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

[pemerton]

a segment casting time 1e spell compatible with the 1e 6 segment round

In AD&D, the round has 10 segments (of 6 seconds each).

 

[pemerton]

arcana being able to be used to interact and affect magical phenomena.

This predates Essentials. In the DMG, Arcana can be used to control a Sphere of Annihilation, or to disable a Symbol of Suffering. And there are multiple examples in the skill challenges in the DMG2.

And its implicit in the use of Arcana to perform many rituals.

 

[pemerton]

Neonchameleon mentioned above that "damage reduction and spell resistance and spell immunity also got changed, resulting in pretty much the entire Conjuration school now not caring about either spell resistance or spell immunity."

That was a remark about 3.5 vs 3E, not about 4e and Essentials.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No you don't. You just leave the character in one stance and call it a day. Or you choose at the start of the turn, not having enough choices to lead to the confusion threshold.

You STILL have to decide, even if the decision is not to change!!!! It's also separating the choice from its effects, which is always less obvious.

But you aren't choosing between two at wills; you're choosing between two at wills and maybe three encounters and three dailies in one fell swoop. Because you're doing so at the point where you attack.

Again you must still make all the same choices throughout the turn. Which stance to use, whether or not to power attack, etc. I mean, the knight and slayer DO have somewhat less options overall, but in the end what you have to do is tricky optimization to keep up anyway, so it ends up pretty iffy.

And some people want to hit harder. I consider the 4e fighter one of the best classes in any D&D but different people have different tastes - and pre-essentials 4e caters pretty much exclusively to those who like 4e fighters.

The thief is surprisingly good and flexible. It doesn't scale to epic (not enough off-turn attacks) but can be utter mayhem as long as you don't pick Tactical Trick, which makes it basically a 5e rogue.

Yeah it has trap options, AND far underperforms!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my opinion the Essentials knight defender aura as an aura 1 is superior to the base 4e fighter combat challenge marking one opponent you attack. Much less fiddly with tracking the mark, just being in position on the map activates it.

I would have preferred the essentials get more at wills to choose from though in a round. Flexibility at the at will power level would be great for my tastes.

Objectively knights are at best mediocre defenders. There are worse, but standard fighter is best, followed by sword mage and warden as very close seconds, along with DP paladins. The cavalier is ok, as is the knight, and then you have the Battlemind. None are awful but the knight is ineffective at higher levels.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You STILL have to decide, even if the decision is not to change!!!! It's also separating the choice from its effects, which is always less obvious.

The game procedure changes for the player, and I think that changes the mental load.
Basically think of a player here as just wanting to declare: "I attack". If the player has two at-wills, he has to declare which of these attacks to use. Abd technically, everyone has a third attack, the basic attack, which might do the same in the current situation, or be worse.

If the player has two at-will stances, they decide at some point in combat: "I want to pick this stance." And then, each turn, the player can say: "I attack", and extra stuff happens based on the stance they set several turns ago. They could start thinking about whether it's still the same stance, but they don't have to, and can just declare. "I attack".
It's not a big difference in the mechanical outcome, but it is a difference in how the mental procedure on how to get there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You STILL have to decide, even if the decision is not to change!!!! It's also separating the choice from its effects, which is always less obvious.

That's like saying you still have to decide when going to the bathroom whether to strip naked every time. I mean the option is there in your toilet cubicle at work. But it can be safely ignored without trouble.

Yeah it has trap options, AND far underperforms!

Tactical Trick is far from a trap option. It's just boring and spammable. And the underpowered part isn't thief vs rogue but rogue vs ranger.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The game procedure changes for the player, and I think that changes the mental load.
Basically think of a player here as just wanting to declare: "I attack". If the player has two at-wills, he has to declare which of these attacks to use. Abd technically, everyone has a third attack, the basic attack, which might do the same in the current situation, or be worse.

If the player has two at-will stances, they decide at some point in combat: "I want to pick this stance." And then, each turn, the player can say: "I attack", and extra stuff happens based on the stance they set several turns ago. They could start thinking about whether it's still the same stance, but they don't have to, and can just declare. "I attack".
It's not a big difference in the mechanical outcome, but it is a difference in how the mental procedure on how to get there.

For me, I am reviewing that choice each turn, and honestly it's usually dubious if I am even sure which stance I was even in. Adding state is yet another burden! Obviously which stance I want may be quite obvious but I still have to remember that choice, which for me is equivalent to choosing an At-Will. Those choices also being usually pretty obvious. E-Fighter thus is just objectively a worse play experience for me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's like saying you still have to decide when going to the bathroom whether to strip naked every time. I mean the option is there in your toilet cubicle at work. But it can be safely ignored without trouble.

Tactical Trick is far from a trap option. It's just boring and spammable. And the underpowered part isn't thief vs rogue but rogue vs ranger.

Rogues are every bit the equal of Rangers

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, I am reviewing that choice each turn, and honestly it's usually dubious if I am even sure which stance I was even in. Adding state is yet another burden! Obviously which stance I want may be quite obvious but I still have to remember that choice, which for me is equivalent to choosing an At-Will. Those choices also being usually pretty obvious. E-Fighter thus is just objectively a worse play experience for me.

You are treating the two most important words in that post as an aside when they aren't. Those words are "for me".

Not everyone is you any more than they are me. And I like you in general prefer pre-essentials classes (and the post-Essentials ones I like, like the Berserker, are normally little different). But different people have different tastes and really appreciate the different decision chunking of the Essentials classes.

If you don't feel it can't you at least accept that others do? And will want to stick to a default stance?