Ranger (Hunter) is a Martial and Primal Controller

[Camelot]

I like that they're breaking their assumed restrictions of power source. It could lead to some interesting things, even all new classes. Though pretty much any class that uses a weapon could have "martial" tagged on to them. I hope that doesn't happen. Save it for barbarians, swordmages, battleminds, and seekers.

 

[Remathilis]

The Battlemind, Warden, Ardent, Avenger, Swordmage, and Invoker all seem to exist for little reason beyond the grid-filling WotC says they don't do. Yet every box in the grid is filled /except/ the Martial Controller. No controlling without magic, here, have a little dose of Primal, now the spirits will let you be a Controller.

The Battlemind and Ardent were tossbacks to 3.5s psychic warrior and ardent classes; both of which even in 3.5 was a psionic fighter and and a psionic cleric. (FYI: there was a psionic rogue too; the lurk)

The Avenger and Invoker felt a bit forced. While the idea of a divine assassin could support its own archetype; it probably could be a paladin build. While the invoker probably was a stronger archetype when there was a spontaneous caster (favored soul) and a prep caster (cleric) but in 4e's system, the classes could be done as a different cleric builds.

The Warden should REALLY have been a barbarian build.

The Swordmage though seemed a good mix of arcane and martial without resorting to multi-classing (and a nice nod to the elven F/m in basic).

I could also see the runepriest and the seeker as alternate builds of the cleric and ranger.

I could also see Warlock and Sorcerer rolled into one, but that's getting technical. A dragon-pact, cosmic-pact, chaos-pact, or storm-pact warlocks probably would have worked easily, but I don't mind them divided up into two classes.

Thematically; I see no problem with druid, bard, ranger, paladin, warlock, barbarian, shaman, warlord, artificer, and monk, either as separate classes and unique archetypes.

 

[Lord Ernie]

The Battlemind and Ardent were tossbacks to 3.5s psychic warrior and ardent classes; both of which even in 3.5 was a psionic fighter and and a psionic cleric. (FYI: there was a psionic rogue too; the lurk)

One could argue that those existed primarily for the need for synergy in the first place - although, in this case, I think it was more for the wish for more specific rules subsystems. A big part of the attraction of more classes, after all, is different ways to play the game.

The Avenger and Invoker felt a bit forced. While the idea of a divine assassin could support its own archetype; it probably could be a paladin build. While the invoker probably was a stronger archetype when there was a spontaneous caster (favored soul) and a prep caster (cleric) but in 4e's system, the classes could be done as a different cleric builds.

Interestingly, I think if the Invoker was made post-Essentials, it would be a cleric build. But given the Pre-Essentials approach of linking a class and a role, in this case cleric = leader, they needed to create a new class.

The Warden should REALLY have been a barbarian build.

I don't know. I can see a difference between the two pretty well in style, with the warden being the more patient, calm kind of threatening, and the barbarian screaming, frothing at the mouth, and running from foe to foe.

I could also see Warlock and Sorcerer rolled into one, but that's getting technical. A dragon-pact, cosmic-pact, chaos-pact, or storm-pact warlocks probably would have worked easily, but I don't mind them divided up into two classes.

Ah, but they are different archetypes. A sorcerer gets born with his power, a warlock makes a deal for it. Sufficiently different flavour, IMO, to make two different classes.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

The Battlemind and Ardent were tossbacks to 3.5s psychic warrior and ardent classes; both of which even in 3.5 was a psionic fighter and and a psionic cleric. (FYI: there was a psionic rogue too; the lurk)

I feel like the battlemind and ardent could fit reasonably well in the same class (both classes are even described as being impetuous and emotion-driven). Perhaps the class would have defender and leader builds, much like how the Essentials fighter has defender and striker builds.

The Avenger and Invoker felt a bit forced. While the idea of a divine assassin could support its own archetype; it probably could be a paladin build. While the invoker probably was a stronger archetype when there was a spontaneous caster (favored soul) and a prep caster (cleric) but in 4e's system, the classes could be done as a different cleric builds.

Invokers could definitely be controller builds for clerics. Avengers could work as either subclasses of paladins or clerics, but they do feel unique enough to stand on their own. Plus, the image of Altair from Assassin's Creed is hard for me to shake.

The Warden should REALLY have been a barbarian build.

I see Warden as being more of a druid build (the whole shapeshifting thing), but it could work as a barbarian build. In any case, I feel like the slayer does the barbarian thing fairly well.

The Swordmage though seemed a good mix of arcane and martial without resorting to multi-classing (and a nice nod to the elven F/m in basic).

While I could see swordmages as being a defender build of wizard, I also think they are a strong enough archetype to stand on their own.

I could also see the runepriest and the seeker as alternate builds of the cleric and ranger.

Definitely.

I could also see Warlock and Sorcerer rolled into one, but that's getting technical. A dragon-pact, cosmic-pact, chaos-pact, or storm-pact warlocks probably would have worked easily, but I don't mind them divided up into two classes.

Yeah, there's a lot of overlap between the two. I prefer the term "sorcerer" for a person who consorts with dark entities (I'm not a fan of 3.x's and 4e's "magic in the blood" guy), but I deal with warlock.

I'd love to see an Essentials style leader build for the fighter. Yes, it would have a lot of conceptual overlap with the warlord (particularly the battlefront warlord build from MP2), but I like the idea of an especially rugged leader class. The challenge is making this build feel like it's different from a cleric (IMO, the warlord doesn't feel all that different from the cleric).

 

[Lord Ernie]

The challenge is making this build feel like it's different from a cleric (IMO, the warlord doesn't feel all that different from the cleric).

Hrm. Are you speaking here from a conceptual, or a mechanical point of view? Although, admittedly, I have problems seeing it either way.

From a concept point of view, the cleric is a servant of the gods who protects and heals his party members with divine magic, and uses that same magic to smite his foes. The warlord inspires his party to greatness through tactical analysis and sheer example.

From a mechanics point of view, the cleric is the better healer, and he's got a minor in controller, with area attacks, plenty of status effects, etc. The warlord is the better buffer, and is the best enabler in 4E, by virtue of having lots of powers that grant basic attacks.

 

[webrunner]

Because the powers would not support the Primal designation. And they are probably not going to go back and retro-fit all the old classes. They already said that folks can play core and essential PCs side by side...

My two coppers,

The question is: Can a "old" ranger take Primal powers, or only Exploits, even if they are "Ranger Attack 5" or whatever?

I know a vanilla fighter can't take Knight/Slayer stances as they're level-less utilities, (They just say "Fighter Utility") and they're on levels that fighters can't take utilities, but a regular Wizard can take Mage powers as they're all just regular powers.

 

[Klaus]

The question is: Can a "old" ranger take Primal powers, or only Exploits, even if they are "Ranger Attack 5" or whatever?

I know a vanilla fighter can't take Knight/Slayer stances as they're level-less utilities, (They just say "Fighter Utility") and they're on levels that fighters can't take utilities, but a regular Wizard can take Mage powers as they're all just regular powers.

If an Essential Ranger power has a type/level (like "Encounter 3"), then any ranger can take it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Like all of the Essentials stuff so far: I'm really digging it.

This wilderness warrior seems like a character I'd like to pretend to be. All raining destruction down with arrows and "ha! Hit your leg!" and swiftly scurrying through the underbrush strafing down all the punks in her way, using magic tricks learned from wild beasts. Sweeeet!

Agreed!

I think moving the purely martial striker role to the Slayer Fighter opened up a lot of cool options for the Essential Ranger. I'm really curious to see the TWF Essential Ranger.

Agreed!

 

[WalterKovacs]

4e was harshly criticized for being 'dumbed down' when it came out. Now, it's "expert only?"

However the accusations of it being dumbed down were mostly:

(a) It eliminated the most expert only parts of 3.5 (so "not expert only enough)

(b) It was mostly early on. Some people kept complaining, but it was mostly based on pre-release spoilers, or scanning over the books, etc ...

The expert only accusation however had to do with actual play experience. Hindsight, instead of foresight/speculation. Also, part of the expert only issue is because of how the game has changed since the start. The original characters have a simple "structure" of gaining powers at specific levels, and feats at specific levels, etc. However, as the number of powers and feats increased, this increased the complexity that goes into building characters. Playing may not have changed much, but with more and more options available, building became more complex and increased the chance that someone may pick a suite of powers that don't really work well together (not to mention that a party may be built that doesn't work together well either, etc).

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, I can see how chargen/level-up has become more complex, simply because there are so many choices - and some of them are even 'traps.' The Warpriest, from that PoV, perfectly addresses that problem. It's much easier to build - chose the domain and your powers all fall into place - but still has options and resource management in play. The martial builds are easier to make, but also simplitic in play and their different resource management challenges introduce an imbalance between them and the casters. The Mage is every bit a complex to build and play as the 4e Wizard was.