Let's speculate what the Essentials line rules will look like

[Dice4Hire]

. (Remember how 3.5's Player's Handbook II offered an alternative Druid class feature that wasn't totally broken? I think that's what's up.)

I have to agree here. I think we will see new stuff (though I am sure some powers will be reprinted) and new feats, and especially new builds, ones that are simpler to do, and new builds seem the easiest way to redo the classes in a new way and make them easier to play. (Fighter, I'm looking at you)

I think it is significant that the classes are PHBI ones, and I would not expect to see much support for the Powers additions to the basic classes, like dex rangers and such.

As for races, I would like to see them give PHBI and II guys the benefits in PHBIII, as it is a major powerup and makes them far more versatile. The thing is, if they do not give this to the races in the essentials, when will they do it? They have not been adding stuff with eratta, jsut clarifying and taking things away. Does anyone see a vehicle to make changes to the PHBI and II other than essentials?

I don't.

 

[ppaladin123]

To be fair, most of what there is to read is speculation on our parts.

What we've heard is that it's going to be largely new material for the classes involved, and that the Player's Handbook will still be a valid rulebook with unique character options. To my mind, this sounds like they intend to release new character options to replace the most problematic ones in 4E so far. (Remember how 3.5's Player's Handbook II offered an alternative Druid class feature that wasn't totally broken? I think that's what's up.)

I wait and pray for a more effective, less clunky alternative to divine challenge/sanction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

to the basic classes, like dex rangers and such.

As for races, I would like to see them give PHBI and II guys the benefits in PHBIII, as it is a major powerup and makes them far more versatile. The thing is, if they do not give this to the races in the essentials, when will they do it? They have not been adding stuff with eratta, jsut clarifying and taking things away. Does anyone see a vehicle to make changes to the PHBI and II other than essentials?

I don't.

At the risk of derailing the thread races don't have a "power" so they can't have a powerup. Only individual characters can be measured against each other (to some extent). A character made using a race with a choice of 2 stats for one of its bonuses isn't ANY more powerful than a character made using a race without those choices.

There are also significant problems with trying to tack a flexible +2 onto existing races. Take dwarves as an example. What other stat are you going to give them? Dex, Int, and Cha don't exactly strike me as thematic for dwarves. That leaves Str. Allowing a +2 to Str for dwarves, given their existing racial features and available feats, would be quite unbalanced. It could be done IF you were starting over and designing the game from the ground up, but that's NOT what Essentials is doing. The same argument can be made for every single other race to one degree or another. Put the "human problem" on top of that (which giving them 2 +2's doesn't solve as again it would require deleting another feature of the race to balance out) and you can pretty rapidly conclude that existing races are not going to get flexible stat bonuses.

Flexible stat bonuses really just aren't NEEDED anyway. The "classic" races have plenty of support that gives them a large amount of flexibility already. They are also perennial favorites (or why would they still be in the game, that's why they're classic). I think the main reason that the newer niche races have flexible stat allocation is that they simply aren't all that likely to be played much otherwise. By giving them a wider range of classes they are optimum for these new races get a chance to be a bit more appealing and see a bit more play than they would otherwise.

Anyway, this gets back to the whole point, Essentials IMHO isn't intended to obsolete the existing rules in any way. If you make an Essentials dwarf he's going to be EXACTLY a legal dwarf in PHB1/2 etc. He may have a few powers, a class feature, or a couple feats that don't exist now, but that's no different than what happens when a new power book shows up.

Anything beyond that starts to get quite ugly for a couple reasons. First of all what does WotC do with organized play? Either they have to ban Essentials material from official play, which isn't going to happen, or they have to deal with people combining stuff in things like LFR in unbalanced ways because deep changes are going to mean balance won't exist with characters that draw from BOTH Essentials and the core rules. Secondly is exactly that, what happens when you start combining the old and the new if they are slightly different designs? It just won't work. If its hard to balance a new thing NOW then how much harder would it be if it had to balance out between two slightly different versions of the game? Its just NOT going to happen. Heck I'll bet MY Avatar on that!

 

[jbear]

A good argument for no change to racial stats. That does not mean they have necessarily thought about the far reaching consequences of a Str/Con Dwarven Fighter with Dwarven Weapon Training and other more unforeseen combinations. So I guess only time will tell.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Races:
- One fixed, one choice stat for everyone.
- Human will probably remain as-is

I suspect this will be the case.

Classes

- Will be fixed on one build, no V-shaped classes. May include ways to use different secondary stats, like the current fighter.

While I'd like to see the end of V-shaped classes, I don't think this is going to happen.

Ranger: As per no V-shape, we'll see the class going Dex for both ranged and melee (hinted at in MP2). No twin strike, so I assume no 2WF. Probably bow/spear.

If rangers were going A-shaped, I'd prefer Wis primary, Dex secondary for archery and Str secondary for melee. Give them access to chain mail as their "top" armor so as not to hose melee rangers.

Cleric: Wis-based ranged only.

I'd be up for Wis-based melee powers - we've already had one in a recent CD: Moradin article.

 

[babinro]

If the intention truly is to simplify the game, they wont drastically change the rules. Simply omit powers and the like that are confusing.

Removing nearly all immediate reactions/interrupts greatly simplifies the game for beginners. Likewise, only illustrating one of the two would be okay. Everything is an immediate reaction for example.

Removing non-essential rules like Coup-de-grace, bull rush, total defense, cover and concealment would go a long way to understanding the basics. Instead leaving bonuses tied strictly to Flanking, Conditions and those written into Powers.

I have no intention on buying any of this line, seeing as I both understand and enjoy the current rules enough to run games with minimal rule disruptions. This being said, if the essentials line did go to the effort to completely rework some of the initial classes, this would go a long ways towards selling more books to long time 4E players such as myself. It is simply easier to purchase a book with major class/race changes than it is to heavily errata my already existing heavily errata'd PHB.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

IMO, A-shaped classes are simpler than V-shaped classes (although perhaps only by a small degree). If a newbie wants to play a fighter, they know right away that all fighters are strong, so they should put their best score in Str. However, if a newbie wants to play a cleric, they need to decide where they want to put their best score (Str or Wis), whether or not they should increase both scores as they level up, and they need to understand that if they choose one ability score over the other that they won't be very good with powers using the other.

These may not be serious obstacles to a newbie's understanding of the game, but they are speed bumps. Unnecessary ones, IMO, so I could see Essentials as being an opportunity to remove V-shaped design from the game.

 

[Markn]

IMO, the Essentials Line is a major experiment by WotC - its the first time in the history of D&D that they are essentially halting the production of books mid edition. While they aren't truly stopping the production of books the focus has obviously changed to new players. This will drive demand for books up since there will be a long break between new material and in all likelihood will create increased sales. It will also like increase demand for books already printed since nothing new is coming out allowing people who have fallen behind on books to catch up.

I think this is a smart move, and if successful, will likely be the model that future editions will follow.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMO, A-shaped classes are simpler than V-shaped classes (although perhaps only by a small degree). If a newbie wants to play a fighter, they know right away that all fighters are strong, so they should put their best score in Str. However, if a newbie wants to play a cleric, they need to decide where they want to put their best score (Str or Wis), whether or not they should increase both scores as they level up, and they need to understand that if they choose one ability score over the other that they won't be very good with powers using the other.

These may not be serious obstacles to a newbie's understanding of the game, but they are speed bumps. Unnecessary ones, IMO, so I could see Essentials as being an opportunity to remove V-shaped design from the game.

I agree that A shaped classes are simpler to build and in some ways offer the player more flexibility with a given character. I think they may well saw a leg off the V shaped classes, but I don't think they will REWORK them, just leave out options. So we may only see the Wis based cleric and the Cha based paladin, but I don't think they will REMAKE them into A shaped classes, I think they'll just offer one of the two existing options (or a 3rd option that is based on one leg only). So the Wis based cleric we'll see in Essentials will be essentially the same Wis based cleric we have now and the Str based cleric powers will simply be left out and replaced with some new Wis based ones or some from DP etc.

Paladins might get a build that tosses both DC and DS for a simpler or more coherent option say. It will be consistent with existing rules and use a lot of existing powers, it just won't be a specific build you could do with the PHBs.

 

[Dice4Hire]

At the risk of derailing the thread races don't have a "power" so they can't have a powerup. Only individual characters can be measured against each other (to some extent). A character made using a race with a choice of 2 stats for one of its bonuses isn't ANY more powerful than a character made using a race without those choices.

Yes, it is. If the race can play more classes more effectively, it is more powerful race. If it can fit into more niches (and race+class in 4E is terribly niche-centered) then it is more powerful. This argument makes no sense except maybe in a white tower of academia sort of way.