Essentials classes - eaiser to play... at reduced tactical complexity?

[Windjammer]

This has been great for me as a player and for me as a DM, since it lets the players focus on things aside from their characters' specific powers and abilities. They can pay attention to the plot more. They can pay attention to their personality more.

You make a great point later on in your post - how combining Essentials with 4.0 gives players their own choice at just how complex they want things to be in combat.

To the extent that having (too) many options during play causes analysis paralysis in some players, or for other reasons slows down the game, I can see the advantages of having fewer options.

But other than that, I don't really see how having fewer options makes it necessarily easier to focus on one's PC's character during combat. And outside combat, it's just as easy to do so (focus on your character in non mechanical terms) as it ever was, prior as well as after Essentials - that's always been a core strength of 4E.

And the lack of MC and Hybrid options? Kiss. Of. Death.

Have you seen the TOC for Dragon #400?

Playtest: New Hybrid and Multiclass Options

By Mike Mearls
In support of Player’s Option: Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, we present a playtest of new hybrid and multiclass options for your heroes.

As for the one-trick-pony builds... Honestly, if you're running an Essentials-only game, you won't so much run into this

Thanks! That's terrific, and very useful to know (as it puts the Jeremy Mac Donald quote into better context). If I ever utilize Essentials, or encourage others to do so, I might ask to run those sessions in "Essentials only" mode.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Have you seen the TOC for Dragon #400?

Awesome- I'll pick that up as soon as it hits the shelves at my FLGS!

 

[The Little Raven]

Here's my experience with Essentials format.

First of all, whenever i have a new player, I directly introduce them to Essentials, especially the knight, slayer, cavalier, scout, or hunter since they almost just do basic attacks. I let the new player get the feel of the rules and combat before letting them engage the original classes, which I highly recommend to them.

Seeing them in play and in character building, I find the reduced options in power choices a bad part for power gamers like me. And having no proper encounter and daily attack powers worsens the deal, again for power gamers like me. But actually, it's not just the power gaming aspect that's a bit affected, it's also the FLASHY roleplaying part when you make an attack. Am I right?

Cavaliers rely on at-will, encounter, and daily attack powers, not basic attacks.

 

[Obryn]

Thanks! That's terrific, and very useful to know (as it puts the Jeremy Mac Donald quote into better context). If I ever utilize Essentials, or encourage others to do so, I might ask to run those sessions in "Essentials only" mode.

I do need to note, however, that Charge abuse is insanely possible in 4e with or without Slayers and Thieves. The only difference is that you're using an enhanced Basic Attack instead of, say, a Barbarian At-Will. The difference can come in when you stock up on all the various crap that adds on to Basic Attacks and/or Charges.

Also, it's not like the cheesiest builds exceed pre-Essentials cheesy builds, either.

I've personally found no disparities in effectiveness in my Dark Sun game which uses both styles of classes. I think part of the reason for this is that I've limited access to magic items, as befits the setting.

-O

 

[Redbadge]

Ummm... I think the Thief and Slayer are definitely and intentionally low-tactics. Not so much the other classes. The Thief, specifically, has a billion ways to get easy Combat Advantage. (Although I should note, with a good party, the Rogue will have little trouble with that, too!) They are definitely Easy-Mode Rogue, but they also lack the other options that make Rogues even better.

The Slayer is basically a stand-and-take-it striker. Again, they have easy tactics. Again, this is intentional.

As for the one-trick-pony builds... Honestly, if you're running an Essentials-only game, you won't so much run into this unless you call a Basic Attack a "trick." Yes, you can turn Thieves and Slayers into Chargemonsters - but this requires items, paragon paths, and feats that aren't found in an E-only game. And even here, it's not like Thieves and Slayers are breaking CharOp DPR records. They're just doing competent damage consistently.

-O

I would just like to point out the essentials classes have broken CharOp DPR records. Check out the 4e optimization forum for the King of Builds thread DPR King Candidates 2.0. At nearly every level, essentials classes round out the top five for pure DPR optimization.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

As far as thief vs. scoundrel ("Easy-mode thief vs. better rogue"), on average, thieves are more accurate, deal more damage, have a greater number of at-will options, higher mobility, and better skills usage. The only area original rogues surpass thieves is in daily powers, an advantage that those rogues will enjoy for a only few encounters per day, and which are frequently inferior to the at-wills that thieves have access to.

Yesterday, during our campaign, our level 4 original ranger blew through her 2 encounter powers in the first couple of rounds. After that, she used twin strike for the entire rest of the fight, hardly moving at all. On the other hand, I used 8 different powers, and had to move every single round, in a variety of ways (the very nature of rogue tricks). In fact, I always have more tactical options and more to do on my turn, and during the entirety of the encounter, than most of the other party members (all who are playing original classes).

Most people apparently have had different experience with essentials, both in play and in building. But I assure you that essentials classes do not have to be less complex in any way.

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

hmmm

Your post makes me want to re-think my stance on essentials. But I don't think at-will DPR is as important as nova damage, and there is no way any essentials class can compete to a properly built pre-essentials striker, AFAIK.

Your job is to kill stuff dead, and fast, not run around and do a million little things that drag the fight on and get you killed. If the level 4 ranger wasn't using Twin Strike every round as his standard, with minors or interrupts for encounters, he's probably picked poor choices. 4e rangers are built around twin strike, that's not huge mistake. There are a huge number of ways to boost twin strike, from psychic lock or defending dabbler, hobbling strike, impending doom, rhythm + harmony blades, all sorts of other ways too.

The question becomes, is it worth it to overkill cheap monsters, or have the ability to nova huge baddies? It's a matter or proportion and system mastery.

I honestly doubt even a solid dpr will make a poor tactical player play such an essentials class effectively.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Your post makes me want to re-think my stance on essentials. But I don't think at-will DPR is as important as nova damage, and there is no way any essentials class can compete to a properly built pre-essentials striker, AFAIK.

Your job is to kill stuff dead, and fast, not run around and do a million little things that drag the fight on and get you killed. If the level 4 ranger wasn't using Twin Strike every round as his standard, with minors or interrupts for encounters, he's probably picked poor choices. 4e rangers are built around twin strike, that's not huge mistake. There are a huge number of ways to boost twin strike, from psychic lock or defending dabbler, hobbling strike, impending doom, rhythm + harmony blades, all sorts of other ways too.

The question becomes, is it worth it to overkill cheap monsters, or have the ability to nova huge baddies? It's a matter or proportion and system mastery.

I honestly doubt even a solid dpr will make a poor tactical player play such an essentials class effectively.

If system mastery is how you play, more power to you, but not everyone does.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Yes, you can turn Thieves and Slayers into Chargemonsters - but this requires items, paragon paths, and feats that aren't found in an E-only game.

Don't forget Scouts -- Aspect of the Charging Ram is amazing. At level 1, a Scout with Charging Ram can charge without risk of OAs, hit for +2 damage, knock prone, and follow up with Dual Weapon Attack (and CA, if you didn't already have it). Now add Boots of Adept Charging (only a level 2 item, though uncommon) and you can end your turn by shifting back one square, if you really want to play it that way.

If you are confident that you will often be getting CA through other means, or your DM tends to use enemies with lower AC, you can switch from light blades to axes and grab Headsman's Chop for an extra +5 damage on the DWA. Alternatively, stick with light blades and LBE, make sure you get CA for the +1/2/3 damage, throw in Nimble Blade, and you will be as accurate as a Thief with potentially higher damage.

 

[Mentat55]

After playing a wizard for many sessions in our current game, from levels 12 to 16, the last two sessions I've played a slayer. I chose to take the Martial Cross-Training feat to get one fighter encounter power, and I also took the Kensei PP and Reserve Maneuver to get another one, so I have 2 uses of power strike plus 2 encounter powers.

Overall, I've found the slayer to have a different flavor of tactical complexity compared to my wizard (who was more control-focused than AOE damage-focused), but not noticeably less. Indeed, I found myself bouncing between my three at-will stances, trying to find one that was optimal for the situation, moving around the battlefield a lot, and switching between acting as an emergency defender and focusing solely on killing things. I thought playing the slayer was pretty dynamic -- of course I am not a charge-centric build, and I wield a non-standard slayer weapon as well (spiked chain).

 

[Redbadge]

Your post makes me want to re-think my stance on essentials. But I don't think at-will DPR is as important as nova damage, and there is no way any essentials class can compete to a properly built pre-essentials striker, AFAIK.

Like any class, essentials have a wide range of optimization and tactical effectiveness, depending on the player. And a properly built essentials class can nova. I would not say that there is no way they can compete with a properly built pre-essentials striker. Most essential novas may not be higher than original strikers, but I think they are competitive. On average, an essentials character can deal between 200-250% damage to an average monster of the same level with a nova. Essentials classes can kill an elite with a nova, or bloody a solo. So the only original novas that are way beyond essential capabilities are ones that kill a solo in one round. Any nova less than that is just overkill on a normal or elite, so it doesn't matter that the raw nova number is higher; both essentials and non-essentials kill in one round (I do concede that original strikers that can nova more than once per encounter have another advantage, since this is difficult to duplicate with most essential classes). Meanwhile, properly built and played essentials have higher at-will dpr.

I'll use my thief as an example again. My nova consists of the following:
Charge an enemy granting combat advantage (either dazed, prone, in flanking, etc.) using Backstab. Action point to gain an extra standard action this turn and extend the turn. Use Low Slash as a minor. Shift backwards two squares with unbalancing trick and charge again. If and when the target attacks the defender on its turn, I can use the MBA from Battle Awareness. If the creature is still alive at any point, our bard can give me an extra attack with my superior MBA.

Using the DnD 4e DPR calculator available on the 4e CharOp forums, I can see that my nova does 117 damage on average. A level 4 elite has 110 hp on average, so my nova is very effective.

I know that essentials classes can be less than their original brethren, both in options and in effectiveness, as evidenced by the experience of many of posters. All I'm saying is that they do not have to be.