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

[Windjammer]

I've been perusing the Heroes of books in the past week, and was wondering if the Enworld community could help me to substantiate or devalidate a sneaking suspicion that I had upon browsing that material. Immediate Disclaimer: I haven't used Essentials in play, nor has any other person in my 4E campaigns, and that's my primary reason for asking this question in the open - to get feedback from people who have.

I think we're all fairly familiar with the observation that Essentials has reduced the complexities of character generation and progression. Many choices are made on the player's behalf, which rules out making mistakes along the way.

But I'm more specifically wondering about the effects of the Essentials class builds' class features and powers during play. For instance, from my experience of playing a 4.0 rogue, it's a major issue of the class to a) get you into situations which secure you Combat Advantage over monster while b) avoiding getting hit too much from e.g. opportunity attacks. Both things relate to clever play and making the most of your rogue's mobility on the battle field.

Looking at the Essentials rogue, however, it seems that the way his class features/powers work make these things a no-brainer. He gets an at will mobility action that basically excludes that he can get hit by opportunity attacks along the way (whereas previously you'd get a bonus to your AC to such attacks, depending on your build choices). Another feature (I think it's also an at will) secures that he gets combat advantage until the end of his next turn. And that's just level 1 features.

Not having looked at the other classes too much, I wonder whether people have discerned similar changes (from 4.0 classes) in such respects. And, I wonder what your experience has been in playing these (Essentials) builds.

To my mind, I appreciate that a lot of the tactical effort usually required to attain certain advantages on the battle field has been pre-empted. But I also wonder whether that's not helping players too much. Whether, in other words, Essentials is playing 4E at reduced difficulty rate. Let me know - I'm curious!

Edit. I'll add a tangentially related post by Jeremy Mac Donald from the Paizo boards where he points out how (in his play experience) several Essentials builds invite making up "one trick ponies". Again, seems to point to reduced tactical complexity compared to pre-Essentials material:

in Essentials your basic attack is a pretty good at will - it can be relied on never to change so its easy to just load every feat, magic item, utility power. etc. into doing that one thing but having it do obscene things when it happens...which should be every single round because the power is an at-will. In other words in Essentials its easy to make a character that says 'When I charge' I get this bonus and that bonus and another bonus from over here and then use abilities that let you shift 3 or more every round so that you can always charge every turn. With the older format it was harder to find powers that where both good and let you charge and nearly impossible to find an ability that would let you shift 3+ every single round - a few times sure but not perpetually.

 

[Zaphling]

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?

Also, in my experience with a slayer having a low dexterity, he becomes useless in ranged fights unless he has a lot of throwing weapons or a magical weapon. So the essentials, in a way, lets you become a one trick pony. but they do have a very high base damage in exchange for their lost encounter and daily attacks. I managed to create an archer slayer with a +11 to damage rolls at level 3. And my other original class players were like WOAH!

 

[OnlineDM]

Your suspicions are more or less correct for the simplified Essentials classes (this doesn't apply to the Mage, Warpriest, etc. - the classes that still have the AEDU - At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility - structure). I've seen a bunch of them in play (and used some of them myself) and they do appear to be simple to play (not just simple to build) compared to original 4e versions of those classes.

Thief: He has some tactical choices about which exact move to use this turn, but it doesn't usually matter much - he's going to get combat advantage (either directly from the move itself or from flanking) and not take any opportunity attacks. My take on the thief in action is here.

Slayer: I've only seen one or two in play, but it's about the simplest class in 4e. You walk up to something and smash it in the face for a bunch of damage. The stances are usually even less interesting than the Thief's movement tricks, and it's typical for the Slayer to pick one stance (do I want extra damage or extra accuracy?) and stay in it. Hulk smash.

Knight: Slightly more interesting in play since there's an element of trying to position the Knight so that the maximum number of enemies are in the defender aura. Plus, he has to remember to turn that aura on (but really just once per day - then it stays on). I've seen the Knight change stances a little more often than the Slayer. But it's certainly easier than having to remember to mark the people you attacked as with the PHB1 Fighter (sigh - "Weaponmaster").

Hunter: I've played one of these through 4th level in Living Forgotten Realms. He's a little more interesting since the decision about when to use Disruptive Shot is more of a decision than when to use Power Strike (whenever you hit something other than a minion) or Backstab (whenever you want to really wreck something). Disruptive Shot and Clever Shot (the bread and butter attack) also provide choices on a hit (daze/immobilize for Disruptive, prone/slow/slide for Clever). Finding a good place to drop a Rapid Shot is a little bit interesting as well. But overall, I'd say the Hunter is still pretty simple.

Scout: I've not actually seen one in action yet, so I can't say too much about it.

Cavalier: An interesting case, as the Cavalier actually does have the AEDU structure. However, a player in one of my games created a Cavalier and played her for a few sessions and then asked to change to something else because the Cavalier felt boring to her compared to what the other characters were able to do. Again, the defender aura is simpler than Divine Challenge from the original Paladin. Having played an original Paladin for 10 levels of LFR, I think that the Paladin is generally a pretty straightforward class anyway, so it's not so much an issue of the Cavalier being over-simplified as the Paladin not really being what this particular player was looking for.

 

[GameOgre]

In the game I am playing the two new players both play Essentials class characters (Slayers). The guys who know what they are doing play the Fighters,Warlord and Wizard.

Both new characters can do there jobs in combat without knowing how to max out there characters builds ect because Essentials does most of that work for them.

Sure we have to explain a ton of things to the new guys but there characters are not at a huge disadvantage in game because of that newness.

It has worked great for us! The characters do seem to have a lot less tactical oh heck yeah momments that are designed into the game but they seem to have more Oh Heck Yeah Random momments of Ubertration.

 

[Redbadge]

I like the essentials classes, and I don't think that they have less complexity or options either in play or in building (notwithstanding the vampire, which would benefit from additional options).

I'm playing a level 4 thief right now. I have four at-wills (Acrobat's Trick, Ambush Trick, Unbalancing Trick, and Acrobat's Recovery Utility). I have four encounter powers (Backstab, Battle Awareness, Heroic Effort, and Low Slash). I have two daily powers (Power Jewel and Vanguard Rapier).

Like most other characters, my at-wills consist of a basic attack that is amped up with something else. My at-will attack otions include knocking a character prone, doing extra damage, or attacking with automatic combat advantage against a creature that is all alone. I do excel at charging, and it is my best interests to constantly search for opportunities to charge into combat advantage. However, it is not always possible or desirable to do it every round. My at-will movement surpasses most other classes, except for maybe the monk. I can shift 2 squares at-will, stand up from prone as a minor at-will, or move with a climb speed of 4 at-will.

My encounters are also very similiar to other characters. Like encounter powers from other classes, my attacks are at-wills either with more damage or additional effect. I have a very flavorful Backstab for my thief, which is a highly accurate and damaging compared to my at-wills. In addition to turning a miss into a hit, this attack also has the option of knocking prone, dealing additional damage, or being triggered by automatic combat advantage. Battle awareness is an out-of-turn attack prized by all types of strikers, and low slash is one of the best rogue powers available to any type of rogue.

I still have daily options, though it is true that I will never have any daily attacks like other classes. At level 4, this will impact one encounter per day compared to other characters. In exchange, my at-will attacks are more potent all day long. I only miss on a 1 versus average monsters of my level and I have two encounter options to change any misses I do have to hits for those pesky soldiers and solos. (+5 Dex + 2 Level + 3 prof + 1 enhancement + 1 Weapon Talent + 1 expertise + 1 charge + 2 CA = +16 vs AC 18). My attacks also deal much more damage than any one else in party, by far, such that my at-wills deal more damage than any of my allies' dailies. On top of my superior mobility and damage, my skills are a very strong part of my character.

Some people say that essentials is not idea for power-gaming, that essentials classes are somehow less powerful or unoptimizable. The consensus on the 4e optimization boards is different. For example, the thief is considered the best practically optimized striker from 1-30. There are classes that deal more damage per round at any given level, but no class is competetive like the theif at every single level. At low heroic, there is no more damaging striker than the thief.

I put a lot of time into thinking about and putting together my character, and I had to make many decisions. Even among the "optimized" builds there are many ways to go with the thief. With a less damage focused build, there would be even more decisions to make.

Note that though I'm trying to go for a highly damaging, but otherwise versatile thief, I will not be taking Kulkor Arms Master because I don't find it flavorful at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I thought 4Ed had too few options out of the box (in terms of PC design flexibility), so most Essentials classes leave me cold. I kinda like the Hexblade...but I'd like it more if it were as flexible as the Warlock or Swordmage.

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

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, I'm playing a mostly-Essentials home game right now. We've got a Hexblade, a Thief, and an eHunter; and a Paladin from the PHB (with additional options added).

It has been so much easier to get the three E people on board with understanding how their character works than it has to get the Paladin on board with the same thing.

I've also played Essentials classes in mostly-InEssential parties, though I'm a pretty experienced 4e player by this point.

There's not a lot of "tough choices" in Essentials power-use or character-building. IMXP, this is awesome. The purpose mostly seems to be to provide you a no-muss, no-fuss way of being the kind of hero suggested by your class. Thieves get to move adeptly and strike frequently (and with sneak attack!). They don't have to bother performing mild calculus to set up their most iconic ability.

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.

Now, as a disclaimer, I was probably predisposed to liking Essentials -- I'm one of those folks who thinks that 4e's intricate combat complexity is mostly a waste of space, time, and effort, so a simpler, more straightforward design appealed to me from the get-go. So if you're inclined to enjoy 4e's complexity, this might not be such a great thing for you personally. However, part of the greatness, IMO, is that the complexity was reduced at the player level. The DM has about as much complexity as they've ever had, and can design complex combats with difficult tactical options as they always have. And a player who enjoys that can choose a complex class (like the Runepriest) and have lots of options each turn about every little thing. A player who doesn't enjoy that can make a Slayer, pump up their STR, DEX, and CON, and look for a way to make a charge (or take a basic attack) each round.

So it only reduces complexity for those who want it reduced -- for those who enjoy Essentials classes. I'm one of those people, but if you're not, the game still has options -- indeed, most of the options in the game -- there for ya.

 

[Dice4Hire]

A lack of tactical options is my impression also, but my group does not use essentials. I'm sure this is not true for all classes. I just wish the essentials classes played nicer with the original ones, especially the martial ones.

But for complexity, there is always traditional 4E.

 

[S'mon]

I like the essentials classes, and I don't think that they have less complexity or options either in play or in building (notwithstanding the vampire, which would benefit from additional options).

I'm playing a level 4 thief right now. I have four at-wills (Acrobat's Trick, Ambush Trick, Unbalancing Trick, and Acrobat's Recovery Utility). I have four encounter powers (Backstab, Battle Awareness, Heroic Effort, and Low Slash). I have two daily powers (Power Jewel and Vanguard Rapier).

My E-Thief just hit 4th and has hardly any of that stuff (we're allowed Essentials, PHB, PHB2) - he does get to hit reliably for massive amounts of damage every turn though, which stops fights getting grindy. Also his turn takes a few seconds, so I help keep things moving. I don't like classes where the player ends up agonising over options, so it suits me well.

 

[Obryn]

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