Community

Essentials offers, on purpose a spectrum of class complexity that is far broader than the spectrum of complexity of AEDU PHB classes.  The top complexity end is slightly more complex with the Mage. The bottom end is far far simpler both in levelling and in play.  To say that Essentials fails because the mage is complex fails to realize the goal of creating a spectrum of complexity and allowing players to choose what suits them.

This is on purpose and a good thing.  The designers want to be able to appeal to a wide range of gamers and potential gamers.  They were able to do so in a way that is balanced but not symmetrical.  Essentials characters footprint in the game is similar and within the same range of effectiveness as AEDU characters. 

Essentials is balanced.  It is not symmetrical.  The thief is reasonably balanced with the scoundrel, but their design is not symmetrical.  The OAssassin is symmetrical with the scoundrel, but the balance is very lacking.  Ballance is not depenant on symmetry.

On top of this no AEDU content has been removed from the game.  The complexity of AEDU is daunting to some and has prevented people from playing.  In my opinion disguising AEDU behind a prebuild does not truely address this problem.

The major flaw in Essentials presentation is the tendancy to offer more simpliifed options for martial characters and fewer simplified options for Magic using characters.  I think this will be addressed going forward.  I think allowing for design outside AEDU adds to the game by allowing for design that cannot be accomplished under AEDU.  You can still create and utilize AEDU material, but you can also do new things that are different and to me that is a good thing (and helps address the all classes play the same arguement).

Jul 7, 2011 -- 8:02AM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

If they keep the current model, meaning essentials going I see D&D going no where fast. Essentials was aimed at 3rd edition hold out and I think most prefer pathfinder to essentials. The best bet now is to either do a completly new edition or to continue with the AEDU line. I will not be buying a new edition but I can hope for something more in line with what AEDU tried to do which was get rid of martial clsses being useless after a certain lvl and this was a major failing of the older editions.

You should be happy with essentials then.  While not symmetrical, they are on the same power curve as AEDU classes.  In addition they haven't invalidated any AEDU classes ... you can still play a any of the PHB1 MP or MP2 AEDU martial builds.

Jul 7, 2011 -- 8:22AM, lokiare wrote:

Jul 7, 2011 -- 8:09AM, Electricbee wrote:

Jul 7, 2011 -- 8:02AM, AH_Stormbringer wrote:

If they keep the current model, meaning essentials going I see D&D going no where fast. Essentials was aimed at 3rd edition hold out and I think most prefer pathfinder to essentials. The best bet now is to either do a completly new edition or to continue with the AEDU line. I will not be buying a new edition but I can hope for something more in line with what AEDU tried to do which was get rid of martial clsses being useless after a certain lvl and this was a major failing of the older editions.

You should be happy with essentials then.  While not symmetrical, they are on the same power curve as AEDU classes.  In addition they haven't invalidated any AEDU classes ... you can still play a any of the PHB1 MP or MP2 AEDU martial builds.

Actually, they unbalanced the game with regard to AEDU classes. This is because the more encounters  you have the better the Essentials classes without dailies play. Around 3-4 encounters a day they are balanced. Above 4 you start seeing the Essentials classes pull ahead. So yeah they actually are unbalanced. As well as looking at the BA madness. They are clearly more powerful if you use BA enhancing feats and items, not to mention the BA granting powers of other classes or off turn attacks, and OA. Yeah... try to tell me its balanced again with a straight face...

AEDU and Essentials are balanced.  Short and long days balance out.  The buff to every attack for MBA enhancers helps level out the playing field vs. nova style play.  They are inside the range of effectiveness of AEDU classes.  Balance for classes is a range, and Essentials play within that range.  There will be points where certain classes are more or less optimal.  I don't have a problem with that.  Saying that a class is imbalanced because of a longer work day is kind of akin to saying that divine classes are imbalanced because they are more effective vs. undead.  Having areas of strength does not in and of itself create imbalance.

Jul 7, 2011 -- 5:49PM, Garthanos wrote:

Jul 7, 2011 -- 8:34AM, Electricbee wrote:

 Saying that a class is imbalanced because of a longer work day is kind of akin to saying that divine classes are imbalanced because they are more effective vs. undead.  Having areas of strength does not in and of itself create imbalance.

Its the shorter work day that is an issue actually.
I cant at all arrange as a player so that nearly every fight is against undead....could players arrange so that most days can be really short? why yes they might be able to and it actually fits more fantasy fiction than these 4 battles and more days so the DM might be fine with it .... and without essentials classes you just up the potency of the encounters a few levels and have fun everybody interacts pretty closely with similar resource management going on.

Except that isnt true anymore... that was tossed out like bathwater.

OK I will give you this.... 
 
If the DM over estimates and one of these boosted fights is too potent (easier to do because at difficult level 3 and +4)...and the fight takes too long...  the presence of steady and sure performers can make those encounters less likely to go out of control and tpk - something nobody likes  ie they can  lend the party staying power in that long fight where dailies have already been spent.
 
A part of me just resents only one play style (mr 4 battles per day) being supported while claiming they are opening it up to more styles of play.

I think its a mistake to say that only one play style is supported.  There are two extremes.  One encounter per day that the players know they can nova on.  The second is multiple encounters per day to the limit of available healing surges.  There is a spectrum inbetween and most play is in that spectrum.  The descrepancy is less important anywhere in the middle.  Balance can come not just from a focus on  4 encounter day. 

If you choose to run consistant nova requiring single encounter days or 7 or 8 encounter grinds every day, you are pushing the game out of balance, not essentials.  If you mix up your work days so some are long some are short and you avoid playing consistantly at the systems outliers, you're likely to find the game blanced.  If you want to have a nova day, and youre play group includes both types, maybe you should include a long work day.  Or even a theoretical nova followed by an unexpected regular encounter or two where your dailyless players can shine.

As you mentioned the increasted length of a overpowering single encounter increase the significance of the improved MBAs of Martial Essentials characters during the 2nd half of the fight.  The fact that you can run a single encounter day with AEDU and have the classes balanced doesn't mean that the system is designed for it. 

You have to build more challenging encounters, and they are a little wonky because the players will have more dailys available than the design assumes.  By doing the single encounter day, you make the system more swingy.  If the dailys largely tend to hit and be effective, the encounter becomes much easier.  If many of them miss, the encounter drags.  This is not the fault of the system, it is a fault of the DM that chooses to play outside the assumed play area, and it then becomes his job to compensate for his choices.