Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[FireLance]

Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.

I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".

Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?

So make up your mind: are the Essentials classes ineffective or ridiculously overpowered? The fact that you don't seem to have a consistent position (apart from "Essentials = bad") isn't helping your argument.

But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right and enhance the rest of the party.

And you know the great thing about warpriest domain prayers like blessing of battle, brand of the sun and sun burst? They are levelled cleric at-will and encounter attack powers, so a PH cleric can pick them as his powers if he wants. You can mix and match Essentials warpriest powers with the pre-Essentials templar cleric class structure and get the best of both worlds.

HUGE, friendly burst WITH a push, at-will? There are a lot of encounter powers out there that dont stack up with what BS does.

Beguiling strands also does very little damage; you don't even get to add your implement's enhancement bonus to the damage. It's great when you're facing large numbers of minions or when you want to position your enemies nicely for a follow-up attack, but it's less useful against a smaller number of tougher enemies. I doubt that an Essentials mage would want to use it as often as, say, a PH ranger would want to use twin strike.

Is that a good thing? Do we want the whole of the game to be, "you cant do the wrong thing?"

Making choices easier does not mean it is impossible to do the wrong thing. Three strikes still means there is a chance of going out.

While I admit some players dont like tactical combat, trying to completely take good tactics out of the game by eliminating the penalties for bad tactics does not a good game make.

Ah, but good tactics are still rewarded. A slayer that flanks still gets a better attack bonus than a slayer that doesn't. Simplifying some choices, and reducing the penalties for poor choices, doesn't mean that all choices are the same. The stick is smaller, but the carrot is still there.

Which brings up another point, if you want an easy mode PC to play its been the 4e Ranger since day 1.

And why stick with only one option? If WotC decides to provide more support for player who prefer characters who are easy to play, what does it take away from you?

 

[Psikus]

Which brings up another point, if you want an easy mode PC to play its been the 4e Ranger since day 1.

On the other hand, the PHB Ranger is definitely an NOT easy mode PC to build, so new players may be up for a terrible experience unless they have a more knowledgeable friend that makes the choices for them. The class is ridden with trap options, and a character's performance depends a lot on whether he takes multiattacks, immediate attacks and minor action attacks - or all the random 2[W] powers. Essentials gives us options that are both easy to play and to build, which isn't really a thing that existed before.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So make up your mind: are the Essentials classes ineffective or ridiculously overpowered?

There are a number of Essentials classes. Maybe some are inneffective and others overpowered? That's one of the interesting things about making a system a little less balanced - play style differences will cause it to break in different directions for different groups. One group is awed by the Knight, another finds it worthless unless powergamed to the hilt.

Beguiling strands also does very little damage; you don't even get to add your implement's enhancement bonus to the damage. ... I doubt that an Essentials mage would want to use it as often as, say, a PH ranger would want to use twin strike.

My experience playing a Mage in Encounters was that BS was /very/ tempting on almost every round, especially with an Enchanter (push 3? no, push /6/). Especially the season when there was also a hunter, and pushing enemies into a tight group set him up. I guess you could say that BS was so broken, it made the Hunter effective. That's propper old-school teamwork - casters setting up martial types and helping them suck less.

Ah, but good tactics are still rewarded. A slayer that flanks still gets a better attack bonus than a slayer that doesn't. Simplifying some choices, and reducing the penalties for poor choices, doesn't mean that all choices are the same. The stick is smaller, but the carrot is still there.

A Slayer, yeah. A Theif doing the Tactical Trick shuffle, not so much. Again, IMX, players have fun with a Slayer, for a little while, but the Theif is rarely a hit - if you don't figure it out, it's ineffective; if you do, it's boring.

And why stick with only one option? If WotC decides to provide more support for player who prefer characters who are easy to play, what does it take away from you?

Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance. Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.

 

[Nullzone]

A Slayer, yeah. A Theif doing the Tactical Trick shuffle, not so much. Again, IMX, players have fun with a Slayer, for a little while, but the Theif is rarely a hit - if you don't figure it out, it's ineffective; if you do, it's boring.

These classes are as boring as you allow them to be. Of course sitting there and just spamming Tactical Trick is boring, you've allowed yourself to become completely disengaged from the game just because you have an easybutton to getting SA dice. Instead, try looking at your other tricks and finding ones you can exploit when you apply good tactics; Acrobat's Trick, Thug's Trick, and Unbalancing Trick all add something interesting to the battlefield, and if you're getting some good tactics going it's easy to apply them.

 

[FireLance]

There are a number of Essentials classes. Maybe some are inneffective and others overpowered? That's one of the interesting things about making a system a little less balanced - play style differences will cause it to break in different directions for different groups. One group is awed by the Knight, another finds it worthless unless powergamed to the hilt.

That would be a valid argument, except that it is not what he appears to be saying. He seems to be making contradictory blanket statements about all the Essentials classes. And more on balance below.

My experience playing a Mage in Encounters was that BS was /very/ tempting on almost every round, especially with an Enchanter (push 3? no, push /6/). Especially the season when there was also a hunter, and pushing enemies into a tight group set him up. I guess you could say that BS was so broken, it made the Hunter effective. That's propper old-school teamwork - casters setting up martial types and helping them suck less.

I'd call that an example of how the system rewards good tactics and teamwork, myself. What's the downside?

Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance. Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.

Unless you have no say over who you game with and the system you use (in which case you have my sympathy), you can avoid whatever balance issues you have with the Essentials classes by ... not playing with them.

In any case, "class balance" is not a binary either-a-system-has-it-or-it-doesn't state. It's a continuum. 4E with Essentials may have less class balance than 4E without Essentials, but some people either don't notice the difference and/or want to play with Essentials because they enjoy the greater variation or the flavor of the classes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are a number of Essentials classes. Maybe some are inneffective and others overpowered? That's one of the interesting things about making a system a little less balanced - play style differences will cause it to break in different directions for different groups. One group is awed by the Knight, another finds it worthless unless powergamed to the hilt.

And the balance is still pretty tight - a lot is in who is playing the character. And a lot in the build.

My experience playing a Mage in Encounters was that BS was /very/ tempting on almost every round, especially with an Enchanter (push 3? no, push /6/). Especially the season when there was also a hunter, and pushing enemies into a tight group set him up. I guess you could say that BS was so broken, it made the Hunter effective. That's propper old-school teamwork - casters setting up martial types and helping them suck less.

And my experience playing a human orbizard was that I had Beguiling Strands as my third At Will - and never found a single good use for it. My main line damage and mookbashing at will was a (sometimes expanded) Freezing Burst. Slide 2 is IME at least as useful as Push 4. (It didn't help that our tank had resist cold so I'd happily ground zero the enlarged freezing burst). And because FB has a damage roll it can actually do decent amounts of damage. My second At Will was Storm Pillar - incredibly effective in an urban environment. And rocks for an Orbizard with his at will extension ability.

Beguiling Strands is a powerful at will at low levels - but cast by a 13th level mage it will do a stunning total of 6 damage at best. That just doesn't cut it except in very rare circumstances or with seriously big terrain features. Freezing Burst on the other hand has damage that keeps up. Because it's a damage roll it benefits from your implement bonus, your implement focus, dual implement spellcaster, and other things.

As for the hunter not being effective? They certainly aren't bad (even if I do build them as humans with Twin Strike most of the time). They almost invariably IME win initiative and Turn 1 involves them providing an overlap by using disruptive shot (at +2 to hit from the stance) to immobilise a brute (save ends). That's one enemy monster out of the fight for an average of two rounds - you've just given the PCs the overlap. And judicious use of Clever Shot can make it a second. The hunter therefore does his job by making the enemy not reach combat. And providing some pretty decent damage. Oh, and sneaking like a rogue and having decent perception. Or at Paragon mangling solos (seriously, blind? Three to four times an encounter?)

A Slayer, yeah. A Theif doing the Tactical Trick shuffle, not so much. Again, IMX, players have fun with a Slayer, for a little while, but the Theif is rarely a hit - if you don't figure it out, it's ineffective; if you do, it's boring.

Thieves excel outside combat. Seriously, seven trained skills and a climb speed? And the Tactical Trick Shuffle is competent rather than skilled play. Tactical Trick is what you use when you have nothing better to do if you're tactically inclined. It's solid play - but there's an obvious next level of play above that; using your tricks that grant bonusses once you have combat advantage like Acrobat's Trick (with its climb speed), Thug's Trick, Tumbling Trick, or Unbalancing Trick.

Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance. Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.

E-class balance is IME pretty good. Not found real problems either way except in single encounter days.

 

[MrMyth]

Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?

Your definition of overpowered is "effective"? That seems a bit odd. Or are you saying that poorly played Slayers are effective, but this is problematic because well played Slayers are too powerful? (Which I'd certainly disagree with. They can be good, but I haven't seen any indications of them being overpowered. Thieves and Scouts can get pretty potent - but no more so than PHB Rogues and Rangers, honestly.)

Being 'easy mode' means that the level of difference between 'poor play' and 'well optimized' has been reduced. Even without being an expert player with full system mastery, yes, the Slayer lets you play an effective character. How is that a bad thing?

Yeah, no. I dont think I've ever seen this take more than a single correction from a DM before a player ALWAYS defaulted to an at-will. Its a non-issue.

A non-issue for you. For the various folks who have recounted experiences with players who didn't find it that easy to solve? Or who solved it but thus ran into other problems with OAs and charging? For them, it was an issue, and one that Essentials did indeed solve.

But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right and enhance the rest of the party.

But... Warpriests are basically identical to normal Clerics in terms of mechanics? They lose Healing Lore, and gain some other useful stuff. How does that suddenly make them shift from a well-designed leader class to a poorly designed one?

As it is, the 'effect' on their At-Wills is very useful. That doesn't mean they are relying on missing all the time. Just hedging their odds so that, hit or miss, they can still provide the leader effect they desire. Unless you have a game so optimized that you expect all PC attacks to hit - which is hardly the default - I don't see a rational for your criticism.

 

[MrMyth]

Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance. Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.

I admit, when I first heard about the approach being taken with Essentials, this was my worry. But they've done a remarkably good job of preserving balance despite a disparity of resources. I haven't see any indications that any E-classes are fundamentally unbalanced with prior material. Honestly, the Psionic classes were far worse in that regard - due to specific powers given to them, of course, rather than the core psionic mechanics themselves.

 

[Tony Vargas]

These classes are as boring as you allow them to be. Of course sitting there and just spamming Tactical Trick is boring, you've allowed yourself to become completely disengaged from the game just because you have an easybutton to getting SA dice. Instead, try looking at your other tricks and finding ones you can exploit when you apply good tactics; Acrobat's Trick, Thug's Trick, and Unbalancing Trick all add something interesting to the battlefield, and if you're getting some good tactics going it's easy to apply them.

Yeah, you could tie one Trick behind your back for a little added challenge. Or you could play a class that's interesting - there are a lot of 'em, even most Essentials classes, which generally have their own 'easy mode' aspect, stand up to more play than that before they start to pall. The Mage, most obviously, some of it's powers are very easy to use quite effectively, but at least there's some variation in what you might be trying to accomplish, and you have more variety and choice (even between level-ups thanks to the spellbook) - a selection of easy buttons, I suppose. :shrug:

 

[Raikun]

Yeah, you could tie one Trick behind your back for a little added challenge. Or you could play a class that's interesting

The Thief in my game uses Acrobatic trick as his primary trick. He uses it to do wall-runs, bounce over obstacles, etc, in conjuction with other characters to flank.

Tactical Trick makes getting CA easy, but if you can get it through flanking, skills like Acrobatic trick are better (+2 damage and SA > SA alone, for instance), and more importantly he has a BLAST doing it.

If you're going to just use one easy mode button, you can make any class boring, but just spamming Tactical trick isn't how the Thief should be played. He should be using his array of other abilities, and just using Tactical Trick as a last resort when he can't get CA through another, superior trick.