# The Essential Knight



## fanboy2000 (Jul 23, 2010)

Well, this is going to make a lot of people (even me, the eternal WotC fanboy) happy:


			
				Knight Preview said:
			
		

> Basic Attacks: As a fighter, you make most of your attacks using basic attacks. Some classes rely primarily on class-specific attack powers, whereas you typically make basic attacks enhanced by your fighter stances and other class features and powers.



While I like the fighter the way it was, I still feel that this is an improvement.

The preview is, as the others were, up for all to see. I didn't see anything that they didn't get dailies, but I suspect that's just because we don't get the whole fighter section.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> Well, this is going to make a lot of people (even me, the eternal WotC fanboy) happy:
> While I like the fighter the way it was, I still feel that this is an improvement.
> 
> The preview is, as the others were, up for all to see. I didn't see anything that they didn't get dailies, but I suspect that's just because we don't get the whole fighter section.




They don't get dailies, you can tell by looking at the fact at level 1 and 5 it says they get some random class feature. Of course as I wrote in the other thread this one actually really infuriated me. It's by far the _biggest_ change out of the classes we've been shown and we were basically given the least about it. I want to know what they replace dailies with, what options do they get for improving MBAs, how much damage do they get to do and such forth. 

I actually feel we needed to see far more of this class, because what I have seen didn't impress me in the least. "Devolving" the fighter back into "I swing my sword for a MBA every round" is by far the worst thing they've done.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 23, 2010)

Wonder if they changed the 4E multiclassing or 4E hybrid classes rules too, to accommodate the structural differences in the 4E Essentials classes.

I suppose they could always go back to the old multiclassing rules from 3E/3.5E or earlier editions.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I actually feel we needed to see far more of this class, because what I have seen didn't impress me in the least. "Devolving" the fighter back into "I swing my sword for a MBA every round" is by far the worst thing they've done.




I don't see that. This fighter switches stances, essentially meaning that the at-will he just used is also his opportunity attack.
And he gets more stances at higher levels.

His one encounter power we've seen is usable only when you've already hit: ie. you can't waste it, but you don't have to track things like Reliable. Seems good to me.


I do wish it was a longer article though. So much to explore.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> They don't get dailies, you can tell by looking at the fact at level 1 and 5 it says they get some random class feature.



The only reason I hesitate is that I'm wondering if some of those class features are daily non-attack powers.



> I actually feel we needed to see far more of this class, because what I have seen didn't impress me in the least. "Devolving" the fighter back into "I swing my sword for a MBA every round" is by far the worst thing they've done.



I agree.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> "Devolving" the fighter back into "I swing my sword for a MBA every round" is by far the worst thing they've done.




Good thing they didn't do that, then.

One more time... This is _in addition_ to the existing fighter builds. Not instead of. The knight has exactly _zero_ effect on the fighter as it already stands; it merely _adds_ a much simpler option for those who want it.

And yes, there are players who really _do_ just want "I swing my sword every round," or at least close to it. I've played with them.

If WotC had said "The old fighter builds are no longer official" (whatever "official" could possibly mean in this case, with so much support already out there), I'd agree, it'd be a horrible choice. But since that's not what they're doing, I honestly don't understand the fuss.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> I don't see that. This fighter switches stances, essentially meaning that the at-will he just used is also his opportunity attack.
> And he gets more stances at higher levels.




It doesn't change this is a class that gets 1 power and stances are unlikely to be substantially better than at-wills. Does he get daily and encounter stances that provide better benefits? A class that's all about doing one thing every day all day is boring - even if you can pretty it up by adding different riders all you are doing is using one power for the whole fight with little variation.



> His one encounter power we've seen is usable only when you've already hit: ie. you can't waste it, but you don't have to track things like Reliable. Seems good to me.



Yeah, the fighter gets as an encounter power what the Half-Orc gets as a racial feature (also an encounter power). I'm sure making a melee basic attack with a relatively non-spectacular effect into a 2[W] power with a still non-spectacular effect is a great trade off.

It's basically going to end up how furious assault is usually used, stick it on the first crit you roll (if you remember).



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> If WotC had said "The  old fighter builds are no longer official" (whatever "official" could  possibly mean in this case, with so much support already out there), I'd  agree, it'd be a horrible choice. But since that's not what they're  doing, I honestly don't understand the fuss.




I actually do understand this concept, but you've missed the core point that this is how classes will be designed from here on out. Many classes previously used the same structure, hence what we had before and this is a very radically different structure. While the old fighter goes nowhere, how do other classes interact with this by multiclassing? Is it possible to combine a Knights Stances with another classes at-wills that count as melee basic attacks? Being different is one thing, determining how these things will overall interact is another.

My point is that I'm simply indicating my dislike about this new direction to a degree. I like the mage and I think the cleric are good directions. I don't like this at all from what I've seen. More explanation would be fantastic as to how it overall fits together, because right now it looks extremely boring to play and probably pretty underpowered to a normal fighter.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jul 23, 2010)

Aren't most fighter attacks really nothing more than a MBA with a extra oomph?  Why couldn't they replace most powers with a "when you hit with a MBA you get to add X effect/damage/etc".

There might be a few that wouldn't translate well.  I can see the other side of the coin in that we moved away from MBA and got lots of cool abilities and now it's coming back.

I'm more annoyed that they get plate than anything else.


----------



## spinmd (Jul 23, 2010)

Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail, scale, *plate*; light shield, heavy shield

Interesting...

EDIT: Ninja'd


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

Well, he is a knight and that does make sense for a heavily armoured warrior. He also technically AoE marks right out of the gate as well, so heavier armour is more of a necessity in this case. Personally the best thing about the knight is that aura based marking, which is worded pretty well so you don't "double dip" a mark with another allied defender as well.

This is where I would love to see more encounter powers or similar. Just _something_ to show they have some degree of versatility beyond "use MBA + minor effect" 90% of the time.


----------



## mkill (Jul 23, 2010)

I dig it. This is exactly the type of class that I would suggest to a new player who has never played an RPG before: No fiddly bits, but still effective at kicking monster butt.

In short, it's exactly as they announced.

And dyed in the wool powergamers with 15 years of RPG experience like me will still play the PHB fighter.

Which is exactly as they announced (I start to notice a pattern here)

If you want an analogy, the PHB Fighter is a Ral Partha miniature: it looks great, if you have the equipment and the skill to paint it. The Essentials Fighter is prepainted plastic: Unwrap and you're ready to go.

Both do the job, both appeal to different people.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm not entirely certain that the class is as cut-and-dry and some people are assuming it is.  I'm not even certain this will be a "simpler" class to play; there seem to be a lot of fiddly bits to it for a "new" player to deal with.  I certainly think it's less straight-forward than, "I blast monsters with spells!  BOOM!"  I do think it's more strictly defined and therefore perhaps less flexible than the PHB Fighter, but it's a fallacy to translate that as simplicity.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

mkill said:


> I dig it. This is exactly the type of class that I would suggest to a new player who has never played an RPG before: No fiddly bits, but still effective at kicking monster butt.




I entirely disagree. It uses an aura for one thing for marking, which should be fairly easy to remember but has a distinctly different mechanic to normal marking. It requires the PC to constantly remember they have to switch their "stance" in combat to get other effects. So if he wants to cleave he needs to remember to have switched his stance, which I say to that good luck if you're dazed. Speaking of dazed, the knight might end up getting cut off from all their at-will stance powers so are stuck with doing whatever it was they did last turn (minor action activate each stance). Let's hope you're not marking a creature that dazes when you're in its aura (eg: Mad Wraith). Better enjoy whatever stance it is you're using for the rest of the combat or until it dies!

A new player also has to remember some of his powers will be interrupts, minor actions and free actions (potentially) so that he can effectively add them to his MBAs. Also has to keep constant track of what stance he's using as well.

How is this "easier" for a new player than 2 at-wills for hitting things, an encounter that hits things slightly harder and a daily power that hits things slightly harder again?

It's equally as fiddly in an entirely new direction.


----------



## samursus (Jul 23, 2010)

As a quick note, I don't think this is _necessairly_ the way classes will start to be developed.  Only if Essentials did very well, and the community cried out en masse that they wanted all future classes to be handled this way, would it happen.

Incidentally, I don't see a ton of new classes coming out anyways.


----------



## samursus (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> A new player also has to remember some of his powers will be interrupts, minor actions and free actions (potentially) so that he can effectively add them to his MBAs. .




I don't think this is a safe assumption at all, from the changes we have seen so far.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

samursus said:


> I don't think this is a safe assumption at all, from the changes we have seen so far.




Yes it is. The first encounter power showed is basically a free action interrupt, when you hit with an attack add another 1[W]. Given that, many of their powers may be about adding things to a MBA when they hit or similar. If that's the case remembering the triggers of these powers is going to be pretty relevant. I would think that's the style of this class from what we've seen. Not to mention you should go back and read the stances, all of which are minor actions to change stance if you didn't notice.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I actually do understand this concept, but you've missed the core point that this is how classes will be designed from here on out.




I didn't miss it. I just don't assume it means what you assume it means.

First, they said Essentials will inform game design moving forward. They didn't say that they would _utterly abandon_ everything else.

Second, even if every class moving forward is designed like the Essentials classes, I _still_ don't see how that impacts the existing classes. After PHB, and _two_ Martial Powers books, what were the odds that we were going to see huge amounts of new fighter builds/options _anyway_? Seriously, how does one affect the other? I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly not seeing it.

And as far as how multiclassing and hybrids and power-swapping and all that work... We don't know. We probably won't know until the rules come out in full. Sure, it's fair to wish they'd said more about it. I kind they had, myself. But getting _upset_ about how it _might_ go, when we truly have no indication one way or the other, just strikes me as a little silly.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Seriously, how does one affect the other? I'm not being snarky, I'm  honestly not seeing it.




It's how future classes - not the old ones - will be designed that will matter here. While I like alternative class structures - I am a fan of both the mage and the domain cleric they've presented - I don't like it being too whacky. Too whacky produces unpredictable results at times (EG psionic classes that use PPs). At the same time there is good whacky, like the Monk who is an interesting and fun class to play - yet has quite a different interpretation on the power system.

Change *is a very good thing*, but sometimes it can also be absolutely terrible for the game as psionics shows us. I feel massive changes like this fighter design, given such things are informing how _later_ classes will be designed I feel deserve something to put it all in context. Reading this, I'm very leery of it being either completely useless or somehow exploitable with existing classes to be potentially game breaking.

I'd just like to think we don't get carried away with essentials and future classes, throwing the baby out with the bath water entirely. It is telling to me that the three power point using psionic classes are the worst balanced in 4E at the moment. There is good logic behind the systems use of at-will/encounter/daily powers for everyone. When it's changed I'd really like to see more how it fits together, so we don't end up with another Psion (Mind Thrust + Dishearten for thirty levels... GO). Poor at low levels and absolutely game breaking by epic when their scaling mods break over the +7 range.

Otherwise we'll all be back here in sixth months arguing about all the errata to books again.

Edit: I understand your point, I really do. But you need to understand my point that we're looking at _the future of how 4E will be designed_. I like new options even if I don't even play 4E, but I do run three campaigns. New options mean new player character concepts and builds, which make different monsters more interesting and such forth. This is a great thing. At the same time, I'm not so keen on entirely abandoning core parts of the system to do it (encounter/daily powers). I like the mage and cleric, because they change things around but keep a familiar enough structure. The knight changes everything around and I'm really unconvinced it's for the best.

For the most part, 4E has pretty solid balance between its classes with some spikes and some dips. In general though there isn't a single class that is nonviable and I've ceased micromanging _any_ class in 4E. I let people play what they want and the system 90% of the time takes good care of them - without my micromanagement of powers/feats except in *rare* cases. That's a true triumph as a system, at least until Psionics was released in PHB3. Right now any Psionic class that gets a single low level at-will power that scales poorly (EG Lightning Rush and Mind Thrust) becomes far more powerful or even game breaking by epic. This is because the power point system is deeply, chronically flawed and _doesn't work_. For the first and only time in 4E, I've had to micromanage three classes and think about rewriting for myself an entire system (Power Points) to bring spamming of low level "at-will" augment 2s down by epic tier.

It's not my idea of fun and not why I enjoy 4E.

I will keep ragging on Psionics all the time until I get my point across. Psionics are broken because they completely dismantled part of the encounter/daily system for them. At low levels they perform okay, but once they get the PP to turn an encounter power into an at-will some become broken or far more effective than if they take a higher level power (Battleminds with Lightning Rush for example, is a night and day difference as a defender). 

They weren't successful the first time they abandoned the set encounter and daily system all classes share. I need to be convinced when I see classes like this that also abandon the encounter and daily system it isn't another Psionics level mistake. You can say I might be "upset" here, but I'm more just very cautious and really wanting to see a lot more information to be convinced this is a good idea.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 23, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Good thing they didn't do that, then.
> 
> One more time... This is _in addition_ to the existing fighter builds. Not instead of. The knight has exactly _zero_ effect on the fighter as it already stands; it merely _adds_ a much simpler option for those who want it.
> .




I generally agree with this point; the new builds don't automatically take out the old ones.

That said, there is one effect this class can have on other fighter builds. Because the knight does not have daily powers...that's less incentive to put out new dailies for fighters in general.

If I put out new wizard dailies, both the wizard and mage can use them. With fighter dailies, the new class is left out.

Still, overall the new classes do not spell doom and gloom for the old ones.


----------



## mkill (Jul 23, 2010)

@Aegeri: There is a one-line quote that the Essentials line will influence future class design. However, nobody knows what this means yet, except Mike Mearls and the other designers. I guess it means we'll see subclasses on every new class from now. However, that is as much speculation as everything else. Maybe we should hire some Kremlinologists from the CIA to tell us more. Or relax and wait until we see the first new post-Essentials class.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It is telling to me that the three power point using psionic classes are the worst balanced in 4E at the moment.



Slight tangent, but frankly, I think it's more a problem with individual powers than the power point mechanic in itself. Every time this argument gets brought up, I feel like I'm in the General forum reading yet another diatribe about how 4E has totally abandoned simulation because of _come and get it_ and martial healing. 

As for the knight, there are pros and cons to having stances replace at-wills. As pointed out, it takes more effort to switch between stances and this can be an issue when you're dazed. However, (as has also been pointed out) this means that you get the benefit whenever you make a melee basic attack, e.g. when charging, or when making an opportunity attack, or when your warlord buddy gives you an extra basic attack. 

It also isn't clear to me whether it is possible for a knight to swap out _power strike_ for another fighter encounter power. Right now, the heading is showing up as "Fighter Attack" instead of "Fighter Attack 1" for me, so unless it gets changed, the answer is probably no. (Although if you ask me, it seems about in line with what you would expect from a 1st-level fighter encounter power, so even if it isn't "official", I would allow it to be taken as a 1st-level fighter encounter power, and I would allow a knight to swap it out for another 1st-level fighter encounter power.)


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 23, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Slight tangent, but frankly, I think it's more a problem with individual powers than the power point mechanic in itself.




That is absolutely true and it's always the same powers that are bought up, but we have psionic power coming out next month. All it takes is one low level at-will in any of those three classes and boom, they break the game utterly by high levels. Is that good class design? One that's so vulnerable to a single low level power being broken (usually because of poor scaling) that is completely breaks the entire class?

I know there are many examples of low level powers that people keep for their whole careers they are that good. Very few of those examples can be done every round at-will by the classes that have them, which does limit how much impact (even if a significant one) they can have. Turn Rain of Blows into an at-will power at epic though and well, the problem becomes obvious. 

That's what happens with psionics. You have a single bad power at low levels and that class can use it at-will by epic. This is why I am not excited about major changes to the at-will/encounter/daily power structure.

Edit: Incidentally, I can't help but notice all the most notable game breaking psionic powers have yet to be errata'ed. Personally my hope is that Wizards is hitting the real problem, the PP system and not putting a bandaid on the broken at-wills. They'll just be replaced with something else anyway in time.



> Every time this argument gets brought up, I feel like I'm in the General forum reading yet another diatribe about how 4E has totally abandoned simulation because of _come and get it_ and martial healing.



You run an epic game where a psion turns a solo into a pincushion with a -7 to -9 all attacks and -7 to -9 all defenses *at-will* (Using an AP first round and usually an orb to extend one of the above penalties one round further) and you'll understand why this is a significant flaw.

For the record, I don't care about "simulation" and what I do care about game balance and consistency. I do like things that push the system or do something new, but I'd like it to be within a certain framework that the game has made. Abandoning encounter and daily powers just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If they do so, I'd really love reassurances we aren't looking at another psionics fiasco.



> However, (as has also been pointed out) this means that you get the benefit whenever you make a melee basic attack, e.g. when charging, or when making an opportunity attack, or when your warlord buddy gives you an extra basic attack.



That is a minor advantage, especially because you might be adjacent to one enemy and get a MBA, hit it and of course waste your cleave damage. Albeit, some stances are just "always on" like the +2 damage, so I imagine those will be taken quite often.



> It also isn't clear to me whether it is possible for a knight to swap out _power strike_ for another fighter encounter power. Right now, the heading is showing up as "Fighter Attack" instead of "Fighter Attack 1" for me, so unless it gets changed, the answer is probably no.



I wonder if you copy and paste it the 1 will show up, like with Magic Missile on the mage. As that didn't show it was still a "Wizard Attack 1" in the name.



> (Although if you ask me, it seems about in line with what you would expect from a 1st-level fighter encounter power, so even if it isn't "official", I would allow it to be taken as a 1st-level fighter encounter power, and I would allow a knight to swap it out for another 1st-level fighter encounter power.)



Yeah, I'm just concerned about them not having the same versatility actually.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Well, he is a knight and that does make sense for a heavily armoured warrior. He also technically AoE marks right out of the gate as well, so heavier armour is more of a necessity in this case. Personally the best thing about the knight is that aura based marking, which is worded pretty well so you don't "double dip" a mark with another allied defender as well.
> 
> This is where I would love to see more encounter powers or similar. Just _something_ to show they have some degree of versatility beyond "use MBA + minor effect" 90% of the time.




I think the knight will get a more standard mark as well. I think that is the Battle Guardian feature that they neglected to preview. If it's stuck with the aura alone, it is ridiculously weak.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

Yeah, there's going to be problems with this class design. Its NOT going to be able to work with a bunch of existing feats. Melee Training? HEY, I have a fighter that is 100% WISDOM based! Well, even worse, 100% CONSTITUTION based, lol. Existing feats are going to totally bork this design.

Beyond that it just illustrates the big problem that fundamentally changing the class design principles means that every shared element that needs to work for the existing classes and the new fundamentally different class now needs to be redesigned to get along well with 2 different sets of design principles. This class is THEORETICALLY compatible with existing 4e, it is already NOT actually compatible. So what is going to happen? Are tons of feats/items/etc going to now get errata so they play well with the Knight? How is that going to affect their utility for the existing classes? Or will DMs simply be forced into saying "no, no, Mr Knight, YOU can't use existing 4e stuff, unless I look at it first." UGH! 

I think it COULD be an interesting class design, taken simply on its own, but I don't look forward to the system surgery that is going to be needed to make it actually play nice with older material.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> How is this "easier" for a new player than 2 at-wills for hitting things, an encounter that hits things slightly harder and a daily power that hits things slightly harder again?




It overwhelms people.  That's why.  I know a new player who just joined my group.  She stares at her encounters and dailies blankly and doesn't really understand what they do or why she'd want to use them rather than her at-wills.

I've told her about 30 times now "You should use all your encounter powers before you switch to at-wills basically every combat."  But she keeps looking at them and saying "Why would I use a power that moves 2 squares and hits someone rather than the at-will that stays where I am and hits someone?"

When I explain "Because the encounter power does 2[W] damage instead of 1[W] damage." she replies with something like "But I don't want to move."

She also thinks every enemy she's nearby is always marked to her.  She's tried to activate her fighter mark power against enemies who shift away from her when she never marked them.

Things like this confuse her.  I think this would be a great class for her.  I could tell her "You roll this to hit, this to damage and you add this bonus.  You can choose either to hit harder or to hit an extra person with your attacks.  Also, once each battle you hit much harder."  And that's pretty much how the class seems to play.  It really does remind me a lot more of the 1e/2e fighter with a little bit more options and versatility.  Which I like.  I think 4e has become too complicated for everyone.


----------



## mkill (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, there's going to be problems with this class design. Its NOT going to be able to work with a bunch of existing feats. Melee Training? HEY, I have a fighter that is 100% WISDOM based! Well, even worse, 100% CONSTITUTION based, lol. Existing feats are going to totally bork this design.



Your bug is my feature. If I can build a Dex-based fighter with that I'll be a happy panda!

And who cares if the new builds don't work with feat X or Paragon Path Y. Combine stuff that works and skip the rest. And frankly, these builds are targeted at newbies (how often do we need to repeat that??), not the type who try to combine stuff from every splatbook to build an ubercharacter.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It overwhelms people.  That's why.  I know a new player who just joined my group.  She stares at her encounters and dailies blankly and doesn't really understand what they do or why she'd want to use them rather than her at-wills.
> 
> I've told her about 30 times now "You should use all your encounter powers before you switch to at-wills basically every combat."  But she keeps looking at them and saying "Why would I use a power that moves 2 squares and hits someone rather than the at-will that stays where I am and hits someone?"
> 
> ...




I agree, in theory, but this class is still going to be quite fiddly. "No, you can't use your cleave because you're dazed and you can't switch stances." That's just the tip of the iceberg. The fiddlyness in combat doesn't really come from having powers, it comes mainly from the core design of the 4e rules. No matter how simple a class is, even as simple as this one, its not going to be all that simple to play in practice.

Plus remember, we're still missing MAJOR portions of this class. We don't know how its marking mechanic is going to work, or what the higher level class features are going to do, etc. I'm sure they're designed to try to make things simpler, but the players that are at a rules level where they can't grasp action mechanics and such are just not going to ever be in much luck with 4e. 

Once you consider the odd ways this class is going to act WRT to existing feats and such it may actually be HARDER to understand how to make your character effective and do the kind of stuff that other classes can do.


----------



## Hellzon (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, there's going to be problems with this class design. Its NOT going to be able to work with a bunch of existing feats. Melee Training? HEY, I have a fighter that is 100% WISDOM based! Well, even worse, 100% CONSTITUTION based, lol. Existing feats are going to totally bork this design.




I have to agree with mkill, I don't see the problem. Knights multiclass well, woo.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

Hellzon said:


> I have to agree with mkill, I don't see the problem. Knights multiclass well, woo.




This has nothing to do with MC-ing. The existing MC system is in any case going to be effectively almost unusable with this class. You will be able to take an MC feat, which is fine, but power swaps simply won't work. Hybridizing maybe can be worked out, though I doubt anyone that wants to do that will use this class anyway.

The issue with Melee Training is that you can switch ALL OF YOUR COMBAT CAPABILITY away from strength to say constitution. This is an obvious extreme optimization right off the bat. Now, maybe there are enough other tie-ins to strength that it won't really be a great option. The point was this is only the example of a feat that is problematic that it took me 3 seconds to come up with. If I go rummage through the feats for 20 minutes I suspect I can come up with some that are clearly going to be problems. Ultimately the issue is with a radically different mechanic for progression you can't simply graft it into a core system that uses different assumptions.


----------



## Danzauker (Jul 23, 2010)

I think the Knight is coming out good.

Defender Aura is easy: you only have to track if an enemy is adjacent to you to use it. I think all Knight markings are going to be similar in concept. The reference to other marked creatures is there just for interaction with other fighters.

Stances are quite easy to adjudicate, roo: you only have to decide, usually at the start of the encounter, which kind of enemy your'e going to take care of and choose a "whacker stance", or a "cautious stance", or whatever.

If all of the features are like this, I think it's going to be ok for novice players.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> For the most part, 4E has pretty solid balance between its classes with some spikes and some dips. In general though there isn't a single class that is nonviable and I've ceased micromanging _any_ class in 4E. I let people play what they want and the system 90% of the time takes good care of them - without my micromanagement of powers/feats except in *rare* cases. That's a true triumph as a system, at least until Psionics was released in PHB3. Right now any Psionic class that gets a single low level at-will power that scales poorly (EG Lightning Rush and Mind Thrust) becomes far more powerful or even game breaking by epic. This is because the power point system is deeply, chronically flawed and _doesn't work_. For the first and only time in 4E, I've had to micromanage three classes and think about rewriting for myself an entire system (Power Points) to bring spamming of low level "at-will" augment 2s down by epic tier.
> 
> It's not my idea of fun and not why I enjoy 4E.
> 
> I will keep ragging on Psionics all the time until I get my point across. Psionics are broken because they completely dismantled part of the encounter/daily system for them. At low levels they perform okay, but once they get the PP to turn an encounter power into an at-will some become broken or far more effective than if they take a higher level power (Battleminds with Lightning Rush for example, is a night and day difference as a defender).




Just because 2 powers of the psion are badly designed (maybe a fixed bonus will repair it), an maybe because higher level powers are a bit on the weak side for the amount of PP they cost, this doesn´t mean that they are inherenly broken by design.

You remember the warlord using its lead the attack power until level 30? A simple errata to those two powers would be helpful.

Ligning rush on a battlemind would have better been a class feature at this level. So noone would whine about using it until level 30 and they could have saved space for later powers that won´t replace it. (Battleminds have only 2 dailies and lightnng rush or something like that)

IMHO you are confusing bad game design with bad power design in most cases. I believe the fighters stances are a cool way to distinct this class from others.

You also should have in mind, that a long time 4e player has no problems with at wills that can be used as MBA. A new player may have an easier time wrapping their brain around stances and auras which are very intuitive.
Also power strike is a simple way to have some extra oomph at a critical point. Maybe an extra effect like dazed would have been cool, but at 1st level it may be a bit much.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Just to make it clear:

i believe this class is simple to understand and simple to play.

What we don´t know:
- what is battle guardian?
- how does shield finesse work?

- can subclasses be used with hybriding?
- are there new weapon mastery feats?
- does weapon specialization maybe allow taking feats without having the right prerequisites?

We know little, but  wouldn´tbe worried. Its a great class for beginners. Less so for powergamers. Sorry, if this is the future of D&D4e it will be a great one!


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 23, 2010)

So far I'm interessted and I like to see more of this "knight" class. I can't really say how much I like it.

CharOp has a thread on this article as well (Essential  Fighter: Knight ) and they have differing views as well.



They have noticed the possibility of dropping STR and going CON + whatver you like with Melee Training.
They brought up the basic attack enhancing feats especially in MP2
Master's Blade for a permanent +1 to hit b/c you always have an active stance
Synergy with Warlords or other (M)BA granting classes/abilities/etc.
We will see how well this new figher sub-class will be and how easily it will be broken or not.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Something i read on the RPG.net board:

melee training allows you to build a light armored dexterity based fighter by taking melee training. How cool is this?

Maybe the slayer build is even better for this because of his two-handed weapon talent for bows! I am pretty impressed now by the opportunity this gives with a single feat:

- Fighter that can use light armor
- high reflex
- high initiative
- able to wield a bow
- multiclass into rogue or ranger

edit: ninja´d


----------



## Njall (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, there's going to be problems with this class design. Its NOT going to be able to work with a bunch of existing feats. Melee Training? HEY, I have a fighter that is 100% WISDOM based! Well, even worse, 100% CONSTITUTION based, lol. Existing feats are going to totally bork this design.




Well, existing feat are going to totally keep this design balanced 
Fighters have quite a bit of feats that require Str, after all...


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 23, 2010)

Njall said:


> Well, existing feat are going to totally keep this design balanced
> Fighters have quite a bit of feats that require Str, after all...




The important thing is you can make STR secondary, tertiary, or drop it allcompletely which was impossible (there were one or more ways but hey...) prior to this MBA machine.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

And where is the problem here?

At the beginning of 4e everyone was upset, because a dex based fighter was impossible... and now you can build one and you are still upset?

Believe me or not, but the knight subclass is exactly what was suspected: a class that is easy to build (not so much choices, besides chosing stances and a weapon to specialize) and you can take feats to optimize it (MP2)

If it is broken (a.k. over- or underpowered) only time and charop will tell. But it is a great class design nontheless.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 23, 2010)

Danzauker said:


> Defender Aura is easy: you only have to track if an enemy is adjacent to you to use it. I think all Knight markings are going to be similar in concept. The reference to other marked creatures is there just for interaction with other fighters.




I don't think so. I think that the aura is there to supplement marking capability to put the knight on even ground with the warden who can auto taunt close enemies. I believe there will still be more focused marking included in the class.


----------



## P1NBACK (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm not gonna lie people. I wish _Essentials _would have been the classes released in the original 4E PHB. 

I love em. Knight included.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

the only thing the knight needs is a mechanics like:

opportunity action:
when an enemy tries to move away from you or attack an ally, you make a melee basic attack. If the attack hits, it stops movement.


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> the only thing the knight needs is a mechanics like:
> 
> opportunity action:
> when an enemy tries to move away from you or attack an ally, you make a melee basic attack. If the attack hits, it stops movement.




Obviously he needs a punishment feature but you are aware that we don't know what several things do in the adavancement table in the article like:

Battle guardian
Weapon Talent
Shield Finesse
Combat Readiness
Weapon Mastery
Weapon Specialization
Shield block
Greater Combat Readiness
or what utility powers will look like. 1 1 Defender aura


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Yes, as you can read in one of my previous post, i was totally aware. (edit: post 32, this page)
Batlle guardian will take care of this, i am sure.

I never said: "OMFG, they forgot to include such a feature. He is no defender at all bla bla"
I just speculated, what was needed to make this defender aura do its duties... (a direkt answer to exploder wizard)


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 23, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *Knight Preview*
> _Basic Attacks: As a fighter, you make most of your attacks using basic attacks. Some classes rely primarily on class-specific attack powers, whereas you typically make basic attacks enhanced by your fighter stances and other class features and powers._





_Am I the only person who sees this read as: _

_As a fighter you make most of your attacks using basic attacks.  Some classes rely on class-specific powers (at-will powers, encounters and dailies) while you typically make basic attacks modified by your fighter stances (e.g. at-will powers) and other class-specific features and powers (encounter powers and dailies)_

_Point I'm making is, what difference does it make?  Seems to me like we're changing the system to better suit people's moods._


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> I'm not gonna lie people. I wish _Essentials _would have been the classes released in the original 4E PHB.
> 
> I love em. Knight included.




I think it would have been MUCH MUCH BETTER if such a differently based class had been introduced 2 years ago instead of now. The question is if its going to just be a huge PITA at this later date.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And where is the problem here?
> 
> At the beginning of 4e everyone was upset, because a dex based fighter was impossible... and now you can build one and you are still upset?
> 
> ...




Nothing is wrong with it in concept. The issue is whether or not it is actually possible to make it work in 4e as it exists now and how many GOOD feats are going to have to be errataed to uselessnes, ones that we use now and want to keep, in order to make it work.

The  example of Melee Training was just to illustrate how a feat ends up working in a radically different way for a class that built in a different way. It may well be benign in the case of MT and even clever. There are 1000's of other feats out there. I'm very skeptical that all of them will apply in merely benign or clever ways. Even if they just mostly don't work the Knight is going to need feats that DO work for it, its just a question of can you design feats that work fine with BOTH the Knight and regular fighters. Of course you CAN, but how many options that would have been cool are now closed to the designers because they have to balance against 2 totally different class designs? Extend this to the whole system. I think its the ugly downside and that downside is the MAIN reason the original classes were all mechanically similar.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> And where is the problem here?
> 
> At the beginning of 4e everyone was upset, because a dex based fighter was impossible... and now you can build one and you are still upset?
> 
> ...




Actually, I was one of those guys who was upset because I couldn't make a Dex based fighter.  But I came to realize that Primary Attributes are just combat skills.  Noone has to know that your fighter has a 20 Strength.  You can describe him as limber and agile as you want.

Unless this Battle Guardian power is an Interrupt power that lets you strike at marked foes then they nerfed alot of the Defender out of this build.   Monsters won't care that they are -2 to hit if the Rogue is doing 25 pts of damage to the fighter's 14.

I really think that this is a lousy change and making builds with totally different mechanics is just dumb, especially when the mechanics they had were just fine.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 23, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I really think that this is a lousy change and making builds with totally different mechanics is just dumb, especially when the mechanics they had were just fine.



Not to beat a dead analogy, but isn't this like saying, "That restaurant's current menu is just fine. How dare they add to it! "


----------



## MrBeens (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Nothing is wrong with it in concept. The issue is whether or not it is actually possible to make it work in 4e as it exists now and how many GOOD feats are going to have to be errataed to uselessnes, ones that we use now and want to keep, in order to make it work.
> 
> The  example of Melee Training was just to illustrate how a feat ends up working in a radically different way for a class that built in a different way. It may well be benign in the case of MT and even clever. There are 1000's of other feats out there. I'm very skeptical that all of them will apply in merely benign or clever ways. Even if they just mostly don't work the Knight is going to need feats that DO work for it, its just a question of can you design feats that work fine with BOTH the Knight and regular fighters. Of course you CAN, but how many options that would have been cool are now closed to the designers because they have to balance against 2 totally different class designs? Extend this to the whole system. I think its the ugly downside and that downside is the MAIN reason the original classes were all mechanically similar.




Indeed, all of the stuff previously that is based around MBA (feats, items etc) were made with the fact that MBA are not the core of a class, they are mainly for bonus attacks that don't happen every round.

Another thing about the stances (as well as the dazed thing) is that both the stance and mark aura are minor actions to activate. In a lot of combats you will need 2 rounds to turn them both on if you want to do something meaningful in the first round.

I'm with Aegri earlier - this doesn't look any more simpler than the basic fighter, in fact it may even be slightly more complicated once all the other class powers come out.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Some may be simply updated by the addition of: prerequisite: combat challenge class feature or student of the sword feat, and voila, no knight can take it. Also there can be feat with prerequ knight. Or batlle guardian. Really, no point in freaking out.
Designers have generally shown, that they have a good sense of what works and what not, and they are even willing to update if something is inherently broken.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Zaran said:


> Actually, I was one of those guys who was upset because I couldn't make a Dex based fighter.  But I came to realize that Primary Attributes are just combat skills.  Noone has to know that your fighter has a 20 Strength.  You can describe him as limber and agile as you want.
> 
> Unless this Battle Guardian power is an Interrupt power that lets you strike at marked foes then they nerfed alot of the Defender out of this build.   Monsters won't care that they are -2 to hit if the Rogue is doing 25 pts of damage to the fighter's 14.
> 
> I really think that this is a lousy change and making builds with totally different mechanics is just dumb, especially when the mechanics they had were just fine.



See, I am concerned about which attribute is 20 and which not. I hate this reflavouring thing (like: I am a goliath, but i look like a gnome, I have strength 8 but i look like a brute)
If it works for you, great: Your character still has bad reflexes and is slow in combat. For me this doesn´t work.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

MrBeens said:


> Indeed, all of the stuff previously that is based around MBA (feats, items etc) were made with the fact that MBA are not the core of a class, they are mainly for bonus attacks that don't happen every round.
> 
> Another thing about the stances (as well as the dazed thing) is that both the stance and mark aura are minor actions to activate. In a lot of combats you will need 2 rounds to turn them both on if you want to do something meaningful in the first round.
> 
> I'm with Aegri earlier - this doesn't look any more simpler than the basic fighter, in fact it may even be slightly more complicated once all the other class powers come out.



Yes, the aura could have been made an automatic feature, but it makes sense that it is a minor action to activate:

when you charge in, a normal fighter also has to rely on his base attacks. Also I still guess the aura is the fighters secondary mark mechanic, not the first one. The other could still come with a strike of his weapon. It actuallycould have been worse, that you have to use a move action to maintain the defensive stance or something. I guess, it is ok like it is.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2010)

A few thoughts from looking at the Knight:

- It feels more like this fighter is using combat techniques instead of just special maneuvers, by having at-will stances that alter his attacks.
- The aura is simple and far more effective, as the knight can "lock down" every adjacent enemy.
- The powers are weapon-neutral, and I suspect we will see the "special effects based on weapons" in the Weapon Talent/Mastery features.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

I still guess the Aura is the knight extra, while the slayer and the knight share the battle guardian feature.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jul 23, 2010)

I awoke this morning to the sound of my TacLord laughing maniacally and screaming "Commander's Strike!" at the top of his lungs.  Now I know why.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

MrBeens said:


> Indeed, all of the stuff previously that is based around MBA (feats, items etc) were made with the fact that MBA are not the core of a class, they are mainly for bonus attacks that don't happen every round.
> 
> Another thing about the stances (as well as the dazed thing) is that both the stance and mark aura are minor actions to activate. In a lot of combats you will need 2 rounds to turn them both on if you want to do something meaningful in the first round.
> 
> I'm with Aegri earlier - this doesn't look any more simpler than the basic fighter, in fact it may even be slightly more complicated once all the other class powers come out.




I agree. Here's another mechanical issue, a charge build. This guy is using MBAs. Charging is power limited by only allowing an MBA. Even if you want to use something better than an MBA you have to at least spend a feat or two to make it effective. As it stands now I don't see anything in the Knight's design that stops him from basically unleashing his most devastating nova on a charge. This is at least a decent amount different from existing classes. Balancing any kind of charge enhancing element is going to be pretty hard with this guy in the game. 

The problem with "it won't be simpler to run" is that its much deeper than just a couple of fiddly aspects of his aura and stances. The complexity is BAKED INTO 4e. It isn't even just a matter of you have to understand complicated things like how to flank and how immediate actions work, etc. Its the fact that 4e is BUILT AROUND tactical complexity. If you succeeded in making a class that was NOT tactically complex, you aren't playing 4e anymore at all. Either the class is useless because it simply can't do anything interesting OR its horribly overpowered because if a tactically challenge person CAN be effective by just standing in one place and pounding away with a basic attack then a tactically savvy player is going to be totally OP playing the same build because the advantages of good tactics are core features of the rules, not something that comes with a class. 

I also don't even think this WILL be simpler to run. It will have the ILLUSION of being simpler, but lets consider what powers did for you in that regard. They are packages of effects put together for you. To make the Knight work well he's still got to be able to do the things he could do before, but now instead of having a power that you simply trigger off, you now have to come up with how to do it on your own. Which combinations of these encounter 'buffs' do I use and in which combinations in which situations to kick butt? Its like a 'build your own power' system, but the problem with that is you have to figure out what makes an effective power, EVERY TIME YOU SWING. I don't think this is going to be at all simple to play. I don't think you CAN make a 4e class that is really fundamentally simple to play. The only approach we've seen yet is the bow ranger that just has a single massive damage output power and even the bow ranger isn't dirt simple to play well at higher levels, not compared with the old time 1e fighter for instance.


----------



## P1NBACK (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> ...but the problem with that is you have to figure out what makes an effective power, EVERY TIME YOU SWING...




Not really. 

You're thinking on the level of an experienced 4E player. If you come into the game with little to no knowledge of 4E, the Knight is the perfect class for a warrior-type who just swings and does his aura. He doesn't have to remember who he marked or whatever just that if someone is close he gets to do his . 

Those "additional" elements are just that. Stepping stones to doing more complex stuff. It's a great design because you start simple, MBA, and build from the ground up. 

It's a great class build for beginners.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

I am glad, that the books have been sent to the printer already:

no time for hasty changes because of nerdrage like at the initial release.

I agree owever with you here: In play, the knight has many choices, but building such a knight is easier, and IMHO it is easier to explain to newer players that are concerned about "martial magic".

Actually i believe the main target of the essentials line are 3.x players and new players, both of who won´t have any issues with previously published fighter variants, that are still mechanically solid, but different.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> See, I am concerned about which attribute is 20 and which not. I hate this reflavouring thing (like: I am a goliath, but i look like a gnome, I have strength 8 but i look like a brute)
> If it works for you, great: Your character still has bad reflexes and is slow in combat. For me this doesn´t work.




A Dex fighter's Dexterity would still be high.  My 9th level fighter has a 20 Str and 18 Dex.   I focus my description on his high dex.    Still I do see your point.  At the same time I do not like having a fighter build that isn't compatible with the rest of the fighter builds.

I also understand that this isn't nerfing my fighter that I have now.  I just think that they shouldn't make the Duplo version of DnD for new players.  Rebox the game, add new powers, but stand by the mechanics of the game.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 23, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Not to beat a dead analogy, but isn't this like saying, "That restaurant's current menu is just fine. How dare they add to it! "



Well to continue your analogy:

They're adding to the menu a bunch of dishes from a different culinary tradition -- say, Chinese instead of Italian.

You can still order the Italian dishes, but there won't be any more innovation there. The lasagna the way it is on the menu now will never change.

For now there are only four Chinese dishes on the menu (the new classes). As time goes on there will be more and more Chinese dishes, and all recipe innovation will go into Chinese dishes.

I hope you like Chinese food.

If you like Italian food, you can still order it, but it's never going to get any better (or worse).


----------



## P1NBACK (Jul 23, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:


> I hope you like Chinese food.




That's a terrible analogy. 

It's more like a super fancy Italian restaurant adding a "lunch special" at a discounted rate that is simpler fare and on a condensed one-page insert menu in the middle of the normal extensive menu.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Zaran said:


> A Dex fighter's Dexterity would still be high.  My 9th level fighter has a 20 Str and 18 Dex.   I focus my description on his high dex.    Still I do see your point.  At the same time I do not like having a fighter build that isn't compatible with the rest of the fighter builds.
> 
> I also understand that this isn't nerfing my fighter that I have now.  I just think that they shouldn't make the Duplo version of DnD for new players.  Rebox the game, add new powers, but stand by the mechanics of the game.



Ok, here we disagree:

I would have liked it if the initial design would have been that way. But I also think the 4e PHB fighter is a thing of beauty, as other PHB classes, like the bard.

Solution: no new verision of D&D but diefferent builds.
You could perfectly play ADnD 2nd edition with all those differeent players options for quite a while. The only problem was that they were quite unbalanced. I do like a modular system and the essentials line is a win for all.

If you don´t like it, don´t buy it. And disallow it from your games if you like.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:


> Well to continue your analogy:
> 
> They're adding to the menu a bunch of dishes from a different culinary tradition -- say, Chinese instead of Italian.
> 
> ...



Where is the problem here? The old italian food i like won´t change. I hate it when my favourite meal changes. If I go to my favourite restaurant, I don´t want it suddenly changed.

But now, if I feel like having something different: like asian noodles (actually where they originally came from) i can get those too. (see the similarity here)


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 23, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Not to beat a dead analogy, but isn't this like saying, "That restaurant's current menu is just fine. How dare they add to it! "




Or, since an RPG system's parts all have to work together its more like saying, "This recipe already tastes just fine. I'm not sure adding more oregano is a good idea (even though I like oregano)."


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 23, 2010)

This discussion gives me an odd sense of deja vu....I guess it is reminiscent of the discussion of the first blurbs that were released about the classes of 4e before it was officially released.

I am reserving my judgement until I actually see the full class. It's like what the late Robert Jordan used to always say....RAFO (Read And Find Out).

My first impressions? It seems slightly underpowered. However, I like the idea of using stances to enhance basic attacks. I would love to see a few more of the stances that they will release.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> The issue with Melee Training is that you can switch ALL OF YOUR COMBAT CAPABILITY away from strength to say constitution. This is an obvious extreme optimization right off the bat. Now, maybe there are enough other tie-ins to strength that it won't really be a great option. The point was this is only the example of a feat that is problematic that it took me 3 seconds to come up with.




Why worry now?  Wizards has already finished the product.  When HFL is released, then analyze and worry.  Until then, you are giving a portion of your emotion over to negativity based purely on speculation.   There is precious few real info on Essentials, and a lot of marketing-speak (aka real-world flavor text) and the gaps are filledwith assumptions that WotC are complete naive fools, who haven't thought of the same problems.  Maybe they haven't.  Bur why worry until you know they haven't.

PS:  "Any basic attack used with the Knight and Slayer class features must be made using Strength." hardly qualifies as "system surgery".


----------



## FireLance (Jul 23, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:


> I hope you like Chinese food.



I know you were trying to illustrate a point, but um... I *AM* Chinese.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 23, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> For now there are only four Chinese dishes on the menu (the new classes). As time goes on there will be more and more Chinese dishes, and all recipe innovation will go into Chinese dishes.




But the head chef is designing stuff for next year's menu and has said tat he is leafing throughh Italian cookbooks?  Besides, Italian food stole pasta from the Chinese, so it's all good.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## FireLance (Jul 23, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> Or, since an RPG system's parts all have to work together its more like saying, "This recipe already tastes just fine. I'm not sure adding more oregano is a good idea (even though I like oregano)."



I think it's closer to: "Steak is fine, peanut butter is fine, but don't put peanut butter on steak."

WotC may eventually need to come up with official instructions that prevent you from mixing peanut butter with steak, but in the meantine, if you don't like peanut butter with steak, use them separately but not together. But if you _do_ like peanut butter with steak, enjoy it while it lasts!


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 23, 2010)

P1NBACK said:


> That's a terrible analogy.
> 
> It's more like a super fancy Italian restaurant adding a "lunch special" at a discounted rate that is simpler fare and on a condensed one-page insert menu in the middle of the normal extensive menu.




Except the discount menu is plastered over a very similar front page (the players handbook). ... and some very cool items are on the bottom in kind of small print.


----------



## Melkor (Jul 23, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> And yes, there are players who really _do_ just want "I swing my sword every round," or at least close to it. I've played with them.




Although I have never had the pleasure of playing with Mouseferatu, I am one of these player types. I really did enjoy the Fighter class way-back-when because he was easy to play and I didn't have to manage much more than the arrows or crossbow bolts I shot in ranged combat.

I really like that WotC seems to be adapting the game to several different types of play styles.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2010)

You're all making me hungry! <shakes fist to heavens> Hungreeeeee!!!


----------



## mearls (Jul 23, 2010)

mkill said:


> @Aegeri: There is a one-line quote that the Essentials line will influence future class design.




You can expect that most classes going forward will have:

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

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


----------



## Hawke (Jul 23, 2010)

I just looked at the release calendar, and with the first book out in September, aren't these previews a little earlier than they usually do previews?  I was guessing these were out in August until I looked... 

...that's a good sign though, I was excited enough by this preview to start budgeting for the product!


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I will keep ragging on Psionics all the time until I get my point across. Psionics are broken because they completely dismantled part of the encounter/daily system for them. At low levels they perform okay, but once they get the PP to turn an encounter power into an at-will some become broken or far more effective than if they take a higher level power (Battleminds with Lightning Rush for example, is a night and day difference as a defender).




Psionics are broken because they have low level powers with stat-based riders, or that are otherwise just too good for their level. 

The power point system is not inherently flawed - they just dropped the ball in the execution of it.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 23, 2010)

mearls said:


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



Thanks Mr. Mearls.

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


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

The good: 

-This class absolutely feels simpler and easier to play. I think the claims about 'not being able to switch stances while dazed' or 'what about theoretical interrupts?' are downright silly objections. 
-The defender aura is an excellent replacement for standard marking abilities, and so much easier than Combat Challenge / Combat Opportunity.
-I really like the feel of how this works, and am eager to see it in play.

The bad:
-I do worry about the potential abuse of having something so outside the normal approach. As has been mentioned - there are quite a few options balanced entirely around melee basic attacks being rare, rather than the core of a build.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 23, 2010)

Aren't analogies totally useless for actual debate?  Challenge to myself and future generations, stop mentioning menus.

These are a nice addition to the game.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 23, 2010)

Klaus said:


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



Reading about 'Power Attack' immediately made me smile. The ability to make a power attack once per encounter (or more often if your ability scores were exceptional) was one of well-received innovations I had included in my own RPG 

Apart from that I'm rather pleased that the knight is closer to what I suspected and not at all what many had feared 

And I think some of the reactions to it are hilarious


----------



## mneme (Jul 23, 2010)

Have to agree--while Disenhearten and Mind Thrust are overpowered, the design is sound--it's just that a 30th level power needs to be at least as good as a 1st level power (and likely better) with a level 2 augment -- not "more damage, but basically worse" as it is now.

Oh, and the knight is great, though yes, one has to look at how it will interact with the basic attack boosting feats.  OTOH, we already had classes that basically swung with basics all day long.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jul 23, 2010)

mearls said:
			
		

> You can expect that most classes going forward will have:
> 
> 2. The option to use a standard 4e power advancement scheme, like the mage and warpriest, or something that alters or removes a power category, like the knight.




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


----------



## mneme (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## YRUSirius (Jul 23, 2010)

Some Questions:

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

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


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


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 23, 2010)

mearls said:
			
		

> 1. A unique mechanic, either in terms of actual rules or flavor/effect. Knights have stances, warpriests have domains, mages have schools.
> 
> 2. The option to use a standard 4e power advancement scheme, like the mage and warpriest, or something that alters or removes a power category, like the knight.




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

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

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

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


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 23, 2010)

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

Seems fine.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jul 23, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## mearls (Jul 23, 2010)

Joshua Randall said:


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




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


----------



## mearls (Jul 23, 2010)

Charwoman Gene said:


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




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


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

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


----------



## MrBeens (Jul 23, 2010)

Klaus said:


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




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


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

Seems so^^


----------



## MrBeens (Jul 23, 2010)

Black Knight Irios said:


> To the one who fears it takes two rounds for the knight to get started:
> Round 1:
> Minor: Aura
> Move >> Minor: Stance
> ...




Normal Fighter
Round 1:
Move - Move
Standard - Charge

Twice as far. In the first example if the bad guys start further than 5 away (which to be honest probably happens more than not) you cannot do anything in the first round.

To take things to the absurd (and just for completeness, I don't really think this will happen often) if the enemy ends up exactly 1 square away from the Knight before his go on round 1, the Knight will neither be able to charge or attack on his first round if he wants to activate both his things.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 23, 2010)

MrBeens said:


> Normal Fighter
> Round 1:
> Move - Move
> Standard - Charge
> ...




And you mark how many foes? And your basic attack on your charge does what?  The knight could easily not fire up his aura and stance and do the exact same.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 23, 2010)

MrBeens said:


> Normal Fighter
> Round 1:
> Move - Move
> Standard - Charge
> ...




If the regular fighter is charging, he is using a standard basic attack, not an At-Will Power.

If the knight is charging, he is using a standard basic attack, not a stance-boosted one. 

Seems like the knight doesn't lose anything in that situation. In fact, he gains something - he can _choose_ to activate his stance instead of Defender aura, and thus get his Stance boost. The regular fighter doesn't have an option to, instead of marking on a charge, use an At-Will power. 

I'm not seeing a problem. 

And all this is assuming you can't just start fights with Defender Aura and a Stance on, which is how I expect most will play it, given those abilities are At-Will.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 23, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> And you mark how many foes? And your basic attack on your charge does what? The knight could easily not fire up his aura and stance and do the exact same.




Seems to me since the power is at-will the Knight can just keep it active at all times or at least all times that they believe they need it.  Would mean that noone else in the party will be bitten by mosquitos though.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 23, 2010)

Plus, anything that encourages the player from not charging across the board, away from his allies, is OK in my book.


----------



## Njall (Jul 23, 2010)

The aura doesn't have a duration, and it's not a stance, so it doesn't end at the end of the encounter: you could just activate it when you wake up in the morning and when you regain consciousness.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 23, 2010)

Njall said:


> The aura doesn't have a duration, and it's not a stance, so it doesn't end at the end of the encounter: you could just activate it when you wake up in the morning and when you regain consciousness.




Not only that you can remain in a stance between encounters. The only time you would need to use a minor action _during _combat is if you wanted to _change _stances.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2010)

mearls said:


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



I got an idea!


----------



## mkill (Jul 23, 2010)

_@MikeMearls, looking at your status: Drop me a PM before you come to Tokyo next time and you'll get your beer. Thank you for staying in touch with the community._

On topic: I'd love to see the first Knight build with the Melee Training: Con, Hammer Rhythm and Hammer Shock feats...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 23, 2010)

I would totally allow this. Monsters have ther aura up all the time! (Except they chose to put it down as a minor action)

The only think i would be worried is:

"after awaking, you start swinging your sword threatening at the air around you"


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2010)

MrBeens said:


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



It is, but with the added benefit that you can play something else, instead of a half-orc. Well, until Improved Power Attack comes along later on.

And if you *are* a half-orc, you can even choose to go nova on a single hit. If you're wilding a bastard sword, you could deal 3d10 (defender daily-level damage in every encounter) in a single attack. Or, since you decide it after the hit, you can choose to activate both on a critical hit and have them be maximized (it's no longer a lottery to see if you'll crit with your daily).


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 23, 2010)

MrBeens said:


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




??
I'd consider this a weak Level 1 encounter power- though the fact that it triggers only on a hit and you can wait for a crit is nice.


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (Jul 23, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> And you mark how many foes? And your basic attack on your charge does what?  The knight could easily not fire up his aura and stance and do the exact same.




Exactly. What order the actions are performed will depend entirely on the situation of the combat, and what tactics you prefer.

If the enemies are bunched together, you could do:
Move - Move closer to the enemies.
Minor - Activate either Defender Aura or Cleaving Assault
Attack - Charge and make your MBA

In effect, this sequence provides about the same amount of defender marking as a PHB fighter with Threatening Rush. Now, we don't know whether the Knight has a punishing effect for those that violate the mark, so the monsters could simply shift away or attack another PC with the -2 without getting smacked. But I'm betting that the Battle Guardian feature will provide the needed punishment or stickiness in a simplified form.

This preview has some other interesting features. I was glad to see the Defender Aura doesn't actually Mark, and so it will not supersede another defender's mark.
But even more interesting is that Knights (and likely Slayers) gain more stances as they level.
I know one fighter that is going to switch to this build as soon as I can figure out what the other class features likely do.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 23, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I also don't even think this WILL be simpler to run.




I'm not sure the real design goal of this class was to simplify the game, so much as make getting started in the game easier.

This is a class for the guy who looks at the powers and gets annoyed because he's being asked to make a bunch of decisions  before even playing the game, and he doesn't want to bother reading though the powers.

It's for the guy who says "Dude- just give me a guy that bashes stuff."

In game complexity is just part of the game. It doesn't feel like a chore, because you're beating up a goblin or fighting for your characters life- you're actively playing the game.

Prior game complexity can feel like a chore for some.  Feels too much like homework.



UngeheuerLich said:


> I would totally allow this. Monsters have ther aura up all the time! (Except they chose to put it down as a minor action)
> 
> The only think i would be worried is:
> 
> "after awaking, you start swinging your sword threatening at the air around you"




This doesn't really bother me... I kind of see it as the juiced up meat-head ready for anything... The guy who sleeps with a knife under his pillow and is up and ready to cut you in an instant.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 23, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> Or, since an RPG system's parts all have to work together its more like saying, "This recipe already tastes just fine. I'm not sure adding more oregano is a good idea (even though I like oregano)."



mmmm...Infinite Oregano!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 23, 2010)

FireLance said:


> Not to beat a dead analogy, but isn't this like saying, "That restaurant's current menu is just fine. How dare they add to it! "



Except, at a restaurant, you don't have to make sure with every single one of the new and old dishes that if someone orders the right (or perhaps... wrong) combination of items, it won't poison every diner within a 30 foot radius.  Or make them all into toads.  Or giants.

Actually, if you know of such a restaurant, are they hiring?


----------



## mearls (Jul 23, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would totally allow this. Monsters have ther aura up all the time! (Except they chose to put it down as a minor action)
> 
> The only think i would be worried is:
> 
> "after awaking, you start swinging your sword threatening at the air around you"




There were a few jokes about that during the design process.

Really, though, the mechanic is meant to capture the flavor of an alert, experienced warrior. While the rogue inspects a locked door and the wizard tries to translate the runes scribed above it, the fighter keeps his eyes open for trouble, his sword at hand, shifting his feet to stay ready to move. An experienced warrior would look at the three and immediately note that the fighter is a highly trained combatant.

Even outside of combat, you can see it playing out like this. A thief creeps up behind the fighter standing at the bar. As he slides up to the fighter to pick his pocket, the fighter whirls around, grabs the thief by the hand, and slams him into the bar. It's almost a Conan-style thing, the really skilled, warrior driven by training that has transformed into instinct.


----------



## Camelot (Jul 23, 2010)

For someone with both the original 4e material and essentials, can essentials combine with the rest of their class?  It seems that a fighter can use stances while also having at-will powers too, if you want the complexity.

The plate armor is confusing too.  Is that going to be added on to all fighters, or do essentials fighters lack something that warrents them having plate?


----------



## Rex Blunder (Jul 23, 2010)

Ah, major spoiler from mearls!

Battle Guardian:
As an opportunity action, when a thief inside the fighter's Defender Aura makes an attack which does not include the fighter, the fighter may whirl around, grab the thief by the hand, and slam him into a bar. The bar must also be within the Defender Aura.

A couple of interesting implications here!
"whirl around": Essentials introduces facing!
"thief" Essentials renames the "rogue" class to "thief"!
"bar" All fights take place in a bar! 4e Essentials is basically Innfighting!

We could probably figure out the entire Essentials rule set this way!


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 23, 2010)

mearls said:


> There were a few jokes about that during the design process.
> 
> Really, though, the mechanic is meant to capture the flavor of an alert, experienced warrior. While the rogue inspects a locked door and the wizard tries to translate the runes scribed above it, the fighter keeps his eyes open for trouble, his sword at hand, shifting his feet to stay ready to move. An experienced warrior would look at the three and immediately note that the fighter is a highly trained combatant.
> 
> Even outside of combat, you can see it playing out like this. A thief creeps up behind the fighter standing at the bar. As he slides up to the fighter to pick his pocket, the fighter whirls around, grabs the thief by the hand, and slams him into the bar. It's almost a Conan-style thing, the really skilled, warrior driven by training that has transformed into instinct.




Still curious about the design space/compatibility issue. It seems to me that when you have classes using really significantly different mechanics such as existing martial classes and the Knight aren't you REALLY restricting the kinds of feats and items (and other add-ons) that will work OK with both of them? This would be an issue for both compatibility with existing 4e AND could be a real hassle for people designing these things going forward.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 24, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> That said, there is one effect this class can have on other fighter builds. Because the knight does not have daily powers...that's less incentive to put out new dailies for fighters in general.



Well, keep in mind - it looks like Martial classes are the ones getting the new treatment.  We already got a Martial Power 2, and IIRC the Martial power source has had more attention in Dragon than any other.

So I'm not particularly worried, even if we don't see many new Fighter Dailies for a year or two. 

-O


----------



## mkill (Jul 24, 2010)

I really don't get the "we'll never ever ever ever see new stuff for XY again" whining.

Please point me to the quote where it says "we'll stop supporting PHB1; Dragon will be full Essentials from now on"

Compared to "we'll publish these 10 products and then get back to the main line"
^^^^^
paraphrased actual quote

Obviously people will still be playing PHB1 classes in 2011 and onwards, why should they stop adding stuff for them in future Dragons?



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Still curious about the design  space/compatibility issue. It seems to me that when you have classes  using really significantly different mechanics such as existing martial  classes and the Knight aren't you REALLY restricting the kinds of feats  and items (and other add-ons) that will work OK with both of them? This  would be an issue for both compatibility with existing 4e AND could be a  real hassle for people designing these things going forward.




This kind of issue existed from the start, even if you look at pure PHB1. Example? A fighter with a two-handed weapon can't use the Tide of Iron at-will. Is that a big problem? No, he just chooses something else.

The Essentials line is meant as a stand-alone product, so it's fair to assume that it will have enough feats, items etc. to build a complete Knight all by itself. If that's not enough for you, you can add in feats and items from other books. Some will work, some won't. I'm pretty sure Charop will come up with an appropriate guide at some point. The target audience (newcomers who are overwhelmed by the 6500+ powers in the database) won't care anyway.


----------



## occam (Jul 24, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> And yes, there are players who really _do_ just want "I swing my sword every round," or at least close to it. I've played with them.




As have I. I've already seen a couple of players in D&D Encounters who insist on using only basic attacks (not even at-wills!), and don't take prompting by the other players at the table kindly.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 24, 2010)

mearls said:


> You can expect that most classes going forward will have:
> 
> 1. A unique mechanic, either in terms of actual rules or flavor/effect. Knights have stances, warpriests have domains, mages have schools.
> 
> 2. The option to use a standard 4e power advancement scheme, like the mage and warpriest, or something that alters or removes a power category, like the knight.




Someone cover me for Mr Mearls, apparently I need to spread my .... Xp before I can give him some more...


----------



## Greg K (Jul 24, 2010)

mearls said:


> Even outside of combat, you can see it playing out like this. A thief creeps up behind the fighter standing at the bar. As he slides up to the fighter to pick his pocket, the fighter whirls around, grabs the thief by the hand, and slams him into the bar. It's almost a Conan-style thing, the really skilled, warrior driven by training that has transformed into instinct.




So, by keeping the aura, there is no way for the thief to sneak up behind the fighter? If so, I don't think I like that as it takes the relevant Perception and Stealth skills out of the equation. (Edit: Or am I misunderstanding?)


----------



## Markn (Jul 24, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Someone cover me for Mr Mearls, apparently I need to spread my .... Xp before I can give him some more...




I tried...but I'm in the same boat.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 24, 2010)

Greg K said:


> So, by keeping the aura, there is no way for the thief to sneak up behind the fighter? If so, I don't think I like that as it takes the relevant Perception and Stealth skills out of the equation. (Edit: Or am I misunderstanding?)




Pretty sure you're misunderstanding... It doesn't have anything to do with the perception skill really. 

He was just setting the scene of what type of guy it depicts.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 24, 2010)

occam said:


> As have I. I've already seen a couple of players in D&D Encounters who insist on using only basic attacks (not even at-wills!), and don't take prompting by the other players at the table kindly.



So... someone actually invented a way to grief your own party in a PnP game?

Fascinating.

I guess it was only a matter of time, though.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 24, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I actually do understand this concept, but you've missed the core point that this is how classes will be designed from here on out.




I think this common quote is being misinterpreted. I don't think that all classes will look just like this (simplified) from now on, but that ALL classes will have complex and simplified options from now on, so more classes will be appealing to more player types.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Jul 25, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Someone cover me for Mr Mearls, apparently I need to spread my .... Xp before I can give him some more...






Markn said:


> I tried...but I'm in the same boat.




Bam covered, half for each of you


----------



## Markn (Jul 25, 2010)

Doh!  I would XP you, but apparently I already have and can't again!


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 25, 2010)

Markn said:


> Doh!  I would XP you, but apparently I already have and can't again!




Covered retroactively


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> This kind of issue existed from the start, even if you look at pure PHB1. Example? A fighter with a two-handed weapon can't use the Tide of Iron at-will. Is that a big problem? No, he just chooses something else.
> 
> The Essentials line is meant as a stand-alone product, so it's fair to assume that it will have enough feats, items etc. to build a complete Knight all by itself. If that's not enough for you, you can add in feats and items from other books. Some will work, some won't. I'm pretty sure Charop will come up with an appropriate guide at some point. The target audience (newcomers who are overwhelmed by the 6500+ powers in the database) won't care anyway.




I think you missed my point entirely. The point I'm making is that when you have 2 classes which have radically different resource use and depend on different aspects of the mechanics to do basically the same thing then you have to design each feat and item (and other 'extras') such that they AT LEAST don't break EITHER of them. Now, this sort of consideration exists with the current 4e set of classes, BUT most of those classes pay attention to different types of things. Knight and FWT fighter OTOH care about exactly the same kinds of considerations, except they interact differently with the rules. This creates extra constraints on the design of elements going forward (and it has already been pointed out in charops that there are probably a whole laundry list of feats and items that will not interact well with the Knight and thus need errata). 

I'm also a bit puzzled by all this talk about how players will only have to worry about 1 or 2 things with this new fighter. How is that true? These players that object to using anything but an MBA are going to be happier now because their attack masquerades as an MBA? I don't think so. They still need to decide when to toss on an encounter add-on effect, etc. Its no different from having powers. The same basic sorts of choices will face knight players as those of any other fighter.


----------



## Steelwill (Jul 26, 2010)

I wish the preview had been a little bitty bit more extensive.  I find myself with more questions and less understanding of what to expect following this preview. More like a teaser than a preview.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> This creates extra constraints on the design of elements going forward (and it has already been pointed out in charops that there are probably a whole laundry list of feats and items that will not interact well with the Knight and thus need errata).




I don't think any of these will be errata'ed personally. The knight is likely to have its own subset of feats and other things that support it, without needing to interact with older fighter feats (And thus requiring errata).

I could be wrong on that, but it seems like an awful amount of work for a very minor benefit.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> I don't think any of these will be errata'ed personally. The knight is likely to have its own subset of feats and other things that support it, without needing to interact with older fighter feats (And thus requiring errata).
> 
> I could be wrong on that, but it seems like an awful amount of work for a very minor benefit.




Yeah, except there are feats and items that already exist that they CAN use (obviously if you are mixing Essentials with existing 4e). Ongoing if Essentials is ACTUALLY compatible with 'classic' (we need a name for this) then none of the feats in Essentials can be overpowered for existing characters, even if they would work fine for an Essentials character. They can always just restrict them all to various Essentials classes, but at a certain point that becomes a kind silly sort of "compatibility". Honestly I don't know how much of a big deal it is. That was why I posed the question to Mike, just wondered what his view on that was (though obviously replies are fairly unlikely).


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

The only thing that would concern me is things that boost stances, which aren't limited by a Knight class feature fighters could potentially get. Being able to make the fighters already incredibly good stances like Rain of Steel _better_ doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If they limit this to improving the Knights stances that will work pretty well overall. Additionally, as his "mark" powers require the aura this is an immensely easy way of preventing the original fighter stealing any of those feats.

I do agree though that I cannot see how the Knight can be "compatible" with the original Fighter on reflection. If the Knight can take Fighter stances, he basically removes all his at-will powers - albeit probably for a better benefit - for the whole encounter. If the knight can't, then I wonder if they get improved encounter length stances of their own or what they replace things with. Given that they have moved most of their powers into class features, it's easy to make the knights feats and similar completely exclusive. 

It is harder IMO to make the knight compatible with other things like existing feats (Mark of Warding) and items (Oathkeeper Weapon IIRC). Particularly those elements that rely on a mark unless he can mark an enemy and I wouldn't be surprised if he has his aura and a dedicated mark too (one class feature sounds distinctly mark like). 

The question has to be if everything in essentials should be compatible with previous material or not. It's pretty clear the Mage and Cleric are, so maybe if something really wants to be different like the knight for the benefit of the game it should be relatively incompatible with portions the existing fighter class and vice versa for balance.

Edit: Also, hilariously I just realized that some PPs like Pit Fighter are much reduced in effectiveness for the Knight. Because melee basic attacks don't count as being from your class the main feature of the pit fighter - wisdom to damage - doesn't work at all for the knight who only has a melee basic attack. So that's an example of a pretty silly "incompatibility". I imagine though the Knight will have its own PPs that probably boost its aura or change how that works.


----------



## Markn (Jul 26, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'm also a bit puzzled by all this talk about how players will only have to worry about 1 or 2 things with this new fighter. How is that true? These players that object to using anything but an MBA are going to be happier now because their attack masquerades as an MBA? I don't think so. They still need to decide when to toss on an encounter add-on effect, etc. Its no different from having powers. The same basic sorts of choices will face knight players as those of any other fighter.




I honestly think you are a bit too far removed from your beginning days into the hobby.  That, or your superior IQ prevents you from seeing the issue that some people have with complex tactics (and just so you know, I am not trying to be insulting here).

The reality is this - the knight maintains a 4e design tenant that choice is important.  Therefore, stances, encounter powers and class features still exist and the player still has to choose when to use what.  However, the dynamics of when to use what, and the impact they will have on the combat are much more obvious to new players, or to players who struggle with understanding the benefits of certain tactics.  

Sure, the new guy can make mistakes and not use his kicker powers to add damage at the right time - but he also can't constantly hamstring himself (and his party) by using up all his daily's (or not using them) because the complexity of understanding when to use them is so great that he basically freezes up and doesn't do anything but spam a single power.  

Hell, I have a guy who has played for quite some time, loves the game, but doesn't have the time to devote to reading a lot of the books, and to be honest has a slight reading comprehension problem.  He has easily grasped earlier editions, but he constantly struggles with what is the right thing to do at the right time in 4e.  When is a daily appropriate, when is it not?  Hell, every time he uses his power, he has to read the entire thing just so he can remember all the nuances of it.  The knight, from what I can tell, is just plain simpler to run.  Do you want to add damage on this attack?  Yes or no?  You don't have to wrestle with other effects and trying to understand the impact they will have on the fight.  Its simply not there (or much more limited) than what is currently there.

This is where the Knight appeals to new players and where it is much easier to run.

On the flip side, I DO agree with your concerns about the class design with regards to feats, items, etc that WotC will have to be very careful with lest they accidently break the intended design.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Guys, you're blowing this way out of proportion, really. I bet 10 bucks that the number of feats that will be updated for Essentials classes is zero. Yes, there is the odd chance that Charop will come up with something ueberbroken but I don't see it yet.

The "worst" they have come up with yet is a Knight who can slide an enemy one square with every hit. Oh, and they can make him attack Ref instead of AC when using a light blade. Now don't get me wrong, slide 1 at-will is nice, but it's no reason to draw the nerf bat. It's about as broken as Tide of Iron / Footwork Lure and Piercing Strike, stuff PHB characters gain at-will at first level.

At least we can wait until we've seen the complete writeup before we panic about possible brokenness.


As for compatibility: *Essentials is aimed at beginners.*

In other words, it's aimed at people who don't own PHB1, PHB2, Martial Power etc. They are busy with learning the ropes of the game instead of building a swiss army knife character. 

Yes, the Essentials Fighter doesn't work with the errata'd Pitfighter, yes, it doesn't work with Weapon Style Feats, and we don't know yet if he's able to switch out his class features for existing powers. It's good that the developers keep the game consistent and keep the new  classes within the existing rules framework, but it it's completely  sufficient if you can combine stuff that makes sense. Even if that stuff is only 10% of the options available to PHB fighters. After all, you can still play a PHB fighter if a broad range of build options is important to you (in which case you're not a beginner, so you're not the intended player of the Essentials Fighter anyway.)

There two type of compatibility that really matter:
* Essentials characters can play in one group with PHB characters
* Players who learn D&D with an Essentials character don't have to relearn the game when they buy other products
These are the yardsticks by which I will measure the books. Everything else, whatever.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> The only thing that would concern me is things that boost stances, which aren't limited by a Knight class feature fighters could potentially get.




And if the book comes out without anything that boosts stances you've panicked for no reason at all.

And frankly, there simply is no reason to give the Knight feats or whatever that boost stances. Since he's always in a stance anyway, you can just give him the bonus regardless of stances. This has the added benefit of being more simple, something that is a stated design goal of the product.

It's more likely that the scaling of stances will be handled by giving him better stances at higher levels (like the preview gets at lvl 7).


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> Guys, you're blowing this way out of proportion, really. I bet 10 bucks that the number of feats that will be updated for Essentials classes is zero. Yes, there is the odd chance that Charop will come up with something ueberbroken but I don't see it yet.




Will there be a pretty princess avatar and title on offer here? I'm pretty sure they won't update or errata anything myself personally.



> Oh, and they can make him attack Ref instead of AC when using a light blade.




Which is hardly overpowered and is actually just downright awesome that it can be done. Not to mention such a build can be dex, int, wis or cha primary as well. I stab you with the sheer mesmerizing power of my manhood! Of course how overpowered that could be depends on how everything else fits together, but I do agree with you it's unlikely to be an issue (barring something dramatic).



> At least we can wait until we've seen the complete writeup before we panic about possible brokenness.




I'm more worried about it being underpowered tbh.



> It's good that the developers keep the game consistent and keep the new  classes within the existing rules framework, but it it's completely  sufficient if you can combine stuff that makes sense. Even if that stuff is only 10% of the options available to PHB fighters.




I assume you're trying to say that they should only allow stuff to combine if it makes sense to combine? I happen to agree, which is why I don't think they'll be publishing errata on older feats to make them compatible with the knight.



mkill said:


> And if the book comes out without anything that boosts stances you've panicked for no reason at all.




It's a class based on stances.

Are you saying a class based on stances will have _no options_ for improving stances?

_Really?_

Now *that* would surprise me.



> And frankly, there simply is no reason to give the Knight feats or whatever that boost stances. Since he's always in a stance anyway, you can just give him the bonus regardless of stances. This has the added benefit of being more simple, something that is a stated design goal of the product.




That's my point, the feats wouldn't be generally for a specific stance they would boost them in general. Hence the original fighter grabbing them to boost his daily stances. Especially in paragon and beyond when the fighter gets a good selection of them, making boosting stances worthwhile.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> It's a class based on stances.
> 
> Are you saying a class based on stances will have _no options_ for improving stances?
> 
> ...




Yes, I'm saying that there won't be any feats, items that boost stances (except for maybe a Knight-only feat to get an extra stance).

As I said, for a Knight there is no difference between "get this bonus while in a stance" and "_always_ get this bonus".

So there is no need for the kind of feat you describe.



Aegeri said:


> That's my point, the feats wouldn't be generally for a specific stance they would boost them in general. Hence the original fighter grabbing them to boost his daily stances. Especially in paragon and beyond when the fighter gets a good selection of them, making boosting stances worthwhile.




Ok, let's assume the unlikely. Essentials comes out and there is a Paragon feat
"Gain a +1 feat bonus to AC while in a stance".

* For the Knight, that feat is as good or bad as Plate Specialization. He's always in a stance, he's always wearing plate. Plate Spec has a prerequisite of Con 15, but it's safe to assume a Knight will have that.
In fact, all Knight stance feats need to be balanced to flat bonus or always-on feats, because that's what they are.

* For a PHB Fighter, the feat has an added cost that he needs to always be in a stance. Unless he has one of those encounter stances, it's a useless feat. (Wait, stance feats are worse for the PHB fighter? What are we panicking about again?)
And like the Knight, he can just as well take any of the armor specialization feats.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

> * For a PHB Fighter, the feat has an added cost that he needs to always be in a stance. Unless he has one of those encounter stances, it's a useless feat. (Wait, stance feats are worse for the PHB fighter? What are we panicking about again?)




The fighter in my epic game uses a stance every single combat easily (and has done so since paragon too). In fact he's encouraged to because they last all encounter, convey a very powerful benefit and are well worth the investment. This is a minor detriment to a stance based fighter you realize, plus it has a minor cost compared to plate specialization (no con requirement). So that means no putting points into con for it later and instead more points for strength/wisdom and maybe some dex (initiative and reflex defense).

I'm not seeing the downside here once you get the stances to use one every encounter. Of course you might be right and they have nothing that boosts stances - improving the basic thing that they actually do. Alternatively, they could eliminate a fighter pinching these from the knight easily, say by making it only on at-will stances (I don't remember if the fighter has any off hand). On the other hand, a fighter DOES have several encounter stances that do indeed last until the end of the encounter. So it's not hard at all for him to just use an encounter stance to benefit from any of these.

But again, if it only affects at-will stances I think that would solve the "potential" problem. We'll just have to see, but I'll be remarkably surprised if a class based on at-will stances has no way of taking feats to improve or use stances better.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri... What I'm trying to tell you is that even if there are stance booster feats, they simply will be yet another feat. If they're not broken for the Knight, they're not broken for the PHB fighter either.

Maybe you should just stop trying to pull possible issues out of nowhere for imagined rules that nobody except the designers and playtesters has seen yet.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> Aegeri... What I'm trying to tell you is that even if there are stance booster feats, they simply will be yet another feat. If they're not broken for the Knight, they're not broken for the PHB fighter either.




The "classic" fighter (we honestly need better naming conventions here) has considerably better stances, that's kind of my point as if I was a knight I wouldn't be taking knight stances - I would take classic fighter ones. Your logic also doesn't hold up, Hide Armour Expertise wasn't broken on Shamans as an example, but another class the Barbarian broke it entirely. Because one class broke the feat, it was nerfed into oblivion even though other classes found it fine. That easily disproves that just because something is okay in one context, it doesn't mean it will be in another.



> Maybe you should just stop trying to pull possible issues out of nowhere for imagined rules that nobody except the designers and playtesters has seen yet.




I've already stated it's only possible, but it's definitely something that is worth considering in the long run in terms of errata/essentials viability. The Knight is a very different class to the original fighter, to me what might be fine in one context could be potentially broken in the other. This is part of my issues with this being "compatible". Just like how Hide Armour Expertise was perfectly fine in one context (shaman) yet absolutely chronically broken in another (Barbarian). 

So your logic isn't sound. What isn't broken for one class can be broken for another. 4E has a history of this.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

The Essentials Fighter will get better stances at higher levels. You assume that PHB Fighter stances are better, but you haven't seen the other side yet.

Hide Armor Expertise is a bad example because the feat was badly balanced against other Epic feats. The nerf was necessary. If a feat is balanced against other feats, it doesn't break whichever PC it is applied to.
If the Shaman needs an overpowered feat to fix its AC the Shaman is the problem. 

If you apply this to the Knight, it means that the Knight should be competitive without the need for too pwerful feats. 
We'll know more when the book is out.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> The Essentials Fighter will get better stances at higher levels. You assume that PHB Fighter stances are better, but you haven't seen the other side yet.
> 
> Hide Armor Expertise is a bad example because the feat was badly balanced against other Epic feats. The nerf was necessary. If a feat is balanced against other feats, it doesn't break whichever PC it is applied to.
> If the Shaman needs an overpowered feat to fix its AC the Shaman is the problem.
> ...




Context is EXACTLY the point though, and Hide Armor Expertise was a perfectly good example. There are many others. Heck, I'd say 75% of the things that have been nerfed in 4e were fine in the context that the designers originally envisaged. The problem is just that the more divergent contexts you have, the more of a hassle it is to design things that work as expected in all those different contexts.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 26, 2010)

No, it was even not fine on a shaman, otherwise the fix would have been:

add: requirement shaman
...and a different feat would have been designed for the barbarian.


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 26, 2010)

Steelwill said:


> I wish the preview had been a little bitty bit more extensive.  I find myself with more questions and less understanding of what to expect following this preview. More like a teaser than a preview.




What's funny is that after presenting these previews showing 30% of the rules for the heroic tier, WOTC employees have acted annoyed on message boards and later previews that folks are making incorrect assumptions about Essentials.

Give people enough information to make a sound judgment, and they'll do that; give people enough information to force them to speculate and they'll do that instead.

And I don't understand the value of withholding so much information in these previews. If they included the rules to make an entire Level 1 Essentials PC would they lose any sales?
To the contrary I think more people would be reassured by the extra information and they'd  now plan to buy the books.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

I am planning on buying essentials actually, when before I was going to ignore it entirely. That's because while I really dislike what I know about the Knight, the Mage and Cleric I think sound great. I can't wait to have a look at them and I think the mage getting magic missile for free as a bonus at-will is fantastic (so much so, I houseruled it to being the same for Wizards too).

Edit: Your point is still sound though.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 26, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> What's funny is that after presenting these previews showing 30% of the rules for the heroic tier, WOTC employees have acted annoyed on message boards and later previews that folks are making incorrect assumptions about Essentials.
> 
> Give people enough information to make a sound judgment, and they'll do that; give people enough information to force them to speculate and they'll do that instead.
> 
> ...




Yes indeed. If they would have provided enough info to build a complete level 1 version of the core classes then it might have provided more constructive feedback from the player base. Heck, level 1-3 characters are given away with the CB demo. 

Level 1 functionality could have helped build more desire and anticipation for the rest of the rules.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> The Essentials Fighter will get better stances at higher levels. You assume that PHB Fighter stances are better, but you haven't seen the other side yet.




If they get an *at-will* 1[W] automatic damage stance I will eat my hat and I'll do so without condiments. 

Otherwise yes, I will assume the PHB fighter stances are inherently better. Once again, by mid paragon and especially epic it's not hard to have a stance active every encounter. The later stances you can pick up are even better than Rain of Steel and Rain of Steel is _still_ a good choice even at epic. Throw several even better choices into the mix and the fighter is spoiled for choice when it comes to good encounter length daily stances to use. The Knight would pretty much have to throw away all his at-will powers to use these, but then again they are that good if the knight _can_ take them there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> What's funny is that after presenting these previews showing 30% of the rules for the heroic tier, WOTC employees have acted annoyed on message boards and later previews that folks are making incorrect assumptions about Essentials.




Huh what?

People can't read, can't wait until the product ships, can't be polite and can't shut up and *it's the developers' fault*? In what world are you living?

- The people who complained that the Warlord was not included would still have complained.

- The guy who needed 3 pages of Charop thread before his reading comprehension kicked in and he noticed that the Knight does not have at-will powers would have acted the same.

- The people who can't accept that a build is targeted at beginners, rather than themselves and their own playing style, would still have complained.

- The people who made assumptions about the Knights power level at Paragon and Epic, even though absolutely zero is known about it, would still have posted their opinion.

- People who take whatever is announced as proof that the WotC designers a) incompetent, b) lying or c) screwing over the fanbase would not have shut up

- People who just know that something is a) overpowered or b) sucks before playing it in an actual game will react like this to any preview no matter of content. In fact, this sums up any thread on any product until 2 weeks after it ships.

There are only very few measures to prevent that kind of reaction, and all of them are drastic and unrealistic / undesirable.

A) Massively investing in public school systems worldwide to improve people's written comprehension

B) Rigorously banning every poster

C) Immediately replying all such posts with a link to the TV Tropes Fandumb article

D) Simply not reading message boards on anything you are involved with professionally

E) Ship all Internet-connected PCs with an included cluebat


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> If they get an *at-will* 1[W] automatic damage stance I will eat my hat and I'll do so without condiments.




What if it's encounter? What if it's still daily but it states that the damage dealt is an attack?

Saying that you have to hand out a daily stance as an at-will before it's better is being a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 26, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> What if it's encounter?




An encounter stance that does that for the Knight might as well make all their at-wills for the rest of their career utterly pointless . There would never be a reason not to take it over the minor benefits I've seen their at-will stances grant.

1[W] autodamage is pretty huge.



> What if it's still daily but it states that the damage dealt is an attack?



Makes it even better! Then it triggers a whole bunch of things that trigger on making attacks too.



> Saying that you have to hand out a daily stance as an at-will before it's better is being a bit ridiculous.



That's the point. Fighter stances are _damn_ good and if the Knight can take them there is absolutely no reason not to. They will lose all their at-will stances, but who cares: their stances are unlikely to be anywhere near as good as an automatic 1[W] damage or many of the other awesome stances fighters get already.

Bear in mind that I'm responding to the assertion that I'm assuming the PHB fighter can get better stances. I'm not just assuming this, I'm absolutely betting on it because unless the knight can get 2 stances at once, he's unlikely to get long encounter length stances of the quality of the PHB fighter. Otherwise it becomes this weird class that cannot use a giant chunk of its powers - you might have noticed they are all stances . At the same time, this _could be the intention_ as a class that is "activate this stance" then roll dice for the rest of the encounter could be intentional. 

So something like Rain of Steel, a fairly low level but pretty solid fighter stance is the baseline to me. Will they get a stance that can match that? Because if not, the Knight isn't even going to outdo the original fighter in something that should be his backyard.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> Huh what?
> 
> People can't read, can't wait until the product ships, can't be polite and can't shut up and *it's the developers' fault*? In what world are you living?




I would say that nothing terribly wrong has happened so *fault *isn't really applicable here. What is happening is simple speculation taking place in the absence of hard data. Only if the designers are upset about such speculation is there a problem at all. My bet is that they are not. Those who care enough to speculate and discuss their thoughs are _interested _enough to do so, which is a good thing. 




mkill said:


> A) Massively investing in public school systems worldwide to improve people's written comprehension
> 
> B) Rigorously banning every poster
> 
> ...




Huh. What?

Reading comprehension applies only to text that actually exists. Speculating about paragon/epic issues when we don't even have a clear idea about heroic capabilities _is _kind of pointless really. 

Wanting a bit more detail/ having a decent picture of a class at level 1 isn't so outrageous though.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 26, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> An encounter stance that does that for the Knight might as well make all their at-wills for the rest of their career utterly pointless . There would never be a reason not to take it over the minor benefits I've seen their at-will stances grant.
> 
> 1[W] autodamage is pretty huge.
> 
> ...



Maybe we'll see stuff like this:

Bladed Defender
At Will <> Martial, Stance
Effect: Enemies affected by your Defender's Aura take damage equal to your Constitution modifier at the end of your turn.

Or a higher-level Cleaving Assault that targets all adjacent enemies?

The problem with Rain of Steel is that it is counterproductive to the defender role: you want enemies to stick close to you, and that stance punishes those who do.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 26, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> What if it's encounter? What if it's still daily but it states that the damage dealt is an attack?
> 
> Saying that you have to hand out a daily stance as an at-will before it's better is being a bit ridiculous.




Uh... keep in mind that an Encounter stance is virtually as good as an At-Will stance - you can have it up, all encounter long, in every fight of the day. 

Anyway, we're starting to get into really weird hypotheticals. I can't imagine the Knight getting any stances that aren't At-Will - that seems his entire design. Aegeri feels this will mean the Knight is an inferior class, forever, because he doesn't have Rain of Steel. Rain of Steel is certainly good - but it isn't required for every fighter, and a lack of it won't ruin the build.

Meanwhile, could they come out with feats that interact weirdly with Knights vs normal fighters? Sure, maybe. But worrying about things that only exist in hypothetical scenarios doesn't give you any cause to criticize things as they currently stand. 

From what we have seen (the small amounts we have seen) the knight seems potentially balanced against other classes. What daily resources they have, if any, is the only real question up in the air. 

Can you make really effective builds based on melee basic attacks? Yes, absolutely. I was rather worried about this...

...until I realized you could build such things already. There are effective melee basic at-wills already, in the form of Eldritch Strike or stuff like Righteous Brand and the Skill Domain. Take those, focus on Encounter/Daily powers that are Immediate or Free actions, and snatch up the various feats to boost basic attacks, and you can already achieve the same benefits as the theoretically optimized Knight. 

And none of those benefits are game-breaking. Really good, sure, but so are all sorts of other builds. 

Would it have been nice for WotC to toss out a bit more info? Sure. But these are all just a bonus for people to give a hint at what is to come. The expectation they need to reveal information to make a fully playable 1st level character, thus severely undercutting the actual need for the product itself? That's entitlement at its worst. 

The stuff they've shown looks interesting. People will be coming up with nightmare scenarios regardless of how much more they revealed. There is certainly no _requirement _for them to share anything at all. That's the bottom line - if people really feel that WotC's preview is so incomplete that it gives the wrong picture, and that this will drive away many of the people reading the preview, than maybe WotC made the wrong call. 

But I'm guessing most of those people coming out with crazy hypothetical scenarios in which the Knight is useless/overpowered... would do the same thing regardless of how much info WotC gives out, and aren't likely to be their target audience for this product anyway.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 26, 2010)

Reading comprehension is even needed for the previews... or posts...

Actually noticing that those abilities given to us were not all of the abilities the knight has required a bit of reading comprehension... not all of the complainers noticed...

I like the Fan Dumb article... good advise for developers there^^


----------



## Klaus (Jul 26, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Uh... keep in mind that an Encounter stance is virtually as good as an At-Will stance - you can have it up, all encounter long, in every fight of the day.




Virtually, BUT you can enter an Encounter stance only once in an encounter. So if you need to switch to a different stance you can't go back.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Wanting a bit more detail/ having a decent picture of a class at level 1 isn't so outrageous though.



Well, saying "it would have been nice of the preview would include more detail on the Battle guardian power" is reasonable.

Saying "The community is rife with baseless speculation and _that's the developer's fault_"_ is_ outrageous.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> Well, saying "it would have been nice of the preview would include more detail on the Battle guardian power" is reasonable.
> 
> Saying "The community is rife with baseless speculation and _that's the developer's fault_"_ is_ outrageous.




Heh. Considering that the gaming community will be rife with speculation at the mere hint of new products then it seems that IS the developer's fault. How dare they create/release new products!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> As for compatibility: *Essentials is aimed at beginners.*



A question:

Who are these beginners, who in this day and age of nerditry, have not played a portable game system tactics game, or WoW, or any one of dozens of games that are far, far more complicated than a 1st level 4e character?  I haven't met a beginner in recent years who couldn't grok the basic tactics involved in at-will, encounter, and daily powers, particularly the low level ones.  These are far more basic than the stuff in many mass-market, casual video games.  There are hyper-casual Flash games with that much tactical depth.

I know, I know, dueling anecdotes, my experience is not necessarily representative, etc. etc.   I just can't get my head around this issue.


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> Well, saying "it would have been nice of the preview would include more detail on the Battle guardian power" is reasonable.
> 
> Saying "The community is rife with baseless speculation and _that's the developer's fault_"_ is_ outrageous.




YOU said that, no one else did.

I said more complete information would help the community form a sound judgment about these products and the rules therein before they are released.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 26, 2010)

Canis said:


> A question:
> 
> Who are these beginners, who in this day and age of nerditry, have not played a portable game system tactics game, or WoW, or any one of dozens of games that are far, far more complicated than a 1st level 4e character?  I haven't met a beginner in recent years who couldn't grok the basic tactics involved in at-will, encounter, and daily powers, particularly the low level ones.  These are far more basic than the stuff in many mass-market, casual video games.  There are hyper-casual Flash games with that much tactical depth.
> 
> I know, I know, dueling anecdotes, my experience is not necessarily representative, etc. etc.   I just can't get my head around this issue.



My nephews - they like racing or sports games more or being outside, or my nieces and my friends daughters who didn't/don't like the WoW type games and just recently decided to play an rpg. I gamed with one person whose first experience to any of this was Diablo which is no where near as tactically complex as even AD&D. And another former player hadn't played until her SO invited her along to a game one night.

I believe a lot of people are introduced with no background what so ever.  I know more people who started with first person shooter twitch computer/console games as opposed to Multiplayer RPG computer/console games. All IME of course.


----------



## shmoo2 (Jul 26, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Would it have been nice for WotC to toss out a bit more info? Sure. But these are all just a bonus for people to give a hint at what is to come. The expectation they need to reveal information to make a fully playable 1st level character, thus severely undercutting the actual need for the product itself? That's entitlement at its worst.




There has been a great deal of confusion in the community about precisely what the Essentials line will include, and what changes it portends for 4e D&D.

One purpose, explicitly stated, for these previews is to alleviate that confusion. 

No one feels entitled to anything. 
However, providing information with gaps deliberately included when the goal is to reduce confusion is not going to accomplish that goal.

This is not a reading comprehension issue- one may understand all of the information provided in these articles but still not be able to discern how the Essentials classes will be balanced and compatible with existing builds and rules. In fact, it is impossible to make that judgment, as you yourself have stated.

For that reason, these previews have failed to quell the confusion and unease of many fans of 4e in our community. 

I also don't agree that the ability to create a single level 1 PC would  be "severely undercutting the actual need for the product itself". That's one level of one build of one class - there will be 30 levels and 4 classes and 8 builds included in HOTFL.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Canis said:


> Who are these beginners, who in this day and age of nerditry, have not played a portable game system tactics game, or WoW, or any one of dozens of games that are far, far more complicated than a 1st level 4e character?  I haven't met a beginner in recent years who couldn't grok the basic tactics involved in at-will, encounter, and daily powers, particularly the low level ones.  These are far more basic than the stuff in many mass-market, casual video games.  There are hyper-casual Flash games with that much tactical depth.



My girlfriend. 

She tried out D&D and played a fighter. She just wanted to try out what her boyfriend was doing every week. She was not interested in learning the intricacies of the tactical miniatures game that is part of D&D. A PC who can contribute in a useful way without requiring her do learn rules would have been perfect.

Of course, it was possible for her to play because we handled the marking stuff for her and explained what each power does (each time she used one), but I think she would have enjoyed it more to play without a nanny.

(No, I'm not making this up to prove a point)

TL;DR: Hang out with non-gamers some time.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 26, 2010)

shmoo2 said:


> I don't understand the value of withholding so much information in these previews. If they included the rules to make an entire Level 1 Essentials PC would they lose any sales?



I don't think they would lose any sales if the previews included enough information to make a level 1 PC. I suspect the reason they didn't was because they don't think the changes are as drastic as we do.

Bill Slavicsek and Mike Mearls are game designers. I suspect they change the rules all time, it's their job. Monty Cook once said that he rarely played 3e by the rules, it was his nature to tinker. And let's not forget that Mearls is the guy behind Iron Heroes. So they tinker with the classes and when they find something that's fun and fits with whatever type of product they've planned, they release it. Given that these are variants of familiar classes, they probably didn't expect the level of interest it's generated here.

So when we look the Knight and go "WTF! MBA only and no Dailies?! This is a game changer!" (My personal reaction.) They go "but fighter stances have been out for months, if we can get rid of encounters then eliminating dailies shouldn't be a problem, what's the big deal?"

Also, some of the speculation was starting to solidify as "fact" in people's brains. If this was the typical preview a week or two before the release date, that wouldn't be a huge deal, but a couple of month's out could cause problems.



> To the contrary I think more people would be reassured by the extra information and they'd now plan to buy the books.



I agree. I'm posting only to point out that I don't think they expected this level of interest. Essentials has been dominating the 4e forum here. Dark Sun is almost here, and we have two threads about the same preview with over a hundred posts in each. One thread here put "Essentials" in the title even though it has nothing to do with Essentials.

Why is Essentials so interesting around here? Here's why, for over two years, a lot of us assumed that 4e was going to be on the numbered supplement book for a good long while. I was sure that there was going to be a an Arcane Power 2, and Divine Power 2, a Primal Power 2, to go along with Martial Power 2 this year. Until I learned otherwise, I thought that DMG 3 was going to make my September. That perception has changed, however, by the fact that Heroes of the Fall Lands isn't just a reprint book with maybe some new powers. Actually, it started with the announcement that this year's campaign setting is Dark Sun. The the product schedule was filled with Gamma World and Beginner's books.

Now those beginner's books have some great ideas in them. For years, Wizards has been putting out beginner's sets with pre-generated PCs a short adventure, and some rules with short "buy the PHB, DMG, and MM to continue the fun!" and now, that's not the case. And it's very interesting.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2010)

Canis said:


> A question:
> 
> Who are these beginners, who in this day and age of nerditry, have not played a portable game system tactics game, or WoW, or any one of dozens of games that are far, far more complicated than a 1st level 4e character?  I haven't met a beginner in recent years who couldn't grok the basic tactics involved in at-will, encounter, and daily powers, particularly the low level ones.  These are far more basic than the stuff in many mass-market, casual video games.  There are hyper-casual Flash games with that much tactical depth.
> 
> I know, I know, dueling anecdotes, my experience is not necessarily representative, etc. etc.   I just can't get my head around this issue.




I don't think it's so much an inability to understand, so much as a willingness to expend mental effort before you've decided if the game is even going to be something you want to keep doing.

Potential Player: 

Ok, so now I have to pick an At-Will.. Ok umm here's my list.. yikes I have to read all those?  Ok first one blah blah... 

Wait... I have to do this for each of these power types???

Screw it, these ones have cool names... I'll pick those.


I'm kind of like this when I build characters even now, and I've been playing D&D for years...

Some people grasp quite fine how the tactics work... They just don't find all the decision making that goes into choosing the powers as fun as others do.

These people would be perfectly happy with WoTC saying: "Here's what you get- go have fun!"


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> TL;DR: Hang out with non-gamers some time.



Well, that's a pretty unfounded assumption.

I hang out with many people who aren't gamers.  And even some who've never played a video game that didn't come pre-installed with Windows.  Most of them don't have any interest in D&D.  Most people who don't find the idea boring, vaguely unsettling, or even repellent are the ones who already game in one form or another.  So I've had more luck getting people who've had a bout of "Final Fantasy Tactics" addiction to a gaming table.

BUT... I have had non-gamers try one edition or another out.  Never seen one turned off by the complexity.  In fairness, most of my non-gamer friends are academics of one stripe or another, so they're good at complexity.

However, I don't run exclusively with academics, either.  I've also sprung D&D on home schooled farm boys who've never played a video game, a guy who spent 12 years running rafting trips in Colorado, and several members of a club hockey team.  None of them were turned off by the complexity.

Incidentally, my 86 year old grandmother plays Flash games.  That doesn't make her a "gamer."



Scribble said:


> I don't think it's so much an inability to understand, so much as a willingness to expend mental effort before you've decided if the game is even going to be something you want to keep doing.



Now _this_ I've seen.  People who just want to get started and don't want to deal with the front-loaded complexity of building a character before they even understand what most effects *do* in play.  But you do that by pre-determining the starting state and slowly introducing options as they level.  Throwing out the power system more or less entirely seems like a "baby with the bathwater" issue. 

I rather liked the way they threw out some of the front-loaded complexity with the cleric builds, but left the guts of the system intact.


----------



## mkill (Jul 26, 2010)

Canis said:


> Well, that's a pretty unfounded assumption.
> 
> I hang out with many people who aren't gamers.




Completely Missing The Point - Television Tropes & Idioms

Please find out yourself how you missed the point.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 26, 2010)

Canis said:


> Now _this_ I've seen.  People who just want to get started and don't want to deal with the front-loaded complexity of building a character before they even understand what most effects *do* in play.  But you do that by pre-determining the starting state and slowly introducing options as they level.  Throwing out the power system more or less entirely seems like a "baby with the bathwater" issue.
> 
> I rather liked the way they threw out some of the front-loaded complexity with the cleric builds, but left the guts of the system intact.




I don't see them as throwing anything out... As long as they all work together I now see:

John the guy who likes to just get a character up and running gets his toys.

Bob the guy who likes a little bit more complication in character gen gets his toys...

And Steve the power gamer searching for the perfect power combinations gets HIS toys...


Everyone gets what they want.

I'm fine with that, provided it all works well together.


----------



## Terramotus (Jul 26, 2010)

First of all, thank you Mr. Mearls for answering questions.  Some of the things you have said have done a lot to allay some of my concerns.

I think I've seen enough of the Essentials classes to definitively ban them from my table.  I'm not a fan.  The elegance of the 4E system is what sold me so completely on it, and I have no interest in going back to an older, simpler style, or dealing with the balance issues arising from mixing Essentials with Original 4E.  Overall, I think 4E is the best balanced system I've ever run.  Maybe Essentials is for some people, but it's not for me.

I think that my main problem with the system is the marketing behind it.  If Essentials were marketed as D&D Starter or D&D Basic, I would have no problem, because it would be understood as a system for people just getting into the game that's a little bit simpler and easier to use.  As it is, the intent seems to be to produce regular products with support for both systems, but I have no desire to pay full price for a book that's half-filled with another system I won't use.  This is a problem to me.  The analogies put forth about a restaurant menu are fairly apt, but they actually argue against the viewpoint of most people using it.  There's a good reason why the finest restaurants have very small menus, or even no menu at all (This is what's for dinner.  You'll love it.).  It's because splitting focus among too many dishes means not as much attention to detail is spent on each type of entree.  The chefs aren't as good at each entree, and the production isn't as easy to quality control.  Sure, you can expand the kitchen and employ more chefs, but with increased size comes complexity in the organization, and suddenly you're either introducing more problems into the process due to the difficulty of training and managing so many people, or you're serving a poorer product.  Try eating at a restaurant with a very short menu.  You'll thank me for it.  I worry that supporting two different menus of classes will reduce the overall quality of product coming from WotC.  I know they intend to try to keep everything balanced and not to let either line suffer.  I just don't think they (or any other RPG company) can do it.

As to the "4E is too hard for some people" theory...  honestly, the easier systems are great for people just getting into the game, especially if it's some kids in junior high that have never had exposure to a real gaming group before.  But if I had someone in my group that couldn't grasp 4E after repeated sessions, I'd think about not gaming with them.  The system isn't hard.  If they can't figure out that 2d8 is more than 1d8, they probably won't be able to understand the story that we're trying to tell anyway.

And finally, I don't think that what we've seen of the Essentials classes achieves their goals of simplicity.  Most of the complexity of the 4E fighter is still there in the knight...  it's just disguised with a new coat of paint.  Now with the stances we're pretending that they make melee basic attacks only.  Great.

Ultimately, Wizards correctly observed in the past that having multiple editions of the game out simultaneously split the fan base and was not as profitable.  They also realized the problem of introducing radical changes to an edition before the fanbase feels that the edition has had its natural life cycle.  With Essentials, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.  Just saying it's not "4.5" doesn't make it so, when the changes are arguably more intense than the 3.5 ones were from 3.0.  Just saying that it won't split the fanbase doesn't make it so when there are two different sets of classes that do the same thing in radically different ways, and when support is going to be split between them.

With no malice intended towards the designers, I hope that Essentials dies a quiet death, and we can all move on with the cool things still waiting to be released for 4E.



fanboy2000 said:


> Why is Essentials so interesting around here? Here's why, for over two years, a lot of us assumed that 4e was going to be on the numbered supplement book for a good long while. I was sure that there was going to be a an Arcane Power 2, and Divine Power 2, a Primal Power 2, to go along with Martial Power 2 this year. Until I learned otherwise, I thought that DMG 3 was going to make my September. That perception has changed, however, by the fact that Heroes of the Fall Lands isn't just a reprint book with maybe some new powers. Actually, it started with the announcement that this year's campaign setting is Dark Sun. The the product schedule was filled with Gamma World and Beginner's books.
> 
> Now those beginner's books have some great ideas in them. For years, Wizards has been putting out beginner's sets with pre-generated PCs a short adventure, and some rules with short "buy the PHB, DMG, and MM to continue the fun!" and now, that's not the case. And it's very interesting.



That's a perfect encapsulation of why I'm so disappointed.  I see a year full of products that I have no interest in because D&D is veering off an a weird beginner/oldschool/CCG boardgame tangent.  I liked 4E so much specifically because it rejected that stuff.  And a CCG boardgame is an abomination of Lovecraftian proportions.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 26, 2010)

But there is nothing hinting, that it is 4.5... it seems quite comparable to the *updated* core rules.

Also when i tried to explain 4e to non D&D roleplaying gaers, i felt a bit at loss how to explain martial recharging powers... so i will totally use essentials to lure in newer players and players that don´t like to make meaningfull choices *before* actually playing the game. (I wished all classes (except the mage) would start with more or less predertimined at wills and encounters and choices should be made during the game and while levelling up.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 26, 2010)

mkill said:


> Completely Missing The Point - Television Tropes & Idioms
> 
> Please find out yourself how you missed the point.



So, that link was actually insulting.

What would have been more useful is a link to the meaning of tl dr.

I never remember that one, and my brain skips right past it.


----------



## Solvarn (Jul 26, 2010)

*Eh*

I am smelling a whole lot of _rancid ricotta_ about Essentials.

Tell me this, when is Arcane Power 2 coming out?

If it isn't, tell me why the hell I'm supposed to believe that Essentials isn't 4.5e?

*Mod Edit:* Folks, if we can tell what you're saying, it is still profanity, and we're running a family friendly joint here.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 26, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Everyone gets what they want.



Not quite.

I wanted a set of pick up and play characters that introduce depth at a point _after_ character creation.  They seem to have delivered that for the cleric AFAICT, but not for the Fighter, and I don't think they did for the wizard, either, but I'm waiting to see more before I make that call.

This is a relatively small complaint, granted.  But I have an old irritation with the "Fighter = simple" mindset that I thought 4e had put a bullet in.  Turns out that stupid trope is undead.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 26, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> I am smelling a whole lot of _stuff_ about Essentials.
> 
> Tell me this, when is Arcane Power 2 coming out?
> 
> If it isn't, tell me why the hell I'm supposed to believe that Essentials isn't 4.5e?



Easy one:

when it is done... 

maybe it as delayed,maybe we get some great builds in it, maybe we will see a players opton with its content in... i don´t know, but actually i don´t believe they drop this series.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 26, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> maybe it as delayed,maybe we get some great builds in it, maybe we will see a players opton with its content in... i don´t know, but actually i don´t believe they drop this series.




Essentially, they already have.


----------



## weiknarf (Jul 27, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> I am smelling a whole lot of _stuff_ about Essentials.
> 
> Tell me this, when is Arcane Power 2 coming out?
> 
> If it isn't, tell me why the hell I'm supposed to believe that Essentials isn't 4.5e?




The developers feel that the increasing number on the sourcebooks is a barrier due to new players feeling they are missing something crucial by not having the previous versions.

In the podcast they said the material in Essentials could have been Player's Handbook 4 but they decided to go a different route because of the above concern.

From reading these threads they probably should have went with the DMG3/PHB4 model. 

They may go back to Arcane/Primal/Divine etc. but I bet Arcane Power 2 with be Heroes of the Arcane (or something like that).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 27, 2010)

Canis said:


> A question:
> 
> Who are these beginners, who in this day and age of nerditry, have not played a portable game system tactics game, or WoW, or any one of dozens of games that are far, far more complicated than a 1st level 4e character?  I haven't met a beginner in recent years who couldn't grok the basic tactics involved in at-will, encounter, and daily powers, particularly the low level ones.



I recently ran a game for an old friend (longtime avid gamer), his wife (longtime casual gamer), 13yo daughter (inevitably exposed to gaming), and daughter's friend (also 13, had never gamed).  All the characters were pre-generated.

The adults had trouble with their characters - a fighter and ranger - becaue they were quite different from what they expected, the differences in the rules from earlier editions also threw them or caused them some disapointement here or there.  The girls had no trouble, and the completely new-to-gaming one played her 4th level teifling /wizard/ perfectly well, quickly picking up on the idea of at-will, encounter, and daily powers and deciphering the Character Builder's 'power cards' with no trouble.


4e is already a sytem that is newbie friendly.  Essentials might be even slightly easier for the newb, though it may also give them trouble when they try to move on to the rest of the system.  But the impression I get is that it's mostly about packpeddling a bit on some of the more dramatic changes made to the classics in 4e, and thus maybe winning back a few of the old timers.


----------



## Solvarn (Jul 27, 2010)

weiknarf said:


> The developers feel that the increasing number on the sourcebooks is a barrier due to new players feeling they are missing something crucial by not having the previous versions.
> 
> In the podcast they said the material in Essentials could have been Player's Handbook 4 but they decided to go a different route because of the above concern.




There are so many 4e books out that people feel lost?

Ok, so Essentials is 4.5e. Class builds modified and shaken up with the addition of past errata corrections.

It's a lot different than 3.5e, they have a more robust web presence and can update a lot of stuff online. I don't really buy books anyway, I use the Character Builder, so I'm not their target audience anyway.

Some honesty would be nice though.


----------



## weiknarf (Jul 27, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> Ok, so Essentials is 4.5e. Class builds modified and shaken up with the addition of past errata corrections.




If you say so. 

"Class builds modified and shaken up with the addition of past errata corrections." sounds like what they've been doing all along.

I guess I don't see how the addition of the Knight, the Warpriest, and the Mage equals the change from 3.0 to 3.5.


----------



## mkill (Jul 27, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> If it isn't, tell me why the hell I'm supposed to believe that Essentials isn't 4.5e?



Well, it is 4.5, minus the part where you throw away your old PHB, MM and DMG because they are outdated.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 27, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> If Essentials were marketed as D&D Starter or D&D Basic, I would have no problem, because it would be understood as a system for people just getting into the game that's a little bit simpler and easier to use.




*/facepalm*







I dunno about you, but I think something is marketed as a starter when it has the words "Starter Set" in big white letters on a bright red box.



> As it is, the intent seems to be to produce regular products with support for both systems, but I have no desire to pay full price for a book that's half-filled with another system I won't use.




It's *one* system.



> Ultimately, Wizards correctly observed in the past that having multiple editions of the game out simultaneously split the fan base and was not as profitable.  They also realized the problem of introducing radical changes to an edition before the fanbase feels that the edition has had its natural life cycle.  With Essentials, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.  Just saying it's not "4.5" doesn't make it so, when the changes are arguably more intense than the 3.5 ones were from 3.0.  Just saying that it won't split the fanbase doesn't make it so when there are two different sets of classes that do the same thing in radically different ways, and when support is going to be split between them.




And that's why they're not making multiple editions. Again, this is 4e. PERIOD. End of statement.

3.5 made my 3.0 ranger obsolete. Essentials does not make any previous class or build obsolete. That's a huge difference.



> That's a perfect encapsulation of why I'm so disappointed.




I can understand being disappointed when you obviously don't have the facts straight.



> I see a year full of products that I have no interest in because D&D is veering off an a weird beginner/oldschool/CCG boardgame tangent.  I liked 4E so much specifically because it rejected that stuff.  And a CCG boardgame is an abomination of Lovecraftian proportions.




I wasn't aware that the three months between September and December constituted an entire year.

And this whole "it's veering off into a wierd CCG boardgame tangent" is incredibly rich, since the game is IDENTICAL to how it is now, except it comes in a boxed set that a new player can sit down and start playing immediately (as opposed to making sure he has the three core books, dice, and friends). If the game wasn't a Lovecrafting CCG boardgame abomination before with its use of 1" grids and power cards, then I fail to see how repackaging it for beginners does.

Wow, this all makes it sound like a basic starter set...


----------



## Dan'L (Jul 27, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> (I wished all classes (except the mage) would start with more or less predertimined at wills and encounters and choices should be made during the game and while levelling up.




To be fair, every class has had this since PHB1.  Each class has a section where they outline first level builds with predetermined At-wills, encounter, daily, feat, and class options specified as good starting points.

-Dan'L


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 27, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> And this whole "it's veering off into a wierd CCG boardgame tangent" is incredibly rich, since the game is IDENTICAL to how it is now, except it comes in a boxed set that a new player can sit down and start playing immediately (as opposed to making sure he has the three core books, dice, and friends). If the game wasn't a Lovecrafting CCG boardgame abomination before with its use of 1" grids and power cards, then I fail to see how repackaging it for beginners does.



To be fair, I think he was responding to my mention of Gamma World, and the fact that between now a January, Wizards is releasing two boardgames.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 27, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> As to the "4E is too hard for some people" theory... honestly, the easier systems are great for people just getting into the game, especially if it's some kids in junior high that have never had exposure to a real gaming group before. But if I had someone in my group that couldn't grasp 4E after repeated sessions, I'd think about not gaming with them. The system isn't hard. If they can't figure out that 2d8 is more than 1d8, they probably won't be able to understand the story that we're trying to tell anyway.




And what of someone does grasp 4E very well but decides that for whatever reason he/she doesn't really need hundreds of pages of material just to go adventure, kill things, and take their stuff. I remember our games from junior high and even though we were kids, we had a great time and were certainly a "real" gaming group. There are plenty of reasons besides being "too hard" for someone to prefer another style of system. 

Also, not everyone playing has the time or inclination to become a full time gamer nut. Being greeted by an elitist attitude doesn't help matters either.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 27, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> That's the point. Fighter stances are _damn_ good and if the Knight can take them there is absolutely no reason not to. They will lose all their at-will stances, but who cares: their stances are unlikely to be anywhere near as good as an automatic 1[W] damage or many of the other awesome stances fighters get already.




Fighter stances are damn good *assuming that you want to stay in them for an entire combat and won't need them next combat*. They have limitations.

My point was that you were stating that unless they got an automatic 1[w] damage stance at will, then their stances were always going to be worse than those of a fighter. I provided multiple ways other than that in which they might be better. To be honest I'm not sure why I bothered: it's a pretty obvious point.

Regardless: there are drawbacks to daily stances, and if the knight has a stance with a lesser, but similar effect that's at-will, then it's obviously going to be better in some situations and worse in others.


----------



## Terramotus (Jul 27, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> */facepalm*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, I hadn't seen that cover.  Is that the new one?  This was the one I was aware of, which has no mention of it being a starter set.  If that's the case, then that's much better.  But come on, let's be honest here.  Essentials is being marketed just as much to the existing player base as to the newbies.  They're hoping to sell us a whole new set of books with redone versions of the existing classes.



> It's *one* system.
> 
> And that's why they're not making multiple editions. Again, this is 4e. PERIOD. End of statement.
> 
> 3.5 made my 3.0 ranger obsolete. Essentials does not make any previous class or build obsolete. That's a huge difference.



That is indeed the company line.  But it doesn't take much to make it de facto false, even if WotC claims otherwise.  If the game continues to evolve along the Essentials line, and the monsters continue to evolve along with them, it becomes increasingly difficult to work in the new stuff with the old material.  3.0 was supposed to be compatible with 3.5 too.  And with the players, if Essentials stuff is just plain better, you better believe that it will make the old classes obsolete.  How far does the game have to stray before it's basically a new edition, regardless of the company line?



> I wasn't aware that the three months between September and December constituted an entire year.



I don't see anything from the release of Dark Sun to April that is a regular 4E product, except for possibly Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium.  I don't think we know what that is exactly yet.  Maybe Heroes of Shadow?  Maybe not.  A year might have been an exaggeration, but it might not be.  There's a solid 8 months until the next possible non-essentials product.  And we're not even certain of that.  As was said earlier in the thread, where's Arcane Power 2?



> And this whole "it's veering off into a wierd CCG boardgame tangent" is incredibly rich...



Yeah, that was about Gamma World.


----------



## pemerton (Jul 27, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> I don't see anything from the release of Dark Sun to April that is a regular 4E product, except for possibly Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium.  I don't think we know what that is exactly yet.  Maybe Heroes of Shadow?  Maybe not.



My understanding is that, from WotC's point of view, (i) 10 and only 10 items will be branded as "Essentials" (Red box, RC, DMG kit, MV, 2x Heroes, 3x tiles, dice) and (ii) other than that branding issue, _there is no difference_ between Essentials and "regular 4e".

Obviously, as you say, if a War Cleric is strictly, or even overwhelmingly typically, better than a PHB Str Cleric, the latter may become obsolete. The latter will also tend to become obsolete if the PHB goes out of print.

Whether or not this makes for a de facto difference of edition I don't have a firm view on, and personally don't care a great deal about. In any event, it's not obviously a bigger difference than the errata that we've seen, or than the new Wizard powers in Arcane Power, which tend to make a Wizard build and played purely according to the first printing of the PHB somewhat obsolete.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 27, 2010)

pemerton said:


> Obviously, as you say, if a War Cleric is strictly, or even overwhelmingly typically, better than a PHB Str Cleric, the latter may become obsolete. The latter will also tend to become obsolete if the PHB goes out of print.




There is one factor here your forgetting: In the D&DE classes are not necessarily "better" or more "powerful" but merely preferred by more players. There could be many reasons for this: lapsed players who enjoy the concept of the diverse new builds, new players not wanting to learn to play a fighter completely different than what they learned in Essentials, 4e veterans who like the new way of doing things, etc. All of these people could lean enough on WotC to make them abandon the initial 4e versions of these races/classes and institute new powers/builds for the "Essentialized" versions. At that point, you have a 3.0 ranger; not dead insofar as they can't be played using the newer rules, but not mechanically supported any longer.

My money though is that Monster Vault nearly invalidates MM1 Except for maybe a dozen or so monsters (like Orcus, for example). Sure, the goblin minion will be a Goblin Noseflicker rather than a Goblin Cutter, but it will be the de facto goblin minion going forward...


----------



## Solvarn (Jul 27, 2010)

mkill said:


> Well, it is 4.5, minus the part where you throw away your old PHB, MM and DMG because they are outdated.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 27, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> That is indeed the company line.  But it doesn't take much to make it de facto false, even if WotC claims otherwise.  If the game continues to evolve along the Essentials line, and the monsters continue to evolve along with them, it becomes increasingly difficult to work in the new stuff with the old material.  3.0 was supposed to be compatible with 3.5 too.  And with the players, if Essentials stuff is just plain better, you better believe that it will make the old classes obsolete.  How far does the game have to stray before it's basically a new edition, regardless of the company line?





The difference I'm seeing between this and  the 3.0 - 3.5 switch was that there was a lot of math changes you had to account for throughout the game if you wanted to use 3.0 stuff with 3.5

With this change, from everything I've seen, you don't. You simply take an essentials thing, and start using it in your current game, or vise versa.




Remathilis said:


> There is one factor here your forgetting: In the D&DE classes are not necessarily "better" or more "powerful" but merely preferred by more players. There could be many reasons for this: lapsed players who enjoy the concept of the diverse new builds, new players not wanting to learn to play a fighter completely different than what they learned in Essentials, 4e veterans who like the new way of doing things, etc. All of these people could lean enough on WotC to make them abandon the initial 4e versions of these races/classes and institute new powers/builds for the "Essentialized" versions. At that point, you have a 3.0 ranger; not dead insofar as they can't be played using the newer rules, but not mechanically supported any longer.
> 
> So... you're saying that if the majority of people prefer one build that wizards will start supporting that build.
> 
> ...


----------



## mkill (Jul 27, 2010)

I think we can close this thread, it devolved to the point where the bacon thread is less ridiculous.

@Solvarn: Every D&D rulebook ever published by WotC has had errata (or should have had them anyway). There is nothing specific about the 4th ed PHB here.

@Remathilis: Really, whatever. For a week people have been whining that maybe maybe we'll never see a new power for the Str Cleric or whatever again. Until 5th edition comes out, we'll see at least 50 more Dragon issues with at least 10 crunch articles each. Given a somewhat even distribution that's 10 articles per class and race each.
I'll ignore whatever shaky announcement there may have been and just assume a clean, common sense 50:50 split between "classic" and Essentials (ignoring any compatibility between the two). 
So pure statistics says that's another 5 articles for everybody's beloved PHB fighter, or one per year.

As for the MM: If you already own a MM1, just keep using it, it will work. If you don't own one yet, buy the Essentials one for the revised rules.

/thread


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 27, 2010)

mkill said:


> Well, it is 4.5, minus the part where you throw away your old PHB, MM and DMG because they are outdated.




You're kidding, right? There's over 100 pages of "errata". My first print PHB is meaningless to current 4e, I sold it weeks ago online for $12.50.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 27, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> You're kidding, right? There's over 100 pages of "errata". My first print PHB is meaningless to current 4e, I sold it weeks ago online for $12.50.




100 pages over 28 different books. Only 28 pages are for the PHB 1.


----------



## mkill (Jul 27, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> You're kidding, right? There's over 100 pages of "errata". My first print PHB is meaningless to current 4e, I sold it weeks ago online for $12.50.



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

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


----------



## Shazman (Jul 27, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> You're kidding, right? There's over 100 pages of "errata". My first print PHB is meaningless to current 4e, I sold it weeks ago online for $12.50.




I think he has a good point.  The "rules updates' have gotten out of hand, and it's basically a new edition at this point.  I would prefer no errata (unless something is truly, horribley broken) to having to audit your character to see if he's "updated" every two months and digging through the online "updates" to see if basic things like movement, forced movement, skills, etc. still work the same.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 27, 2010)

One major correction needed:



shmoo2 said:


> Give people enough information to make a sound judgment, and they'll STILL howl at the moon on the internet.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 27, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> Actually, I hadn't seen that cover.  Is that the new one?  This was the one I was aware of, which has no mention of it being a starter set.  If that's the case, then that's much better.  But come on, let's be honest here.  Essentials is being marketed just as much to the existing player base as to the newbies.  They're hoping to sell us a whole new set of books with redone versions of the existing classes.
> 
> 
> That is indeed the company line.  But it doesn't take much to make it de facto false, even if WotC claims otherwise.  If the game continues to evolve along the Essentials line, and the monsters continue to evolve along with them, it becomes increasingly difficult to work in the new stuff with the old material.  3.0 was supposed to be compatible with 3.5 too.  And with the players, if Essentials stuff is just plain better, you better believe that it will make the old classes obsolete.  How far does the game have to stray before it's basically a new edition, regardless of the company line?
> ...




Here's something fun to think about mkill...a friend of mine (who is a 4e DM - I have my own group, but sometimes I can get free of the wife and play in his game) made the assertion last week to me and at his game that the reason for "Essentials" is that WotC made a huge blunder and now they're trying to recoup some massive financial losses.  Which of course means that "Essentials" is 4.5.  He didn't want to debate it and I simply went on the record as disagreeing with his position.

For those that say "Essentials is 4.5" what I'd really like to know is what exact change (or set of changes) makes it 4.5?  For me, in order to claim that we now have 4.5 you'd have to break backwards compatibility.  The best way I can describe this is to use Windows (and software because hopefully people on the interwebs will be able to grok it).  If you had some great DOS based game that ran fine under Win95 and Win98, but doesn't run under XP then the update to XP from Win98 would be equivalent to the 3.0 -> 3.5 changeover because you can no longer use your software (without making some changes).

Since we obviously can't agree on what constitutes 4.5 then logically we are all using a different standard to determine what exactly 4.5 is.  So what say you?

And Terramotus I get exactly what you are saying, but you need to be pointing at the errata as published and saying "this is 4.5" instead of "Essentials".  However errata, for me, does not break backwards compatibility so will never amount to a new version.  It's akin to software patches and everyone gets those, but doesn't suddenly say that XP isn't XP anymore because of some patch or fix.  You might mention that it's XP SP1 for what new features will work with it and such, but the new added features have nothing to do with it still working with stuff it already worked with.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 27, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I think he has a good point. The "rules updates' have gotten out of hand, and it's basically a new edition at this point. I would prefer no errata (unless something is truly, horribley broken) to having to audit your character to see if he's "updated" every two months and digging through the online "updates" to see if basic things like movement, forced movement, skills, etc. still work the same.




We've had one major rule update from the PHB, which is stealth. How many other basic elements have seen significant overhauls? Some slightly modifications here and there, but the core rules in the PHB remain completely intact. 

I can understand the worry about too many updates to feats and powers. On the other hand, I prefer playing a balanced game, so I am glad they come out with errata. If you don't want to 'audit' your character (which, in our group, involves the DM taking a few minutes to scan the errata and then mention any changes to the group... once every two months) - then you can honestly feel free to not use it. 

If you end up using a power that got updated, chances are either: 
1) The power is broken enough the group will realize it is a problem and come up with a fix for it anyway;
2) Someone else is aware of the update for the power, and can tell you how it was changed;
3) It wasn't a big enough issue for your group, and so no one cares if you are still using the original power. 

Or are you speaking from personal experience - do you have a character who has had elements changed that has actively caused problems at the table or with your DM? I'm assuming you do play 4E, right?


----------



## mkill (Jul 27, 2010)

Call it 4.5 or bacon edition or whatever floats your boat. It's just a name, I don't care.

All I want is that people stick to the facts. Don't make baseless claims about rules or product schedules nobody has seen yet except WotC staff. Speculation is fine, but understand the difference between "I assume XY could be so and so" and "it will suck and I already know it".


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 27, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> For those that say "Essentials is 4.5" what I'd really like to know is what exact change (or set of changes) makes it 4.5?  For me, in order to claim that we now have 4.5 you'd have to break backwards compatibility.  The best way I can describe this is to use Windows (and software because hopefully people on the interwebs will be able to grok it).  If you had some great DOS based game that ran fine under Win95 and Win98, but doesn't run under XP then the update to XP from Win98 would be equivalent to the 3.0 -> 3.5 changeover because you can no longer use your software (without making some changes).
> 
> Since we obviously can't agree on what constitutes 4.5 then logically we are all using a different standard to determine what exactly 4.5 is.  So what say you?



I believe it is revisions instead of errata that is causing the "this is 4.5E" feeling. If all the rule revisions to date had not been added in small parcels, but instead had been released all at once two years after 4E had been released - would you call that 4.5? It is getting to the point where I would say it's now 4.5. The revisions change the way powers/feats/etc work in the game which changes the way your character plays in the game. Some of these changes may or may not be incompatible with the character concept you had or with the powers/feats/etc that you selected to create that character. And, it seems that the chance a revision will adversely conflict with a particular character increases as more material is released and the designers have more elements to account for


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 3) It wasn't a big enough issue for your group, and so no one cares if you are still using the original power.



Just a note - we have players who use the CB and don't actually own most of the books - they no longer have access to the unrevised elements. It does cause a hassle when leveling up their characters or adding equipment if we wanted to keep an earlier version of a rule or item.

I stated before in one of the update threads that most of the rule updates were not implemented because of people like I play the game with. The people I game with are casual gamers and the "problem" rules weren't causing a problem in our game - but the reduction in power of some options - and increase in power of monsters has started to impact our game play. Now this isn't to say every change impacted out play experience - but given our last two sessions something has definitely changed - I am hoping it is the DM getting his legs with the new stuff. If not our group has just been introduced to the grind many others have described.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> So... you're saying that if the majority of people prefer one build that wizards will start supporting that build.
> 
> Isn't that what they SHOULD be doing? Shouldn't they be designing for a game people are enjoying?




One hopes so. However, lets say I want to write an article with new fighter powers to submit to Dragon. What am I going to base it off; use the current fighter at-will/encounter/daily system or Essentials "MBA-modifying Stances with no dailies" build?

If you say the PHB one; then the Essentials line is a one-off with no official support going forward beyond what can be interchanged between it and "core".

If you say Essentials one; the PHB fighter becomes obsolete, again barring power-swapping between the two "builds"

If you say write powers for both, you're doubling the chances of something going haywire or someone only using 1/2 of your article.

See? 



Scribble said:


> What is the "de facto goblin minion" though?
> 
> I'm honestly confused on what you mean here. You have a book full of monsters to use in your game, how is it invalidated by another book full of monsters?




Same deal: I'm writing a module for Dungeon. Which goblin minion am I going to use; the original one in the MM1 (which has been errata'd and rebuilt to meet MM3 standards) or the new, already-fixed one in the MV?

Granted, both are kinda corner-case, as a DM I can mix in whatever I like (I used 3.0 PrCs and monsters in my 3.5 and Pathfinder games too) but the official line forward can't support two "cores"; either PHB/DMG/MM 1 is still the Core and Essentials is a one-off product never to be expanded upon OR Essentials is the New Core and the PHB/DMG/MM lines slowly fades into the sunset.


----------



## Solvarn (Jul 27, 2010)

mkill said:


> All I want is that people stick to the facts. Don't make baseless claims about rules or product schedules nobody has seen yet except WotC staff. Speculation is fine, but understand the difference between "I assume XY could be so and so" and "it will suck and I already know it".




My concerns about Essentials, based upon my observations of what we are being presented and the current release schedule, is that the game seems to be trending toward a very cookie cutter approach with less specialization or opportunity to mix and match things, which I really like.

Again, I haven't seen the full Essentials pack, so I don't know how well things mesh. I definitely know there is a need for it, because there are times when I just need to throw a PC at someone to play, who either doesn't care about intricacy or is new to the game and just wants to get going.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> One hopes so. However, lets say I want to write an article with new fighter powers to submit to Dragon. What am I going to base it off; use the current fighter at-will/encounter/daily system or Essentials "MBA-modifying Stances with no dailies" build?
> 
> See?




Umm... no, I don't.

Write what you want to write... WoTC is in a better position to know what people are clammering for, they'll let you know if they want your article.

Again... if the majority of people prefer one thing, and WoTC gives them that thing, then how is this a bad thing?




> Same deal: I'm writing a module for Dungeon. Which goblin minion am I going to use; the original one in the MM1 (which has been errata'd and rebuilt to meet MM3 standards) or the new, already-fixed one in the MV?
> 
> Granted, both are kinda corner-case, as a DM I can mix in whatever I like (I used 3.0 PrCs and monsters in my 3.5 and Pathfinder games too) but the official line forward can't support two "cores"; either PHB/DMG/MM 1 is still the Core and Essentials is a one-off product never to be expanded upon OR Essentials is the New Core and the PHB/DMG/MM lines slowly fades into the sunset.





Take a look at the compendium. A search for Goblin on the creatures tab brings up 174 entries!

They seem to mess with the stats whenever a monster is needed to make it better suit whatever adventure/environment it's needed in.

There aren't really "official" monsters in 4e, just stats for various versions of an idea.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 27, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Just a note - we have players who use the CB and don't actually own most of the books - they no longer have access to the unrevised elements. It does cause a hassle when leveling up their characters or adding equipment if we wanted to keep an earlier version of a rule or item.




Well, sure - but at the same time, if the group is casual enough that you don't care about the updates, then does it matter if they are done in the CB for you? 

Basically... if the issue is that the group doesn't want to bother with the updates because they don't want to deal with figuring out what has changed, the CB doing it for you solves that anyway. 

If, instead, the issue is that you actually prefer the old version of the power... well, fair enough. But there is no more reason to expect the CB to carry that than there is to expect it to have a homebrewed power in it. Would it be nice if it could more easily support such things? Absolutely. But if you really want a power different than the current rules, you just need to spend a few minutes writing up the details on your own. 

I do certainly sympathize if that is the case, though - I've got plenty of homebrewed items and powers that I wish could more easily fitinto the CB. My point was more that for those who don't want to even _bother_ with the errata, most groups won't really require them to. Either ignore it. Or let it just show up automatically in the CB. Or deal with it when it comes up in play. If a group doesn't find it necessary to track it by hand, they really just don't have to.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 27, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Umm... no, I don't.
> 
> Write what you want to write... WoTC is in a better position to know what people are clammering for, they'll let you know if they want your article.
> 
> Again... if the majority of people prefer one thing, and WoTC gives them that thing, then how is this a bad thing?




Then your going to divide your fanbase. Some will perfer (and use) only Essentials, others will use only stuff that follows the PHB line. You're creating a BD&D vs. AD&D scenario again; a basic game that uses different rules (and a high degree of interchangeability) vs. the more complex and better supported "bigger" cousin. 

If it worked so well before, I don't get why WotC folded both lines back into one with 3e?



Scribble said:


> Take a look at the compendium. A search for Goblin on the creatures tab brings up 174 entries!
> 
> They seem to mess with the stats whenever a monster is needed to make it better suit whatever adventure/environment it's needed in.
> 
> There aren't really "official" monsters in 4e, just stats for various versions of an idea.




So if they change how Goblin Tactics, or Shifty, or Dragon Fire works, that doesn't invalidate the MM monsters somewhat? 

Your right, I'm not getting this. I think I'm remembering why I quit in the first place...


----------



## Shazman (Jul 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> We've had one major rule update from the PHB, which is stealth. How many other basic elements have seen significant overhauls? Some slightly modifications here and there, but the core rules in the PHB remain completely intact.
> 
> I can understand the worry about too many updates to feats and powers. On the other hand, I prefer playing a balanced game, so I am glad they come out with errata. If you don't want to 'audit' your character (which, in our group, involves the DM taking a few minutes to scan the errata and then mention any changes to the group... once every two months) - then you can honestly feel free to not use it.
> 
> ...




I haven't seen anything on the PC side of things in play that was unbalanced.  Certainly, nothing that required an update.  What some call unbalanced, others see as further unbalancing a system that wasn't properly balanced to begin with. Have the rules updates shut down char-op builds which few people actually use in play? Yes.  Have the "rules updates' fixed any problems I 've had with the game? No.  Have the rules updates detracted from my enjoyment of the game?  A bit, and I know others that it has really upset.  How many people have decided to ditch their characters when they were seriously nerfed?  How many character concepts have been made mechanically subpar?  Is this really necessary, and is it good for the game, or does it just produce further aggravation at a company that seems to care little for putting out a balanced, quality game, and wants to let the char-op boards do their "playtesting" for them?


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> One hopes so. However, lets say I want to write an article with new fighter powers to submit to Dragon. What am I going to base it off; use the current fighter at-will/encounter/daily system or Essentials "MBA-modifying Stances with no dailies" build?
> 
> If you say the PHB one; then the Essentials line is a one-off with no official support going forward beyond what can be interchanged between it and "core".
> 
> ...




No... not really. There are cleric articles for specific gods - that doesn't mean all "non-Sehanine" worshippers are not longer supported. It means that one article might not deal with them. 

What build should you focus your article around? The answer to that is entirely dependant on what your article is. I'm assuming it isn't simply a 'Fighter' article - most have more of a concept than that. If it is an article for a new Knightly-order, maybe you use the Essentials build. If it is an article about the Gutbuster dwarves, maybe you focus on the Battlerager build.

Or maybe it is a more general fighter article - and yeah, you go ahead and include options for both. The basic Warlord 'Class Acts' article included a ton of feats - some for Bravura Warlords, some for Insightful Warlords, some for Resourceful Warlords, some for Tactical Warlords. 

So your generic fighter article might have a handful of feats and utility powers that work fine for all fighters, plus specific options and stances for the knight, and specific options and attack powers for other fighters. 

Both can easily be supported without either being sidelined, just like is true of every other class with multiple builds.  



Remathilis said:


> Same deal: I'm writing a module for Dungeon. Which goblin minion am I going to use; the original one in the MM1 (which has been errata'd and rebuilt to meet MM3 standards) or the new, already-fixed one in the MV?
> 
> Granted, both are kinda corner-case, as a DM I can mix in whatever I like (I used 3.0 PrCs and monsters in my 3.5 and Pathfinder games too) but the official line forward can't support two "cores"; either PHB/DMG/MM 1 is still the Core and Essentials is a one-off product never to be expanded upon OR Essentials is the New Core and the PHB/DMG/MM lines slowly fades into the sunset.




Again, really weird question here. If I'm using a Bugbear, do I use the Bugbear Strangler from MM1, or the Bugbear Wardancer from MM2?

Answer: I use whichever one feels appropriate to the plot, or caught my eye as an interesting enemy, or whatever criteria I want to use to decide. Neither is a more 'official' Bugbear than the other. 

I suspect most enemies in the Monster Vault will again just be different types of enemies of those we've already seen. There might be some weird cases with more unique enemies like dragons. 

But asking a purely hypothetical question about that, and trying to use that as proof that Essentials will have rendered the PHB/MM/DMG obsolete... yeah, I don't think so. 

In short, there aren't two "cores" being supported. There is one game, and a variety of resources for it. Given that those resources don't contradict or overwrite each other, they are all able to exist alongside each other. The Monster Vault doesn't render the MM1 null and void any more than the Draconomicon did, or the MM2, or the MM3. Other Essentials books don't make the PHB classes 'fade away' any more than Martial Power did. 

Future lines and products will continue to support whatever is appropriate. Just like we've seen Warlord articles supporting both the PHB Warlord builds and the Martial Power Warlord builds, we'll see future articles supporting both PHB Fighters and Essentials Knights, and there really isn't any reason to assume otherwise. And there certainly isn't any support for the claim that they somehow _can't_ support both at the same time.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> So if they change how Goblin Tactics, or Shifty, or Dragon Fire works, that doesn't invalidate the MM monsters somewhat?




If they put in a "Goblin Blackblade" that is identical to the MM1 Goblin Blackblade, except it has different stats and a different version of Goblin Tactics, then... yes, you are absolutely correct and that would cause compatibility issues with MM1. 

There is zero indication they would do anything like that. 

What I expect to see are other goblins, that likely use the same Goblin Tactics, and have some unique tricks and names of their own. Thus providing something for both current DMs (who can always use more monsters) and new DMs starting with Essentials.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 27, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I haven't seen anything on the PC side of things in play that was unbalanced. Certainly, nothing that required an update. What some call unbalanced, others see as further unbalancing a system that wasn't properly balanced to begin with. Have the rules updates shut down char-op builds which few people actually use in play?




I've seen them fix many issues that were genuine problems in my own game. Maybe not always major problems - sometimes just irritations, but sometimes also really powerful choices that very much needed a fix. Now, sometimes I fixed such things on my own. But having them provide those updates for me is absolutely something that has been good for my game, and without any crazy char-op builds anywhere in sight. 



Shazman said:


> Yes. Have the "rules updates' fixed any problems I 've had with the game? No. Have the rules updates detracted from my enjoyment of the game? A bit, and I know others that it has really upset. How many people have decided to ditch their characters when they were seriously nerfed? How many character concepts have been made mechanically subpar?




Very few builds have been made _subpar_ by updates. In fact, quite a few updates boost the power of weaker options to make them viable. 

That said, one player in my game did completely change his build after an update. He was a Blood Mage, and his character was designed specifically to abuse Blood Pulse. Now, I had already _previously _changed the power on my own so his tricks to abuse it were only doing a hundred or so automatic damage to enemies, rather than several times that. But it was still rather a relief when it was fixed. 

Without it, the character would _still_ have been a very powerful wizard and controller. But he couldn't quite take on entire encounters on his own, and so wanted to rebuild his character. That's fine - that's his choice, and what makes the game fun for him. So be it. But the 'nerf' to his character didn't make him in any way unplayable - just not _more powerful _than the other PCs in the party. 

That's been true with most updates. Which have you seen that have genuinely crippled characters so they were not actually playable?



Shazman said:


> Is this really necessary, and is it good for the game, or does it just produce further aggravation at a company that seems to care little for putting out a balanced, quality game, and wants to let the char-op boards do their "playtesting" for them?




It is absolutely good for the game. I think any allegations that WotC doesn't care about "a balanced, quality game" are pretty clearly absurd. Obviously that is their goal, and one of the big ones of 4E. Do they always succeed? Nope. 

But I don't think you can really just claim that this is because they throw out rules slap-dash and assume the gamers will find the problems for them. You just can't forsee every possible use of a power, or feat, or other options. Sometimes thinks do just slip through. 

I certainly _wish _they always got things right the first time. I've definitely seen options that I instantly will shake my head at and know are broken. I'm still frustrated with Expertise. 

But I am absolutely glad that when something comes out that is in need of fixing? That they care enough to sit down and do so. That definitely demonstrates a care for the balance of the game, and I find it really odd for anyone to claim otherwise.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 27, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Then your going to divide your fanbase. Some will perfer (and use) only Essentials, others will use only stuff that follows the PHB line. You're creating a BD&D vs. AD&D scenario again; a basic game that uses different rules (and a high degree of interchangeability) vs. the more complex and better supported "bigger" cousin.




I think you're creating a problem that hasn't happened, based on limited knowledge here.

Either way, the question still remains... If wizards is providing support for what the majority of their fans want, how is this bad?

Should they deny what people are asking for?




> So if they change how Goblin Tactics, or Shifty, or Dragon Fire works, that doesn't invalidate the MM monsters somewhat?




No... as long as they give me a stat block that tells me how whatever power works I'm good to go.



> Your right, I'm not getting this. I think I'm remembering why I quit in the first place...




So you don't play 4e, but you're commenting on how the game should be designed?


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 27, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Well, sure - but at the same time, if the group is casual enough that you don't care about the updates, then does it matter if they are done in the CB for you?



It does when they use a power or item the way they have before, but when they look at the card its says something different - this has happened on a couple cases where we needed to check the wording on a Wizard power and one of the player's weapon Power. We had a pretty good memory of what it used to say, but the new version was different enough that we had to retcon actions during the game. The Wizard also swapped out the power in question (I wish I could remember what is was - I'll have to ask the player) after the session. Was this a game breaker? No, but it was annoying.

But this is neither here nor there . . .  Its a side effect of the progressive revision and a pretty dandy CB tool.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 28, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think you're creating a problem that hasn't happened, based on limited knowledge here.
> 
> Either way, the question still remains... If wizards is providing support for what the majority of their fans want, how is this bad?
> 
> Should they deny what people are asking for?




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



Scribble said:


> No... as long as they give me a stat block that tells me how whatever power works I'm good to go.




So no problems in they reprint/update Orcus in the MV, right? 



Scribble said:


> So you don't play 4e, but you're commenting on how the game should be designed?




Yes. Yes I am.

I'm one of the Lapsed Players. I tried 4e for a year roughly under a bunch of different DMs (myself one also) and our group owned every major release between PHB1 and Divine Power. I had ad DDi Subscription during that period too. 

I gave 4e more than its fair-share of time to wow me. It didn't. However, as I've read more about the Essentials line, I've seen more and more evidence they are extending an olive branch to people like me. Do you really think today's teenagers care the Red box uses the vintage logo and Errol Otis artwork? (I work with kids for a living; 1983 might as well be pre-history to them.) For the first time since literally PHB 2 came out, I'm excited about a D&D product again; after I thought I had been left in the dust, content to spend my cash on Pathfinder and similar d20 material. Here is WotCs only chance to win me back; so far I like what I see.

If WotC wants my money, as well as the money that came from my gaming group (some of which were collectors until 4e) and dozens of other gaming groups like mine, they better damn well here what I say. So far, I'm giving props as to their design ideas, and am eager to see if this heralds a new direction for 4e (one I might be able to get behind again) or merely a one-off product designed to trick a handful of lapsed players into buying their stuff again.

So far, I like what WotC is doing. I can't say the same for their apologists.

*Man, you were doing so well until the "apologist" cheap shot at the very end. Your argument is just as strong without an insult attached to it. Please don't do that again. ~ PCat*


----------



## MerricB (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


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




It has been stated that future books will have new classes in both Essentials and PHB-style formats.

Cheers!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Do you really think today's teenagers care the Red box uses the vintage logo and Errol Otis artwork? (I work with kids for a living; 1983 might as well be pre-history to them.)




Um.. That is an Elmore Redbox cover. Turn in your D&D geek card.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 28, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Um.. That is an Elmore Redbox cover. Turn in your D&D geek card.




I always get the names mixes up...


----------



## pemerton (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Some will perfer (and use) only Essentials, others will use only stuff that follows the PHB line. You're creating a BD&D vs. AD&D scenario again; a basic game that uses different rules (and a high degree of interchangeability) vs. the more complex and better supported "bigger" cousin.



I'm not sure this is true. Basic and AD&D were different games with incompatible approaches to character building and different action resolution mechanics. Essentials and PHB offer different character builds for individual PCs, but are (ostensibly) compatible, and will use the same action resolution mechanics.

If Dragon publishes an article supporting Knights, Knight players will use that stuff. Just like if Dragon publishes an article supporting Half-Orcs, Half-Orc players will use that stuff. I don't see that there is any splitting of the fanbase here, beyond that which is implicit in a system where a whole lot of character building elements are relevant to only a fraction of your total player base (given that most players are using only one each out of the wide range of races and classes).


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I always get the names mixes up...



Oh, for *shame*!


----------



## Ajar (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> I gave 4e more than its fair-share of time to wow me. It didn't. However, as I've read more about the Essentials line, I've seen more and more evidence they are extending an olive branch to people like me. Do you really think today's teenagers care the Red box uses the vintage logo and Errol Otis artwork? (I work with kids for a living; 1983 might as well be pre-history to them.) For the first time since literally PHB 2 came out, I'm excited about a D&D product again; after I thought I had been left in the dust, content to spend my cash on Pathfinder and similar d20 material. Here is WotCs only chance to win me back; so far I like what I see.




I get the impression that as much as WotC reps talk about Essentials being for beginners/new players, it's actually intended for lapsed players. Hence the retro aesthetic of the boxes, and more importantly, _the retro aesthetic of the mechanics._ The more Essentials preview content I read, the more I feel like WotC are trying to graft some of the mechanics of previous editions onto 4E.

The problem, at least for me, is that I don't think they really fit. One of the things I liked most about 4E vs 3.x/d20 in particular was its focus. I found it easy to pick up, incredibly easy to play, and was astonished by the number of new players who were drawn to the game. Meanwhile, the people I know who loved 3.x/d20 and disliked 4E are either still playing 3.x/d20 or are playing Pathfinder. I think Essentials is at least in part intended to appeal to those people, but I don't think it's good design and I also don't think it's good business. I could certainly be wrong, and in some ways I hope I am, but personally I would rather see WotC devoting their time and energy to extending the existing framework (e.g. psionic power points) rather than grafting old mechanics onto that framework. 

How would you construct a hybrid of an Essentials class build with a non-Essentials class build? There's no way to do it that isn't incredibly cumbersome and crufty. I expect that at most we'll see some Essentials build perks become available to hybrids via Hybrid Talent. That alone should be an indication that the Essentials builds don't really belong in 4E, but in some other iteration of the game. 

On the business front, just how many players are there out there who will look at the red box aesthetic of Essentials and say "wow, that looks cool?" I think it's neat, but I just don't see how it could possibly appeal to _people who have never played D&D before_. To someone who isn't a gamer and has never played D&D, I don't see how the red box aesthetic is even as appealing than the 4E PHBs, let alone _more_ appealing. 

So I'm concerned, both about the dilution of WotC's focus on 4E's core mechanics and about the profitability of Essentials as a business venture. I hope I'm wrong, of course, because I like 4E far more than any previous edition of the game and want to see it prosper.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 28, 2010)

Ajar said:


> I get the impression that as much as WotC reps talk about Essentials being for beginners/new players, it's actually intended for lapsed players. Hence the retro aesthetic of the boxes, and more importantly, _the retro aesthetic of the mechanics._ The more Essentials preview content I read, the more I feel like WotC are trying to graft some of the mechanics of previous editions onto 4E.



I think you're right on the money, there.

The problem I see is that the fans who didn't make the switch to 4e like 3.5 not because of the differences in mechanics between the two, but because of the volume of mechanics.  3.5 is a very mature itteration of D&D, it has many, many, /many/ options.  The level of system mastery it calls for is profound.  That's it's own special kind of pride and fun, and making 4e 'feel' a bit like 2e or 3e isn't going to do much to tempt them away.


----------



## Ajar (Jul 28, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> ...making 4e 'feel' a bit like 2e or 3e isn't going to do much to tempt them away.




Yeah, exactly, and I don't think it will be unusually attractive to new players, either. That's why I'm concerned that Essentials will prove to be a bad business strategy. If so, I hope it ultimately doesn't do too much harm to 4E.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jul 28, 2010)

_*Are tons of feats/items/etc going to now get errata so they play well  with the Knight? How is that going to affect their utility for the  existing classes? Or will DMs simply be forced into saying "no, no, Mr  Knight, YOU can't use existing 4e  stuff, unless I look at it first." UGH!

*_This right here!  I honestly believe this is where the "design going forward" comes into play.  I believe the PHB Fighter will not receive future support because the Essentials Fighter will be the default Fighter for D&D.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jul 28, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> I think you're right on the money, there.
> 
> The problem I see is that the fans who didn't make the switch to 4e like 3.5 not because of the differences in mechanics between the two, but because of the volume of mechanics.  3.5 is a very mature itteration of D&D, it has many, many, /many/ options.  The level of system mastery it calls for is profound.  That's it's own special kind of pride and fun, and making 4e 'feel' a bit like 2e or 3e isn't going to do much to tempt them away.




You are 100% right!!  As long as Pathfinder is still around then those players (like me) who really enjoyed 3rd edition will stick with 3rd/Pathfinder.  

Only 5th edition will most likely cause us to even glance at what Wizards is offering.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 28, 2010)

Ajar said:


> I get the impression that as much as WotC reps talk about Essentials being for beginners/new players, it's actually intended for lapsed players. Hence the retro aesthetic of the boxes, and more importantly, _the retro aesthetic of the mechanics._ The more Essentials preview content I read, the more I feel like WotC are trying to graft some of the mechanics of previous editions .



Considering WotC have said it was also for lapsed players, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. 



ForeverSlayer said:


> You are 100% right!!  As long as Pathfinder is still around then those players (like me) who really enjoyed 3rd edition will stick with 3rd/Pathfinder.
> 
> Only 5th edition will most likely cause us to even glance at what Wizards is offering.



I don't think you are the target. More likely it is those that weren't that happy about 3.x, but didn't like the more radical changes that 4e brought along.


----------



## mkill (Jul 28, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Considering WotC have said it was also for lapsed players, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.




They didn't just say it, they did a _press conference_ where they said "We want to bring back lapsed players!"

(For those who don't know what a press conference is, it's kind of like an Internet rumor + you have a video of the guy actually saying it on youtube. And it was uploaded by the company.)


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 28, 2010)

mkill said:


> They didn't just say it, they did a _press conference_ where they said "We want to bring back lapsed players!"
> 
> (For those who don't know what a press conference is, it's kind of like an Internet rumor + you have a video of the guy actually saying it on youtube. And it was uploaded by the company.)




No logic or proof, kk plz, this is the internetz.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 28, 2010)

mkill said:


> They didn't just say it, they did a _press conference_ where they said "We want to bring back lapsed players!"
> 
> (For those who don't know what a press conference is, it's kind of like an Internet rumor + you have a video of the guy actually saying it on youtube. And it was uploaded by the company.)



Wow, such a press conference sounds like a load of work! All those photoshopping and dubbing and all that...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 28, 2010)

ForeverSlayer said:


> _*Are tons of feats/items/etc going to now get errata so they play well  with the Knight? How is that going to affect their utility for the  existing classes? Or will DMs simply be forced into saying "no, no, Mr  Knight, YOU can't use existing 4e  stuff, unless I look at it first." UGH!
> 
> *_This right here!  I honestly believe this is where the "design going forward" comes into play.  I believe the PHB Fighter will not receive future support because the Essentials Fighter will be the default Fighter for D&D.



And I disagree, so also apparently does WoTC but who listens to them.
I can see no problem with the knight as issued vis a vis the existing fighters but there is no atual way to know who is correct until the actual information is released.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> And I disagree, so also apparently does WoTC but who listens to them.
> I can see no problem with the knight as issued vis a vis the existing fighters but there is no atual way to know who is correct until the actual information is released.




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


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 28, 2010)

Ok, so now you have +2 damage AND const damage on an adjacent creature one encounter per day? OMG that sounds terribly unbalanced to me...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ok, so now you have +2 damage AND const damage on an adjacent creature one encounter per day? OMG that sounds terribly unbalanced to me...




Master's Blade gives you an untyped bonus TO-HIT equal to its enhancement bonus. That is a property, not a power. It means that a Master's Blade basically gives 2x enhancement bonus to-hit to a knight for 100% of its attacks. The power allows you to use 2 stances at once for the whole encounter, which again for a knight is pretty powerful as it would let you both cleave and get a +2 damage (or whatever the other stances will do). Frankly I don't see how it can avoid getting errata as a double to-hit bonus is actually pretty much flat out broken when it applies to all attacks. There is NO item for any other class that does that. Heck Staff of Ruin was broken just for doing that to the DAMAGE roll.


----------



## Njall (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Master's Blade gives you an untyped bonus TO-HIT equal to its enhancement bonus. That is a property, not a power. It means that a Master's Blade basically gives 2x enhancement bonus to-hit to a knight for 100% of its attacks. The power allows you to use 2 stances at once for the whole encounter, which again for a knight is pretty powerful as it would let you both cleave and get a +2 damage (or whatever the other stances will do). Frankly I don't see how it can avoid getting errata as a double to-hit bonus is actually pretty much flat out broken when it applies to all attacks. There is NO item for any other class that does that. Heck Staff of Ruin was broken just for doing that to the DAMAGE roll.




?


> Property: while you're using a stance power, you gain a +1 to attack rolls on melee basic attacks *and at-wills attack* with this weapon




This is the level 29 version. Are you thinking of another item? Has master's blade been errata'ed?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

Njall said:


> ?
> 
> 
> This is the level 29 version. Are you thinking of another item? Has master's blade been errata'ed?




Meh, its just that the Compendium doesn't list things as one listing, you can't tell what is a fixed bonus and what is tied to enhancement. So yes, you're correct, it is only a fixed +1 apparently. More reasonable. Still the ONLY item and class combination that gives a fixed always available untyped +ANYTHING to-hit. That's still probably nerf-worthy.


----------



## triqui (Jul 28, 2010)

> Meh, its just that the Compendium doesn't list things as one listing, you can't tell what is a fixed bonus and what is tied to enhancement. So yes, you're correct, it is only a fixed +1 apparently. More reasonable. Still the ONLY item and class combination that gives a fixed always available untyped +ANYTHING to-hit. That's still probably nerf-worthy.



It's not much harder than Head Band of Intellect +Mind Iron Crossbow in a sniper rogue.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


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




Whichever is popular?

Personally, and based on what Mike Mearls said earlier, I think it's both.
Similar to how they handle multiple classes in the same game, and multiple builds for the same class.  There's no reason to choose one over the other... BUT just like the follow whatever class/build is currently popular and support what people want, they will probably do so with the different sub builds/builds as well.

That's the basis of my point- if all things are equal between the two, and there isn't a rules reason to choose one over the other (ie one grants a bonus that's too good to pass up) then it's purely a taste thing, and if more people prefer one over the other Wizards should follow that preference.




> So no problems in they reprint/update Orcus in the MV, right?




Why should I care?  




> Yes. Yes I am.
> 
> I'm one of the Lapsed Players.
> 
> ...




Fair enough- based on your comment I was under the impression you'd given up completely, and had no interest in the game.

I assumed incorrectly.  



> If WotC wants my money, as well as the money that came from my gaming group (some of which were collectors until 4e) and dozens of other gaming groups like mine, they better damn well here what I say. So far, I'm giving props as to their design ideas, and am eager to see if this heralds a new direction for 4e (one I might be able to get behind again) or merely a one-off product designed to trick a handful of lapsed players into buying their stuff again.




I don't think it's either, and that's what I've been trying to get across. What it seems like they've discovered is that there's room in the game to support other areas of interest not currently being supported.  There's no reason to choose one over the other UNLESS the majority of players want the game to move in a certain direction.



> So far, I like what WotC is doing. I can't say the same for their apologists.




Where is this coming from man? 

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


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 28, 2010)

Abraxas said:


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




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


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


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




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


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


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




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

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

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

Just like we've seen for _every other class with multiple builds out there_.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jul 28, 2010)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 28, 2010)

mkill said:


> Why are you telling me this? I'm sorry you had to sell your PHB, but you can't borrow mine, I'm still using it.
> 
> Or did you want to discuss the semantics with me which amount of errata page count equals each .1 dot release? So that's +0.1 = 20 pages? I don't care.




First off, you could probably be less defensive. 

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


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 28, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


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




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

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

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


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 28, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Where is this coming from man?
> 
> I disagree with your comments. If you want to continue discussing the disagreement cool, but if it's going to start getting into insults, I'm done.




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

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

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


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 28, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


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




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


----------



## Scribble (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Hey, its nothing personal. Just a couple of times (in this and the essentials fighter thread) people have questioned my experiences with 4e. My hackles got a bit raised when I thought I was being dismissed at yet-another-h4ter.
> 
> Its not you man, but there has been an undercurrent of "the game was perfect, why are they messing with it?!?" in some posts around here, and its a little off-putting.




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



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





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

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


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 28, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Hey, its nothing personal. Just a couple of times (in this and the essentials fighter thread) people have questioned my experiences with 4e. My hackles got a bit raised when I thought I was being dismissed at yet-another-h4ter.
> 
> Its not you man, but there has been an undercurrent of "the game was perfect, why are they messing with it?!?" in some posts around here, and its a little off-putting.
> 
> Sigh, while I think WotC is doing right by addressing issues in the Essentials the way they are, I have a feeling that, like EVERYTHING WotC seems to do, it will create another division on teh messageboards between those who prefer the Essentials way of doing things (and didn't like the initial 4e roll-out) vs. the purists who think DDe will be training wheels and dumbed-down or regression D&D. Mark my words, I fully expect to see some of that come Sept...



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## jbear (Jul 28, 2010)

whoah... 16 pages... cant read through all that atm, and at the risk that some one has brought this up already...

If I recall rightly a lot of the coolest fighter feats (Lesser Style Feats) come into play with MBAs. So the Knight is also going to seriously benefit from that as well. And if the stances are designed to influence the the MBA then Combat Challenge and OAtks just got a lot more potent as well.

Anyway... 16 pages, so I seriously doubt that im saying anything new... carry on!


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 28, 2010)

jbear said:


> whoah... 16 pages... cant read through all that atm, and at the risk that some one has brought this up already...
> 
> If I recall rightly a lot of the coolest fighter feats (Lesser Style Feats) come into play with MBAs. So the Knight is also going to seriously benefit from that as well. And if the stances are designed to influence the the MBA then Combat Challenge and OAtks just got a lot more potent as well.
> 
> Anyway... 16 pages, so I seriously doubt that im saying anything new... carry on!




Your comments made me think of something.  My Fighter player is a min/maxer of the most annoying kind.  I fully expect him to try and use one of those at-wills that fighters get that says "Special: Can be used in place of a melee basic attack", THEN try to add the stance on top of it.


----------



## fjw70 (Jul 28, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> Your comments made me think of something. My Fighter player is a min/maxer of the most annoying kind. I fully expect him to try and use one of those at-wills that fighters get that says "Special: Can be used in place of a melee basic attack", THEN try to add the stance on top of it.




So far there is no way for one character to get Fighter at-wills and Knight stances.

But I still don't think the combo would work.  "Used in place of a MBA" doesn't not mean it gets buffed as one.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 28, 2010)

fjw70 said:


> So far there is no way for one character to get Fighter at-wills and Knight stances.
> 
> But I still don't think the combo would work. "Used in place of a MBA" doesn't not mean it gets buffed as one.




It depends on the wording of the specific power. 

*Wicked Strike: "You can use the power in place of a melee basic attack."*
-Does not get buffed as a melee basic attack. 

*Eldritch Strike: "This power counts as a melee basic attack. "*
-Does get buffed as a melee basic attack. 

I don't think any fighter powers combo with the Knight, but they can probably snag powers from a few other sources that would. Of course, that would require jumping through various hoops (Paragon Multiclassing or Half-Elf Dilettante), and the boosts probably wouldn't be too extreme compared to the bonuses they will be getting from the Knight stances _anyway_.


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 28, 2010)

I suppose I should have added that I didn't expect there to be a way to get both at-wills AND stances and that even if you can that you have correctly pointed out that you can't stack the benefits, HOWEVER that won't stop my annoying player from trying.


----------



## Riley (Jul 29, 2010)

CovertOps said:


> I suppose I should have added that I didn't expect there to be a way to get both at-wills AND stances and that even if you can that you have correctly pointed out that you can't stack the benefits, HOWEVER that won't stop my annoying player from trying.




Well, a human gets a bonus at-will...


----------



## mkill (Jul 29, 2010)

Riley said:


> Well, a human gets a bonus at-will...




There's already a thread about it. Most likely humans will get a bonus stance, rather than an at-will power (which won't be in he Essentials book anyway and make it useless for beginners who don't have other books.)

As for Eldritch Strike (probably via half-elf), we'll have to see. Even if this build works, it's possible that it will cost so much in feats that it's just not worth it compared to a vanilla Toughness + Weapon Focus etc. build.


----------



## mkill (Jul 29, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


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



Rain of Blows requires Dex 15. That's a high price to pay for a build that only gets race bonuses to off-stats.

Besides, even if Rain of Blows lets you attack 3 times, it's only worth it at high levels when your damage bonuses are high enough. Before Paragon, it's no better than other stuff you get at level 3. You're better off if you dump Dex and take Sweeping Blow instead.

So yeah, I can make you a nice PHB-only Tiefling Fighter with a flail. Grab Hellfire Blood and a Flaming Weapon. However, once you hit Paragon you really want to add Martial Power to the available sources, for the Tiefling Warfiend PP. Just sayin'.

Oh, and again I don't get the point you're trying to make here. I assume it's something about "life would suck if WotC drops support for PHB fighters". Well, it wouldn't really be a big deal. After 2 splatbooks and some Dragon articles, there isn't much more the class needs.

Oh, and back to the topic of the thread, I'm pretty sure Tieflings will make awesome Knights too! (Even with flails).


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 29, 2010)

16 Str, 14 Dex, 13 Con 14 Wis, 12 int and cha 10, using a flail taking rain of blows makes a fighter with an attack bonus of 6, which is average. He can do its job and can use the extra attack of rain of blows when he retrains into it at level 4. 
He also has a greatsword at hand.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 29, 2010)

Actually you've both missed his point entirely. Rain of Blows no longer functions the same as it does in the PHB, as it was arguable if it granted four attacks or not by RAW originally and each attack had +strength. The PHB tiefling he's picked not because it's any good as a flail fighter, but because its racial power and many feats were entirely rewritten in the recent errata. The stealth skill was picked because, like the two things above it no longer functions anywhere near written in the PHB. Essentially he's just said to pick three heavily errata'ed elements from the PHB and turn up somewhere to see how it goes.

The answer will be, not very well and that's the point he's making.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 29, 2010)

It still has the same requirements though. And your character is totally valid. You just have to update the power card which just takes a few minutes max.

Not more effort than updating the 3.x Wizard who has access to polymorph once a week?

When we switched to 3.5 from 3.0 i had to significantly update my characters because of number of skills changed, prestige classes had requirements which no longer existed, and class features were relocated. So the tiefling fighter using updated stealth rules (which were updated nearly 3 years ago) is no great deal...
and because of the racial feature change, it is the greatest possible change (maybe make him multiclass into wizard taking MM as encounter power), so it doesn´t sound dramatic to me.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 29, 2010)

It's not my charater and the original post is from someone else. He's not making a point about something being effective at all, what he's trying to do is throw a whole bunch of elements that have been errata'ed to be entirely different together.

How easy/hard it is to adjust isn't the point being made. It would take me less than a few minutes to alter all over that to the new rules and get how it works now. Then again I've been playing the game for 2 years so I would expect that. Someone new on the other hand would get quite a shock when they discover a good chunk of rules in their character - albeit very deliberately thrown together for arguments sake - isn't actually the same anymore.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 29, 2010)

And still it is no more effort than updating a polymorphing wizard within 3.5 when updating a rogue/bard/artificer from 3.0 to 3.5 needs a lot of time, a rebuild of levels and quite a bit of handwaving because requirement skills don´t exist anymore...

His intentions was probably a hidden "essentials is 4.5" whine, as 3/4 of the updates have been there for 2 years or something...

So we just decided to ignore his intentions and just answered a more serious question: is a tiefling fighter effective, or would it help, if tiefling was +2 Int, +2 Cha or Con, or maybe +2 Cha / +2 Int or Dex to make a tiefling fighter more viable...


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 29, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> When we switched to 3.5 from 3.0 i had to significantly update my characters because of number of skills changed, prestige classes had requirements which no longer existed, and class features were relocated. So the tiefling fighter using updated stealth rules (which were updated nearly 3 years ago) is no great deal...




2 years to be fair.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 29, 2010)

Stealth was one of the first things they changed.

I remember the arguments I had with players about using other PCs as cover. So I made an encounter with rot beetle swarms and a dragon, who promptly "hid" behind the swarms of beetles for cover to make a stealth check. I don't think there was any particular disagreement that one should not be able to use allies as cover for a stealth check after that. Not that it mattered, because Wizards errata'ed stealth and completely killed that.

Good times though. Especially when I put that scenario to CS. The answer still gives me a chucke - that yes a dragon could use beetle swarms as cover for a stealth check. Gets me every time.


----------



## mkill (Jul 29, 2010)

Weird though. If he tried to make a point about errata I honestly didn't get it. I'm aware that the stuff was errata'd but I never thought it's a big deal. I mostly use DDI anyway, so I hardly even notice errata.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 29, 2010)

mkill said:


> Weird though. If he tried to make a point about errata I honestly didn't get it. I'm aware that the stuff was errata'd but I never thought it's a big deal. I mostly use DDI anyway, so I hardly even notice errata.



 Errata has ruined everything and it came to my house and kicked my dog.

True story.



Spoiler



Not really


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Errata has ruined everything and it came to my house and kicked my dog.
> 
> True story.
> 
> ...




Why you do this, why you kick my dog, errata?


----------



## CovertOps (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Errata has ruined everything and it came to my house and kicked my dog.
> 
> True story.




If it will make you (or your dog) feel better I'll come to your house and kick your dog again (while it's prone).


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 30, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Actually you've both missed his point entirely.




Hey thanks. 



mkill said:


> Weird though. If he tried to make a point about errata I honestly didn't get it. I'm aware that the stuff was errata'd but I never thought it's a big deal. I mostly use DDI anyway, so I hardly even notice errata.




Uhm. "Duh", as the kids say. It's not a big deal if everything is automatically fixed for you and you don't even use your printed copy. If you don't use DDI, you're still making the old stuff (or you're working off a printed piece of errata). And if you show up with old stuff at a new stuff game, a) you look silly, and b) it's no longer viable.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 30, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Uhm. "Duh", as the kids say. It's not a big deal if everything is automatically fixed for you and you don't even use your printed copy. If you don't use DDI, you're still making the old stuff (or you're working off a printed piece of errata). And if you show up with old stuff at a new stuff game, a) you look silly, and b) it's no longer viable.




Well "duh" yourself. If you wish to play in an _officially snactioned_ game it is assumed you will keep up on errata. That is a major draw for alot of people that join the RPGA, to have consistency from table to table.


----------



## mkill (Jul 31, 2010)

old gumphrey said:


> uhm. "duh", as the kids say. It's not a big deal if everything is automatically fixed for you and you don't even use your printed copy. If you don't use ddi, you're still making the old stuff (or you're working off a printed piece of errata). And if you show up with old stuff at a new stuff game, a) you look silly, and b) it's no longer viable. *quickly print out the relevant changes, update your sheet and you're ready to go.*




Here, FTFY.

*Mod Note:* Folks, FTFY and FIFY are snarky responses.  Great if you want to annoy people, but lousy if you want to actually communicate with them.  Since you should be here to actually communicate, please don't use such tactics.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jul 31, 2010)

Except this hypothetical person still doesn't have DDI. I know it's crazy, but not everyone has DDI.


----------



## mkill (Jul 31, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Except this hypothetical person still doesn't have DDI. I know it's crazy, but not everyone has DDI.



Well, if the DM insists on updates, he probably has DDI. Is it really that hard to spend the 15 minutes before the game, while everyone discusses the latest movies etc., to access an Internet-connected PC and update the charsheet?

Usually, you'll talk to the DM anyway before joining a new group, at which point you could ask whether he uses updates or not. This would allow you to arrive with a fully updated character, even. You don't even need DDI to get the updates.
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Official D&D Updates Archive)


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 2, 2010)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Uhm. "Duh", as the kids say. It's not a big deal if everything is automatically fixed for you and you don't even use your printed copy. If you don't use DDI, you're still making the old stuff (or you're working off a printed piece of errata). And if you show up with old stuff at a new stuff game, a) you look silly, and b) it's no longer viable.




I get that fear. But I've never seen it actually happen. Any time I've seen someone show up with a character that has had elements changed for them, one of the following things have happened: 

1) The DM doesn't think it worth worrying about, let's him play his character as it is, and offers to help tell him what has changed after the game. 

2) The rest of the table quickly and easily brings him up to speed and gets his character up to date, and play moves on. 

This is how it has gone, both in 3rd Edition Living Greyhawk and 4E Living Forgotten Realms. I've just... never run into a place where people were mocked or exiled for having out-of-date characters. 

I mean, even outside of errata, I've seen simply flat-out _incorrect_ characters much more often - from small mistakes, to huge misunderstandings of how the game works, to things written on a character sheet that haven't existed for multiple editions. That's the nature of the game - and unless it is extremely disruptive, the rest of the table tends to figure out a way to either get the character working right, or leave it as it is and let the game move on nonetheless. 

And this is in the public arena of the RPGA. In a home game, I imagine it is even easier to figure out a solution - either ignoring errata, or sharing it as needed. Is it any trickier than having the DM share whatever house rules they might have? House rules that might be much more abundant if the designers allowed broken elements to remain in the game, that each DM had to address on their own when they come up, or simply get taken by surprise and have the game suffer in that fashion?

There is no perfect solution, certainly. But the errata is useful, and if someone is genuinely gaming in a place where not being completely up-to-date results in them being laughed at or kicked out, I suggest the problem is with the other gamers, and not the errata at all.


----------

