D&D 4E 4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity

[AbdulAlhazred]

Archer warlord (complete with longbow proficiency) was added in Martial Power 2. And possibly it's an iconic weapon combination, but it's one allowed for warlords and Tanis behaves like one.

It was a bit of an oddball in the sense that the powers are all STR based, but it is a completely workable option. I always figured the powers might be at least as useful for a fighter or barbarian to steal, or even a STR paladin. This is the joy of classic 4e, there is just so darn much you can do with it!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Meh, I think the strong thematic implications of role and power source is the primary reason 4e classes are so uniformly solid. I mean, ok, spinning a ranger as a mix of 2 sources is not some big problem. Maybe then it is less of a leap to controller? But then we're not talking martial controller either. Still I never thought there was some need to implement every permutation.

Oh, I think that having power sources and roles always discussed was a big part of why the worst 4e classes work better than the 5e monk (and the 5e monk works better than a bad class in anything before 4e). But the ranger was an example of forcing a round peg into a square hole thematically; it's still a solid class, but really feels more fightery than rangery to me.

 

[Tigris]

That's funny, I really prefer the original 4e martial striker ranger and I like their AEDU set up with their ton of ED interrupt type powers as my favorite implementation of the class. It really makes a good striker warrior as a competent mobile D&D combatant different from the ninja rogues. Tastes vary.

Well interrupts can be fun, but in the end it makes the combat take longer AND it is mostly just "more complicated multi attack". Its for sure more interesting than just the pure multiattack powers, but I feel when you read guides etc. most people played or were assumed to play the Ranger as a "multiattacker" and then I really dont see a reason why to not use the elegant Essential version of it. Especially since it had more flavour AND more non combat power.

Agreed. If I could pick classes from any edition of D&D that best demonstrate the "class fantasy" the ones that would definitely come from 4e would be the warlord, the elementalist, and the fighter as the tactical fighter (but might use the 2e and/or 5e fighter as well).

Also the monk and probably Thief as "least bad versions" and the Essentials Rangers as the non-casting rangers.

Why do you feel the monk in 4E is just the "least bad" and not good? I really like the 4E monk (I just ignore the psionic part XD).

- He is not MAD

- Different martial art styles are represented by different secondary stat (which for me makes a lot of sense!) and also can really change how he plays (more controller, full striker or even kinda defender)

- Its high mobility is in 4E really useful especially paired with his "area damage" from the flurry of blows.

- The Full techniques make him feel different from other "Martials" as it really feels that movement and attacks are part of the same martial art technique.

- You can even go elemental like Avatar if you want to!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, I think that having power sources and roles always discussed was a big part of why the worst 4e classes work better than the 5e monk (and the 5e monk works better than a bad class in anything before 4e). But the ranger was an example of forcing a round peg into a square hole thematically; it's still a solid class, but really feels more fightery than rangery to me.

I mean, I understand what you're saying. OTOH what WOULD you call a ranged/melee 'light combatant'? They were darned well going to have a ranger in the book, that was just compulsory, so I don't think there were really other options at the PHB1 stage, from the designers perspective. It might be that they could have invented a 100% primal ranger and included that, and given the rogue a stronger ranged option? Maybe. I mean, we could hypothesize various parsings of the whole class tree.

Honestly, the whole question of why there were 'V shaped' classes is more interesting to me. I mean, the Ranger actually WORKED pretty well that way, but even there I could imagine a pure DEX primary design with maybe STR and WIS as the secondaries, giving you your more melee focused STR variation and then a more range focused variety that is themed on 'hit them where it hurts most, from a distance'. But again, we have very little idea what sorts of designs were considered.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why do you feel the monk in 4E is just the "least bad" and not good? I really like the 4E monk (I just ignore the psionic part XD).

Honestly what I meant there is that there is a fundamental lack of competition, and I'd also like a second pass with the same concepts. But yes, good can describe it.

I mean, I understand what you're saying. OTOH what WOULD you call a ranged/melee 'light combatant'?

A rogue? I mean they fit that description too.

They were darned well going to have a ranger in the book, that was just compulsory, so I don't think there were really other options at the PHB1 stage, from the designers perspective. It might be that they could have invented a 100% primal ranger and included that, and given the rogue a stronger ranged option? Maybe. I mean, we could hypothesize various parsings of the whole class tree.

This is where I think the power source became a trap. A 100% primal ranger doesn't work for me either as a ranger. And I'd rather they hashed that one out early.

Honestly, the whole question of why there were 'V shaped' classes is more interesting to me.

I think this was a result of 4e being launched before it was ready tbh.

 

[Tigris]

Honestly what I meant there is that there is a fundamental lack of competition, and I'd also like a second pass with the same concepts. But yes, good can describe it.

Ah that makes sense yes, the other Monk implementations are really just weak.


What exactly did you mean with the Thief as least bad? Thief as different to rogue?


I personally think the Executioner Assassin is a really nice implementation of what a lot of rogue-archetypes try to be. (Yes I like Essentials quite a bit more than most as one can see.) As kind of the opposite of the Thief.


The Thief for me had the problem of locking the movement action for its "special feature" and not the minor which limit it a bit more, and it still feels more like an assassin than a thief. (Still a lot better than the Knight).



I think having also V shaped classes in theory could be interesting, and after more abilities were released they also started working, they just released with not enough support.

Also 1 big problem, which D&D still has, is that different attributes often dont feel too different, especially Strength (and con) just dont give enough "non combat power". If that would be more the case, the V shape classes would also be more interesting. (Sure the skill powers helped a bit to make skills feel more different, but the main problem of str and con not used enough is still there.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

What exactly did you mean with the Thief as least bad? Thief as different to rogue?

Yes. I find the rogue the second least bad - but the thief the closest to the rogue archetype as I picture it, beating the PHB rogue. Meanwhile I find the 3.5 and earlier rogues/thieves just plain bad and the 5e one boring.

I personally think the Executioner Assassin is a really nice implementation of what a lot of rogue-archetypes try to be. (Yes I like Essentials quite a bit more than most as one can see.) As kind of the opposite of the Thief.

I want to like the Executioner, but it needed another balance pass.

The Thief for me had the problem of locking the movement action for its "special feature" and not the minor which limit it a bit more, and it still feels more like an assassin than a thief. (Still a lot better than the Knight).

A bit - but it also feels more of a move-y class than the PHB rogue, and I want my thieves to move. You also get a choice of special features - and can do all the non-attack things of the PHB rogue. I'd say the thief feels less like an assassin than the PHB one to me, while being able to pull out things like a climb speed and moving through a crowd.

I think having also V shaped classes in theory could be interesting, and after more abilities were released they also started working, they just released with not enough support.

The problem is how you create one; you need a lot of powers to have V-shaped choices. The place where it worked really well for me was the Infernal Warlock; the Constitution special attack wasn't hellish rebuke but a really accurate thing that damaged you for rerolls.

Also 1 big problem, which D&D still has, is that different attributes often dont feel too different, especially Strength (and con) just dont give enough "non combat power". If that would be more the case, the V shape classes would also be more interesting. (Sure the skill powers helped a bit to make skills feel more different, but the main problem of str and con not used enough is still there.)

My 4e Retroclone went full "death to ability scores" and just uses skills. I don't think you need both skills and stats.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My 4e Retroclone went full "death to ability scores" and just uses skills. I don't think you need both skills and stats.

I don't think ability scores are about 'skill' (neither are skills actually, but that's another story). They are about CHARACTERIZATION. Sure, they imply what the character is most likely to really excel at, but mostly they're telling you how to play your character. The 4e skill list OTOH is telling you what sorts of approaches to problem solving your character is most prone to using, which if you think about it is also about characterization as much as anything. So HoML kept both, although I reduced ability scores to a die modifier and got rid of the now-vestigial 3-18 range.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As for the thief, it is like 9,000x less build flexible and interesting than the rogue. Nor do I think, personally, that the rogue is your light skirmisher. In monster role parlance you have skirmisher, lurker, and soldier. These are the ranger, the rogue, and the fighter, with the warlord taking on the leader role. Now, in PC role parlance there aren't separate roles for skirmisher and lurker, and those are a bit too narrow for a PC I suspect (certainly lurker is, and that was a big issue with the TSR iterations of the thief).

So rogue and ranger both get 'striker', which makes sense, but they go about it in quite different ways, overall. In fact, within each class the different builds actually do it quite differently, particularly when you start including MP1 and MP2 builds of each class. Honestly you have a HUGE, and quite different, set of potential builds for each of these classes. I'm not convinced you could cover all that ground with JUST a rogue class. The much narrower concept thief CERTAINLY couldn't do it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As for the thief, it is like 9,000x less build flexible and interesting than the rogue.

Out of combat the thief has actively more build flexibility than the rogue by covering argument (it has access to all the rogue utility powers plus a few things the rogue doesn't, like an extra trained skill and acrobat's trick and sneak's trick (and arguably escape artist's trick) both being utility powers with non-combat uses that don't require attacking).

Build flexible for combat I'll grant. But I don't care about build-flexible at the table; I care about the character I am playing at the table. The thief only has a limited number of builds, granted. But they are more divergent from other 4e classes than anything the rogue has to offer, and they work well or they obviously don't work.

Also there are off-stat builds for the thief that are slightly sub-optimal but definitely playable which wouldn't work at all for the PHB rogue; none of the thief's powers are hard coded to dexterity so you don't have to make it your primary stat as long as you basic attack with something else (normally Str but Int is viable and Cha is possible with a loss of damage). So outside combat a thief is significantly more rather than less build-flexible than a PHB rogue.

As for interesting, I find in play seeing whether I can pull off a death from above via acrobat's trick and still get sneak attack or elbow a minion in the head and slice up my main target with tumbling trick more interesting than just setting up a blinding barrage or using a dazing strike again (to pick two of the more ubiquitous stand-and-hit powers)

I'm not discounting the rogue's strengths over the thief here but the advantages are far from all one sided.

Nor do I think, personally, that the rogue is your light skirmisher. In monster role parlance you have skirmisher, lurker, and soldier. These are the ranger, the rogue, and the fighter, with the warlord taking on the leader role.

Nope. In monster role parlance you have soldier (fighter), skirmisher (rogue), and artillery (archer-ranger). Some skirmishers even get Sneak Attack.

The closest to a lurker you get on the player side is the assassin; lurkers are built round disappearing or otherwise going semi-invulnerable for one round in two.

And I break down skirmishers into two types; one of them is very vanilla and always does medium damage, melee or ranged. The other has low but situational high damage with a mechanic like Sneak Attack or the kobold quickblade's extra damage for each square shifted.

But however you cut it the rogue is a textbook skirmisher and the dex-ranger is textbook artillery. The str-ranger is probably also a skirmisher. But having only the less popular and less well implemented half of the class mapping to a role makes it less of an example of one than being the textbook example.

And I'll go a step further and say that the two weapon ranger in the PHB was a mistake. Not only is it short of powers (v-shaped) but it goes down way too easily because the actual defensive tech is poor, the AC only scales off Dex, and they are aggro magnets because they are glass cannons with no real ranged fallback.