A subtle reminder from wizards.(or not so subtle)

[MrMyth]

Of course it wasn't. The archer-warlord didn't functionally replace an existing build, it just expanded what you could do with a Warlord.

The Warpriest isn't like that. It's a melee-oriented, weapon-using Cleric. It's functionally the same as the STR Cleric build in the PH. But, it uses WIS, making all the WIS-build material available to it. Besides, hasn't it as much as been admitted that the split-Primay design is something they regret and want to get away from?

Sure. Maybe a better comparison would be warlocks vs sorcerers. Warlocks have had issues with multiple stat dependencies, and then along comes sorcerers which are also big damage arcane strikers - and yet, warlocks haven't faded from the game because of this.

I think this is really the biggest flaw in your argument. You look at the Knight and the Shield Fighter, and say, "Only one of these can be the best at the job, and the other one will fade into the background."

But... that's not how the game works. We've got strikers of various power levels. Most tend to agree that a few of them 'come out ahead' of the others in the long run - but the fact that rangers and multiple attacks is really really strong doesn't mean that people only play rangers.

For one thing, the differences aren't enough to overwhelm the game. A ranger and a warlock can both be in the same party and feel like they are both doing a good job, even if the ranger might pump out more damage more often. Similarly, the Knight and the Shield Fighter are both going to get the job done - one isn't going to emerge as 'the only possible sword and board defender you can play.'

Secondly, people have different preferences. Some will find the specific elements the Knight offers more appealing, while others will prefer the PHB Fighter. And both can continue to be supported. You feel only a limited number of feats will apply to both - but look at some of the class articles out there. I can recall a Warlord article (before Martial Power 2 was even out), and the bulk of the feats were tied to the 4 different builds, which meant any given character might only be able to use 1/4 of the article (or slightly more, with the handful of feats for all warlords.)

But that wasn't inherently a problem - not if those feats were still useful.

The Warpriest does have some advantages, in being able to more freely grab the implement wisdom powers of the cleric - which gives them some flexibility, certainly. On the other hand, those expanded options don't particularly help it in its role as a pure melee cleric, so the Str-cleric might still have the edge there. Regardless, it seems extremely unlikely that the appearance of the Warpriest will naturally cause the Str-cleric to just vanish.

After all, I don't see anyone claiming the Runepriest caused that to happen - yet similar logic could be applied there. An entire class focused on a melee-wielding Str-based Divine Leader; shouldn't that have rendered obsolete a single build for the cleric with more limited options?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure. Maybe a better comparison would be warlocks vs sorcerers. Warlocks have had issues with multiple stat dependencies, and then along comes sorcerers which are also big damage arcane strikers - and yet, warlocks haven't faded from the game because of this.

That is a better comparison. The Sorcerer and Warlock are both arcane strikers, they're even both arguably secondary controllers. Functionally, they're a little different, though. The Sorcerer is more about straight-up damage than the Warlock, and it's secondary controller aspect is more focused on area attacks, while the Warlock controller aspect is more about conditions. Conceptually, though, there's a greater difference. The Warlock is sinister (the arcane 'bad boy'), which apeals to a lot of players, and gains his power from a perilous pact with arcane entities of vast power. The Sorcerer, OTOH, is self-contained (an 'arcane entity' in his own right), with power 'in his blood' or otherwise more or less innate, rather than learned, like the Wizard, or borrowed, like the Warlock.

So, even though they're both arcane-strikers-secondary-controllers, they're functionally and conceptually distinct. IMHO, the Sorcerer is the superior class, and the Warlock survives mainly on his 'bad boy' image.

I think this is really the biggest flaw in your argument. You look at the Knight and the Shield Fighter, and say, "Only one of these can be the best at the job, and the other one will fade into the background."

But... that's not how the game works. We've got strikers of various power levels. Most tend to agree that a few of them 'come out ahead' of the others in the long run - but the fact that rangers and multiple attacks is really really strong doesn't mean that people only play rangers.

Very true. While the Warlock is arguably edged out on the power scale by the Sorcerer, and the Ranger is arguably the most potent striker, the Warlock and other non-ranger strikers still see plenty of play. It's because they have conceptual differences that make them interesting beyond the DPR calculations - and, because, really, the disparity between 'best' and 'worst' strikers, when considering builds that might actually see play, aren't all that great.

With the Knight and the Shield Fighter, OTOH, they share not only role and function, but concept, as well. The 'Knight,' by virtue of it's name, alone, might be said to have a definite concept, even though it has no features that hint at chivalry. The Shield Fighter (and Paladin) cover the same concept, though. So, there's nothing to choose between them beyond the effectiveness of their respective mechanics.

The STR Cleric, similarly, has one shot at a concept the Warpriest doesn't cover, and that's the 'Priest of Kord.' STR-primary when you worship a god of strength just makes too much sense.

After all, I don't see anyone claiming the Runepriest caused that to happen - yet similar logic could be applied there. An entire class focused on a melee-wielding Str-based Divine Leader; shouldn't that have rendered obsolete a single build for the cleric with more limited options?

Yes. One could argue it has already done so, making the Warpriest more of a final nail in the STR Cleric's coffin, than a threat. I say one /could/, because I've seen the arguement made. I haven't so much as glances at the Runepriest, myself - psionics 'poisoned' the PH3 for me, so I haven't picked it up.

 

[MrMyth]

That is a better comparison. The Sorcerer and Warlock are both arcane strikers, they're even both arguably secondary controllers. Functionally, they're a little different, though. The Sorcerer is more about straight-up damage than the Warlock, and it's secondary controller aspect is more focused on area attacks, while the Warlock controller aspect is more about conditions. Conceptually, though, there's a greater difference. The Warlock is sinister (the arcane 'bad boy'), which apeals to a lot of players, and gains his power from a perilous pact with arcane entities of vast power. The Sorcerer, OTOH, is self-contained (an 'arcane entity' in his own right), with power 'in his blood' or otherwise more or less innate, rather than learned, like the Wizard, or borrowed, like the Warlock.

I totally get what you are saying here, but we definitely saw the same arguments over flavor at the time. We saw a lot of threads when the Sorcerer was coming about it rendering the Warlock obsolete, both in mechanics and in flavor - and no matter how many times I might point out that Warlocks power comes from without, and Sorcerer power from within, the difference was lost on many. But for all those complaints, many others still did see the differences between them, and thus far, both remain viable, both in concept and mechanics.

That's why I'm not too concerned here. I think plenty of people will either go with the Sword and Board Fighter because that seems natural, and they don't feel the allure of the Knight - or even just find the name 'Knight' doesn't fit their concept as well. Or they will play a Strength Cleric because they want to play a really strong cleric that both heals friends and beats up enemies, and making Wisdom-driven melee attacks just doesn't work for them.

And honestly, I think what we'll see is that people getting into the hobby with Essentials will play Knights and Warpriests, and tend towards them as default even if they later pick up the PHB; while those who have been playing for a while will probably try out the new sub-classes (if they pick up Essentials), but tend to default to the PHB builds out of instinct. And for others it won't even be an issue - they will only have one book or the other, and use whatever they happen to have. And enough of those who have both will still have their own preferences for the subtle differences in flavor or mechanics that both versions will see plenty of play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I totally get what you are saying here, but we definitely saw the same arguments over flavor at the time. We saw a lot of threads when the Sorcerer was coming about it rendering the Warlock obsolete, both in mechanics and in flavor - and no matter how many times I might point out that Warlocks power comes from without, and Sorcerer power from within, the difference was lost on many. But for all those complaints, many others still did see the differences between them, and thus far, both remain viable, both in concept and mechanics.

When it comes to basic mechanics and class balance, oddly enough, the Sorcerer and Warlock, though two different classes - or, for that matter, the Invoker and Barbarian, though two different classes of different power sources with different roles - are more similar to eachother in execution than the Knight is to the identical-concept, identical-role, same-nominal-class Defender Fighter. That seems overwhelmingly wrong to me.

Not that having a 100% redundant build could ever seem right.

Not that this is the first time a class has made zero sense to me. The Avenger seems like a Paladin who forgot his armor. The Warden and Ardent seem like source-role intersections in futile search of a class concept. The 3.5 Battlemage, 2e Psion, and 1e Bard were all just rediculous.

If the Knight were /just/ an ill-concieved, redundant, class, it wouldn't be so bad. But, it's not just that, it's representative of the 'new direction going forward.' And, given that, someone has to grab the steering wheel and pump the brakes.

And honestly, I think what we'll see is that people getting into the hobby with Essentials will play Knights and Warpriests, and tend towards them as default even if they later pick up the PHB; while those who have been playing for a while will probably try out the new sub-classes (if they pick up Essentials), but tend to default to the PHB builds out of instinct.

Well, that'd be a minor tragedy, IMHO. Try to make the game 'simpler,' end up with two mechanically very different ways of modeling the same concept, doing the same thing. Que endless arguments over which is the 'right' way.

 

[MrMyth]

When it comes to basic mechanics and class balance, oddly enough, the Sorcerer and Warlock, though two different classes - or, for that matter, the Invoker and Barbarian, though two different classes of different power sources with different roles - are more similar to eachother in execution than the Knight is to the identical-concept, identical-role, same-nominal-class Defender Fighter. That seems overwhelmingly wrong to me.

Not that having a 100% redundant build could ever seem right.

Not that this is the first time a class has made zero sense to me. The Avenger seems like a Paladin who forgot his armor. The Warden and Ardent seem like source-role intersections in futile search of a class concept. The 3.5 Battlemage, 2e Psion, and 1e Bard were all just rediculous.

If the Knight were /just/ an ill-concieved, redundant, class, it wouldn't be so bad. But, it's not just that, it's representative of the 'new direction going forward.' And, given that, someone has to grab the steering wheel and pump the brakes.

Well, I think at this point we might just need to agree to disagree. And sometimes that is just what happens with ones view of certain classes - I tend to feel similarly about the Ardent, for example, while finding the Warden conceptually exciting, and seeing great thematic differences between Avengers and Paladins, and certainly significant mechanical ones between the Invoker and the Barbarian.

That said, this specific fear is not one I think you need to worry about being the 'new direction going forward'. Future products aren't going to have the need to find new builds of existing classes that will both appeal to new gamers while offering something to existing players. Now, specific mechanical approaches might be something to worry about, if the mechanics themselves really bother you.

But I think the potential issues of 'redundancy' - which I don't feel is a problem, but can understand your concerns about them - I think that will be limited to Essentials itself, and not to anything that comes after, even if it builds on some of the design choices being made.

Nothing really to do but wait and see, of course, but in that area, even if this is something that bothers you, I don't think there is any cause for future concern.

In my case, though, I'm very much liking what I am seeing with Essentials (and think the Knight will be an excellent new option for my games), so will be more than glad to ride this out to wherever it may lead.

Well, that'd be a minor tragedy, IMHO. Try to make the game 'simpler,' end up with two mechanically very different ways of modeling the same concept, doing the same thing. Que endless arguments over which is the 'right' way.

Now here, here I am seriously confused. I... think you have really, seriously misunderstood me, here. How does the idea that two people might prefer different builds translate to two people arguing over which is the 'right' one to play? This is no different than someone preferring to play a PHB Fighter build over a Battlerager fighter, while someone else prefers a Tempest Fighter. Even if a gamer has a preference, they don't often get into arguments over which is the 'right' way to play. (Other than, I suppose, on the internets...)

It can happen, I guess. But I think the majority of gamers won't have that issue. Just like I might prefer a warlock when my friend prefers a bard, neither of us is going to somehow attack the other for playing the 'wrong' class.

I mean, I don't have any proof that your fears won't come true, but this sort of pessimism about the hobby and those who play is something very alien to my experience with the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

and certainly significant mechanical ones between the Invoker and the Barbarian.

Well, of course there are - just less fundamental differences than between the Fighter and the Knight.

That said, this specific fear is not one I think you need to worry about being the 'new direction going forward'. Future products aren't going to have the need to find new builds of existing classes that will both appeal to new gamers while offering something to existing players. Now, specific mechanical approaches might be something to worry about, if the mechanics themselves really bother you.

I guess I'm concerned about the representation and balance of martial classes. 4e did an excellent job of balancing the classes, and really put the martial classes, especially the fighter, on truely equal footing with all others for the first time. A remarkable accomplishment. Essentials turns the clock back on the martial archetypes, and if /that's/ part of the 'new direction,' well, keep heading in that direction and you could lose that afore-mentioned remarkable accomplishment.

Now here, here I am seriously confused. I... think you have really, seriously misunderstood me, here. How does the idea that two people might prefer different builds translate to two people arguing over which is the 'right' one to play?

You're thinking of two individuals, I'm thinking of two 'camps.' Like there are those who liked 4e and those who didn't. There will be those who like the new matial classes, and those that don't. There are already those who dispise the 4e martial classes, and they should be encouraged to see alternatives to them that encroach less on the specialness of casters. There are those who were impressed with the 4e martial classes, and don't want to see them ruined. If the two aproaches to the martial power source coexist for a while, you can expect some arguments over which aproach is 'right.' Since the 4e aproach was very new and slightly controversial, and the Essentials aproach is back to the old statud quo...

This is no different than someone preferring to play a PHB Fighter build over a Battlerager fighter, while someone else prefers a Tempest Fighter.

It's very different. The existing fighter builds all use the same aproach, and expand what can be done with the fighter class - they add new archetypes. The Essentials builds use a retro aproach, and offers the same archetypes as the PH1 fighter builds. The Tempest Fighter is in no way a candidate to replace a Greatweapon Fighter, for instance. The Knight could easily become a replacement for the Defender Fighter.

Even if a gamer has a preference, they don't often get into arguments over which is the 'right' way to play. (Other than, I suppose, on the internets...)

Wherever it occurred, the dislike of the 4e aproach to the martial power source was virulent and vocal enough to convince WotC to provide an alternative aproach in Essentials.

 

[DracoSuave]

The Knight could easily become a replacement for the Defender Fighter.

The knight has a zone around them that does what Combat Challenge does, thus if that is what you desire, the knight will come out ahead.

The guardian fighter has access to Tide of Iron AND Footwork Lure. The knight does not. This bears repeating. The guardian fighter has access to position-shifting at-wills. The knight does not.

The knight will come out ahead in tactically simple scenarios where 'I'm next to him' is enough to establish control. The guardian fighter will come out ahead in scenarios where 'I need this enemy to be in -this- position' is effective.

The two builds, even from looking at that small level of granularity, cannot be compared on the same level as replaceable. Your knight will -never- Come and Get It. The knight isn't taking -anyone's- jobs today.

 

[Dire Bare]

You mean like how D&D Insider was going to include a game table and features to display a character portrait?

Not taking a shot at anyone in specific here, I'm just illustrating the point that things change and that many fears will be put to rest when we see a more comprehensive release schedule stretching into 2011.

Poor analogy. Wizards did originally state there would be a virtual game table released with 4th Edition, but it got fubared and didn't happen (of course). It's not like they were pulling our collective legs just to say, "HAH! Tricked you! There is no game table!"

For WotC to later admit, "We'll okay, Essentials really is a 4.5 edition change, we were just throwing smoke at you guys for entertainment value", would not be a fubared up release of what they intended, but rather dishonesty. And, I award beautiful tin foil hats to those who like to constantly accuse WotC of "lying".

Not that I think you (Solvarn) are accusing WotC of dishonesty or are engaging in unnecessary histrionics . . . I just think it's a bad analogy that plays into those practices.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The guardian fighter has access to Tide of Iron AND Footwork Lure. The knight does not. This bears repeating. The guardian fighter has access to position-shifting at-wills. The knight does not.

Well, we don't know all the Knight's stances, yet, right?

Seriously, though, I don't mean a 'replacement' as in obviating the Shield Fighter because it's more powerful. I mean a replacement in the sense that it's /the same concept/. The Shield Fighter could be dropped from the game without impacting the range of concepts that could be played. "But I wanted to play a shield-using martial defender!?" "You still can, that's /exactly/ what the Knight is!"

Obviously that hasn't happened yet. The Knight represents an alternative to the Shield Fighter. An alternative is also a potential replacement.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Well, we don't know all the Knight's stances, yet, right?

I'm pretty sure he'll be in favor of slaying monsters and rescuing damsels in distress.