Deconstructing Powers
One of the things I do love about the Esssentials martial builds, especially the rogue and the fighter, is that the new powers are mostly deconstructed versions of previous ones. What I mean by that is that the heart of most rogue powers was their ability to do damage. How accurate the attack was or how much damage it did was really a function of what additives the particular "power" gave the character. The more awesome stuff a power did, it became less accurate, less damaging or harder to do by limiting it to encounters or dailies. To support this, I offer that in my quick comparisons, "Sly Flourish" matches pretty well with the thief's basic attack.
However, we still need to give the thief something interesting to do. The designers of this class build decided that the thief needed to be the master of mobility. By removing the move actions from powers and making them at-will move tricks, we no longer need to worry about those penalties when doing our attack since we are sacrificing our move action. Thus the thief could still do his damage and have some fun movement options without unbalancing the game. The final item was to provide a class feature that made their melee basic key off of dexterity instead of strength, something that probably should have been in the original version too.
A nice by-product of the simplified power structure is that only so many different powers can be produced. By combining moves, attacks and other benefits within one action type, we introduce infinite variation, each combination needing its own "power." By pulling them out, we allow the players to build their own combinations without cluttering up the character builder with 1000s of powers.
The issue I have with this change is that the build is a bit too simple. When I read through the list, they all seem a bit fiddly to me. They don't have enough differentiation to make me really interested in choosing between them. In addition, I really miss having that cool cinematic moment in the game where I worked for a few turns to set up a situation I wanted. Perhaps I used my rogue's forced movement powers to move the bad guy towards the edge of the cliff so I could have that cool 300 moment where I kicked him off. Or I just really wanted the opportunity to pull out 6d6 at once. Regardless of the setup, some of the excitement is just gone for me. One easy solution would be to add more trick options. Perhaps we could add a trick that uses a minor or move to allow the character to push their target on a hit.
Now it isn't all bad. Maybe seeing their players get bored or feel too restricted with the pre-made options for their characters will open DMs up to the wonder of page 42 (from the original DMG). That's the page with the damage by level charts and information on how to adjudicate rules on the fly. As a DM, when your player wants to do something not covered by the normal rules, that's the first place you should look for guidance on how to adjudicate their requests. For instance, if one of your players wants his character to swing from a chandelier into the bad guy, you can find damage expressions here.
Another option that I have floating around in my head is an expansion of the power points system. I really don't like how they get used in PHB3. Each power has some additional options that can be purchased through power points. The problem is that you might like parts of two different powers but neither one completely. Imagine if instead, you could build your own powers on the fly. Adding an additional two shifts or pushing a character one space costs one point. Adding another melee basic attack costs two points. I'm not sure of the details but I think it would satisfy what I find missing from the build and even make me like power points.
Well that's how I feel anyway. I know a number of you really love the thief and fighter and I'm so glad to hear that. At the end of the day, I just want us all to have fun. And if you are interested, here is the auto-build thief from character builder. Yeah, some issues with the build exist and I notified Wizards of the Coast customer service about them.

One of the things I loved about 4e was that it made the martial classes more interesting tactically. Although I DM most of the time, whenever I did play, I wanted to play a spellcaster.
However, that being said, I did like the fact that Essentials brought in the option for a simple to play class, that I could throw at a friend who joined us for a one-night game while he was visiting.
This is really only a problem if DMs are going to the Essentials-only method.
Page 42 being the answer is delightfully appropriate, but what is the question?
I am with you on Essential classes. They fill a niche that has value, but I don't think my needs as a player fit that niche. I do know some players that Essential classes are perfect for.
There are probably a number of classes or archetypes out there that could be built more elegantly or more adequately using the essentials approach as well. It might be fun to built a custom essentials-style class from the ground up.
Regarding power points and the PH3 classes, there are some "balance issues" that present themselves if you were to make some effects more modular. I think if the lid were taken off of power points like you are suggesting we would get a repeat of the effect of the hybrid rules. The more tools or the more pieces someone has to build with, the more things they can do with them. This enables a player to do more "cool" things, but also allows for more things that break the established curve.
It seemed as if hybrids were too heavily penalized for their modularity from the beginning, but now, if you were to peer at the character optimization boards, you would see that hybrids have taken over as the new pack leaders.
I have a theory that you could make an essentials-style psionic class that would do the trick (even if it would be tricky to get it right).
I wish Wizards had just thrown more weight behind the idea of custom attacks and had invested a bit more time into making them more involved.
This really shines through when you consider the Scout build from the second Essentials character book - this is closer to what the Fighter could have been. The stances are closer to being /interesting/ (don't tell me that anyone thinks that "Battle Wrath" a stance that does +2 damage, is particularly captivating).
But the scout has problems too, the same ones as the Thief and the Fighter Essentials builds - there's just not that much meat. For example, at level 17 (and a few levels beforehand) your character gets to pick a brand new stance or trick - for a normal 4 Fighter, this is cool because you can choose from 4 or 5 new options. For the Essentials fighter, you merely get to pick from the pool of stances you could pick from at level 1. I guess this will probably be solved by new releases.
I would have liked there to be another dimension to 'building' powers like this - maybe using utility powers to add new effects atop the stance and the power attack elements already introduced?
I agree with this line of thought. Even in mid-heroic tier when you get an extra stance or trick, it doesn't fully seem as cool. You already picked the ones that work best for your character and now you're picking the one you might only use once a night if at all. I'm sure it will make a player feel cool when they get to use that hidden power no one has ever seen her use before, but including some powerful or versatile (arguably synonymous) powers at higher levels would add something that I feel the new martial builds lack. eDruid Sentinels still get to pick their awesome daily, why shouldn't the niche trick a rogue uses once a day also be awesome for her?
I agree with previous comments in that I also hope new publications provide more variety. In public play encounters, my hexblade leveling from 2 to 3 will be very uneventful. Five additional hit points and the ability to use an encounter power I already had twice instead of once per encounter. As I have somewhat of a semi-conscious obsession with variety, I find this prospect very dissatisfying.
Post new comment