|
I'm curious - how compatible is Essentials with the earlier version of the game in the PHB? I ask because, based on my limited experience, some of the feats seem to be of a higher power level than might otherwise be expected. I know WotC say it is mechanically the same and fully-compatible, but are Essentials character more or less powerful than those created from the pre-Essentials sources? Also, and most pertinently for me, what happens if you mix Essentials material (like the feats) with pre-Essentials character classes? Do you end up with power-creep?
I'm curious - how compatible is Essentials with the earlier version of the game in the PHB? I ask because, based on my limited experience, some of the feats seem to be of a higher power level than might otherwise be expected. I know WotC say it is mechanically the same and fully-compatible, but are Essentials character more or less powerful than those created from the pre-Essentials sources? Also, and most pertinently for me, what happens if you mix Essentials material (like the feats) with pre-Essentials character classes? Do you end up with power-creep?
It's fully compatible. You should allow all characters to use the essentials feats, because the feats that are strictly better are the expertise or defense feats, and they are a useful fix, as otherwise, the math gets wonky on higher levels.
And no, essentials characters are not generally more powerful than old-style 4e chars. In general, 4e melee chars are better out of the box, a bit higher average damage but cannot go nova. But the differences between classes in general are larger than between 4e and essentials classes. And non-melee classes are quite the same anyway.
But e.g. the Thief (essentials striker) is really good, and the warden (PHB2 defender) is really good, but the star-pact warlock (PHB1 striker) and the vampire (essentials striker) are not very powerful. But as its 4e, even the weakest and the strongest options are balanced quite well against each other, so even players of the 'weak' classes (according to CharOp) probably won't even notice in play.
Using my (patent pending) interwebz skills I managed to wander off topic into this question on the thoughts On Heroes Of Shadow thread. A number of posters, but see especially Matthew Koelbl, responded and this might clear up at least some of your questions, particularly concerns regarding power creep, in 4E.
So.....getting back to Essentials compatability with other 4E products... yes they're fully compatable. As I DM one and play in another of my Group's 4E campaigns, I haven't seen anything that makes me feel one style is more flavorful or better than another. Slayers do an OK job of DPR compared to Strikers on the whole, though might be less optimized with comparisons to the Rogue and Two-Weapon Ranger but all other Strikers fail by comparison too so take it with a grain of salt.
I cleaned up some posts. Was all of that really necessary?
Completely compatible but I have found that the feats have led to some dis-satisfaction on the part of those players who are less into the rules side of things than others, who feel that their characters are now second-stringers to those who enjoy delving into the character builder more.
Completely compatible but I have found that the feats have led to some dis-satisfaction on the part of those players who are less into the rules side of things than others, who feel that their characters are now second-stringers to those who enjoy delving into the character builder more.
I'll agree that the gap is growing between non-optimized and optimized characters in a group, but I also think it's much less noticable than in 3E and prior. For an example, my 12th level Knight puts up between 25 to 40 DPR on any given round due to a two-handed weapon (full blade), Power Attack, Power Strike, and Battle Wrath stance. The dwarf hybrid Fighter|Barbarian is doing much less, around 22 to 33/35 DPR and I can see the frustration sometimes as his big Barbarian powers are doing significantly less than my MBAs but it's only something like 9 to 15 points of damage. Not that horribly noticable that it'll effect an encounter greatly.
Personally, I had a hard time telling them apart or understanding that there was a difference.
I have one of the essentials books and felt it was just a nice summary, but I guess the big changes are int he players oriented one which I don't have.
Seems mostly just some tweaking more than anything else. In play I just let players use whatever they like.
Completely compatible but I have found that the feats have led to some dis-satisfaction on the part of those players who are less into the rules side of things than others, who feel that their characters are now second-stringers to those who enjoy delving into the character builder more.I'll agree that the gap is growing between non-optimized and optimized characters in a group, but I also think it's much less noticable than in 3E and prior. For an example, my 12th level Knight puts up between 25 to 40 DPR on any given round due to a two-handed weapon (full blade), Power Attack, Power Strike, and Battle Wrath stance. The dwarf hybrid Fighter|Barbarian is doing much less, around 22 to 33/35 DPR and I can see the frustration sometimes as his big Barbarian powers are doing significantly less than my MBAs but it's only something like 9 to 15 points of damage. Not that horribly noticeable that it'll effect an encounter greatly.
Its worth pointing out that 12th is a bit of a shallow period for the AEDU classes. You just got a bunch more from your Paragon choices and that element is potent in the ability to do your schtick for longer but the powers at around this level are still reasonably close to what you where getting in late Heroic.
Its shortly after this point that Encounter based classes start to ramp up again as you finally start to actually trade in your Heroic powers for the more potent ones that you get at Paragon Tier. Up until around 12th level the growth in power among the encounters based classes was largely about acquiring more powers and therefore being able to use something more potent then your at wills for another round (or shove another power into the same round via an interrupt or minor action). After this stage growth in power is much less about getting more powers and now shifts emphasis to getting powers that replace old powers with more spectacular effects.
That Barbarian has a pretty good chance of pulling ahead over the next little while as he trades in the powers from the early part of the Heroic Period and instead finds himself using the much more impressive 4W type powers one starts getting in Paragon.
Completely compatible but I have found that the feats have led to some dis-satisfaction on the part of those players who are less into the rules side of things than others, who feel that their characters are now second-stringers to those who enjoy delving into the character builder more.I'll agree that the gap is growing between non-optimized and optimized characters in a group, but I also think it's much less noticable than in 3E and prior. For an example, my 12th level Knight puts up between 25 to 40 DPR on any given round due to a two-handed weapon (full blade), Power Attack, Power Strike, and Battle Wrath stance. The dwarf hybrid Fighter|Barbarian is doing much less, around 22 to 33/35 DPR and I can see the frustration sometimes as his big Barbarian powers are doing significantly less than my MBAs but it's only something like 9 to 15 points of damage. Not that horribly noticable that it'll effect an encounter greatly.
Is there a reason the hybrid PHB1 fighter can not choose the same feats, at-wills, etc. as the knight.
|
So I'm trying to understand the new step in 4e. Basically it seems like everything coming out is Essentials like. I've no hate for Essentials but prefer the older core classes which gave new powers all the leveling process without relying on your melee basic attack. Some of my group likes the idea of Essential style classes (Blackguard being at the top of the list for someone) while others prefer the other types.
Both styles work great next to each other so far so no real issues with that. However, it seems like there hasn't been a lot of non-Essential style classes come around recently. Is the Bladesinger in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting an Essential style class or is it a new core one just branched off the Wizard?
Is WotC ever going to do more stuff for the non-essential line?
I know its a little off topic but instead of making a whole new thread, I thought this one would do.
|
|
So I'm trying to understand the new step in 4e. Basically it seems like everything coming out is Essentials like. I've no hate for Essentials but prefer the older core classes which gave new powers all the leveling process without relying on your melee basic attack. Some of my group likes the idea of Essential style classes (Blackguard being at the top of the list for someone) while others prefer the other types.
Both styles work great next to each other so far so no real issues with that. However, it seems like there hasn't been a lot of non-Essential style classes come around recently. Is the Bladesinger in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting an Essential style class or is it a new core one just branched off the Wizard?
Is WotC ever going to do more stuff for the non-essential line?
I know its a little off topic but instead of making a whole new thread, I thought this one would do.
The bladesinger is based off the Essential's version of the wizard. My understanding is that "old style" 4e related to the PHB and DMG is no longer being supported. Personally, I'm a bit cheesed off about it because, although the classes work fine side-by-side (so I am told - my players don't seem that interested in Essentials) they work sufficiently differently that an Essentials wizard has different class features to a PHB wizard, leading to compatibility issues converting something like the bladesinger across. I could be wrong in this, but they reference class features I don't recognise a few times in the players' options section of the Neverwinter book.
So I'm trying to understand the new step in 4e. Basically it seems like everything coming out is Essentials like. I've no hate for Essentials but prefer the older core classes which gave new powers all the leveling process without relying on your melee basic attack. Some of my group likes the idea of Essential style classes (Blackguard being at the top of the list for someone) while others prefer the other types.
Both styles work great next to each other so far so no real issues with that. However, it seems like there hasn't been a lot of non-Essential style classes come around recently. Is the Bladesinger in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting an Essential style class or is it a new core one just branched off the Wizard?
I'm pretty sure the Bladesinger is a "Essential-lized" character in terms that they do not gain Encounter-based powers at the usual levels (3rd, 7th, 13th, etc.) but they do have at-wills (Bladesong spells) that trigger from your Melee-Basic Attacks. And they also use Wizard encounter spells as Daily spells. So while some Essential-esque ideals are there, like spamming MBAs, other core elements remain like Wizard encounter spells.
As for other, more recent classes, I think we're going to see more variations and sub-classes of existing classes rather than fully detailed classes we've seen in the PHBs 1-2-3. This, I feel anyways, is because you've got a GREAT amount of potential while remaining diverse. Do we need yet another class that does similar powers and features like the warlord just to say "But it's a Samurai!"? No, frankly that creates worse Bloat IMO and isn't needed. Themes, Sub-classes, and additional (yet reflavored) powers for existing classes is what's needed to make thing different.
Is WotC ever going to do more stuff for the non-essential line?I know its a little off topic but instead of making a whole new thread, I thought this one would do.
From what I've heard, I doubt they plan on making a PH4 and will probably go off of sub-classes and more "build" ideas. For the Hereos of the Feywild, I hear they're doing more stuff for the Barbarian and Bard that is based off the A/E/D/U model, so there is a chance we'll get other builds that use the non-essential ideals.
The bladesinger is based off the Essential's version of the wizard. My understanding is that "old style" 4e related to the PHB and DMG is no longer being supported. Personally, I'm a bit cheesed off about it because, although the classes work fine side-by-side (so I am told - my players don't seem that interested in Essentials) they work sufficiently differently that an Essentials wizard has different class features to a PHB wizard, leading to compatibility issues converting something like the bladesinger across. I could be wrong in this, but they reference class features I don't recognise a few times in the players' options section of the Neverwinter book.
When they say the old style they apparently mean the strict element of getting an encounter power at 3rd and 7th always. The new view does not mean there will never be encounter powers - it just means you might get one at 6th or 14th. Some of the new classes they are talking about apparently do use the ADUE system but usually with some sort of a twist. They are talking about a Barbarian build that is a defender except when it rages and then it transforms into a striker and that might be based off of encounter raging powers being striker like while the the wills and daily's being defender like.
However WotC has also indicated that there will be a serious slow down in the number of new classes (and races) released in general in favour of more support for what is already on the table.
|
|
The bladesinger is based off the Essential's version of the wizard. My understanding is that "old style" 4e related to the PHB and DMG is no longer being supported. Personally, I'm a bit cheesed off about it because, although the classes work fine side-by-side (so I am told - my players don't seem that interested in Essentials) they work sufficiently differently that an Essentials wizard has different class features to a PHB wizard, leading to compatibility issues converting something like the bladesinger across. I could be wrong in this, but they reference class features I don't recognise a few times in the players' options section of the Neverwinter book.When they say the old style they apparently mean the strict element of getting an encounter power at 3rd and 7th always. The new view does not mean there will never be encounter powers - it just means you might get one at 6th or 14th. Some of the new classes they are talking about apparently do use the ADUE system but usually with some sort of a twist. They are talking about a Barbarian build that is a defender except when it rages and then it transforms into a striker and that might be based off of encounter raging powers being striker like while the the wills and daily's being defender like.
However WotC has also indicated that there will be a serious slow down in the number of new classes (and races) released in general in favour of more support for what is already on the table.
My irritation is more based off the fact that new stuff like Neverwinter assumes you are playing Essentials (despite lip service to non-Essentials). So a Red Wizard in Neverwinter is a "template" which is added to the wizard basic class, replacing some class features with others. But the class features are those of the Essentials version of the wizard (Arcane Mastery or something like that at 4th level, for example) which I don't even know what it is. Now, I have access to the new CharGen so I can find out, but I really don't feel like converting. But they really have made no effort to support non-Essentials material, which effectively turns Essentials into 4.5 without having the decency to tell us (though I suppose they reckoned they had enough aggro as it was).
Obviously, Essentials isn't quite 4.5, because the monsters and individual powers and so on will still work fine with non-Essentials characters, but from a character creation perspective it is frustrating that the material is effectively incompatible.
|
|
We have sort of dropped 'original' 4e and are just playing Essentials. It was not due to any other issues than 'rule bloat' making it difficult for new players (actually and old) when trying to decide on a new character and the slight differences in mechanics can cause some confusion. Mechanically both 'systems' dovetail well. Still we are finding a life-time of gaming in the Essentials line, and they are easier to carry about.
S.
|
|
My 4E group uses everything without much issue.
There's been some support for other classes in recent works, so I don't think it's entirely out of the question- for example, Heroes of Shadow had options for both types of Warlock.
Neverwinter, though, seems to have more material for Essentials classes- new Warpriest domains, and themes options specifically for the Mage, as pointed out. Most themes can be added to any class, though.
|
|
Some big problems with essentials are they don't have some of the cool new classes added in (primarily the Avenger for me). Also, if you wanted to get into D&D Encounters, it seems you HAVE to play Essentials.
I was one of those who loved Tome of Battle as it gave fighters a wave of options just like spell casters.
Curious, though, why some the Heroes of Shadow style characters don't seem available under Essentials line as they seem that way.
THIS is whats so confusing about the whole thing. I feel so lost T_T. If I would have started playing the game from the beginning (and stuck with it) then this probably wouldn't be so confusing for me.
Some big problems with essentials are they don't have some of the cool new classes added in (primarily the Avenger for me). Also, if you wanted to get into D&D Encounters, it seems you HAVE to play Essentials.
I was one of those who loved Tome of Battle as it gave fighters a wave of options just like spell casters.
Curious, though, why some the Heroes of Shadow style characters don't seem available under Essentials line as they seem that way.
THIS is whats so confusing about the whole thing. I feel so lost T_T. If I would have started playing the game from the beginning (and stuck with it) then this probably wouldn't be so confusing for me.
What we have is a terminology problem.
Essentials, so far as Encounters is concerned, is core only. Hence no Hero's of Shadows elements nor will the material from the upcoming Fey book be included. They are not in the Core Essentials books so they are not in Encounters. A big part of this is presumably because Encounters is supposed to be an easy on ramp for new players and options add complexity. Practically everything will be in for Lair Assault as that is meant to be a combat heavy optimizers wet dream.
Things get more confusing because much of the time those of us hanging out on message boards talk about essentials but, so far as I am aware, we pretty much never talk about it using the terminology from Encounters. Instead we mean Essentials 'like; characters or we mean mean material printed post Essentials.
My irritation is more based off the fact that new stuff like Neverwinter assumes you are playing Essentials (despite lip service to non-Essentials). So a Red Wizard in Neverwinter is a "template" which is added to the wizard basic class, replacing some class features with others. But the class features are those of the Essentials version of the wizard (Arcane Mastery or something like that at 4th level, for example) which I don't even know what it is. Now, I have access to the new CharGen so I can find out, but I really don't feel like converting. But they really have made no effort to support non-Essentials material, which effectively turns Essentials into 4.5 without having the decency to tell us (though I suppose they reckoned they had enough aggro as it was).Obviously, Essentials isn't quite 4.5, because the monsters and individual powers and so on will still work fine with non-Essentials characters, but from a character creation perspective it is frustrating that the material is effectively incompatible.
Well I just checked the character builder and made an Arcanist. Here I was able to choose from some Neverwinter Themes like Neverwinter Noble but I did not see Renegade Red Wizard as an option. Pop back out and chance class to a Mage and Renegade Red Wizard does appear as an option.
It would seem that making the Themes fit the Essentials classes was likley the priority and they fit other classes when that worked but that was not the priority. Might change in the future however - I doubt this is set in stone as a rule.
Still there where a lot of options even for an Arcanist. As of yet I don't really see this as a significant issue because its not really that much of a concern if class X gets 23 choices compared to class Y's 20 choices.
|
|
However...
The themes are fitted around character concepts (including background) which are supposed to then tie back in to the campaign. So if you want to play a wizard (arcanist now, is it?) and wanted to play a Red Wizard (makes sense) suddenly you can't. Goodbye character concept, goodbye PHB, hello Essentials.
I mean, it's not that big a deal. It colours my view a bit of the stuff coming out of WotC right now, but Neverwinter is certainly usable to a non-Essentials player. It's just that a large section of that book is built around character concepts and there seem to be a few compatibility issues. It's a niggle more than a complaint, but it niggles nevertheless.
However...
The themes are fitted around character concepts (including background) which are supposed to then tie back in to the campaign. So if you want to play a wizard (arcanist now, is it?) and wanted to play a Red Wizard (makes sense) suddenly you can't. Goodbye character concept, goodbye PHB, hello Essentials.
I mean, it's not that big a deal. It colours my view a bit of the stuff coming out of WotC right now, but Neverwinter is certainly usable to a non-Essentials player. It's just that a large section of that book is built around character concepts and there seem to be a few compatibility issues. It's a niggle more than a complaint, but it niggles nevertheless.
I think you misunderstand what this specific theme represents. It is not a general wizard-type background. Red Wizards (of Thay) have always been structured around school specialization, focusing largely on a single school of magic (see: Red Wizard Prestige Class). In 4e, Mages are the wizard variant that specializes in schools of magic, while the Arcanist from the PHB1 is more of a generalist. In fact, this theme actually replaces some of the Mage's ability to specialize in a second school of magic with other features based around a single school. The restrictions on this theme seem entirely lore based.
|
|
Well, I'm not sure that's really true - non-Essentials mages specialise - plus, I don't really buy that that is they way the system is intended to operate, given the "generalist" is effectively in a different book an Essentials player wouldn't buy, i.e. if that were the case, they'd both be in Essentials. Rather, it just strikes me as non-support for non-Essentials, rather than something driven by specific mechanics as such.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you posted.
Well, I'm not sure that's really true - non-Essentials mages specialise
I don't know what you mean by this. Arcanists, the wizard builds that existed before the Mage was released, do not have any way to specialize in schools of magic. Actually, schools of magic didn't even exist in 4e until the release of the Mage in Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Arcanists focus on the implement they use to cast spells (such as wand, orb, staff, and tome) instead of what school the spells are from.
plus, I don't really buy that that is they way the system is intended to operate, given the "generalist" is effectively in a different book an Essentials player wouldn't buy, i.e. if that were the case, they'd both be in Essentials.
This part of your post is really confusing. I'm not at all sure what you mean by the "way the system is intended to operate". Are you suggesting that WotC should have reprinted every pre-essentials class build in the Essentials books? How about if they just gave away the Arcanist build of the wizard for free on the WotC website?
Rather, it just strikes me as non-support for non-Essentials, rather than something driven by specific mechanics as such.
While I can understand this concern, it seems a little misplaced. There are 13 themes in the Neverwinter book and around 20 more published in the last few issues of Dragon. Out of all of them, Renegade Red Wizard is the only theme with a class prerequisite.
(It should also be noted that one of the Neverwinter themes lists among its prerequisites the race of Shifter, a race not included in the Essentials products. This is also true for Shadar-kai.)On an unrelated note, if it makes you feel any better, one of the pieces of information shared at Gencon was that printed products would not contain solely essentials style class builds. As an example, they noted that there would be Monk support in Powers of the Plane Below that was specifically targeted at the PHB3 Monk.
|
|
I'm having a hard time understanding what you posted.
Well, I'm not sure that's really true - non-Essentials mages specialiseI don't know what you mean by this. Arcanists, the wizard builds that existed before the Mage was released, do not have any way to specialize in schools of magic. Actually, schools of magic didn't even exist in 4e until the release of the Mage in Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Arcanists focus on the implement they use to cast spells (such as wand, orb, staff, and tome) instead of what school the spells are from.
plus, I don't really buy that that is they way the system is intended to operate, given the "generalist" is effectively in a different book an Essentials player wouldn't buy, i.e. if that were the case, they'd both be in Essentials.This part of your post is really confusing. I'm not at all sure what you mean by the "way the system is intended to operate". Are you suggesting that WotC should have reprinted every pre-essentials class build in the Essentials books? How about if they just gave away the Arcanist build of the wizard for free on the WotC website?
Rather, it just strikes me as non-support for non-Essentials, rather than something driven by specific mechanics as such.While I can understand this concern, it seems a little misplaced. There are 13 themes in the Neverwinter book and around 20 more published in the last few issues of Dragon. Out of all of them, Renegade Red Wizard is the only theme with a class prerequisite.
(It should also be noted that one of the Neverwinter themes lists among its prerequisites the race of Shifter, a race not included in the Essentials products. This is also true for Shadar-kai.)On an unrelated note, if it makes you feel any better, one of the pieces of information shared at Gencon was that printed products would not contain solely essentials style class builds. As an example, they...
You are right that arcanists specialise by implment, but some of these implements lean towards specific magic to some extent. I'm not massively familir with the Essentials mage so I am happy to concede that they specialise more, which was part of your point.
I didn't express myself clearly before. So I'm suggesting that the designers didn't look at the arcanist and the mage together and go, "Aha! The mage is more specialised so he is an ideal vehicle for the Red Wizard." I'm suggesting a policy edict came down that pre-Essentials was not to be explicity supported, so the Red Wizard "template" was based off the mage class rather than the arcanist by default. That said, I could be wrong - I'm not massively familiar with Essentials. I'm also heartened by your comments that non-Essentials will also be supported (to some extent).
It's possible - I haven't looked at all the Neverwinter themes myself. But in this case, it does seem likely that the concept had something to do with it. The Arcanist very explicitly was about bringing back spell schools and school specialization into 4E, something that is at the heart of the Red Wizard concept.
Think you have the titles backword. Mages where about bringing spell schools back into the system. Arcanists are the guys that have some kind of very Freudian attachment to Orbs, Rods and Wands.