Essentials: Choosing a power with a level

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hi,
Hoping someone can help clear up a question:

Can you replace an Essentials class feature with another power (from the same class) of another level or lower?

Specifically, I am thinking about the level 8 Knight utility, Shield Block.  It is granted by a clas feature, and has a level.  Can this power be replaced with another lvl8 or lower Fighter power?

If a class feature grants a feat, is it possible to replace that feat with another?

Thanks,
Neil
(1) You can't swap out Shield Block.  The class specifically states, "You get the Shield Block power" so that's pretty much that.  If you pick from a list, you can sub out with a legal option.

(2) You can't swap feats that come with your class, either.

-O
There was a playtest article out there on Multiclass rules for the essentials characters, as well as some power swap options.

So there can be some options but not many. 
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
There was a playtest article out there on Multiclass rules for the essentials characters, as well as some power swap options.

So there can be some options but not many. 


True!  I don't think it works with Shield Block, though - you'd need a specific feat which mentioned it.  It's a class feature which works as a Power, not a Power you pick from a list.

-O
For a Knight, the only option you have is a feat that lets you swap one instance of Power Strike for a Fighter encounter power of your level or less. 

There is more flexibility the other way.  A Weaponmaster (standard) Fighter can access Shield Block as his level 10 utility power since it is listed as a "Fighter Utility 8".  There is also a feat that lets him trade in one instance of his class encounter power for Power Strike.

For the utility powers granted by level at levels 2, 6, 10, 16, and 22, the Knight, Slayer, and Weaponmaster all can effectively choose from the same combined list -- all Fighter utility powers of the given level or less are generally available regardless of build.
There was a playtest article out there on Multiclass rules for the essentials characters, as well as some power swap options.

So there can be some options but not many. 


True!  I don't think it works with Shield Block, though - you'd need a specific feat which mentioned it.  It's a class feature which works as a Power, not a Power you pick from a list.

-O



Agree, I just wanted to make sure it was pointed out that some swapping can occur, so the OP didn't think it was completely impossible.
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Hi,
Hoping someone can help clear up a question:

Can you replace an Essentials class feature with another power (from the same class) of another level or lower?

Specifically, I am thinking about the level 8 Knight utility, Shield Block.  It is granted by a clas feature, and has a level.  Can this power be replaced with another lvl8 or lower Fighter power?

If a class feature grants a feat, is it possible to replace that feat with another?

Thanks,
Neil



No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.
No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.


Look, kids!  More essentials war baiting!  Big Ben!  Parliament!

-O
Hi,
Hoping someone can help clear up a question:

Can you replace an Essentials class feature with another power (from the same class) of another level or lower?

Specifically, I am thinking about the level 8 Knight utility, Shield Block.  It is granted by a clas feature, and has a level.  Can this power be replaced with another lvl8 or lower Fighter power?

If a class feature grants a feat, is it possible to replace that feat with another?

Thanks,
Neil

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.

It's not the /only/ reason, but it turns out they suck a little harder than they really need to.  As long as you're not using the CB, though, there's nothing wrong with letting players swap out a Level 8 Fighter Utility for a Level 8 Fighter Utility.  Same goes for the Warpriest, which, with one ruling, went from the best-implemented E-class right to the bottom, but could go right back up again with one house rule.  :shrug:

 

 

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

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.


Look, kids!  More essentials war baiting!  Big Ben!  Parliament!

-O



No, but I believe in spamming this opinion in the hopes that designers notice it more often and get the impression that Essentials direction is wrong.
Hi,
Hoping someone can help clear up a question:

Can you replace an Essentials class feature with another power (from the same class) of another level or lower?

Specifically, I am thinking about the level 8 Knight utility, Shield Block.  It is granted by a clas feature, and has a level.  Can this power be replaced with another lvl8 or lower Fighter power?

If a class feature grants a feat, is it possible to replace that feat with another?

Thanks,
Neil

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.

It's not the /only/ reason, but it turns out they suck a little harder than they really need to.  As long as you're not using the CB, though, there's nothing wrong with letting players swap out a Level 8 Fighter Utility for a Level 8 Fighter Utility.  Same goes for the Warpriest, which, with one ruling, went from the best-implemented E-class right to the bottom, but could go right back up again with one house rule.  :shrug:




OK, what is that ruling?

BTW, with suckiness I mean the lack of choice, not necessarily lack of effectiveness in combat.
Hi,
Hoping someone can help clear up a question:

Can you replace an Essentials class feature with another power (from the same class) of another level or lower?

Specifically, I am thinking about the level 8 Knight utility, Shield Block.  It is granted by a clas feature, and has a level.  Can this power be replaced with another lvl8 or lower Fighter power?

If a class feature grants a feat, is it possible to replace that feat with another?

Thanks,
Neil

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.

It's not the /only/ reason, but it turns out they suck a little harder than they really need to.  As long as you're not using the CB, though, there's nothing wrong with letting players swap out a Level 8 Fighter Utility for a Level 8 Fighter Utility.  Same goes for the Warpriest, which, with one ruling, went from the best-implemented E-class right to the bottom, but could go right back up again with one house rule.  :shrug:




OK, what is that ruling?

BTW, with suckiness I mean the lack of choice, not necessarily lack of effectiveness in combat.

Maybe it was just my initial mis-understanding, but, the way it's been explained to me goes like this:

Initially, the ruling was that you could swap out any class power with a specific level for another of the same type & level (or lower).  So, Power Strike, which has no explicit level can't be swapped, but Sheild Block, a level 8 utility, could be.  Similarly, all the Warpriest leveled Domain powers, which followed the AEDU structure, could be swapped for corresponding Cleric powers, making the Warpriest a sort of Cleric build with power-steering, easy to build with a single choice: domain, but ultimately customizeable if you wanted.

At some point, the ruling became that you could swap leveled powers /when you had a choice of powers at that level/, so the Warpriest suddenly went from power-steering to railroad.

It's remarkable that, as bad as E-classes initially seemed, they managed to make even worse classes in HoS, and then go back and further downgrade the ones in Essentials. That must take some kind of special talent or determination.


But, I may have just mis-understood the initial ruling - optimist that I am.  Undecided

 

 

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

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.


Look, kids!  More essentials war baiting!  Big Ben!  Parliament!

-O



No, but I believe in spamming this opinion in the hopes that designers notice it more often and get the impression that Essentials direction is wrong.



You are one guy with an opinion. I'm one guy with an opinion. Neither of us spamming our opinion is going to change things.

I can go to San Francisco and see the same guy on the street corner telling me that the world is about to end, and soon. The fact that he has been there for the last three years (that I know of, it could very well have been longer), day in and day out, saying the same thing, does not make the end of the world any more imminent except for the fact that the wheel of time has turned one more day.

Your one voice, shouting the same message, day after day, does not make your opinion any more valid, or mine any less (except as a marker of either your commitement or your insanity). You want to be heard, and you want to know you have been heard. Posting here will get you the first, but only writing the folks at Wizards directly will get you the second. Just because you have been heard, however, is no guarantee that you will get what you want, because it is not all about you. If the sales show that your opinion is the minority opinion, you will receive a polite thank you, and a note of appreciation for your support, and a wish that you will continue to support D&D, no matter the direction, in the future.

Who knows, maybe you will get your wish. If you read today's Ampersand, Bill Slavicsek is ending his tenure as head of R&D. He gives no real indication of whether he is moving on of his own volition, or if he has been "asked" to leave, because Bill is a professional. If the direction changes afterwards, it might be taken as a sign of the latter rather than the former.

I love 4E, all of it, and Bill was a big part of the team that made 4E happen. I'll be sorry to see him go.

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.


Look, kids!  More essentials war baiting!  Big Ben!  Parliament!

-O



No, but I believe in spamming this opinion in the hopes that designers notice it more often and get the impression that Essentials direction is wrong.



The only impression anyone is getting is that the people who keep spamming this opinion* over and over again are incredibly childish. "ESSENTIALS SUCKS! ESSENTIALS SUCKS! I'LL SCREAM IT AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS UNTIL YOU BEND TO MY WILL!"



*The opinion being "ESSENTIALS IS BAD IT SHOULD BE DESTROYED RAAAAAAAAAAARR!", not simply "I dislike Essentials".
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)


Maybe it was just my initial mis-understanding, but, the way it's been explained to me goes like this:

Initially, the ruling was that you could swap out any class power with a specific level for another of the same type & level (or lower).  So, Power Strike, which has no explicit level can't be swapped, but Sheild Block, a level 8 utility, could be.  Similarly, all the Warpriest leveled Domain powers, which followed the AEDU structure, could be swapped for corresponding Cleric powers, making the Warpriest a sort of Cleric build with power-steering, easy to build with a single choice: domain, but ultimately customizeable if you wanted.

At some point, the ruling became that you could swap leveled powers /when you had a choice of powers at that level/, so the Warpriest suddenly went from power-steering to railroad.

It's remarkable that, as bad as E-classes initially seemed, they managed to make even worse classes in HoS, and then go back and further downgrade the ones in Essentials. That must take some kind of special talent or determination.


But, I may have just mis-understood the initial ruling - optimist that I am.  Undecided



It was not a new ruling. Back in PHB it said you could not swap or change powers given to you by a featue. That is why all Warlocks only get eldrich blast and the at will associated with their pact.
(note there have been later powers with SPECIAL text allowing them as alternates)
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
Criticisms that led to 4E were detailed and specific, as opposed to "Essentials sucks and I hate it".

I'm glad we managed to help the OP before the "Essentials Sucks" crowd showed up to crap on the thread.

No, but I believe in spamming this opinion in the hopes that designers notice it more often and get the impression that Essentials direction is wrong.



I guess the rest of us will have to shout back even louder to stop them from getting that impression then.
...whatever
Criticisms that led to 4E were detailed and specific, as opposed to "Essentials sucks and I hate it".



Yes they were. Codzilla and magi owning everything after level 12 or 15 whichever it was was the first of them. What do we have returning? Magi having all of the good abilities and WAY to much support, and fighters that no longer have powers just like before.

The return of bad design is still bad design.



I don't see the bad design police coming to my house to take either of my LFR PHB1 Fighters away.

Anyway, in 4E its Weapon users who get all the candy, or didn't you get the memo?
...whatever
Criticisms that led to 4E were detailed and specific, as opposed to "Essentials sucks and I hate it".



Yes they were. Codzilla and magi owning everything after level 12 or 15 whichever it was was the first of them. What do we have returning? Magi having all of the good abilities and WAY to much support, and fighters that no longer have powers just like before.

The return of bad design is still bad design.



I don't see the bad design police coming to my house to take either of my LFR PHB1 Fighters away.

Anyway, in 4E its Weapon users who get all the candy, or didn't you get the memo?



Like all those zones and maintainable affects and summonable monsters to do your will?  No everybody gets candy.

With essentials if you use more story/literary pacing complete with foreshadowing - the emartials get smaller pieces of candy. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

What do we have returning? Magi having all of the good abilities and WAY to much support, and fighters that no longer have powers just like before.


Except that is not what is happening. 
Fighters and the like still have powers, even in all the essentials builds. So you are gflat out wrong about that, which makes me think you might not have done your reaserch properly and are just complaining to complain, or out of fear of change. 
Spellcasters do not have all the good abilities. 
also Martial classes probably have the most suport in the edition, and with the selection of superior weapons and weapon enchantmentsa that has been out there since the first supliment (yes since AV1) the spellcasters have been in need of more suport to keep up with what Weapon users got out of that 1 book. 
THe problems with these things in old editions was not the imbalance in the classes, but the essentials clases are still balanced against themselves. They are not as optimizable as pre essentials classes, but they do not suck in comparison to them either. 

The return of bad design is still bad design.

Unless it is not bad design, but just someone thinking it is bad design. Yes they removed the AEDU structure form most essentials classes, but they added other options to those classes to make up for the removal. Slayers do not have At-Will attack powers, but they have at-will stances that turn their MBA into the same thing, only now it works on OA and anything that grants them a free MBA (ie : Warlords). 

Except that is not what is happening. 
Fighters and the like still have powers, even in all the essentials builds. So you are gflat out wrong about that, which makes me think you might not have done your reaserch properly and are just complaining to complain, or out of fear of change. 



Spamming MBAs & one encounter power that cannot be changed is bad design. Not being allowed AEDU structure brings forward the enherent imbalance of old editions.



Spamming MBAs isn't so bad when you are doing more damage than other characters are doing with Encounter powers, or even Dailies. The Encounter power CAN be changed, or at least one use of it. Rain of Blows is Teh Sex on a Gouge Slayer. You can choose a non-Essentials Paragon Path and trade out a 2nd non-Essentials Encounter. The imbalance of old editions was created by overpowered spellcasters. Slayer and Thief are considered top tier Strikers. The old imbalances are dead and gone, except for your own prejudice.


...whatever
It was not a new ruling. Back in PHB it said you could not swap or change powers given to you by a featue. That is why all Warlocks only get eldrich blast and the at will associated with their pact.
(note there have been later powers with SPECIAL text allowing them as alternates)

I guess it just wasn't immediately clear to me how that aplied to the new Essentials format.  In Essentials, /everything/, including things you choose, are presented something like features.  In 4e, for instance, everyone gets to pick a utility at level 2.  In Essentials, every class has a feature-like heading such as "LEVEL 2 SLAYER UTILITY POWER" under which it says you get a choice, and lists the available choices.  As I understand it, the ones that give choices are legitimate to swap out, and the ones that don't, aren't. 



Spamming MBAs & one encounter power that cannot be changed is bad design. Not being allowed AEDU structure brings forward the enherent imbalance of old editions.



Spamming MBAs isn't so bad when you are doing more damage than other characters are doing with Encounter powers, or even Dailies.

It's not always bad, it's just not always balanced, either.  If your MBA's are potent enough that they balance with the three Daily attack powers that the other characters get in the course of a 4-encounter day at 10th level, then they'll probably be downright overpowered compared to one Daily over the course of a 5 or 6- encounter day at 1st level; and decidedly lacking compared to each PC dumping several dailies in a 1-encounter 'nova.'

The imbalance of old editions was created by overpowered spellcasters.

Spellcasters were potentially overpowered because they had sharply limitted abilities that were compensated with much greater power, while non-casters had unlimitted-use abilities that were much less powerful.  In general, with the PCs having some flexibility to maximize the availability of spells (by choosing when to rest, most obviously), casters quickly dominated in most campaigns, while non-casters were still on par or even quite strong at the lowest levels. 

Dailies are sharply limitted abilities that are compensated for with greater power.  They're not as limitted or as over-compensated as spellcasting was in AD&D, but it's only a matter of degree.  By abandoning the AEDU structure, and re-instituting the old prejudice of simplistic, low-choice, daily-less martial classes and complex, versatile, high-choice, powerful-daily casters, Essentials has returned to the imbalances of past editions.  It hasn't gone whole-hog - it's not as bad as 3.5, let alone AD&D, but it is worse than 4e.  And, it was just the first step in a 'new direction,' that, aparently, was set to include reducing the Cleric Templar to it's traditional 'band aid' role, leaving the Mage as the premier caster.

Slayer and Thief are considered top tier Strikers.

They have consistently high DPR, which is how CharOp judges such things.  They have nothing else, though.  When the chips are down and a Slayer or Thief has to pull out all the stops, he can power strike or backstab and do an extra die of damage on an attack.  A Greatweapon Fighter can throw down something like Thicket of Blades or Rain of Steel or a Rogue can blind or stun an enemy or deliver massive ongoing damage -  nevermind how game-changing a Wizard's daily can be.  Dailies are an excellent tool in a player's arsenal, they add drama, spot-light time, and tactically important peak power to the character.  Characters that lack them are flatly inferior in most campaigns.  Providing them for 'new' or 'casual' players is a hollow excuse that smacks of elitism. 

Really, even pre-E, 4e martial characters tended to have less potent dailies and much less varied powers than traditional caster archetypes like the Devoted Cleric and Wizard.  Newer classes, like the last 4e classes out the gate, the Seeker and Runepriest, tended to lack choice (and optimization potential) relative to older classes that had recieved a lot of support already.  The balance 4e achieved wasn't exactly perfect, to begin with.  Backwards is not the direction to take it.

The old imbalances are dead and gone, except for your own prejudice.

The old imbalances were due to prejudices, and it was the backlash of those clinging to those prejudices that was behind the success of Pathfinder, and, quite probably, was a factor in deciding to cater, again, to the old negative stereotypes of the dumb fighter, healbot cleric, and fragile but nigh-omnipotent magic-user. 

 

 

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

I'm glad we managed to help the OP before the "Essentials Sucks" crowd showed up to crap on the thread.

That's exactly what I was going to say.
Spamming MBAs & one encounter power that cannot be changed is bad design. Not being allowed AEDU structure brings forward the enherent imbalance of old editions.

I, for one, was glad to not have to deal with Dailies during the last two seasons of Encounters (I'm running this season). I and one other Encounters player both nearly always play knights (he's actually never played anything else). Not only do we not feel underpowered or underoptioned relative to the AEDU classes (except what I mention below), we actually outshine them frequently.

The very first time I played Alden I thoroughly screwed up the GM's plans by judicious use of Measured Cut. An enemy adjacent to me decided to charge the party's thief who had been chucking daggers at his boss. I made my OA and then shifted into a square that left him affected by my aura when he made his attack. He missed as a result and everyone rejoiced. Even the GM thought it was cool once he reclaimed his fallen jaw. Both knight players have had many such exploits since then.


All in all, I really don't see why people are so happy about everyone being a Vancian spellcaster now but I'm certainly not going to berate them for that opinion. Play whatever's fun for you and let everyone else enjoy what's fun for them. If we all liked the same thing then there wouldn't be so many different TRPGs on the market.


I do have one major complaint about the Essentials classes: the way they are presented. It's really hard to get a solid understanding of what a class does when you have to read through the whole thing instead of just reading the first couple of pages and then scanning the powers. That, and levels 3, 7, etc tend to be really boring for the martial classes. I seem to recall that one of the stated design goals (one I'm especially happy about) is that players should be faced with interesting decisions at every step of character creation, every time they level up, and every round of combat. "Gain an additional use of Power Strike" doesn't involve a choice at all – interesting or otherwise.

About.me

Drive like you love your children

Through faith you have been saved by grace and not by works. -Ep 2:8-9

Grammar Made Easy – now there's no excuse for sounding like an idiot online.
Games From the Mind of fewilcox – my blog about writing; games, including, character sheets and other roleplaying accessories; and game design.

Hi,
Hoping someone can help clear up a question:

Can you replace an Essentials class feature with another power (from the same class) of another level or lower?

Specifically, I am thinking about the level 8 Knight utility, Shield Block. It is granted by a clas feature, and has a level. Can this power be replaced with another lvl8 or lower Fighter power?

If a class feature grants a feat, is it possible to replace that feat with another?

Thanks,
Neil

No, and that's why Essentials classes suck.

It's not the /only/ reason, but it turns out they suck a little harder than they really need to. As long as you're not using the CB, though, there's nothing wrong with letting players swap out a Level 8 Fighter Utility for a Level 8 Fighter Utility. Same goes for the Warpriest, which, with one ruling, went from the best-implemented E-class right to the bottom, but could go right back up again with one house rule. :shrug:

What Level 8 Fighter Utilities? I don't know of any that aren't class features and, as has already been said in this thread, class features can't be swapped.

About.me

Drive like you love your children

Through faith you have been saved by grace and not by works. -Ep 2:8-9

Grammar Made Easy – now there's no excuse for sounding like an idiot online.
Games From the Mind of fewilcox – my blog about writing; games, including, character sheets and other roleplaying accessories; and game design.

And, it was just the first step in a 'new direction,' that, aparently, was set to include reducing the Cleric Templar to it's traditional 'band aid' role, leaving the Mage as the premier caster.



I think the shiny new Battle Cleric just blew the Templar 'band aid' theory to bits.

The old imbalances are dead and gone, except for your own prejudice.

The old imbalances were due to prejudices, and it was the backlash of those clinging to those prejudices that was behind the success of Pathfinder, and, quite probably, was a factor in deciding to cater, again, to the old negative stereotypes of the dumb fighter, healbot cleric, and fragile but nigh-omnipotent magic-user. 




Until they start forbidding or gutting the old classes, and may I point out the old-style Fighter and Warlord were spared revision recently, and the dev team just today breathed new life into the Templar to the point where it kills the Warpriest and takes its stuff, you're spouting nothing but hot air.
...whatever
And, it was just the first step in a 'new direction,' that, aparently, was set to include reducing the Cleric Templar to it's traditional 'band aid' role, leaving the Mage as the premier caster.



I think the shiny new Battle Cleric just blew the Templar 'band aid' theory to bits.

The old imbalances are dead and gone, except for your own prejudice.

The old imbalances were due to prejudices, and it was the backlash of those clinging to those prejudices that was behind the success of Pathfinder, and, quite probably, was a factor in deciding to cater, again, to the old negative stereotypes of the dumb fighter, healbot cleric, and fragile but nigh-omnipotent magic-user. 




Until they start forbidding or gutting the old classes, and may I point out the old-style Fighter and Warlord were spared revision recently, and the dev team just today breathed new life into the Templar to the point where it kills the Warpriest and takes its stuff, you're spouting nothing but hot air.


Encounters forbids the old classes.

What if I don't have a home group, but still want to play D&D, but hate the Essentials classes.

If the DM isn't willing to allow the old classes, and instead sticks to the WotC Guidelines, which FORBID non-e classes at encounters tables?
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.

Encounters forbids the old classes.

What if I don't have a home group, but still want to play D&D, but hate the Essentials classes.

If the DM isn't willing to allow the old classes, and instead sticks to the WotC Guidelines, which FORBID non-e classes at encounters tables?



Play Living Forgotten Realms? Start a new group and create a game that plays the way you want? Failing that, suck it up and accept that you don't have access to a group that is running a game you want to be a part of.

Encounters is a 1-2hr game that features, you guessed it, one encounter. I really wouldn't call it a standard D&D game, or the primary representative of the D&D experience. I think people blow Essentials out of proportion since its such an easy target. We've heard plenty of reports of people disregarding the WotC Guidelines. If enforcing the guidelines means people won't play, I'd imagine a lot of leiniency on the part of DMs, particularly store owners who care more about business than rules.
...whatever

Encounters forbids the old classes.

What if I don't have a home group, but still want to play D&D, but hate the Essentials classes.

If the DM isn't willing to allow the old classes, and instead sticks to the WotC Guidelines, which FORBID non-e classes at encounters tables?



Play Living Forgotten Realms? Start a new group and create a game that plays the way you want? Failing that, suck it up and accept that you don't have access to a group that is running a game you want to be a part of.

Encounters is a 1-2hr game that features, you guessed it, one encounter. I really wouldn't call it a standard D&D game, or the primary representative of the D&D experience. I think people blow Essentials out of proportion since its such an easy target. We've heard plenty of reports of people disregarding the WotC Guidelines. If enforcing the guidelines means people won't play, I'd imagine a lot of leiniency on the part of DMs, particularly store owners who care more about business than rules.


You said it's not being forbidden.

I pointed out a situation where, in fact, it IS. 

That was the point of my post.

EDIT (Stupid formatting errors...)

I was not looking for advice or alternatives, because this isn't my situation.  it's a theoretical, yet truly possible, situation that may arise.
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.


I was not looking for advice or alternatives, because this isn't my situation.  it's a theoretical, yet truly possible, situation that may arise.



So, you are complaining about a hypothetical corner case and indicting D&D for it? Is Strawman too strong a word?
...whatever

 Maybe it was just my initial mis-understanding, but, the way it's been explained to me goes like this:

Initially, the ruling was that you could swap out any class power with a specific level for another of the same type & level (or lower).  So, Power Strike, which has no explicit level can't be swapped, but Sheild Block, a level 8 utility, could be.  Similarly, all the Warpriest leveled Domain powers, which followed the AEDU structure, could be swapped for corresponding Cleric powers, making the Warpriest a sort of Cleric build with power-steering, easy to build with a single choice: domain, but ultimately customizeable if you wanted.

At some point, the ruling became that you could swap leveled powers /when you had a choice of powers at that level/, so the Warpriest suddenly went from power-steering to railroad.

It's remarkable that, as bad as E-classes initially seemed, they managed to make even worse classes in HoS, and then go back and further downgrade the ones in Essentials. That must take some kind of special talent or determination.


But, I may have just mis-understood the initial ruling - optimist that I am. 


It was not a new ruling. Back in PHB it said you could not swap or change powers given to you by a featue. That is why all Warlocks only get eldrich blast and the at will associated with their pact.
(note there have been later powers with SPECIAL text allowing them as alternates)



You are NOT wrong. Mike Mearls said that initially before it came out.

forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-524919...
Until they start forbidding or gutting the old classes...

They already started.  Old classes are forbidden in Encounters.  The Templar was a gutted Cleric.

It's nice that they may be showing an attack of temporay sanity and backing off a little on the Templar nerfs, but that's not nearly enough to save the new direction from sucking.  Essentials has made the game worse, and development has continued in that direction.  OK, they packpeddled on the Templar and declined to make the game even worse.  That may be a hopeful sign, but it still doesn't exuse the damage already done.

 

 

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

Until they start forbidding or gutting the old classes...

They already started.  Old classes are forbidden in Encounters.  The Templar was a gutted Cleric.



Then explain why I play a Barbarian at Encounters.
Until they start forbidding or gutting the old classes...

They already started.  Old classes are forbidden in Encounters.  The Templar was a gutted Cleric.

Then explain why I play a Barbarian at Encounters.

The same way I'm playing a Warlord: the DM has a 'fun' loophole he can use to let anything in.  You could play a mutant from Gamma World, a 4th level character from a previous season - if your DM let you.  Without a DM enthused about using said loophole, Essentials and HoS are your only official options.





 

 

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

You are NOT wrong. Mike Mearls said that initially before it came out.
forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-524919...


Huh. Well, isn't that interesting?

For those who don't wish to wade through that entire thread, here's what Mike Mearls actually said:

mearls                                                    07-09-2010, 08:42 AM



One thing to keep in mind about the warpriest is that while your domain provides you with encounter powers, you are free to swap them out for any of the other cleric attack powers already in the game. The same applies to utilities and dailies.

We wanted to strike a line between giving people a complete, cohesive, and flavorful character, while also leaving room for customization and choice.


Maybe he needs to have a word with the people who program the OCB, because their understanding of how Essentials power selection works seems to differ fundamentally from the actual design team's intent.

"My flying carpet is full of elves."



I was not looking for advice or alternatives, because this isn't my situation.  it's a theoretical, yet truly possible, situation that may arise.



So, you are complaining about a hypothetical corner case and indicting D&D for it? Is Strawman too strong a word?


it's the wrong word.

I used actual fact in my post to point out that you were wrong, and you called strawman on me.

you said that something was fact.  i pointed out that you were wrong.



You kno what? 

I'm going to ignore your posts unto oblivion.

Casually, even. 

You obviously can't concieve that someone may have a different opinion than you, and you obviously can't concieve of a world where the facts prove you wrong.  So you're not worth the energy it takes to argue with you.

You're wrong, and that's a fact.  stop trying to claim you're right.
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.
TCO - I am actually dealing with a situation similar to what Darkwolf proposed, but actually in a much worse way. Our local LFR DMs disallow any and all non-Essentials classes. That means unless I gut and neuder some of my favorite characters (or in some cases like my Swordmage or my Seeker, switch classes) I can't play. So now I have characters that I put time, effort, and money into, and I can't play them.  How's that for getting kicked in the teeth by Essentials?
Our local LFR DMs disallow any and all non-Essentials classes.

Either they follow the LFR character creation rules, or they are not LRF DMs. 
Encounters is the only organized play that limits you to Essentials material and band PHB1 material. If they are adverytising their games as LFR, and going through the  procedures for LRF then you do this in order. 

  1. confirm that is is a LFR game

  2. Bring in the LFR character creation rules, and point out that your PC is legal

  3. If they do not give in, tell them that they are giving false adfertising, and that they need to either follow the LFR rules, or stop claiming to be a LFR game. 

  4. If they refues to do either, complain to the body governing LFr (it is still the RPGA right?)

This has nothing to do with Wizards, and everything to do with bad DMing. 

f they refues to do either, complain to the body governing LFR (it is still the RPGA right?)

Which will reply with "Hm, too bad. Unfortunately we can't do anything".

LFR events don't even need to be registered anymore, not even to download the mods. Thus the RPGA has no clue where LFR is run or controll over how it is run.



TCO - I am actually dealing with a situation similar to what Darkwolf proposed, but actually in a much worse way. Our local LFR DMs disallow any and all non-Essentials classes. That means unless I gut and neuder some of my favorite characters (or in some cases like my Swordmage or my Seeker, switch classes) I can't play. So now I have characters that I put time, effort, and money into, and I can't play them.  How's that for getting kicked in the teeth by Essentials?



If and when I quit gaming, it will be because of gamers. I'm sorry for you that your LFR DMs are epic D***s. As much as I have personal issues with the LFR administration and love that they don't rule things on a local level, I'm sorry that they can't punish these DMs.
...whatever
Thanks TCO, and I mean that. It just sucks that at least in local events I can't play the characters I want to play (I would imagine at other events I still could), and I know I blamed Essentials in my post (the last line specifically), but ultimately I know it isn't the fault of the Essentials-design. This, in microcosm, just shows the division within the community that WotC created by doing what they have done. Of course these boards are another microcosm of that.   
Thanks TCO, and I mean that. It just sucks that at least in local events I can't play the characters I want to play (I would imagine at other events I still could), and I know I blamed Essentials in my post (the last line specifically), but ultimately I know it isn't the fault of the Essentials-design. This, in microcosm, just shows the division within the community that WotC created by doing what they have done. Of course these boards are another microcosm of that.   



WotC didn't create the division. Jerks who can't be happy unless things go their way made the division.
...whatever
Thanks TCO, and I mean that. It just sucks that at least in local events I can't play the characters I want to play (I would imagine at other events I still could), and I know I blamed Essentials in my post (the last line specifically), but ultimately I know it isn't the fault of the Essentials-design. This, in microcosm, just shows the division within the community that WotC created by doing what they have done. Of course these boards are another microcosm of that.   



WotC didn't create the division. Jerks who can't be happy unless things go their way made the division.




No, WotC created the division when they decided they didn't need the revenue of the people that enjoy meaningful choice and plenty of options. Its just that simple. Maybe they were right, maybe we are a minority, but recent evidence says differently...

They could have made Essentials classes and powers interchangable, they could have made E-classes completely seperate (like Wizard is separate from Warlock and Sorcerer), They could have been clearer when they described how to treat E-classes (As in think of this as a completely new class that can take Fighter utility powers), heck they could have just made Essentials a completely separate game. Instead they decided to divide us yet again... Its entirely WotC fault, not because of what Essentials is, but because of how they handled Essentials...
"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.
Sign In to post comments