The Essential Knight

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The Wizard also swapped out the power in question after the session. Was this a game breaker? No, but it was annoying.

I wouldn't think it either game breaking or annoying since retraining is part of the core rules. I can't tell from your post whether the timing of the retraining was off, but as DM I would allow a previously unused retrain to swap out a power that has been updated.

 

[MrMyth]

There are a few items though (Master's Blade for example) that seem like they're going to be exceptionally useful for a Knight. In fact I'd have to say that Master's Blade is almost nerf-worthy strong for a Knight. There are probably a few other similar examples. The vast majority of items will work fine though. Some feats may also be a bit problematical.

To be fair, Master's Blade is already nerf-worth strong for regular fighters with really good stances. The +1 to hit is certainly nice, but the real potential for abuse is the chance for two stances - because fighters get some very good stances, and being able to stack multiple ones in a fight gets real scary, real fast.

 

[MrMyth]

No, not at all. I'm asking what happens to the PHB Fighter when the Essential Fighter becomes the favored/supported Fighter or Vice Versa. Which one gets supported?

This question has already been answered several times in this thread, and you seem to be ignoring those answers. They both can be supported - either in individual articles or as part of the same article. Just like all other builds out there.

Look, some recent class acts articles we've seen:
7/21: Class Acts Druid: Support provided for three different druid builds. All of it designed support for Beast Form. Some druids were not supported by this article - that doesn't mean those builds are dead forever. Even most beast-form druids might only use 1/3 of the article - that doesn't mean the article is useless.
7/09: Class Acts Seekers: Support provided only for bow-users. That doesn't mean the thrown weapon build is no longer supported. It just isn't the focus of this article.
5/25: Shaman Basics: Support provided for all builds! Including feats only usable by certain builds. This doesn't make the article useless.

There is no reason to assume the Knight will be any different. One article might provide stuff just for it. One article might provide stuff just for Tempest Fighters. Another article might provide general stuff for Fighters that both builds can use, alongside feats limited to each specific build.

Just like we've seen for every other class with multiple builds out there.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One other point to make is "Just how much 'support' do you need"?

We've already got PHI, MP1, MP2, and numerous Dragon articles already for the fighter. So if you're playing a Great Weapon fighter, just what exactly are you missing from all this stuff that if WotC never produced another single thing for the GWF and supported strictly Essentials fighter stuff from now on, that all of a sudden everything's ruined for you?

Hell, I've been playing or running the game since it was first released and I've barely touched half the stuff in PHI for pete's sake. You could throw out all my other books and cancel my DDI subscription on me, and I'd still be able to come up with new and original ideas using just the first PH you've left me.

At some point, you just don't need 'more'. You just need to start using what you've already got.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Why are you telling me this? I'm sorry you had to sell your PHB, but you can't borrow mine, I'm still using it.

Or did you want to discuss the semantics with me which amount of errata page count equals each .1 dot release? So that's +0.1 = 20 pages? I don't care.

First off, you could probably be less defensive.

Second off, make me a tiefling flail fighter with the stealth skill and Rain of Blows using only your PHB, then show up with it at an RPGA event or D&D encounters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First off, you could probably be less defensive.

Second off, make me a tiefling flail fighter with the stealth skill and Rain of Blows using only your PHB, then show up with it at an RPGA event or D&D encounters.

You can absolutely do that. If you're saying 'ignoring errata' then you'll find there are some differences between what is on your sheet and what the official rules are, but guess what? NOTHING on that character will be illegal, you'll just be using a different power card for your RoB and your racial power. Depending on the details of your build that might or might not be an issue, though I really doubt it will be a problem.

So you gotta try harder... There are AFAIK ZERO things that have been removed from the game. In fact WotC doesn't even have a mechanism for that. Worst case you might run into an errata on a PP or a feat that makes it unavailable due to a change in prerequisites. These kinds of things though are totally irrelevant to normal play unless you have a fetish for following the very letter of the most up-to-date errata.

Notice you also had to kind of work at it to come up with a specific example of a character that is even materially affected by an errata. I've seen 3-4 powers hit (and one item) in 2 years, and in no instance did the player even want to modify their character. In fact in several cases they were quite happy with the change and told me they WERE going to use it even when I told them they could skip it if they wanted.

 

[Remathilis]

Where is this coming from man?

I disagree with your comments. If you want to continue discussing the disagreement cool, but if it's going to start getting into insults, I'm done.

Hey, its nothing personal. Just a couple of times (in this and the essentials fighter thread) people have questioned my experiences with 4e. My hackles got a bit raised when I thought I was being dismissed at yet-another-h4ter.

Its not you man, but there has been an undercurrent of "the game was perfect, why are they messing with it?!?" in some posts around here, and its a little off-putting.

Sigh, while I think WotC is doing right by addressing issues in the Essentials the way they are, I have a feeling that, like EVERYTHING WotC seems to do, it will create another division on teh messageboards between those who prefer the Essentials way of doing things (and didn't like the initial 4e roll-out) vs. the purists who think DDe will be training wheels and dumbed-down or regression D&D. Mark my words, I fully expect to see some of that come Sept...

 

[ExploderWizard]

These kinds of things though are totally irrelevant to normal play unless you have a fetish for following the very letter of the most up-to-date errata.

So does this fetish have a prerequisite fetish for not wanting to write out character sheets by hand?

 

[Scribble]

Hey, its nothing personal. Just a couple of times (in this and the essentials fighter thread) people have questioned my experiences with 4e. My hackles got a bit raised when I thought I was being dismissed at yet-another-h4ter.

Its not you man, but there has been an undercurrent of "the game was perfect, why are they messing with it?!?" in some posts around here, and its a little off-putting.

No worries... I've been there plenty of times myself.

Sigh, while I think WotC is doing right by addressing issues in the Essentials the way they are, I have a feeling that, like EVERYTHING WotC seems to do, it will create another division on teh messageboards between those who prefer the Essentials way of doing things (and didn't like the initial 4e roll-out) vs. the purists who think DDe will be training wheels and dumbed-down or regression D&D. Mark my words, I fully expect to see some of that come Sept...

On this we agree... WoTC is damned if they do, damned if they don't in my opinion no matter what happens someone will complain.

Shrug... I'ma just keep buying books I like.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hey, its nothing personal. Just a couple of times (in this and the essentials fighter thread) people have questioned my experiences with 4e. My hackles got a bit raised when I thought I was being dismissed at yet-another-h4ter.

Its not you man, but there has been an undercurrent of "the game was perfect, why are they messing with it?!?" in some posts around here, and its a little off-putting.

Sigh, while I think WotC is doing right by addressing issues in the Essentials the way they are, I have a feeling that, like EVERYTHING WotC seems to do, it will create another division on teh messageboards between those who prefer the Essentials way of doing things (and didn't like the initial 4e roll-out) vs. the purists who think DDe will be training wheels and dumbed-down or regression D&D. Mark my words, I fully expect to see some of that come Sept...

Although you sound very sceptical, i can follwow your argumentation, and i fear that there could be a divide for no reason at all... we don´t know what comes, but i feel a lot is exaggerated here, be it the marketing (which doesn´t look too dumb this time)

Imagine, there had been no 3.5 at all, would you all behave in the way you do?

Also when 4e was designed, it was said, that the rules will be updated with each PHB and thus no 4.5 will be needed... Only because the 4th iteration of a PHB is now essentials, nothing was changed in this philosophy...

also they are all quite straight forward and tell us a lot... maybe they should just don´t preview anything at all... would be better for the community...

Disclaimer: i didn´t buy any printed core book until now, because from my first browsing in the FLGS i noticed dumb mistakes and i preferred to wait until revised core books are printed... I don´t care if i get it in PHB or essential format, maybe i will get both...

but in the end, maybe essentials is just the right format for beginners or teaching beginners, for advanced options there is the charcter builder i gladly pay for.