D&D 4E Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E Essentials?

[Minigiant]

Hmm. Not sure how I feel about that. A large number of Divine characters would never use this conversion to necrotic damage because it doesn't fit the flavor of their character. "Necrotic" may only be a damage type, but it carries very strong flavor implications, and I wouldn't necessarily want players to feel like they have to "be evil" in order to do damage, if that makes sense.

Well I only put 10 seconds of thought into it. Imagine if it was my job and I wasn't random nobody. The tertiary damage types of Divine were lightning then fire so maybe you could choose lightning for 1d4s?

Point is the base 4e dailies could and should have more power source oomph and Essentials didn't move int hat direction unfortunately.

 

[NotAYakk]

Martial: Rally, Stance, Surge
Divine: Aspect, Channel, Anoint
Primal: Scream, Beast, Pulse
Arcane: Metamagic, Concentration, Adapt

Rally: Provides a morale benefit to allies. Fades if you don't hit a foe on your turn.

Stance: As is

Surge: Action Surge and Second Wind interaction.

Aspect: Divine characters have an aspect aligned with a damage type. Powers ibteract with it either with extra damage, damage tyoe conversion, or other effects.

Channel: Interacts with channel divinity

Anoint: Picks an ally to Anoint. Acts a bit like a stance on someone else.

Shout: Delayed effect that is released on a later turn. While being held, has an effect.

Beast: Primal classes all get a beast feature (companion, form, spirit). This interacts with it in a semi uniform way.

Pulse: Creates a growing, self centred zone.

Metamagic: Modifies future spells cast for rest of encounter. Stacks.

Concentration: Grants an ongoing effect. Can be disrupted by damage.

Adapt: Can be comboed with keywords from your last turn's spells.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I always wondered if people thought class names floated over their characters heads, I still do.

It's usually framed as 'class matters', but that still requires the world to work on ISO Standard Isekai rules where class is a knowable and tangible thing where people know that this guy who wields a sword and stabs people is a fighter and this guy who wields a sword and stabs people is a rogue and those titles fundamentally and scientifically determine their capabilities and progression.

But 'verisimilitude'.

 

[Randomthoughts]

Point is the base 4e dailies could and should have more power source oomph and Essentials didn't move int hat direction unfortunately.

That’s why I liked Dark Sun bc it gave Arcane power source some flavor (you can defile). IMC, Martial was neutral. Everyone had psionics (a wild talent) but powerful psionics drew the attention of SK and Templars. Divine was non-existent. And Primal, well, I made them the antithesis of Arcane - causing SKs to want to enslave anyone with a Primal power source (which was very rare).

 

[Vael]

I'll say that Essentials was a success in that it did make 4e more accessible. I could whip up a Slayer Fighter for a newcomer in a few minutes and give it to them and it was very easy to pick up and play, while I did find that the list of at-wills, encounter powers and dailies could lead to some paralysis for first time players.

Ultimately, I was glad that Essentials showed you could have classes that didn't fit the mold of the bulk of 4e classes and could work in the same party. The balance of 4e was a major selling point for me, and I didn't find that Essentials classes upset that.

 

[Mordhau]

@Campbell and @(Psi)SeveredHead have identified one issue with the changes to player-side resource suites: with asymmetry in the relationship between at-will and daily abilities, the GM has to manage the pacing of the adventuring day. Whereas in core 4e that's not the case.

A second consequence of the same change is this: there is no longer a uniform suite of player-side resources that is able to be used as "currency" for non-combat action resolution (eg in skill challenges, as per the discussions in the two DMGs).

I think there is a good practical reason for this: if an ability is a bit "good", or even verging on broken, it won't actually break the game if it can't be used every time. Allowing recharges changes that.

Eg CaGI is awesome; but I think a fighter who could come close to CaGI-ing at will might be a bit strong.

Come and get it was really just too strong as an encounter power, it wouldn't have been out of place as a Daily. A lot of later classes were a step back in terms of the original PHB classes, especially Strikers and Defenders. We never saw anything as good as the Ranger or the Fighter again.

I think this was a bit of an issue with 4e - the way it was designed really minimised balance issues, but it also minimised the ability to adapt tactically. (Eg if you spent encounter powers out a budget then once each, then in a battlefield with cliff faces on each side, you might want to take advantage of a power that lets you push people, rather than your other encounter powers - and you could also afford to choose an encounter power which might not be that useful most of the time, but which could be situationally extremely useful.)

 

[Garthanos]

It's usually framed as 'class matters', but that still requires the world to work on ISO Standard Isekai rules where class is a knowable and tangible thing where people know that this guy who wields a sword and stabs people is a fighter and this guy who wields a sword and stabs people is a rogue and those titles fundamentally and scientifically determine their capabilities and progression.

But 'verisimilitude'.

I wish themes came out earlier...

Come and get it was really just too strong as an encounter power, it wouldn't have been out of place as a Daily.

I think a number of the adjacent powers could be adjusted to be better in context, I definitely see it as a signature power for the fighter. It's the fighters fireball so to speak.

I created an option called Educated Fighter to give you a maneuver book (like those historic ones that were filled with diagrams). And a scan the battle option where you do something like a weak basic attack to get access to one of your other encounter powers.

 

[Garthanos]

A lot of later classes were a step back in terms of the original PHB classes, especially Strikers and Defenders.

I was just discussing variations in how strikers worked in a conversation with some people whom I generally consider higher end optimizing skills. They noted that there were numerous methods even just for strikers and that while the ranger was ummm boring to some of us it had a raw simplicity that could appeal to an individual (the I want to roll lots of dice). In general I have had the impression the ranger is seen as easy but not necessarily the best striker. I think I mentioned earlier that a particular flavor of monk is nearly a full on controller enough so I do not find myself exactly comparing it as a striker to a ranger.

Oh and speaking of control, look at how the Swordmage (particularly the shielding one) is in a similar boat with bits of control and even more multi-attacking functions than the fighter.

 

[Mordhau]

Hmmm...Just a couple of points on Fighters, roles and dailies.

It wouldn't be too hard within the original 4e paradigm to have the Fighter be capable of fulfilling multiple roles and having no dailies without it creating a rest scheduling headache.

You just utilise the mechanics of stances. Instead of Dailies the Fighter gets stances. These function pretty much like Barbarian Rages, or the Daily stances Fighters already get, but they're not dailies, they're encounter long effects that the Fighter chooses when rolling initiative. This is basically the same as using a single encounter long daily every fight (which is pretty much the sweetspot for 4e I think, and something that was increasingly encouraged as the edition went on).

You then bake the role features into the stances. You have leader stances, which give healings as part of their function, Defender stances which include marking or auras, and striking stances which add extra additional damage.

You then add a little flexibility in, by giving Fighters some kind of extra damage function (like the barbarian rage strike) they can access by spending a healing surge (or perhaps 2*) and you also give them the ability to change their stance once during a combat by spending healing surge.

The berserker shows that it doesn't necessarily break the game to switch between roles, and it would allow for some flexbility the game lacked. You could start in a Ranged Striker stance to fire upon enemies who are some distance away, and when they get close enough draw your sword and shield and move forward to start defending.


*Which is a nice way to even things out. In a long combat day, the Figher has an incentive to conserve healing surges, but in a one combat day, when everyone else is burning all their dailies, they might as well make some use of those extra healing surges.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hmmm...Just a couple of points on Fighters, roles and dailies.

It wouldn't be too hard within the original 4e paradigm to have the Fighter be capable of fulfilling multiple roles and having no dailies without it creating a rest scheduling headache.

You just utilise the mechanics of stances. Instead of Dailies the Fighter gets stances. These function pretty much like Barbarian Rages, or the Daily stances Fighters already get, but they're not dailies, they're encounter long effects that the Fighter chooses when rolling initiative. This is basically the same as using a single encounter long daily every fight (which is pretty much the sweetspot for 4e I think, and something that was increasingly encouraged as the edition went on).

You then bake the role features into the stances. You have leader stances, which give healings as part of their function, Defender stances which include marking or auras, and striking stances which add extra additional damage.

You then add a little flexibility in, by giving Fighters some kind of extra damage function (like the barbarian rage strike) they can access by spending a healing surge (or perhaps 2*) and you also give them the ability to change their stance once during a combat by spending healing surge.

The berserker shows that it doesn't necessarily break the game to switch between roles, and it would allow for some flexbility the game lacked. You could start in a Ranged Striker stance to fire upon enemies who are some distance away, and when they get close enough draw your sword and shield and move forward to start defending.


*Which is a nice way to even things out. In a long combat day, the Figher has an incentive to conserve healing surges, but in a one combat day, when everyone else is burning all their dailies, they might as well make some use of those extra healing surges.

I wouldn’t make changing stances cost anything but action economy, and I’d make the extra damage mechanic work in a way where it is good whether your rushing in to pummel things or punishing enemies for attacking your allies.

If it’s limited, give it a per encounter limit, and allow minor healing with it as an alt option to damage.