PDA

View Full Version : Question about DDE (aka 4.4)



Asbestos
2010-10-22, 03:58 PM
So, I've been out of the loop for a bit on the D&D scene. How much do the 'new' classes replace, mix with, or stand alongside the standard classes? For instance, is the Fighter still worth playing when you can be a Knight or a Slayer? Or do I play a sort of Fighter/Knight or can a party have both without their being an obvious power discrepancy?

Kurald Galain
2010-10-22, 07:01 PM
Well...

The new fighter and rogue builds do not mix at all with their older counterparts except that they can take each other's utility powers. They play very differently: the new builds are easier for novice players and deal significantly more damage out of the box; however, the old builds are much more versatile, and have a greater potential for optimization.

The new cleric and wizard builds mix well with their older counterparts, in that they can simply take each other's at-will/encounter/daily powers whenever they want. The new classes get better class features, but the old powers tend to be better. However, the new classes do not get ritual casting, which you may or may not care about (although you can spend a feat on it); and the old class features have better feat and item support.

The new assassin is completely different from the earlier assassin, and is much stronger. There is no news yet about the new warlock, warlord, and ranger, and not much about the paladin and druid. We do know that the paladin will get a warhorse and an alignment restriction, and the druid will get an animal companion and no shapeshift.

The feats from 4.4 blow earlier feats out of the water, hands down. The new human racial feature is also much better than its counterpart. On the other hand, 4.4 does not contain many items worth writing home about. Incidentally, DDE usually stands for D&D Encounters, which is more-or-less the successor to Living Forgotten Realms (and which in the future will only allow 4.4 material).

Gralamin
2010-10-22, 08:05 PM
ranger.

Actually there is (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2010October)

Hzurr
2010-10-22, 08:30 PM
based on my own play experience (which was only one session), and all of the play reports I've read from other people (several), there shouldn't be any issue in mixed essentials with "classic" 4E. Feel free to mix & match to your heart's content.

Aron Times
2010-10-22, 08:56 PM
Just archived binged on Essentials articles, and it seems to me that it's basically the Player's Handbook 4 split into two books. I need to get back on DDI one of these days.

Hzurr
2010-10-23, 12:15 AM
Just archived binged on Essentials articles, and it seems to me that it's basically the Player's Handbook 4 split into two books. I need to get back on DDI one of these days.

Not at all. It's all of the "classic" d&d classes (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Warlock(?)) in a re-vamped format aimed at people who are brand new to d&d (or who haven't played since 1st or 2nd edition). Some (like Wizard & Cleric) are practically the same as the PHB1 version, but the Fighter and Rogue are very different; and the previews of the Paladin, Ranger, and Druid are also very different from their earlier incarnations in 4E.

Essentially (HA!) though, it's just new builds of the classes that appeal to a different audience. You can use them, you can skip them, doesn't really matter to your game

Kurald Galain
2010-10-23, 03:40 AM
Actually there is (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2010October)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Okay, so we know that the new ranger relies on at-will attacks, like the new fighter and rogue, and that one of their builds is now a controller, possibly similar to the seeker. The ranger is an archer, does not get to dual wield scimitars, and doesn't seem to get Twin Strike any more.

Asbestos
2010-10-23, 03:52 PM
Where was the 'new' assassin released? Via DDI like its predecessor?

Mando Knight
2010-10-23, 04:33 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Okay, so we know that the new ranger relies on at-will attacks, like the new fighter and rogue, and that one of their builds is now a controller, possibly similar to the seeker. The ranger is an archer, does not get to dual wield scimitars, and doesn't seem to get Twin Strike any more.
On the other hand, the new controller-y archer ranger gets to make what's essentially a Burst 1 within Weapon Range attack as an at-will, using any bonuses to ranged basic attacks. Or knock enemies prone with a shot at-will.

Where was the 'new' assassin released? Via DDI like its predecessor?
Yes.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-23, 06:52 PM
On the other hand, the new controller-y archer ranger gets to make what's essentially a Burst 1 within Weapon Range attack as an at-will,
Yes, and they improved on the seeker.

One problem with the seeker is that pretty much all of its bursts have to be centered on an enemy, whereas in practice you often want to aim a burst between two enemies, so that you'll hit both. The new ranger does not have this problem.

WitchSlayer
2010-10-23, 06:54 PM
Yes, and they improved on the seeker.

One problem with the seeker is that pretty much all of its bursts have to be centered on an enemy, whereas in practice you often want to aim a burst between two enemies, so that you'll hit both. The new ranger does not have this problem.

Do you think it would be alright if, when one of my players played a seeker, he could choose an empty area to do his burst attack?

Mando Knight
2010-10-23, 07:02 PM
Do you think it would be alright if, when one of my players played a seeker, he could choose an empty area to do his burst attack?

Even if the power specifically states otherwise? Yeah, go ahead. It's a pretty lame restriction, especially given that none of the other Controllers have it.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-23, 07:12 PM
Do you think it would be alright if, when one of my players played a seeker, he could choose an empty area to do his burst attack?
I'd agree with Mando and say go for it. The seeker is still somewhat unimpressive if you remove this restriction.