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

[doctorhook]

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.

I think they're just plain not going to produce any more support for one leg of each V class. For example, all Cleric material from now on might be designed for Wisdom-primary Clerics, and all new material will either ignore or recommend against Strength-primary Clerics (in favour of Runepriests, perhaps); it's not that Strength Clerics will be totally hosed -- options already exist, and Strength may become a secondary stat -- it's just that this way, support can be focused on Clerics without having to split between two virtual-classes... because that's what the V classes are: two virtual-classes in one entry. (Think Rangers -- these guys could've been two different classes. Dexterity and Strength Rangers are worlds apart.)

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.

QFT.

This is one aspect of 4E I dislike (not that previous editions are at all better). Races are pigeon-holed, and have to compete with other, similar races for relevance in each niche, and some races succeed in more niches than others. Shardmind, Dwarf, I'm looking at you guys...

 

[Jools]

There's a lot of speculation in this thread where WOTC has already told us the facts. I'm afraid I don't have links (most of this comes from a few months back) but I can clear a couple of things up.

1. Essentials will contain all new builds for the chosen pre-existing classes. All powers will be new, as will almost all of the feats except a few key ones repeated from earlier products.

2. There will indeed be new rules but nothing we haven't already been introduced to in last month's errata. The Essentials is definitely not 4.5.

 

[Crazy_Dragon]

a choice between two stats is a boost because it allows it to fill more niches, if humans got two floats they would be insanely overpowered

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

This is ridiculous, a RACE doesn't do anything in the game, so how are you measuring its power? I can say "that ranger can defeat a Runescribed Dracolich" and there's some MEANING to that. Saying "Elves can defeat a Dracolich" means NOTHING because it has to be AN ELF that does it.

Just because your Minotaur COULD have chosen WIS for his racial bonus means NOTHING to a character built with that class. The very concept makes no sense at all.

I'm not arguing you want to make a race totally ideal for any class (exactly what the humans getting +2 to 2 stats does) but only so that its not overly popular in every game.

 

[doctorhook]

2. There will indeed be new rules but nothing we haven't already been introduced to in last month's errata. The Essentials is definitely not 4.5.

This is the one part that makes me a little disappointed. I'm still hoping that the July update will revise most of the races, and that Essentials will reflect that update. That said, I'm thinking wishfully, not basing this on anything more substantive than rumours that the July update will be pretty beefy.

a choice between two stats is a boost because it allows it to fill more niches, if humans got two floats they would be insanely overpowered

"Insanely overpowered" = hyperbole. I already allow it in my home game, alongside one floating stat for every race, and I can assure you that the game does not fall apart at all.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

I think they're just plain not going to produce any more support for one leg of each V class.

I think both of you may be right. They'll just "ignore" one branch of the V.

This is one aspect of 4E I dislike (not that previous editions are at all better). Races are pigeon-holed, and have to compete with other, similar races for relevance in each niche, and some races succeed in more niches than others. Shardmind, Dwarf, I'm looking at you guys...

Somewhat OT, but I'm wondering if it would be better to get rid of racial stat bonuses altogether (or, at least, give *every* race floating stat bonuses) and just accentuate certain race/class combinations with powers and feats. The key goal would be to make any race/class combination optimal, in it's own way.

For example, halfling fighters could have access to options that highlight how halflings do the warrior thing. It probably would have a lot to do with fast movement, taunts, pluckiness, and the like. This would be a different approach from, say, a dwarf, who would focus on shaking off wounds, axe-hewing, "piss and vinegar," and being an immovable object. But, in terms of attack and damage bonuses, halflings and dwarves would be the same level of effectives, as would any other race (gnomes to dragonborn to shardminds).

 

[doctorhook]

Somewhat OT, but I'm wondering if it would be better to get rid of racial stat bonuses altogether (or, at least, give *every* race floating stat bonuses) and just accentuate certain race/class combinations with powers and feats. The key goal would be to make any race/class combination optimal, in it's own way.

For example, halfling fighters could have access to options that highlight how halflings do the warrior thing. It probably would have a lot to do with fast movement, taunts, pluckiness, and the like. This would be a different approach from, say, a dwarf, who would focus on shaking off wounds, axe-hewing, "piss and vinegar," and being an immovable object. But, in terms of attack and damage bonuses, halflings and dwarves would be the same level of effectives, as would any other race (gnomes to dragonborn to shardminds).

I can't speak specifically for or against your method of implementation, but I absolutely agree that this should be the goal.

 

[mkill]

To sum it up, it depends on whether the dev team really wants to update all races to a A +2 and B +2 or C +2 model. That all PHB3 classes had a writeup like that is a pretty strong hint, though.
And if they want to do that, there is no better chance than the Essentials line, because the next time we'll see a printed writeup of all basic races will be 5th edition (expected around 2014 - 2016)
Or, to turn it around, if we won't see such an update in the Essentials line, it's pretty sure we won't see during 4th editions lifetime.

As for the V-shaped classes, no rules rewrite is necessary at all: Simply include only powers based on one stat in the book. The "other leg" will still be available in the PHB.

 

[Dice4Hire]

To sum it up, it depends on whether the dev team really wants to update all races to a A +2 and B +2 or C +2 model. That all PHB3 classes had a writeup like that is a pretty strong hint, though.

Yes, errata, or the Essentials. Either would do fine.

 

[Danzauker]

What I'd like from the Essentials are (don't know how much of this is comfirmed/rumored):

- be straight forward presentation of classes, with a limited subset of powers, just one build, no more than 2 powers to chose from per level.

This would be perfect for new players, which in my experience find even the degree of choice given in the PHB to be "overwhelming".

- provide a not already published build for every classes.

This would mean the Essentals to ve valuable for players that alread own the PHB.

- of course, all rules to be fully compatible with older rules (after errata) and Character Tools

That said, personally, I'd like the fighter build to be sword & shield. I think it's the only remaining basic archetype without a dedicated build.