The Essentials Fighter

[Aegeri]

I don't get how anyone could EVER play AD&D 1st edition with its screwed up initiative system, ridiculous level limits, and some of the most broken rules available (hello psionics!) but I understand why some people refuse to play anything but.

But it's not hard to see why it's mechanically different from 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition for those reasons.

But to belittle someone for having a differing opinion, or to assume the person is lying, stupid or unworthy of recognition because they disagree is a height of arrogance I usually only see reserved for Politics and Religion (and D&D is neither). I suggest taking a breath and realize what, exactly, you are fighting about. Yes, I include myself in that time-out.

Wow, I love how you take a single sentence of my argument out of context and then completely ignore every single argument I made. That is totally all I wrote in response to him and didn't give clear reasoning. All I did was declare him wrong and walk away from the debate!

Oh wait.

The only way shifting and telporting are the same is if we have a featureless, terrainless bowling ball with monsters that don't do anything except a melee basic attack. In "real DnD" the obvious distinction between a teleport and a shift is readily apparent - he is trying to claim this is a subtle distinction that is hard to pick up on. I have an immensely hard time swallowing that argument.

The beauty of Essentials is that is sounds like WotC is addressing the issue of differing experience and granting some of us disenfranchised players a new way to approach 4e

I don't really think it's entirely aimed at disenfranchised players. I liked the change to magic missile not because it was restoring it to a "classic" form, but because it was making it a more unique and semi-interesting at-will. Granting it as a class feature for the mage was just a brilliant idea and one I firmly approved of (I extended it to all wizards). I think essentials is aimed at a lot of people, but in general it's not going to rewrite 4th edition as a system into something that isn't 4th edition. The Knight for example is a class that has a good deal of hidden complexity to it (stances) that is going to throw people more curve balls than they expect - but unlike a "4.5" it's not going to eliminate the older classes that people so much disapprove of from 4E.

Now how that informs the design of 4E going forward post-essentials remains to be seen.

Be aware that on a core level I agree with both you and Kamikaze Midget that 4E has very similar feeling mechanics between classes in many cases. This doesn't mean that suddenly everything is the same and there are clear differences between many mechanics. Teleporting, shifting and flight are all modes of movement with very different connotations. Certain core rules like this are not where 4E has failed to make distinct mechanics at all. Compare the discussion between Kaiyanwang and others earlier. All ranged and area attacks provoke opportunity actions because they are ranged and area attacks. In previous editions, using magic in close combat provoked an attack of opportunity because it was magic and no other distinction. One of these aspects produces a clear distinction between a magical effect and a normal mundane one. In 4E because the only thing that matters is if its a ranged/area attack, the argument was that it meant the distinction between a complex magical incantation being used and trying to throw an axe at someone was blurred by the system.

I can see that argument, but I will absolutely vehemently disagree that such an incredibly distinct mechanic like teleporting is anywhere near similar to a distinct mechanic like shifting.

We had different experiences, that doesn't make us wrong.

Except in the case of the specific argument it's easily and demonstrably shown to be incorrect. There are massive and inherent mechanical differences between shifting and teleporting. There are numerous completely valid arguments about 4Es power structure making classes often "feel" very similar - but on this specific point the argument is wrong.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't get how anyone could EVER play AD&D 1st edition with its screwed up initiative system, ridiculous level limits, and some of the most broken rules available (hello psionics!) but I understand why some people refuse to play anything but.

I did play 1e, and I had a lot of fun with it. Even back in the day, there were better systems, but D&D was the first and the most well-known, so you could always find D&Ders. Even with 4e, it's still prettymuch the same situation.

I don't really think it's entirely aimed at disenfranchised players. ..I think essentials is aimed at a lot of people, but in general it's not going to rewrite 4th edition as a system into something that isn't 4th edition. The Knight for example is a class that has a good deal of hidden complexity to it (stances) that is going to throw people more curve balls than they expect - but unlike a "4.5" it's not going to eliminate the older classes that people so much disapprove of from 4E.

4e is a pretty good system, clearly better than any previous version, but there are still better systems out there. It's still the D&D franchise that makes it popular. And, it did make a lot of sacred cows into tasty hamburgers. There are those who want to feed the burgers back through the grinder on reverse and get back vancian casting and fighters who can do nothing but swing a sword once per minute.

It looks like WotC's willing to at least try to mold the ground beef back into cow-like shapes for them.

 

[Abraxas]

The only way shifting and telporting are the same is if we have a featureless, terrainless bowling ball with monsters that don't do anything except a melee basic attack.

This is hyperbole and not terribly helpful IMO.

In "real DnD" the obvious distinction between a teleport and a shift is readily apparent - he is trying to claim this is a subtle distinction that is hard to pick up on. I have an immensely hard time swallowing that argument.

While they are not the same, it really depends on the game whether or not the differences have much effect. We have a ranger with both shift and teleport powers - often it really wouldn't matter which he uses - he stays out of melee and most often just uses the powers to position himself. That doesn't mean we aren't playing "real DnD". It also doesn't mean our DM sucks. Given that his attacks have a range of 20 squares hindering terrain rarely affect his character. He also doesn't seem to get immobilized, restrained, or slowed that much - on the other hand he attracts dazed, stunned and dominated conditions like a bug zapper attracts moths. Hell I don't believe he even really thinks about which he is using - his choice seems to be dictated by distance and triggers

Except in the case of the specific argument it's easily and demonstrably shown to be incorrect. There are massive and inherent mechanical differences between shifting and teleporting. There are numerous completely valid arguments about 4Es power structure making classes often "feel" very similar - but on this specific point the argument is wrong.

Not for our ranger - as always YMMV and apparently does.

 

[Aegeri]

This is hyperbole and not terribly helpful IMO.

It's not hyperbole, because terrain shows the differences between modes of movement the best. In fact, terrain is why different modes of movement exist and makes the biggest difference in any battle in 4E.

Do you think flight is the same as walking?

While they are not the same, it really depends on the game whether or not the differences have much effect. We have a ranger with both shift and teleport powers - often it really wouldn't matter which he uses - he stays out of melee and most often just uses the powers to position himself.

Which is true, but ultimately misses the entire point. He would be thankful for having a power that teleports when grabbed for example. If he is staying very far back though, he can avoid attacks in that manner and may not need to use specialized movement powers anyway.

That doesn't mean we aren't playing "real DnD". It also doesn't mean our DM sucks. Given that his attacks have a range of 20 squares hindering terrain rarely affect his character.

Ranged attacks aren't bothered by hindering terrain much, I don't think I ever argued otherwise. This was not the argument. Also, how is it that he's always in areas with enough room to use a range of 20 effectively consistently? I mix up distances and areas constantly, sometimes wide open terrain, sometimes narrow corridors with murder holes and all manner of different architecture. I cannot think of any consistent day though where terrain was irrelevant due to a character having a long range. Heck, on the other side of the terrain coin is obscuring terrain - which utterly prevents teleportation because you can't see through it but you can shift in it. In one combat I ran in a volcano, all the "sides" of the terrain were covered with obscuring smoke, meaning that despite being a large open area, PCs line of sight was blocked consistently. This meant that the PCs with very long ranged powers actually have to stay close to the enemies, otherwise they couldn't see them and suffered considerable penalties to hit. Not to mention it prevented many teleportation powers from working because they simply couldn't see where they were going.

But again, terrain is the biggest and single most important aspect of a 4E combat - especially when it comes to how powers will interact. I make this argument because the inherent mechanical differences between shifting and teleporting make their interactions with terrain unique and interesting. Even without this, teleporting and shifting are still inherently different due to their frequent interactions with powers monsters have.

He also doesn't seem to get immobilized, restrained, or slowed that much - on the other hand he attracts dazed, stunned and dominated conditions like a bug zapper attracts moths. Hell I don't believe he even really thinks about which he is using - his choice seems to be dictated by distance and triggers

Probably due to the distance he is standing, but this is largely ignoring the points I actually made that there are significant differences between teleporting and shifting. If your ranger gets grabbed by a monster the difference will immediately be significant: His teleport powers instantly get him out of trouble while shifting is worthless. Also with a ranger being what they are, you usually aim to dominate them to turn twin strike upon the other PCs or you want to stun them so they can't use twin strike. Pretty much that actually

Not for our ranger - as always YMMV and apparently does.

It's irrelevant what your ranger does or does not do actually. The only relevant argument is what is the mechanical difference between teleporting and shifting. When you actually compare them, the mechanical differences are massive and inherently obvious. That is my core point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On the shift/teleport thing, it's not that they're the same, it's just that they feel similar. Once per encounter, the Eladrin can get out of a sticky situation by teleporting 5. Once per encounter the Elven Ranger can get out of a sticky situation by shifting 5. The key is not 'shift' vs 'teleport,' the key is 1/encounter, and 'get out of a sticky situation.'

At the heart of the 'saminess' issue is the re-use of keywords and rules. 4e makes extensive use of keywords, letting the designers aply consistent, balanced mechanics to a large number and wide variety of powers. This makes the game /better/ in terms of what it can offer while remaining balanced and playable. But, the players have to do their bit in filling in the non-mechanical differences.

The alternative is to introduce a new mechanic to simulate each new power. That's pretty nearly what D&D has always done, and, D&D has always had balance issues that get worse the more new material is released for a given ed. 4e found a way around that. Some people hate the slightly more generic feel of the rules required to do that - others really just hate having to play a system that doesn't break quite as dramatically or easily.

 

[Abraxas]

I understand that the types of movement are different - all I'm saying is that if those the situations in which those differences have a real effect don't come up often the powers can feel the same. Can you really not see how someone could feel that they have a sameness even if they are different in mechanics?

Even if you can't, that doesn't mean others don't - and it doesn't mean the way they feel is wrong.

Just like how you feel the essentials fighter is going to play out isn't wrong (yet - you may change your mind when all the rules are out). But who knows - you may still feel the same after all the rules are known and I may still feel it is easier to teach to a new player than the PHB fighter. Feelings are funny that way.

 

[doctorhook]

Dudes and dudettes, this thread is so far off topic -- not to mention becoming increasingly hostile -- that I'm pretty sure a lock is imminent, unless we get back to discussing the Knight.

Would someone give me the short answer to the following question, please? What is the reasoning behind the argument that the Knight is more complicated than the PH1 Fighter? (I've seen people suggest that it is.) I'd appreciate a clear and concise answer, if possible. Thanks, team!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

What is the reasoning behind the argument that the Knight is more complicated than the PH1 Fighter?

I'll take a shot at this, although I disagree with some conclusions.

The knight must pre determine stances before he attacks, requiring him to anticipate battlefield conditions.
The knight is constantly deciding after the fact whether to apply extra damage and what not.

I happen to feel that the knight is at least equal in complexity in play, it is a good fit for new players because it is simpler to roll up a PC.

 

[KidSnide]

The knight must pre determine stances before he attacks, requiring him to anticipate battlefield conditions.
The knight is constantly deciding after the fact whether to apply extra damage and what not.

I happen to feel that the knight is at least equal in complexity in play, it is a good fit for new players because it is simpler to roll up a PC.

I agree that much of the essentials benefit is making it simpler to roll up a PC. However, I think the knight is easier to play because the knight's aura power does not require the knight's player to keep track of which enemies the knight attacked on the previous turn. From what I'm told, remember who you attacked when can be a significant source of cognative load when the system is new.

The stances have a (smaller) benefit over at-will powers because once the knight activates the right stance for the battle, the knight's can just say "I attack X" without having to re-make the same decision. Of course, the knight can change the stance every turn (provided he has the necessary minor actions), but now it's plausible for the knight to choose once and spam basic attacks for the rest of the battle. A PH1 fighter who does that loses a great deal of effectiveness.

As several folks have noted, the knight has access to a level of tactical complexity equal to the PH1 fighter. The difference is that the knight's mechanics are more forgiving to a less tactical player. That seems like a benefit to me.

-KS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Each leader class has feats that modify its healing power in unique ways. Sure, they do start similar to each other for PH1 classes, but that doesn't mean they have to stay that way. (And flavor-wise they're very different.)

Also, that slide 1 makes a "tiny" difference that can save your character's butt. It once did for my ardent/bard.

A slide 1 is very powerful... it can easily get someone out of a grab.

I know that it is different and that the slide is powerful.

But... that doesn't mean it has the same relevance to the perception of the player reading or using the rules. All he sees is "okay, healing powers are basically all surge + bonus d6 in healing + some gimmicky thing". The gimmicky thing is tactically important. But it doesn't look that different.

3E (core at least) doesn't offer any real alternatives to healers (some classes have healing spells, but they are not the same.)
If there are examples, the difference would probably be more like the difference between the Paladin's lay on Hands and Clerics Inspiring Word (4E) powers. It would be a lot harder to balance, but it would be clearly different in more than just "gimmicky yet tactically important way". Pre 4, different flavour generally implies a different resolution mechanic, too.

A 3E Warlord would probably have an "Inspiring Words" power that grants all allies temporary hit points. And maybe an "Essentialized" Warlord would do so, too.