Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[MrMyth]

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.

Ok, let's try and clarify something. Your initial point was not that Essentials is more complex than some hypothetical alternate approach. "E-classes are significantly MORE complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are."

So we aren't talking about a change to the ruleset - we are comparing what we have with Essentials vs what we had before. And many folks find Essentials classes much, much simpler to play.

From the start, I've said that a different approach could probably have made things simpler without moving as far mechanically from the base system - but I also believe that doing so would require a lot more work than you are suggesting. It would entail tearing the system apart and rebuilding it from the ground up, which many folks would have found far more disruptive than simply presenting alternate builds via Essentials.

If you make everyone choose one At-Will as the default, it still doesn't cut down on decision making between using that vs using Encounters. To do that, you need to turn Encounters into Power Strike 'add-ons', which requires a significant rebalancing of the entire system. You propose they could just add Power Strike itself (and presumably make it work with At-Wills rather than just basics) - but you have also indicated that you would want Power Strike to have multiple levels of it (a level 7 version, level 17 version, level 27 version, etc) to keep its power balanced. Which again presents more decisions for the user. And we also haven't gotten into considering Dailies, either.

You also need to make those default At-Wills work on OAs and Charging - but that again would probably require a good bit of reworking them so that balance is maintained.

Feel free to stat out your proposed hypothetical system that keeps things balanced, uses a single consistent mechanical approach, and allows both those wanting simple characters and those wanting complex ones to build characters via the exact same process. I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying that it won't be as handwavingly trivial as you imply.

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.

Again, the point from the beginning was your claim that Essentials classes are significantly more complex to play than their PHB equivalents. You have in fact cited Barbarians and PHB Fighters as classes which one could present to a player and have them just use an easy list of powers each combat. I'm calling you on that claim - even with the simplest choices available, it will still require a lot more decision making on each action than a Slayer needs to deal with.

Your point about players getting 'used to' the Slayer and thus not learning the rest of the game... hmm. I understand where your concern is coming from. But I don't think that transitioning from the Slayer to the PHB Fighter (or the Barbarian) will be that difficult - for those who want to make that transition. The entire point is that some folks prefer the simpler option. Saying we should just remove it and toss them in the deep end so they can learn to swim... doesn't seem a better approach, at least to me.

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.

I don't see any of these as especially common concerns (especially when the Slayer doesn't need to spend his minor every round), and even if they were, the availability of item powers and utilities is just as relevant to the non-Essentials character.

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.

Again, you seem to be making your comparisons to your hypothetical system rather than the one that actually exists. In the actual situation, Encoutners are still an issue, and dailies that give encounter long buffs would usually, one imagines, run into your same criticism as stances.

Look, I'll lay this on the table right now - if you want to recant your original claim, admit that Essentials classes are simpler to play than pre-Essentials classes, and change your position to "WotC could have taken an alternate approach to Essentials that was closer to the current mechanics but still simpler to use?"

I am more than willing to leave it at that. We might disagree over how easy such a system would have actually been to create, but I will certainly accept that WotC had alternate approaches available.

What I have been contesting is your claim that Essentials is more difficult to use than the current system, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge that others folks do not find that to be the case. If you truly no longer believe that, and have moved the goalposts entirely to compare things only against your hypothetical alternate system? That's perfectly fine.

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.

Tells him nothing of how to play other characters? Yes, there are differences. For those who want to switch to more complex characters, I really don't think the learning curve is as insurmountable as you are claiming. If you believe characters could be dropped in and learn the power system initially, why do you think it somehow becomes impossible for them to learn simply because they played a different character for a bit?

Honestly, the individual natures of classes themselves (barbarian rages vs wild shape vs fighter marking vs paladin challenging vs everything psionics, etc)... require much more getting used to, for anyone changing classes, than figuring out the power system. The point isn't that the power system is impossible to learn, the point is that it is an approach that some folks don't like dealing with.

And, of course - getting back to your example, a system that does not have 4 uses of Power Strike, but instead has four different similar powers the player needs to choose from... is still not going to yield the benefits that Essential has offered in terms of fast, smooth, simple play.

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.

Just to be clear - your contention is that, "Do I have a minor action available if I want to use it?" is a vastly harder question to answer then "Which of these half-dozen powers is most appropriate to the situation?"

If so... ok, that might be the case for you. Once again, are you truly unwilling to acknowledge that it is not the same for everyone else?

You pointed out that you have three different posters basically telling you the same thing. Shouldn't that indicate that your feelings about the relative complexity here is not universal?

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.

Again, I have never run into a player overwhelmed by this issue. I have run into folks who were... I won't say "overwhelmed", but rather, "didn't want to deal with" the options presented by the normal AEDU classes, and as such, did indeed play at much reduced effectiveness. Essentials actively addresses that and made it so they could play without having to deal with such things and still remain effective.

I still am not sure how you can claim that a PHB Fighter who never uses Encounter powers and only uses one Default At-Will is 'good play' and remains effective, but a Slayer who never changes stances (and thus always has "+4 damage" instead of "slide 1 square" or "+1 to attack") is somehow crippled in effectiveness and playing badly.

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.

So just so we are clear, your advice for the player using the Barbarian is now: "The first round of every combat, always use a Rage power. Start combat 1 with Black Dragon Rage, combat 2 with Red Dragon Rage, and combat 3 with Blue Dragon Rage. After you rage, you should use your Encounters. (List of Encounters). After all that, use this one Default At-Will and never use anything else."

You can totally do this, yes. But I'm pretty sure it remains more complicated than playing the Slayer, and also results in operating at much lower effectiveness since you will be using powers when they aren't necessarily a good choice.

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.

I don't disagree that we could have taken such an approach. I don't think we would automatically gain all the supposed benefits of the e-martial classes. I'd have to see your hypothetical alternate system to be sure... and I suspect that it either would require a complete rewrite of the existing classes, or it wouldn't actually give us the benefits that Essentials did, or it would end up even more unbalanced with the rest of the game.

Either way, it still doesn't support your original claim, which was about comparing Essentials to the current 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.

I thought that was what I said. >_>

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.

Er... it depends on class, build, and what the other options are. And what those effects are. The best [W] dailies are often multiple attacks or have encounter long buffs. Even the ones that are raw damage still probably come out ahead - knocking prone and pushing a few squares is probably worth 1[W], but not 2.

Either way, you didn't address my point - the various benefits of normal encounter powers are decently balanced against the raw damage (but lack of those benefits) for Slayers.

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.

I still see no indications that a well-built Slayer is ineffective just because you say so. And you keep insisting that a handful of feats kicks it into game-breaking, without acknowledging the fact that many similarly optimized characters exist in the PHB classes as well.

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.

Ok, here is a hint: If you don't want folks like Matt James to call you a troll, you probably should avoid arguments that imply that those who disagree with you are bad players who suck.

I play a Sentinel. It is a perfectly effective class, and I have enjoyed playing it. Saying that any success I have with it is because my DM is bad at challenging PCs or using decent tactics is an insult.

I have heard people claim that every single one of the 4E classes is flawed beyond use or overpowered beyond reason. I've found such claims to be pretty much universally wrong. Some classes are stronger than others, yes. Nothing is unplayable, nothing is automatically game-breaking.

You don't like the Sentinel or feel you would be effective at playing it - fine. But, as seems to be the point we keep trying to get you to acknowledge - your opinions and experiences are not universal.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Agreed. I think a significant part of the hostility to 4e is a result of its formatting.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't like the Sentinel or feel you would be effective at playing it - fine. But, as seems to be the point we keep trying to get you to acknowledge - your opinions and experiences are not universal.

I believe for Marshall, that may be irrelevant. His argument seems to be rooted in a visceral reaction to the destruction of the glorious integrity of the AEDU design setup. Acknowledging any utility with the Essentials line would be, in essence, condoning WotC's betrayal.

 

[Marshall]

Ok, let's try and clarify something. Your initial point was not that Essentials is more complex than some hypothetical alternate approach. "E-classes are significantly MORE complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are."

And they are more complex to actually play, I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills.

From the start, I've said that a different approach could probably have made things simpler without moving as far mechanically from the base system - but I also believe that doing so would require a lot more work than you are suggesting. It would entail tearing the system apart and rebuilding it from the ground up, which many folks would have found far more disruptive than simply presenting alternate builds via Essentials.

If you make everyone choose one At-Will as the default, it still doesn't cut down on decision making between using that vs using Encounters. To do that, you need to turn Encounters into Power Strike 'add-ons', which requires a significant rebalancing of the entire system.

Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes.

You propose they could just add Power Strike itself (and presumably make it work with At-Wills rather than just basics) - but you have also indicated that you would want Power Strike to have multiple levels of it (a level 7 version, level 17 version, level 27 version, etc) to keep its power balanced. Which again presents more decisions for the user. And we also haven't gotten into considering Dailies, either.

Yes, but the 'decision' to use the higher level PS is made for you. Work your way down, high to low.

You also need to make those default At-Wills work on OAs and Charging - but that again would probably require a good bit of reworking them so that balance is maintained.

Why? If its balanced for Slayers to get at-wills on OAs and Charges(and granted attacks and...) then a FTR doing so is also balanced.

Feel free to stat out your proposed hypothetical system that keeps things balanced, uses a single consistent mechanical approach, and allows both those wanting simple characters and those wanting complex ones to build characters via the exact same process. I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying that it won't be as handwavingly trivial as you imply.

Trivial? No.
Significantly less than it took to build the Slayer/Knight/etc.? Yes.

Again, the point from the beginning was your claim that Essentials classes are significantly more complex to play than their PHB equivalents. You have in fact cited Barbarians and PHB Fighters as classes which one could present to a player and have them just use an easy list of powers each combat. I'm calling you on that claim - even with the simplest choices available, it will still require a lot more decision making on each action than a Slayer needs to deal with.

No, I said Slayers compare more closely to Barbarians than Fighters. I was wrong there, I think they are closer to Rangers in actual play. Default to Twin Strike. Encounters are extremely simple, Twin Strike w/stats, Twin Strike with bonus damage, Twin Strike with extra attack, etc.... They even have a minor action 'stance' for Bonus Damage. Tho, there are opportunities in the Barb for the same concepts.

Your point about players getting 'used to' the Slayer and thus not learning the rest of the game... hmm. I understand where your concern is coming from. But I don't think that transitioning from the Slayer to the PHB Fighter (or the Barbarian) will be that difficult - for those who want to make that transition. The entire point is that some folks prefer the simpler option. Saying we should just remove it and toss them in the deep end so they can learn to swim... doesn't seem a better approach, at least to me.

No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?

I don't see any of these as especially common concerns (especially when the Slayer doesn't need to spend his minor every round), and even if they were, the availability of item powers and utilities is just as relevant to the non-Essentials character.

He needs to consider spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have.

Again, you seem to be making your comparisons to your hypothetical system rather than the one that actually exists. In the actual situation, Encoutners are still an issue, and dailies that give encounter long buffs would usually, one imagines, run into your same criticism as stances.

Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, add to your attacks.

Look, I'll lay this on the table right now - if you want to recant your original claim, admit that Essentials classes are simpler to play than pre-Essentials classes, and change your position to "WotC could have taken an alternate approach to Essentials that was closer to the current mechanics but still simpler to use?"

I am more than willing to leave it at that. We might disagree over how easy such a system would have actually been to create, but I will certainly accept that WotC had alternate approaches available.

What I have been contesting is your claim that Essentials is more difficult to use than the current system, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge that others folks do not find that to be the case. If you truly no longer believe that, and have moved the goalposts entirely to compare things only against your hypothetical alternate system? That's perfectly fine.

Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on everyone else since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.

Yes, WotC should have come up with a simpler, more consistant and more compatible system than what they keep pushing.

Tells him nothing of how to play other characters? Yes, there are differences. For those who want to switch to more complex characters, I really don't think the learning curve is as insurmountable as you are claiming. If you believe characters could be dropped in and learn the power system initially, why do you think it somehow becomes impossible for them to learn simply because they played a different character for a bit?

No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes.

Honestly, the individual natures of classes themselves (barbarian rages vs wild shape vs fighter marking vs paladin challenging vs everything psionics, etc)... require much more getting used to, for anyone changing classes, than figuring out the power system. The point isn't that the power system is impossible to learn, the point is that it is an approach that some folks don't like dealing with.

Sure, but its a lot easier to learn those differences when you have mastered the basic AEDU and class structure.

And, of course - getting back to your example, a system that does not have 4 uses of Power Strike, but instead has four different similar powers the player needs to choose from... is still not going to yield the benefits that Essential has offered in terms of fast, smooth, simple play.

Really?!? You have players who cant count from high to low?

Just to be clear - your contention is that, "Do I have a minor action available if I want to use it?" is a vastly harder question to answer then "Which of these half-dozen powers is most appropriate to the situation?"

Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack.
"OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity....

If so... ok, that might be the case for you. Once again, are you truly unwilling to acknowledge that it is not the same for everyone else?

You pointed out that you have three different posters basically telling you the same thing. Shouldn't that indicate that your feelings about the relative complexity here is not universal?

The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly.
I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them.

Again, I have never run into a player overwhelmed by this issue. I have run into folks who were... I won't say "overwhelmed", but rather, "didn't want to deal with" the options presented by the normal AEDU classes, and as such, did indeed play at much reduced effectiveness. Essentials actively addresses that and made it so they could play without having to deal with such things and still remain effective.

Right, the class is better for everyone else at the table and irrelevant for the player. Its not simpler for the player, its less of a hassle for the table.

 

[FireLance]

And they are more complex to actually play, I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills.

They don't have to "pretend". They are about as effective and contribute as much to the group effort as any other class. Specific performance details will, of course, depend on the nature of the opponents they are fighting, synergy with other party members, etc.

Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes.

...

Yes, but the 'decision' to use the higher level PS is made for you. Work your way down, high to low.

...

Really?!? You have players who cant count from high to low?

That would be simpler, but still not as simple as a single encounter power that has a consistent effect because you would need to vary the effect based on how many encounter powers have used - easy for some, but bothersome for others.

No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?

The fact that a slayer uses a different power frequency structure and uses stances instead of at-will attacks makes it an "entirely" different ruleset? When attack rolls, damage rolls, hit points, healing surges, AC and other defenses, saving throws, skills, weapons, armor, movement, etc. are exactly the same? Surely you exaggerate.

He needs to consider spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have.

...

Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, add to your attacks.

Not exactly. It takes a minor action to change your at-will attack. In most cases, there will not be a significant difference between using one at-will attack (or stance) or another. In a way, it's a matter of playstyle fit. Decison-making theory speaks of satisficers and maximizers. Playing a slayer, and staying in one stance until it is necessary to change it, is very mucn a satisficing strategy. If a player was the type that wants to maximize his effectiveness and use a different at-will attack every round, I would recommend that he plays a more traditional AEDU class.

Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on everyone else since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.

In the light of the above, I think the above can be phrased more accurately as: they are more complex to maximize, but they are easier to satisfice.

Yes, WotC should have come up with a simpler, more consistant and more compatible system than what they keep pushing.

I think it's simple enough, consistent enough and compatible enough. It's satisficing vs. maximizing again!

No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes.

Did they enjoy playing the slayer? Did they enjoy playing the game more by starting with the slayer instead of a more traditional AEDU class? If the answer is, "Yes," to both questions, I don't think the time was wasted.

Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack.
"OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity....

You see, this is not how a satisficer thinks. A satisficer goes, "I attack him! Great! I took him down! Next round, I do the same thing to the other guy!"

The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly.
I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them.

...

Right, the class is better for everyone else at the table and irrelevant for the player. Its not simpler for the player, its less of a hassle for the table.

Only if you consider a satisficing strategy and playstyle to be "stupid" and irrelevant.

 

[FireLance]

You know, all this talk about satisficing made me think of a song. So, here's a brief musical interlude before we get back to the main event.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFU6w7q3dQ]"Weird Al" Yankovic - Good Enough for Now - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Marshall]

Not exactly. It takes a minor action to change your at-will attack. In most cases, there will not be a significant difference between using one at-will attack (or stance) or another. In a way, it's a matter of playstyle fit. Decison-making theory speaks of satisficers and maximizers. Playing a slayer, and staying in one stance until it is necessary to change it, is very much a satisficing strategy. If a player was the type that wants to maximize his effectiveness and use a different at-will attack every round, I would recommend that he plays a more traditional AEDU class.

In the light of the above, I think the above can be phrased more accurately as: they are more complex to maximize, but they are easier to satisfice.

Succinct and to the point. I think we've reached the crux of the disagreement, I view 'satisficing' as poor play in general and something to be used as a teaching tool only. Building a whole play structure around it isnt worth the effort, especially when there were options within the existing structure to reach that point.

I think it's simple enough, consistent enough and compatible enough. It's satisficing vs. maximizing again!

"Good Enough" should never be a design goal, especially for something thats supposed to be the basis of everything from here forward.

Only if you consider a satisficing strategy and playstyle to be "stupid" and irrelevant.

As anything more than a stop-gap until you get better? Yes, I do.

 

[MrMyth]

And they are more complex to actually play,

"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."

Note your final statement there - a declaration that the Essentials abilities are indeed simpler to play.

Look, you claimed that at-wills could be used 'by default' just as easily as stances. We've given half-a-dozen reasons why not everyone would find that the case. You've ignored addressing those points on two seperate occasions, with your only response eventually being that, while Essentials is simpler, your hypotethical system would be simpler without the potential problems of Essentials.

When I point out your original point was comparing Essentials with the previous structure, you have now returned to claiming "they are more complex to actually play" - again, without addressing any of our reasons for why we don't find that to be so. (Or even acknowledging the fact that you had, moments before, conceded that Essentials was indeed simpler.)

Look, I've been continuing this discussion on the assumption that you genuinely feel a different system could have been better and are trying to explain why. But when your position shifts so constantly, it is hard to feel like you are having this discussion in good faith.

I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills.

How in the world are they less effective?

You keep making this claim without backing it up. A Slayer who stays in one stance all day long is operating at near full effectiveness. Compare it to a Barbarian (who seems the closest equivalent) spamming howling strike - who gives up all their dailies and encounters while doing less damage with their at-will than the Slayer is dealing with their basic attack.

This myth that a Slayer is an inneffective striker doesn't seem grounded in either numbers or experiences. They have a striker damage bonus equivalent to that of other strikers. They are able to wield large weapons and gain boosts to damage and attacks via their stances and their class features. And they have reliable bonus damage via Power Strike.

A Fighter who only spams Reaping Strike all day? Is giving up a lot of effectiveness, and is not somehow magically more effective than a Slayer for no reason.

Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes.

Yes, but the 'decision' to use the higher level PS is made for you. Work your way down, high to low.

Again, I don't see your hypothetical system as being as easy to implement as you suggest, nor do I see it solving most of these problems - as in this case, which again presents more decisions than you have with Essentials.

You like that style, that's fine. Are you still not willing to accept that others have different preferences than you do??

Why? If its balanced for Slayers to get at-wills on OAs and Charges(and granted attacks and...) then a FTR doing so is also balanced.

Because the Slayer stance benefits have specifically been chosen with the knowledge they can be used in that situation?

We do have some At-Wills that are considered to be balanced for use in such fashions. We have others that aren't. I suspect many of the ones with multiple targets, movement effects, area effects, etc, would need significant reevaluation before being implemented as such. Could you do so? Sure. Just not with the ease you suggest.

Trivial? No.
Significantly less than it took to build the Slayer/Knight/etc.? Yes.

Not even remotely. You criticize the fact that the Slayer/Knight/etc are slightly apart from the existing rules. That's what allowed them to be developed in a balanced fashion. What you propose would require much more integration with the basic rules. Which I agree would be a benefit in the long run - but in an immediate sense, would have required vastly more design work and been far more disruptive to current games.

If you really feel otherwise... feel free to stat out your alternate system in the House Rules section, and we'll see. Until then, I don't think you can complain that such a vast undertaking would accomplish all your goals while simultaneoulsy requiring few resources and having minimal impact on the existing system.

No, I said Slayers compare more closely to Barbarians than Fighters. I was wrong there, I think they are closer to Rangers in actual play. Default to Twin Strike. Encounters are extremely simple, Twin Strike w/stats, Twin Strike with bonus damage, Twin Strike with extra attack, etc.... They even have a minor action 'stance' for Bonus Damage. Tho, there are opportunities in the Barb for the same concepts.

Archer Rangers are probably among the easiest classes to play, yes - you can sit back and just shoot things all day long. Of course, this requires giving up a good bit of effectiveness (quarry options, prime shot), and choosing encounters for ease of use rather than choosing the strongest ones. And probably requires more maintenance of quarry, since it only lasts as long as each target, rather than the entire combat - and when you forget and want to have used it before the attack, retcon time! And requires, per your advice, using Encounters in a set order, rather than using whichever one is appropriate at a given time. And ignoring dailies.

It still is not difficult to play, but it also remains more complex than the Slayer and still doesn't address many of the problems that folks have with the AEDU system. It's only real advantage in terms of ease of play is by virtue of being ranged, which is hardly a legitimate divide between Essentials and the PHB classes.

Once again, to compare:

"Ok, you are playing a Slayer. You stay 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."

vs

"Ok, you are playing an archer Ranger. Never use your dailies unless I tell you to. Each round, use Hunter's Quarry on your target. If it isn't the closest enemy, move so if it is. If you can't do so safely, choose between shooting someone else or giving up your bonus damage. Anyway, round 1 use Thundertusk Boar Strike, which does this damage and pushes the target. (And pushes extra if both hit.) Round 2 use Two-Fanged Strike, which is the same damage as last time. But extra damage if both hit. After that, every round, use Twin Strike, which is similar, but lower damage."

It is not the most complex thing in the world, not by any means. But it is more complexity and decision making and tracking than some folks want to deal with. They don't want to have to remember to quarry, they don't want to have a half-dozen different attacks with similar but subtly different stat lines. They want one attack they can use every round, and a few uses of an encounter power that boosts it in a very simple fashion.

Once more, in the forlorn hope you will actually answer this: Are you really unwilling to accept that some folks find that simpler and prefer that approach?

No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?

Once, again, a poor analogy - the difference between checkers and pawns are very significant. The differences betwen Essentials and the rest of the rules are not. They are part of the same ruleset, and I still don't think you've proven that someone who learns the game with a Slayer will be unable to learn how to play a different build if they wish to do so.

He needs to consider spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have.

Aside from the many 4E classes that do use minor actions, often on a much more regular basis than the Slayer. And, as previously noted, this is pretty much a corner case compared to the decisions a PHB class needs to make every round by virtue of their class structure.

Honestly, the thing with minor action magic item uses is that typically they are very conditional. Which will mean the player doesn't really need to consider it until that circumstance comes up (I'm immobilized and need to teleport, etc.) In that event, the Slayer says, "Yeah, this is worth using", and doesn't even need to consider changing his stance (since being able to leave it in place is a benefit of the class).

Whereas the number of times I've seen a Warlock player dither for 5 minutes because their life saving magic items requires giving up cursing enemies or triggering shadow walk of the like? Much more common.

Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, add to your attacks.

Except that you can activate that minor action at the start of the day and never deal with it again. Your argument wasn't the power level (at least not previously), it was the difficult of having to consider the use of that minor action. Why do you now insist that those minor actions are trivial for PHB classes to use, but completely crippling for Essentials classes? Again, you seem to have a bit of a double standard in terms of what you are criticizing.

Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on everyone else since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.

A Slayer who stays in one stance and spams his basic attack and uses Power Strike when available is not playing poorly. They are operating as a fully effective Striker. You haven't offered a single shred of proof for why this is somehow being crippled. You have even tried to claim that a PHB class spamming an At-Will and never using encounter powers and daily powers is somehow more effective than this character. Again, without offering any evidence as to why.

Even for the player who does change stances when appropriate, you consider this "significantly more complex". Which I still don't get- even if you find stances more complex (which I don't, but can certainly accept it if they are for you), you have to admit that Power Strike is much simpler than dealing with the normal Encounter system.

Your argument previously was to keep insisting that WotC could have instead made Power Strike part of the normal system somehow. Let's ignore that. All that matter is that you did accept Power Strike as a simpler option. So why do you feel that a class with Power Strike is significantly more complex than a class with 4 different encounter powers to choose from?

Again, we're not comparing to your hypothetical system. We're talking Essentials vs the existing classes. Here's the challenge - choose a ranger, a barbarian, a fighter, whatever. Build it for me. Let's go with level 5 or 7 or 9 - something mid to late Heroic. Build me your character as simple as you can, and we'll compare whether a Slayer is actually significantly more complex than it in actuality.

No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes.

Why was it wasted time? If they enjoyed playing the character and were effective with it, isn't that good enough? If it gave them a simple option to play while learning every other aspect of the system, and all they need to do now is learn the AEDU power format, doesn't that make the transition easier anyway?

Sure, but its a lot easier to learn those differences when you have mastered the basic AEDU and class structure.

No it doesn't. How does "mastery of the AEDU structure" help you figure out the different benefits between a druid vs a warden vs a barbarian?

Really?!? You have players who cant count from high to low?

Fast, smooth, simple play. That is the goal. The people we are talking about can absolutely do so, but that doesn't mean it isn't another level of complexity they don't want to bother with.

Having a page filled with a half-dozen different powers with subtly different effects, and needing to check on each one what damage they deal is going to take longer than having one power, four check-boxes, and the same exact effect each time.

Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack.

"OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity....

The situations which require those choices are not especially common, can be easily ignored, and are ultimate less complex than choosing even once between 2 At-wills, 4 Encounters and 4 Dailies. Honestly, the character who is trying to keep things simple probably won't bother choosing Hammer Hands, and just stick to the stances that just boost attack or damage. Meaning basically no complexity to any choice they make... ever.

The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly.

Even as I accept that you find the structure more complex than the existing system, I don't think your hyperbole is helping. "Ridiculously complex"? Really?

As for your other point, the same one we've covered before several times, it is simply untrue. The Slayer "played stupidly" gives up a single stance by choosing to always stay in an effective stance. (The equivalent of "always use twin strike.") Rarely using your weaker or more situational At-Will is not considered "playing stupidly" - it is how most people play most of the time, honestly.

What most people do not do is, as you suggest, never use a single Encounter or Daily Attack power. That is giving up a vast amount of effectiveness, and leaves you far, far behind an Essentials character in power level. And, honestly, is why I am glad for Essentials - because that is the behavior I would occasionally see by those who don't want to deal with the AEDU system. And those characters were a bane to the entire party, while the Essentials characters they play now are effective characters that contribute significantly to party success.

Once again, if you are going to insist on these genuinely absurd claims, let's see some proof. Stat up your "stupidly played" Essentials character and "stupidly played" pre-Essentials character, and we'll see how they actually compare.

I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them.

We're not talking about someone who isn't invested in the game. We're talking about someone who would rather have a single effective attack than have to spend their time looking through powers and saying a silly power name. They want to just say, "I get up in his face and smash his face in" rather than spending time choosing between options and eventually saying, "I get up in his face and then... I Sudden Sweep of Storms him... in the face. Which I guess means I trip him, or something."

I keep asking you, and you keep refusing to answer, my question: Are you willing to acknowledge that other people find these classes simpler to play, while still being effective, and that your experiences are not universal?

Because given this last response, it seems your answer is, "Anyone who plays different than me doesn't deserve to play the game or have classes designed for them", which strikes me as a pretty terrible attitude to have.

Right, the class is better for everyone else at the table and irrelevant for the player. Its not simpler for the player, its less of a hassle for the table.

So, just so we are clear...

When, with a pre-Essentials character, the character doesn't want to deal with the AEDU system, ends up playing slowly and poorly, and gets frustrated and quits the game...

vs when, with an Essentials character, they play simply and quickly, are effective in combat and enjoy contributing to the party, and are thus able to actually enjoy the game...

... the difference in those two characters, in your opinion, is entirely irrelevant to that player?

 

[MrMyth]

Succinct and to the point. I think we've reached the crux of the disagreement, I view 'satisficing' as poor play in general and something to be used as a teaching tool only. Building a whole play structure around it isnt worth the effort, especially when there were options within the existing structure to reach that point.

"Good Enough" should never be a design goal, especially for something thats supposed to be the basis of everything from here forward.

As anything more than a stop-gap until you get better? Yes, I do.

So, rather than allow some players an option in which they can be effective and capable with a simpler style of play, you would prefer they either: (a) play badly with more complex characters or (b) leave the game?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, rather than allow some players an option in which they can be effective and capable with a simpler style of play, you would prefer they either: (a) play badly with more complex characters or (b) leave the game?

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

It sounds so much more like a sock puppet being held up by someone who wants to play his CoDzilla or god-Wizard alongside these gimped classes so he can seem even more awe-inspiring by contrast.

I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp' - one that really was an on-ramp that lead into the full expression of the game, not a cubbyhole where they could be placed to do limitted damage until they finally climb out and demand a real character. I know there are 'casual' players who are just there to socialize and would rather not pour effort into complex builds or make difficult decisions in play - but they seem to be happy to play pre-gens and take advice from other players, too.


:shrug: The whole debate is really emblematic of the problem, itself. When you had balanced classes, you might have had people disagreeing over whether certain of them were sufficiently simulationist or whatever - but /some/ of them were probably acceptable, and if you played those, you were at least playing a character that wasn't overshadowing anyone or languishing, itself. When you deliver imbalanced classes to meet supposed demand, people can play them or not, but the result will be more disruptive... just like the controversey over them.