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

[Redbadge]

Not entirely. First, I'm not "anti" Essentials, just feel they could have been done better. Second, that was just one example. Third, you still can't Hybridize them.

As for the rest of your post...

Those are located where? And are there similar feats for all the eClasses?

Of course, I agree. Every 4e class released so far could have been better. In fact, a few could have been alot better. The seeker, the original assassin, the original warlock, the revised original cleric, and yes even an essentials class in the vampire are all pretty bad/poorly designed. This is not something endemic to essentials, though I respect that you feel that essentials classes are not as good on the whole compared to earlier classes.

As for the MC feats, they exist in another form as Arcane Initiate and Sneak of Shadows in PHB1, otherwise they are identical to how I posted them. Every essentials class (except the vampire) has a multiclass feat and the ability to multiclass. Currently, there are no subclass specific multiclass feats, not even for pre-essentials classes. Additional multiclass feats for the subclasses will be coming along shortly, along with a multiclass feat for the vampire.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for the MC feats, they exist in another form as Arcane Initiate and Sneak of Shadows in PHB1, otherwise they are identical to how I posted them.

Yeah...about that.

While I'm all in favor of HRs, RAI, and the spirit of the rules, etc., I also recognize that not every GM runs their game that way. So if something isn't in the RAW as a starting point, I don't tend to count it as a standard, commonly available option.

(Not that I'm ever DMing 4Ed.)

 

[Redbadge]

Yeah...about that.

While I'm all in favor of HRs, RAI, and the spirit of the rules, etc., I also recognize that not every GM runs their game that way. So if something isn't in the RAW as a starting point, I don't tend to count it as a standard, commonly available option.

(Not that I'm ever DMing 4Ed.)

That's what I was saying though; these aren't house rules or subjective interpretations.

Sneak of Shadows (PHB1) explicitly gives you multiclassing in the thief's class and gives you flavorful benefits that the thief possesses that other classes are not otherwise able to get.

Similarly, Arcane Initiatie (PHB1) gives you multiclassing in the class shared by the mage and the arcanist and allows other classes to benefit from some mage abilities.

I think if you look at it from my perspective, it might make you a little bit happier about the advent of subclasses. Originally, we had race, class, build, PP, and ED. You also had the option of MC and paragon MC. WOTC then added backgrounds, then hybrids, then themes. Now, we also have another layer in subclasses. Post-essentials 4e material has added another flavorful and interesting layer of complexity with these subclasses. That's right, 4th edition is now more complex than it was before with the advent of essentials. You have many more options than you had before, and those options will continue to increase. Right now there aren't many feats or other game elements that have the prerequisite: Weaponmaster, or Slayer, or Knight. But there will be. In the mean time, subclasses allow WOTC to offer options that are different take on the over-all fighter, or wizard, or rogue archetype, while still allowing these new character options to still tap into the already existing exstensive pool of fighter/wizard/rogue feats, items, powers, paragon paths, and more.

Simultaneously, essentials classes can offer new players an easier entry into the system, while also allowing existing players to use system mastery or just plain interest to to do alot with these new character choices. Both when building and in play (while also being flavorful, tactically varied, complex, and interesting, and just as effecient and optimizable as any other classes in 4e), as I hope I've demonstrated with my previous posts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's what I was saying though; these aren't house rules or subjective interpretations.

Sneak of Shadows (PHB1) explicitly gives you multiclassing in the thief's class and gives you flavorful benefits that the thief possesses that other classes are not otherwise able to get.

Similarly, Arcane Initiatie (PHB1) gives you multiclassing in the class shared by the mage and the arcanist and allows other classes to benefit from some mage abilities.

Sorry, gotta disagree. Otherwise, the Hybrid rules would cover the subclasses as well (they use the same kind of language by referring to the class names), and its pretty clear that they don't.

Besides, if that were true, why would WotC be doing a playtest on new MC and Hybrid rules for Essentials classes as mentioned in the aforementioned ToC of Dragon #400?

 

[Redbadge]

Sorry, gotta disagree. Otherwise, the Hybrid rules would cover the subclasses as well (they use the same kind of language by referring to the class names), and its pretty clear that they don't.

Besides, if that were true, why would WotC be doing a playtest on new MC and Hybrid rules for Essentials classes as mentioned in the aforementioned ToC of Dragon #400?

I'm still not sure why you disagree. The thief is a rogue; Sneak of Shadows let's you multiclass into rogue, the thief's class. It's true that there is no feat that let's you multiclass specifically into the thief subclass, but it is also true that there is no feat that let's you multiclass specifically into the scoundrel subclass (the orgininal rogue), RAW as of essentials. Multiclassing into rougue with Sneak of Shadows gives you benefits that are shared by both scoundrel and thief, although technically you are neither (or maybe both).

At any rate, RAW (RAI as far as I know) let's you do some pretty interesting things with essentials multiclassing. For example, 4e CharOp has developed a thief/scout build by giving a thief multiclassing in ranger (Warrior of the Wild), and using Paragon Multiclassing to replace one of your Thief Tricks with the Scout's Dual Weapon Attack power. You can replace powers freely from either the scout, hunter, or origninal ranger (woodsman, I think?). I confirmed with Customer Service that this was intended and the character builder also allows the thief to paragon multiclass last I checked. I have come across no source or other rule that disputes that essentials can multiclass this way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm still not sure why you disagree. The thief is a rogue; Sneak of Shadows let's you multiclass into rogue, the thief's class

Again, the Hybrid rules ALSO refer to the "Rogue", but it is clear that this refers only to the PHB class, not the Rogue subclasses.

Even though the PHBs all predate Essentials, I'm pretty sure that they intend that "Rogue" is to be read the same way in each instance as part of their efforts to make 4Ed internally consistent. So, if the old MC feats that use "Rogue" apply to the subclasses, it follows that the Hybrid rules using the same terminology must also apply to subclasses.

Except numerous threads & little FAQ answers that popped up with Essentials' release said you couldn't Hybridize those classes.

For example:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26090581/4Eessentials_rules_FAQ

Can other characters multiclass into essentials classes?

Not currently. We have no initial multiclass feats anywhere yet for the essentials classes, which we would need in order to take power-swap feats for those classes.


Can we hybrid-class essentials classes?


Not currently, as there are no rules to tell us how this works.

AND WotC is talking about new MC and Hybrid rules specifically for the eClasses.

 

[Redbadge]

Again, the Hybrid rules ALSO refer to the "Rogue", but it is clear that this refers only to the PHB class, not the Rogue subclasses.

Even though the PHBs all predate Essentials, I'm pretty sure that they intend that "Rogue" is to be read the same way in each instance as part of their efforts to make 4Ed internally consistent. So, if the old MC feats that use "Rogue" apply to the subclasses, it follows that the Hybrid rules using the same terminology must also apply to subclasses.

Except numerous threads & little FAQ answers that popped up with Essentials' release said you couldn't Hybridize those classes.

For example:



AND WotC is talking about new MC and Hybrid rules specifically for the eClasses.

Good quote. I hadn't seen that. In the context of that quote, you also make a good point about original MC and hybrid must refer to the specific subclass (ie scoundrel, or weaponmaster, or arcanist).

I just hope that the forthcoming essentials specific MC and hybrid rules allow a few more people to appreciate and enjoy the essentials classes.

 

[Windjammer]

As Obryn and others have pointed out upthread, there's several Essential classes which don't at all have the reduced tactical complexity of the thief or slayer. So just looking at the Hunter again earlier today, I saw its 1st level at-will "Clever Strike". Which lets you do a ranged basic attack and, if it hits, you get to choose one of three added effects: slide target 2 squares OR target falls prone OR target is slowed (save ends).

And that's brilliant! That exactly pushes decision making away from chargen into what happens in play. You pick one power, but effectively you got three, inviting decision making on the spur of the moment as opposed to: before the session opens.

And the other brilliant thing - the little page space this takes. We had 4E powers with variable effects before (e.g. PHB 3 classes) but these were massive write ups. Here they are all there, can be gathered at a glance, which speeds up in-game decision making and prevents fights dragging on too long. (Contrast the hypothetical scenario where these were 3 separate at-wills, and your eyes glaze over the page between the 3 at wills write up every time your turn comes up.)

Just a snippet, but Essentials is more and more growing on me. While I'm not happy with all the pluses the hunter gets on his ranged attack at level 1 (built in expertise feat, a further class ability, etc), I actually think that 4E would have been a much better game 'out of the gate' (2008) if powers were generally written up like Clever Shot - lots of decisions in one spot, stated concisely. Much, much better than the endless waves of additional powers, each of which adds so little mechanically to the overall game(play).

 

[Herschel]

It depends on the class (some very much so), however, the MM3 -type monsters do have a negative effect on tactical play in cases also.

An example: My Skirmishing Warlord sets up a nifty combo on a relatively big baddie. Shoot him once (2W), giving ranged attackers +4 to hit the baddie, Action Point into second shot (2W also) giving allies combat advantage and an extra 5 damage on action point attacks against the enemy. I've used it a number of times now and it's almost invariably gone like this:

Shot, hit, shoot, bloody, Brawler Fighter walks up to engage and mark, hit and dead.