More Classes Essentialized or more support for current classes?

[JoeGKushner]

While WoTC haven't outright said that they will cease support for pre-esentials material, and indeed, we have some support for some odd ball classes like the Runepriest this month, what would people like to see?

I like the builds in the various Essentials books. I can easily see myself playing a Hexblade for example.

However, I don't think that the older classes, had the much support to begin with such as the Seeker or Artificer. Heck, even the Swordmage, which does have some support, could use a LOT more in my opinion.

On the other hand, I suspect that the Neverwinter Nights boxed set is going to essentialize the Sword Mage with the Bladesinger in that product.

Anyway, what would the people currently playing the game like to see? Given that Dragon is probably the only source of material we're going to see for older material and the limited resources it appears to be struggling under (Robert S can only write so much a month for example!), what would you like to see WoTC focus on?

 

[DEFCON 1]

As the only real so-called "support" that original 4E receives through Dragon is just Feats, Powers, and Paragon Paths... any article they write that gives rules crunch without the pre-req of it requiring an Essentials class ability or sub-class... is original 4E support. If they do that... then I'm good. Even if they put in "additional" material in the articles that supports the Essentials classes (with new sub-class builds or whatnot). I don't consider an article that includes Essentials info to automatically mean that's an Essentials-only article.

 

[The Human Target]

Original Classes all the way.

Thats the game me and my group spent all kinds of money on, and would like to see actually supported.

Runepriest, Seeker, Assassin, Artificer, Swordmage, etc all for sure need some love.

 

[Zaran]

The more previews i see the more convinced that essentials is just a new edition. I'm afraid that they are giving us a class compendium to convert cClasses to eClasses and they will will not give us anything new for the old classes. If that is the case then this is a new edition folks. And those of us who still play the cClasses will just be like those that stuck with 3.5 with no new material besides what third parties give us.

 

[MrMyth]

The more previews i see the more convinced that essentials is just a new edition. I'm afraid that they are giving us a class compendium to convert cClasses to eClasses and they will will not give us anything new for the old classes. If that is the case then this is a new edition folks. And those of us who still play the cClasses will just be like those that stuck with 3.5 with no new material besides what third parties give us.

Given that ongoing support for non-Essentials clearly does still exist, I'm not seeing any real evidence for this theory, and lots of evidence against it.

That said, for myself I'd prefer a mix of material. I like the efficiency of the Essentials designs, but don't want to see it the only thing supported in the game. I'm a fan of them releasing content (feats, powers, etc) that can supplement both classic and Essentials characters. Which is entirely doable, just like a Warlord article can provide support for warlords builds from both the PHB and Martial Power.

 

[Siberys]

I'd really like to see support for PH3 classes and races, as well as Eberron material (Artificer and Changeling, I'm looking at you!) to bring them up to par with core stuff.

Other than that, I don't mind Essentials material. In fact, I'd like to see all of the classes 'essentialized' where possible. An essentials psion, battlemind, or ardent would be neat, especially if they figured a good way to keep PP.

 

[mneme]

The more previews i see the more convinced that essentials is just a new edition. I'm afraid that they are giving us a class compendium to convert cClasses to eClasses and they will will not give us anything new for the old classes

The counter-evidence is them doing stuff like making the "weaponmaster" fighter -- an essentials-format PH1 fighter.

I think they're slacking a bit off on content for the pre-essentials classes until they bring more of them back into print, but the evidence points to them not discontining them indefinitely.

 

[Rydac]

I'd really like to see support for PH3 classes and races, as well as Eberron material (Artificer and Changeling, I'm looking at you!) to bring them up to par with core stuff.

Other than that, I don't mind Essentials material. In fact, I'd like to see all of the classes 'essentialized' where possible. An essentials psion, battlemind, or ardent would be neat, especially if they figured a good way to keep PP.

Here, here...agree completely. I'd love to see and essentialization of existing classes, and would give them a hearty pat on the back if they could do that to the psionic ones and keep power points.

As the only real so-called "support" that original 4E receives through Dragon is just Feats, Powers, and Paragon Paths... any article they write that gives rules crunch without the pre-req of it requiring an Essentials class ability or sub-class... is original 4E support. If they do that... then I'm good. Even if they put in "additional" material in the articles that supports the Essentials classes (with new sub-class builds or whatnot). I don't consider an article that includes Essentials info to automatically mean that's an Essentials-only article.

I think that many of the existing core classes have a lot of support via the martial, arcane, divine, psionic splat books....there are tons of options for classes they cover.

I'm with Joe in that I'd like to see some support for the newer ones that haven't received much like the seeker, artificer, runepriest etc. but think DEFCON is right in that Dragon can be a continuing source of crunch for under supported classes while also able to support Essentials as well.

I really like the design of most all of the Essentials classes. For me they have an old school feel while still operating within the confines of the very good 4e rules.

 

[BobTheNob]

The counter-evidence is them doing stuff like making the "weaponmaster" fighter -- an essentials-format PH1 fighter.

I think they're slacking a bit off on content for the pre-essentials classes until they bring more of them back into print, but the evidence points to them not discontining them indefinitely.

Yea, but even then that came across, to me, like a new paint job on an old car. Still the old mechanics (with some minor refinement by time of release Im sure) just presented in a way more consistent with essentials. Its doesnt really suggest thats the way WOTC is going, more than they are sensitive of the fact that they are leaving pre-essentials out in the proverbial cold.

Yes for all of that, Im essentials all the way. Its a bit regrettable given the investment in the old system, and whilst I wont go into reasons individually, I just find that essentials has an elegance I cant ignore.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

The counter-evidence is them doing stuff like making the "weaponmaster" fighter -- an essentials-format PH1 fighter.

How on Earth is that counter-evidence? If anything, that's proof that they don't want to support the original Fighter anymore and want to shift to Essentials-only. Why else take something that already existed and port it to the Essentials format?