More Classes Essentialized or more support for current classes?

[JoeGKushner]

Silly question.

Why can't it be both?

This is just my opinion, but as mentioned in the OP, I don't think WoTC has the support/staff to do it. As we've seen in recent months, the compalints about the lack of content in Dragon tend to follow that. Many argue that the DDI update was held back due to... lack of staff/support.

 

[Campbell]

As far as I see it there's no substantive difference between creating Essentials styled variants or seperate classes. When role, armor and weapon proficiencies, skills, class features, power progression, etc. all become mutable elements of builds class ceases to function as a meaningful mechanical construct. It's more like a keyword now that allows access to utility powers and feats*.

*Essentials has no feats that have class or race requirements,

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

It depends. I'd like to see WoTC focus on expanding the game. There are currently 25 pre-Essentials classes. The most unsupported of which (Artificer, Runepriest, Seeker, Assassin) has two distinct builds (I can't be bothered to look up the Runepriest come to think of it - does it have one or two?) and no splatbook. That's a lot of game right there. But I'm pretty sure the four named classes aren't even close to fully explored.

What I want to see WoTC focus on is expanding the game. Letting me do things I can't. If they can expand what's successfuly playable using pre-Essentials classes then they should do so. If they think it's been mined out then focus on the Essentials classes. A golem-building artificer with a permanent pet/bodyguard, and a shapeshifting-focussed assassin come to mind. But we already have half a dozen basic class features for the fighter (One handed weapon, two handed, tempest, battlerager, brawler, arena duellist) - any new ones need elbow room to differentiate themselves.

Also, the Invoker is about as much like a Cleric as the Essentials Scout and Hunter Rangers are like each other. To me those are two separate classes just with similarities and under the same header. (And the Invoker is even less like an Essentials Cleric).

 

[Kerranin]

This is just my opinion, but as mentioned in the OP, I don't think WoTC has the support/staff to do it. As we've seen in recent months, the compalints about the lack of content in Dragon tend to follow that. Many argue that the DDI update was held back due to... lack of staff/support.

Judging from my own experiences in a small/medium sized company, owned by a large corporation, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hasbro are putting pressure on Wotc to increase margins, cut staff, etc.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

The most unsupported of which (Artificer, Runepriest, Seeker, Assassin) has two distinct builds (I can't be bothered to look up the Runepriest come to think of it - does it have one or two?) and no splatbook.

Runepriest has 2 builds, Artificer got a 3rd build in Dragon #381.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I have all of the player books and for my preferences I overwhelmingly prefer the core classes to the essential ones. That said, while I would prefer for the corner core classes/builds to have more support I wouldn't mind having essentials support too as long as new design elements that the developers learned and included in essentials could be applied to the core too.

For example, two essentials developments that I love are in hexblade and necromancer summonings. Their summoning spells have a little touch to give them more flavor (one gives a bonus to skills, the other extends the summoned creature's duration past the encounter) that is absent from the main summoner classes (wizard and druid).

I know there can/may be ways to get those specific summoning spells for the wizard or druid through multiclass feats. But it's disappointing when the lessons they have learned (ex: summonings can be more flavorful) are applied only to future game elements instead of retroactively as well.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I'd be fine if they want to market Essentials as the "starter classes" and Core as "advanced" classes as long as they settle the multiclassing, paragon path, epic destiny, and feat compatibility/crossover questions. Once those wrinkles are ironed out in a book people can actually buy then they can support "4E" without having to worry so much about the mechanical differences. Yes its a little reminiscent of the AD&D/BECMI days but the difference is that it's one set of mechanics for the game system this time - play one, play the other, mix and match, it doesn't matter because the rules work for all of them.

 

[catastrophic]

Well, the essential variants feel rather distinct, too. Or are you arguing that knights and slayers are too similar? Or scouts and hunters?

Certainly knights and slayers pale compared to earlier versions of the fighter, there's no comparison. But that's more an issue of how much the designers overcompensated, and the loss of powers, and not what i'm talking about here.

It isn't a matter of wether or not a class has essentials style mechanics (and those mechanics vary greatly). It's a matter of what mechanics Avengers, Invokers and other such classes have.

These classes are designed around the idea that, regardless of subtype, classes have a distinct mechanic that sets them aside from other classes. Different subtyped have their own take on the mechanic, but every subtype has that similar language in it's design. This is a very positive design element, and it's not a very good idea to abandon it.

It's certainly not a good idea to pretend that such differences are irelevant in the face of a vague summary of what a class supposedly is.

There are good reasons to reduce the degree to which powers are exclusive to a given class, but that's not really what essentials are doing. I'm also not a big fan of class bloat, and I do think that there's a lot of content alreayd released for every class.

Regardless, the core class mechancs remain a solid piece of design, and ignoring them makes for inferior class design, and classes which a player will find it harder to get to grips with.

For all the dogma and backslash to the contrary, 4e made very positive gains in design, and those gains should be retained.

 

[WalterKovacs]

New Essential based content provides:

Feats. Unless the feats are reprints, they are generally usable by any character, old or new. (So far anyway. Some of the stuff from Dragon isn't necessarily usable by everyone as it is more specific to Essentials in some ways). Since the classes use the same class but new builds, unless the feat refers to specific class features, any class prereq feats would be backward compatible.

Utility Powers. All the classes get their choice of utility from any book, so at the very least, any new utility powers are support for all versions of the class.

Daily Powers. The marital classes don't get dailies, but with Martial Powers 1 and 2 in addition to Dragon content from day 1, the martial classes have recieved a ton of support. Everyone else gets dailies.

Encounter Powers. This one is a bit iffier. Most of the classes get no new encounter powers. The wizard does (which means the Heroes of Shadows with it's new schools for the mage wizard will be packed with stuff usable by all wizards) and while the warpriest cleric doesn't get to choose which encounter powers it gets, those encounter powers are available to the older versions of the clerics.

So, for the most part, the lack of new support is:

(a) For classes not featured [which would be true with or without Essentials ... although it's unlikely there will be an Essenial Seeker/Runepriest as they would have been new builds of ranger/cleric had they come out later, and it's unlikely for a class to be featured outsid of ragon if it doesn't get some sort of Essential treatment]
(b) Very focused help for existing builds (like the beastmaster ranger), especially outside of Dragon. Then again, how much did Martial Power 2 give to beastmaster rangers? It was mostly focused on the new builds, with a few bones thrown to the old builds.

In general, a new Divine Power book, for example, would have new builds for the existing classes, feats and powers that mostly focus on the new builds with a bit of help for older builds. By comparison, the paladin/cleric from essentials comes with some powers and feats that can help the old builds, but mostly focuses on new builds and powers that support those new builds. Now, it did leave the Avenger, Runepriest and Invoker out in the snow, but that was because instead of focusing on a power source, the books were focused, much like the PHBs, on an assortment of classes. In terms of help for the classes featured, it was perhaps a bit less than what you'd get out of an X Power book, but then again, most of the "Race X + Class Y" powers [some of which were even specific to "Build Z"] were going to be useless to most players, at least until they had a chance to build a new character.

 

[Zaran]

I suppose I have come across as an Essentials hater lately. I don't hate Essentials. But I do not play an eCharacter. I have seen almost everything coming out for DnD to have an Essentials bent to it. I think they have shot their foot off already and working on the knee. I will not purchase anything for player classes as long as they do not support the characters I play.

I have to agree with others that WotC seems to have no manpower and they are just giving just a minimal amount of support to anything but Essentials. I remember when they said it would just be 10 products and then they would be going back to normal core support. I don't remember Heroes of Shadow being part of those 10.