# Essentials Rogue is up!



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Right about on cue for something new to complain about in general is the Essentials Rogue build. The essentials rogue is indeed called the Thief, which is a pretty awesome callback to previous editions. Backstab I must say looks to be a pretty awesome mechanic as well. Like the Knight they abandon at-will attack powers, instead they use a melee basic attack, which backstab works on and then they have movement powers at will. I'm personally not so sure how good these movement powers are, plus it's a pretty big ask to give up the likes of piercing strike and what I saw doesn't look too exciting.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 30, 2010)

A simpler option for 4e players? Thief and Knight FTW!


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Wormwood said:


> A simpler option for 4e players? Thief and Knight FTW!




I'm not so sure on the knight but the thief? This is the definition of simple. Find enemy and stab it. Rinse and repeat. Backstab is a great power and I'm sure people can find a way of using that to their advantage. Reading it again, Ambush Trick is actually pretty good as it means the rogue can operate more without his allies or conditions upon those enemies. Feinting Trick is completely useless though I would say, as Ambush trick is strictly better and Tumbling Trick will let you get CA with allies if you need it. Exchanging charisma damage for your sneak attack just doesn't seem very worthwhile except in a really desperate situation.

For some reason Power Strike is in there, between the other movement tricks and just states they get it. Yet it isn't on their chart and it isn't statted out like a power. Some error or do they actually get power strike (Or have access to it)?


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (Jul 30, 2010)

Sure looks simple, that's for sure.  Like the Knight, you almost only make basic attacks.  Instead of the Knight's stances which modify the basic attacks, the Thief sets "tricks" which so far all seem to be move actions that do something extra (or less) than a normal move, and then often give some kind of benefit to basic attacks made.

The thief also gets power attack, presumably the same power the knight gets, along with a similarly implemented power called "Backstab."  So, backstab is back!  In a form, anyway.

I'm somewhat surprised they don't appear to have done anything to make thieves better at finding traps.  Although they also didn't do anything to make warpriests good at the Religion skill.  Thieves do have a level 2 class feature called "Skill Mastery" which may have something to do in this area.

On the theory that two examples makes a trend, they seem to be returning martial classes to more simple roots.  Well, giving Basic Attack builds, anyway.  You could actually argue that this thief is no simpler than a "normal rogue" it gets two kinds of move+attack powers (comparable to at-wills?) and at least 2 free action encounter powers that let it enhance attacks (comparable to encounter attack powers?)


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> For some reason Power Strike is in there, between the other movement tricks and just states they get it. Yet it isn't on their chart and it isn't statted out like a power. Some error or do they actually get power strike (Or have access to it)?




This may be the same "Power Strike" from the Knight preview.  Both have the same flavor text:

"Power strike is a quintessential exploit. This power is usable with a wide range of tactics and a variety of weapons. The exploit ensures that your weapon has a devastating effect on your foe."

The text implies that this may be common amongst many (all?) martial builds in Essentials.  "Exploit" is the term for Martial powers, after all.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

It's just randomly thrown in there is the problem and it doesn't show up in the class features chart. Power Strike is clearly on the Knights chart at level 1. So if its an option for the rogue at level 1 that seems very odd.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 30, 2010)

Given that I've been playing since 78 and my first ever character was a thief - I'm really, really happy to see the terms Thief and Backstab are back 
I'm actually hyped for D&D Essentials in a way I was not for 4E


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

The Power Attack bit is a copy & paste error, I'm 100% sure.

I have to admit that the at-will moves are something I didn't expect. It's interesting though. Not sure I'd like this class over the PHB rogue, I'd need to see a full writeup and playtest a bit.

It definitely does capture the "essence" of what makes a rogue.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 30, 2010)

I really hate this direction that they took.  The class seems TOO simplified.   Anyone wanting to learn DnD will catch on quick enought that having so little variety will make combats really boring.   Just my opinion of course.  Needless to say I will not be buying the Essentials for making player characters.


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It's just randomly thrown in there is the problem and it doesn't show up in the class features chart. Power Strike is clearly on the Knights chart at level 1. So if its an option for the rogue at level 1 that seems very odd.




Hmm... you are right.  Likely a typo -- either accidentally including Power Strike, ...or accidentally excluding it from the level progression chart!  The language implies it might be a universal or nearly universal martial power.  But you are right that this preview presents it in a way that looks to be in error.


----------



## LuckyAdrastus (Jul 30, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I really hate this direction that they took.  The class seems TOO simplified.   Anyone wanting to learn DnD will catch on quick enought that having so little variety will make combats really boring.   Just my opinion of course.  Needless to say I will not be buying the Essentials for making player characters.




Hey, your money and your game, of course, but I'd think it might be a better idea to wait longer to see what the complete options look like before declaring you flat out won't buy it.  What if you like the final version?  What if your fellow players do?


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

I just noticed that the thief may be superior to the rogue, due to the fact that the thief can make use of its sneak attack per turn and not per round.



			
				Rogue said:
			
		

> You can deal this extra damage only once per turn.




That means if you have a warlord, or hit with an opportunity attack or various other things you can deal sneak attack damage multiple times per round (as opposed to just once for a normal rogue). That makes the thief incredibly good for DPR if it gets its striker damage on more attacks. In fact you could get it twice on an AP: First attack is normal, then AP ready an action to attack again at the beginning of a creatures turn and hit to deal sneak attack damage twice in succession.


----------



## ferratus (Jul 30, 2010)

I'm not only surprised that they didn't do anything to make the Essentials thief better at finding traps, I'm surprised that they didn't do something so that the 4e PHB1 Rogue could actually find traps with their pathetic wisdom.

It is so humiliating asking the cleric to search for traps so I can disable them.

Unless I'm doing something wrong.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

I search for traps by throwing the barbarian at anything that looks suspicious.


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

There is a laundry list of class features that we only know the name of. Any of these could be about trapfinding. It's too early to say anything about that.

Sneak Attack 1/turn: 10 bucks says this will be in the first errata.

Edit: SHORTBOWS!!! Was it that hard?


----------



## mearls (Jul 30, 2010)

mkill said:


> The Power Attack bit is a copy & paste error, I'm 100% sure.




That is correct. The rogue's back stab fills that space. Looks like it's a simple copy and paste error. There have been some issues in keeping the format when transferring text from the PDFs to HTML, so I imagine that the power strike text was accidentally left in whatever template is used for the previews.

Someone mentioned that feinting trick doesn't look that great. Keep in mind that you can get that bonus damage and sneak attack if you have combat advantage from something other than a trick, like flanking.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:


> Someone mentioned that feinting trick doesn't look that great. Keep in mind that you can get that bonus damage and sneak attack if you have combat advantage from something other than a trick, like flanking.




You can? The power text is:



> You gain a power bonus to the next damage roll you make this turn with a basic attack for which you do not have combat advantage.




It doesn't say anything about source of combat advantage at all. What am I missing?


----------



## FireLance (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:


> Someone mentioned that feinting trick doesn't look that great. Keep in mind that you can get that bonus damage and sneak attack if you have combat advantage from something other than a trick, like flanking.



That's not the way I read it - the text seems to imply that a thief only gets the bonus damage if he attacks while he doesn't have combat advantage from any source. 

What is not quite clear at the moment is whether a thief could gain the benefit from a trick by spending a move action but moving 0 squares. It probably wouldn't be unbalanced if he could - the net effect is probably the same as a typical rogue's at-will attack, after all, but some DMs may rule that the thief _has_ to move at least 1 square.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:


> Someone mentioned that feinting trick doesn't look that great. Keep in mind that you can get that bonus damage and sneak attack if you have combat advantage from something other than a trick, like flanking.




Feinting Trick specifically states you don't get the bonus to damage if you have combat advantage.



> You gain a power bonus to the next damage roll you make this turn with a basic attack for which you do not have combat advantage. The power bonus equals your Charisma modifier.




Tumbling Trick gives you the bonus damage from strength to an attack and will stack with sneak attack damage granted through CA, making it much better than the Charisma based Feinting Trick - which rules out the extra damage when you have combat advantage (and hence your sneak attack). Unless there has been a change to feinting trick in what what finalized and what was previewed, Feinting Trick is a pretty poor choice.

Edit: Wow that's a dogpile if ever I saw one. We should bear in mind though that what Mike may be working with in the final version might be different from what was previewed (already seen an example of that earlier in fact). Also, is the fact the sneak attack is per turn and not per round intentional or a mistake?


----------



## mearls (Jul 30, 2010)

Scholar & Brutalman said:


> You can? The power text is:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about source of combat advantage at all. What am I missing?




Blarg. You're not missing anything. Normally a trick's effects and combat advantage would work together.

That's what I get for posting almost immediately after jogging a mile.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Thanks for answering anyway, but could you clarify for us if the Thief is intended to use sneak attack every turn or should it be every round like other +bonus damage abilities?

I picked out Feinting Trick precisely because it didn't allow its damage effect to work with combat advantage, which just seemed very strange.


----------



## nightspaladin (Jul 30, 2010)

While Mr. Mearls is available, perhaps he can answer why SA is once per turn instead of once per round. Is this an upcoming errata or something special for the Thief?

(I know that most likely he can't answer, but It doesn't hurt to try)

Thanks btw for a great set of tweaks for the upcoming essential classes. They have kept the boards jumping with speculation for weeks.

EDIT: BAH Ninja'd above.


----------



## mearls (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Thanks for answering anyway, but could you clarify for us if the Thief is intended to use sneak attack every turn or should it be every round like other +bonus damage abilities?
> 
> I picked out Feinting Trick precisely because it didn't allow its damage effect to work with combat advantage, which just seemed very strange.




I believe sneak attack is intended to be used every turn rather than round.

The idea behind Feinting Trick is to give you what amounts to a different striker mechanic for when you can't get combat advantage. For instance, a short bow using thief can get a lot of mileage out of that trick at long range.


----------



## mearls (Jul 30, 2010)

nightspaladin said:


> While Mr. Mearls is available, perhaps he can answer why SA is once per turn instead of once per round. Is this an upcoming errata or something special for the Thief?




I believe it is an change for the sneak attack mechanic used by all rogues, rather than just a change for the thief.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:


> I believe it is an change for the sneak attack mechanic used by all rogues, rather than just a change for the thief.




!!!!!!!

BOMBSHELL.

Will that also apply to curse, hunters quarry and such? Oh god rangers and their billions of out of turn attacks and HQ applying every *starts having a fit on the ground*

Edit: I think this is a pretty solid change btw. But man, Warlord parties are going to just get better and better...


----------



## mearls (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> !!!!!!!
> 
> BOMBSHELL.
> 
> ...




It does not apply to curse and especially hunters quarry, for precisely the reasons you cite.

And yes, warlords are happy. From the design side, I really like that the martial leader interacts really well with the essentials martial classes. It's fitting, IMO.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:
			
		

> From the design side, I really like that the martial leader interacts really well with the essentials martial classes. It's fitting, IMO.




A.). You've now all but confirmed that the slayer and the ranger builds are Basic Attack users, not that it is a particularly well concealed idea.

B).  It helps quell my fear of the Warlord being marginalized.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 30, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> It helps quell my fear of the Warlord being marginalized.



It's a WotC ploy, I tell you.  

"In order to get the most out of the Knight and the Thief, you will need a Warlord, which is detailed in the soon-to-be hard-to-find PH1. Buy now while stocks last!"


----------



## Xris Robin (Jul 30, 2010)

mkill said:


> Edit: SHORTBOWS!!! Was it that hard?




I was going to point that out.  Sneak Attack now works with short bows, but in return drops all crossbows except hand ones.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:


> The idea behind Feinting Trick is to give you what amounts to a different striker mechanic for when you can't get combat advantage. For instance, a short bow using thief can get a lot of mileage out of that trick at long range.



As a side note, _backstab_ (though not sneak attack) works with all weapons. So yes, we are going back to the days when a thief can backstab with a two-handed sword greatsword.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:


> It does not apply to curse and especially hunters quarry, for precisely the reasons you cite.




Phew. That almost had be reaching for the old pitchforks there. I can see why Sneak attack deserves the exemption, because it requires combat advantage before it actually can work (while HQ and Curse do not). I am pretty pleased with that change.

I do hope whoever made the "Death of Martial Healing" thread comes and reads this one. It's utterly hilarious that these martial classes are making the Warlord incredibly good. A Warlord and Thief is a dream sneak attacking combination. You could, with a Warlord and Thief get sneak attack four times in one round.

EG:

Thief action points (Warlord Bonuses!) hits monster and gets SA. Might as well throw in Backstab onto this first attack as well.
Thief readies his normal standard action at start of next creatures turn to attack again. Gets SA second time.
Warlord action points and uses commanders strike, the rogue attacks the monster and gets SA a third time.
Warlord readies a standard action to use commanders strike on the next creatures turn. The rogue again gets it and gets SA a fourth time.

That right there is a major amount of damage between those two. At first level that could be an additional +8d6 or +8d8 damage (with relevant feat) plus backstab (which even gets you another +3 to hit! How could it be better?). It also makes sense why Warlords weren't given an essentials treatment, as they are a martial class that requires powers to function well (due to being so focused on manipulating other characters). Dragging the Warlord into a MBA only using class just doesn't make sense - especially when it can use the other essential martial classes extremely effectively.

In many ways, Essentials actually makes more sense in this light than it did before it.

While I still dislike the Knight, the Thief I can see the genuine potential of.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

In before:

"OMG, a thief uses a basic attack but strength is only a secondary or even tertiary ability score."



Spoiler



I believe weapon finesse will take care of it, but of course, some people here won´t believe that if the threads about the essential knight/fighter are an indicator



more serious:

@mearls: thanks for coming in and clarifying. Thief sounds like a class that is fun, simple and effektive.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Actually I think them getting dex as a primary from weapon finesse is just plain logical. That's what the feat or whatever has been called in the past, so we don't need any special guesswork here.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 30, 2010)

Christopher Robin said:


> I was going to point that out.  Sneak Attack now works with short bows, but in return drops all crossbows except hand ones.




Thieves also lose access to shurikens.
EDIT: Though they can still deal Sneak Attack damage with them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

firelance said:


> as a side note, _backstab_ (though not sneak attack) works with all weapons. So yes, we are going back to the days when a thief can backstab with a two-handed sword greatsword ballista.




fify


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

Looks like things that affect MBAs may get updated if Mike over at RPG.net has his evil ways:



> We're working through the MBA issue now and will likely issue updates to deal with the worst issues. It was on our radar from early on in the design, but you can bet we're looking at the charop boards to make sure we didn't miss anything. We didn't want to update anything too soon, since it doesn't become an issue until essentials is out.




I thought I would quote this over here because I know it's been bought up in the discussions of the Knight in the other thread.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Actually I think them getting dex as a primary from weapon finesse is just plain logical. That's what the feat or whatever has been called in the past, so we don't need any special guesswork here.



Sure? 

Again, more serious:

what i really like is, that even if you have weapon finesse, i guess it "allows" you, not "forces" you to use dex as base attack ability score, which opens up the possibility to rely solely on strength (good acrobatics, maybe use charisma as secondary) which will make him very flexible if you want to multiclass.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

I am 100% sure, because otherwise it has to be one of the dumbest classes in all of 4E if it can't use any of its powers. Some things are just unintuitively designed, like the Knight and stances being cut off when dazed - but I don't believe that the Rogue will suffer from a complete inability to do anything at all with a MBA without a feat tax. Like the Knight though, the thief is capable of taking Melee training and making himself any stat he feels like primary (Even Charisma if he feels like it).

A strength primary tumbler based thief could be very good.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 30, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I really hate this direction that they took.  The class seems TOO simplified.   Anyone wanting to learn DnD will catch on quick enought that having so little variety will make combats really boring.   Just my opinion of course.  Needless to say I will not be buying the Essentials for making player characters.




Except that all that variety is still right there, in your Player's Handbook, which is probably in your backpack if it isn't already out on the table.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Looks like things that affect MBAs may get updated if Mike over at RPG.net has his evil ways:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I would quote this over here because I know it's been bought up in the discussions of the Knight in the other thread.





Now if only they'd simply give swordmages and battleminds a decent melee basic attack right out of the gate! I can understand moving to reign in abuses in the essentials characters, but why can't they fill in silly weaknesses in preexisting classes? My groups have all started giving melee training as a free feat at level one to deal with this.


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

Guys, the Thief gets a class ability called Weapon Finesse. If you're wondering, look it up here:

Feats :: d20srd.org

It should have been a class feature / bonus feat for rogues since 3.0 anyway.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I am 100% sure, because otherwise it has to be one of the dumbest classes in all of 4E if it can't use any of its powers. Some things are just unintuitively designed, like the Knight and stances being cut off when dazed - but I don't believe that the Rogue will suffer from a complete inability to do anything at all with a MBA without a feat tax. Like the Knight though, the thief is capable of taking Melee training and making himself any stat he feels like primary (Even Charisma if he feels like it).
> 
> A strength primary tumbler based thief could be very good.



Knight stances are at least still active when dazed, rogue tricks are completely cut off. But I regard this as a feature, not a bug. So it is twice as important to protect the rogue if you are the knight.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

mkill said:


> Guys, the Thief gets a class ability called Weapon Finesse. If you're wondering, look it up here:
> 
> Feats :: d20srd.org
> 
> It should have been a class feature / bonus feat for rogues since 3.0 anyway.



Not necessarily: I would rather have the option to use strength for rogue powers than dexterity for MBA.

Luckily with 90% probability, we now have the best of bot worlds.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 30, 2010)

LuckyAdrastus said:


> Hey, your money and your game, of course, but I'd think it might be a better idea to wait longer to see what the complete options look like before declaring you flat out won't buy it. What if you like the final version? What if your fellow players do?




That's unlikely to happen.  I have one friend who stopped running his game because I wanted to still use my character builder when the October release comes out.  He hates the fact that 4e is changing mechanics that the game is based on.  

While I disagree with him about WotC trying to improve the wizard class, I do agree with him that these new essential classes are just a ploy to get Pathfinder type players back into DnD and I think it will fail.

We have a very casual player in our group now. She's the wife of one of the other players.  She plays because it's something her friends enjoy.  She still figured out the game enough to pick an at-will power and use her dailies when the drek hits the fan.  They do not need to make a build that is just based around basic attacks.  You can do that already with any build.


----------



## Xeterog (Jul 30, 2010)

stopped running in July, when essentials don't come out till october, and WOTC has stated over and over and over and over again that Essentials will work with the current rules, not replace them.  Sounds like over reaction to me.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 30, 2010)

For those who don't like the term "Backstab" for that power (because Backstab and Sneak Attack have always been the same thing), read it as "Exploit Weakness" or "Gap in the Armor". The power, if worded as a common Encounter power, would look like this:

Backstab ----------- Thief Attack 1
Standard • Melee weapon
Target: One creature granting combat advantage to you
Attack: Dex vs. Reflex
Hit: 2 [W] + Dexterity modifier damage


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 30, 2010)

mearls said:
			
		

> We're working through the MBA issue now and will likely issue updates to deal with the worst issues. It was on our radar from early on in the design, but you can bet we're looking at the charop boards to make sure we didn't miss anything. We didn't want to update anything too soon, since it doesn't become an issue until essentials is out.




Of course, the primary offenders are items and powers with affects that boost MBA's permanently or at-will. These were designed with the idea that MBA are rarely used or weak options for the character. That isn't the case for Essentials PCs.

Game elements of concern in the Compendium include:
* Bracers of Mighty Striking- permanent +2 damage to MBA's
* Dantrag's Bracer's- MBA's target 2 enemies (!) permanently
* Golden Crown of Battle Command- permanent +2 to hit and damage on MBA's granted by a Warlord
* Avalanche Hammer- permanent MBA used on a charge does extra [W] damage
* Master's Blade- while in stance (permanent for a Knight) +1 to hit with MBA
* Weapon of Myrdoon's Shard- At-will Reach+1 on MBA's

* Dread Reaper PP
@ level 16 MBA's with 2-Handed Weapon get Cleave-like bonus (STR damage to an adjacent enemy)

* Polearm Master PP
@ level 16 permanent extension of reach to +2 while using a polearm to punish those who violate your mark

Feats:
* Righteous Fury- At-will -2 to attack adds "Rattling" to MBA
* Hammer Shock- At will add "Rattling" to MBA when using a hammer
* Impaling Spear- At-will MBA's target Reflex when using spear
* Lashing Flail- At-will MBA's slide 1 when using flail
* Piercing Pick- At-will MBA's target Fortitude when using Pick
* Wicked Blade- At-will MBA's gain "High Crit" when using Heavy Blade

Some of these may be OK for Essentials characters, but others, especially the bracers and the MP2 paragon weapon feats are probably now too good. Making them useable 1/ encounter would balance them for Essentials PCs and wouldn't affect other PCs that much since they don't make MBAs that often.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2010)

Overall it seems pretty solid.

I agree with many that feinting attack just doesn't look that good compared with tumbling attack...but this is what is great about several abilities a player can choose from...it allows situational powers to shine.


If I were picking encounter powers from a list, and my choices were tumbling attack or feinting attack, there would be absolutely no question which one I choose (ps, its tumbling attack for you terrible people who would dare question!). However, because I get both...as long as feinting attack comes up once in a while its still useful to me.

This class seems pretty solid. Since rogues have often been more "skill based" classes anyway, I think it has some of the best fit with a simplified set of mechanics and fewer expendable powers.

The only real problem I do see overall with the essential classes is the idea that I can base all of my attacks and damage on any stat I want with a single feat. 4e has moved somewhat away from the traditional realms of each stat, allowing classes to make sword swings based on int or cha, etc but I wouldn't want them to go all the way and make stats completely interchangeable.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 30, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> Of course, the primary offenders are items and powers with affects that boost MBA's permanently or at-will. These were designed with the idea that MBA are rarely used or weak options for the character. That isn't the case for Essentials PCs.




I was very worried about this until I realized you could already make builds that abuse these things. Charging barbarians, for example, or folks with Eldritch Strike (or similar 'boosted melee basics') who invest in primarily immediate, minor and free action Encounter and Daily powers. 

All very powerful builds, but none gamebreaking. So even if WotC does nothing about these existing options (and it sounds like they will), I don't think the game will come crashing down because of it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> Some of these may be OK for Essentials characters, but others, especially the bracers and the MP2 paragon weapon feats are probably now too good. Making them useable 1/ encounter would balance them for Essentials PCs and wouldn't affect other PCs that much since they don't make MBAs that often.




Its an interesting question. Ultimately I think it will depend on how essential classes scale.

One thing I have not enjoyed about 4e is that damage is bundled mainly into your higher level dailies and encounter powers. This both makes hitting early in combat very important, and means that damage tends to steadily decrease with combat length....which tends to prolong combats.

The essential classes may be designed to do more regular, continuous damage without as many of the big powers. In that respect, the above magic items may be expected power boosts to the classes for higher tier.

Than again, if certain magic items become must have items....that somewhat defeats teh purpose of having a lot of magic items in teh first place.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 30, 2010)

I think this all looks pretty cool. I like the flavor and the mechanics. 

I am incredibly amused over one thing, though. When the Essentials Knights preview hit, one poster objected because he felt reliance on stances made Knights too vulnerable to losing At-Wills while Dazed. Now, he was proven wrong in pretty much every possible way...

...at which point we see the Rogue, who absolutely _does_ lose all their At-Will tricks while Dazed. 

Which I don't think is the end of the world, but did find it entertaining...


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 30, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I am incredibly amused over one thing, though. When the Essentials Knights preview hit, one poster objected because he felt reliance on stances made Knights too vulnerable to losing At-Wills while Dazed. Now, he was proven wrong in pretty much every possible way...




I was? I don't recall that actually . I recall making that point and then certain people pretending that the Knight would always have the right stance anyway or derailing into a tangent about charging. Neither of these were a convincing argument, well except maybe the argument that someone will always have the right stance. I think it's going to be easy for one general stance to be in 99% of the time and never change it anyway given the way the class is designed.



> at which point we see the Rogue, who absolutely _does_ lose all their At-Will tricks while Dazed.



Yes, this seems to be a common flaw of all the martial characters in essentials from what I can tell. If they are all "take X to modify Y basic attack", then effectively they lose access to all their at-will powers when dazed. It's worth noting that depending on the DMs interpretation of tricks, if the rogue is immobilized or restrained he may similarly lose his ability to use them as well (personally I don't think you need to move to trigger the effect of these powers - but some DMs may do so).

The reason I don't mind the rogue so much though is because it actually accomplishes what I feel the knight utterly fails to do. It IS a genuinely simple class to play. You find something and stab it until it dies. There is nothing complicated about the thief in any manner - except maybe that your additional stabbing needs combat advantage. I do approve of that and again, it's another MBA using class so you can use melee training to make a con burly thug type, int to make a very intelligent crafty type or whatever else. If there is something I do like about the essentials martial classes, it's that concept.


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

* Bracers of Mighty Striking- permanent +2 damage to MBA's
They're cheaper than Bracer's of Iron Might, no big deal

* Dantrag's Bracer's- MBA's target 2 enemies (!) permanently
Ouch. At level 18, they're still pretty much required for every Essentials martial character. Incoming nerf alert.

* Golden Crown of Battle Command- permanent +2 to hit and damage on MBA's granted by a Warlord
Very good, but rewards teamplay so keep

* Avalanche Hammer- permanent MBA used on a charge does extra [W] damage
There's a whole bunch of charge stuff, but most PCs use an MBA on charge. Nothing new.

* Master's Blade- while in stance (permanent for a Knight) +1 to hit with MBA
The good part about this weapon is the daily. It's still a keeper.

* Weapon of Myrdoon's Shard- At-will Reach+1 on MBA's
Uh-oh... Change to 1/enc but at-will or MBA

* Dread Reaper PP
@ level 16 MBA's with 2-Handed Weapon get Cleave-like bonus (STR damage to an adjacent enemy)
No prob, it's just bonus damage and you can cleave at lvl 1 already anyway

* Polearm Master PP
@ level 16 permanent extension of reach to +2 while using a polearm to punish those who violate your mark
Knight has probably no mark anyway

Feats:
* Righteous Fury- At-will -2 to attack adds "Rattling" to MBA
* Hammer Shock- At will add "Rattling" to MBA when using a hammer
* Impaling Spear- At-will MBA's target Reflex when using spear
* Lashing Flail- At-will MBA's slide 1 when using flail
* Piercing Pick- At-will MBA's target Fortitude when using Pick
* Wicked Blade- At-will MBA's gain "High Crit" when using Heavy Blade

Keep the feats or this miniature Giant Space Hamster gets it!

Seriously, they're a good way to make weapon choice meaningful for the Knight and others. (For future expansions, give them the Style keyword so that you can only apply one  such feat, in case there are more of them later)


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Yes, this seems to be a common flaw of all the martial characters in essentials from what I can tell. If they are all "take X to modify Y basic attack", then effectively they lose access to all their at-will powers when dazed. It's worth noting that depending on the DMs interpretation of tricks, if the rogue is immobilized or restrained he may similarly lose his ability to use them as well (personally I don't think you need to move to trigger the effect of these powers - but some DMs may do so).




It isn't an issue of modifying basic attacks - that's missing the point entirely. The fact they are built around basic attacks makes them better than most, in fact, while dazed. They all have access to their encounter powers, for example, and potentially whatever features they are getting in place of dailies. In the knight's case, he has access to the last round's at-will power, and probably comes out ahead of the majority of other melee classes while dazed, and certainly far ahead of anyone needing to use minors (either to heal, or get striker damage on a new target) or move actions (who can't make good use of a charge.) 

In the thief's case, the issue is that to get his At-Will benefits, it requires an entire seperate action from the attack itself. Thus, daze shuts it down completely. Given it also cuts off flanking, and makes it real tough to move and hide, the dazed thief is not in the best place. Not a hopeless situation, certainly, and there are plenty of other conditions that can cause that sort of problem, but the daze is definitely felt by the thief more than most.


----------



## Falstaff (Jul 30, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Given that I've been playing since 78 and my first ever character was a thief - I'm really, really happy to see the terms Thief and Backstab are back
> I'm actually hyped for D&D Essentials in a way I was not for 4E




Yes, yes, yes! Just calling the class Thief has sold me on Essentials. I can't wait to roll up a halfling thief!


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jul 30, 2010)

Between Ambush Trick making Sneak Attack damage much easier to get, and allowing Sneak Attack damage one per turn instead of once per round -- wow.

I don't know why exactly, but I like these new builds.  Probably because I love At-Will powers of all sorts.  But overall, the builds I've looked at so far (Fighter and Rogue) are much closer to what I originally envisioned 4e might look like than  what PHB1 actually contained.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jul 30, 2010)

BTW, a helpful note for anyone who is still catching up:

For a list of previous Essentials preview articles, click the "Ampersand Archive" link at the top of the page, or click here.


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

About the daze:

Don't you guys actally play a defender at a game table? The issue about daze is that you lose a) your minor action to mark, b) your immediate action to punish or c) both.

Whether the Knight will be hampered by a daze will depend a lot on whether he uses an immediate action punishment or not.

Changing stances is irrelevant. Either there are lots of minions, in which case you cleave, or not, in which case youtake whatever other stance you have.


----------



## ourchair (Jul 30, 2010)

*Do You Plan To Use Essentials In Your Game (No '4.5 Edition Sucks' Plz, Kthx)*

Oops


----------



## circadianwolf (Jul 30, 2010)

Falstaff said:


> Yes, yes, yes! Just calling the class Thief has sold me on Essentials. I can't wait to roll up a halfling thief!




Haha, thank you, that was exactly my thought on reading some of these posts. "I wasn't sure about 4E before. The design's pretty different from previous editions. It's much more complicated. So I think--wait, they renamed the rogue to the thief? And they added back a feature called 'backstab'? Well, screw those qualms about design! That's all I need to be be convinced!"

Other than that hilarity, the essentials previews are starting to win me over. I still laugh at the people who say this isn't obsoleting the old classes--you do understand it is in their corporate interest to both obsolete them and tell you that they're not obsoleting them, right?--but that's a question of business ethics (e.g., a joke) and not game design.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 30, 2010)

I really don't get this whole 1/turn SA. I can't see how this will ever be balanced with existing striker bonuses. Rogues in general already have PLENTY of damage output. I'm a little disappointed by the further devaluation of Stealth as a combat tactic too. The whole point of the 2d6 SA was it was supposed to be a bit harder to get. OK, now Ambush Trick makes it close to guaranteed AND you can do it multiple times per round? That might be OK for the Thief depending on how his other sources of damage scale, but the 1/round doesn't seem to make ANY sense to me WRT the existing rogue builds.


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 30, 2010)

mkill said:


> * Dantrag's Bracer's- MBA's target 2 enemies (!) permanently
> Ouch. At level 18, they're still pretty much required for every Essentials martial character. Incoming nerf alert.



I hope so.



mkill said:


> * Avalanche Hammer- permanent MBA used on a charge does extra [W] damage
> There's a whole bunch of charge stuff, but most PCs use an MBA on charge. Nothing new.



Yes, but most PCs using an MBA on a charge don't also get to apply all the stance/trick bonuses used by the new Essential PCs. This is an extra [W] on top of all that.



mkill said:


> * Master's Blade- while in stance (permanent for a Knight) +1 to hit with MBA
> The good part about this weapon is the daily. It's still a keeper.



I disagree- with the permanent +1 and the excellent daily power, this weapon is too good for the knight.



mkill said:


> * Weapon of Myrdoon's Shard- At-will Reach+1 on MBA's
> Uh-oh... Change to 1/enc but at-will or MBA



Agreed.



mkill said:


> * Dread Reaper PP
> @ level 16 MBA's with 2-Handed Weapon get Cleave-like bonus (STR damage to an adjacent enemy)
> No prob, it's just bonus damage and you can cleave at lvl 1 already anyway



You are probably right, but 2-Handed Essentials PCs (like the Slayer) will get to cleave in addition to whatever other stance(s) they are in.



mkill said:


> Keep the feats or this miniature Giant Space Hamster gets it!
> 
> Seriously, they're a good way to make weapon choice meaningful for the Knight and others. (For future expansions, give them the Style keyword so that you can only apply one  such feat, in case there are more of them later)




Yeah, I like the MP2 weapon feats too. But as a permanent bonus to ALL of a characters attacks they are too good.
Impaling Spear is as powerful at level 11 as Expertise at level 25- and they stack.
The other ones are almost as good- adding Rattling or Slide 1 to ALL attacks is awesome.


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 30, 2010)

That said, we still can't really envision how the martial Essentials classes are supposed to keep up with the PH classes without Daily's.
The stances/tricks replace At-wills, and they have encounter powers like Power Strike/Backstab, but how do they replace Daily's?

We haven't seen Cunning Escape or Weapon Mastery at level 5 or some features at level 1, but it would seem that these classes are supposed to hit harder each round than before, without the ability to nova.


----------



## mkill (Jul 30, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> Yeah, I like the MP2 weapon feats too. But as a permanent bonus to ALL of a characters attacks they are too good.
> Impaling Spear is as powerful at level 11 as Expertise at level 25- and they stack.
> The other ones are almost as good- adding Rattling or Slide 1 to ALL attacks is awesome.



An attack against Ref is more like +1.5 to hit.
The interesting thing about high accuracy is that there is a natural ceiling. Once you hit on a 2 on d20, you can't get higher. And even before you hit that ceiling it's a lower relative benefit if you already have a high chance to hit.

To make accuracy broken, you need either multiattacks against one target (twin strike etc) or a good control effect like daze or stun. I don't think the Knight will get these.

The slide means that the Knight catches up with tide of iron and other at-wills, 10 levels later. Good, but that's not how you break the game.

I stand by my words that the feats are good, but not game-breaking.

Oh, and welcome to Charop.


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 30, 2010)

mkill said:


> An attack against Ref is more like +1.5 to hit.




According to Kerbarian's Monster Manual stats (link to thread):


			
				kerbarian said:
			
		

> * Attacking Reflex or Will instead of AC is effectively about a +3 to hit, with Will being somewhat better. Attacking Fortitude only gets you +1-2, declining at higher levels, and Brutes actually have higher Fortitude than AC.






mkill said:


> The interesting thing about high accuracy is that there is a natural ceiling. Once you hit on a 2 on d20, you can't get higher.



Sure, but default 4e math keeps to hit numbers more toward the middle so two +3 bonuses from feats are still significant.
Are you saying it's common for fighters to hit AC on a 2 at level 11?
Otherwise the ability to target Reflex is a significant bonus.



mkill said:


> The slide means that the Knight catches up with tide of iron and other at-wills, 10 levels later. Good, but that's not how you break the game.



The slide 1 or target Reflex will happen on every attack, in addition to any stance bonuses, and in addition to any encounter powers applied.
That's much better than using Tide of Iron instead of another power.



mkill said:


> Oh, and welcome to Charop.



Huh?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

Did anyone think about the possibility, that some of those feats may even be reprinted in the essential line and are expected in the whole build?

attacking reflex with a light weapon doesn´t sound broken at all, just a nice weapon style choice...

edit: ok, you actually did^^


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I really don't get this whole 1/turn SA. I can't see how this will ever be balanced with existing striker bonuses. Rogues in general already have PLENTY of damage output. I'm a little disappointed by the further devaluation of Stealth as a combat tactic too. The whole point of the 2d6 SA was it was supposed to be a bit harder to get. OK, now Ambush Trick makes it close to guaranteed AND you can do it multiple times per round? That might be OK for the Thief depending on how his other sources of damage scale, but the 1/round doesn't seem to make ANY sense to me WRT the existing rogue builds.



Actually it was stated, that the extra d6 at first and 21st level are there to compensate the lower weapon dice, as combat advantage on every round was expected in the design.


----------



## Falstaff (Jul 30, 2010)

circadianwolf said:


> Haha, thank you, that was exactly my thought on reading some of these posts. "I wasn't sure about 4E before. The design's pretty different from previous editions. It's much more complicated. So I think--wait, they renamed the rogue to the thief? And they added back a feature called 'backstab'? Well, screw those qualms about design! That's all I need to be be convinced!"
> 
> Other than that hilarity, the essentials previews are starting to win me over. I still laugh at the people who say this isn't obsoleting the old classes--you do understand it is in their corporate interest to both obsolete them and tell you that they're not obsoleting them, right?--but that's a question of business ethics (e.g., a joke) and not game design.




Yeah, I don't care at all about previous 4E stuff. I'm planning to start an all-essentials campaign in Sept. If it isn't in an Essentials product, it isn't in the campaign. Gonna be very old-school dungeon crawling and exploring with only the class/races options from Heroes of the Fallen Lands.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 30, 2010)

I haven't seen anyone mention that a Rogue gets 4 at-will tricks by level 7.  This by itself is a change from the 2 at-wills design.  However, not that much different from the Wizard if Magic Missile is truly a class feature now.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 30, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actually it was stated, that the extra d6 at first and 21st level are there to compensate the lower weapon dice, as combat advantage on every round was expected in the design.




What is stated and what is actually true by the numbers are two different things, and only the numbers actually matter. Rogues are already perfectly capable of dishing out DPR numbers competitive with any of the other strikers.

All I can say is the stock of Riposte Strike just went up a HUGE amount. The BS rogue with RS and (obviously) backstabber wielding the bastard sword in both hands, just gained a really nice increment of extra damage.

It isn't game breaking but with a build focused on Immediates and Free Action attacks and the right build, not to mention a warlord to help you out, it will be an interesting option. Maybe even more interesting in the case of a melee focused CS rogue as that guy should have few problems at all with the necessary off-turn CA. We'll see how it works out in practice, but I think it may be a bit of a miscalculation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

maybe it won´t change for the normal rogue...

actually i don´t think the thief is that impressing at first level... no daily and daze practically denying skill tricks seems not that strong... so maybe he needs SA 1/turn to do its job...

also his tricks only work for atacks on the same round... maybe it has merits for a rogue to action point move move attack... hmmh...


----------



## YRUSirius (Jul 30, 2010)

circadianwolf said:


> [...] you do understand it is in their corporate interest to both obsolete them and tell you that they're not obsoleting them, right? [...]




I like you. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 30, 2010)

YES!!!!

As a life-long Thief/Rogue lover, I'm in heaven about this build!

* I can SA/use my "powers" with a shortbow. Elven Thieves are no longer useless!
* Weapon Finesse (I wager) give me the ability to MBA with dex without Feat-Taxing to take Melee Training (tbh, I had the same complaint about 3.5/weapon finesse).

On the other side: Thief! Mage! Welcome back to 2nd edition class names!

Remathilis "D&De: 2e reloaded" Ooi.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 30, 2010)

Very good point from RPG.net


> Originally Posted by LogicNinja
> If 4E up until now has had a focus of functional mechanics, Essentials adds a focus on *presentation*.





			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> This is a great observation. A fair amount of the thinking behind essentials, and its ease of use, came from watching people (both veteran RPGers and newbies) struggle with the concept of powers.
> 
> People seemed to have a fairly easy time grokking a power for the casting classes - wizards, clerics. They have in their mind a concept of what a spell is, and that maps fairly easily to the concept of a power.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 30, 2010)

I quite like this in some ways.  You get your "power" from moving around, rather than the attack itself.  Mechanical encouragement and justification for being a nimble, tricksy guy in combat.  Good flavor, tasty idea.  But it's not actually simpler in the strict sense of that word.  That seems to be the majority opinion, but moving complexity around *does not equal* removing complexity.  

In short, I'm really not sure how having move powers (and more of them) instead of attack powers makes the thief "simpler" than the rogue.  In fact, in some ways, this is a bit more opaque.  For one thing, you are again making additional decisions, this time both after _and_ before the attack roll, about whether to apply additional mojo to the hit.  But more importantly, I'm not sure how intuitive to the naive player it is to relocate more of the capacity for CA generation and bonus damage onto move actions.  I think it's a great idea that encourages a mobile character.  That really fits my idea of how rogues should fight, but I'm not sure how that will be clearer to a novice than the way it currently works with powers.

EDIT:
I hate that I feel the need to make this clarification, but with all the vitriol about this, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight or razz Essentials.  I'm honestly confused about how this is simpler, in the net.  Sure, attacks are simpler, ignoring the additional decision points on Backstab and Power Strike (so I guess it's simple the way physics is simple in a frictionless, gravity-less vacuum), but all the complexity seems to have been simply off-loaded to other parts of your turn.  Which, again, I like.  Your movement is more holistically part of your combat action.  This is *very* cool to me.  But I don't see it as simple.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Jul 30, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OK, now Ambush Trick makes it close to guaranteed AND you can do it multiple times per round?




I don't really know how unbalancing the change to Sneak Attack is, but Ambush Trick doesn't really play into the equation. 
Ambush Trick gives you CA until the end of your turn - if you need to use the trick to get the Sneak Attack damage during your turn, you likely won't have it later on in the round.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 30, 2010)

Maybe not simpler, but it is simple to understand that you have to move around to be effective... something which may be true for all rogues, but which is not that obvious for new players... maybe this...


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2010)

Canis said:


> In short, I'm really not sure how having move powers (and more of them) instead of attack powers makes the thief "simpler" than the rogue.  In fact, in some ways, this is a bit more opaque.




The key is not the number of choices, its how often a player is mandated to make a choice.

For example, I'm a 1st level rogue. I have the choice between 1 encounter, 1 daily and 2 at wills. Now the key part is that I have to learn each one of these to be pretty effective.

If I use my encounter or daily, by definition I don't get to use it again next round. I have to make another choice to use something else. I also have to keep track of the fact I have used that power...which is easier for some and harder for others.

If I just learn my at wills, then I'm missing out on a lot of effectiveness.


With the thief, I could learn ambush strike and just starts ambush striking every round. Its a power that's good enough to be spammable, and as an at will is spammable. I could learn this power and just ambush away round after round if I wanted to.

And after a while if I got bored with that, I could start figuring out my other powers and try mixing them in but I do so at my pace.


This is the reason the ranger is the easiest class to play before essentials. Twin Strike is such a good at will a ranger that does nothing but twin strike will be just fine. Its the same idea.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 30, 2010)

As a technical point, unless it gets specifically written you don't have to move at all to get the advantage, upto your speed means 0 move as well.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 30, 2010)

The thief (to use an old phrase) killed the 3.5 scout and took its stuff!

The tricks presented so far encourage the thief to:
- Move to attack a lone foe.
- Move to attack foes, doing extra damage even without SA.
- Move into foes' midst and damage two targets.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 30, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> As a technical point, unless it gets specifically written you don't have to move at all to get the advantage, upto your speed means 0 move as well.



Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players."

"Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?"



Stalker0 said:


> The key is not the number of choices, its how often a player is mandated to make a choice.



You may not be _mandated_ to make choices very often, but right at first level you have the _option_ of making choices _more often_ with the thief than the rogue.

To start with, in addition to making your attack (which is superficially simpler than choosing an attack power), you have a selection of attack-affecting movement powers that you can choose in place of your basic movement.

We could call that a wash on total complexity, but instead of your decision being directly about your attack, it is about your movement.  Cool, but it's a full layer of abstraction removed from the attack itself.  This is inherently more complex than having those options built into the attack powers.

But besides that, there are up to two more choices that are new: "Should I apply Backstab to this attack I'm about to make?" and for some builds "Should I apply Power Strike to that attack I just made?"  These are not "mandated" in the strict sense of the word, but are technically part of the decision tree every time.  You can't simply ignore them without being a limp rag.  Or, at least I hope not, for balance reasons.  For all intents and purposes with the original rogue, these decisions are baked into your choice of attack power for the turn.  So for the thief one decision has been broken down into 2 or 3.  By your own logic, this is more complicated.

A first level rogue might have 4 or 5 attack powers to choose from.  One decision with 5 options and a movement decision.  The first level thief has a choice of 2 movement powers besides the normal suite of move actions, one binary (yes/no) choice and possibly another binary choice if they gave up one possible movement power.  3 separate decisions.  At best, it's infinitely debatable if that's simpler.  Heck, it's actually quite a bit more difficult to describe, if that means anything.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players."
> 
> "Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?"
> 
> ...




I tend to agree with you. For anyone posting on this board the concept of "my movement power affects how my attack works" is pretty trivially easy to understand, its not a complex mechanic in and of itself, but it is likely to feel a bit odd to a new player, especially with the subtlety of the "move 0 squares" (which option is going to come up a lot as the best one). In fact one could argue that with that option does the Thief ACTUALLY even encourage mobility? I move 0 squares is kind of a trick. 

My real core of dissatisfaction with the whole design of Essentials martial classes though boils down to a fundamental disconnect. I never saw martial powers as really being character resources but PLAYER resources that attach to the narrative of the story. Its not that a martial character COULDN'T possibly pull some exploit more often, it is just that the player is only allowed so many chances to make a big impact on the narrative. Its like martial character players are now going to the back of the classroom, they get to attend, but they don't get to grab hold of combat narrative in any big way like they used to. It isn't that they're weaker than the older classes, its that the actual underlying philosophy of how the story gets told has regressed somewhat. Its like we're going back to some kind of simulationist past that never really worked all that well for D&D.


----------



## JohnSnow (Jul 31, 2010)

Canis said:
			
		

> ...instead of your decision being directly about your attack, it is about your movement.  Cool, but it's a full layer of abstraction removed from the attack itself.  This is inherently more complex than having those options built into the attack powers.




Well, I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I disagree.

Tying the power to the movement prevents you from having to weigh the difference between movement powers and movement actions. Also, changing the emphasis to movement puts the focus of the new player on MOVEMENT. So effectively, you teach him that movement is important to a rogue by giving him powers that key off of movement. Do that move, and you can make this attack. Pick this other move, and you'll be able to do this kind of attack.



			
				Canis said:
			
		

> But besides that, there are up to two more choices that are new: "Should I apply Backstab to this attack I'm about to make?" and for some builds "Should I apply Power Strike to that attack I just made?"  These are not "mandated" in the strict sense of the word, but are technically part of the decision tree every time.  You can't simply ignore them without being a limp rag.  Or, at least I hope not, for balance reasons.  For all intents and purposes with the original rogue, these decisions are baked into your choice of attack power for the turn.  So for the thief one decision has been broken down into 2 or 3.  By your own logic, this is more complicated.
> 
> ...Heck, it's actually quite a bit more difficult to describe, if that means anything.




There's a concept called "decision theory." Essentially, the theory works like this: the more things they have to pick from at any given time, the more complex the decision is. The fewer you have to pick from, the simpler it is.

A series of 3 binary decisions can produce as many options as a single choice between 8 options. For example:

Step 1: A or B
Step 2: C or D
Step 3: E or F

Produce the 8-branch decision tree of "ACE, ACF, ADE, ADF, BCE, BCF, BDE, BDF."

To get that many options out of a single choice, you need 8 up-front options. Weighing 8 options can get to be awfully difficult on the fly, leading to the phenomenon known as "decision paralysis." With 3-option choices, it gets worse. Three 3-way choices (still doable) yields 27 combos. Give someone 27 powers to pick from and they'd probably collapse in a gibbering mess (or just default to "the easy one"). "Reducing complexity" means that each choice can be made intuitively based on knowledge someone is likely to possess at the time. 

Our hypothetical thief player who takes (for example) "Ambush Strike" and "Tumbling Strike" has a pretty simple choice: "Do I move 5 squares and set up combat advantage against an isolated opponent close by? Or do I tumble 3 squares (probably setting up CA as well) and get to drop a small bit of damage on a secondary opponent? Secondarily, is the primary target one worth using backstab on or isn't he?

To me, those are a couple of very easy and intuitive choices. Most of the hard complexity is dealt with when you pick your tricks in the first place (at which point, you have plenty of time to weigh options as you decide what kind of character you want to play). After that it's "Does A or B put me in the best attack/have the best movement mode for this situation? Do I need to do extra damage or don't I? Assuming I have feats that modify basic attacks (swapping damage for conditions), do I make use of one, or not?"

The upside of separating the decisions in this way is that you don't have to use up my "switch places with your ally" power (King's Castle) in order to get the extra damage it does. Because the extra damage isn't tied to a single attack type or movement mode.

Does the thief have "more points of decision." Yes, clearly. Can they produce the same number of options? Yes, it seems so. Is it more complex? I would argue no.

Make sense?



P.S. - fyi, the inclusion of power strike in the write-up is a formatting glitch, so that choice isn't there. Mearls clarified that in one of his responses last night.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 31, 2010)

I can't tell until I play, but it looks like these Thief powers will get rid of "power fixation" and put more focus on the fictional details of the game world.  Very interesting design, I like it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Well, I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I disagree.
> 
> Tying the power to the movement prevents you from having to weigh the difference between movement powers and movement actions. Also, changing the emphasis to movement puts the focus of the new player on MOVEMENT. So effectively, you teach him that movement is important to a rogue by giving him powers that key off of movement. Do that move, and you can make this attack. Pick this other move, and you'll be able to do this kind of attack.
> 
> ...




Some reasonable points. OTOH you will also run into the problem of 'backtracking' as the player searches the solution space for the answer he wants. In other words he considers using Tumbling Trick or Ambush Trick, picks one, executes the move, decides that isn't going to work so good with his choices for attack, backtracks the move, etc. Now presumably there's been some degree of testing with brand new players, so I'd be surprised if it turned out to be significantly MORE confusing, but I can definitely see it being no less complex overall, especially with the 0 square move thing.

You have a point with things like King's Castle. Personally I liked the monk's full discipline stuff and I like the concept of these rogue tricks. They WILL smooth out a few annoyances and I've rather always wondered why movement powers have been so few and far-between.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 31, 2010)

Canis said:


> Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players."
> 
> "Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?"




Very good point, I never liked move action name anyway... esp disliked move-equivalent action! Other games use better terms.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 31, 2010)

A simple problem with this move actions is:

you cannot shift to get into better position and chose your attack... on the other hand, only one decision is enough... so it may be simpler, but less effective than the PHB rogue

one other thing i noticed: no rogue tactics and no weapon mastery (at least at first level) also reduces damage output compared to the PHB rogue... (unless weapon finesse does more than simply allowing dex for MBA stat)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 31, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> My real core of dissatisfaction with the whole design of Essentials martial classes though boils down to a fundamental disconnect. I never saw martial powers as really being character resources but PLAYER resources that attach to the narrative of the story. Its not that a martial character COULDN'T possibly pull some exploit more often, it is just that the player is only allowed so many chances to make a big impact on the narrative. Its like martial character players are now going to the back of the classroom, they get to attend, but they don't get to grab hold of combat narrative in any big way like they used to. It isn't that they're weaker than the older classes, its that the actual underlying philosophy of how the story gets told has regressed somewhat. Its like we're going back to some kind of simulationist past that never really worked all that well for D&D.



I agree with your take on the powers as player resources.
However, they do produce analysis paralysis, I have observed that directly and it is also clear from other threads here that many do not attach priority in having resources that dramatically affect the ingame narrative and would be quite satisfied in less choices and less narative power.


----------



## Henry (Jul 31, 2010)

mearls said:


> Blarg. You're not missing anything. Normally a trick's effects and combat advantage would work together.
> 
> That's what I get for posting almost immediately after jogging a mile.




Paraphrase from Dave Noonan: _"Asking a designer about rules is a little dangerous, because they have running around in their head the correct rules, a bunch of old versions of the correct rules, and Rules That Should Not Be."_


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 31, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> There's a concept called "decision theory." Essentially, the theory works like this: the more things they have to pick from at any given time, the more complex the decision is. The fewer you have to pick from, the simpler it is.



I'm familiar with it, and you have a point, but I don't think this case is as schematic as you're laying it out.

For one thing, if you look at the limited progression path they gave us for the Thief, it's not going to remain a set of binary choices.  Some option sets will grow as you level.  And I would bet a moderate amount of money that additional decision points will be added, if only as a way to scale damage as you level.

Also, I think you're caricaturing how broad the decision space is in baseline 4e.  The at-will, encounter, daily breakdown _already_ subdivided the decision.  "This fight is totally not worth a daily" removes options trivially.  The thief doesn't have that until some resources are already spent.

Most of the sub-choices in baseline 4e are trivial, like disregarding the obvious bad choices in a multiple choice test.  The decision space chunks very well and can be parsed instantly by simple heuristics: "Don't need a Daily here", "Don't need AoE here", etc.  That doesn't seem to be the case for the Thief, as the choices with say, a movement power, are more dependent on the relative position of various creatures on the grid than even most of the low level attack powers were, IMO, so there may be more factors to consider when making that decision, particularly in a space with multiple creatures and terrain features.

Additionally, I think you're simply undervaluing the fatigue that comes with serial decisions and overvaluing decision paralysis.  Sure, decision paralysis is more common with larger numbers of choices, but we're not talking about large swings in the number of choices here.  Making a whole mess of serial decisions has its own problems.

If you've ever planned a wedding, you'll know how much fatigue sets in with serial choice, even if each choice is simple.   Personally, I got to a point where choosing a shirt in the morning was a harrowing experience, and I'm a fairly standard issue guy with a limited decision space in his closet.  If a barista asked me "What size do you want?" I simply blinked owlishly for several seconds before asking her to pick for me.  But all of that is neither here nor there.

We're well within a space with low level 4e, where the number of choices in a single decision is not large, and the cost of adding additional decisions should be weighed carefully.  Personally, I think how you approach the game and what sort of heuristics you've developed to break down the tactical space is going to have a larger influence on your cognitive load than these tiny shifts in the decision space, but YMMV.

Ouch.... that got a bit jargon-y.  Sorry.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jul 31, 2010)

I like having the separate movement powers that set up CA.   Yes, Daze _will_ have a big effect, as it should on a movement-based character.  

The "move 0" option isn't necessarily that hard to explain to a newbie -- "The rogue fakes, bobs and weaves without ever moving more than a step, but does it so well that the enemies are caught off-balance."

I _am_ surprised by one thing about the Thief build -- it has Strength or Charisma for a secondary stat.  Couldn't they have settled on one or the other?  This isn't an entire class, just a build!  I find that rather odd in a build that's supposed to be easier for new players.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 31, 2010)

I think that thief looks fantastic.

Movement powers for the monk was my favorite bit of PHB3, so I really like seeing them here, and I think they're pretty well done. I've been tinkering with rogue an monk builds, but it looks like the thief is going to be very fun to play. Sigh. Can I quit my job so I can get enough gaming in?

PS


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 31, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I like having the separate movement powers that set up CA.   Yes, Daze _will_ have a big effect, as it should on a movement-based character.
> 
> The "move 0" option isn't necessarily that hard to explain to a newbie -- "The rogue fakes, bobs and weaves without ever moving more than a step, but does it so well that the enemies are caught off-balance."
> 
> I _am_ surprised by one thing about the Thief build -- it has Strength or Charisma for a secondary stat.  Couldn't they have settled on one or the other?  This isn't an entire class, just a build!  I find that rather odd in a build that's supposed to be easier for new players.




Well, we shall see. I can see some brain melt on the 0 move thing.

As for STR or CHA yes the Thief is a 'build' but it is also a stand-alone 'subclass' of rogue. In other words Essentials needs a fairly complete lineup of options internally without reference to existing material. So we're going to see something akin to the Brutal Scoundrel using STR to buff its attacks and something akin to the Artful Dodger using CHA. Same situation with the Slayer vs Knight and Warpriest builds (or maybe there's another version of cleric, that one is a bit unclear).


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 31, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> I like having the separate movement powers that set up CA.   Yes, Daze _will_ have a big effect, as it should on a movement-based character.
> 
> The "move 0" option isn't necessarily that hard to explain to a newbie -- "The rogue fakes, bobs and weaves without ever moving more than a step, but does it so well that the enemies are caught off-balance."
> 
> I _am_ surprised by one thing about the Thief build -- it has Strength or Charisma for a secondary stat.  Couldn't they have settled on one or the other?  This isn't an entire class, just a build!  I find that rather odd in a build that's supposed to be easier for new players.




Maybe the result is the same and players can choose the stat that conforms the best with the idea of their character.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 31, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, we shall see. I can see some brain melt on the 0 move thing.
> 
> As for STR or CHA yes the Thief is a 'build' but it is also a stand-alone 'subclass' of rogue. In other words Essentials needs a fairly complete lineup of options internally without reference to existing material. So we're going to see something akin to the Brutal Scoundrel using STR to buff its attacks and something akin to the Artful Dodger using CHA. Same situation with the Slayer vs Knight and Warpriest builds (or maybe there's another version of cleric, that one is a bit unclear).



Well, the Str/Dex aspect just screams "Fighter/Thief", which of course makes me want to roll up a Half-Orc Thief.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jul 31, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> As for STR or CHA yes the Thief is a 'build' but it is also a stand-alone 'subclass' of rogue. In other words Essentials needs a fairly complete lineup of options internally without reference to existing material. So we're going to see something akin to the Brutal Scoundrel using STR to buff its attacks and something akin to the Artful Dodger using CHA.




Right.  So I'd expect the Thief to be Dex+Cha and the "Brawler" to be Dex+Str, or something like that.  It just seems like if you are introducing something that is supposed to be simpler, limiting it to a single stat pair would be a big help.


----------



## Hawkeye (Jul 31, 2010)

I always knew that the Essentials Rogue would be a damned dirty thief!  It's probably a liar too!  

Hawkeye


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 31, 2010)

My only real comment is that if those are the final rules for feinting and tumbling trick, then feinting trick is a really, really bad option even for someone with a good cha and a bad str.

"So, THIS option gives me a shift 3 as a move action, and this one means that if I use tactics that make me give up 2d8 damage, I can get 3 points of damage instead..."

It just seems like a bad idea to have at all if the point is that newbies will play the class: it infers that getting SA is somehow not essential to being a rogue, when the reality is that it most certainly is.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 1, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> My only real comment is that if those are the final rules for feinting and tumbling trick, then feinting trick is a really, really bad option even for someone with a good cha and a bad str.
> 
> "So, THIS option gives me a shift 3 as a move action, and this one means that if I use tactics that make me give up 2d8 damage, I can get 3 points of damage instead..."
> 
> It just seems like a bad idea to have at all if the point is that newbies will play the class: it infers that getting SA is somehow not essential to being a rogue, when the reality is that it most certainly is.




Y'know, I just noticed that a careful read of _Feinting Trick_ doesn't say that at all, even though we've all been thinking it does. Here's the text:



> Effect: You move up to your speed. You gain a power bonus to the next damage roll you make this turn with a basic attack for which you do not have combat advantage. The power bonus equals your Charisma modifier.




So, _Feinting Trick_ allows you to move your speed. IF you have combat advantage against your target when you attack, you get sneak attack damage as normal. _But if for some reason you don't_, like if the target moves in response _before_ you can attack (like a shifty kobold), _you still get a bonus to damage equal to your CHA modifier._ That also makes this a useful backup power for those rare situations when you literally can't get combat advantage. Or if you take a second attack on your turn (like by using an action point), since you can only get sneak attack damage once per turn.

Frankly, there are probably more useful tricks, but I just wanted to clear up what this one says and what it doesn't say.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 1, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> My only real comment is that if those are the final rules for feinting and tumbling trick, then feinting trick is a really, really bad option even for someone with a good cha and a bad str.
> 
> "So, THIS option gives me a shift 3 as a move action, and this one means that if I use tactics that make me give up 2d8 damage, I can get 3 points of damage instead..."
> 
> It just seems like a bad idea to have at all if the point is that newbies will play the class: it infers that getting SA is somehow not essential to being a rogue, when the reality is that it most certainly is.



Feinting Trick has no range limitation. So the thief can stay 10 squares away from his target and still gain a bonus to damage.

It's basically Shot On The Run.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 1, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Feinting Trick has no range limitation. So the thief can stay 10 squares away from his target and still gain a bonus to damage.
> 
> It's basically Shot On The Run.




Which also makes it a good adjunct for a ranged rogue to have in addition to Ambush Trick. So you can use the latter to get combat advantage on an opponent within 5 squares of you, or use the former to get a damage bonus against an opponent at any distance.

I'll reiterate that Feinting Trick doesn't actually say you don't get combat advantage on your next damage roll this turn - it just says that you get your CHA bonus on the next damage roll where you lack CA. Which means it's usable in both ranged and melee combat.

Fascinating.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Aug 1, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Y'know, I just noticed that a careful read of _Feinting Trick_ doesn't say that at all, even though we've all been thinking it does. Here's the text:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It works very nicely with:



> *Flash of the Blade*
> 
> *Heroic Tier*
> *Prerequisite*: Rogue, proficiency with rapiers
> *Benefit*:  While wielding a rapier, if you are the only creature adjacent to the  target you may use your sneak attack damage even if you do not have  combat advantage against the target with this attack.





So you'll be doing some seriously good damage to isolated enemies.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 1, 2010)

I have a feeling we may be seeing a lot of Thieves running around with Spiked Chains, the Quick Draw feat, and large weapons such as the Fullblade or the Maul.  I know thats spending a lot of feats, but when you are not going in for Sneak Attack you can use your large weapons and swap back and forth when needed.  Especially with a Taclord in the party.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 1, 2010)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I have a feeling we may be seeing a lot of Thieves running around with Spiked Chains, the Quick Draw feat, and large weapons such as the Fullblade or the Maul.  I know thats spending a lot of feats, but when you are not going in for Sneak Attack you can use your large weapons and swap back and forth when needed.  Especially with a Taclord in the party.




I've been thinking about making a rogue with a bastard sword in one hand and a dagger in the other. No CA? Bastard sword. CA? Dagger. Throw some of the TWF feats on there.

PS


----------



## Njall (Aug 1, 2010)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I have a feeling we may be seeing a lot of Thieves running around with Spiked Chains, the Quick Draw feat, and large weapons such as the Fullblade or the Maul.  I know thats spending a lot of feats, but when you are not going in for Sneak Attack you can use your large weapons and swap back and forth when needed.  Especially with a Taclord in the party.




Well, you should be going for sneak attack most of the time (flanking is not that hard after all). 
Spending a ton of feats and money on a strategy that's going to be useful maybe 10% of the time is certainly doable, but hardly a great idea, IMHO. 
You're probably better off spending those same resources on damage boosters and CA enablers, if you're having problems getting CA...


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 1, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


> A.). You've now all but confirmed that the slayer and the ranger builds are Basic Attack users, not that it is a particularly well concealed idea.
> 
> B).  It helps quell my fear of the Warlord being marginalized.




Oh I dont know martial healing will probably be gimped to balance it out... 

Sorry I too am actually finding something to be optimistic about in this synergy.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 2, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Which also makes it a good adjunct for a ranged rogue to have in addition to Ambush Trick. So you can use the latter to get combat advantage on an opponent within 5 squares of you, or use the former to get a damage bonus against an opponent at any distance.




... or you use all the ways that ranged rogues get CA on foes now. There's plenty of them.

If feinting trick didn't exist, you wouldn't get rogues who think that it's ok to plink away at long range doing sub wizard-level damage to single targets. Because that's what it does for you.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 2, 2010)

Zaran said:


> That's unlikely to happen.  I have one friend who stopped running his game because I wanted to still use my character builder when the October release comes out.  He hates the fact that 4e is changing mechanics that the game is based on.



You could just keep an un-updated copy of Character Builder to use in his game.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> I really don't get this whole 1/turn SA. I can't see how this will ever be balanced with existing striker bonuses. Rogues in general already have PLENTY of damage output. I'm a little disappointed by the further devaluation of Stealth as a combat tactic too. The whole point of the 2d6 SA was it was supposed to be a bit harder to get. OK, now Ambush Trick makes it close to guaranteed AND you can do it multiple times per round? That might be OK for the Thief depending on how his other sources of damage scale, but the 1/round doesn't seem to make ANY sense to me WRT the existing rogue builds.



 Perhaps it's to balance the lack of dailies?  

The change to Martial classes is going to make them very hard to balance.  Don't give them enough (like the Knight, perhpas) and they're overshadowed anytime dailies are pulled out.  Give them enough to keep up with dailies and the dominate anytime dailies /aren't/ available.


----------



## mkill (Aug 2, 2010)

First of all, nothing is known about the E-classes beyond level 10. It's possible that they gain some kind of nova ability after all, maybe daily, maybe tied to action points. Maybe they don't. We'll know when it ships.

As for balance, obviously a class without daily ressources will need to make up for it with better at-will and encounter ressources. You need to make a reasonable assumption on the number of encounters per day (4?) and the length of combats (3-7 rounds?) and aim for total damage numbers in the same ball park. This measure won't match every campaign, but it's impossible to create rules that fit every DM and every story.

It also depends on role: a defender works well with a steady, realiable performance, while controllers do best if they can create a big effect that reshapes the battle. Strikers can swing either way, but the earlier they can take out their first target the faster the PC gain the upper hand.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 2, 2010)

mkill said:


> First of all, nothing is known about the E-classes beyond level 10.



I'm sure this is because for Essentials level 10 is max.

Basically, Essentials is for D&D 4e what MERPS was for Rolemaster (minus the licensed setting).


----------



## mkill (Aug 2, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm sure this is because for Essentials level 10 is max.
> 
> Basically, Essentials is for D&D 4e what MERPS was for Rolemaster (minus the licensed setting).



Except that it was announced that Essentials will cover all levels until 30.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 2, 2010)

mkill said:


> First of all, nothing is known about the E-classes beyond level 10. It's possible that they gain some kind of nova ability after all, maybe daily, maybe tied to action points. Maybe they don't. We'll know when it ships.
> 
> As for balance, obviously a class without daily ressources will need to make up for it with better at-will and encounter ressources. You need to make a reasonable assumption on the number of encounters per day (4?) and the length of combats (3-7 rounds?) and aim for total damage numbers in the same ball park. This measure won't match every campaign, but it's impossible to create rules that fit every DM and every story.
> 
> It also depends on role: a defender works well with a steady, realiable performance, while controllers do best if they can create a big effect that reshapes the battle. Strikers can swing either way, but the earlier they can take out their first target the faster the PC gain the upper hand.




Actually simply swapping daily powers for encounter powers can make a character STRONGER on the whole. Consider a stereotypical fighter daily 3W half damage on a miss, some minor effect. Consider instead getting 2W and a minor effect EVERY ENCOUNTER instead. At low level your actual total damage output will be greater. It gets less clear-cut with daily powers that have encounter long effects and whatnot, but there are a lot of cases where you drop a daily simply because you need to do some serious harm to something and its effects are mostly wasted, etc. A similar situation where you dropped an encounter power can be better since at least you get it back at the end of the encounter.

So it really isn't clear that anything special needs to be done for the new martial classes to make up for the loss of daily powers. It is going to totally depend on what their encounter capabilities look like. They could be no stronger than those of existing classes on the whole, and yet still provide equal performance to some classes that have daily powers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 4, 2010)

mkill said:


> As for balance, obviously a class without daily ressources will need to make up for it with better at-will and encounter ressources. You need to make a reasonable assumption on the number of encounters per day (4?) and the length of combats (3-7 rounds?) and aim for total damage numbers in the same ball park. This measure won't match every campaign, but it's impossible to create rules that fit every DM and every story.



In terms of class balance with respect to daily resource management (a narrow criteria, I know, but the one that's relevant), 4e as it stands at this moment /does/ work for every DM and every story.  If the DM wants to run single-encounter days, they'll have to be quite tough encounters, and if he wants to run 8-encounter gauntlets they'll have to be individually rather weak, but there's no particular danger of some classes overshadowing others at either extrem.

D&D never delivered that before, and if Essentials really is the wave of the future, it may never do so again.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 4, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> If the DM wants to run single-encounter days, they'll have to be quite tough encounters, and if he wants to run 8-encounter gauntlets they'll have to be individually rather weak, but there's no particular danger of some classes overshadowing others at either extrem.
> 
> D&D never delivered that before, and if Essentials really is the wave of the future, it may never do so again.



Pardon me for nitpicking, but even with Essentials, you will still have characters of all classes with pretty much the same at-will/encounter/daily power structure. So, while certain builds of certain classes might be more or less effective under certain gameplay assumptions, it remains to be seen whether the difference will be significant enough to be noticeable in actual play. 

Remember, under 4E, it is not a case of 40 vs. 0 daily powers. It's more a case of 4 vs. 0 daily attack powers, and even then, only if there are paragon paths without daily attack powers (otherwise, it's 4 vs. 1).

I personally think the acid test will be the single large encounter per day scenario, because that is when characters with daily powers will be able to go nova and the difference will be most stark. For extended gauntlet scenarios, the difference in effectiveness should not be greater than the current difference between a character who has used a daily power in an encounter and another who has not. Of course, experiences differ, but at least for me, the difference is usually small enough that I don't notice it.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 4, 2010)

IMX, the encounter I dominated wasn't the one where I used my dailies, but the one where I got 2 critical hits. The extra 30+ damage on each of those attacks was way better than what my dailies do (tho as a cleric, my dailies' healing powers are very good, tho non-spectacular).

PS


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 5, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Pardon me for nitpicking, but even with Essentials, you will still have characters of all classes with pretty much the same at-will/encounter/daily power structure. So, while certain builds of certain classes might be more or less effective under certain gameplay assumptions, it remains to be seen whether the difference will be significant enough to be noticeable in actual play.



Sure, if a build with balance issues isn't played (as is likely, if said issues tend towards it being underpowered), the 'problem' will hardly be noticeable.  But, it only takes one badly balanced option to spoil the balance of the whole game - that's why 'balance' is such a hard thing to achieve, and only gets harder the longer a game has been out.

Just from what we've seen of the Knight and Thief classes, so far, they're different enough to run into issues - unless some as-yet-undetailed abilities from their level charts turn out to be de-facto dailies.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 5, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, if a build with balance issues isn't played (as is likely, if said issues tend towards it being underpowered), the 'problem' will hardly be noticeable.  But, it only takes one badly balanced option to spoil the balance of the whole game - that's why 'balance' is such a hard thing to achieve, and only gets harder the longer a game has been out.
> 
> Just from what we've seen of the Knight and Thief classes, so far, they're different enough to run into issues - unless some as-yet-undetailed abilities from their level charts turn out to be de-facto dailies.



Well, I remain cautiously optimistic. I know from experience (from _my_ experience, at least ) that power differences are usually only noticeable during actual play if they are fairly large. Characters with small differences in power can often adventure together for the duration of a campaign without anyone noticeably overshadowing any of the others. The fact that a traditional D&D adventuring party is usually composed of characters with different abilities often helps since each character will have a separate niche (or role), and differences in ability due to niche will usually overshadow small differences in raw power.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 5, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Well, I remain cautiously optimistic. I know from experience (from _my_ experience, at least ) that power differences are usually only noticeable during actual play if they are fairly large.




Well that is the point ... a daily is supposed to be a fairly large bump... so that a character gets to shine now if somebody has 4 and you have 1, in that 1 encounter day... without some other climactic bump you are going to be seriously overshadowed or they are poor dailies..... sigh (we are looking at flashbacks mechanically not just flavorwise) but they could use something like uber boosts from action points.

So yeah in spite of my trepidations we might not know enough about the new classes I suppose I will just wait and see.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 5, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Well that is the point ... a daily is supposed to be a fairly large bump...




Okay, fair enough. A daily is "supposed to be" a fairly large bump...but are they in practice? At low level, all you get from daily powers is about the equivalent of an extra encounter power once a day, plus some minor improvements for the duration of that same encounter.

So how much of a bump does a daily really provide?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Okay, fair enough. A daily is "supposed to be" a fairly large bump...but are they in practice? At low level, all you get from daily powers is about the equivalent of an extra encounter power once a day, plus some minor improvements for the duration of that same encounter.
> 
> So how much of a bump does a daily really provide?




It becomes gradually more significant and at-wills become gradually less significant over the course of levelling.... doesnt it. So at what level are you wanting the wizards to completely outshine the warriors all over again.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 5, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> It becomes gradually more significant and at-wills become gradually less significant over the course of levelling.... doesnt it. So at what level are you wanting the wizards to completely outshine the warriors all over again.




Ah, but if the Essentials character gets stronger at-wills and encounter powers, the question becomes whether he has to have dailies in order to keep up.

Although I have had the conversation on the WotC boards that there are ways to get the rough equivalent of dailies by building in a power of the same level that isn't actually a "daily," but one that can be triggered, say, every 4 encounters (or however often the designers expect dailies to be used).

Such a thing would be mathematically equivalent and would be, _on average_, balanced.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 5, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Ah, but if the Essentials character gets stronger at-wills and encounter powers, the question becomes whether he has to have dailies in order to keep up.




It isnt about keeping up.. never was... you can plod through and never get the visible burst of distinction effect. 



JohnSnow said:


> Although I have had the conversation on the WotC boards that there are ways to get the rough equivalent of dailies by building in a power of the same level that isn't actually a "daily," but one that can be triggered, say, every 4 encounters (or however often the designers expect dailies to be used).
> 
> Such a thing would be mathematically equivalent and would be, _on average_, balanced.




Sure and the climactic spotlight effect can be accomplished other ways than by dailies ... it occurred to me that dailies seem often used along side action points so having something like paragon path boosts on your action point effects early on as class features could be almost seem-less... ie they would be almost "nothing new" but if they kicked in at lower levels?


----------

