Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[FireLance]

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.

I'm perfectly fine with that. My participation in this discussion is not entirely for my benefit or for his. Others who read the thread can decide for themselves whose arguments are more reasonable.

 

[FireLance]

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!

It may seem strange to you, but some find that choosing not to switch when there is no reason to change is easier (and faster) than choosing between two options that are presented as apparently equal. The need to spend a minor action to change stances is actually a benefit to (quickly) deciding to just keep doing what you were doing the last round, because it takes more "effort" to change. It prevents a Buridan's Ass type scenario by making the choices slightly unequal. Yes, you can have rules of thumb that advise the player to choose a default at-will attack, but the core way in which the slayer plays already avoids the need for that.

Now, encounter powers are a different matter. At low (1st and 2nd) levels, the decision is more when to use an encounter power rather than which encounter power to use. The potential problem is that the player ends up not using an encounter power at all because he is unsure what would be a good time to use it. (There is a related joke about women and a 5-storey hotel that I will SBLOCK at the end of this section.) By creating a trigger that prompts the player to use his encounter power (when he hits) the process of choosing when to use an encounter power is made easier and faster (at least, for some people).

[SBLOCK]5-Story Hotel

A group of girlfriends is on vacation when they see a 5-story hotel with a sign that reads "For Women Only", and they go in.

The bouncer explains to them how it works. "We have 5 floors. Go up floor by floor, and once you find what you are looking for, you can stay there. It's easy to decide since each floor has a sign telling you what's inside."

They start going up and on the first floor the sign reads, "All the men on this floor are short and plain." The friends laugh and without hesitation move on to the next floor.

The sign on the second floor reads, "All the men here are short and handsome." Still, this isn't good enough, so the friends continue on up.

They reach the third floor and the sign reads, "All the men here are tall and plain." They still want to do better, and so, knowing there are still two floors left, they continue on up.

On the fourth floor, the sign is perfect. "All the men here are tall and handsome." The women get all excited and they realize that there is still one floor left. They head on up to the fifth floor.

On the fifth floor they find a sign that reads, "There are no men here... and there is no way to please a woman."[/SBLOCK]

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...

Yes, there are individually more decision points, and sometimes the number of options increases because there previously was no decision point. However, the overall process of making decsions becomes easier and faster (again, for some people). Really, you have to look at the big picture. It sometimes seems that you are so focused on finding fault with individual components that you fail to see how it all fits together.

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.

The same argument could apply to changing stances (if you don't "have to" decide every round whether to use a daily power, you don't "have to" decide every round whether to change your stance, either). The need to change stances will not be considered in most rounds of combat, and the decision on when to use encounter powers is made easier by having them trigger on a hit. Now, choosing simpler powers during character is one way to make a character that is easier to play, but choosing to play a slayer is another option that is equally viable or even better for some. I really wonder why you seem to be so unwilling to acknowledge that.

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.

From Level 3 onwards, a psionic class with the augmentation class feature has enough power points to fully augment his highest-level at-will attack at least twice. The only exception is between levels 13 and 16, and even then only if he does not take a paragon path that grants bonus power points. You could argue that a psionic character cannot do it as often as a slayer, but arguing that he cannot makes it look as if you had not done the research.

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.

"Better" in what sense? If you are talking in terms of straight damage, then of course! A slayer is a striker, and a weaponmaster fighter is a defender. A slayer ought to be doing more damage. In addition, a slayer also has to make up for the lack of daily attack powers. A weaponmaster fighter's powers also give it access to better conditions to inflict on opponents than a slayer's Weapon Specialization, including stunned, dazed, blinded, immobilized and penalties to AC and other defenses.

So yes, if you focus on straight damage, the slayer does better (and it should). But if you look at the entirety of the class abilities, it is not so clear-cut that one is better than the other. It's like they are, you know, balanced.

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?

Again, from previous editions. The druid didn't just have cure light wounds - in 3E, he had access to the entire range of cure X wound spells, including the mass versions, and the heal spell. Among the classes in the core PH, he was the next best healer after the cleric. As for weapons, the scimitar and the club (or at least, the shillelagh spell) were iconic druid weapons. Remember, in earlier editions, few classes had at-will spell attacks, and spellcasters had few daily spells at low levels. Hence, low-level clerics, druids and wizards would be attacking with weapons most of the time.

Did you actually forget this? Or have you never played any edition of D&D except 4E?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances.

This is utterly and completely false. You can put yourself into one stance and leave yourself there. And not think about it. If you are going to make crap up about Essentials then no wonder you don't like it.

Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase.

This is false. If you ignore the power declaration phase you've messed up and need to retcon. If you don't change your stance then by the rules as written you remain in the same stance you were in last time.

"I guess, you just attack with what you used last round." works just as well with at-wills as it does with stances.

This is false. With stances it's not an "I guess" it's an "it is." No wool. No fudging of the rules. And what do you do if you used an encounter last time? Your logic does not apply.

Now that you actually hit...New Decision Point! PS or not to PS, that is the question!

From 1 choice to 2. And you yourself have said you don't mind this one and that it's a design improvement. You can't even keep consistent let alone engage in arguments.

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.

No. What crashed the system is that higher level psionic at wills cost more PP to augment. Which means that you can spam what should be heroic tier encounter powers almost at will. Which means that the augment 2s either need to be crap or to not scale at all. And as debuffs scale automatically, no augment 1 or 2 heroic power should do any sort of decent debuff.

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?

Healer druids came from the goddamn archetype Druids themselves came from. The were-creature is more or less an artifact of 3rd edition.

The more I post, the more I think Matt James is right. Goodbye. You won't be missed.

 

[FireLance]

The were-creature is more or less an artifact of 3rd edition.

Actually, I think druids could assume animal forms as a class ability even from 1E. What 3E did was to make it more of a combat power due to granting the druid the new form's natural attacks, natural armor and physical ability scores, and expanding the scope of "animals" to include dire animals and dinosaurs.

 

[MrMyth]

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!

Not worrying about changing your stance is RAW, rather than requiring a "gentleman's agreement" between the DM and the Player - which can certainly be done, but can also be less convenient (for the half-dozen reasons listed in my last post).

Even if a player is making these 'multiple decision points' - as Firelance has noted, that can be much simpler than making a single decision point that is much more complex.

"Do I stay in Battle Wrath stance or switch to Hammer Hands? I don't need to move the enemy, so I stay with Battle Wrath."

"Do I want to Power Strike? Sure, I want more damage, I Power Strike."

Compared to:

"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Or do I want to do some more damage with Steel Serpent Strike? I guess I should save that for when the slow would matter. It's early in the fight, should I use Lasting Threat to perma-mark him? I guess I'll save that for when we need the big damage. I guess Reaping Strike it is."

One decision point by your measure, but actually more like 3 - since you need to choose whether or not any individual power is worth using at the given time. And that is with a level 1 character with some of the most relatively straightforward Fighter powers.

By the time you get to the end of Heroic, the PHB Fighter has another 4 choices for them to ponder, while the E-Fighter has 1 more stance - and Power Strike has gotten slightly more complex via Weapon Specialization (but also somewhat easier since you've got multiple uses and less need to 'save' it.)

Now, I'll still accept that you find your single decision point the easier approach. But for myself - even as a person who likes the AEDU system - it still is far quicker and simpler to make 2 easy decisions than 1 decision involving a half-dozen internal comparisons.

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...

Again, not seeing any heavy increase in number of options. The minor action point is somewhat valid... but those are not heavily in use for E-classes, and - again - the E-player can always just not bother with it and stay in his original stance.

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.

Even for relatively straightforward classes who are just about dealing damage... you will often have Encounter powers that inflict conditions or go beyond just dealing straight damage. The Barbarian probably can line up a basic list of powers that just do variable amounts of damage... I'm not sure anyone else really can.

Even then, Dailies are still relevant - they don't get used every round or every combat, but they are still there to be considered. And the players you encourage to not think about them will end up just never using them - unless prompted by you, which again gets into territory where they feel like you are playing their character for them.

Finally, beyond all that, in your ideal situation, you have the following:

"Ok, kid, you are playing a Barbarian. Never use these rage powers unless I tell you to. The rest of the time, start combat with Tide of Blood. Next round, use Hammer Fall. Then use Avalanche Strike. After that, every attack is a Howling Strike."

vs

"Ok, kid, you are playing a Slayer. You are always in Battle Wrath Stance, and every attack you make is this modified basic attack. The first two times you hit an enemy each fight, you can add 1d10 extra damage via Power Strike."

Even with as straightforward a build as possible with the Barbarian, you have more for them to keep track of. And even with the simplest options from their encounter power list, you still have conditions and benefits from some of these powers, ignored so they can just go down the list from top to bottom. And you still run into more confusion with OAs and charging. Not to mention raging, critical hits triggering rampage, and tracking the various triggers for Feral Might benefits. (Temps when you kill someone and a free charge, etc.)

Versus... you always use the same exact attack, and a few times per combat can add extra damage.

I can understand if you find that boring, or have complaints about it feeding old prejudices about fighters, or even if you simply believe it is less effective than other builds.

But claiming it is more complicated? I see nothing that supports that, not even remotely.

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.

The scaling PP cost is actually the fundamental flaw in the system. Because it means that instead of actually using those PP in the same distribution of normal resources, they could use them all for low-cost powers - the equivalent of, instead of using a Level 17, 23 and 27 Encounter power each fight, instead using the same Level 1 encounter power ten times. Combined with a handful of low-level encounter powers that remain useful... they break the 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.

Earlier you claimed that the Slayer - even a well-built Slayer- was ineffective to the point of uselessness. Now you are saying they have encounters better than standard dailies. Which is it?

At level 1-16, Power Strike does 2[W] (1[W] basic + 1[W] PS).
Weapon Specialization will let it knock an enemy prone or slide adjacent enemies 1 square.
At level 17, it deals 3[W] (1[W] basic + 2[W] PS).
At level 20, it also pushes 3 squares if a Mythic Slayer.
At level 21, it deals 4[W] (2[W] basic + 2[W] PS).
At level 27, it deals 5[W] (2[W] basic + 3[W] PS).

So, at level 27, four times a combat (as a Mythic Slayer), we can deal 5[W] + normal bonus, plus knock an enemy prone and push them 3 squares.

The normal Fighter has level 27 options like Cruel Reaper (two Burst 1 attacks for 2[W] plus bonuses each), plus various 4[W] powers with more significant effects (disarming the enemy, reducing defenses, letting the fighter take half damage for a round, etc).

His level 23 option includes 3[W] and 4[W] options, but again, often with various benefits like leaving enemies restrained, dazed, blinded, or attacking multiple targets or one enemy multiple times, or being made as immediate interrupts or reactions.

Level 17 options are around 2[W] to 3[W] - but again, multiple attacks, multiple targets, interesting effects and conditions.

On these lists there certainly are powers strictly worse than the maxed out Power Strike. But then, that's the benefit of the AEDU system - getting to choose. And there are plenty of options that do compare quite favorable. Not compare in terms of damage - the Slayer is definitely going to be better at dealing the most damage to a single target.

But all those other benefits will often make up for the loss of several [W]. And daily powers - especially those with ongoing effects or impressive conditions - will be even more so.

Overall result: The Slayer is devestating at killing individual foes. The Knight has some very threatening OAs and punishment (enemy violates his aura, he does a pile of damage and knocks them away from whoever they were attacking.) The PHB Fighter, meanwhile, is great at crippling a single enemy with devestating conditions, or drawing in a host of foes and unleashing damage on all of them, or rolling up to a truly powerful foe and using powers to boost his temps/defenses/DR/etc, and weathering the assault.

All of this are effective builds and characters at this point. I don't see any way in which Power Strike breaks the game. Yes, it is potent - making up for the loss of dailies and the loss of the versatility and special benefits of normal encounter powers.

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?

What the Druid has always been (to my mind) is a hybrid - someone able to contribute in various ways. The PHB2 Druid was an interesting take on that - someone who shifts between different forms (caster/melee), and has multiple options within those forms (melee form can focus on dealing damage or trying to protect allies/distract enemies.)

But the Sentinel really fits in the support role I associate with the Druid. I distract enemies with my companion. I can do decent damage beating up enemies with a staff or scythe (classic druid weaponry). I can provide healing and support when needed. And I can unleash devestating nature spells or summon more companions via my daily powers.

I actually tried to make something like this previously (a hybrid Druid|Warden multiclassed into Shaman) - so seeing a similar robust approach for the Sentinel was perfectly welcome to me.

 

[Raikun]

I've mentioned it before, but half my group switching to E-classes sped up combat so much that we now get 5-6 encounters per session where we used to struggle to get 3-4. The two players went from having to study their powers nearly every round before someone makes a suggestion to just going:

"Stance, attack, attack, attack, PS to finish him off, attack".

The ultra simplicity of those E-classes just makes combat so much faster for us.

It really is awesome just being able to use the same attack for everything...whether just attacking in stance, charging, doing an OA, encounter power...it's a huge improvement.

 

[Raikun]

Major self contradiction:

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.

vs.

Most AEDU class dailys arent considered every round or even every combat, most encounter powers are used high to low.

Exactly. Most stances aren't considered every round either, yet you're claiming one HAS TO BE decided every round, but the other one doesn't.

 

[Marshall]

You guys are being baited by a troll.

Theres only one guy trolling here and you are it. There are three people responding to my posts and syaing almost the exact same thing. I'm just taking the most representative and replying to it instead of clogging the board with your useless drivel.

 

[Marshall]

Not worrying about changing your stance is RAW, rather than requiring a "gentleman's agreement" between the DM and the Player - which can certainly be done, but can also be less convenient (for the half-dozen reasons listed in my last post).

So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities.

Even if a player is making these 'multiple decision points' - as Firelance has noted, that can be much simpler than making a single decision point that is much more complex.

No, that next decision point is only as complex as you make it. You keep going back to "4e classes have to decide between multiple encounter powers and dailys and at-wills" when the point from the beginning has been that all those simplifications would have actually been simplifications if they had been applied to the existing class w/the existing class mechanics. Instead they created a entirely new system whose only result is to make it more complex to actually play the game, let alone teach it.

"Do I stay in Battle Wrath stance or switch to Hammer Hands? I don't need to move the enemy, so I stay with Battle Wrath."

or "Hmm, I really want to move him over there, but I need my minor to activate this item. Of course, then I cant use this utility. I could do both, but then I cant move and I really want to shift over..."
All stemming from the "Who do I attack?" phase.

"Do I want to Power Strike? Sure, I want more damage, I Power Strike."

Compared to:

"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Or do I want to do some more damage with Steel Serpent Strike? I guess I should save that for when the slow would matter. It's early in the fight, should I use Lasting Threat to perma-mark him? I guess I'll save that for when we need the big damage. I guess Reaping Strike it is."

No, the distinction is :
"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Do I want to activate an encounter long buff(Daily 1, Daily 5)? I guess Reaping Strike it is."
Maybe 1/2 an option more to decide and the major advantage is that those options are innately compatible and available to the 4e classic classes. Suddenly, essentials actually becomes a supplement instead of a revision.

One decision point by your measure, but actually more like 3 - since you need to choose whether or not any individual power is worth using at the given time. And that is with a level 1 character with some of the most relatively straightforward Fighter powers.

Which are still relatively complex options, mostly because you're comparing a defender to a striker, switch those out for real leveled but PS-like powers(really PS is another way to say a power has the "Reliable" keyword) and you get a simple-to-play, nearly decision free class that has broadened the base 4e fighters options and left itself open to being played by those that dont want a railroad.

By the time you get to the end of Heroic, the PHB Fighter has another 4 choices for them to ponder, while the E-Fighter has 1 more stance - and Power Strike has gotten slightly more complex via Weapon Specialization (but also somewhat easier since you've got multiple uses and less need to 'save' it.)

Great, PS has jumped in power level to multiple copies of a 7th level encounter power, while the 4e class is using his 1,3 and single 7th. If you actually had PS1, PS3 and PS7(Hammer Strike, Blade Strike, Axe Strike, Staff Strike....) you'd have real control over the power level at this point(yes, they'd likely screw it up), but the most important part is the Slayers player would know the basics of 4e's power system instead of having spent 7+ levels learning how to play a Slayer which MAY carry over somewhat to playing a Knight, but tells him nothing of how to play a FTR, PAL, BRB, ROG, WRD....etc.

Now, I'll still accept that you find your single decision point the easier approach. But for myself - even as a person who likes the AEDU system - it still is far quicker and simpler to make 2 easy decisions than 1 decision involving a half-dozen internal comparisons.

Who do I attack?
What do I attack with?

Yes, the same two choices that 4e (single target) PCs have. The difference is that 4e PCs get to do the second over one action and with one choice, Slayers have to figure out if they have the actions to make the attack they want to.

Again, not seeing any heavy increase in number of options. The minor action point is somewhat valid... but those are not heavily in use for E-classes, and - again - the E-player can always just not bother with it and stay in his original stance.

Then he's still making a decision, the same one as a 4e class using his "default" power. On top of that, he's being led by the nose to make that choice, since he has to consider every option his character has to see if he even can make that choice. By spreading the attack action over two 'actions' he has to even consider what he wants to do with his move action to decide what to attack with. A 'simple' player can get so overwhelmed that he decides not to decide and goes with what could be a bad option. Encouraging poor play is not a good way to grow the game.

Even then, Dailies are still relevant - they don't get used every round or every combat, but they are still there to be considered. And the players you encourage to not think about them will end up just never using them - unless prompted by you, which again gets into territory where they feel like you are playing their character for them.

Dailies need to be relevant or the player isnt learning the game. That doesnt mean they need to be encounter defining and cant be simple encounter length buffs. Rages are actually a good example, +[W], +X damage, extra move all could be excellent simple daily attack powers.

Finally, beyond all that, in your ideal situation, you have the following:

"Ok, kid, you are playing a Barbarian. Never use these rage powers unless I tell you to. The rest of the time, start combat with Tide of Blood. Next round, use Hammer Fall. Then use Avalanche Strike. After that, every attack is a Howling Strike."

vs

"Ok, kid, you are playing a Slayer. You are always in Battle Wrath Stance, and every attack you make is this modified basic attack. The first two times you hit an enemy each fight, you can add 1d10 extra damage via Power Strike."

Even with as straightforward a build as possible with the Barbarian, you have more for them to keep track of. And even with the simplest options from their encounter power list, you still have conditions and benefits from some of these powers, ignored so they can just go down the list from top to bottom. And you still run into more confusion with OAs and charging. Not to mention raging, critical hits triggering rampage, and tracking the various triggers for Feral Might benefits. (Temps when you kill someone and a free charge, etc.)

Versus... you always use the same exact attack, and a few times per combat can add extra damage.

You're going back to the current power lists again..

Whats better for the game? Adding a power that one build of one class can EVER use? or Adding a power to an entire classes power list?
Whats better? Adding a new class with the same name as an existing class, but entirely different abilities, benefits, power lists, roles and selections? or Adding a new build to an existing class that shares power lists, some abilites, most benefits, etc...?
If Slayer had been Barbarian(Slayer) and Knight had been Fighter(Knight) we wouldnt need to have this argument and all the supposed benefits of the e-martials would have still been there.

But claiming it is more complicated? I see nothing that supports that, not even remotely.

It all comes down to all the e-martial classes needing to spend multiple actions to simulate a 4e class selecting an at-will. Its the basis of all those classes and its absolutely unnecessary and unnecessarily complicated.

The scaling PP cost is actually the fundamental flaw in the system. Because it means that instead of actually using those PP in the same distribution of normal resources, they could use them all for low-cost powers - the equivalent of, instead of using a Level 17, 23 and 27 Encounter power each fight, instead using the same Level 1 encounter power ten times. Combined with a handful of low-level encounter powers that remain useful... they break the system.

You've got that backwards. Its the scaling of the low-level at-wills without having to pay any more PP for them thats broken. If Dishearten was a fixed -1 or -2 instead of -Stat you'd have to upgrade to the Paragon at-will with its correspondingly increased cost to get that benefit.
I see your point about the encounters up to a certain point. There are a lot of classes that would be better off with 4 17s instead of a 17,23 and 27. Usually thats because their 27s are crap and their 17s are really good. I'd say thats more an issue with the assigned levels and the abject fear that the Devs have for scaling encounters. Tho, they are getting better at allowing that, I'd love to see 13 and 17 get pick a 3rd or 7th level at-will and add 1[W] or 1 die to the damage along with 23 and 27 getting the same +2.

Earlier you claimed that the Slayer - even a well-built Slayer- was ineffective to the point of uselessness. Now you are saying they have encounters better than standard dailies. Which is it?

At level 1-16, Power Strike does 2[W] (1[W] basic + 1[W] PS).
Weapon Specialization will let it knock an enemy prone or slide adjacent enemies 1 square.
At level 17, it deals 3[W] (1[W] basic + 2[W] PS).
At level 20, it also pushes 3 squares if a Mythic Slayer.
At level 21, it deals 4[W] (2[W] basic + 2[W] PS).
At level 27, it deals 5[W] (2[W] basic + 3[W] PS).

So, at level 27, four times a combat (as a Mythic Slayer), we can deal 5[W] + normal bonus, plus knock an enemy prone and push them 3 squares.

The normal Fighter has level 27 options like Cruel Reaper (two Burst 1 attacks for 2[W] plus bonuses each), plus various 4[W] powers with more significant effects (disarming the enemy, reducing defenses, letting the fighter take half damage for a round, etc).

His level 23 option includes 3[W] and 4[W] options, but again, often with various benefits like leaving enemies restrained, dazed, blinded, or attacking multiple targets or one enemy multiple times, or being made as immediate interrupts or reactions.

Level 17 options are around 2[W] to 3[W] - but again, multiple attacks, multiple targets, interesting effects and conditions.

On these lists there certainly are powers strictly worse than the maxed out Power Strike. But then, that's the benefit of the AEDU system - getting to choose. And there are plenty of options that do compare quite favorable. Not compare in terms of damage - the Slayer is definitely going to be better at dealing the most damage to a single target.

But all those other benefits will often make up for the loss of several [W]. And daily powers - especially those with ongoing effects or impressive conditions - will be even more so.

And the best [W] dailys are what? 7[W] attacks with no effects? 8[W] with a penalty?
Thats compares to a 5[W] with at least two effects.

Overall result: The Slayer is devestating at killing individual foes. The Knight has some very threatening OAs and punishment (enemy violates his aura, he does a pile of damage and knocks them away from whoever they were attacking.) The PHB Fighter, meanwhile, is great at crippling a single enemy with devestating conditions, or drawing in a host of foes and unleashing damage on all of them, or rolling up to a truly powerful foe and using powers to boost his temps/defenses/DR/etc, and weathering the assault.

All of this are effective builds and characters at this point. I don't see any way in which Power Strike breaks the game. Yes, it is potent - making up for the loss of dailies and the loss of the versatility and special benefits of normal encounter powers.

pffft. The Slayer is a bug compared to a decently built FTR because of the above reasons. Optimizing it by piling on the damage feats and the new PS boosting feats quickly sends it over the top and then you get to charge monkeys who dont normally get to throw daily level effects on their attacks. Just one feat adds a top tier status effect to ALL 4 of his encounters

What the Druid has always been (to my mind) is a hybrid - someone able to contribute in various ways. The PHB2 Druid was an interesting take on that - someone who shifts between different forms (caster/melee), and has multiple options within those forms (melee form can focus on dealing damage or trying to protect allies/distract enemies.)

But the Sentinel really fits in the support role I associate with the Druid. I distract enemies with my companion. I can do decent damage beating up enemies with a staff or scythe (classic druid weaponry). I can provide healing and support when needed. And I can unleash devestating nature spells or summon more companions via my daily powers.

I actually tried to make something like this previously (a hybrid Druid|Warden multiclassed into Shaman) - so seeing a similar robust approach for the Sentinel was perfectly welcome to me.

I suppose so. I've just never heard of Druid considered a Healer other than a desperation back-up and Sentinel is.....bad if you're DM even wants to try using Tactics.

 

[FireLance]

So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities.

Why don't you take a stab at formulating such a rule? Don't just criticize; spend some effort to help others adopt your preferred playstyle more easily! That said, my initial sense is that any such rule is going to end up sounding more like a table rule or SOP than an actual game rule since it relates to what the character does when the player does not declare an action clearly or properly and some players may not like it because it causes them to break immersion (which does matter to some players).

On the other hand, the slayer solves the immersion problem by simply allowing the player to say, "I attack [target]." Everything else: stance, weapon, the possibility of using power strike just modifies the basic attack.

No, that next decision point is only as complex as you make it. You keep going back to "4e classes have to decide between multiple encounter powers and dailys and at-wills" when the point from the beginning has been that all those simplifications would have actually been simplifications if they had been applied to the existing class w/the existing class mechanics. Instead they created a entirely new system whose only result is to make it more complex to actually play the game, let alone teach it.

...

or "Hmm, I really want to move him over there, but I need my minor to activate this item. Of course, then I cant use this utility. I could do both, but then I cant move and I really want to shift over..."
All stemming from the "Who do I attack?" phase.

...

No, the distinction is :
"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Do I want to activate an encounter long buff(Daily 1, Daily 5)? I guess Reaping Strike it is."

...

Who do I attack?
What do I attack with?

Yes, the same two choices that 4e (single target) PCs have. The difference is that 4e PCs get to do the second over one action and with one choice, Slayers have to figure out if they have the actions to make the attack they want to.

...

Then he's still making a decision, the same one as a 4e class using his "default" power. On top of that, he's being led by the nose to make that choice, since he has to consider every option his character has to see if he even can make that choice. By spreading the attack action over two 'actions' he has to even consider what he wants to do with his move action to decide what to attack with. A 'simple' player can get so overwhelmed that he decides not to decide and goes with what could be a bad option. Encouraging poor play is not a good way to grow the game.

...

It all comes down to all the e-martial classes needing to spend multiple actions to simulate a 4e class selecting an at-will. Its the basis of all those classes and its absolutely unnecessary and unnecessarily complicated.

The problem is, you seem to be steadfastly ignoring all the posts from people such as Raikun who have played 4E both pre- and post-Essentials and have reported that the Essentials classes were easier and sped up play for them. I think most people would give more weight to their actual experiences than to your theoretical arguments. Really, you are starting to sound like someone who repeatedly insists that chocolate is an objectively superior flavor to strawberry even though others have indicated that they prefer strawberry.

Maybe 1/2 an option more to decide and the major advantage is that those options are innately compatible and available to the 4e classic classes. Suddenly, essentials actually becomes a supplement instead of a revision.

I believe we've gone over this before. Essentials is a supplement because it adds new opotions for the players. It might not provide a lot of additional support for some existing AEDU classes, but it is not a revision because it does not replace them.

Whats better for the game? Adding a power that one build of one class can EVER use?

You mean like the Beast keyword powers for the Beastmaster ranger in Martial Power? I actually kind of liked those.

Whats better? Adding a new class with the same name as an existing class, but entirely different abilities, benefits, power lists, roles and selections? or Adding a new build to an existing class that shares power lists, some abilites, most benefits, etc...?
If Slayer had been Barbarian(Slayer) and Knight had been Fighter(Knight) we wouldnt need to have this argument and all the supposed benefits of the e-martials would have still been there.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure that the ability to just say, "I attack [target]." (mentioned before) would have been possible without tweaking the power structure.

That said, I think it may be possible to unify the slayer, knight and weaponmaster under an umbrella class in much the same way that I kindsorta unified the warpriest and the templar under an umbrella cleric class some posts back. Something along the lines of: choose between at-will attacks or at-will stances; choose between power strike (plus enhancements) and regular encounter powers; choose between daily attack powers and constant benefits (or turn the constant benefits into daily attack powers that last until the end of your next extended rest).

Which are still relatively complex options, mostly because you're comparing a defender to a striker, switch those out for real leveled but PS-like powers(really PS is another way to say a power has the "Reliable" keyword) and you get a simple-to-play, nearly decision free class that has broadened the base 4e fighters options and left itself open to being played by those that dont want a railroad.

That's not entirely true. A Reliable encounter power is still an alternative to a basic attack or an at-will attack, and the player must still choose to use it before making the attack roll. Power strike has the additional advantage that the player can attack first and then choose to use it if the attack hits.

Great, PS has jumped in power level to multiple copies of a 7th level encounter power, while the 4e class is using his 1,3 and single 7th.

Mind you, at 7th level, the slayer and knight still only have two uses of power strike per encounter, while the weaponmaster fighter has three encounter powers of 1st, 3rd and 7th level. As I previously mentioned, I think the balance really is quite good.

If you actually had PS1, PS3 and PS7(Hammer Strike, Blade Strike, Axe Strike, Staff Strike....) you'd have real control over the power level at this point(yes, they'd likely screw it up), but the most important part is the Slayers player would know the basics of 4e's power system instead of having spent 7+ levels learning how to play a Slayer which MAY carry over somewhat to playing a Knight, but tells him nothing of how to play a FTR, PAL, BRB, ROG, WRD....etc.

To a certain extent, yes. A weaponmaster's power structure is closer to the other AEDU classes than a slayer's or a knight's. That said, I don't think that learning to play a different class is that much more difficult, especially since playing a slayer or a knight would have already familiarized a player with the basic concepts of the game such as attack rolls, saving throws, hit points, healing surges, tactics, etc. Certainly not much more difficult than learning to manage a psionic augmentation class or a monk's full discipline powers after playing a more traditional AEDU class, anyway.

Dailies need to be relevant or the player isnt learning the game. That doesnt mean they need to be encounter defining and cant be simple encounter length buffs. Rages are actually a good example, +[W], +X damage, extra move all could be excellent simple daily attack powers.

If you can have dailies that are encounter-long buffs, why not dailies that are day-long buffs? Do that and you basically emulate the constant benefits of the knight and the slayer.

And the best [W] dailys are what? 7[W] attacks with no effects? 8[W] with a penalty?
Thats compares to a 5[W] with at least two effects.

pffft. The Slayer is a bug compared to a decently built FTR because of the above reasons. Optimizing it by piling on the damage feats and the new PS boosting feats quickly sends it over the top and then you get to charge monkeys who dont normally get to throw daily level effects on their attacks. Just one feat adds a top tier status effect to ALL 4 of his encounters

Again, you need to compare the entire package. Even if a slayer's encounters are as good as a weaponmaster's dailies, are they as good as the weaponmaster's encounters plus dailies? Looking at abilities in isolation is not always meaningful.

You've got that backwards. Its the scaling of the low-level at-wills without having to pay any more PP for them thats broken. If Dishearten was a fixed -1 or -2 instead of -Stat you'd have to upgrade to the Paragon at-will with its correspondingly increased cost to get that benefit.
I see your point about the encounters up to a certain point. There are a lot of classes that would be better off with 4 17s instead of a 17,23 and 27. Usually thats because their 27s are crap and their 17s are really good. I'd say thats more an issue with the assigned levels and the abject fear that the Devs have for scaling encounters. Tho, they are getting better at allowing that, I'd love to see 13 and 17 get pick a 3rd or 7th level at-will and add 1[W] or 1 die to the damage along with 23 and 27 getting the same +2.

This I agree with. I thought I'd end on this point.