|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 1:31AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Loving these articles.
Personally I'm a fan of "party roles", but I despised "power sources". I also think the roles were a little TOO strictly adhered to in the early stages of development.
The Swordmage could have represented a range of Gish archetypes but it was straightjacketed by the "Defender" name. "We can't do THAT with a Swordmage, he's a DEFENDER".
I think that's actually one thing Essentials got RIGHT. It kept party roles but loosened them up heavily and was far more happy to mix power sources, too.
IMO party roles should still guide design direction, but it needn't be so explicit to players. Often my groups felt like they HAD to have a balanced team, instead of just playing what they wanted.
Is actually the complete oposite of what you say with essentials, essentials classes are completly restricted to their one and only build and role. A AEDU fighter can outdamage the slayer and be a defender (infact increasing your damage output make your defender punishment alot bigger, thus defending even better because enemies would less likely to ignore you) at the same time as well as other things like single target controller, a slayer can only deal damage and nothing else no mather how much you try to build them...a knight can only defend and nothing else...A AEDU Rogue can be single target controller and striker...Thiefs can only deal damage and nothing else no mather how much you try to build them.
Yup, the damn thing has a role straight jacket on that is for certain. The standard 4e ranger can be built monotone striker.. but can also be shifted to produce some single target control, not so the slayer.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 6:49AM
#42
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I can't help but draw a link between the fighter/bard annecdote and the warlord being a personal project of Heinsoo's.
Like he got the opportunity to make his fighter/bard as a class.
Excellent observation! I wish I had noticed that.
Thanks everyone for the great comments. Keep them coming!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 1:44PM
#43
|
|
|
Another well written article. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 3:49PM
#44
|
|
|
Hmm... Interesting that people didn't much like the Power Sources much. While I agree that the imperative it created to design a role per source created unnecessary class bloat, I view that more as a failing of the role system than the sources. I actually found some of the concepts behind Power Sources rather inspired, particularly the Primal Source (though, I also feel there was A LOT more they could've done with Shadow). The whole cosmology and logic behind the Primal Spirits was awesome imo, though, the structure of the sources generally didn't always mesh well when trying to work backward in cosmology (I found it a stumbling block when trying to adapt certain elements of 2e Dark Sun material personally).
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 7:56PM
#45
|
|
|
The concept of power sources was actually a decent idea in theory, just didn't seem to play out the way it could have. I would have preferred, however, the old "great wheel" cosmology. If they could return to that with a way to fit in the feywild and shadowfell (both of which were cool ideas also), I would have a happy balance that would be better than both to me.
I prefer 2nd Edition AD&D. But I have played basic, 1E, 2E, 3.5, & 4E, and found all to be fun.
IF IT'S D&D, I'LL PLAY IT, NO MATTER THE EDITION.
Just roll some dice.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 8:22PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
Personally I'm a fan of "party roles", but I despised "power sources". I also think the roles were a little TOO strictly adhered to in the early stages of development.
I agree very much. In fact I'd like them to TRY to find ways to fit every class, at least somewhat, into every role, if that can be done without altering the basic archetype or stepping too directly on another class. (A Fighter that is a Leader but not a Warlord? Um... probaby not.)
The Swordmage could have represented a range of Gish archetypes but it was straightjacketed by the "Defender" name. "We can't do THAT with a Swordmage, he's a DEFENDER".
The first time I played a Warlord, there was a Monk in the party as well as a Swordmage. For my purposes (granting attacks), I mostly ignored the Monk and used the Swordmage. Along with the Tempest Fighter. And, once each, the Psion and the Pacifist Cleric.
I think that's actually one thing Essentials got RIGHT. It kept party roles but loosened them up heavily and was far more happy to mix power sources, too.
Mixing power sources is an interesting idea, but it came after Essentials. And if what they did with it is the best they can do, they should stop.
On the other hand, the Swordmage could have been done as a mixed-power-source class with hardly any substantive changes, and it's a good class.
IMO party roles should still guide design direction, but it needn't be so explicit to players. Often my groups felt like they HAD to have a balanced team, instead of just playing what they wanted.
They definitely didn't have to have a balanced team. Rather than not make roles so explicit to players, I'd rather see team balance de-emphasized somewhat. I've heard of quite effective teams of:
* nothing but Archer Rangers subclassed Shaman
* nothing but Rangers
* nothing but Warlords
* nothing but Clerics
* nothing but Feychargers (back before the extremely elegant and creative update that detuned the overpowered three-power-source builds - go look in 4E CharOp for "Divine Arcane Feycharger" for what I'm talking about)
Party synergy is important, but not vital - and doesn't have to take the form of balance.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 11:42PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I actually reacted to power sources really positively as a concept. A short hand set of terminology for where a spell or ability comes from is a really awesome thing that quickly permeated my DMing, but I never applied them to classes specifically. Party roles... well I dunno. I liked how organised it made everything but I didn't like how difficult it was to break the mold. I mean, you can but it's a lot harder. Again, roles as applied to abilities are fine, I just don't really want such an explicit link between role and class.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 10:14PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2008
|
For certain classes, sure. But look at the Berserker. Or some of the mage builds (that seem to lean even more towards blaster than anything out of pre-E).
I'm not saying it was the case throughout Essentials- some classes were very restricted in their role as you point out. But I also felt that there was some effort to see the roles as being able to be blended, rather than being oil and water.
first of all Berserker is not essentials... it have anything in common with essentials classes with the exception of using defender aura instead of marking, Berserker design is AEDU in every sense of the word, it follow the exact same progression AEDU does (otherwise it would be barebones because of lack of compatibility to get the original Barbarian), it just adopted defender aura instead of marking...And guess what...you can still make a Barbarian into a pseudo-Defender, a warlord can also be build as pseudo-defender and cleric on paragon it can turn into a complete defender (with mark and punishment and all...).
Mage is also not essentials in design either, they just exchange implement mastery for schools of magic and can also encounter can be swaped like the dailies and utilities do on the original Wizard...A mage is not even a good blaster even less into a better blaster than the 4e wizard could before if it isn't backed by the feats and powers the Wizard already had.
Berserker was released under the Essentials label. That's what I was referring to. Not "Essentials in design". I was talking about how design philosophy changed during the Essentials "era"- 'Essentials' to me means basically"4e from the release of HoFL and HoFK onwards". Not my fault if you read into what I said wrongly by making strange assumptions >_<
I never played "pure Essentials", I always played those classes incorporating past content. I felt SOME of the classes built on and improved the originals and were less strict in their role and power source assignment. Those classes were great and showed innovation in the direction of the game, IMO.
I like the idea power sources for powers, actually, just not for classes. When the Ranger was able to have abilities OTHER than "martial" I felt we became better able to make ranger archetypes that are more in tune with nature in a magical way. Similarly EVERYTHING the swordmage did had to be magical, etc.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 10:36PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
For certain classes, sure. But look at the Berserker. Or some of the mage builds (that seem to lean even more towards blaster than anything out of pre-E).
I'm not saying it was the case throughout Essentials- some classes were very restricted in their role as you point out. But I also felt that there was some effort to see the roles as being able to be blended, rather than being oil and water.
first of all Berserker is not essentials... it have anything in common with essentials classes with the exception of using defender aura instead of marking, Berserker design is AEDU in every sense of the word, it follow the exact same progression AEDU does (otherwise it would be barebones because of lack of compatibility to get the original Barbarian), it just adopted defender aura instead of marking...And guess what...you can still make a Barbarian into a pseudo-Defender, a warlord can also be build as pseudo-defender and cleric on paragon it can turn into a complete defender (with mark and punishment and all...).
Mage is also not essentials in design either, they just exchange implement mastery for schools of magic and can also encounter can be swaped like the dailies and utilities do on the original Wizard...A mage is not even a good blaster even less into a better blaster than the 4e wizard could before if it isn't backed by the feats and powers the Wizard already had.
Berserker was released under the Essentials label. That's what I was referring to. Not "Essentials in design". I was talking about how design philosophy changed during the Essentials "era"- 'Essentials' to me means basically"4e from the release of HoFL and HoFK onwards". Not my fault if you read into what I said wrongly by making strange assumptions >_<
I never played "pure Essentials", I always played those classes incorporating past content. I felt SOME of the classes built on and improved the originals and were less strict in their role and power source assignment. Those classes were great and showed innovation in the direction of the game, IMO.
I like the idea power sources for powers, actually, just not for classes. When the Ranger was able to have abilities OTHER than "martial" I felt we became better able to make ranger archetypes that are more in tune with nature in a magical way. Similarly EVERYTHING the swordmage did had to be magical, etc.
Except you can just make a ranger/druid hybrid and get what you just said...and alot more.
And no, Heroes of Feywild is not essentials, they droped it after Heroes of Shadow...
Player Essentials: Heroes of Shadow is the full name of HoS book...Heroes of Feywild lack any essentials label, i believe it's subtitle is Player's Options and not Player Essentials...hell, Heroes of Feywild show alot more compatibility to pre-essentials classes/options than HotFK, HotFL and HoS combined...hell, you could say those classes would feel incomplete and barebones if you don't have the content from before essentials.
And yes, not everything from essentials is completly inferior to their AEDU counterpart, Hexblade is a great class and it create great synergy with former content and the character concept you make from it is very hard to replicate with other build and classes, and Blackguard can do some nice things...but outside of that...they are not more flexible than the original counterparts.
Warpriest doesn't enjoy this at all thought, there is no reason to choose warpriest beside the cheap daily power that ressurect a dead person before 24 of his dead (wish goes against what heinsoo wanted for 4e, where death was rare, but resurrection was harder and rarer too, while on 3rd edition save or die was "ok" at higher levels, because the cleric can easly raise dead like it was nothing with a single spell). Even more when mearls decided to release Battle Cleric Lore for the AEDU cleric and destroyed balance and started a wave of broken builds just around battle cleric lore because of how easy is to get it as non-cleric and hybrid for it just for it, because either Mearls is a lousy designer (wish is very likely...look at shroud assasin, one of his creations) or he doesn't know how to word his option to avoid such impretetations.
Great Weapon Fighter (2H weapon) and Tempest Fighter (dual wield) end up being better striker than Slayer... and still being a defender, wish btw...unlike defender aura from knight, you can select who you mark, while on the aura you don't.
There is a great reason i respect and see AEDU as a "necesary evil"...Hybrids, Hybrid system from 4e is the first MC system i can say it actually works and make sense, and AEDU system make this possible, it turn alot wonkier when you don't have those as shown on the essentials options. I also believe that, even when the procedure resolution of the same mechanic being the same (resolving an attack) and having a similar character progression doesn't make a class samey at all, because even when they would build in a similar procedure...they play very very very diferent from each other and even between two characters of the same class
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 10, 2012 - 7:53AM
#50
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I've added the next article in the series: Peter Schaeffer and Matthew Sernett.
|
|
|
