Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9291753" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>We are going to have to utterly disagree on this one. As a classic 4e class designer I can STILL do any wild thing I want as a class feature, or power (all powers being bound to a class, remember) or as a feat with a prerequisite, etc. I have INFINITE options to reserve something to a specific design space. Your approach limits EVERYTHING that way, so it is much less powerful.</p><p></p><p>I have no idea what you mean, they would have provided exactly the same capabilities, potentially.</p><p></p><p>I honestly have no idea what this means, lol. 4e's paradigm has worked extremely well here. When the situation is favorable, you weigh your options and go ahead and drop (or not) 'the bomb'. The rest of the time? You do what 4e does best in combat terms, you try to outlast team monster's hard entree, and then beat them back. I mean, victory may or may not be HARD earned in every case, no game can say, but it doesn't generally come free.</p><p></p><p>Yes, I believe some specialized MCing feats and such were dropped in one of the last 4e Dragon issues.</p><p></p><p>Well, yes, there's a Swordmage MC feat, that's true. As for STR, you would actually need a feat to use STR, as the Thief's class feature reassigns MBA to DEX. I don't recall the wording being optional on that! Rogue STR builds are actually plentiful though. Yes, technically it is a 'secondary', but there are BOTH Ruthless Ruffian, AND the Brutal Scoundrel, both of which have STR as a strong secondary. I agree, technically you cannot actually build a Rogue that has an 8 dex or something like that, which Thief can TECHNICALLY do. However, even doing so with the thief is going to cost you a lot in terms of basically all the other support for your core class assumes a high DEX character. I haven't tried it, my guess is it is feasible but pretty sub-optimal.</p><p></p><p>But, again, this character can be built many ways in classic 4e too. Like, a warlord build would work fine, you can do that with light or heavy armor, bow or melee, etc. and have all the same capabilities overall.</p><p></p><p>3e style MCing was a disaster even in 3e! lol. You are arguing an excluded middle here, a middle which is EXACTLY the one occupied by classic 4e! lol. Notice how it DOES NOT provide for absolutely arbitrary combinations of things without ANY limits. What it allows for is a lot more than Essentials does, and that is good and positive! It also allows a lot of sharing between builds of the same class (or if you will, subclasses, the terminology here is a bit arbitrary).</p><p></p><p>They are a much narrower concept than 'striker', I'm sure you see that... Monster roles are fine being narrow, their purpose is different from PC roles. A monster obviously only has to show up once or twice, it doesn't need great flexibility. PCs do. Anyway, Soldier and Artillery are monster roles, both are a bit narrow, though I think Soldier and Defender are pretty close (and the Defender role is somewhat narrower than Striker).</p><p></p><p>I think we both agree that nobody is recommending lurker as a PC role...</p><p></p><p>Don't tell that to some of my players! lol. It is a class that requires some finesse, unless you go the "make me harder to kill" build route. Its a choice, you can be a glass cannon or you can grab a defense feat or two, tend carefully to your AC, and build in a lot of front loading of damage output so you don't have to be in the hotseat for too long. Even then, yes, you're going to want to play deliberately, but why is that a problem? 4e is a game that rewards skilled play of your character in combat, and each class has a bit of a unique way that works. Honestly, the most frighteningly effective party I ever saw, in combat, was 4 rangers and a warlord! Nothing lived long enough to hurt them! lol.</p><p></p><p>Again, we will have to just differ on that.</p><p></p><p>Again, you find the theme strengthened, I didn't.</p><p></p><p>But notice that all those experiments are built on AEDU classes!</p><p></p><p>Yes, the witch and the sha'ir are FINE, and generally praised. As for the Seeker and the Runepriest, their issues have little to do with being A/E/D/U classes. The Seeker has a weak theme, 'area attacking bow user' which is just awkward, and its powers are all lackluster to say the least. A PP2 supplement giving it support parity with other classes would have fixed it, and IIRC it actually DID get some nice shiny new powers in a couple Dragon articles, which made quite a difference. Runepriest likewise is a problem with unclear thematics leading to an overly complicated and unwieldy mechanism. Even with this weird unique mechanism it is insufficiently distinct from several other divine classes. Seeker would be fine with a bit more support, and is OK as it is. Runepriest simply shouldn't ever have been published.</p><p></p><p>But I don't think these are due to some 'limits of AEDU', and even if they ARE, so what? I mean, there were tons of things that were offered as potential options and never cashed in on, like additional Druid builds, more distinctive priest domains, additional builds for classes like the Invoker, as well as some things that ended up being delivered in a different form in Essentials format, like Blackguard, or Necromancer, which certainly would have been added to existing class/builds. I don't think classic 4e was even CLOSE to tapped out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9291753, member: 82106"] We are going to have to utterly disagree on this one. As a classic 4e class designer I can STILL do any wild thing I want as a class feature, or power (all powers being bound to a class, remember) or as a feat with a prerequisite, etc. I have INFINITE options to reserve something to a specific design space. Your approach limits EVERYTHING that way, so it is much less powerful. I have no idea what you mean, they would have provided exactly the same capabilities, potentially. I honestly have no idea what this means, lol. 4e's paradigm has worked extremely well here. When the situation is favorable, you weigh your options and go ahead and drop (or not) 'the bomb'. The rest of the time? You do what 4e does best in combat terms, you try to outlast team monster's hard entree, and then beat them back. I mean, victory may or may not be HARD earned in every case, no game can say, but it doesn't generally come free. Yes, I believe some specialized MCing feats and such were dropped in one of the last 4e Dragon issues. Well, yes, there's a Swordmage MC feat, that's true. As for STR, you would actually need a feat to use STR, as the Thief's class feature reassigns MBA to DEX. I don't recall the wording being optional on that! Rogue STR builds are actually plentiful though. Yes, technically it is a 'secondary', but there are BOTH Ruthless Ruffian, AND the Brutal Scoundrel, both of which have STR as a strong secondary. I agree, technically you cannot actually build a Rogue that has an 8 dex or something like that, which Thief can TECHNICALLY do. However, even doing so with the thief is going to cost you a lot in terms of basically all the other support for your core class assumes a high DEX character. I haven't tried it, my guess is it is feasible but pretty sub-optimal. But, again, this character can be built many ways in classic 4e too. Like, a warlord build would work fine, you can do that with light or heavy armor, bow or melee, etc. and have all the same capabilities overall. 3e style MCing was a disaster even in 3e! lol. You are arguing an excluded middle here, a middle which is EXACTLY the one occupied by classic 4e! lol. Notice how it DOES NOT provide for absolutely arbitrary combinations of things without ANY limits. What it allows for is a lot more than Essentials does, and that is good and positive! It also allows a lot of sharing between builds of the same class (or if you will, subclasses, the terminology here is a bit arbitrary). They are a much narrower concept than 'striker', I'm sure you see that... Monster roles are fine being narrow, their purpose is different from PC roles. A monster obviously only has to show up once or twice, it doesn't need great flexibility. PCs do. Anyway, Soldier and Artillery are monster roles, both are a bit narrow, though I think Soldier and Defender are pretty close (and the Defender role is somewhat narrower than Striker). I think we both agree that nobody is recommending lurker as a PC role... Don't tell that to some of my players! lol. It is a class that requires some finesse, unless you go the "make me harder to kill" build route. Its a choice, you can be a glass cannon or you can grab a defense feat or two, tend carefully to your AC, and build in a lot of front loading of damage output so you don't have to be in the hotseat for too long. Even then, yes, you're going to want to play deliberately, but why is that a problem? 4e is a game that rewards skilled play of your character in combat, and each class has a bit of a unique way that works. Honestly, the most frighteningly effective party I ever saw, in combat, was 4 rangers and a warlord! Nothing lived long enough to hurt them! lol. Again, we will have to just differ on that. Again, you find the theme strengthened, I didn't. But notice that all those experiments are built on AEDU classes! Yes, the witch and the sha'ir are FINE, and generally praised. As for the Seeker and the Runepriest, their issues have little to do with being A/E/D/U classes. The Seeker has a weak theme, 'area attacking bow user' which is just awkward, and its powers are all lackluster to say the least. A PP2 supplement giving it support parity with other classes would have fixed it, and IIRC it actually DID get some nice shiny new powers in a couple Dragon articles, which made quite a difference. Runepriest likewise is a problem with unclear thematics leading to an overly complicated and unwieldy mechanism. Even with this weird unique mechanism it is insufficiently distinct from several other divine classes. Seeker would be fine with a bit more support, and is OK as it is. Runepriest simply shouldn't ever have been published. But I don't think these are due to some 'limits of AEDU', and even if they ARE, so what? I mean, there were tons of things that were offered as potential options and never cashed in on, like additional Druid builds, more distinctive priest domains, additional builds for classes like the Invoker, as well as some things that ended up being delivered in a different form in Essentials format, like Blackguard, or Necromancer, which certainly would have been added to existing class/builds. I don't think classic 4e was even CLOSE to tapped out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity
Top