Is essentials basically...

[catastrophic]

Psions weren't in the original book. Paladins don't impress me as being that more complicated than Fighters. Warlocks have really odd design, but aren't particularly complicated to play.

V-shaped classes clearly have a pitfall that other classes lack. And each v-shaped class has a bunch of wierd build stuff you have to do in certain cases.

This is compared to the two key abilities of the Fighter:

Those two abilities - especially with the way they were originally worded - make the fighter one of the most complex characters to run on the battlefield, because they need to know the combat movement rules intimately. I've seen novice players get confused by them more often than any other rule or ability.

Have you seen the divine challenge rules? I'm sorry, but there are any number of scenarios like this. You're singling out one issue but there are a number of difficult mechanics.

For instance, strikers. How often can they use their bonus dmg? You need to know a bunch of rules to to work that feature, as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If anything, a newbie-friendly fighter would not have interupt mechanics- it would create a kind of reverse-mark that the DM would manage, as opposed to the player. Marks kind of work like this already, but by removing marks- by putting the mechanic more onto the player instead of in a space the GM could help them more readily with, the essentials defender fighter is actually less newbie friendly in my opinion.

The Defender Aura does have the advantage that it applies right at the moment the enemy is affected by it - either it's adjacent to the Defender or not, no need to remember whom you had marked or put a chit on their token or anything. Though, you're right, it does have issues of it's own.

Could you elaborate on the 'reverse-mark' idea?


[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]: I've only seen two things about Combat Challenge & Combat Superiority really confuse players. 1) the Names, they're just too similar and 2) the fact that the Combat Challenge attack is an immediate interrupt instead of an OA - everyone seems to expect it to be an OA.
DMs, OTOH, sometimes have trouble deciding exactly what constitutes an attack that 'includes' the marking character (though that aplies to most marks, not just the Fighters').

Anyway, while the PH1 Fighter is not the simplest class in 4e, neither is it anywhere near the most complicated. It's mark is downright intuitive compared to the Paladin's, especially post-Divine-Power. It's mark punishment is straightforward compared to the Warden's or Battlemind's. The PH1 Fighter /can/ be a bit tricky to build, though not as much so as the 3.5 fighter, or any of the MAD 4e V or X classes.

 

[catastrophic]

I can understand how they'd come to the conclusion that the aura was simpler than the mark, but it really feels like design by comittie by me, because a Simpler Defender or Newbie Friendly Defender with no other goals would look quite different.

As for a reverse mark, I guess i'd be falling to my own criticism were I to design it, because i'd be tempted to play to other motives, like the fact that marks can in some cases fall into that ambiguous space between the GM making tactical choices, and the GM making sure the players feel their cool powers do things. GM's can often ignore or circumvent marks, but should they?

So i'd probably design an system more slanted to the GM where all the player has to do is mark an adjacent guy, the mark would be a more formidable debuff that the GM would keep track of, and then the GM would be able to clear the mark by (and only by) attacking the fighter pc.

This removes the 'interrupt' component of the fighter mark which, while cool, and debatably one of the between-turn-actions that even fast combat zealots such as myself might tolerate in our dream edition, are likely to be the kind of thing that muddles a new player a bit.

Not onyl does between turn muddle a new player, but a new player um-ing and ah-ing their way through such actions can slow the game, as well.

I know that people made the point about there needing to be a learning curve- but I feel like actions of that kind do need to be pared back in any event, and there are plenty of chances for the newbie to observe that kind of action being done by other players- it's the kind of thing you can learn relativly easily by seeing, as opposed to a say, running a more complex class in general.

Likewise, I think this idea would work on a manageable learning curve with more conventional fighter marks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see, so something like:

Mark: A marked creature takes a -2 penalty to attacks against, and is /weakened/. A mark ends immediately (before the attack is resolved) if the marked creature initiaties an attack against the marking creature that does not include any other creatures. A mark also ends after the marked creature has resolved an attack that included the marking creature, among others.

If that doesn't say 'hit me,' I don't know what would.

...

As for between-turn actions, while they do add complexity to the game, I feel they also add interest and engagement. A player who has intterupt or free or OA actions that might be triggered is going to pay more attention to, and feel more a part of the game when it's not his turn, and that is a big plus. Without some things like that, it's far too easy for players to get fixated on their own turns, and find the rest of the game tedious. In fact, the degree of betwee-turn engagement the game presents now is probably insufficient - to judge from all the 'combat takes too long' complaints we hear.

 

[catastrophic]

I can see why somebody looking at the problem of 4e turns would go one way or other other with between turn actions. But my feeling is that the best way to cut down on drag, grind, and various other catch-phrases is to simply make rounds move faster around the table, and reducing between-turn actions would be a big part of that.

I'm in favour of a fantasy 5e that has much faster rounds. Possibly one where you could simply take your round sooner based on certain events, in a very clear and straightforward way. That way, the rules are clear (you do stuff on your round) and each turn doesn't take that long.

I feel like that is a more viable way to keep everyone engaged, and I feel like people getting fixated on their own turns is less a matter of them not having a stake, and more a matter of the times involved just being too large, and it going beyond what people might enjoy or happily tolerate, and into the area where it begins to be draining for them.

I feel as if 'watching otehr people take their turns' is one of those things that can be neutral, even fun if it's managed well, but becomes unfun when you're doing too much of it. I don't think that between turns actions solves that, because they're inconsistant*, they slow the pass around the table even further, and they're prone to complexity, and actions which prevent other players from maintaing a plan from turn to turn.

This in addition to some other issues, like a player who takes their turn after the party controller and hence, can't really plan until they see how those visions of avarice pans out.


*Although it occurs to me that if there was a standardised between-turn action that everyone got each round, and the game strictly limited itself to using that for all interupts, then that could be very clear design that could be fired off well, and kepe people engaged better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem I see with reducing turn speed is that it's going to make each turn less interesting, less complex - that is, with fewer choices or options. So, while you don't have to wait long to get to your turn, there's nothing much to that turn.

I suppose, if you take either ideal to the extreme, you get an unplayable game.

If you have so many and such complex, choices and so many richly detailed actions in a 'turn,' you could have an unplayable game where you couldn't get through a single turn in a whole session, let alone a hole combat.

If you have a game that's so streamlined and simple that a turn takes a few seconds, because you have 1 action to choose from and it's always resolved the same way, you may be able to play through level 1-30 in an afternoon, but there's no point in doing so.


I think what it comes down to is that an RPG is a cooperative experience, and if you want your turn to be fun and interesting for you, you're going to have to grant other players the time to have fun & interesting turns of their own.

 

[catastrophic]

It's not about not having options, it's about options functioning in a uniform way, so that peolpe can spend more time on doing stuff, and less time dithering and figuring out how to do stuff.

I'm not opposed to fun, interesting stuff on turns, i'm opposed to endless 15 second quibbles over feats, obscure trigger events, variable effect durations, and all the other chaff that gets in the way of 4e's strong core fudamentals.

Filter out a bit more of that chaff, and every turn runs faster, which makes it far more likely that everyone will enjoy everyone's rounds, instead of moving over into frustration and dissconnection as is often the case.

 

[Lostdwarf]

First let me say that I have always seen essentials as an option, not a choice of PHB characters or essentials characters. You can mix and match at the same table with zero issues. Essentials takes nothing away from the existing player that PHB3 didn't take away from the existing character. Ignore those who wail and beat their breasts otherwise.

If you want to own fewer books/spend less money then essentials may be for you. The pre-essentails system was up to something like a dozen hardbacks, and a huge amount of system mastery, if you wanted "all" the character creation options.

If you want to be able to make a character, by hand, on a piece of paper, in a few minutes, then essentials is for you. While I at times enjoy complex character design systems, there is a great appeal to being able to sit down, make charcters without a spread sheet or computer program, and be playing in 15 minutes if you want to.

If you are a retro-clone/old school/cranky grognard gamer then essentials may be for you. Many of the builds were built as homages to early editions of the game. If you miss the experience of the old school fighter of thief, but want to play with 4th ed rules, play essentials.

Some classes do retain the AED structure. Some don't. Some (say the wizard) can be mixed to a large extent with previous version of the wizard. Other classes are pretty much their own thing. Its a real mixed bag, and its designed to give different types of experiences. And as I said, with and insider subscription or ownership of the afore mentioned huge pile of books, nothing stops you from building a AEDU figher to adventure with my essentials Warpriest. I play both types of characters and have had both types of characters in the games I have run. For some builds I enjoy the new Essentials (greatly like the new Druid over the PHB2 one) on others I like the old (I find the spell lists for Essentials Wizards to be a bit lacking, but some DMs let you mix and match.)