Are stance utilities less desirable for essentials fighters

[DracoSuave]

You are correct. They are compatible, just a poor choice.

4e has done a better job then 3.x of stopping people from making poor characters. However with Essentials we have power choices (like above) that don't synergize well, and a ton of feats that are still "live" but lose out to new feats. It's becoming easier and easier for a new player to make a character that isn't on par with the rest of the table.

I really think they should give up the "it's all backwards compatible" that leaves in increasingly numbers of meh choices and trim some of the chaff.

It has nothing to do with Essentials.

Every class in the game has some powers that work better for certain builds than others. This is not new, and nothing about Essentials, or any future or past book, can ever, nor should ever, do something about it.

 

[MrMyth]

You are correct. They are compatible, just a poor choice.

4e has done a better job then 3.x of stopping people from making poor characters. However with Essentials we have power choices (like above) that don't synergize well, and a ton of feats that are still "live" but lose out to new feats. It's becoming easier and easier for a new player to make a character that isn't on par with the rest of the table.

I really think they should give up the "it's all backwards compatible" that leaves in increasingly numbers of meh choices and trim some of the chaff.

I'm not really seeing a new problem here. Even in the PHB alone, some options will be weaker or stronger for different builds than fighters.

So, I'm an Essentials Fighter and thus Boundless Endurance (stance that provides 2+Con regen while bloodied) isn't a good option for me.

How is this any different from being a PHB-only Fighter who uses heavy swords and has a high dex and a low con... and, thus, doesn't care about Boundless Endurance either?

Yes, by allowing different builds within a class to choose powers aimed at other builds, they are allowing people to take subpar choices. But it is usually clear when that is the case, and instead removing those options entirely would, in my mind, weaken the game. I like that a sword fighter tends to feel different from an axe fighter, and I like that a Tempest Fighter feels different from a Slayer.

You may have a point with the Essentials feats, sure. But the classes themselves? Backwards compatability is just fine. Differences between builds already exist, and have since the PHB, and have only really strengthened the game, not weakened it.

 

[CovertOps]

You are correct. They are compatible, just a poor choice.

4e has done a better job then 3.x of stopping people from making poor characters. However with Essentials we have power choices (like above) that don't synergize well, and a ton of feats that are still "live" but lose out to new feats. It's becoming easier and easier for a new player to make a character that isn't on par with the rest of the table.

I really think they should give up the "it's all backwards compatible" that leaves in increasingly numbers of meh choices and trim some of the chaff.

I think this was aimed at feats such as Versatile Expertise that makes other versions of Expertise strictly inferior. If a new power or feat is going to be better than an existing power or feat the the "outdated" power/feat/whatever should be removed (chaff).

 

[BobTheNob]

Stop the presses, some powers are not optimal for some builds!

Wait... don't. This is normal.

Stop the Presses, a sardonic response to a reasonable question on a forum!

Wait... don't. This is normal.

 

[Shin Okada]

I think this was aimed at feats such as Versatile Expertise that makes other versions of Expertise strictly inferior. If a new power or feat is going to be better than an existing power or feat the the "outdated" power/feat/whatever should be removed (chaff).

It is not something newly appeared in the Essentials line. It has already happened several times when PHB 2-3 or other Power Books were released. Some powers and feats in there were simply stronger than similar ones in the previous books and made them useless.

By the way, at least at this moment, Versatile Expertise is not just inferior to the newer expertise feats. While Weapon Expertise, Implement Expertise, and new Expertise feats say either "weapon attack " or "implement attack", Versatile Expertise feat does not have such notion.

So if you choose, say Heavy Blade as a weapon group and uses some songblade as an implement, you can still gain attack bonus to implement powers.

Many of the race-specific weapon feats still has similar edge. Eladrin Soldier feat still gives you bonus to damage rolls when using a longsword as an implement.

There are possibilities that WotC may make additional downgrading on those feats in future, though.

 

[UHF]

You know.. I prefer the original 4e methodology, but the more I think about it, I might actually be happier if all the classes were 'Essentialized'. (I'm just tossing that out there, I'm not trying to start a fight.)

I find that when I'm making a Rogue, I almost always wind up with the same build, 'cause it suits me. But I often want to know what, say, a Rattling Rogue might be like, but I end up with a mobile Rogue... 'cause that's what I like to play.