Dungeons & Dragons 4e vs. Essentials

[Matt James]

What's the beef? And, more importantly, why does it matter to existing content? These are not rhetorical questions. I am always trying to poke into other people's views so that I can improve my own designs.

Neuroglyph recently put up a blog post (http://www.neuroglyphgames.com/en-world-review-heroes-of-shadow-by-wotc/) that was quite critical of WotC. While there are some logical fallacies in his writing, I respect that he has a grievance with the game. I am trying to learn--so please help and enlighten me.

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Oh, I should mention that I rule my website with an iron fist. Meaning, free speech is only valid here as long as it is respectful and intelligent. Trolls will be booted without thought. This is a hot-bed topic amongst a very small slice of the community. Let's be cool and talk like adults.

[James Knevitt]

I'll be perfectly honest and say that when Essentials debuted, I wasn't sold on the design philosophy (in that there were new ideas incorporated into the existing 4e framework). The more I read on it, though (and many Essentials purchases later), the more I like what I see.

My personal problem with Essentials is that some of the newer concepts can be a bit opaque for existing players of 4e. For example, stances. It's not exactly a new mechanic, since it just modifies existing mechanics (and were showcased prior to 4eE), but the concept of "You adopt XYZ stance. You can do XYZ until you take a new stance." was so foreign to the way powers work in core 4e that it seemed a bit jarring. There was no real lead-in when it came to these different approaches (no "here's another way you can do things"), and I think many players (incorrectly) saw Essentials as a replacement to 4e core, rather than a complementing piece.

The additions in 4eE take some getting used to, but that's the same as getting used to, say, 4e psionics and their own power modification system.

EDIT: I'm aware that I picked a bad example in stances, since they were in other products prior to Essentials, but since they got the full class treatment there it seemed like a good spot to start the conversation with.

[Matt James]

James,

I agree that the way Essentials characters work can be a bit jarring, especially when you are used to the core D&D classes. On a personal level, I have mostly stayed away from them as a player because I am still enjoying the core classes. That being said, Essentials characters exist in my ongoing Dark Sun campaign, and I can say unequivocally that they have not changed anything. They feel like additional classes, not like a new game. I still use the core system, with the necessary errata, and have not been affected like others claim to be. This is not to say there is not some anomaly out there, I just haven't seen it. I want someone to point it out. I also subscribe to the notion that Essentials characters are still optional content.

[James Knevitt]

Matt, I agree 100%. I feel the same way because I still get a lot of mileage out of the core classes. I'm a kitchen-sink DM (if its available in a WotC print product and/or DDI, my players are welcome to try it -- an attitude recently extended to include 3PP products like your own Soldiers of Fortune) so I want to offer my players a different play experience if they want it, and I've found if anything Essentials has simply broadened that range of options, which makes my players happy. Happy players, happy DM.

[Rev. Lazaro]

The following are just my personal beefs, some of them I got over, others I still dwell on. For the record, I ended up enjoying Monster Vault and the Master Tile sets.

1) At the time Essentials came out, I was seeing things I didn't like with the whole of the D&D experience. Errata being the big one to me....I understand making corrections, but complete overhauls to how powers work got to me. A big example? Magic Missile. My group prefers the old version, warts and all, over the static point instant hitter. A lot of peeps were talking about how Essentials was going to include the "updated" versions of powers....and then I saw glitches and errors in the updates, and an announcement when the next batch of Errata would be. So our "Essentials" would eventually have corrections unto themselves......

2) I hate repurchasing rules. Disregarding already published stuff, you still see a good chunk of the rules reprinted over and over across the various core Essentials books. I think Rules Cyclopedia spoiled me for this kinda stuff.

3) Half of the appeal of 4E to me and my players was options and choices. Hearing Essentials being straight laced builds turned my group off. The options that are there.....seemed alien to the original 4E paradigm, and was trying to shoe-horn in old terminology to appeal to old schoolers.

4) I'm also leery any time new mechanical or character options come out that really need to be expanded upon, since WoTC never seems to follow through on their own. The Cleric domains, for example....we have Sun and Storm.....any DM worth his salt is salivating for more....have they put out more domains yet? It reminds me too much of the Character Themes from Dark Sun, and how we still have yet to see any more of those put out. (BTW, thank you for the Mercenary theme in SoF.)

That's just my beef.

[TheGreatZomboni]

Ok, so here is where I feel that 4e and Essentials don't mash up.

To bullet them out it's really 2 points with me:
1. Modularity between the Sub-Class and their Parent Class.
2. Inability to Hybrid using Sub-Class as an option.

1. Modularity: The "sub-classes" really don't come across as being their own entities. Page 33 explains that the classes in the book are fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue...and then each description drills down into a types of these class that they can be created.

So when you look at the Slayer, you see the class abilities that they have: stances, the heroic slayer, weapon talent, and the powerstrike. The problem is that he is still a "Fighter" - which means that he's still taking the fighter feats, and in some cases can take fighter utilities, but I can't do things like multi-class with him and get an ability from a different class because I don't have that option to trade off.

At the same time, as a PHB1 Fighter, I can never opt to trade out one of my other class abilities to get any of the class abilities of the Fighter:Slayer (say, to trade Tempest Technique for Heroic slayer). I completely understand the balance issue behind it, but it's tough for me as a DM to tell a player "No, sorry - I know you're playing a fighter, and HotFL says this is a fighter, but because it doesn't say it replaces any abilities and there is no level on this attack power you can't trade anything for it"

If it had just been a new martial striker class - the Slayer, the issue wouldn't be so bad, it would be like the runepriest, another class out there. Instead I have created the house rules for my group to allow them to take these options.

Other classes aren't so bad, such as the Wizard/Mage, and the Battlepriest is passable, but even something as simple as the Channel Divinity power - the Cleric (PHB1) can't take Smite undead, only turn undead (and vice versa) - that kind of modularity would have been nice.

2. Missing Hybrid rules have also made them harder to intergrate.

I don't want to come across as a person who hates essentials, far from it - I do like the powers, I love the set up of the books, and I think some of the concepts are great. I just wish they were more modular.

[Nai_Calus]

It matters to existing content because it is largely replacing existing content - Most support we've seen since the release is for Essentials and Essentials classes, and other than the excellent Ardent article that was exactly what I want for pre-Essentials support, it's been slim pickings. The Runepriest article was nearly insulting, for example. Here's five items that are probably not usable for you, what do you mean you want powers?

Let's take my Paladin for example. All Essentials has to offer him is feats and utility powers, and it's been questioned on the latter. The one Essentials option he has is Summon Celestial Steed, chosen because I frankly didn't like any of the L6 Utility Powers for actual Paladins and my DM is one of the ones who allows it, plus it fits storywise since Frank the Mule had already been my Paladin's occasional companion in times of great mental crisis. Otherwise? Meh. I'll take Improved Celestial Steed: Pegasus and have a ridiculous mule with wings, because it's amusing. Nothing excites me for him. I don't have new shiny things to look forward to, because all the support has been going mostly to Essentials. There will never be a Divine Power 2, which is sad because the first one was so amazing - Especially for Paladins, who underwent a friggin' paradigm shift with the introduction of Divine Sanction and went from meh to amazing. There won't be anything like that anymore.

The two are compatible, yes. I can crib the options I can crib between them. But I don't want a L4(!) utility power taken for a L6 option cribbed from what's basically another class. I want something designed with my actual class in mind. But it feels like I'm playing a 3.0 Ranger. Sure, I can play in a 3.5 game without much trouble. But there's no support for me. Those Ranger feats in that splatbook are designed with that new Ranger in mind.

Or when I play a Swordmage or Bard, it's like I'm playing a Swashbuckler in Pathfinder. Sure, it works. But there's nothing that's even remotely compatible except a few general feats. I'm not a class that exists in the new way of things, why should they care about me? And look, they don't. No Arcane Power 2.

Now maybe there are a bunch of exciting things for the Swordmage or Bard coming out in future products we don't know about, but... You know, Swordmage utility powers I'm pretty damn happy with. Attack powers... That I want more of. Just not L3 and L7 Encounter powers, since those are *both* drawn from L3 for a Shielding Swordmage. :P And an Essentials Swordmage would likely not use the AEDU structure.

I also don't like the new structure. I like AEDU. I like the variety. I like having Options at every level. I like making my character the way I want. Essentials for the most part rips that away from me, especially on the classes where I appreciate the choices the most. Dear god NO I don't want a fighter I just choose a couple of stances on and use MBAs for the rest of my life! No, no, NO. If I want a Fighter who just says 'I attack it with my axe' every round, I'll go play 3.5(OK, no, I'll go play a Bard in 3.5 because I love the 3.5 Bard). They had something so amazingly good going... And then they threw it out and I'm just left wondering 'WTF'.

And see, before we saw Essentials, I was for it. I was rolling my eyes at the nay-sayers and sniping at anyone who dared suggest that it was 4.5 or meant the abandonment of 4.0. It was just going to be a slightly different thing, an onramp, it would come and then it would go and we'd get back to our regularly scheduled 4E.

Except it was radically different. Except it has in practice meant the abandoning of 4.0. It's gone from an onramp to the entire system. We aren't getting back to our regularly scheduled 4E. In every way *I* personally care about, it's 4.5.

What I want isn't coming out, I have no interest at all in the new way of things since it's not at all something that appeals to me, and it's hard at that point to not feel that the game has simply abandoned you and left you behind.

*That's* the problem I have with Essentials. Not that I somehow think the classes can't play together(They can, obviously). Not that I somehow think the designers are evil jerks, they aren't, they're awesome guys. And they want to play with their cool new toys, I can dig that. But me, for myself? Not feeling it. Monsters are eternal, as evidenced by how I used to run 3.5 with a 3.0 MM and DMG and there was never a problem; and Monster Vault was an amazing product. I'll buy the second one, sure, since I love the MM3+ format so much that I hugged Greg Bilsland at GenCon last year over it. I'll get the FR book, because it's FR and awesome people are working on it. I might get the Shadowfell set since awesome people are working on that. I won't be getting Heroes of Shadow. I probably won't get Heroes of the Feywild either, even though Fey stuff is far more relevant to my interest than Shadow stuff. Because I know it's going to be Essentials-style class stuff. And I don't *want* that.

I want to play a Seeker again with new exciting options. I want cool new stuff for my Runepriest. I want new toys for my Paladin, my Swordmage, etc. I'm not getting them. And whether it's rational or not, I can't help but look at Essentials as being the thing that's caused them to be left behind. (I find 'Nobody plays that so it doesn't need options, let's make some more Fighter powers' like has been done in the past to be complete nonsense. Of course nobody who likes options is going to play something that lacks them. It's why I don't play Essentials martial classes and why I don't play a Seeker or Runepriest anymore, in favor of classes that at least got one book of support.)

*shrug* tl;dr Essentials killed my original 4E classes and took their stuff, but made it different in the process and I am grumpy.

[Matt James]

Great conversation so far. So, at the risk of marginalizing this too much, is it safe to say that many of you are upset with player content? This issues brought up appear to be related to character options and less on the game system. Yes?

[AlphaAnt]

Great conversation so far. So, at the risk of marginalizing this too much, is it safe to say that many of you are upset with player content? This issues brought up appear to be related to character options and less on the game system. Yes?

Player content is my big problem. I have several characters that haven't gotten new options since 2009. I don't mind them putting out the new stuff, but where's the stuff for my warden, avenger, or invoker?

[TheGreatZomboni]

Eh, I'm hesitant to say yes, becuase in my opinion, the game system dictates how I select my options. Since Essentials didn't follow the "old" game system structure of AEDU fully, that limits my ability to select the options I would like.

But overall I'll say yes.

[Matt James]

Perfect, that I can completely accept that. Some classes were completely abandoned.

[TheGreatZomboni]

As a side note, I'm looking forward to more of the "old classes" being brought over into the essential format.

I think this is already happening with some of them (such as the Warlord)

If "Fighter" is turned into an archtype, and the existing Fighter class is re-classified as "Weapon Master" (as I think it's being called), it will become more palatable.

Fighter

Weapon Master (old fighter)
Slayer
Knight


I can't explain exactly why - perhaps it's my time working on requirements and process modeling on technology projects at work, but when you have a parent-child relationship (such as Fighter-Slayer), I somewhat expect the parent to contain all the attributes of the child.

When you change it to be a categorization rather than a parent-child relationship, the attributes no longer need to be shared, they can now be unique among those in the category.

*shrug* It's just how my brain works.

Edit: That said, i'd still love to have as many options BE modular as possible. And I agree with previous posters that I would also like to see some of the less supported classes see a bit more support - even if the runepriest as it currently exists, was just re-organized and modified to actually be a subclass of the Cleric class so there was some ability to take the abilities of the Cleric class.

[James Knevitt]

Hm. Having trouble posting my last reply, but basically was stating that it's a matter of scale. Does an Essentials character integrate with a core party? Sure. Does an Essentials power integrate with a core PC? Yes, but with a big if.

My gripe with Essentials vis a vis core was themes. We saw themes rolled out in Dark Sun (a non-Essentials product) and it seemed like themes were going to be a fixture in 4e going forward. This wasn't the case, and I'm a bit surprised that we didn't see them in Essentials and very surprised that we haven't seen any more since.

[Matt James]

I absolutely loved the Dark Sun themes.

[TheGreatZomboni]

Hm. Having trouble posting my last reply, but basically was stating that it's a matter of scale. Does an Essentials character integrate with a core party? Sure. Does an Essentials power integrate with a core PC? Yes, but with a big if.

My gripe with Essentials vis a vis core was themes. We saw themes rolled out in Dark Sun (a non-Essentials product) and it seemed like themes were going to be a fixture in 4e going forward. This wasn't the case, and I'm a bit surprised that we didn't see them in Essentials and very surprised that we haven't seen any more since.

Thankfully there are more themes coming out in the upcoming Neverwinter book. I too love the themes, it's that extra layer. They are very flavorful, and awesome to re-fluff to fit other campaign worlds.

I would have liked to some in the Heroes of Shadowbook, but hopefully in the Shadowfell Boxed set we'll see a couple, or maybe as a Dragon article.

Hmm, actually wonder if I could try to write one for Dragon...I'll have to see what's in HoS and how it inspires me.

[James Knevitt]

I absolutely loved the Dark Sun themes.

So did I, so much so that I've reskinned a majority of them for use outside of Dark Sun. I feel like a book of (almost) nothing but themes would be wonderful. Part of me thinks that may have been the Heroic Tier book, but I'm not privy to WotC R&D's inner workings so it's only guesswork on my part.

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------



Hmm, actually wonder if I could try to write one for Dragon...I'll have to see what's in HoS and how it inspires me.

I've seriously considered it, myself.

[Matt James]

I loved the Dark Sun themes so much that I rushed back to Wolfgang to get a Mercenary one put into Soldiers of Fortune. They are pretty cool.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

So reflecting back, here are some thoughts and clarifications.

I completely agree that support for many classes that were introduced in the Core* sense, were ignored. They never received the support that other classes did and that many of them would benefit from a retroactive polishing. Meaning, instead of developing new Essential versions of them, they support the original design.

Essentials was pitched as a supplemental addition to the game. I was at the Gen Con conference as well and also recall Bill Slavicsek saying that they would not become the norm of the game. So, in this regard, I am reserving judgement until more products are released. I just don't know how everything is going to pan out yet. Call me a sucker, call me a fanboi, I just want to give the benefit of the doubt for now. I want to see how some of these products end up.

*I use this term to represent pre-Essentials content.

[James Knevitt]

I think that's a pretty good encapsulation of my feelings as well.

[Nai_Calus]

I don't think you're a sucker or a fanboi, Matt, I think you're just more hopeful and positive overall than I am. I freely admit that I'm a doom-and-gloomer, especially on the internet(And a rampant fanboi IRL, go figure).

And yeah, a lot of it for me is the character options. I *love* the monster direction. I am a huge huge fan. Fiddly little token bits! The new monster format! Shiny boxed sets! Yay! Character stuff on the other hand, which let's face it, I don't DM often, it's where I spend almost all my time... Not so much. Not feeling that.

[JeffGupton]

I honestly have not looked hard at Essentials since my players have showed no interest. I have the Monster Vault in order to use updated monster stats, but really, we like the way things were before and see no reason to add another cog to the wheel. My son, on the other hand, has liked what he read (bought him the red box and dm's kit for xmas), has started to read all my core books and wants to run a game. So in my opinion their target audience is happy with the product as a "gateway drug" to the core rules, and I get to be a proud Geek Father. As for neuroglyph, without trying to sound harsh, he has made statements in past reveiws/blogs which were either based on misinterpreted information or simple misunderstood what was being said. (Example: In my first adventure, he dinged me on the fact that I was going for an "old school" look and feel, but then he saw nothing resembling 3E when I CLEARLY said in my foreword that I was refering to 1E as old school)

[Matt James]

I wrote an article that is related to this thread. Take a look: http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/185-Game-Design-Foundational-Layers-for-4e

[SilB]

Just a few words.

I think a lot of the naysayers are looking at the Essentials line incorrectly.

The Essentials line is (as I see it) an alternative suited for new players. There's nothing which overwrites any of the old books besides what was presented freely in the Errata.

The HoS book demonstrates that nothing is being replaced, but there are a multitude of alternatives that are getting support. The book provides material for both old and new classes whilst also providing options.

One huge mistake the Neuroglyph article makes is looking at the line on "this book is for HOFK/HOFL people" and misunderstanding what it means. The book does not present all new builds for old classes but it does present material in the essentials format with Essentials ideas which is also useable for Old classes.

I believe that going forward we'll see more of what Essentials design is bringing to D&D but we'll see a balance of material for the old and new.

Essentials was only the start for a revolution in content, but we were already seeing the start of that with things like PHB3, themes and books based on thematic material (like Heroes of Shadow / Feywild).

Regarding the Layered article from MJ. I think we will see a lot more from Themes in the future as at the moment it is something that is limited to Dark Sun.

Combine Templates with thematic books and you've got a wealth of new options for publishing books that goes beyond the tired Power Source structure.

Heroes of the Underdark, Heroes of Alchemy, Heroes of True Ultimate Power, Heroes of Pony Land, Heroes of Whatever the Frak I want. No more, Arcane Power books or the like, those books were bad in terms of design. As an example, Arcane Power brought about Illusion magic for Wizards but did little for Illusion magic for Swordmages. Heroes of Illusion could come out and offer a host of options with that theme and not be limited to just providing for Arcane classes.

So I think people are being quick to judge Essentials and only looking the small picture and not understanding what it actually is or that there's a bigger picture.

I've actually looked at Modular Design (rather than Layered) Design myself for 4e. Take some simple base concepts and expand on them by effecting them in multiple different ways. I think there's a lot that can now be done with 4e which simply wasn't on the cards because of how classes were designed, but perhaps that's more for a different topic.

[Matt James]

Because some of the tenements of the Dungeons & Dragons brand, some things should stay (if for no other reason than nostalgia). In many cases, layered a modular can mean the same thing. It's my opinion that this would be a very successful way of moving forward. I see it as an elegant solution that fixes many of the existing issues--both mechanically and thematically.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

My mentor, the exalted Robert Schwalb, has just put up a post on his own site in response to my article.

http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/04/character-creation-tools/

[Marlett]

I am another of those folks who thought that HoS was supposed to be more of a “classic” 4e book. I believed it was to be a new format for the “__ Power” books. If most of the content is Essentials based(I haven’t received my copy yet, but as @Neuroglyph is my DM - I trust his judgment), then it seems indeed that Essentials is the new reality of 4e.

Essentials should have been what 4e was at launch. If that had been the case, then I would have had much less of a problem with the whole concept. Simplicity is the hallmark of Essentials, and while that is generally good for the new and returning players to D&D, it doesn’t serve me as an existing 4e player well.

Limiting character options is not the direction I would prefer. I have played every version of D&D since the Red Box set of the 1970s, through 4e. Along that time, I have embraced the more tactical lean that the game has taken since the creation of 3e. For most versions of D&D, I have played a healer. In versions past, healers (cleric generally) had our X healing spells per day, then we were done. Combats devolved into being a heal-bot until spells were gone, then futilely melee’ing until the monsters dropped. Even in 3/3.5e, over 80% of the spells that I prepared were changed over to straight healing to keep the party up and topped off. While this was an extremely vital job, it was rarely rewarding.

4e is the first system where my characters don’t feel like an NPC in combat. The myriad of powers offer not only healing while dealing damage to the enemy, but buffing, debuffing and other combat effects as well. None of the Essentials Leaders have impressed me in that regard - they all seem like a step back. The Warpriest is indeed combat effective, but as a Leader, they seem lacking in their basic role - Healing!

Essentials is the horse that WotC has hitched the D&D cart to, so for that reason alone - I hope it’s a success. This game has been part of my life for over thirty years, and I hope it continues to do so for thirty more.

[GMonkey]

When I first heard about Essentials, my reaction was probably the same as that of many others. It seemed like 4.5. I'd come very late to 4e, and had probably only ever played 2-3 sessions before Essentials was announced. I opted out and continued playing 4e.

At PAX East recently, I played one of the Phantom Brigade adventures, which was far more fun than I'd expected. And I learned that while remaining compatible, Essentials actually dealt with many of my biggest complaints about 4e. While I'm not ready to switch whole hog (largely because I'd never convince my players to buy all new books) I no longer have a poor opinion of essentials.

[SilB]

Because some of the tenements of the Dungeons & Dragons brand, some things should stay (if for no other reason than nostalgia). In many cases, layered a modular can mean the same thing. It's my opinion that this would be a very successful way of moving forward. I see it as an elegant solution that fixes many of the existing issues--both mechanically and thematically.

---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

My mentor, the exalted Robert Schwalb, has just put up a post on his own site in response to my article.

http://www.robertjschwalb.com/2011/04/character-creation-tools/

I think a key difference between Layered and Modular as abstracts is that with Layers you simply Layer more things on-top of something. You become a Half Dragon Half Elf/Dwarf Vampire, Fighter/Mage/Illusionist/Fist of Smashing/Pirate/Gith Hater/God Hunter/Worshiper of Ioun/Wrathful Invoker of Thunder Cats and there's no specific limit to what Layers are, how many you have and how many you can obtain.

With Modular design there's an idea there's a greater sense that a character is composed of certain elements but a finite number of elements or finite elements of a particular type. Something RJS talks about on his blog post (haven't read it all thoroughly yet). I would say my idea of Modular design is similar to what RJS presents in his blog. I have my skills component, my profession component, my feats components, etc and they define the complete package of my character.

I don't allow Themes in any of the games I run because not all my players have access to them or know much about them, so I can't have a player have a theme and one without as the guy with a Theme has this extra dimension that others don't.

But I do agree they can become a great tool for future development in D&D 4e. It'd be an interesting direction going forward if Themes could become more integral to character building.

I talked about this a little on my blog (which is short, needs work and not really worth sharing) and some things i'm working on look at Themes and modular design. I may have been the only person in the world who looked at Essentials and HoS and was excited with the potential it presented.


I am another of those folks who thought that HoS was supposed to be more of a “classic” 4e book. I believed it was to be a new format for the “__ Power” books. If most of the content is Essentials based(I haven’t received my copy yet, but as @Neuroglyph is my DM - I trust his judgment), then it seems indeed that Essentials is the new reality of 4e.


Sorry to say, but that article was extremely bad and seems to be based on one line in a review, the writer doesn't seem to have any first hand knowledge of the book at all. There's no such thing as "Essentials Based", it's in the same format as Essentials but it's not Essentials Based.

I can say that without looking at the book but instead the preview material, which has content for Mages and Wizards.



Limiting character options is not the direction I would prefer. I have played every version of D&D since the Red Box set of the 1970s, through 4e. Along that time, I have embraced the more tactical lean that the game has taken since the creation of 3e. For most versions of D&D, I have played a healer. In versions past, healers (cleric generally) had our X healing spells per day, then we were done. Combats devolved into being a heal-bot until spells were gone, then futilely melee’ing until the monsters dropped. Even in 3/3.5e, over 80% of the spells that I prepared were changed over to straight healing to keep the party up and topped off. While this was an extremely vital job, it was rarely rewarding.

4e is the first system where my characters don’t feel like an NPC in combat. The myriad of powers offer not only healing while dealing damage to the enemy, but buffing, debuffing and other combat effects as well. None of the Essentials Leaders have impressed me in that regard - they all seem like a step back. The Warpriest is indeed combat effective, but as a Leader, they seem lacking in their basic role - Healing!

Essentials is the horse that WotC has hitched the D&D cart to, so for that reason alone - I hope it’s a success. This game has been part of my life for over thirty years, and I hope it continues to do so for thirty more.

I'd say the Leader role isn't about Healing alone, i've played Shamans and they are not great healers but what they bring to the table goes way beyond that. Other Leaders aren't as strong as Clerics at Healing but when you see what they do on the grid it's clear how they fit into the idea of a Combat Leader.

In any case, the Essentials classes in HoFK and HoFL were not replacements and they had a clear design goal of being retro in feel.

IMO they achieved that objective.

[D'karr]

In any case, the Essentials classes in HoFK and HoFL were not replacements and they had a clear design goal of being retro in feel.

IMO they achieved that objective.

My view of Essentials is that they are a specific build with the options pre-selected. For example in 4e you can be an aerialist rogue and pick powers at each level that are aerialist centered or you can take any other power that suits your character concept.

The Essentials Thief is a rogue build with the specific powers at each level predefined. It has its options preselected. In that respect it hearkens back to previous editions which gave you one specific thing when you leveled up.

Since Essentials came out we've been running games with both 4e characters and Essentials characters side by side. To date I have not seen any very big variance between them in the balance department. And they can be played side-by-side seamlessly.

[vercingetorix]

It's D&D 4.5 and its no bueno.

They changed alot of stuff (powers and feats).

The new classes are really bland. Great, now I can make a 3E guy in 4E who does basic attacks all day long, and gets the same power at 3rd level that ever other person of this class does too, just like in 3E. [sarcasm]

Thanks game designers, for your creative ingenuity [sarcasm]

[James Knevitt]

You realize they're not actually new classes, right? They're more like build types for pre-existing classes with all the powers and stuff picked for you, as D'karr says above.

[vercingetorix]

But they are bland preset builds with one option at the next level. I have banned 4.5 in my home games. Everything picked for you is the key, its pretty much just like 3E.

3E is horrible BTW.

[James Knevitt]

Just because they're preset builds in no way makes it 4.5. In what way do Essentials products change any of the existing core rules so that a non-Essentials game is affected?

[Matt James]

They are build options, as said. If someone wants to play the game that way, more power to them. Keep your sarcasm for other sites, Joe. I won't have it here. I work with many of those designers and consider them friends.

[vercingetorix]

They are build options, as said. If someone wants to play the game that way, more power to them. Keep your sarcasm for other sites, Joe. I won't have it here. I work with many of those designers and consider them friends.

are your game designer friends, thin skinned, with no self esteem, and unable to take criticism. all the ppl you introduced me to at DDXP were rad.

you are correct, if you like 4.5 then use it. but what about those of us who do not like it. I guess we are just supposed to "pretend" its okay, and go with the flow, and not say anything about it. sry you lured me in with a possible discussion about 4E vs. 4.5, and I fell for it. my bad, I forgot that at loremaster you are only allowed to say good things about everything.

I think it is terrible that a repackaged re-skinned 3E is "essential" to 4E.

BTW only dead fish go with the flow


Just because they're preset builds in no way makes it 4.5. In what way do Essentials products change any of the existing core rules so that a non-Essentials game is affected?

oh i don't know, maybe releasing PH3, only to contradict feats from it in a new book that is titled "essential".

[James Knevitt]

oh i don't know, maybe releasing PH3, only to contradict feats from it in a new book that is titled "essential".

And if they released those feat changes in an errata you'd be cool with it, right?

[Matt James]

They are build options. I don't have to like it, but I don't let it dominate my game. They don't affect the other players at the table.

[vercingetorix]

And if they released those feat changes in an errata you'd be cool with it, right?

I don't read the errata, so probably not then either.

The main problem is I run a story based, RP heavy game, and I can keep min-maxers away by stating no 4.5, (its not essential at all).

I have no problem with 4.5 in Living Kitchen Sink, or at a convention or something, because that is just a min/maxed tactical math numbers crunch.

I purchase the hardback books, and it is extremely annoying that the information in them is almost always wrong in about two weeks after 1st print. But the Kaballah practicing Wizards of the Cost, continue to sell me a product that they know is out of date, and I like to bitch about it.

I just purchased PHB3 and used a skill feat from it called 3rd wind, only to show up at a game and they tell me it was wrong. I was like hey I just got this book a week ago how can it be wrong. then they pulled out their 4.5 books and said read here. it was a nightmare, but I should have known better considering the source. The DM was a 4.5 nazi, so I quit. and the party was without a defender and wiped in the next encounter, LOL. and the DM said it was my fault, i would have stayed if he allowed me to use a new 4.0 feat from my newly purchased PHB3, but nope that's what happens when you don't like 4.5.

Matt will probably not let me post here, all because I do not like 4.5

[Matt James]

Odd, more of the broken builds are non-essentials builds. Can you provide some examples of where essentials builds are more broken than core 4e? Furthermore, can you show me how game mechanics trump roleplaying? Your issue might lie with the people you are playing with.

[SilB]

But they are bland preset builds with one option at the next level. I have banned 4.5 in my home games. Everything picked for you is the key, its pretty much just like 3E.

3E is horrible BTW.

Oneday, I will be able to prove you wrong. Not just demonstrate why you are wrong about essentials but make you wrong and possibly even get you and everyone else who expresses similar opinions to acknowledge that you were wrong... Until then.

Essentials classes aren't quite as preselected as you think it is.

You have options, the books don't present many but they are there. What's more, it should be obvious from Dragon and HoS that options are being given and that these essential classes have a number of options for expansion.

You are not the target audience of Essentials, it's entirely optional material and in no way infringes on anything you do. The changes it presented were small in comparison to the errata which had already been presented and the errata themselves kill any idea essentials is a "4.5".

I'd agree with you on 3e being an abomination though I'd point out Essentials isn't about recapturing the spirit of 3e and intact aimed at the feel of editions before then.

[D'karr]

Joe, it's always good to have your "cantankerous self" over here... LOL

You just reminded me of a conversation I had with Rob after a Dungeon Mastering seminar at DDXP. He was "complaining" about some of the things that players were expecting of the game, or how he had to adjust certain things because players would "whine", my terminology not his, about certain things. In the end it seemed like he had an entire list of things that he "had" to change to accommodate players.

I analyzed his list for 2 seconds and concluded that his problem was not the list. My advice to him was to stop playing with "twits". That's not the word I used but since this is a family friendly site I should at least clean up the delivery.

I hear you about the issues you had. I guess that my advice to you would be the same as I gave Rob.

[vercingetorix]

Joe, it's always good to have your "cantankerous self" over here... LOL

1. you are welcome, except its hard to sugar coat everything for this site, I feel like I am lying most of the time, so I can actually post something. If Dwarves were real, they could never post here.
2. you know me and I guess I know you, who is this?


You are not the target audience of Essentials, it's entirely optional material and in no way infringes on anything you do. The changes it presented were small in comparison to the errata which had already been presented and the errata themselves kill any idea essentials is a "4.5".

I know. I even said that I don't use the 4.5 stuff, because its not for me. the only problem is I am not allowed to say i don't like it for some reason.



Odd, more of the broken builds are non-essentials builds. Can you provide some examples of where essentials builds are more broken than core 4e?

well that was rather non sequitur. I haven't said anything about broken builds. how many characters of mine have you seen that I built, have been broken? I am not arguing that 4.5 is broken, just that its no bueno.


Furthermore, can you show me how game mechanics trump roleplaying?

they don't in theory, but you may be one of the only people i know who do both. the problem is the min/maxers play the game for different reasons. urbody plays for enjoyment, but different folks get it in many ways. crunching numbers, feats, and constantly errata'd rules, to have the best possible build, aint my style. And while they do not trump RP, if enough of the base is into the math of the system, then the mods (lets take dungeon mag as our common example), become more and more math based, and less and less about the setting and story. and for the majority of numbers crunchers i am sure it is great, but that aint me.

another example is this place, called loremaster. I can't remember that last time I saw much about lore on here. Is it a play on words, am I missing something? I know you like the lore, and I am not trying to insult you, but this is more a place to talk about rules (like this thread), then to really discuss Lore.

I like D&D mainly due to Setting, Story, Lore, Fiction, and that stuff. I wish something the designers deemed as "Essential" had that kind of information in it rather than new math rules to errata the old math rules.



Your issue might lie with the people you are playing with.

fo sho

[Matt James]

another example is this place, called loremaster. I can't remember that last time I saw much about lore on here. Is it a play on words, am I missing something? I know you like the lore, and I am not trying to insult you, but this is more a place to talk about rules (like this thread), then to really discuss Lore.

Cool, sounds like this site isn't for you then. I hope the next place you land you will focus your energy on what you love instead of spending so much time drafting replies about what you hate.

Edit: Before you go, here are some links to great content that focus on character and plot development.

http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/186-Lifting-Morale
http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/177-Abandon-All-Hope
http://www.loremaster.org/showthread.php/52-Tell-us-about-your-4E-Forgotten-Realms-campaign
http://www.loremaster.org/showthread.php/56-What-do-you-like-about-the-Forgotten-Realms-(via-James-Wyatt)
http://www.loremaster.org/showthread.php/87-Homebrew-Campaign-World
http://www.loremaster.org/showthread.php/43-In-the-south-of-faerun-in-4e
http://www.loremaster.org/showthread.php/61-The-less-well-known-game-worlds

There are more, but the search function is already coded into the site. I'll let everyone figure it out from here ;)

[vercingetorix]

ROFL MAO

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/LOL/2/LOL-ROFL_Mao.gif

[Matt James]

I need to save that one. It's pretty funny! :)

[Steelfiredragon]

I know what the rofl mao means... but I dont get the image with it

[Matt James]

The image is of Chairman Mao, the former dictator of China.

[Diffan]

You know, not everything has to be taken as is with the new Errata. I often ignore it until it becomes a problem at my table. I THEN look up and see if something about a specific feat or power has been changed. This is why all the Errata/Changes in most of the pre-Essentials books is often irrelevant to me as I don't feel those changes are specifically needed. That being said, I did change the one feat (or was it power?) that allowed clerics to give a creature Radiant vulnerabilty 10 for the entire encounter. This, I used the Errata version for.

But onto the topic at hand. Ah, Essentials....

It's a good product, often used together with pre-Essentials for additional options. Is it any worse or better in play at the table? Not really. As Matt said, most Min/Max character builds that deal LOADS of damage come from pre-Essential classes, feats, and combos. Note the spamming of Twin Strike (a power that's adorable and should NEVER change, IMO). I've often related Essentials to the 3E's Alternate Class Features analogy. And while Essentials has less options at specific levels (such as no choice at 2nd level for Utility spells) pre-Essentials have this option.

I've had some experience with Essentials as most of my group using 4E has turned to Essential classes (I went from Paladin to Knight. My wife went from Wizard to Mage [enchantment]. And two others went from Cleric to Warpriest and Ossassin to Essassin) but this wasn't based so much on one being better but having a different perspective of a class. Most obvious was the Assassin as my friend wanted his character to emulate the "Wet-Boy" from Brent Week's Night Angel Trilogy. I changed over because my Knight is a DMPC and it's much easier to run a Knight than a Paladin as a Defender. That's not to say the Paladin isn't great, because it is, just not as a DMPC. My wife was getting frustrated with her Wizard (wand-based) and with the Mage [Enchantment], gave her more "fun" powers plus I let her keep her spellbook and add spells from both sources.

But these classes all work together with non-Essentials classes with little change except for Errata (if you buy into it). I just don't see what all the hub-bub is about with complaints.