However, as noted, the new content - all the new classes and builds - are very limited in design. I'm fine with that for now, and that isn't to say I don't like those classes - but I'd hate to see that format become the only design approach used by WotC.This is the crux of my issue.
Essentials style classes are fun as a psionics-esque style experiment. I do not want them to become the norm.
Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed. Mearls has already stated
that Essentials is the "design moving forward", which has really bummed me out. I'm a big fan of "original" 4E, and while I completely understand and support the goal of creating easy "beginner" classes to bring in new players, I don't like the idea of E-classes being the design for all future 4E player supplements.I personally enjoyed the wide-open character building of the original 4E and dislike the closed E-design. I play both 4E and Pathfinder with 2 different groups, and the "Essentializing" of 4E has led me to really begin enjoying Pathfinder much more.
The other thing that Essentials completely destroyed was the class balance that 4E created. We're back to the whole "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" paradigm now, unfortunately.
It like essentials. While I personally prefer the old format, essentials has a clear advantage for newcomers to the game. So the newbies and Roleplay-not-Rollplayers play essentials characters and the guys interested in crunch play traditional 4e chars. Works perfectly.
One should also mention that e.g. 4E and 4EE mesh together much better than 3.5 and PF...
The other thing that Essentials completely destroyed was the class balance that 4E created. We're back to the whole "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" paradigm now, unfortunately.
And here the most common complaint I hear is that the Essentials Fighter is overpowered because all he has to do is focus on improving his at-wills. :P
Have you actually played in a game with an essentials character?
Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed. Mearls has already stated that Essentials is the "design moving forward", which has really bummed me out.Yeah, but that doesn't mean all classes will follow the simplified design of the martial builds. I think it mainly means we'll see the Essentials format and layout used for everything - which includes lots of flavor text, and features laid out in a 1-30 fashion, etc. But we'll still have classes designed the same as the pre-Essentials content - we've got that in the form of the Mage and Warpriest, for example.
The other thing that Essentials completely destroyed was the class balance that 4E created. We're back to the whole "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" paradigm now, unfortunately.Now that's not remotely true. Essentials classes are balanced the same as previous classes. The PHB Fighter still exists, and can be played alongside the Essentials Knight and Slayer without a problem.
Yes, these Fighter variant builds are simplified in use, but that doesn't mean they are reduced in power - and some folks prefer the simplicity. Others don't, and have plenty of existing options to choose from.
Matt, you make some good points. You are correct in that the Mage uses traditional 4E design and is superior to the
PHB Wizard. However, I would argue that the Warpriest, despite the AEDU power structure, does not represent traditional4E class design because of the lack of power choices once you select a domain. Undoubtedly, the Warpriest is in all ways
superior to the Strength Cleric, but it is still an example of closed character design.
I completely understand that Essentials and 4E work well together, in fact I play in a mixed Essentials/original 4E group.
I also agree that the Knight and Slayer aren't "weak" compared to the PHB Fighter. I just think they lack versatility and interesting
options. In fact, in the low to mid Heroic tier I would argue that both the Knight and Slayer are more powerful than the PHB Fighter. I just don't
like having all my character advancement choices made for me.
The real issue gnawing at me is the Essentials re-writes of the PHB classes. The Fighter and Warlord came out fine, but the Cleric
got carved up with a +5 Sword of Nerfing. I'm not sure why since Cleric never seemed a particularly powerful class, and it makes me
concerned for what Mearls & Co. have in store for the Rogue and Ranger, for examples.
I'm not ready to abandon 4E yet, I'm just distinctly unimpressed by the "design moving forward".
The other thing that Essentials completely destroyed was the class balance that 4E created. We're back to the whole "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" paradigm now, unfortunately.And here the most common complaint I hear is that the Essentials Fighter is overpowered because all he has to do is focus on improving his at-wills. :P
Have you actually played in a game with an essentials character?
I'm playing a Lvl. 3 Knight right now actually. I figured I should give this
Essentials stuff a try with an open mind instead of just ranting about it.In the Heroic tier, I agree that the Knight is more powerful than the PHB Fighter.
However, in Paragon tier I believe the Fighter leaves the Knight in the dust. The Knight
has a definite handicap in that it can't attack multiple targets like a Fighter can. Bad for
a class that is intended to fight several monsters at once.
Also, again it's the lack of choices that is the issue. I'm at lvl 3 and feel like there
really isn't anything for me to look forward to when advancing my character because I don't have
any way to customize him. I've already talked to my DM about "re-skinning" my character to become
a PHB Fighter at Lvl. 4.
Again, I understand that some other ppl like the simplicity of E-classes, this is just my experience.
Matt,
I didn't realize that Clerics could take Warpriest powers and vice-versa. I was under the impression that a WP was locked into his/her domain, once selected.
That actually makes Warpriests much more playable to me.