New Essentials Builds!

[Aegeri]

I think that could be utterly disastrous to be honest, because they are clearly balanced around being their own little fiefdom. Mixing the two could be very imbalancing potentially and I'd rather them not doing this. At the moment essentials classes actually really do keep up with normal ones from what I can see. They do so because their class features are actually pretty substantial, so I can imagine stacking their class features on top of the advantages of regular characters could be really overpowered.

Personally I don't mind this approach anyway. It's not like fighters and Wizards already don't have a billion powers/supporting feats anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Feel sorry for classes that deserve options but have jack all and won't be getting anything at all. Like the seeker and runepriest.

 

[Klaus]

Claudio, your missing my point. I really liked the Staff Fighter and Pyromancer articles. But, since its release, 4E has been about options. One of this options was take a entire build with all choices already made for you or mixing features and powers and making a "new build", "your build".

The essential classes, particularly the martial ones, take away this option. Or you pick the entire build or this build has nothing to you. I understand which this works for new players. Too much options put then confuse. But this not work for old players (and for not so old, 3 years ago, too).

So, my request is some ruling to use the essential features into the core classes, so this very separation be no more! A fighter is a fighter. Knight, Tempest, Slayer, Greatweapon, are builds of the fighter, not entirely new classes.

I have created some houserules for that, but would prefer to see some official statemente about this from WotC, just that.

Hoping have made myself clearer now...

I see your point better now.

If I understood correctly (and feel free to re-correct me), you are complaining that the choice between core and Essentials is "all-in", and you'd like to see a way to mix the two, so that a core character could have the choice between taking an Encounter power at level x, or taking an Essentials class feature of the same level. Is that correct?

 

[Jhaelen]

Claudio, your missing my point. I really liked the Staff Fighter and Pyromancer articles. But, since its release, 4E has been about options. One of this options was take a entire build with all choices already made for you or mixing features and powers and making a "new build", "your build".

The essential classes, particularly the martial ones, take away this option. Or you pick the entire build or this build has nothing to you. I understand which this works for new players. Too much options put then confuse. But this not work for old players (and for not so old, 3 years ago, too).

Yep, and that's basically what I've been saying since I've seen the first Essentials build. I don't think they're attractive for a player who has been happy with the way 4e 'standard' classes worked.

Essential classes use a more rigid structure to improve the cohesiveness of a pcs abilities at the cost of flexibility.

 

[Mengu]

You're right, I didn't give you that one, because I'm not sure I want to create powers that let you voluntarily break your weapon in half.

No worries, the weapon glues itself back on when you take a short rest (or rather when your stance ends). In this particular case, I was thinking of Dervish's Challenge, but you got the other powers I had in mind pretty much right.

Possibly, it is because there's nothing special about doing those things with a staff, compared to just doing those things with your two-handed bastard sword/greataxe/sword-and-board/whatever. There's no incentive. There's no payoff. I do it with my staff, and I'm just like the guy who does it without a staff, give or take a feat or two. There's nothing different, unique, or special about it. I don't feel like a staff fighter, I feel like any other fighter, except I spent my feats to use an unorthodox weapon.

This is exactly it. Say you're using Blades from All Angles, why trip someone with a +2 proficiency 3d8 weapon when you can do the exact same thing with a +3 proficiency 3d12 high crit?

It's okay to spend a feat (or a class feature) to use an unorthodox weapon but it should be worthwhile compared to the other options out there. It doesn't have to be the highest consistent damage, or the highest attack bonus which are the immediate tangibles people are looking at. But there should be some obvious or even subtle but worthwhile benefit.

[sblock=Tangent]
It's not too difficult to create builds in the pre-essentials format. Consider a staff article that does the following:

Fighter talent: Staff Weapon Talent - You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with a staff. You gain the Staff Fighting feat even if you don't meet the prerequisites.

If you picked Staff Weapon Talent, add this line as an indent to the hit portion of the following fighter powers:
Staff: You deal additional damage equal to your dexterity modifier and knock the target prone.

Fighter: Threatening Rush, Sure Strike, Distracting Spate (e1), Crushing Blow (e3), Reaver's Hook (e3), Griffon's Wrath (e7), etc.

Fighter feat: Staff Superiority: (prerequisite Staff Weapon Talent) When you hit a target with a combat challenge attack or an opportunity attack, you may also knock the target prone.

Ranger Fighting Style: Staff Fighting Style. You gain the Staff Fighting feat even if you don't meet the prerequisites. In addition you gain a +1 bonus to Reflex and AC while wearing light armor or no armor.

If you picked Staff Fighting Style, add this line as an indent to the hit portion of the following ranger powers:
Staff: When you attack two or more creatures, add your dexterity bonus to the damage roll against your hunter's quarry.

Ranger: Dire Wolverine Strike (e1), Thundertusk Boar Strike (e3), Claws of the Griffon (e7), Sweeping Whirlwind (e7), etc.

Ranger feat: Whirling Staff: Add Twin Strike to the list of powers you gain your Staff Fighting Style benefit with.

Monk feat: Staff Discipline: You gain a +1 bonus to attacks against fortitude when wielding a staff. Whenever you push, pull, or slide a target while wielding a staff, the distance of the forced movement increases by 1 square. (i.e. forceful, unstoppable superior implement). In addition, if you have the Crashing Tempest Style feat, you may apply its bonus while wielding a club or a staff.

Bard feat: Singing Staff: You gain proficiency in staff implements. When you use a staff with a bard attack, and would push or pull the target, you may instead slide the target.

Didn't really put too much thought into this stuff, there is probably a better way to pose some of it in the MP2 format, even though I'm not really fond of the feat taxes for picking an unusual weapon. But you get the gist of what I'd like to see.

I also would have liked to see a small staff, simple melee, +2 proficiency, 1d6 damage, so small guys wouldn't have to burn a feat to use a staff, and could just pick one off the shelf and go. However, I'm already pretty uncomfortable with the weapon selection woes of small characters, so there might be a better solution to this.

It's not too difficult to create new builds in the pre-essentials format. You don't need to write two dozen new powers, just modify some existing ones. Their previous stance was that Dragon Magazine wasn't going to introduce any new builds, and that's probably why we haven't seen any. Since they seem to be changing that stance, perhaps we will see new builds in Dragon.[/sblock]

 

[occam]

What specifically do the staff builds add to the game? I think there *are* balance issues. Say a Human Staff Fighter sinks a 13 into Int, and picks up staff of knowledge. What exactly did that accomplish, or add to the build?

Why would the fighter do that? The feat isn't meant for fighters.

A halfling rogue sinks two feats and picks up Stout Handed Staff, and Sneaky Staff, what benefit did he gain with those two valuable resources, other than he wants to use a staff and now he can?

The ability to use a higher-damage weapon than a rogue can normally use, and dazing on backstabs?

I don't really get the criticisms you're making here. I do, however, like the feat suggestions you made for staff wielders in a later post.

 

[andarilhor]

I see your point better now.

If I understood correctly (and feel free to re-correct me), you are complaining that the choice between core and Essentials is "all-in", and you'd like to see a way to mix the two, so that a core character could have the choice between taking an Encounter power at level x, or taking an Essentials class feature of the same level. Is that correct?

Yes! Exactly this!

I have made some houserule experiments based on the infos already previewed and the tidbits here on the forum and think it's not difficult to do it, but would like to see a official version of that.

For example: By my houserules you can make a figther with defender aura, staff finesse, tempest techinique and combat agilty

 

[Marshall]

The Pyromancer illustrates something else. It is much easier to add new Essentials-style builds to the game than new 4e-style builds.

Gotta disagree here. Pyromancer piggy-backs off the Evoker build or it would be completely worthless as published. Essentials builds are much harder to create. You need to come up with class features at multiple levels beyond first, you need to integrate a paragon path and you need to design powers for every available level.

There are very few places where you can cheat and just say "All Fire powers are associated with this build."

These features define the Pyromancer, don't 'cross polinate' with any other builds (thus don't 'support' those builds, but also don't open up broken combo outside the build), and you need only one per level at which the feature is gained - and /no/ new powers are required.

Uh uh. How do you create a new Warpriest build without new Domain powers at each level?
Doesnt work does it?

With the task of developing new builds simplified, WotC can produce many more new builds with which to populate future suplements - much like the proliferation of Prestige Classes in 3.5, but without as much risk to overall game balance.

Not seeing it, This is more like having to build 1-30 Classes for every new build. IOW, Essentials classes have more in common with 3.5 classes than 4e class structure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Gotta disagree here. Pyromancer piggy-backs off the Evoker build or it would be completely worthless as published. Essentials builds are much harder to create. You need to come up with class features at multiple levels beyond first, you need to integrate a paragon path and you need to design powers for every available level.

Sure, for the builds that take powers you have to design one power per level. For the builds that don't, you just need the features. I've designed variant classes for each version of D&D since 1e AD&D, and 4e was by far the hardest. Essentials looks like it'd be a lot easier.

There are very few places where you can cheat and just say "All Fire powers are associated with this build."

Really? How hard would it be to pick existing Cleric powers and group them into a domain? Not hard at all - the work of minutes if you're already familiar with Cleric powers in general. Ditto 'updating' existing wizard spells to add a school keyword. There are plenty of poison, cold, psychic, and thunder & lightning keyword powers ready to be grouped together for such builds.

How do you create a new Warpriest build without new Domain powers at each level?

That's half the powers you'd need to present a viable 4e build, because there's no /choice/ required. And, not all those powers need be new.

IOW, Essentials classes have more in common with 3.5 classes than 4e class structure.

Yes, they do. And it was easier to create a 3.5 class (an entire class, mind you) than it is to create a 4e /build/. Conversely, it could be a lot more work to create a 3.5 /character/ (assuming a more complex multi-/prestige-class build) than a 4e character (especially with the CB, but even without it, still easier).

 

[Walking Dad]

Zone is not optional, and there is no way to end it before the end of your next turn.

...

Sorry, can you quote where they say it? I cannot find it. Thanks!

With the change to implement proficiency, you can just multiclass to something that gives proficiency with the weapon implement that you like, like a swordmage for blades.

I wanted to get the dwarf weapon bonus to druid/shaman powers. With the alfsair enchantment, I could apply it to the urogosh or this new axe/spear weapon from Dark Sun and I was ready. The new option would be taking a multiclass feat (with perquisites) and use a khopesh. One more feat, but frees the item up for other enchantments. Sounds fair.

 

[jbear]

Yeah, you aren't the only one that has speculated that Tony. I pretty much said it from day one that we first saw the Thief. Honestly I find it messy and annoying. What do you now tell the player that wants to blow things up with fire? Well, you COULD play a PHB1 Wizard with THIS pyromancy add-on, or a Mage with this other one, or a Dragon Sorcerer, or ... It is like the game has gone into its own navel and just keeps spitting out variations of the same thing over and over now.

I'm all for staff builds, but then AGAIN we had MP2 fighting style stuff, wasn't that supposed to present the framework for that? Or was it Themes? Or just the heck what? And why is it my Barbarian can't use this? Oh, yeah, because he's not an ESSENTIALS Barbarian... GAAAHHHH!

Honestly I think this kind of thing will do more damage to the game in the long run than anything Essentials can do to help it.

I hear what you are saying but I do think that WotC does listen, and hence is listening to the many voices like your own that feel that essentials could be detrimental to the game. Given that, I do think the material coming out now is expanding the latest addition to the game. It makes only sense that they would want to show how those options can grow, be expanded upon and create flavourful class variations.

Yep, it might seem messy at the moment, but there is a lot we haven't seen yet, like how this will affect the character builder and class creation, which classes have access to which powers, feats etc. Personally, I'm going to keep playing with pre-essential classes. But some interesting options have come out that those classes would like to poach. So I'll reserve judgement until I see the big picture. For now, after having seen what they did with the assassin, I remain quitely positive about the whole thing. It's not going to hinder my game, but hopefully it will improve others games that do prefer this kind of character.