Desing Logic for Essentials Classes

[wayfare]

Does anybody have any notes on the Design Logic of the 4th edition essentials classes? Any help would be appreciated!

[MeeposFire]

You can read some of the current rules of three articles on the WotC site.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20111219


Essentially it is about trying to cover different styles of play and taste. In this case it has a lot to do with simplifying choice.

[Kurald Galain]

Does anybody have any notes on the Design Logic of the 4th edition essentials classes? Any help would be appreciated!

Basically, in 3.0 / 3.5 you have simple classes with few options (e.g. the fighter) and complex classes with many options (e.g. the wizard). The design principle for 4.0 is that all classes are equally complex and have equally many options. Then after a few years, WOTC realized that some people actually liked having a class with fewer options, so they started designing simple classes with fewer options again.

[wayfare]

Basically, in 3.0 / 3.5 you have simple classes with few options (e.g. the fighter) and complex classes with many options (e.g. the wizard). The design principle for 4.0 is that all classes are equally complex and have equally many options. Then after a few years, WOTC realized that some people actually liked having a class with fewer options, so they started designing simple classes with fewer options again.

Thanks, folks!

I homebrewed some classes for 3.5, and my goal was to create something with this kind of design logic:

1) Have core class features at odd numbered levels that cannot be switched out (all members of the class have these abilities)

2) Have class options appearing at every odd level (10-15 abilities that can be chosen by the player to customize the class).

Looking at the essentials classes, I see similar logic at work. Do you think this is comparable.

[Kurald Galain]

Looking at the essentials classes, I see similar logic at work. Do you think this is comparable.

Not particularly. 4.0 classes also have "core class features" that cannot be swapped out, and also have "options" (i.e. powers) that can be chosen. There are several 4.4 classes that lack the latter - they come with some or most of their powers pre-selected and unchangeable.

[Machinekng]

Thanks, folks!

I homebrewed some classes for 3.5, and my goal was to create something with this kind of design logic:

1) Have core class features at odd numbered levels that cannot be switched out (all members of the class have these abilities)

2) Have class options appearing at every odd level (10-15 abilities that can be chosen by the player to customize the class).


This design logic is apparent in Pathfinder, especially for mundane characters. I'd suggest you take a look (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes).

[Reluctance]

Basically, in 3.0 / 3.5 you have simple classes with few options (e.g. the fighter) and complex classes with many options (e.g. the wizard). The design principle for 4.0 is that all classes are equally complex and have equally many options. Then after a few years, WOTC realized that some people actually liked having a class with fewer options, so they started designing simple classes with fewer options again.

Is this really the case, though? I've heard the "In 4e, my fighter is a wizard!" complaints too, but they seemed to come from people who were intent on finding any reason to hate the game. is there anywhere with a significant number of 4e fans who prefer the Essentials classes to the AEDU ones?

[Yakk]

A particularly illuminating example is how the Slayer's design is different than pre-essentials classes.

The Slayer enters a stance. At this point, it is an optional choice to switch stances -- but you don't have to re-choose a stance each round. You get the stance you where in last, automatically.

Your attacks are all basic attacks. Which means your choice is (1) where do you want to move, and (2) who do you want to attack.

Only after you hit, you can choose to activate power attack.

Each choice is a single one -- you aren't ever both choosing which attack, and which target, at the same time.

A pre-essentials character has the same move and attack, but when you attack you also have to pick which power you are using before you roll your die.

I've played 4e with many a player who likes to roll their die, then pick what attack they used -- not out of wanting to cheat, but because it feels very natural.

With the Slayer, that is exactly how you work. You say "I attack X", you roll a d20, and depending on that roll something happens.

The Thief ends up being a tad more complex. You have to choose if you are using Backstab before you make your attack.

The Knight's defender feature is similar to the Slayer. Their attacks are the same. Unlike the Fighter, the Knight's "mark" is on opponents adjacent -- so who the Knight is locking down is clear from the state of the board without any extra tokens. (In practice, this ends up being a superior option -- the extra complexity of tracking marks based on who you attacked isn't worth the tactical richness gained).

The downside is that the riders they apply are less interesting. Pure damage, until you get to higher levels, where you get some minor tweaks. There are some recent dragon feats that add more choices.

[Boci]

Is this really the case, though?

Yes. He's not saying in 4E the wizard is a fighter, but that the wizard and the fighter are equally complex to play, which is true.