How will Essentials integrate with the CB?

[Ugghe]

Respectfully, no, it's not the Fighter. It's very similar to the fighter in many ways, but:

- It shares essentially none of the same class features, but instead has new ones that are (or may be) similar but not the same.

- It has a (slightly) different list of class skills.

- It has a different range of armor proficiencies, including plate.

- It has a different progression of power acquisition as the character levels.

IMO, it's different enough that they would be better off just making this a separate class in the Builder.

-Dan'L

Respectful or not

-It does share the Weapon Talent class feature with Fighter

-if they do change the class skill list it may be an errata for all fighters or it may simply be "this build has these new options", not a classbreaker. There are feats one can only take with certain build options, why not skill lists?

-it only adds Plate, which is one feat; many "subclasses" or Feature selections include free feats. (Ranger has a lot)

-Yes, this is the main change in design theory with "Essentials" material is to give different progressions as an option.

The main reason it would not make sense to list it as a separate class (besides the fact that it isn't a separate class) is that all of it's new powers(and potentially class features) will be accessible to other fighter builds (per the essentials podcast) and all previous and future fighter powers and feats will be available to an "essential build" fighter.

I don't recall ever reading an article by a major company like WoTC that had a major public figure express frustration with it's clientele until I read the Essentials Wizard preview. These are not new classes. They are build options. Please... Nuff.

 

[MerricB]

-it only adds Plate, which is one feat; many "subclasses" or Feature selections include free feats. (Ranger has a lot)

For example, the Archer Warlord loses some armour proficiencies whilst gaining proficiency with military ranged weapons.

Cheers!

 

[the Jester]

Respectfully, no, it's not the Fighter.

Respectfully, yes it is. That's why it says "Fighter" at the top of the class. I think the guys publishing the game have more say as to what a fighter is than you do. It may not be what you like as a fighter or your idea of a fighter, but just like saying a glaive isn't a heavy blade is simply incorrect, you're simply incorrect.

 

[doctorhook]

Well, I get the sense they tried to give very distinct names to the Essentials Builds since they will be a bit more distinct from other builds. Hence, you can easily refer to the Knight, the Mage, the Warpriest more easily than most talk about Battlerager Fighters, Thaneborn Barbarians, etc.

I agree, but must spread some more XP around and so on, yaddayaddayadda.

We still don't know exactly how balanced these Essentials classes will be, (especially in conjunction with pre-Essentials feats/items/powers/etc.), but I already prefer the Knight, Mage, and Warpriest over their earlier counterparts. I haven't totally pinned-down why.

 

[Dan'L]

Respectfully, yes it is. That's why it says "Fighter" at the top of the class. I think the guys publishing the game have more say as to what a fighter is than you do. It may not be what you like as a fighter or your idea of a fighter, but just like saying a glaive isn't a heavy blade is simply incorrect, you're simply incorrect.

Just because someone makes product "A" and product "a" and gives them the same essential name doesn't mean that I as a consumer have to disbelieve the evidence of my own senses. Coca Cola bottling company may tell me that Coke and Diet Coke essentially taste the same, but I know that they don't.

I know that WOTC's trying to approximate the same flavor using a different recipe; I know that they want them to be as functionally identical as they can; I know that they name the products with very similar names to entice the consumer into buying the product based on past associations and familiarity.

How many changes can one make to a thing before it's no longer really the same thing? IMO, what we've seen of the Knight build takes it past that point for the 4e Fighter class. Obviously there are other opinions out there, including that of the WOTC marketing department, but that doesn't mean I am wrong for knowing what is a meaningful difference for me.

And please realize, I'm not complaining that the Knight build is bad/poorly built/over-powered. I actually think it's a neat little build, for what we've seen of it. It's just that IMO it is, again from what we've seen of it so far, mechanically distinct enough from the existing 4e Fighter class to be best handled as a different class when using the CB.

-Dan'L

 

[Aegeri]

If you look carefully, you'll notice that there are already 9 cleric powers from the Essentials series in the CB (for unknown reasons). Look for "Source: Essentials"

Did they end up in a preview and then compiled into the last dragon or something? Can't think of why they are there. Is there anything new or interesting in there we haven't seen in the previews (I don't have my CB to look )

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I just had a look at the Source:Essentials on the compendium. The powers listed are all ones that are in both the PHBs and Essentials:HotFL. They are: Bless, Shield of Faith, Cure Light, Serious& Critical Wounds, Weapon of the Gods, Divine Armor, Heal and Purify.

No idea why they're in the Compenium. I can't see them anywhere in the Essentials Cleric preview.

 

[wedgeski]

It's not replacing the exsisting fighter.
It's a new build option (just the same way Martial Power I and II introduced alternate builds, like Tempest Fighter and Battle Rager), you'll now also have the Knight build choice.

Of course. Thanks for the info.