I've managed to avoid Essentials, until now...

[Mapache]

Color me mean, but the way I've responded to players who either a) play real smart, b) use 'overpowered' material or c) have pitch perfect teamwork is to make my monsters fight nastier.

Seriously.

That seems obvious to me. Overcoming challenges is only fun if they're actually challenging. The better your players and their characters are, the more powerful opponents you need to use to challenge them. The job of the DM is to almost kill the players. Getting that quite right is tricky, but it's easier in 4E than in nearly any other system I've played.

 

[jbear]

Aside from the argument of is a mage a wiazrd or not, and trying to address the OPs initial dilema, here is the best solution I can think of for the DM.

You want the player to be able to play what he wants. You don't want to buy the book. You want to be able to check the classes abilities by reading how it works from an official source ... so 2 ideas:

Ask him to a) buy the book and lend it to you or b) ask him to allow you temporary access to his insider account so you can check it out. If trust is an issue then he can always change the password later on

As for the mage. It's a very cool version of the wizard. It's the least 'essential' essential class. Dare I say it is slightly more complex than a standard wizard as, if I understand correctly, they continue to accumulate spells in the spell book as they go up levels, choosing from which they prefer at the beginning of the day, but with some paragon tier features that leasts them swap powers on the fly. This is as as close to flicking through the pages of available spells like back in the vancian days as a wizard is ever going to get in 4e, I'd say.

 

[Aegeri]

Actually the whole point of the mage vs. wizard argument was in answer to "Can the DM of the game play a mage not having the books?". The answer to this is an incredibly simple "Yes". They have the same powers available to them - I honestly can't see why anyone should deny the original wizard access to the new powers either. Either way, Mage powers don't do anything that Wizard powers don't already as they follow the same structure. Think of something like Psionics, or the stance based Slayer and the Pet based Sentinel as classes with truly different mechanics.

So here I might sound really inflammatory and I apologize, but if the mages pretty straightforward school class features (one of which is just a minor skill boost) and getting magic missile as a free feature means a DM cannot play them - who is already familiar with a wizard - I am simply flabbergasted. I mean let's look at the schools - the core difference between a wizard and mage.

Enchantment: Level 1, +2 forced movement. Level 5, +2 to a choice from a couple of skills. Level 10, +2 to attack rolls of attacks you force an enemy to make.

Evocation: Level 1, reroll one die that comes up 1. This isn't even that powerful. Level 5, +2 to a choice from a couple of skills. Level 10, ignore resistances outright (this is pretty great, no denying that).

I won't carry on and list the other two, because I feel the above just makes my point 100% clear easily. I mean this is super straightforward stuff compared to psionics. A DM who is unfamiliar with a psionic character is in for a total nightmare - it's a fundamentally different set of rules for how their at-wills/encounters work. The above? I could play that mage in my sleep by this point: It's fundamentally on every level another variant on the wizard. In fact, I am not even convinced schools are always better than implement mastery. +Con all defenses for staffs? Penalizing saves by wisdom mod for Orbs? Mages "class features" other than getting MM actually IMO play catch up to the Wizard for the first part of the heroic tier.

If you have someones character sheet and you look at the above, you shouldn't have a single problem playing that character. If you can play a wizard you can play a mage. That's the argument and IMO, this is an unassailable position unless someone can give me an amazing argument as to why a mage is more complicated to play than a wizard.

 

[Katana_Geldar]

I'm about to go to bed, and seing the sheet tomorrow but I'll respond to a few comments.

My suggestion would be to tell the player he can make the enchanter, but it's on a trial basis. After some number of sessions (maybe 3-4), you and your co-DM will give the character a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. If you give it thumbs-down, the player will have to convert to a classic 4E wizard.

This is what I am going to suggest to my fellow DM if we decide to go ahead. His turn at the campaign is a lot more fluid than mine so we have had time to experiment and improv within it. By the time I get back to the chair I think this may be resolved.

It's worth noting that "supporting" essentials (in the sense that the DM has to have the books to be able to vet what his players are doing) costs all of $40. That's all, and it gets you eight classes with between 1 and 3 options for each. The ____ Power books can't even come close to this level of functional value.

Not downunder, mate. As the books are imported from the states they are about $40 each. that's not the sort of investment I make lightly.

Banning it is silly. If you think the player is abusing your lack of visibility of his class mechanics, challenge him on the specific points of abuse; don't restrict an entire character design just because you don't have a source book to verify every little tweak he makes. Where's the trust?

It's not a trust thing, and it's certainly not the first or last time I have limited content. We set up boundaries for content just so we can have some control over what the players do use and make sure it comes from somewhere we have access to.

Why do people keep ignoring one of the fundamental ideas behind 4e class design? Character classes are siloed so you don't need the book or really even need to know what the class does. All the rules are on the sheet/cards and everything works on a set of basic assumptions. If there's any rules question have the guy with the subscription show you the compendium entry. There's no need to be a control freak any more (except story reasons).

If you trust the player's ability to execute 4e rules competently, just drop the character in. No one will notice. Don't make a big deal about "special OMG essentials feats". The essentials character is just that and the previous characters stay the same. You really shouldn't notice any difference. The worst a modifier could vary is by one or two, which is within design parameters.

I feel that I do need to know the fundamentals of the class, maybe not enough to roll one but enough to know what the bloke is doing with his character and how that affects what I do, both as a player and a DM.

Personally, I have found that character sheets tend to be lacking in description in regards to feats and class features, and this magic schools thing is starting to scare me a little.

Unless you're a group of people who don't know each other outside D&D I don't see what the problem is. The guy has a DDI subscription so can't he just show you the rules for the Mage online? Aside from that the book is cheap if you buy it online.

We don't have Net access where we usually game to our eternal displeasure.

I'm of the line of thought that if it's well thought out and it would make the player happy/get more excited about the game then the DM should support it. As long as it doesn't completely break the flavor or rules of the game as you've defined it already you should try and fit it in. What REALLY is the harm? Other than possibly spending $15 to buy the book.

Try $40 AU. Each.

Maybe I take a drastically different DMing approach, but why do you need to know how enchanter mages work? Why can't that simply be up to the player and you trust that he is running his character by the book?

Problem is, we allow one guy to use Essentials, even just the mage, then it potentially opens the floodgates to everyone, even after we told them we were not interested in using it. And the group agreed with this sentiment. This guy is a favourite player of mine and he's coming back after a break, I'm not making any special exceptions to him. But I am giving the same chance that I would give any other player when they want to do something different.

It's not the first time I bent backwards, one guy wanted to play a clone in a SW campaign and I had to fit it into a very specific niche to fit with the campaign style (smugglers). And we had a better campaign because of it.

Actually the whole point of the mage vs. wizard argument was in answer to "Can the DM of the game play a mage not having the books?". The answer to this is an incredibly simple "Yes". They have the same powers available to them - I honestly can't see why anyone should deny the original wizard access to the new powers either. Either way, Mage powers don't do anything that Wizard powers don't already as they follow the same structure. Think of something like Psionics, or the stance based Slayer and the Pet based Sentinel as classes with truly different mechanics.

An interesting point, and I'll bear it in mind.

 

[Mengu]

Problem is, we allow one guy to use Essentials, even just the mage, then it potentially opens the floodgates to everyone, even after we told them we were not interested in using it. And the group agreed with this sentiment. This guy is a favourite player of mine and he's coming back after a break, I'm not making any special exceptions to him. But I am giving the same chance that I would give any other player when they want to do something different.

If I was in one of your group's games, and had shown restraint from using any essentials material, and now this other player comes in not just with essentials material, but with an essentials class, I would wonder why the preferential treatment. Maybe my warlock wants Rod Expertise and Implement Focus, maybe my fighter wants Superior Will and Swift Recovery, maybe my Paladin wants Disciple of Light, Heavy Armor Agility and Chilling Smite. There is a lot of material you are excluding from the game that none of the other players have access to. Allowing only one player access does not seem like a fair move.

I'd say either disallow the content, or open the flood gates for everyone.

 

[Nullzone]

I'm not really sure why you're treating Essentials like it's going to break some kind of story canon, there's nothing thematically unique about them that sets them apart from the rest of 4e; there's no reason they shouldn't just integrate without batting an eye.

Also, your entire post screams of trust issues, bro. If you trust your players, then you shouldn't have to know exactly "what the bloke is doing with his character" in order for it to work. You also don't have to know how it affects you, he can tell you with every single power exactly what's going to happen.

And I don't know how much a full service restaurant in AUS costs but even at $80 it's still less per person for a table of 5 than what you'd pay for one here in the USA.

 

[Dausuul]

Also, your entire post screams of trust issues, bro. If you trust your players, then you shouldn't have to know exactly "what the bloke is doing with his character" in order for it to work. You also don't have to know how it affects you, he can tell you with every single power exactly what's going to happen.

Knowing how the PCs' powers work is a very useful thing for a DM, and trust is only one reason. Just to take an example, I have learned by hard experience that if I'm going to pit my PCs against a solo monster, I had better make damn sure the monster has an answer to fighter lockdown. Otherwise the fight quickly degenerates into "everybody stand around the monster and beat it to death," which is boring for all concerned--and any clever skirmish-type tactics I give the monster will be useless.

But in order to have an answer to fighter lockdown, I have to understand the specifics of how fighter lockdown works. For example, teleport circumvents it; the ability to move out of turn does not.

 

[MrMyth]

Slayers are not Fighters...
Knights are similar to Fighters...
Thieves... are actually better Rogues than Rogues.
Mages? Not extremely similar to Wizards.

Just out of curiousity, have you actually seen any of these classes in play?

I think the point people are making is that there are differences between them, yes, but that has been true of many other builds as well. Archery rangers vs TWF rangers vs Beastmaster rangers. Str vs Wis clerics. Wildshape vs Caster druids. Etc.

You pointed out how the Orb Wizard and the Enchanter Mage will, despite having access to all the same powers, likely take very different selections because of their various features. But the same is true of the Orb Wizard vs the Wand Wizard. Honestly, of all the Essentials classes, Mage feels closest to the other Wizard builds. The differences are very, very small, and certainly no more than other build variations seen throughout the various power source splatbooks.

They... are also more versatile with the extra At Will Magic Missile for free (in play, MM is fairly devastating when used against a nearly dead foe or a fleeing foe because it always hits)...

Getting MM for free is more potent than some people are willing to admit... There are multiple times to use it in nearly every encounter.

Multiple times to use it in nearly every encounter? I'm sorry, this really isn't true.

Magic Missile is certainly not useless. On average, it does about half the damage of a normal at-will with maybe twice the chance to hit. So it can be good for finishing fleeing enemies - or it can be bad, if you target an enemy who is just able to survive it. You rarely know enemies HP quite that closely, especially with the small range of damage MM does. (And, as noted, the damage bonuses you mention for it don't actually apply.)

When is Magic Missile actually worthwhile? When the Mage is in a situation where his normal hit chance is less than normal, or when he is weakened. (Auto-hit damage ignores the weakened condition.) So if an enemy is dodging behind walls of heavy cover or the Mage has some huge penalty to hit, or has been weakened by a ghost - those are the times when MM is really nice to have.
But those situations don't regularly come up multiple times in an encounter. I'd say that a Mage might have it come up in one encounter a day, for one or two rounds of that combat.

Outside of that, the Mage can certainly use it in various situations, but it will generally just be equivalent to using most any other At-Will. The Mage has no massive benefit over the Wizard in this matter. It's a nice little bit of utility, sure, but not a huge difference between the Mage and the Wizard - not in pure power level, nor in how either one actually plays.

 

[jbear]

Not downunder, mate. As the books are imported from the states they are about $40 each. that's not the sort of investment I make lightly.

Try $40 AU. Each.


An interesting point, and I'll bear it in mind.

Despite the fact you have ignored both of my suggestions, it's a new year and I'm feeling friendly, I'm going to help you out as others have helped me out:

Heroes of the Fallen Lands: An Essential Dungeons & Dragons Supplement (4th Edition D&d) : Mike Mearls, Bill Slavicsek : 9780786956203

bookdepository.com = free shipping world wide. Heroes of the Fallen Lands = AUD$16.88

That's less than half what you are used to paying. Is that worth the investment to make this 'light headache' go away? If the answer is still yes, have you asked your player if he is willing to buy the book at the aforementioned price?

 

[the Jester]

Slayers are not Fighters.... Knights are similar to Fighters.... Thieves and Rogues? Not too much different except that Thieves gain Combat Advantage nearly every single round. They are actually better Rogues than Rogues.... Mages? Not extremely similar to Wizards.

You missed the warpriest.

Slayers and knights certainly are fighters. That's why they are under "fighter" in the book.

Thieves are certainly rogues. That's why they are under "rogue" in the book.

Mages are certainly wizards. That's why they are under "wizard" in the book.

You may not like it, you may not feel that a mage is much like other wizards, but insisting that "slayers aren't fighters" or "mages aren't wizards" is just silly. It's written in plain English in the books you are discussing. If you can't accept that, I don't see how anyone can take your discussion of the subject seriously at all- you're arguing that something explicitly stated in the books in question is not true. And your argument seems to boil down to- "But this one's different so it cannot be the same!"

Do you argue that a beastmaster ranger is not a ranger? Certainly many of the powers an archery ranger or TWF ranger would take aren't so useful for him.

If you don't, you are being horribly inconsistent. If you do, you're just being silly. Again, the beastmaster appears in the book under "ranger." While you're certainly free to play it as a different class in your campaign, that doesn't make the objective written evidence that he's a ranger vanish.