Legends and Lore: Head of the Class

[Zaran]

What bothers me is that I feel like Essentials was designed not only to help new players but to make DnD more profitable to support. The new classes/builds have the same "Fire and Forget" feel to them that the GM content has. There is no need for them to produce more powers to support any of the new builds after the initial content is released. I noticed that even the new Assassin article had no new powers besides the new Class feature. Seemed like having powers that catered to this new branch of assassins would fit right in.

I'd be happy with the new stuff if there was an ability to make it "advanced" And while we can do this a bit with those that share the same style as core classes , Classes like the Vampire and Executioner have really nothing else to build on.

I also do not think we will ever get something like a Class Builder book because they would never be able to make that into DDI with their current crew and that would be the first thing DDInsiders will want.

 

[MacMathan]

I like the ideas Mearls is talking about here. Unfortunately I don't think 4e could have followed the essentials first path even though it might have been the proper way to do it as the backlash among the experienced option liking players would have been evn more massive.

Maybe they can do this now as they clean up 4e. Essentials so far has been a great way to get people into the game who are new or in some cases just don't want to read over 3-5 different books for options.

IME the essentials characters are holding even with their more custom counter parts during heroic tier. So far it looks like they may even be good up to mid paragon with some well written paragon paths. Beyond that it gets tough IMO.

Of course after that many levels maybe the players will be experienced enough to want to retrain their essentials characters with more of the advanced options?

 

[Riastlin]

What bothers me is that I feel like Essentials was designed not only to help new players but to make DnD more profitable to support.

I may just be missing something due to brain farts and work and such, but I'm not sure how this makes it more profitable. Sure, there's less work in maintaining DDi, but handing out less content doesn't encourage more subscriptions -- thus doesn't bring in more $. Unless they have determined that the current subscription numbers will remain completely static, then not adding content (which I think is what you are getting at though I could be mistaken) doesn't actually increase profits.

Now, that being said, I actually don't mind them cutting back on the number of new powers in general. After all, at the moment, I really don't feel like making a fighter if I were to join a game or roll up a new character. The reason is the analysis paralysis that comes from so dang many choices in making the fighter. "Ohh, I love this power, but shoot, it requires a shield, so if I take this, I need to drop 2 weapon talent for 1 weapon talent, etc., etc." Now certainly, there are definitely some classes that really do need some more options, or that at least could profit from them, but as a general principle, I think a lot of the classes are actually in good shape at this point in terms of options.

 

[fba827]

I know this is a minor distinction, but the article discusses it as
"a preset build followed by a breakdown if you want to customize it" (or words along those lines).

I would rather the "default" way that is first presented as core be the customizable class, followed by the preset build being presented as an example that a novice user could use (sort of like how Tordec, Lidda, etc were in 3.X's PHBs)

The idea of a class being customizable as core greatly appeals to me, of course, I am the type of person who would actually prefer 'classless' if given that choice, and this just happens to be close to that.

 

[erleni]

Interesting. I'm now interested in looking at 2nd Edition (I was introduced to DnD during the 3rd edition shift to 3.5). But if Mearls goes in that direction for the next edition I'd be very happy to go with him there when that happens.

But hopefully they'll stay away from the complete brokeness of Skills and Powers, Combat and Tactics and High Level Campaign. The idea was good, but the execution created monster PCs (I had a fighter/cleric that could eat a dragon for breakfast and a tarrasque for lunch). And let's forget what 10th level spells could do...

 

[Pour]

I feel like I'm missing some of what he's saying, because I'm still left wondering what this offers us, the players and DMs who know the system and run it?

Is this streamlining going to make the game easier to run or play for all of us, to say alter the core everything has been built on? Or is this streamlining going to be solely a new entry point, and something the less-mechanically-inclined players can utilize with equal effectiveness as the optimizers? Are the advanced options for veterans going to be new material or just new presentations of what we already have?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

the more of these columns I read the more I think I may have called it here

I think the math is doable, The default no choices prebuild character come with to hit numbers defenses and dpr in the expected region for the game.
This version has no feats or power not supplied as class abilities.

It would be simplier than even the essentials classes, and perhaps very similar to Basic D&D classes but operating with 4e maths and designed to operate in combat with 4e monsters.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd be all for something like this, if it could be pulled off.

That's a big "if."

What I want is a game that, at it's core, you can pick up and play as quickly and simply as BECMI, and that's a complete game at that level if you want it to be.

But, a game that also includes customization options that can go as far as 4E's level.

And I want you to be able to play characters created both ways in the same campaign.

No, you can't make such characters 100% balanced with each other, but you can make them close enough.

Similarly, I want a D&D where you can play combat as mechanically as 4E or as abstractly as (say) 2E, and the system supported both.

Basically, Ari's perfect D&D is the core efficiency and--optionally--the complexity of 4E, the flexibility of 3E or Pathfinder, the setting and (again optionally) narrative play of 2E, the aesthetic of 1E, and (yet again, optionally) the simplicity of BECMI.

While I'm at it, I would like a miniature pony that eats garbage and poops gold ingots.

 

[Balesir]

What I want is a game that, at it's core, you can pick up and play as quickly and simply as BECMI, and that's a complete game at that level if you want it to be.

But, a game that also includes customization options that can go as far as 4E's level.

Hmm, okay...

And I want you to be able to play characters created both ways in the same campaign.

No, you can't make such characters 100% balanced with each other, but you can make them close enough.

I agree; I think this part is completely possible. It is, in essence, 4E but with the "starter characters" using only a subset of the simpler-to-run powers, etc. I'm sure it's possible (with some work) to get that balanced well enough for "all practical purposes".

Similarly, I want a D&D where you can play combat as mechanically as 4E or as abstractly as (say) 2E, and the system supported both.

This, however, is where I see the problems arising.

Having two combat systems (just for example, but likely to be the worst case since it's the most 'developed' part of the system) that are so different as to have or not have a movement grid, and still have the 'simple' characters (at least) with the same effectiveness agains all the 'simple' monsters with both combat systems when played by fairly skilled tactical players... just ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see.

Take something as simple as flanking. How are you going to decide if a creature gets +2 to hit when not using a grid? When do creatures get an opportunity attack? How do "defenders" even work with this system? Or controllers? Do you have 'rules' for playing monsters when using a grid to make sure that the effectiveness of area powers is roughly the same as when not using a grid? The complexity of mixing such radically alien types of system - never mind the radically alien styles and foci of play that they support and imply - just seems insurmountable, to me.

While I'm at it, I would like a miniature pony that eats garbage and poops gold ingots.

Well, yeah - if they ever get developed, I'll take two!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'd be all for something like this, if it could be pulled off.

That's a big "if."

What I want is a game that, at it's core, you can pick up and play as quickly and simply as BECMI, and that's a complete game at that level if you want it to be.

But, a game that also includes customization options that can go as far as 4E's level.

And I want you to be able to play characters created both ways in the same campaign.

I would say this is do-able

No, you can't make such characters 100% balanced with each other, but you can make them close enough.

Close enough qould do me. I think the focus on uber balance was I think based of doing something like RPGA play online.

Similarly, I want a D&D where you can play combat as mechanically as 4E or as abstractly as (say) 2E, and the system supported both.

I suspect this to be difficult. Unless the simple basic builds do not inflict any force movement or shifting type utilities in their construction. Where upon I would wonder about their viability in the same game as essentials and classic 4e characters.

Basically, Ari's perfect D&D is the core efficiency and--optionally--the complexity of 4E, the flexibility of 3E or Pathfinder, the setting and (again optionally) narrative play of 2E, the aesthetic of 1E, and (yet again, optionally) the simplicity of BECMI.

While I'm at it, I would like a miniature pony that eats garbage and poops gold ingots.

I think there you have better odds on the pony but some of those hilights are hittable (or at least a close approcimation to) but not all.