Are the new Essentials Classes too powerful?

[Tony Vargas]

Nothing does more damage than a well built two bladed ranger except possibly a well built archery ranger - with the statics possible even from level 6 or so (it only gets worse at higher levels) number of attacks is king. Scouts are a little behind, but they are behind.

How do you think a poorly built, indifferently played ranger would stack up against an indifferently played pre-gen scout?

 

[Aegeri]

Per the Rules Compendium, penalties to the same thing don't stack, so you can't stack up the -2 from marking with the -4 from break the spirit, etc. Just apply the worst.

That is not correct, all those penalties will stack because they are not from the same source. You have misread the RC What it means is that [for example] two -2 penalties from two different wizards using Illusory Ambush will not stack. But a -2 penalty from Illusory Ambush, stacks with the -2 penalty of a mark, which will stack with whatever ungogly penalty Fearsome Smite (Paladin encounter 1 IIRC) will hand out and such forth. Stacking penalties in a post-MM3 environment is one of the most important tactics PCs can do on important creatures.

If the Mage pushes several foes next to him with Beguiling Strands, they're in the aura (and the Mage can do that as often as he likes).

The problem is if there is anything in there that imposes forced movement, that's the Knight utterly irrelevant. While the Fighter can get in there with sweeping blow, slam every creature and ensure they'll eat a delightful -2 penalty. While the knight is simply shuffled away and the creatures then just immediately gang bang the mage into oblivion. Of course, this is again why Knight finds Dwarf + Defend the Line + World Serpents Grasp is so essential to it. Dwarf stops those little slide 1 and similar effects, defend the line actually means enemies will remain interested in you and world serpents grasp makes it very hard to get away from.

But when things go wrong the Knight finds it cannot have any impact on an encounter. Try fighting a tembo as a Knight - who laughs at World Serpents Grasp (due to getting a save vs. being knocked prone - so won't even fear your OAs), ignores the slow (the shift is 4 squares - specified distances ignore slow as an effect) and will happily rend the mage to pieces (Who is very unlikely to survive this). Without that -2 from the mark the tembos damage stacks up incredibly well. This is the sort of chronic weakness that if exploited can really cripple the knight. Consider other defenders in the same situation: The battlemind duals the thing to the death with lodestone lure - it can't ignore him in this scenario (as it is stuck adjacent to him). The fighter can try to deal as much damage as possible quickly (Rain of Blows), permanently mark it and get other options to deal with it.

All the while the Knight if his one key trick fails is now incapable of dealing with the scenario or providing his role. So here is where I think the essentials classes just aren't anywhere near as powerful as some make them out to be. When you get tested on needing new options and ideas the essentials classes immediately fail. On the other hand in the same situation this is where that PHB fighter will excel.

Frankly, I'd rather have my defender who is going to excel in the difficult situations.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem is if there is anything in there that imposes forced movement, that's the Knight utterly irrelevant.

I think you're putting way to much emphasis on the difference between utterly irrelevant in one sort of situation, and virtually irrelevant in the same situation. While the -2 is nice, stopping 10% or 20% of damage throughput, the threat of mark punishment is huge, and can divert 100% of it against the defender's higher defenses, hps & surges. The Fighter never establishes mark punishment in a situation where the Knight doesn't, the Knight establishes mark punishment in innumberable situations where the Fighter does not.

While the Fighter can get in there with sweeping blow, slam every creature and ensure they'll eat a delightful -2 penalty.

Sure, for that one turn. Then he's back to marking one at a time. Like I was saying, the well-played Fighter is right up there, marking when it's most vital do do so. But a poorly built or less well-played one? He might not even have sweeping blow - maybe he'll have precise strike, instead - maybe he'll have used it to hit two enemies earlier, or save it until it's no longer useful. Marking, for the fighter, especially marking multiple targets, is a serious tactical decision, that he can get wrong (not just in battle, but when choosing powers!) - for the Knight, 'marking' happens automagically.

 

[IanB]

You know I think I may have been thinking of an aura-specific rule rather than penalties in general, come to think of it. I'll have to double check later.

 

[Aegeri]

While the -2 is nice, stopping 10% or 20% of damage throughput, the threat of mark punishment is huge

The Knights mark punishment is very trivial to avoid. That is the entire argument I've been making. A -2 penalty that sticks around is a -2 penalty that inhibits all of your attacks. A simple push and being free to do whatever you want is entirely different.

the Knight establishes mark punishment in innumberable situations where the Fighter does not.

Tell that to the Knight who has just met his first blizzard dragon

Also again, the key point is how trivial it is for many monsters to defeat the Knights mark and then be rampant to do anything they want.

Sure, for that one turn.

Ask yourself this: Is it better than having no mark at all?

for the Knight, 'marking' happens automagically.

And ending a Knights mark is also utterly trivial because it doesn't hang around. The fact is that the Knight is immensely simple to deal with for many monsters - a controller with a simple slide 1 effect can get rid of the Knight all day long. Unless a Knight is a specific build - Dwarf, Defend the Line and Worlds Serpents Grasp they suffer immensely. Heaven forbid the poor player of a Knight who doesn't take those three things. So while you can comment about a Fighter with precise strike, he's still better off than the Knight without the above 3. At least the fighter with precise strike never fails to keep that -2 penalty - which does make a huge difference (especially over multiple attacks).

In the end, when I've tried making effective Knights I always come down to Dwarf/Defend the Line/World Serpents Grasp, then later MC Cleric and Warpriest. The Warpriest mark turns the Knight from an ineffective "Hit me with forced powers to make me irrelevant" target into something absolutely murderous. With the Warpriest mark the Knight can multimark all day long and ensure that important enemies cannot simply avoid any penalty by ignoring them. Plus opens up the feat to make mark penalties -3 instead of -2.

IanB: You were, aura penalties never stack except for damage (which does freely stack now). So a -2 aura and a -5 aura inflicts the worst penalty.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Knights mark punishment is very trivial to avoid. That is the entire argument I've been making.

The Knight's mark punishment is no easier to avoid than the Fighter's.

They are a little different, though: The Fighter's Combat Superiority is better than the Knight's OA (even in Defend the Line) /and/ better than his own Combat Challenge mark-punishment. The Knight's mark punishment is better than the Fighters, and better than is own OA. So if a monster has the choice of staying where he is and hitting the Fighter's ally, vs walking around the fighter and doing it, he'll probably stay and take the marked punishment - and, once he does, all other enemies the fighter may have marked are no longer under threat of mark punsihment, and can attack his allies freely. Conversely, if an enemy has a choice of attacking a knight's ally and taking the auto-damage-on-a-miss mark punishment, he might just move away, provoking an OA - because, hey, it might miss. And, every enemy will face that choice, because both mark punishment an OA are 1/turn, not 1/round.

How individual DMs will respond to that quandry may vary. With a single enemy, it might well lean towards taking the fighter's mark-punishment (because it's not as bad as provoking an OA), and taking the Knight OA (because it's not quite as bad as his mark punishment). But, the Knight's stance-enhanced OA is better than the Fighter's bog-standard MBA mark-punishment. Faced with multiple marked enemies, the quandry is different. If one enemy 'takes it for the team,' the threat of the Fighter's mark-punishment is ended, just like that. There's no such option with the Knight, so it's respect the aura, or everyone provokes OAs. And, it's a quandry the DM of the Fighter faces at most once per Close Burst encounter or daily power the Fighter has, while the DM of the Knight faces it any round the Knight stands next to several enemies, or enemies end up next to him in some other way...


I think what you're trying to get at here is that the case of one or more monsters being able to forcibly move the party defender away from anything it marks is so common, that the only /real/ effect of a Fighter's mark is the -2. That the Fighter's mark punishment is meaningless, so the fact that the Knight has a much easier to establish and strictly superior meaningless mark punishment is, well, meaningless? Paladins, whose mark-punishment can't be so easily evaded, must be just made of glowing radiant awesome, then.

 

[keterys]

Sounds like Knights should pick up Rings of Personal Gravity in Aegeri's game. That and/or suck a bit in the two fights in the campaign they face blizzard dragons.

Personally, I wouldn't want to give up stuff like Come and Get It and the other nuances of having actual powers, but there are undeniable benefits to go with the undeniable penalties of being a Knight instead of a fighter. So, y'know, go with whichever play style you prefer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I'm loving the brawling fighter I'm playing currently, while I got bored with a Knight after a few sessions of D&D Encounters. But in the hands of even a casual or new player, the Knight /works/, while the fighter needs a more skillful hand to contribute as much.

(Heh, another thing to consider is that an Essentials game might very well have a less-experienced DM, who isn't going to be wracking his brain for fiendish ways to make end-runs around class features...)

 

[Aegeri]

The Brawling Fighter is the greatest thing to ever happen to fighters in DnD bar none. I can finally play Beowulf!

Well okay, I still need to have armor on when beating up monsters but I don't *have* to.

Edit: Knights as I mentioned are also very equipment dependent. Rings of Gravity, Aurakiller Weapon and Feyslaughter Weapon are all really important. Though a Knight mc Cleric with Warpriest for the PP is pretty set and doesn't need to care (as all their basic attacks can mark).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Go McRogue for ... what was it 'move in' 'close quarter?' I can't remember: but there's a high-Heroic Rogue power that lets you get in a monster's space and stay there until he can eject you. A similar power for Fighters, but vs FORT to escape rather than REF, would be great for jumping on dragons and the like. Pulling the arm off a troll's a bit of a challenge, though...


On the Knight/Fighter thing. I get the feeling you're thinking of comparing powergamed Knights/Fighters of experienced players coming up against fiendish DMs. Try to image how the two classes might stack up when everyone's new or at least more casual...