Essentials are melee heavy

[tentfox]

I was just thinking about this, it seems to me that every single essentials class outside the controllers are melee. Even the character I assumed to be the ranged striker, the hexblade, was confirmed to be a melee caster in the latest podcast.

Considering the goals of essentials; do you think that having almost everyone, 4 out 5 in majority parties, being in melee to be counter-productive of having easier to play games?

 

[BobTheNob]

Really, the Hexblade is melee! Drool...

 

[Drakhar]

I was just thinking about this, it seems to me that every single essentials class outside the controllers are melee. Even the character I assumed to be the ranged striker, the hexblade, was confirmed to be a melee caster in the latest podcast.

Considering the goals of essentials; do you think that having almost everyone, 4 out 5 in majority parties, being in melee to be counter-productive of having easier to play games?

Actually concidering what I've heard from the people I talk D&D with, most people seem to prefer Melee characters over Ranged, There is very little risk in being able to attack enemies from 20 odd squares away.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Really, the Hexblade is melee! Drool...

From the podcast, it's primarily melee, although they hinted there would be some close bursts and the like. Additionally, they specifically mentioned a Hexblade taking some regular Warlock abilities to pick up some range. They mention the two builds as well - Fey Pact uses rapiers as a pact blade and is lighter armor, where the Diabolic Pact get a large sword (they didn't know off-hand, possibly broad) and is generally more armored.

 

[keterys]

Thieves can be quite effective from ranged.

Anyhow, the game works better when you have a mixups in melee, rather than characters who just kinda pose and toss in from 20 squares out

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, being melee-heavy is not something started by Essentials. From the beginning, 4e has been rather melee-heavy.

Yep, there was bow ranger and Wizard. But aside from those 2 classes, there was no classes in PHB who can consistently attack at range 20 with reasonable attack.

Cleric and Charismadin had ranged powers but their rages were really short. Even warlock did not have much ranged 20 powers (at-wills are all ranged 10). And while rogue could sneak attack at range, it was difficult to gain combat advantage at range.

Basically, being melee heavy will makes a game more exiting and easy to play, provided the adventures are made appropriately,

On the other hand, most PCs fight miserably against flying monsters. Thus, even if calculated encounter level is appropriate, if a DM makes an encounter which involves flying non-melee monster in a room with high ceiling (or outside), it can easily become TPK.

This is no good for making this game "easy to play". Because this is not so DM-friendly. But this is not a problem which Essentials started. This is an inherent problem of 4e and not yet solved.

 

[Dan'L]

Also, many of the Slayer's stances are ranged-weapon compatible. You can pull out the longbow when you need to.

It is funny, though, that from what we've seen the ranger build isn't ranged and the cavalier isn't a horseman.

-Dan'L

 

[Neverfate]

Well, being melee-heavy is not something started by Essentials. From the beginning, 4e has been rather melee-heavy.

Yep, there was bow ranger and Wizard. But aside from those 2 classes, there was no classes in PHB who can consistently attack at range 20 with reasonable attack.

Cleric and Charismadin had ranged powers but their rages were really short. Even warlock did not have much ranged 20 powers (at-wills are all ranged 10). And while rogue could sneak attack at range, it was difficult to gain combat advantage at range.

Basically, being melee heavy will makes a game more exiting and easy to play, provided the adventures are made appropriately,

On the other hand, most PCs fight miserably against flying monsters. Thus, even if calculated encounter level is appropriate, if a DM makes an encounter which involves flying non-melee monster in a room with high ceiling (or outside), it can easily become TPK.

This is no good for making this game "easy to play". Because this is not so DM-friendly. But this is not a problem which Essentials started. This is an inherent problem of 4e and not yet solved.

Maybe some people have campaigns in dungeons . . .

Encounter design should be based on party design. Any inherent flaw in 4th edition is pretty much solved by its inherent strengths. Unfortunately it is just weighted that way, but it's fairly easy to balance. If a DM makes an encounter with a flying creature for a party of fighters, the DM didn't think of what his players might find fun to stab to death with their swords ("Ah-ha, my players won't be able to reach the creature, surely THAT will be interesting!". The DM failed at encounter design. Not D&D.

 

[Jack99]

Also, many of the Slayer's stances are ranged-weapon compatible. You can pull out the longbow when you need to.

It is funny, though, that from what we've seen the ranger build isn't ranged and the cavalier isn't a horseman.

-Dan'L

Hello Mr. Positive
Let me clarify a couple of things.

1) one of two ranger builds are ranged
2) the cavalier IS a horseman, he just doesn't get his bonded mount until level 4.

Chris

 

[drothgery]

From the podcast, it's primarily melee, although they hinted there would be some close bursts and the like. Additionally, they specifically mentioned a Hexblade taking some regular Warlock abilities to pick up some range. They mention the two builds as well - Fey Pact uses rapiers as a pact blade and is lighter armor, where the Diabolic Pact get a large sword (they didn't know off-hand, possibly broad) and is generally more armored.

Hopefully this means HotFK gives us wepliment expertise for heavy blades and light blades, then...