# Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?



## Terramotus (Aug 7, 2011)

I've been searching through the Gencon news, but haven't seen anything about the question that's most important to me: Will any of the upcoming content in either Dragon or in the relatively few books announced actually be non-Essentials?  Maybe new builds in versions of Essentials / O4E?

I know it's probably a forlorn hope.  I want to keep giving them my money.  I really do.  But I'm about ready to give up looking for them to make content I'm interested in.


----------



## Phaezen (Aug 7, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> I've been searching through the Gencon news, but haven't seen anything about the question that's most important to me: Will any of the upcoming content in either Dragon or in the relatively few books announced actually be non-Essentials?  Maybe new builds in versions of Essentials / O4E?
> 
> I know it's probably a forlorn hope.  I want to keep giving them my money.  I really do.  But I'm about ready to give up looking for them to make content I'm interested in.




Specifically mentioned is a new non-essentials monk build, there is also a new Runepriest build but no mention on if that is essentials or not.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 7, 2011)

I think essentials is how classes will be presented from now on out.

Unfortunately. 

This is not to say they are unusable for people who do not like essentials, but it is more work
.


----------



## Zaphling (Aug 7, 2011)

Well, they did mention that classes will have the AEDU format, 'but' with a twist. Makes me feel giddy.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Aug 7, 2011)

Won't these builds be presented in DDI and not in a book format? 

I had heard there would be a little support for Pre-E classes so I am assuming it will be an article or two with a new build.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Aug 7, 2011)

Well, with the warlock update they mentioned they would also be adding some more warlock con based powers. Those are pretty much only useful for old warlocks (if they do dailies, they might be useful to infernal hexblades). They did do the new battle templar sub-build of themed powers a while back, so they will presumably keep doing those small "help undersupported pre-Essential classes".


----------



## Windjammer (Aug 7, 2011)

From blogofholding's transcript of the GenCon product 'forecast', it seems that we get builds for bards, runepriests, and seekers, classes which so far don't exist in Essentials. But this bit speaks fairly strongly against seeing build design in the old fashion:



> New feywild builds use at-will powers and encounter powers but  there are some twists. we don't want to make a seeker with a totally  different power structure. Classes with less support get more  traditional essentials versions.



Also, 


> Support for seeker? people are not playing it. They want to  think about changing it to make it more exciting. Magazine is driven by  submissions, and there are less submissions for the seeker.



It's nice of them to encourage submissions, but first and foremost it's WotC' own duty to provide minimal support for  extant classes.


----------



## frogged (Aug 7, 2011)

Classes and builds specifically mentioned at one of the GenCon panels:

Runepriest (in Dragon Sept or Oct)
Monk (Power of the Plane Below)
A new build for "the PHB1" Wizard (Power of the Plane Below)

Other classes/builds mentioned that were not specifically listed as being non-essential:

In Heroes of the Feywild:
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
(To paraphrase: These will be AEDU classes but with some twists)

In Power of the Plane Below:
Sorcerer


It was mentioned at the panel that when making a new class build they look first to see how much support the original version has. Under supported classes will receive new builds geared to help shore up the original design. New builds for well established classes can be either original AEDU or something different depending on design goals for that specific build.


----------



## OnlineDM (Aug 7, 2011)

I was at the new products panel. My write-up is here.

The one specific example that they called out as having the AEDU structure was the Monk (and yes, they used the AEDU abbreviation specifically).

The one specific example that Mike Mearls called (and I quote) "essentialized" was the Sorcerer.

They did not get specific about the other builds that were mentioned.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 7, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> I was at the new products panel. My write-up is here.
> 
> The one specific example that they called out as having the AEDU structure was the Monk (and yes, they used the AEDU abbreviation specifically).
> 
> ...




People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.


----------



## Phaezen (Aug 7, 2011)

Marshall said:


> People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.




A bit dramatic seeing as the Bladesinger uses pre-essential utility and encounter powers, the "essentialised" classes may look different to the initial class structure, but for all intents and purposes they are fit seamlessly with the phb1 classes in game.


----------



## frogged (Aug 8, 2011)

Marshall said:


> People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.



I don't believe this is correct. From the Gameday preview and the spoiler threads I've seen, Bladesingers have At-will, Daily, and Utility powers, but no Encounter powers.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 8, 2011)

Phaezen said:


> A bit dramatic seeing as the Bladesinger uses pre-essential utility and encounter powers, the "essentialised" classes may look different to the initial class structure, but for all intents and purposes they are fit seamlessly with the phb1 classes in game.




Nope, It has static class features instead of "encounter" powers and pretends to have a "daily" list by poaching off another classes encounters(which is so wrong either way you look at it). Even their encounters are just poaches from the Mage. Its one striker mechanic, a handful of class abilities and bits and pieces of another class thrown together in semi-random order. Rehash by another name.


----------



## Terramotus (Aug 8, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Nope, It has static class features instead of "encounter" powers and pretends to have a "daily" list by poaching off another classes encounters(which is so wrong either way you look at it). Even their encounters are just poaches from the Mage. Its one striker mechanic, a handful of class abilities and bits and pieces of another class thrown together in semi-random order. Rehash by another name.




Yeah, the Bladesinger doesn't really count as AEDU.  At best, it straddles the line.  It has no Encounter powers, and, as said, it has horrible dailies that are actually Wizard Encounters.  Now, some people might claim that class features that you don't get to choose count as Encounters, and I've even seen people claim that getting  access to Utilities counts as an Encounter...  

I'm OK with twists.  I like Psionics.  I'm not OK with the Essentials philosophy of getting rid of meaningful choices in character creation and getting rid of meaninful choices in combat other than "Should I use my daily?" and "Which rider should I use on my basic attacks".


----------



## FireLance (Aug 8, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> Yeah, the Bladesinger doesn't really count as AEDU.  At best, it straddles the line.  It has no Encounter powers, and, as said, it has horrible dailies that are actually Wizard Encounters.  Now, some people might claim that class features that you don't get to choose count as Encounters, and I've even seen people claim that getting  access to Utilities counts as an Encounter...



Actually, I would say that an encounter attack power you don't get to choose still counts as an encounter power, provided, of course, you can't use it at-will, you regain it after a short rest, and its power level is close to that of a typical encounter attack power.

Whether or not you get to choose your encounter attack powers is quite a different issue from whether or not you actually have them, IMO.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 8, 2011)

I have no real problems with the essentials classes that get a class power every time a reular class gets an encounter power even if it is the same power. 

But taking out all encounters seems a bit much.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 8, 2011)

Marshall said:


> People should note that the new Bladesinger is an AEDU and I dont believe anyone can legitimately claim that it fits the mold of a pre-E class. 4e is dead.




Oh for crying out loud.  Between the PHB, PHB2, Assassin, Artificer, and Swordmage there were _19_ classes on the old structure.  With about four different class types each before you even start selecting powers.  They weren't just designing to AEDU, they were _strip mining _the design space as is obvious when we look at the PHB 3. There are attempts at six new classes in there.  One (the Monk) is outstanding - and isn't classic AEDU.  Three are not AEDU at all and are very simply broken - the Power Point mechanism does not work.  And of the two remaining, one (the Seeker) is a solution in search of a problem and the other (the Runepriest) is simply fiddly and annoying without really adding much to the game.

A dead 4e would be one that stopped growing.  One that stuck with the AEDU concept having done just about all it could with it.  And the new classes it put out would be of the quality of the Seeker or the Runepriest.  Instead what we have got is the game growing.  Producing classes that the less tactically and mathematically adept can play (e.g. the Knight, the Slayer, or the Thief) - one of my players has recently switched from a Wizard to a Hunter and is enjoying the game so much more now.  4e has grown into design spaces it couldn't previously reach.

If you want a new AEDU class, pitch the class.  And say why it can't be done as a build of an existing class.  Don't point out that they have stopped strip mining the design space.  They haven't stopped adding support - and Warpriest Domains add support to clerics in the way builds always should have - a selection of thematic powers with their less than optimal level offset by bonusses thrown in for locking in your build.  And don't tell me it's dead when it's larger, stronger, and more versatile than ever.  The Bladesinger's two rounds of mayhem as he's singing would be a squash to fit into an AEDU class.  But work once the power structure's tweaked.  (At least they work until Paragon when the Bladesinger gets to combine a Wizard Encounter with Bladesong...).


----------



## Marshall (Aug 9, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh for crying out loud.  Between the PHB, PHB2, Assassin, Artificer, and Swordmage there were _19_ classes on the old structure.  With about four different class types each before you even start selecting powers.  They weren't just designing to AEDU, they were _strip mining _the design space as is obvious when we look at the PHB 3. There are attempts at six new classes in there.  One (the Monk) is outstanding - and isn't classic AEDU.




Hmm, At-wills, encounters, dailys, utilities, no odd-ball class features, uh....what? full discipline? Thats a beautiful _expansion_ of the classic AEDU, not the wholesale abandonment that these classes represent.
On top of that; Slayer, Knight, Thief, Hunter, Scout, Hexblade, Cavalier, Blackguard, Vampire looks like class bloat is worse than ever under the e-banner. When you take into account that every single one of those above classes can be done better as a defined build of an existing class(ok, maybe the Vampire is unique) it gets even worse.



> Three are not AEDU at all and are very simply broken - the Power Point mechanism does not work.  And of the two remaining, one (the Seeker) is a solution in search of a problem and the other (the Runepriest) is simply fiddly and annoying without really adding much to the game.




Psionics need some help to get right, thats true. They are still AEDU, tho. The E's are just hidden under the at-wills as augments. Seeker is a good concept poorly implemented and the Runepriest is an excellent class in need of expansion that has fallen victim to the abandonment of 4e design.



> A dead 4e would be one that stopped growing.  One that stuck with the AEDU concept having done just about all it could with it.  And the new classes it put out would be of the quality of the Seeker or the Runepriest.  Instead what we have got is the game growing.  Producing classes that the less tactically and mathematically adept can play (e.g. the Knight, the Slayer, or the Thief) - one of my players has recently switched from a Wizard to a Hunter and is enjoying the game so much more now.  4e has grown into design spaces it couldn't previously reach.




To the contrary, 4e has been butchered to the point that boring and redundant play over 30 levels is praised and that diversity of choice is subverted to "MOAR POWAH". PCs stopped gaining new tricks and in return are just handed more and more damage as their only option. Boring game design.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 9, 2011)

Marshall said:


> To the contrary, 4e has been butchered to the point that boring and redundant play over 30 levels is praised and that diversity of choice is subverted to "MOAR POWAH". PCs stopped gaining new tricks and in return are just handed more and more damage as their only option. Boring game design.



Ironically, there are some players who find that having only a single AEDU power structure is boring and redundant because they feel that all classes play the same. Adding classes with no daily attack powers (such as the slayer and knight) actually increases the diversity of options for such players and they are welcomed because to them, it makes the game as a whole _less_ boring and redundant. 

And of course, there are also players who would like to play D&D, but don't want to engage in the level of complexity required for the AEDU classes. I personally think it's great that there are Essentials classes that can cater for these players. 

But then, I guess I'm just a generous, broad-minded, hospitable and accepting sort of chap.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 9, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> But taking out all encounters seems a bit much.




Take it up with the Psionic power source. It started the whole thing.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 9, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> Take it up with the Psionic power source. It started the whole thing.



To be fair, the PP augmentation mechanic was basically a slightly more flexible encounter power mechanic in that:

1. You could use the same encounter power more than once per encounter; and

2. You could opt for smaller but more frequent power boosts by choosing the lesser augmentation option or (at higher levels) augmenting a lower-level at-will power instead of a higher-level at-will power. This last bit was probably the source of most of the balance issues, though. 

Nonetheless, the basic idea of expending an encounter resource to get an encounter-level effect from an at-will power is (IMO) an interesting one, and it influenced one of the default paragon path features for my striker paladin (not uploaded yet; check my blog in about a week if you're interested).


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 9, 2011)

The main issues with psionics were a few abilities that scaled far too well, and the scaling cost to powers which made it possible to spam slightly-weaker encounter powers every single round. Had they avoided those pitfalls, it wouldn't have been that big a deal.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 9, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> Take it up with the Psionic power source. It started the whole thing.




You do not thin psionics has encounters? Well, it does. Just check out the PPs. 

Yes, I always wondered why, also.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 9, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Hmm, At-wills, encounters, dailys, utilities, no odd-ball class features, uh....what? full discipline? Thats a beautiful _expansion_ of the classic AEDU, not the wholesale abandonment that these classes represent.
> On top of that; Slayer, Knight, Thief, Hunter, Scout, Hexblade, Cavalier, Blackguard, Vampire looks like class bloat is worse than ever under the e-banner. When you take into account that every single one of those above classes can be done better as a defined build of an existing class(ok, maybe the Vampire is unique) it gets even worse.




The above is complete and utter nonsense.  With the exceptions of the paladin and arguably the warlock, _none_ of the above work better as defined builds.  I assume you are unfamilliar with the term Analysis Paralysis?

There are people who look at a superficially similar list of powers, all usable as a standard action and struggle.  Badly.  On the other hand a slayer, knight, scout, hunter, or thief splits this into fragments.  Instead of eight attack powers at high heroic to pick between, it's a tiny handful of stances (or a handful of tricks) at one point and then target selection at a second.

Essentials martial classes were designed for people who don't like having too many options because they get locked in analysis paralysis and don't think in an abstract tactical manner.  They are no more designed for you than left handed scissors are (assuming you are right handed) or bras are (assuming you are male).  Do you complain about the existance of both left handed scissors and bras?

And I can tell you from the table I run, they are much more useful for people who don't naturally get tactical combat or who easily fall victim to analysis paralysis.  These classes have improved the play experience for people in both my groups massively in a way the old classes wouldn't.  Therefore they do what they do *better* than the old classes.



> Psionics need some help to get right, thats true. They are still AEDU, tho. The E's are just hidden under the at-wills as augments.




And the fake Es are where they break.



> Seeker is a good concept poorly implemented




Unfortunately the concept is neatly covered by the word "ranger".



> and the Runepriest is an excellent class in need of expansion that has fallen victim to the abandonment of 4e design.




The Runpriest is fiddly, complex, and annoying.  It's not elegant and the level of detail you need is not worth the output.



> To the contrary, 4e has been butchered to the point that boring and redundant play over 30 levels is praised and that diversity of choice is subverted to "MOAR POWAH". PCs stopped gaining new tricks and in return are just handed more and more damage as their only option. Boring game design.




Your classic classes are still alive and well.  As are interesting new classes like the Bladesinger.  However many people have interests other than combat and want classes that run simply in combat so they can get it out of the way and get back to planning, social interaction, exploring, and everything else.  Giving them choices that suit them is in no way _reducing_ the diversity of choice.  And ceasing to force them to play games which bore them is apparently now "boring game design".


----------



## Marshall (Aug 10, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The above is complete and utter nonsense.  With the exceptions of the paladin and arguably the warlock, _none_ of the above work better as defined builds.  I assume you are unfamilliar with the term Analysis Paralysis?




Yes, and the E-classes do next to nothing to stop it. All that changed was a shift from 'powers' to 'stances' and 'tricks' that simulate powers but use _extra actions_ to make use of. IOW, E-classes are _significantly MORE_ complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are. 



> There are people who look at a superficially similar list of powers, all usable as a standard action and struggle.  Badly.  On the other hand a slayer, knight, scout, hunter, or thief splits this into fragments.  Instead of eight attack powers at high heroic to pick between, it's a tiny handful of stances (or a handful of tricks) at one point and then target selection at a second.




Uh, huh. Thats the same process that 4e classes go thru. Sorry, theres no improvement here. You want a simple, easy to use FTR? You pick the simple, easy to use powers. You dont bring in the "Use a minor action to change your stance, use a standard to attack, check back to see what your stance does, oh yeah, make sure you activate your defender aura". Thats just oh so much simpler than choosing between Attack once with at-will or Attack twice with encounter, mark. 

All of the above listed classes have better _and simpler_ options under the base classes. The e-classes are a waste of space and designers time for what  were better handled by making pre-gens within the existing class structure.



> Essentials martial classes were designed for people who don't like having too many options because they get locked in analysis paralysis and don't think in an abstract tactical manner.  They are no more designed for you than left handed scissors are (assuming you are right handed) or bras are (assuming you are male).  Do you complain about the existance of both left handed scissors and bras?




Hah.
But if that was a goal, they failed miserably. Theives are much more tactically intensive than Rogues. Slayers need more optimization to be played effectively, Knights require tactical ability to be even remotely functional, and several of them are just badly designed for their role(sentinel, cav, I'm looking at you)



> The Runpriest is fiddly, complex, and annoying.  It's not elegant and the level of detail you need is not worth the output.




..and some people enjoy that. Of course a little more support would be fantastic to make sure its worth the fiddly bits.



> Your classic classes are still alive and well.  As are interesting new classes like the Bladesinger.  However many people have interests other than combat and want classes that run simply in combat so they can get it out of the way and get back to planning, social interaction, exploring, and everything else.  Giving them choices that suit them is in no way _reducing_ the diversity of choice.  And ceasing to force them to play games which bore them is apparently now "boring game design".




Really? Sticking us with classes that rehash old content, ONLY support the railroad style and that criss-cross all over the role system to no particular end and by-the-way reduce everything down to a subclass of wizard _isnt_ boring game design?


----------



## mneme (Aug 10, 2011)

*sigh*  This old chestnut?

Anyway...

"E-classes have just as many choices to make as basic classes" (in play) comes from someone who hasn't ever played a paragon game -- or has put on rosy tinted glasses so he no longer remembers what it's like.  In paragon, you're typically using 3 powers a turn for at least the first three rounds of combat, picking from a laundry list of at -least- 4 encounter powers, 3 dailies, 3 utility powers, and your at wills--plus maybe 5 or more item powers ("I forgot to use bloodclaw -again?-").  Add in "do I spend an action point" and remembering your AP feature, and you've got a minimum of 16 options you have to manage throughought pretty much every combat.  Play an E-class, and you reduce this down to a laundry list of 3 (what stance/trick do I use?), plus 9 sundry other powers.  And since E-classes gain fewer options over time, the gulf only increases.

"Everything's a wizard" is both refreshing and frustrating, actually.  By formulating everything they can into subsets of the Wizard, Wizards can leverage the existing substantial support for the wizard.  Moreover, the Mage is the one E-class that has -more- options than its PH1 version, not fewer--enough that nearly every Arcanist is stronger if converted to a Mage (obvious exceptions where the character is seriously leveraging Implement Mastery aside).  OTOH, the wizard is second only to the fighter in getting support, and it would be nice to see more support for other classes.


----------



## Vael (Aug 10, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Yes, and the E-classes do next to nothing to stop it. All that changed was a shift from 'powers' to 'stances' and 'tricks' that simulate powers but use _extra actions_ to make use of. IOW, E-classes are _significantly MORE_ complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are.




That hasn't been my experience. I regularly DM DnD Encounters, and I've introduced many players to DnD 4e. And Essential classes have made that experience much easier for me. Slayers are my go-to class for newcomers. 
They're fun, and easy to build. Sure, to get top-tier performance out of them requires some optimization tricks, but they're completely playable out of the box without those tricks. I've given an Epic Slayer to someone who's  only experience with DnD was a couple of sessions at 2nd level, and she jumped right in without any problems.



> Uh, huh. Thats the same process that 4e classes go thru. Sorry, theres no improvement here. You want a simple, easy to use FTR? You pick the simple, easy to use powers. You dont bring in the "Use a minor action to change your stance, use a standard to attack, check back to see what your stance does, oh yeah, make sure you activate your defender aura". Thats just oh so much simpler than choosing between Attack once with at-will or Attack twice with encounter, mark.




The joy of these classes is that it's a toggle class vs. a button class. In other words, you switch on the stance and it's done. You can pretty much forget about it until you feel you need to switch stances. AEDU classes require you to pick a button (power) and press it each turn. Essentials classes answer the question: "Why can't I just attack?" And I've gotten that question. 

Also, personally, as much as I enjoy AEDU classes, even I find a lot of enjoyment out of rolling up a Slayer or Scout and just going to town on monsters.



> ..and some people enjoy that. Of course a little more support would be fantastic to make sure its worth the fiddly bits.




And some people would enjoy something even simpler. Why are they not worth supporting?



> Really? Sticking us with classes that rehash old content, ONLY support the railroad style and that criss-cross all over the role system to no particular end and by-the-way reduce everything down to a subclass of wizard _isnt_ boring game design?




To be honest, the big advantage of the Bladesinger is that it is a Wizard subclass. It inherits a heck of a lot of support from the beginning. Seekers and Runepriests are left waiting for support. But a DDI article with a bunch of Seeker powers only helps Seekers. I pitch a few themed encounter powers for wizards, and I've provided support for Arcanists, Bladesingers and Mages. It's efficient and limits the sprawl of powers. I don't need 30 levels of brand-new Bladesinger Daily powers to sift through, find I don't have one I like, and have to wait for "Arcane Power 2" and a bunch of DDI articles to get some more interesting Bladesinger powers.


----------



## Terramotus (Aug 10, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> There are people who look at a superficially similar list of powers, all usable as a standard action and struggle.  Badly.  On the other hand a slayer, knight, scout, hunter, or thief splits this into fragments.  Instead of eight attack powers at high heroic to pick between, it's a tiny handful of stances (or a handful of tricks) at one point and then target selection at a second.
> 
> Essentials martial classes were designed for people who don't like having too many options because they get locked in analysis paralysis and don't think in an abstract tactical manner.  They are no more designed for you than left handed scissors are (assuming you are right handed) or bras are (assuming you are male).  Do you complain about the existance of both left handed scissors and bras?



I've seen this trotted out before, but who, seriously, has problem with "use these at-will powers, and these others are limited use, but better".  If these people exist, I've never met them.  Are they playing D&D?  My wife is about the opposite of a "rules monkey" or whatever you want to call it, and while she spends more time building her character and selecting her powers than many other people, she has no problem with it at the table.

Also, at the risk of offending people, there's a point to be made about gaming groups.  I've met many people that will do anything to get their gaming fix - PUGs at game shops, conventions, or even regular groups with people they don't like.  I'm too old for that.  I only game with friends, people who are worthy of the time I put into running a game every week.  If I didn't have enough friends for that, I'd hang up gaming for a while and do something else with my time.

This is the part that I'm sure is really going to upset some people - I have difficulty believing that a person who can't understand the difference between Encounters and At-Wills, even after instruction, would be able to contribute anything positive to my games, or that I would spend my time on them.

That doesn't make them bad people.  Everyone is born differently, and if they simply can't grasp the mechanics of the AEDU classes, that's certainly no fault of theirs.  However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> This is the part that I'm sure is really going to upset some people - I have difficulty believing that a person who can't understand the difference between Encounters and At-Wills, even after instruction, would be able to contribute anything positive to my games, or that I would spend my time on them.
> 
> That doesn't make them bad people.  Everyone is born differently, and if they simply can't grasp the mechanics of the AEDU classes, that's certainly no fault of theirs.  However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.



In the first place, I would separate the _ability_ to distinguish between at-will and encounter powers from the _willingness_ to do so in a recreational setting. I'm a bit of a gearhead myself, and I'm fine with managing fairly complex rules, but not everyone has the same focus; some are in it more for the social or the roleplaying aspects rather than the mechanics of the combat sub-system. 

In addition, there are other reasons for the introduction of the Essentials martial class types like the knight and slayer. Some people (through conditioning, or whatever) just aren't comfortable with the idea of martial daily attack powers, even if they are perfectly able and willing to handle the complexity. So for them, the knight and slayer are closer to their concept of how a fighter should play than the PH weaponmaster. 

Now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someday, it might be possible to unite the weaponmaster, knight and slayer under a single class structure: for example, by giving the player a choice between a daily attack power, or a bonus to the damage rolls of all weapon attacks. IMO, that would be ideal.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 10, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> I've seen this trotted out before, but who, seriously, has problem with "use these at-will powers, and these others are limited use, but better".




Half of my group, because they suffer from option paralysis when choosing powers, then end up not using a bunch of powers because they're afraid to blow them before they "need them." They grasp the structure, it just doesn't work in their favor.



> If these people exist, I've never met them.




I've never met a Sikh. Doesn't mean anything except your experiences and my experiences are both limited and are not representative of anything but our own experiences.



> However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.




Wonderful, I think we've found the 4e equivalent of "Thac0 keeps the riffraff out." Like we needed a resurgence of elitism in this hobby.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 10, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Yes, and the E-classes do next to nothing to stop it. All that changed was a shift from 'powers' to 'stances' and 'tricks' that simulate powers but use _extra actions_ to make use of. IOW, E-classes are _significantly MORE_ complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are.




Except that your armchair theorising has nothing to do with how it works in actual play.  Analysis paralysis is caused by too many options _at each given decision point_.  And made worse by having no default option.  Stances and defender auras are fire and forget; your Defender Aura is either on or off.  I've yet to see a stance-based class played without a default stance.  Which means they don't need to think about it - just remain in it.  The extra actions are only used when they spot an opportunity.



> Uh, huh. Thats the same process that 4e classes go thru. Sorry, theres no improvement here. You want a simple, easy to use FTR? You pick the simple, easy to use powers.




You mean the almost indistinguishable ones?  Because they make analysis paralysis so much better!



> You dont bring in the "Use a minor action to change your stance, use a standard to attack, check back to see what your stance does, oh yeah, make sure you activate your defender aura".




No you don't.  Your defender aura is almost always running.  It's not something you activate except at the start of a fight.  You then have one default stance (IME either Poised Assault (+1 to hit), Battle Guardian (+ damage), or Defend the Line (Slow - which combines with World Serpent's Grasp)).  The question is "Is there a good reason _not_ to stay in my default stance?"  Sometimes there is - Cleave (or whatever the real name is) for minion-clearing and Hammer Hands for pushes have definite places.  But the question "Should I stay in my default stance?" is much less likely to provoke analysis paralysis than "Which option should I use?"



> Thats just oh so much simpler than choosing between Attack once with at-will or Attack twice with encounter, mark.




"Does my default stance work?  Should I turn defender aura off?" vs "Which of these powers should I use?  Should I mark?"  Yes, it is simpler when you actually compare like with like.



> But if that was a goal, they failed miserably. Theives are much more tactically intensive than Rogues.




Thieves _who do not simply spam Tactical Trick_ are tactially intensive.  Tactical and ambush trick are there to be the thief default powers.  As normal you fail to understand the class.  Acrobat's Trick and Unbalancing Trick (and the OA for escaping flanks) are gravy.  If you aren't tactically minded you don't need to touch them.  But although it isn't as screamingly obvious as the stance-based classes, Thieves have good defaults that you need a good reason to change.

It is obvious from what you have posted that you absolutely fail to get why and how the Essentials classes work.  



Terramotus said:


> I've seen this trotted out before, but who, seriously, has problem with "use these at-will powers, and these others are limited use, but better".




As far as I know there are few people who have a problem intellectually. But Analysis Paralysis, as I mentioned before, can be a real problem at the table.  It's not "What's the difference?" but "What should I do?  If I do that... or would that be better... that's better, but it uses my daily... what should I do?"



> However, that also doesn't mean I have to game with them, and I have serious reservations about the wisdom of aiming towards that market for game sales.




I'm with The Little Raven here.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2011)

You know, it seems like only last year that I was posting in threads where people seemed offended about the very existence of _come and get it_ and martial healing. _Plus ça change_ indeed.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 10, 2011)

FireLance said:


> You know, it seems like only last year that I was posting in threads where people seemed offended about the very existence of _come and get it_ and martial healing. _Plus ça change_ indeed.



Oh, those people are still there. 

You ever notice that there's very few complaints about the 4e stuff not actually working?  They always boil down to either "4e is too much like 4e instead of earlier editions" or "New 4e isn't 4e enough."


----------



## Nullzone (Aug 10, 2011)

Fun fact: Defender's Aura and your choice of the at will stances are "always on". The only time they fail is if you fall unconscious.

Source: Greg Bilsland, Trevor Kidd, and the Encounters pregen cards.


I never understood the "everyone is a wizard" argument myself. The fact that you have things to do besides "I hit it with my axe" makes you a wizard? Did people forget that wizards used to be "I cast my biggest spell" and then they were done?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 10, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> I never understood the "everyone is a wizard" argument myself. The fact that you have things to do besides "I hit it with my axe" makes you a wizard? Did people forget that wizards used to be "I cast my biggest spell" and then they were done?



For some, it was the way that 4E stretched the limits of what could be done with martial abilities - the above-mentioned _come and get it_ and martial healing being the usual subjects of complaint.

For others, it was the fact that all classes got daily attack powers, which reminded them too much of the daily spells prepared by wizards and other spellcasters in earlier editions. 

For me, the solution to the former was obvious: don't play with abilities and classes that break your suspension of disbelief. With the release of Essentials, the solution to the second is equally obvious: don't play with martial characters that have daily attack powers.


----------



## Caerin (Aug 10, 2011)

Exactly right, FireLance. I've played 4E regularly since it came out. I liked it well enough, but to me most classes played too similarly for my taste, especially at first. Not just the daily/encounter/at-will split, but the things you could actually do with your powers- the push/pull/slide, for example. To me, for many class powers it felt like a reskinning of basically doing the same things. I completely recognize that not everyone feels that way, but tastes vary. Essentials, and some of the newer books, have done a lot to ameliorate many of those in my mind.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 10, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Yes, and the E-classes do next to nothing to stop it. All that changed was a shift from 'powers' to 'stances' and 'tricks' that simulate powers but use _extra actions_ to make use of. IOW, E-classes are _significantly MORE_ complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are.




Not in my experience, honestly. I mean, I can see _in theory_ how those extra actions to shift in stances and auras and such would be more complicated. 

In practive, though? Not so much.

I've run for players who, when presented with a list of at-wills and encounter powers... always choose to basic attack. Even when using an at-will costs them nothing - they just don't want to bother with it. They don't get why they would have a basic attack if an at-will is supposed to be their default instead - the benefit of being able to make OAs, charge, etc, is lost on them.

When presented with an Essentials character, on the other hand? And the ability to just say, "Hey, you always have this defender aura on, so you automatically distract enemies near you. And just choose one of these stances to always be on, and just write down that benefit next to your basic attacks"?

It _works_. It is simple and easy, because they _don't actually have to bother with shifting stances._ That's the difference - they can just set it to default and go, rather than having to make those decisions every round about at-wills and encounters. 

Similarly, Power Strike is so much easier for them to handle than Encounter powers, since they can decide it after they hit. Which means I can say, "Hey, did you want to use Power Strike?" And then can say, "Oh yeah, extra damage, woo!"

Whereas it is much harder to cut in _before _they attack and say, "Hey, did you want to use an encounter attack here instead of something else?" That's both more disruptive to them, forces them to look over options and make more choices, etc. And can't really be done after the attack, when they already know what they are rolling. 

Look, I can totally get not preferring the Essentials format. And I do hope going forward they provide a mix of design. 

But arguing that the Essentials fighter is more complex than the normal fighter... just really isn't true. At least, in my experience, and amongs the gamers I know whom are pretty much the ideal target audience for such things. Maybe you know others for whom it is different, I suppose.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Aug 10, 2011)

The elimination of daily powers, and encounter powers like power strike, both solve something connected to analisys paralysis, something that is seen in some video games. The "too awesome to use" effect. Some PCs go the whole day without using their daily powers because they fear wasting it, and needing it later. What good is a daily power that never gets used? In the case of power strike, you don't have to decide to attack with it instead of your 'default' attack, instead you decide after you hit. This also fits into stuff like the encounters powers that Essential controllers and leaders get, that still do something on a miss. It eliminates 'wasted' encounter powers ... part of what made dailies good was that they still were decent on a miss ... doing that with encounters (or not having to use it until you know you've already hit) means that you don't have the feeling of having wasted it. And worrying about wasting an encounter power can be another source of analysis paralysis.

There are bad AEDU classes, and bad E classes. (Seeker and Binder, I'm looking at you two). The non-mage E classes that still follow a basic AEDU structure have sort of taken a short cut in terms of eliminating player choice for encounter powers (i.e. warpriests, binders, hexblades, etc) but this is partly a practical matter (not needing to develop about 2 to 4 times as many powers at each level, and have them all be compelling choices and balanced not only with each other but existing powers of the same level). It simplifies design and development, and character building, but in play the characters play pretty much the same as old classes would.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 11, 2011)

How is activating a stance and then MBAing every round different from using the same at-will every round? I am not seeing it. 

It is easily possible to pare down a pre-essentials class to play easier. Maybe not as far as some E-classes, but it is not a total impossibility like some are stating here.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 11, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> How is activating a stance and then MBAing every round different from using the same at-will every round? I am not seeing it.



Agreed, it's not very different. However, one difference between a Slayer and a Weaponmaster figher, as *WalterKovacs* pointed out, is the decision point. 

At 1st level, a Weaponmaster's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Choose between: AW1, AW2, E1, D1
The player needs to choose between one of four options.

On the other hand, a Slayer's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Change stance? (Y/N)
If attack hits, use encounter power? (Y/N)
This breaks up the decision-making process into two separate Y/N decisions.

A player who tends to default to using the same attack every round will be less likely to make use of his encounter and daily attacks in the first instance, because there is no additional "prompt". Hence, he would tend to be less effective when playing a Weaponmaster than when playing a Slayer.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 11, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Agreed, it's not very different. However, one difference between a Slayer and a Weaponmaster figher, as *WalterKovacs* pointed out, is the decision point.
> 
> At 1st level, a Weaponmaster's "decision tree" might look like the following:
> Choose between: AW1, AW2, E1, D1
> ...




Only if you have two stances, and one is currently active. 



> If attack hits, use encounter power? (Y/N)
> This breaks up the decision-making process into two separate Y/N decisions.
> 
> A player who tends to default to using the same attack every round will be less likely to make use of his encounter and daily attacks in the first instance, because there is no additional "prompt". Hence, he would tend to be less effective when playing a Weaponmaster than when playing a Slayer.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 11, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Except that your armchair theorising has nothing to do with how it works in actual play.  Analysis paralysis is caused by too many options _at each given decision point_.  And made worse by having no default option.  Stances and defender auras are fire and forget; your Defender Aura is either on or off.  I've yet to see a stance-based class played without a default stance.  Which means they don't need to think about it - just remain in it.  The extra actions are only used when they spot an opportunity.




Then they are not experiencing analysis paralysis, because the stances and auras are offering _more decision point and *more options*_. The entire concept of a "default stance" is farcical. Theres exactly zero difference between using the same stance for every attack and using the same at-will for every attack. Again, you're introducing more complexity in play for something that could have and should have simply been a preselected build path.

The whole e-class debacle could have been avoided by a set of pre-gen characters and adding a handful of simple powers for each class build, that would also be usable by base class characters.



> You mean the almost indistinguishable ones?  Because they make analysis paralysis so much better!




If they are indistinguishable, than what does it matter which one you choose? Yes, simple effects often look similar. If you actually have that much "analysis paralysis" you are having the same problem trying to decide whether or not actually USE your PA or BS or DS. Again, e-classes dont solve any problems, they create their own.



> No you don't.  Your defender aura is almost always running.  It's not something you activate except at the start of a fight.  You then have one default stance (IME either Poised Assault (+1 to hit), Battle Guardian (+ damage), or Defend the Line (Slow - which combines with World Serpent's Grasp)).  The question is "Is there a good reason _not_ to stay in my default stance?"  Sometimes there is - Cleave (or whatever the real name is) for minion-clearing and Hammer Hands for pushes have definite places.  But the question "Should I stay in my default stance?" is much less likely to provoke analysis paralysis than "Which option should I use?"




Wrong. Now you are deciding between a handful of stances that take minor actions to change so they are up against MI and utility powers for action economy and after the attack you end up with another new decision point on whether or not to throw on the encounter power and then..... vs. Do I use the same at-will or the other one? 

Really, Is your only experience with these classes in Encounters sessions? After third level, every single one of those "easy choices" starts to come into conflict with the other aspects of the game. Once you hit paragon, the question devolves to how do I order my actions to hit this guy with one stance and end my turn in this one?  



> "Does my default stance work?  Should I turn defender aura off?" vs "Which of these powers should I use?  Should I mark?"  Yes, it is simpler when you actually compare like with like.




"Does my default stance work?" hah, "Which of these 4 stances is best for this attack? and do I have the action to change it?" vs. "Which of these two at-wills?"

Yes, please do compare like items.



> Thieves _who do not simply spam Tactical Trick_ are tactially intensive.  Tactical and ambush trick are there to be the thief default powers.  As normal you fail to understand the class.  Acrobat's Trick and Unbalancing Trick (and the OA for escaping flanks) are gravy.  If you aren't tactically minded you don't need to touch them.  But although it isn't as screamingly obvious as the stance-based classes, Thieves have good defaults that you need a good reason to change.




Thieves who spam Tactical Trick are also tactically intensive. The extra 5 tricks you end up with arent there for show. 



> It is obvious from what you have posted that you absolutely fail to get why and how the Essentials classes work.




YOU seem to believe that the only point of the e-classes is to spam the same powers over and over. Guess what? Its significantly _more_ complex to play e-classes in that manner than it is to play 4e classes as spam-bots. Ever watch a ranger in play? Quarry, TS, TS, TS...... Rogue? Flank, Riposte, Riposte, Riposte... The e-classes are inferior at being what they were designed to be to the base classes.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 11, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Only if you have two stances, and one is currently active.



Well, at Level 1, you would usually have two stances, and once you pick one, you're in it until you decide to change.

By 7th level, the Slayer does get another stance, but by then the Weaponmaster has also added two encounters and a daily. 

At 7th level, a Weaponmaster's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Choose between: AW1, AW2, E1, E3, E7, D1, D5
The player needs to choose between one of six options.

On the other hand, a Slayer's "decision tree" might look like the following:
Change stance? (Y/N)
-> If Yes, choose between: S2, S3
If attack hits, use encounter power? (Y/N)
Again, the decision-making process is broken up into separate choices between fewer options.


----------



## Terramotus (Aug 11, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> Half of my group, because they suffer from option paralysis when choosing powers, then end up not using a bunch of powers because they're afraid to blow them before they "need them." They grasp the structure, it just doesn't work in their favor.



It's impossible to really comment on that without knowing your DMing style.  Is it possible that part of their issues stem from your style being highly unpredictable regarding when their next rest is coming?  Do you sometimes hammer them with encounter after encounter without giving them a short rest?  Do you give them clues when this is coming?

If it's just that they're hyper-sensitive to making bad choices...  well...  I stand by my point that the AEDU system is very very easy to grasp.  Maybe they're just bad at making choices - I don't know your players and I don't want to insult them.  But I have difficulty even imagining a reasonably intelligent person having the problems you're describing over a long period of time barring some very opaque DMing.



> I've never met a Sikh. Doesn't mean anything except your experiences and my experiences are both limited and are not representative of anything but our own experiences.



Fair enough, but if you discount your experiences completely for the purposes of making judgments you render them near meaningless.  What matters, raw numbers?  Numbers are nothing without our knowledge and experience to knit them into conclusions.


> Wonderful, I think we've found the 4e equivalent of "Thac0 keeps the riffraff out." Like we needed a resurgence of elitism in this hobby.



That's not exactly what I meant.  I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of players who would LOVE to get into D&D were it not for the complexity.  I find it even more doubtful that you'll be able to dumb down the system enough to convince them.  Maybe there are some old gamers in that group that play 1E, 2E, or even OD&D.  

How are you going to get them to switch now?  They were left behind way back when 3E came out.  People not exposed to pen and paper RPGS?  They're probably into video games instead.  You'll need a good ad campaign to hook them, and something more like the red box for them.  That doesn't mean the whole game needs to be the red box.  Was it back in the day?

But a market for rules-heavy, complex games?  What about WoW?  (Pre-Cataclysm, at least.  That's my main knowledge of it).  Wow has a huge market, and its complexity ramps up ridiculously as you get towards the top of the game.  You have to make complex choices about talents pretty early on in the game, too.  WoW has millions and millions of subscribers.  I'm sure if WotC had numbers anything approaching WoW levels for DDI...  well, let's just say that the face of the hobby would look a bit different.

There's a proven market for fun, complex games.  Simple?  Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?


----------



## Rechan (Aug 11, 2011)

No, I will say I've had players who would have benefited from the Essentials. _Especially_ during the character building phase, where they look at all those options, and their eyes just glaze over.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 11, 2011)

This thread made me want to read up on decision theory, and after a quick Google and following a link from the Wikipedia article, I came across the following paragraph from here:
*Why We Suffer*

Schwartz integrates various psychological models for happiness showing how the problem of choice can be addressed by different strategies. What is important to note is that each of these strategies comes with its own bundle of psychological complication.


_Choice and Happiness._ Schwartz discusses the significance of common research methods that utilize a Happiness Scale. He sides with the opinion of psychologists David Myers and Robert Lane, who independently conclude that the current abundance of choice often leads to depression and feelings of loneliness. Schwartz draws particular attention to Lane's assertion that Americans are paying for increased affluence and freedom with a substantial decrease in the quality and quantity of community. What was once given by family, neighborhood and workplace now must be achieved and actively cultivated on an individual basis. The social fabric is no longer a birthright but has become a series of deliberated and demanding choices. Schwartz also discusses happiness with specific products. For example, he cites a study by Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University and Mark Lepper of Stanford University who found that when participants were faced with a smaller rather than larger array of chocolates, they were actually more satisfied with their tasting. 
_Freedom or Commitment._ Schwartz connects this issue to economist Albert Hirschman's research into how populations respond to unhappiness: they can exit the situation, or they can protest and voice their concerns. While free-market governments give citizens the right to express their displeasure by exit, as in switching brands, Schwartz maintains that social relations are different. Instead, we usually give voice to displeasure, hoping to project influence on the situation. 
_Second-Order Decisions._ Law professor Cass Sunstein uses the term "second-order decisions" for decisions that follow a rule. Having the discipline to live "by the rules" eliminates countless troublesome choices in one's daily life. Schwartz shows that these second-order decisions can be divided into general categories of effectiveness for different situations: presumptions, standards, and cultural codes. Each of these methods are useful ways people use to parse the vast array of choices they confront. 
_Missed Opportunities._ Schwartz finds that when people are faced with having to choose one option out of many desirable choices, they will begin to consider hypothetical trade-offs. Their options are evaluated in terms of missed opportunities instead of the opportunity's potential. Schwartz maintains that one of the downsides of making trade-offs is it alters how we feel about the decisions we face; afterwards, it affects the level of satisfaction we experience from our decision. While psychologists have known for years about the harmful effects of negative emotion on decision making, Schwartz points to recent evidence showing how positive emotion has the opposite effect: in general, subjects are inclined to consider more possibilities when they are feeling happy.
So in some cases, the issue is not whether the Slayer is more effective than the Weaponmaster. You just feel happier playing one because you are faced with a smaller number of choices, encounter powers that activate on a hit allow for simpler rules for when you use them, and there are fewer trade-offs to make because the encounter power is presented as a _bonus_ instead of an _alternative_ to an at-will attack.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 11, 2011)

Last year, I had a new player come into a 17th level game.  This was a guy who was new to 4e, coming into a high-paragon campaign.

I _wish _I'd had Slayers, Scouts, Hunters, and Thieves available back then.

-O


----------



## Incenjucar (Aug 11, 2011)

So Essentials is D&D for sad people?  It's very unfortunate how human psychology works sometimes, especially since one person's psychology often interferes with another's.

Anyways, this is why I'd like there to be an easy-mode and a medium-mode version of each major class (including the wizard, the ACTUAL wizard, already). Give people who get unhappy with what could have been something they can be happy about, and then we can all go back to playing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 11, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Then they are not experiencing analysis paralysis, because the stances and auras are offering _more decision point and *more options*_.




And _fewer options per decision point_.  It's options per decision point where analysis paralysis kicks in.



> The entire concept of a "default stance" is farcical.




Only if you don't understand how things work in actual play and are using strictly armchair analysis of the essentials classes.  "I hit him."  That is _all_ you need to do.  Because you are in exactly the same stance as you were last turn.



> Theres exactly zero difference between using the same stance for every attack and using the same at-will for every attack. Again, you're introducing more complexity in play for something that could have and should have simply been a preselected build path.




Zero - except for a default option provided by the book.  And of being able to say "I hit him".  And of not wasting your powers - you Power Attack after the attack, and you don't have dailies for the stance-classes.  However you slice it, playing woefully sub par and knowing you are doing so is not the same as playing very slightly sub par.



> The whole e-class debacle could have been avoided by a set of pre-gen characters and adding a handful of simple powers for each class build, that would also be usable by base class characters.




Except that it wasn't a debacle except in the minds of a few people, and there's a genuine difference between what was done and what was proposed.  I don't get much more out of them than you do- but they aren't aimed at you or me.  And I roleplay in part to put my head into the heads of others.



> If they are indistinguishable, than what does it matter which one you choose? Yes, simple effects often look similar. If you actually have that much "analysis paralysis" you are having the same problem trying to decide whether or not actually USE your PA or BS or DS. Again, e-classes dont solve any problems, they create their own.




Once more you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about.  PA is a simple yes/no after the roll.  I have _never_ seen anyone locked into analysis paralysis by that.



> Wrong. Now you are deciding between a handful of stances that take minor actions to change so they are up against MI and utility powers for action economy and after the attack you end up with another new decision point on whether or not to throw on the encounter power and then..... vs. Do I use the same at-will or the other one?




And nine times out of ten you aren't making a decision.  You are leaving the stance exactly where it was.  And not spending an action.  Spurious objection.  And misunderstanding of analysis.



> Really, Is your only experience with these classes in Encounters sessions?




I'm currently DMing two campaigns - one for eighteen months (that is currently Paragon) and one for almost a year.  I'm also playing in three.  In the campaigns I'm DMing, with _some_ players (two in one campaign, one in the other) I've noticed a significant improvement in their play experience when they were using essentials classes.  With others it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference (I'm in this category) - and with still others it would be a negative.  I'm guessing that it would be a negative with you.  Well guess what?  _You don't have to use those classes_.

What experience do you have (if any) seeing Essentials classes in actual play?



> After third level, every single one of those "easy choices" starts to come into conflict with the other aspects of the game. Once you hit paragon, the question devolves to how do I order my actions to hit this guy with one stance and end my turn in this one?




Not normally for the type of people who want to play Slayers IME.  Pick a stance, leave it there, and say "I hit him."  Not ideal play - but not far off the pace (unlike the equivalent from pre-essentials classes).



> "Does my default stance work?" hah, "Which of these 4 stances is best for this attack? and do I have the action to change it?" vs. "Which of these two at-wills?"
> 
> Yes, please do compare like items.




"Is there a good reason to change stance?"  Completely different.  And "Which of these two at wills, four encounters, and handful of dailies?"  The classes in question have different standards



> Thieves who spam Tactical Trick are also tactically intensive. The extra 5 tricks you end up with arent there for show.




Not really.  The extra tricks are useful, but Tactical Trick is a workhorse.  Two of them (Sneak's and Acrobat's) IME have at least as much use out of combat as in it.



> YOU seem to believe that the only point of the e-classes is to spam the same powers over and over. Guess what? Its significantly _more_ complex to play e-classes in that manner than it is to play 4e classes as spam-bots. Ever watch a ranger in play? Quarry, TS, TS, TS...... Rogue? Flank, Riposte, Riposte, Riposte... The e-classes are inferior at being what they were designed to be to the base classes.




I've watched my pregen hunter do exactly the same TS, TS, TS (after freezing a bad guy out of the fight) and he wasn't missing a significant chunk of his class's power by doing so.  Disruptive Strike and Fox's Retreat add a lot of damage but the latter takes planning.  As for spamming riposte strike when flanking, that just leaves you dangling.  Rogues who do that IME get squished.  And the foe escaping the flank (while the Thief has a trick to keep them in place).  But the thief doesn't need to flank for Tactical Trick to give CA.  They just need to be attacking the focus fire target.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> How is activating a stance and then MBAing every round different from using the same at-will every round? I am not seeing it.




Well, it's not - for you. But I've definitely seen players who don't get it, and rather than deal with deciding between two at-wills and some encounters, they look for their 'default' attack - which is the basic. 

Now, one can impress upon them that it is usually better to use an at-will. And I've seen this done, where someone eventually just says, "Look, Tide of Iron is just better than a basic attack, just use it every round."

And that works... until the player needs to charge or make an OA, and is confused why they _can't _use the power that everyone has been pushing on them. 

I know this all seems like basic stuff to you. But I've definitely seen this happen - and with people I consider intelligent, even. But D&D and all of its intricacies don't always 'click' for everyone, especially for new players. 

With Essentials characters, I really can just give them a sheet and have them just assume their stance/aura is always on, and that every single attack they make will be the default one. 

Yes, you can try and add ease of use to non-Essentials characters, absolutely. But the approach taken with the Slayer and others... it actively addresses almost every issue I've run into that confuses some players. That is definitely a boon, in my opinion. 

I can get not liking it, but insisting that it isn't actually simpler - or is even _more _complex than what came before... makes me suspect those making such claims haven't actually run into the players who had trouble with the previous class design.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 11, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Then they are not experiencing analysis paralysis, because the stances and auras are offering _more decision point and *more options*_. The entire concept of a "default stance" is farcical. Theres exactly zero difference between using the same stance for every attack and using the same at-will for every attack. Again, you're introducing more complexity in play for something that could have and should have simply been a preselected build path.




Once again, an Essentials character can declare they have a stance always on, and then rely on one single attack for the entirety of the session. It doesn't matter if they are charging, making OAs, whatever. All that matters is that they can jot down a single entry for their attack, and use it all the time, and occasionally call out "Power Strike!" for extra damage. 

A pre-Essentials character, even if they choose a default At-Will, still has to deal with switching gears in situations where they can't use At-Wills - and they will tend to simply not use their Encounter or Daily powers unless you regularly prod them to do so _before _they decide what to do on their turn. Which, from experience, I can tell you will usually be a frustrating thing for them - feeling like another person is telling them how to play their character. 

I have not run into a single person who finds the Slayer or Knight 'more complex' to use than a standard Fighter. They might be out there, I suppose. But I have encountered several folks for whom the design of the Knight actively addresses many of the issues I've seen crop up during play. 



Marshall said:


> If they are indistinguishable, than what does it matter which one you choose? Yes, simple effects often look similar. If you actually have that much "analysis paralysis" you are having the same problem trying to decide whether or not actually USE your PA or BS or DS. Again, e-classes dont solve any problems, they create their own.




Except, again, the virtue of Power Strike and the like is that it is easier to prompt their use. They get to see they hit, and you can say, "Do you want to Power Strike?" It is much less intrusive, and much easier for them to reach a decision point. 

If you instead stop their attack before they roll it, and say, "Hey, did you want to use an Encounter Power?" ... it usually involves them having to pause and figure out the benefits of the encounter power, and then making a decision. And feeling like you steered them to it, and being additionally disappointed if the power misses. Or already having started to roll, which means you can either back off, or you can try and have them decide after they've already rolled the dice, which adds its own complication. And, often, the result of this is that their encounter power will _never get used_. 

I can get preferring the options of the classic system for your own use. But insisting that somehow Power Strike is more complex and adds more problems for folks as compared to the standard system... I just don't get that. What are these additional problems that they create?



Marshall said:


> Really, Is your only experience with these classes in Encounters sessions? After third level, every single one of those "easy choices" starts to come into conflict with the other aspects of the game. Once you hit paragon, the question devolves to how do I order my actions to hit this guy with one stance and end my turn in this one?




For you, perhaps. For the player who favors a simple character, once he hits Paragon, he continues to just use a default stance. Maybe his friends occasionally point out when a different one will be useful, but he can stay in his simple +damage stance all day, and be perfectly effective. He can never have a single question come up about when to switch stances. 

If he's playing a PHB Fighter? By that point, he has 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers. Which yes, he can just ignore entirely, and maybe stick with his default at-will... and he functions as a much less effective character. If he is prompted to use his encounter powers, I guarantee he is having to pause for many more decisions and considerations than the Slayer who is gleefully swinging away with a basic attack every round, using Power Strike on every attack that hits until he runs out, and whose turn takes a fraction as long as even the simplest PHB Fighter build. 



Marshall said:


> "Does my default stance work?" hah, "Which of these 4 stances is best for this attack? and do I have the action to change it?" vs. "Which of these two at-wills?"
> 
> Yes, please do compare like items.




Comparing like items ignores all the important context, though. For example, the fact that many of the stances offer very simple benefits. If my stance just gives me +4 damage, I don't need to ask "Does this work" - of course it does! More damage is pretty much always effective. As such, I don't need to even bother with switching to other stances unless, as a player, I want to. And the loss in my effectiveness is generally very, very small. 

The guy choosing at-wills, meanwhile, also has encounters and other options pressing upon him. And isn't likely to have At-Wills with quite as simple the benefits of the easiest stances. And needs to keep in mind that some situations won't allow those At-Wills. And the one who plays very very simply and avoids all these decisions... has a much, much bigger hit to their effectiveness. 



Marshall said:


> YOU seem to believe that the only point of the e-classes is to spam the same powers over and over. Guess what? Its significantly _more_ complex to play e-classes in that manner than it is to play 4e classes as spam-bots. Ever watch a ranger in play? Quarry, TS, TS, TS...... Rogue? Flank, Riposte, Riposte, Riposte... The e-classes are inferior at being what they were designed to be to the base classes.




How so? 

If my 15th level Slayer only ever has one stance active, only ever makes basic attacks, and uses Power Strike on every hit until he runs out... that is pretty easy to do, and has a relatively small loss of effectiveness vs choosing appropriate stances every round and carefully hoarding my Power Strikes for ideal moments. 

A Thief might be slightly more complicated with Tricks, but not overwhelmingly so. 

A 15th level Ranger who does nothing but Twin Strike? Is losing out on a _ton _of effectiveness by never using encounter powers. _And _has a bit more to trick via Quarry, for that matter. 

Same with the Rogue. Yes, you can play them by spamming a single At-Will, but handicapping them to do so doesn't really seem like they are being _more effective _at such things than Essentials characters who are _built _to spam a single attack and not cripple their effectiveness to do so.


----------



## Zaran (Aug 11, 2011)

This thread has turned into another "Why are there Essentials Classes?" thread.  

We all know they are there to both make it easier for people who want easier and reduce the amount of support needed for these classes.  

The OP was asking if there there was new content for the core classes and happily there seems to be some.  I'm actually looking forward to these books and I haven't had that feeling for a while.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 11, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Once again, an Essentials character can declare they have a stance always on, and then rely on one single attack for the entirety of the session. It doesn't matter if they are charging, making OAs, whatever. All that matters is that they can jot down a single entry for their attack, and use it all the time, and occasionally call out "Power Strike!" for extra damage.




...and if the devs had decided to continue to support the 4e versions of these classes youd have the same options as a 4e class. Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex). 

Power Strike and its cousins are 1st level encounter powers. Thats it. You then have a series of odd class abilities that do nothing but make that power into a 3rd, 7th, 13th+ level power. Instead, if done correctly, this would have been a part of a selection of simple powers available in the heroic tier to all FTRs with a preselected build in the book(and an appendix for How to integrate with 4e). You seem to think that all encounter powers need to be fantastically complex mechanics. On the contrary, Power Attack is fine example of a simple power and fits perfectly in the 4e AEDU. Its the Slayer/Knight that are complete wastes of the designers time and pages of print. A set of "beginner powers" that meshed perfectly with 4e would have been ideal. Power Attack I-XXVII and the designers would be viewed as heroes.



> A pre-Essentials character, even if they choose a default At-Will, still has to deal with switching gears in situations where they can't use At-Wills - and they will tend to simply not use their Encounter or Daily powers unless you regularly prod them to do so _before _they decide what to do on their turn. Which, from experience, I can tell you will usually be a frustrating thing for them - feeling like another person is telling them how to play their character.




False, or more accurately, WotC finally figured out that most at-wills _should be basic attacks_. Tagging an addendum onto the already massive essentials errata document that added the "This power counts as a basic-attack" to around 75% of at-wills out there would have had the same effect of removing that confusion from ALL CLASSES instead of just the chosen few.
 Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot?



> I have not run into a single person who finds the Slayer or Knight 'more complex' to use than a standard Fighter. They might be out there, I suppose. But I have encountered several folks for whom the design of the Knight actively addresses many of the issues I've seen crop up during play.




The Slayer is actually comparable to a Barbarian build, but the Knight is one of the most complex classes to play to actually get anything out of. Defenders Aura is a joke unless you can plan multiple turns ahead and without that you dont actually DO anything(Yes, there are people who like to sleep thru the combats).



> Except, again, the virtue of Power Strike and the like is that it is easier to prompt their use. They get to see they hit, and you can say, "Do you want to Power Strike?" It is much less intrusive, and much easier for them to reach a decision point.




So? What does the presence of Power Strike like powers have to do with the e-classes? 4e Fighters can use Power Strike just as effectively as e-classes and _thats the point_. The simplicity that you are pointing out with the e-classes comes from simple power design. Something that should have been added to the 4e classes instead of having an entirely new chassis built to house them.



> If you instead stop their attack before they roll it, and say, "Hey, did you want to use an Encounter Power?" ... it usually involves them having to pause and figure out the benefits of the encounter power, and then making a decision. And feeling like you steered them to it, and being additionally disappointed if the power misses. Or already having started to roll, which means you can either back off, or you can try and have them decide after they've already rolled the dice, which adds its own complication. And, often, the result of this is that their encounter power will _never get used_.




You're back to power design, not class design. I _like_ reactive powers, that was a great concept. I'm being redundant here, but building the Knight/Slayer/Cav/Hunter/Thief/Scout.....to house those powers IS the boondoggle when they fit easily into the pre-existing class/power structures.



> I can get preferring the options of the classic system for your own use. But insisting that somehow Power Strike is more complex and adds more problems for folks as compared to the standard system... I just don't get that. What are these additional problems that they create?




Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes. 



> If he's playing a PHB Fighter? By that point, he has 4 encounter powers and 3 daily powers. Which yes, he can just ignore entirely, and maybe stick with his default at-will... and he functions as a much less effective character. If he is prompted to use his encounter powers, I guarantee he is having to pause for many more decisions and considerations than the Slayer who is gleefully swinging away with a basic attack every round, using Power Strike on every attack that hits until he runs out, and whose turn takes a fraction as long as even the simplest PHB Fighter build.




Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will or when comparing a slayer to a Barb RageStrike,ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will. 
You're talking mindless dice rolling here, not any type of analysis paralysis. This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario. Again, 4e classes  can be built for mindless combat as well. 



> Comparing like items ignores all the important context, though. For example, the fact that many of the stances offer very simple benefits. If my stance just gives me +4 damage, I don't need to ask "Does this work" - of course it does! More damage is pretty much always effective. As such, I don't need to even bother with switching to other stances unless, as a player, I want to. And the loss in my effectiveness is generally very, very small.




So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:
Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs AC
Damage : 1d10+Level

and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.



> The guy choosing at-wills, meanwhile, also has encounters and other options pressing upon him. And isn't likely to have At-Wills with quite as simple the benefits of the easiest stances. And needs to keep in mind that some situations won't allow those At-Wills. And the one who plays very very simply and avoids all these decisions... has a much, much bigger hit to their effectiveness.




Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.



> Same with the Rogue. Yes, you can play them by spamming a single At-Will, but handicapping them to do so doesn't really seem like they are being _more effective _at such things than Essentials characters who are _built _to spam a single attack and not cripple their effectiveness to do so.




I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".


----------



## Thac0 the Barbarian (Aug 12, 2011)

Terramotus said:
			
		

> That's not exactly what I meant.  I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of players who would LOVE to get into D&D were it not for the complexity.  I find it even more doubtful that you'll be able to dumb down the system enough to convince them.  Maybe there are some old gamers in that group that play 1E, 2E, or even OD&D.
> 
> How are you going to get them to switch now?  They were left behind way back when 3E came out.  People not exposed to pen and paper RPGS?  They're probably into video games instead.  You'll need a good ad campaign to hook them, and something more like the red box for them.  That doesn't mean the whole game needs to be the red box.  Was it back in the day?
> 
> ...




Not that I would count myself as a huge market, (although I spend more money than I should  ) but I actually got back into playing d&d after a hiatus during 3rd edition due to the release of essentials.   I am a bright analytical fellow ( a physician in fact) but I admit I suffered from a version of the "analysis paralysis".   The ability to have fewer choices of the powers I would use allowed me to focus on the other tactical elements of combat (positioning etc.). The fact that the essential classes gained abilities at different rates and with different formats made them feel more distinct to me than the aedu classes did and I've had a great time playing them.  While it is certainly true that the pleural of anecdotes is not data, in my case WOTC got several hundred dollars out of me that they would not have gotten without essentials.


----------



## Raikun (Aug 12, 2011)

Switching from the older classes to Essentials classes caused our group to be able to go from 3 encounters in a 4 hour session to 5 or 6 encounters.

The simplicity of the Essentials classes led to much less of people studying their powers trying to decide what to use, and that's sped up encounters significantly.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 12, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> I stand by my point that the AEDU system is very very easy to grasp.




Nobody is saying that it is, so stop arguing like we are. We're saying that the number of decision points both at character creation and during gameplay causes a number of players to suffer analysis paralysis and by offering options that reduce those decision points to prevent that paralysis, everyone at the table is happier.



> But I have difficulty even imagining a reasonably intelligent person having the problems you're describing over a long period of time barring some very opaque DMing.




My players are all professionals or grad students who make decisions all day before coming to D&D. Not everyone can operate at 100% capacity all the time



> Fair enough, but if you discount your experiences completely for the purposes of making judgments you render them near meaningless.  What matters, raw numbers?  Numbers are nothing without our knowledge and experience to knit them into conclusions.




Don't discount your experiences, but don't assume they are an absolute. That's what you appear to be doing.



> That's not exactly what I meant.




Then you should phrase it better. Normally, when someone presents a scenario involving a type of person and someone else says "Well, I've never met one," they're usually really saying "I don't believe you that these people exist."



> I seriously doubt that there's a huge market of players who would LOVE to get into D&D were it not for the complexity.




When did this suddenly become about using these options to market to new players? We were explicitly talking about existing players who have trouble with the number of decision points in character creation and the number of tactical options in combat.



> How are you going to get them to switch now?




What's with shifting the conversation away from what we were talking about, existing players with analysis paralysis, to an entirely different demographic? You've done it twice now.

What I'm getting from your arguments is "Simpler options will not draw in new/lapsed players, so why bother?"



> What about WoW?  (Pre-Cataclysm, at least.  That's my main knowledge of it).  Wow has a huge market, and its complexity ramps up ridiculously as you get towards the top of the game.  You have to make complex choices about talents pretty early on in the game, too.  WoW has millions and millions of subscribers.  I'm sure if WotC had numbers anything approaching WoW levels for DDI...  well, let's just say that the face of the hobby would look a bit different.




Well, you should have spent at least five minutes Googling Cataclysm's features before using WoW for your argument. Blizzard just changed the talent system significantly in order to (wait for it) make it easier for players to use. They reduced the number of talent points, have you pick a single spec at level 10 and lock you into using the majority of your talent points in that tree until you are high enough level to have developed enough mastery of the game to spread the last few points around.



> Simple?  Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?




So, we say "We know players that have trouble making decisions with so many decision points" and you equate them to mindless players of a matching game? It's hilarious that you said you didn't want to insult my players, then whip out this gem.

And this post of yours reeks of elitism even more strongly than your previous one, where you merely implied you think Wizards shouldn't support simpler character options. Bravo.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 12, 2011)

Marshall said:


> ...and if the devs had decided to continue to support the 4e versions of these classes youd have the same options as a 4e class. Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex).




That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier _to use _and simpler _to use _for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach.



Marshall said:


> ...Power Strike and its cousins are 1st level encounter powers. Thats it. You then have a series of odd class abilities that do nothing but make that power into a 3rd, 7th, 13th+ level power. Instead, if done correctly, this would have been a part of a selection of simple powers available in the heroic tier to all FTRs with a preselected build in the book(and an appendix for How to integrate with 4e). You seem to think that all encounter powers need to be fantastically complex mechanics.




It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character. 

Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage. 

That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it.  



Marshall said:


> False, or more accurately, WotC finally figured out that most at-wills _should be basic attacks_. Tagging an addendum onto the already massive essentials errata document that added the "This power counts as a basic-attack" to around 75% of at-wills out there would have had the same effect of removing that confusion from ALL CLASSES instead of just the chosen few.
> Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot?




That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game. 

You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me. 



Marshall said:


> The Slayer is actually comparable to a Barbarian build, but the Knight is one of the most complex classes to play to actually get anything out of. Defenders Aura is a joke unless you can plan multiple turns ahead and without that you dont actually DO anything(Yes, there are people who like to sleep thru the combats).




No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender. 



Marshall said:


> So? What does the presence of Power Strike like powers have to do with the e-classes? 4e Fighters can use Power Strike just as effectively as e-classes and _thats the point_.




Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding _the entire system_ from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better _experience_. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over. 



Marshall said:


> Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes.




We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves. 



Marshall said:


> Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will or when comparing a slayer to a Barb RageStrike,ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will.
> You're talking mindless dice rolling here, not any type of analysis paralysis. This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario. Again, 4e classes can be built for mindless combat as well.




But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design. 

Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks. 



Marshall said:


> So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:
> Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs AC
> Damage : 1d10+Level
> 
> and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.




Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character.

I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight. 



Marshall said:


> Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.




You are misreading what I am saying. A Slayer playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Slayer. A Knight playing simply is operating near full effectiveness for a Knight. A Weaponmaster playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Weaponmaster. A Barbarian playing simply is not operating near full effectiveness for a Barbarian. 

If a Slayer only stays in one stance and makes basics every round, and uses Power Strike each round until he runs out, he remains an effective character. A Weaponmaster who never uses his encounter powers? Is going to be severely hindered. And certainly won't compare favorably to an average Knight, even one played as simply as possible. 



Marshall said:


> I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".




... a single attack is all most Essentials characters get. It's called a basic attack. I assume what you are actually saying that in order to be effective, they need to actively be switching stances and using tricks and other abilities appropriate to the situation. 

And... I think you are wrong. 

Look at the Slayer options for stances. Look how simple some of them are. A few bonus points of damage, a +1 bonus to attack. If a Slayer chooses one of those, and sticks with it all day long, in what way is he not being effective?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 12, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> If it's just that they're hyper-sensitive to making bad choices...  well...  I stand by my point that the AEDU system is very very easy to grasp.




No one is saying it's hard to grasp.  But it's not _transparent_.  It takes them out of the narrative to engage with the system to pick the power.  This isn't a matter of brains.  It's a matter of gear selection.



> Fair enough, but if you discount your experiences completely for the purposes of making judgments you render them near meaningless.  What matters, raw numbers?  Numbers are nothing without our knowledge and experience to knit them into conclusions.




No one is saying that all experiences should be discounted.  That is a straw man.  What people are saying is that _some_ people respond much better to Essentials mechanics than they do classic 4e mechanics.  I can think of people in both games I run right now that do.  Not all of them.  That you are not one of them _does not change the argument._  I am not one of them either.  But I know some that are.  If even ten percent of D&D players respond better to Essentials style classes than classic ones, that's ten percent having a better game.  And that makes my game better because I play with players in those categories.  If they have a better play experience and more fun at the table then so do I.

Which leads to my question.  Those of you who hate the presence of Essentials classes, why are you so adamant that other people shouldn't get more enjoyment out of the game than they do without?



> There's a proven market for fun, complex games.  Simple?  Are we talking about trying to convert the Bejewled zombies?




Games should be no more complex than they need to be for the desired result.  Simple is an aesthetic goal - and well thought out and simple design makes it easier for me to focus on other parts of the game that I want to focus on.



Marshall said:


> Stances are a waste of design time that would have been better designed as a series of at-wills, even to the point that most of them ARE at-wills broken down into separate game elements(and therefore MORE complex).




Stances that people can stay in and just focus on what they want to hit make peoples lives easier and improve the play experience of a significant number of players.  Improved play experience is IMO the _only_ metric that matters for what the designers should be working on.



> Is it really supposed to be a feature of the Slayer/Knight to be able to cleave on a charge while the True Fighter cannot?




No.  But it actually fits with the difference in theme and playstyle between a fighter and a knight.  A fighter looks at his foe, says "You're mine", and his target of choice is doomed.  A knight on the other hand owns the space around him, and anyone who gets too close is in hot water.  That the fighter can't take out someone else other than his intended target while a knight can negligently brush aside a minion who's in the area he owns might not be intended, but it's less of a bug than you think.



> Stances, Tricks, minor-action changes, class feature buffs to certain powers combine with Power Attack/BS makes for more complex game play with no benefit that couldnt have been added to just the straight classes.




 Apparently improving the play experience of some people while hurting almost no one's play experience because they don't have to use these classes isn't something you consider a benefit.



> Really?!? How is that different from a 4e Fighter using ENC13,ENC7,ENC3,DefaultAt-will,DefaultAt-will




Because all the player needs to focus on doing is saying "I hit it."  He does not need to go through a five step arbitary pattern that he needs to learn for his character that breaks his immersion.  For you, either mechanics are easy.  But not everyone thinks this way.  



> This is just active disengagement from the combat scenario.




You do _not_ get to call one of the best roleplayers at either of my tables actively disengaged from the combat scenario.  But he finds it massively easier to hit it and describe how he hits it.  And just use a melee basic attack while in a stance.  Squares on a board and adding concrete details to abstract numbers are not how he _thinks_.  



> So you're completely disengaged and your character sheet may as well say:
> Atttack Bonus : Level +14 vs AC
> Damage : 1d10+Level
> 
> and skip all the descriptive text. They arent paying attention to it anyway.




And once more you show your understanding of how 4e is played to be narrow.  I don't pay much attention to the line of descriptive text other than as a potential suggestion.  I refluff powers on the fly based on what's going on.  Robotically going through the exact descriptive text ont he power is IMO tedious.



> A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.




 So not only do you not understand why people play stance based classes despite many people's best efforts, you fail at understanding how to play a knight.  Sometimes fighters are better, sometimes knights.  And I've seen a Cavalier mince a MM3 solo in a way a fighter would have failed utterly at (and a knight would have just been overkill).  

Knights fail against two things - forced movement and teleportation.  But they have one _immense_ advantage Fighters don't.  A Fighter's Combat Challenge is an Interrupt so he can use it once per round.  Which means if someone shifts away you can't then use combat challenge from someone else.  A Knight in the middle of a pack on the other hand can guard against them all as his are opportunity attacks and he can do one of them on each bad guy's turn.  And one of them on an ally turn as well if your team is into provoke-tactics (as some of us are).  So a Knight adds more flexibility to the team even while he doesn't have the range of actions of a fighter.  However if you're going to write off the knight before you've started you won't see the added flexibility your team mates bring.



> I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective




Knight in Defend the Line with World Serpent's Grasp.  Sticky as hell - one hit for slow, two for knockdown.  Combine that with provoke-tactics from one other PC  Thief with Tactical Trick and thrown daggers for permanent combat advantage against the focus fire target of choice.  Because Perma CA is all rogues need to be _effective_.  Human Hunter with Twin Strike, Hidden Sniper, and a lot of ways of getting concealment.  Oh, and in a stance for +2 damage with CA - slightly _more_ effective than a Twin Strike spamming ranger would have been without the interrupts.  (He was being NPCd that session).


----------



## Zaran (Aug 12, 2011)

Any news on DDI ?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 13, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> Will any of the upcoming content in either Dragon or in the relatively few books announced actually be non-Essentials?  ... I know it's probably a forlorn hope.



There really is no such thing as non-Essentials at this point.  There is pre-Essentials, Essentials, and post-Essentials.  Pre-Essentials id over.  Essentials is also, technically, over, but indicative of the 'new direction going forward.'  Post-Essentials will resemble Essentials.  There are two rather obvious reasons for this:

1) They came right out and said it would.

2) With Essentials as the new 'evergreen' flagship of the line, it doesn't make much sense to release new material that doesn't build on and bring compatibilty with Essentials.  If you buy a new book, and you need PH2 to use it - and you can't /find/ PH2 in a store because it's not 'Evergreen,' that could turn you off if you're relatively new to the game.  Thus, everything will be virtually 100% Essentials-referent, barring the occassional mistake by a developer...


----------



## Rechan (Aug 13, 2011)

I guess you guys missed that these were coming out in traditional AEDU style:


> Runepriest (in Dragon Sept or Oct)
> Monk (Power of the Plane Below)
> A new build for "the PHB1" Wizard (Power of the Plane Below)


----------



## Marshall (Aug 13, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> That... seems to completely ignore the points we made about the simplicity of letting a player focus on basic attacks. Yes, stances are an alternate way to go about the same power level of at-will powers. One that is easier _to use _and simpler _to use _for certain players. The theoretical complexity of what it took to design them doesn't really matter. More support for at-will classes would have been nice for those who wanted it, but not especially helpful to those who prefer this alternate, simpler approach.




I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.
Since you like Power Strikes mechanics so much, why not make _real_ at-wills that act the same way? 
Oh, wait. They did, they just call them Bladespells now. Yet, another new mechanic that should have just been folded into the standard at-will.




> It is true you could create various encounter powers that are just bigger amounts of damage. But, again, that misses the actual benefit of Power Strike. Being able to declare it after the fact, namely - not needing the player to pause before attacking and choose. Being easily promptable without feeling like you are running their character.




Thats one option for a simple power, or you could have just made _Power Strike_ an encounter 1 and _Imp Power Strike_ an encounter 3 and etc. etc. 
Exactly the same playability and no new class nonsense. 



> Let's take a player with a stance he is always in (which gives +4) damage and 3 uses of power strike. Every round he gets to make a basic attack, and the first few times he hits he does bonus damage.
> 
> That is going to be simpler to run that even a character with 1 simple at-will and several simple encounter powers and daily powers. If you really feel you have a candidate that can be easier to run than "Slayer McBasicAttack", feel fee to show it.




Sure. You use the "Battle Wrath" at-will every round and activate your "Power Strike" when you hit. If its really a nasty fight you use your "Slayers Advantage" Daily instead that does +2[W] and adds +DEX to damage for the rest of the encounter.



> That could be an interesting alternate approach, sure. Though you start getting into certain At-Wills that can be used in strange ways when available as basic attacks. And it would make a big difference to the power level of the game.
> 
> You could probably redesign all At-Wills from the ground up to work with that approach. But I think that would have caused many more problems than it solved. An alternate system that works for those who like it, on the other hand, and can take these elements into account right away... seems like a good approach to me.




Not necessary, most single target, single attack at wills can be made basics without any increase in the power level of the game other than obsoleting a couple already worthless at-wills(Eldritch Blast, I'm looking at you) and a couple magic items that probably shouldnt exist to start with(BoMS, Rapidstrike Bracers). The AoE and multi-attack powers wouldnt change, and most of the move-and-attack powers wouldnt get the rider, but nearly everything else can _and should_.



> No its not. That's silly - the Knight walks up to an enemy. They shift or attack a friend, they get hit in the face. It's just like marking without as much complexity. Yes, they lack the absolute stickiness of movement-halting OAs, but for the average group of gamers, with DMs who aren't specifically trying to screw them over, the Knight will be perfectly effective as a defender.




No, they'll be a turtle. Hard to hit, harder to kill but otherwise completely ignorable since they do almost no damage. The DM needs to go out of his way to make them relevant.



> Yes, there could have been alternate approaches they took. I think the ones you are suggesting would have largely required rebuilding _the entire system_ from the ground up. Honestly, that is something I favor. I think one could end up producing an overall better game by doing so. But doing so right now, in such a haphazard fashion, would not have made for a better _experience_. Expanding the options via essentials was a far better approach than tearing out the guts of the old system and completely starting over.




I favor it, also. There are a series of holes that could have been patched by the e-revision. Instead they built an entirely semi-compatible system with enormous gaping holes in it and tried to pawn it off as a completely compatible beginner version.



> We've already covered the benefits of stances - being far more 'fire and forget' than at-wills. The entire "start with a basic attack, and add stuff on top of it" - which involves both the boosts from stances/tricks and those from Power Strike/Backstab - requires an entirely different approach from the AEDU design. You couldn't just port over part of it. I can't see any simple way to do what you are proposing that wouldn't cause more problems than it supposedly solves.




I dont see any reason to throw out the AEDU system when it was and is completely compatible with everything you're trying to do *and* doesnt create the huge gaping holes that suddenly making Basic Attacking a viable primary attack mode did.



> But not nearly as smoothly, nor without requiring a lot more active crippling of their abilities. The Slayer operating on 'fire and forget' mode is at nearly full effectiveness. The Fighter/Barbarian who actively chooses a list of powers with no effects other than damage, and runs down them in a strict order, is giving up a lot of the benefits built into their power design.




No, hes not. He's giving up his versatility for simplicity of play. Its the exact trade the slayer is making.



> Not to mention it still requires more complexity and more work - the player consulting 4 different powers from round to round and tracking which are used, rather than just having one single power to reference, plus a series of checkmarks.




Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?



> Yes, I'm saying this is what some folks want. They enjoy getting into the moment itself, and the thrill of combat coming from what enemies they are charging, how they are positioning, how they describe their attacks, etc. They don't want to need a list of power names and different effects and figure out which one is most useful in a situation. They want to just be able to describe a cool thing and then hit a dude in the face, rather than spend time 'doing homework' to play their character.




Uh huh. They want to play dumb. So you select powers that let you play dumb or you follow the list of powers on your BDF build cert. Whether that is called Power Strike I thru Power Strike XXVII or Solid Hit thru Cataclysm Strike is up to the player.



> I'm not saying you need to enjoy such a style yourself. But there are folks who do, and there is nothing wrong with WotC producing some content that caters to the approach they like. And, ultimately, Essentials does just that, despite your belief (contrary to many folk's actual experiences and a thorough examination of the mechanics) that pre-Essentials classes were somehow simpler than the Slayer or the Knight.
> 
> 
> > And I'm saying that the supposedly simple Essentials play experience could have been accomplished _better_ using the established 4e class structure rather than introducing an entirely new set of complexities and incompatibilities that came at the expense of actually improving 4e. Especially when its comparatively easy to see where those ideas should have meshed perfectly instead of tossing in the monkey wrench.
> ...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 13, 2011)

The effect - and, I presume, intent - of creating classes based around augmenting basic attacks via novel mechanics is simply to add arbitrary mechanical distinctiveness.  

There is a mind-set that is more comfortable if there is a 'hard' mechanical distinction for each 'fluff' distinction.  The kind that finds using Bastard Sword stats for a Katana unbearable, for instance.    Catering to that desire /increases/ the complexity of the game, because you have more and less consistent mechanics modeling the same things.  

The assertion, for instance, that Essentials 'made the game simpler' is flat-out wrong.  The reality is that some Essentials classes are simpler, taken individually.  Taken as a whole, the classes in HotFL, alone, give the new player more of a learning curve than pre-PH3 4e did, with it's more unified aproach to class design.  /Added/ to the pre-exiting 4e, they represent a flat-out increase in complexity, making the game harder to learn for players and harder to keep balanced for DMs.  But, that's largely theoretical.  The /experience/ of a new player playing a Slayer or whatever is that it feels fairly simple.   

(Ok, except for the stance thingy, but once they've gotten into a stance, they can more or less forget about it - and it's not like the Slayer has much else to do with his minor actions).  (And, Knights are another story - on the first round of a combat a Knight generally needs to turn on his defender aura, go into a stance, move and attack - 4 vital actions with only 3 available - better hope you can charge.)  

It is certainly true that everything the basic-attack spamming classes do could have been done under the AEDU model.  The differences are arbitrary, and the effect of them is to create arbitrary distinctions.  The common thread seems to be that any martial class, or class that hints at martial skill, is getting put 'back in it's place.'  4e-haters were very vocal in being apalled that 'Fighters cast spells in 4e' (that is, that everyone uses 'powers,' putting them on a potentially equal footing).  With Essentials+, the propper order has been restored - sword-swingers are using a 'basic' ability and suitable for the less sophisticated player, while casters are more varied, flexible, complex and interesting (and 'gish' partake of some of the full-casters' privillege).


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 13, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> The assertion, for instance, that Essentials 'made the game simpler' is flat-out wrong.




When you make an argument that you state as straight fact, it's common to provide something called "supporting evidence." Your post just keeps repeating your same thesis statement in different variations with no actual evidence. Your post is all rhetoric and no actual substance.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 14, 2011)

Marshall said:


> I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....




Indeed you are.  And every time you do, it is pointed out why you are wrong.



> Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.




How about spending no action to change your stance and then just using a basic attack?  Is that simpler?  Because it's what people who want simple mechanics do with knights.



> If its really a nasty fight you use your "Slayers Advantage" Daily instead that does +2[W] and adds +DEX to damage for the rest of the encounter.




Which is adding overheads to the people that don't want them.



> Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?




That each power is different.  Or at least has a different name.  And having different ones just makes it fiddlier.



> You'd be surprised, but the only difference in effectiveness is going to be Power Strike. PS designed as a Fighter Encounter 1, and therefore stacking with the Fighters at-wills, would match the simplicity and effectiveness of the Knight and _not have required two new subclasses, a whole host of feats, countless pages of new rules and errata further division of the player base_




Um.  No.  _People find stances simpler._  Not everyone does  But many do.  You are doing your best to ignore this.  And presenting them in the worst possible light.



> In what way is he being more effective than a Fighter or Barb using his at-wills all day long?




Shall we have a look at the numbers?

Barbarian At Wills vs Slayer MBA.

Assume Howling Strike from the Barbarian (as the best overall damage At Will - no drawbacks) and Battle Wrath Stance from the Slayer.  Arm both with a Maul.  The Barbarian does strength based damage and gets +d6 damage.  The Slayer does strength based damage, gets +dex + 2 damage, and gets a further +1 to hit.  More accuracy and more damage (and better Opportunity Attacks).  And normally more AC as well - unless the Barbarian has a dex of 16 or more and chooses to bump that, remembering that only Whirling Slayers are Dex secondary.  (Although the Barbarian does get Rageblood vigor as its counterbalance).  At higher level, the slayer damage increases, they get free bonusses to saves, Battle Guardian scales, and possibly a few things I've forgotten.

Fighter vs Knight

It's closer.  Cleave vs Cleaving Assault.  The Knight has better AC - plate + shield vs scale + shield.  Defender Aura at low levels is more useful than marks (at higher levels not so much) and Battle Guardian is an Opportunity Attack vs Combat Challenge being an interrupt.  Higher levels they get things like free initiative bonusses, and bonusses to damage of weapon rolls.  Covering argument.  The challenge is better, the AC is better, they get to threaten more people than just one, the damage is better, they get free initiative bonusses.  The only place they lose out on is Combat Superiority - the OA that is accurate and stops people moving.  And that OA doesn't IME trigger anything like as often as the interrupt.



Tony Vargas said:


> (And, Knights are another story - on the first round of a combat a Knight generally needs to turn on his defender aura, go into a stance, move and attack - 4 vital actions with only 3 available - better hope you can charge.)




This is an active nerf on the knight, the slayer, the scout, and the hunter.  There is absolutely no reason you need to wait for combat to break out for a knight to go into a stance under the Rules as Written and he can spend a minor every few minutes to renew it as an at will.  And under the Rules as Intended, it would be _impossible_ to use one Ranger At Will Stance if you had to wait for combat to put it up.  Therefore Knights starting in stance (and with Defender Aura running) any time they expect trouble (which is pretty much any time they have a shield or sword in hand, and a lot of times they don't) is to be expected.

Now if you want to make the fighter draw his sword and take his shield off his back at the start of combat it _might_ be fair to have the Knight not in stance and without the aura running as well.  But that's an exceptional combat (and even then it would depend on the reason - if it was helping someone across a rope bridge in hostile terrain then the Knight would still be in stance with aura up - it's just if they thought they were completely safe when he wouldn't).



> With Essentials+, the propper order has been restored - sword-swingers are using a 'basic' ability and suitable for the less sophisticated player, while casters are more varied, flexible, complex and interesting (and 'gish' partake of some of the full-casters' privillege).




This is why I am looking forward to the Essentials Sorceror.  So that there is a spellcaster that's as simple to grock as the swordswingers.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 14, 2011)

Marshall said:


> I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.



I can accept that it's not simpler for you. However, can _you_ accept that it _is_ simpler for some people? "Simple" is not always objective or clear-cut since everyone thinks differently.



> Thats one option for a simple power, or you could have just made _Power Strike_ an encounter 1 and _Imp Power Strike_ an encounter 3 and etc. etc.
> Exactly the same playability and no new class nonsense.



Actually, no. This changes the decision point from "Choose an encounter power? (Y/N)" to "Choose an encounter power? (Y/N) Y -> Which encounter power? (E1/E3)"



> Huh?!? Whats the difference between checking one of 4 boxes on one power or checking off 4 different powers in a row? Checking boxes Horizontally is easier than checking them vertically?



No, but having the same effect for each encounter power is simpler than choosing between four encounter powers with different effects. See above.



> I dont see any reason to throw out the AEDU system when it was and is completely compatible with everything you're trying to do and doesnt create the huge gaping holes that suddenly making Basic Attacking a viable primary attack mode did.
> 
> ...
> 
> And I'm saying that the supposedly simple Essentials play experience could have been accomplished _better_ using the established 4e class structure rather than introducing an entirely new set of complexities and incompatibilities that came at the expense of actually improving 4e. Especially when its comparatively easy to see where those ideas should have meshed perfectly instead of tossing in the monkey wrench.



Frankly, I suspect that the reason why the Essentials classes are still pretty well balanced with the AEDU classes is that the AEDU structure is still mostly followed while hiding the fact that it is from the players. I don't think it's a coincidence that the slayer gets new encounter powers at levels 3, 11 and 13, improvements to his encounter powers at levels 7, 17 and 27, and his damage bonuses increase at levels 5, 15 and 25. The last, in particular, is like activating a daily power that grants an untyped damage bonus to basic attacks and lasts until the end of his next extended rest.



> In what way is he being more effective than a Fighter or Barb using his at-wills all day long?



He still gets benefits from features that replicate the effectiveness of daily powers, as indicated above.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 14, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> When you make an argument that you state as straight fact, it's common to provide something called "supporting evidence."



Essentials added to the game.  Adding to an already-complex system can be expected to make it yet more complex, no?   

Taken by itself, Essentials introduced classes that used varied progression schemes, instead of a unified one, like the 'AEDU' used in the PH1.  That's, again, a more complex aproach. 

It's only when you take Essentials classes one at a time that /some/ of them are 'simpler.'  Some of them lack power choices.  Fewer choices make a class simpler.  Some of them can defer their choice to use some powers until after the die roll - that may not be 'simpler,' but it's arguably easier (when you miss there's no decision), which might well be what's meant by the 'simpler' claim.



Is that clear enough?  Or do you need some sort of formal mathmetical analysis of complexity?  Because, really, demanding excessive 'proof' in an informal setting such as this is as much rhetoric and smoke-blowing as anything.  If you would like to give an example of the level of 'supporting evidence' you would accept, please, go ahead and support the assertion that Essentials made 4e 'simpler.'


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Um.  No.  _People find stances simpler._  Not everyone does  But many do.  You are doing your best to ignore this.  And presenting them in the worst possible light.



Stances have a few negatives, but they are simpler - or, at least easier - in play, because you can turn one on and 'forget' it.  



> This is an active nerf on the knight, the slayer, the scout, and the hunter.  There is absolutely no reason you need to wait for combat to break out for a knight to go into a stance ... Knights starting in stance (and with Defender Aura running) any time they expect trouble (which is pretty much any time they have a shield or sword in hand, and a lot of times they don't) is to be expected.



It is odd, then, to make it an action, rather than just a "while you are conscious..." feature.   

I do like the idea of a Knight getting up in the morning, armoring up, and going through a quick 'warm up' series (and one..  and Defender's Aura ... and two ... and Hammer Hands and... limbered up and ready to Battle Challenge anyone who tries to attack his buddies at breakfast).  I don't mean that in an entirely sarcastic way, either - it does go to modeling the dedication fictional martial types often display.



> This is why I am looking forward to the Essentials Sorceror.  So that there is a spellcaster that's as simple to grock as the swordswingers.



I'm looking forward to that, too.  But, 'simple' may not mean for an arcanist what it does for a martial character.  :shrug:  We'll see what it's like when it's previewed/published.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 14, 2011)

Perhaps a good secondary point to this whole stance and aura things would be if DMs permit the aura and stance to be on when the fight starts. 

If so that is another line of actions to do, sure the same every fight, but something else to forget.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 14, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Essentials added to the game.  Adding to an already-complex system can be expected to make it yet more complex, no?



No.  Certainly not from the perspective of a player who's running a Knight, Slayer, or Scout.  From their perspective, why should they give a fig if their advancement is different than a Mage?

As you note, when you look at them singly inside their own silo, _they are in fact simpler_.  I think it's fairly obvious that's what folks are talking about when they mention simpler options.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 14, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Certainly not from the perspective of a player who's running a Knight, Slayer, or Scout.  From their perspective, why should they give a fig if their advancement is different than a Mage?



Well, they had to decide which class to play.  Maybe that just meant a preference for an archetype, but maybe mechanics were a factor, that would mean needing some passing understanding of each class - each of which works differently in Essentials+.  Or, they may wish to play more than one character - of more than one class - over time, and need to un-learn some of what they learned about how D&D characters work when they do.  And, of course, there will likely be other classes around the table, each advancing in their own way...

So, yes, even the player playing a single one of the more simplistic classes is going to encounter the increased complexity that Essentials brings to the table.  Whether they care, is, as you point out, a separate issue.  Just because something is complex doesn't mean that complexity is going to be a problem for everyone - or anyone.  



> As you note, when you look at them singly inside their own silo, _they are in fact simpler_.  I think it's fairly obvious that's what folks are talking about when they mention simpler options.



Oh, I agree.  That was the point, really.  Essentials didn't make the game simpler or easier to learn, rather the opposite - but, it did give simpler options that could provide a much simpler gaming experience to a player directed to them by more experienced players.

Take the Knight and it's stances & aura (above).  Even if the DM is a stickler for tracking them, they're not any /more/ complicated than picking at-wills and deciding whether or not to mark - and, they can be 'left on,' so while the player (or someone at the table) needs to remember they're 'on,' he doesn't need to worry about them every round.  And, again, even if that aspect is no less complicated, the lack of dailies, lack of choice of encounters, and the after-the-attack nature of the class's only encounter make it that much simpler to build and to play.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Perhaps a good secondary point to this whole stance and aura things would be if DMs permit the aura and stance to be on when the fight starts.
> 
> If so that is another line of actions to do, sure the same every fight, but something else to forget.



Well, according to the rules:
*Stance* 

An effect type. When a character uses a stance power, the character assumes a stance of some kind.

Duration: A stance lasts until the character assumes another stance or until the character falls unconscious or dies. A stance also ends at the end of the encounter, unless the stance can be assumed at will.​Hence, at-will stances, such as the knight and cavalier's _defender aura_ and the knight and slayer's basic stances, continue from encounter to encounter.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 14, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Well, according to the rules:
> Hence, at-will stances, such as the knight and cavalier's _defender aura_ and the knight and slayer's basic stances, continue from encounter to encounter.




That is one way of reading it. Assuming it is turned on in that encounter, I certainly would do it this way. But turning it on out of combat and it staying on till the cows come home, the sun goes nova or there is a new encounter is just not how it works.

With most stances it does not matter, but some do.


----------



## Kelvor Ravenstar (Aug 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> But turning it on out of combat and it staying on till the cows come home, the sun goes nova or there is a new encounter is just not how it works.
> 
> With most stances it does not matter, but some do.




What's the matter with a knight activating his defender aura when he puts on his armor in the morning? 

Having to activate that class ability in the first encounter is not something I've encountered online before, and I strongly disagree with that interpretation.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 14, 2011)

Kelvor Ravenstar said:


> What's the matter with a knight activating his defender aura when he puts on his armor in the morning?
> 
> Having to activate that class ability in the first encounter is not something I've encountered online before, and I strongly disagree with that interpretation.




That was not really my point. But to answer it, where does it say abilities are active all day, and do not need to be activated in combat? That is how every power I know works.

And it is a power, not a class feature.

But run it how you like.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Perhaps a good secondary point to this whole stance and aura things would be if DMs permit the aura and stance to be on when the fight starts.
> 
> If so that is another line of actions to do, sure the same every fight, but something else to forget.




Rules as written say that the stance does not end at the end of the encounter if it's At Will.  And even if they end every five minutes (gratuitous), you can simply refresh them every four as a minor if you're alert for trouble.

Rules as Intended: Aspect of the Pouncing Lynx for the Hunter has the effect of granting +4 to Initiative _Checks_.  This does absolutely _nothing_ if you bring it up after combat has started and is more or less the main benefit of the aspect.  In order to be able to use it, the Hunter _must_ be able to keep his stances up out of combat.

Therefore if the DM is not permitting the PC to keep At Will stances up when the fight starts then he's house ruling.  It's not a question of if DMs permit the stances to be on.  It's if they (unintentionally) house rule to nerf the E-Martial classes by preventing them being on.



> That is one way of reading it. Assuming it is turned on in that  encounter, I certainly would do it this way. But turning it on out of  combat and it staying on till the cows come home, the sun goes nova or  there is a new encounter is just not how it works.




Um... see above.  According to the rules as written, the stance _does not end at the end of the encounter_.  This has already been demonstrated.  If you are a pedantic DM and want the At Will stance to end after five minutes as that is the only other way the stance will arbitrarily end then all that needs to be done is every four minutes on anything even approaching the alert, in character the PC can refresh his stance.  This takes two minor actions every four minutes, and is generally pointless.  The only time At Will stances (or Defender Auras) fall without it being a trivial precaution to bring them back up is in an Extended Rest.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> That is one way of reading it. Assuming it is turned on in that encounter, I certainly would do it this way. But turning it on out of combat and it staying on till the cows come home, the sun goes nova or there is a new encounter is just not how it works.
> 
> With most stances it does not matter, but some do.



But that *is* how it works. At-will stances can be assumed at any time, and remain "on" until the character falls unconscious or changes stances. Conan is always ready.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> How about spending no action to change your stance and then just using a basic attack?  Is that simpler?  Because it's what people who want simple mechanics do with knights.




Because you keep missing the point that spending no action is still making a decision. You havent moved, changed or eliminated a decision point, you've ONLY* increased* the complexity of that decision. Instead of a player deciding between At-will A and At-will B he is forced to make multiple decisions. 
Do I want to change my stance? Pick from up to 7 options.
Can I change my stance? Y or N
What else could I do with this minor action? Almost Infinite options(Hyperbole, but enough that any hint of Paralysis is activated)
The ONLY thing that stances could have accomplished was to make one choice obvious and, again,_ at-wills do that BETTER_. 

There is absolutely no basis in fact that "I basic attack" is simpler than "I Hit it  with My Sword" assuming HIWMS is mechanically an at-will basic attack with +1ab or "I Hit it Hard with My Sword" assuming HIHWMS is an at-will basic attack with +2 damage.



> Which is adding overheads to the people that don't want them.




No, its not. If you dont want it dont use it. By definition you are already playing tactically ineffective.



> That each power is different.  Or at least has a different name.  And having different ones just makes it fiddlier.




I call BS on this one. No one, and I mean NO-ONE, will find it more difficult to decide between using Power Strike I and Power Strike III. If someone had that kind of inability to make a decision than you wouldnt be able to have tactical engagement at all.



> Um.  No.  _People find stances simpler._  Not everyone does  But many do.  You are doing your best to ignore this.  And presenting them in the worst possible light.




I'm ignoring it because its not true in the least. The stance mechanic is the least intuitive and nearly the most complex idiocy brought in by essentials. They took an _extremely_ simple and intuitive mechanic and broke it into several different parts over multiple actions. At-wills have ALWAYS been a default choice kind of item. The only thing you are pointing to with these stances is a couple new simple at-will powers that are hidden among them. See HIWMS and HIHWMS above.



> Shall we have a look at the numbers?




Absolutely, you come in a fraction of a percentage point above a base 4e class at-will spamming. Wonderful. Add in that the player is going to be tactically inept and you may as well take the sheet away during combat and just have him roll dice.



> snip <aura discussion>




Look at what happens when a Knight/Slayer falls unconscious.



> This is why I am looking forward to the Essentials Sorceror.  So that there is a spellcaster that's as simple to grock as the swordswingers.




Why? You've already seen it. This is just the "Striker" Wizard build. I fully expect to see Sorcerer(Wizard) in Plane Below.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 14, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Because you keep missing the point that spending no action is still making a decision.




If and only if you mysteriously assign the same overhead to an option to change things that need not be taken, and a certainty of changing things.  This simply isn't so.  The default "not change" works.



> You havent moved, changed or eliminated a decision point, you've ONLY* increased* the complexity of that decision. Instead of a player deciding between At-will A and At-will B he is forced to make multiple decisions.




Congratulations.  You have just demonstrated that every filing system known to man makes decisions more complicated than not having a filing system.  More decision points and fewer options at each decision point is quite simply easier to manage than just laying out as many options as possible all at the top level.  This is why we have filing systems.  This is why we categorise.

There is a limit to the number of options that the human brain can process at once in the short term memory.  Seven plus or minus two is the normal human rule of thumb.  And how people group matters a lot (which is why we use mnemonics to aid memory).  There is also research that one difference between a grandmaster and an unskilled one is that grandmasters don't see the wrong moves.  And from my own experience of playing chess this fits (I was far from a grand master but not bad at all).

Now you almost certainly see the right moves.  You are a skilled player.  It's simple for you.  And for me.  But in classic AEDU, the at will and the choice of target are made as part of the same action.

Assume a seventh level fighter (i.e. just had the third stance and third encounter attack power) and no daily powers.  Assume four possible targets.

Decision tree for e-class goes like this.
1: Which stance do you want?  (3 options)
2: Who do you want to attack?  (4 options)
3: Do you wish to Power Strike? (2 options)

Yes, there are 24 options there on the table.  But at no point does the actual list the PC needs to face exceed four (except on the move action).  All three can be done _fast_.

Decision tree for non-e class goes more like this.
1: Who do you wish to attack (4 options) and with what (5 options)?  These multiply for _twenty_ different options on the same decision point.  Yes, 20 is less than 24.  But that's 20 options to sort through at once.  That's hideous.

Before you mention breaking out a burst is one option, not four, you are right - but on the other hand a power like Hack and Hew that hits two targets gives six combinations of two targets on its own (and would be 12 if there was a difference between the attacks).



> Do I want to change my stance? Pick from up to 7 options.




Name the class with seven stances please.  (Unless you've grabbed stances with utility powers).  Even thieves only get tricks at levels 1, 1, 4, 7, and 17 for five.  That sounds like pedantry until you remember the Seven Plus Or Minus Two rule above.



> There is absolutely no basis in fact that "I basic attack" is simpler than "I Hit it  with My Sword" assuming HIWMS is mechanically an at-will basic attack with +1ab or "I Hit it Hard with My Sword" assuming HIHWMS is an at-will basic attack with +2 damage.




Until you have the decision point thrown in.



> No, its not. If you dont want it dont use it. By definition you are already playing tactically ineffective.




Apparently in your world there is no difference between playing _sub optimally_ and sticking your underpants on your head, your pencils up your nose and saying "wibble".



> Absolutely, you come in a fraction of a percentage point above a base 4e class at-will spamming.




Where a fraction of a percentage point for the Barbarian vs Slayer comparison includes a +1 to hit.  Which is about 7% on its own.  More at higher levels.  (Especially as you are having less trouble with encounter powers as a Slayer due to the changed decision point).  A slayer outperform a non-raging Barbarian (and he outperforms th slayer when raging).  But at low levels where I made my comparison, you don't do much more than At Will Spamming.  At higher levels the gap grows until you take dailies into account (especially with the right bracers being lower level).



> Look at what happens when a Knight/Slayer falls unconscious.




Yes.  Unconsciousness ends stances and auras.  Your point?  If knights are attacked while unconscious they don't have stance or aura running.  This is about the one time it drops by RAW without basic precautions.  ANd honestly, marks and defender auras dropping with unconsciousness is  _good_ thing.  Or are you talking about night attacks here and catching the PCs asleep when most warrirors, Fighter or Knight, will be crippled by _having taken their armour off?_



> Why? You've already seen it. This is just the "Striker" Wizard build. I fully expect to see Sorcerer(Wizard) in Plane Below.




Sorceror is a separate class from wizard.  I'm expecting something along the lines of elemental stances and two attacks - single target and burst 1.  Not a further build of Mage (which is utterly indistinguishable from an AEDU class for obvious reasons).  I want to be able to hand out a blast mage to people who aren't mechanically gifted.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 14, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> When you make an argument that you state as straight fact, it's common to provide something called "supporting evidence." Your post just keeps repeating your same thesis statement in different variations with no actual evidence. Your post is all rhetoric and no actual substance.




His claim is actually totally correct. Essentials did not make the game simpler _as a whole_ - it can't do so, since it adds new options on top of what came before. 

But I think his point is also somewhat... irrelevant. The issue isn't about the system about a whole, it is about the options availale. What Essentials did was provide simpler _options_ for those who wanted them. Some are bothered by this and see it as 'putting martial back in its place', which... is silly, really, since complex martial classes still exist. Nothing has been taken away from them. I do get those who don't like it and would rather the design space went to material that they prefer... but in the end, the game caters to many people, and it isn't a bad thing that WotC provided options that some folks were asking for. 

For myself, I enjoy having both areas available. I don't buy Marshall's argument that Slayers and Knights are somehow more complex than pre-Essentials classes, or that Weaponmasters and Barbarians who never use their Encounter and Daily powers are somehow more effective than a Slayer who stays in one stance all day. That doesn't seem backed up by any reasonable analysis of the classes, nor do my experiences provide any support for his argument that Essentials classes are more difficult to use in actual play. But it's clear I won't be able to convince him of that, and he doesn't seem willing to address any of the actual points being made, so... I'm willing to leave it at that. 

I am hopeful that WotC will provide a balanced amount of support for classes in the future. But I can't find any fault in them continuing to push the limits of the system and try and find ways for class design that yields distinct but balanced options for those who want them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 14, 2011)

Kelvor Ravenstar said:


> What's the matter with a knight activating his defender aura when he puts on his armor in the morning?



Nothing. It's kinda cute, even.  I guess the only hard mechanical effect of making the Defener Aura a minor-action power, instead of an on-when-conscious feature, is that a Knight who's dropped has to not just stand up after being revived, but also decide whether to go into a stance or re-activate his Defender's Aura as his minor action.


----------



## technoextreme (Aug 14, 2011)

Marshall said:


> I get the feeling I'm repeating myself....Its not simpler to have to spend an action to change your stance and another to make the attack vs. make an attack.
> Since you like Power Strikes mechanics so much, why not make _real_ at-wills that act the same way?
> Oh, wait. They did, they just call them Bladespells now. Yet, another new mechanic that should have just been folded into the standard at-will.



Actually there have been multiple variants of power strike as powers hanging around for a while.


Dice4Hire said:


> That is one way of reading it. Assuming it is turned on in that encounter, I certainly would do it this way. But turning it on out of combat and it staying on till the cows come home, the sun goes nova or there is a new encounter is just not how it works.
> 
> With most stances it does not matter, but some do.



Explain why there are certain stances that would be completely and utterly useless with your interpretation of the rules.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Assume a seventh level fighter (i.e. just had the third stance and third encounter attack power) and no daily powers.  Assume four possible targets.
> 
> Decision tree for e-class goes like this.
> 1: Which stance do you want?  (3 options)
> ...



I'm sorry, why couldn't you have presented that like this:  

1: Who do you wish to attack (4 options)
2: with what (5 options)

20 possibilities, 5 options at one decision point?




> Sorceror is a separate class from wizard.  I'm expecting something along the lines of elemental stances and two attacks - single target and burst 1.  Not a further build of Mage (which is utterly indistinguishable from an AEDU class for obvious reasons).  I want to be able to hand out a blast mage to people who aren't mechanically gifted.



That'll be cool if it happens.  There was a rumor that the Bladesinger was going to be a Swordmage (separate class from wizard), have stance-like powers and not get dailies.  It turned out to be wrong, Bladesinger gets dailies to manage (they're just on par with encounters), encounter powers of a sort, and bladespells (which are functionally more like the Monk's Flurry of Blows than anything else).

I too would like to see an arcane class as simplistic as the martial classes - but I can't say I'm /expecting/ it.  Rumors and off-the-cuff comments by designers don't tell enough of the story to count on.  I'll evaluate it when I see it, until then, I can only judge the game as it is and the direction it's been heading.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 14, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm sorry, why couldn't you have presented that like this:
> 
> 1: Who do you wish to attack (4 options)
> 2: with what (5 options)
> ...




Because the attack and with what is the same standard action.  It's the same decision point.  Whereas with stances it's taken at a different point and different action.  You do not hit anyone with the minor action you use to change stances.  And you do not hit anyone with Power Strike.


----------



## Psikus (Aug 14, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I guess the only hard mechanical effect of making the Defener Aura a minor-action power, instead of an on-when-conscious feature, is that a Knight who's dropped has to not just stand up after being revived, but also decide whether to go into a stance or re-activate his Defender's Aura as his minor action.




It won't come up very often unless we see a lot more classes with defender aura, but there is one mechanical upside of the current implementation: it can be turned off. This could be relevant in a party with multiple knights/cavaliers, so that players can divert a monster's attention towards one defender or the other by switching auras on and off.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 15, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> If and only if you mysteriously assign the same overhead to an option to change things that need not be taken, and a certainty of changing things.  This simply isn't so.  The default "not change" works.




Yes, choosing not to choose is a choice. And that choice includes ALL your available options which are more numerous and significantly more complex than a 4e class.



> Congratulations.  You have just demonstrated that every filing system known to man makes decisions more complicated than not having a filing system.




Uh, you do realize that its the 4e classes that actually have a filing system while the e-classes throw everything into one pot? 4e already had the AEDU silos that broke everything down into manageable bits.



> Now you almost certainly see the right moves.  You are a skilled player.  It's simple for you.  And for me.  But in classic AEDU, the at will and the choice of target are made as part of the same action.




??? Why would you make that assumption?



> Assume a seventh level fighter (i.e. just had the third stance and third encounter attack power) and no daily powers.  Assume four possible targets.
> 
> Decision tree for e-class goes like this.
> 1: Which stance do you want?  (3 options)
> ...




Humbug,
All you are doing there is parsing the decision making process differently.
1. Choose a target(4 options)
2. Choose a power(5 options)



> Before you mention breaking out a burst is one option, not four, you are right - but on the other hand a power like Hack and Hew that hits two targets gives six combinations of two targets on its own (and would be 12 if there was a difference between the attacks).




Sure, but now you are actually into the complex encounter powers that 'simple' players arent going to select.



> Name the class with seven stances please.  (Unless you've grabbed stances with utility powers).  Even thieves only get tricks at levels 1, 1, 4, 7, and 17 for five.  That sounds like pedantry until you remember the Seven Plus Or Minus Two rule above.




My mistake, I misremembered the number of Thiefs Tricks. Its only 2.5 times the number of at-wills that a Rogue has to play with.



> Until you have the decision point thrown in.




You're not throwing in any decision point here. The e-class has to make the same decision, just with different and more complex choices.



> Apparently in your world there is no difference between playing _sub optimally_ and sticking your underpants on your head, your pencils up your nose and saying "wibble".




Not really, no. Both types of wibble-wonky are distracting, time-consuming and unproductive.  



> Yes.  Unconsciousness ends stances and auras.  Your point?  If knights are attacked while unconscious they don't have stance or aura running.  This is about the one time it drops by RAW without basic precautions.  ANd honestly, marks and defender auras dropping with unconsciousness is  _good_ thing.  Or are you talking about night attacks here and catching the PCs asleep when most warrirors, Fighter or Knight, will be crippled by _having taken their armour off?_




No, I'm saying the poor player who thinks he has a simple class is going to be out of his depth the first time he is reduced to 0hp and has to decide between standing and activating a stance or an aura or attacking or...



> Sorceror is a separate class from wizard.




So is a Swordmage, didnt stop the new "Everything is a Wizard" design paradigm from taking over the Bladesinger.



> I'm expecting something along the lines of elemental stances and two attacks - single target and burst 1.  Not a further build of Mage (which is utterly indistinguishable from an AEDU class for obvious reasons).  I want to be able to hand out a blast mage to people who aren't mechanically gifted.




Please, NO. The poor Sorc already has enough of his design space stolen by the Wizard and no real support outside a couple Dragon articles for the Chaos Mage. Making the Sorc an Abyssal Pact warlock is almost as bad an idea as an article on weapon powers for him.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Aug 15, 2011)

Windjammer said:


> Also,
> It's nice of them to encourage submissions, but first and foremost it's WotC' own duty to provide minimal support for  extant classes.




   I'm beginning to wonder what 'minimal' support means. Sometimes it seems to mean "30 different builds, each with three _unique_ power choices or feat choices at each decision point, all of them designed with bleeding-edge hyper-optimization in mind."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Because the attack and with what is the same standard action.  It's the same decision point.



That's rediculous.  Just because it's the same action, doesn't mean it can't be taken in two steps.  Who are you going to attack?  Oh, the guy right in front of me.  Or, I guess I'll move to flank that one.  Separate decision from. 'OK, what're you going to attack him /with/?'  Power X... no wait, Y.

Conversely, two different actions may be need to be considered together to make a meaningful decision.  For instance, if you're a square a way from one enemy, and 8 squares away from one, you can move 1 and attack one of them, say, in Poised Assualt stance for the best chance to hit, or you can move, enter Berserker's Charge, and charge the other.  
Each of those constitutes all three actions for the round, and, as you point out, the inexperienced player might well need to consider and discard the various 'bad' choices (drawing a dagger, entering Berserker Charge stance, throwing the dagger, for instance, or, slightly less obviously, charging in Poised Assualt stance).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Yes, choosing not to choose is a choice. And that choice includes ALL your available options which are more numerous and significantly more complex than a 4e class.



True.  However, forgetting to choose is pretty easy, and stances and power attacks are pretty forgiving of that.  So if a player goes.  "I hit da orc wit ma ax!  17!"  He did so in whatever stance he last turned on, without even needing to remember that his character could change  - or even /has/ - stances.  Of course, he'll lose the benefits of the stance if no one reminds him he's in Battle Wrath...




> All you are doing there is parsing the decision making process differently.
> 1. Choose a target(4 options)
> 2. Choose a power(5 options)



Transparent, wasn't it?  I've seen some clever manipulation of data.  That wasn't it.




> So is a Swordmage, didnt stop the new "Everything is a Wizard" design paradigm from taking over the Bladesinger.



Too true.  I think WotC has made a conscious decision to emphasis a smaller number of classes going forward.  I don't see how that accomplishes anything, given the proliferation of subclasses, it just seems like that's what they're doing.  The Necromancer could have been some twisted arcane leader (heck, even if it was still a Wizard), but, nope, school.





> Please, NO. The poor Sorc already has enough of his design space stolen by the Wizard and no real support outside a couple Dragon articles for the Chaos Mage. Making the Sorc an Abyssal Pact warlock is almost as bad an idea as an article on weapon powers for him.



Sorcerer seems pretty bad-ass to me, and it did get the Cosmic and Storm builds, IIRC.  

Via the Mage, the Wizard is leaving all the other arcane classes in the dust, though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Psikus said:


> It won't come up very often unless we see a lot more classes with defender aura, but there is one mechanical upside of the current implementation: it can be turned off. This could be relevant in a party with multiple knights/cavaliers, so that players can divert a monster's attention towards one defender or the other by switching auras on and off.



Interesting.  The way mark mechanics work, one mark supercedes another, and a character can choose not to mark.  So it's always possible to manage who is marking what.  

Defenders' Auras, OTOH, overlap, and the punishment for ignoring the mark doesn't aply to a creature already marked, or in another ally's Aura.  So, if I'm following, a creature flanked by a Cavalier and a Knight sure shouldn't shift, but can attack either of them safely, or make an attack that includes either one of them, without either being able to respond.  Is that right?

So, yeah, the ability to turn it off would be handy.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 15, 2011)

Marshall said:


> No, I'm saying the poor player who thinks he has a simple class is going to be out of his depth the first time he is reduced to 0hp and has to decide between standing and activating a stance or an aura or attacking or...



Eh? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the choices that the player of a slayer or knight needs to make will put him out of his depth, even if the character has just been revived from 0 hp or below and all his stances have ended.

It really is quite straightforward for a slayer:
Move action -> Stand
Minor action -> Activate S1 or S2 
Standard action -> Basic attack or charge

It's more complicated for a knight:
Move action -> Stand 
Minor action -> Activate S1, S2 or _defender aura_ 
Standard action -> Basic attack or charge

In all but a few corner cases, using the standard action to attack and the move action to stand up are easy choices to make because they will be better than anything else that the player could do with his standard and move actions. 

A weaponmaster fighter is also about as complicated as a knight:
Move action -> Stand
Minor action -> Not always usable
Standard action -> AW1, AW2, charge, (possibly) E1 or  D1 
-> When attacking each opponent, mark? (Y/N)

The difference is, even if the knight and the weaponmaster have choices of similar complexity to make after reviving from being dropped to 0 hit points or below, the knight has simpler choices the rest of the time. If the level of complexity of the knight reaches that of the weaponmaster only occasionally, it is still simpler to play on average.



> So is a Swordmage, didnt stop the new "Everything is a Wizard" design paradigm from taking over the Bladesinger.
> 
> ...
> 
> Please, NO. The poor Sorc already has enough of his design space stolen by the Wizard and no real support outside a couple Dragon articles for the Chaos Mage. Making the Sorc an Abyssal Pact warlock is almost as bad an idea as an article on weapon powers for him.



These seem to me to be judgements based on distinctiveness of surface appearances only. It's like arguing that the seeker is taking over the ranger's design space because both are wilderness-based ranged weapon users, or that the runepriest is taking over the Strength cleric's design space because both are weapon-wielding divine leaders. I think that even if we put a melee bard, a swordmage, a bladesinger and a hexblade in the same party, it's not going to be too difficult to tell them apart, even if they are all melee-weapon using arcane spellcasters (hint: one is healing with _majestic word_, one is marking with an _aegis_ of some sort, one is using bladespells to move and inflict conditions on the enemy and the last is savaging his opponents with a weapon forged out of arcane magic).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 15, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's rediculous. Just because it's the same action, doesn't mean it can't be taken in two steps. Who are you going to attack? Oh, the guy right in front of me. Or, I guess I'll move to flank that one. Separate decision from. 'OK, what're you going to attack him /with/?' Power X... no wait, Y.




It isn't ridiculous and that's the _point_.  There are twenty options down there and the system doesn't have natural break points.  Breaking one big decision point into several small ones that are easier to assess is a good way of speeding up decision making.  And there very definitely are people who look at that as 20 options - and have to re-read their powers because they are slightly different.  Splitting the attacks into stances and power attack forces this 5 and 4 rather than 20 split on people who otherwise would be looking at 20 options.

Saying "They could take it in two steps" is precisely the point.  Things would often be much better if they did.  But not everyone will.  Actively splitting the action into stances makes them take the split if they are at the level they wouldn't automatically.



> Conversely, two different actions may be need to be considered together to make a meaningful decision.




To find the best option, absolutely.  But a good option is all we need, not necessarily the best.



> Each of those constitutes all three actions for the round, and, as you point out, the inexperienced player might well need to consider and discard the various 'bad' choices (drawing a dagger, entering Berserker Charge stance, throwing the dagger, for instance, or, slightly less obviously, charging in Poised Assualt stance).




Charging in Poised Assault I'd expect.  And it's not that bad a choice - merely a suboptimal one.  But throwing a dagger isn't something I'd expect a newbie to think of because it's not really part of the character concept of a slayer.  If you've got the great big two handed sword or axe and can hit with it you're going to want to.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 15, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> True. However, forgetting to choose is pretty easy, and stances and power attacks are pretty forgiving of that. So if a player goes. "I hit da orc wit ma ax! 17!" He did so in whatever stance he last turned on, without even needing to remember that his character could change - or even /has/ - stances. Of course, he'll lose the benefits of the stance if no one reminds him he's in Battle Wrath...




Yeah, I mentioned it before, but (with some players), this is one of the elements I've found the most useful with Essentials classes - the ability to offer _atfer-the-fact _reminders without needing to retcon what happened. 

It's much easier to say, "You're still in Battle Wrath stance, so +2 damage, right? And did you want to Power Strike?" vs "Which At-Will was that? Or did you want to use one of your Encounter powers? Oh, I guess you've already rolled, so we'll assume you just made a basic attack..."


----------



## Raikun (Aug 15, 2011)

I kinda find it amusing that while some in this thread are trying to assert that Essentials somehow makes playing more complicated, there's another thread started where someone is complaining that it makes the game too simple. =)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> It isn't ridiculous and that's the _point_.  There are twenty options down there and the system doesn't have natural break points.



'Who do you attack?' (4 options) vs  'what do you attack with?' (5) isn't a natural breakpoint?   You only arrive at 20 by multiplying together the two /independent/ choices!



MrMyth said:


> It's much easier to say, "You're still in Battle Wrath stance, so +2 damage, right? And did you want to Power Strike?" vs "Which At-Will was that? Or did you want to use one of your Encounter powers? Oh, I guess you've already rolled, so we'll assume you just made a basic attack..."



Exactly.  The e-martial classes aren't so much less complex as they are (a) more familiar to lapsed AD&Ders (who 'know' that fighter is the 'easy class') and (b) more forgiving/easier to teach.
They're trainging-wheel classes.




Raikun said:


> I kinda find it amusing that while some in this thread are trying to assert that Essentials somehow makes playing more complicated, there's another thread started where someone is complaining that it makes the game too simple. =)



Essentials makes the game as a whole more complex and thus, ultimately, steepens it's learning curve.  However, it does give individual options that are blindingly simplistic.  That breaks up the learning curve.  First you play a Martial class, dealing with few options while learning the basics.  Then you un-learn the simplistic aproach to learn a more complex class (divine or arcane).  Then repeat to finally learn a full-featured AEDU class (Mage).  Then you're ready to un-learn the now deeply-engrained lesson that Martial classes are for clueless nubes and Wizards are /the/ choice for new-fledged system-masters, and learn how pre-E classes work, and (finally) play whatever concept you want.   
(Or you throw in the towel at some point, and never take the training wheels off.)


----------



## Raikun (Aug 15, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Essentials makes the game as a whole more complex and thus, ultimately, steepens it's learning curve.




I have to wholeheartedly disagree there. It's a series of new character options that in no way, shape, or form complicates older character options.  Someone playing 4e from the beginning can have a new player join with an Essentials character without having to learn anything new...it's completely seamless.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Raikun said:


> I have to wholeheartedly disagree there. It's a series of new character options that in no way, shape, or form complicates older character options.



We're not actually in disagreement.  You're repeating something I said - that there are some Essentials options that are much simpler, taken by themselves.  

As a whole, though, Essentials added to the game, and it added not just more options that were consistent with existing ones, mechanically (the way PH2 did), it also added options that were mechanically novel (the way PH3 did - but much more so).  Adding both options and novel sub-stystems increased overall complexity.  That's a separate issue from how simple some of those new options and mechanics may be.



_(Edit:  OK, now that I think about it, Essentials /did/ complicate some existing classes.  It added new and differently-resolved powers to the Wizard via the mage, and it raised issues about how powers might be swapped between sub-classes - once it became clear that it had introduced sub-classes - and led to classes being re-written to fit the sub-class(class) model.  While that last is mostly cosmetic - oh, your class has one name instead of two - it is still a bit of added complexity.)_


----------



## Raikun (Aug 15, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> W  Adding both options and novel sub-stystems increased overall complexity.  That's a separate issue from how simple some of those new options and mechanics may be.




Except it doesn't complicate the game, or add a steeper learning curve.  The game plays the same overall as it always did, except that the higher percentage of Essentials characters there are in the game, the simpler, smoother, and faster it plays.

It'd be like saying that every Dragon article makes the game more complicated, and that's just silly.  Having a wider array of potential options does not significantly add to the complexity/learning curve of a system when effectively the same number of options are used.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 15, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Exactly. The e-martial classes aren't so much less complex as they are (a) more familiar to lapsed AD&Ders (who 'know' that fighter is the 'easy class') and (b) more forgiving/easier to teach.
> They're training-wheel classes.




I think they've got a couple different approaches that help with the lower complexity. 'Fire and forget' stances, default choice char-gen, post-attack encounter powers, static bonuses - all of these do make them simpler to play, which is good both for newcomers and those who want that simplicity. (Whether due to old-school familiarity or simply not wanting to have to look over a page of powers every round.) 

I think they do have their place... but that place is most certainly as a part of a larger whole, rather than as their own thing. Whenever 5E comes along, it may well be possible to more seamlessly integrate both designs into one overall architecture, but doing so in the current environment isn't really possible - at least, no more than we have now.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 15, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Except it doesn't complicate the game, or add a steeper learning curve. The game plays the same overall as it always did, except that the higher percentage of Essentials characters there are in the game, the simpler, smoother, and faster it plays.
> 
> It'd be like saying that every Dragon article makes the game more complicated, and that's just silly. Having a wider array of potential options does not *significantly* add to the complexity/learning curve of a system when effectively the same number of options are used.




I bolded the key word there, because... well, yeah, a single Dragon article won't add a huge deal of complexity to the system. But it does often make it just that much more complicated for someone designing a character - more decisions to make when creating their PC. 

That isn't to say this is a bad thing, and again - most of this complexity is added in the char-gen process, rather than actual play. But a group just using the PHB will undeniably have a simpler experience than a group using PHB1-3, all the Power books, all the campaign books, etc. And the group that uses all that plus Essentials does, indeed, add a bit more complexity. 

But that is the natural course of new options, and doesn't mean Essentials itself is of significantly more complexity. And it is entirely possible to slim down to more limited options, such as with those who play 'Essentials-only' or whatever.


----------



## Raikun (Aug 15, 2011)

Disclaimer, I'm not so much disagreeing as clarifying what I meant. =)



MrMyth said:


> I bolded the key word there, because... well, yeah, a single Dragon article won't add a huge deal of complexity to the system. But it does often make it just that much more complicated for someone designing a character - more decisions to make when creating their PC.






Indeed, but most of the content when creating a character won't even get looked at.  If someone decides to play a Thief...every Dragon article, PHB, character option, etc that doesn't pertain to the Thief automatically gets dropped.

That and the fact that it's all optional. At best, there's a degree of optional complexity that may or may not be added to one short aspect of the game, that once done with becomes irrelevant.  That's a far cry from the assertion that the game becomes "more complex with a steeper learning curve" because of Essentials.

ESPECIALLY when the end result is that the game plays more quickly and easily.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 15, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Indeed, but most of the content when creating a character won't even get looked at. If someone decides to play a Thief...every Dragon article, PHB, character option, etc that doesn't pertain to the Thief automatically gets dropped.
> 
> That and the fact that it's all optional. At best, there's a degree of optional complexity that may or may not be added to one short aspect of the game, that once done with becomes irrelevant. That's a far cry from the assertion that the game becomes "more complex with a steeper learning curve" because of Essentials.




Oh yeah. The learning curve thing is especially hard to really define, because so many groups approach the game in different ways. Some new players tackle everything - others have a character built for them and just learn to play it. Like I said earlier, I think Previous Content + Essentials results in an undeniably more complex overall game, but I also think the change in complexity is largely irrelevant for nearly all purposes. Complexity in game-play is a much bigger deal, and simplifying that will have much more effect than adding complexity in char-gen.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Except it doesn't complicate the game, or add a steeper learning curve.



There are more classes.  There are more and more divergent mechanics in those new classes.  How does that not add complexity?  How does it not give a player trying to choose a class more to evaluate before he can make an informed decision?

How a game 'plays' or 'feels' can be fairly subjective, but complexity has been objectively increased by the introduction of new material in Essentials, just as it was be each new prior release.  It's inevitable.  By 'opening up design space,' and using a wider range of mechanics, in fact, it added /more/ complexity that prior additions of comparable scope.




> It'd be like saying that every Dragon article makes the game more complicated, and that's just silly.



If you use 'em all, they do.  Sometimes the truth seems 'silly,' I guess.


----------



## Raikun (Aug 15, 2011)

Kind of an aside, just to try and clarify my stance because I can see a semantics issue brewing hehe...I think we're using 2 different definitions of "complex".

One definition is "having many interconnected parts", which of course adding more parts makes it more complex.

Another definition is "so complicated and intricate that it's hard to understand or deal with".

And it's the latter definition that I feel gets invoked when it's tied to claims that it adds to the learning curve, etc.

Essentials offers a very simple, straightforward, and easy way to get into the game, and even for old timers, offers an easier, more streamlined game.  (I wasn't exaggerating earlier when I said that switching over half the group to E-characters sped up our game so much that we can go through 5-6 encounters per session compared to the 3 that we used to struggle to get through).

So, my opinion is that the increased complexity in character generation (more interconnected parts), gets trumped by the simplicity of actual gameplay that it offers. (Ease of understanding).

I hope that made sense. =)

But yeah, the former definition of complexity (number of parts) really has such limited effect on the actual gameplay as to be irrelevant, and the definition of complexity that actually does describe gameplay trends in the opposite direction. (Less complex overall.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 15, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Indeed, but most of the content when creating a character won't even get looked at.  If someone decides to play a Thief...every Dragon article, PHB, character option, etc that doesn't pertain to the Thief automatically gets dropped.



Nod.  And, while that does illustrate how Essentials provides choices that, once made, can yield a simpler character, it also illustrates how the idea that Essentials provides meaningful choices for characters wanting different levels of complexity is a bit off.  

If you want to play a Warrior or a sneaky opportunist rather than a spell-caster in Essentials-only, you have no choice when it comes to the complexity and level of choice of your character - you will be playing one of the most simplistic characters in the game.  Conversely, if you want a divine or arcane character, you'll have a modest range of choice when it comes to complexity, with arcane offering the most choice-rich class.



> At best, there's a degree of optional complexity that may or may not be added to one short aspect of the game.



Chargen may or may not take too long, but it comes up again each time you level up - and it affects & informs your entire play experience.  And, the thing about optional complexity is that it's not really optional - you have to wade through it all to choose whether to use it or not (or how much).




Raikun said:


> I think we're using 2 different definitions of "complex".
> 
> One definition is "having many interconnected parts", which of course adding more parts makes it more complex.



Yep.  That's complexity, in the sense I'm using.  It's objective, and it has definite implications for an RPG.  More complexity means more potential for abuse, more potential for confusion and 'trap' choices, and a longer learning curve.



> Another definition is "so complicated and intricate that it's hard to understand or deal with".



Also a dictionary definition, but a much more subjective one.  I don't find complex RPGs hard to grasp on the whole.  I do notice how much harder they can be to teach, though.  Essentials does a good job of breaking up the learning curve - if you use a successively more complex classes.  It does require more total effort to learn, probably, but it can come in chunks, making it more paletable.  OTOH, the fact it requires some 'un learning' to get through is also an issue... 



> Essentials offers a very simple, straightforward, and easy way to get into the game, and even for old timers, offers an easier, more streamlined game.



I've introduced a fair number of players to 4e, and have started using Essentials for that purpose.  Invariably, genuinely new (and often young) players had no trouble picking up 4e, and not apreciably more or less trouble with Essentials.  Returning AD&Ders, OTOH, it's like night & day.  4e mystified and even outraged them, Essentials delivers on their expectations and they can deal with it.  I have yet to see a lapsed AD&Der make the Essentials-demo-to-4e-campaign transition, though.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 16, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> 'Who do you attack?' (4 options) vs  'what do you attack with?' (5) isn't a natural breakpoint?   You only arrive at 20 by multiplying together the two /independent/ choices!
> 
> Exactly.  The e-martial classes aren't so much less complex as they are (a) more familiar to lapsed AD&Ders (who 'know' that fighter is the 'easy class') and (b) more forgiving/easier to teach.
> They're training-wheel classes.




I disagree. Training wheels aid you in learning to ride a bicycle by adding stability to the system. E-classes are trying to train by taking away from the system and increasing the instability. Its like trying to learn to ride a bike with a Unicycle instead.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 16, 2011)

Marshall said:


> I disagree. Training wheels aid you in learning to ride a bicycle by adding stability to the system. E-classes are trying to train by taking away from the system and increasing the instability. Its like trying to learn to ride a bike with a Unicycle instead.



I think that the 4E base system is more stable than you think, and that the Essentials classes are better balanced with the AEDU classes than you would like to admit. Of course, if you are so terrified of imbalance and you believe that whatever WotC has already released is the Holy Grail of balance, you can always stick to playing with the existing AEDU classes. You will even get new material since WotC has announced plans to continue support for them. Of course, there is no guarantee that the new AEDU support will be perfectly balanced with previous content, so I would suggest that you worry about that instead of whether or not other people are happy with the Essentials classes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 16, 2011)

Training wheels keep you from falling when you lose your balance a little - they insulate you from your mistakes.  The Essentials classes, even the most complex one, the Mage, are forgiving like that.  You fail to say what power your Slayer is using when he attacks?  NBD, you're still in Battle Wrath Stance.  You forget who your Knight attacked last round?  No problem, everything next to you is in your Defender Aura.  You couldn't figure out how to get your Thief into a flanking position even though you have 7 move and a bonus vs OAs?  No worries, you can just keep doing the Tactical Trick shuffle.  Your blinded warpriest attacked the highest-AC monster on the board with the power that grants an ally a desperately needed save?  No problem, /all/ your attacks have effect lines, the ally gets a save even though you missed on a natural 17.  You cast Beguiling Strands /through/ the front line of the party?  No problem, it only affects enemies.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Training wheels keep you from falling when you lose your balance a little - they insulate you from your mistakes.  The Essentials classes, even the most complex one, the Mage, are forgiving like that.




Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?



> You fail to say what power your Slayer is using when he attacks?  NBD, you're still in Battle Wrath Stance.




Yeah, no. I dont think I've ever seen this take more than a single correction from a DM before a player ALWAYS defaulted to an at-will. Its a non-issue.



> You forget who your Knight attacked last round?  No problem, everything next to you is in your Defender Aura.




Yeah, that _almost_ works in heroic(and only heroic) for the Knight, but its an abject failure on the Cav.



> You couldn't figure out how to get your Thief into a flanking position even though you have 7 move and a bonus vs OAs?  No worries, you can just keep doing the Tactical Trick shuffle.




Yeah, remember when I said overpowered? A Thief will always have CA thanks to TT and AmbushTrick. Most of the time he doesnt even have to put himself at risk to do it. Theres easy mode and then there is why bother?



> Your blinded warpriest attacked the highest-AC monster on the board with the power that grants an ally a desperately needed save?  No problem, /all/ your attacks have effect lines, the ally gets a save even though you missed on a natural 17.




But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right _and_ enhance the rest of the party.



> You cast Beguiling Strands /through/ the front line of the party?  No problem, it only affects enemies.




HUGE, friendly burst WITH a push, at-will? There are a lot of encounter powers out there that dont stack up with what BS does. 
Does that make it easier to for a newb to play an effective mage? Yes, the same way Twin Strike makes a Ranger easy to play. 
Is that a good thing? Do we want the whole of the game to be, "you cant do the wrong thing?" While I admit some players dont like tactical combat, trying to completely take good tactics out of the game by eliminating the penalties for bad tactics does not a good game make.
Which brings up another point, if you want an easy mode PC to play its been the 4e Ranger since day 1.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?



Yes.




> I dont think I've ever seen this take more than a single correction from a DM before a player ALWAYS defaulted to an at-will. Its a non-issue.



Defaulting to an at-will can kinda hose you.  Power Strike can be tacked on after the fact (on a crit, speaking of 'overpowered'), some DMs even let you tack it on after they tell you the monster 'wasn't quite killed' by your attack.



> Yeah, remember when I said overpowered? A Thief will always have CA thanks to TT and AmbushTrick. Most of the time he doesnt even have to put himself at risk to do it.



Assuming he takes either or both of those stances, yes.  He could take neither -that's one flaw in my theory.  




> But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right _and_ enhance the rest of the party.



Well, or because you goofed.  There may have been a zombie rotter you could have attcked instead.  That's what I mean by 'forgiving' - you made a bad targetting choice, but your ally didn't pay for it, you still contributed your leader function.



> HUGE, friendly burst WITH a push, at-will? There are a lot of encounter powers out there that dont stack up with what BS does. Does that make it easier to for a newb to play an effective mage? Yes, the same way Twin Strike makes a Ranger easy to play.



Nod.  I'm glad you agree.  Though, I like it better than Twin Strike, because TS is boring for an experienced/tactical player to cast every round, while BS... it doesn't get old too fast.  Especially when you keep pushing the enemy back into a Phantom Chasm.



> Is that a good thing? Do we want the whole of the game to be, "you cant do the wrong thing?" While I admit some players dont like tactical combat, trying to completely take good tactics out of the game by eliminating the penalties for bad tactics does not a good game make.



"Good" is so subjective. 

Especially when you can't cast "know alignment."


----------



## FireLance (Aug 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Frankly, no they dont. A slayer vs fighter loses out on his dex bonus to damage, maybe. A slayer vs a Barb? much much closer. A knight vs a guardian? Nope the fighter is several times more effective without trying.
> 
> I havent seen an essentials character that could get away with spamming a single attack and still be effective(OK, charge spammers, but thats hardly an e-class affection). Even Tactical Trick theives spend quite a bit of time switching out their "at-wills".






Marshall said:


> Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?



So make up your mind: are the Essentials classes ineffective or ridiculously overpowered? The fact that you don't seem to have a consistent position (apart from "Essentials = bad") isn't helping your argument.



> But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right _and_ enhance the rest of the party.



 And you know the great thing about warpriest domain prayers like _blessing of battle_, _brand of the sun_ and _sun burst_? They are levelled cleric at-will and encounter attack powers, so a PH cleric can pick them as his powers if he wants. You can mix and match Essentials warpriest powers with the pre-Essentials templar cleric class structure and get the best of both worlds.



> HUGE, friendly burst WITH a push, at-will? There are a lot of encounter powers out there that dont stack up with what BS does.



_Beguiling strands_ also does very little damage; you don't even get to add your implement's enhancement bonus to the damage. It's great when you're facing large numbers of minions or when you want to position your enemies nicely for a follow-up attack, but it's less useful against a smaller number of tougher enemies. I doubt that an Essentials mage would want to use it as often as, say, a PH ranger would want to use _twin strike_.



> Is that a good thing? Do we want the whole of the game to be, "you cant do the wrong thing?"



Making choices easier does not mean it is impossible to do the wrong thing. Three strikes still means there is a chance of going out. 



> While I admit some players dont like tactical combat, trying to completely take good tactics out of the game by eliminating the penalties for bad tactics does not a good game make.



Ah, but good tactics are still rewarded. A slayer that flanks still gets a better attack bonus than a slayer that doesn't. Simplifying some choices, and reducing the penalties for poor choices, doesn't mean that all choices are the same. The stick is smaller, but the carrot is still there.



> Which brings up another point, if you want an easy mode PC to play its been the 4e Ranger since day 1.



And why stick with only one option? If WotC decides to provide more support for player who prefer characters who are easy to play, what does it take away from you?


----------



## Psikus (Aug 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Which brings up another point, if you want an easy mode PC to play its been the 4e Ranger since day 1.




On the other hand, the PHB Ranger is definitely an NOT easy mode PC to build, so new players may be up for a _terrible_ experience unless they have a more knowledgeable friend that makes the choices for them. The class is ridden with trap options, and a character's performance depends a lot on whether he takes multiattacks, immediate attacks and minor action attacks - or all the random 2[W] powers. Essentials gives us options that are both easy to play and to build, which isn't really a thing that existed before.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 17, 2011)

FireLance said:


> So make up your mind: are the Essentials classes ineffective or ridiculously overpowered?



There are a number of Essentials classes. Maybe some are inneffective and others overpowered?  That's one of the interesting things about making a system a little less balanced - play style differences will cause it to break in different directions for different groups.  One group is awed by the Knight, another finds it worthless unless powergamed to the hilt.



> _Beguiling strands_ also does very little damage; you don't even get to add your implement's enhancement bonus to the damage. ... I doubt that an Essentials mage would want to use it as often as, say, a PH ranger would want to use _twin strike_.



My experience playing a Mage in Encounters was that BS was /very/ tempting on almost every round, especially with an Enchanter (push 3? no, push /6/).  Especially the season when there was also a hunter, and pushing enemies into a tight group set him up.  I guess you could say that BS was so broken, it made the Hunter effective.    That's propper old-school teamwork - casters setting up martial types and helping them suck less.  



> Ah, but good tactics are still rewarded. A slayer that flanks still gets a better attack bonus than a slayer that doesn't. Simplifying some choices, and reducing the penalties for poor choices, doesn't mean that all choices are the same. The stick is smaller, but the carrot is still there.



A Slayer, yeah.  A Theif doing the Tactical Trick shuffle, not so much.  Again, IMX, players have fun with a Slayer, for a little while, but the Theif is rarely a hit - if you don't figure it out, it's ineffective; if you do, it's boring.



> And why stick with only one option? If WotC decides to provide more support for player who prefer characters who are easy to play, what does it take away from you?



Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance.  Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.


----------



## Nullzone (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> A Slayer, yeah.  A Theif doing the Tactical Trick shuffle, not so much.  Again, IMX, players have fun with a Slayer, for a little while, but the Theif is rarely a hit - if you don't figure it out, it's ineffective; if you do, it's boring.




These classes are as boring as you allow them to be. Of course sitting there and just spamming Tactical Trick is boring, you've allowed yourself to become completely disengaged from the game just because you have an easybutton to getting SA dice. Instead, try looking at your other tricks and finding ones you can exploit when you apply good tactics; Acrobat's Trick, Thug's Trick, and Unbalancing Trick all add something interesting to the battlefield, and if you're getting some good tactics going it's easy to apply them.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> There are a number of Essentials classes. Maybe some are inneffective and others overpowered?  That's one of the interesting things about making a system a little less balanced - play style differences will cause it to break in different directions for different groups.  One group is awed by the Knight, another finds it worthless unless powergamed to the hilt.



That would be a valid argument, except that it is not what he appears to be saying. He seems to be making contradictory blanket statements about all the Essentials classes. And more on balance below.



> My experience playing a Mage in Encounters was that BS was /very/ tempting on almost every round, especially with an Enchanter (push 3? no, push /6/).  Especially the season when there was also a hunter, and pushing enemies into a tight group set him up.  I guess you could say that BS was so broken, it made the Hunter effective.    That's propper old-school teamwork - casters setting up martial types and helping them suck less.



I'd call that an example of how the system rewards good tactics and teamwork, myself. What's the downside?



> Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance.  Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.



Unless you have no say over who you game with and the system you use (in which case you have my sympathy), you can avoid whatever balance issues you have with the Essentials classes by ... not playing with them. 

In any case, "class balance" is not a binary either-a-system-has-it-or-it-doesn't state. It's a continuum. 4E with Essentials may have less class balance than 4E without Essentials, but some people either don't notice the difference and/or want to play with Essentials because they enjoy the greater variation or the flavor of the classes.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> There are a number of Essentials classes. Maybe some are inneffective and others overpowered? That's one of the interesting things about making a system a little less balanced - play style differences will cause it to break in different directions for different groups. One group is awed by the Knight, another finds it worthless unless powergamed to the hilt.




And the balance is still pretty tight - a lot is in who is playing the character.  And a lot in the build.



> My experience playing a Mage in Encounters was that BS was /very/ tempting on almost every round, especially with an Enchanter (push 3? no, push /6/). Especially the season when there was also a hunter, and pushing enemies into a tight group set him up. I guess you could say that BS was so broken, it made the Hunter effective.  That's propper old-school teamwork - casters setting up martial types and helping them suck less.




And my experience playing a human orbizard was that I had Beguiling Strands as my third At Will - and never found a single good use for it.  My main line damage and mookbashing at will was a (sometimes expanded) Freezing Burst.  Slide 2 is IME at least as useful as Push 4.  (It didn't help that our tank had resist cold so I'd happily ground zero the enlarged freezing burst).  And because FB has a damage _roll_ it can actually do decent amounts of damage.  My second At Will was Storm Pillar - incredibly effective in an urban environment.  And rocks for an Orbizard with his at will extension ability.

Beguiling Strands is a powerful at will at low levels - but cast by a 13th level mage it will do a stunning total of 6 damage at best.  That just doesn't cut it except in very rare circumstances or with seriously big terrain features.  Freezing Burst on the other hand has damage that keeps up.  Because it's a damage roll it benefits from your implement bonus, your implement focus, dual implement spellcaster, and other things.

As for the hunter not being effective?  They certainly aren't bad (even if I do build them as humans with Twin Strike most of the time).  They almost invariably IME win initiative and Turn 1 involves them providing an overlap by using disruptive shot (at +2 to hit from the stance) to immobilise a brute (save ends).  That's one enemy monster out of the fight for an average of two rounds - you've just given the PCs the overlap.  And judicious use of Clever Shot can make it a second.  The hunter therefore does his job by making the enemy not reach combat.  And providing some pretty decent damage.  Oh, and sneaking like a rogue and having decent perception.  Or at Paragon mangling solos (seriously, blind?  Three to four times an encounter?)



> A Slayer, yeah. A Theif doing the Tactical Trick shuffle, not so much. Again, IMX, players have fun with a Slayer, for a little while, but the Theif is rarely a hit - if you don't figure it out, it's ineffective; if you do, it's boring.




Thieves excel outside combat.  Seriously, seven trained skills _and_ a climb speed?  And the Tactical Trick Shuffle is competent rather than skilled play.  Tactical Trick is what you use when you have nothing better to do if you're tactically inclined.  It's solid play - but there's an obvious next level of play above that; using your tricks that grant bonusses once you have combat advantage like Acrobat's Trick (with its climb speed), Thug's Trick, Tumbling Trick, or Unbalancing Trick.  



> Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance. Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.




E-class balance is IME pretty good.  Not found real problems either way except in single encounter days.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 17, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?




Your definition of overpowered is "effective"? That seems a bit odd. Or are you saying that poorly played Slayers are effective, but this is problematic because well played Slayers are too powerful? (Which I'd certainly disagree with. They can be good, but I haven't seen any indications of them being overpowered. Thieves and Scouts can get pretty potent - but no more so than PHB Rogues and Rangers, honestly.)

Being 'easy mode' means that the level of difference between 'poor play' and 'well optimized' has been reduced. Even without being an expert player with full system mastery, yes, the Slayer lets you play an effective character. How is that a bad thing? 



Marshall said:


> Yeah, no. I dont think I've ever seen this take more than a single correction from a DM before a player ALWAYS defaulted to an at-will. Its a non-issue.




A non-issue for you. For the various folks who have recounted experiences with players who didn't find it that easy to solve? Or who solved it but thus ran into other problems with OAs and charging? For them, it was an issue, and one that Essentials did indeed solve. 



Marshall said:


> But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right _and_ enhance the rest of the party.




But... Warpriests are basically identical to normal Clerics in terms of mechanics? They lose Healing Lore, and gain some other useful stuff. How does that suddenly make them shift from a well-designed leader class to a poorly designed one?

As it is, the 'effect' on their At-Wills is very useful. That doesn't mean they are relying on missing all the time. Just hedging their odds so that, hit or miss, they can still provide the leader effect they desire. Unless you have a game so optimized that you expect all PC attacks to hit - which is hardly the default - I don't see a rational for your criticism.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, just little inconsequential things, like class balance. Nothing that should be important to a /real/ D&Der.




I admit, when I first heard about the approach being taken with Essentials, this was my worry. But they've done a remarkably good job of preserving balance despite a disparity of resources. I haven't see any indications that any E-classes are fundamentally unbalanced with prior material. Honestly, the Psionic classes were far worse in that regard - due to specific powers given to them, of course, rather than the core psionic mechanics themselves.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 17, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> These classes are as boring as you allow them to be. Of course sitting there and just spamming Tactical Trick is boring, you've allowed yourself to become completely disengaged from the game just because you have an easybutton to getting SA dice. Instead, try looking at your other tricks and finding ones you can exploit when you apply good tactics; Acrobat's Trick, Thug's Trick, and Unbalancing Trick all add something interesting to the battlefield, and if you're getting some good tactics going it's easy to apply them.



Yeah, you could tie one Trick behind your back for a little added challenge.  Or you could play a class that's interesting - there are a lot of 'em, even most Essentials classes, which generally have their own 'easy mode' aspect, stand up to more play than that before they start to pall.  The Mage, most obviously, some of it's powers are very easy to use quite effectively, but at least there's some variation in what you might be trying to accomplish, and you have more variety and choice (even between level-ups thanks to the spellbook) - a selection of easy buttons, I suppose.  :shrug:


----------



## Raikun (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, you could tie one Trick behind your back for a little added challenge.  Or you could play a class that's interesting




The Thief in my game uses Acrobatic trick as his primary trick.  He uses it to do wall-runs, bounce over obstacles, etc, in conjuction with other characters to flank.

Tactical Trick makes getting CA easy, but if you can get it through flanking, skills like Acrobatic trick are better (+2 damage and SA > SA alone, for instance), and more importantly he has a BLAST doing it.

If you're going to just use one easy mode button, you can make any class boring, but just spamming Tactical trick isn't how the Thief should be played.  He should be using his array of other abilities, and just using Tactical Trick as a last resort when he can't get CA through another, superior trick.


----------



## Nullzone (Aug 17, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, you could tie one Trick behind your back for a little added challenge.  Or you could play a class that's interesting - there are a lot of 'em, even most Essentials classes, which generally have their own 'easy mode' aspect, stand up to more play than that before they start to pall.  The Mage, most obviously, some of it's powers are very easy to use quite effectively, but at least there's some variation in what you might be trying to accomplish, and you have more variety and choice (even between level-ups thanks to the spellbook) - a selection of easy buttons, I suppose.  :shrug:




If this is how a "_real_ D&Der" thinks then I feel sorry for all the awesome stuff they're missing out on just because they feel like they can't do anything but robotically push a button


----------



## Marshall (Aug 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Your definition of overpowered is "effective"? That seems a bit odd. Or are you saying that poorly played Slayers are effective, but this is problematic because well played Slayers are too powerful? (Which I'd certainly disagree with.




Poorly played Slayers are ineffective, well played Slayers are also ineffective( and beyond boring), optimized slayers are broken all to hell. 
Single target, Single attack strikers with no Nova lead to long, boring combats.


> They can be good, but I haven't seen any indications of them being overpowered. Thieves and Scouts can get pretty potent - but no more so than PHB Rogues and Rangers, honestly.)




Yeah, PHB Rogues and Rangers are in the top level of Strikers and Theives get all the advantages of a Ranger and the features of a Rogue. Combine that with "only miss on a one" accuracy and the Thief slides up into that club _before_ you go for heavy charop.



> Being 'easy mode' means that the level of difference between 'poor play' and 'well optimized' has been reduced. Even without being an expert player with full system mastery, yes, the Slayer lets you play an effective character. How is that a bad thing?




No, it doesnt. It means the difference between the bottom and average is narrowed. E-fighters play at the bottom and dont move from there. 



> A non-issue for you. For the various folks who have recounted experiences with players who didn't find it that easy to solve? Or who solved it but thus ran into other problems with OAs and charging? For them, it was an issue, and one that Essentials did indeed solve.




I've played more than a few games with young kids(8-10yo) and even a few "mentally challenged" folks. None of them required more than the occasional prodding to play their PCs usefully. If someone is having trouble with a standard 4e PC, its got more to do with not paying attention than any form of  paralysis.



> But... Warpriests are basically identical to normal Clerics in terms of mechanics? They lose Healing Lore, and gain some other useful stuff. How does that suddenly make them shift from a well-designed leader class to a poorly designed one?




Really? Ever see a Warpriest in play? They play like a Runepriest without the fiddly bits, except those fiddly bits are what makes a Runepriest useful.



> As it is, the 'effect' on their At-Wills is very useful. That doesn't mean they are relying on missing all the time. Just hedging their odds so that, hit or miss, they can still provide the leader effect they desire. Unless you have a game so optimized that you expect all PC attacks to hit - which is hardly the default - I don't see a rational for your criticism.




Great. They have at-wills that confer a minor bonus vs. Clerics that have a suite of powers that build on themselves to reinforce the leader role....
That is assuming you play the Warpriest as presented and dont just let them run willy-nilly thru the cleric powerlist. If you do, then yeah, they're a cleric with another name.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 18, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Yeah, PHB Rogues and Rangers are in the top level of Strikers and *Theives get all the advantages of a Ranger and the features of a Rogue*. Combine that with "only miss on a one" accuracy and the Thief slides up into that club _before_ you go for heavy charop.




(Emphasis mine).  If that's your standard of rangers, no wonder you object to Essentials classes.  The fundamental ranger advantage is the ability for its damage to scale like a bat out of hell as it takes three attacks per turn, thus trebling the effect of the static damage bonus.  (Yes, I do mean three; Twin Strike + Encounter Power).  Thieves don't have either twin strike or encounter minor and interrupt powers.  They just have good solid damage right the way up.  This is something that the thief simply does not get.  And at the low levels they are ahead of the ranger in damage the thief's MBA is no stronger than a Sly Flourish from a rogue.  (It gets better, granted.  But by then the rogue is using encounters such as Sand in the Eyes).

As for all the features of a rogue, thieves largely lack combat control - the main condition they inflict is dead.  Blinding Barrage is missing, as is Knockout Blow, dazing strike, and Sand in the Eyes.  What they have is Unbalancing Trick (Prone), Tumbling Trick (Cleave), and Thug's Trick (OA).



> No, it doesnt. It means the difference between the bottom and average is narrowed. E-fighters play at the bottom and dont move from there.




Nah.  They are upper middle assuming non-pregen.  But stuck there.  The ability to get multiple challenges in a fight - and to use Hammer Hands to _negate_ attacks or Hold the Line/WSG is powerful.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 18, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Poorly played Slayers are ineffective, well played Slayers are also ineffective( and beyond boring), optimized slayers are broken all to hell.



Unless you havbe some objective measurement of "boring", I'm sure you will agree that you are only expressing your opinion.



> Single target, Single attack strikers with no Nova lead to long, boring combats.



Slayers trade off* nova capability in the form of daily attack powers for higher at-will damage. It's similar to how avengers trade off a striker damage mechanic for higher accuracy. If you like, think of it as activating a daily attack power that grants a bonus to the damage rolls of at-will attacks until the end of the next extended rest**.

* You are familiar with the concept of "trade off", aren't you? It means giving up one thing for another, and is the foundation of the "class balance" you seem to value so highly.

** I know I've mentioned this before. Fortunately, _repeat ignored argument_ is an at-will power. 



> Yeah, PHB Rogues and Rangers are in the top level of Strikers and Theives get all the advantages of a Ranger and the features of a Rogue. Combine that with "only miss on a one" accuracy and the Thief slides up into that club _before_ you go for heavy charop.



"Only miss on a one"? You know, it's hard to take you seriously when you engage in hyperbole like this.



> No, it doesnt. It means the difference between the bottom and average is narrowed. E-fighters play at the bottom and dont move from there.



Unless, of course, they are somehow "optimized", right? It's amazing how "optimization" can flip a class from "the bottom" to "broken" with, apparently, no middle ground.



> Really? Ever see a Warpriest in play?



Yes. I actually played one myself.



> Great. They have at-wills that confer a minor bonus vs. Clerics that have a suite of powers that build on themselves to reinforce the leader role....
> That is assuming you play the Warpriest as presented and dont just let them run willy-nilly thru the cleric powerlist. If you do, then yeah, they're a cleric with another name.



Warpriests have at-will attack powers, like clerics. Warpriests have encounter attack powers, like clerics. Warpriests have daily attack powers, like clerics. Warpriests have channel divinity powers, like clerics. Warpriests have _healing word_, like clerics. Warpriests' at-will, encounter and daily powers heal and provide various bonuses, like clerics. To elaborate, a Sun warpriest's powers tend towards protection, healing and restoration, and a Storm warpriest's powers tend towards buffing damage and increasing mobility. If you think that warpriests only have at-will powers, then you really are mistaken. 

Warpriest at-will and encounter powers (which PH templar clerics can take, by the way) tend to have effects, which mean that the player will usually get some benefit from using them even if his attack roll misses. The warpriest does not have the templar cleric's Healer's Lore class feature, which makes him less adept at healing, but no worse off than the PH warlord. On the other hand, he does get access to daily utility powers that help counter conditions, remove diseases, and reverse petrification and raise dead at 4th and 8th level. Based on the above information, what is your current assessment of the warpriest: woefully underpowered, or hopelessly broken?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 18, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Poorly played Slayers are ineffective, well played Slayers are also ineffective( and beyond boring), optimized slayers are broken all to hell.




I'm not sure what scale you are going by. Both 'poorly-played' and well-played Slayers are perfectly effective in an average party - having a good attack roll, decent damage, solid defenses and good hitpoints. In the typical encounters for an average party, they will do just fine at contributing to victory. They are only 'ineffective' when compared to the top-tier of the most heavily optimized strikers, which doesn't seem an especially reasonable comparison - and if you _are _making that comparison, I'm not sure how the 'optimized' Slayers are somehow more broken than many other optimized strikers. 



Marshall said:


> Single target, Single attack strikers with no Nova lead to long, boring combats.




Again, I think you are measuring by a standard way beyond what most people use. Strikers are only acceptable if they attack multiple enemies or make multiple attacks? No way. Those may be the easiest way to optimize, sure, but in terms of an average party, one is perfectly able to contribute with a Slayer or a Barbarian or a Rogue. 



Marshall said:


> Yeah, PHB Rogues and Rangers are in the top level of Strikers and Theives get all the advantages of a Ranger and the features of a Rogue. Combine that with "only miss on a one" accuracy and the Thief slides up into that club _before_ you go for heavy charop.




All the advantages of a Ranger? You mean, aside from the primary one - the multiple attacks? Thieves make for high accuracy single target damage, just like Rogues. I find the two about on the same level - Thieves have the edge in being able to ensure Combat Advantage and focus on charging/basic attacks, while Rogues get the versatility and power (including multiple targets, multiple attacks, and powerful conditions) of their chosen Encounter Powers. 

Thieves and Scouts are at the top tier of strikers, just like Rogues and Rangers are. I'm not seeing any indication that the Essentials classes are more optimizable or more overpowered in any way. 



Marshall said:


> No, it doesnt. It means the difference between the bottom and average is narrowed. E-fighters play at the bottom and dont move from there.




Again, I really don't know what standard you are measuring things by. "The bottom", in my experience, are parties with rogues who use hand crossbows and never have combat advantage, or paladins with high charisma and low strength who choose strength based powers, or star warlocks with stats spread across the entire spectrum... etc. 

There are a lot more 'traps' to run into trying to build or play pre-Essentials characters. The default is still decent, compared to past editions, but you can still end up with a subpar character - all of the above are things I've seen firsthand. Its even harder with Essentials. Less options - both in char-gen and play - make it harder to stumble into multiple bad choices. Again, not a style for everyone. For some, though, its just what they want. 



Marshall said:


> I've played more than a few games with young kids(8-10yo) and even a few "mentally challenged" folks. None of them required more than the occasional prodding to play their PCs usefully. If someone is having trouble with a standard 4e PC, its got more to do with not paying attention than any form of paralysis.




Dude, seriously, your experiences do not somehow trump those of others. It's excellent that you have played with folks who have not had these issues. Nonetheless, others have. I have, with intelligent adults, who nonetheless will dither over a sheet of powers for several minutes - or not want to deal with it and just resort to basic attacks. Or, as noted, others for whom prodding is needed - and much easier to do in Essentials, when you don't need to constantly retcon what power they should have used. 

You don't get to say, "Oh, it isn't an issue for me, so it can't be an issue for others. If it is, there is clearly something wrong with them." That's just not cool. 



Marshall said:


> Really? Ever see a Warpriest in play? They play like a Runepriest without the fiddly bits, except those fiddly bits are what makes a Runepriest useful.




Yes, in my current game. He has provided effective healing and does a lot of debuffing enemies via his effect based At-Wills and Encounters. Again, all he has lost out on is Healing Lore, and has picked up a number of useful abilities in its place. What is it that you think makes them so incredibly flawed? 



Marshall said:


> Great. They have at-wills that confer a minor bonus vs. Clerics that have a suite of powers that build on themselves to reinforce the leader role....
> 
> That is assuming you play the Warpriest as presented and dont just let them run willy-nilly thru the cleric powerlist. If you do, then yeah, they're a cleric with another name.




Well, the warpriest as presented lets them choose just freely from the cleric list. In my current game, I think only the Warpriest's daily is from the normal cleric list, though. The rest are domain powers, and have been perfectly fine at preserving the party. His at-wills debuff the enemy, his encounters buff the party, his utilities provide healing or temps, etc. 

Going back to your original complaint about the Warpriest, it was that he's "attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options." 

Which, if I understand correctly, means you only consider the normal Cleric (and any other leader) to be good because they can target non-AC defenses? And that if they choose any powers that target AC, it means they are a poorly designed character? 

(Not to mention that, even if you only attack AC, I don't see anything about the Warpriest forcing them to go after the highest AC critter on the board...)

Again, you are welcome to build awesome and optimized characters for your own games, but I really don't think they should be the standard by which all things should be judged by. Which, as far as I can tell, is what you are doing. 

You are perfectly fine to consider Essentials too complex/too simple/too overpowered/too ineffective, or... whatever you feel it is. You are perfectly fine to not like it. But I don't buy the argument about it having these intense flaws, nor do I feel that your evaluations are based on any reasonable standard by which characters should be judged. (Or even if they are, I'm relatively confident 90% of the pre-Essentials classes would be considered just as flawed.) 

Above all, I reject your claims that because you don't have an issue with the pre-Essentials classes, it means that the experiences of myself and others are null and void. Dismissing (and even insulting) those whose experiences diverge from your own just isn't cool.


----------



## Psikus (Aug 18, 2011)

> Yeah, PHB Rogues and Rangers are in the top level of Strikers and Theives get all the advantages of a Ranger and the features of a Rogue. Combine that with "only miss on a one" accuracy and the Thief slides up into that club before you go for heavy charop.






FireLance said:


> "Only miss on a one"? You know, it's hard to take you seriously when you engage in hyperbole like this.




Not that I agree with Marshall's other points, but that much at least is true. It's fairly common for thieves to tweak their attack bonuses so as to hit on a 2 against an on-level monster: take high dex, accurate weapons, rogue weapon talent, combat advantage, nimble blade, deft blade, and a charge bonus, and we're talking an attack roll of roughly level+10 vs Reflex (with the average monster having Ref=Level+12). And that is without spending Backstab!  With the extra +3 from backstab, you won't often miss on a 2, even against higher level monsters. Since Backstab is not needed to achieve this, this is also available for regular rogues, by the way. Also, this level of accuracy doesn't really result in broken amounts of damage (i.e. this is still below ranger levels), though it does put Avengers to shame in their alleged niche of ultra-accurate strikers.

That said, I honestly don't know what he's talking about regarding thieves having 'all the advantages of a Ranger'. That would involve tons of multiattacks, and they get none (except for the odd Low Slash, if you spend the feat to trade away a Backstab).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 18, 2011)

Raikun said:


> If you're going to just use one easy mode button, you can make any class boring



Any class /with/ an 'easy mode button,' yes.  Which is why such classes are flawed.  They present you with the choice of interesting options that /might/ be effective, vs a boring one (or few) that /will/ be effective.  Not a fun - or balanced - choice.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 18, 2011)

Psikus said:


> Not that I agree with Marshall's other points, but that much at least is true. It's fairly common for thieves to tweak their attack bonuses so as to hit on a 2 against an on-level monster: take high dex, accurate weapons, rogue weapon talent, combat advantage, nimble blade, deft blade, and a charge bonus, and we're talking an attack roll of roughly level+10 vs Reflex (with the average monster having Ref=Level+12).




To be fair, though, this (at least for me) was largely the case for the Rogue as well. High accuracy was always a strong suit. Piercing Strike means they get to target reflex at Heroic, rather than waiting until Paragon, which I think balances out against the Thief's boost in charging/backstab. 

Again, I think the point is that you can totally say that some Essentials classes are able to be heavily optimized - you just can't do so while ignoring the same optimization for pre-Essentials classes.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 18, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Slayers trade off* nova capability in the form of daily attack powers for higher at-will damage. It's similar to how avengers trade off a striker damage mechanic for higher accuracy.



Not quite.  Striker damage mechanics are typically at-will (some are 1/round or 1/turn -others aply to every damage roll - some have a not-too-difficult condition to meet), so is the Avenger's greater accuracy.  It's easy to balance a trade-off between resources of the same general availability.

The Slayer is balanced with AEDU classes in the way an AD&D fighter was balanced with casters.  The Slayer gets exceptional toughness (for a striker) and strong at-will abilities with little choice or variety - AEDU classes get a wider range of powers, including higher-powered dailies.  The AD&D fighter got exceptional toughness (d10 hd, higher bonus for exceptional con, high AC, rapidly improving saving throws) and strong unlimitted-use attacks (big weapon plus percentile STR plus specialization plus rapid attack matrix advancement plus multiple attacks at higher levels) - the casters got memorized/used 1/day spells that could be quite difficult to cast in combat with a bewlidering breadth of both function and often overwhelming power.  Even the 3.x fighter got a little more choice and variety or at least, customizeability.

Now, while it's obvious, just as common wisdom, that the AD&D and even 3.x fighter never balanced that well vs casters, it's not just because of the similarity to past failures that we can judge the inclusion of the Slayer to introduce balance issues.  There's also some very clear logic behind such a judgement.  Any attempt to balance the power of abilities that can be used every round against abilities that can be used on a limitted number of times cannot hold when number of rounds vs the number of limitted uses is allowed to vary.  If at-will powers used every round for 5 round per encounter over 4 encounters (20 rounds) is balanced with the use of weaker at-wills for 19 rounds and a potent daily on 1, then those same powers can't possibly balanced in a day with only 5 rounds of combat - 5 rounds of at-will use vs 4 rounds of at will + the same daily that supposedly balanced 15 rounds of inferiority, before.  

Of course, the DM /can/ keep such classes balanced, just as he could in 3.x (or, to a lesser extent AD&D - there were many more sources of imbalance, and ways to juggle them, back then).  It's a matter of finding the length of 'day' at which balance is best, and pegging that as the average you gun for.  If that turns out to be too long a day for the DM's liking, he can also reduce the relative value of dailies by making encounters less predictable - if you're never sure how many more encounters you might face, you're hesitant to use dailies - or, if his campaign is tilting the other way, telegraphing the timing/nature of encounters to keep dailies more useful.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 18, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Any class /with/ an 'easy mode button,' yes. Which is why such classes are flawed. They present you with the choice of interesting options that /might/ be effective, vs a boring one (or few) that /will/ be effective. Not a fun - or balanced - choice.




Why isn't it a fun or balanced choice? 

If a new character (or character deciding simplicity) can pick up the class and know that Option 1 will be easy to use and effective to play - while a more advanced character can assemble their own selection of options to achieve a desired level of complexity and/or optimization... doesn't everyone win? 

I was as glad as the next person to be able to avoid Fighters who weren't stuck making full-round attacks all day long. But having a sliding scale of complexity, with both ends balanced against each other, seems a good way to satisfy both camps.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Why isn't it a fun or balanced choice?



Because...







Raikun said:


> If you're going to just use one easy mode button, you can make any class boring...



Any class /with/ an 'easy mode button,' yes. 

(I know nested quotes get anoying, but we just looped this little tangent for lack of them.)


----------



## Raikun (Aug 18, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Because...Any class /with/ an 'easy mode button,' yes.




Which is all classes.  Note, I said "Easy" button...not the "I Win" button, or "Total Effectiveness" button...thus balance really didn't factor in.

Any class can be made boring if you do absolutely nothing but the same thing over and over...and as I already explained above, the Thief has other options (and better options) than using the same "Easy Button" over and over.

The Thief is quite a fun and balanced choice, despite the existence of an Easy Button that could make it boring if the player has no imagination.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 18, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Unless you havbe some objective measurement of "boring", I'm sure you will agree that you are only expressing your opinion.




(Boring), note the parentheses was an opinion, ineffective was the analysis.



> Slayers trade off* nova capability in the form of daily attack powers for higher at-will damage. It's similar to how avengers trade off a striker damage mechanic for higher accuracy. If you like, think of it as activating a daily attack power that grants a bonus to the damage rolls of at-will attacks until the end of the next extended rest**.




No, Slayers trade off the Defender role abilities for a Striker bonus damage feature. That, at least, is the standard trade off between roles. They trade their dailies and any chance at a real Nova without MC/Hybrid shenanigans for a minor increase in defenses over a Barb.



> * You are familiar with the concept of "trade off", aren't you? It means giving up one thing for another, and is the foundation of the "class balance" you seem to value so highly.
> 
> ** I know I've mentioned this before. Fortunately, _repeat ignored argument_ is an at-will power.




Yes, I also know when you are making a poor trade. In this case, you're making a _very_ poor trade.



> "Only miss on a one"? You know, it's hard to take you seriously when you engage in hyperbole like this.




Yeah, "Only miss on a one." It annoys the crap outta my DMs when they see me roll a two and I say AC21 at 5th level.  Why are you even trying to get your Thief in melee range? Halfling Shortbow Hunter, Drow Ruthless Hunter = "Hi guys!, I'll just stand wayyy over here and barrage them to death!" thats before RM for snap shot and other tricks to add in multi-attacks.

[/quote]
Unless, of course, they are somehow "optimized", right? It's amazing how "optimization" can flip a class from "the bottom" to "broken" with, apparently, no middle ground.[/quote]

Yes, they are ridiculously easy to optimize since they broke the standard power assumptions from 4e. MBA's were set up to be little used, off action attacks that you only made when you couldnt do anything better and were supported as such. E-martials, and Arcanes now, broke that mold and enhanced the MBA to encounter+ level equivalents with absolutely no brakes in the system to prevent a PC from piling on e-enhancements _and_ 4e enhancements. The worst part is, they keep compounding this mistake. Now we get MME which takes an MBA enhancer(PA) that already hits encounter+ level equivalents with WS and throws even more benefits on top.



> Yes. I actually played one myself.




Just for clarification, so have I.



> Warpriests have at-will attack powers, like ..... Based on the above information, what is your current assessment of the warpriest: woefully underpowered, or hopelessly broken?




Woefully underpowered. The powers give up very useful effects on a hit for minor situational bonuses as an effect most of the time. Drastically lowered top end usefulness for a supposedly raised floor. Yes, there are a few good powers in the Warpriest list. You just hope you get one good one for every POS you get stuck with. Your Channel Divinity options are crappola in most cases, WotC seems to have forgotten all the decent ones they had released and done a major backtrack on the power levels.
As for your wonderful Class Features? Ever heard of Ritual Caster? You know its great that a Warpriest can Raise Dead his allies for free...of course a Cleric is just better at preventing them from dying in the first place.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 18, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Because...Any class /with/ an 'easy mode button,' yes.
> 
> (I know nested quotes get anoying, but we just looped this little tangent for lack of them.)




It might be that alternate meanings are being given to 'easy mode button'. I've been interpreting it as, "A build or tactic that is easy to use while remaining effective", rather than, "An approach which makes the game trivially easy." 

Plenty of folks might find a Slayer with few options boring to play. They don't need to play him. Others will enjoy playing that way, however. Hence, I don't see the problem with having it as an option. 

These characters aren't boring by default, any more than non-Essentials characters are - yet both can be played that way. Neither indicates an inherently flawed design.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Well, the warpriest as presented lets them choose just freely from the cleric list.




This is debatable, as written. On the one hand you have a class and a concept(domains) that need to be intertwined to be meaningful. On the other hand you have a sidebar saying that they arent necessarily locked into each other.
The final arbiter comes down to this, if the Warpriest is NOT forced to accept his Domain powers as fixed power selections, then why the h-e-double-hockeysticks does the class exist? Its a Cleric with a couple of preselected rituals instead of Ritual Caster. Its either a blank slate filled by one choice, or its an entire waste of design resources to build the same class with another name.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 18, 2011)

Psikus said:


> Not that I agree with Marshall's other points, but that much at least is true. It's fairly common for thieves to tweak their attack bonuses so as to hit on a 2 against an on-level monster: take high dex, accurate weapons, rogue weapon talent, combat advantage, nimble blade, deft blade, and a charge bonus, and we're talking an attack roll of roughly level+10 vs Reflex (with the average monster having Ref=Level+12). And that is without spending Backstab!  With the extra +3 from backstab, you won't often miss on a 2, even against higher level monsters. Since Backstab is not needed to achieve this, this is also available for regular rogues, by the way. Also, this level of accuracy doesn't really result in broken amounts of damage (i.e. this is still below ranger levels), though it does put Avengers to shame in their alleged niche of ultra-accurate strikers.



Point taken, although I do note that you're adding a PH feat (for +1 with combat advantage) and a MP2 paragon feat (to target Reflex) into the mix.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 18, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> It might be that alternate meanings are being given to 'easy mode button'. I've been interpreting it as, "A build or tactic that is easy to use while remaining effective", rather than, "An approach which makes the game trivially easy."




Oh, probably.



> Plenty of folks might find a Slayer with few options boring to play. They don't need to play him. Others will enjoy playing that way, however. Hence, I don't see the problem with having it as an option.




The problem with the Slayer(specifically) is:
1. It doesnt accomplish anything that couldnt have been done with a 4e Fighter or Barbarian.
2. It takes/took up design time/space that could have been spent adding these options to base 4e.
3. It is being expanded upon to the detriment of those base 4e classes. 

By definition, Essentials should be a dead line. If these are supposed to be the  new entry points to teach people 4e or they are there for those people who want a simpler play experience then expanding on them is anti-thetical to their design. If you designed a class to be simple to play, adding newer and more complex options to it instead of directing people who want more complexity to the parent class is idiocy.

These characters aren't boring by default, any more than non-Essentials characters are - yet both can be played that way. Neither indicates an inherently flawed design.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Raikun (Aug 18, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Yeah, "Only miss on a one." It annoys the crap outta my DMs when they see me roll a two and I say AC21 at 5th level.




Trying to figure out how you got a +19 to hit 5 levels earlier than most Thieves do.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> These characters aren't boring by default, any more than non-Essentials characters are - yet both can be played that way. Neither indicates an inherently flawed design.



I'd have to say that the e-martial builds are boring by default.  Maybe not immediately boring, but they just don't get/do/develop that much.  As for both 4e and the more simplistic of the Essentials classes being playable in a boring way, yeah, I suppose that's true.  In the case of a 4e class, though, the boring option (I'll just keep using this same at-will all the time), is generally a /lot/ less effective than the many less-boring options (the simplest-to-play 4e class, the Ranger, being the closest to suffering from the phenomenon).  With the Essentials classes, the - let's say 'potencially boring' - 'easy mode' is as or more effective than the few alternatives.  While the Theif most clearly illustrates the way the Essentials 'easy mode' aproach can render a character boring, all of the simpler builds suffer from it.   

Even that wouldn't be so bad if those most-aflicted sub-classes had a clear and easy path to the more choice-rich versions their native class in 4e.  But, of course, they don't.  In that sense, they're like training wheels that don't come off - you just have to get a new bike once you're ready to go without them.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 19, 2011)

Marshall said:


> No, Slayers trade off the Defender role abilities for a Striker bonus damage feature. That, at least, is the standard trade off between roles. They trade their dailies and any chance at a real Nova without MC/Hybrid shenanigans for a minor increase in defenses over a Barb.



Dexterity modifier to damage is the basic bonus damage feature. This scales at just under the same rate as the average extra damage from the PH ranger's Hunter's Quarry (minus feat enhancements). The increases to 2 + Dexterity modifier at 5th level, 5 + Dexterity modifier at 15th level, and 8 + Dexterity modifier at 25th level are (IMO) the damage bonuses in lieu of daily powers. 



> Yes, I also know when you are making a poor trade. In this case, you're making a _very_ poor trade.



I think you are under-valuing the slayer's damage bonus. It really is (IMO) a striker damage mechanic and a daily power replacement rolled into one.



> Yeah, "Only miss on a one." It annoys the crap outta my DMs when they see me roll a two and I say AC21 at 5th level.  Why are you even trying to get your Thief in melee range? Halfling Shortbow Hunter, Drow Ruthless Hunter = "Hi guys!, I'll just stand wayyy over here and barrage them to death!" thats before RM for snap shot and other tricks to add in multi-attacks.



I admit to being curious. How are you hitting AC 21 on a roll of 2 at 5th level? How often can you do it?



> Yes, they are ridiculously easy to optimize since they broke the standard power assumptions from 4e. MBA's were set up to be little used, off action attacks that you only made when you couldnt do anything better and were supported as such. E-martials, and Arcanes now, broke that mold and enhanced the MBA to encounter+ level equivalents with absolutely no brakes in the system to prevent a PC from piling on e-enhancements _and_ 4e enhancements. The worst part is, they keep compounding this mistake. Now we get MME which takes an MBA enhancer(PA) that already hits encounter+ level equivalents with WS and throws even more benefits on top.



I will admit that there are some good synergies. I'm not at all convinced that they lead to "broken" levels of good, though. Even the feats in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium that enhance _power strike_ don't strike me as being overpowered at first glance. First off, you are spending a feat to get the benefit. Second, you are enhancing an encounter-level resource, which means it won't be used as often. As always, you need to evaluate the package as a whole, and not declare something to be "broken" or "overpowered" by fixating narrowly on one element. 



> Woefully underpowered. The powers give up very useful effects on a hit for minor situational bonuses as an effect most of the time.



As I mentioned previously, a Sun warpriest's powers tend towards protection, healing and restoration, and a Storm warpriest's powers tend towards buffing damage and increasing mobility. None of these seem to be situational to me. 



> Drastically lowered top end usefulness for a supposedly raised floor. Yes, there are a few good powers in the Warpriest list. You just hope you get one good one for every POS you get stuck with.



As I mentioned, evaluate the whole package. Don't fixate on the warpriest's Utility 1 powers which are mostly flavor. Compare their at-wills with a templar cleric's at-wills, their encounters with a templar cleric's encounters, their dailies with a templar cleric's dailies, their channel divinity powers, and the 5th-level domain features with Healer's Lore.



> Your Channel Divinity options are crappola in most cases, WotC seems to have forgotten all the decent ones they had released and done a major backtrack on the power levels.



The templar cleric's _divine fortune_ grants him a +1 bonus to an attack roll or a saving throw. The Sun warpriest's grants a saving throw with a +2 bonus to himself or an ally, and the Storm warpriest's grants extra lightning damage to a melee attack (+4 at 1st level, increasing to +6 and +8 at 11th and 21st levels) to himself or an ally. I don't consider these powers to be useless, and frankly, they look more "leader-like" than the templar cleric's. 



> As for your wonderful Class Features? Ever heard of Ritual Caster? You know its great that a Warpriest can Raise Dead his allies for free...of course a Cleric is just better at preventing them from dying in the first place.



The templar cleric gets Ritual Caster as a class feature, and the warpriest gets two daily utility powers. This, to me, is another trade-off. And once the 5th-level domain features kick in (which I had omitted in my earlier analysis) the templar cleric's Healer's Lore doesn't seem to be that significant an advantage.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 19, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not quite.  Striker damage mechanics are typically at-will (some are 1/round or 1/turn -others aply to every damage roll - some have a not-too-difficult condition to meet), so is the Avenger's greater accuracy.  It's easy to balance a trade-off between resources of the same general availability.
> 
> The Slayer is balanced with AEDU classes in the way an AD&D fighter was balanced with casters.
> 
> (rest of post snipped)



I don't disagree. However, I don't think it unbalances the game that much. The daily vs. encounter vs. at-will balance issues are already present in the system, either in terms of utility powers, or daily powers that provide a one-time effect vs. daily powers that provide an effect that lasts the entire encounter. The system already manages these balance issues on a micro scale: a player who has selected an encounter utility instead of a daily utility benefits more from a longer adventuring day, and a player who has selected a daily power that provides an encounter-long effect instead of a one-time effect benefits more from a longer encounter.

I agree that the system becomes less balanced with the introduction of classes that trade daily powers for constant benefits, but I still think it's balanced enough that a slayer and a mage can play in the same game and be equally effective without too much effort on the DM's part.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2011)

FireLance said:


> I think you are under-valuing the slayer's damage bonus. It really is (IMO) a striker damage mechanic and a daily power replacement rolled into one.



Really?  It's about the same as the Sorcerer's - add a secondary stat mod to damage rolls, bumped a bit at each higher tier.  The Sorcerer has a fair number of modest AE/multi-target options, which strongly synergizes with a bonus to all damage rolls - and, of course, has Dailies.  Unless the Slayer is getting frequent OAs or other free basic attacks, I don't see how it's even getting as much out of it's damage bonus as the Sorcerer is out it's?


----------



## Marshall (Aug 19, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Trying to figure out how you got a +19 to hit 5 levels earlier than most Thieves do.




+5 DEX
+2 Half-Level
+2 Proficiency
+2 Enhancement
+1 TWT
+1 Feat - X-bow Expertise
+1 Item - Eagle Eye Goggles
= +14 Constant

+2 Combat Advantage(also constant)
= +16 

+3 Backstab(twice an encounter)
= +19


----------



## Raikun (Aug 19, 2011)

Sounds like poor DMing to me *shrug*.  I have little trouble making sure CA is not a constant, especially with a ranged weapon for one thing.  (CA is common, because I'm not a jerk, but not a constant.)


----------



## Raikun (Aug 19, 2011)

Anyway, to add...I speak from experience there, as I was a victim of poor DMing for awhile until I figured out how to handle it.  At first, I'd houseruled that you couldn't backstab at range, because it seemed that the +17 to hit (even twice a round) was a bit much, but of course it didn't take long to think "Huh, if monsters see a super accurage ranged character, they're going to try and neutralize that some."

End result, any DM worth his salt will have the Thief breaking out his short sword a good portion of the time, or getting heavily beat down every encounter from OAs for using a ranged weapon.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 19, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Really?  It's about the same as the Sorcerer's - add a secondary stat mod to damage rolls, bumped a bit at each higher tier.  The Sorcerer has a fair number of modest AE/multi-target options, which strongly synergizes with a bonus to all damage rolls - and, of course, has Dailies.  Unless the Slayer is getting frequent OAs or other free basic attacks, I don't see how it's even getting as much out of it's damage bonus as the Sorcerer is out it's?



Well, the slayer's damage scales faster. Admittedly, it's not much, but arguably, the sorcerer is at the top tier when it comes to bonus damage. I don't think any other striker damage feature regularly affects multiple targets in a turn, barring the use of action points or magic items.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 19, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Sounds like poor DMing to me *shrug*.  I have little trouble making sure CA is not a constant, especially with a ranged weapon for one thing.  (CA is common, because I'm not a jerk, but not a constant.)




Uh huh. Thats the point. Between TT and Ambush Trick or the ridiculously overpowered Cunning Stalker feat you cant stop it as a DM.


----------



## Raikun (Aug 19, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Uh huh. Thats the point. Between TT and Ambush Trick or the ridiculously overpowered Cunning Stalker feat you cant stop it as a DM.




But yet I manage it. . (And I hope you aren't suggesting use of cunning stalker with a ranged weapon hehe)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Uh huh. Thats the point. Between TT and Ambush Trick or the ridiculously overpowered Cunning Stalker feat you cant stop it as a DM.



Cunning Stalker doesn't ring a bell, but if you're mentioning it in the same breath with TT & AT it must be pretty convenient.  

Anyway, even with TT & AT, a Theif can be kept from getting CA.  The monsters have to use the buddy system and never be next to an enemy when the Theif takes his turn, but the ability of the DM to hose a player is basically unlimitted.  That's always been true of the most overpowered classes or combos.  No matter how over-the-top, the DM could grind them into the dust if he really wanted to.

And, the Theif isn't over-powered, just under-interesting.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Because...Any class /with/ an 'easy mode button,' yes.




Any class with an easy mode _for which there aren't benefits to playing hard mode._  With genuinely skilled Thief play you use tactical trick as little as possible because the options that trigger when you have combat advantage are genuinely better.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 19, 2011)

Marshall said:


> This is debatable, as written.




Er... no it's not. They are explicitly allowed to choose from the normal list at any point where they are given a power of a listed level. 




Marshall said:


> The final arbiter comes down to this, if the Warpriest is NOT forced to accept his Domain powers as fixed power selections, then why the h-e-double-hockeysticks does the class exist? Its a Cleric with a couple of preselected rituals instead of Ritual Caster. Its either a blank slate filled by one choice, or its an entire waste of design resources to build the same class with another name.




How many design resources were wasted? The new powers are also usable by the cleric. It let them provide the cleric in the Essentials book that used 95% of the same design of the standard cleric, trading out ritual casters for, as you note, some preselected rituals, and a bunch of 'default' choices. That seems pretty much perfect as an offering for new players.  



Marshall said:


> The problem with the Slayer(specifically) is:
> 1. It doesnt accomplish anything that couldnt have been done with a 4e Fighter or Barbarian.




What would you have done to alter the 4E fighter or barbarian to provide the same benefits as the Slayer? 

Remember, folks like the stances and power strike and find them simpler than the at-will/encounter/daily system. I'm confident you could have built a customized Fighter that _you _found easier to use than a Slayer - but clearly not one that would have helped me, or the various players I've seen who have concerns when dealing with the power system. 



Marshall said:


> 2. It takes/took up design time/space that could have been spent adding these options to base 4e.




It's absolutely true. But many folks didn't like Psionics, either - did that mean they shouldn't have produced it, since that took design space away from supporting existing options? 

By this logic, they should have put out the PHB and just supported those classes, never adding anything new at all. No thanks. 

Many folks like the Slayer, and it very directly answers concerns they had with the game. I get that you don't like it, but you seem to be going out of your way to try and insist that those WotC should not try and produce material for those folks, just because you don't like it. 



Marshall said:


> 3. It is being expanded upon to the detriment of those base 4e classes.




... I'm not sure I've seen this. We've had all of one PC book come out since Essentials, right? (Which hasn't supported the Slayer at all). It did support some Essentials classes... but, honestly, offered as much (or more) support for the PHB Cleric and Wizard. 

I'd be absolutely fine with some more support for the Slayer, myself - though I don't think it needs it. What I don't want to see is more support for the Fighter or Wizard, who have buckets and buckets of feats, powers, etc. Yes, I'd like more material for some less-supported classes, but I don't think you can blame Essentials alone for that. Yes, I'd like to see WotC ramp up the content again in general - but, _again_, that hardly is something somehow caused by the Slayer. 



Marshall said:


> By definition, Essentials should be a dead line. If these are supposed to be the new entry points to teach people 4e or they are there for those people who want a simpler play experience then expanding on them is anti-thetical to their design. If you designed a class to be simple to play, adding newer and more complex options to it instead of directing people who want more complexity to the parent class is idiocy.




Well, again, it is an issue of the system. I think absolutely the ideal would have been to rebuild the system from the ground up so that transition is a smooth one. But that would have been even more disruptive. 

As it is... those 'parent classes' exist. WotC can totally say, "Hey, want a more complex Knight? Check out the PHB! Or DDI! Or this free article on our website!"

But what is wrong with them producing new options that can support the new material and the old? For example, for those who like a middle ground? Or for those who like the Essentials classes or structure, and are happy to see more options with them, without expanding to the option inundanation of a Fighter with hundreds and hundreds of feats and powers?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 19, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'd have to say that the e-martial builds are boring by default. Maybe not immediately boring, but they just don't get/do/develop that much.




But again, I think you are equating "can be boring" with "always is boring". The folks who want to just rush in and hit things - in my experience - don't find it boring. Maybe they enjoy the descriptive aspect of combat more than they actually care about using a new or interesting power. Maybe they find combat more interesting when it keeps moving, rather than having to spend time looking over options. 

For myself, I was absolutely glad when 4E gave Fighters more to do. But that option _is still there_. Those who find the e-martial builds boring _don't need to play them_. 

I do agree, though, that having a better transition or middle ground for those who want it would be nice. I was very sad to see robust hybrid and multiclass options crop up... for half the Essentials classs, and specifically _not _for the martial classes. That, to me, has been the biggest failure by WotC regarding the Essentials design.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 19, 2011)

Raikun said:


> Trying to figure out how you got a +19 to hit 5 levels earlier than most Thieves do.




It's certainly doable. But Marshall still seems to be ignoring...

Level 5 Rogue: 
+5 (Dex)
+2 (Level)
+3 (Proficiency)
+1 (Rogue Weapon Talent)
+1 (Enhancement)
+2 (Combat advantage)
+1 (Nimble Blade Combat Advantage)
vs Reflex (Piercing Strike)
= +15 vs Reflex 17 = Hitting on a 2. 

This was my very first 4E character, PHB only, and yeah, the DM gave the same crazy looks to me as I'm sure Marshall's DM does to him. The Rogue is accurate, the Thief is accurate. 

As before, the problem isn't Marshall insisting that Essentials characters can be effectively optimized, it is ignoring the same optimization happening with pre-Essentials classes.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2011)

I'm not sure which of Mr Myth's above posts I want to give XP to.  Whether it's 


> The folks who want to just rush in and hit things - in my experience - don't find it boring. Maybe they enjoy the descriptive aspect of combat more than they actually care about using a new or interesting power. Maybe they find combat more interesting when it keeps moving, rather than having to spend time looking over options.
> 
> For myself, I was absolutely glad when 4E gave Fighters more to do. But that option _is still there_. Those who find the e-martial builds boring _don't need to play them_.



or possibly pointing out that Rogues were _always_ incredibly accurate, complete with the maths to demonstrate.  And unlike Marshall, MrMyth's rogue is hitting on a 2 on an_ at will_.  Backstab is an encounter power.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> But again, I think you are equating "can be boring" with "always is boring".



I just think that the greater the potential for boredom and irrellevance a class delivers, the less desireable for inclusion in a game that class is.   



> For myself, I was absolutely glad when 4E gave Fighters more to do. But that option _is still there_. Those who find the e-martial builds boring _don't need to play them_.



/Again?/

D&D Encounters.  
The presence of good alternatives does not excuse bad designs.  
Essentials is meant to be the 'evergreen' on-ramp to the game.  It's presentation of the sources will shape the perceptions and expectations of new players coming into the game.



> I do agree, though, that having a better transition or middle ground for those who want it would be nice. I was very sad to see robust hybrid and multiclass options crop up... for half the Essentials classs, and specifically _not _for the martial classes. That, to me, has been the biggest failure by WotC regarding the Essentials design.



The heavy-handed way the essentials martial classes were made simplistic made it very difficult to give them any room for growth into the full-featured martial classes of 4e.  Even if they are eventually given such a path, it won't be part of the evergreen-Essentials line, and will just fall by the wayside, anyway. 

The essentials martial classes can either be viewed as a failure to create a good introductory set of classes - or as a successful return to the old fighter stereotypes.  I'd actually find the former less discouraging.  Considering that the designers have pasted old art on the Red Box, waxed nostalgic about playing classic versions of the game, and offered 'the cleric should just be the best healer' as a rationale for the disasterous first attempt at the Templar, though....


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 19, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I just think that the greater the potential for boredom and irrellevance a class delivers, the less desireable for inclusion in a game that class is.




It's a trade-off, though. Slayers are more prone to boredom. 'Weaponmasters' are more prone to complexity, trap-choices, etc. I don't think either is _so _prone to those things that they are broken, though. But neither is one somehow inherently a worse aspect to be possible in a game. That's the benefit, again, of having both. 



Tony Vargas said:


> D&D Encounters.
> The presence of good alternatives does not excuse bad designs.
> Essentials is meant to be the 'evergreen' on-ramp to the game. It's presentation of the sources will shape the perceptions and expectations of new players coming into the game.




1) That's an issue with D&D Encounters, not with Essentials. 
2) I don't think you've shown any bad designs in play. You've said that you find them boring. Others, again, do not, or find that potential an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits acquired. For those folks, the Slayer _is _the good alternative to the 'bad design' of the Weaponmaster. 
3) I do think there are elements about the roll-out that WotC could have improved. But I don't think that these class designs are one of them. I do get why you do - the fear about training them to think 'martial simple, casting hard', but I don't think that it will have quite the lingering influence on perceptions that you believe. But I could, certainly, be wrong. 



Tony Vargas said:


> The essentials martial classes can either be viewed as a failure to create a good introductory set of classes - or as a successful return to the old fighter stereotypes. I'd actually find the former less discouraging. Considering that the designers have pasted old art on the Red Box, waxed nostalgic about playing classic versions of the game, and offered 'the cleric should just be the best healer' as a rationale for the disasterous first attempt at the Templar, though....




I do think the concerns you have stem from them trying to do both. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the 'return to old school principals' has poisoned the well of 'easy new intro classes' for the new crowd. I don't think it will, but time may very well prove otherwise.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 19, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> It's a trade-off, though. Slayers are more prone to boredom. 'Weaponmasters' are more prone to complexity, trap-choices, etc. I don't think either is _so _prone to those things that they are broken, though.



I'm not trying to say that boring = broken.  The Slayer is 'broken' for different reasons (really, by not being as broken as classes with dailies - the same problem that plagued the Fighter through every previous edition). 



> 1) That's an issue with D&D Encounters, not with Essentials.



It's an example of why "it's only an option" isn't a defense.  It's sometimes the only option.



> 2) I don't think you've shown any bad designs in play.



Lack of choice and introducing class imbalance are bad things.  Closely related things, really.  Essentials does a lot of that.  The Slayer (and even more so Theif) being potentially boring are really just visible symptoms.



> I do get why you do - the fear about training them to think 'martial simple, casting hard', but I don't think that it will have quite the lingering influence on perceptions that you believe. But I could, certainly, be wrong.



Honestly, I don't think 4e's radical new take on the martial source had had time to fully 'take' in the community as it was - nor did it ever reach actual parity (martial was the only source to cover only 3 roles in spite of having 4 classes, and martial powers were much more limitted in variety and scope than other soruces').  So, no, I don't think almost 3 years of near-equality erased the decades of expectations that had been engrained in the community - let alone did so with such finality that this concerted effort to cater to those expecations could fail to bring them back with a vengeance.



> I do think the concerns you have stem from them trying to do both. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the 'return to old school principals' has poisoned the well of 'easy new intro classes' for the new crowd. I don't think it will, but time may very well prove otherwise.



I have to agree.  Essentials tried to do a lot.  It seems most likely that 'well poisoning' will be more the well from which new players are drawn.  That is, Essentials is indoctrinating new players in old prejudices that we had only just begun to overcome.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I just think that the greater the potential for boredom and irrellevance a class delivers, the less desireable for inclusion in a game that class is.




Fine.  Let's take out every AEDU class because the Pathfinder and the OSR players don't like them and find them dull.  Right.  Now we've settled that we've just lost 4e.  Congratulations.

My take is quite the reverse of yours.  The greater the potential for people having a positive play experience with the class that they would not have had previously the more desirable it is for inclusion in the game.  If it's a game mechanic we look at everyone.  But if it's a class mechanic which only a small percentage of people are going to use, versatility and keeping as many people happy as possible is good.  Why all classes should be designed with the goal of satisfying Tony Vargas and Marshall's tastes is quite beyond me when there are already 22 classes that do that.  You have 22 classes and you are begrudging some people getting _three._


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 20, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The greater the potential for people having a positive play experience with the class that they would not have had previously the more desirable it is for inclusion in the game.



The key part of your statement is "that they would not have had previously."  You're talking about changing the game to suit people who already dislike it.  

While it's highly desireable for a game to support a variety of play styles, the way to accomplish that is to present a balanced game.  In a balanced game, each player can persue his style without failing to contribute or, on the other extreme, overshadowing anyone else.  

If you sacrifice balance to bring disgruntled haters back into the fold - as Essentials seems to be doing - you shrink the breadth of play styles it is able to support, in order to include one more (which is already lavishly supported by Pathfinder).  You might or might not come out ahead doing that - I can't think how to quantify if it does or not - other than the all-important bottom line, of course, which WotC doesn't share.  



> You have 22 classes and you are begrudging some people getting three.



They already have /every prior edition of the game/. And Pathfinder. And Hackmaster. And other d20 games that gun for that classic feel.  Yet they are insisting 4e be made back into another chronically imbalanced itteration of 0D&D.  And, WotC is caving to them.  Yes, I'm begrudging them that.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> The key part of your statement is "that they would not have had previously."  You're talking about changing the game to suit people who already dislike it.



Hi.  I love 4e.  I also love essentials classes.

Please quit it with this us-vs-them nonsense.  Stepping back the rhetoric in a later post is no substitute for posting well in the first place.



> If you sacrifice balance to bring disgruntled haters back into the fold - as Essentials seems to be doing - you shrink the breadth of play styles it is able to support, in order to include one more (which is already lavishly supported by Pathfinder).  You might or might not come out ahead doing that - I can't think how to quantify if it does or not - other than the all-important bottom line, of course, which WotC doesn't share.
> 
> They already have /every prior edition of the game/. And Pathfinder. And Hackmaster. And other d20 games that gun for that classic feel.  Yet they are insisting 4e be made back into another chronically imbalanced itteration of 0D&D.  And, WotC is caving to them.  Yes, I'm begrudging them that.



(1) The idea that Essentials classes sacrificed balance is your idiosyncratic interpretation where you mistake mechanical form for mechanical function.

(2) Whether or not other games support other playstyles is completely 100% irrelevant.  First off, it's nonsensical to think that the only reason to play 4e is because of the AEDU class structure.  Second, the great thing about 4e post-E is that _all of those levels of complexity can sit at one happy table and play the same game together._

No mysterious grognards are involved here; that's an imaginary dodge and again irrelevant.  You're begrudging actual 4e players - people like me who play and love 4e - the ability to play classes different from the AEDU mold.  And some they enjoy more than the classic AEDU-style ones.  And don't forget newbies - particularly in games starting above 1st level.  And casual players whose friends are all playing 4e, and want to play, too.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 20, 2011)

Obryn said:


> The idea that Essentials classes sacrificed balance is your idiosyncratic interpretation where you mistake mechanical form for mechanical function.



:sigh:  If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior.  Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily.   And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.





> Whether or not other games support other playstyles is completely 100%irrelevant.



How so?  4e supports the breadth of play styles that are possible in a game with robust class balance.  3.5 supported the specific play styles that are only possible in the virtual absence of class balance.

No game is ever going to support both sets of styles, because you're never going to support players who want to be part of a team were everyone makes comparable, if distinct, contributions and no one is overshadowed or overpowered /and/ players who want an uber-character who overshadows other characters, or a gimped-for-RP-purposes basket case that delivers the oodles of angst they crave.  Some people just want very different things from a game experience, things that are not compatible with what others may want, and thus should play different games.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> :sigh:  If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior.  Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily.   And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.



While this is true in a mathematical sense, minor differences in effectiveness are usually not noticeable at the table. And yes, to me, the differences _are_ minor.

Secondly, this is why the game has a DM. The DM should stick to the expected number of encounters per day or (if he is skilled enough) ensure a good mix of encounters per day so that all the PCs' relative strengths come into play at different times.



> How so?  4e supports the breadth of play styles that are possible in a game with robust class balance.  3.5 supported the specific play styles that are only possible in the virtual absence of class balance.



Playing only with AEDU classes does make it easier for the DM to balance the game (almost as if he was DMing with an "Easy" mode button). If you think that Essentials martial classes - which still have encounter attack powers and utility powers and lack only daily attack powers - are difficult to balance with AEDU classes, then it must have been impossible to balance the game when some classes had only at-will basic attacks and others had 40+ daily powers.

And yet, the game still worked. There was a theoretical "sweet spot" where the game worked _exceptionally_ well, which was analyzed and which eventually formed the core of 4E. 

Take it from me. DMing a 4E game with Essentials classes requires more attention from the DM, but it isn't significantly harder than DMing a 4E game with only AEDU classes, and it isn't anywhere near as hard as DMing a high-level game in previous editions, where the difference between linear warriors and quadratic wizards became very hard to ignore. 



> No game is ever going to support both sets of styles, because you're never going to support players who want to be part of a team were everyone makes comparable, if distinct, contributions and no one is overshadowed or overpowered /and/ players who want an uber-character who overshadows other characters, or a gimped-for-RP-purposes basket case that delivers the oodles of angst they crave.  Some people just want very different things from a game experience, things that are not compatible with what others may want, and thus should play different games.



Well, the _traditional_ approach has been to take your game system of choice and cut out the stuff you don't like. If you're up to it, create additional stuff you do like (there's even a forum for it on ENWorld). If you think that Essentials classes create uber and gimped characters (I don't), don't use Essentials material, and don't play with people who do. 

Really, it's like the AEDU classes have made us hypersenstive to the lack of balance. It could be that I am blinded by nostalgia or by my rose-coloured glasses, but when books like Magic of Incarnum and The Book of Nine Swords were released in 3E, the general reaction from people who didn't like them seemed to be more, "They are an abomination and shall never be used in my game," instead of "They are an abomination and must be destroyed, preferably by fire."


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> The key part of your statement is "that they would not have had previously."  You're talking about changing the game to suit people who already dislike it.
> 
> While it's highly desireable for a game to support a variety of play styles, the way to accomplish that is to present a balanced game.  In a balanced game, each player can persue his style without failing to contribute or, on the other extreme, overshadowing anyone else.




The problem here is that you assume that balance is the only thing that's important in a game.  And that you assume that the whole of pre-existing 4e is perfectly balanced.  Newsflash: Brute Strike (L1 fighter daily, [3W], reliable) is strictly worse than Lasting Threat (L1 fighter daily, [3W] + Perma-mark, reliable).  Twin Strike is better than Careful Attack.  It's just near enough balanced for most purposes.  And a damn good job has been done balancing it.

Also from my own observations, both DMing and playing in multiple groups, there is a relatively big difference between PCs built with a good understanding of the system and prepared to squeeze it, and those without.  When I say relatively big, it would barely be a blip on the radar in 3e.  4e does not have your hypothetical perfect balance that would be disrupted.  What it has is _good_ balance within certain boundaries.  And in my experience unless the DM is throwing single encounter days regularly (and the PCs know they can all nova), then the Essentials martial classes fit within a band about a quarter of the width of most classes centred on the top third marker (or are charge-spammers).  Even if everyone novas, the essentials classes are not that unlike rangers in performance.

You're arguing that there must be a difference without trying to work out what the difference is or whether it's a significant one.  One encounter days, yes.  Then there's the issue with pushing and teleporting away from Knights at higher levels.  But overall?  The performance except for the single big nova fight is within the bounds of established 4e classes.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 20, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The problem here is that you assume that balance is the only thing that's important in a game.  And that you assume that the whole of pre-existing 4e is perfectly balanced.  Newsflash: Brute Strike (L1 fighter daily, [3W], reliable) is strictly worse than Lasting Threat (L1 fighter daily, [3W] + Perma-mark, reliable).  Twin Strike is better than Careful Attack.  It's just near enough balanced for most purposes.  And a damn good job has been done balancing it.



Speaking of _brute strike_, the difference between a fighter daily attack power and a melee basic attack is apparently ... +2[W]. A low-level half-orc slayer can get the equivalent of a fighter daily power once per encounter by expending two encounter resources: _power strike_ and his racial _furious assauilt_. And if his racial encounter power scaled as well as the dragonborn's _dragon breath_, he'd be doing it at high levels, too.

The point I'm making is that the lack of daily attack powers is not as crippling as it's sometimes made out to be. Sure, an extra +2[W] damage once per day is useful, but then, so is getting a constant +2 bonus to damage.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> :sigh:  If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior.  Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily.   And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.



This is complete, 100% theory-talk.  It has never appeared at my table, and we've had a mix of classes for over a year now.  I'd say some harm should have arisen, no?



> How so?  4e supports the breadth of play styles that are possible in a game with robust class balance.  3.5 supported the specific play styles that are only possible in the virtual absence of class balance.
> 
> No game is ever going to support both sets of styles, because you're never going to support players who want to be part of a team were everyone makes comparable, if distinct, contributions and no one is overshadowed or overpowered /and/ players who want an uber-character who overshadows other characters, or a gimped-for-RP-purposes basket case that delivers the oodles of angst they crave.  Some people just want very different things from a game experience, things that are not compatible with what others may want, and thus should play different games.



And yet, if you can get all those folks at the same table for a balanced and fun play experience - like a mix of Essentials and AEDU classes can - you're better off.  Big tents are awesome.

The problem, Tony, is that you're basing absolutely everything off of an unproven (and IME _dis_proven) hypothesis.  Everything that branches from there is just as wrong; fruit of the poisoned tree, so to speak.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Aug 20, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> One encounter days, yes.



Even in these cases, it's negligible unless you broadcast to your players, "OK GUIZE!  NOVA!"  So I haven't seen it.

Even _if _we all agree that there's an actual, measurable, _significant_ difference in power between classes with and without Dailies when adventure days are super-short or super-long ... wouldn't this be an argument to have a good mix of class types in one party?  Just like you mix roles and make a stronger party because some classes shine in some kinds of encounters, shouldn't you _want _some guys who are good at novas and guys who are consistent all day?

-O


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm not trying to say that boring = broken. The Slayer is 'broken' for different reasons (really, by not being as broken as classes with dailies - the same problem that plagued the Fighter through every previous edition).




You refer to balance and broken a few times here (and in your other posts), and I get that part of your concern is that the Essentials classes are not balanced alongside the pre-Essentials classes. I think that may be at the heart of our disagreement. 

I can understand your concern - I had that worry when I heard that Essentials classes were messing with the resource format. The implementation of those classes, however, has removed my fears. A Slayer is, in my opinion, perfectly balanced in nearly all cases against your average Daily-using pre-Essentials character. 

Yes, some characters might be really optimized with overpowered Dailies that the Slayer can't quite compare to. But... no worse than those same optimized builds vs someone taking a typical Daily that just does some extra damage. 

As it is, you feel there is a fundamental imbalance, and that is why you are worried about the line. I get that. I don't agree about that imbalance, and I doubt either of us is going to convince the other otherwise, so that does probably explain why we won't be able to come to a consensus here either way. 



Tony Vargas said:


> It's an example of why "it's only an option" isn't a defense. It's sometimes the only option.




"It's only an option" _is _a valid defense for the game as a whole. You don't like the approach of Encounters, that's an issue with it, not with Essentials. My friend Eric likes playing divine casters. He can't do so in my Dark Sun campaign. Should WotC have never put out the Dark Sun book? Or does the issue instead rest with me for running a no-divine game, or him for choosing to play in it? 

Your issue is with Encounters, and not with Essentials itself. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Lack of choice and introducing class imbalance are bad things. Closely related things, really. Essentials does a lot of that. The Slayer (and even more so Theif) being potentially boring are really just visible symptoms.




Again, I don't see any class imbalance in play. (Honestly, I see more of that with some of the Psionic classes, despite them operating on a nigh-identical resource scale. Bad implementation broke them, just like good implementation (IMO) kept the Essentials classes from emerging unbalanced.)

The other elements - lack of choice, boredom - are, again, subjective. Those who like the Slayer either enjoy the style or find it an acceptable trade-off compared to other options. Or they feel there are enough choices to be made or expanded upon via feats, multi-classing, etc. As I said before, I'd like to see more - a full hybrid/multi-class options for them - but the current options, while slim, are not nonexistent. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I have to agree. Essentials tried to do a lot. It seems most likely that 'well poisoning' will be more the well from which new players are drawn. That is, Essentials is indoctrinating new players in old prejudices that we had only just begun to overcome.




Again, we'll see. Despite all the previous editions of Fighters, we had folks who wanted more tactically complex Fighters, which led to stuff like Book of 9 Swords, and 4E itself. I don't imagine that all those folks who prefer that style will suddenly turn away from the options that cater to it, just because the newest stuff goes more towards an older style. And I imagine that new folks who (just like all the folks previously wanting more complex Fighters) feel that same urge... will be able to dig around and find what 4E has to offer that caters to that style of play.

In short, I don't think these 'prejudices' are in way forced upon the players. If folks weren't brainwashed by them _when no other options existed_, I don't see them somehow succumbing when they do have those options available.

But, again, I suppose only time will tell.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 20, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> :sigh: If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior. Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily. And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.




There is mild variance, yes. I don't think it any greater than the potential variance between different builds _within _the AEDU structure. The reliable benefits given to the E-martial classes do seem to approximately balance against the average benefits of Daily powers. 

Some AEDU builds can totally optimize for extreme novas, yes - which is just as problematic compared to other AEDU builds as it is compared to Essential builds. 

By the later levels at which Daily powers are really prevalent, E-martial classes are getting other substantial benefits - and you are seeing lots of other power from feats, items, etc, many of which are especially strong in the hands of these E-martial classes. 

But, the truth it... neither of us can really prove this. Nonetheless, neither by looking at the options given to these classes, nor seeing them alongside each other in actual play, I have not seen even the slightest indication that there is a problematic imbalance between the two designs. 

The slight variances I have seen, honestly, are of far less concern than many of the existing balances between pre-Essentials classes (such as those with more support vs those with less support, the flawed implementation of psionic classes, etc).


----------



## Lostdwarf (Aug 20, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh for crying out loud. Between the PHB, PHB2, Assassin, Artificer, and Swordmage there were _19_ classes on the old structure. With about four different class types each before you even start selecting powers. They weren't just designing to AEDU, they were _strip mining _the design space as is obvious when we look at the PHB 3. There are attempts at six new classes in there. One (the Monk) is outstanding - and isn't classic AEDU. Three are not AEDU at all and are very simply broken - the Power Point mechanism does not work. And of the two remaining, one (the Seeker) is a solution in search of a problem and the other (the Runepriest) is simply fiddly and annoying without really adding much to the game.
> 
> A dead 4e would be one that stopped growing. One that stuck with the AEDU concept having done just about all it could with it. And the new classes it put out would be of the quality of the Seeker or the Runepriest. Instead what we have got is the game growing. Producing classes that the less tactically and mathematically adept can play (e.g. the Knight, the Slayer, or the Thief) - one of my players has recently switched from a Wizard to a Hunter and is enjoying the game so much more now. 4e has grown into design spaces it couldn't previously reach.
> 
> If you want a new AEDU class, pitch the class. And say why it can't be done as a build of an existing class. Don't point out that they have stopped strip mining the design space. They haven't stopped adding support - and Warpriest Domains add support to clerics in the way builds always should have - a selection of thematic powers with their less than optimal level offset by bonusses thrown in for locking in your build. And don't tell me it's dead when it's larger, stronger, and more versatile than ever. The Bladesinger's two rounds of mayhem as he's singing would be a squash to fit into an AEDU class. But work once the power structure's tweaked. (At least they work until Paragon when the Bladesinger gets to combine a Wizard Encounter with Bladesong...).




Completely agree. Not only are there a staggering number of classes at this point, the classes have "builds" that amount to sub-classes. Fighters are up to, what, six options for different mechanical builds? How much more do you need? Martial power 3? To continue with the previous design system would be to spin off into either more alternative class structures (like happened in PHB3) or to build increasingly niche and specialty builds. AEDU is full. Essentials is another option. You may play one or both, or neither for that matter. I don't see how endlessly cranking out character options with either experimental or unneeded mechanics is good for the game.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 21, 2011)

Lostdwarf said:


> To continue with the previous design system would be to spin off into either more alternative class structures (like happened in PHB3) or to build increasingly niche and specialty builds. AEDU is full. Essentials is another option. You may play one or both, or neither for that matter. I don't see how endlessly cranking out character options with either experimental or unneeded mechanics is good for the game.



Arguably, Essentials _is_ "cranking out character options" with experimental, if not unneeded, mechanics.  Really, experimentation and innovation is experimentation and innovation, whether for an AEDU class or classes which break the AEDU mold. If the designers come up with a new innovation which I don't like, I'd be certain to say that and explain why (in measured, respectful tones, of course). However, on the whole, I think that trying out new stuff can only improve the game in the long run.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 21, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> > Originally Posted by Tony Vargas
> > :sigh: If a class without dailies is balanced against a class with a daily over a 4-5 encounter day, because his at-will powers are superior. Then that little bit better performance that each use of each of those at wills gives over those 4-5 encounters must somehow 'add up,' to the higher power of that one use of a daily. And, if that's the case, then the same at-wills, used a few times over the course of a single encounter in a day, can't possibly equal the higher power of that one daily used in that one encounter in a single day.
> 
> 
> ...



Inevitably, it's going to be over and above that variance among classes with similar builds.  Daily-less classes aren't anymore perfectly balanced with eachother than AEDU classes are.  There are always minor imbalances, no design is perfect.  Having two or more structural aproaches to daily resources, though, introduces additional imbalance over and above that background 'noise.'  




Obryn said:


> Even _if _we all agree that there's an actual, measurable, _significant_ difference in power between classes with and without Dailies when adventure days are super-short or super-long ... wouldn't this be an argument to have a good mix of class types in one party?



It depends on the style of the DM's campaign.  If the DM very consististently has 4-5 encounter days (assuming that's the point where all the daily-less classes adequately balance with the AEDU classes), it doesn't matter, he's attending to class balance, already.  If the DM tends more towards shorter 'days' (or the players tend to seek to have shorter days, and the DM doesn't go out of his way to disuade them), maybe averaging 1-3, then the players would be wise to have an AEDU party.  If the DM tends towards grueling days of 6-8 or more encounters, none of which are particularly more threatening than the others (and doesn't let the players get away with trying to sneak in extra extended rests), then the consistent performance of daily-less classes would make them a better choice.

If a DM's style was to vary encounters/day wildly and unpredicitable, then, yes, having a 'balance' of daily-less characters for consistent staying power, and AEDU classes for peak power when desperately needed could work quite well.  Such a style worked well even with 3.x and AD&D, for that matter.  It's not something every potential DM can handle, but for those who can, it's possible to impose balance on quite a range of classes (among other things that might be balance issues).


----------



## Marshall (Aug 21, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Er... no it's not. They are explicitly allowed to choose from the normal list at any point where they are given a power of a listed level.




Uh, yeah. Thats the debate. Another place, another time. 



> How many design resources were wasted? The new powers are also usable by the cleric. It let them provide the cleric in the Essentials book that used 95% of the same design of the standard cleric, trading out ritual casters for, as you note, some preselected rituals, and a bunch of 'default' choices. That seems pretty much perfect as an offering for new players.




Quite a few, not only did they waste a crapload of design time creating a pale reflection of an existing class, they had to go back and redefine the orginal class to show a distinction. Not only are they wasting time on the Warpriest, they are wasting time renaming the Cleric into the Templar.



> What would you have done to alter the 4E fighter or barbarian to provide the same benefits as the Slayer?
> 
> Remember, folks like the stances and power strike and find them simpler than the at-will/encounter/daily system. I'm confident you could have built a customized Fighter that _you _found easier to use than a Slayer - but clearly not one that would have helped me, or the various players I've seen who have concerns when dealing with the power system.




Garbage. Stances _*are*_, inarguably, nothing more than a complication to the system that adds exactly zero to the play experience. 
I said it before, the "complexity", term used very loosely, of base 4e is that your at-wills are NOT your basic attacks when they should be. Hammer Hands, Poised Assault, Battle Wrath should all be at-wills that can be used as basic attacks. 

Power Strike is so much a failure that even in the class it was introduced they had to keep piling class features on it to keep it relevant. PS is a decent 1st level encounter power, again, done right it would be the first in a series of encounter powers that naturally grow like other encounter powers. There is nothing in the power that forced them to build a new class around it.



> It's absolutely true. But many folks didn't like Psionics, either - did that mean they shouldn't have produced it, since that took design space away from supporting existing options?




No, Psionics broke new ground. It added to the breadth of 4e. Even if you didnt like it, or it didnt work right(it doesnt), it wasnt a rehash of what already came before.

E-classes take the same design space, the same ideas, toss out the standard 4e mechanic and start over. If thats not a new edition, I dont know what is, but aside from that, the best that could be said for them is that they do the same thing a different way. Does that expand the game? Are your creative juices flowing? Dozens of new PC ideas? Haha.



> Many folks like the Slayer, and it very directly answers concerns they had with the game. I get that you don't like it, but you seem to be going out of your way to try and insist that those WotC should not try and produce material for those folks, just because you don't like it.




You miss the point, Slayer and Knight and the rest of the e-builds are garbage not because they are simple and/or easy-to-play, its because they break design rules without adding anything new, they are individual silos that dont expand the greater game and as an effect of the previous two every second spent on them is another second spent not making the game better. 



> ... I'm not sure I've seen this. We've had all of one PC book come out since Essentials, right? (Which hasn't supported the Slayer at all). It did support some Essentials classes... but, honestly, offered as much (or more) support for the PHB Cleric and Wizard.




Then you arent paying attention, The number of Dragon articles not dedicated to essentials in the last sixth months can be counted on one hand, HoS is entirely e-class content with only accidental lip-service paid to the Wizard/Cleric and have you seen the Bladesinger? Does disaster mean anything to you?



> I'd be absolutely fine with some more support for the Slayer, myself - though I don't think it needs it. What I don't want to see is more support for the Fighter or Wizard, who have buckets and buckets of feats, powers, etc. Yes, I'd like more material for some less-supported classes, but I don't think you can blame Essentials alone for that. Yes, I'd like to see WotC ramp up the content again in general - but, _again_, that hardly is something somehow caused by the Slayer.




You dont think that the time wasted on creating the new e-classes wouldnt have been spent improving the other part of the 4e system?



> But what is wrong with them producing new options that can support the new material and the old? For example, for those who like a middle ground? Or for those who like the Essentials classes or structure, and are happy to see more options with them, without expanding to the option inundanation of a Fighter with hundreds and hundreds of feats and powers?




Because of the new design of the e-classes, support for the Slayer doesnt carry over, support for the Knight doesnt carry over, support for the Theif, Scout, Hunter, Sentinel....doesnt carry over....


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 21, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Uh, yeah. Thats the debate. Another place, another time.




It... explicitly says you can do it in the book. In the FAQ. In WotC's discussions on the website. On what grounds is the opposing viewpoint based?



Marshall said:


> Quite a few, not only did they waste a crapload of design time creating a pale reflection of an existing class, they had to go back and redefine the orginal class to show a distinction. Not only are they wasting time on the Warpriest, they are wasting time renaming the Cleric into the Templar.




The work done on the original class hasn't been to show a distinction - it has been to clear up existing areas in need of errata. One may or may not feel the need for that Errata, but basically nothing we've seen of the Class Compendium articles has been in any way tied into Essentials or in response to Essentials - aside from the name change. 

Which, yes, is silly. And probably did not take the tremendous amount of design resources you seem to believe. 




Marshall said:


> Garbage. Stances _*are*_, inarguably, nothing more than a complication to the system that adds exactly zero to the play experience.




Ok, I will politely request that when someone disagrees with you - and outright says, "I find that these are a cool mechanic that improves the play experience" - that you not respond by calling their view garbage, and dismissing their position by declaring everything that have argued "inarguable". That is just poor form. I'm not flagging the post right now, because I think you just got heated about a subject you feel strongly about. 

But please, truly at least try and understand - you don't believe that added anything to the play experience. Others do. You _cannot _claim that you _opinion _is "inarguably" correct. If you are truly unwilling to even _acknowledge_ the opinions of those discussing the matter with you... then yeah, we're probably done here. 




Marshall said:


> I said it before, the "complexity", term used very loosely, of base 4e is that your at-wills are NOT your basic attacks when they should be. Hammer Hands, Poised Assault, Battle Wrath should all be at-wills that can be used as basic attacks.




That could have been one approach - but, as noted, others find the stances are an easier concept to grok for some players. (At least, that has been _my _personal experience). It genuinely is simpler - for them - to always use one attack and have abilities that modify it - abilities that they can 'fire and forget' - than deal with differently named attacks that need to be _explicitly _chosen every round. 

I get that you don't find it to be that way. I get that you believe that everyone will find stances more complicated than At-Will powers. But that is not the case, and for those folks who feel otherwise, the stance approach is a good one. 



Marshall said:


> Power Strike is so much a failure that even in the class it was introduced they had to keep piling class features on it to keep it relevant. PS is a decent 1st level encounter power, again, done right it would be the first in a series of encounter powers that naturally grow like other encounter powers. There is nothing in the power that forced them to build a new class around it.




Well, I haven't seen any indications at all that Power Strike is a failure. I have seen that the classes that use it make it more interesting, at higher levels, when new players will have gotten used to it and not find it too complex to deal with additional benefits from the power. 

Either way, having it as a default, along with the benefits of its simplicity (which have been covered several times in this thread) are useful for new players. I suppose you could have made it some alternate option to using encounter powers in the normal fashion, but I don't see an _easy _way to do so without redesigning the power system or providing a more complex set of options for players who don't want to deal with that. 



Marshall said:


> No, Psionics broke new ground. It added to the breadth of 4e. Even if you didnt like it, or it didnt work right(it doesnt), it wasnt a rehash of what already came before.




Being "new ground" isn't relevant. Being interesting to players of the game _is_. Even if I don't like Psionics, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. (In your case, because it breaks new ground.)

But in the exact same fashion, even if you don't like Essentials, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. Same exact thing. 

The game shouldn't be defined by your preferences alone, in the end. Or mine, or any other one person. The fact it can provide content for a variety of tastes without undermining the balance of the system (which I don't believe anything we've seen in 4E truly does) is a good thing. 



Marshall said:


> E-classes take the same design space, the same ideas, toss out the standard 4e mechanic and start over. If thats not a new edition, I dont know what is




A new edition would be a book that replaced the former material with such content. A book that adds to that content is generally considered a supplement. 



Marshall said:


> but aside from that, the best that could be said for them is that they do the same thing a different way. Does that expand the game? Are your creative juices flowing? Dozens of new PC ideas? Haha.




Er... yes? That's precisely what some folks were asking for. I've enjoyed playing a Sentinel while I wasn't a fan of the wild shape druid. We have one player (who played a shadow Assassin in a previous game) who is thoroughly enjoying an Executioner. We have a player who found the Warpriest domain approach very inspiring, despite having previously sworn he was done with clerics for good. 

You find that the answers to all those questions are "no". Other folks find that they are "yes". It is really that hard to acknowledge that others feel differently from you? 




Marshall said:


> Then you arent paying attention, The number of Dragon articles not dedicated to essentials in the last sixth months can be counted on one hand, HoS is entirely e-class content with only accidental lip-service paid to the Wizard/Cleric and have you seen the Bladesinger? Does disaster mean anything to you?




We had Heroes of Sahdow which was focused on e-content but had a healthy amount of other material. Focusing on the most recent book isn't too odd - Psionic Power was only useful to PHB3, for example. 

We have the new Neverwinter book. I don't have it yet, myself. My understanding is that it has the Bladesinger, which is a new Essentials class/build/etc, and a variety of themes, mostly focused for Essentials again, but not exclusively so. 

And then we have DDI, which has had a small amount of pre-Essentials content. And a... slightly larger amount of Essentials content. In short, not much content in general, and again, a slightly focus on the most recent project. 

Aside from the reduction of content across the board, really no different than the approach taken with PHB2 and PHB3, honestly. So... no, not a disaster. 



Marshall said:


> You dont think that the time wasted on creating the new e-classes wouldnt have been spent improving the other part of the 4e system?




I don't think that time was wasted, though. Again, a company not exclusively producing for you and you alone is not an inherent flaw. As it is, I'd like to see more content, but that is as a whole - things have been slow in general. I wouldn't be guaranteed to be more satisfied with different content in place of Essentials, especially with no way to know that they would have spent that design space solely providing additional support for existing options. As it is, I have gotten quite a few new classes out of it in my own games, so - again, not wasted effort. 



Marshall said:


> Because of the new design of the e-classes, support for the Slayer doesnt carry over, support for the Knight doesnt carry over, support for the Theif, Scout, Hunter, Sentinel....doesnt carry over....




That's not true at all. It is totally possible to produce support that can enhance both the Scout and other Rangers in general (or other PCs in general). It is _also _possible to produce support that only assists the Scout. Just like, say, the dozens of feats for various types of tactical warlords that are useless to anyone outside of those specific builds. 

The problem already existed, and is not in any way tied to Essentials. Aside from the specific lack of support they've given in certain areas (hybrid, etc), which isn't tied into the core of the mechanics themselves.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 21, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Inevitably, it's going to be over and above that variance among classes with similar builds. Daily-less classes aren't anymore perfectly balanced with eachother than AEDU classes are. There are always minor imbalances, no design is perfect. Having two or more structural aproaches to daily resources, though, introduces additional imbalance over and above that background 'noise.'




Greater potential... maybe. But from what I've seen, that potential hasn't manifested - possibly due to more time to understand the system or the more focused review process or greater ease of balancing classes with fewer options. Either way, from what I've seen, the Essentials classes are more balanced at their core with existing classes than we typically have seen in the previous PHBs and supplements that 4E has produced. Which, in term, has balanced out the slight variations possible from the resource disparity. In my opinion, at least.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 21, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> And then we have DDI, which has had a small amount of pre-Essentials content. And a... slightly larger amount of Essentials content. In short, not much content in general, and again, a slightly focus on the most recent project.



I thoroughly agree with MrMyth's post, and would just like to add an additional point to the above: Essentials content doesn't only support Essentials classes. Any power with a level also supports the base class by providing additional power options. Hence, a DDI article on new warpriest domans (for example) also provides encounter attack powers that a templar cleric can take.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 22, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> The work done on the original class hasn't been to show a distinction - it has been to clear up existing areas in need of errata. One may or may not feel the need for that Errata, but basically nothing we've seen of the Class Compendium articles has been in any way tied into Essentials or in response to Essentials - aside from the name change.




I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.



> Which, yes, is silly. And probably did not take the tremendous amount of design resources you seem to believe.




Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out. 



> Ok, I will politely request that when someone disagrees with you - and outright says, "I find that these are a cool mechanic that improves the play experience" - that you not respond by calling their view garbage, and dismissing their position by declaring everything that have argued "inarguable". That is just poor form. I'm not flagging the post right now, because I think you just got heated about a subject you feel strongly about.
> 
> But please, truly at least try and understand - you don't believe that added anything to the play experience. Others do. You _cannot _claim that you _opinion _is "inarguably" correct. If you are truly unwilling to even _acknowledge_ the opinions of those discussing the matter with you... then yeah, we're probably done here.




Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it." 
I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.
The absolute best solution would have been to DELETE the basic attack powers from the game and make it a game term that is attached to at-wills. The idea of a "default power" is also simple to implement if you "feel" a need for it. 
There, every problem you or any of your players have with power declaration is gone and there is no conflicting mechanic to have to deal with.



> That could have been one approach - but, as noted, others find the stances are an easier concept to grok for some players. (At least, that has been _my _personal experience). It genuinely is simpler - for them - to always use one attack and have abilities that modify it - abilities that they can 'fire and forget' - than deal with differently named attacks that need to be _explicitly _chosen every round.




.....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated _only_ because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.



> I get that you don't find it to be that way. I get that you believe that everyone will find stances more complicated than At-Will powers. But that is not the case, and for those folks who feel otherwise, the stance approach is a good one.




No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier. Some peeps may have a problem grokking the classic 4e at-will structure. I've never seen it, and I play with quite a few who cant keep their head on straight from one action to the next, but people come in all shapes and sizes. However, all "stances" accomplished was naming the wrong game element "default". 



> Well, I haven't seen any indications at all that Power Strike is a failure. I have seen that the classes that use it make it more interesting, at higher levels, when new players will have gotten used to it and not find it too complex to deal with additional benefits from the power.




Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!

Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.



> Either way, having it as a default, along with the benefits of its simplicity (which have been covered several times in this thread) are useful for new players. I suppose you could have made it some alternate option to using encounter powers in the normal fashion, but I don't see an _easy _way to do so without redesigning the power system or providing a more complex set of options for players who don't want to deal with that.




...and from post number 1 in this thread I said that the e-classes should have just been a list of pre-selected powers in existing class structure. All your 'defaults' are set AND all the other options are still available. Basically, the Mage and Warpriest are the only e-classes to come close to getting it right. Of course, the Mage went two steps too far and jumped the power curve while the Warpriest had to reset the Clerics class features and lock down the encounter lists.



> Being "new ground" isn't relevant. Being interesting to players of the game _is_. Even if I don't like Psionics, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. (In your case, because it breaks new ground.)




Shrug, they cover concepts that hadnt been done before in this edition _and_ at least tried to be compatible with what came before.



> But in the exact same fashion, even if you don't like Essentials, and feel they failed with the execution of it, it does provide classes that many players are interested in. Same exact thing.
> 
> The game shouldn't be defined by your preferences alone, in the end. Or mine, or any other one person. The fact it can provide content for a variety of tastes without undermining the balance of the system (which I don't believe anything we've seen in 4E truly does) is a good thing.




LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools? 



> A new edition would be a book that replaced the former material with such content.




Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.



> Er... yes? That's precisely what some folks were asking for. I've enjoyed playing a Sentinel while I wasn't a fan of the wild shape druid. We have one player (who played a shadow Assassin in a previous game) who is thoroughly enjoying an Executioner. We have a player who found the Warpriest domain approach very inspiring, despite having previously sworn he was done with clerics for good.




Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class? 
Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement. 
Executioner is a still weak but better take on a badly implemented 4e class with its primary e-nod being the weakest part of it(single encounter).
The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster  Hybrid that needs a lot of help.
The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.



> We had Heroes of Shadow which was focused on e-content but had a healthy amount of other material. Focusing on the most recent book isn't too odd - Psionic Power was only useful to PHB3, for example.
> 
> We have the new Neverwinter book. I don't have it yet, myself. My understanding is that it has the Bladesinger, which is a new Essentials class/build/etc, and a variety of themes, mostly focused for Essentials again, but not exclusively so.




HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.
Neverwinter has a new "Wizard" build, that isnt and e-themes that 4e classes can steal, but again, a dearth of dedicated 4e content.



> I don't think that time was wasted, though. Again, a company not exclusively producing for you and you alone is not an inherent flaw. As it is, I'd like to see more content, but that is as a whole - things have been slow in general. I wouldn't be guaranteed to be more satisfied with different content in place of Essentials, especially with no way to know that they would have spent that design space solely providing additional support for existing options. As it is, I have gotten quite a few new classes out of it in my own games, so - again, not wasted effort.




Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game. Its like designing checkers for chess players. Yes, there are those that want a simpler game and they are played on the same board, but is there really a market for that? And once you find out there isnt one, is it really a good idea to market the new "Blue and Pink!" checkers to the chess players?




> That's not true at all. It is totally possible to produce support that can enhance both the Scout and other Rangers in general (or other PCs in general). It is _also _possible to produce support that only assists the Scout. Just like, say, the dozens of feats for various types of tactical warlords that are useless to anyone outside of those specific builds.




No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the *exact same design space*. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.


----------



## frogged (Aug 22, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> It... explicitly says you can do it in the book. In the FAQ. In WotC's discussions on the website. On what grounds is the opposing viewpoint based?



It's based on the word "choose".


> Whenever you *choose* a new class power, you can  select it from the list presented in this book or you can take a power  of the same class, level, and type (attack or utility) from another  source.



The Warpriest's Encounter attack powers differ from its Daily and Utility powers in that they are not selected by the player but are instead directly granted by class features. Being given a choice when it comes to power selection is very important.

From the Warpriest section of HotFL:


> Level 1: Daily Power
> Benefit: You gain one of the following powers of your choice.
> 
> Level 2: Utility Power
> ...



This is also the same reason why PHB1 Warlocks, Cavaliers, and Blackguards aren't allowed to freely choose At-Will attack powers, even though all of those powers have a class, level, and type.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 22, 2011)

Marshall said:


> I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.



I think you will need to substantiate this remark. Most of the changes I've seen to the cleric's powers are either fixes to powers which are arguably overpowered (I've read at least one thread highlighting a problem with _consecrated ground_), or making the powers more useful to the character (e.g. converting a couple of Strength-based powers to Weapon powers instead of Implement powers since Strength clerics tend to be more weapon-based).



> Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out.



Oh, I'm sure that tweaking the powers takes up resources (the usual errata process would be expected to apply), but the name change? Not as much. The problem with your post was, instead of highlighting mechanical changes which you disagreed with (and your reasons), you chose to focus on the name change. It makes it look like you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.



> I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point
> 
> ...
> 
> Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated _only_ because it was published in the newest book.



I think it's been mentioned before, but statements like these make it seem as if you are dismissing another's opinions and experiences instead of addressing them, and could give others the impression that you are hostile, narrow-minded and unreasonable (IMO, of course). They are great when you are grandstanding in front of a crowd of your own supporters, but they don't really work as persuasive arguments.



> Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!



Because some people do want to keep playing in that mode. They're not all that keen on the fiddly bits and are satisfied to just keep up with and keep playing with their friends.



> Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.



Again, the relevant questions are: How much more power? Enough to be obviously overpowered? How does it compare as an entire package? As I've said before you can't analyze a single element in isolation to the rest.



> LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools?



"Completely" is, IMO, hyperbole. Even from the start, all classes had similarities between the pre-Essentials and the Essentials versions and some scope for sharing utility powers. As for multiclassing Slayer and Cavalier, what would be the point? To pick up fighter and paladin powers? There are feats that already allow you to do that.



> Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.



New options given for the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric. Or are you talking about errata?



> Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class?
> Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement.



I agree that domains didn't require the warpriest. _Smite undead_ could have been presented as an alternative to _turn undead_ for weapon-using clerics. _Holy cleansing_ and _resurrection_ could have been presented as an alternative to the free Ritual Caster feat. Domains could also be an alternate class feature, exchanging Healer's Lore and _divine fortune_ for fixed at-will and encounter powers, a domain-specific Channel Divinity power and the other domain features. The warpriest then becomes a cleric with these pre-selected features. (Wait a minute ... did I just unify the templar and the warpriest under one umbrella cleric class? Hmm... maybe I did.)



> The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster  Hybrid that needs a lot of help.



I think the sentinel is there for people who want to play druids as primal leaders and/or want to play a primal leader but don't like the mechanics or flavor of the shaman. 



> The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.



My answer is: options.



> HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.



"Accidental"? I'm sure it was deliberate. 



> Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game.



I'd call it reaching an untapped market myself. Have you heard of blue ocean strategy? It essentially means innovating in a way that gives your products value to those who were previously non-customers. And perhaps by making these changes, D&D becomes less of a "thinking man's game" and more of an "every man's game". That might not be a bad thing.



> No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the *exact same design space*. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.



Even if the pre-Essentials and Essentials classes don't share some powers, class is not the whole of the character. Game material like generic feats, magic items and themes can support characters of any class.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 22, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it."
> I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.




"Inarguable".  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

In specific, if there is one single person who finds them simpler then you are just plain wrong.  Which is why a single person at one of our tables



> .....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated _only_ because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.




And here you are wrong.  I didn't like Essentials _until I saw it in play._  And saw how much easier_ some_ people find it than classic 4e.  My views are the result of experience and I am defending Essentials precisely because I have seen it improve some peoples play experience.  That you are doing your level best to ignore why I am defending it is a reflection of how much attention you are paying reading rather than writing.



> No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier.




*Actual play experience.* I have seen the results that _some_ people have.  Not all.  But some.  And they do genuinely find the e-classes easier.  I have said this throughout.  Wonder all you like - but that is the answer.



> Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!




And here you speak as if complexity is a goal in its own right.  It simply isn't.  Believe it or not some people get nothing out of the extra complexity.  I know this isn't true for you.  Or for me.  But not everyone shares my tastes (if they did someone would have had the Slayer class strangled at birth).

And there's a world of difference between levelling up your character for 11 levels and learning them inside out and starting a new PC in paragon tier.



> Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.




And by not having dailies you have less.  It comes out in the wash assuming multiple encounter days.  The Knight can not touch a Fighter with Storm of Blades for damage in his daily encounter.  That's part of the gap that this needs to close.



> LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes.




You mean in the way a Battlemind is incompatable with an Invoker?  Oh Noes!



> They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage?




It's called a Hybrid Wizard.  Hint: The difference between a Wizard and a Mage is minor.  There should probably be Hybrid Talent for mage schools -- but that's all it would take.  The Mage is just a very slightly tweaked wizard (and if it wasn't for the lack of Ritual Caster, it would be conceptually superior in every way - schools are so much more evocative than implements).

Also if you want something that's in 4e that's broken and should be removed, the Hybrid rules are top of the list.  Most of what it adds to the game is a mix of stinky cheese and crap characters.  Claiming that something's incompatable because it doesn't take part in the most broken part of the game is ... dubuious at best.



> The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.




Significantly less _for you_.  They add things for people who are not you.  People who like stances.  People who like clear thematics to guide their roleplaying and want to be given easy routes through the melange of options.



> HoS has accidental support for 4e classes, in that WIZ and CLR can steal from the Mage and Warpriest.




If you believe that's accidental, there's a bridge you might be interested in buying.



> Neverwinter has a new "Wizard" build, that isnt and e-themes that 4e classes can steal, but again, a dearth of dedicated 4e content.




New classes that do things you couldn't do before _are_ new 4e content.  Although I was disappointed to see that all the attack powers for the Bladesinger were reprints.



> Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game.




Not only insulting, but flat wrong.  Try and play a Knight or Thief without thinking and you will be at best mediocre.

And 4e is a RPG.  Not a tactical skirmish wargame.  Warmachine and Malifaux both do that job a lot better.  More complicated and harder is not an end in its own right.  If anything it's a negative; you want rules to be as complicated as needed to do the job and not more so.  And what some people want to think about isn't abstract board based tactics.  It's plans.  Like how to sneak into that temple - the fight only happens when something goes wrong.


----------



## Nullzone (Aug 22, 2011)

5 pages and Marshall still doesn't grasp the basic concept that people had/have issues with the "spellbook" design of the original Martial classes?

Was I the only one who heard the myriad of "Why does my fighter have a bunch of different powers to use every turn? He's not a wizard!" from people at release?

Is it really so hard to understand that the Slayer and so forth were a direct response to that complaint and an attempt to streamline the option base turn-over-turn?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 22, 2011)

Marshall said:


> I have no problem with errata that is errata, what was done to the Cleric was to remake the class in an image that wasnt a threat to the viability of the Warpriest.




How so? The Errata added a few elements for the Str-Melee Cleric (which, if anything, _presents _a 'threat' to the Warpriest). It toned down some of the dailies that were huge bursts and more 'controllery' than 'leadery'. I don't necessarily agree all of the adjustments were ideal, but they all seemed rooted in criticism that emerged long before Essentials. Nothing about them seemed related to preventing 'threats' to the Warpriest. 



Marshall said:


> Apparently it took quite a bit of resources since it got sent out for publication, cancelled, re-hashed, released, recalled, rehashed again and re-released and still didnt cover any of the real problems with the class until another Dragon article came out.




Again - the core of the Class Compendium and everything in it was, initially, to simply reproduce the PHB classes with some new errata. The amount of content related to Essentials was the name changes... and the handful of feats/multi-classing material for the E-classes. 

Those elements are the only resources 'drained' by Essentials. I see no indication that all the errata for the other classes, which wasn't tied to Essentials at all, would not have happened just the same with or without Essentials. 



Marshall said:


> Sure I can, since you havent addressed any of my points beyond saying "I have a player who likes it."
> I dont care if he does, and its utterly irrelevant to proving the point. The way it was done is, and I mean this literally, inarguably more complicated and harder to understand than the method I proposed, for reasons innumerated earlier in the thread.




And we have given numerous responses to those reasons. You can feel our reasons are bad ones - that's fine. But claiming that your position is _inarguable _when people are _arguing with you_ is just poor form. You don't get to simply declare yourself undeniably right. People will, in fact, deny that. 



Marshall said:


> The absolute best solution would have been to DELETE the basic attack powers from the game and make it a game term that is attached to at-wills. The idea of a "default power" is also simple to implement if you "feel" a need for it.




For myself, my ideal system would be more like Essentials, and far more focused with having a basic attack and abilities that you simply attach on top of it at any given time. 

Strangely enough, two different people - you and me - have different ideas of what makes an ideal game. 



Marshall said:


> .....see above.... Yes, I'm telling you that you are wrong and defending a system that is needlessly complicated _only_ because it was published in the newest book. It doesnt actually accomplish anything other than adding complexity.




Many people find the AEDU system more complicated. You can feel free to feel otherwise, but insisting that our opinions aren't valid... still isn't a reasonable form of debate. 



Marshall said:


> No. I wonder why you believe that spending multiple actions and using multiple game mechanics to accomplish what is easily handled by one that already existed before the publication of the e-classes is easier. Some peeps may have a problem grokking the classic 4e at-will structure. I've never seen it, and I play with quite a few who cant keep their head on straight from one action to the next, but people come in all shapes and sizes. However, all "stances" accomplished was naming the wrong game element "default".




Your argument against stances is that it involves "spending multiple actions". My experience is that those actions don't actually need to be used all that often. More importantly, the benefits I see are in the idea of powers that don't need to be chosen after the fact, don't present the player with an array of choices that _must _be considered (rather than _can _be considered), and, in the specific implementation, allow for several easy and simple benefits for those who want them.  



Marshall said:


> Aha! Here's the other problem with the e-classes. You hit level 11, you know how to play the game, why the heck are you still playing the tutorial? Turn on 'campaign mode' and play the whole game already!




I'm... not sure what you mean by this. Whether playing with an Essentials class or not, your character is more complicated at level 30 than at level 1. Essentials tones it down for those who want that, but still assumes some new elements can be added over the levels. How is that a problem?

Again, you seem very insistent on calling out stuff as problematic in Essentials while ignoring the exact same elements existing for everyone else. 



Marshall said:


> Back to PS, the whole point of Weapon Specialization is that your basic PS attacks arent supplying the power level that the game expects you to achieve at level 7+. The PROBLEM with WS is that by adding those abilities to PS, you now have a bundle of encounter powers that add up to MORE power than you are expected to achieve by that level.




I haven't seen anything to indicate this. Encounter Powers, as you reach higher levels, tend to both increase in damage and add extra effects. WS let's Power Strike do the same thing, and typically does not give exceptionally powerful benefits compared to the conditions inflicted by standard Encounter powers. 



Marshall said:


> ...and from post number 1 in this thread I said that the e-classes should have just been a list of pre-selected powers in existing class structure. All your 'defaults' are set AND all the other options are still available.




That _existed_. In the PHB - set builds for new players. And they were largely useless. Hence, why I'm glad Essentials went ahead and provided a format that addressed real concerns of players who didn't have an easy time with the AEDU system. 



Marshall said:


> Shrug, they cover concepts that hadnt been done before in this edition _and_ at least tried to be compatible with what came before.




Which is what makes it interesting to you. To others, it wasn't of interest, while the new perspective on classic builds - presented by Essentials - _was_. I just don't think it reasonable to declare that WotC should only produce that which interests you and you alone.



Marshall said:


> LOL. E-classes were completely incompatible with 4e classes. They still are mostly incompatible even after the Dragon MC/Hybrid articles. Where is the Hybrid Mage? Hybrid Slayer? MC Slayer? MC Cavalier? Why does it take 1 feat for the Mage to pick up Wizard Implements but it takes 3(5?) for a Wiz to pick up Mage Schools?




Yep, I feel that the lack of multiclassing and hybrid options has been WotC's biggest failure with Essentials!

That doesn't make them incompatible with the rest of the game. They are balanced so that they can be played alongside other characters. They have some ability via feats to still dabble in other classes and abilities. The lack of pure multiclassing in char-gen is a shame, but there is no inconsistency or incompatability or imbalance at the actual table, which is what matters. 



Marshall said:


> Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric all replaced. Check.




Replaced? Your PHB Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric are no longer allowed in play? They have been removed from the system? Banned, overwritten by Essentials? 

Wait, no, that hasn't happened. Hence, not a new edition. Not even a half-edition like 3.5. In fact, just a new set of options, just like the PHB2 and PHB3. 



Marshall said:


> Really, what do domains have that required the Warpriest class?
> Nothing. The whole Domain concept could have templated onto the base cleric and actually been a supplement instead of a replacement.




Isn't that basically what they did? 



Marshall said:


> The sentinel is just a mistake, writ large, its a Cleric/Beastmaster Hybrid that needs a lot of help.




And yet, I'm enjoying playing one, like the mechanics of it, and finding it quite effective, and an interesting variation on the wild shape druid. You don't like the class - that doesn't mean it is a mistake. 



Marshall said:


> The question is what do these classes add to the game? The answer is : Significantly less than just expanding the existing classes would have.




For you. Not for others. I would take the Sentinel a hundred times over compared to another article for clerics or fighters or wizards. 



Marshall said:


> Nice straw man, but the company is designing content for an even smaller segment of the market, ie "those that dont want to think" in a thinking mans game. Its like designing checkers for chess players. Yes, there are those that want a simpler game and they are played on the same board, but is there really a market for that? And once you find out there isnt one, is it really a good idea to market the new "Blue and Pink!" checkers to the chess players?




Yeah, I'd say you are getting into insulting territory here. 

I suspect, rather, that Essentials is aimed at a variety of crowds. And WotC is counting on also having others who aren't the ideal audience, but still willing to try the new classes. As in my case - I'm fine in general with the AEDU structure. But I also like trying something different and very much enjoy playing a Sentinel. 

I'd be disappointed if WotC produced only Essentials content from here on out. Fortunately, I've seen no evidence that that is the case. 



Marshall said:


> No its not, the classes have almost nothing in common despite filling the *exact same design space*. You've got two versions of the same character, that play nearly the same way, but use different rules and terminology to get there so that one cant use rules/enhancements for the other. There is only a small niche that they conflate and that niche greatly favors one or the other all the time.




How is that harder to support than Archer vs Melee vs Beastmaster Ranger? Or the various flavors of Warlord? Etc. 

There are enough similarities that they can both be supported. Just like an article for Warlords provided dozens of feats - some of them useful for all Warlords, some aimed at specific builds. Same exact thing could be done that supported both the Ranger and the Scout and the Hunter. Not as smoothly, perhaps - but less so than supporting most new classes alongside the old ones, honestly.


----------



## technoextreme (Aug 22, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> 5 pages and Marshall still doesn't grasp the basic concept that people had/have issues with the "spellbook" design of the original Martial classes?
> 
> Was I the only one who heard the myriad of "Why does my fighter have a bunch of different powers to use every turn? He's not a wizard!" from people at release?
> 
> Is it really so hard to understand that the Slayer and so forth were a direct response to that complaint and an attempt to streamline the option base turn-over-turn?



Actually the spellbook design of the original Martial classes pretty much mimicked the design of all the other martial classes in 3.5E except the fighter.  Its just that its more overtly obvious in 4E while in 3.5E its a bit more subtle to realize that not much has changed.


FireLance said:


> Arguably, Essentials _is_ "cranking out character options" with experimental, if not unneeded, mechanics.   Really, experimentation and innovation is experimentation and  innovation, whether for an AEDU class or classes which break the AEDU  mold. If the designers come up with a new innovation which I don't like,  I'd be certain to say that and explain why (in measured, respectful  tones, of course). However, on the whole, I think that trying out new  stuff can only improve the game in the long run.



Really a lot of the newer essentials classes are using mechanics that have all ready been introduced in the base material.  Stances have been around since the original Player's Handbook.  Specialized movement powers are nothing new.


Marshall said:


> Quite a few, not only did they waste a crapload of design time creating a  pale reflection of an existing class, they had to go back and redefine  the orginal class to show a distinction. Not only are they wasting time  on the Warpriest, they are wasting time renaming the Cleric into the  Templar.



The Warpriest is a Cleric class that is designed to work with a specific theme.  While some of the builds are a bit lackluster others easily outshine a lot of the leader classes and not just the cleric.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 22, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> Really a lot of the newer essentials classes are using mechanics that have all ready been introduced in the base material.  Stances have been around since the original Player's Handbook.  Specialized movement powers are nothing new.



To a certain extent, this is true. Some psionic classes are able to use the same encounter power repeatedly in the same encounter. Even the lack of daily attack powers for the Essentials martial classes was present in previous editions of the game. To me, the innovation is being able to do all this in a reasonably balanced manner.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 23, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> How so? The Errata added a few elements for the Str-Melee Cleric (which, if anything, _presents _a 'threat' to the Warpriest). It toned down some of the dailies that were huge bursts and more 'controllery' than 'leadery'. I don't necessarily agree all of the adjustments were ideal, but they all seemed rooted in criticism that emerged long before Essentials. Nothing about them seemed related to preventing 'threats' to the Warpriest.




The errata turned the Cleric into a healer with a weapon, or a healer with a holy symbol. The Warpriest is the 'Cleric who Fights', ironically what the historical Templars were. 



> Again - the core of the Class Compendium and everything in it was, initially, to simply reproduce the PHB classes with some new errata. The amount of content related to Essentials was the name changes... and the handful of feats/multi-classing material for the E-classes.
> 
> Those elements are the only resources 'drained' by Essentials. I see no indication that all the errata for the other classes, which wasn't tied to Essentials at all, would not have happened just the same with or without Essentials.




Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled. You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right?



> And we have given numerous responses to those reasons. You can feel our reasons are bad ones - that's fine. But claiming that your position is _inarguable _when people are _arguing with you_ is just poor form. You don't get to simply declare yourself undeniably right. People will, in fact, deny that.




Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.



> For myself, my ideal system would be more like Essentials, and far more focused with having a basic attack and abilities that you simply attach on top of it at any given time.




Which might work for weapon classes but fails when you get to implements, which would be why the original Devs went with the uniform AEDU system. Now if you want to add that kind of thinking to the current game you get Bladespells _as first level at-wills_ that stack onto a class-feature power ala Eldritch Blast or Eldritch Strike(without the slide). Again, you have a great idea for a class feature attached to lazy designwork for the rest of the class. (and the third attempt to fill the Swordmages design space _while not fixing the relatively minor problems of the SM_)



> Strangely enough, two different people - you and me - have different ideas of what makes an ideal game.




I think our ideas of fun are closer than you believe. I'd rather see the game they have spent 3yrs developing(and I've spent hundreds of $$ on) grow instead of a stealth reset that doesnt address many of the issues the classes actually have and instead creates new issues to deal with.



> Many people find the AEDU system more complicated. You can feel free to feel otherwise, but insisting that our opinions aren't valid... still isn't a reasonable form of debate.




Uh huh, but youre not making an apples to apples comparison. Those many people could have been satisfied by simplifying the AEDU system instead of creating the BASPSWS, BATBSCA, etc, etc systems. So repeatedly saying "He LIKES it! Hey, Mikey!" isnt contributing to the conversation.



> Your argument against stances is that it involves "spending multiple actions". My experience is that those actions don't actually need to be used all that often. More importantly, the benefits I see are in the idea of powers that don't need to be chosen after the fact, don't present the player with an array of choices that _must _be considered (rather than _can _be considered), and, in the specific implementation, allow for several easy and simple benefits for those who want them.




Huh?!? You just said you _liked_ powers that were chosen after the fact! Do you mean 'before the fact'? If so, then what is so much better about choosing a full action before the attack what kind of bonus you're going to get with the attack? 
IOW, How is asking "Did you want to stay in Hammer Hands stance for that attack?" any better than "What power did you use?"
And, again, thats assuming that knowing you have a problem player you havent already formed a gentlemans agreement on a default at-will.



> I'm... not sure what you mean by this. Whether playing with an Essentials class or not, your character is more complicated at level 30 than at level 1. Essentials tones it down for those who want that, but still assumes some new elements can be added over the levels. How is that a problem?
> 
> Again, you seem very insistent on calling out stuff as problematic in Essentials while ignoring the exact same elements existing for everyone else.




Not so much a problem as pointing out that the new on-ramp to the game is actually leading to a different highway. 



> I haven't seen anything to indicate this. Encounter Powers, as you reach higher levels, tend to both increase in damage and add extra effects. WS let's Power Strike do the same thing, and typically does not give exceptionally powerful benefits compared to the conditions inflicted by standard Encounter powers.




Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike.



> That _existed_. In the PHB - set builds for new players. And they were largely useless. Hence, why I'm glad Essentials went ahead and provided a format that addressed real concerns of players who didn't have an easy time with the AEDU system.




Not beyond level 1 it didnt.  



> Which is what makes it interesting to you. To others, it wasn't of interest, while the new perspective on classic builds - presented by Essentials - _was_. I just don't think it reasonable to declare that WotC should only produce that which interests you and you alone.




Not what I said. Psionics doesnt interest me in the least, outside of new concepts on the game. _Essentials_ doesnt provide that, it goes over the same concepts that are already out there. 



> Yep, I feel that the lack of multiclassing and hybrid options has been WotC's biggest failure with Essentials!
> 
> That doesn't make them incompatible with the rest of the game. They are balanced so that they can be played alongside other characters. They have some ability via feats to still dabble in other classes and abilities. The lack of pure multiclassing in char-gen is a shame, but there is no inconsistency or incompatability or imbalance at the actual table, which is what matters.




What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you arent playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly.




> And yet, I'm enjoying playing one, like the mechanics of it, and finding it quite effective, and an interesting variation on the wild shape druid. You don't like the class - that doesn't mean it is a mistake.




Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.



> For you. Not for others. I would take the Sentinel a hundred times over compared to another article for clerics or fighters or wizards.
> 
> 
> > I agree about the Fighter and Wizard and I'd add Warlock, Cleric still needs help but is a low priority compared to Swordmage, Sorcerer, Runepriest, Seeker, Artificer.....ya know, at least a quarter of those 22 classes that have less than a quarter of the gross number of powers that a Fighter has and less than 1/10th the number of actually useful powers.
> ...


----------



## Vael (Aug 23, 2011)

> I agree about the Fighter and Wizard and I'd add Warlock, Cleric still needs help but is a low priority compared to Swordmage, Sorcerer, Runepriest, Seeker, Artificer.....ya know, at least a quarter of those 22 classes that have less than a quarter of the gross number of powers that a Fighter has and less than 1/10th the number of actually useful powers.
> 
> Instead we got 2 new Fighters, 5 or 6 new Wizards, a half dozen new Warlocks, a couple new Rangerlike classes and a whole slew of new options for the OVERsupported classes.
> 
> Thats a waste of designers time.




I'll agree and disagree. Yes, support for some of the other classes would be good, but it's not a waste of designer's time to provide support for Fighters or Wizards.

First, some classes just more have a bigger concept than others. I don't expect Artificers to have the same number of powers as a Fighter ... because Fighters have a larger archetype and history than the Artificer. Some classes are a bit more niche than others, they have a narrower scope. And that's okay.

Second ... the primary purpose of Essentials was to provide a new way to access DnD. PHB's aren't always stocked in stores, and PH2 and PH3 did not reprint the core game mechanics. So if you're going to provide a new method to get into DnD, you're going to go take a second look at core concepts, like Fighters and Wizards. It's just logical.



> Because any support for each of those builds is still available for the others to use and in the case of the Archer/Melee Ranger several of those powers work differently depending on whose using them. Scout powers arent usable by Hunters who arent usable by any Ranger who isnt compatible with the Scout. E-classes are a separate system.




Complete bull. The Scout writeup in HOFK has a total 26 powers with the following breakdown:

- 8 At-will stances (5 of which are shared with the Hunter)
- Power Strike
- Dual Weapon Attack
- Reactive Shift (also shared with the Hunter)
- Scout's Stride (Doesn't really count, as it's a Paragon Path utility)
- 14 Utility powers (some also copied in the Hunter section)

More than half of the class's powers are completely cross-compatible with the other Rangers.

I'd point out that right now the Compendium lists 27 2nd level utility powers for the Ranger, all of which are useable by the PHB Ranger, the Hunter and the Scout. Sure, not all of them are useful to all of them, but do you complain about powers designed only for Beastmaster Rangers?


----------



## FireLance (Aug 23, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.



Actually, the argument is that having multiple decision points but less options per decision point makes choices easier than a single decision point with more options. The nature of the decisions also changes: shifting the decision point on whether to use an encounter power until after an attack has hit instead of before committing to an action also makes it easier for some people to choose. 



> Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike.



Being able to use their highest level encounter power multiple times is not in itself a sign of imbalance (the psionic augmentation classes in PH3 could effectively do the same, for example). Again, you need to compare the overall effectiveness of each class as a whole. If the knight and slayer have better encounter powers to make up for their lack of daily powers, that to me is a sign of good balance, not bad balance.



> What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you arent playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly.



There's an interesting philosophical question: at which point does an expansion to the game cause it to become a new game. For example, would you consider Knightmare Chess to be a new game, or an expansion to a traditional chess game? Similarly, would chess played with some checker pieces replacing the pawns be a new game, or a variant or expansion of chess?



> Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.



There are some players, who have fond memories of healer druids with animal companions from previous editions, who would say that this is how the druid should have been from the start.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 23, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled.




It flopped because too many people _already_ had the PHB and it was effectively to be a reprint.  Bad idea from the start.



> You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right?




All hail Marshall!  Everything must suit Marshall's taste!  Wizards of the Coast should develop everything for Marshall!

Seriously, I know some people who much prefer the e-formats.  I know some who much prefer the old formats.



> Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.




And this just shows that you have not even troubled yourself to take the time to read what you are arguing against.  It's not the number of the decision points, it's the size at the decision point.  

To use a very simple analogy, here are 1000 papers and you want the right one.  There are two possible methods suggested for finding them.  First you can dump them in a heap and wade through all 1000 papers.  Alternatively the papers are stored in ten different drawers, each drawer having a different category of doccuments.  Then in each drawer there are ten different doccuments.

In Marshallland it's easiest to just wade into the 1000 papers.  After all that's where the fewest decision points lie.  You just make one choice between the thousand.  And in Marshallland this is "inarguable".

In my world we have and use filing systems for a very good reason.  The only question is whether the decision space of 4e is large enough to require a filing system or whether the filing cabinets and folders have too high an overhead.  And the tactical decision space of D&D is right on that cusp - I've already mentioned the seven plus or minus two rule (which is right where the number of powers lies).  And that some people are not so good at others at automatically breaking down these choices, which is why I mentioned the twenty rather than five and four options.

But by all means go on and not bother to read and understand the opposing viewpoint and then claim that your assertions are "inarguable".


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 23, 2011)

Marshall said:


> The errata turned the Cleric into a healer with a weapon, or a healer with a holy symbol. The Warpriest is the 'Cleric who Fights', ironically what the historical Templars were.




I don't see anything in the errata that actually causes that. They enhanced the role of the melee-Str cleric - how is that not a 'cleric who fights'?



Marshall said:


> Uh, No. The class compendium was specifically marketed as rehashing of the old classes [/i]in the e-class format[/i] which promptly flopped and caused the book to be canceled. You have noticed all the redundant paragraph of fluffy inanities that arent even interesting to read attached to all the e-content, right?




It was presented in the e-class format, yes, because they felt that in general a certain part of the community wanted a change in presentation. (Which was correct, though I'm not sure the specific execution was necessarily an improvement.) Again, I think they were trying to make a book that appealed to 3 different crowds, and realized that even with that, it still wouldn't be a great seller - hence shifting it to online content. 



Marshall said:


> Your reasons are 'incorrect', not bad. Bad is a judgement call, Incorrect is supported by facts. Inarguable is the correct term to use since there is no reasonable case to be made that 2-3 decision points on one action is less complex than 1.




The argument being made is that there _aren't _always 2-3 decision points for e-martial builds - and even when there are, they are often quicker and simpler to make than a single choice from a much larger number of options. _And _that, in the absence of those decisions, the class still operates at nearly full effectiveness and is easier for choices to be made after the fact, rather than halting everything beforehand. 

All of those are legitimate reasons to prefer the Essentials approach (in terms of simplicity). I'm willing to accept that you find the standard AEDU mechanics simpler, but if you truly aren't willing to accept that others feel different - if you believe you have some sort of mathematical proof that all of us are 'fooling ourselves' and that our experiences are invalid - then I think the conversation is done here. 



Marshall said:


> Which might work for weapon classes but fails when you get to implements, which would be why the original Devs went with the uniform AEDU system.




Actually, I visualized the system originally specifically for casters, and the idea that rather than having Scorching Burst as an At-Will, Fireball as a mid-heroic daily, Fire Burst as a high-heroic encounter, and assorted similar abilities throughout the levels... that you could instead have a standardized template that levels automatically. 

But, again, it is just a concept for a system, and I get that it wouldn't necessarily be to everyone's liking. 



Marshall said:


> I think our ideas of fun are closer than you believe. I'd rather see the game they have spent 3yrs developing(and I've spent hundreds of $$ on) grow instead of a stealth reset that doesnt address many of the issues the classes actually have and instead creates new issues to deal with.




I am in total agreement that if no future support comes out for pre-Essentials material, WotC has made a mistake. As it is, we've seen no indication that is the case. We _have _seen that support - in Heroes of Shadow, in DDI articles. In smaller quantities than Essentials support, because Essentials is the most recent release - nothing odd about that. 

More importantly, we have not seen a reset - the prior material has not been replaced - and many folks find that the Essentials books _do indeed address the issues they had_. 

You feel differently. Again, this is fine. But your insistence that other folks who agree with what they did here, find that it did simplify things and address their concerns, and was a good purchase for them... your insistence that all these folks are just lying to themselves, are misguided or wrong or incorrect or whatever... is actually rather insulting. The insistence that no one else's views about the game matter, except for your own, is simply not useful for any reasonable conversation. 



Marshall said:


> Uh huh, but youre not making an apples to apples comparison. Those many people could have been satisfied by simplifying the AEDU system instead of creating the BASPSWS, BATBSCA, etc, etc systems. So repeatedly saying "He LIKES it! Hey, Mikey!" isnt contributing to the conversation.




I've yet to see a proposed simplification of the AEDU solution that would have actually addressed some of these concerns. Your own proposed options, honestly, only help address the issues you have - none of them have helped in the way that Essentials has, which very directly addressed the issues I've seen in play. 

The point about folks liking it is in response to your absolute insistence that Essentials screwed up. That it made things more complex and that another option would have been preferable. In the end, all you can claim is that another option would have been better _for you_. We have other folks who are satisfied by Essentials and don't find your claims to be true, and I suspect would not have had their concerns addressed by your hypothetical alternate product.  



Marshall said:


> Huh?!? You just said you _liked_ powers that were chosen after the fact! Do you mean 'before the fact'? If so, then what is so much better about choosing a full action before the attack what kind of bonus you're going to get with the attack?




Because he could have chosen that bonus _at the start of combat _and doesn't need to choose it again in future rounds. And because...



Marshall said:


> IOW, How is asking "Did you want to stay in Hammer Hands stance for that attack?" any better than "What power did you use?"




...what often happens is that players will just roll in and roll the dice, and asking, "You were in Hammer Hands stance, right?" is worlds easier than asking, "Was that... an at-will? Or a basic? Or an encounter? You didn't decide beforehand, huh? I... I guess you can choose now, sure."



Marshall said:


> And, again, thats assuming that knowing you have a problem player you havent already formed a gentlemans agreement on a default at-will.




Because I find it easier to have the rules handle that default rather than need a gentleman's agreement. Because the gentleman's agreement doesn't help with encounters coming into play, and thus requires the player operating at a handicap. Because some players just forget about the agreement, or don't want to make it in the first place because it feels like you are playing their character (while asking about what stance is on feels like the power remains with them). Because the default at-will runs into confusion when charging and OAs come into play. 

You find that the default at-will approach would work for your players. For myself, the stance approach is better. As I said before - if you genuinely can't accept that other folks can legitimately have different preferences than you, then I am willing to let the conversation end here. 



Marshall said:


> Not so much a problem as pointing out that the new on-ramp to the game is actually leading to a different highway.




What different highway? Again, the builds are balanced so they can play alongside existing ones. And still operate in the same system. There is no different highway at all.  



Marshall said:


> Encounter powers dont level up by themselves. Non-e classes generally have three tiers of encounters. (Yes, encounter power level assignments are the worst balanced part of 4e) E-classes on the other hand, end up with what amounts to multiple uses of their highest level encounter. Slayers and Knights frex end up with three uses of a Reliable 5[W] + effect + stance + whatever PS buffing feats they can throw on. They arent lacking in Daily powers, they are hiding inside Power Strike.




Well... yes, that's by design. The reliability and consistency of the stances+Power Strike (plus other static abilities) balance out the lack of dailies, and the lack of choice among encounters (thus removing them from the most potent encounters, such as multi-attack powers, multi-target powers, and those that inflict crippling conditions or provide powerful buffs.) 

What are you arguing here? Before you claimed that they were hopelessly weak. Now you are saying their powers are overwhelmingly strong. Which is it?



Marshall said:


> Not beyond level 1 it didnt.




True. And yet, level 1 is where new players are entering the game. Did those pre-made builds help new players in _anyone's _experience? Maybe to some small extent. But it didn't address the concerns I've seen in actual play, and I don't think your proposal to just extend that across the line would, either. 

I'm not saying I'm against it entirely - I do like the idea of it as a whole. But it would mainly just address the complexities of building a character, not playing one. Hence, Essentials was the better approach. 



Marshall said:


> Not what I said. Psionics doesnt interest me in the least, outside of new concepts on the game. _Essentials_ doesnt provide that, it goes over the same concepts that are already out there.




To rephrase, then: You think Psionics were a worthy addition to the game because they added new concepts and mechanics. Others feel that Essentials is a worthy addition to the game because it provides an interesting new perspective on classic builds, new mechanical approaches, brings back classic elements, and addresses some concerns about complexity in the game. 

None of those reasons are valid for you - fair enough. That doesn't mean you get to declare them invalid for everyone else. 



Marshall said:


> What happens when you replace 1/2 the pawns on a chess board with checkers? They both play on the same board, but you aren't playing the same game even though they move the same way, attack the same way and play similarly.




Sorry, but that really isn't a valid analogy. The chess pieces operate by certain rules - which govern how they move, how they can claim other pieces, etc. Checker pieces have different rules for movement and claiming pieces. They _don't _move the same way, attack the same way, and play similarly - thats _why _you aren't playing the same game. 

Essentials characters move, attack, and interact with the game in the exact same fashion as other classes. Thus, you are indeed playing the same game. Nothing I've seen in the Essentials books indicates any problems with them playing alongside pre-Essentials characters, and my experience - and pretty much everyone else's I've heard - is that there are no problems with them playing alongside each other in actual games. 



Marshall said:


> Its not an alternative to a Druid, its a Sentinel. Some form of Striker with leader secondary tendencies.




Perhaps you are confused by what I mean by Druid. I mean: A nature based caster with a variety of primal abilities. One of these versions has more in the way of spells along with the ability to assume the form of a beast. My sentinel has an animal companion, the ability to beat folks up with a staff, and can summon even more animals to overwhelm my foes. 

I'm not sure what you are looking for in the game. For me, a flavorful class with new mechanics and interesting abilities is just the sort of thing I'm happy to have WotC create.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 24, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Actually, the argument is that having multiple decision points but less options per decision point makes choices easier than a single decision point with more options. The nature of the decisions also changes: shifting the decision point on whether to use an encounter power until after an attack has hit instead of before committing to an action also makes it easier for some people to choose.




1. You're increasing the number of decision points. 
You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances. Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase. "I guess, you just attack with what you used last round." works just as well with at-wills as it does with stances. Now that you actually hit...New Decision Point! PS or not to PS, that is the question!
2. You're _increasing_ the number of options over most of those decision points.
On top of everything else that minor actions can do, now you add to that pool. Yes, you have no option past who to attack with your attacks actions, but the powers that reduce that level of choice _arent restricted to the e-classes_ and choosing between PS1, PS3 or PS7 is just as easy. Then you get to move action powers...
3. You're drastically overestimating the number of options an AEDU class has. 
Most AEDU class dailys arent considered every round or even every combat, most encounter powers are used high to low. Yes, you can make decisions during charcreation to make those complex decisions. If you do, then you cant complain that the character is hard to play.



> Being able to use their highest level encounter power multiple times is not in itself a sign of imbalance (the psionic augmentation classes in PH3 could effectively do the same, for example). Again, you need to compare the overall effectiveness of each class as a whole. If the knight and slayer have better encounter powers to make up for their lack of daily powers, that to me is a sign of good balance, not bad balance.




Actually, no they couldnt. Thats why the higher level Psionic at-wills cost more PP to augment. Again, poor power design crashed this system not a failure of the underlying system.
Looking at the Slayer specifically, its got ridiculously powerful encounters compared to what a standard FTR could field and other than a few gold level powers in the list, those encounters are better than the 4e class can throw out as Dailys, especially if they keep throwing out boosting feats. What would be a decent feat for a AEDU class is amped by being able to apply multiple times to the e-class.



> There are some players, who have fond memories of healer druids with animal companions from previous editions, who would say that this is how the druid should have been from the start.




Healer Druids? What healer druids? Just because the class had CLW didnt make it a healer. Now if you had said Summoner Druid, I could by that. Even then, the class was always a spellcaster. Where did the weapon come from?


----------



## Matt James (Aug 24, 2011)

You guys are being baited by a troll. He'll keep responding with parses of your entire post. If something is plausible, he can invoke a response. Otherwise, he is unwilling to accept any compromise in the debate. My niece does something similar with her hands over her ears and eyes shut.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 24, 2011)

Matt James said:


> You guys are being baited by a troll. He'll keep responding with parses of your entire post. If something is plausible, he can invoke a response. Otherwise, he is unwilling to accept any compromise in the debate. My niece does something similar with her hands over her ears and eyes shut.



I'm perfectly fine with that. My participation in this discussion is not entirely for my benefit or for his. Others who read the thread can decide for themselves whose arguments are more reasonable.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 24, 2011)

Marshall said:


> 1. You're increasing the number of decision points.
> You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances. Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase. "I guess, you just attack with what you used last round." works just as well with at-wills as it does with stances. Now that you actually hit...New Decision Point! PS or not to PS, that is the question!



It may seem strange to you, but some find that choosing not to switch when there is no reason to change is easier (and faster) than choosing between two options that are presented as apparently equal. The need to spend a minor action to change stances is actually a _benefit_ to (quickly) deciding to just keep doing what you were doing the last round, because it takes more "effort" to change. It prevents a Buridan's Ass type scenario by making the choices slightly unequal. Yes, you can have rules of thumb that advise the player to choose a default at-will attack, but the core way in which the slayer plays already avoids the need for that.

Now, encounter powers are a different matter. At low (1st and 2nd) levels, the decision is more when to use an encounter power rather than which encounter power to use. The potential problem is that the player ends up not using an encounter power at all because he is unsure what would be a good time to use it. (There is a related joke about women and a 5-storey hotel that I will SBLOCK at the end of this section.) By creating a trigger that prompts the player to use his encounter power (when he hits) the process of choosing when to use an encounter power is made easier and faster (at least, for some people). 

[SBLOCK]*5-Story Hotel*

A group of girlfriends is on vacation when they see a 5-story hotel with a sign that reads "For Women Only", and they go in.

The bouncer explains to them how it works. "We have 5 floors. Go up floor by floor, and once you find what you are looking for, you can stay there. It's easy to decide since each floor has a sign telling you what's inside."

They start going up and on the first floor the sign reads, "All the men on this floor are short and plain." The friends laugh and without hesitation move on to the next floor. 

The sign on the second floor reads, "All the men here are short and handsome." Still, this isn't good enough, so the friends continue on up. 

They reach the third floor and the sign reads, "All the men here are tall and plain." They still want to do better, and so, knowing there are still two floors left, they continue on up. 

On the fourth floor, the sign is perfect. "All the men here are tall and handsome." The women get all excited and they realize that there is still one floor left. They head on up to the fifth floor. 

On the fifth floor they find a sign that reads, "There are no men here... and there is no way to please a woman."[/SBLOCK]


> 2. You're _increasing_ the number of options over most of those decision points.
> On top of everything else that minor actions can do, now you add to that pool. Yes, you have no option past who to attack with your attacks actions, but the powers that reduce that level of choice _arent restricted to the e-classes_ and choosing between PS1, PS3 or PS7 is just as easy. Then you get to move action powers...



Yes, there are individually more decision points, and sometimes the number of options increases because there previously was no decision point. However, the overall process of making decsions becomes easier and faster (again, for some people). Really, you have to look at the big picture. It sometimes seems that you are so focused on finding fault with individual components that you fail to see how it all fits together.



> 3. You're drastically overestimating the number of options an AEDU class has.
> Most AEDU class dailys arent considered every round or even every combat, most encounter powers are used high to low. Yes, you can make decisions during charcreation to make those complex decisions. If you do, then you cant complain that the character is hard to play.



The same argument could apply to changing stances (if you don't "have to" decide every round whether to use a daily power, you don't "have to" decide every round whether to change your stance, either). The need to change stances will not be considered in most rounds of combat, and the decision on when to use encounter powers is made easier by having them trigger on a hit. Now, choosing simpler powers during character is one way to make a character that is easier to play, but choosing to play a slayer is another option that is equally viable or even better for some. I really wonder why you seem to be so unwilling to acknowledge that.



> Actually, no they couldnt. Thats why the higher level Psionic at-wills cost more PP to augment. Again, poor power design crashed this system not a failure of the underlying system.



From Level 3 onwards, a psionic class with the augmentation class feature has enough power points to fully augment his highest-level at-will attack at least twice. The only exception is between levels 13 and 16, and even then only if he does not take a paragon path that grants bonus power points. You could argue that a psionic character cannot do it as _often_ as a slayer, but arguing that he cannot makes it look as if you had not done the research.



> Looking at the Slayer specifically, its got ridiculously powerful encounters compared to what a standard FTR could field and other than a few gold level powers in the list, those encounters are better than the 4e class can throw out as Dailys, especially if they keep throwing out boosting feats. What would be a decent feat for a AEDU class is amped by being able to apply multiple times to the e-class.



"Better" in what sense? If you are talking in terms of straight damage, then of course! A slayer is a striker, and a weaponmaster fighter is a defender. A slayer ought to be doing more damage. In addition, a slayer also has to make up for the lack of daily attack powers. A weaponmaster fighter's powers also give it access to better conditions to inflict on opponents than a slayer's Weapon Specialization, including stunned, dazed, blinded, immobilized and penalties to AC and other defenses. 

So yes, if you focus on straight damage, the slayer does better (and it should). But if you look at the entirety of the class abilities, it is not so clear-cut that one is better than the other. It's like they are, you know, balanced.



> Healer Druids? What healer druids? Just because the class had CLW didnt make it a healer. Now if you had said Summoner Druid, I could by that. Even then, the class was always a spellcaster. Where did the weapon come from?



Again, from previous editions. The druid didn't _just_ have _cure light wounds_ - in 3E, he had access to the entire range of _cure X wound_ spells, including the mass versions, and the _heal_ spell. Among the classes in the core PH, he was the next best healer after the cleric. As for weapons, the scimitar and the club (or at least, the _shillelagh_ spell) were iconic druid weapons. Remember, in earlier editions, few classes had at-will spell attacks, and spellcasters had few daily spells at low levels. Hence, low-level clerics, druids and wizards would be attacking with weapons most of the time. 

Did you actually forget this? Or have you never played any edition of D&D except 4E?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 24, 2011)

Marshall said:


> You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances.




This is utterly and completely false.  You can put yourself into one stance and leave yourself there.  And not think about it.  If you are going to make crap up about Essentials then no wonder you don't like it.



> Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase.




This is false.  If you ignore the power declaration phase you've messed up and need to retcon.  If you don't change your stance then _by the rules as written_ you remain in the same stance you were in last time.



> "I guess, you just attack with what you used last round." works just as well with at-wills as it does with stances.




This is false.  With stances it's not an "I guess" it's an "it is."  No wool.  No fudging of the rules.  And what do you do if you used an encounter last time?  Your logic does not apply.



> Now that you actually hit...New Decision Point! PS or not to PS, that is the question!




From 1 choice to 2.  And you yourself have said you don't mind this one and that it's a design improvement.  You can't even keep consistent let alone engage in arguments.



> Actually, no they couldnt. Thats why the higher level Psionic at-wills cost more PP to augment. Again, poor power design crashed this system not a failure of the underlying system.




No.  What crashed the system is that higher level psionic at wills cost more PP to augment.  Which means that you can spam what should be heroic tier encounter powers almost at will.  Which means that the augment 2s either need to be crap or to not scale at all.  And as debuffs scale automatically, no augment 1 or 2 heroic power should do any sort of decent debuff.



> Healer Druids? What healer druids? Just because the class had CLW didnt make it a healer. Now if you had said Summoner Druid, I could by that. Even then, the class was always a spellcaster. Where did the weapon come from?




Healer druids came from the goddamn archetype Druids themselves came from.  The were-creature is more or less an artifact of 3rd edition.

The more I post, the more I think Matt James is right.  Goodbye.  You won't be missed.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 24, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The were-creature is more or less an artifact of 3rd edition.



Actually, I think druids could assume animal forms as a class ability even from 1E. What 3E did was to make it more of a combat power due to granting the druid the new form's natural attacks, natural armor and physical ability scores, and expanding the scope of  "animals" to include dire animals and dinosaurs.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2011)

Marshall said:


> 1. You're increasing the number of decision points.
> You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances. Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase. "I guess, you just attack with what you used last round." works just as well with at-wills as it does with stances. Now that you actually hit...New Decision Point! PS or not to PS, that is the question!




Not worrying about changing your stance is RAW, rather than requiring a "gentleman's agreement" between the DM and the Player - which can certainly be done, but can also be less convenient (for the half-dozen reasons listed in my last post). 

Even if a player is making these 'multiple decision points' - as Firelance has noted, that can be much simpler than making a single decision point that is much more complex. 

"Do I stay in Battle Wrath stance or switch to Hammer Hands? I don't need to move the enemy, so I stay with Battle Wrath."

"Do I want to Power Strike? Sure, I want more damage, I Power Strike."

Compared to: 

"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Or do I want to do some more damage with Steel Serpent Strike? I guess I should save that for when the slow would matter. It's early in the fight, should I use Lasting Threat to perma-mark him? I guess I'll save that for when we need the big damage. I guess Reaping Strike it is."

One decision point by your measure, but actually more like 3 - since you need to choose whether or not any individual power is worth using at the given time. And that is with a level 1 character with some of the most relatively straightforward Fighter powers. 

By the time you get to the end of Heroic, the PHB Fighter has another 4 choices for them to ponder, while the E-Fighter has 1 more stance - and Power Strike has gotten slightly more complex via Weapon Specialization (but also somewhat easier since you've got multiple uses and less need to 'save' it.)

Now, I'll still accept that you find your single decision point the easier approach. But for myself - even as a person who _likes_ the AEDU system - it still is far quicker and simpler to make 2 easy decisions than 1 decision involving a half-dozen internal comparisons. 



Marshall said:


> 2. You're _increasing_ the number of options over most of those decision points.
> 
> On top of everything else that minor actions can do, now you add to that pool. Yes, you have no option past who to attack with your attacks actions, but the powers that reduce that level of choice _arent restricted to the e-classes_ and choosing between PS1, PS3 or PS7 is just as easy. Then you get to move action powers...




Again, not seeing any heavy increase in number of options. The minor action point is somewhat valid... but those are not heavily in use for E-classes, and - again - the E-player can always just not bother with it and stay in his original stance. 



Marshall said:


> 3. You're drastically overestimating the number of options an AEDU class has.
> Most AEDU class dailys arent considered every round or even every combat, most encounter powers are used high to low. Yes, you can make decisions during charcreation to make those complex decisions. If you do, then you cant complain that the character is hard to play.




Even for relatively straightforward classes who are just about dealing damage... you will often have Encounter powers that inflict conditions or go beyond just dealing straight damage. The Barbarian probably can line up a basic list of powers that just do variable amounts of damage... I'm not sure anyone else really can.

Even then, Dailies are still relevant - they don't get _used _every round or every combat, but they are still there to be considered. And the players you encourage to not think about them will end up just never using them - unless prompted by you, which again gets into territory where they feel like you are playing their character for them. 

Finally, beyond all that, in your ideal situation, you have the following: 

"Ok, kid, you are playing a Barbarian. Never use these rage powers unless I tell you to. The rest of the time, start combat with Tide of Blood. Next round, use Hammer Fall. Then use Avalanche Strike. After that, every attack is a Howling Strike."

vs

"Ok, kid, you are playing a Slayer. You are always in Battle Wrath Stance, and every attack you make is this modified basic attack. The first two times you hit an enemy each fight, you can add 1d10 extra damage via Power Strike."

Even with as straightforward a build as possible with the Barbarian, you have more for them to keep track of. And even with the simplest options from their encounter power list, you still have conditions and benefits from some of these powers, ignored so they can just go down the list from top to bottom. And you still run into more confusion with OAs and charging. Not to mention raging, critical hits triggering rampage, and tracking the various triggers for Feral Might benefits. (Temps when you kill someone and a free charge, etc.) 

Versus... you always use the same exact attack, and a few times per combat can add extra damage. 

I can understand if you find that boring, or have complaints about it feeding old prejudices about fighters, or even if you simply believe it is less effective than other builds. 

But claiming it is more complicated? I see nothing that supports that, not even remotely.  



Marshall said:


> Actually, no they couldnt. Thats why the higher level Psionic at-wills cost more PP to augment. Again, poor power design crashed this system not a failure of the underlying system.




The scaling PP cost is actually the fundamental flaw in the system. Because it means that instead of actually using those PP in the same distribution of normal resources, they could use them all for low-cost powers - the equivalent of, instead of using a Level 17, 23 and 27 Encounter power each fight, instead using the same Level 1 encounter power ten times. Combined with a handful of low-level encounter powers that remain useful... they break the system. 



Marshall said:


> Looking at the Slayer specifically, its got ridiculously powerful encounters compared to what a standard FTR could field and other than a few gold level powers in the list, those encounters are better than the 4e class can throw out as Dailys, especially if they keep throwing out boosting feats. What would be a decent feat for a AEDU class is amped by being able to apply multiple times to the e-class.




Earlier you claimed that the Slayer - even a well-built Slayer- was ineffective to the point of uselessness. Now you are saying they have encounters better than standard dailies. Which is it?

At level 1-16, Power Strike does 2[W] (1[W] basic + 1[W] PS).
Weapon Specialization will let it knock an enemy prone or slide adjacent enemies 1 square. 
At level 17, it deals 3[W] (1[W] basic + 2[W] PS).
At level 20, it also pushes 3 squares if a Mythic Slayer.
At level 21, it deals 4[W] (2[W] basic + 2[W] PS).
At level 27, it deals 5[W] (2[W] basic + 3[W] PS). 

So, at level 27, four times a combat (as a Mythic Slayer), we can deal 5[W] + normal bonus, plus knock an enemy prone and push them 3 squares. 

The normal Fighter has level 27 options like Cruel Reaper (two Burst 1 attacks for 2[W] plus bonuses each), plus various 4[W] powers with more significant effects (disarming the enemy, reducing defenses, letting the fighter take half damage for a round, etc). 

His level 23 option includes 3[W] and 4[W] options, but again, often with various benefits like leaving enemies restrained, dazed, blinded, or attacking multiple targets or one enemy multiple times, or being made as immediate interrupts or reactions. 

Level 17 options are around 2[W] to 3[W] - but again, multiple attacks, multiple targets, interesting effects and conditions. 

On these lists there certainly are powers strictly worse than the maxed out Power Strike. But then, that's the benefit of the AEDU system - getting to choose. And there are plenty of options that do compare quite favorable. Not compare in terms of _damage_ - the Slayer is definitely going to be better at dealing the most damage to a single target. 

But all those other benefits will often make up for the loss of several [W]. And daily powers - especially those with ongoing effects or impressive conditions - will be even more so. 

Overall result: The Slayer is devestating at killing individual foes. The Knight has some very threatening OAs and punishment (enemy violates his aura, he does a pile of damage and knocks them away from whoever they were attacking.) The PHB Fighter, meanwhile, is great at crippling a single enemy with devestating conditions, or drawing in a host of foes and unleashing damage on all of them, or rolling up to a truly powerful foe and using powers to boost his temps/defenses/DR/etc, and weathering the assault. 

All of this are effective builds and characters at this point. I don't see any way in which Power Strike breaks the game. Yes, it is potent - making up for the loss of dailies and the loss of the versatility and special benefits of normal encounter powers. 



Marshall said:


> Healer Druids? What healer druids? Just because the class had CLW didnt make it a healer. Now if you had said Summoner Druid, I could by that. Even then, the class was always a spellcaster. Where did the weapon come from?




What the Druid has always been (to my mind) is a hybrid - someone able to contribute in various ways. The PHB2 Druid was an interesting take on that - someone who shifts between different forms (caster/melee), and has multiple options within those forms (melee form can focus on dealing damage or trying to protect allies/distract enemies.) 

But the Sentinel really fits in the support role I associate with the Druid. I distract enemies with my companion. I can do decent damage beating up enemies with a staff or scythe (classic druid weaponry). I can provide healing and support when needed. And I can unleash devestating nature spells or summon more companions via my daily powers. 

I actually _tried _to make something like this previously (a hybrid Druid|Warden multiclassed into Shaman) - so seeing a similar robust approach for the Sentinel was perfectly welcome to me.


----------



## Raikun (Aug 24, 2011)

I've mentioned it before, but half my group switching to E-classes sped up combat so much that we now get 5-6 encounters per session where we used to struggle to get 3-4.  The two players went from having to study their powers nearly every round before someone makes a suggestion to just going:

"Stance, attack, attack, attack, PS to finish him off, attack".

The ultra simplicity of those E-classes just makes combat so much faster for us.

It really is awesome just being able to use the same attack for everything...whether just attacking in stance, charging, doing an OA, encounter power...it's a huge improvement.


----------



## Raikun (Aug 24, 2011)

Major self contradiction:



Marshall said:


> 1. You're increasing the number of decision points.
> You HAVE TO decide every round whether or not to change stances. Claiming that you can ignore this decision point is the same as ignoring the power declaration phase.




vs.



> Most AEDU class dailys arent considered every round or even every combat, most encounter powers are used high to low.




Exactly.  Most stances aren't considered every round either, yet you're claiming one HAS TO BE decided every round, but the other one doesn't.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 24, 2011)

Matt James said:


> You guys are being baited by a troll.




Theres only one guy trolling here and you are it. There are three people responding to my posts and syaing almost the exact same thing. I'm just taking the most representative and replying to it instead of clogging the board with your useless drivel.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 24, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Not worrying about changing your stance is RAW, rather than requiring a "gentleman's agreement" between the DM and the Player - which can certainly be done, but can also be less convenient (for the half-dozen reasons listed in my last post).




So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities.



> Even if a player is making these 'multiple decision points' - as Firelance has noted, that can be much simpler than making a single decision point that is much more complex.




No, that next decision point is only as complex as you make it. You keep going  back to "4e classes have to decide between multiple encounter powers and dailys and at-wills" when the point from the beginning has been that all those simplifications would have actually been simplifications if they had been applied to the existing class w/the existing class mechanics. Instead they created a entirely new system whose only result is to make it more complex to actually play the game, let alone teach it. 



> "Do I stay in Battle Wrath stance or switch to Hammer Hands? I don't need to move the enemy, so I stay with Battle Wrath."




or "Hmm, I really want to move him over there, but I need my minor to activate this item. Of course, then I cant use this utility. I could do both, but then I cant move and I really want to shift over..."
All stemming from the "Who do I attack?" phase.



> "Do I want to Power Strike? Sure, I want more damage, I Power Strike."
> 
> Compared to:
> 
> "Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Or do I want to do some more damage with Steel Serpent Strike? I guess I should save that for when the slow would matter. It's early in the fight, should I use Lasting Threat to perma-mark him? I guess I'll save that for when we need the big damage. I guess Reaping Strike it is."




No, the distinction is :
"Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Do I want to activate an encounter long buff(Daily 1, Daily 5)? I guess Reaping Strike it is."
Maybe 1/2 an option more to decide and the major advantage is that those options _are innately compatible and *available* to the 4e classic classes_. Suddenly, essentials actually becomes a supplement instead of a revision.



> One decision point by your measure, but actually more like 3 - since you need to choose whether or not any individual power is worth using at the given time. And that is with a level 1 character with some of the most relatively straightforward Fighter powers.




Which are still relatively complex options, mostly because you're comparing a defender to a striker, switch those out for real leveled but PS-like powers(really PS is another way to say a power has the "Reliable" keyword) and you get a simple-to-play, nearly decision free class that has broadened the base 4e fighters options _and left itself open to being played by those that dont want a railroad_.



> By the time you get to the end of Heroic, the PHB Fighter has another 4 choices for them to ponder, while the E-Fighter has 1 more stance - and Power Strike has gotten slightly more complex via Weapon Specialization (but also somewhat easier since you've got multiple uses and less need to 'save' it.)




Great, PS has jumped in power level to multiple copies of a 7th level encounter power, while the 4e class is using his 1,3 and single 7th. If you actually had PS1, PS3 and PS7(Hammer Strike, Blade Strike, Axe Strike, Staff Strike....) you'd have real control over the power level at this point(yes, they'd likely screw it up), but the most important part is _the Slayers player would know the basics of 4e's power system_ instead of having spent 7+ levels learning how to play a Slayer which MAY carry over somewhat to playing a Knight, but tells him nothing of how to play a FTR, PAL, BRB, ROG, WRD....etc.



> Now, I'll still accept that you find your single decision point the easier approach. But for myself - even as a person who _likes_ the AEDU system - it still is far quicker and simpler to make 2 easy decisions than 1 decision involving a half-dozen internal comparisons.




Who do I attack?
What do I attack with?

Yes, the same two choices that 4e (single target) PCs have. The difference is that 4e PCs get to do the second over one action and with one choice, Slayers have to figure out if they have the actions to make the attack they want to.



> Again, not seeing any heavy increase in number of options. The minor action point is somewhat valid... but those are not heavily in use for E-classes, and - again - the E-player can always just not bother with it and stay in his original stance.




Then he's still making a decision, the same one as a 4e class using his "default" power. On top of that, he's being led by the nose to make that choice, since he has to consider _every option his character has_ to see if he even *can* make that choice. By spreading the attack action over two 'actions' he has to even consider what he wants to do with his _move_ action to decide what to attack with. A 'simple' player can get so overwhelmed that he decides not to decide and goes with what could be a bad option. _Encouraging_ poor play is not a good way to grow the game.



> Even then, Dailies are still relevant - they don't get _used _every round or every combat, but they are still there to be considered. And the players you encourage to not think about them will end up just never using them - unless prompted by you, which again gets into territory where they feel like you are playing their character for them.




Dailies *need* to be relevant or the player isnt learning the game. That doesnt mean they need to be encounter defining and cant be simple encounter length buffs. Rages are actually a good example, +[W], +X damage, extra move all could be excellent simple daily attack powers. 



> Finally, beyond all that, in your ideal situation, you have the following:
> 
> "Ok, kid, you are playing a Barbarian. Never use these rage powers unless I tell you to. The rest of the time, start combat with Tide of Blood. Next round, use Hammer Fall. Then use Avalanche Strike. After that, every attack is a Howling Strike."
> 
> ...




You're going back to the current power lists again.. 

Whats better for the game? Adding a power that one build of one class can EVER use? or Adding a power to an entire classes power list? 
Whats better? Adding a new class with the same name as an existing class, but entirely different abilities, benefits, power lists, roles and selections? or Adding a new build to an existing class that shares power lists, some abilites, most benefits, etc...?
If Slayer had been Barbarian(Slayer) and Knight had been Fighter(Knight) we wouldnt need to have this argument _and_ all the supposed benefits of the e-martials would have still been there.



> But claiming it is more complicated? I see nothing that supports that, not even remotely.




It all comes down to all the e-martial classes needing to spend multiple actions to simulate a 4e class selecting an at-will. Its the basis of all those classes and its absolutely unnecessary and unnecessarily complicated.




> The scaling PP cost is actually the fundamental flaw in the system. Because it means that instead of actually using those PP in the same distribution of normal resources, they could use them all for low-cost powers - the equivalent of, instead of using a Level 17, 23 and 27 Encounter power each fight, instead using the same Level 1 encounter power ten times. Combined with a handful of low-level encounter powers that remain useful... they break the system.




You've got that backwards. Its the scaling of the low-level at-wills without having to pay any more PP for them thats broken. If Dishearten was a fixed -1 or -2 instead of -Stat you'd have to upgrade to the Paragon at-will with its correspondingly increased cost to get that benefit. 
I see your point about the encounters up to a certain point. There are a lot of  classes that would be better off with 4 17s instead of a 17,23 and 27. Usually thats because their 27s are crap and their 17s are really good. I'd say thats more an issue with the assigned levels and the abject fear that the Devs have for scaling encounters. Tho, they are getting better at allowing that, I'd love to see 13 and 17 get pick a 3rd or 7th level at-will and add 1[W] or 1 die to the damage along with 23 and 27 getting the same +2.



> Earlier you claimed that the Slayer - even a well-built Slayer- was ineffective to the point of uselessness. Now you are saying they have encounters better than standard dailies. Which is it?
> 
> At level 1-16, Power Strike does 2[W] (1[W] basic + 1[W] PS).
> Weapon Specialization will let it knock an enemy prone or slide adjacent enemies 1 square.
> ...




And the best [W] dailys are what? 7[W] attacks with no effects? 8[W] with a penalty? 
Thats compares to a 5[W] with at least two effects.



> Overall result: The Slayer is devestating at killing individual foes. The Knight has some very threatening OAs and punishment (enemy violates his aura, he does a pile of damage and knocks them away from whoever they were attacking.) The PHB Fighter, meanwhile, is great at crippling a single enemy with devestating conditions, or drawing in a host of foes and unleashing damage on all of them, or rolling up to a truly powerful foe and using powers to boost his temps/defenses/DR/etc, and weathering the assault.
> 
> All of this are effective builds and characters at this point. I don't see any way in which Power Strike breaks the game. Yes, it is potent - making up for the loss of dailies and the loss of the versatility and special benefits of normal encounter powers.




pffft. The Slayer is a bug compared to a decently built FTR because of the above reasons. Optimizing it by piling on the damage feats and the new PS boosting feats quickly sends it over the top and then you get to charge monkeys who dont normally get to throw daily level effects on their attacks. Just one feat adds a top tier status effect to ALL 4 of his encounters



> What the Druid has always been (to my mind) is a hybrid - someone able to contribute in various ways. The PHB2 Druid was an interesting take on that - someone who shifts between different forms (caster/melee), and has multiple options within those forms (melee form can focus on dealing damage or trying to protect allies/distract enemies.)
> 
> But the Sentinel really fits in the support role I associate with the Druid. I distract enemies with my companion. I can do decent damage beating up enemies with a staff or scythe (classic druid weaponry). I can provide healing and support when needed. And I can unleash devestating nature spells or summon more companions via my daily powers.
> 
> I actually _tried _to make something like this previously (a hybrid Druid|Warden multiclassed into Shaman) - so seeing a similar robust approach for the Sentinel was perfectly welcome to me.




I suppose so. I've just never heard of Druid considered a Healer other than a desperation back-up and Sentinel is.....bad if you're DM even wants to try using Tactics.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 25, 2011)

Marshall said:


> So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities.



Why don't you take a stab at formulating such a rule? Don't just criticize; spend some effort to help others adopt your preferred playstyle more easily! That said, my initial sense is that any such rule is going to end up sounding more like a table rule or SOP than an actual game rule since it relates to what the character does when the player does not declare an action clearly or properly and some players may not like it because it causes them to break immersion (which does matter to some players). 

On the other hand, the slayer solves the immersion problem by simply allowing the player to say, "I attack [target]." Everything else: stance, weapon, the possibility of using _power strike_ just modifies the basic attack. 



> No, that next decision point is only as complex as you make it. You keep going  back to "4e classes have to decide between multiple encounter powers and dailys and at-wills" when the point from the beginning has been that all those simplifications would have actually been simplifications if they had been applied to the existing class w/the existing class mechanics. Instead they created a entirely new system whose only result is to make it more complex to actually play the game, let alone teach it.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



The problem is, you seem to be steadfastly ignoring all the posts from people such as Raikun who have played 4E both pre- and post-Essentials and have reported that the Essentials classes were easier and sped up play for them. I think most people would give more weight to their actual experiences than to your theoretical arguments. Really, you are starting to sound like someone who repeatedly insists that chocolate is an objectively superior flavor to strawberry even though others have indicated that they prefer strawberry.



> Maybe 1/2 an option more to decide and the major advantage is that those options _are innately compatible and *available* to the 4e classic classes_. Suddenly, essentials actually becomes a supplement instead of a revision.



I believe we've gone over this before. Essentials is a supplement because it adds new opotions for the players. It might not provide a lot of additional support for some existing AEDU classes, but it is not a revision because it does not replace them.



> Whats better for the game? Adding a power that one build of one class can EVER use?



You mean like the Beast keyword powers for the Beastmaster ranger in Martial Power? I actually kind of liked those. 



> Whats better? Adding a new class with the same name as an existing class, but entirely different abilities, benefits, power lists, roles and selections? or Adding a new build to an existing class that shares power lists, some abilites, most benefits, etc...?
> If Slayer had been Barbarian(Slayer) and Knight had been Fighter(Knight) we wouldnt need to have this argument _and_ all the supposed benefits of the e-martials would have still been there.



I'm not so sure about that. I'm not sure that the ability to just say, "I attack [target]." (mentioned before) would have been possible without tweaking the power structure. 

That said, I think it may be possible to unify the slayer, knight and weaponmaster under an umbrella class in much the same way that I kindsorta unified the warpriest and the templar under an umbrella cleric class some posts back. Something along the lines of: choose between at-will attacks or at-will stances; choose between _power strike_ (plus enhancements) and regular encounter powers; choose between daily attack powers and constant benefits (or turn the constant benefits into daily attack powers that last until the end of your next extended rest).



> Which are still relatively complex options, mostly because you're comparing a defender to a striker, switch those out for real leveled but PS-like powers(really PS is another way to say a power has the "Reliable" keyword) and you get a simple-to-play, nearly decision free class that has broadened the base 4e fighters options _and left itself open to being played by those that dont want a railroad_.



That's not entirely true. A Reliable encounter power is still an alternative to a basic attack or an at-will attack, and the player must still choose to use it before making the attack roll. _Power strike_ has the additional advantage that the player can attack first and then choose to use it if the attack hits.



> Great, PS has jumped in power level to multiple copies of a 7th level encounter power, while the 4e class is using his 1,3 and single 7th.



Mind you, at 7th level, the slayer and knight still only have two uses of _power strike_ per encounter, while the weaponmaster fighter has three encounter powers of 1st, 3rd and 7th level. As I previously mentioned, I think the balance really is quite good.



> If you actually had PS1, PS3 and PS7(Hammer Strike, Blade Strike, Axe Strike, Staff Strike....) you'd have real control over the power level at this point(yes, they'd likely screw it up), but the most important part is _the Slayers player would know the basics of 4e's power system_ instead of having spent 7+ levels learning how to play a Slayer which MAY carry over somewhat to playing a Knight, but tells him nothing of how to play a FTR, PAL, BRB, ROG, WRD....etc.



To a certain extent, yes. A weaponmaster's power structure is closer to the other AEDU classes than a slayer's or a knight's. That said, I don't think that learning to play a different class is that much more difficult, especially since playing a slayer or a knight would have already familiarized a player with the basic concepts of the game such as attack rolls, saving throws, hit points, healing surges, tactics, etc. Certainly not much more difficult than learning to manage a psionic augmentation class or a monk's full discipline powers after playing a more traditional AEDU class, anyway.



> Dailies *need* to be relevant or the player isnt learning the game. That doesnt mean they need to be encounter defining and cant be simple encounter length buffs. Rages are actually a good example, +[W], +X damage, extra move all could be excellent simple daily attack powers.



If you can have dailies that are encounter-long buffs, why not dailies that are day-long buffs? Do that and you basically emulate the constant benefits of the knight and the slayer.



> And the best [W] dailys are what? 7[W] attacks with no effects? 8[W] with a penalty?
> Thats compares to a 5[W] with at least two effects.
> 
> pffft. The Slayer is a bug compared to a decently built FTR because of the above reasons. Optimizing it by piling on the damage feats and the new PS boosting feats quickly sends it over the top and then you get to charge monkeys who dont normally get to throw daily level effects on their attacks. Just one feat adds a top tier status effect to ALL 4 of his encounters



Again, you need to compare the entire package. Even if a slayer's encounters are as good as a weaponmaster's dailies, are they as good as the weaponmaster's encounters _plus_ dailies? Looking at abilities in isolation is not always meaningful.



> You've got that backwards. Its the scaling of the low-level at-wills without having to pay any more PP for them thats broken. If Dishearten was a fixed -1 or -2 instead of -Stat you'd have to upgrade to the Paragon at-will with its correspondingly increased cost to get that benefit.
> I see your point about the encounters up to a certain point. There are a lot of  classes that would be better off with 4 17s instead of a 17,23 and 27. Usually thats because their 27s are crap and their 17s are really good. I'd say thats more an issue with the assigned levels and the abject fear that the Devs have for scaling encounters. Tho, they are getting better at allowing that, I'd love to see 13 and 17 get pick a 3rd or 7th level at-will and add 1[W] or 1 die to the damage along with 23 and 27 getting the same +2.



This I agree with. I thought I'd end on this point.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 25, 2011)

Marshall said:


> So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities.




Ok, let's try and clarify something. Your initial point was not that Essentials is more complex than some hypothetical alternate approach. "E-classes are _significantly MORE_ complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are."

So we aren't talking about a change to the ruleset - we are comparing what we have with Essentials vs what we had before. And many folks find Essentials classes much, much simpler to play.

From the start, I've said that a different approach could probably have made things simpler without moving as far mechanically from the base system - but I also believe that doing so would require a lot more work than you are suggesting. It would entail tearing the system apart and rebuilding it from the ground up, which many folks would have found far more disruptive than simply presenting alternate builds via Essentials.

If you make everyone choose one At-Will as the default, it still doesn't cut down on decision making between using that vs using Encounters. To do that, you need to turn Encounters into Power Strike 'add-ons', which requires a significant rebalancing of the entire system. You propose they could just add Power Strike itself (and presumably make it work with At-Wills rather than just basics) - but you have also indicated that you would want Power Strike to have multiple levels of it (a level 7 version, level 17 version, level 27 version, etc) to keep its power balanced. Which again presents more decisions for the user. And we also haven't gotten into considering Dailies, either. 

You also need to make those default At-Wills work on OAs and Charging - but that again would probably require a good bit of reworking them so that balance is maintained. 

Feel free to stat out your proposed hypothetical system that keeps things balanced, uses a single consistent mechanical approach, and allows both those wanting simple characters and those wanting complex ones to build characters via the exact same process. I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying that it won't be as handwavingly trivial as you imply. 



Marshall said:


> No, that next decision point is only as complex as you make it. You keep going back to "4e classes have to decide between multiple encounter powers and dailys and at-wills" when the point from the beginning has been that all those simplifications would have actually been simplifications if they had been applied to the existing class w/the existing class mechanics. Instead they created a entirely new system whose only result is to make it more complex to actually play the game, let alone teach it.




Again, the point from the beginning was your claim that Essentials classes are _significantly more complex _to play than their PHB equivalents. You have in fact cited Barbarians and PHB Fighters as classes which one could present to a player and have them just use an easy list of powers each combat. I'm calling you on that claim - even with the simplest choices available, it will still require a lot more decision making on each action than a Slayer needs to deal with. 

Your point about players getting 'used to' the Slayer and thus not learning the rest of the game... hmm. I understand where your concern is coming from. But I don't think that transitioning from the Slayer to the PHB Fighter (or the Barbarian) will be that difficult - for those who want to make that transition. The entire point is that some folks _prefer _the simpler option. Saying we should just remove it and toss them in the deep end so they can learn to swim... doesn't seem a better approach, at least to me. 



Marshall said:


> or "Hmm, I really want to move him over there, but I need my minor to activate this item. Of course, then I cant use this utility. I could do both, but then I cant move and I really want to shift over..."
> All stemming from the "Who do I attack?" phase.




I don't see any of these as especially common concerns (especially when the Slayer _doesn't need to spend his minor every round_), and even if they were, the availability of item powers and utilities is _just as relevant_ to the non-Essentials character. 



Marshall said:


> No, the distinction is :
> "Do I use my default Reaping Strike, or do I want to move him with Footwork Lure? I guess I don't need to move him right now. Do I want to activate an encounter long buff(Daily 1, Daily 5)? I guess Reaping Strike it is."
> 
> Maybe 1/2 an option more to decide and the major advantage is that those options _are innately compatible and *available* to the 4e classic classes_. Suddenly, essentials actually becomes a supplement instead of a revision.




Again, you seem to be making your comparisons to your hypothetical system rather than the one that actually exists. In the actual situation, Encoutners are still an issue, and dailies that give encounter long buffs would usually, one imagines, run into your same criticism as stances.

Look, I'll lay this on the table right now - if you want to recant your original claim, admit that Essentials classes are simpler to play than pre-Essentials classes, and change your position to "WotC could have taken an alternate approach to Essentials that was closer to the current mechanics but still simpler to use?"

I am more than willing to leave it at that. We might disagree over how easy such a system would have actually been to create, but I will certainly accept that WotC had alternate approaches available. 

What I have been contesting is your claim that Essentials is more difficult to use than the current system, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge that others folks do not find that to be the case. If you truly no longer believe that, and have moved the goalposts entirely to compare things only against your hypothetical alternate system? That's perfectly fine. 



Marshall said:


> Great, PS has jumped in power level to multiple copies of a 7th level encounter power, while the 4e class is using his 1,3 and single 7th. If you actually had PS1, PS3 and PS7(Hammer Strike, Blade Strike, Axe Strike, Staff Strike....) you'd have real control over the power level at this point(yes, they'd likely screw it up), but the most important part is _the Slayers player would know the basics of 4e's power system_ instead of having spent 7+ levels learning how to play a Slayer which MAY carry over somewhat to playing a Knight, but tells him nothing of how to play a FTR, PAL, BRB, ROG, WRD....etc.




Tells him _nothing _of how to play other characters? Yes, there are differences. For those who want to switch to more complex characters, I really don't think the learning curve is as insurmountable as you are claiming. If you believe characters could be dropped in and learn the power system initially, why do you think it somehow becomes impossible for them to learn simply because they played a different character for a bit? 

Honestly, the individual natures of classes themselves (barbarian rages vs wild shape vs fighter marking vs paladin challenging vs everything psionics, etc)... require much more getting used to, for anyone changing classes, than figuring out the power system. The point isn't that the power system is impossible to learn, the point is that it is an approach that some folks _don't like dealing with_. 

And, of course - getting back to your example, a system that does not have 4 uses of Power Strike, but instead has four different similar powers the player needs to choose from... is still not going to yield the benefits that Essential has offered in terms of fast, smooth, simple play. 



Marshall said:


> Who do I attack?
> What do I attack with?
> 
> Yes, the same two choices that 4e (single target) PCs have. The difference is that 4e PCs get to do the second over one action and with one choice, Slayers have to figure out if they have the actions to make the attack they want to.




Just to be clear - your contention is that, "Do I have a minor action available _if I want to use it_?" is a vastly harder question to answer then "Which of these half-dozen powers is most appropriate to the situation?" 

If so... ok, that might be the case for you. Once again, are you truly unwilling to acknowledge that it is _not the same for everyone else_? 

You pointed out that you have three different posters basically telling you the same thing. Shouldn't that indicate that your feelings about the relative complexity here is not universal? 



Marshall said:


> Then he's still making a decision, the same one as a 4e class using his "default" power. On top of that, he's being led by the nose to make that choice, since he has to consider _every option his character has_ to see if he even *can* make that choice. By spreading the attack action over two 'actions' he has to even consider what he wants to do with his _move_ action to decide what to attack with. A 'simple' player can get so overwhelmed that he decides not to decide and goes with what could be a bad option. _Encouraging_ poor play is not a good way to grow the game.




Again, I have never run into a player overwhelmed by this issue. I have run into folks who were... I won't say "overwhelmed", but rather, "didn't want to deal with" the options presented by the normal AEDU classes, and as such, did indeed play at much reduced effectiveness. Essentials actively addresses that and made it so they could play without having to deal with such things and still remain effective. 

I still am not sure how you can claim that a PHB Fighter who never uses Encounter powers and only uses one Default At-Will is 'good play' and remains effective, but a Slayer who never changes stances (and thus always has "+4 damage" instead of "slide 1 square" or "+1 to attack") is somehow crippled in effectiveness and playing badly. 



Marshall said:


> Dailies *need* to be relevant or the player isnt learning the game. That doesnt mean they need to be encounter defining and cant be simple encounter length buffs. Rages are actually a good example, +[W], +X damage, extra move all could be excellent simple daily attack powers.




So just so we are clear, your advice for the player using the Barbarian is now: "The first round of every combat, always use a Rage power. Start combat 1 with Black Dragon Rage, combat 2 with Red Dragon Rage, and combat 3 with Blue Dragon Rage. After you rage, you should use your Encounters. (List of Encounters). After all that, use this one Default At-Will and never use anything else."

You can totally do this, yes. But I'm pretty sure it _remains more complicated _than playing the Slayer, and also results in operating at much lower effectiveness since you will be using powers when they aren't necessarily a good choice. 



Marshall said:


> You're going back to the current power lists again..
> 
> Whats better for the game? Adding a power that one build of one class can EVER use? or Adding a power to an entire classes power list?
> Whats better? Adding a new class with the same name as an existing class, but entirely different abilities, benefits, power lists, roles and selections? or Adding a new build to an existing class that shares power lists, some abilites, most benefits, etc...?
> If Slayer had been Barbarian(Slayer) and Knight had been Fighter(Knight) we wouldnt need to have this argument _and_ all the supposed benefits of the e-martials would have still been there.




I don't disagree that we could have taken such an approach. I don't think we would automatically gain all the supposed benefits of the e-martial classes. I'd have to see your hypothetical alternate system to be sure... and I suspect that it either would require a complete rewrite of the existing classes, or it wouldn't actually give us the benefits that Essentials did, or it would end up even more unbalanced with the rest of the game. 

Either way, it still doesn't support your original claim, which was about comparing Essentials to the current system. 



Marshall said:


> You've got that backwards. Its the scaling of the low-level at-wills without having to pay any more PP for them thats broken.




I thought that was what I said. >_> 



Marshall said:


> And the best [W] dailys are what? 7[W] attacks with no effects? 8[W] with a penalty?
> Thats compares to a 5[W] with at least two effects.




Er... it depends on class, build, and what the other options are. And what those effects are. The best [W] dailies are often multiple attacks or have encounter long buffs. Even the ones that are raw damage still probably come out ahead - knocking prone and pushing a few squares is probably worth 1[W], but not 2. 

Either way, you didn't address my point - the various benefits of normal encounter powers are decently balanced against the raw damage (but lack of those benefits) for Slayers. 



Marshall said:


> pffft. The Slayer is a bug compared to a decently built FTR because of the above reasons. Optimizing it by piling on the damage feats and the new PS boosting feats quickly sends it over the top and then you get to charge monkeys who dont normally get to throw daily level effects on their attacks.




I still see no indications that a well-built Slayer is ineffective just because you say so. And you keep insisting that a handful of feats kicks it into game-breaking, without acknowledging the fact that many similarly optimized characters exist in the PHB classes as well. 



Marshall said:


> I suppose so. I've just never heard of Druid considered a Healer other than a desperation back-up and Sentinel is.....bad if you're DM even wants to try using Tactics.




Ok, here is a hint: If you don't want folks like Matt James to call you a troll, you probably should avoid arguments that imply that those who disagree with you are bad players who suck. 

I play a Sentinel. It is a perfectly effective class, and I have enjoyed playing it. Saying that any success I have with it is because my DM is bad at challenging PCs or using decent tactics is an insult. 

I have heard people claim that every single one of the 4E classes is flawed beyond use or overpowered beyond reason. I've found such claims to be pretty much universally wrong. Some classes are stronger than others, yes. Nothing is unplayable, nothing is automatically game-breaking. 

You don't like the Sentinel or feel you would be effective at playing it - fine. But, as seems to be the point we keep trying to get you to acknowledge - your opinions and experiences _are not universal_.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 26, 2011)

technoextreme said:


> Actually the spellbook design of the original Martial classes pretty much mimicked the design of all the other martial classes in 3.5E except the fighter.  Its just that its more overtly obvious in 4E while in 3.5E its a bit more subtle to realize that not much has changed.



Agreed. I think a significant part of the hostility to 4e is a result of its formatting.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 26, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> You don't like the Sentinel or feel you would be effective at playing it - fine. But, as seems to be the point we keep trying to get you to acknowledge - your opinions and experiences _are not universal_.



I believe for Marshall, that may be irrelevant.  His argument seems to be rooted in a visceral reaction to the destruction of the glorious integrity of the AEDU design setup.  Acknowledging any utility with the Essentials line would be, in essence, condoning WotC's betrayal.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 27, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Ok, let's try and clarify something. Your initial point was not that Essentials is more complex than some hypothetical alternate approach. "E-classes are _significantly MORE_ complex to actually play than the base 4e classes are."




And they are more complex to actually play, I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills.



> From the start, I've said that a different approach could probably have made things simpler without moving as far mechanically from the base system - but I also believe that doing so would require a lot more work than you are suggesting. It would entail tearing the system apart and rebuilding it from the ground up, which many folks would have found far more disruptive than simply presenting alternate builds via Essentials.
> 
> If you make everyone choose one At-Will as the default, it still doesn't cut down on decision making between using that vs using Encounters. To do that, you need to turn Encounters into Power Strike 'add-ons', which requires a significant rebalancing of the entire system.




Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes.



> You propose they could just add Power Strike itself (and presumably make it work with At-Wills rather than just basics) - but you have also indicated that you would want Power Strike to have multiple levels of it (a level 7 version, level 17 version, level 27 version, etc) to keep its power balanced. Which again presents more decisions for the user. And we also haven't gotten into considering Dailies, either.



 Yes, but the 'decision' to use the higher level PS is made for you. Work your way down, high to low.



> You also need to make those default At-Wills work on OAs and Charging - but that again would probably require a good bit of reworking them so that balance is maintained.




Why? If its balanced for Slayers to get at-wills on OAs and Charges(and granted attacks and...) then a FTR doing so is also balanced.



> Feel free to stat out your proposed hypothetical system that keeps things balanced, uses a single consistent mechanical approach, and allows both those wanting simple characters and those wanting complex ones to build characters via the exact same process. I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying that it won't be as handwavingly trivial as you imply.




Trivial? No. 
Significantly less than it took to build the Slayer/Knight/etc.? Yes.




> Again, the point from the beginning was your claim that Essentials classes are _significantly more complex _to play than their PHB equivalents. You have in fact cited Barbarians and PHB Fighters as classes which one could present to a player and have them just use an easy list of powers each combat. I'm calling you on that claim - even with the simplest choices available, it will still require a lot more decision making on each action than a Slayer needs to deal with.




No, I said Slayers compare more closely to Barbarians than Fighters. I was wrong there, I think they are closer to Rangers in actual play. Default to Twin Strike. Encounters are extremely simple, Twin Strike w/stats, Twin Strike with bonus damage, Twin Strike with extra attack, etc.... They even have a minor action 'stance' for Bonus Damage. Tho, there are opportunities in the Barb for the same concepts.



> Your point about players getting 'used to' the Slayer and thus not learning the rest of the game... hmm. I understand where your concern is coming from. But I don't think that transitioning from the Slayer to the PHB Fighter (or the Barbarian) will be that difficult - for those who want to make that transition. The entire point is that some folks _prefer _the simpler option. Saying we should just remove it and toss them in the deep end so they can learn to swim... doesn't seem a better approach, at least to me.




No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?



> I don't see any of these as especially common concerns (especially when the Slayer _doesn't need to spend his minor every round_), and even if they were, the availability of item powers and utilities is _just as relevant_ to the non-Essentials character.




He needs to _consider_ spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have.



> Again, you seem to be making your comparisons to your hypothetical system rather than the one that actually exists. In the actual situation, Encoutners are still an issue, and dailies that give encounter long buffs would usually, one imagines, run into your same criticism as stances.




Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, *add* to your attacks.




> Look, I'll lay this on the table right now - if you want to recant your original claim, admit that Essentials classes are simpler to play than pre-Essentials classes, and change your position to "WotC could have taken an alternate approach to Essentials that was closer to the current mechanics but still simpler to use?"
> 
> I am more than willing to leave it at that. We might disagree over how easy such a system would have actually been to create, but I will certainly accept that WotC had alternate approaches available.
> 
> What I have been contesting is your claim that Essentials is more difficult to use than the current system, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge that others folks do not find that to be the case. If you truly no longer believe that, and have moved the goalposts entirely to compare things only against your hypothetical alternate system? That's perfectly fine.




Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on _everyone else_ since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.

Yes, WotC should have come up with a simpler, more consistant and more compatible system than what they keep pushing.



> Tells him _nothing _of how to play other characters? Yes, there are differences. For those who want to switch to more complex characters, I really don't think the learning curve is as insurmountable as you are claiming. If you believe characters could be dropped in and learn the power system initially, why do you think it somehow becomes impossible for them to learn simply because they played a different character for a bit?




No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes.



> Honestly, the individual natures of classes themselves (barbarian rages vs wild shape vs fighter marking vs paladin challenging vs everything psionics, etc)... require much more getting used to, for anyone changing classes, than figuring out the power system. The point isn't that the power system is impossible to learn, the point is that it is an approach that some folks _don't like dealing with_.




Sure, but its a lot easier to learn those differences when you have mastered the basic AEDU and class structure.



> And, of course - getting back to your example, a system that does not have 4 uses of Power Strike, but instead has four different similar powers the player needs to choose from... is still not going to yield the benefits that Essential has offered in terms of fast, smooth, simple play.




Really?!? You have players who cant count from high to low?



> Just to be clear - your contention is that, "Do I have a minor action available _if I want to use it_?" is a vastly harder question to answer then "Which of these half-dozen powers is most appropriate to the situation?"




Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack. 
"OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity....



> If so... ok, that might be the case for you. Once again, are you truly unwilling to acknowledge that it is _not the same for everyone else_?
> 
> You pointed out that you have three different posters basically telling you the same thing. Shouldn't that indicate that your feelings about the relative complexity here is not universal?




The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly. 
I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them.



> Again, I have never run into a player overwhelmed by this issue. I have run into folks who were... I won't say "overwhelmed", but rather, "didn't want to deal with" the options presented by the normal AEDU classes, and as such, did indeed play at much reduced effectiveness. Essentials actively addresses that and made it so they could play without having to deal with such things and still remain effective.




Right, the class is better for _everyone else at the table_ and irrelevant for the player. Its not simpler for the player, its less of a hassle for the table.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2011)

Marshall said:


> And they are more complex to actually play, I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills.



They don't have to "pretend". They are about as effective and contribute as much to the group effort as any other class. Specific performance details will, of course, depend on the nature of the opponents they are fighting, synergy with other party members, etc.



> Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



That would be simpler, but still not as simple as a single encounter power that has a consistent effect because you would need to vary the effect based on how many encounter powers have used - easy for some, but bothersome for others. 



> No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?



The fact that a slayer uses a different power frequency structure and uses stances instead of at-will attacks makes it an "entirely" different ruleset? When attack rolls, damage rolls, hit points, healing surges, AC and other defenses, saving throws, skills, weapons, armor, movement, etc. are exactly the same? Surely you exaggerate. 



> He needs to _consider_ spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have.
> 
> ...
> 
> Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, *add* to your attacks.



Not exactly. It takes a minor action to _change_ your at-will attack. In most cases, there will not be a significant difference between using one at-will attack (or stance) or another. In a way, it's a matter of playstyle fit. Decison-making theory speaks of satisficers and maximizers. Playing a slayer, and staying in one stance until it is necessary to change it, is very mucn a satisficing strategy. If a player was the type that wants to maximize his effectiveness and use a different at-will attack every round, I would recommend that he plays a more traditional AEDU class. 



> Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on _everyone else_ since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.



In the light of the above, I think the above can be phrased more accurately as: they are more complex to _maximize_, but they are easier to _satisfice_. 



> Yes, WotC should have come up with a simpler, more consistant and more compatible system than what they keep pushing.



I think it's simple enough, consistent enough and compatible enough. It's satisficing vs. maximizing again!



> No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes.



Did they enjoy playing the slayer? Did they enjoy playing the game more by starting with the slayer instead of a more traditional AEDU class? If the answer is, "Yes," to both questions, I don't think the time was wasted.



> Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack.
> "OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity....



You see, this is not how a satisficer thinks. A satisficer goes, "I attack him! Great! I took him down! Next round, I do the same thing to the other guy!"



> The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly.
> I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them.
> 
> ...
> ...



Only if you consider a satisficing strategy and playstyle to be "stupid" and irrelevant.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 27, 2011)

You know, all this talk about satisficing made me think of a song. So, here's a brief musical interlude before we get back to the main event.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFU6w7q3dQ]"Weird Al" Yankovic - Good Enough for Now - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Marshall (Aug 27, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Not exactly. It takes a minor action to _change_ your at-will attack. In most cases, there will not be a significant difference between using one at-will attack (or stance) or another. In a way, it's a matter of playstyle fit. Decison-making theory speaks of satisficers and maximizers. Playing a slayer, and staying in one stance until it is necessary to change it, is very much a satisficing strategy. If a player was the type that wants to maximize his effectiveness and use a different at-will attack every round, I would recommend that he plays a more traditional AEDU class.
> 
> In the light of the above, I think the above can be phrased more accurately as: they are more complex to _maximize_, but they are easier to _satisfice_.




Succinct and to the point. I think we've reached the crux of the disagreement, I view 'satisficing' as poor play in general and something to be used as a teaching tool only. Building a whole play structure around it isnt worth the effort, especially when there were options within the existing structure to reach that point.



> I think it's simple enough, consistent enough and compatible enough. It's satisficing vs. maximizing again!




"Good Enough" should never be a design goal, especially for something thats supposed to be the basis of everything from here forward.



> Only if you consider a satisficing strategy and playstyle to be "stupid" and irrelevant.




As anything more than a stop-gap until you get better? Yes, I do.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 27, 2011)

Marshall said:


> And they are more complex to actually play,




"So? We're talking about a change to the ruleset here. The only reason the stance change is RAW and the default attack isnt, is because one rule has been published and the other hasnt yet. It would take a one paragraph errata to add a "Default" rule to the rest of the game and make the WHOLE game simpler to play instead of just one or two class abilities."

Note your final statement there - a declaration that the Essentials abilities are indeed simpler to play. 

Look, you claimed that at-wills could be used 'by default' just as easily as stances. We've given half-a-dozen reasons why not everyone would find that the case. You've ignored addressing those points on two seperate occasions, with your only response eventually being that, while Essentials is simpler, your hypotethical system would be simpler without the potential problems of Essentials. 

When I point out your original point was comparing Essentials with the previous structure, you have now returned to claiming "they are more complex to actually play" - again, without addressing any of our reasons for why we don't find that to be so. (Or even acknowledging the fact that you had, moments before, conceded that Essentials was indeed simpler.) 

Look, I've been continuing this discussion on the assumption that you genuinely feel a different system could have been better and are trying to explain why. But when your position shifts so constantly, it is hard to feel like you are having this discussion in good faith.



Marshall said:


> I'll concede that they do allow someone to roll the dice and pretend to not be a drain on the other members of the party while being slightly less ineffective as a 4e class spamming at-wills.




How in the world are they less effective? 

You keep making this claim without backing it up. A Slayer who stays in one stance all day long is operating at near full effectiveness. Compare it to a Barbarian (who seems the closest equivalent) spamming howling strike - who gives up all their dailies and encounters while doing less damage with their at-will than the Slayer is dealing with their basic attack. 

This myth that a Slayer is an inneffective striker doesn't seem grounded in either numbers or experiences. They have a striker damage bonus equivalent to that of other strikers. They are able to wield large weapons and gain boosts to damage and attacks via their stances and their class features. And they have reliable bonus damage via Power Strike. 

A Fighter who only spams Reaping Strike all day? Is giving up a lot of effectiveness, and is not somehow magically more effective than a Slayer for no reason. 



Marshall said:


> Not 'encounters', an 'encounter'. One encounter at each level to start with and you already improved on every point the e-classes supposedly had over the 4e classes.
> 
> Yes, but the 'decision' to use the higher level PS is made for you. Work your way down, high to low.




Again, I don't see your hypothetical system as being as easy to implement as you suggest, nor do I see it solving most of these problems - as in this case, which again presents more decisions than you have with Essentials. 

You like that style, that's fine. Are you still not willing to accept that others have different preferences than you do??



Marshall said:


> Why? If its balanced for Slayers to get at-wills on OAs and Charges(and granted attacks and...) then a FTR doing so is also balanced.




Because the Slayer stance benefits have specifically been chosen with the knowledge they can be used in that situation? 

We do have some At-Wills that are considered to be balanced for use in such fashions. We have others that aren't. I suspect many of the ones with multiple targets, movement effects, area effects, etc, would need significant reevaluation before being implemented as such. Could you do so? Sure. Just not with the ease you suggest. 



Marshall said:


> Trivial? No.
> Significantly less than it took to build the Slayer/Knight/etc.? Yes.




Not even remotely. You criticize the fact that the Slayer/Knight/etc are slightly apart from the existing rules. That's what allowed them to be developed in a balanced fashion. What you propose would require much more integration with the basic rules. Which I agree would be a benefit in the long run - but in an immediate sense, would have required vastly more design work and been far more disruptive to current games. 

If you really feel otherwise... feel free to stat out your alternate system in the House Rules section, and we'll see. Until then, I don't think you can complain that such a vast undertaking would accomplish all your goals while simultaneoulsy requiring few resources and having minimal impact on the existing system. 



Marshall said:


> No, I said Slayers compare more closely to Barbarians than Fighters. I was wrong there, I think they are closer to Rangers in actual play. Default to Twin Strike. Encounters are extremely simple, Twin Strike w/stats, Twin Strike with bonus damage, Twin Strike with extra attack, etc.... They even have a minor action 'stance' for Bonus Damage. Tho, there are opportunities in the Barb for the same concepts.




Archer Rangers are probably among the easiest classes to play, yes - you can sit back and just shoot things all day long. Of course, this requires giving up a good bit of effectiveness (quarry options, prime shot), and choosing encounters for ease of use rather than choosing the strongest ones. And probably requires more maintenance of quarry, since it only lasts as long as each target, rather than the entire combat - and when you forget and want to have used it before the attack, _retcon time! _And requires, per your advice, using Encounters in a set order, rather than using whichever one is appropriate at a given time. And ignoring dailies. 

It still is not _difficult _to play, but it also remains more complex than the Slayer and still doesn't address many of the problems that folks have with the AEDU system. It's only real advantage in terms of ease of play is by virtue of being _ranged_, which is hardly a legitimate divide between Essentials and the PHB classes. 

Once again, to compare: 

"Ok, you are playing a Slayer. You stay in Battle Wrath Stance, and every attack you make is this modified basic attack. The first two times you hit an enemy each fight, you can add 1d10 extra damage via Power Strike."

vs

"Ok, you are playing an archer Ranger. Never use your dailies unless I tell you to. Each round, use Hunter's Quarry on your target. If it isn't the closest enemy, move so if it is. If you can't do so safely, choose between shooting someone else or giving up your bonus damage. Anyway, round 1 use Thundertusk Boar Strike, which does this damage and pushes the target. (And pushes extra if both hit.) Round 2 use Two-Fanged Strike, which is the same damage as last time. But extra damage if both hit. After that, every round, use Twin Strike, which is similar, but lower damage."

It is not the most complex thing in the world, not by any means. But it is more complexity and decision making and tracking than some folks want to deal with. They don't want to have to remember to quarry, they don't want to have a half-dozen different attacks with similar but subtly different stat lines. They want one attack they can use every round, and a few uses of an encounter power that boosts it in a very simple fashion. 

Once more, in the forlorn hope you will actually answer this: Are you really unwilling to accept that some folks find that simpler and prefer that approach? 



Marshall said:


> No, the simpler option shouldnt be an entirely different ruleset. Why put checkers on the chessboard when you already have pawns?




Once, again, a poor analogy - the difference between checkers and pawns are very significant. The differences betwen Essentials and the rest of the rules are not. They _are _part of the same ruleset, and I still don't think you've proven that someone who learns the game with a Slayer will be unable to learn how to play a different build _if they wish to do so_. 



Marshall said:


> He needs to _consider_ spending his minor every round which creates a conflict with those items that the 4e class doesnt have.




Aside from the many 4E classes that do use minor actions, often on a much more regular basis than the Slayer. And, as previously noted, this is pretty much a corner case compared to the decisions a PHB class needs to make every round by virtue of their class structure. 

Honestly, the thing with minor action magic item uses is that typically they are very conditional. Which will mean the player doesn't really need to consider it until that circumstance comes up (I'm immobilized and need to teleport, etc.) In that event, the Slayer says, "Yeah, this is worth using", and doesn't even need to consider changing his stance (since being able to leave it in place _is a benefit of the class_). 

Whereas the number of times I've seen a Warlock player dither for 5 minutes because their life saving magic items requires giving up cursing enemies or triggering shadow walk of the like? Much more common. 



Marshall said:


> Yes, the hypothetical system that makes the published one look like the waste it is. The criticism of 'stance' is that it takes a minor action and a standard to perform a simple at-will attack. Daily, encounter length buffs, even if they are stances, *add* to your attacks.




Except that you can activate that minor action at the start of the day and never deal with it again. Your argument wasn't the power level (at least not previously), it was the difficult of having to consider the use of that minor action. Why do you now insist that those minor actions are trivial for PHB classes to use, but completely crippling for Essentials classes? Again, you seem to have a bit of a double standard in terms of what you are criticizing. 



Marshall said:


> Nope, they are significantly more complex to play. What you are seeing is how much easier it is as a DM and others at the table to allow someone whos playing poorly to just go with it. Essentials is much easier on _everyone else_ since the bad play doesnt penalize you as much.




A Slayer who stays in one stance and spams his basic attack and uses Power Strike when available _is not playing poorly_. They are operating as a fully effective Striker. You haven't offered a single shred of proof for why this is somehow being crippled. You have even tried to claim that a PHB class spamming an At-Will and never using encounter powers and daily powers is somehow more effective than this character. Again, without offering any evidence as to why. 

Even for the player who does change stances when appropriate, you consider this "significantly more complex". Which I still don't get- even if you find stances more complex (which I don't, but can certainly accept it if they are for you), you have to admit that Power Strike is much simpler than dealing with the normal Encounter system. 

Your argument previously was to keep insisting that WotC could have _instead_ made Power Strike part of the normal system somehow. Let's ignore that. All that matter is that you did accept Power Strike as a simpler option. So why do you feel that a class with Power Strike is _significantly more complex _than a class with 4 different encounter powers to choose from?

Again, we're not comparing to your hypothetical system. We're talking Essentials vs the existing classes. Here's the challenge - choose a ranger, a barbarian, a fighter, whatever. Build it for me. Let's go with level 5 or 7 or 9 - something mid to late Heroic. Build me your character as simple as you can, and we'll compare whether a Slayer is actually _significantly more complex _than it in actuality. 



Marshall said:


> No one ever said it was insurmountable, its just wasted time learning an incompatible power system that needs to be pitched when they switch classes.




Why was it wasted time? If they enjoyed playing the character and were effective with it, isn't that good enough? If it gave them a simple option to play while learning _every other aspect of the system_, and all they need to do now is learn the AEDU power format, doesn't that make the transition easier anyway? 



Marshall said:


> Sure, but its a lot easier to learn those differences when you have mastered the basic AEDU and class structure.




No it doesn't. How does "mastery of the AEDU structure" help you figure out the different benefits between a druid vs a warden vs a barbarian? 



Marshall said:


> Really?!? You have players who cant count from high to low?




Fast, smooth, simple play. That is the goal. The people we are talking about can absolutely do so, but that doesn't mean it isn't another level of complexity they _don't want to bother with_. 

Having a page filled with a half-dozen different powers with subtly different effects, and needing to check on each one what damage they deal _is going to take longer_ than having one power, four check-boxes, and the same exact effect each time. 



Marshall said:


> Yes, youre not only deciding what power you want to use you're also deciding what you want to do with every other possible use for that action...and since its a separate action you need to make this decision both BEFORE and AFTER the attack.
> 
> "OK, I want to hit this guy with Battle Wrath, the stance I'm currently in. Great! Took him down! Now do I stay in BW or do I want to Hammer Hands in case I get and OA or....." Complexity, followed by complexity....




The situations which require those choices are not especially common, can be easily ignored, and are ultimate less complex than choosing even once between 2 At-wills, 4 Encounters and 4 Dailies. Honestly, the character who is trying to keep things simple probably won't bother choosing Hammer Hands, and just stick to the stances that just boost attack or damage. Meaning basically no complexity to any choice they make... ever. 



Marshall said:


> The class is ridiculously complex for anyone who actually wants to play it. Its SLIGHTLY more effective than a 4e class played stupidly when its played stupidly.




Even as I accept that you find the structure more complex than the existing system, I don't think your hyperbole is helping. "Ridiculously complex"? Really?

As for your other point, the same one we've covered before several times, it is simply untrue. The Slayer "played stupidly" gives up a single stance by choosing to always stay in an effective stance. (The equivalent of "always use twin strike.") Rarely using your weaker or more situational At-Will is not considered "playing stupidly" - it is how most people play most of the time, honestly. 

What most people do not do is, as you suggest, never use a single Encounter or Daily Attack power. That is giving up _a vast amount _of effectiveness, and leaves you far, far behind an Essentials character in power level. And, honestly, is why I am glad for Essentials - because that _is _the behavior I would occasionally see by those who don't want to deal with the AEDU system. And those characters were a bane to the entire party, while the Essentials characters they play now are effective characters that contribute significantly to party success. 

Once again, if you are going to insist on these genuinely absurd claims, let's see some proof. Stat up your "stupidly played" Essentials character and "stupidly played" pre-Essentials character, and we'll see how they actually compare. 



Marshall said:


> I did make the point that the class written on the sheet is irrelevant when someone just wants to roll the dice and pass on to the next guy. You dont need a class for them.




We're not talking about someone who isn't invested in the game. We're talking about someone who would rather have a single effective attack than have to spend their time looking through powers and saying a silly power name. They want to just say, "I get up in his face and smash his face in" rather than spending time choosing between options and eventually saying, "I get up in his face and then... I Sudden Sweep of Storms him... in the face. Which I guess means I trip him, or something." 

I keep asking you, and you keep refusing to answer, my question: Are you willing to acknowledge that other people find these classes simpler to play, while still being effective, and that your experiences are not universal?

Because given this last response, it seems your answer is, "Anyone who plays different than me _doesn't deserve to play the game or have classes designed for them", _which strikes me as a pretty terrible attitude to have. 



Marshall said:


> Right, the class is better for _everyone else at the table_ and irrelevant for the player. Its not simpler for the player, its less of a hassle for the table.




So, just so we are clear...

When, with a pre-Essentials character, the character doesn't want to deal with the AEDU system, ends up playing slowly and poorly, and gets frustrated and quits the game...

vs when, with an Essentials character, they play simply and quickly, are effective in combat and enjoy contributing to the party, and are thus able to actually enjoy the game...

... the difference in those two characters, in your opinion, is entirely irrelevant to that player?


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 27, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Succinct and to the point. I think we've reached the crux of the disagreement, I view 'satisficing' as poor play in general and something to be used as a teaching tool only. Building a whole play structure around it isnt worth the effort, especially when there were options within the existing structure to reach that point.
> 
> "Good Enough" should never be a design goal, especially for something thats supposed to be the basis of everything from here forward.
> 
> As anything more than a stop-gap until you get better? Yes, I do.




So, rather than allow some players an option in which they can be effective and capable with a simpler style of play, you would prefer they either: (a) play badly with more complex characters or (b) leave the game?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 31, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> So, rather than allow some players an option in which they can be effective and capable with a simpler style of play, you would prefer they either: (a) play badly with more complex characters or (b) leave the game?



To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

It sounds so much more like a sock puppet being held up by someone who wants to play his CoDzilla or god-Wizard alongside these gimped classes so he can seem even more awe-inspiring by contrast.

I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp' - one that really was an on-ramp that lead into the full expression of the game, not a cubbyhole where they could be placed to do limitted damage until they finally climb out and demand a real character.  I know there are 'casual' players who are just there to socialize and would rather not pour effort into complex builds or make difficult decisions in play - but they seem to be happy to play pre-gens and take advice from other players, too.  


:shrug:  The whole debate is really emblematic of the problem, itself.  When you had balanced classes, you might have had people disagreeing over whether certain of them were sufficiently simulationist or whatever - but /some/ of them were probably acceptable, and if you played those, you were at least playing a character that wasn't overshadowing anyone or languishing, itself.  When you deliver imbalanced classes to meet supposed demand, people can play them or not, but the result will be more disruptive... just like the controversey over them.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.



In general, restating an opposing point to make it sound as implausible as possible will make it much harder to accept.  

Some people find complexity fun.  Some people find complexity boring.  Is that so hard to accept?  

Some people find building complex characters fun.  Other people find it paralyzing, because they have no desire to grapple with a multiplicity of options.  

The essentials builds went part of the way to making characters simple.  I would argue that rather than making them too simple, they didn't make them simple _enough_.  Ideally, for a simple 4e, you'd have a choice between 4-5 races (with no impact on class choice at all, an elf fighter should be as valid as a dwarf fighter), and then maybe 6-8 classes, and then a choice between 2-4 customization options.  Essentials didn't go far enough, because it didn't roll up feats into the class progression.  And I've seen these, because whenever I've tried to make characters with people who aren't regular gamers, the feat section has invariably frozen them, even when it's been restricted to just the general feats section of the character builder.  15 options is simply too many.



Tony Vargas said:


> I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp' - one that really was an on-ramp that lead into the full expression of the game, not a cubbyhole where they could be placed to do limitted damage until they finally climb out and demand a real character.  I know there are 'casual' players who are just there to socialize and would rather not pour effort into complex builds or make difficult decisions in play - but they seem to be happy to play pre-gens and take advice from other players, too.



I think you're making a too strong of a demarcation between "new" gamers and gamers who desire simplicity.  My 4e group consists of myself, my spouse, two other married couples, and one other single friend.  Everyone in the group has been playing together since 2002, and most of us have been gaming since the '90s.  

The majority of my players have no desire to master the rules other than being able to run their characters without having to ask exactly what to roll.  They enjoy the game, they enjoy combat, but they have no desire to fiddle with their characters other than to make sure their character is reflective of the concept they want to play.  While they enjoyed 4th, the sheer bulk of the combat system weighed them down considerably.  So the relative simplicity of Essentials (along with me streamlining magic items) was a godsend for my group.  

Now, I know you could say that they would be happy with pre-gens.  I've tried that before, but it never took.  They want to think up concepts, they simply have no patience for honing that concept into playable mechanics.  Essentials has made that possible, without requiring nearly as much input from me.

That be worthless for you, but Wizards has my full support on the Essentials line.  For me, the failure of Essentials was that it was published in 2010, instead of as the first 4e book in 2008.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.
> 
> It sounds so much more like a sock puppet being held up by someone who wants to play his CoDzilla or god-Wizard alongside these gimped classes so he can seem even more awe-inspiring by contrast.



CoDzilla? God-Wizard? Are you _sure_ you've played 4e before?

Frankly, even if an AEDU class is capable of "overshadowing" an Essentials class, it would be more like Superman vs. Green Lantern instead of Superman vs. Green Arrow.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.
> 
> It sounds so much more like a sock puppet being held up by someone who wants to play his CoDzilla or god-Wizard alongside these gimped classes so he can seem even more awe-inspiring by contrast.




Oh, come on. I've numerous times mentioned playing alongside specific players who have had issues running with the standard AEDU format and who find Essentials classes ideal for their style of play. Are you really so opposed to Essentials that you need to insist that I am either (a) a liar, or (b) enjoy crippling my friends so my characters can be awesome?

The point is that those who prefer this style _don't _feel overshadowed when playing Essentials characters, and _don't _feel bored by having simple but effective characters. They feel overshadowed when playing a PHB character ineffectively (since they never bother using encounter powers) and are bored when, before they can take their turn, the other players stop them from rolling and badger them into choosing between the half-dozen powers they have available. 

Is this representative of every player? Of course not. Nor is it even most players I know. I'd say that of players I know casually - from Living Forgotten Realms, Encounters, etc - perhaps 2 (out of the nine or ten I would occasionally play with) reaped vast benefits from the approach taken by Essentials. Of my own gaming group, out of the 6 or 7 folks we regularly game with, Essentials is perfect for 1 and useful for another. 

This doesn't mean that these players should never touch AEDU classes (nor does it mean that I and others don't occasionally play Essentials classes.) 

But they do exist - players who prefer the approach taken by Essentials. You find the Slayer mindlessly boring and ineffective. That's fair. You even fear the impact it might have on player's mindset about martial classes, and are concerned about what it means for the direction of the game as a whole. Also fine to worry about, even if we don't know how valid such concerns will be until farther down the road. 

But insisting that everyone else must have the same viewpoint as you - that players who might find these fun and interesting and effective to play don't actually exist, and that those who are disagreeing with you in these threads are just making stuff up... seriously, not cool. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp' - one that really was an on-ramp that lead into the full expression of the game, not a cubbyhole where they could be placed to do limitted damage until they finally climb out and demand a real character.




Again, not sure where you are getting the claims that Essentials characters are ineffective or do limited damage. The entire point is that they are simple but effective. 4E as a whole is _pretty _good about making it hard to build a truly ineffective character... but Essentials makes it even harder. You have a default level of 'pretty good', and that is one of its big advantages. 

As for the claims that Essentials doesn't really prepare characters for the real game or real characters... I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. The character builds are different, yes. But that gives a great opportunity to not deal with that complexity while learning everything _else _about the game - the mechanics of skills, combats, items, etc, basic tricks and strategies, etc. And once one is ready for more options in terms of character building - for those who want it - I don't see it as a huge ordeal to make the change. 



Tony Vargas said:


> I know there are 'casual' players who are just there to socialize and would rather not pour effort into complex builds or make difficult decisions in play - but they seem to be happy to play pre-gens and take advice from other players, too.




Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look, even with the best player in the world at the table, some folks find it disruptive or frustrating to constantly have that player giving them advice and telling them what they are doing wrong. Even if phrased as politely as possible... it feels like someone else is playing your character. And some folks would much rather have a character they can play effectively _entirely on their own merits_, rather than 'be happy' with a character built and run by other players. 



Tony Vargas said:


> :shrug: The whole debate is really emblematic of the problem, itself. When you had balanced classes, you might have had people disagreeing over whether certain of them were sufficiently simulationist or whatever - but /some/ of them were probably acceptable, and if you played those, you were at least playing a character that wasn't overshadowing anyone or languishing, itself. When you deliver imbalanced classes to meet supposed demand, people can play them or not, but the result will be more disruptive... just like the controversey over them.




Your entire argument is founded on the belief that Essentials characters are unbalanced, are overshadowed or languish compared to normal characters. I don't think anyone on the opposite side of the argument actually believes that is the case. They believe these _are _balanced classes. And I think we've given our reasons why every time you've brought up the point. 

For myself, I can understand your concerns, since I had the same worries when I heard about Essentials. The actual product alleviated those concerns and has proven - both in my experience and in analyzing the options - balanced with existing class. Honestly, to a far greater extent than we saw with PHB3 classes and the poor execution of Psionics - probably even to a greater extent than the original PHB classes were balanced with each other. 

Again, 4E as a whole is reasonably well balanced. We've seen some creep over the course of the edition, some of which was inevitable, some of which was not. And Essentials did ramp up even farther the power of feats, which is my biggest complaint about it. But as a whole, the classes themselves show a greater level of balance than what we saw before, in my opinion. 

And players who previously had to either rely on others to help build and play their character, or who ended up with something that either had trouble contributing or was frustrating to play... now have options that let them be effective and not be overshadowed, without dealing with those complexities or relying on constant advice from everyone else. That, in my mind, is a good thing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.




To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the good faith of these posters who apparently misrepresent the opposing points.  To some people the boring part is the nitty gritty of the rules and the faff of handling abstract powers and power selection.  Describing what you are doing as you hit it is far more interesting and fun to them than an abstract tactical skirmish game.  And their effectiveness _isn't_ overshadowed very much.



> I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp'




Where _new_ players includes players who have been playing 4e since it first came out and have been playing D&D longer than I have been alive.  Two at one of my tables.  New players like that?



> :shrug:  The whole debate is really emblematic of the problem, itself.  When you had balanced classes,




As far as I know you and Marshall are the only people asserting that other than in regular single encounter days the Essentials classes are any more unbalanced than the standard 4e ones are.  They are close enough under normal circumstances that you don't notice much difference (and are balanced on decently but not spectacularly optimised classes).  



> you might have had people disagreeing over whether certain of them were sufficiently simulationist or whatever - but /some/ of them were probably acceptable,




However the options and analysis paralysis and tactical play were more needed and not very acceptable to some.  _That_ is the problem Essentials Martial classes handle well.



> and if you played those, you were at least playing a character that wasn't overshadowing anyone or languishing, itself.




I have never seen examples in actual play of e-classes especially overshadowing or languishing except when there was something odd done with the core build.  (Yes, Assassin|Warlock with a 4d8 Eldritch Strike at Heroic (including curse) is going to overshadow a Slayer.  That's to do with broken hybrids, not the e-Classes.)



> When you deliver imbalanced classes to meet supposed demand, people can play them or not, but the result will be more disruptive... just like the controversey over them.




Give me actual play examples of imbalance.   Your argument appears to be one based entirely on theory that doesn't have much actual play experience behind it.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 31, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Give me actual play examples of
> imbalance. Your argument appears to be one based entirely on theory that doesn't have much actual play experience behind it.




When he has offered these claims previously, he was using imbalance as a reference to the 'innate' imbalance in resources between Essentials martial classes and PHB classes. For example, the lack of daily powers. 

His claim was that, due to this inherent difference, the classes would always be somewhat imbalanced. And there is some small truth to this - in a one encounter day, the PHB Fighter (who can burn several dailies) will have the edge, while in a 10 encounter day, the Slayer will have the advantage. 

However, in my opinion, the impact of those powers and the benefits that Essentials characters gain in their place are contained enough that the overall imbalance, even in extreme cases, is relatively slight. And, more specifically, is no worse than the potential imbalance that already exists in terms of classes with different amounts of healing surges, or different power levels/benefits available via dailies, or even simply the balance in the support and design of certain classes. 

Overall, the resource imbalance of Essentials will, I believe, have next to no impact in any actual gameplay. 

Now, I'm not sure when the previous points changed to claims that the Slayer (and similar builds) are somehow inherently left overshadowed/languishing/etc. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to indicate that (as demonstrated when Marshall offered the same claims but couldn't support them.)

The Knight has specific quirks as a defender due to its aura - but the same is true of the unique marks of other defenders, as well. The Slayer is certainly a straightforward Striker, but is no less effective for all that, and I doubt theory or experience could really show otherwise.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.



Are you actually incapable of recognizing that different gamers want different things at the table, or are you choosing to ignore it for the sake of being argumentative?

Nobody wants to be bored at the table.  You know this.  Not everybody appreciates the same stuff about 4e that you do.



> When you had balanced classes



Still do!

-O


----------



## Obryn (Aug 31, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Overall, the resource imbalance of Essentials will, I believe, have next to no impact in any actual gameplay.



That's been my own experience.

Also, as I think I posted above, lets postulate that this is indeed the case.  Over a short day, classes without Dailies will suffer.  Over a long day, classes with dailies will suffer.

Isn't this an argument that having both classes with dailies and classes without dailies will help an adventuring group be prepared for both long and short adventure days?  I fail to see how this would be a bad thing.

-O


----------

