Essentials classes and older stuff

[Zaran]

I'm MOSTLY ok with it but I will not allow a Thief who specializes in charging to get their hands on alot of charging equipment. It means the GM has to keep an eye on things more but that's not a bad thing. You also can look at it this way. They are trading alot of nifty powers and tactical choices for high damage boredom. One trick characters do get old.

 

[Rahlious]

Thanks for the responses, everyone! It has been great to see a few different perspectives on the matter.

As for my character, I'm a Human Knight (11th level) and the only potentially dirty thing that I have Vicious Advantage. But the DM has said that he's fine with it. And I think it's ok... but the Knight certainly is one of classes that gets the most mileage out of that feat. I can't imagine that many people taking it before the Essentials books entered the scene.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have yet to see a background that gives a bonus to basic attacks..

There was a thread a month or so back involving a character (a thief) using a background (I forget which, most backgrounds don't give bonus attacks, but this one gave a rider effect like a stun to a basic attack - t was something like Mercenary or Grizzled Veteran) using a weapon of speed (an additional basic attack) plus Backstab (the thief ability) plus an action point plus a bunch of other stuff to do ridiculous damage in one round.

The combo relied on adding numerous things to basic attacks, in other words.

It required digging through the CB and looking at four or more sources. I couldn't resurrect the combo myself and can't search for the thread (no paid account).

 

[sigfile]

There was a thread a month or so back involving a character (a thief) using a background (I forget which, most backgrounds don't give bonus attacks, but this one gave a rider effect like a stun to a basic attack - t was something like Mercenary or Grizzled Veteran) using a weapon of speed (an additional basic attack) plus Backstab (the thief ability) plus an action point plus a bunch of other stuff to do ridiculous damage in one round.

That was probably Gritty Sergeant, used to score proficiency with the rapier without burning a feat slot. That's a staple of most optimized thief builds.

No background provides a rider to a basic attack.

 

[chitzk0i]

There was a thread a month or so back involving a character (a thief) using a background (I forget which, most backgrounds don't give bonus attacks, but this one gave a rider effect like a stun to a basic attack - t was something like Mercenary or Grizzled Veteran) using a weapon of speed (an additional basic attack) plus Backstab (the thief ability) plus an action point plus a bunch of other stuff to do ridiculous damage in one round.

The combo relied on adding numerous things to basic attacks, in other words.

It required digging through the CB and looking at four or more sources. I couldn't resurrect the combo myself and can't search for the thread (no paid account).

Oh, you mean a theme. So if your DM allows themes and if your DM hands you a specific rare item, you have a very good AP nova. That's pretty powerful, but it shouldn't be game-breaking.

My group has decided to avoid the whole problem by not using Essentials, and overall I like it.

There is some good stuff in there, but Essentials went a bit too far for me and my groups, so it is blanket banned.

The only thing I think could be broken with essentials is the basic attack cheese. Basic melee attacks got a huge powerup with Essentials.

There are classes in essentials with very good basic attacks. How does that make basic attacks in general better?

 

[Dice4Hire]

There are classes in essentials with very good basic attacks. How does that make basic attacks in general better?

Is this a serious question?

Since some classes in Essentials use Basic attacks, all the feats, magic items, and such that add onto basic attacks are now more effective, as they are adding onto a higher base level.

Some of the things pre-essentials that were thought to be balanced on a sub-optimal attack might not be balanced now with them being put onto a much more useful attack.

Does that explain my thinking?

Seems pretty basic to me, but don't think I am trying to attack you here.

 

[chitzk0i]

Is this a serious question?

Since some classes in Essentials use Basic attacks, all the feats, magic items, and such that add onto basic attacks are now more effective, as they are adding onto a higher base level.

Some of the things pre-essentials that were thought to be balanced on a sub-optimal attack might not be balanced now with them being put onto a much more useful attack.

Does that explain my thinking?

Seems pretty basic to me, but don't think I am trying to attack you here.

You mean something like the fighter feat that gives basic attacks the rattling keyword? It never got used before, but now you can have a knight whose every attack is rattling. Of course, the downside is that you're still a knight.

Basically, Essentials hasn't made any huge waves in the CharOp community. Scouts can actually pull off very respectable DPR when you add in pre-Essentials sources, but PHB rangers still top them. Warlords do well with an Essentials basic attack to play off of, but the best options warlords have are still things that buff the entire party instead of just one guy.

Plus, me and the optimizers that I know all want things to do during combat whereas basic attack classes don't have enough knobs and dials to be satisfying.

 

[Grabuto138]

Unfortunately, Essentials can combine with older (and even newer) stuff and result in broken combos. For instance, the Knight's "everything is a basic attack" philosophy can become problematic if backed up by a warlord (which was designed when melee basic attacks were always weak) or with items/backgrounds/whatever that boosts basic attacks.

As a player of lazy Warlords and Shamans I like essentials characters. It is more fun for me.

 

[D'karr]

Unfortunately, Essentials can combine with older (and even newer) stuff and result in broken combos. For instance, the Knight's "everything is a basic attack" philosophy can become problematic if backed up by a warlord (which was designed when melee basic attacks were always weak) or with items/backgrounds/whatever that boosts basic attacks.

As a player of lazy Warlords and Shamans I like essentials characters. It is more fun for me.

I'm a DM and I like to challenge my players with tough combats.

I always felt that Basic Attacks in pre-essentials characters were really a "wasted" resource. It would have been nice if they were more interesting, specially at lower levels when at times you were down to at-will powers and variety would have been nice. Essentials moved in a "better" direction with Basic Attacks. Since their basic attacks are "better", this is the way I'd like for all classes to work.

One of my main "beefs" with martial classes is the minor action. It seems like there are very few things to do with a minor action except attack. It would be nice if martial characters had options (riders) with minor actions that triggered with Basic Attacks. Just as a very general example.

Combat should have interesting options, and for pre-essentials the basic attack option just didn't feel like much of an option at all.