What is a class in Essentials?

[zhouluyi]

First, I know what classes and bullds are, this is just a mental workout exercise inspired by a table discussion. Another way of seeing that is: What I put in the Class field on the character sheet?

• Knight
• Fighter
• Figher, knight
• Knight (fighter)
• and so on...

From the "Heroes of" books it seems that the "class" word is used to mean both a build and a class. In Making Characters chapter, the table of classes and roles would mean a class to be: "Figher, knight".

Personally after Essentials I started calling "Knight" a class (which is based on the Fighter). What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Viking Bastard]

Both the Fighter and the Knight are classes. The Knight being a subclass of the broader Fighter core class. Both can be referred to as classes. I usually write it in the format of Core Class (Subclass), but my players (all playing Essential classes) just write the subclass name.

 

[zhouluyi]

The discussion I had was sort of like that:
- I need to specify what is the core class so that I can know what other sources I can have for powers (like level 6 Fighter Utility Powers).
- But if you have Fighter as a class (as is Fighter, knight) than the Knight becomes just a build so I can trade a level 3 Improved Power Strike for a level 3 Fighter Encounter power.

I ruled that he could not trade a Knight feature, but it really can get confusing. So far I decided to name is as "Knight [Fighter]" to show that it is a fighter but ultimately it is a Knight and that takes precedence.

 

[chitzk0i]

Eh? It's pretty simple. The rule is in HoFK/FL, but the gist is that if you get an attack or utility with a level, the you can swap it for a standard fighter's power.

 

[zhouluyi]

[MENTION=34584]chitzk0i[/MENTION], I know the rule exists, but if you mix players from Core and Essentials it does get confusing... core have builds, that are suggestions of what to get at each level, Essentials have subclasses (but they never use that word) which looks sort like a build but you are obligated to follow.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right. A Knight or Slayer fully qualifies as a fighter, and can use any normal fighter powers. I don't know that WotC has really formalized the terminology for what these names ARE exactly. They've never really defined 'subclass' or 'build' exactly. Still, they're always careful to designate with new classes which other class they may be a member of/subclass of, if any. There really shouldn't be any question on class identity with a careful reading of the rules. Terminology, well, that's really whatever you want. Put something on your sheet that works for you!

 

[chitzk0i]

[MENTION=34584]chitzk0i[/MENTION], I know the rule exists, but if you mix players from Core and Essentials it does get confusing... core have builds, that are suggestions of what to get at each level, Essentials have subclasses (but they never use that word) which looks sort like a build but you are obligated to follow.

Is there something specific that's confusing you? It seems like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Whatever subclass you choose, you get exactly what that subclass specifies. If you get to choose an attack or utility power with a level, then you can swap it out from another power from your class of the same type and a lower level.

Now if your player really wants to get a weaponmaster fighter encounter power, there's a feat found here that will let him or her swap a use of power strike for an encounter power.

 

[On Puget Sound]

The most confusing terminology is the Hunter (essentials controller ranger) vs the Hunter (build of pre-essentials striker ranger). Would it have been so hard to name one of them Tracker, or Explorer, or Bowmaster, or something?

 

[zhouluyi]

Is there something specific that's confusing you? It seems like you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Like I said in the beginning: "First, I know what classes and bullds are, this is just a mental workout exercise inspired by a table discussion."

 

[Marshall]

When it comes to e-classes, "class" is meaningless. A Knight is a Knight with no relation to the broader parent class and no ability to make choices from that class unless otherwise specified. The lazy e-design paradigm just creates separate classes that share power pools and to a limited extent feat pools.