D&D 4E Essentials isn't 4.5e, but is 4e as we know it over?

[Jhaelen]

Essentials is going back over territory ALREADY COVERED BY 4E and making improved versions of what we had already.

That remains to be seen, but I doubt it.

Replace 'improved' with 'simplified' or maybe 'streamlined' and I'd agree.

Seeing how the essential classes seem to be less flexible than the similar builds we already know, I don't believe everyone will want to switch to the essential version.

I'm also not sure if the essential builds are really meant to replace the old builds. E.g. the 'knight' build sounds to me like it might be even more focused on defense than a sword & board fighter. I wouldn't be surprised if they got plate armor proficiency right from the start to replace on of the features a fighter normally gets.

All essential wizard builds seem to be similar to the specialist wizards of old. But what of the universalist wizards?

I don't believe the new builds will generally be considered to be an improved version of existing builds, even if they're covering similar ground.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why would you continue to pay for something that is no longer useful to you?

That is indeed the 50,000 question at hand as my annual renewal date gets closer.

 

[Scribble]

That is indeed the 50,000 question at hand as my annual renewal date gets closer.

Yeah... I was just confused by your statement.

 

[keterys]

Personally, I hope the Essentials fighter doesn't have combat superiority. That way you won't have 'Oh, he shifts? I combat challenge him... hit, so that stops his shift right?' every time. (I swear, that player is never allowed to play a fighter or take battle awareness, ever again)

And a fighter without combat superiority is much less likely to completely supplant the old one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Personally, I hope the Essentials fighter doesn't have combat superiority. That way you won't have 'Oh, he shifts? I combat challenge him... hit, so that stops his shift right?' every time. (I swear, that player is never allowed to play a fighter or take battle awareness, ever again)

And a fighter without combat superiority is much less likely to completely supplant the old one.

Most likely the new builds won't have this same feature. My guess is that the slayer will be a bit less sticky than the original fighter functioning as a striker/defender type while the knight will be a very focused and effective defender that will make the old sword & board fighter want to cry and go home.

The knight will probably have abilities that allow it to defend other targets rather than imposing some kind of mysterious sanction on the enemy.

Just like the mage will not be limited to a strictly controller role. I believe WOTC is moving to a model where build rather than class defines suitability for a given role. It is a more flexible approach requiring fewer basic classes to provide coverage for roles in a group. I like it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Both fighter builds won´t have dailies. (My guess from listening to the podcast...)

So the old sword and board fighter will be the variant for those who like fiddling with their character a bit more!

 

[keterys]

As good as Unyielding Avalanche (or whatever) is, I'd not be surprised if I find myself switching over if they get an extra encounter, or some other cool benefit...

But, from the sound of the podcast I very much suspect that it will be mechanically less powerful than an optimal normal fighter, though the default may work out better without work.

 

[mkill]

Personally, I hope the Essentials fighter doesn't have combat superiority. That way you won't have 'Oh, he shifts? I combat challenge him... hit, so that stops his shift right?' every time. (I swear, that player is never allowed to play a fighter or take battle awareness, ever again)

And a fighter without combat superiority is much less likely to completely supplant the old one.

The slight difference between Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge was easily the most confusing rule in the whole PHB.

It boils down to
He moves - I smack with Wisdom bonus - he stops - it's an opportunity action so I can do it to every enemy!
vs.
He shifts - I smack him (if he's marked!), no Wis bonus - he doesn't stop - it's an interrupt so I can do it once per round!

I'm pretty sure 50% of groups play it wrong, because it's worded in a very confusing way and the way it works is counterintuitive.

 

[keterys]

Wow, that new fighter sure is different. And it's totally not supplanting the ph1 fighter.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wow, that new fighter sure is different. And it's totally not supplanting the ph1 fighter.

I don't thnk we got enough info to really decide that yet. We need to see the rest of the knight's abilities and have a peek at the slayer before we can even start debating that usefully.