Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[MrMyth]

I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.

How so? The Errata added a few elements for the Str-Melee Cleric (which, if anything, presents a 'threat' to the Warpriest). It toned down some of the dailies that were huge bursts and more 'controllery' than 'leadery'. I don't necessarily agree all of the adjustments were ideal, but they all seemed rooted in criticism that emerged long before Essentials. Nothing about them seemed related to preventing 'threats' to the Warpriest.

Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out.

Again - the core of the Class Compendium and everything in it was, initially, to simply reproduce the PHB classes with some new errata. The amount of content related to Essentials was the name changes... and the handful of feats/multi-classing material for the E-classes.

Those elements are the only resources 'drained' by Essentials. I see no indication that all the errata for the other classes, which wasn't tied to Essentials at all, would not have happened just the same with or without Essentials.

Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it."
I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.

And we have given numerous responses to those reasons. You can feel our reasons are bad ones - that's fine. But claiming that your position is inarguable when people are arguing with you is just poor form. You don't get to simply declare yourself undeniably right. People will, in fact, deny that.

The absolute best solution would have been to DELETE the basic attack powers from the game and make it a game term that is attached to at-wills. The idea of a "default power" is also simple to implement if you "feel" a need for it.

For myself, my ideal system would be more like Essentials, and far more focused with having a basic attack and abilities that you simply attach on top of it at any given time.

Strangely enough, two different people - you and me - have different ideas of what makes an ideal game.

.....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated only because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.

Many people find the AEDU system more complicated. You can feel free to feel otherwise, but insisting that our opinions aren't valid... still isn't a reasonable form of debate.

No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier. Some peeps may have a problem grokking the classic 4e at-will structure. I've never seen it, and I play with quite a few who cant keep their head on straight from one action to the next, but people come in all shapes and sizes. However, all "stances" accomplished was naming the wrong game element "default".

Your argument against stances is that it involves "spending multiple actions". My experience is that those actions don't actually need to be used all that often. More importantly, the benefits I see are in the idea of powers that don't need to be chosen after the fact, don't present the player with an array of choices that must be considered (rather than can be considered), and, in the specific implementation, allow for several easy and simple benefits for those who want them.

Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!

I'm... not sure what you mean by this. Whether playing with an Essentials class or not, your character is more complicated at level 30 than at level 1. Essentials tones it down for those who want that, but still assumes some new elements can be added over the levels. How is that a problem?

Again, you seem very insistent on calling out stuff as problematic in Essentials while ignoring the exact same elements existing for everyone else.

Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.

I haven't seen anything to indicate this. Encounter Powers, as you reach higher levels, tend to both increase in damage and add extra effects. WS let's Power Strike do the same thing, and typically does not give exceptionally powerful benefits compared to the conditions inflicted by standard Encounter powers.

...and from post number 1 in this thread I said that the e-classes should have just been a list of pre-selected powers in existing class structure. All your 'defaults' are set AND all the other options are still available.

That existed. In the PHB - set builds for new players. And they were largely useless. Hence, why I'm glad Essentials went ahead and provided a format that addressed real concerns of players who didn't have an easy time with the AEDU system.

Shrug, they cover concepts that hadnt been done before in this edition and at least tried to be compatible with what came before.

Which is what makes it interesting to you. To others, it wasn't of interest, while the new perspective on classic builds - presented by Essentials - was. I just don't think it reasonable to declare that WotC should only produce that which interests you and you alone.

LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools?

Yep, I feel that the lack of multiclassing and hybrid options has been WotC's biggest failure with Essentials!

That doesn't make them incompatible with the rest of the game. They are balanced so that they can be played alongside other characters. They have some ability via feats to still dabble in other classes and abilities. The lack of pure multiclassing in char-gen is a shame, but there is no inconsistency or incompatability or imbalance at the actual table, which is what matters.

Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.

Replaced? Your PHB Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric are no longer allowed in play? They have been removed from the system? Banned, overwritten by Essentials?

Wait, no, that hasn't happened. Hence, not a new edition. Not even a half-edition like 3.5. In fact, just a new set of options, just like the PHB2 and PHB3.

Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class?
Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement.

Isn't that basically what they did?

The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster Hybrid that needs a lot of help.

And yet, I'm enjoying playing one, like the mechanics of it, and finding it quite effective, and an interesting variation on the wild shape druid. You don't like the class - that doesn't mean it is a mistake.

The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.

For you. Not for others. I would take the Sentinel a hundred times over compared to another article for clerics or fighters or wizards.

Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game. Its like designing checkers for chess players. Yes, there are those that want a simpler game and they are played on the same board, but is there really a market for that? And once you find out there isnt one, is it really a good idea to market the new "Blue and Pink!" checkers to the chess players?

Yeah, I'd say you are getting into insulting territory here.

I suspect, rather, that Essentials is aimed at a variety of crowds. And WotC is counting on also having others who aren't the ideal audience, but still willing to try the new classes. As in my case - I'm fine in general with the AEDU structure. But I also like trying something different and very much enjoy playing a Sentinel.

I'd be disappointed if WotC produced only Essentials content from here on out. Fortunately, I've seen no evidence that that is the case.

No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the exact same design space. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.

How is that harder to support than Archer vs Melee vs Beastmaster Ranger? Or the various flavors of Warlord? Etc.

There are enough similarities that they can both be supported. Just like an article for Warlords provided dozens of feats - some of them useful for all Warlords, some aimed at specific builds. Same exact thing could be done that supported both the Ranger and the Scout and the Hunter. Not as smoothly, perhaps - but less so than supporting most new classes alongside the old ones, honestly.

 

[technoextreme]

5 pages and Marshall still doesn't grasp the basic concept that people had/have issues with the "spellbook" design of the original Martial classes?

Was I the only one who heard the myriad of "Why does my fighter have a bunch of different powers to use every turn? He's not a wizard!" from people at release?

Is it really so hard to understand that the Slayer and so forth were a direct response to that complaint and an attempt to streamline the option base turn-over-turn?

Actually the spellbook design of the original Martial classes pretty much mimicked the design of all the other martial classes in 3.5E except the fighter. Its just that its more overtly obvious in 4E while in 3.5E its a bit more subtle to realize that not much has changed.

Arguably, Essentials is "cranking out character options" with experimental, if not unneeded, mechanics. Really, experimentation and innovation is experimentation and innovation, whether for an AEDU class or classes which break the AEDU mold. If the designers come up with a new innovation which I don't like, I'd be certain to say that and explain why (in measured, respectful tones, of course). However, on the whole, I think that trying out new stuff can only improve the game in the long run.

Really a lot of the newer essentials classes are using mechanics that have all ready been introduced in the base material. Stances have been around since the original Player's Handbook. Specialized movement powers are nothing new.

Quite a few, not only did they waste a crapload of design time creating a pale reflection of an existing class, they had to go back and redefine the orginal class to show a distinction. Not only are they wasting time on the Warpriest, they are wasting time renaming the Cleric into the Templar.

The Warpriest is a Cleric class that is designed to work with a specific theme. While some of the builds are a bit lackluster others easily outshine a lot of the leader classes and not just the cleric.

 

[FireLance]

Really a lot of the newer essentials classes are using mechanics that have all ready been introduced in the base material. Stances have been around since the original Player's Handbook. Specialized movement powers are nothing new.

To a certain extent, this is true. Some psionic classes are able to use the same encounter power repeatedly in the same encounter. Even the lack of daily attack powers for the Essentials martial classes was present in previous editions of the game. To me, the innovation is being able to do all this in a reasonably balanced manner.

 

[Marshall]

How so? The Errata added a few elements for the Str-Melee Cleric (which, if anything, presents a 'threat' to the Warpriest). It toned down some of the dailies that were huge bursts and more 'controllery' than 'leadery'. I don't necessarily agree all of the adjustments were ideal, but they all seemed rooted in criticism that emerged long before Essentials. Nothing about them seemed related to preventing 'threats' to the Warpriest.

The errata turned the Cleric into a healer with a weapon, or a healer with a holy symbol. The Warpriest is the 'Cleric who Fights', ironically what the historical Templars were.

Again - the core of the Class Compendium and everything in it was, initially, to simply reproduce the PHB classes with some new errata. The amount of content related to Essentials was the name changes... and the handful of feats/multi-classing material for the E-classes.

Those elements are the only resources 'drained' by Essentials. I see no indication that all the errata for the other classes, which wasn't tied to Essentials at all, would not have happened just the same with or without Essentials.

Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled. You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right?

And we have given numerous responses to those reasons. You can feel our reasons are bad ones - that's fine. But claiming that your position is inarguable when people are arguing with you is just poor form. You don't get to simply declare yourself undeniably right. People will, in fact, deny that.

Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.

For myself, my ideal system would be more like Essentials, and far more focused with having a basic attack and abilities that you simply attach on top of it at any given time.

Which might work for weapon classes but fails when you get to implements, which would be why the original Devs went with the uniform AEDU system. Now if you want to add that kind of thinking to the current game you get Bladespells as first level at-wills that stack onto a class-feature power ala Eldritch Blast or Eldritch Strike(without the slide). Again, you have a great idea for a class feature attached to lazy designwork for the rest of the class. (and the third attempt to fill the Swordmages design space while not fixing the relatively minor problems of the SM)

Strangely enough, two different people - you and me - have different ideas of what makes an ideal game.

I think our ideas of fun are closer than you believe. I'd rather see the game they have spent 3yrs developing(and I've spent hundreds of $$ on) grow instead of a stealth reset that doesnt address many of the issues the classes actually have and instead creates new issues to deal with.

Many people find the AEDU system more complicated. You can feel free to feel otherwise, but insisting that our opinions aren't valid... still isn't a reasonable form of debate.

Uh huh, but youre not making an apples to apples comparison. Those many people could have been satisfied by simplifying the AEDU system instead of creating the BASPSWS, BATBSCA, etc, etc systems. So repeatedly saying "He LIKES it! Hey, Mikey!" isnt contributing to the conversation.

Your argument against stances is that it involves "spending multiple actions". My experience is that those actions don't actually need to be used all that often. More importantly, the benefits I see are in the idea of powers that don't need to be chosen after the fact, don't present the player with an array of choices that must be considered (rather than can be considered), and, in the specific implementation, allow for several easy and simple benefits for those who want them.

Huh?!? You just said you liked powers that were chosen after the fact! Do you mean 'before the fact'? If so, then what is so much better about choosing a full action before the attack what kind of bonus you're going to get with the attack?
IOW, How is asking "Did you want to stay in Hammer Hands stance for that attack?" any better than "What power did you use?"
And, again, thats assuming that knowing you have a problem player you havent already formed a gentlemans agreement on a default at-will.

I'm... not sure what you mean by this. Whether playing with an Essentials class or not, your character is more complicated at level 30 than at level 1. Essentials tones it down for those who want that, but still assumes some new elements can be added over the levels. How is that a problem?

Again, you seem very insistent on calling out stuff as problematic in Essentials while ignoring the exact same elements existing for everyone else.

Not so much a problem as pointing out that the new on-ramp to the game is actually leading to a different highway.

I haven't seen anything to indicate this. Encounter Powers, as you reach higher levels, tend to both increase in damage and add extra effects. WS let's Power Strike do the same thing, and typically does not give exceptionally powerful benefits compared to the conditions inflicted by standard Encounter powers.

Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike.

That existed. In the PHB - set builds for new players. And they were largely useless. Hence, why I'm glad Essentials went ahead and provided a format that addressed real concerns of players who didn't have an easy time with the AEDU system.

Not beyond level 1 it didnt.

Which is what makes it interesting to you. To others, it wasn't of interest, while the new perspective on classic builds - presented by Essentials - was. I just don't think it reasonable to declare that WotC should only produce that which interests you and you alone.

Not what I said. Psionics doesnt interest me in the least, outside of new concepts on the game. Essentials doesnt provide that, it goes over the same concepts that are already out there.

Yep, I feel that the lack of multiclassing and hybrid options has been WotC's biggest failure with Essentials!

That doesn't make them incompatible with the rest of the game. They are balanced so that they can be played alongside other characters. They have some ability via feats to still dabble in other classes and abilities. The lack of pure multiclassing in char-gen is a shame, but there is no inconsistency or incompatability or imbalance at the actual table, which is what matters.

What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you arent playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly.

And yet, I'm enjoying playing one, like the mechanics of it, and finding it quite effective, and an interesting variation on the wild shape druid. You don't like the class - that doesn't mean it is a mistake.

Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.

For you. Not for others. I would take the Sentinel a hundred times over compared to another article for clerics or fighters or wizards.

I agree about the Fighter and Wizard and I'd add Warlock, Cleric still needs help but is a low priority compared to Swordmage, Sorcerer, Runepriest, Seeker, Artificer.....ya know, at least a quarter of those 22 classes that have less than a quarter of the gross number of powers that a Fighter has and less than 1/10th the number of actually useful powers.

Instead we got 2 new Fighters, 5 or 6 new Wizards, a half dozen new Warlocks, a couple new Rangerlike classes and a whole slew of new options for the OVERsupported classes.

Thats a waste of designers time.

How is that harder to support than Archer vs Melee vs Beastmaster Ranger? Or the various flavors of Warlord? Etc.

Because any support for each of those builds is still available for the others to use and in the case of the Archer/Melee Ranger several of those powers work differently depending on whose using them. Scout powers arent usable by Hunters who arent usable by any Ranger who isnt compatible with the Scout.
E-classes are a separate system.

 

[Vael]

I agree about the Fighter and Wizard and I'd add Warlock, Cleric still needs help but is a low priority compared to Swordmage, Sorcerer, Runepriest, Seeker, Artificer.....ya know, at least a quarter of those 22 classes that have less than a quarter of the gross number of powers that a Fighter has and less than 1/10th the number of actually useful powers.

Instead we got 2 new Fighters, 5 or 6 new Wizards, a half dozen new Warlocks, a couple new Rangerlike classes and a whole slew of new options for the OVERsupported classes.

Thats a waste of designers time.

I'll agree and disagree. Yes, support for some of the other classes would be good, but it's not a waste of designer's time to provide support for Fighters or Wizards.

First, some classes just more have a bigger concept than others. I don't expect Artificers to have the same number of powers as a Fighter ... because Fighters have a larger archetype and history than the Artificer. Some classes are a bit more niche than others, they have a narrower scope. And that's okay.

Second ... the primary purpose of Essentials was to provide a new way to access DnD. PHB's aren't always stocked in stores, and PH2 and PH3 did not reprint the core game mechanics. So if you're going to provide a new method to get into DnD, you're going to go take a second look at core concepts, like Fighters and Wizards. It's just logical.

Because any support for each of those builds is still available for the others to use and in the case of the Archer/Melee Ranger several of those powers work differently depending on whose using them. Scout powers arent usable by Hunters who arent usable by any Ranger who isnt compatible with the Scout. E-classes are a separate system.

Complete bull. The Scout writeup in HOFK has a total 26 powers with the following breakdown:

- 8 At-will stances (5 of which are shared with the Hunter)
- Power Strike
- Dual Weapon Attack
- Reactive Shift (also shared with the Hunter)
- Scout's Stride (Doesn't really count, as it's a Paragon Path utility)
- 14 Utility powers (some also copied in the Hunter section)

More than half of the class's powers are completely cross-compatible with the other Rangers.

I'd point out that right now the Compendium lists 27 2nd level utility powers for the Ranger, all of which are useable by the PHB Ranger, the Hunter and the Scout. Sure, not all of them are useful to all of them, but do you complain about powers designed only for Beastmaster Rangers?

 

[FireLance]

Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.

Actually, the argument is that having multiple decision points but less options per decision point makes choices easier than a single decision point with more options. The nature of the decisions also changes: shifting the decision point on whether to use an encounter power until after an attack has hit instead of before committing to an action also makes it easier for some people to choose.

Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike.

Being able to use their highest level encounter power multiple times is not in itself a sign of imbalance (the psionic augmentation classes in PH3 could effectively do the same, for example). Again, you need to compare the overall effectiveness of each class as a whole. If the knight and slayer have better encounter powers to make up for their lack of daily powers, that to me is a sign of good balance, not bad balance.

What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you arent playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly.

There's an interesting philosophical question: at which point does an expansion to the game cause it to become a new game. For example, would you consider Knightmare Chess to be a new game, or an expansion to a traditional chess game? Similarly, would chess played with some checker pieces replacing the pawns be a new game, or a variant or expansion of chess?

Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.

There are some players, who have fond memories of healer druids with animal companions from previous editions, who would say that this is how the druid should have been from the start.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled.

It flopped because too many people already had the PHB and it was effectively to be a reprint. Bad idea from the start.

You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right?

All hail Marshall! Everything must suit Marshall's taste! Wizards of the Coast should develop everything for Marshall!

Seriously, I know some people who much prefer the e-formats. I know some who much prefer the old formats.

Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.

And this just shows that you have not even troubled yourself to take the time to read what you are arguing against. It's not the number of the decision points, it's the size at the decision point.

To use a very simple analogy, here are 1000 papers and you want the right one. There are two possible methods suggested for finding them. First you can dump them in a heap and wade through all 1000 papers. Alternatively the papers are stored in ten different drawers, each drawer having a different category of doccuments. Then in each drawer there are ten different doccuments.

In Marshallland it's easiest to just wade into the 1000 papers. After all that's where the fewest decision points lie. You just make one choice between the thousand. And in Marshallland this is "inarguable".

In my world we have and use filing systems for a very good reason. The only question is whether the decision space of 4e is large enough to require a filing system or whether the filing cabinets and folders have too high an overhead. And the tactical decision space of D&D is right on that cusp - I've already mentioned the seven plus or minus two rule (which is right where the number of powers lies). And that some people are not so good at others at automatically breaking down these choices, which is why I mentioned the twenty rather than five and four options.

But by all means go on and not bother to read and understand the opposing viewpoint and then claim that your assertions are "inarguable".

 

[MrMyth]

The errata turned the Cleric into a healer with a weapon, or a healer with a holy symbol. The Warpriest is the 'Cleric who Fights', ironically what the historical Templars were.

I don't see anything in the errata that actually causes that. They enhanced the role of the melee-Str cleric - how is that not a 'cleric who fights'?

Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled. You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right?

It was presented in the e-class format, yes, because they felt that in general a certain part of the community wanted a change in presentation. (Which was correct, though I'm not sure the specific execution was necessarily an improvement.) Again, I think they were trying to make a book that appealed to 3 different crowds, and realized that even with that, it still wouldn't be a great seller - hence shifting it to online content.

Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.

The argument being made is that there aren't always 2-3 decision points for e-martial builds - and even when there are, they are often quicker and simpler to make than a single choice from a much larger number of options. And that, in the absence of those decisions, the class still operates at nearly full effectiveness and is easier for choices to be made after the fact, rather than halting everything beforehand.

All of those are legitimate reasons to prefer the Essentials approach (in terms of simplicity). I'm willing to accept that you find the standard AEDU mechanics simpler, but if you truly aren't willing to accept that others feel different - if you believe you have some sort of mathematical proof that all of us are 'fooling ourselves' and that our experiences are invalid - then I think the conversation is done here.

Which might work for weapon classes but fails when you get to implements, which would be why the original Devs went with the uniform AEDU system.

Actually, I visualized the system originally specifically for casters, and the idea that rather than having Scorching Burst as an At-Will, Fireball as a mid-heroic daily, Fire Burst as a high-heroic encounter, and assorted similar abilities throughout the levels... that you could instead have a standardized template that levels automatically.

But, again, it is just a concept for a system, and I get that it wouldn't necessarily be to everyone's liking.

I think our ideas of fun are closer than you believe. I'd rather see the game they have spent 3yrs developing(and I've spent hundreds of $$ on) grow instead of a stealth reset that doesnt address many of the issues the classes actually have and instead creates new issues to deal with.

I am in total agreement that if no future support comes out for pre-Essentials material, WotC has made a mistake. As it is, we've seen no indication that is the case. We have seen that support - in Heroes of Shadow, in DDI articles. In smaller quantities than Essentials support, because Essentials is the most recent release - nothing odd about that.

More importantly, we have not seen a reset - the prior material has not been replaced - and many folks find that the Essentials books do indeed address the issues they had.

You feel differently. Again, this is fine. But your insistence that other folks who agree with what they did here, find that it did simplify things and address their concerns, and was a good purchase for them... your insistence that all these folks are just lying to themselves, are misguided or wrong or incorrect or whatever... is actually rather insulting. The insistence that no one else's views about the game matter, except for your own, is simply not useful for any reasonable conversation.

Uh huh, but youre not making an apples to apples comparison. Those many people could have been satisfied by simplifying the AEDU system instead of creating the BASPSWS, BATBSCA, etc, etc systems. So repeatedly saying "He LIKES it! Hey, Mikey!" isnt contributing to the conversation.

I've yet to see a proposed simplification of the AEDU solution that would have actually addressed some of these concerns. Your own proposed options, honestly, only help address the issues you have - none of them have helped in the way that Essentials has, which very directly addressed the issues I've seen in play.

The point about folks liking it is in response to your absolute insistence that Essentials screwed up. That it made things more complex and that another option would have been preferable. In the end, all you can claim is that another option would have been better for you. We have other folks who are satisfied by Essentials and don't find your claims to be true, and I suspect would not have had their concerns addressed by your hypothetical alternate product.

Huh?!? You just said you liked powers that were chosen after the fact! Do you mean 'before the fact'? If so, then what is so much better about choosing a full action before the attack what kind of bonus you're going to get with the attack?

Because he could have chosen that bonus at the start of combat and doesn't need to choose it again in future rounds. And because...

IOW, How is asking "Did you want to stay in Hammer Hands stance for that attack?" any better than "What power did you use?"

...what often happens is that players will just roll in and roll the dice, and asking, "You were in Hammer Hands stance, right?" is worlds easier than asking, "Was that... an at-will? Or a basic? Or an encounter? You didn't decide beforehand, huh? I... I guess you can choose now, sure."

And, again, thats assuming that knowing you have a problem player you havent already formed a gentlemans agreement on a default at-will.

Because I find it easier to have the rules handle that default rather than need a gentleman's agreement. Because the gentleman's agreement doesn't help with encounters coming into play, and thus requires the player operating at a handicap. Because some players just forget about the agreement, or don't want to make it in the first place because it feels like you are playing their character (while asking about what stance is on feels like the power remains with them). Because the default at-will runs into confusion when charging and OAs come into play.

You find that the default at-will approach would work for your players. For myself, the stance approach is better. As I said before - if you genuinely can't accept that other folks can legitimately have different preferences than you, then I am willing to let the conversation end here.

Not so much a problem as pointing out that the new on-ramp to the game is actually leading to a different highway.

What different highway? Again, the builds are balanced so they can play alongside existing ones. And still operate in the same system. There is no different highway at all.

Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike.

Well... yes, that's by design. The reliability and consistency of the stances+Power Strike (plus other static abilities) balance out the lack of dailies, and the lack of choice among encounters (thus removing them from the most potent encounters, such as multi-attack powers, multi-target powers, and those that inflict crippling conditions or provide powerful buffs.)

What are you arguing here? Before you claimed that they were hopelessly weak. Now you are saying their powers are overwhelmingly strong. Which is it?

Not beyond level 1 it didnt.

True. And yet, level 1 is where new players are entering the game. Did those pre-made builds help new players in anyone's experience? Maybe to some small extent. But it didn't address the concerns I've seen in actual play, and I don't think your proposal to just extend that across the line would, either.

I'm not saying I'm against it entirely - I do like the idea of it as a whole. But it would mainly just address the complexities of building a character, not playing one. Hence, Essentials was the better approach.

Not what I said. Psionics doesnt interest me in the least, outside of new concepts on the game. Essentials doesnt provide that, it goes over the same concepts that are already out there.

To rephrase, then: You think Psionics were a worthy addition to the game because they added new concepts and mechanics. Others feel that Essentials is a worthy addition to the game because it provides an interesting new perspective on classic builds, new mechanical approaches, brings back classic elements, and addresses some concerns about complexity in the game.

None of those reasons are valid for you - fair enough. That doesn't mean you get to declare them invalid for everyone else.

What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you aren't playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly.

Sorry, but that really isn't a valid analogy. The chess pieces operate by certain rules - which govern how they move, how they can claim other pieces, etc. Checker pieces have different rules for movement and claiming pieces. They don't move the same way, attack the same way, and play similarly - thats why you aren't playing the same game.

Essentials characters move, attack, and interact with the game in the exact same fashion as other classes. Thus, you are indeed playing the same game. Nothing I've seen in the Essentials books indicates any problems with them playing alongside pre-Essentials characters, and my experience - and pretty much everyone else's I've heard - is that there are no problems with them playing alongside each other in actual games.

Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.

Perhaps you are confused by what I mean by Druid. I mean: A nature based caster with a variety of primal abilities. One of these versions has more in the way of spells along with the ability to assume the form of a beast. My sentinel has an animal companion, the ability to beat folks up with a staff, and can summon even more animals to overwhelm my foes.

I'm not sure what you are looking for in the game. For me, a flavorful class with new mechanics and interesting abilities is just the sort of thing I'm happy to have WotC create.

 

[Marshall]

Actually, the argument is that having multiple decision points but less options per decision point makes choices easier than a single decision point with more options. The nature of the decisions also changes: shifting the decision point on whether to use an encounter power until after an attack has hit instead of before committing to an action also makes it easier for some people to choose.

1. You're increasing the number of decision points.
You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances. Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase. "I guess, you just attack with what you used last round." works just as well with at-wills as it does with stances. Now that you actually hit...New Decision Point! PS or not to PS, that is the question!
2. You're increasing the number of options over most of those decision points.
On top of everything else that minor actions can do, now you add to that pool. Yes, you have no option past who to attack with your attacks actions, but the powers that reduce that level of choice arent restricted to the e-classes and choosing between PS1, PS3 or PS7 is just as easy. Then you get to move action powers...
3. You're drastically overestimating the number of options an AEDU class has.
Most AEDU class dailys arent considered every round or even every combat, most encounter powers are used high to low. Yes, you can make decisions during charcreation to make those complex decisions. If you do, then you cant complain that the character is hard to play.

Being able to use their highest level encounter power multiple times is not in itself a sign of imbalance (the psionic augmentation classes in PH3 could effectively do the same, for example). Again, you need to compare the overall effectiveness of each class as a whole. If the knight and slayer have better encounter powers to make up for their lack of daily powers, that to me is a sign of good balance, not bad balance.

Actually, no they couldnt. Thats why the higher level Psionic at-wills cost more PP to augment. Again, poor power design crashed this system not a failure of the underlying system.
Looking at the Slayer specifically, its got ridiculously powerful encounters compared to what a standard FTR could field and other than a few gold level powers in the list, those encounters are better than the 4e class can throw out as Dailys, especially if they keep throwing out boosting feats. What would be a decent feat for a AEDU class is amped by being able to apply multiple times to the e-class.

There are some players, who have fond memories of healer druids with animal companions from previous editions, who would say that this is how the druid should have been from the start.

Healer Druids? What healer druids? Just because the class had CLW didnt make it a healer. Now if you had said Summoner Druid, I could by that. Even then, the class was always a spellcaster. Where did the weapon come from?

 

[Matt James]

You guys are being baited by a troll. He'll keep responding with parses of your entire post. If something is plausible, he can invoke a response. Otherwise, he is unwilling to accept any compromise in the debate. My niece does something similar with her hands over her ears and eyes shut.