Please can somebody explain to me why Essentials is a good direction for 4E

997 posts / 0 new
Last post
This is in no way meant to be flammatory, please keep the comments positive.  I love 4e embraced it hardcore.  At first WotC "hinted" that Essentials would not replace 4e but be the basic set to Advance Dungeons and Dragons of years gone by.  But the more I hear and see, it looks like 4e will no longer be supported, every book for D&D so far looks to be Essentials.  Sure the Modules and the upcoming Monster Vault aren't going to be affected by edition 4.0 or 4.125, but the way player characters are being made is.  Don't get me wrong, I want to embrace it, I will pick up either the Rules Compendium or Players Guide today, but so far it doesn't look good for the 4.0 crowd. 
First off, you need to cite what "direction for 4e" means. What direction do you believe essentials is taking 4e.

Secondly, you need to look a bit further... and maybe wait a bit.

There's Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of Heroes(?)... stuff that suposedly supports the entire of D&D.

There's no evidence that anything coming out in the future doesn't support the old stuff. You've just got one constantly evovling game that's D&D 4e.
4E and essentials are the same darn thing.

For Reals.

Essentials is as much a direction as saying psionic classes are a direction and the Psionic Powers book means the non-augument classes are clearly not going to be supported.

It is pants on the head sillyness.
That I can understand, but what I see is Essentials is already modifiying core 4e rules, to match the gameplay of Essentials.  That is my concern.  Look at the rules update.  The changes are subtle, some good, some not so good. But most are good. My concern is the eventual crossover to Essentials.  Right now they say oh you don't have to play Essentials if you don't want to, but further down the road this may not be the case, as rules are updated and made to fall in line with Essentials.
4E and essentials are the same darn thing.

For Reals.

Essentials is as much a direction as saying psionic classes are a direction and the Psionic Powers book means the non-augument classes are clearly not going to be supported.

It is pants on the head sillyness.



PHB3 was not the 'new core', it was definitely not an intro to new players, and its classes were not clones of the existing classes. If find it funny that the Seeker and Runepriest were hated on for being 'uninspired" and adding nothing new when the subclasses do the same thing.

They are not the same darn thing, 4e essentials on is called "revised edition" on the books even. And flammy threads that talk about 4e and Essentials have been closed for "Edition Wars".
  Sneak attack for 4e and Essentials is now an Encounter power.



i really dont know what you mean by this. When i think encounter power i think once per encounter. The new sneak attack can be used more than it used to be able to, not less
got confused there for a second, yes you're right.
That I can understand, but what I see is Essentials is already modifiying core 4e rules, to match the gameplay of Essentials.  That is my concern.  Look at the rules update.  The changes are subtle, some good, some not so good. Sneak attack for 4e and Essentials is now an Encounter power. My concern is the eventual crossover to Essentials.  Right now they say oh you don't have to play Essentials if you don't want to, but further down the road this may not be the case, as rules are updated and made to fall in line with Essentials.



Where the heck are you getting that?

Backstab is an Encounter power possessed by the new Thief build (to make up for the fact that they do not get to choose Encounter powers).

Sneak Attack has received errata to bring it in line with the Class Feature as written in the Thief build, which is 1/turn, as opposed to 1/round. Current Artful Dodgers, Brutal Scoundrels, Ruthless Ruffians, Daring Acrobats and Cunning Sneaks receive the benefit of this errata as much as the Thief does. There is nothing in the errata to suggest "Encounter Power," at all.

Since the errata does not say anything about Backstab, and that you confused it with Sneak Attack, means one of two things. Either you did not read the errata and are reacting to hysteria, or you skimmed the document and are reacting to hysteria.

THE BIG CHANGE is Magic Item creation and Treasure Parcels, both of which are completely DM side rules changes.

Almost every other change makes your characters either more powerful or more versatile.

That I can understand, but what I see is Essentials is already modifiying core 4e rules, to match the gameplay of Essentials.  That is my concern.  Look at the rules update.  The changes are subtle, some good, some not so good. But most are good.



The rules updates do not "modify core 4E to match the gameplay of Essentials".

Essentials gameplay is IDENTICAL to "core 4E" gameplay. So when a rules update is made for 4E, it is also made for Essentials, because they are the same game! Cart before horse.

My concern is the eventual crossover to Essentials.



This is literally meaningless. Essentials is a series of Fourth Edition D&D products. This is like saying "I'm worried about the eventual crossover to PHB2".

Right now they say oh you don't have to play Essentials if you don't want to, but further down the road this may not be the case, as rules are updated and made to fall in line with Essentials.



You do know that Essentials is a 10 products line, right? It isn't going to be produced after those 10 products (Which, btw, includes a set of dice, and about 3 sets of tiles).

Your fears are caused by one thing; Thinking that Essentials is anything other than a 4E suppliment series. If you looked at Essentials as what it is, which is a set of suppliments for 4E, you would never be fearing things like this. You wouldn't be thinking things like "The rules updates is to make the normal 4E like Essentials!" if you hadn't already worked yourself up pretending it was a new game, because then you'd just say "oh, rules update" rather than "converting 4E to the new game!". It absolutly comes down to you.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.
Despite the above, Essentials IS 5e. Nearly all the design paradigms from 4e have been flushed in some misguided attempt to attract Pathfinder grognards.

Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Next was Game Balance. Everyone knows Wizards must dominate.
Lastly was simplicity. Its just wayy to complicated to pick a power off your list and roll the attack. Its MUCH simpler to spend a minor action to pick a stance, use the move described, make an attack roll, add whatever your stance benefit is and then decide if you want to throw on your encounter boost.

I cant sell it to you, cause I see about 3 steps forward and 12 steps back.
Despite the above, Essentials IS 5e. Nearly all the design paradigms from 4e have been flushed in some misguided attempt to attract Pathfinder grognards.

Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Next was Game Balance. Everyone knows Wizards must dominate.
Lastly was simplicity. Its just wayy to complicated to pick a power off your list and roll the attack. Its MUCH simpler to spend a minor action to pick a stance, use the move described, make an attack roll, add whatever your stance benefit is and then decide if you want to throw on your encounter boost.

I cant sell it to you, cause I see about 3 steps forward and 12 steps back.




Funny stuff.
Although we can argue the OP characterizing Essentials as a "direction for 4e," to try to answer the original question I would say that Essentials is generally a good thing because it's designed specifically to attract new players to the game.

Despite all the alarmism, Essentials is not much more than a cheap and easy way for new people to get into the hobby, and the really cool thing about it is that the guy who only ever buys the red box Essentials set can still drop his character into any 4e game, but he's only looking at a minimal investment to become a D&D player.

I think that's pretty great, and I think anyone who's genuinely interested in the future of the game should think that's pretty great too.



Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.



Yes.  YESSSSSSSSSSSSS.  The tears of anger nourish us grognard DMs!  Our cunning plans have come to fruition.


To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
The Red Box and other introductory aspects are great.  Having "Master set" dungeon tile packs is a great - and long overdue - idea.  Giving players tokens for monsters is an excellent way to start things out.  So yeah, it covers the basics, and it covers them well.

However, it could have been an introduction and introduced players to the game that already existed, rather than using this "introductory" product line to alter the game ("going forward").
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Despite the above, Essentials IS 5e. Nearly all the design paradigms from 4e have been flushed in some misguided attempt to attract Pathfinder grognards.

Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Next was Game Balance. Everyone knows Wizards must dominate.
Lastly was simplicity. Its just wayy to complicated to pick a power off your list and roll the attack. Its MUCH simpler to spend a minor action to pick a stance, use the move described, make an attack roll, add whatever your stance benefit is and then decide if you want to throw on your encounter boost.

I cant sell it to you, cause I see about 3 steps forward and 12 steps back.




Uhm... no.

First thing, it isn't anywhere close to 5th edition. The next edition will not have the level chart at the beginning of the book, that will depend on class. This will be an attempt (an successful one I would wager) to get away from the "cookie cutter" aspect of 4th.

Second, game balance is always a problem in any new products that come after the "first three." PHB3 failed on that front. (though Weaker may not count for some) Wizards are not getting "amped" just because they are more effective even when they miss. I still want to fast cast dailies instead of "memming" them.

The Stance thing is something I have yet to see, but it sounds like the crap from the 3.5 book that came out just before the 4th edition announcement. They ain't difficult.

I like what changes I have seen thus far, but some do not go far enough. The Parcel System is still in place, with item rareties and random charts for those that want to use them. I wanted a complete alternative, though, not a improvement.


Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
This is in no way meant to be flammatory, please keep the comments positive.  I love 4e embraced it hardcore.  At first WotC "hinted" that Essentials would not replace 4e but be the basic set to Advance Dungeons and Dragons of years gone by.  But the more I hear and see, it looks like 4e will no longer be supported

We've certainly gotten some mixed signals.  The impression I get is that 4e may have been delivering what it's fans wanted - balance, and playability and gamist fun, perhaps - but the fans, for lack of numbers, electronic piracy, or sheer cheapness, weren't delivering what WotC needed (revenue).  There were a lot of 3.x and earlier fans who never adopted 4e, who complained bitterly of the death of each sacred cow and the imposition of class balance.  There were a lot of kids in the 80s who bought D&D then, but never since.  Those kids are now middle-aged, the prime age for nostalgia marketing.  There's a younger generation playing WoW but not D&D (aparently, 4e didn't nab as many of them as was hoped, either).

So, Essentials is trying very hard to be all things to all people, with fewer staff to pull off the miracle.  It's hardly surprising that the communication about what it is doesn't seem consistent.  It needs to be a return to the original Red Box basic D&D that sold so well in the 80s.  It needs to be a return to 3.x 'system mastery'-rewarding class imbalances.  It needs to be an 'on-ramp' for completely new gamers.  It needs to fix every little thing anyone's ever whined and bitched about - and also not change any of the things everyone else loves.  

Or, it needs to at least pretend to be all those things long enough to get all those folks to give it a shot...

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Good point Tony.  I predict disaster.

-Polaris

I played in an essentials game yesterday, for worldwide D&D game day. It was the Red Box adventure, Sunderpeak Mountain I believe it was called.  It....was.....a....blast.

We all used essentials pregen characters (except one old dude who absolutely HAD to play his Shifter Shaman from PHB2), but if you weren't paying close attention, you'd never know anyone was playing anything other than normal 4E builds. Except that the newbies at the table had the mechanics of their characters figured out in about half the time.

The play, the feel, the encounters were all 100% 4E goodness. I've been quietly reading all the rants and complaints about Essentials and how it's some new version of the devil, but I have absolutely no idea what people are talking about.  The Essential builds felt like nothing other than different builds with slightly simplified concepts.  Not to mention, they are a blast to play.  I must not be old or angry enough or something, because I had a blast at the table and the game felt just like every other great 4E game I've played. Honestly, if you didn't tell me people were playing new builds, I'd not have noticed on any of them except the fighter due to the mention of stances, (which worked really well btw).

Last point, I grew up on AD&D in the 80s and my one complaint about 4E is that the combat mechanics are designed so heavily around a grid and minis, that it's nearly impossible to play without them.  Having played some Essentials now, and having read the new Heroes book that was just released, I'm beginning to think that if you're running all Essentials builds, you might realistically be able to run combat withOUT a grid and minis, just like the good 'ol days.

I'll have to read some more and give it a try in my group, but if we could ditch the grid and minis for all but the most epic battles, I would be pretty happy.  I like the tactical combat with the grids, but for smaller skirmishes, I'd rather avoid using them and just move more quickly to the next story point, rather than going to all the trouble to grid the entire combat everytime a sword is swung.
You'll get a lot of people covering their ears and pretending this isn't a revision, but since you made the OP it seems like you've already seen through that and are calling it like it is.  Why is it a good direction for us? I don't know; personally it's a really bad direction for me.  Why is it a good direction for WotC?  Because, like 3.5e, they know it will sell, and be cheaper to design, because they just have to re-release and reprint all their existing material with slightly modified rules.  And there are a lot of people who are far more likely to buy the new official elf and dwarf and fighter and cleric because they want to stay official than there are who will buy some random new race or class that WotC comes up with.  PHB3 made it seem like WotC was running out of steam for new ideas (Psionic Generic Defender and Psionic Generic Leader!  For all of you people who want to play a Fighter or Warlord but with a halo around your head!  Oh, and your favorite races, like red crystal man and living bush!)  I think their newer original material wasn't selling that well, especially since most of the hardcore fans have DDI anyway and were getting a lot of it that way, so they're hoping a revision aimed at 3.5 holdouts and even older folks like 1e/2e parents with kids will be more likely to buy physical books.  And along with that, the hardcore current 4e fans that feel like they have to stay current will feel the need to buy the new and slightly upgraded versions of everything they currently have.  For all the complaints that 3.5 got and all the whining about "having" to buy new books, and the hundreds of threads saying no one "had" to buy new books, almost all the people on both sides of that argument did eventually feel like they had to buy the new books and went and bought a few of them.
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen!  Essentials is doomed!

I'd say more, but I don't think anyone is taking the above paragraph seriously (not yours, BlackKnight1239.  What you wrote makes sense) and so it would just be a waste of computer ink.
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.



I WANT to play them. So you're wrong there. Yes it is a good direction. Martial classes do have real powers, and occasionally dailies, and it wasn't a mistake. The biggest problem with previous editions was the wizard abilities vastly out classes the martial ones, as spells where broken ones. Luckily they aren't bringing it back. I liked schools of magic because it added more variety to the same class, or in this case, build. It's like 4e is still 4e, and has lots of 4e design elements, just different. Even the retro look of the red box makes me hopeful that D&D will be as popular and awesome as it was in the editions I never got to experience. It looks good.
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen!  Essentials is doomed!

I'd say more, but I don't think anyone is taking the above paragraph seriously (not yours, BlackKnight1239.  What you wrote makes sense) and so it would just be a waste of computer ink.



Im sorry but different classes operating in completley different ways does not make any sense whatso ever.  Every class getting the same sorts of powers is the only way to keep the game interesting and balanced I dont like martial classes being limited to I attack.  It doesnt make sense to me nor is it going to be fun in any way shape or form.  EVERY class should have daily powers and some kind of encounter power.
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.



I WANT to play them. So you're wrong there. Yes it is a good direction. Martial classes do have real powers, and occasionally dailies, and it wasn't a mistake. The biggest problem with previous editions was the wizard abilities vastly out classes the martial ones, as spells where broken ones. Luckily they aren't bringing it back. I liked schools of magic because it added more variety to the same class, or in this case, build. It's like 4e is still 4e, and has lots of 4e design elements, just different. Even the retro look of the red box makes me hopeful that D&D will be as popular and awesome as it was in the editions I never got to experience. It looks good.



See a class without real daily powers will be boring to play relying on basic attacks is just wrong.  A basic attack should never be equal to a power its called basic for a reason.  It breaks imersion and suspension of disbelief for someone using basic attacks to be as good as someone using powers and no stance should be at will they should be daily powers not at will stances are powerful abilities.
It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.



I WANT to play them. So you're wrong there. Yes it is a good direction. Martial classes do have real powers, and occasionally dailies, and it wasn't a mistake. The biggest problem with previous editions was the wizard abilities vastly out classes the martial ones, as spells where broken ones. Luckily they aren't bringing it back. I liked schools of magic because it added more variety to the same class, or in this case, build. It's like 4e is still 4e, and has lots of 4e design elements, just different. Even the retro look of the red box makes me hopeful that D&D will be as popular and awesome as it was in the editions I never got to experience. It looks good.



See a class without real daily powers will be boring to play relying on basic attacks is just wrong.  A basic attack should never be equal to a power its called basic for a reason.  It breaks imersion and suspension of disbelief for someone using basic attacks to be as good as someone using powers and no stance should be at will they should be daily powers not at will stances are powerful abilities.




See a class without real daily power won't be boring to play, because they aren't just relying on basic attack. Luckily, the basicness of the attack is removed when you start stacking their at-wills, class features and encounters on top. It was only called basic for convience. I'd like to point out at this point that 4e is an abstraction. In-game there is no such things as basic attacks or at-wills. Only techniques. If that breaks your imersion, then how do you deal with dice rolls, feats, martial dailies or at-will arcane powers? And why shouldn't a less powerful stance be at-will? Because you say so?
DOOOOM THE SKY IS FALLING!

Seriously.
I just wonder where all of the logical fallacy protesters are.  Especially with gems like this:
Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.


To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
I think williamhm75's posts on this thread are funny; therefore, I think he is joking
Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back. 

The new /martial/ classes are a bit lacking in variety/drama/whatever, yes.  I played a Slayer on Game Day - it's the kind of thing you can have fun with as a casual gamer for a single session (or maybe even a season of encounters).  I'm not that casual a gamer, though, so while it was nice doing big damage and being able to just charge into fight after fight heedlessly because I had 13 freak'n healing surges, the fact that all I ever did was swing that axe started to wear a little thin after the second or third fight.  I'm sure there are more interesting stances than +1 to hit stance and +2 to damage stance, but, even so, a small number of options is a small number of options.

The point of a class like the Slayer is to provide an anchor or baseline for the group.  He has the hps and solid damage potential to help hold the line and grind down the enemy, while the other characters do things that are more interesting or varied.  It's not, as it turns out, a necessary role, but it can still be a useful contribution for a more casual or less engaged player who just wants to hang out with his friends (who insist on playing D&D) and read a comic or play a video game when it's not his turn.  And, a class like that gives a baseline for other classes to really shine in comparison too, of course.

The non-martial classes still seem fine, though.  And, with ongoing power inflation, even the basic-attack-spammers will eventually outshine any 'orphaned' pre-Essentials builds.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back. 

The new /martial/ classes are a bit lacking in variety/drama/whatever, yes.  I played a Slayer on Game Day - it's the kind of thing you can have fun with as a casual gamer for a single session (or maybe even a season of encounters).  I'm not that casual a gamer, though, so while it was nice doing big damage and being able to just charge into fight after fight heedlessly because I had 13 freak'n healing surges, the fact that all I ever did was swing that axe started to wear a little thin after the second or third fight.  I'm sure there are more interesting stances than +1 to hit stance and +2 to damage stance, but, even so, a small number of options is a small number of options.

The point of a class like the Slayer is to provide an anchor or baseline for the group.  He has the hps and solid damage potential to help hold the line and grind down the enemy, while the other characters do things that are more interesting or varied.  It's not, as it turns out, a necessary role, but it can still be a useful contribution for a more casual or less engaged player who just wants to hang out with his friends (who insist on playing D&D) and read a comic or play a video game when it's not his turn.  And, a class like that gives a baseline for other classes to really shine in comparison too, of course.

The non-martial classes still seem fine, though.  And, with ongoing power inflation, even the basic-attack-spammers will eventually outshine any 'orphaned' pre-Essentials builds.




See this is my fear people pointed towards essentials classes to start out will get bored within two sessions and quit playing because they think the game is boring when really the only fault lies with the classes. I saw this happen 3-4 times with 3.5 people who were new to the game were steared towards the fighter and told to just attack and learn the game couple sessions later they quit because it was not very much fun variety and choice in power is what makes the game fun not swinging with the same thing over and over again.

And the idea of stances that can be held indefinitley is silly.   Why not just you know give them powers?
So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

It'll sell, that's why. Also, trade sized books in paper back. They aren't quite as durable, but cheaper AND I can keep them all on the table at the same time? Goddamn, so great. It also does a bunch of things wizards wants. It provides an engine for introducing new players and in a fairly simple way. For the older ones, new class builds, rule updates, and books with the errata included are more than good enough. It also gives them a way to easily do a bunch of updating, rather than printing them in PHB4.



Except the new classes are so boring no one will want to play them.  Its not a good direction.  Having martial characters without real powers or dailies is a mistake.  The biggest problem with previous edditions was that martial classes didnt have real abilities now they are bringing those problems back.  I didnt really like schools in old edditions thought it was too restrictive and now theyve brought that idea back too.  Its like 4e isnt even 4e anymore its starting to look way too much like previous Es.  Even the retro look of the red box pisses me off get some new art that actually looks good.



See i like posts like this, because it is so easy to disprove, because I am already looking forward to play the rogue with at will wall running or hiding with just cover or concealment.  So all it took was one person wanting to play one class and we have proven that Will is absolutely wrong.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.



except without real options they will suck compared to a real fighter.  Im just confused as to why the power system is not simple enough.  Whats the diffrence between using an at will and having to modify a basic attack they each take the same thought proccess to use.  I dont see the point of it.  It makes classes that are far less interesting.


And the idea of stances that can be held indefinitley is silly.   Why not just you know give them powers?



*looks at the game day sheets*  Hmm, in power format, uses actions and does special things... Yup they are powers.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.



except without real options they will suck compared to a real fighter.  Im just confused as to why the power system is not simple enough.  Whats the diffrence between using an at will and having to modify a basic attack they each take the same thought proccess to use.  I dont see the point of it.  It makes classes that are far less interesting.



For you perhaps, but I find it interesting, so you are wrong.

Also, it seems the stances could actually make the fighters more powerful, so less options, more power?

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.



except without real options they will suck compared to a real fighter.  Im just confused as to why the power system is not simple enough.  Whats the diffrence between using an at will and having to modify a basic attack they each take the same thought proccess to use.  I dont see the point of it.  It makes classes that are far less interesting.



For you perhaps, but I find it interesting, so you are wrong.




Hey, Herrozerro.  Didn't you get the memo in which William was anointed as the "One True Voice" and all others are branded heretics?

Get with the program.
So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.



except without real options they will suck compared to a real fighter.  Im just confused as to why the power system is not simple enough.  Whats the diffrence between using an at will and having to modify a basic attack they each take the same thought proccess to use.  I dont see the point of it.  It makes classes that are far less interesting.



For you perhaps, but I find it interesting, so you are wrong.

Also, it seems the stances could actually make the fighters more powerful, so less options, more power?



less options equals less intersting.  no one likes doing the same thing over and over again it gets boring.  Thats why some fights that get down to nothing but at wills seem to drag.  These simplified classes just dont have enough to them they arent real classes theyve been stripped of everything interesting.  The rogue already had a lot of movment and actual attack powers that dont rely on basic attacks.
So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.



except without real options they will suck compared to a real fighter.  Im just confused as to why the power system is not simple enough.  Whats the diffrence between using an at will and having to modify a basic attack they each take the same thought proccess to use.  I dont see the point of it.  It makes classes that are far less interesting.



For you perhaps, but I find it interesting, so you are wrong.

Also, it seems the stances could actually make the fighters more powerful, so less options, more power?



less options equals less intersting.  no one likes doing the same thing over and over again it gets boring.  Thats why some fights that get down to nothing but at wills seem to drag.  These simplified classes just dont have enough to them they arent real classes theyve been stripped of everything interesting.  The rogue already had a lot of movment and actual attack powers that dont rely on basic attacks.



So by your logic Wizards, shamen and druids are more interesting because they get more powers?  I guess no one would play any other classes except those right?

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

Also, it seems the stances could actually make the fighters more powerful, so less options, more power?

Sure.  Really, you prettymuch have to compensate the Slayer/Knight with more power, just to get the game to balance somewhere near the defualt 4 encounters/day.  The only trick is getting the balance just right, and deciding where to balance.  The default is 4-encounter days, but many DMs like 1-encounter days much of the time (and players can /try/ to shorten days by taking extended rests sooner), plus longer days are at least possible in theory.   Theyl also need to scale with level, since other classes will be getting more encounters and dailies (and thus more options as well as more power) as they level up.  The Knight/Slayer gets a couple more options, in the form of stances, which should help.

5e really needs something like Wrecan's SARN-FU to support "Theatre of the Mind."

"You want The Tooth?  You can't handle The Tooth!"  - Dahlver-Nar.

"If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly"  - E. Gary Gygax

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

So, again, it's not 'essentials classes,' it's the 'essentials martial builds,' that are maybe on the boring side in the sense of having fewer and less interesting powers.  The non-martial builds all seem to be fine.

The other problem with steering someone with 3.5 experience toward the fighter is that they'll likely have a preconcieved notion that the fighter sucks - something which the Essentials version is unlikely to dispel.



except without real options they will suck compared to a real fighter.  Im just confused as to why the power system is not simple enough.  Whats the diffrence between using an at will and having to modify a basic attack they each take the same thought proccess to use.  I dont see the point of it.  It makes classes that are far less interesting.



For you perhaps, but I find it interesting, so you are wrong.

Also, it seems the stances could actually make the fighters more powerful, so less options, more power?



less options equals less intersting.  no one likes doing the same thing over and over again it gets boring.  Thats why some fights that get down to nothing but at wills seem to drag.  These simplified classes just dont have enough to them they arent real classes theyve been stripped of everything interesting.  The rogue already had a lot of movment and actual attack powers that dont rely on basic attacks.



So by your logic Wizards, shamen and druids are more interesting because they get more powers?  I guess no one would play any other classes except those right?




But every other class at least gets powers and usually something intersting to it but to me the warlock is more fun to play than the sorcerer because I have more to do with cursing and more benifits.  The sorcs feature might be more powerful but its also more boring to use.  The swordmage and paladin might be weaker than the fighter but I find their marking mechanics more interesting because its active abilities.  

The fewer powers and choices a class has the less there is to make it interesting and the more bored the player is going to be with it.  The current fighter at least has encounter and daily powers, and not just some extra damage ooh soo interesting and fun NOT.