PHB + Essentials = No More Symmetry which is GOOD!

321 posts / 0 new
Last post
With the people complaing that the Vampire is "incomplete." I wonder, does complete need to be symmetry? Is it "everyone has the same " or "everyone has what it needs."

The Vampire Class offers an option, to play a vampire, and the concept is pretty complete, drink blood, turn into mist, hypnotize, etc.

Unlike if they released just an Illusion build for the Mage, that would have had people going . . . . "WAIT, can a buddy get a fireball up in hizzere?"

PHB and Essentials styles are actually really good at working together and being modular and are starting to respond to holes for Character concepts, not trying to act symmetrical which I think is a poor design plan.  Some of the weaker and somewhat wonkier fluffs came out of trying to fit everything into the Power Sources X 4 Roles. The Invoker and the Warden are great classes, but kind of feel less story grounded than the Warlock's pacts which are multiplying like avatars of Jubilex.

This modular nature is also helping with more interesting books, instead of _____ Power series that kind of felt sapped of Fluff to organzie neatly around the crunch. The Heroes of _________ let's it respond more organically to generating world based clusters of game information that allows the book to feel more interesting fluff wise and not give us that useless crunch that clogs our Character Builder. Also allows for a Game Group agree on a cmpaign th
Well, incompleteness is not necessarily proof of defect. If something achieves what it set out to achieve, then it's a success. If the vampire class allowed someone to play a vampire and remain approximately on par with other strikers in the game, then a lack of options when building the character would not in itself be a defect. For example, the slayer has very few options, yet it allows you to play a heavily armoured martial striker (a character concept that was previously difficult to achieve) that can kill things as efficiently as can other strikers with more choices.

The problem with the vampire, and the reason why it is a failure as a class, is that it is grossly underpowered as a striker. The lack of options only exacerbates this by making it impossible to improve a vampire character above its baseline through canny power choices. The vampire is perfectly playable, and I'm sure it can be a lot of fun, but it is not a competent striker. If a vampire is the only striker in a party, the DM will need to adjust combat encounters as if the party did not have a striker.

4e classes each have a defined combat role. A class not capable of fulfilling its role competently is a design failure, regardless of how cool it otherwise is. A class that is either massively better or massively worse at its role than other classes of that role is not a well-designed class and has no place in the game.

It's not about symmetry. It's about balance and keeping trap choices out of the game (which 4e has been excellent at until recently). The vampire class, like the pre-Essentials assassin and the shade race, is a trap. New players will be drawn to these options because they look cool, and will end up frustrated because their characters will be significantly weaker than the baseline. A vampire is likely to be getting out-damaged by their party's defender, and that's just pathetic.

As it is, I would recommend that anyone who wants to play a 'vampire' play a vryloka character instead, and pick a class, feats and powers that feel suitably vampiric.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Well, incompleteness is not necessarily proof of defect. If something achieves what it set out to achieve, then it's a success. If the vampire class allowed someone to play a vampire and remain approximately on par with other strikers in the game, then a lack of options when building the character would not in itself be a defect. For example, the slayer has very few options, yet it allows you to play a heavily armoured martial striker (a character concept that was previously difficult to achieve) that can kill things as efficiently as can other strikers with more choices.

The problem with the vampire, and the reason why it is a failure as a class, is that it is grossly underpowered as a striker. The lack of options only exacerbates this by making it impossible to improve a vampire character above its baseline through canny power choices. The vampire is perfectly playable, and I'm sure it can be a lot of fun, but it is not a competent striker. If a vampire is the only striker in a party, the DM will need to adjust combat encounters as if the party did not have a striker.

4e classes each have a defined combat role. A class not capable of fulfilling its role competently is a design failure, regardless of how cool it otherwise is. A class that is either massively better or massively worse at its role than other classes of that role is not a well-designed class and has no place in the game.

It's not about symmetry. It's about balance and keeping trap choices out of the game (which 4e has been excellent at until recently). The vampire class, like the pre-Essentials assassin and the shade race, is a trap. New players will be drawn to these options because they look cool, and will end up frustrated because their characters will be significantly weaker than the baseline. A vampire is likely to be getting out-damaged by their party's defender, and that's just pathetic.

As it is, I would recommend that anyone who wants to play a 'vampire' play a vryloka character instead, and pick a class, feats and powers that feel suitably vampiric.



Great post. One of the big reasons to me that the vampire is just poorly designed, it just seems to lack what it needs to do its job in a group which is the job of a striker.This would be the same for any class that cannot do its role in a group. Maybe WOTC will eratta some things but I will not be holding my breath.

To me from a mechanics point of view the first post essentials class is a flop. Maybe the classes that will come after this point will be better designed than the vampire, cause I am looking forward to the class from the neverwinter setting.
Don't hold your breath.The bladesinger will most likely be even worse as I have yet to be convinced that the current DEV team really knows how the game works.
They ask for help for fracks sake and then ignore it.  



It'll likely be an Elf/Eladrin/Half-Elf only class that is based off Cha.. which would be almost as bad as the Eladrin Knight...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Don't hold your breath.The bladesinger will most likely be even worse as I have yet to be convinced that the current DEV team really knows how the game works.
They ask for help for fracks sake and then ignore it.  



how do you know they ignore it? that thread has been there what? a week and a half? they have to actually sit down and discuss how they are going to deal with each issue put on the table, and asking players/customers for input is never a bad idea

 
Don't hold your breath.The bladesinger will most likely be even worse as I have yet to be convinced that the current DEV team really knows how the game works.
They ask for help for fracks sake and then ignore it.  



It'll likely be an Elf/Eladrin/Half-Elf only class that is based off Cha.. which would be almost as bad as the Eladrin Knight...


1) The Bladesinger, as a class, will not be race restricted.

2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with one build for one class being race-restricted.  It's something 4e should have been doing since day one.  The Eladrin Knight is perfectly fine being restricted.


2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with one build for one class being race-restricted.  It's something 4e should have been doing since day one.  The Eladrin Knight is perfectly fine being restricted.



I cannot disagree with that more.  Classes should not ever be racially restricted.  Paragon paths, sure.  But a basic class or build?  No way.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.


2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with one build for one class being race-restricted.  It's something 4e should have been doing since day one.  The Eladrin Knight is perfectly fine being restricted.



I cannot disagree with that more.  Classes should not ever be racially restricted.  Paragon paths, sure.  But a basic class or build?  No way.


I couldn't agree more with you, race restricted classes seem like a form of "fantasy racism" (for lack of a better word). Those class restrictions seems to be the fantasy equivalent of saying "we have this job people can apply for, but curtain groups within our society can't apply because "they're different". This on the other hand is oke with certain amount of paragon paths as it represents a niche of a class.
To pull a equivalent from reality, fighter pilots (and commercial pilots if i'm correct) need to have a certain natural vision (so no glasses) and must fit in a certain height category to apply for such job, while other kinds of pilots don't. Or of course just clubs with its own rituals rites and secrets could also fit as an example.

All such (with race restriction) classes are based of an idea (essentials classes) not a thing where you can create your own idea with, with minor to no tweaking (pre-essentials classes).
Personal I find the essentials classes also, fluff wise, restricted because you lose allot of creative freedom with your character. (and because of that designers can make more fluff because there is less verity) So more class related fluff (not builds parse) is less creative freedom, in general. But i'm drifting off topic.

So there are race restrictions on classes its the right direction if you want a DnD with 2 options, class and race (see our friend mister Nosferatu in HoS, that already that philosophy pretty far). But thats not the DnD I want to see, as I want to create my own heroes in depth.
Feed them: IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/WNZv.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/Poc3.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/SlF8.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/EvFK.gif)
as for the bladesinger... dont be to sure on it not being race restricted unless you have seen it on a dev post or blog.


and just becuase they said no more racial restrictedness on classes does NOT mean that they have not changed their minds on it.

they did so with the KI power source by mixing it in with the PSi powersource and when the worlds of dnd books came out, people were saying up and down that we were going to get a ki power source.
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I still hold out hope that the Bladesinger will be an actual class rather than a subclass build (Kit Build) or a class like the Vamp with no real choices except at a few choice levels.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
Than I have the feeling we are just going to get another vampire type class with limited options. The original 4th edition class style is for all intensive purposes dead. They are moving forward with the essentials style while seeming to forget what got them this far which was PHB1,2 and 3 classes not the Johnny come lately essentials classes. I am beginning to wonder if the current design team is trying to put the line in the toilet with what they have put out. HOS is the worst non essentials book to date so far. Maybe they will get better with time but I am not holding my breath.
Hope all you want.  WotC has already said the Bladesinger is an e-Style class/subclass.
Hope all you want.  WotC has already said the Bladesinger is an e-Style class/subclass.



Yes; thank you. We know that already. That is the problem. Those of us which can actually see the daylight understand 4.5 design sucks.



Exactly, if I wanted a pre-built character I'd go to CharOp or I'd hit the random button on the OCB...

I like many others want choice...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Less options does not mean bad.  Snap judgements and closed minds means bad.
Less options does not mean bad.  Snap judgments and closed minds means bad.



OK, just so we are clear on this, for some people, less options actually does automatically mean bad.  I am one of those people, so I understand it. pre-built or limited options are less good than 40 options.  Even if 10 of those options suck.  No, I am not kidding.  Yes, it is a sickness.  Or at least I think it is.  But it is the way we (me and people like me) see things.  More can only ever mean better, and glut has no real meaning to us. 

So, speaking of snap judgments, deciding that something someone likes is a "snap judgment" without alternate input is, in and of itself, a snap judgment.  Perhaps ask for clarification next time.  Then, use that as a jump off to trying to start a flame war with lokiare.  Not that that happens to be hard, mind you; I have him blocked for a reason.  But it's just polite to get all the information before, well, making such judgments about the preferences of others.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I for one prefer as many choices as I can get, even if I never use some of them. Its a game which I play to be someone else not what WOTC wants me to be. The essentials are a huge step backwards in gaming design not a step forward. Sure they have a nitche market but so does pretty much everything out there. I kept an open mind until I saw the vampire and that was the final nail in the coffin for me. I have not been impressed with the esentials line from day one and I own all but HOS. I gave essentials a chance and I for one would rather see AUDE classes instead of a class using melee basic attacks and stances anyday. The main reason I think for the simplified class design is cause WOTC designers have either gotten lazy or whoever is left really does not understand the older class designs.
The problem  with restricted classes, is that if you don't like the limited way they approached the class, unless you houserule, your out of luck.

For example, I like the new Binder, I love its flavour, and overall I think the warlock makes more sense as a controller than as a striker. However, its encounter powers and at-wills are largely locked in, and I'm not a fan of lets say about 33% of them. Not ownly is there no choice within the class on how to fix it (well, without switching to the other binder pact, and then having another bunch of powers I'm not a big fan of), but unless the CB is wrong, and im also misreading the rule about switching powers, I also can't swap in encounters/at-wills from the original warlock to help remedy it either.

I've even warmed up a bit to the essentials martial classes, but I wish there was some variety in the backstabs or powerstrikes.

With a Pre-E class, the odds of finding a power I liked at each level was higher, and if I really didn't like it I could hybrid or multi-class, or take a theme power.

I'm also not a fan of the racially restricted Eladrin knight. Not only is it more melee support for a race thats supposed to be the more academic of the elf-races, but they are not the only Int using race that can teleport.
More academic does not mean less fighty fighty.  They start with a free weapon proficiency, one of their first ever racial feats was Eladrin Weapon training, they are credited with co-creating Swordmages, and High-elves (which they're still tied to) are classified as being as big on warriors as the wood elves.  So no, they are not supposed to be less melee inclined.
The Eladrin Knight works pretty well. Don't knock it until you actually play it.
The Eladrin Knight works pretty well. Don't knock it until you actually play it.



I'm only knocking the fact its exclusively tied to eladrin. There are atleast 2 other races with an int bonus who teleport. I really doubt WoTC is going to produce exclusive int-based teleportaiton knights for them too.



Also, I do understand that Eladrin have basis for swordsmanship, the problem is this has become pretty much their whole focus. They have alot of support for swordmages, martial classes ,and sword-based options for the wizard.
The Eladrin Knight works pretty well. Don't knock it until you actually play it.



I'm only knocking the fact its exclusively tied to eladrin. There are atleast 2 other races with an int bonus who teleport. I really doubt WoTC is going to produce exclusive int-based teleportaiton knights for them too.



Also, I do understand that Eladrin have basis for swordsmanship, the problem is this has become pretty much their whole focus. They have alot of support for swordmages, martial classes ,and sword-based options for the wizard.


I must have missed this class.

Where is it from?
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
DDI... eladrin article... I think that or maual of planes
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....

I must have missed this class.

Where is it from?


It's not a class, just a build.  A new option for the Defender Aura, a new stance, 3 utilities, and a Paragon Path.  The aura, stance, and utilities are Eladrin only (and revolve around teleporting), while the PP is open to any Knight with the Arcana skill trained.  It's from Dragon #395.
I must have missed this class.
Where is it from?


Dragon 395.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."

Not ownly is there no choice within the class on how to fix it (well, without switching to the other binder pact, and then having another bunch of powers I'm not a big fan of), but unless the CB is wrong, and im also misreading the rule about switching powers, I also can't swap in encounters/at-wills from the original warlock to help remedy it either.

From what I can see, the only starting Binder powers you can't switch out are the 2 Pact Boon powers (the pact Attack at-will and the pact dead-creep Utility at-will). You can switch out the Shadow Claws power. You can take other Warlock Encounter powers at 1st level. The Pact Boon powers are the only ones without levels for a starting Binder. Go all Eyebite & Grasp of the Iron Tower if you want.

D&DNext: HTFU Edition
A few inputs:

1 - I don't actually mind the Eldarin Knight. It is a great way to show that each race would have their own schools teaching its members how to adapt the basics of the class to play to the race's strengths. I could see Gnome Knights altering the knight class a bit to play to their stealth, invisibility, and illusions. Seeing the racial utilities of Shade and Vryloka I would love to see DDI articles giving utility powers to the other races as well. This would help players give each class a more unique feel. I would also like to see more racial PPs for the classes as DDI articles or in something like an "Essentials Power" book that also shows racial takes on the base classes.

2 - About Essentials. Wizards stated that there would ble 10 essentials items. 8 items in the product catalogue are listed as "an essential's Dungeon & Dragon's game supplement." These are the Red Box, HFL, HFK, Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium, and 2 tiles sets. Heroes of Shadow would be a 9th which leads me to believe that Heroes of the Feywild is the 10th and final one. I sincerely hope that after essentials runs its 10 product course that wizards releases Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 to give more options and support to the Artificer, Runekeeper, and Seeker classes that weren't supported in the original Power books. I would also like to see them return to the Player's Handbook Races series. Before essentials was released I remember seeing in the product catalogue a Humans book and I would love to see that appear again. Unfortunately, since they also said essentials will influence their design going forward (an idiotic idea IMO), I'm pretty sure this is just wishful thinking.

3 - Where can I find information about the Bladesinger?
A few inputs:
2 - About Essentials. Wizards stated that there would ble 10 essentials items. 8 items in the product catalogue are listed as "an essential's Dungeon & Dragon's game supplement." These are the Red Box, HFL, HFK, Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium, and 2 tiles sets. Heroes of Shadow would be a 9th which leads me to believe that Heroes of the Feywild is the 10th and final one. I sincerely hope that after essentials runs its 10 product course that wizards releases Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 to give more options and support to the Artificer, Runekeeper, and Seeker classes that weren't supported in the original Power books. I would also like to see them return to the Player's Handbook Races series. Before essentials was released I remember seeing in the product catalogue a Humans book and I would love to see that appear again. Unfortunately, since they also said essentials will influence their design going forward (an idiotic idea IMO), I'm pretty sure this is just wishful thinking.



I agree
Feed them: IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/WNZv.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/Poc3.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/SlF8.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/EvFK.gif)
Not ownly is there no choice within the class on how to fix it (well, without switching to the other binder pact, and then having another bunch of powers I'm not a big fan of), but unless the CB is wrong, and im also misreading the rule about switching powers, I also can't swap in encounters/at-wills from the original warlock to help remedy it either.

From what I can see, the only starting Binder powers you can't switch out are the 2 Pact Boon powers (the pact Attack at-will and the pact dead-creep Utility at-will). You can switch out the Shadow Claws power. You can take other Warlock Encounter powers at 1st level. The Pact Boon powers are the only ones without levels for a starting Binder. Go all Eyebite & Grasp of the Iron Tower if you want.




Im curious was to what wording makes something a class feature assignment, and what makes them a power you can pick.

For example, whenever you gain an encounter power it says "You gain an encounter power associated with your pact". By that statement it'd seem i'm at the very least limited to Star or Gloom pact powers. It'd seem when I have an actual choice, it says "You get a x power of your choice".

I don't have the warpriest infront of me, but doesn't it use similar wording with its domains?

I believe there's some debate on this, but what'd stop a Mage from trading out their Bonus magic-missile for any of their numerous at-wills.
A few inputs:
2 - About Essentials. Wizards stated that there would ble 10 essentials items. 8 items in the product catalogue are listed as "an essential's Dungeon & Dragon's game supplement." These are the Red Box, HFL, HFK, Monster Vault, DM Kit, Rules Compendium, and 2 tiles sets. Heroes of Shadow would be a 9th which leads me to believe that Heroes of the Feywild is the 10th and final one. I sincerely hope that after essentials runs its 10 product course that wizards releases Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, and Primal Power 2 to give more options and support to the Artificer, Runekeeper, and Seeker classes that weren't supported in the original Power books. I would also like to see them return to the Player's Handbook Races series. Before essentials was released I remember seeing in the product catalogue a Humans book and I would love to see that appear again. Unfortunately, since they also said essentials will influence their design going forward (an idiotic idea IMO), I'm pretty sure this is just wishful thinking.



I agree



Problem is the '10 products' are already out and HoS and HotF are not in that list...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What are the other 2 products already released for the essentials line? The dice and DM screen?
What are the other 2 products already released for the essentials line? The dice and DM screen?



Yup.
What are the other 2 products already released for the essentials line? The dice and DM screen?


It has the brand, right?
Feed them: IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/WNZv.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/Poc3.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/SlF8.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/EvFK.gif)

I must have missed this class.

Where is it from?


It's not a class, just a build.  A new option for the Defender Aura, a new stance, 3 utilities, and a Paragon Path.  The aura, stance, and utilities are Eladrin only (and revolve around teleporting), while the PP is open to any Knight with the Arcana skill trained.  It's from Dragon #395.




This is the type of stuff that could have been put into the race books/pamphlets.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
From what I can see, the only starting Binder powers you can't switch out are the 2 Pact Boon powers (the pact Attack at-will and the pact dead-creep Utility at-will). You can switch out the Shadow Claws power. You can take other Warlock Encounter powers at 1st level. The Pact Boon powers are the only ones without levels for a starting Binder. Go all Eyebite & Grasp of the Iron Tower if you want.



This is entirely inaccurate.  You can only 'switch out' powers if you are presented with a choice in the first place.  That's how it works.  That's why mages can't switch out magic missle for another level one at will power, why wizards can't choose any of the new cantrips, why slayers and knights can't select level 22 encounter powers from the fighter, etc.  It's not enough to have a class and a level, you also have to be presented with a choice between at least two options in order to have access to other options outside of your e-class description.  That's how it works.  Binders are thus locked into their at wills, their encounter powers, their level 9 daily power, and their level 22 utility power, and they don't get a level 25 daily power (their level 9 power improves instead).  Their other daily and utility powers are all free to choose, though.

Notably there are no daily powers with binder riders, so binders are automatically worse at all of their daily powers then warlocks and hexblades are (the binder has no class features to enhance them, while warlocks and hexblades both at least get their striker damage features).  Half the encounter powers you're stuck with are pretty terrible for control, a good bit worse then what a warlock who focused on control would be bringing to the table.  Heck, the gloomblade's encouner attack is better then many of them for control.  Your at-wills are . . . ok.  Nothing to write home about.  Not wizard powers.  but not completely overshadowed by your warlock and hexblade cousins.  Still not enough to salvage the class on the whole.

Plus, warlocks have a more reliable accuracy boost.  And warlocks have a better boon trigger for a controller.  And access to all the rods / paths / etc that require 'warlock's curse'.  The binder doesn't really bring anything to the table that the warlock didn't already have, and in fact brings a good bit less.


If this is what abandoning symetry in class design gets us, I'm not at all convinced it's a good thing.

Its also apparently what axeing books to "improve quality" gets us.
There's the 'essentials' product line - that's a 10 item line, and does not include 'heroes of shadow' or anything after.  That product line is called 'essentials' because its supposed to be the new starting point for new players as well as a line of 'evergreen' products that stay in production (where as HoS or pre-e books might rotate in and out of production after their existing stock is sold off).

There's also 'essentials' the design philosophy, which is what most of us on the boards are talking about when we complain about essentials stuff.  WotC has never referred to it this way, though.  They did say essentials was going to 'set the tone going forward'.  The design philosophy was intended to last past the specific essentials line, and they said as much to begin with.

That Heroes of Shadow, and presumably Heroes of the Feywild, look more like essentials books then pre-e books does not indicate any kind of 'lying' on the part of WotC.  We may not like it, but accusations of lying, or complaining about an '11th' essentials book like its some kind of betrayal is being a touch ridiculous.  Again, they did not say they were going to try a 10 product experiment and then go back to pre-e design.  They said there was going to be a new 10 product starting point that was going to set the design philosophy for everything else that comes after.
There's the 'essentials' product line - that's a 10 item line, and does not include 'heroes of shadow' or anything after.  That product line is called 'essentials' because its supposed to be the new starting point for new players as well as a line of 'evergreen' products that stay in production (where as HoS or pre-e books might rotate in and out of production after their existing stock is sold off).


See, I've never understood the point behind making Essentials evergren.

They already had a perfectly servicable product line for that.

PHB1, DMG1, and MM1. (Granted, MV is a far superior replacement for MM1)
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
Like you said, the monster vault is far superior, and the amount of errata piling up on the DMG and PHB is really starting to push them outside the 'usable' range.  Essentials allows them to replace these products without actually replacing them and rendering existing stock worthless.  That's really not a terrible idea in and of itself, the the compendium's pretty nice.

The design philosophy shifts that came with essentials, however.... 
They could always do a full reprint of the phb and dmg and make them useable again. I know this will never happen as wotc wants us playing essentials characters now.
The thing preventing PHB and DMG reprints with errata isn't that they're trying to push e-builds on players, it's the sheer amount of stock, both their own and that sitting in gaming stores, that doing so would render worthless.

Look, I dislike e-design as much as anyone, but you don't need to resort to conspiracy theories or ascribe nefarious motivations to it.  That's just being ridiculous.
With the people complaing that the Vampire is "incomplete." I wonder, does complete need to be symmetry? Is it "everyone has the same " or "everyone has what it needs."

While the vampire is lacking in choice, it's reasonably 'symmetrical' with 4e 'AEDU' classes.   It's incomplete in the sense of not having 4 choices are so at every level it gains a power.  It mostly has 1 choice at each non-decision decision point.  That's odd, but not asymetrical.

PHB and Essentials styles are actually really good at working together and being modular and are starting to respond to holes for Character concepts, not trying to act symmetrical which I think is a poor design plan.

If the styles work so well together, why does WotC feel the need to re-release PH1 classes in the Essentials format?  As for holes in concepts, the classes in HotFL are /all/ just re-hashes of extant concepts.  Those in HotFK aren't much better. 

The Heroes of _________ let's it respond more organically to generating world based clusters of game information that allows the book to feel more interesting fluff wise and not give us that useless crunch that clogs our Character Builder. Also allows for a Game Group agree on a cmpaign th

Yeah, it's fluff-over-crunch, post-Essentials.  That's nice for readability, less nice for playability.  Not nearly to the extent WW took it in the 90s (their books stood up very well to a cover-to-cover read, but were virtually worthless as references in play), but a nudge in that direction.  Fluff-over-crunch organization isn't bad, as long as the crunch is still good.  So far, Essentials+ hasn't come through in that regard.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!