# Class Compendium: The Warlord (Marshal)



## Peraion Graufalke (Mar 30, 2011)

It's up, and it's not behind the paywall.
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Warlord)


----------



## OnlineDM (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm a little disappointed about the article. I thought they were going to present a new build of the Warlord that would be similar to the Knight, Slayer, Thief, etc. - a martial class with simplified powers, no dailies, and so on. In the end, it's just a repackaging of the already existing Warlord material into a page layout and writing style that's in line with the Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms.

There are a few clarifications and tweaks to powers and so on, but that's more in the realm of errata than anything really new. 

The material is fine and all, but I don't see anything really new. Am I missing something?


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

Huh. I wonder if they have any plans regarding the PHB feats. Good on them for making this a freebie for the Essentials-only folks.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> There are a few clarifications and tweaks to powers and so on, but that's more in the realm of errata than anything really new.
> 
> The material is fine and all, but I don't see anything really new. Am I missing something?




Nah. This is what they said they were doing all along, and probably why they didn't feel they could sell it. The idea that they were going to do anything beyond clarify and reformat was one of the many myths and conspiracy theories that superstitious gamers (and trolls) have come up with.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 30, 2011)

This article contained only very minor errata. I was expecting something a bit more dramatic. It is possible that other classes will receive more substantial revisions though.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

Most PHB classes have been erratad a dozen times over. The only major revisions I expect are the ones they've mentioned. I'd be surprised if they touched up Strength clerics, even.


----------



## OnlineDM (Mar 30, 2011)

<shrug> I guess this is something of a non-event, then. Oh well!


----------



## MerricB (Mar 30, 2011)

ppaladin123 said:


> This article contained only very minor errata. I was expecting something a bit more dramatic. It is possible that other classes will receive more substantial revisions though.




They've hinted as such for the Wizard and the Warlock.

I'm actually pretty pleased to see the errata so minor. 

Cheers!


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 30, 2011)

Oh, what do you know... it's NOT "ESSENTIALIZED"!

I can't wait to hear the cries from the anti-Essentials peanut gallery _now_. I hate to say "I told you so" but, oh who am I kidding...

I TOLD YOU SO.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

You know, even if I have become an overly bitter twisted cynic as of late: Even I took Wizards at their word all they were doing was changing the original PHB classes into a new format. They changed surprisingly little here now I think of it, but that's a good thing really because it was already fine after the errata from a while back anyway. It does show canceling the class compendium and just releasing this was the best thing to do: This isn't new material and serves as an update.

As an added bonus, because I don't think it is behind the paywall it's free for all users of 4E!


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

This is basically PHB: Final Form. After this I expect they won't be touching these classes again directly. Which is fine because there's SO much else to work on.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

Overall I like the build - having read through it. It makes a competent "Marshal" that will do exactly as advertised: Help his allies beat monsters senseless. It's not like there isn't a whole heap extra material in MP1 and MP2 for players to get if they want more as well.

I actually really approve of it being free as well. For a multitude of reasons, but mostly because I don't think Wizards can earn enough goodwill back (and this IMO certainly deserves to). The Warlord also remains the best leader for essentials martial classes by _miles_.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 30, 2011)

I thought they would at least take the opportunity to fix ranged powers out of PHB like Knight's Move and Shake It Off to be one creature in burst X. For a melee class, warlords have a lot of carelessly written utility powers that provoke opportunity attacks, mostly from PHB (and now in the CC_Warlord). If you look at the later melee leaders like runepriest, they don't make this mistake.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 30, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Oh, what do you know... it's NOT "ESSENTIALIZED"!
> 
> I can't wait to hear the cries from the anti-Essentials peanut gallery _now_. I hate to say "I told you so" but, oh who am I kidding...
> 
> I TOLD YOU SO.




How do you not see it as essentialized?

It has the hideously ugly formatting.

It has the ridiculous tables for each tier.

True, it does not have the MBA at-wills and lack of dailies and varied encounters

So essentials format, maybe, but not essentials build. I guess I can live with that.

But more on topic, I do hope to see larger changes for other classes. I have really been looking forward to this series of articles. I wish they had put the warlord-only feats in there, if any from PHB were changed, I do not remember. Maybe they will withthe wizard feats, some of which I know were changed.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

I actually like the new formatting and it's much easier to follow for new players (and getting used to a new class). Even if more page intensive. When people use the term "Essentialized" it's usually to refer to an entirely different build with incompatible parts compared to the previous class. EG Fighter and Slayer. Wizard and Mage.

This is a Warlord. It has new format, but nothing else is different. Pretty much what Wizards said they were doing.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I actually like the new formatting and it's much easier to follow for new players (and getting used to a new class). Even if more page intensive. When people use the term "Essentialized" it's usually to refer to an entirely different build with incompatible parts compared to the previous class. EG Fighter and Slayer. Wizard and Mage.
> 
> This is a Warlord. It has new format, but nothing else is different. Pretty much what Wizards said they were doing.



I really, really hated the Essentials class format when I first ran into it.

Even today, I still have trouble grasping the class overview when it's presented like this.  But - I've learned that yeah, it is pretty great to use when leveling up a character over time.

So now I don't hate it.  I'm just fine with it, I suppose.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

First two things:

1) Kudos for not hiding it behind a paywall, and...

2) 'Marshal?'  Really?  Warlords everywhere are hanging their heads in shame.


Aside from that, like the 'Weaponmaster' preview (exactly like that preview, really, including getting a dumb name), there are few substantive changes:

- Right of the bat, Tactical presence got 'clarified' hard.  Rangers, Wizards, and other multi-attackers are no longer the Taclord's best friends.  Unexpected and disapointing.  Given that nerf, it could have made the bonus to hit equal to INT bonus, no need to halve it.

- Commander's Strike OTOH, less nerfing than expected.  Just the obvious one: it's explicitly a Free Action for the ally.  Not made a power bonus or anything.  There are a number of powers that recieve a 'free action' clarification, which is fine.

- Own the Battlefield not sliding into hindering terrain makes sense.  Reducing it to close burst 5 doesn't, not at that level.

- OK, Stir the Hornet's Nest probably deserved it.

The other powers changed weren't egregious nerfs or entirely uncalled for.  I agree that Knight's Move and several others should have been changed from Range to Close Burst/1 ally.  But, WotC tends to errata only things that are too powerful or very unclear.  If it's too weak, it'll just be oviated by something else, later.  (OK, except for Wizard encounter powers, they were 'too weak' and got updated to be more powerful - 'exception that proves the rule,' or 'pattern of discrimination?').


We'll see how the Weaponmaster (gag) and Marshal (barf) - sorry, the names are litterally leaving a bad taste in my mouth - stack up to the re-toothed Warlock rumored to be coming, and the already errata'd-to-be-more-powerful Wizard, who is also receiving 5 new builds in Essentials+.  


Finally, one critical question.  Is this Warlord considered 'Essentials +' content?  Will there be a 'Marshal' (hrrmph) pre-gen at the next season of D&D Encounters?  Will it even be allowed there?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 30, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> How do you not see it as essentialized?
> 
> It has the hideously ugly formatting.
> 
> ...



Pretty much this:


Aegeri said:


> I actually like the new formatting and it's much easier to follow for new players (and getting used to a new class). Even if more page intensive. When people use the term "Essentialized" it's usually to refer to an entirely different build with incompatible parts compared to the previous class. EG Fighter and Slayer. Wizard and Mage.
> 
> This is a Warlord. It has new format, but nothing else is different. Pretty much what Wizards said they were doing.




I made that post, half in jest and half in vindication over the amount of incessant whining concerning this "update" and how "WotC was going to turn all the PH1 classes into Essential classes" with modified MBAs, one spammable encounter utility, and no dailies.

All along I said that wasn't what was going to happen and that this wouldn merely be a formatting change with minor updates. The usual response was skeptical and often snottily-toned, hence a similar response here. I admit that it was petty of me. I _try _to be a good forum citizen, but I had a moment of weakness.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

If the Class Compendium articles don't count as Essentials+ material, it might still conceivably happen - an E-build of the warlord reduced to basic-attack monkey, that is.  

More likely, and in a way just as bad, it won't receive any post-E build or support, and will just be left to gather dust.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 30, 2011)

As expected, but I'd _still_ like to see a variant warlord build without the uninspiring Inspiring Word and sans dailies. 

It was obviously a really good idea for them NOT to try and sell me this thing for $25, though.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

The Warlord doesn't really need much more. It's one of the strongest basic builds in the entire game, has had TWO entire splat books full of powers (far more than what the poor artificer, runepriest or seeker ever got or will get), has at least been entirely updated to essentials format (But little else) and has had numerous articles.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If they never publish anything for PHB1 classes for the rest of 4E I will shed not a single tear.

Also I think it was you who wrote this on the official boards, but there is no real nerf to tactical presence. A FAQ for the PHB clarified it was supposed to work this way ages ago. The essentials warlord build just makes it 100% air-tight that is how it worked.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again: If they never publish anything for PHB1 classes for the rest of 4E I will shed not a single tear.



I hear this defense of Essentials' mistreatment of the martial source a lot.

Thing is, if it is about how long a class has been out, and how much support it's already received, why does the Wizard rate 6 new builds?  (Enchanter, Illusionist, Evoker, Pyromancer, Necromancer & Nethermancer).    




> Also I think it was you who wrote this on the official boards, but there is no real nerf to tactical presence. A FAQ for the PHB clarified it was supposed to work this way ages ago. The essentials warlord build just makes it 100% air-tight that is how it worked.



News to me.  I'd never had the misfortune of playing under a DM who had read that FAQ, I guess.  Hey, there are probably plenty who don't read Dragon, either...


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Thing is, if it is about how long a class has been out, and how much support it's already received, why does the Wizard rate 6 new builds?  (Enchanter, Illusionist, Evoker, Pyromancer, Necromancer & Nethermancer).




I dislike this equally as much. If you've at all seen any of my posts I have been critical - maybe crossing over into bitter at times - that Wizards is constantly remaking and reselling the original PHB classes. I've mentioned numerous times I think it's time for them to move on from reselling the PHB classes again. 

Quite frankly, I will be extremely disappointed if Heroes of the Feywild is yet more fighter/wizard/cleric/paladin/insert PHB class here builds.



> News to me.  I'd never had the misfortune of playing under a DM who had read that FAQ, I guess.  Hey, there are probably plenty who don't read Dragon, either...



It's irrelevant if it is "News" to you - it was ruled this way for ages now (More than a year ago, I think?) and this is basically just putting in what the FAQ said into the class. They might as well seeing as they rewrote it change that as well, but it's not an actual change if you've been following the way the rules actually worked


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I dislike this equally as much. If you've at all seen any of my posts I have been critical - maybe crossing over into bitter at times - that Wizards is constantly remaking and reselling the original PHB classes. I've mentioned numerous times I think it's time for them to move on from reselling the PHB classes again.
> 
> Quite frankly, I will be extremely disappointed if Heroes of the Feywild is yet more fighter/wizard/cleric/paladin/insert PHB class here builds.



Considering the link between the Feywild and arcane magic, a 7th (and perhaps 8th) wizard build would seem inevitable.  Most likely, you'll see several builds for HotFL & HotFK classes, and maybe a new class.  The only support for pre-E will likely be 'pass through' - "a wizard can take Feymancer powers, so the PH1 has been supported."



> It's irrelevant if it is "News" to you - it was ruled this way for ages now (More than a year ago, I think?) and this is basically just putting in what the FAQ said into the class. They might as well seeing as they rewrote it change that as well, but it's not an actual change if you've been following the way the rules actually worked



I wasn't being dismisive.  I oppened the 'Update' document in the article, and it was right there on the first line, so I commented on it.  If my comment is a year late, well, consider it a late comment on the FAQ.  It really does take Tactical presence down several notches.


----------



## the-golem (Mar 30, 2011)

I was not at all surprised at the direction they went, as I read the preview article about this a few issues back. I am pleased at the changes though, as I've been playing a Warlord at my meetup game, and some of the things were unclear. (Commander's Strike, for example, makes much more sense in the new version.)


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

Essentials is, after all, partly about bringing back people who cling to the past, so it's only natural that 50% of development goes to cramming more wizard spells into everything.

Anyone remember the Wizard's Spell Compendium *SERIES*?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

The Commander's Strike errata was long overdue, yes.  It was clear within a few months that it needed an effect line, and needed to be very explicit about its range.  (The free action thing only became really important when free-action attacks were nerfed more recently, but it makes sense.)


----------



## Baumi (Mar 30, 2011)

Is the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny new?

I think the most awesome thing about this article is that Players/Gm's that only bought the Essential Books now finally have the Warlord too ... and for Free! 

Since I am a 4E Players since day 1, I already had the Class, but it's nice to see it in a easier format again, which is great to hand out for newer players or players who feel overwhelmed by all the options that exist for the Warlord already.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

No, the Paragon Paths are the same ones as in the PH.  There is no Epic destiny (AFAICT, Essentials has one Epic Destiny, Indomitable Champion, for everyone).  There is an entry for 'Epic Marshal' but it's just the level 21-30 class features, and notes about 'you get an Epic Destiny thingy at this level.'


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 30, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Oh, what do you know... it's NOT "ESSENTIALIZED"!
> 
> I can't wait to hear the cries from the anti-Essentials peanut gallery _now_. I hate to say "I told you so" but, oh who am I kidding...
> 
> I TOLD YOU SO.



Actually, my complain was also that 'Essentials' made the old PHB redundant (especially with the rules compendium added).

Now they start giving the remaining PHB content for free...

But no, I will not complain!!! I actually like it!!!


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

Ironically, if they actually put all the PHB classes out on free PDFs like this... it's basically what a lot of people have been wanting for ages. Sans other rules, of course, but a good chunk at least.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 30, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Ironically, if they actually put all the PHB classes out on free PDFs like this... it's basically what a lot of people have been wanting for ages.



I'd [-]buy[/-] download that!

Edit: I appreciate the Addendum. I'll have to compare the differences in a quiet moment. And, yeah, the formatting doesn't bother me _much_, only a little


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 30, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> As expected, but I'd _still_ like to see a variant warlord build without the uninspiring Inspiring Word and sans dailies.
> 
> It was obviously a really good idea for them NOT to try and sell me this thing for $25, though.




A noble endeavor.

So what's the shtick? I imagine it'd keep inspiring word as is.

Would it have, what, stances that grant benefits based on you hitting with your stances? An encounter power like 'Power Strike' that lets you, as a free action, have an ally make a basic attack or use an at-will?

Maybe instead of stances, you'd have different auras (representing you shouting orders) that grant various bonuses to allies. Use the encounter power to boost the power of those auras for a round?

Then we'd need extra perks as you level.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 30, 2011)

The one thing that was sort of burried in the lead up article. They HAVE confirmed there will be feats allowing the use of the some of the class features from HotFK/FL. So, if nothing else, the Class Compendium articles will be providing some new content eventually (in April).

Speaking of which ... they did work pretty hard to get those articles in under the wire there ...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> How do you not see it as essentialized?
> 
> It has the hideously ugly formatting.
> 
> ...



*Feats*

   Included in the _Class Compendium_ series (in April) is an installment on feats to round out your character. For the most part, the feats included in _Class Compendium_ are intended to provide characters built using the _Essentials_ rulebooks with more options for using the _Player’s Handbook_ material, as well as providing characters built using _Class Compendium_ with ways to gain some of the class features presented in _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_. For a better selection of adventuring feats, you should refer to _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_, and the _Player’s Handbook_.


Feats will be covered.


 @Aegeri : sorry to say that. I can´t quote because you sneaked it into xp comments: No, wizard was pretty clear on most part, what essentials wants to do. It wer people on these forums, that took their words and turned it around.


(Which does not mean, DDI promotion is not a bit lacking in clarity sometimes)


I just can support Nemesis Destiny.


There are not a lot of things that annoy me. But trying to promote unreasonal panic is one of those things...


----------



## Zaran (Mar 30, 2011)

Makes you wonder why they waited until the last minute for this.  Wasn't a very climatic article.   I still would have bought the book though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2011)

Me too, but only because i refused to buy the PHB for ovious reasons...

Something to the content:

1. I support that many ranged powers should actually be close burst with target: one creature in burst.

2. The iron dragon charge should clarify in the effect, that it allows an immediate charge when using this power. You have to chose the arget at the start of your charge, and strictly reading, the effect has not happened before the attack... The fluff however suggests otherwise.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 30, 2011)

I'd love to get a book with the PH1 classes clarified and re-formatted like this.


----------



## Nullzone (Mar 30, 2011)

I like that they fixed a few riders on some of the abilities (like clarifying the free action portion of Commander's Strike), but am seriously disappointed by the fact that it's mostly existing material reformatted; I was hoping for a new Warlord design, even if it wasn't strictly Essentials (because I can't quite figure how that would work out anyway, Warlord's toolset is too big).

And they still suffer from having three primary stats


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 30, 2011)

> A noble endeavor.
> 
> So what's the shtick? I imagine it'd keep inspiring word as is.
> 
> ...




Actually, I'd like to replace Inspiring Word. It's basically copypasta from _Healing Word_, and part of the point is that this class should play differently from the Cleric and other leaders. Making the healing power unique would be *the* major change.

Alternate healing ability might be something like _Inspiring Presence_, an Aura 5/10/15 that lets allied characters spend a surge on their own turns as a free action and gain +1d6 hp, 2x or 3x per encounter. The Warlord is a reservoir your allies tap, and all you need to do is show up to the game. 

We replace daily nova capacity with a potpourri of encounter-level immediate actions. An ally hits? You add damage. An ally attacks? You add attack bonus. An ally moves? You move them farther. An ally makes a save? You help them save harder. An ally is attacked? You give them a defensive boost. The Warlord becomes the class that gets to act on everyone else's turn.  Imagine splitting something like _Bastion of Defense_ into three encounter powers (either of which you can choose at first level), each of which contains a (slightly watered down) version of that power's main effects (more damage, +1 to nearby ally's defenses, some temp hp). Our warlord is handing out _candy_ each turn.

On their own turn, our warlords are simple: move into position near an ally (within range of your immediate "commands" and your aura) and attack. 

When other people go, our Warlord shines brightest. It's in line with the "easier, more streamlined" Essentials idea, since the warlord rarely has to choose _how_ to boost an ally, they just need to do what a given ally needs at a given moment. The thief gets extra damage. The knight gets extra defenses. The mage gets extra accuracy. And if no one needs much of anything, the warlord can always buff themselves, using those interrupts on their own actions. 

That's the tentative idea, anyway. The big thing is changing _Inspiring Word_. It is exactly the same as the cleric ability, and the Warlord deserves their own (equally as potent) way to help allies.


----------



## Magil (Mar 30, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> No, the Paragon Paths are the same ones as in the PH.  There is no Epic destiny (AFAICT, Essentials has one Epic Destiny, Indomitable Champion, for everyone).  There is an entry for 'Epic Marshal' but it's just the level 21-30 class features, and notes about 'you get an Epic Destiny thingy at this level.'




Nah, there's Destined Scion now too. Basically Indomitable Champion with an offensive focus instead of a defensive focus.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 30, 2011)

If you have been playing a warlord, this does give you an errated version, if you have the heroes book(s) and want to, this gives it you for free. Thats something. 

In terms of an actual book, I am with the banana on this, and thinking it was better they didn't do a whole book. Interesting to see that others would still be interested. 



Walking Dad said:


> Actually, my complain was also that 'Essentials' made the old PHB redundant (especially with the rules compendium added).
> 
> Now they start giving the remaining PHB content for free...
> 
> But no, I will not complain!!! I actually like it!!!




As some of use predicted a while ago, the 08 books are gradually being replaced. (original 4E monster manual anyone?) But ya, its not worth complaining about.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 30, 2011)

Aura 5. An ally in this aura who spends a standard action to make an attack gains 5 temporary hit points.

or

Aura 5. When an ally in the aura first becomes bloodied in an encounter, he may spend a healing surge.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 30, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> I like that they fixed a few riders on some of the abilities (like clarifying the free action portion of Commander's Strike), but am seriously disappointed by the fact that it's mostly existing material reformatted; I was hoping for a new Warlord design, even if it wasn't strictly Essentials (because I can't quite figure how that would work out anyway, Warlord's toolset is too big).
> 
> And they still suffer from having three primary stats




I prefer to think of it as having two clear directions that they can take. Do you lead through knowledge, or force of personality? You can do both, but you won't be as good at either as if you had specialized.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Mar 30, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> A noble endeavor.
> 
> So what's the shtick? I imagine it'd keep inspiring word as is.
> 
> Would it have, what, stances that grant benefits based on you hitting with your stances? An encounter power like 'Power Strike' that lets you, as a free action, have an ally make a basic attack or use an at-will?



I've written up a few stances for a leader build of fighter that resembles a warlord. Indeed, many of the stances are based on warlord at-wills. I can post them in 4e House Rules if you (or anyone else) is interested.

I decided to go with an inspiring word analogue that granted temporary hitpoints equal to the target's healing surge value and +2 to all defenses (kind of a pseudo-Second Wind). I have to playtest it to see if works okay.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 30, 2011)

Ryujin said:


> I prefer to think of it as having two clear directions that they can take. Do you lead through knowledge, or force of personality? You can do both, but you won't be as good at either as if you had specialized.



A lot of post PHB1 classes have a one primary ability and two secondary scores and they choose one depending on the build.

What has been abandoned is the idea of having two primary scores and I'm rather curious to see what they will do (if anything) with the strength cleric.

Unfortunately paladins, rangers and warlocks aren't included in this first batch of classes.


----------



## jimmifett (Mar 30, 2011)

I like how they literally copy-pasted the content from the actual book, leaving italicized titles and page references intact. 

Yeah, it's probably for the best that this book got cancelled. I'd be hard pressed to buy it, even my collectionist instincts balked at buying the Player Strategy Guide for 50% off at a borders closing. Dark Sun CG and PF APG for 50% off were 2 deals I could not resist.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2011)

But warlocks are announced!


----------



## OnlineDM (Mar 30, 2011)

After reading all of the comments on this thread, I think I'm more confused than when I started. Some folks are saying, "See, everyone was worried that WotC would do a martial-Essentials-style Warlord built on basic attacks with no dailies, but as promised they just reformatted the existing material!" 

Okay, that's lovely, but I think I'm still missing the point of publishing this article. I guess it's nice of WotC to give away the Warlord class as a free bonus to anyone who wants it, and I guess it's nice to have it in the same layout as the Heroes Of... books to make it easier for players who only have those books to understand it. I'm sure the power tweaks and clarifications are nice, too. 

I'm really glad that they're not charging for it, as there's just nothing new here, though. It feels really, really pointless to me. Why did WotC expend effort on this reformatting? I'm sure it took time and resources to have people redo the layout. Am I alone in feeling like that was a waste and wishing they would have put that time and those resources into new content of some sort (whether for the Warlord or something else entirely)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely fine with the layout and I think it's lovely that WotC made this available for free. But is it a good use of the company's limited game development resources? Wouldn't people rather see new stuff instead of reformatted stuff - again, whether for the Warlord or something else entirely?

Maybe that's why they ended up killing off the Class Compendium book - someone looked at it and said, "What's the point?" And while I know that some people would love to have the PHB1 reprinted with errata and tidy formatting, I'd rather WotC put their effort into creating cool new stuff rather than reformatting old stuff.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 30, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> I'm a little disappointed about the article. I thought they were going to present a new build of the Warlord that would be similar to the Knight, Slayer, Thief, etc. - a martial class with simplified powers, no dailies, and so on.




And thank goodness they didnt. We have enough shortbus martial classes. Time to spread the pain (or love, depending on your POV) of that design style to other power sources, and leave a few martials wearing big boy pants.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

Class Compendium would have been more or less a revised PHB. They just realized that the community would balk at the idea of paying for the PHB again.


----------



## brehobit (Mar 30, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Aura 5. An ally in this aura who spends a standard action to make an attack gains 5 temporary hit points.
> 
> or
> 
> Aura 5. When an ally in the aura first becomes bloodied in an encounter, he may spend a healing surge.



The first one is a bit too grindy and would need to scale with level in any case.  I think the second is also a bit too much, but really close to right.  How about:

Aura 5/7/9 (by tier).  A bloodied ally in the aura gains level/5+2 temporary hit points at the start of their turn.​
Still grindy, but given the new monster damage rules, being bloodied isn't a place you generally want to be...

Mark


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 30, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Class Compendium would have been more or less a revised PHB. They just realized that the community would balk at the idea of paying for the PHB again.




And yet we still see dozens upon dozens of posters here on ENWorld who constantly complain that WotC _doesn't_ reprint their books with all the errata included.

This is why WotC's in a no-win situation.  Half the people complain if WotC doesn't print a fully-updated PHB because they insist they like having hard copies of the books and don't want to just "rent" them via the Character Builder.  And the other half of the people complain that WotC is wasting time and money producing this material all over again when they should be working on any number of other "new" projects.

And we wonder sometimes why Wizards doesn't bother listening to most of our caterwauling.  Based upon every subject having people coming down on both completely opposite sides equally... I wouldn't either.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 30, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And yet we still see dozens upon dozens of posters here on ENWorld who constantly complain that WotC _doesn't_ reprint their books with all the errata included.
> 
> This is why WotC's in a no-win situation.  Half the people complain if WotC doesn't print a fully-updated PHB because they insist they like having hard copies of the books and don't want to just "rent" them via the Character Builder.  And the other half of the people complain that WotC is wasting time and money producing this material all over again when they should be working on any number of other "new" projects.
> 
> And we wonder sometimes why Wizards doesn't bother listening to most of our caterwauling.  Based upon every subject having people coming down on both completely opposite sides equally... I wouldn't either.




Drat: "Must spread experience around..."

I certainly would have bought a revised PHB, provided that it wasn't going to be subsequently subject to errata that made it worthless, within 6 months time.


----------



## Neverfate (Mar 30, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And yet we still see dozens upon dozens of posters here on ENWorld who constantly complain that WotC _doesn't_ reprint their books with all the errata included.
> 
> This is why WotC's in a no-win situation.  Half the people complain if WotC doesn't print a fully-updated PHB because they insist they like having hard copies of the books and don't want to just "rent" them via the Character Builder.  And the other half of the people complain that WotC is wasting time and money producing this material all over again when they should be working on any number of other "new" projects.
> 
> And we wonder sometimes why Wizards doesn't bother listening to most of our caterwauling.  Based upon every subject having people coming down on both completely opposite sides equally... I wouldn't either.




Erm...equally? If players came down on everything equally, WotC would have cut their losses on this book and sent it to print just for the half that would support it. Because that's what would have happened with every other book.

Certain things are just going to fair better than others. While I don't deny there is a subset of people who want this book, I can't imagine it was enough to warrant printing it. 

Technically, when all is said and done, you could take every "article" and have a book made out of it for probably the same that you would have bought it for. (Providing the rest of the articles remain free)


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And we wonder sometimes why Wizards doesn't bother listening to most of our caterwauling.  Based upon every subject having people coming down on both completely opposite sides equally... I wouldn't either.




That and WotC is also COMPOSED of the same people.


----------



## Knightfall (Mar 30, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I'd love to get a book with the PH1 classes clarified and re-formatted like this.



I would buy that too. The new format is just... better. (IMO.)

I wonder if any of the PHB 2 & 3 classes will get this treatment.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 30, 2011)

brehobit said:


> The first one is a bit too grindy and would need to scale with level in any case.  I think the second is also a bit too much, but really close to right.  How about:
> 
> Aura 5/7/9 (by tier).  A bloodied ally in the aura gains level/5+2 temporary hit points at the start of their turn.​
> Still grindy, but given the new monster damage rules, being bloodied isn't a place you generally want to be...
> ...




New idea. Tracking temporary hit points round by round is a bit fiddly, but what if you have an aura that grants your allies resist X all while within it. Probably a very low number, but it achieve a leader-esque effect: prevent damage instead of healing HP.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 30, 2011)

Sure the errata is needed. However I guess I'm one of those who finds the effort of essentials reformatting pointless. The new formatting doesn't change how I'm clicking around in CB to build or level up a Warlord, nor does it change how I play my warlord. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but that's all I care about. The update page is what I needed, to stay informed. Everything else will be in the CB as should be.


----------



## aurance (Mar 30, 2011)

The extreme amount of wasted space in the new format hurts my head. A lot.

For instance, what is the need for every power to have two entries for flavor text? And the title twice?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2011)

Just rename inspiring word to healing word...

edit: no, better the other way around!


----------



## Zaran (Mar 30, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Class Compendium would have been more or less a revised PHB. They just realized that the community would balk at the idea of paying for the PHB again.




But if they are going to post this stuff for free they should go back to selling pdfs of their products instead of worrying about pirates.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 30, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> And thank goodness they didnt. We have enough shortbus martial classes. Time to spread the pain (or love, depending on your POV) of that design style to other power sources, and leave a few martials wearing big boy pants.




What gets me is that every official mention of the Class Compendium book and later the replacement articles is very clear about the 5 classes being covered being the PHB1 versions with any new errata needed written in the overly verbose Essentials layout, but people still jump to the conclusion (with no actual evidence, since they've been pretty clear on which articles/books will feature new Essentials-style subclasses and which will not) that it means we are getting new subclasses ala the Slayer.

People complain about WotC's lack of communication on some fronts, yet many don't pay attention to the actual information they do communicate and complain when their artificially constructed expectations are not met. Being disappointed by the Monster Builder not being a builder makes sense, since the name and advertisement email gave unmet expectations straight from the horse's mouth, but being disappointed by the Warlord article being exactly what they said it would be (the PHB1 Warlord reprinted) just strikes me as people actively seeking something to be upset about.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 30, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> Okay, that's lovely, but I think I'm still missing the point of publishing this article. I guess it's nice of WotC to give away the Warlord class as a free bonus to anyone who wants it, and I guess it's nice to have it in the same layout as the Heroes Of... books to make it easier for players who only have those books to understand it. I'm sure the power tweaks and clarifications are nice, too.
> 
> I'm really glad that they're not charging for it, as there's just nothing new here, though. It feels really, really pointless to me. Why did WotC expend effort on this reformatting?




Keep in mind this was originally planned as a book release. As such, it would have served two real purposes:

1) Provided the 'updated PHB' that various current players have asked for, with errata included; and
2) Provided new players (who started with Essentials) with the earlier builds for classes, displayed in the format the recognize. 

However, I'm guessing that they realized that even with the two target audiences, the book was unlikely to sell enough to be worthwhile. But, by then, they had already done most of this reformatting. So they decided to release it as online content. 

I'm mostly in agreement that it is largely useless as such. We've already got the online Compendium that includes the full warlord class - adding a bit more errata doesn't change that. It sounds like this is available for everyone, so I suppose this helps provide the content to non-subscribers. 

But yeah, overall, this does very little. But they already had the content created, so no real reason _not _to share it. 

I'm mainly looking forward to getting to see Essentials multiclassing feats (which may be coming next month, it sounds like), as well as the content from the _other _cancelled books, which looked genuinely interesting and new.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 30, 2011)

Agreed. CC might have contained a few interesting things, feats mostly from the sound of it, but it is really the other 2 books that sounded interesting.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 30, 2011)

I was actually most interested in buying the book to get Essentials multiclassing feats/rules (however they were going to do it). I believe that earlier on (before it got canned) that they were going to also show the nuts and bolts of class feature interchange between builds of the same class. I could be misremembering that, but I do distinctly recall reading it. Now THAT would be interesting.


----------



## chitzk0i (Mar 30, 2011)

...and Sword Marshal still sucks.



Nemesis Destiny said:


> I was actually most interested in buying the book to get Essentials multiclassing feats/rules (however they were going to do it). [...] Now THAT would be interesting.




Good news!



			
				Warlord article said:
			
		

> Included in the Class Compendium series (in April) is an installment on feats to round out your character. For the most part, the feats included in Class Compendium are intended to provide characters built using the Essentials rulebooks with more options for using the Player’s Handbook material, as well as providing characters built using Class Compendium with ways to gain some of the class features presented in Heroes of the Fallen Lands.


----------



## Droogie128 (Mar 30, 2011)

So glad they didn't make it like the other essentials martial classes. I think they butchered them into being one-trick ponies. I really like how they did this one.

Warlord has always been one of my favorite classes. Not necessarily my favorite to play, but I just love having one in the group. Probably the best designed class in 4e.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

Yeah, "providing characters built using Class Compendium with ways to gain some of the class features presented in Heroes of the Fallen Lands" is not exactly the same as "the nuts and bolts of class feature interchange between builds of the same class."  For one thing, it sounds like it'll be one-way.  Fine for the old classes, if they really want to sign up for a partial lobotomy, where such might be optimal; but keeping the 'simplicity' of the E-classes hardwired in (so, if you get bored with simplistic basic attack spamming as you get to know the game, your only choice is to change characters).

What would be really nice would be if more of the subtle, but significant, power inflation enjoyed by the Essentials classes were allowed to 'pass through' to the parent classes - like it already has for the Rogue (1/turn SA), and Wizard (miss & effects lines for Encounter powers).  So, for instance, that would mean taking the Fighter's Combat Challenge form 1/round to 1/trn, like the Knights.  That sort of thing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2011)

Droogie128 said:


> So glad they didn't make it like the other essentials martial classes. I think they butchered them into being one-trick ponies. I really like how they did this one.
> 
> Warlord has always been one of my favorite classes. Not necessarily my favorite to play, but I just love having one in the group. Probably the best designed class in 4e.



Please tell me, which class exactly was butchered? I don´t get it... And please show me your PHB with torn out and blackened pages...

it is the same old compains over and over again and you get the same answer: no one forces you to use essential classes. The old fighter is still valid and still gets support, despite what some people claim.


[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]
And yes, the fighter mark punishment should become a opportunity action power. But you should consider IF it should get the wis bonus to hit or not. for ease of use I would allow it.

To the knight... i still find it mind boggling, that shifting near a knight is worse than just moving away...


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Considering the link between the Feywild and arcane magic, a 7th (and perhaps 8th) wizard build would seem inevitable.  Most likely, you'll see several builds for HotFL & HotFK classes, and maybe a new class.  The only support for pre-E will likely be 'pass through' - "a wizard can take Feymancer powers, so the PH1 has been supported."




God, you want me to hate this book already and it's not even out yet.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2011)

Transmuter should fit in somewhere? Why not in the feywild book...


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Transmuter should fit in somewhere? Why not in the feywild book...



Do we _really_ need more wizards?

_REALLY?_

I just don't see the point of more Wizards at this point. Not when the Artificer/Seeker/Runepriest have, I dunno, _nothing_. I would sooner see support for those classes than yet another wizard build.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 30, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Do we _really_ need more wizards?
> 
> _REALLY?_
> 
> I just don't see the point of more Wizards at this point. Not when the Artificer/Seeker/Runepriest have, I dunno, _nothing_. I would sooner see support for those classes than yet another wizard build.



Agreed. I would sooner see them do cool things with the unsupported classes, even if it is only making the Swordmage into an Abjurer and the Artificer into a Transmuter.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 30, 2011)

For the record the options available to Wizards in 4E are:

Tome
Staff
Wand
Orb
Nethermancer
Necromancer
Evoker
Pyromancer
Illusionist
Enchantment

They don't need more options. It's time to leave the Wizard alone. It really is. If you can't find something awesome to play out of that, you would never be satisfied with anything.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 30, 2011)

I would be satisfied when I can recreate all the characters that I could under previous (specifically 2nd) editions. I don't care what the base class is called - only that it does the kinds of things that I expect or need it to in order to replicate those old options.

I can do divination with Rituals (works better that way anyway), but I'm still missing Transmuter (for which Artificer would work beautifully), and Abjurer (which screams Implement-only Swordmage build). Conjurer can already be done easily with existing options.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 30, 2011)

But Aegeri what about the abjurer and the rod wizard and the aeromancer and the wild mage and the aquamancer and the geomancer and the charmers and the carnomancer and the botanomancer and universal specialist and the diviner and the divinomancer and invoker and the conjurer and the alterer and the sun mage and the wood mage and the dark mage and the elemental mage and the primal wizard and the astralcaster.

How else can we explore new concepts if we don't give them to the wizards?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 30, 2011)

Are Wizards (magic-users) the new Elf?

Cheers!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 30, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Please tell me, which class exactly was butchered?
> 
> it is the same old compains over and over again and you get the same answer: no one forces you to use essential classes. The old fighter is still valid and still gets support, despite what some people claim.



The Fighter got 'butchered,' specifically, it cut into 3 sub-classes - Slayer, Knight, and Weaponmaster - that have starkly limitted options to share future material.  While the Wizard, for instance, was cleft in twain between Mage and whatever-they're-going-to-call-the-old-Wizard, they can still take all of eachother's powers.  The pieces of the Fighter class can only take utilities.  So, if a new Fighter build is introduced, it has to be either Weaponmaster-compatible, or Slayer/Knight-compatible, and will support the compatible one much more than the non-compatible.  

While the Fighter already has plenty of toys, the best toys are often placed among the newest (power creep).  Also, the Wizard is just as much a heavily supported, PH1 class as the Fighter, yet it is recieving 6 fully-compatible new builds, vs the Fighter's 2 largely incompatible ones.  

So while that same answer comes again and again, it dosn't stand up to scruitiny.




> [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]
> And yes, the fighter mark punishment should become a opportunity action power. But you should consider IF it should get the wis bonus to hit or not. for ease of use I would allow it.
> 
> To the knight... i still find it mind boggling, that shifting near a knight is worse than just moving away...



Making Combat Challenge an Interrupt instead of an OA is probably one of the more confusing things about the Fighter - you constantly see more causal/less experienced players try to apply Combat Superiority to it (and get frustrated/dissapointed when they can't - since you rarely ever /get/ Combat Superiority).  So, yeah, making it an OA, and aply CS would be both simpler, and an upgrade commensurate to the power creep other classes are getting from Essentials.

The Knight's thing is just different.  Monsters shift away from fighters, they run away from knights.  :shrug:  Neither makes much sense.  I think the spirit of Combat Challenge/Superiority and the Knight's Aura would be to simply make any voluntary movement /away/ provoke, and be 'punished' a little worse than a regular OA.  Either with the Fighter's bonus and movement stop, or the Knight's damage on a miss.

Though, y'know, I'm saying that like the Knight ever had a right to exist... :sigh:


----------



## Droogie128 (Mar 30, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Please tell me, which class exactly was butchered? I don´t get it... And please show me your PHB with torn out and blackened pages...
> 
> it is the same old compains over and over again and you get the same answer: no one forces you to use essential classes. The old fighter is still valid and still gets support, despite what some people claim.
> 
> ...




I'm just saying that they took a giant step backwards with the martial class design in essentials. I'm glad to see the warlord didn't get that treatment. I saw it as a return to "Wizards rule, and fighters drool". Martial classes get no real tactical options. They're basically boiled down to charge builds using one main trick every round, and alternating to a few others situationally. Spamming an MBA, with no encounter powers (besides one... ever... that = "I do more damage"). 

Sorry, but I just thought that they took highly versatile classes and sucked the life out of them. Again, they're one-trick ponies.

Plus, add in the fact that they're mostly incompatible with their parent classes, and you can color me unimpressed. 

The Mage doesn't suffer from this, as it's fully backwards compatible with the Wizard. The Essentials martial classes got reduced to a shell of their former selves. I would rather have seen them gain tactical options, not lose them. Encounter and daily stances, maybe. Or the ability to combo attacks based on encounter powers. Anything, but the return of "I swing my sword".


----------



## Mengu (Mar 31, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> For the record the options available to Wizards in 4E are:
> 
> Tome
> Staff
> ...




Warlocks, Sorcerers, Invokers are just more "wizards" with different mechanics.

And just to take a look at another offender in that department, here is a quick list of options for Fighter:

Heavy Blade
Light Blade
Spear
Hammer
Axe
Guardian
Greatweapon
Tempest
Battlerager
Brawler
Arena
Knight (Shield, Quarterstaff, Feywild)
Slayer
Weaponmaster (maybe this is a reprint of one/two handed weapon talent)

Players just like fighters and wizards that much. Designers probably see how frequently these two classes get played, and keep publishing more material for them.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

There are way to many fighters as well.

I mean if you read back through the thread - or maybe one of the others - I've clearly stated I want to see no more Fighters/Wizards/Clerics/Paladins or pretty much anything else from the PHB again. There are other classes that Wizards could support.

The irony is that in a recent article Wizards were on about how some classes felt "Oversaturated", yet seem to have missed the blindingly obvious that they are contributing to that most (See the amount of bloody fighter and wizard build). Adding to classes that have virtually nothing would go a long way to making them better and not add to that "oversaturation" whatsoever.

Edit: I am indeed very consistent.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 31, 2011)

Well, Essentials was in a bit of a catch-22 for that when it came out. If the idea is you want an introductory product that always stays in print, it makes sense to hit the Big 4 classes (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue), since that's what people will be expecting from D&D. I'm pretty sure one shouldn't expect _Essentials_ to support the Runepriest.

That said, I am generally on board with them doing new things rather than treading the same water. 

However, keep in mind what was mentioned in the Necromancer Design and Development article: If you make something a class, it walls off its powers and mechanics from any other character. Since Most D&D players don't need a lot of options they can never, ever use, supporting existing classes in new ways is probably a better idea than making brand new classes. 

That still leaves *a lot* of space that's not "Lets make more Fighter Powers!!!!!", though.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

Don't get me wrong, I love my fighters, wizards, clerics and such. They are fine. It's just that as they are, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them and they can happily stay that way. There are things CLEARLY wrong with other classes and these things are not insurmountable problems. They are "A bit of support and presto, fun and interesting class to play" territory. That we seem to have gone to a "Everything should be for PHB1 classes, screw everyone else" mode of publishing is immensely disappointing. 

It's one reason I will shed no tears over the Class Paid for Erra- I mean Class Compendium being canceled. I don't need or want to be sold the same crap I already have multiple times.


----------



## Argyle King (Mar 31, 2011)

I noticed that Commander's Strike still has the 'weapon' keyword.  If I grant an attack, and my ally scores a critical hit, does it trigger the extra damage from my weapon to be added to the damage?


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I noticed that Commander's Strike still has the 'weapon' keyword.  If I grant an attack, and my ally scores a critical hit, does it trigger the extra damage from my weapon to be added to the damage?



No, because you never made an attack roll or rolled any damage. It's an effect line, so doesn't trigger anything to do with your criticals.


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 31, 2011)

See, this is why I like class permeable D&D. Have classes with preset stuff, but let people grab the stuff in other classes. I'm a knight, but at 5th level when I would get weapon mastery (which does some extra damage throughout a fight), I can pick a fighter daily power (which does some extra damage right now), or a wizard encounter power from a lower level, or a warlock's curse.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 31, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> However, I'm guessing that they realized that even with the two target audiences, the book was unlikely to sell enough to be worthwhile. But, by then, they had already done most of this reformatting. So they decided to release it as online content.



A lot of businesses (like, maybe all of them) are experiencing cash-flow issues right now, due to the economy. I think WotC probably had a decent idea of how many books they could sell before Essentials came out, which then proved to be no longer valid given that book-sellers and distributors where probably cutting back on orders at the same time that WotC was feeling the need to maximize their bang-for-buck on each product sold. Under better conditions I think that the Class Compendium would have been a viable product, but as it is we'll have to settle for the electronic version...


----------



## Zaran (Mar 31, 2011)

MrMyth said:
			
		

> Keep in mind this was original planned as a book release. As such, it would have served two real purposes:
> 
> 1) Provided the 'updated PHB' that various current players have asked for, with errata included; and
> 2) Provided new players (who started with Essentials) with the earlier builds for classes, displayed in the format the recognize.
> ...




There was another reason for the compendium and that was to make ways for features of one style to be adopted by the other.   This led people to believe that the warlord would not just be reprinted but have an essentials counterpart.  I for one am glad there was not a new eBuild.  I am interested in making my cWizard benefi from a school though.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 31, 2011)

I would have paid for the class compendium just for the form factor.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 31, 2011)

So based on reading this article, can anyone tell me why this warranted a new class, rather than just some (minor) errata for the existing warlord? I mean, what does a marshal do that a warlord doesn't?


----------



## Vael (Mar 31, 2011)

The Marshal is the Warlord. This is not a new class, it's a reprint with clarifications and errata.

Why call it the Marshal? So that the subclass has a name. That way, if one were to make another Warlord subclass, like the Champion, they'd be differentiated. All AEDU fighters will soon be known as Weaponmasters. I wonder what they'll call the other subclasses.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

SteveC said:


> So based on reading this article, can anyone tell me why this warranted a new class, rather than just some (minor) errata for the existing warlord? I mean, what does a marshal do that a warlord doesn't?



Nothing.

That's sort of the point.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 31, 2011)

Yeah, I think all existing Warlords are now also Marshals. Much like all existing Fighters that are not Knights or Slayers, will soon become Weaponmasters. Guess they're trying to bring some consistency to the naming convention, so we don't have to ask are you a fighter knight? or fighter slayer? or fighter fighter? Down the road there might be a Strategist, which is a Warlord build with both martial and arcane power sources adding arcane flavor for utility powers, ala what the Hunter did to Ranger with primal powers. We will now have an easy differentiation.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 31, 2011)

Cut all you want, complain all you want, but there once were 8 schools of magic. Transmutation already has some powers. (Red box)

So including a transmuter would be a wise move. I rather have 100 subclasses of fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue than a runepriest, which concept is cool, but needs extra support.

Even if slayers and knights are limited fighters, most feats are usable and appropriate for all of them. So no extra support is needed and the bloat is reduced.

A bard also was a rogue once. It could have been a subclass of it too. First there were so many complains how they dared to deviate from D&D´s previous incarnations, and now there are, because they are going back to its roots.

D&D 4e is in a way going back to its roots from the beginning, but that was hidden under new shiny rules. Essentials are just doing it more obviously.

Imagine that essentials were the first books released. You would have seen less complains. When then the weapon master had been introduced, a lot of people would have complained about dailies, i guess more than now complain about the slayer and knight.
I guess in the end, it just didn´t really matter...

Why not just accept, that a game can support more than one playstyle? I did not too loudly complain about 3.5s addiditions that I didn´t like. I just didn´t use them...

(Ok, i once went to andy collins website and was very loudly complaining about the epic level book, which for me was an indicator that D&D 3.5 was made for powergamers... andy collins himself answered in a very kind manner, so even though i sometimes don´t like his design principles, he is a very fine guy.)


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

> Imagine that essentials were the first books released.




That's easy to imagine, I would never have been interested in 4E in the first place.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 31, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> That's easy to imagine, I would never have been interested in 4E in the first place.




I'd probably have moderate interest, but I wouldn't have dived into it with the passion I have. 4E's original design basically opened up the possibilities I've been dreaming of since 2nd edition. I'd also have to play a wizard in every freaking game.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> 1) Kudos for not hiding it behind a paywall, and...
> 
> 2) 'Marshal?'  Really?  Warlords everywhere are hanging their heads in shame.



1) I agree.

2) Marshal's are awesome. If you don't believe me, watch any version of _True Grit_ or _Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid_.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 31, 2011)

The Marshal was a 3e class.  It was... sad.   The kind of failed experiment that you don't want to have to re-live.  The Warlord is too good to be saddled with the Marshal's legacy of suck.

They should have saved Marshal as the name for an Essentials-style, basic-attack-ghetto Warlord.  It would have served as a warning label.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 31, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Imagine that essentials were the first books released.



I would have been fine with that. 

And I'd have been excited if 2-3 years later they'd released the (errataed) PHB1 featuring builds with less restrictions and mutliclassing options.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 31, 2011)

Me too, i guess. 

But I guess, some people that would have made the transition from 3.5 to 4e, who have not or just now with essentials, may have been turned off with such a release, as martial divine power are not simulationist enough...


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 31, 2011)

We'll never know if I would have gone from 3.5 straight to essentials as I went from 3.5 to 4E. 

But I kinda doubt it. I'm the kind of guy who loves tons of options and Essentials still does not have enough. 

But an interesting point.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 31, 2011)

It's easy enough to go ahead and SAY that you would have just jumped on the E-train, but I think for a lot of us, *at that time*, it probably looked a llittle too much like 3.x for comfort. Sure, we know *now* that the Dailly-less structure works adequately as far as power balance goes, but back then, I think you would have had a difficult time convincing the people who were sick of the imbalance of 3.x melee classes to even give it a _chance_. Heck, this is _still_ a problem.

I remember the typical response on some of the forums at that time to balance complaints was, "ban the Big 5 and use BoNS," and that's pretty much what 4e did. If the measure had been more conservative like what we got in HotF*, I think many would not have been convinced that it went far enough, and the rest would still have resented the turning down of the power dial of the Arcane and Divine power sources to manageable levels, and have ignored the new edition anyway.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 31, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> The Marshal was a 3e class.  It was... sad.   The kind of failed experiment that you don't want to have to re-live.  The Warlord is too good to be saddled with the Marshal's legacy of suck.
> 
> They should have saved Marshal as the name for an Essentials-style, basic-attack-ghetto Warlord.  It would have served as a warning label.




I can't agree with that. 
I believe in redemption and rehabilitation, so I'm _glad_ to see the Marshal brought back into currency as the subclass name for the well-done PHB1 Warlord.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 31, 2011)

SteveC said:


> So based on reading this article, can anyone tell me why this warranted a new class, rather than just some (minor) errata for the existing warlord? I mean, what does a marshal do that a warlord doesn't?



I think the new organization of builds gives a unique name for each build. Fighters have the Knight, Slayer and Weaponmaster (PH1) and the Warlord has the Marshal (PH1). I guess they might give new names to the Bravura, Archer and Win-Win Warlods, if those are ever re-released...


----------



## webrunner (Mar 31, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I think the new organization of builds gives a unique name for each build. Fighters have the Knight, Slayer and Weaponmaster (PH1) and the Warlord has the Marshal (PH1). I guess they might give new names to the Bravura, Archer and Win-Win Warlods, if those are ever re-released...




Actually it's a question.. are those "subclasses" ore builds of Marshal (comparable to mage Schools)

Same with the new builds of fighter, etc.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 31, 2011)

webrunner said:


> Actually it's a question.. are those "subclasses" ore builds of Marshal (comparable to mage Schools)
> 
> Same with the new builds of fighter, etc.



Since Marshal covers both builds in PHB1, I think that the other builds in MP1 ans MP2 would be still considered Marshals.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 31, 2011)

Nikosandros said:


> Since Marshal covers both builds in PHB1, I think that the other builds in MP1 ans MP2 would be still considered Marshals.



Indeed. I think before you get one with a different name, it would have to be built really different, i.e. an Essential-style version, or possibly a design with a different role, E-style or "classic" AEDU.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 31, 2011)

I want 'Implement Master' as subclass name for the PHB wizard...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Mar 31, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> I want 'Implement Master' as subclass name for the PHB wizard...



Or perhaps Academy Wizard, then they can have their own _schools_, too: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin! 

Can't help it - it's the first thing I think of when wizards are so positively tied to their implement. _Expelliarmus!_


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 31, 2011)

The thing with bringing out Essentials first is that Essentials isn't as much of a change from 3E, so many people would wonder what the point in switching over to an equally generic fighter would be.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 31, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> The thing with bringing out Essentials first is that Essentials isn't as much of a change from 3E, so many people would wonder what the point in switching over to an equally generic fighter would be.




Unless Essentials had been brought out as the simplified "Red Box", followed by a compatible "Advanced Players Handbook" (PHB1). That strategy might have worked rather well.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 31, 2011)

WotC has made it clear what they're doing. I don't know why people insist on making up a mythology around Essentials that's counter to the information available.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Mar 31, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> It's easy enough to go ahead and SAY that you would have just jumped on the E-train, but I think for a lot of us, *at that time*, it probably looked a llittle too much like 3.x for comfort. Sure, we know *now* that the Dailly-less structure works adequately as far as power balance goes, but back then, I think you would have had a difficult time convincing the people who were sick of the imbalance of 3.x melee classes to even give it a _chance_.



Yeah, I think I would have fallen in to this category. I really like Essentials and have come to dislike AEDU, but I'm not sure I would have gotten to this point without 2ish years of AEDU first.


----------



## sunrisekid (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm going to throw my 2cents into the mix in favour of the Essentials class design, but also express disappointment in the warlord article.

I really appreciate the simplified MBA approach to combat for the reasons you've all heard before (less video gamey, faster play, less to fuss with, etc).  I recognize that many players prefer the more complex offerings of core-4E but my preference is for an older style of play and Essentials is a great move in that direction.  That said, I am not one who buys expansion books (my players and I have fairly pedestrian tastes); the core classes are all I run in my game, so it would seem I am not of that gaming demographic that collects endless book releases.

I replaced my original 4E books with Essentials but was mildly disappointed, though not surprised, to see the warlord was left behind.  Warlord was my favourite 4E class and I jumped to the conclusion that it would be "essentialized" in the new manner of things, upon hearing of this article; I find this reprint misleading that it be classified with Essentials.

I would love to see somebody's efforts on houseruling the Warlord to be somewhat more inline with the Knight and Slayer!


----------



## sunrisekid (Mar 31, 2011)

Nahat Anoj said:


> I've written up a few stances for a leader build of fighter that resembles a warlord. Indeed, many of the stances are based on warlord at-wills. I can post them in 4e House Rules if you (or anyone else) is interested.




Oh, perfect, I would love to see something like this!


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

sunrisekid said:


> Warlord was my favourite 4E class and I jumped to the conclusion that it would be "essentialized" in the new manner of things, upon hearing of this article; I find this reprint misleading that it be classified with Essentials.



It is "essentialized" as it is the new format and that is all Wizards said they were going to do to it in the first place. Especially if one noticed the "Weaponmaster" preview from last year, which basically showed a preview of the original PHB fighter. As for the Warlord, it never needed to be butchered in the first place and it's good that a proper martial class is now in essentials 

My only issue is that the hordes of flavor text eat up so much space wastefully repeating the same kind of thing multiple times, that I kind of wish this wasn't the format of future classes.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 31, 2011)

Nahat Anoj said:


> Yeah, I think I would have fallen in to this category. I really like Essentials and have come to dislike AEDU, but I'm not sure I would have gotten to this point without 2ish years of AEDU first.



AEDU (at-will, encounter, daily, utility ?) is the new term for pre-essentials?
Bad term, as most classes still have theses categories. Where is it from?


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 31, 2011)

AEDU has been around for a while actually and has been a general description of what most classes did. It's become a lot more common now as a way of distinguishing some older classes from newer ones. It usually refers to choices as well: So while slayers do have encounter powers, they don't count as a classic AEDU class because they don't get choices (they have a different structure in many ways). They also (obviously) lack dailies.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 1, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> It's easy enough to go ahead and SAY that you would have just jumped on the E-train, but I think for a lot of us, *at that time*, it probably looked a llittle too much like 3.x for comfort.



Maybe for some, but I remember the big stumbling block in getting players to give 4e a try was that it seemed overly complex.


----------



## sunrisekid (Apr 1, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> It is "essentialized" as it is the new format [...]




This sounds mis-leading.  "Essentializing" has more to do with presenting the alternate game mechanics that we've come to recognize in, e.g., the martial basic attack format.  The excessive fluff text is not "essentializing" in a meaningful way.

WotC may have "warned" in advance that their reprint of the warlord would be hardly changed, I wouldn't know.  But I still hold that it is mis-leading for WotC to state they've essentialized the warlord and then print it only with technical corrections and fluff text.

Someone could bring up the Hunter and Warpriest as design counter-examples, to which I have no good reply, only that I've never liked at-will martial attacks with whiz-bang effects (which goes back to the common "video-game" critique).

"I attack with my sword."  Indeed I do.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 1, 2011)

sunrisekid said:


> This sounds mis-leading.  "Essentializing" has more to do with presenting the alternate game mechanics that we've come to recognize in, e.g., the martial basic attack format.  The excessive fluff text is not "essentializing" in a meaningful way.




Like it or not, yes it is. It is a part of what essentials did to classes. Gutting martial classes was just a decision _for_ those classes in those books - not a new design paradigm to write them out. Believe me you are in for one HELL of a nasty surprise when they publish the CC Fighter and Ranger (I'll give you a hint: They're both still going to be AEDU). Some people took this to the point - _not wizards in any way shape or form_ - that AEDU classes would no longer exist. Of course if they make NEW AEDU classes is up for considerable debate - but the fact is that there was always going to be these updates. These updates were always going to be upgrading to the "Essentials" format.

That meant exactly what I just told you: The new verbose - which is quite cumbersome now I've considered it - format for presenting a class with only a couple of options at each level (to make them easy to build for new players). You may have confused yourself on the issue, but Wizards have always been 100% clear as to what they were doing with these classes and the class compendium.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 1, 2011)

sunrisekid said:


> This sounds mis-leading.  "Essentializing" has more to do with presenting the alternate game mechanics that we've come to recognize in, e.g., the martial basic attack format.  The excessive fluff text is not "essentializing" in a meaningful way.



I think it's misleading because "essentializing" doesn't even really mean anything.


----------



## sunrisekid (Apr 1, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Like it or not, yes it is. It is a part of what essentials did to classes. Gutting martial classes was just a decision _for_ those classes in those books - not a new design paradigm to write them out.




I certainly don't rule out my own confusion on these matters ;-)

Let me get this straight, the gutting of martial classes (which I like but whatever) was NOT the point of their redesign?   Huh.  If so then I stand corrected :-(

A book of "easy" class build options is precisely the sort of material I'm interested in.  The two Heroes book will satisfy my gaming needs for a few years but I was hoping to see the AEDU template erode somewhat for martial-themed classes (of which I would include the Hunter on thematic grounds).

I will refrain from "threatening" not to buy future products but if there were to be more books with simplied mechanics, like the Essential martial classes, I would certainly be interested in acquiring them. 

(Don't get me wrong, I love most of 4E but the martial at-wills have always irked me; I've been interested in finding ways to get a classic sword-n-sorcery feel with 4E, while keeping the epicness, and it feels that the Heroes books are step in that direction.)


----------



## the-golem (Apr 1, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> We replace daily nova capacity with a potpourri of encounter-level immediate actions. An ally hits? You add damage. An ally attacks? You add attack bonus. An ally moves? You move them farther. An ally makes a save? You help them save harder. An ally is attacked? You give them a defensive boost. The Warlord becomes the class that gets to act on everyone else's turn.  Imagine splitting something like _Bastion of Defense_ into three encounter powers (either of which you can choose at first level), each of which contains a (slightly watered down) version of that power's main effects (more damage, +1 to nearby ally's defenses, some temp hp). Our warlord is handing out _candy_ each turn.



Excellent!


Kamikaze Midget said:


> On their own turn, our warlords are simple: move into position near an ally (within range of your immediate "commands" and your aura) and attack.




No no no no no. It has to be in balance, see. As you said, "The Warlord becomes the class that gets to act on everyone else's turn." To balance it though, on the warlords turn, he just makes other people go. 

"You there, pick me up and place me near the mage!" 

"You in the blue, attack that ugly looking thing with the fangs."

 I'm just joshin' ya.


----------



## the-golem (Apr 1, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I think it's misleading because "essentializing" doesn't even really mean anything.




Monsieur Webster disagrees.  See: Essentialize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I actually was curious, so I looked it up. It's been a word for at least 100 years, though (according to M-W), so I guess I'll go with it.

Anyway, going with that. the HotFL/FK classes are "essentialized" because they are, arguably, boiled down to the raw essentials.

The changes made to Warlord basically amounts to errata. The layout is purely presentational, IMHO, and doesn't really have a bearing on the Warlord's "essentialness."


----------



## S'mon (Apr 1, 2011)

I find the layout vastly more readable and comprehensible than the PHB version.  There's a newbie Warlord player in the 4e game I'm playing who's really struggling; I've been trying to help her but I struggle myself - there's a good reason I'm playing an Essentials Thief, one of the simpler classes.  I had to play both my Thief and an absent player's Wizard last Monday, and that was pretty nightmarish.  Luckily the DM let my Daily Flaming Sphere recharge, so after that I could just trundle it around the battlefield and try not to incinerate my allies.  

I'll be bringing this new Warlord layout along on Monday & I think I'll be able to advise her much better, eg I had no idea about the class feature where her allies heal hp whenever we spend an AP!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2011)

sunrisekid said:


> I've never liked at-will martial attacks with whiz-bang effects (which goes back to the common "video-game" critique).



Essentials reduces the Fighter, in the person of the Slayer, to a mindless basic-attack-monkey that makes a character from Gauntlet look deep and evolved by comparison, and you accuse 4e of being video-gamey?  



sunrisekid said:


> Let me get this straight, the gutting of martial classes (which I like but whatever) was NOT the point of their redesign?   Huh.  If so then I stand corrected :-(



I can only assume it was.  The changes to the Divine and Arcane classes were minimal by comparison.



> A book of "easy" class build options is precisely the sort of material I'm interested in.  The two Heroes book will satisfy my gaming needs for a few years but I was hoping to see the AEDU template erode somewhat for martial-themed classes (of which I would include the Hunter on thematic grounds).



Wanting easy options is one thing, wanting to see more interesting options taken away from those who might want to play a martial class is something else entirely.  Something petty and spiteful.



> my preference is for an older style of play and Essentials is a great move in that direction.



What, you couldn't play any of the 34 years worth of D&D products that preceded 4e?  They supported that style of play to a T.   The martial source has something like parity with casters for barely more than 2 years, and you're bregudging it even that much time in the sun?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 1, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Wanting easy options is one thing, wanting to see more interesting options taken away from those who might want to play a martial class is something else entirely.  Something petty and spiteful.



Taken away? So after the release of Essentials, Mike Mearls and his Essentials ninjas came to your house and burned all your copies of the PHB1, Martial Power 1, Martial Power 2, and deleted all that data from the compendium, including all the Dragon content supporting martial classes?

Nothing was taken away from anyone. I don't even think that the post you were responding to was even intended that way. It sounded more like he just wanted more Essential style options, which takes NOTHING away from you.

Every single thread that mentions Essentials these days, you've come along and made your position very well known on the matter (in ways ranging from disdainful to downright rude). We get it. You don't like what Essentials had to offer Martial characters. You've made your point. Loud and clear. Maybe it's time to get over it and move on?


----------



## webrunner (Apr 1, 2011)

Essentials, to me, was the following:

1. Update and re-print the rules (usage: "As of Essentials..")
2. Present classes in a new level-based format with subclasses ("Essentials formatting")
3. New class design based on 3.5 asthetics (level-based features, basic-attack based, no martial dailies) ("Essential class")

Marshall is 1 and 2, but not three.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 1, 2011)

sunrisekid said:


> Someone could bring up the Hunter and Warpriest as design counter-examples, to which I have no good reply, only that I've never liked at-will martial attacks with whiz-bang effects (which goes back to the common "video-game" critique).
> 
> "I attack with my sword." Indeed I do.




Of course, even the classes without at-will martial attacks basically do.

The thiefs at-will powers have been turned into move actions, some mimic the non damage effects of the rogue's at-will. Ditto the stances for the ranger, and fighter. How big a change is "I hit it with my sword and push it with my shield" to "I set my stance and ready my shield so that when I hit it with my sword I'll push it". 

It does have fun mechanical effects (like that the stances give bonuses to opportunity attacks and charges automatically) but it hardly makes their at-will options more mundane (in fact they end up with more over time).


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 1, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Every single thread that mentions Essentials these days, you've come along and made your position very well known on the matter (in ways ranging from disdainful to downright rude). We get it. You don't like what Essentials had to offer Martial characters. You've made your point. Loud and clear. Maybe it's time to get over it and move on?




This.  I keep getting this image of a bunch of heavily armored guys with swords hunched around a punch bowl at the dance, looking forlornly at all the cool skinny kids with robes and staves surrounded by girls who want to dance.  (An interesting reversal, actually!)

The "We're martial and proud of it!" faction is one of the interesting outgrowths of the edition war.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 1, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Taken away? So after the release of Essentials, Mike Mearls and his Essentials ninjas came to your house and burned all your copies of the PHB1, Martial Power 1, Martial Power 2, and deleted all that data from the compendium, including all the Dragon content supporting martial classes?



Excuse me?  Did anyone take away every 3.0 and 3.5 book ever published?  Is Pathfinder illegal in some states?  Is AD&D to be found only in carefully-gaurded museum vaults?  

No.  You want to play the 'you can keep playing what you already have' card?   Fine.  Everyone who cried for 4e to become simpler and more retro-nostalgic, put your Essentials books in a box and send it to WotC with an apology, saying you're sorry, but you forgot you already had 34 years worth of D&D products that gave you exactly what you wanted.



TwoSix said:


> The "We're martial and proud of it!" faction is one of the interesting outgrowths of the edition war.



It's been going a lot longer than that.  Even in the dark days of early AD&D, when Fighters and the like had precious little going for them, they were a popular class.  The Martial archetypes have always had a strong following.  4e is just the first time that pent-up demand was completely met.  

Going back is not apealing.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 1, 2011)

TwoSix said:


> The "We're martial and proud of it!" faction is one of the interesting outgrowths of the edition war.



Well, I love the fighter, but that just makes me even more excited by the extra options essentials added.


Tony Vargas said:


> No.  You want to play the 'you can keep playing what you already have' card?   Fine.  Everyone who cried for 4e to become simpler and more retro-nostalgic, put your Essentials books in a box and send it to WotC with an apology, saying you're sorry, but you forgot you already had 34 years worth of D&D products that gave you exactly what you wanted.



Man, what? If I want to play 1e I'll play it, but that doesn't scratch my "add some simplicity and retro-awesome to 4e" itch in any way shape or form. I don't see anyone forgetting previous editions, I see a few who seem to have been under the misapprehension that development of 4e stopped after the PHB1 / DMG1 / MM1. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in essentials that hasn't been building since day one.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Apr 1, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> No.  You want to play the 'you can keep playing what you already have' card?   Fine.  Everyone who cried for 4e to become simpler and more retro-nostalgic, put your Essentials books in a box and send it to WotC with an apology, saying you're sorry, but you forgot you already had 34 years worth of D&D products that gave you exactly what you wanted.



I like both. There is room in the game for both. I'm sorry that you don't share that view, but do you really need to slam the *optional* new classes in Every Single Thread, Every Time You Post?



> Going back is not apealing.



Nobody is forcing you to. There are already 3 books and countless Dragon articles that give you what you want (and more coming, no doubt).

And, I agree. Going back is not appealing. I still like the older editions, but I like 4e and Essentials more. Both products effectively deal with most of my complaints about previous editions.

I'm not telling you what to do, or what to say, but I am asking, from one forum member to another - please tone down the anti-Essentials rhetoric. Please.

It's pointlessly negative and quite tiresome to read the same bitter comments over and over and over again.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 2, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Taken away? So after the release of Essentials, Mike Mearls and his Essentials ninjas came to your house and burned all your copies of the PHB1, Martial Power 1, Martial Power 2, and deleted all that data from the compendium, including all the Dragon content supporting martial classes?




Given that the current season of encounters doesn't let you build anything that isn't from essentials and that several people run "essentials only" (but are just about to get the shock of their lives soon) - Tony is making a much stronger point than you think. One of the best things about these releases is it will bring back these classes as essentials legal - showing that the game isn't abandoning AEDU to the confines of the past.

And really, that's all the CC was.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Excuse me?  Did anyone take away every 3.0 and 3.5 book ever published?  Is Pathfinder illegal in some states?  Is AD&D to be found only in carefully-gaurded museum vaults?
> 
> No.  You want to play the 'you can keep playing what you already have' card?   Fine.  Everyone who cried for 4e to become simpler and more retro-nostalgic, put your Essentials books in a box and send it to WotC with an apology, saying you're sorry, but you forgot you already had 34 years worth of D&D products that gave you exactly what you wanted.



But in that case, you couldn't have a place for both an AEDU Fighter and a Slayer at the same table, both using the 4e rule set.

It's a totally and completely different argument.  People who want a Slayer or a Thief don't necessarily want to play 3.5.  They also don't necessarily think martial classes should be inferior to arcane classes, or have any ulterior motives.  They just want a simple class where they can swing a sword at the bad guys.

I understand not wanting to play Slayers or Knights, and I understand concerns about future support (even though Fighters have more powers available to them than any other class in existence right now)...  But I really don't understand where you're going, here.

-O


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 2, 2011)

I think some Essentials detractors have it in their head that Martial Dailies are somehow a prerequisite to having class balance.

I think this position rather inflates the significance of a vancian fighter, personally, but I am a fan of Essentials, so I perhaps am already broken and wrongheaded and unreasonable and really just want everyone except the wizard to suck.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Well, I love the fighter, but that just makes me even more excited by the extra options essentials added.



The hanful of Knight & Slayer utilities that a Fighter can actual take?  Or be further beefed-up, 'must have' Expertise feats?



> If I want to play 1e I'll play it, but that doesn't scratch my "add some simplicity and retro-awesome to 4e" itch in any way shape or form.



Why not?  Is 1e not simple?  It is undeniably retro.  There's also 2e and 3e and Pathfinder.  Nothing could easily be simpler and more retro than a pre-Unearthed-Arcana 1e AD&D Fighter.  



Obryn said:


> People who want a Slayer or a Thief don't necessarily want to play 3.5. They just want a simple class where they can swing a sword at the bad guys



If you want to play a Slayer or Thief, you don't want to play 3.5 - you want to play AD&D.  Play an AD&D Fighter, and you will, indeed, have a simple class where you just swing a sword at the bad guys.  If you want to play a Knight, yeah, 3.5 would be better.



> They also don't necessarily think martial classes should be inferior to arcane classes, or have any ulterior motives.



See, I can't deny that claim without being terribly unfair to the handfull of people who might genuinely just want to play a simplistic martial character, yet can't find anyone playing AD&D.  But, I will say that there is no shortage of those who /do/ think martial classes should be inferior to arcane classes, and /do/ claim to want a 'simpler' or 'retro' feel to the game, with the ulterior motive of restoring that superiority.  WotC has post-Essentials D&D headed back in that direction, whether it's in honest response to such claims, or for ulterior motives of their own (no, not making money, that motive is right up front).




Obryn said:


> But in that case, you couldn't have a place for both an AEDU Fighter and a Slayer at the same table, both using the 4e rule set.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think some Essentials detractors have it in their head that Martial Dailies are somehow a prerequisite to having class balance.



The underlying class structure the 4e used did provide a foundation for class balance.  In prior eds, all-daily-power casters were balanced against all-unlimitted-use fighter-types, by making the limitted-use spells very powerful.  The result was not a balanced game.  Not even close.  4e achieved a much higher degree of class balance, becaus every class had about the same proportion of unlimitted, encounter, and daily resources.  If the campaign leaned towards 'short' days where dailies could have disproportionate impact, well, everyone had dailies.  If the campaign leaned towards grueling days and long grindy combats where at-wills were used much more often than not, well, everyone had at-wills.  An elegant solution to a difficult balancing act.  There was need to balance an at-will against a daily - only dailies vs dailies and at-wills vs at-wills.

Essentials decided that balance was less important than differentiation, and stripped it's martial classes of dailies, beefing up their at-will abilities in return.  As a result, Essentials does not deliver the same degree of class balance as 4e.  I'd be surprised if it was as bad as prior eds, but it can't help but fail to equal 4e in that regard.  At the D&D Encounters tables, the martial classes, while boring, put in solid performances.  They have their beefed-up basic-attack-enhancing at-wills, front loaded, while the daily classes each have but a single daily to answer that advantge.  At high Heroic, when other classes have 3 dailies, and dailies are consistently used in every encounter, it's unlikely that will hold true.  Again, this isn't just a gaffe - it delivers the retro feel:  fighters being strong at first, and rapidly falling to a 'meat shield' support role, and casters being weak at first, but slowly growing into ever greater power.  Anyone who wanted that feel need only have dusted off an older version of D&D, but that didn't stop them from crying loud and long about 4e, and 'defecting' to Pathfinder in retaliation.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 2, 2011)

There are legit concerns regarding post-Essentials design:

* Future content may lean heavily toward limited options
* Future content may have limited multiclassing functionality
* Future content may include significant numbers of items and equipment that only function for certain limited option classes
* Future content may be in the extremely long-winded, repetitive, space-devouring Essentials format
* Future content may lack novelty, reducing the number of new ideas per year in exchange for many variants on things already released
* Future content may significantly diverge from the original stated goals of 4th Edition, which were part of what convinced some people that 4th Edition would be a worthwhile investment

Nothing about Essentials is able to ruin old material, but depending on what is released, a significant portion of the gaming audience who was very happy with pre-Essentials material may no longer be able to support WotC or engage in the pleasures of reading new material of the sort they enjoy. 4th Edition will be complete for them, only a few years in.

--

Also, the Warlord is still not Essentials-legal, unless they've added in the little Essentials icon.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

That's the second time I've heard mention of some secret Essentials handshake.  Where is it hidden in the Warlord arcticle?


----------



## kaomera (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> The hanful of Knight & Slayer utilities that a Fighter can actual take?  Or be further beefed-up, 'must have' Expertise feats?



No, I mean the fighter sub-classes. Sure, there where a couple of neat things in Martial Power and MP2, if you really dug, but for my money HotFL is the best support the fighter has gotten since PHB1.


> Why not?  Is 1e not simple?  It is undeniably retro.  There's also 2e and 3e and Pathfinder.  Nothing could easily be simpler and more retro than a pre-Unearthed-Arcana 1e AD&D Fighter.



Simple, retro, and not 4e. The three are not in any way exclusive, why can't I have all three?


> If you want to play a Slayer or Thief, you don't want to play 3.5 - you want to play AD&D.  Play an AD&D Fighter, and you will, indeed, have a simple class where you just swing a sword at the bad guys.  If you want to play a Knight, yeah, 3.5 would be better.



Or, you know, maybe he wants to play 4e? I mean, I'm sure I could make the slayer or the thief as boring and un-fun as you seem to want them to be, but that's a heck of a lot of work and basically I'm just lazy.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Why not?  Is 1e not simple?  It is undeniably retro.  There's also 2e and 3e and Pathfinder.  Nothing could easily be simpler and more retro than a pre-Unearthed-Arcana 1e AD&D Fighter.
> 
> If you want to play a Slayer or Thief, you don't want to play 3.5 - you want to play AD&D.  Play an AD&D Fighter, and you will, indeed, have a simple class where you just swing a sword at the bad guys.  If you want to play a Knight, yeah, 3.5 would be better.



Again, I'm going to guess there's something I'm not understanding here.  Could you explain?  If my friends are playing 4e, and I want to play a dirt-simple class in their game, how does the existence of AD&D help me?  Or if I want to specifically play 4e, with all its design innovations on the gameplay side, but nevertheless want a simple class, how does it help me?

Is the only thing 4e brought to the table the AEDU power structure, in your mind?  Otherwise, I'm not understanding your argument.

All of this - just about every bit of it - looks cut & pasted from the 3.5/4e edition wars, and it seems even more senseless to me.



> See, I can't deny that claim without being terribly unfair to the handfull of people who might genuinely just want to play a simplistic martial character, yet can't find anyone playing AD&D.  But, I will say that there is no shortage of those who /do/ think martial classes should be inferior to arcane classes, and /do/ claim to want a 'simpler' or 'retro' feel to the game, with the ulterior motive of restoring that superiority.  WotC has post-Essentials D&D headed back in that direction, whether it's in honest response to such claims, or for ulterior motives of their own (no, not making money, that motive is right up front).



I can safely say that I don't think anything of the sort and neither do my players, and yet we're fine mixing both Essentials and AEDU classes at the table.  The players playing Essentials classes don't have any of those ulterior motives - in fact one is a complete newbie - and just thought it looked like a fun alternative.



> Essentials decided that balance was less important than differentiation, and stripped it's martial classes of dailies, beefing up their at-will abilities in return.  As a result, Essentials does not deliver the same degree of class balance as 4e.  I'd be surprised if it was as bad as prior eds, but it can't help but fail to equal 4e in that regard.  At the D&D Encounters tables, the martial classes, while boring, put in solid performances.  They have their beefed-up basic-attack-enhancing at-wills, front loaded, while the daily classes each have but a single daily to answer that advantge.  At high Heroic, when other classes have 3 dailies, and dailies are consistently used in every encounter, it's unlikely that will hold true.  Again, this isn't just a gaffe - it delivers the retro feel:  fighters being strong at first, and rapidly falling to a 'meat shield' support role, and casters being weak at first, but slowly growing into ever greater power.  Anyone who wanted that feel need only have dusted off an older version of D&D, but that didn't stop them from crying loud and long about 4e, and 'defecting' to Pathfinder in retaliation.



From what I've seen at my own table, I disagree with your assessment.  It looks kinda tinfoil-hat, honestly, and I think you're assigning motives when there just aren't any.

What could convince you otherwise?  An Arcane class that resembles the Slayer mechanically?  Options to mix & match Essentials and Core features?

-O


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 2, 2011)

I see where [MENTION=6182]Incenjucar[/MENTION] is going in his post above, and largely agree.

One thing I really do not like about some essentials supporters is their insistence that martial classes be dirt dry dead boring. No healing, no conditions, no dailies, no..... fun.

At least in my opinion. 

Fine, if that is what they like that is good.

But I am legitimately concerned that WOTC will take away what I want to play my game. I ave no problems with people getting what they want to play their way, but I would like to get what I want to play mine. 

Obviously, looking at HoS, Essentials is getting support and traditional 4E is probably getting support. But I do not want it to be backhanded support.  "But a wizard can choose Mage spells....." I want clear support.

I'm waiting to see how WOTC will do it. 

I could play 4E forever with what I have now, but I like new goodies as much as the next guy.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> One thing I really do not like about some essentials supporters is their insistence that martial classes be dirt dry dead boring. No healing, no conditions, no dailies, no..... fun.



Who are these people?

I hear them referred to, but not only have I never seen one in real life, I don't hear about them playing 4e at all.

-O


----------



## kaomera (Apr 2, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I could play 4E forever with what I have now, but I like new goodies as much as the next guy.



See, I can get behind that. But I just don't understand some of the other stuff. OK, you see no healing, no conditions, and no dailies as boring and no fun. I don't but I also don't see anyone _insisting_ on any of that. Yes, that's the way some of the HotFL / HotFK sub-classes work, and I've found that I can still enjoy them, but I don't see why anyone should be assuming that I don't want healing, conditions, and dailies for martial classes or for any classes, really. Lack of dailies is still the big (mechanical) reason I don't like the psionic classes; power points don't work for me. But, ya'know, whatever... That stuff rocks some players worlds, and good for them.

I also don't feel like the fear that WotC will "take away what I want to play my game" really seems legitimate to me. I almost feel like if you think that "traditional 4E is probably getting support" in HoS then you haven't been reading the same previews that I have.

FAQ for Heroes of Shadow!

The idea that the support that's been previewed is "backhanded support" bothers me. Because I think that's an issue of your perception, and I don't think that anyone else can really affect that. If the fact that some portion of future products will be aimed at sub-classes from the essentials products is going to bug you, that sucks... Like, let's say someone really didn't like the Divine power source - there's big chunks of a lot of products that's just wasted paper (or bytes for DDI stuff). There's an advantage there, tho, in that an entire major source (Divine Power) can just be ignored pretty much in it's entirety (probably). But I don't think segregating material that acknowledges the essentials products and material that doesn't is the way to go, at all. I think that just wouldn't work out for WotC and would end up leading to no new material for anyone.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 2, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Who are these people?
> 
> I hear them referred to, but not only have I never seen one in real life, I don't hear about them playing 4e at all.
> 
> -O




There ARE people who want martial classes to pull away from dailies and such. I've seen them post here and on the WotC forums. I've read at least one comment to that regard earlier today, but there are a lot of posts in a lot of redundant threads to go through to hit the link. But you know what? It's fine that they exist so long as nobody takes their opinion as some sort of popular mandate. I've said it before: I'd like to see medium-option and few-option versions of each of the main classes, including Spellcasters, and then for WotC to move back toward the more complex classes again. This gives people an easy entry without the game turning into D&D Jr. If there is a truly compelling reason to have a brand new limited-option class, I'm cool with it, but I would hate for it to become the norm.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> There ARE people who want martial classes to pull away from dailies and such. I've seen them post here and on the WotC forums. I've read at least one comment to that regard earlier today, but there are a lot of posts in a lot of redundant threads to go through to hit the link.



I still haven't seen much of this at all, to the point of honestly saying I can't recall seeing it, and I have no reason to believe that this viewpoint represents the developers' future vision of D&D.  By far, the predominant opinion I've heard from "pro-Essentials" people is, "It's nice this is an option" and/or "I am running an Essentials-only game for simplicity-related reasons."

I just don't believe that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls wants to nerf his beloved martial classes forever & ever.  It's crazy tinfoil-hat talk, as far as I'm concerned.

-O


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 2, 2011)

?

Are you confusing "Essentials supporters" and "designers?"

They're sort of a different thing.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> ?
> 
> Are you confusing "Essentials supporters" and "designers?"
> 
> They're sort of a different thing.



The two are getting conflated a bit in this thread (see: Tony's posts), so I addressed both in my post.  I don't think people who like Essentials are clamoring for those changes (being one myself), _and_ I don't think the designers are, either.

-O


----------



## kaomera (Apr 2, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> There ARE people who want martial classes to pull away from dailies and such.



OK, I'll take your word for it. But given that I can't say that I've actually seen one (or maybe I have and have just ignored them?) I'm hoping that they aren't likely to be seen as a popular mandate. In fact, WotC, if you're listening? If the idea behind classes like the Slayer and Scout (besides being awesome) is simplicity, you should consider than the best support they can get is not to have a million new options published for them.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 2, 2011)

You don't have to take his word for it, there is one such person in this thread, who has already posted in amazement the E-Warlord is actually just the same as the original warlord. Not some gutted version ala the Slayer/Knight, so it isn't very hard to find someone who wants this to happen to martial in general. Of course their delicious tears when the essentials weaponmaster is released will - in some ways - be enough of a compromise.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 2, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> You don't have to take his word for it, there is one such person in this thread, who has already posted in amazement the E-Warlord is actually just the same as the original warlord.



Ya'know, I think I'm not reading into the posts in this thread what you're reading into them. I saw several people confused as to why they would publish what is essentially just material from the PHB1, repackaged. But that was about it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 2, 2011)

kaomera said:


> OK, I'll take your word for it. But given that I can't say that I've actually seen one (or maybe I have and have just ignored them?) I'm hoping that they aren't likely to be seen as a popular mandate. In fact, WotC, if you're listening? If the idea behind classes like the Slayer and Scout (besides being awesome) is simplicity, you should consider than the best support they can get is not to have a million new options published for them.




Check out the recent 5E threads. Several of those people posting over there.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 2, 2011)

I imagine that the designers are roughly as divided as the rest of us, but without delving into hyperbole, myth, superstition, and conspiracy.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 2, 2011)

kaomera said:


> OK, I'll take your word for it. But given that I can't say that I've actually seen one (or maybe I have and have just ignored them?) I'm hoping that they aren't likely to be seen as a popular mandate. In fact, WotC, if you're listening? If the idea behind classes like the Slayer and Scout (besides being awesome) is simplicity, you should consider than the best support they can get is not to have a million new options published for them.




I prefer my Martial PCs without Dailies.  I do like decent Encounter powers though; I'm a bit sad the E-Fighter has no Encounter equivalent of L5 Daily Rain of Steel, AFAICS.

Actually I'm not a fan of Dailies in general, they encourage 15-minute-day effect.  And they can encourage sloppy design with overpowered effects "because it's a Daily" - eg the Cleric-1 Daily in Divine Power that gives the whole group Resist 5 (all) for the whole encounter, making it a great pre-buff.  I'm not really sure why all powers should not be Encounter powers.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I prefer my Martial PCs without Dailies.  I do like decent Encounter powers though; I'm a bit sad the E-Fighter has no Encounter equivalent of L5 Daily Rain of Steel, AFAICS.
> 
> Actually I'm not a fan of Dailies in general, they encourage 15-minute-day effect.  And they can encourage sloppy design with overpowered effects "because it's a Daily" - eg the Cleric-1 Daily in Divine Power that gives the whole group Resist 5 (all) for the whole encounter, making it a great pre-buff.  I'm not really sure why all powers should not be Encounter powers.




I can live with Martial not having dailies. Or even every class (except maybe wizards and clerics) only having encounters. But overall, I like the 4E system. 

I do agree that martial character with no dailies and a single encounter (used X times) is not very much fun.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

kaomera said:


> No, I mean the fighter sub-classes. Sure, there where a couple of neat things in Martial Power and MP2, if you really dug, but for my money HotFL is the best support the fighter has gotten since PHB1.



Not only do the HotFL martial classes offer little support to their parent classes, but, by their very existance, they have the potential to divide future support between the sub-classes and the parent classes.  Because they use a novel structure, the attack powers that are such a substantial part of 4e builds are not open to them, and, likewise, any expansions to their corresponding options aren't open to the parent classes.

Going forward, then, either the Essentials or 4e classes will recieve meaningful support - and participate in the inevitable power inflation that just happens with games like D&D.  So far - and it hasn't been very far - neither has received meaningful support (there was one dragon article that kicked some staff-oriented features to the HotFL classes, neither get anything singificant out of HoS).  

So, you have an uncertain future for the martial power source.  Will the low-option, daililess classes receive more and more stances, feats, and weapon-specific features to choose from (each more potent than the last), or will they be left 'simple?'  Will their parent classes receive the same level of support going forward as those of other sources?  They're already behind - the wizard has recieved 4 new highly compatible builds, and has two more set to appear in HoS, for instance.  

The same question doesn't plague the Cleric or Wizard - their sub-classes follow the 4e structure, and that compatibility means that support for either is support for both.

We don't know what's going to happen.  But, Essentials has set the stage for a return to the high-powered casters and optionless fighters of yesteryear.  All that's needed is to just leave the 4e martial classes alone for a few years and let them fall behind the power curve.  

One reason some of you are scratching your heads over this issue is because you're seeing misgivings about possible future directions indicated by specific addtions to the sysstem, and interpreting them as complaints about the current state of the game as a whole.  When someone expresses alarm at the stripping of dailies from the Fighter, they're not saying that they've been stripped from all fighters, but from the most recent, and, that could lead to all martial classes losing the parity with casters they enjoyed in 4e.  That designers have characterized Essentials as indicative of a 'new direction,' makes that seem all the more likely.



> Simple, retro, and not 4e. The three are not in any way exclusive, why can't I have all three?



You can absolutely have simple martial classes, complex overpowered classes, (part of the retro feel) and not play 4e.  That's easy.  I know that's not what you meant.  No, you can't have all three.  4e was a version of D&D that delivered a high degree of class balance.  Destroy that, and you can restore the feel of prior eds, including making some classes overly simplistic and other complex and highly abuseable.  But it's not the comparatively modern 4e version of D&D anymore.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 2, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I do agree that martial character with no dailies and a single encounter (used X times) is not very much fun.




Well, I'm fine with my Thief, his only Encounter power is Backstab (now x2!).  Much of the fun there is working out how to pull off getting Combat Advantage EVERY SINGLE TIME.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I prefer my Martial PCs without Dailies.  I do like decent Encounter powers though; I'm a bit sad the E-Fighter has no Encounter equivalent of L5 Daily Rain of Steel, AFAICS.



Not likely to.



S'mon said:


> Well, I'm fine with my Thief, his only Encounter power is Backstab (now x2!).  Much of the fun there is working out how to pull off getting Combat Advantage EVERY SINGLE TIME.



That is a bit of a tactial challenge (and risk) with the Rogue - with the Theif, it's just shy of a forgone conclusion.



Spoiler



Tactical Trick prettymuchs give you CA in almost any round - all you need is an enemy in range who is adjacent to an ally of yours.  Knights, Slayers & Warpriests are all pretty melee oriented, so it'll be rare that there won't be.  If that's not enough, add Ambush Trick, which grants CA to enemies within 5 who don't have another enemy adjacent to them.  Skirmishers and artillery, the only monsters really likely to avoid being adjacent to an ally of yours, are not exactly known for clumping up (which makes them good targets for any Mage in your party).  Between the two, you should trivially gain CA on the vast majority of rounds.  But, on top of that, you can also have some Fortune Cards - there's a common one, Phantom Ally, that grants you CA with at-will attacks, and basic attacks (which are, ultimately, all you have) are at-will.





> Actually I'm not a fan of Dailies in general, they encourage 15-minute-day effect.  And they can encourage sloppy design with overpowered effects "because it's a Daily" - eg the Cleric-1 Daily in Divine Power that gives the whole group Resist 5 (all) for the whole encounter, making it a great pre-buff.  I'm not really sure why all powers should not be Encounter powers.



Not wanting dailies, in general, I can understand.  They do make encounter balance harder to achieve, turning battles swingier and harder for the DM to keep on an even keel - challenging, but not lethal.  To many dailies blown in what was meant to be a minor battle, and the major battle can overwhelm the party.  Experienced DMs can easily adjust on the fly - or just let the PCs deal with the consequences.  As easy as 4e has made DMing relative to prior eds, dealing with pacing - with a system that's designed to balance encounters around a 3-5 encounter workday (and, in Essentials, also needs some attention paid to encounters/day to maintain some semblance of class balance) - is still an issue.  Not as bad as the scry/buff/teleport days of 3.0, but still an issue.

An example of how D&D might work without dailies can be found in Gamma World.  There are no dailies, no daily resources (like healing surges).  Everything is encounter-based.  It's a more casual game, but the fact that daily resources don't throw another wrench into encounter design allows it to be a little (OK, more than a little) fast and loose with balance in other areas.

Back to D&D, eliminating daily resources would improve encounter balance, and would make balancing classes easier, as well.  Though, of course, encounter vs at-will resources could still be an issue of classes weren't given close parity there, as well.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Well, I'm fine with my Thief, his only Encounter power is Backstab (now x2!).  Much of the fun there is working out how to pull off getting Combat Advantage EVERY SINGLE TIME.




That is not hard. And for Essentials even easier.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

Oh, one more thought on the over-reaction or over-estimation of the impact of Essentials.

(This it tin-foil hat stuff, BTW - you've been warned)

Essentials is presented as an 'evergreen' 'on-ramp' to the game for new players.  That means that the expectations of those desgining it was for new players to learn the assumptions (tropes, memes, prejudices - however you want to think of it) of the game, from Essentials.  Essentials teaches new players that the most prevelent and iconic of heroic archetypes - the heroic warrior - are simplistic classes that serious players will probably eschew in favor of more complex and interesting (and, eventually, powerful) casters.  

Why create an 'on ramp' that perpetuates an obsolete perception of the martial source that new players will just have to un-learn when they move on to pre- and post- Essentials products?  One reason would be that there will ultimately be nothing to un-learn, that it's just the first step in getting the game back to the paradigm in which that perception was true.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not only do the HotFL martial classes offer little support to their parent classes, but, by their very existance, they have the potential to divide future support between the sub-classes and the parent classes.  Because they use a novel structure, the attack powers that are such a substantial part of 4e builds are not open to them, and, likewise, any expansions to their corresponding options aren't open to the parent classes.
> 
> Going forward, then, either the Essentials or 4e classes will recieve meaningful support - and participate in the inevitable power inflation that just happens with games like D&D.  So far - and it hasn't been very far - neither has received meaningful support (there was one dragon article that kicked some staff-oriented features to the HotFL classes, neither get anything singificant out of HoS).
> 
> ...




Personally, I've had it with "everything is core", so this is no longer an issue for me.  Playing in a campaign where the DM restricted us to PHB, PHB2, and Essentials was a real eye opener, and going forward I'll be taking the same approach in my own DMing.  The kind of player who can't function without splatbook option #456 is not the kind I want at my table, anyway.  (Obviously YMMV, other DMs should choose the level of options which suits them & their campaign, etc.)


----------



## S'mon (Apr 2, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> That is not hard. And for Essentials even easier.




Yeah, I don't like my challenges too difficult.  

It's more like:

19 times out of 20:

"He's not got an ally adjacent?  Ambush Trick."  Or:  
"One of my buddies is next to him?  Tactical Trick."

1 time in 20:

"He's got his allies adjacent, but none of mine?  Well he's not acted yet, so I still have CA."  Or:
"He's acted already?  Well, thanks to Fleeting Ghost and me taking cover last round, he has to beat my Stealth roll... no?  Then I still have CA."  

The only time I think I've not had CA (except when attacking twice in a turn using an AP), we were fighting a bunch of minions and 2 of them were adjacent to each other on a cavern ledge above me.  So it just meant -2 on my attack and I got the minion anyway.  And with a bit of effort I could have probably used Fleeting Ghost the previous round to maintain CA there too, since I think it was only the 2nd combat round (r1:  attack with CA, then move with Fleeting Ghost to hide.  r2: Pop up, attack with CA)


----------



## S'mon (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oh, one more thought on the over-reaction or over-estimation of the impact of Essentials.
> 
> (This it tin-foil hat stuff, BTW - you've been warned)
> 
> Essentials is presented as an 'evergreen' 'on-ramp' to the game for new players.  That means that the expectations of those desgining it was for new players to learn the assumptions (tropes, memes, prejudices - however you want to think of it) of the game, from Essentials.  Essentials teaches new players that the most prevelent and iconic of heroic archetypes - the heroic warrior - are simplistic classes that serious players will probably eschew in favor of more complex and interesting (and, eventually, powerful) casters.




Eh, I'm fairly experienced in 4e; I've GM'd 18 sessions and played a dozen or so since 2009.  But I much prefer to play simpler character builds, I don't like having to think too hard when I play (as opposed to DMing).  I do want my simple PC to be comparably effective to the other PCs, whatever their level of complexity.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 2, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I'm not really sure why all powers should not be Encounter powers.



See, this is the closest I've seen to anyone saying that they want to take anything away from anyone.


> Personally, I've had it with "everything is core", so this is no longer an issue for me.



Can't give you more XP right now, but yeah, I'm starting to feel like "nothing is core" is much more the way to go.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> You can absolutely have simple martial classes, complex overpowered classes, (part of the retro feel) and not play 4e.  That's easy.  I know that's not what you meant.  No, you can't have all three.  4e was a version of D&D that delivered a high degree of class balance.  Destroy that, and you can restore the feel of prior eds, including making some classes overly simplistic and other complex and highly abuseable.  But it's not the comparatively modern 4e version of D&D anymore.




I would have more sympathy for the "simplicity nerfs martial" argument if there were any compelling argument that the Slayer and Knight were less powerful than the Fighter-Weaponmaster.  

And I would argue that you can make classes in the 4e framework that are AEDU, AEU, ADU, AU, EDU, EU, DU, or just U and still balance them.  Distribution of effects is paramount.  What needs to be overhauled is the resource/attrition system, creating a method where more powerful attacks are used with a determinable frequency that isn't tied to narrative.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> One reason some of you are scratching your heads over this issue is because you're seeing misgivings about possible future directions indicated by specific addtions to the sysstem, and interpreting them as complaints about the current state of the game as a whole.  When someone expresses alarm at the stripping of dailies from the Fighter, they're not saying that they've been stripped from all fighters, but from the most recent, and, that could lead to all martial classes losing the parity with casters they enjoyed in 4e.  That designers have characterized Essentials as indicative of a 'new direction,' makes that seem all the more likely.



I'm seeing people post that options _have been_ stripped from all martial characters. They may _mean_ that they feel like the current design direction could lead to the possible loss of some options for martial characters in the future, but that's not how what they've written reads. Hence my continued disbelief.

Some examples of what I'm talking about:


Tony Vargas said:


> Wanting easy options is one thing, wanting to see more interesting options taken away from those who might want to play a martial class is something else entirely.  Something petty and spiteful.





Tony Vargas said:


> No.  You want to play the 'you can keep playing what you already have' card?   Fine.  Everyone who cried for 4e to become simpler and more retro-nostalgic, put your Essentials books in a box and send it to WotC with an apology, saying you're sorry, but you forgot you already had 34 years worth of D&D products that gave you exactly what you wanted.





Dice4Hire said:


> One thing I really do not like about some essentials supporters is their insistence that martial classes be dirt dry dead boring. No healing, no conditions, no dailies, no..... fun.
> 
> At least in my opinion.



I apologize if I'm mis-reading any of that, but it comes across as stating as fact things that I feel are just not so. (And there was one more posts that I don't feel completely comfortable quoting or replying to.) I'll admit that I have a strong difference of opinion on some of the basic assertions about the essentials martial sub-classes, such as that they have "basically no options" or are on-par in terms of mechanical complexity with early-edition fighters, or that somehow liking them means that I don't actually want to play 4e.

And if you're strictly talking about future possibilities, then I'm not sure there's much room for fruitful discussion. I've seen the previews of material from HoS that provide support for pre-essentials characters generally dismissed and ignored, and if WotC isn't actually engaged in some kind of dire conspiracy against the essentials-haters (which apparently includes falsifying previews?) then it can be safely disregarded as not being real, significant support, simply because they haven't completely disavowed the essentials products.


> You can absolutely have simple martial classes, complex overpowered classes, (part of the retro feel) and not play 4e.  That's easy.  I know that's not what you meant.  No, you can't have all three.  4e was a version of D&D that delivered a high degree of class balance.  Destroy that, and you can restore the feel of prior eds, including making some classes overly simplistic and other complex and highly abuseable.  But it's not the comparatively modern 4e version of D&D anymore.



So, why can't I have all three (simple, retro, 4e)? Do you seriously expect me to believe that you're going to come to my house and take all of my D&D books away from me? Because that's what it would take. I've got all three. Right here. Seriously.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

TwoSix said:


> I would have more sympathy for the "simplicity nerfs martial" argument if there were any compelling argument that the Slayer and Knight were less powerful than the Fighter-Weaponmaster.



Essentials introduced a surge of power inflation.  The wizard and cleric - and any other classes whose E and E+ sub-classes are highly compatible - rode that wave.  The Fighter didn't (the Rogue was thrown the SA upgrade the Theif got, so snagged a little more).  

I've only ever seen the Knight and Slayer in play at low level, and there's not question in my mind that, between the power inflation since MP2, and the dynamics of AEDU vs basic-attack classes at very low level, the Knight and Slayer significantly outperform the Guardian and Greatweapon builds.  (The Knight & Slayer don't get dailies, and don't get encounter resources significantly greater than AEDU classes, they're compensated for their lack of dailies by more powerful at-will resources.  At 1st level, when AEDU classes have only one daily, that compensation is quite adequate.  How the features they gain at higher levels stack up to 3 or 4 dailies, I haven't yet seen.)

That in no way calms the misgivings of those who want to see continued choice, complexity and balance in the Martial source, though.  By giving the Knight, Slayer & Thief an extra boost, especially at low levels, the more complex classes are marginalized.  Why would play a 'weaponmaster' (who actually doesn't hit as well with weapons as your Knight or Slayer, whose weapon talents are accross the board) who is more complicated, but not as good, initially, as the simpler builds?  

(Fair warning, guys, I'm knowingly moving into tin-foil hat territory, here.  But, remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean no one's out to get you. )

So, the Fighter has received virtually no benefit from Essentials, due to the relative incompatibility of the Knight & Slayer, while the Cleric and Wizard have gained a number of new powers.  For the WIS Cleric, warpriest powers open up new melee options, and include many powers, even at wills, with good Effect lines (often comparable to those that existing Cleric at-wills deliver only on a hit).  For the Wizard, the Mage offers a number of new and upgraded powers, including the largest-area at-will attack ever, and upgrades to some (eventually, all, the developers have hinted) encounter attack powers.

Going forward from HotFL, the Knight, Slayer & Rogue got a dragon article about using quarterstaffs - not the first choice of weapon for any of them. The Wizard got the Pyromancer.  There's nothing further in the offing for the martial builds.  The Cleric and Wizard get more material coming their way in HoS.

While there are reasonable explanations for all of this:  The only intent was to create tiers of more and less complex classes.  That all the less-complex classes happened to be martial is a 'coincidence' or to match player expectations based on classic D&D.  Of course new material isn't going to be added to the simpler classes - that would defeat their purpose.  The Wizard has a wealth of only partially tapped old ideas in the form of schools, so of course, they're going to expand upon them.   There are also some much less reasonable explanations like 'the wizard was underpowered.'  Yeah, right.  

But reasonable rationalizations of the designers' motives don't help if the results are still the same.

What would quell these misgivings?

(OK, tinfoil hats off...)

I'm not sure, but, for me, I'd feel more confident about the 'new direction' if...

- Simplistic sub-classes begin apearing for other sources, not just martial.  As it stands, new players 'learn' that martial classes are simple weapon-swingers, and that casters are complex and interesting.  That's not true of the broader game, so (best case) they'll have to un-learn it at some point.  (Worse case it will become true of the broader game)

- Simplistic sub-classes receive zero support going forward (because more options would defeat the purpose, afterall)

- But, simplistic classes also recieve the needed mechanics for an 'upgrade path.'  So that when players become bored with the limited options of their Theif or Knight or whatever, they can seamlessly translate it to the more option-rich parent class, either piecemeal or through a straightforward conversion process.

- The fighter and rogue are updated into line with the power inflation that occurred in essentials.  (So, rogue and fighter weapon talents expanded; fighter mark-punishment becoming per-turn)

- Greater emphasis on maintaining class balance for the whole game, and DM cautions about mixing simple and complex classes in ongoing campaigns.


While that would help, it's still not ideal.  Ideal would have been never abandoning the class-balance of the AEDU structure in the first place, and not trying to reverse the parity among sources - both of which 4e delivered for the first time in the game's history.




> And I would argue that you can make classes in the 4e framework that are AEDU, AEU, ADU, AU, EDU, EU, DU, or just U and still balance them.  Distribution of effects is paramount.  What needs to be overhauled is the resource/attrition system, creating a method where more powerful attacks are used with a determinable frequency that isn't tied to narrative.



A non-narrative frequency could make it easier to balance different levels of resources, by being more consistent and predictable.  But, what would such a system be?  And how could it be done without making it even more gamist and less simulationist and more 'video gamey?'  

In any case, 4e does not use such a sytem, so encounter powers vary in relative effectiveness to at-will powers depending upon how long encounters tend to be, and daily powers vary relative to at-will/encounter powers based on how many encounters there tend to be in a day.  So, no, they quite litterally /can't/ be perfectly balanced.  They can't even be as balanced as all-AEDU classes are.  

Why anyone would argue the point is beyond me:  every previous incarnation of the game clearly demonstrated the lack of balance inherent in giving some classes unlimitted-use abilities and other limitted-use ones compensated with greater power.  Anyone clamoring to go back to that clearly doesn't want class balance.  Whether they're willing to sacrific it to get some retro-feel or class differentiation or 'realism'/verismilitude, or whether they just hate balance on the face  of it, because they want the opportunity to puzzle out the most overpowered character possible, I can't say.  I just can't agree with giving class balance a low priority in a game like this.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 2, 2011)

It is all about plot power, really. It isn't about gnat's arse level of balancing classes for combat. That's nice and all, but I don't honestly think the E-classes are that far out of line there, and minor issues of who's going to be a bit better if the day is longer or shorter are unlikely to rise to the level of being 'problems'. 

Plot power OTOH COULD. As long as each class had a suite of powers it was a lot less likely that you ended up with the casters being able to deal with almost any problem and the melee types relegated to body-guard duty. Looking at where things are at now though rituals are gone. Utility powers are still available to anyone, and skills took up a lot of this slack in 4e anyway. So at this point your Slayer will hold up fairly well option-wise with a Mage, particularly if you poach skill powers from PHB3 etc. Given that encounter/daily martial powers generally had little out-of-combat utility anyhow you haven't lost much.

The nervousness about Essentials as a DIRECTION though I find perfectly understandable. Nobody is going to take your old stuff away, sure, but we'd all like the people working on our favorite game to share our preferences and sensibilities. If they don't, well, that makes people nervous. Regardless of HOW it happens WotC is going to have to cycle out older 4e material at some point, either by just inflation, new incompatible mechanics, or a totally new edition. If that material is not built based on a design paradigm you like, then you're no longer really getting support for the game you DO like, even if technically it is the same game.

Thus there are plenty of people saying "don't go in this direction", I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as not being a valid concern, even if it really has fairly little impact right now.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've only ever seen the Knight and Slayer in play at low level, and there's not question in my mind that, between the power inflation since MP2, and the dynamics of AEDU vs basic-attack classes at very low level, the Knight and Slayer significantly outperform the Guardian and Greatweapon builds.  (The Knight & Slayer don't get dailies, and don't get encounter resources significantly greater than AEDU classes, they're compensated for their lack of dailies by more powerful at-will resources.  At 1st level, when AEDU classes have only one daily, that compensation is quite adequate.  How the features they gain at higher levels stack up to 3 or 4 dailies, I haven't yet seen.)



I disagree with this assessment.  The Fighter, at the very least, gets the 1 Daily and gets a better Encounter power, as well.  He's got more selection in his At-Wills, and doesn't need to burn a Minor action to switch between them.  His OAs get bonuses to-hit, and stop movement.  The Core Fighter is, simply put, still the top Defender in the game; the Knight didn't even come close to unseating him.



> Why would play a 'weaponmaster' (who actually doesn't hit as well with weapons as your Knight or Slayer, whose weapon talents are accross the board)



Does this honestly make a difference in play?



> (Fair warning, guys, I'm knowingly moving into tin-foil hat territory, here.  But, remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean no one's out to get you. )
> 
> So, the Fighter has received virtually no benefit from Essentials, due to the relative incompatibility of the Knight & Slayer, while the Cleric and Wizard have gained a number of new powers.  For the WIS Cleric, warpriest powers open up new melee options, and include many powers, even at wills, with good Effect lines (often comparable to those that existing Cleric at-wills deliver only on a hit).  For the Wizard, the Mage offers a number of new and upgraded powers, including the largest-area at-will attack ever, and upgrades to some (eventually, all, the developers have hinted) encounter attack powers.



Fighters and Rogues had an _entire extra book _over Clerics and Wizards.   Fighters also have the most Dragon article support out of any class.



> - Simplistic sub-classes receive zero support going forward (because more options would defeat the purpose, afterall)



I don't think fewer build options is the main purpose.  I think the purpose is, fewer options during play for people who want to run a simple character.



> - But, simplistic classes also recieve the needed mechanics for an 'upgrade path.'  So that when players become bored with the limited options of their Theif or Knight or whatever, they can seamlessly translate it to the more option-rich parent class, either piecemeal or through a straightforward conversion process.



I expect we'll see this next week, but I'm fine handling this from a DM perspective where we just replace a character, if need be.  But this seems to make the assumption that the simple classes are intended to be a tutorial of sorts, instead of a viable option for both old and new players.



> - The fighter and rogue are updated into line with the power inflation that occurred in essentials.  (So, rogue and fighter weapon talents expanded; fighter mark-punishment becoming per-turn)



I hope not.  I think the AEDU Fighter is _just fine_ power-level-wise.  It's still the best Defender in the game, bar none.

I don't think Rogues would get use out of an expanded weapon range.  You couldn't use them with Daggermaster. 



> - Greater emphasis on maintaining class balance for the whole game, and DM cautions about mixing simple and complex classes in ongoing campaigns.



Why are such cautions needed?  I can tell you from personal experience over 7 levels so far, it hasn't made a difference.



> Why anyone would argue the point is beyond me:  every previous incarnation of the game clearly demonstrated the lack of balance inherent in giving some classes unlimitted-use abilities and other limitted-use ones compensated with greater power.  Anyone clamoring to go back to that clearly doesn't want class balance.



So I'm confused here.

You're arguing that the Knight, Thief, and Slayer are overpowered now, instead of classes with Dailies?  I'm confused where you think the imbalance is, because it seems to be something of a moving target in your posts.

-O


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 2, 2011)

Yeah I have to agree with Obyrn. The Knight is cute, but in any tough encounter will suffer extremely badly against skirmishers/controllers and similar. The Knight suffers a lot of disadvantages and ironically, needs seriously character optimization knowledge to overcome them. Otherwise prepare to be the most irrelevant defender in the game in a lot of circumstances. The fighter is a flat out superior defender and his amazing wealth of options mean he can dictate a battle. While the Knight due to lacking any options beyond "I add 1[W] damage" cannot control or dictate any battlefield - he is purely dictated too. That's not a good situation for a defender to be in to be that vulnerable to skirmisher/controller powers (especially post-MM3).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

kaomera said:


> I'm seeing people post that options _have been_ stripped from all martial characters.



Options have been stripped from all martial characters in Essentials.  Essentials is intended to be played as an introduction to the game - without the prior material that has those options - and the only current, still WotC-run organized play, D&D Encounters, is Essentials-only (though, happily, many Essentials DMs ignore that).

So, yes, there has been some stripping of options.  The old options exist, but they are marginalized as far as the current-and-going-forward version of the game is concerned.




> I'll admit that I have a strong difference of opinion on some of the basic assertions about the essentials martial sub-classes, such as that they have "basically no options" or are on-par in terms of mechanical complexity with early-edition fighters, or that somehow liking them means that I don't actually want to play 4e.



The Slayer, for instance is on par with the AD&D fighter in terms of complexity.  It chooses a stance, occassionally piles on Power Strike damage, and then just hits stuff - hard, thanks to it's striker damage bonus.  The 1e fighter, basically just picked a weapon (often from quite a few he was carrying around) and hit stuff (hard, thanks to his percentile STR), too, it also dealt with rule complexities that have long since been ironed out (weapon vs AC adjustment, detailed encoumbrance, plusses-that-lower-your-AC-which-is-good, mechanically wierd overbearing & grappling rules, assigning your shield and DEX bonuses to AC against specific enemies, and on and on).  



> So, why can't I have all three (simple, retro, 4e)? Do you seriously expect me to believe that you're going to come to my house and take all of my D&D books away from me? Because that's what it would take. I've got all three. Right here. Seriously.



Clearly not.  Likewise, you still have any 3.5 or AD&D books that delivered exactly the simplistic martial/complex caster dynamic that Essentials has battered 4e into a symblance of.  So why did you need Essentials?  

One thing we've been going in circles on is the bit about options 'still existing.'  People don't like the changes in Essentials.  They're told, "don't worry, the old options are still there - but, people wanted these 'new' options."  Well, those new options aren't new, they're old-fashioned, they play like 3.5 and AD&D.  If I have no right to complain about the direction of Essentials because the old stuff is still there, then, by the same token, the folks who wanted that 'new' (retro) direction, and whined long and loud about hating 4e and defecting to Pathfinder, had no right to ask for it in the first place, because they could've just kept playing 3.5!

So, clearly, since they /were/ able to complain and get what they were after, 'the old stuff is still there' is not a valid dismissal of complaints about the current game.  

Really, when you think about it, this is a 4e discussion group.  We're not here if we want to play an older version of the game.  We're either here because we liked what 4e was delivering, or because we didn't and wanted to change it.  Why?   Why is it not enough to play a past version of the game that was the way you liked?  Why did people make Pathfinder the #2 RPG, instead of just continuing to play 3.5?  Clearly, there is something commonplace within gamer psyches that wants the latest & greatest, or wants to be part of the 'supported' community.  Maybe it's about some sort of nerdish elitism or sense of belonging?  I don't know.  When I examine my own feelings on it, there's really an almost accademic component to it.  I'm fascinated by games, rules, and game design, and have definite opinions about it...  But, I also have an emotional reaction to the treatment of martial archetypes within the system.  They were 'downtrodden' for so long time, and finally were granted parrity after 34 years of being 'meat shields' and high-hp magic-item-platforms.  It just seems tragic to reverse that gain.  

(Prior to 3e, I exclusively played casters, because they actually offered something of interest - even if the wierd Vancian casting didn't really model any caster archetype I cared for; when 3e opened up /some/ options for the martial archetype, it was amazing, there were these much more iconic heroic archetypes that were actually /viable/ as characters.  OK, barely viable, if enthusiatically powergamed alongside indifferently-played casters, but still, there was finally something there.  There was a sense that a fighter could be more than just a meat shield. It's funny, the cleric also got something like that, only the pendulum swung too far, from 'heal bot' to 'CoDzilla.'  4e finally put the martial archetypes were they belonged - on even footing with the other, now formally defined, sources.  And the cleric, likewise was freed from it's 'healbot' steroetype, and finally balanced.  Quite an accomplishment, 4e, when you think about it.  Hey, it's not all bad: Essentials may have made the Fighter back into a meat shield, but at least it hasn't made the Cleric back into a healbot.)


----------



## Obryn (Apr 2, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Clearly not.  Likewise, you still have any 3.5 or AD&D books that delivered exactly the simplistic martial/complex caster dynamic that Essentials has battered 4e into a symblance of.  So why did you need Essentials?



...because we're playing 4e?  I'm still not buying this argument.



> One thing we've been going in circles on is the bit about options 'still existing.'  People don't like the changes in Essentials.  They're told, "don't worry, the old options are still there - but, people wanted these 'new' options."  Well, those new options aren't new, they're old-fashioned, they play like 3.5 and AD&D.  If I have no right to complain about the direction of Essentials because the old stuff is still there, then, by the same token, the folks who wanted that 'new' (retro) direction, and whined long and loud about hating 4e and defecting to Pathfinder, had no right to ask for it in the first place, because they could've just kept playing 3.5!



Eh?

"I don't like the changes in Essentials."  "Well, your old stuff is still there.  Just use that." = valid response.

"I don't like the changes in 4e."  "Well, your old stuff is still there.  Just use that." = still a valid response.

As for the rest...  *Are you saying that the only game design innovation 4e has to offer players is the AEDU class structure?*  If not, then why are you arguing that people who like the Essentials classes should just play 3.5 or AD&D?

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 2, 2011)

Obryn said:


> "I don't like the changes in Essentials."  "Well, your old stuff is still there.  Just use that." = valid response.
> 
> "I don't like the changes in 4e."  "Well, your old stuff is still there.  Just use that." = still a valid response.



Well, that's going in the other direction, but at least consistent. According to this logic, though, there was no need for Essentials, as those who disliked the partity among sources, uniform complexity of classes, fighters 'casting spells' (having daily mechanics), and so forth, could, indeed, have continued playing the old game.




> As for the rest...  *Are you saying that the only game design innovation 4e has to offer players is the AEDU class structure?*



 It's certainly the central and most significant innovation.  Healing surges are a close second.  Skill Challenges trail by a large margin because, while they're a great idea, they really didn't quite deliver.  



> If not, then why are you arguing that people who like the Essentials classes should just play 3.5 or AD&D?-O



I'm not.  What I'm saying is that, /if/ you believe that those who don't like Essentials should just shut up and play a static version of 4e (cutting off sometime before Essentials); then, you must also believe that those who disliked 4e had no need to call for the retro changes that Essentials made.  I'm actually arguing the contrary: that the existance of past versions of the game does not immunize changes from criticism.  

Mostly what I'm doing is defending my right to be critical of the game as it stands, and offer my own ideas and opinions about why it's good or bad and how it could be better.  Most discussions like these do deginerate into one side denying the other's right to have or express a position different from their own.  They become circular pedantic arguments or mere shouting contests.  It's the level of discourse you become accustomed to on-line.  

I'd ignore the BS, but when you do that, they start shouting at you that you haven't 'addressed' their point. :sigh:

anyway, on to an actual point:



> You're arguing that the Knight, Thief, and Slayer are overpowered now, instead of classes with Dailies?  I'm confused where you think the imbalance is, because it seems to be something of a moving target in your posts.



One thing you have to keep in mind is that Power Source is an important distinction, as well as AEDU vs abberant class structures.  Essentials did introduce some power inflation. That's not unusual, most new books do - it one way to make them 'interesting.'  The prior Martial classes did not participate in that inflation, because the Essentials martial classes used a different, mostly incompatible, structure.  The Divine and Arcane classes 'related' to those in HotF, for instance, /did/.  So, a disparity has been introduced between 'old' classes.  In addition, there's a disparity between 'old' martial classes and new ones - it's not a simple one, though.  The new sub-classes enjoy an inflated base-line, but, in all likelihood, fall behind any ADEU class at higher levels (haven't /seen/ that yet, as I've yet to see an E class in higher level, or even mid-heroic play - in low-heroic, however boring they may be, they're quite effective). 
 So, to summarize:  The Knight, Slayer & Rogue are 'overpowered' relative to their parent classes, in some fundamental ways (Slayer damage, Knight mark-punishment, Theives getting CA so easily, etc), that are quite aparent at low levels.  However, they are /not/ overpowered relative to the AEDU classes in Essentials.  So, yes, they are both over- and under- powered. (?!?!?)  Over powered enough from power inflation to eclipse the older martial classes at low levels, under-powered (under-optioned, really) relative to non-Martial Essentials classes, as a campaign continues.  

Combined with the emphasis on Essentials-only in the on-line CB and D&D Encounter, the new Essentials direction tends towards marginalizing the Martial source.

Which is not bad just because "I like martial" - I do, but I'm also quite fond of Arcane - but because it's returning to a paradigm that trivializes the most enduring archetypes of the heroic fantasy genre.  The premier Fantasy  Role Playing Game should do better than that.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, that's going in the other direction, but at least consistent. According to this logic, though, there was no need for Essentials, as those who disliked the partity among sources, uniform complexity of classes, fighters 'casting spells' (having daily mechanics), and so forth, could, indeed, have continued playing the old game.



My main point is this:

As long as a new option doesn't overshadow the old options (and as I've said, I don't think the Essentials classes do), adding new options doesn't _decrease_ the scope and flexibility of a game.  So, your argument doesn't hold water for me - just like there was room in 3.5 for complex martial classes (Bo9S), there's room in 4e for simple ones.  And adding them doesn't subtract options from anybody.



> It's certainly the central and most significant innovation.  Healing surges are a close second.  Skill Challenges trail by a large margin because, while they're a great idea, they really didn't quite deliver.



From the DM side, I'd add on... multi-creature encounter design, workable math, less swingy combats, less save-or-die, concise monster stat blocks, self-contained monster stat blocks, a robust system for improvisation, no need to reference books during play, and a powerful ability to fairly customize monsters.

These aren't irrelevant to the game as a whole, and are noticeable from the players' side.  I disagree that your short list is all that differentiates a 4e game from a 3.5 game, because I think the most significant innovations were on the far side of the screen.



> I'm not.  What I'm saying is that, /if/ you believe that those who don't like Essentials should just shut up and play a static version of 4e (cutting off sometime before Essentials); then, you must also believe that those who disliked 4e had no need to call for the retro changes that Essentials made.  I'm actually arguing the contrary: that the existance of past versions of the game does not immunize changes from criticism.
> 
> Mostly what I'm doing is defending my right to be critical of the game as it stands, and offer my own ideas and opinions about why it's good or bad and how it could be better.  Most discussions like these do deginerate into one side denying the other's right to have or express a position different from their own.  They become circular pedantic arguments or mere shouting contests.  It's the level of discourse you become accustomed to on-line.
> 
> I'd ignore the BS, but when you do that, they start shouting at you that you haven't 'addressed' their point. :sigh:



I think your concern about future support is potentially valid.  I can completely see that argument.  (I disagree that more future support is needed, but I can see where you're coming from.)  Where I disagree is ... well, most other stuff.  I simply disagree that there's enough data to say that your concern is actually founded.



> anyway, on to an actual point:
> 
> One thing you have to keep in mind is that Power Source is an important distinction, as well as AEDU vs abberant class structures.  Essentials did introduce some power inflation. That's not unusual, most new books do - it one way to make them 'interesting.'  The prior Martial classes did not participate in that inflation, because the Essentials martial classes used a different, mostly incompatible, structure.  The Divine and Arcane classes 'related' to those in HotF, for instance, /did/.  So, a disparity has been introduced between 'old' classes.  In addition, there's a disparity between 'old' martial classes and new ones - it's not a simple one, though.  The new sub-classes enjoy an inflated base-line, but, in all likelihood, fall behind any ADEU class at higher levels (haven't /seen/ that yet, as I've yet to see an E class in higher level, or even mid-heroic play - in low-heroic, however boring they may be, they're quite effective).



(1) I disagree that the Cleric saw any improvement whatsoever from the existence of the Warpriest.  I disagree that the Paladin saw much of any improvement from the existence of the Cavalier.  Likewise, the Warlock with the Hexblade.  I think the Druid benefited (more specifically I think the Sentinel benefited from the existence of the shapeshifter druid), and the Wizard got new toys.  I am fine with the Rogue, Ranger, and Fighter seeing little benefit, because they had an entire extra book of options that non-Martial classes didn't.

At best, Wizards got the equivalent of an Arcane Power 2 out of HotFL with a few new build options and a stack of new powers.  Druids got the close equivalent of a Primal Power 2.  This is parity to me, not favoritism.  The guys who _should_ be mad are the Warlocks, Clerics, and Chaladins! 

(2) I disagree that the baseline for Knights is significantly stronger than the baseline for Fighters.  I agree that Thieves may start out a _bit_ beefier given their crazy ways to get CA, but I don't think you can disregard the strength of options like Sly Flourish and the like.  (I also don't think an expanded weapon range helps the Thief much; they have no multi-[W] powers whatsoever.)



> So, to summarize:  The Knight, Slayer & Rogue are 'overpowered' relative to their parent classes, in some fundamental ways (Slayer damage, Knight mark-punishment, Theives getting CA so easily, etc), that are quite aparent at low levels.  However, they are /not/ overpowered relative to the AEDU classes in Essentials.  So, yes, they are both over- and under- powered. (?!?!?)  Over powered enough from power inflation to eclipse the older martial classes at low levels, under-powered (under-optioned, really) relative to non-Martial Essentials classes, as a campaign continues.



I just think we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I simply don't think the new Martial classes are beefier than the old ones, even at low levels, with the _possible_ exception of the Thief.  (But even there I'm unconvinced, because a good party should be giving the Rogue CA every round anyway.)



> Combined with the emphasis on Essentials-only in the on-line CB and D&D Encounter, the new Essentials direction tends towards marginalizing the Martial source.
> 
> Which is not bad just because "I like martial" - I do, but I'm also quite fond of Arcane - but because it's returning to a paradigm that trivializes the most enduring archetypes of the heroic fantasy genre.  The premier Fantasy  Role Playing Game should do better than that.



I don't think there's enough evidence for a trend here, even if you include Heroes of Shadow.  I also don't think that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls - who's a complex martial class fanboy if there ever was one - is going to reverse course like that.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> You're arguing that the Knight, Thief, and Slayer are overpowered now, instead of classes with Dailies?  I'm confused where you think the imbalance is, because it seems to be something of a moving target in your posts.-O



The old-fashioned class 'balance' that Eseentials is angling for /is/ very much a moving target.  At low level, a traditional fighter was the tough, hard-hitting guy who made the real difference in many combats, and the magic-user stepped up to cast Sleep once in a blue moon, and otherwise threw darts.  At high level, the magic-user rewrote reality, and fighter was only as significant as whatever magic items he was carrying.  It was imbalanced, and the imbalances were different at low level than at high.  The imblances between fighter and wizard were different than those between wizard and druid or thief and monk.  

Yes, the daily-less classes in Essentials are going to outperform in some situations at low level, and be overshadowed in others at higher levels.  They're also going to tend to be overshadowed in terms of sheer interest as there's just not much to be done with them.   They're not simply 'overpowered' or 'underpowered.'  It's ironic, really.  While they're simpler options, for the player who chooses them, their addition makes the system as a whole more complex.  While they disrupt balance by being different, they're actually more consistent performers (less peak power & fewer options) so they're actually 'more balanced' in some sense of encounter balance, even as they are imbalanced relative to other classes.  




Obryn said:


> I think your concern about future support is potentially valid.  I can completely see that argument.  (I disagree that more future support is needed, but I can see where you're coming from.)    I simply disagree that there's enough data to say that your concern is actually founded.
> ...
> I don't think there's enough evidence for a trend here, even if you include Heroes of Shadow.  I also don't think that Mike "Iron Heroes" Mearls - who's a complex martial class fanboy if there ever was one - is going to reverse course like that.-O



There may not be strong evidence to /prove/ that such a trend definitely exists.  But, there's certainly no evidence against it, as yet.  Everything we've seen so far is consistent with the 'worst case scenario' from tinfoilhatville.  Hopefully, as things continue, there'll be some things that aren't.  But, I'm really not much of an optimist.  Mr. Mearls's past creadits, notwithstanding.


----------



## nnms (Apr 3, 2011)

I've been running a mixed HoX/PHBX games since Essentials came out.  The differences in the power level of the characters has been negligible.  Some people at the table picked HoX classes and other people picked PHBX martial classes.

It's been 86 encounters and everything has worked together flawlessly.

As for the argument that those who like pre-HoX martial classes not getting any support, I will point to the existence of MP2 and the lack of the #2 book for the other power sources.  And that even the small number of feats in HoX can really work well for pre-HoX martial classes.

As for the argument that those who start 4E with Essentials will somehow be trained to not have AEDU martial classes, I can only point to the Warlord being a free PDF on Wizards.com.  What more availability of AEDU martial classes is needed that *totally free* and available with a click of a mouse?


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> The old-fashioned class 'balance' that Eseentials is angling for /is/ very much a moving target.  At low level, a traditional fighter was the tough, hard-hitting guy who made the real difference in many combats, and the magic-user stepped up to cast Sleep once in a blue moon, and otherwise threw darts.  At high level, the magic-user rewrote reality, and fighter was only as significant as whatever magic items he was carrying.  It was imbalanced, and the imbalances were different at low level than at high.  The imblances between fighter and wizard were different than those between wizard and druid or thief and monk.....



I don't see anything even a little like that in my game, so far.  This sounds a lot more like theorycraft than anything...



> There may not be strong evidence to /prove/ that such a trend definitely exists.  But, there's certainly no evidence against it, as yet.  Everything we've seen so far is consistent with the 'worst case scenario' from tinfoilhatville.  Hopefully, as things continue, there'll be some things that aren't.  But, I'm really not much of an optimist.  Mr. Mearls's past creadits, notwithstanding.



Well, what about what I'd posted above - that this is more a road to parity than anything else?  Fighters and Rogues have MP2.  Wizards and Druids don't.  (And warlocks, chaladins, and clerics - more intentionally complex classes, in the tinfoil hat theory - got nothing out of HotFx at all.)

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> I don't see anything even a little like that in my game, so far.  This sounds a lot more like theorycraft than anything...



I played & ran AD&D, both editions, for quite a while, and played 3.x extensively, I'm familiar with the reality of game balance in systems that mix classes with highly-limited/high-power abilities and those with largely-unlimmited/lower-power ones.  




> Well, what about what I'd posted above - that this is more a road to parity than anything else?  Fighters and Rogues have MP2.  Wizards and Druids don't.



Meh. I'm sure Arcane Power 2 & Divine Power 2 & Primal Power 2 would have been on their way but for Essentials.  But, if HotFL did 'merely' bring the Wizard up to MP2 standards, what about HoS and its two new Wizard builds?  

Besides, while the 4e martial classes have MP2, the Essentials Martial classes, even if older material is allowed into a game, do not - they have the utilities from MP2, FWTW.   The 4e Martial classes not only got nothing from Essentials, they're getting nothing from post-E, and it seems all to likely that how it's going to be, going forward.  The classes that got the non-AEDU treatment in Essentials have been split by the basic incompatibility.  A situation much like what dual-primary classes, like the Warlock, have struggled with.

The impression I'm getting really is that balance is a lower priority going forward.  If developers see an easy way to represent a new idea as a Wizard build, it'll be a wizard build - the synergies it may open up for prior wizard builds not withstanding.  If they have a concept that should clearly be martial, it'll be implemented as a non-AEDU sub-class, so as to maintain the mechanical distinction between casters- and non-casters.   If they don't see a way to make a new idea a build of an old class, they'll make a new class, and leave it 'orphaned,' with no prior or future support.  Classes that are compatible with their sub-classes will see continued support, incompatible and novel classes probably won't.  It's consistent with the vision of 'opening up design space' that has been articulated, and it's a sensible design aproach: it takes fewer resources to produce a sub-class or a non-AEDU class than to create balanced new classes within the 4e class structure.  Classes can be differentiated more strongly on mechanics, so much more tenuous concepts can be used.  For all that I disagree with this new direction, I can't call it 'stupid' or anything.  WotC is in a tough spot, and they're making the decision they need to.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I played & ran AD&D, both editions, for quite a while, and played 3.x extensively, I'm familiar with the reality of game balance in systems that mix classes with highly-limited/high-power abilities and those with largely-unlimmited/lower-power ones.



Errr... me too?  I just ran AD&D about a year and a half ago, and have been playing through the editions since 82 or so.  So...  I don't know what you're saying, here.



> Meh. I'm sure Arcane Power 2 & Divine Power 2 & Primal Power 2 would have been on their way but for Essentials.



...but they weren't.  Which is my point.  Why give more support to the most-supported classes, before spreading it around to some other classes?



> Besides, while the 4e martial classes have MP2, the Essentials Martial classes, even if older material is allowed into a game, do not.
> 
> The classes that got the non-AEDU treatment in Essentials have been split by the basic incompatibility.  A situation much like what dual-primary classes, like the Warlock, have struggled with.



And if you're playing one, that's part of what you signed up for.  Again, this is something that a player can figure out on their own, without the game designers telling them what they _should_ be playing.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Errr... me too?  I just ran AD&D about a year and a half ago, and have been playing through the editions since 82 or so.  So...  I don't know what you're saying, here.



Did you find AD&D to have robust class balance?  Or did you notice that casters started off weak and became extremely powerful at higher levels?  Or did you mostly run in the narrow 'sweet spot,' where there was some rough balance to be found?




> ...but they weren't.  Which is my point.  Why give more support to the most-supported classes, before spreading it around to some other classes?



Why indeed?  If that were the intent, why support the Wizard and Cleric before the Artificer or Warden?  There are some profoundly under-supported classes, and the Wizard - by far the greatest beneficiary of Essentials+, with 6 new builds on the table (4 definitely compatible, two coming in HoS) - is certainly not one of them.





> And if you're playing one, that's part of what you signed up for.  Again, this is something that a player can figure out on their own, without the game designers telling them what they _should_ be playing.-O



The split-primary classes have prettymuch been acknowledged as a mistake.  You'll note there haven't been any in quite a while.  Splitting a class via a major structural change would seem to have similar consequences.  

Here's some 'theorycrafting' on that:   

Split primary classes share utilities pretty easily, but attack powers, which depend upon the primary stat, tend to be for either one or the other set of builds.  Thus, initially, either build of the class might well half the viable power choices of a single-primary class.  Half the number of choices is /many/ fewer possible combinations, so the potential synergies available to such a class are greatly curtailed.  The Warlock suffered painfully from that phenomenon.  The Paladin had to be beefed up with extra class features.  And the STR Cleric was largely abandoned, leaving the WIS Cleric viable, with the lion's share of Cleric choices.  The class that got buy with two primaries was the Ranger - and virtually all of it's powers work with either stat.

Splitting a class mechanically has the same consequence.  Builds of one type can't utilize material for the other.  A Slayer can't use a new Fighter daily, a Fighter can't use a new Slayer weapon-specialization option.  In the case of 4e vs Essentials martial builds, the similarity is pretty high.  Attack powers are either the province of one sort of build or the other, but utilities can generally be used by both.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Clearly not.  Likewise, you still have any 3.5 or AD&D books that delivered exactly the simplistic martial/complex caster dynamic that Essentials has battered 4e into a symblance of.  So why did you need Essentials?



I enjoy essentials. It provides me a play experience that I like. I also enjoy AD&D, and it provides me a play experience that I also like. However I like essentials for far different reasons than I like AD&D because it, like all 4e, is a far, far different game. I don't find the Slaver or the Knight simplistic, and I don't even find them less complex than any other fighter in any way that is significant to me. I'm not seeking to deny you your right to have and express your opinions on the subject, but IMO you're pushing those opinions as fact. You don't have to "go back to" pre-essentials 4e; but IMO you've claimed that essentials turned the fighter into some kind of bizarre caricature of the AD&D fighter, and I disagree with that statement. But, whatever, I think that's all I need to say on the topic. I guess I just really don't have the play experiences to give me much idea where you're coming from.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

kaomera said:


> IMO you've claimed that essentials turned the fighter into some kind of bizarre caricature of the AD&D fighter, and I disagree with that statement.



Not at all, the Slayer, in particular, quite captures the feel of the AD&D fighter.  When I played a Slayer at the Red-Box Game Day, I was struck by the sheer nostalgia of it.  4 out of 5 hourglasses of nostalgia, easy.  It was even amusing for the first couple hours.  In that sense, it's a rousing success.  All they had to do to butcher the balance and consistency that 4e had brought to D&D classes for the first time.  Too high a price tag, for a little nostalgia, IMHO.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Did you find AD&D to have robust class balance?  Or did you notice that casters started off weak and became extremely powerful at higher levels?  Or did you mostly run in the narrow 'sweet spot,' where there was some rough balance to be found?



No, of course I don't find AD&D to have robust class balance.  I ran AD&D for the stuff AD&D is good at, not for the stuff 4e is good at.  And yes, I still think 4e is dandy at class balance with or without Essentials classes involved, from my own game table experience.



> Why indeed?  If that were the intent, why support the Wizard and Cleric before the Artificer or Warden?  There are some profoundly under-supported classes, and the Wizard - by far the greatest beneficiary of Essentials+, with 6 new builds on the table (4 definitely compatible, two coming in HoS) - is certainly not one of them.



To which I ask - Why not?

Also, I somehow doubt a supplement/alternate-starting-point marketed for and intended as back-to-basics would have Artificers and Wardens.



> The split-primary classes have prettymuch been acknowledged as a mistake.  You'll note there haven't been any in quite a while.  Splitting a class via a major structural change would seem to have similar consequences.
> 
> Here's some 'theorycrafting' on that:
> 
> ...



I'll agree that there's a design issue with A-shaped vs. V-shaped classes.  Ironically, I don't think the designers had a very good handle on the 4e system when PHB1 was released.  I have some different conclusions from this than you do, though.

What you end up with, in a V-shaped class, is effectively two subclasses.  So, one could also say that each leg of the V should have been treated as and called out as a separate subclass - like the design decisions we're seeing now - instead of being entirely absent, like I think you're suggesting.

It's not that a V-shaped class is necessarily a mistake or an inherently bad design; it's that a V-shaped class is really two subclasses which share some common features of the main class, and they should be treated and addressed as such.  V-shaped classes can and do work just fine; it's only when you run into serious MAD issues, like with a starlock or a straladin, that things get chancy.

I don't think the issue with V-shaped classes would have been nearly as bad had the designers made sure that each branch of the V had more powers to choose from.  All the existing V-shaped classes are fine right now; even the poor Strength cleric has enough powers to live off of.

-O


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, that's going in the other direction, but at least consistent. According to this logic, though, there was no need for Essentials, as those who disliked the partity among sources, uniform complexity of classes, fighters 'casting spells' (having daily mechanics), and so forth, could, indeed, have continued playing the old game.




I can't tell if this is a straw man or you actually believe it.  Do you understand that many people enjoy 4e, which is a very very different game from previous versions of D&D, but dislike the complexity of building and running standard 4e PCs?  I find 4e a great game to GM, 4e makes GMing a lot easier than running (eek) 3e.  But a lot of the 4e classes are more complex than I like to play, and without electronic support from charbuilder software they're also too difficult to make.  That kept me out of 4e for over a year after its release.  For players like me, who *like playing 4e* bit would prefer reduced player-side complexity, the simpler Essentials classes are wonderful.  I love my E-Thief PC; I wouldn't enjoy playing a PHB Rogue nearly as much, even if he were potentially more effective.   I've enjoyed playing a 4e PHB Fighter, but it was hard work; harder than I like to work when playing.  Playing a Knight or Slayer looks much easier & thus for me more fun.  And yet I *still want to play 4e*.  There are so many ways where I find 4e much better than 3e - it has decent class balance, the non-AC defenses system is a million times better than 3e saving throws, the power of magic is greatly curtailed, fights are much more interesting, and so on.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not at all, the Slayer, in particular, quite captures the feel of the AD&D fighter.  When I played a Slayer at the Red-Box Game Day, I was struck by the sheer nostalgia of it.  4 out of 5 hourglasses of nostalgia, easy.  It was even amusing for the first couple hours.  In that sense, it's a rousing success.  All they had to do to butcher the balance and consistency that 4e had brought to D&D classes for the first time.  Too high a price tag, for a little nostalgia, IMHO.



In what way, honestly?  Other than, "My guy is simple to run and uses a two-handed sword?"

AD&D Fighters don't have stances or second winds, they have no power attack features, they have no feats, they have no skills, they have no separate build options based on weapons, they have no action points, they have no paragon path options, they can't push enemies, they have no reason to wear light armor, and they don't have mad charging skillz.

The slayer uses unquestionably and unmistakably 4e mechanics, not AD&D ones.  It's a _stylistic _call-back, absolutely and intentionally, but not a mechanical one at all.

-O


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 3, 2011)

V-Shaped classes might make more sense if you could get enough synergy for being 18/18 instead of 20/16 to make up for the accuracy loss. Until then...


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2011)

Re the horror of V-shaped classes; personally I always go for the 20-in-Prime-stat A-shape PCs, but...

I rebuilt a 3rd level half-elf Warlord PC for a fellow player yesterday; to work as intended she needed to be W-shaped, with good STR INT & CHA.  I got her to STR 17 (+3) INT 14 (+2) CHA 16 (+3), STR can go to 18 when she hits 4th.  So she's not fully optimised for any one thing, but she can attack with STR, use INT powers, and use CHA powers, all with reasonable effectiveness; she has AC 20 (heavy shield prof & +1 chainmail), and 16 in every NAD; CON 12 can go to 13 at 4th level, enabling scale armour prof. Overall I think it makes her a very robust, flexible support character who is good at not dying, can hit moderately well (ATT+8 at level 3 is as good as the monsters, anyway, and it'll go to +10 at 4th); and she has a wide variety of reasonable options to support the party.  For her given role - and we have 2 Leaders in this group, the other a Cleric - I can't say this is a 'worse' PC than a traditional A-shaper.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> In what way, honestly?  Other than, "My guy is simple to run and uses a two-handed sword?"



Well, when you played a fighter in AD&D, you would have a large hit/damage bonus from your percentile strength (and weapon specialization).  For the first couple of levels, you were the star of the show.  You were the one bringing the monsters down while the theif failed to find/remove traps (or hide in shadow or anything else but 'climb walls) and the wizard shivered in his robes in the back, throwing darts. Weapon specialization (introduced in Unearthed Arcana), gave you a very potent ranged option, but it was very much a build option.  If you were a bow specialist, you were a vicious archer, and still a good melee type, if you specialized in melee weapon you were brutal with, and still not bad with a bow or thrown weapons (especially with a 'strenght bow).  Then there were the plethora of variants and oft-ignored rules.  Every game had some extra stuff you could pull in combat.  Maybe grappling, maybe called shots, maybe siezing the high ground, whatever the DM was into. The Slayer evokes some of that.  His striker damage bonus makes him a bad-ass, and his stances echo a little of the plethora of non-standard options you'd often find at the AD&D table.  Stances pour a little - well not gasoline, a little something mildly flamale - on the big damage fire, too.   But only a little - you mostly just pick a stance and stick with (especially if you have Berserker's Charge - you lead with that, and then switch to 'Poised Asault' or 'Unfettered Fury' or whatever your other stance is until you need to charage again).  Depending on your chargen decisions, you can be great at melee and not at all bad with a bow, or the reverse.     

About the only AD&D feel the Slayer didn't deliver on was 2e's TWFing.  Every weapon specialist and his maiden aunt used TWFing in 2e AD&D.  That's why I felt the Slayer had the more 1e feel.  



> AD&D Fighters don't have stances or second winds, they have no power attack features, they have no feats, they have no skills, they have no separate build options based on weapons, they have no action points, they have no paragon path options, they can't push enemies, they have no reason to wear light armor, and they don't have mad charging skillz.



Well, depending on your DM you might do some mad charging, push enemies, or have a reason to wear light (or no) armor (there were some weird variants - the game was a lot less unified and consistent across campaigns than it is today), and weapon specialization certainly channeled them into weapon-specific paths.  But, sure, the Slayer has feats & skills and so forth, and the AD&D fighter didn't.  And, really, neither did anyone else in AD&D have feats or skills or other more recent inovations.  By the same token, /everyone/ in Essentials has feats and skills and so forth.  So they're not notable aspects of the Slayer.  Tough, big damage, and just attacking or moving & attacking every round, that's the distinctiveness of the Slayer - and the 1e AD&D Fighter.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I rebuilt a 3rd level half-elf Warlord PC for a fellow player yesterday; to work as intended she needed to be W-shaped, with good STR INT & CHA.  I got her to STR 17 (+3) INT 14 (+2) CHA 16 (+3), STR can go to 18 when she hits 4th.



That's very doable.  I've tried a gnome (of all things) resourceful warlord, with 16 each in STR, CHA & INT.  Obviously STR gets the level-ups, and is still the viable attack stat as the character gains levels.  What's split for this kind of character is the secondaries - and that still works, and gives you nicely-balanced non-AC defenses, especially early on - none of the problems of a split-primary class assail such characters, though.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2011)

No 1e AD&D Fighter used a 2-handed weapon!  Especially when UA banned double weapon spec for 2-handed swords.  Every 1e Fighter I ever saw used a longsword; although theoretically broadsword & bastard sword (or twin hand axes!) were viable choices, the 70% chance a magic sword was a longsword made it silly to take anything else for your weapon spec.  Other hand was either a shield or TWF.

If anything the Knight is closer to the 1e Fighter.  The Slayer's required use of a 2hW actually reminds me of 3.5e with its 2-for-1 2 handed Power Attack...


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, when you played a fighter in AD&D, you would have a large hit/damage bonus from your percentile strength (and weapon specialization).  For the first couple of levels, you were the star of the show.  You were the one bringing the monsters down while the theif failed to find/remove traps (or hide in shadow or anything else but 'climb walls) and the wizard shivered in his robes in the back, throwing darts.  The Slayer evokes some of that.  His striker damage bonus makes him a bad-ass, and his stances pour a little - well not gasoline, a little something - on that fire, but you mostly just pick a stance and stick with (especially if you have Berserker's Charge - you lead with that, and then switch to 'Poised Asault' or 'Unfettered Fury' or whatever you damage-boosting stance is and just stay in it.   Weapon specialization (introduced in Unearthed Arcana), gave you a very potent ranged option, but it was very much a build option.  Then there were the plethora of variants and oft-ignored rules.  Every game had some extra stuff you could pull in combat.  Maybe grappling, maybe called shots, maybe siezing the high ground, whatever the DM was into.
> 
> About the only thing the Slayer didn't deliver on was 2e's TWFing.  Every weapon specialist and his maiden aunt used TWFing in 2e AD&D.  That's why I felt the Slayer had the more 1e feel.



With all this, I don't know if you're saying anything other than what I said - that the class is stylistically similar, but not mechanically.  Exceptional Strength is different from any 4e striker mechanic; it doesn't scale, and you had to be (very) lucky to get it in any quantity.

Another key difference?  At higher levels, slayers get more toys to play with.  An AD&D Fighter gets some better to-hit numbers and hit points, and more attacks, but nothing new mechanically.  AD&D Fighters can't keep up with the Wizards & Clerics for a lot of reasons.  Slayers _can_.



> Well, depending on your DM you might do some mad charging, push enemies, or have a reason to wear light (or no) armor (there were some weird variants - the game was a lot less unified and consistent across campaigns than it is today), and weapon specialization certainly channeled them into weapon-specific paths.  But, sure, the Slayer has feats & skills and so forth, and the AD&D fighter didn't.  And, really, neither did anyone else in AD&D have feats or skills or other more recent inovations.  By the same token, /everyone/ in Essentials has feats and skills and so forth.  So they're not notable aspects of the Slayer.  Tough, big damage, and just attacking or moving & attacking every round, that's the distinctiveness of the Slayer - and the 1e AD&D Fighter.



That's part of my point, though.  They're notable aspects of the Slayer precisely _because _we're operating within the 4e rule-set, not the 1e rule-set.  If one of your arguments is, "People who want a Slayer are playing the wrong edition..." you're making the opposite point, here.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> With all this, I don't know if you're saying anything other than what I said - that the class is stylistically similar, but not mechanically.



We are comparing things 30 years appart, of course there are mechanical differences.  But, there are also similarities.  The Slayer lacks daily resources to manage, it has few choices beyond what weapon to use, it's main claim to fame is hitting hard.  That's very much the same as the 1e Fighter. 



> Exceptional Strength is different from any 4e striker mechanic; it doesn't scale, and you had to be (very) lucky to get it in any quantity.



The various 'random' ability generation methods in AD&D made getting an 18 pretty easy, really.  AD&D also had weapon specialization, for yet more damage.  Sure, there's decades of power inflation between them, but given how different 4e and 1e are, the Slayer and AD&D Fighter are more remarkable for their similarities than their differences.



> Another key difference?  At higher levels, slayers get more toys to play with.



They get 2 stances and some bigger numbers.



> An AD&D Fighter gets some better to-hit numbers and hit points, and more attacks, but nothing new mechanically.



Well, he got to set himself up as a fuedal lord.   



> AD&D Fighters can't keep up with the Wizards & Clerics for a lot of reasons.  Slayers _can_.



Actually there were not a lot of reasons.  There was one reason: spells.  Spells were starkly limited-use powers in AD&D, they were compensated for their limitations with a great deal of power, and, as levels progressed, the limitations were no longer enough to contain the sheer power casters commanded, and the game shifted to their favor.  It was just a badly balanced system.  The hobby was in its infancy, and that flaw was easily forgiven or overlooked.  4e (finally) learned from those mistakes, and had a system where all classes had basically the same sets of limitations* (primarily resource management) on their major abilities (powers).  Essentials repeats the mistakes of prior eds by trying to balance classes with differently-limitted abilities (with or without daily powers, primarily).  I'm not saying it's making those same mistakes as badly (not by a long shot), at least, not yet, but it is the same issue, in kind, if not nearly in degree.



* as an aside, another point that often gets overlooked is that, while spells were always daily, they used to have much heavier limmitations, as well.  Casting a spell in AD&D meant having both hands free, being able to speak (and hear), having exactly the right material components readily at hand, standing upright on a stable surface (no, really, you couldn't even cast on horseback like Gandalf), and doing so, uninterrupted by attack, damage, or whatever, for a varying but often substantial portion of a 1-minute combat round.  It was not always easy to get spells off in combat, it was virtually impossible in melee.  Through editions, those limitations have been lessened, and 4e really did away with virtually all of them.  Casting a spell is now no more limitted than swinging a weapon.  That 'parity' I'm constantly harping on /was/ a two-way street.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

S'mon said:


> No 1e AD&D Fighter used a 2-handed weapon!  Especially when UA banned double weapon spec for 2-handed swords.  Every 1e Fighter I ever saw used a longsword; although theoretically broadsword & bastard sword (or twin hand axes!) were viable choices, the 70% chance a magic sword was a longsword made it silly to take anything else for your weapon spec.  Other hand was either a shield or TWF.
> 
> If anything the Knight is closer to the 1e Fighter.  The Slayer's required use of a 2hW actually reminds me of 3.5e with its 2-for-1 2 handed Power Attack...



The Slayer is not required to use a two handed weapon, it simply isn't given shield proficiency.  

I don't recall anything about two-handed weapons not being subject to specialization.  And, while TWFing existed in 1e, it was on the obscure side - it really exploded in 2e.

The random magic item tables did produce longswords with remarkable regularity, though, so, while you might very well start with a two-handed sword or even one of the hinky pole-arms, you'd eventually find yourself swinging a vorpal sword or hammer of thunderbolts or whatever.  Afterall, your magic items were the only thing you really had going for you after a while.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't recall anything about two-handed weapons not being subject to specialization.




They could x1 spec (+1, +2).  They could not x2 spec (+3, +3).  Check your UA.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Like I still have a UA at hand...  ;(

I'll have to take your word for it.  But it's an odd limitation, and I'm surprised I don't recall it... I wonder what the rationale was... 

(though, right now, I'm having trouble remembering exactly when double-specialization was introduced.  I thought I remember there being specialization for a while, before double-spec, but if double-specialization was in UA, where did specialization first apear, The Dragon? ...  Also, I remember bows cost an extra proficiency to specialize in but... damn, bow specialization was vicious).  :sigh:  long, long time ago.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, there's decades of power inflation between them, but given how different 4e and 1e are, the Slayer and AD&D Fighter are more remarkable for their similarities than their differences.




Your "go back to 3e/AD&D if you want an Essentials-type Fighter" argument misses the remarkable difference between the Knight/Slayer and the 3e/AD&D Fighter: the Essentials classes don't become obsolete by mid-levels because other classes can take care of things without them.

I'm a huge fan of 4e, and the AEDU setup, but I also like experimenting, and after years of playing with that system, they can give us non-standard class structures that allow the class to operate at the same basic level of proficiency within their role as the original 4e ones.

The old structure is still being supported, as evidenced by the warlord article (and the upcoming other ones over the next few months) which included errata and updates to powers and features. And we're getting feats for it next month. How often do you see a 2 year old game element get support like that?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> No, of course I don't find AD&D to have robust class balance.



You had me worried there for a minute. 






> I'll agree that there's a design issue with A-shaped vs. V-shaped classes.  Ironically, I don't think the designers had a very good handle on the 4e system when PHB1 was released.  I have some different conclusions from this than you do, though.
> ...
> It's not that a V-shaped class is necessarily a mistake or an inherently bad design; it's that a V-shaped class is really two subclasses which share some common features of the main class, and they should be treated and addressed as such.  V-shaped classes can and do work just fine; it's only when you run into serious MAD issues, like with a starlock or a straladin, that things get chancy.



A 'sub-class' is really the same problem, if it's going to split a single class's worth of goodies between two sub-classes.  That is, if they can't use eachother's stuff, and they aren't just outright given as much stuff, each, as a regular class (in which case, it might just as well be too different classes).



> I don't think the issue with V-shaped classes would have been nearly as bad had the designers made sure that each branch of the V had more powers to choose from.  All the existing V-shaped classes are fine right now; even the poor Strength cleric has enough powers to live off of.



Sure, a v-class design or incompatible sub-class design can work if you throw enough stuff at each build or sub-class - but, that's a lot of material, and if their close enough to fit in one class, it's more efficient to just set them up to share more powers (by using the same stat, making virtually all powers use either stat, or, in the case of sub-classes using the same stat, making them mechanically compatible).

The poor STR cleric, for instance, has half the attack powers to choose from that the WIS cleric did - and the WIS cleric has yet more from the Warpriest, and probably more on the way in HoS.  Not looking good.  It's funny, because it was a solid build, at first.  It had a number of very good powers, a minor advantage in having a strong melee basic attack for OAs, charging, and the like, a similar minor advantage in using weapons (which, eventually, got to crit on a 19-20, while implements didn't, had 'superior' versions, and a little variety - some +3 prof, some high-crit, etc), and a few other little factors that mostly slowly disapeared in one way or another.  The stunning lack of attack power choice was evident, of course (what did a human PH1 STR Cleric take for this third at will?  A WIS power.)  OK, and a tendency to be MAD, which is never good.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

I guess I need to say it again:  I'm not arguing that people 'should' be playing 3e.  I've tried to make the point that /IF/ you want to claim that I can't be critical of Essentials because pre-E 4e is 'still there' and my 'books haven't been taken away,' THEN, by that same logic, there was no need for those Essentials retro-nostalgic changes, since the old game is still there, and no one took those books away, either.

I'm pointing out a spurious objection to complaints about Essentials (and 4e, for that matter), that is just overwhelmingly popular with apologist of every stripe.  It's a fallacy, as it denies /any/ objection to /any/ change, ever.  

Now, I have made a very similar-sounding point, so I can understand the confusion.  I do mention that D&D had lacked class balance for some 34 years prior to 4e, and those of us who like class balance had it for only a little over 2 years before Essentials came out and started monkeying with it again.  (Actually, Psionics started monkeying with it a few months before that, even).  But, I'm not saying go back and play 3e if you hate balance  - though, that, and Pathfinder, are certainly options - I'm saying GIVE CLASS BALANCE A CHANCE!


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm saying GIVE CLASS BALANCE A CHANCE!




And I'm saying CLASS BALANCE IS STILL THERE, THEY'RE JUST EXPERIMENTING WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

I know I 'yelled' but it was simply an exhortation.

You yelled back a statement of fact, that happens not to be correct.  The 'experimenting with different levels of complexity' thing is /also/, inevitably, mucking about with class balanace.  When all classes had the same underlying resource structure (AEDU) they balanced 'naturally,' the designer just has to keep his eye on the the individual powers and he's fine.   The designer just asks himself 'is this at-will balanced with other at-wills?' 'is this daily balanced with other dailies?'  Abandoning AEDU changes that formula, so the designer must now ask "is this at-will enough better than other at-wills to make up for a lack of dailies - taking into account that other classes will have 1 daily at low level, and 4 at high level, and that at-wills will be used more in longer combats and/or with more combats/day, while dailies might be used sub-optimally or saved too long and not used at all...."

That second question is hard for a skilled designer to answer.  Heck, it's hard for an insomniac fan to even phrase at 5 in the morning.  Because, it is that much more complicated and difficult a question - and, it probably has no right answer.  In some campaigns, a daily might balance an at-will, while in others, the same daily will overshadow the same at will.  

And, we're not just talking theory.  D&D never achieved much semblance of class balance prior to 4e, because it kept having to try to answer questions akin to that second one.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Why anyone would argue the point is beyond me:  every previous incarnation of the game clearly demonstrated the lack of balance inherent in giving some classes unlimitted-use abilities and other limitted-use ones compensated with greater power.  Anyone clamoring to go back to that clearly doesn't want class balance.  Whether they're willing to sacrific it to get some retro-feel or class differentiation or 'realism'/verismilitude, or whether they just hate balance on the face  of it, because they want the opportunity to puzzle out the most overpowered character possible, I can't say.  I just can't agree with giving class balance a low priority in a game like this.




I have to disagree with this statement.  Obviously, 3.5 is the most demonstrable showcase of lack of balance with the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.  But later versions of 3.5 showed you could achieve rough parity with the right selection of classes.  A party of Warblade, Factotum, Healer, and Warmage would certainly not be biased towards the casting classes!  Power in 3e was driven by one factor alone: unfettered access to the wizard or cleric or druid spell list.    

What drives imbalance has little to do with encounter frequency and everything to do with what effects can be generated.  By 5th level, the full casting classes started getting "trump" spells, which generated effects that only other magic effects could overcome.  (Fly, as an example).  It's a result of pre-4e's emergent class design, where classes were granted powers that felt right for the archetype, and it was assumed that what occurred in play would fit the archetype.  

4e's process design, where design works backwards from the endpoint of "this is what the class should be able to achieve," almost guarantees that we'll never see any power come out that allows grants wizards or clerics "you win" spells, as were so common in earlier editions.  Combined with a ritual system where all of the narrative effect spells are available to all characters if they choose and are used as treasure, I don't see a reason to assume the emerging re-ascendance of the arcane.  

Now, this doesn't mean I think martial should be stuck at the simplicity end of the simple/complex spectrum.  I've advocated elsewhere for non-daily "dailies", powers of greater effect that aren't regulated purely by extended rests.  Classes that gain powers triggered by "combo points" or a "limit break" system would be excellent ways to make new martial builds or martial classes.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I know I 'yelled' but it was simply an exhortation.
> 
> You yelled back a statement of fact, that happens not to be correct.  The 'experimenting with different levels of complexity' thing is /also/, inevitably, mucking about with class balanace.  When all classes had the same underlying resource structure (AEDU) they balanced 'naturally,' the designer just has to keep his eye on the the individual powers and he's fine.   The designer just asks himself 'is this at-will balanced with other at-wills?' 'is this daily balanced with other dailies?'  Abandoning AEDU changes that formula, so the designer must now ask "is this at-will enough better than other at-wills to make up for a lack of dailies - taking into account that other classes will have 1 daily at low level, and 4 at high level, and that at-wills will be used more in longer combats and/or with more combats/day, while dailies might be used sub-optimally or saved too long and not used at all...."
> 
> ...




I don't think pre-4e D&D ever ATTEMPTED to achieve class parity. WAY back in the old days when asked about this Gygax made some noise about the balance being that magic users were weak at low levels, but frankly I think that was 100% after-the-fact rationalization and nobody ever really believed it meant diddly. 

Yes, it may be somewhat harder to achieve balance when the mechanics are SOMEWHAT different. Still, the difference between a Mage and a Slayer is vastly less than the difference between a Fighting Man and a Magic User (of any edition). The Mage's powers are designed to be far less plot busting, lack "I Win" buttons, and mostly operate on a plane similar to martial powers, doing similar levels of damage, etc. Utility powers also provide a rather significant safety valve because your Slayer CAN employ powers and has some pretty useful ones (especially if you mine earlier material). The observed result from ALL reports I've seen of extended Essentials/4e mixed play is that parity is pretty good. Certainly within the parameters of what 4e already had (where frankly the martial classes outshine the others in a lot of respects).

So, my analysis would be that arguments about balance in previous versions are moot, they have nothing to teach us about that because absolutely no attempt was ever made to achieve it and it was simply not a concern. Possibly Bo9S WAS an experiment in that direction and simply serves to indicate how far from any such consideration 3.5 was. Essentials martial classes are pretty well balanced and serve as the proof that, while it may be slightly harder, you can still achieve balanced play even without all classes being AEDU.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not at all, the Slayer, in particular, quite captures the feel of the AD&D fighter.  When I played a Slayer at the Red-Box Game Day, I was struck by the sheer nostalgia of it.  4 out of 5 hourglasses of nostalgia, easy.  It was even amusing for the first couple hours.  In that sense, it's a rousing success.  All they had to do to butcher the balance and consistency that 4e had brought to D&D classes for the first time.  Too high a price tag, for a little nostalgia, IMHO.



Well, I disagree with you. Admittedly, I mostly DM, the only essentials sub-class I've actually played is the scout, and the last "retro-gaming" I've done is Labyrinth Lord (I last played AD&D some time in the late 80s). But my experience of playing essentials has been that it's still 4e, and as such is not the same game as AD&D, does not have the same feel as AD&D, and is focused on completely different things than 4e.

Furthermore, I don't think that essentials has "butchered" the balance and consistency of 4e, if it's touched on them at all it's been an improvement, IMO. If you really feel that way then our experiences are just vastly different; and if you mean that you fear that going forward further support for essentials and pre-essentials classes, or for martial and non-martial classes, then you might try saying that, instead.


Tony Vargas said:


> The old-fashioned class 'balance' that Eseentials is angling for /is/ very much a moving target.



I don't see that essentials is "angling" for any such thing. For you this intent to change the face of 4e seems to be writ large across the essentials material, for myself I just don't believe it's there.


Tony Vargas said:


> Did you find AD&D to have robust class balance?



I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "robust class balance", but if it's anything like "all classes had a similar level of importance and made a similar level of contribution to the game across all levels", then my answer is basically "yes". That was true of my AD&D experiences as a player and as a DM. If anything fighters and clerics where more generally important, while magic-users and thieves had more stand-out moments.


----------



## OnlineDM (Apr 3, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> You don't have to take his word for it, there is one such person in this thread, who has already posted in amazement the E-Warlord is actually just the same as the original warlord. Not some gutted version ala the Slayer/Knight, so it isn't very hard to find someone who wants this to happen to martial in general. Of course their delicious tears when the essentials weaponmaster is released will - in some ways - be enough of a compromise.




I think [MENTION=78116]Aegeri[/MENTION] may be referring to my post on the first page of this now-crazy-long thread. I was surprised that the Warlord article just reformatted the existing Warlord, with a little errata. I didn't see the point of WotC bothering to publish this article. 

I AM interested in seeing new builds, and that's what I (erroneously, obviously) thought the Warlord article was going to be - a new build, similar to the Knight/Slayer/Thief. 

To be clear, I would be JUST as interested in seeing that kind of build for a Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/Shaman/Psion/etc. I just think new builds are interesting. 

I do NOT feel that cool powers and the AEDU structure needs to be taken away from Martial classes. I DO feel that seeing new builds is interesting.

I like the Warlord as-is, and I was also interested to see what a non-AEDU version of the Warlord class might look like. More build options = good in my book.

I understand that the Weaponmaster is just the new name for the regular non-Slayer, non-Knight Fighter. Fine. I also think that re-releasing it with new formatting is a less-than-ideal way for WotC to spend their time and development resources, since I'd rather see new stuff than reformatted old stuff, but I also recognize that other players see a lot of value in the new format and the incorporation of errata.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

kaomera said:


> Furthermore, I don't think that essentials has "butchered" the balance and consistency of 4e, if it's touched on them at all it's been an improvement, IMO.



I'd be interested to hear in what ways you find it an improvement in balance.  



> if you mean that you fear that going forward further support for essentials and pre-essentials classes, or for martial and non-martial classes, then you might try saying that, instead. For you this intent to change the face of 4e seems to be writ large across the essentials material, for myself I just don't believe it's there.



I've been saying that, too, yes.  There's a number of threads to this debate, and misgivings about what Essentials implies for the future of 4e is certainly one of them.  Balance is another.  Concerns about the future, are, obviously a matter of perception and intuition and even whether you tend to be an optimist or pessimist, trusting or skeptical.  (I obviously tend towards pessimisim and skepticism.)



> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "robust class balance",



That classes make roughly equal contributions and share 'spotlight time' more or less equally over as many levels, situations, and play styles as possible.  As opposed to fragile class balance, which might exist for a given range of levels, or among some sub-set of classes, or when certain play styles are encouraged or excluded.  3e, for instance, had rather fragile class balance.  While AD&D had a more primative aproach to 'balance' that, well, really wouldn't make a lot of sense to modern gamers... it was more about balance among players than among theoretical constructs like classes.  If everyone had the same chance of rolling a given stat combination or random psionic power or picking up the object coated with XX poison, there was 'balance' or perhaps 'fairness.'  AD&D still had some of the competative spirit of wargaming, I guess.  Some folks even called DMs 'referees.'  The modern concept of balance is almost more like an exercise in nurturing self-esteem.



> but if it's anything like "all classes had a similar level of importance and made a similar level of contribution to the game across all levels", then my answer is basically "yes".



If you found AD&D balanced, there are few games you could find imbalanced - certainly 3.x and Essentials are paragons of flawless balanced compared to AD&D.  



> That was true of my AD&D experiences as a player and as a DM. If anything fighters and clerics where more generally important, while magic-users and thieves had more stand-out moments.



I take it you mostly played in the single-digit levels?  The 'sweet spot' that kept getting mentioned as something 4e was trying to expand.  If fighters are still important, you're at relatively low levels, if magic-users are having stand-out moments, you're probably at least 3rd... and if a theif is, also, then you have to have gotten out of the low-level doldrums where his skills are just pathetically low...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Still, the difference between a Mage and a Slayer is vastly less than the difference between a Fighting Man and a Magic User (of any edition).



Certainly.  The degree of class imbalance re-introduced by Essentials so far is much lesser in degree than in 3.x, even post-Bo9S.  Still, though different in degree, it is similar in kind.  I understand that the difference  is considered by some (most notably, the ones desgining it, of course) small enough to be 'worth it' to achieve the goals Essentials has.  Denying an impact on balance, though, is something I can't seem to let lie.  



> The Mage's powers are designed to be far less plot busting, lack "I Win" buttons, and mostly operate on a plane similar to martial powers, doing similar levels of damage, etc.



Instant Friends is prettymuch an 'I win' button for some skill checks, or, potentially even simpler social Skill Challenges.  But, yeah, no flat out save-or-die mechanic has been re-introduced... though, it sounds like some HoS spells are trying to evoke a bit of that feel.  And, the 'expanded design space' may well have room for them.




> So, my analysis would be that arguments about balance in previous versions are moot, they have nothing to teach us about that because absolutely no attempt was ever made to achieve it and it was simply not a concern.  Essentials martial classes are pretty well balanced and serve as the proof that, while it may be slightly harder, you can still achieve balanced play even without all classes being AEDU.



 So, basically, if you exclude 34 years of clear evidence that daily spells vs at-will sword swinging don't balance, you can conclude that they /will/ balance in Essentials... ?

I'm sorry, but if I'm going to discard decades of crystal clear evidence and common wisdom, I want some compelling, non-anecdoteal, evidence, or some very solid reasoning as to how it's even /possible/ to do what proved impossible for so long.  I mean, seriously, give me something.  

Like, what specific mechanic(s) compensates a Slayer for his lack of daily powers?  What keeps that mechanism balanced at low levels, when AEDU classes have one daily, and higher levels when they have 4?  What maintains it in long, drawn-out 'grinds' and fast, brutal 'alpha strikes?'  In 8 encounter days and single-encounter days?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 3, 2011)

> So, basically, if you exclude 34 years of clear evidence that daily spells vs at-will sword swinging don't balance, you can conclude that they /will/ balance in Essentials... ?




I don't think 34 years of evidence shows that dailies vs. at-wills don't balance.

I think it shows that "I swing my sword" and "I ignore travel times, see everything, summon pit fiends, and am immune to damage" don't balance. 

The rate of usage has nothing to do with it. What they are capable of is the point.

And nothing in 4e is capable of the kinds of things spellcasters in early editions were capable of, even after Essentials.

So without the capability of the characters changing, I can't believe that the balance changes, since the balance rested on the different capabilities, not on the different rates of recharge. 

And some of the best designers in the industry agree with me, since they made a Slayer that functions better than a Warlock or a Sorcerer, even without daily abilities.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The rate of usage has nothing to do with it. What they are capable of is the point.



You are asserting that a daily is no more powerful than an at-will or encounter of the same level?


----------



## Obryn (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Denying an impact on balance, though, is something I can't seem to let lie.



Then show your work.  What is the impact on balance?  I'm seeing theorycraft from you, while what I'm seeing at my own table with mixed classes is ... a perfectly working mix of classes, and no imbalance between characters.

In other words, if there's an imbalance, shouldn't I be seeing it?  What is going on in my own game that I'm unaware of?



> So, basically, if you exclude 34 years of clear evidence that daily spells vs at-will sword swinging don't balance, you can conclude that they /will/ balance in Essentials... ?
> 
> I'm sorry, but if I'm going to discard decades of crystal clear evidence and common wisdom, I want some compelling, non-anecdoteal, evidence, or some very solid reasoning as to how it's even /possible/ to do what proved impossible for so long.  I mean, seriously, give me something.



Given that 4e is a different game from 1e, 2e, and 3e, I think those 34 years can safely be disregarded when we're talking about 4e.  It's a completely different system.



> Like, what specific mechanic(s) compensates a Slayer for his lack of daily powers?  What keeps that mechanism balanced at low levels, when AEDU classes have one daily, and higher levels when they have 4?  What maintains it in long, drawn-out 'grinds' and fast, brutal 'alpha strikes?'  In 8 encounter days and single-encounter days?



Some classes are good at steady damage over time.  Some are good at burst damage.  This is already happening, and was before Essentials.  Some classes rely more on their dailies, some rely on them less.

What maintains the balance for Slayers is something like this...

Mighty Slayer
Slayer Weapon Specialization
Inexorable Slayer
Armored Mobility
Constantly improving Power Strike
Constantly improving striker bonus damage

But the proof is in the play, and when we're talking something that's often subjective, like class balance, I don't know how else to look at it.  I don't have a slayer in my game, but I have its close cousin, the Thief.  She's doing good, solid striker damage - nothing out of line.  She's up there with the S-K Pact Warlock.

-O


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The rate of usage has nothing to do with it. What they are capable of is the point.



You are asserting that a daily is no more powerful than an at-will or encounter of the same level?

I acknowledged, above, that the balance issue raised is lesser in degree than it was in prior eds, because the gulf between encounter and daily resources is less than that between sword-swining and spell-slinging in the old days.  But, it's still the same issue.  It's like Essentials is the Flu, and AD&D was Ebola... Ebola is worse, but people do die of the Flu.

So, what do you think immunizes the Slayer, say?  What specific mechanic(s) compensates a Slayer for his lack of daily powers? What keeps that mechanism balanced at low levels, when AEDU classes have one daily, and higher levels when they have 4? What maintains it in long, drawn-out 'grinds' and fast, brutal 'alpha strikes?' In 8 encounter days and single-encounter days?


----------



## Vael (Apr 3, 2011)

Admittedly, I haven't played prior to 3.5, but I find 4e's general chassis far more forgiving and better at maintaining class balance. Defenses and attacks roughly scale at the same rate, you don't have the massive imbalances that occur in 3.5. Which, to me, indicates that 4e can support far more than only AEDU classes. Psionic classes started the process, and I do consider Essentials classes proof that you can have more variety in class structure. I'm quite pleased that we can expand beyond the shackles of AEDU.

Also, to be honest, the idea the AEDU alone guarantees class balance is a bad assumption. Certain classes struggle to do their job as effectively as others.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> You are asserting that a daily is no more powerful than an at-will or encounter of the same level?




I can only really speak to low-Heroic, but there: Wizard dailies are nice.  Fighter dailies are little more than a couple extra damage dice, making almost no difference.  Maybe I'll see an issue at high level, but it's not obvious.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 3, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'd be interested to hear in what ways you find it an improvement in balance.



Sure. OK, first of all, I'm only accounting for a certain "n" value of balance, such that I would notice it in actual play. I don't do dpr comparisons or anything of that sort at the table, and I'm only significantly concerned with the issue when it comes up in play. Frex: my scout, one of the other players at the table would not shut up about how she was horribly gimped by not being able to apply both dual weapon attack and power attack to the same strike; personally aside from that annoyance I didn't notice - I wasn't behind enough in damage that I couldn't land the finishing blow on more enemies than that player's thief, either. Given that:

Optimized pre-essentials characters are generally balanced, there are (or in some cases where, thanks to errata) some outlying cases, but I'd posit that you had to put a certain amount of work into over-optimizing a character. But you also had to do a certain amount of work in order to avoid an under-optimized character, there where "traps" and pitfalls to be avoided. Essentials characters require less work to avoid under-optimization. And since I don't feel that essentials has actually harmed balance in 4e, that's one in the plus column and nothing in the minus.



> That classes make roughly equal contributions and share 'spotlight time' more or less equally over as many levels, situations, and play styles as possible.



Well, play styles I can't comment on beyond how I played. Or maybe I could, but I'd rather not; the only thing I could really say is that if someone wasn't having fun, maybe they should have been doing something else. The system never matters so much as what you do with if. Even when "what you do with it" is strictly limited to applying mechanics, that's still a choice and makes a huge difference, IMO.



> If you found AD&D balanced, there are few games you could find imbalanced - certainly 3.x and Essentials are paragons of flawless balanced compared to AD&D.



Well, I'm no good at 3.x, but there's plenty of people who had and continue to have quite a bit of fun with that game. And I don't find there's much to compare between AD&D and 4e, they're just different games.



> I take it you mostly played in the single-digit levels?  The 'sweet spot' that kept getting mentioned as something 4e was trying to expand.  If fighters are still important, you're at relatively low levels, if magic-users are having stand-out moments, you're probably at least 3rd... and if a theif is, also, then you have to have gotten out of the low-level doldrums where his skills are just pathetically low...



Well, yeah, highest I got in one of my games was 12th (enough XP for 13th level, but didn't survive long enough to get training done). But it took a lot longer to get from level 12 to 13 than to get from 1 to 2. I prefer lower-level games overall (or at least, games that start out at low levels and don't where PCs that are higher-level have "earned it"), and I don't find that 4e has done a really great job in fixing the "sweet spot" issues. You still need to be _really_ invested in your character to make all the extra work of running them at higher levels worth it.

Fighters remained important all the way up. Magic users had stand-out moments at 1st with spells like sleep or charm person. And the thief was awesomesauce. The first-level thief has something roughly comparable to several extra "feats" and something like a +4 bonus to several very important skills.

I've found that the key difference is that "fiction matters" in old-school gaming. Not that fiction doesn't matter in more modern games, there's just been much more of a push to representing that fiction mechanically and / or with physical props and such. I found that magic-users, far from being invincible one-man armies where very fragile and rather wasted on artillery duties. The fighters could mow down orcs more efficiently than a fireball. The real power lay in information and abilities that the PCs couldn't get otherwise, which in turn meant cooperating with the rest of the party.

I'll admit that the AD&D games I played and ran where somewhat "separate but equal" away from the dungeon or the battlefield: fighters tended to lead armies, thieves traveled the underworld, clerics dealt with religious matters, magic-users hid in their towers and waited for the moment when one of their spells would be of use, and all of them engaged in politics to a greater or lesser degree. When there was cause to enter a dungeon or march off to war then all classes had their places, none of them where really able to function on their own or steal the spotlight.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 3, 2011)

> You are asserting that a daily is no more powerful than an at-will or encounter of the same level?




Depends on The Maths.

Hypothetically:

You deal about 5 points of damage with an "at-will." You take roughly 5 turns per combat, and have about 3 combats per day, so you're dealing 75 points of damage per day.

Another class with the same role deals 3 points of damage with an "at-will." They deal about 45 points of damage each day. They ALSO have a daily ability that deals 30 points of damage all at once (TIMES TEN MULTIPLIER!!!). They're dealing 75 points of damage per day. 

These classes are "balanced." They're capable of the same thing. They do it in different ways, but in the end, they have the same effect on the combats in a day. 

So the usage doesn't have to affect the balance. 



> So, what do you think immunizes the Slayer, say? What specific mechanic(s) compensates a Slayer for his lack of daily powers? What keeps that mechanism balanced at low levels, when AEDU classes have one daily, and higher levels when they have 4? What maintains it in long, drawn-out 'grinds' and fast, brutal 'alpha strikes?' In 8 encounter days and single-encounter days?




Have you read a Slayer thread? The consensus on the interwebs is that they are *possibly more powerful than other strikers*. This consensus is formed of three main pillars:

 +DEX modifier to damage (the Heroic Slayer and Mighty Slayer features)
 STR and DEX being the only required stats (giving you an extra 2-4 points of damage each attack).
 The never-miss, never-useless Power Strike ability that you get multiple times, and can use in every encounter. 
The onus, I think, is on you to show that lacking dailies is a problem for them. They can't blast 4[W] in a single attack, but, as I showed above, that doesn't  necessarily make them any weaker in a day than any other Striker.


----------



## kaomera (Apr 3, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Have you read a Slayer thread? The consensus on the interwebs is that they are *possibly more powerful than other strikers*.



And that's the slayer. From what I've sen written of the thief (and ignoring silly things like actual play experience), if essentials is the flu and AD&D ebola, then the thief is a _*freakin' suborbital nuklear strike, exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point, one, one, one, exclamation point*_.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 3, 2011)

Obryn said:


> What maintains the balance for Slayers is something like this...
> 
> Mighty Slayer
> Slayer Weapon Specialization
> ...



And how does that work, exactly?

Clearly, improved power strike and weapon specialization keep the Slayer's Power Strike roughly on par with 'E' part of AEDU classes.  Additional uses of power strike are accumulated about as fast as additoinal Encounter attacks, and, the way it upgrades very aproximately matches the way AEDU classes turn in low level Encounters for higher level ones.  But, unless it's somehow demonstrably superior to more varied Encounter attack powers, it can't contribute to compensating for the lack of dailies.  

Mighty slayer is the improving striker damage bonus, other strikers do have damage bonuses - the Sorcerer's, I believe, is very strongly comparable to the Slayers, isn't it.  A secondary stat adding directly to damage rolls?  So it's the amount over the secondary stat that's contributing to balancing out dailies... 

That tops out at +8 damage.  
Inexorable Slayer is a +1 saving throws. 
Armored mobility is DR vs OAs.
The slayer also eventually takes no movement penalty for armor. 

Two of those are about equivalent to feats, armored mobility is more unusual, but the net effect (worry a lot less about OAs) is basically comparable to the artful dodgers AC bonus vs OAs.  

So, really, it's down to +8 damage, which is pretty sweet, I have to admit, especially for a striker.  And, the Slayer's basic-attack emphasis gives him yet more easily obtained damage bonuses, and the ability to exploit charge enhancements, OA enhancement, and granted basic attacks.  OK, it mostly comes down to using Bracers of Mighty Striking over Iron Armbands of Power, but it's nice.

+8 is actually looking good.  Let's compare it to the damage potential - just the damage potential, none of the other rage effects - of the top-level Barbarian's dailies.  The Barbarian can potentially have 3 7[W] dialies (one from Frenzied Berserker) and a 4[W].  I'm going to assume a Mordenkrad, because it just makes the math really easy - at 2d6 Brutal 1, it averages 8 damage.  (see, easy)  At-wills do 2[W] at top level, so the Barbarian is getting 17 [W] out of his dailies.  All the Slayer has to do is attack 17 times (we'll ignore that the daily might have a miss line) in the course of a /day/ and he's matched that.  In a 4 encounter day, that just requires 4-round encounters.  That's not hard at all.

Damn.  I'm mildly dissapointed.  I was expecting the tipping point to be a little less on-the-nose.  Clearly, someone at WotC - contrary to CharOp opinion - does have math skills.  

So, imbalance occurs when you deviate in either direction:  If you have a one-encounter day - and it doesn't go 17 rounds - the Barbarian comes out ahead.  If it's critical to bring down an enemy quickly in an 'alpha strike,' and combats are very short, the Barbarian comes out ahead.  If you have a grueling 8-encounter day, the Slayer pulls ahead. If you tend towards many-round brutal 'grinds,' the Slayer pulls ahead.  

Since damage is central to the Striker roll, it's an easy analysis - which is why I asked for the Slayer, not the Knight.  We could try to account for everything rages do besides damage, or every feature the slayer gets as it levels, but there's no point.  On the basic Slayer function, we've isolated a point where the Slayer theoretically balances with a conceptually comparable AEDU Striker.  

Whether, I got the estimate or math right, and whether every other non-AEDU balances out at quite the same point as every other AEDU class, I'm will to bet that WotC did their best to get them all balancing around the same 4-kinda-short-encounters point.  Encounters is using 4 kinda-easy encounters a day. I believe the DM kit recomends 3-5 encounters/day, and the new higher-damage monsters edge the game towards slightly shorter combats.

So, we have balance at something like a 16 round (one-and-two-third minute) Day.

Deviate from that point consistently in both directions, in the same magnitude, and you retain a sort of overall balance of contrasting imbalances.  Deviate from it consistently in one direction or the other, and you have a clearly imbalanced state.  

Contrast that to 4e, where you do not introduce imbalances by deviating from a given number of encounters per day and rounds per encounter.  

That's what I mean about Essentials degrading class balance, in the same way, but to a lesser degree as earlier eds.

Like I said, feel free to be fine with that.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 3, 2011)

kaomera said:


> And that's the slayer. From what I've sen written of the thief (and ignoring silly things like actual play experience)...




Re actual play experience - my E-Thief certainly pumps out vastly more damage than the other Striker, a PHB/PHB-3 Minotaur Ranger who dual-wields bastard swords, but is mostly good for attracting enemy attacks, which is nice for activating the Fighter's mark.  While I'm throwing Mr Pointy every round for d4+2d8+12, avg 23.5, he's attacking with a much lower attack bonus and if he hits he's doing 2 x 1d10+1 with twin strike, avg 13.  Usually he only hits once though, while I never miss.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 4, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> And how does that work, exactly?
> 
> ...SNIP...
> 
> ...




I disagree with your analysis.

Power Strike is an ALWAYS HIT damage bonus. Now, assume that a fighter has a 2W encounter power at level 1. This power will hit roughly 50% of the time, though maybe the chance is really more like 65%. So Power Strike is worth almost TWO fighter encounter powers (presumably the encounter power also has an ancillary effect, so it somewhat balances out). 

The Slayer is doing an extra 2-3 points of damage every round vs the fighter. The fighter has a 3W daily, roughly a 7 point damage add over an at-will once a day. Now, the fighter isn't a striker per-se, so we can consider this reasonably balanced (actual play confirms this).

The result is that on the whole the slayer is doing a bit more damage, maybe even a bit more than a PHB1 rogue and equivalent to a bow ranger (who also has few other options besides just attacking BTW). The fighter or other PHB1 character OTOH has a bit more control of when and where to drop his big damage and gets some kind of special effect when he does that. 

As other people have pointed out, because 4e has a built-in system of bonus progression which controls your core to-hit and defense bonuses it is actually fairly hard to have things go totally out of whack. Beyond that there is a rather definite damage increase progression as well, again mostly built into the various powers and such. 

Given that attack bonus and damage are the MAIN indicators of combat balance for most characters 4e REALLY IS largely self-regulating. No plausible class design is going to be very far out from being balanced. You're going to have to make some value judgments about effects vs damage, how much advantage are area attacks, etc. Still, these are things the 4e devs clearly figured out. I don't see frequency of use balancing as being a harder tweak than those.

As for 1e, I still maintain it offers not even the slightest lessons on balancing classes (nor do 2e or 3.x either for that matter). 34 years of sending cars careening down the road with nobody behind the wheel will not teach you jack all about how to drive. It may teach you a lot about the consequences of crashing, but you'll still have to get behind the wheel and learn how to run the car. So the only lesson we can draw from previous editions is that they were indeed totally unbalanced and that we're sick of that. We can hypothesize what made them unbalanced and what might fix them, but 4e clearly has actually done it and equally clearly the 4e devs understand the how and why of that.

Now, you may find Essentials martial classes produce slightly different results in your game than other classes. I don't know. I seriously doubt it is going to be very noticeable or amount to anything more than the existing slight variations between AEDU classes. In THEORY it should be easier to balance classes that all use the same exact mechanics. In practice it may be harder to do that with non-AEDU classes, but you'd have to ask Mike Mearls about that. All we can see is that the result is pretty darn close.

Honestly I think the analogy of the chasm between Fighting Man and Magic User and that between Mage and Slayer is like comparing the Grand Canyon to a rivulet made in your driveway by a leaky garden hose. They may arise from the same basic process in theory but they are so quantitatively different that we can't even really make a qualitative comparison. I've DMed since the very start of D&D and in this respect I find the difference too vast to really gage.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 4, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Have you read a Slayer thread? The consensus on the interwebs is that they are *possibly more powerful than other strikers*.




Um, consensus? This is news to me as I read a lot of CharOp to see what kind of strange builds and rules can produce on a regular basis. My understanding is the opposite: The Thief/Slayer/Scout are excellent mid-range strikers, but their lack of any potential solid nova ability cripples them substantially compared with regular strikers. This isn't to say they are bad whatsoever, but their specific reliance on charge builds to keep up with other non-E strikers is a substantial weakness. Unless you build your slayer/thief/scout to really whore charging, you can really fall behind in damage.

So they are hardly more powerful - while they certainly are more reliable in so many ways. But when it comes down to it their ability to deal massive damage like some other strikers (Rogues, Rangers and Barbarians as good examples) falls distinctly short of the mark.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 4, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> What maintains it in long, drawn-out 'grinds' and fast, brutal 'alpha strikes?' In 8 encounter days and single-encounter days?




And here is where your house of cards crashes.

What keeps a Wizard balanced with a Bow Ranger?  In 4e, with its amazing balance, these two ranged classes should be roughly balanced, right?  I mean you keep comparing Slayers and Wizards, so obviously, the comparison is valid based off of roles.

So the balance between a bow ranger and a wizard is maintained between say, a well designed, hard to lock down solo, and a horde of minions and non minions of an equal xp value.  Right?  Of course they aren't balanced, just like an AEDU fighter will totally kick ass more than a Knight, if the player knows it is safe to nova.  Just like you argue the Slayer and Mage aren't balanced in many circumstances.  But on the whole?  Assuming typical play? It doesn't follow.

To explain:
Your assumptions:

P: Class balance exists, if and only if there does not exist game situations in which one class is better suited than another.
Q: Pre-Essentials 4e had class balance.
R: The Slayer and Mage are not balanced.

My assumption:
R: Wizard v. Bow Ranger solo and minions is equivalent to Slayer v, Mage nova versus many encounters.

If my assumption is right, then Your assumptions are contradictory.  Please provide evidence and make sure your work is logically sound, using actual logic and not Internet logic.

Thank you.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Power Strike is an ALWAYS HIT damage bonus.



It's really not.  It's a damage bonus you add on after you hit.  You don't say "I'm using Power Strike, so I auto-hit."  Mechanically & mathematically, it's just about identical to Reliable.  Which is pretty darn good, really, but there are reliable encounter powers.  Reliable is comparable to half damage on a miss, or a strong effect line, too - so while the Slayer's encounters may be kinda butch compared to older 4e encounter powers, compared to other Essentials encounter powers - like the Mage's, that all do half damage or have an effect - it's not that special.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

Charwoman Gene said:


> What keeps a Wizard balanced with a Bow Ranger?  In 4e, with its amazing balance, these two ranged classes should be roughly balanced, right?



Sure, apart from the differences in thier /roles/.   Ideally, you don't send a striker after minions, because you have a controller to sweep them away.  It's a cooperative game, and that's part of the cooperation.  Though, if you must send a striker after minions, a bow ranger, with a variety of multi-attack options, can whittle down minions faster than, say, a typical rogue.

You put the archer ranger in a series of long combats, he runs out of dailies and is reduced to at wills.  You put the wizard in a long series of combats, he runs out of dailies and is reduced to at wills.  You put the wizard in an alpha situation, and he can bust out a strong daily.  You put the archer-ranger in an alpha situation and he can bust out a strong daily.



> What keeps a Wizard balanced with a Bow Ranger?



The comparable resource management they share under the AEDU structure - and the efforts of the designers in balancing at-wills with at-wills, encounters with encounters and dailies with dailies.  A much easier task than balancing at-wills against dailies.



> In 4e, with its amazing balance, these two ranged classes should be roughly balanced, right? I mean you keep comparing Slayers and Wizards, so obviously, the comparison is valid based off of roles.



Above, I compared the Slayer to the Barbarian, both strikers, with similar concepts.  I have compared the level of benefits recieved from Essenitals by the Fighter class as a whole, to those reaped by the Wizard class as a whole. And, I've compared the resource management of Martial E-classes to those of 4e classes.  That necessarily includes the Slayer in one category and the Wizard in the other, but also includes the Knight, Rogue, Hunter & Scout with the former, and every non-psionic pre-Essentials 4e class in the latter.   But, when it comes to detailed comparisons, I've tried to keep it within the same role and function, to minimize any objection or 'noise.'  



> So the balance between a bow ranger and a wizard is maintained between say, a well designed, hard to lock down solo, and a horde of minions and non minions of an equal xp value.




You can try to argue that the roles aren't perfectly balanced - and you'd be right, because a DM could tilt his campaign towards the strengths of one role and away from those of another.  He'd have to work at it - and often, DM's /do/ need to do just that, when the party is missing a role - but it's certainly possible.

Thing is, that's at least as aplicable with Essentials classes.  You can build a pretty butch archer-Slayer for instance (just max dex and grab bow feats and stances that work with RBAs).  He'll put out a lot of damage vs lockdown-immune solos that frustrate the wizard (and won't care about the solo's effect-negating traits, because he has no save-ends powers to dish out), and be reduced to popping one minion of a horde at a time while a wizard sweeps them away en masse.  A stark example of a role-related imbalance. Particularly stark because of the Slayer's focused, inflexible, low-option aproach to the striker role.  The archer-ranger, compared to the wizard in the same situations, pops two or more minions every round in the latter, so isn't as imbalanced relative to the wizard as the archer-slayer.  Similarly, in the former situation, he may well find he has a daily or two that /do/ inflict save ends conditions, that would be noticeably less effective against it, so he's also less imbalanced compared to the wizard in that case - in addition to being neatly balanced with the Wizard in terms of resource management.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 4, 2011)

So, what you are saying is that class balance is only important when comparing the varying conditions that support your argument, but any varying conditions that do not support it are exempt from their effect on class balance?  Because Slayers and Mages have different roles too.  Seriously, have you considered that maybe, just maybe this is a simple irrational, emotional decision on your part because you really like the AEDU system for symmetry, or other non-logical reasons?  I hate lots of things about 4e for completely emotional reasons, I just try to be honest about that and not demand that's others conform to non-existent logical argument to support my emotional feelings.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 4, 2011)

Okay assume wizards comes out with Double-strike stance, that allows a slacker to make two attacks with a balancing penalty.  Something they could easily do.  This minor, non-structural addition takes your argument about bow-rangers and destroys it.  It's not structural.

It really seems your entire argument is that If you DM runs games that always allow for extended rests after every fight, the Slayer is underpowered.  While this is true, that game is a degenerate example of a 4e game.  It is run in a way that is counter to explicit design tenets of 4e.


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 4, 2011)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So, what you are saying is that class balance is only important when comparing the varying conditions that support your argument, but any varying conditions that do not support it are exempt from their effect on class balance?




The difference is he is comparing apples with apples: Defenders that use AEDU to defenders using the non-AEDU structure. You're trying to make some argument that different roles excel in different ways so AEDU wasn't balanced - which is nonsensical. A wizard should be better against minions because - this is actually a stated design thing BTW - controllers are *meant* to kill minions. The ranger naturally does far better against a solo, because strikers are designed to kill single enemies quickly and extremely efficiently. You shouldn't confuse roles in the party and balance: 4 roles combine to produce an effective party. How a character is compared is with those within their own roles: not outside of them.

Comparing how the Slayer performs to say, a Ranger is a more valid and worth while comparison. Both are strikers and one has very different conditions they work under. Of course, I actually disagree that the Slayer is going to be competent against the Ranger - especially once the ranger builds his bunch of cheesy out of turn interrupt attacks. The Slayer has a decent minimum threshold per encounter for DPR, but the maximum damage is far lower than the Ranger - who when he goes banana's will _really_ blow a ton of DPR. This is part of the problems with the non-AEDU Slayer/Knight/Thief in that without charge tricks, their DPR is competent all day long - but not remarkable enough compared to other strikers. 

This has strengths and weaknesses. In Tony's case, I suspect he puts a lot of weight on the all day long competence of these classes. For me, I put a lot more weight on how they will perform when the going actually gets tough. I find in such encounters their lack of options and simply performing the basics - albeit extremely well - isn't going to be enough. 

A great example of this is the first of the "essentials" DnD encounters seasons vs. the level 4 solo black dragon. To say that the essentials party got annihilated in a good amount of cases would be an understatement. The Knight was simply unable to do a thing about the dragon, the thief was good DPR but once again came up chronically short on actually being able to deal with the dragons powers. The Warpriest and Mage would be fine though - as they are still AEDU - and I can never remember what the last character was (Maybe a scout?). I'm not surprised that party got ruined though.

Running this same encounter with one of my own groups, the party of Fighter/Ranger/Warlord/Barbarian/Invoker were also really badly hammered - but won without the major risk of a TPK. The simple reason is that with more tactical options came workarounds - the fighter could stay at range and mark the dragon with a handaxe to avoid the automatic hit acid. Keeping the -2 penalty on, combined with an at-will from the invoker that also put a -2 penalty on made a huge difference. A successful Warlord Lead the Attack combined with the Barbarian/Rangers sinking in multiple attack dailies/encounters tore the dragon down while bloodied very quickly - again minimizing the amount of damage.

These differences don't look important - but again when the going gets tough being able to step up and perform at X level _is_ important. The difference between the essentials martial strikers like the scout/thief/slayer and say, your normal strikers is they are very consistent but entirely unremarkable. When you need them to really step up and toss a big amount of damage around - what those big dailies and other encounter powers can accomplish - they can't do it. Their minimum performance and maximum performance is very close - _by design_. 

An AEDU class has a big gulf between minimum and maximum performance - due to extra damage being in unreliable ways like dailies and encounters. But when they come off with their dailies and encounter powers, they accomplish far stronger effects and far more upper performance. When the going gets tough, that party can throw down a lot of dailies and really hammer home just how big their advantage is. Hence why when I tried that Black Dragon encounter that wiped so many tables in the essentials only encounters season, it wasn't so bad - if still very challenging - for my regular party.

At the same time that party above if they faced that dragon when they don't have dailies and you have a long adventuring day, they would get _hammered_. In the same scenario the advantage would entirely shift  and the essentials classes plain excel - they are practically immune to whatever happens during the day. So here is more towards Tony's point about balance - because if you have a short day the AEDU classes will annihilate the essentials martial classes in power. On the other hand, the longer and more grindy the day - where resources become more stretched the E-martial classes don't change in performance. 

So there is a balance issue here - if a _very_ subtle one and how important it is in gameplay is _extremely_ hard to assess. A fully rested and without expending any dailies AEDU party, that can freely dump it on the black dragon I used as an example will do very well (and in fact did). That same party that has had say, 50% of its total powers depleted over the day? That's a much more interesting proposition. On the other hand your Warpriest/Mage/Knight/Thief/Slayer party is a very different prospect facing that dragon at the end of a long adventuring day. At least 3/5 members of the party don't care how many encounters they've faced that day.

Speaking of, take the parties above and switch out the essentials warpriest with the Warlord (Marshal). Now I have to wonder: How much more effective is that Knight/Thief/Slayer/Mage party with the Warlord replacing the Warpriest? Something to think about there. Then of course there will be the difference in epic tier and believe me, when you can recycle dailies/encounter powers more easily the AEDU classes will gain power as they become less at the mercy of the adventuring day (especially compared with low levels). A key thing to remember in these debates is powers like power strike, backstab and similar while reliable - are immensely unremarkable and very hard to recycle by the normal epic tier means.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 4, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> The difference is he is comparing apples with apples: Defenders that use AEDU to defenders using the non-AEDU structure.




Nope.  You are incorrect, he was comparing slayers, which are strikers, to either weaponmasters, who are defenders, or wizards and clerics, which are controllers and leaders, respectively.  If he mentioned knights, or rogues, his point is severely weakened.  Thus why he didn't mention them.

None of these things are a type of fruit.  What does fruit have to do with class balance?

Also, you seem to indicate that under some circumstances, AEDU characters can be better, and in some AEU characters can be better.  Isn't that balanced on the whole?

This hinges on the exact level of sameness between class power breakdowns being crucial to balance.  You know, the thing that many people excoriated 4e over.  Maybe just taking a wee step back from the edge on that one is a good idea.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 4, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> That second question is hard for a skilled designer to answer. Heck, it's hard for an insomniac fan to even phrase at 5 in the morning. Because, it is that much more complicated and difficult a question - and, it probably has no right answer. In some campaigns, a daily might balance an at-will, while in others, the same daily will overshadow the same at will.
> 
> And, we're not just talking theory. D&D never achieved much semblance of class balance prior to 4e, because it kept having to try to answer questions akin to that second one.




It is certainly true that balancing different resource structures is much harder than balancing within a single type of class design. And so I can get your _concern_, here, about Essentials classes. The potential for a lack of balance is there. 

But... I don't think it is there in actuality. I think they have managed to find that balance. I don't see any significant disparity, nor do I feel they are balanced in an older style by making them strong at low level, weak at high - while there are fluctuations, I feel they aimed for a balance across all levels, and largely achieved it. 

And perfect balance wasn't achievable previously, either - Warlocks, when the PHB came out (especially Star Pact) were considered underpowered compared to other strikers, despite an identical resource structure. They've since largely addressed that - and I imagine they will do the same if similar issues arise between Essentials builds vs earlier designs. But I haven't, myself, seen any indications that this is the case. 

And even if there are small imbalances, and it may not be 100% perfect... any disparities are on a vastly smaller scale than the differences between fighter vs wizard in earlier editions. The two situations may be comparable, but the certainly aren't _equivalent_.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 4, 2011)

Is it easier to compare balance between classes of the same resource structure?  Absolutely, yes.

Is a change in resource structure going to cause 3e style breakdowns in class balance?  Absolutely not.

Is (precise balance + same resource structure) more or less valuable than (rough balance + varied resource structure)?  Judgment call.


----------



## mneme (Apr 4, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Re actual play experience - my E-Thief certainly pumps out vastly more damage than the other Striker, a PHB/PHB-3 Minotaur Ranger who dual-wields bastard swords, but is mostly good for attracting enemy attacks, which is nice for activating the Fighter's mark.  While I'm throwing Mr Pointy every round for d4+2d8+12, avg 23.5, he's attacking with a much lower attack bonus and if he hits he's doing 2 x 1d10+1 with twin strike, avg 13.  Usually he only hits once though, while I never miss.




A couple of things: 1. You can't really look at ranger at will damage without counting Quarry.  He's at least hitting for 1d10+d6+1, and that's if he hasn't taken any feats to buff damage.

What level is this?  You presumably have a magic item (or you're going to have problems rethrowing that dagger), but it seems like Mr. Ranger doesn't have much adding to damage; the ranger takes off once he's got good bonuses to hit and damage so his dual attack (and out of turn attacks) can do their jobs--a magic weapon, yes, but also iron armbands (which he gets to double), etc.  Once you get to 7th or 8th level, assuming you're both kitted up, things should even up (or worse).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Okay assume wizards comes out with Double-strike stance, that allows a slacker to make two attacks with a balancing penalty.



No.  Sorry, you don't get to make  up.



> This minor, non-structural addition takes your argument about bow-rangers and destroys it.  It's not structural.



Not at all.  My argument is about resource management.  /Your/ counter was to bring up differences among roles, which applies regardless of resource management, so was a non-starter from the beginning. It was amusing that your point about role differences /also/ highlighted the fact that the Essentials aproach to martial builds actually /deepens/ those differences.  



> It really seems your entire argument is that If you DM runs games that always allow for extended rests after every fight, the Slayer is underpowered.



Imbalances would also exist in two or perhaps even three-encounter days; and would also exist in the other direction in campaigns that tended to feature very long encounters (in rounds) and very long days (in terms of encounters/day).  

4e retains robust class balance if the DM and Player styles tend to push a campaign consistently towards few encounters/day or short (in rounds) combats - or the reverse more grueling days and longer combats.  Essentials does not.  Essentials delivers less robust class balance than 4e.  It is a step backwards in that regard.



> While this is true, that game is a degenerate example of a 4e game.  It is run in a way that is counter to explicit design tenets of 4e.



It is a rather common style, actually.  You often see DMs who have noticed the encounter balance issues that crop up when you have few or one encounter per day, posting, looking for advice on re-balancing their encounters, changing the definition of 'day' or otherwise dealing with the issue.  4e isn't quite perfect for DMs with that style, as they have to adjust encounter balance.  Essentials is worse for them, because they'll have class imbalanced to deal with, too.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Nope.  You are incorrect, he was comparing slayers, which are strikers, to either weaponmasters, who are defenders, or wizards and clerics, which are controllers and leaders, respectively.



I did, in fact, analyze the Slayer vs the Barbarian - both Strikers.  (I can see how Ageri would make that mistake, though, since the Slayer is a Fighter, and /other/ Fighter builds are all defenders.  Though, in other threads, I have extensively compared the at-will abilities of the Knight with the AEDU Guardian Fighter - which is a Defender v Defender comparison, and may well be what he was thinking of, since he was on the other side of that debate.)

I've also compared, in much more general terms, AEDU classes in general, and Essential Martial classes, in general.

This is the second time I've pointed this out to you.  



> If he mentioned knights, or rogues, his point is severely weakened.  Thus why he didn't mention them.






> Also, you seem to indicate that under some circumstances, AEDU characters can be better, and in some AEU characters can be better.  Isn't that balanced on the whole?



That would be a delicate 'balance of imbalances' - the model AD&D used.



> This hinges on the exact level of sameness between class power breakdowns being crucial to balance.



Given the levels of balance delivered by past versions of D&D, vs that delivered by 4e, it seems likely that putting classes all on basically the same resource management schedule is the 'only' way to achieve robust class balance.  It's also not difficult to see the underlying mechanisms of how and why class balance is degraded in the absence of such a structure. 



> You know, the thing that many people excoriated 4e over.



Yes, there were many who disliked the lengths 4e went to in achieving a good level of class balance.  Some, presumably, because they dislike class balance, in the first place.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

TwoSix said:


> Is it easier to compare balance between classes of the same resource structure?  Absolutely, yes.
> 
> Is a change in resource structure going to cause 3e style breakdowns in class balance?  Absolutely not.



Oh, there's no question that the Essentials aproach to class design is going to deliver less robust class balance than 4e's did, and that its balance will be fragile in the same way that 3e's and AD&D's were.  The only question is one of degree.  Will it be as bad as 3e?  Probably not.  Will it be trivial?  Probably not.  Will it be 'close enough' for some people (especially those who /like/ some of the feel and system-mastery options that greater class imbalance provides) and not for others?  Yes, definitely.



> Is (precise balance + same resource structure) more or less valuable than (rough balance + varied resource structure)?  Judgment call.



Only if there's something on the other side of the equation.  Giving up class balance for the sake of having less balanced classes is only 'good' if you /like/ giving some players the chance to dominate a game or wreck a campaign (and there's no doubt there are many who enjoy just that - if only as a purely theoretical CharOp exercise).  OTOH, giving up class balance to make the system more aproachable to new players, or to deliver more faithful simulation of genre or some such is a valid trade-off - and whether it was a good trade is the subjective 'judgement call.'


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

(BTW, I almost didn't reply, because your post was so reasonable, and I'd mostly be quibbling, clarifying or agreeing... But, I realized, if only reply to the less reasonable posts, what am I encouraging?)  



MrMyth said:


> It is certainly true that balancing different resource structures is much harder than balancing within a single type of class design. And so I can get your _concern_, here, about Essentials classes. The potential for a lack of balance is there.
> 
> But... I don't think it is there in actuality. I think they have managed to find that balance. I don't see any significant disparity, nor do I feel they are balanced in an older style by making them strong at low level, weak at high - while there are fluctuations, I feel they aimed for a balance across all levels, and largely achieved it.



While I'm sure that class balance has been degraded in Essentials, I'm less certain it's badly degraded.  I suspect there may be some aspect of better at low level than high... at least, better at low-Heroic than high-Heroic, because AEDU goes from 1 daily at first to 3 at ninth, while the daily-less Martial characters don't really get much of a boost to their at-will abilities over the same levels (they get a new stance at Paragon, IIRC).  

And, while balance may well have been achieved, at a point - like the suggested 3-5 encounters/day (or the overly-precise 17 rounds that my Slayer/Barbarian analysis came up with) - it's necessarily more delicate.  Leading to imbalance if a campaign strays too far in one direction too consistently, or a 'balance of imbalances' if it strays just a little or more evenly in both directions.



> And perfect balance wasn't achievable previously, either - Warlocks, when the PHB came out (especially Star Pact) were considered underpowered compared to other strikers, despite an identical resource structure.



Very true.  Two points though: 1)  The Warlock, Cleric & Paladin all had some issues early on, because being split-primary cut down their power choices substantially compared to single-primary classes with the same number of powers (the Ranger avoided that problem by the simple expedient of having virtually all powers useable with either stat).   So, it was a different sort of balance problem entirely (and, one that Essentials may have re-introduced, by introducing builds that can't use prior build's attack powers, again, splitting a class's choices).  2) Just because 4e wasn't /perfect/ doesn't mean that it's perfectly OK for Essentials to be /worse/.  Really, it means that Essentials could have at least tried to be no less imperfect, or even aimed higher.



> any disparities are on a vastly smaller scale than the differences between fighter vs wizard in earlier editions. The two situations may be comparable, but the certainly aren't _equivalent_.



True.  While Essential's impact on class balance is real, it's hard to say how extreme a problem it will be.  Likely, just as some campaigns managed to retain a semblance of balance in 3.x, many Essentials tables will never notice the balance issues, even if they run into them.  And, even if they notice them, might attribute them to something else...


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 4, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> Only if there's something on the other side of the equation.  Giving up class balance for the sake of having less balanced classes is only 'good' if you /like/ giving some players the chance to dominate a game or wreck a campaign (and there's no doubt there are many who enjoy just that - if only as a purely theoretical CharOp exercise).  OTOH, giving up class balance to make the system more aproachable to new players, or to deliver more faithful simulation of genre or some such is a valid trade-off - and whether it was a good trade is the subjective 'judgement call.'




Well, giving up class balance is a strong way to put it.  I would rather say de-emphasizing precise balance.  

And yes, I'll accept less-balanced classes, not simply for the sake of being less-balanced, but accepting that lower values of balance may be a necessary prerequisite to see experimental design that excites me to try that game mechanic.   

After all, sometimes it's your flaws that make you beautiful.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 4, 2011)

Tony Vargas said:


> (BTW, I almost didn't reply, because your post was so reasonable, and I'd mostly be quibbling, clarifying or agreeing... But, I realized, if only reply to the less reasonable posts, what am I encouraging?)




Hey, no worries! Honestly, being able to engage in discussions where both sides can reasonably disagree while still acknowledging and understanding the other side's point of view is, I think, an example of ENWorld at it's finest.



Tony Vargas said:


> And, while balance may well have been achieved, at a point - like the suggested 3-5 encounters/day (or the overly-precise 17 rounds that my Slayer/Barbarian analysis came up with) - it's necessarily more delicate. Leading to imbalance if a campaign strays too far in one direction too consistently, or a 'balance of imbalances' if it strays just a little or more evenly in both directions.




It's true - though, myself, I've always found healing surges to be more of the dividing line than daily powers. A group might press on without dailies, but will be very cautious about doing so when out of surges. And that hasn't really changed. 

(Except, of course, we've got the upcoming Vampire class which does mess with that! Though it sounds like it has a decent mechanic for keeping its healing limitations on par with the rest of the party.)

Even so, I'm sure that it will indeed impact some groups, even so. The thing is, I think so many other factors do so as well that the impact felt by this will be slight. I've played in games where we'll go weeks between encounters. In others, we'll delve through 7-8 encounters in a row. I've had both experiences in the same campaign! I think there are already much more significant factors at work, and they vary from group to group, adventure to adventure, campaign to campaign. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Very true. Two points though: 1) The Warlock, Cleric & Paladin all had some issues early on, because being split-primary cut down their power choices substantially compared to single-primary classes with the same number of powers (the Ranger avoided that problem by the simple expedient of having virtually all powers useable with either stat). So, it was a different sort of balance problem entirely (and, one that Essentials may have re-introduced, by introducing builds that can't use prior build's attack powers, again, splitting a class's choices). 2) Just because 4e wasn't /perfect/ doesn't mean that it's perfectly OK for Essentials to be /worse/. Really, it means that Essentials could have at least tried to be no less imperfect, or even aimed higher.




Yeah, my point wasn't that it was the same disparity of balance, but that numerous types of imbalance can already exist in the system. The split-stat classes. Weapon damage vs caster damage, especially for strikers early in the edition. Or the difference between direct striker mechanics like Quarry and Curse vs the harder to quantify benefits of the Barbarian. Unless we keep each class absolutely identical to the last, fluctuations in ability will exist. 

Now, all that said? Your point - that just because perfection can't be reached, is no reason not to _try_ - is a good one. Other imbalances shouldn't excuse letting worse ones crop up in Essentials. 

But my thought is that any issues from Essentials ones is not actually worse than similar issues that have cropped up before. Pretty much every new release, we've heard that one new class is going to be so much better than all the rest, or so much worse. And rarely is that the case - they aren't all equal, but they are all on par and capable of playing the same game, in the way that the imbalances of the past _couldn't _always achieve. 

Honestly, it is possible you are correct - an Essentials character vs a non-Essentials character might work fine side by side for one encounter, but reveal underlying flaws over the course of a campaign. I don't think it is likely to happen... but I also don't think we will know for sure until much more time has gone by with such classes in action alongside each other. 

For myself, I do like to see WotC experiment, even as I can understand concern over what those experiments will do to the game. And, honestly, my main concerns with Essentials is more over the ever-greater focus on Expertise and other super-powered feats, and what that does to the game - so it isn't as though I think the WotC design team can do no wrong. 

But in this case, I haven't seen any signs that they failed in their goal - to create new builds whose resource allowance is different than the rest, while remaining fundamentally balanced with the earlier options. But I could be wrong - time will tell, far more than any math or theory we can lay out on the table right now.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

TwoSix said:


> Well, giving up class balance is a strong way to put it.  I would rather say de-emphasizing precise balance.



Sorry, should have said giving up /some/ class balance.  



> And yes, I'll accept less-balanced classes, not simply for the sake of being less-balanced, but accepting that lower values of balance may be a necessary prerequisite to see experimental design that excites me to try that game mechanic.



'Experimental design' is an interesting way of putting it.  I've been wondering if maybe 4e really needs to formally split into a simplified 'Essentials' and an 'Advanced' version.  Maybe it really needs to settle into an 'Essentials' on-ramp, a 'Standard' balanced version, and an 'Extended' version with many more novel or experimental mechanics, the most workable of which eventually get added to the 'Standard.'  A little much, maybe, but it might go a way towards satisfying a broader fan base.   



> After all, sometimes it's your flaws that make you beautiful.



That's a truth that many seem uncomfortable admitting.  It's clear, for instance, that a lot of 4e hate was from 3e fans who loved 3e for the very flaws 4e fixed.  The 'sacred cows.'  

Doesn't mean the sacred cows weren't flaws or that they hadn't been holding the game back for decades, but it's worth recognizing.  




MrMyth said:


> It's true - though, myself, I've always found healing surges to be more of the dividing line than daily powers. A group might press on without dailies, but will be very cautious about doing so when out of surges. And that hasn't really changed.
> 
> (Except, of course, we've got the upcoming Vampire class which does mess with that! Though it sounds like it has a decent mechanic for keeping its healing limitations on par with the rest of the party.)



Joy..  Surges are certainly a good indicator for when it's time to rest.  (They could also be said to be a 'daily' resource - so if classes with dailies consistently had fewer surges than those without, maybe there could be some 'balancing' there, too?  Meh, probably not.)  But a DM whose story calls for a very long adventuring 'day' would have to scale back encounters, which would mean the surges would be burned through more slowly.  And, if daily resources become a source of class imbalance, some players may well be tempted to emphasise the situations that make thier class overpowerform - by insisting on resting frequently if they have dailies, for instance (certainly a very common thing in 3e).



> Yeah, my point wasn't that it was the same disparity of balance, but that numerous types of imbalance can already exist in the system. The split-stat classes. Weapon damage vs caster damage, especially for strikers early in the edition. Or the difference between direct striker mechanics like Quarry and Curse vs the harder to quantify benefits of the Barbarian. Unless we keep each class absolutely identical to the last, fluctuations in ability will exist.



Nod.  Since some sources of imbalance are unavoidable - or 'worth it' in some way - it only makes that much more sense to avoid it when possible.  Aside from the desire to have casters be superior (OK, 'feel different') from non-casters, I don't think any of essentials other goals (simpler to build/play classes, being the big one) would have been any harder to accomplish while retaining AEDU as an underlying commonality for all classes, even if some builds put it 'behind the curtain' in some way.



> Now, all that said? Your point - that just because perfection can't be reached, is no reason not to _try_ - is a good one. Other imbalances shouldn't excuse letting worse ones crop up in Essentials.
> 
> But my thought is that any issues from Essentials ones is not actually worse than similar issues that have cropped up before.



Even if they're not worse, if they're /in addition/, they're still making the game worse.  If Essentials had degreaded class balance a little, but fixed the 4e issues with encounter balance, for instance, that might be judged desireable or a wash.  The things that Essentials improved, however - like the different format or the more mechanical differentiation of classes -  have been highly subjective, and could have been done without messing with class balance.  

A good hypothetical example would be eliminating dailies:   Eliminating dailies /entirely/ from the game would improve encounter balance.  Assuming the class's various remaining powers were still balanced (or adjusted to be balanced), that would be an improvement in balance.  But, it would come at the cost of the much more subjective feel of 'narrative control' or 'drama' that dailies bring to the table.



> Pretty much every new release, we've heard that one new class is going to be so much better than all the rest, or so much worse. And rarely is that the case - they aren't all equal, but they are all on par and capable of playing the same game, in the way that the imbalances of the past _couldn't _always achieve.



Often, a new class is noticeably sub-par, like the Seeker.  If a new class isn't made pretty butch out the gate, the lack of potential synergies in its smaller power list will make it less effective than older classes with more support.  

One direction Essentials seems to be moving in that might not be all bad, is towards more builds of existing classes, rather than more new (and harder to balance) classes.  Which is a good idea, as long as the new builds can leverage enough of the existing content for their class.



> Honestly, it is possible you are correct - an Essentials character vs a non-Essentials character might work fine side by side for one encounter, but reveal underlying flaws over the course of a campaign. I don't think it is likely to happen... but I also don't think we will know for sure until much more time has gone by with such classes in action alongside each other.



We'll know for sure, years down the line.  When people are forming a consensus that this or that class 'was always a bad design....'   



> For myself, I do like to see WotC experiment, even as I can understand concern over what those experiments will do to the game. And, honestly, my main concerns with Essentials is more over the ever-greater focus on Expertise and other super-powered feats, and what that does to the game - so it isn't as though I think the WotC design team can do no wrong.



Ah, 'experiment' again.  It's a nice idea, but we need a secure location for these experiments, so no innocents are caught in the blast radius.   I certainly agree about the odd solution to the complaint that Expertise feats were too 'must have' and therfore flavorless non-option 'taxes.'  Make them /even better/.  (!?!?!)



> But in this case, I haven't seen any signs that they failed in their goal - to create new builds whose resource allowance is different than the rest, while remaining fundamentally balanced with the earlier options. But I could be wrong - time will tell, far more than any math or theory we can lay out on the table right now.



I remain unconvinced that 'reamaining fundamentally balanced' /is/ part of the goal.  I think that balance was knowingly sacrificed.  Either as a trade-off to meet other design goals, or for it's own sake, to woo the fled-to-pathfinder set (or both).


----------



## Aegeri (Apr 4, 2011)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Nope.  You are incorrect, he was comparing slayers, which are strikers, to either weaponmasters, who are defenders, or wizards and clerics, which are controllers and leaders, respectively.



You should go and read his posts again, because he actually didn't do that.



> Also, you seem to indicate that under some circumstances, AEDU characters can be better, and in some AEU characters can be better.  Isn't that balanced on the whole?




No, because this ends by epic tier. If you read my post, you'd notice I bought up how easily epic characters can recycle their encounter and daily powers. E-martial classes keep up due to being reliable all encounter and not having limited resources. When the classes that are "balanced" against them are no longer so "limited" resource wise - the E-martial classes begin to fall behind _very_ quickly. I would far rather have a Barbarian that can recycle 2-3 times in one encounter a 7[W] daily power with a strong effect, than a Knight or Slayer. Especially when the Barbarian could throw out a 7[W] daily like Stone Tempest Rage (the one with the 18-20 crit stance) recycle it (for later), action point and throw out Hurricane of Blades for 3x [2]W attacks (all with an 18-20 crit range). Did I mention that the Barbarian can charge with Stone Tempest Rage to get the advantage of all the charge cheese in the game as well? Oh I only just did? Consider that mentioned.

Bearing in mind that unlike at previous tiers, that Barbarian is more than capable of getting BACK that daily for later use with certain EDs. It's hard for a slayer - even with how reliable they are - to keep up with sheer potential damage output by this point. Especially as the 18-20 crit range is just amazing as an effect, with knocking prone so he can get immediate use out of headman's chop on the HoB even better. Throw on frost cheese to complete the hilarity and we can be up to getting 3 attacks at around +10 extra damage, with an 18-20 crit range, with combat advantage and have got all our delicious charge cheese just moments before. Best of all, unlike at other tiers this class can now recycle that and do it all again next encounter - fun isn't it?

Now this isn't to say the Slayer is useless - his plunking every day DPR is "workmanlike". He also gets arguably one of the best benefits of out of turn free attacks from a warlord because they aren't dependent on anything else. But there does become a gulf in power between the "basic" martial classes and the regular classes. This is nowhere near the 3.x divide where at high levels you were pretty much pointless if you weren't a caster, but it is there. At this point, while I think this will have an effect I have yet to see anyone play an E-class into epic tier in one of my campaigns. The only E-classes I do have are an executioner (who isn't quite as basic as MBA spamming), a mage and a sentinel. So I'm not going to see what effect this has beyond theorycraft at the moment - but I suspect it might not be entirely pretty.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 4, 2011)

The potential problems of the Slayer in Epic may be self-limitting, as a player is pretty likely to have learned the game well enough to be hankering for a more complex class long before then.  

I mean, the problem of a class being overshadowed is /always/ self limiting, as peolple just give up and play a stronger class, but over and above that, the Slayer's simple/beginner nature may keep it out of Epic a lot.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 5, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Honestly, it is possible you are correct - an Essentials character vs a non-Essentials character might work fine side by side for one encounter, but reveal underlying flaws over the course of a campaign.




Well, we've played 7 sessions now with my Essentials Thief in a party of PHB PCs.  Now at 3rd level, I haven't seen any significant problems.  I'm a bit more min maxed than them since they are pretty much all new to 4e, and I think it's fairly clear that Essentials characters generally have the edge over PHB at least at low Heroic - this campaign will go from 1st to around 9th level BTW, I'm sure a game which (a) started at the Epic tier, (b) allowed all sources, and (c) mixed E & non-E would see the E-classes somewhat outclassed.

My experience is that in long days of 4-5 encounters my Thief is clearly superior, whereas last night we just had 2 fights, and in the second we could nova.  In that situation the PHB PCs nova-ing with their Dailies somewhat outclassed me, the best I could do was Backstab then AP for a regular basic attack.  I certainly didn't feel useless though - I was the first PC to act and I threw my Dagger of Distance around 15 squares, through a bunch of skeleto minions, twice, to do around 47 damage to the Purple Ghoul before he could act.


----------

