I prefer Essentials

705 posts / 0 new
Last post
erdana; color:#000000; font-size:9pt">After buying and reading through Hotfl, I must admit, I really like the new design philosophy. 

I've been playing D&D since 2nd edition, and have played through every iteration of the game since.  I converted over to 4e because of the 'every PC is useful' philosophy as well as the vast improvements made on the DM side. I have enjoyed the 4e rule set so far, and I’m glad it continues to grow and evolve (I like errata too).

Our group is made up of mostly casual players (play one or two times a month) who enjoy these three elements of the game the most: hanging out, dishing out some damage, telling a good story.

I think the Essentials line offers the perfect mix of High to Low complexity choices for our group.  We have a person in the group who will be absolutely thrilled playing a slayer.  He is more concerned about making a witty insult then rolling a d20 to back it up, rather than flipping through 2 to 3 sheets of powers. 

We have other players that will enjoy the less confusing class choices.  They are mostly concerned with playing a cleric in this game, then a wizard in that game, then a fighter in the next game, rather then having the option to build 6 different kinds of fighters, then scanning for key words and rider effects, etc.

We also have some players that drop in and out.  I think even Essentials might be too much for these guys.  I sometimes have them play NPCs (monster manual type stats) when they decide to drop in.  There may be some Essentials builds that they can pick up right away and be effective, but we'll see.

Overall, I praise the shift in design and hope this is the direction for 4e going forward.  I think this is the perfect blend of what I love about 4e and what works practically for our casual gaming group.  I'm hoping to see other classes like the avenger and barbarian classes Essentialized.

I know others disagree with me, but hey, its just my opinion.
I can agree with you about the classes. I'd like to see Essentials alternative builds for plenty of them.

Honestly, for as hard a time as I give Essentials, it's totally not the game's fault. It's a nice system, and I'll be happier when they come out with simplified magic classes as well, just so I don't feel like the Martial classes are a reenactment of "Revenge of the Nerds."

I still haven't gotten a chance to play any Essentials classes since the Red Box Game Day, since I spontaneously rediscovered how much I loved the character of my swordmage. Now there's a class that'd be cool to see in Essentials format, particularly if they call it the Duskblade, so the fandom could rejoice. 

The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.

In theory, I agree that a few more 'simple' classes were needed. I loved the choices in 4e, but some of the players I play with seemed to struggle with it's complexity.

Still waiting to see how it all pans out though.
Uh oh.

I enjoy your opinion and agree with much of it. Don't let the fact that about 10 angry dudes are about to tell you how wrong you are dissuade you from hanging out on the boards.

There has been a huge amount of Essential craziness going on and I don't know if you realize what you just stumbled into.

Good luck and God Speed.
erdana; color:#000000; font-size:9pt">After buying and reading through Hotfl, I must admit, I really like the new design philosophy. 

I've been playing D&D since 2nd edition, and have played through every iteration of the game since.  I converted over to 4e because of the 'every PC is useful' philosophy as well as the vast improvements made on the DM side. I have enjoyed the 4e rule set so far, and I’m glad it continues to grow and evolve (I like errata too).

Our group is made up of mostly casual players (play one or two times a month) who enjoy these three elements of the game the most: hanging out, dishing out some damage, telling a good story.

I think the Essentials line offers the perfect mix of High to Low complexity choices for our group.  We have a person in the group who will be absolutely thrilled playing a slayer.  He is more concerned about making a witty insult then rolling a d20 to back it up, rather than flipping through 2 to 3 sheets of powers. 

We have other players that will enjoy the less confusing class choices.  They are mostly concerned with playing a cleric in this game, then a wizard in that game, then a fighter in the next game, rather then having the option to build 6 different kinds of fighters, then scanning for key words and rider effects, etc.

We also have some players that drop in and out.  I think even Essentials might be too much for these guys.  I sometimes have them play NPCs (monster manual type stats) when they decide to drop in.  There may be some Essentials builds that they can pick up right away and be effective, but we'll see.

Overall, I praise the shift in design and hope this is the direction for 4e going forward.  I think this is the perfect blend of what I love about 4e and what works practically for our casual gaming group.  I'm hoping to see other classes like the avenger and barbarian classes Essentialized.

I know others disagree with me, but hey, its just my opinion.

Glad that you are having fun with it.  I've been pleased with what I've seen so far.  I'm currently DMing one 4e game with original classes and an all Essentials game.  I enjoy both, but I haven't really got to see them side by side yet.
Just adding my support as well, I am beginning an essentials only game this weekend. So far my entire group has loved essentials, even managed to snag back one from Pathfinder.
Just adding my support as well, I am beginning an essentials only game this weekend. So far my entire group has loved essentials, even managed to snag back one from Pathfinder.

That's cool.

I've been making tallies on the essential argument threads, just for my own nerdiness.

So far, it's about 4 to 1 in favor of essentials (getting closer to 5 to 1 in the last day or so).  I've tracked about 15 threads and about 350 commenters.

In the threads I've been documenting, there have been about 15 commenters (5 of which seem to find EVERY one of those threads and comment dozens of times) who are VERY strongly ANTI Essentials and about 30 commenters who have taken issue with those same 15 repeatedly and appear to be strongly PRO essentials.  Most of the other comments are from people who are marginally against or casually for Essentials.  Lots of people have reserved judgement and are waiting to see what happens.

Based on this very UNscientific research, I'd say that Wizards will be in good shape, at least with the type of gamer that comments here.  Lastly, based on this information, we've had about 4 positive comments on Essentials without a single negative. That means we should be getting a negative pretty quick if the ratio holds up.
stop tracking me mbeacom.....you've now earned a Judo Chop! Wink
And the best part is, even if I don't prefer Essentials, it doesn't matter.  You can play an Essentials character alongside my not-Essentials character and nobody will care.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
And the best part is, even if I don't prefer Essentials, it doesn't matter.  You can play an Essentials character alongside my not-Essentials character and nobody will care.



I'm sure that's the case IRL, but you wouldn't know it from reading certain posters' comments.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

stop tracking me mbeacom.....you've now earned a Judo Chop! Wink

Due to privacy concerns, I can neither confirm, nor deny your presence in my trackers. ;)
Uh oh.

I enjoy your opinion and agree with much of it. Don't let the fact that about 10 angry dudes are about to tell you how wrong you are dissuade you from hanging out on the boards.

There has been a huge amount of Essential craziness going on and I don't know if you realize what you just stumbled into.

Good luck and God Speed.



Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with Essentials in a vacuum.  It seems to be a solid enough setup for a fun game.  My problem with essentials is, and always has been, how it interacts with previous 4e elements (poorly), how it's been marketed as "fully compatible" dispite this, and the ham-handed changed they've made to the existing 4e ruleset to accomodate the Essentials products.
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with Essentials in a vacuum.  It seems to be a solid enough setup for a fun game.  My problem with essentials is, and always has been, how it interacts with previous 4e elements (poorly), how it's been marketed as "fully compatible" dispite this, and the ham-handed changed they've made to the existing 4e ruleset to accomodate the Essentials products.


Actually, in my Encounters group, we always have people that bring in non-Essential 4E characters.  They interact just fine.

And the best part is, even if I don't prefer Essentials, it doesn't matter.  You can play an Essentials character alongside my not-Essentials character and nobody will care.



I'm sure that's the case IRL, but you wouldn't know it from reading certain posters' comments.



You mean, all those people on my ignore list?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

It will be interesting to see how the 'daily' attack power mechanic plays out over the next few game session.  I have certain players that despise the 'daily' power resource management game for all classes. 

I think the party may be more willing to press on, even if the Wizard and Cleric are down a few dailies, because the Fighter and Rogue can still dish it out.  However, they still have their own healing surges to manage, so they are on a timer as well.

My experience PreEssentials was the party would do their best to call it a day when the party’s dailies were running low.  I would do my best to stop them, but pesky players sometimes find a way.

The big change with the power system in 4e is that the dailies the mage and warpriest have aren't all they have.  Being out of dailies doesn't mean you're done for the day, it doesn't even mean you're going to be dead weight for the rest of the adventuring day.  You can work just fine on encounter and at-will powers.  A lot of players will actually hold their dailies back until they think they're in the hardest encounter they're likely to face that day.  The real limiter on how much battling you do in a day is the healing surges.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
And the best part is, even if I don't prefer Essentials, it doesn't matter.  You can play an Essentials character alongside my not-Essentials character and nobody will care.



I'm sure that's the case IRL, but you wouldn't know it from reading certain posters' comments.



You mean, all those people on my ignore list?


 What terrifies me is that in all my 20 years online, this is the first and only place I have ever used an ignore list or killfile.
AlexandraErin: If last season was any indication, I think Encounters is pretty much the elemental opposite of "organized" play!
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with Essentials in a vacuum.  It seems to be a solid enough setup for a fun game.  My problem with essentials is, and always has been, how it interacts with previous 4e elements (poorly), how it's been marketed as "fully compatible" dispite this, and the ham-handed changed they've made to the existing 4e ruleset to accomodate the Essentials products.


Actually, in my Encounters group, we always have people that bring in non-Essential 4E characters.  They interact just fine.




Part of the problem is every DM has a different way of doing this.  Some allow 4e and 4eE characters as long as the 4e characters don't have 4eE elements and vice versa, while others allow "the firehose".  The firehose creates more problems than the other methood, but you still have some major team-op balance issues, mostly related to basic attack efficiency and striker bonus damage frequency.
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with Essentials in a vacuum.  It seems to be a solid enough setup for a fun game.  My problem with essentials is, and always has been, how it interacts with previous 4e elements (poorly), how it's been marketed as "fully compatible" dispite this, and the ham-handed changed they've made to the existing 4e ruleset to accomodate the Essentials products.


Actually, in my Encounters group, we always have people that bring in non-Essential 4E characters.  They interact just fine.




Part of the problem is every DM has a different way of doing this.  Some allow 4e and 4eE characters as long as the 4e characters don't have 4eE elements and vice versa, while others allow "the firehose".  The firehose creates more problems than the other methood, but you still have some major team-op balance issues, mostly related to basic attack efficiency and striker bonus damage frequency.

Firehose?  Can you elaborate on that? I'm not following you.


Part of the problem is every DM has a different way of doing this.  Some allow 4e and 4eE characters as long as the 4e characters don't have 4eE elements and vice versa, while others allow "the firehose".  The firehose creates more problems than the other methood, but you still have some major team-op balance issues, mostly related to basic attack efficiency and striker bonus damage frequency.



Could you elaborate more?

I'm currently allowing my players to drink from the firehose, and experiencing no problems at high Paragon (level 17). My Knight has a bunch of pre-Essentials feats and adopted the Dwarf flex stats to Con / Str. My Sorcerer is using a bunch of Essentials Feats. My Brutal Scoundrel Rogue has dropped his extra At-Will and is using Human Resolve. My Staff Wizard took Staff Expertise in place of Versatile Expertise. The Dragonborn Warlord will probably adopt the Dragonborn flex stats when HotFK releases.

Suprisingly, the two Strikers are still doing the same levels of damage, on average, depsite the Rogue being able to Sneak Attack once per turn now because I've been pulling the Warlord out of position more often (as their tactics have improved, mine have had to step up). So the Warlord is granting as many Ranged Basics to the Sorcerer as he grants Melee Basics to the Rogue.

What problems are you experiencing? In detail so I know what to expect.



I will not say that I prefer Essentials to non-Essentials, but I will say that I always prefer more additional stuff to less. I am very happy to add Essentials to my games alongside all the previous stuff.

The only new thing I selfishly dislike is random treasure and rarity rules: and all of those rules are explicitly rules-as-written optional. (As a dungeon master I like the convenience of telling my players, "You count up all your loot and it equals xxxx gold pieces per player: start spending." As a player I like to buy the most appropriate and efficient stuff.) If I played Living Forgotten Realms I would have more problems than weak and random treasure, so it would not bother any more than RPGA already does.
Member of Grognards for 4th Edition
Firehose?  Can you elaborate on that? I'm not following you.



As near as I can tell, "drink from the firehose" originated from the "Weird Al' Yankovic movie, UHF.

Basically, a kid on the UHF childrens' show wins the "prize" of drinking from the firehose. They set him up, turn on the hose, and blast him across the studio in a jet of water.

The idea being that you give your players all of the many options, and they either survive the torrent or get blown away by it. 

It may have an earlier origin, but I always think of UHF and Stanley Spudowski's Clubhouse when I hear "drink from the firehose."  :D

It may have an earlier origin, but I always think of UHF and Stanley Spudowski's Clubhouse when I hear "drink from the firehose."  :D


www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXc5ltzKq3Y

Open wide!

Seriously, though, I'm curious as to what problems can arise when everything's put in one place.  It seems to me that Essentials was made expressly not to cause problems, and that is my experience so far.
I like what I've seen so far with essentials in the previews, but it will be a while before I get to see a game in action. I'm pretty sure I will like the new rules better than the old (esp semi-random treasure and martial classes without dailies).
So far I'm ok with everything I've seen, although I haven't had a chance to see an essentials build in use.  I do have one player in my group (I DM) that I know wouuld benefit from an essentials character.  He isn't a big rules / crunchy build guy, and would love a handy level up chart to keep him in the game.
Even though I have spoken otherwise I don't really hate essentials. Everything but the martial classes are great. The martial classes just rub me the wrong way, I don't like the MBA thing, it is just to similar to 3.5 for me. I love that martial classes get to be just as awesome as casters in 4.0. Essentials just seems to shove them back down. Now of course that was before I took a look at a fey charging Eladrin rogue lol.
It may have an earlier origin, but I always think of UHF and Stanley Spudowski's Clubhouse when I hear "drink from the firehose."  :D


www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXc5ltzKq3Y

Open wide!

Seriously, though, I'm curious as to what problems can arise when everything's put in one place.  It seems to me that Essentials was made expressly not to cause problems, and that is my experience so far.

hee hee, Michael Richards!

"I'm thinking of something Orange..." 
Essentials just seems to shove them back down.



It doesn't shove them. It lets people STEP down if they want (and there are a LOT of people who want to).

Plus they stay as awesome as casters, just differently.

Don't let the MBA thing fool you. The only real difference between an MBA and an at-will attack is that one is called MBA and the other is not.
AlexandraErin: If last season was any indication, I think Encounters is pretty much the elemental opposite of "organized" play!
And the best part is, even if I don't prefer Essentials, it doesn't matter.  You can play an Essentials character alongside my not-Essentials character and nobody will care.



I'm sure that's the case IRL, but you wouldn't know it from reading certain posters' comments.





That's because many people have forgotten that RPGs are supposed to be adaptable to meet the needs of each playgroup.. Of course to be fair it is WotC's fault that they have forgotten this...
I dont get all this love for essentials at all.  How is the power system hard to learn?  Does it really take that much thought process to go through just a few abilities?  I personally see essentials as an insult and regression to the days when melee classes had nothing to do but toss dice.  I cant fathom why anyone would enjoy that.  Our group has 3 people all new to dnd all of them have picked up 4e as is with no problem if they can do it anyone can do it.  I also dont feel different classes need different mechanics I feel that that is a mistake you cannot balance classes if they do not get abilities at the same rate.
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.

My first D&D book was the Moldav Red Box set, I still have the dice. The Essentials line reminds me of those days somewhat. I guess it's a matter of what you know, because I consider it a lot easier to roleplay with the Essential Classes than main line 4E. I don't really know what the magic ingredient is in Essentials that main line doesn't have. I look forward to playing Essentials, where as I quit 4E.


Please keep the Essentials stuff coming Wizards. Consider me won back.
I dont get all this love for essentials at all.  How is the power system hard to learn?  Does it really take that much thought process to go through just a few abilities?  I personally see essentials as an insult and regression to the days when melee classes had nothing to do but toss dice.  I cant fathom why anyone would enjoy that.  Our group has 3 people all new to dnd all of them have picked up 4e as is with no problem if they can do it anyone can do it.  I also dont feel different classes need different mechanics I feel that that is a mistake you cannot balance classes if they do not get abilities at the same rate.



A great many people quite liked the simple nature of the martial classes. Many also noticed that even the new, big list of martial abilities tended to get pushed aside in favour of using one or maybe two powers over and over.....which was like it used to be anyway.

Essentials is 4th edition with a bit more honesty and a lot of the needless "shiny bits" chopped off, in favour of the parts people actually want.
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.

My first D&D book was the Moldav Red Box set, I still have the dice. The Essentials line reminds me of those days somewhat. I guess it's a matter of what you know, because I consider it a lot easier to roleplay with the Essential Classes than main line 4E. I don't really know what the magic ingredient is in Essentials that main line doesn't have. I look forward to playing Essentials, where as I quit 4E.


Please keep the Essentials stuff coming Wizards. Consider me won back.



See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure.  That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure.  That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class



The only real premise you have there is the power structure thing.  The rest is your personal preferences, and if you can't get that other people have different preferences, then, wow.

As far as the power structure thing goes, the power structure is not the system, full stop.  You only have to learn one system, but that system contains many elements and more may be added, easily.  A game cannot do one thing, and only that one thing, and always that one thing, and survive/have concept or design space to add material to it.  Stagnation is the enemy of fun, curiosity, and invention.

The base 4e power structure is solid - but they've done so much in it they needed to deviate from/within it, which they started, if you want to pick the latest possible point, in the PHB3.
Well said, Inarai.

"You cannot balance classes if they do not get abilities at the same rate" is not at all accurate, though. I have had some good back-and-forths with people not so keen on Essentials (Tony comes to mind) and what we agree on is that it's harder to balance classes if they don't get abilities at the same rate.  That's where the fear of the change in class structure has merit.  How does not having a daily but doing more sustained damage impact overall balance, variable extended rest spans, and individual encounter difficulty levels?  That's where the crux of the real issue is.

It's not impossible to balance differing classes... difficult, maybe, but not impossible.  In fact, the different Roles and how they effect combat all result in classes that preform differently in combat which require a careful eye on how they balance.  Just like every new power that enters the game has potential balance impacts (and why we get errata sometimes for them). So far, Wizards has done a pretty good job of it in 4E and Essentials, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't go wrong if they continue to diverge from the original structure.  I trust they won't, though, and where issues arise, they'll continue to support us with Errata and quick fixes.
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure.  That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class



The only real premise you have there is the power structure thing.  The rest is your personal preferences, and if you can't get that other people have different preferences, then, wow.

As far as the power structure thing goes, the power structure is not the system, full stop.  You only have to learn one system, but that system contains many elements and more may be added, easily.  A game cannot do one thing, and only that one thing, and always that one thing, and survive/have concept or design space to add material to it.  Stagnation is the enemy of fun, curiosity, and invention.

The base 4e power structure is solid - but they've done so much in it they needed to deviate from/within it, which they started, if you want to pick the latest possible point, in the PHB3.



Well williamhm75 more power to you, different strokes for different folks. Luckily Wizard's is going to give us both. I am glad that all of us can get a D&D system that we enjoy playing.


As I have stated in this thread, I am not overly fond of 4E. It is ok. It has been two years since the release. They are due to add some fresh blood to the system.

I am also going to re-post something I said elsewhere:

I'm sure that they have had every intention of supporting two lines. In their current environment trying to keep up two lines would be a death knell for D&D and possibly product confusion. One of the lines will become electronic content only. The developers have said that this will be Essentials. As my wife likes to tell me, past experience speaks volumes. I'm not trying to start a flame war or a debate about evil corporations. I am stating a reality, not my reality, the reality of economics. You don't want to go to my reality, believe me.

They have lost a substantial piece of the market to Pathfinder. D&D has always been King of the RPG Hill, by far. In the past, other RPGs haven't even received twenty percent of the market share, all of them together. The D&D developers have made a mistake and are trying to correct it. This last Ennies was just an example, perhaps not a good sample, but fairly close to accurate.

The question is, how are they going to keep current customers while creating new ones?


I really like the essential class build.  I can't wait to try an essential assassin as a player.  I love the flexability of 4e class build, but not everybody is as obssessive about DnD as I.  I think the essential class builds are great, the will appeal to older gamers and work very well for the casual gamer.  As an obssessive 4e fan, I can't wait to see the essential builds in action.
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure.  That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class



The only real premise you have there is the power structure thing.  The rest is your personal preferences, and if you can't get that other people have different preferences, then, wow.

As far as the power structure thing goes, the power structure is not the system, full stop.  You only have to learn one system, but that system contains many elements and more may be added, easily.  A game cannot do one thing, and only that one thing, and always that one thing, and survive/have concept or design space to add material to it.  Stagnation is the enemy of fun, curiosity, and invention.

The base 4e power structure is solid - but they've done so much in it they needed to deviate from/within it, which they started, if you want to pick the latest possible point, in the PHB3.



Well williamhm75 more power to you, different strokes for different folks. Luckily Wizard's is going to give us both. I am glad that all of us can get a D&D system that we enjoy playing.


As I have stated in this thread, I am not overly fond of 4E. It is ok. It has been two years since the release. They are due to add some fresh blood to the system.

I am also going to re-post something I said elsewhere:

I'm sure that they have had every intention of supporting two lines. In their current environment trying to keep up two lines would be a death knell for D&D and possibly product confusion. One of the lines will become electronic content only. The developers have said that this will be Essentials. As my wife likes to tell me, past experience speaks volumes. I'm not trying to start a flame war or a debate about evil corporations. I am stating a reality, not my reality, the reality of economics. You don't want to go to my reality, believe me.

They have lost a substantial piece of the market to Pathfinder. D&D has always been King of the RPG Hill, by far. In the past, other RPGs haven't even received twenty percent of the market share, all of them together. The D&D developers have made a mistake and are trying to correct it. This last Ennies was just an example, perhaps not a good sample, but fairly close to accurate.

The question is, how are they going to keep current customers while creating new ones?




Im not sure the only thing Im sure of is that I hate the idea of simple classes so much that Im thinking of quiting dnd all together I see it as a betrayal of what they said in the preview books.  Essentials goes against every single design philosophy of 4e I hate getting static features as you level as opposed to choosing abilities.  I HATE classes that have different mechanical systems and subsystems, if this is where dnd is headed then yeah not sure I can keep playing it.
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.

...


That is an assumtion.  I assume Pathfinder players have no interest in 4e.  Essentials looks more like 2e, its aimed for the audience the marketers have been telling us, those who don't play 4e new gamers and those playing the older editions 3.x and later.  The scope of the marketing is beyond the Pathfinder converts, they want as many people playing DnD as possible.  4e essentials is a good step in that direction, it also got my interest, a 4e fan since '08.  I doubt Pathfinder converts are the target audience, WotC wants to bring more gamers into the table top Rpg market, not just compete against Paizo. 
....
Im not sure the only thing Im sure of is that I hate the idea of simple classes so much that Im thinking of quiting dnd all together I see it as a betrayal of what they said in the preview books.  Essentials goes against every single design philosophy of 4e I hate getting static features as you level as opposed to choosing abilities.  I HATE classes that have different mechanical systems and subsystems, if this is where dnd is headed then yeah not sure I can keep playing it.



Wow we were reading different things into the previews, I feel I got what I was advertised with 4e essentials.  But after reading that I think you should quite Dnd, it is obvious WotC cares nothing for the feelings of William 75.  Quite DnD altogether, that'll show everyone. 
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.

...


That is an assumtion.  I assume Pathfinder players have no interest in 4e.


Well HOLEE COWPIES.

You disagree/discredit someone's claim by saying it's an assumption, and then IMMEDIATELY have the neutronium cojones to say "I assume"???

WOW.
AlexandraErin: If last season was any indication, I think Encounters is pretty much the elemental opposite of "organized" play!