divine fortune for fixed at-will and encounter powers, a domain-specific Channel Divinity power and the other domain features. The warpriest then becomes a cleric with these pre-selected features. (Wait a minute ... did I just unify the templar and the warpriest under one umbrella cleric class? Hmm... maybe I did.)

The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster Hybrid that needs a lot of help.

I think the sentinel is there for people who want to play druids as primal leaders and/or want to play a primal leader but don't like the mechanics or flavor of the shaman.

The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.

My answer is: options.

HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.

"Accidental"? I'm sure it was deliberate.

Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game.

I'd call it reaching an untapped market myself. Have you heard of blue ocean strategy? It essentially means innovating in a way that gives your products value to those who were previously non-customers. And perhaps by making these changes, D&D becomes less of a "thinking man's game" and more of an "every man's game". That might not be a bad thing.

No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the exact same design space. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.

Even if the pre-Essentials and Essentials classes don't share some powers, class is not the whole of the character. Game material like generic feats, magic items and themes can support characters of any class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it."
I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.

"Inarguable". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In specific, if there is one single person who finds them simpler then you are just plain wrong. Which is why a single person at one of our tables

.....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated only because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.

And here you are wrong. I didn't like Essentials until I saw it in play. And saw how much easier some people find it than classic 4e. My views are the result of experience and I am defending Essentials precisely because I have seen it improve some peoples play experience. That you are doing your level best to ignore why I am defending it is a reflection of how much attention you are paying reading rather than writing.

No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier.

Actual play experience. I have seen the results that some people have. Not all. But some. And they do genuinely find the e-classes easier. I have said this throughout. Wonder all you like - but that is the answer.

Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!

And here you speak as if complexity is a goal in its own right. It simply isn't. Believe it or not some people get nothing out of the extra complexity. I know this isn't true for you. Or for me. But not everyone shares my tastes (if they did someone would have had the Slayer class strangled at birth).

And there's a world of difference between levelling up your character for 11 levels and learning them inside out and starting a new PC in paragon tier.

Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.

And by not having dailies you have less. It comes out in the wash assuming multiple encounter days. The Knight can not touch a Fighter with Storm of Blades for damage in his daily encounter. That's part of the gap that this needs to close.

LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes.

You mean in the way a Battlemind is incompatable with an Invoker? Oh Noes!

They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage?

It's called a Hybrid Wizard. Hint: The difference between a Wizard and a Mage is minor. There should probably be Hybrid Talent for mage schools -- but that's all it would take. The Mage is just a very slightly tweaked wizard (and if it wasn't for the lack of Ritual Caster, it would be conceptually superior in every way - schools are so much more evocative than implements).

Also if you want something that's in 4e that's broken and should be removed, the Hybrid rules are top of the list. Most of what it adds to the game is a mix of stinky cheese and crap characters. Claiming that something's incompatable because it doesn't take part in the most broken part of the game is ... dubuious at best.

The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.

Significantly less for you. They add things for people who are not you. People who like stances. People who like clear thematics to guide their roleplaying and want to be given easy routes through the melange of options.

HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.

If you believe that's accidental, there's a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Neverwinter has a new "Wizard" build, that isnt and e-themes that 4e classes can steal, but again, a dearth of dedicated 4e content.

New classes that do things you couldn't do before are new 4e content. Although I was disappointed to see that all the attack powers for the Bladesinger were reprints.

Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game.

Not only insulting, but flat wrong. Try and play a Knight or Thief without thinking and you will be at best mediocre.

And 4e is a RPG. Not a tactical skirmish wargame. Warmachine and Malifaux both do that job a lot better. More complicated and harder is not an end in its own right. If anything it's a negative; you want rules to be as complicated as needed to do the job and not more so. And what some people want to think about isn't abstract board based tactics. It's plans. Like how to sneak into that temple - the fight only happens when something goes wrong.

 

[Nullzone]

5 pages and Marshall still doesn't grasp the basic concept that people had/have issues with the "spellbook" design of the original Martial classes?

Was I the only one who heard the myriad of "Why does my fighter have a bunch of different powers to use every turn? He's not a wizard!" from people at release?

Is it really so hard to understand that the Slayer and so forth were a direct response to that complaint and an attempt to streamline the option base turn-over-turn?