D&D 4E 4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity

[pawsplay]

I see the Essentials line as comparable to the AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which changed some things (paladins are cavaliers now!) and added some options, but didn't really interrupt the overall direction of the line or create incompatibility. And a few people just ignored it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Out of combat the thief has actively more build flexibility than the rogue by covering argument (it has access to all the rogue utility powers plus a few things the rogue doesn't, like an extra trained skill and acrobat's trick and sneak's trick (and arguably escape artist's trick) both being utility powers with non-combat uses that don't require attacking).

I would call this a prime example of what is WRONG with a design like Essentials. These tricks are all just utility powers, but because they are assigned into weird off levels they're not usable by any character except a thief, for no reason better than "we decided to make a different rule" which isn't a better rule in any way that I can determine. Alternatives would have included a Rogue build, some sort of feat(s), skill powers, etc.

Build flexible for combat I'll grant. But I don't care about build-flexible at the table; I care about the character I am playing at the table. The thief only has a limited number of builds, granted. But they are more divergent from other 4e classes than anything the rogue has to offer, and they work well or they obviously don't work.

Honestly, not sure what it is that is thematically out of reach of a Rogue, should the designers have chosen to include it in the existing class instead of creating a whole new subclass. I'm not impressed that much with the whole trading of encounter powers for 'hit harder', it just doesn't really pass muster. Encounter and Daily powers are really the beating heart of 4e combat, sad that Mearls doesn't get it.

Also there are off-stat builds for the thief that are slightly sub-optimal but definitely playable which wouldn't work at all for the PHB rogue; none of the thief's powers are hard coded to dexterity so you don't have to make it your primary stat as long as you basic attack with something else (normally Str but Int is viable and Cha is possible with a loss of damage). So outside combat a thief is significantly more rather than less build-flexible than a PHB rogue.

You would have to pick up the feat which grants this, which was updated to only give half the normal damage bonus. So, yes, MBA shenanigans are definitely easier with some e-classes. However, you can definitely build INT or CHA Rogues. Rogue is a 'weak secondary' class, so where you drop your points beyond DEX is kind of up to you. If we're discussing slightly sub-optimal builds, you can even go with a DEX 16 starting build and have 2 equal stats. Sure, technically a roughly equally sub-optimal thief can tank DEX, but that seems like a pretty odd choice if you are playing this sort of character. Plus there's a lot of tricks and whatnot that assume your DEX is high. I mean, depicting the Rogue, which is a pretty flexible class even for 4e, as not supporting some things, kinda seems odd to me.

As for interesting, I find in play seeing whether I can pull off a death from above via acrobat's trick and still get sneak attack or elbow a minion in the head and slice up my main target with tumbling trick more interesting than just setting up a blinding barrage or using a dazing strike again (to pick two of the more ubiquitous stand-and-hit powers)

But you don't have to use 'stand and hit powers'. lol. Handspring Assault, Bat Aside, Spinning Blade Leap... I'm barely scratching the surface and that's just dailies, the encounter list is equally rich. Again though, if there are even better ideas out there, why are we walling them off with a mutant set of build rules into a separate subclass? The proper thing to do is include them into the mainline rules as new options, then the same build material can be used in any of the existing rogue builds, MCed into, used by Hybrids, etc. The whole philosophy of these E-classes is, to put it mildly, unfortunate. 4e's greatest strength is this common design language.

I'm not discounting the rogue's strengths over the thief here but the advantages are far from all one sided.

But again, why hive that stuff off? Sure, trick access is a thief advantage, but that access should exist for all builds, and the mechanisms to do so were already present in 4e.

Nope. In monster role parlance you have soldier (fighter), skirmisher (rogue), and artillery (archer-ranger). Some skirmishers even get Sneak Attack.

I didn't point at artillery, which is another monster role which is too narrow for PCs, and also is unclear in terms of its real function. Monster roles are in terms of how they operate in combat, but PC roles are in terms of their GOALS in combat. Archer ranger is NOT 'artillery', because it is not simply a one-dimensional stand-and-deliver tactic role. It is "ablate hit points at the maximum rate, directly" and does so via what are, technically, ranged attacks. Truthfully if you are building a BA build the distinction between melee and ranged pretty much goes away anyhow, though at low levels you probably want to switch to a melee weapon when you get in close.

The closest to a lurker you get on the player side is the assassin; lurkers are built round disappearing or otherwise going semi-invulnerable for one round in two.

The old school TSR Thief is most certainly a 'lurker', only being effective when backstabbing, and that can only happen from hiding.

And I break down skirmishers into two types; one of them is very vanilla and always does medium damage, melee or ranged. The other has low but situational high damage with a mechanic like Sneak Attack or the kobold quickblade's extra damage for each square shifted.

Sure, but again we should not draw too much from a comparison with PCs, which need much more flexible goal-oriented roles.

But however you cut it the rogue is a textbook skirmisher and the dex-ranger is textbook artillery. The str-ranger is probably also a skirmisher. But having only the less popular and less well implemented half of the class mapping to a role makes it less of an example of one than being the textbook example.

I'm not sure what you mean, the 4e PHB1 duel-wielding melee ranger is a monstrosity in combat! Yes, it can be equated roughly with a skirmisher in most cases, but there are also builds that are closer to a controller/defender (spiked chain builds for example, or MP1 beast master builds, usually also with the spiked chain). It is actually a very versatile chassis. You can MC in some fighter, some warlord or paladin, etc.

Anyway, my main point is that by breaking class/build cross-compatibility Essentials GREATLY reduced the utility of its material. This is super apparent when you get to post-E where large chunks of material in some of the books only works with either classic or E, which is clearly a bad situation. While we can certainly point out specific individual builds in E that we like, the overall effect was negative, IMHO. I also find that most E builds don't hold up at high levels, and a LOT of them don't even work well at LOW levels. I mean, everyone can point out the ones that DO, but who's crowing about Sentinels? The CONCEPT is not bad, a pet druid, but the implementation? Meh.

And I'll go a step further and say that the two weapon ranger in the PHB was a mistake. Not only is it short of powers (v-shaped) but it goes down way too easily because the actual defensive tech is poor, the AC only scales off Dex, and they are aggro magnets because they are glass cannons with no real ranged fallback.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would call this a prime example of what is WRONG with a design like Essentials. These tricks are all just utility powers, but because they are assigned into weird off levels they're not usable by any character except a thief, for no reason better than "we decided to make a different rule" which isn't a better rule in any way that I can determine.

This, to me, is exactly the same mistake made in 3.X/5e multiclassing - assuming that it is even a desirable thing to have every option work with every other option in the game. This mistake massively lowers the design space because you need to take account not just of all abilities but all combos rather than embracing the strength of a class-based system.

Alternatives would have included a Rogue build, some sort of feat(s), skill powers, etc.

None of which would have hit the same highs as the thief.

Honestly, not sure what it is that is thematically out of reach of a Rogue, should the designers have chosen to include it in the existing class instead of creating a whole new subclass.

For one a class without ready made showstoppers in the form of daily attack powers. A thief always needs to be on the ball and needs to constantly keep one step ahead without the safety. And when you get the showstopper you have earned it. Just the way someone overmatched should.

Diverging from AEDU into AEU therefore makes the thief feel more like a reflection of something very specific.

I'm not impressed that much with the whole trading of encounter powers for 'hit harder', it just doesn't really pass muster. Encounter and Daily powers are really the beating heart of 4e combat, sad that Mearls doesn't get it.

Oh, indeed. Thieves actually do have encounter powers in the form of Backstab, of course, and there are ways to trade that for a more normal encounter power.

You would have to pick up the feat which grants this, which was updated to only give half the normal damage bonus.

There was a reason I singled out Str and Int builds other than that both are inherently rogue-y. Strength doesn't need a feat at all and Intelligence has a separate class-based feat (IIRC that requires the swordmage multiclass feat) that was never nerfed.

So, yes, MBA shenanigans are definitely easier with some e-classes. However, you can definitely build INT or CHA Rogues.

You can build Int, Str, or Cha as your secondary stat easily. What you can't do is have a non-thief rogue who doesn't have Dex as their primary stat; Str/Int and Int/Cha both work effectively for an off-beat mugger and grifter respectively (Str/Cha runs into AC trouble unless you also get heavy armour - but that's possible).

But again, why hive that stuff off? Sure, trick access is a thief advantage, but that access should exist for all builds,

Why? Why must we burn something good and effective and enjoyable to the ground just because not everyone gets it? Why must all abilities be put on a Bed of Procrustes? For that matter why not allow 3.X style multiclasses. After all it's unfair that wizards can't wear plate armour and mark. Surely that access should exist for all builds

I didn't point at artillery, which is another monster role which is too narrow for PCs, and also is unclear in terms of its real function.

Artillery isn't unclear in its real function - and is no narrower than soldier. They blur into controllers.

The old school TSR Thief is most certainly a 'lurker', only being effective when backstabbing, and that can only happen from hiding.

Agreed. But rogues haven't been lurkers since they got Sneak Attack in 3.0

Sure, but again we should not draw too much from a comparison with PCs, which need much more flexible goal-oriented roles.

It was your comparison.

I'm not sure what you mean, the 4e PHB1 duel-wielding melee ranger is a monstrosity in combat!

It's pure glass cannon. They do monstrous damage ... before they go down.

Anyway, my main point is that by breaking class/build cross-compatibility Essentials GREATLY reduced the utility of its material.

Cross-compatibility is always, always a secondary function. The primary function is to work well by itself and to give a positive play experience by itself.

The thief does that, then offers cross-compatibility with the utility powers because there is no reason they shouldn't be. It deliberately broke AED in a way that strengthened the theme by contrast and didn't offer cross-compatibility there.

This is super apparent when you get to post-E where large chunks of material in some of the books only works with either classic or E, which is clearly a bad situation. While we can certainly point out specific individual builds in E that we like, the overall effect was negative, IMHO.

I disagree. The core problem was that the design space from AEDU and power source/role was almost mined out after three PHBs, five splatbooks, a few settings, and Dragon. At this point you can either (a) end the edition, (b) break the edition into a .5 to try to force everyone to rebuy the same products, (c) mostly produce Extruded Fantasy Product like wizard subclass #16 and spell#753, or (d) take risks by seeing what happens when you deliberately break AEDU or hybrid across roles (berserker) or sources (ranger, berserker, skald).

And they chose a bit of all-of-the-above

I also find that most E builds don't hold up at high levels, and a LOT of them don't even work well at LOW levels. I mean, everyone can point out the ones that DO, but who's crowing about Sentinels? The CONCEPT is not bad, a pet druid, but the implementation? Meh.

Speaking of mediocre AEDU classes...

Meanwhile who's crowing about the Witch or the Sha'ir? Or even the pre-Essentials runepriest and seeker? Those are after all fully AEDU and fully compatible with prior classes. They are what we'd have had more of if WotC hadn't gone for cracking AEDU and power/role.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This, to me, is exactly the same mistake made in 3.X/5e multiclassing - assuming that it is even a desirable thing to have every option work with every other option in the game. This mistake massively lowers the design space because you need to take account not just of all abilities but all combos rather than embracing the strength of a class-based system.

We are going to have to utterly disagree on this one. As a classic 4e class designer I can STILL do any wild thing I want as a class feature, or power (all powers being bound to a class, remember) or as a feat with a prerequisite, etc. I have INFINITE options to reserve something to a specific design space. Your approach limits EVERYTHING that way, so it is much less powerful.

None of which would have hit the same highs as the thief.

I have no idea what you mean, they would have provided exactly the same capabilities, potentially.

For one a class without ready made showstoppers in the form of daily attack powers. A thief always needs to be on the ball and needs to constantly keep one step ahead without the safety. And when you get the showstopper you have earned it. Just the way someone overmatched should.

Diverging from AEDU into AEU therefore makes the thief feel more like a reflection of something very specific.

I honestly have no idea what this means, lol. 4e's paradigm has worked extremely well here. When the situation is favorable, you weigh your options and go ahead and drop (or not) 'the bomb'. The rest of the time? You do what 4e does best in combat terms, you try to outlast team monster's hard entree, and then beat them back. I mean, victory may or may not be HARD earned in every case, no game can say, but it doesn't generally come free.

Oh, indeed. Thieves actually do have encounter powers in the form of Backstab, of course, and there are ways to trade that for a more normal encounter power.

Yes, I believe some specialized MCing feats and such were dropped in one of the last 4e Dragon issues.

There was a reason I singled out Str and Int builds other than that both are inherently rogue-y. Strength doesn't need a feat at all and Intelligence has a separate class-based feat (IIRC that requires the swordmage multiclass feat) that was never nerfed.

Well, yes, there's a Swordmage MC feat, that's true. As for STR, you would actually need a feat to use STR, as the Thief's class feature reassigns MBA to DEX. I don't recall the wording being optional on that! Rogue STR builds are actually plentiful though. Yes, technically it is a 'secondary', but there are BOTH Ruthless Ruffian, AND the Brutal Scoundrel, both of which have STR as a strong secondary. I agree, technically you cannot actually build a Rogue that has an 8 dex or something like that, which Thief can TECHNICALLY do. However, even doing so with the thief is going to cost you a lot in terms of basically all the other support for your core class assumes a high DEX character. I haven't tried it, my guess is it is feasible but pretty sub-optimal.

You can build Int, Str, or Cha as your secondary stat easily. What you can't do is have a non-thief rogue who doesn't have Dex as their primary stat; Str/Int and Int/Cha both work effectively for an off-beat mugger and grifter respectively (Str/Cha runs into AC trouble unless you also get heavy armour - but that's possible).

But, again, this character can be built many ways in classic 4e too. Like, a warlord build would work fine, you can do that with light or heavy armor, bow or melee, etc. and have all the same capabilities overall.

Why? Why must we burn something good and effective and enjoyable to the ground just because not everyone gets it? Why must all abilities be put on a Bed of Procrustes? For that matter why not allow 3.X style multiclasses. After all it's unfair that wizards can't wear plate armour and mark. Surely that access should exist for all builds

3e style MCing was a disaster even in 3e! lol. You are arguing an excluded middle here, a middle which is EXACTLY the one occupied by classic 4e! lol. Notice how it DOES NOT provide for absolutely arbitrary combinations of things without ANY limits. What it allows for is a lot more than Essentials does, and that is good and positive! It also allows a lot of sharing between builds of the same class (or if you will, subclasses, the terminology here is a bit arbitrary).

Artillery isn't unclear in its real function - and is no narrower than soldier. They blur into controllers.

They are a much narrower concept than 'striker', I'm sure you see that... Monster roles are fine being narrow, their purpose is different from PC roles. A monster obviously only has to show up once or twice, it doesn't need great flexibility. PCs do. Anyway, Soldier and Artillery are monster roles, both are a bit narrow, though I think Soldier and Defender are pretty close (and the Defender role is somewhat narrower than Striker).

Agreed. But rogues haven't been lurkers since they got Sneak Attack in 3.0

I think we both agree that nobody is recommending lurker as a PC role...

It was your comparison.

It's pure glass cannon. They do monstrous damage ... before they go down.

Don't tell that to some of my players! lol. It is a class that requires some finesse, unless you go the "make me harder to kill" build route. Its a choice, you can be a glass cannon or you can grab a defense feat or two, tend carefully to your AC, and build in a lot of front loading of damage output so you don't have to be in the hotseat for too long. Even then, yes, you're going to want to play deliberately, but why is that a problem? 4e is a game that rewards skilled play of your character in combat, and each class has a bit of a unique way that works. Honestly, the most frighteningly effective party I ever saw, in combat, was 4 rangers and a warlord! Nothing lived long enough to hurt them! lol.

Cross-compatibility is always, always a secondary function. The primary function is to work well by itself and to give a positive play experience by itself.

Again, we will have to just differ on that.

The thief does that, then offers cross-compatibility with the utility powers because there is no reason they shouldn't be. It deliberately broke AED in a way that strengthened the theme by contrast and didn't offer cross-compatibility there.

Again, you find the theme strengthened, I didn't.

I disagree. The core problem was that the design space from AEDU and power source/role was almost mined out after three PHBs, five splatbooks, a few settings, and Dragon. At this point you can either (a) end the edition, (b) break the edition into a .5 to try to force everyone to rebuy the same products, (c) mostly produce Extruded Fantasy Product like wizard subclass #16 and spell#753, or (d) take risks by seeing what happens when you deliberately break AEDU or hybrid across roles (berserker) or sources (ranger, berserker, skald).

But notice that all those experiments are built on AEDU classes!

And they chose a bit of all-of-the-above

Speaking of mediocre AEDU classes...

Meanwhile who's crowing about the Witch or the Sha'ir? Or even the pre-Essentials runepriest and seeker? Those are after all fully AEDU and fully compatible with prior classes. They are what we'd have had more of if WotC hadn't gone for cracking AEDU and power/role.

Yes, the witch and the sha'ir are FINE, and generally praised. As for the Seeker and the Runepriest, their issues have little to do with being A/E/D/U classes. The Seeker has a weak theme, 'area attacking bow user' which is just awkward, and its powers are all lackluster to say the least. A PP2 supplement giving it support parity with other classes would have fixed it, and IIRC it actually DID get some nice shiny new powers in a couple Dragon articles, which made quite a difference. Runepriest likewise is a problem with unclear thematics leading to an overly complicated and unwieldy mechanism. Even with this weird unique mechanism it is insufficiently distinct from several other divine classes. Seeker would be fine with a bit more support, and is OK as it is. Runepriest simply shouldn't ever have been published.

But I don't think these are due to some 'limits of AEDU', and even if they ARE, so what? I mean, there were tons of things that were offered as potential options and never cashed in on, like additional Druid builds, more distinctive priest domains, additional builds for classes like the Invoker, as well as some things that ended up being delivered in a different form in Essentials format, like Blackguard, or Necromancer, which certainly would have been added to existing class/builds. I don't think classic 4e was even CLOSE to tapped out.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We are going to have to utterly disagree on this one. As a classic 4e class designer I can STILL do any wild thing I want as a class feature, or power (all powers being bound to a class, remember) or as a feat with a prerequisite, etc. I have INFINITE options to reserve something to a specific design space. Your approach limits EVERYTHING that way, so it is much less powerful.

Why do you say my approach of not making everything work the same way limits things. I can do anything you can and things you can't/

I have no idea what you mean, they would have provided exactly the same capabilities, potentially.

Fine. Then do it. Make your AEDU thief that works in the same way and still appeals in the same way as the thief.

Oh wait. You can't. Because AEDU is a good paradigm but it's not the only paradigm.

I honestly have no idea what this means, lol.

Well, yes. It's obvious. You do not understand the thief, you don't know how it works, and because you don't get the appeal you have decided that it must be bad.

Well, yes, there's a Swordmage MC feat, that's true. As for STR, you would actually need a feat to use STR, as the Thief's class feature reassigns MBA to DEX. I don't recall the wording being optional on that!

The exact wording is "When you make a melee basic attack you can use Dexterity instead of Strength..." Yes, it's optional. And

Rogue STR builds are actually plentiful though. Yes, technically it is a 'secondary', but there are BOTH Ruthless Ruffian, AND the Brutal Scoundrel, both of which have STR as a strong secondary. I agree, technically you cannot actually build a Rogue that has an 8 dex or something like that, which Thief can TECHNICALLY do. However, even doing so with the thief is going to cost you a lot in terms of basically all the other support for your core class assumes a high DEX character. I haven't tried it, my guess is it is feasible but pretty sub-optimal.

It is sub-optimal. But really the only things that need Dex are the initiative roll and the Stealth and Thievery skills. That's sub-optimal but not that sub-optimal.

3e style MCing was a disaster even in 3e! lol. You are arguing an excluded middle here, a middle which is EXACTLY the one occupied by classic 4e!

I'm arguing that one-size-fits-all is bad. That having some classes share more than others opens up the design space. And open up what you can and not what you can't.

They are a much narrower concept than 'striker', I'm sure you see that...

Yes - but that doesn't mean they can't be mobile. The barbarian is a striker. The archery ranger is not a barbarian; of course the range is narrower.

But notice that all those experiments are built on AEDU classes!

The Essentials Rangers aren't AEDU. The Berserker is AEDU - but is a hybrid Defender/Striker, breaking that part of the system. And the Skald? You were complaining that it was absolutely terrible that the base rogue couldn't use the thief's tricks - but the base bard can't use the Skald's At Wills (because they don't have a Skald's aura and are more stances than attacks).

Yes, the witch and the sha'ir are FINE, and generally praised.

I have never heard them praised. They are fine - in the sense that they exist; I've never seen anyone interested in playing one because they are extruded D&D product, just a new version of the wizard that doesn't add anything to the game by the presence.

As for the Seeker and the Runepriest, their issues have little to do with being A/E/D/U classes.

Their issues are due to scraping the bottom of the barrel because they don't really have either either good thematic niches or good mechanics. The longer you go on and the more supplements you have to produce the more you scrape the bottom of the barrel.

But I don't think these are due to some 'limits of AEDU', and even if they ARE, so what? I mean, there were tons of things that were offered as potential options and never cashed in on, like additional Druid builds, more distinctive priest domains, additional builds for classes like the Invoker, as well as some things that ended up being delivered in a different form in Essentials format, like Blackguard, or Necromancer, which certainly would have been added to existing class/builds. I don't think classic 4e was even CLOSE to tapped out.

The Necromancer was an AEDU subclass. It was a subclass of mage (in heroes of shadow) - and mages were AEDU. And you're literally asking for extruded fantasy product here. You never absolutely exhaust the space - but the deeper you go the worse the ratio of gold to half-assed page filler is.

 

[darkbard]

And the Skald? You were complaining that it was absolutely terrible that the base rogue couldn't use the thief's tricks - but the base bard can't use the Skald's At Wills (because they don't have a Skald's aura and are more stances than attacks).

I have never heard them praised. They are fine - in the sense that they exist; I've never seen anyone interested in playing one because they are extruded D&D product, just a new version of the wizard that doesn't add anything to the game by the presence.

Their issues are due to scraping the bottom of the barrel because they don't really have either either good thematic niches or good mechanics. The longer you go on and the more supplements you have to produce the more you scrape the bottom of the barrel.

OBard can easily grab the Skald's aura with a single feat. This "fake Skald" build features prominently in the Handbook hosted now on this site.

The Witch has long been defended by @MwaO , a rather skilled optimizer and veritable repository of 4E lore, mechanics, and such, as a vastly underrated build. So much so, in fact, that one of his recent builds, some 10 years after the game's run, is built on the Witch as opposed to Arcanist or Mage chassis.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The Necromancer was an AEDU subclass. It was a subclass of mage (in heroes of shadow) - and mages were AEDU. And you're literally asking for extruded fantasy product here. You never absolutely exhaust the space - but the deeper you go the worse the ratio of gold to half-assed page filler is.

That's true, it is an AEDU class, but what was the point? It was just "hey, I want to make a different wizard." I will say, the Necromancer could have been built as a standard Wizard build instead, but the mere fact of the existence of Mage meant someone had to choose! I mean, its not that I think the Mage inherently worse than the Wizard, they're pretty much 6 of one half-dozen of the other, but why break things? If you ARE going to create some additional subclasses, why not be more careful to make them fully interoperate with the existing ones? Some things just don't make sense about Essentials, this is one of them IMHO.

The whole 'lets pretend Rituals don't exist', blah.

 

[Campbell]

The Runepriest and Seeker being bad designs is not an indication of anything other than that those were poorly designed. Particularly given the evidence of all the other excellent designs in the AEDU paradigm.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really understand the point of classifying certain classes/build as Martial + Primal (Berserker Barbarian, Essentials Ranger) or Martial + Arcane (Skald Bard). Power Source isn't a very significant mechanical tag. And the flavour it conveys in these contexts is confused: why is a STR Paladin or Cleric not Martial + Divine; why is a Warden or regular Barbarian not Martial + Primal; etc?

 

[Madzero]

4E apparently received a lot of bad mouth, so I heard. It's different, for sure, but I don't think it's necessarilly a bad thing ! Each has their own style !