The Essential Knight

[Charwoman Gene]

You can expect that most classes going forward will have:

2. The option to use a standard 4e power advancement scheme, like the mage and warpriest, or something that alters or removes a power category, like the knight.

Basically, we will see some classes with standardish power categories and some with strange ones. Is that what this means?

 

[mneme]

Charwoman: that's not what mearls said. He said that most classes will -both- have a standard power build that plays well with multiclassing and hybriding -and- a build that removes a power category, as the knight does.

 

[YRUSirius]

Some Questions:

Would you give a PHB fighter "Power Strike" as his level 1 encounter power? Do you think this would be balanced? (I like it, cause it's so simple.)

If I'd want to replace the PHB fighter's marking mechanics with the "Defender Aura" power, what kind of mechanics would you add as a power or class feature, so that this might be equal to Combat Challenge/Superiority?


I'm absolutely fine with the at-will and daily powers of the PHB fighter (simple enough for beginners - say hello to brute strike, great weapon fighter/slayer).

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. A unique mechanic, either in terms of actual rules or flavor/effect. Knights have stances, warpriests have domains, mages have schools.

2. The option to use a standard 4e power advancement scheme, like the mage and warpriest, or something that alters or removes a power category, like the knight.

On behalf of everyone who thought that the standard vancian 4e powers system was (a) not unique enough for each class or (b) story-breaking or (c) just not that much fun, thank you so hard.

I've been playing D&D for over a decade, and I've done (and am doing) professional design work, and these essentials builds, with their unique mechanics and tricks, look to be exactly what I have been wanting from 4e since that first preview.

Now, if we could look at grid-based combat and noncombat homogeneity, I think we might be approaching a More Awesome D&D!

(PS: I'll throw in praise for Themes alongside this. )

 

[Black Knight Irios]

To the one who fears it takes two rounds for the knight to get started:
Round 1:
Minor: Aura
Move >> Minor: Stance
Standard: Charge (use your pimped MBA) if enemy is more than 1 square away, MBA if enemy is adjacent.

Seems fine.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I like a lot of what I see there, but the higher level stances need to be a lot more powerful than the first two or there will be a real power drop off relative to traditional builds.

I'm torn about how and whether the stance mechanic simplifies play. A player could always just enter the Cleaving Assault stance and stay there forever, but how is that different from a player just using the Cleave power every turn? Granted, the Battle Wrath stance is simpler still, but the only reason we don't have a Battle Wrath-like power is because WotC never gave us one -- it's certainly not a ridiculous concept.

Being able to use a stance-empowered MBA on attacks like charges and OAs is definitely a plus -- no having to remember "Oops, I can't use Cleave, this is just an OA [and I don't have Heavy Blade Opportunity yet]. But then again, that means that on every charge and OA, you have to remember to take into account the stance's effects. You can make an argument both ways about whether it is simpler or more complex in the end.

Also worth noting is that we don't know what new feats they may make available to go with the new build. I can imagine two that would make a pretty big difference -- a feat to make switching stances a free action and one to allow you to stack stances (2 or more at one time).

This is really early days, like back when the big topic on ENWorld was whether humans got a boost to two ability scores or just one, based on the pre-gen characters.

I guess overall I'm glad that they are experimenting like this, but I can see several ways this could introduce a whole lot of new confusion to what has become a relatively stable community understanding of 4e. -- Hey -- maybe their goal is full employment for WotC Customer Service!

 

[mearls]

Thanks Mr. Mearls.

Will we ever see one of those unique mechanics borrowed by another class? Like a rogue stance or a non-warpriest domain.

If it fits the class's flavor, we'd consider doing that.

 

[mearls]

Basically, we will see some classes with standardish power categories and some with strange ones. Is that what this means?

Yes. Sorry it wasn't as clear as it could be. I was speaking from a design standpoint.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The previews off the essential classes are nice so far. Any hints about the punishment mechanic for the knight?

 

[MrBeens]

I love the fact that the knight can swing with his at-wills all day long, and then when he strikes a critical, he can just say "Power Attack!" and add another maximized [W] onto the beast.

Isn't Power Attack identical to the half orc racial ability?
It's nothing new, and a bit odd that a class gets as his level 1 encounter power something that is as powerful as a racial ability.