More Classes Essentialized or more support for current classes?

[Thorvald_Grimbjorn]

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.

Indeed. After all, "Arcane Power 2", "Divine Power 2" and "Primal Power 2" - with the much-needed additional support for Melee Weapon Bards, Battle Clerics and Seekers (to name only a few classes) - are right around the corner.
Oh, wait.

I'm in the Essentials camp. We have way too many dang classes, many of them trivial variations on existing themes. Invoker should be an alternative cleric build. Avenger should be a paladin build. Sorceror should be a wizard build, and so on and so forth.

If we're talking redundancy, how exactly isn't the Thief redundant with the base Rogue? Scout with Ranger? Knight and Slayer with Fighter? (So the Slayer is a Striker. Big deal; one could easily build a Fighter which dealt almost Striker-level damage before.) And so on and so forth.
While I agree that thematically there isn't much of a difference between, say, the Invoker and the Cleric (although the thematic difference between the Paladin and the Avenger is huge), mechanically, they play VERY differently; the difference between them is much higher than that between, oh, the Thief and the Rogue.

 

[Istar]

Because our group just use the basics, like PHB1 and 2, and AV1, and MP1 and 2, and stuff like that.

The bookd and powers and magic items that they now seem to have completely finished with editing and erata.

We would absolutely love to see a fully edited version of these to be printed.

So we could use manual we could trust.

 

[Zhou Yu]

Essential Warlord, Essential Swordmage and a few more feats, especially for the races, and thats about it.

Those two would be great. E-Shaman and barbarian (thought hopefully they'd call it a Berserker instead) would be at the top of my list, in addition to what you said.

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.

What crossover questions? An Essentials Fighter can take any Fighter based ED or PP that their stats qualify them for. Or Druid or so on. But a "core" Fighter can't take an Essentials PP, since the Slayer's PP has the requirement of Slayer. If you qualify for the PP/ED via any means (be it as simple as a feat on upwards) you can take it.

If we're talking redundancy, how exactly isn't the Thief redundant with the base Rogue? Scout with Ranger? Knight and Slayer with Fighter? (So the Slayer is a Striker. Big deal; one could easily build a Fighter which dealt almost Striker-level damage before.) And so on and so forth.
While I agree that thematically there isn't much of a difference between, say, the Invoker and the Cleric (although the thematic difference between the Paladin and the Avenger is huge), mechanically, they play VERY differently; the difference between them is much higher than that between, oh, the Thief and the Rogue.

The Thief and the PHB Rogue are NOTHING alike. Completely different set of powers, feel, style, weapons. Totally different play style. PHB Rogue is more along the lines of a bully that slams an enemy when he can. An Ess Thief is more along the lines of a tactical trickster that makes the enemy screw up with his cunning and takes advantage of it. A Slayer is all killing, all the time, and none of his powers involve defense. A PHB Fighter, no matter how strikery you try to build them, still has Marks and Defendery powers.

Knights (and Cavaliers) with their Auras work far differently than older Defenders and their Marks.

Don't let the similar names fool you. Just because they have similar names does NOT make them the same thing. That's like saying a yen, a euro and a dollar bill are all the same cause they're all money. Nope, a PHB Fighter, Ess Knight and Ess Slayer are all different, and fit different tasks for the party.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I don't remember Heroes of Shadow being part of those 10.

It contains an entirely new build for the Paladin. Whether or not that is 'Essential' or 'Classic', it's a new build, not a direct addition to the Essential books. Now, it may end up being very similar to the Essential builds, and not provide as much classic support as it would (i.e. it may not have encounter powers that Classic paladins can take).

The wizard builds are extensions of the Essential mage with new schools. However, all the powers are available to all wizards. That is classic support. Or does ANY support of Essential classes make it no longer support for Classic 4e? Normal core support would mean supporting all previous products, which would include Essentials. The Essential books hold back to a great extent. They don't mention or touch on superior weapons or rituals, and ignore some areas of the game that are more complex. A "normal" non-Essential product wouldn't ignore the existance of Essentials, but instead recognize that non-Essential products exist. There are classes and weapons offered outside the book, etc. The book will provide classic support even if it sticks to just Essential topics, but it's quite likely that it will also contain some content like rituals which are basically non-existant in actual Essential books.

We've yet to see what other classes will recieve builds/powers in the book ... it's quite possible that non-essential classes will received new builds/class features/powers/etc ... in addition to new options for Essential builds (I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least one new warpriest domain. Also, they could introduce the autumn or winter druid to tie shadow and death together, and of course a dark pact for the hexblade would be obvious ... the martial classes would likely be modded by feats more so than powers)