The lack of choice is what the last edition had, and this edition was supposed to get away from the one shot mechanics classes that the previous edition has so many of.
Simple shouldn't mean gimping the player into a narrow track.
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.
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!)
The lack of choice is what the last edition had, and this edition was supposed to get away from the one shot mechanics classes that the previous edition has so many of.
Simple shouldn't mean gimping the player into a narrow track.
I agree, if they wanted simple they could have got better overall results by just having a template character with all their powers, feats, and skills pre-chosen from level 1 to 30...
There is a build I like it has very very few choices with reguards to powers... you might say its more locked down than any of the essentials builds. But it does have some flexibility built in for one you can actually decide between multiple stats which will be your primary. Its powers can be flavored many ways and dont feel locked down as much because of that. The rest of its flexibilty comes either by way of multiclassing or hybriding.
Its a build of the class that didnt make the cut in to essentials.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but when we are talking about "essentials" we are talking mainly about the "class books".. At least that seems to be what people are talking about. I mean the monster vault, the DM Kit and the Rules Compendium are, while updated hence slightly different, effectivly 4th edition rules.. aka you could run a standard 4th edition game using those books in cooperation with the 4th edition players handbook...
Assuming that is correct, and the essentials line is optional and given that Wizards in their podcasts have already told us that the essentials line is a temporary deviation from the standard ruleset... what is the issue here?
I can't help like I'm missing something? Aside from the Class books isn't the rest of the essentials line effectivly rule udpdate books.. perhaps not as dramtic in change as to call it 4.5 but isn't it like 4.1 at least?
Assuming that is correct, and the essentials line is optional and given that Wizards in their podcasts have already told us that the essentials line is a temporary deviation from the standard ruleset... what is the issue here?
The thing is that even though Wizards initially promised Essentials to be a temporary deviation intended for new players, it now seems that it is not. Everything previewed from the upcoming Heroes of Shadow has been more support for Essentials characters. It is precisely this that makes many of us classic 4e fans bitter. We like choice. We like the AEDU system. And it is not supported anymore .
When people complain about essentials, yes, they're generally complaining about the class mechanics therein. Many essentials haters still like the Rules Compendium, most seem to like the added racial bonus stat options, and while some may dislike tokens, box sets, or paperbacks, and thus might avoid the Monster Vault, I don't think I've heard anyone deny that monster design in 4e has only improved with time, with the monsters in the monster vault being considerably more fun to fight then their equivalents in the MMI.
So yeah, when people talk about "4.e" or "4e.e" or "essentials" here on the forums, and especially when people complain about them, they're talking about the class design philosophy introduced in the essentials "Heroes of" books, they aren't talking about the specific line of 10 products with "essentials" in the name.
In particular, some of the complaints people have are as follows:
Many e-style subclasses have only a single encounter power, which improves in effect or frequency with level, rather then a range of choices of different encounter powers gained as the character levels. Some people dislike the lack of choice - feeling that the builds get boring to play over the course of a campaign when you're doing the same things every fight at level 22 that you were doing back at level 2, and the fact that these 'single encounter power' builds don't work with the existing multiclass and hybrid rules, further limiting choice.
Sub Classes that mix poorly with the original classesShow
Some people dislike that an essentials build or subclass can share almost nothing with the parent class. Fighters and slayers don't share attack powers, party roles, etc. In these people's minds, if a build is that mechanically removed, then it should have been its own class, with its own class feats and utility powers. This is particularly of note if the original class in question is sorely in need of additional support, as below.
Support for Sub-Classes being developed in place of support for original classesShow
Some people are worried that future support is being developed exclusively for new sub-classes rather then for the original classes. This is particularly worrisome in cases where the original class needed support, such as the original DDI assassin, which, while thematically compelling, has long been derided for it's mechanical deficiencies. The executioner may be interesting and reasonably functional mechanically, but since the original assassin can't really use anything from the executioner it's still left in the dog house no matter how much executioner material is released. With every new article on the executioner, hope that the original assassin might one day be fixed dwindles. It's the same with fans of the seeker, who are left wondering if the hunter will steal any future support they might have seen. Ditto strength clerics and rune priests when they look at the warpriest. Ditto conlocks and the hexblade.
For two years 4e produced support for basic attacks that assumed they were, by default, less powerful then attacking with your at will powers. The essentials martial sub-classes flip that on its head. For these classes, basic attack support (everything from feats to granted attacks) is suddenly much, much more powerful. We've already seen melee training nerfed in response, which is particularly galling as a number of classes relied on that feat as a patch to let them perform their basic party role- the Battlemind in particular.
Some people don't like that the new format builds the Paragon Path, an din the executioner's case the epic destiny even, into each subclass. It can be awkward trying to figure out what abilities come from where if you want to choose another path. In some cases you almost end up locked into your path. Paragon Path loses its value as a tool for character customization. Story value is also lost, as these default paths are just 'what you already do, but in paragon levels'.
The scout can't use his striker feature and his encounter power on the same attack. Nobody knows how the Hexblade's Implement+Weapon powers really work once you start looking at the fine details. Confusion over what powers an e-style subclass are allowed to trade with options from their parent class. Does the Knight really not get a choice of level 22 utility, or can the mage trade magic missile for whatever power you want?
Despite how many classes 4e already sports, some people still want more, and are disappointed with new essentials subclasses that, in their opinion, would have been better if allowed to stand on their own as new classes. For instance, many like the hexblade, but might it have been better as its own class, without being forced to share space with the warlock? Many had wanted a shadowcaster or necromancer class - now they'll have to make due with sub-themes of a sub class of the wizard.
Sub-Classes with different Party Roles then the original classShow
Some people feel that this kind of mixing of roles within a single class, particularly when a subclass can end up with powers and feats intended for a class with another role, will lead to a muddying of the water, with characters either able to fully fulfill multiple roles, stepping on other characters' toes, or characters not able to really perform any roles adequately. Look at the Sentinel druid with its leader class features, striker encounter power, and controller daily powers taken from the druid for an example of a sub-class that blurs the lines between party roles in this way.
Sub-Classes with different Power Sources then the original classShow
Some people feel that this muddies the thematic consistency of power sources, which, as a purely thematic element, basically undoes them entirely. What does the scout have to do with primal spirits, for instance? Another example, Shadow is supposed to be like the dark side in Star Wars - an easy path to quick power. But if most of the shadow options are for classes of other power sources - wizards, clerics, etc - then it isn't a path to quick power, it's an extra hassle you have to go through after already acquiring power in the usual ways.
Overall lack of options within a character, and general design lazinessShow
Some people feel that the e-format is being used not to provide a better play experience for the player, but to make the design & development process easier for WotC staff. For instance - what takes more work, a new hexblade class with a choice of powers at every level, requiring new feats and Paragon Paths, or a hexblade subclass that only gets one encounter power per build choice, has a default Path, and can just take utilities, feats, and daily powers from the Warlock? What takes more work, designing a new fighter build with options that need to be balanced with other fighter options, or designing a new fighter subclass that simply isn't allowed to share any options with the fighter? In the end, the sub-classes we're left with have very little choice and variety once you get past first level, with far fewer powers, paths, and other options available. At many levels, these sub-classes don't present any choice to the player at all - they might get 'power strike' one more time per encounter, but the player doesn't actually get to choose anything about how their character develops
Now, a lot of these complaints can be seen as doom-saying, or knee-jerk reactions to change. And many people do like what essentials has introduced. So your mileage can and will vary.
The "Poorly designed or confusing mechanic" is hardly new or unique to essentials. Plenty of people said that about the PHB1 Fighter, Beastmaster, Shaman, Battlemind, Monk, ect.... In fact, Essentials probably has the least amount of complaints in that department because it's "simple" design.
Also, for most of the rest of the complains, there are equal, and directly opposite praise. Basically anyone one where you accurately say "Some people".
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
When people complain about essentials, yes, they're generally complaining about the class mechanics therein. Many essentials haters still like the Rules Compendium, most seem to like the added racial bonus stat options, and while some may dislike tokens, box sets, or paperbacks, and thus might avoid the Monster Vault, I don't think I've heard anyone deny that monster design in 4e has only improved with time, with the monsters in the monster vault being considerably more fun to fight then their equivalents in the MMI.
So yeah, when people talk about "4.e" or "4e.e" or "essentials" here on the forums, and especially when people complain about them, they're talking about the class design philosophy introduced in the essentials "Heroes of" books, they aren't talking about the specific line of 10 products with "essentials" in the name.
In particular, some of the complaints people have are as follows:
Many c-style subclasses have only a single encounter power, which improves in effect or frequency with level, rather then a range of choices of different encounter powers gained as the character levels. Some people dislike the lack of choice - feeling that the builds get to play over the course of a campaign when you're doing the things every fight at level 22 that you were doing back at level 2), and the fact that these 'single encounter power' builds don't work with the existing multiclass and hybrid rules, further limiting choice.
Sub Classes that mix poorly with the original classesShow
Some people dislike that an essentials build or subclass can share almost nothing with the parent class. Fighters and slayers don't share attack powers, party roles, etc. In these people's minds, if a build is that mechanically removed, then it should have been its own class, with its own class feats and utility powers. This is particularly of note if the original class in question is sorely in need of additional support -
Support for Sub-Classes being developed in place of support for original classesShow
Some people are worried that future support is being developed exclusively for new sub-classes rather then for the original classes. This is particularly worrisome in cases where the original class needed support, such as the original DDI assassin, which, while thematically interesting, has long been derided for it's mechanical deficiencies. The executioner may be interesting and reasonably functional mechanically, but since the original assassin can't really use anything from the executioner it's still left in the dog house no matter how much executioner material is released. With every new article on the executioner, hope that the original assassin might one day be fixed dwindle. Likewise fans of the seeker, who are left wondering if the hunter will steal any future support they might have seen, ditto strength clerics and rune priests when they look at the warpriest. Ditto conlocks and the hexblade.
For two years 4e produced support for basic attacks that assumed they were, by default, less powerful then attacking with your at will powers. The essentials martial sub-classes flip that on its head. For these classes, basic attack support (everything from feats to granted attacks) is suddenly much, much more powerful. We've already seen melee training nerfed in response, which is particularly galling as a number of classes relied on that feat as a patch to let them perform their basic party role- the Battlemind in particular.
Some people don't like that the new format builds the Paragon Path, an din the executioner's case the epic destiny even, into each subclass. It can be awkward trying to figure out what abilities come from where if you want to choose another path. In some cases you almost end up locked into your path. Paragon Path loses its value as a tool for character customization. Story value is also lost, as these default paths are just 'what you already do, but in paragon levels'.
The scout can't use his striker feature and his encounter power on the same attack. Nobody knows how the Hexblade's Implement+Weapon powers really work once you start looking at the fine details. Confusion over what powers an e-style subclass are allowed to trade with options from their parent class. Does the Knight really not get a choice of level 22 utility, or can the mage trade magic missile for whatever power you want?
Despite how many classes 4e already sports, some people still want more, and are disappointed with new essentials subclasses that, in their opinion, would have been better if allowed to stand on their own as new classes. For instance, many like the hexblade, but might it have been better as its own class, without being forced to share space with the warlock? Many had wanted a shadowcaster or necromancer class - now they'll have to make due with sub-themes of a sub class of the wizard.
Sub-Classes with different Party Roles then the original classShow
Some people feel that this kind of mixing of roles within a single class, particularly when a subclass can end up with powers and feats intended for a class with another role, will lead to a muddying of the water, with characters either able to fully fulfill multiple roles, stepping on other characters' toes, or characters not able to really perform any roles adequately. Look at the Sentinel druid with its leader class features, striker encounter power, and controller daily powers taken from the druid for an example of a sub-class that blurs the lines between party roles in this way.
Sub-Classes with different Power Sources then the original classShow
Some people feel that this muddies the thematic consistency of power sources, which, as a purely thematic element, basically undoes them entirely. What does the scout have to do with primal spirits, for instance? Another example, Shadow is supposed to be like the dark side in Star Wars - an easy path to quick power. But if most of the shadow options are for classes of other power sources - wizards, clerics, etc - then it isn't a path to quick power, it's an extra hassle you have to go through after already acquiring power in the usual ways.
Overall lack of options within a character, and general design lazinessShow
Some people feel that the e-format is being used not to provide a better play experience for the player, but to make the design & development process easier for WotC staff. For instance - what takes more work, a new hexblade class with a choice of powers at every level, requiring new feats and Paragon Paths, or a hexblade subclass that only gets one encounter power per build choice, has a default Path, and can just take utilities, feats, and daily powers from the Warlock? What takes more work, designing a new fighter build with options that need to be balanced with other fighter options, or designing a new fighter subclass that simply isn't allowed to share any options with the fighter? And in the end, the sub-classes we're left with have very little choice and variety once you get past first level, with far fewer powers, paths, and other options available. At many levels, these sub-classes don't present any choice to the player at all - they might get 'power strike' one more time per encounter, but don't actually get to choose anything about how their character develops
Now, a lot of these complaints can be seen as doom-saying, or knee-jerk reactions to change. And many people do like what essentials has introduced. So your mileage can and will vary.
.
