Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[MrMyth]

This is debatable, as written.

Er... no it's not. They are explicitly allowed to choose from the normal list at any point where they are given a power of a listed level.

The final arbiter comes down to this, if the Warpriest is NOT forced to accept his Domain powers as fixed power selections, then why the h-e-double-hockeysticks does the class exist? Its a Cleric with a couple of preselected rituals instead of Ritual Caster. Its either a blank slate filled by one choice, or its an entire waste of design resources to build the same class with another name.

How many design resources were wasted? The new powers are also usable by the cleric. It let them provide the cleric in the Essentials book that used 95% of the same design of the standard cleric, trading out ritual casters for, as you note, some preselected rituals, and a bunch of 'default' choices. That seems pretty much perfect as an offering for new players.

The problem with the Slayer(specifically) is:
1. It doesnt accomplish anything that couldnt have been done with a 4e Fighter or Barbarian.

What would you have done to alter the 4E fighter or barbarian to provide the same benefits as the Slayer?

Remember, folks like the stances and power strike and find them simpler than the at-will/encounter/daily system. I'm confident you could have built a customized Fighter that you found easier to use than a Slayer - but clearly not one that would have helped me, or the various players I've seen who have concerns when dealing with the power system.

2. It takes/took up design time/space that could have been spent adding these options to base 4e.

It's absolutely true. But many folks didn't like Psionics, either - did that mean they shouldn't have produced it, since that took design space away from supporting existing options?

By this logic, they should have put out the PHB and just supported those classes, never adding anything new at all. No thanks.

Many folks like the Slayer, and it very directly answers concerns they had with the game. I get that you don't like it, but you seem to be going out of your way to try and insist that those WotC should not try and produce material for those folks, just because you don't like it.

3. It is being expanded upon to the detriment of those base 4e classes.

... I'm not sure I've seen this. We've had all of one PC book come out since Essentials, right? (Which hasn't supported the Slayer at all). It did support some Essentials classes... but, honestly, offered as much (or more) support for the PHB Cleric and Wizard.

I'd be absolutely fine with some more support for the Slayer, myself - though I don't think it needs it. What I don't want to see is more support for the Fighter or Wizard, who have buckets and buckets of feats, powers, etc. Yes, I'd like more material for some less-supported classes, but I don't think you can blame Essentials alone for that. Yes, I'd like to see WotC ramp up the content again in general - but, again, that hardly is something somehow caused by the Slayer.

By definition, Essentials should be a dead line. If these are supposed to be the new entry points to teach people 4e or they are there for those people who want a simpler play experience then expanding on them is anti-thetical to their design. If you designed a class to be simple to play, adding newer and more complex options to it instead of directing people who want more complexity to the parent class is idiocy.

Well, again, it is an issue of the system. I think absolutely the ideal would have been to rebuild the system from the ground up so that transition is a smooth one. But that would have been even more disruptive.

As it is... those 'parent classes' exist. WotC can totally say, "Hey, want a more complex Knight? Check out the PHB! Or DDI! Or this free article on our website!"

But what is wrong with them producing new options that can support the new material and the old? For example, for those who like a middle ground? Or for those who like the Essentials classes or structure, and are happy to see more options with them, without expanding to the option inundanation of a Fighter with hundreds and hundreds of feats and powers?

 

[MrMyth]

I'd have to say that the e-martial builds are boring by default. Maybe not immediately boring, but they just don't get/do/develop that much.

But again, I think you are equating "can be boring" with "always is boring". The folks who want to just rush in and hit things - in my experience - don't find it boring. Maybe they enjoy the descriptive aspect of combat more than they actually care about using a new or interesting power. Maybe they find combat more interesting when it keeps moving, rather than having to spend time looking over options.

For myself, I was absolutely glad when 4E gave Fighters more to do. But that option is still there. Those who find the e-martial builds boring don't need to play them.

I do agree, though, that having a better transition or middle ground for those who want it would be nice. I was very sad to see robust hybrid and multiclass options crop up... for half the Essentials classs, and specifically not for the martial classes. That, to me, has been the biggest failure by WotC regarding the Essentials design.

 

[MrMyth]

Trying to figure out how you got a +19 to hit 5 levels earlier than most Thieves do.

It's certainly doable. But Marshall still seems to be ignoring...

Level 5 Rogue:
+5 (Dex)
+2 (Level)
+3 (Proficiency)
+1 (Rogue Weapon Talent)
+1 (Enhancement)
+2 (Combat advantage)
+1 (Nimble Blade Combat Advantage)
vs Reflex (Piercing Strike)
= +15 vs Reflex 17 = Hitting on a 2.

This was my very first 4E character, PHB only, and yeah, the DM gave the same crazy looks to me as I'm sure Marshall's DM does to him. The Rogue is accurate, the Thief is accurate.

As before, the problem isn't Marshall insisting that Essentials characters can be effectively optimized, it is ignoring the same optimization happening with pre-Essentials classes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not sure which of Mr Myth's above posts I want to give XP to. Whether it's

The folks who want to just rush in and hit things - in my experience - don't find it boring. Maybe they enjoy the descriptive aspect of combat more than they actually care about using a new or interesting power. Maybe they find combat more interesting when it keeps moving, rather than having to spend time looking over options.

For myself, I was absolutely glad when 4E gave Fighters more to do. But that option is still there. Those who find the e-martial builds boring don't need to play them.

or possibly pointing out that Rogues were always incredibly accurate, complete with the maths to demonstrate. And unlike Marshall, MrMyth's rogue is hitting on a 2 on an at will. Backstab is an encounter power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But again, I think you are equating "can be boring" with "always is boring".

I just think that the greater the potential for boredom and irrellevance a class delivers, the less desireable for inclusion in a game that class is.

For myself, I was absolutely glad when 4E gave Fighters more to do. But that option is still there. Those who find the e-martial builds boring don't need to play them.

/Again?/

D&D Encounters.
The presence of good alternatives does not excuse bad designs.
Essentials is meant to be the 'evergreen' on-ramp to the game. It's presentation of the sources will shape the perceptions and expectations of new players coming into the game.

I do agree, though, that having a better transition or middle ground for those who want it would be nice. I was very sad to see robust hybrid and multiclass options crop up... for half the Essentials classs, and specifically not for the martial classes. That, to me, has been the biggest failure by WotC regarding the Essentials design.

The heavy-handed way the essentials martial classes were made simplistic made it very difficult to give them any room for growth into the full-featured martial classes of 4e. Even if they are eventually given such a path, it won't be part of the evergreen-Essentials line, and will just fall by the wayside, anyway.

The essentials martial classes can either be viewed as a failure to create a good introductory set of classes - or as a successful return to the old fighter stereotypes. I'd actually find the former less discouraging. Considering that the designers have pasted old art on the Red Box, waxed nostalgic about playing classic versions of the game, and offered 'the cleric should just be the best healer' as a rationale for the disasterous first attempt at the Templar, though....

 

[MrMyth]

I just think that the greater the potential for boredom and irrellevance a class delivers, the less desireable for inclusion in a game that class is.

It's a trade-off, though. Slayers are more prone to boredom. 'Weaponmasters' are more prone to complexity, trap-choices, etc. I don't think either is so prone to those things that they are broken, though. But neither is one somehow inherently a worse aspect to be possible in a game. That's the benefit, again, of having both.

D&D Encounters.
The presence of good alternatives does not excuse bad designs.
Essentials is meant to be the 'evergreen' on-ramp to the game. It's presentation of the sources will shape the perceptions and expectations of new players coming into the game.

1) That's an issue with D&D Encounters, not with Essentials.
2) I don't think you've shown any bad designs in play. You've said that you find them boring. Others, again, do not, or find that potential an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits acquired. For those folks, the Slayer is the good alternative to the 'bad design' of the Weaponmaster.
3) I do think there are elements about the roll-out that WotC could have improved. But I don't think that these class designs are one of them. I do get why you do - the fear about training them to think 'martial simple, casting hard', but I don't think that it will have quite the lingering influence on perceptions that you believe. But I could, certainly, be wrong.

The essentials martial classes can either be viewed as a failure to create a good introductory set of classes - or as a successful return to the old fighter stereotypes. I'd actually find the former less discouraging. Considering that the designers have pasted old art on the Red Box, waxed nostalgic about playing classic versions of the game, and offered 'the cleric should just be the best healer' as a rationale for the disasterous first attempt at the Templar, though....

I do think the concerns you have stem from them trying to do both. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the 'return to old school principals' has poisoned the well of 'easy new intro classes' for the new crowd. I don't think it will, but time may very well prove otherwise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a trade-off, though. Slayers are more prone to boredom. 'Weaponmasters' are more prone to complexity, trap-choices, etc. I don't think either is so prone to those things that they are broken, though.

I'm not trying to say that boring = broken. The Slayer is 'broken' for different reasons (really, by not being as broken as classes with dailies - the same problem that plagued the Fighter through every previous edition).

1) That's an issue with D&D Encounters, not with Essentials.

It's an example of why "it's only an option" isn't a defense. It's sometimes the only option.

2) I don't think you've shown any bad designs in play.

Lack of choice and introducing class imbalance are bad things. Closely related things, really. Essentials does a lot of that. The Slayer (and even more so Theif) being potentially boring are really just visible symptoms.

I do get why you do - the fear about training them to think 'martial simple, casting hard', but I don't think that it will have quite the lingering influence on perceptions that you believe. But I could, certainly, be wrong.

Honestly, I don't think 4e's radical new take on the martial source had had time to fully 'take' in the community as it was - nor did it ever reach actual parity (martial was the only source to cover only 3 roles in spite of having 4 classes, and martial powers were much more limitted in variety and scope than other soruces'). So, no, I don't think almost 3 years of near-equality erased the decades of expectations that had been engrained in the community - let alone did so with such finality that this concerted effort to cater to those expecations could fail to bring them back with a vengeance.

I do think the concerns you have stem from them trying to do both. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the 'return to old school principals' has poisoned the well of 'easy new intro classes' for the new crowd. I don't think it will, but time may very well prove otherwise.

I have to agree. Essentials tried to do a lot. It seems most likely that 'well poisoning' will be more the well from which new players are drawn. That is, Essentials is indoctrinating new players in old prejudices that we had only just begun to overcome.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I just think that the greater the potential for boredom and irrellevance a class delivers, the less desireable for inclusion in a game that class is.

Fine. Let's take out every AEDU class because the Pathfinder and the OSR players don't like them and find them dull. Right. Now we've settled that we've just lost 4e. Congratulations.

My take is quite the reverse of yours. The greater the potential for people having a positive play experience with the class that they would not have had previously the more desirable it is for inclusion in the game. If it's a game mechanic we look at everyone. But if it's a class mechanic which only a small percentage of people are going to use, versatility and keeping as many people happy as possible is good. Why all classes should be designed with the goal of satisfying Tony Vargas and Marshall's tastes is quite beyond me when there are already 22 classes that do that. You have 22 classes and you are begrudging some people getting three.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The greater the potential for people having a positive play experience with the class that they would not have had previously the more desirable it is for inclusion in the game.

The key part of your statement is "that they would not have had previously." You're talking about changing the game to suit people who already dislike it.

While it's highly desireable for a game to support a variety of play styles, the way to accomplish that is to present a balanced game. In a balanced game, each player can persue his style without failing to contribute or, on the other extreme, overshadowing anyone else.

If you sacrifice balance to bring disgruntled haters back into the fold - as Essentials seems to be doing - you shrink the breadth of play styles it is able to support, in order to include one more (which is already lavishly supported by Pathfinder). You might or might not come out ahead doing that - I can't think how to quantify if it does or not - other than the all-important bottom line, of course, which WotC doesn't share.

You have 22 classes and you are begrudging some people getting three.

They already have /every prior edition of the game/. And Pathfinder. And Hackmaster. And other d20 games that gun for that classic feel. Yet they are insisting 4e be made back into another chronically imbalanced itteration of 0D&D. And, WotC is caving to them. Yes, I'm begrudging them that.

 

[Obryn]

The key part of your statement is "that they would not have had previously." You're talking about changing the game to suit people who already dislike it.

Hi. I love 4e. I also love essentials classes.

Please quit it with this us-vs-them nonsense. Stepping back the rhetoric in a later post is no substitute for posting well in the first place.

If you sacrifice balance to bring disgruntled haters back into the fold - as Essentials seems to be doing - you shrink the breadth of play styles it is able to support, in order to include one more (which is already lavishly supported by Pathfinder). You might or might not come out ahead doing that - I can't think how to quantify if it does or not - other than the all-important bottom line, of course, which WotC doesn't share.

They already have /every prior edition of the game/. And Pathfinder. And Hackmaster. And other d20 games that gun for that classic feel. Yet they are insisting 4e be made back into another chronically imbalanced itteration of 0D&D. And, WotC is caving to them. Yes, I'm begrudging them that.

(1) The idea that Essentials classes sacrificed balance is your idiosyncratic interpretation where you mistake mechanical form for mechanical function.

(2) Whether or not other games support other playstyles is completely 100% irrelevant. First off, it's nonsensical to think that the only reason to play 4e is because of the AEDU class structure. Second, the great thing about 4e post-E is that all of those levels of complexity can sit at one happy table and play the same game together.

No mysterious grognards are involved here; that's an imaginary dodge and again irrelevant. You're begrudging actual 4e players - people like me who play and love 4e - the ability to play classes different from the AEDU mold. And some they enjoy more than the classic AEDU-style ones. And don't forget newbies - particularly in games starting above 1st level. And casual players whose friends are all playing 4e, and want to play, too.

-O