4e vs 4e Essentials?

88 posts / 0 new
Last post
What's the difference? 

Is Essentials just an aditional set of books that simplify things or is it like a 4.5e? 
And there's the Creepy Doll That always follows you It's got a ruined eye That's always open And there's a Creepy Doll That always follows you It's got a pretty mouth To swallow you whole
essentials is just a simpler presentation of some of the classes really.

its not even close to 4.5 e, all the rules are the same as "classic"4e and essentials classes work just fine alongside non Essentials classes.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

Essentials is an additional set of books that give more options, just like the (Source) Power books did.  There is no difference; Essentials is 4e, 4e is Essentials.

They are not 4.5, because they replaced nothing.  You can have a Knight or Slayer hiking around in a group with a Weaponmaster Fighter with no rules hiccups at all.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Essentials is just the latest line of books in 4th edition. There are some minor design philosophy tweaks (like trying to streamline classes rather than the massive power spam required to release a "core" class, or using the new monster math espoused in the DMG update/Monster Manual 3) but the rules they operate under are exactly the same as everything else in 4th edition.

EDIT - Lol, I sort of saw this reply spam happening but wanted to reply anyway Tongue Out
Thanks for clearing that up guys. 
And there's the Creepy Doll That always follows you It's got a ruined eye That's always open And there's a Creepy Doll That always follows you It's got a pretty mouth To swallow you whole
What's the difference? 

Is Essentials just an aditional set of books that simplify things or is it like a 4.5e? 

Essentials tries to be all things to all people, including a simplified 'on-ramp' to D&D, and a 4.5e, yes.

My opinion is that it's mainly two things:

1) The vangaurd for a WotC-proclaimed 'new direction,' which, again, claims to try to do a lot, but, mostly seems to be about easing the load on developers.  That may be to cut costs for their dark corporate masters at Hasbro (there /is/ a recession on, and cost-cutting without regard to quality, patriotism or humanity is still in vogue), or to free up resources for a 5e (Monte Cook, who did 3.0 has been brought back on board, and there have certainly been plenty of rumors flying).

2) Vigorous backpeddling on the improvements made by 4e - such as class balance, consistency, precision, playabilty, etc - which were soundly rejected by 3.5 fans (now playing Pathfinder).  D&D has the longest legacy of any RPG (being the 'first,' afterall), and while being a /good/ game is generally better than being a bad game, when you have over 3 decades of built up affection for the quirks and foibles that make a classic game technically inferior, it can be hard to get people to move on to something better.


Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.

 

 

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

Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.




I like what 4e did and also like Essentials... clearly your reasoning went wrong somewhere, I think...

At the very least the Essentials Monster Vault is definitely a step forward and not back. The player material is some of both IMO.
Thanks for clearing that up guys. 



Yeah, I had always heard terrible things about the D&D boards but they're actually pretty nice aren't they?
Who's nice?  The internet isn't nice ... no not at all.


Tony Vargas is right, as a player you have a different experience playing with PHB1/2/3 classes and playing with classes from newer books.  There are many reasons but the simplest is this: they were designed by different people.  
The mage combines the best of 4E and Essentials, and should be a clue for how to deal with the differences in the future, or rather combine both as a template for class design.
Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.


I like what 4e did and also like Essentials... clearly your reasoning went wrong somewhere, I think...

Or you just like new stuff.  Other people have an odd horror of anything new.  One DM I know utterly rejected 3e and kept running AD&D for years.  When 4e came out, he utterly rejected it - and stared running 3e.  :shrug:

At the very least the Essentials Monster Vault is definitely a step forward and not back.

True enough.  The MM3 and MV monsters are up to the power-inflation 4e has experienced.  Similarly, aside from item rarity and it's repercussions, the DM resources for Essentials are fine.  It's the classes (loss of class balance) that are really the most problematic. 

You can cherry-pick from Essentials, but if 4e was working for you pre-E, there's little need to.

 

 

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

Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.


I like what 4e did and also like Essentials... clearly your reasoning went wrong somewhere, I think...

Or you just like new stuff.  Other people have an odd horror of anything new.  One DM I know utterly rejected 3e and kept running AD&D for years.  When 4e came out, he utterly rejected it - and stared running 3e.  :shrug:

At the very least the Essentials Monster Vault is definitely a step forward and not back.

True enough.  The MM3 and MV monsters are up to the power-inflation 4e has experienced.  Similarly, aside from item rarity and it's repercussions, the DM resources for Essentials are fine.  It's the classes (loss of class balance) that are really the most problematic. 

You can cherry-pick from Essentials, but if 4e was working for you pre-E, there's little need to.



Or people could honestly just like both.  its not that hard to imagine.

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

I honestly like both. The knight is probably my favorite defender and the barbarian is probably my favorite striker and I play a mix of pre/post essentials leaders/controllers. It entirely comes down to a difference of playstyle and what you prefer. As far as rules go they are totally compatible.
i like both.  i won't complain about options. 

Cry Havoc!  And let slip the hogs of war!

Or you just like new stuff.  Other people have an odd horror of anything new.  One DM I know utterly rejected 3e and kept running AD&D for years.  When 4e came out, he utterly rejected it - and stared running 3e.  :shrug:



Well, I do admit to having a tendency to be a bit of a magpie - attracted to the new shiny thing of the moment. Of course, I don't lose my appreciation for older things, so I don't think that's it. I like how the essentials classes have a much simpler, clearer design focus that doesn't bog down in hundreds of powers and complicated class features.

The DM side of me likes that because it makes the game run easier. The slayer is always going to use a stance, hit something, and maybe use a power strike or a utility power. Compare that to a Warlock who's running around using prime shot, curse damage, shadow walk, having to check how many points he has stacked up in his darkspiral aura, picking out what power to use, that all gets rather complicated in a hurry. For an illustration of what I'm on about, you can check out a great article that was over on TheIdDM regarding the power level of player characters, but most specifically the monster stat block (equivalent) he created for his level 12 core Rogue (apparently simplified from what it could potentially be).

The player side of me likes a lot of the classes because they're just new variations on things I already liked with cool new twists. Some of them may be less complicated, but that doesn't make them any more boring since I can apply my expertise at describing actions to turn "basic attack" into whatever I feel like. They also feel really good to play for one shots, especially at higher levels, because their complexity won't force you to spend 2 hours studying your build lest it outreach your mental grasp in the crucible of play, thereby slowing down the game.

As for class balance, that really only seems to get terribly out of whack in Paragon tier and beyond anyway. Then again, 4th edition has always had problems in Paragon tier and beyond in terms of "balance". There's a reason why a large amount of 4e blogs talk about how the players' power levels start to run away once you hit the middle or end of Paragon tier. Running away from each others' classes isn't much different than them running away from the monsters, which lands us back in why I like them through the lens of DM. The less crazy essentials classes that are "underpowered" (such as many consider the Vampire or Binder) also don't get carried away so hard and stick closer to the monsters rather than going absolutely out of control. They're actually better designed from that standpoint (that is, the standpoint of player vs. monster balance), it's just that they don't fit with the worse designed concepts that existed at the start of the edition and are therefore "underpowered" relative to them.
Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.


I like what 4e did and also like Essentials... clearly your reasoning went wrong somewhere, I think...

Or you just like new stuff.  Other people have an odd horror of anything new.  One DM I know utterly rejected 3e and kept running AD&D for years.  When 4e came out, he utterly rejected it - and stared running 3e.  :shrug:

At the very least the Essentials Monster Vault is definitely a step forward and not back.

True enough.  The MM3 and MV monsters are up to the power-inflation 4e has experienced.  Similarly, aside from item rarity and it's repercussions, the DM resources for Essentials are fine.  It's the classes (loss of class balance) that are really the most problematic. 

You can cherry-pick from Essentials, but if 4e was working for you pre-E, there's little need to.



Or people could honestly just like both.  its not that hard to imagine.

It's not at all hard to imagine an enthusiastic fan who uncrittically embraces each new release.

 

 

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

In my opinion (I am well aware that this is not an objective observation) the 4e to Essentials relationship bears similarity to the relationship to 3e and 3.5.

Despite what's bandied about, 3e and 3.5 were not incompatible products.  A 3e fighter could play just fine alongside a 3.5 barbarian and not run into any problems.  Hell, a 3e fighter could play in the same game as a 3.5 fighter (and the two characters wouldn't even be very different.) The difference is that 3.5 was explicitly a replacement, while Essentials was explicitly not.  In other words, the only reason Essentials isn't 4.5 is because WotC says "it's not 4.5"  In fact, Essentials is far more different from 4e than 3.5 was from 3e.  The massive changes in design philosophy are more like the change from 3.5 to 4e.

Essentials would have been a better product if they hadn't tried so hard to make it cross-compatible with 4e.  Essentials could have fixed the major design flaws of the system: math errors that need "feat taxes" to patch them up, and so forth.  Also, you would have avoided the more glaring balance issues when mixing the two: 4eE classes which use melee basic attacks at at-will, encounter, and daily levels of power can use O4e's melee basic improvement elements designed under the assumption that Melee Basics were inherently inferior to even at-will powers, the interaction between such classes and O4e's basic-attack enabling leaders.

These are all my opinions, of course.  People disagree with me, as you can see, so form your own.
Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.


I like what 4e did and also like Essentials... clearly your reasoning went wrong somewhere, I think...

Or you just like new stuff.  Other people have an odd horror of anything new.  One DM I know utterly rejected 3e and kept running AD&D for years.  When 4e came out, he utterly rejected it - and stared running 3e.  :shrug:

At the very least the Essentials Monster Vault is definitely a step forward and not back.

True enough.  The MM3 and MV monsters are up to the power-inflation 4e has experienced.  Similarly, aside from item rarity and it's repercussions, the DM resources for Essentials are fine.  It's the classes (loss of class balance) that are really the most problematic. 

You can cherry-pick from Essentials, but if 4e was working for you pre-E, there's little need to.



Or people could honestly just like both.  its not that hard to imagine.

It's not at all hard to imagine an enthusiastic fan who uncrittically embraces each new release.




What about a fan who is critical yet still embraces parts of each new release?

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Bottom line:  if you like what 4e did with D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it just un-does 4e's progress -  and keep playing 4e with the material already out.  If you don't like what 4e did to D&D, don't bother with Essentials - it doesn't un-do enough of 4e's damage - and just keep playing 3.5/Pathfinder.


I like what 4e did and also like Essentials... clearly your reasoning went wrong somewhere, I think...

Or you just like new stuff.  Other people have an odd horror of anything new.  One DM I know utterly rejected 3e and kept running AD&D for years.  When 4e came out, he utterly rejected it - and stared running 3e.  :shrug:
At the very least the Essentials Monster Vault is definitely a step forward and not back.

True enough.  The MM3 and MV monsters are up to the power-inflation 4e has experienced.  Similarly, aside from item rarity and it's repercussions, the DM resources for Essentials are fine.  It's the classes (loss of class balance) that are really the most problematic. 

You can cherry-pick from Essentials, but if 4e was working for you pre-E, there's little need to.

Or people could honestly just like both.  its not that hard to imagine.

It's not at all hard to imagine an enthusiastic fan who uncrittically embraces each new release.


What about a fan who is critical yet still embraces parts of each new release?

'Parts?'  That's not really embracing, that's back to cherry-picking, which is fine, in itself.  You can pick and choose elements from different editions or different systems and come up with something that suits you.  

 

 

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

Ugh...this old horse...

I don't like Essentials in general, for a number of reasons.  I do like some very specific aspects of Essentials, but those are few and far between, and have little to do with Essentials as a product, and more to do with Essentials as a product-line.

That said...

Essentials both is and is not analgous to a theoretical 4.5e.  Is it explicitly a 4.5e?  No.  It doesn't say 4.5 on the cover.  But that is a cheap answer.  The real question is how it (Essentials) relates to what came before it ("classic" 4e), and how that relationship compares to the relationship between 3e and 3.5e.

From my perspective, there are similarities, yet there are also profound differences.  I could list them all, had I the time, but I don't so I won't.  Instead, I'll focus on what I think are the single strongest similarity and the single strongest difference.  Most of the others are really just refined distinctions of these two, anyway.

The Biggest Difference

3.5e was designed and intended to completely replace the equivalent mechanics of 3e.  While in truth there were enough similarities to allow a functional co-operation between a 3e character and a 3.5 character at the same table, that was a side-effect.  3.5 explicit goal was to rejuventate and repair a ruleset burdened by broken mechanics (and it is arguable whether it was successful).  The 3.5 rules were presented as being ostensibly "better" for the purposes of playing a fun game than the preceding 3e rules.  The litany of changes amounted to little more than little tweaks here and there, not significant enough to critically undermine attempts to have 3e and 3.5e to "play nice together", but enough to fundamentally change how certain game elements (like a given spell, or class progression, or feature) worked specifically.

Essentials does no such thing.  At their core, there are no rules changes of that sort of fundamental level, nor does any of the content explicitly replace anything from 4e, though some of the content can be considered redundant.  Any seeming rules changes in the text were actually the result of errata to 4e's rules prior to the printing of Essentials.  Essentials, in that regard, can be considered an MRP.

The Biggest Similarity

Both Essentials and 3.5e represent a change in how mechanics are designed and presented.  3.5e had new class progressions of many of the classes, and changes to several of the most abusive spells and features, and a number of other smaller changes (that I won't get into specifics here), designed in a specific way for a specific purpose.  Essentials also has new, but not explicitly replacement, classes and mechanics (like treasure distribution rules), designed in a specific way for a specific purpose.

These purposes are glaringly different, but both enact an amount of change in function (and, in 4e/Essentials case, form) that is roughly similar in scope, in that a player familiar with 3e and 3.5e, or 4e and Essentials, can draw distinctions between the two of them.  3.5e's changes were, as mentioned earlier, to repair and rejuvenate a broken rules system rife with abuse.  Essentials' changes (more accurately "additions", since they do not replace anything like 3.5e did) are in design ethos and aesthetic, making them more thematic and easier to grok for new players, at the expense of some of the...symmetrical design of 4e.

In describing the biggest difference, I actually already mentioned the biggest similiarity.  In essence, the biggest difference is a shift in the purpose of the application of what is the biggest similarity.

All told, it is a matter of subjective opinion on whether the changes in either edition/version/whatever are for the better, or even effective at what they set out to do.  It can be competently argued that 3.5e did little to curb the abuses of 3e, for example.  It can be argued credibly from either side that Essentials is truly more new-player friendly than "classic" 4e, or whether the presence of non-symmetrical design is a boon or a step-backward.  The specifics are up to the individual to decide.  For myself, I have chosen to largely ignore most of Essentials and that which has come after it.  Not because it changes my game rules, but that I find the content itself to less rewarding, interesting, and generally under-par.  I do not care for the new design direction, and the priorities it entails, but I make no objective claims on the matter of their worth.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
 'Parts?'  That's not really embracing, that's back to cherry-picking, which is fine, in itself.  You can pick and choose elements from different editions or different systems and come up with something that suits you.  




You know what?  everyone cherry picks to some degree.  Even with original 4e.  Some might not like clerics, while rangers might not be someone elses cup of tea.

Your idea that no one could like both Essentials and Original 4e without having blind fanboyism is insulting.  I know that most of my group likes both, as well as myself.  and it would appear that there are several other people in this thread. 

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

 'Parts?'  That's not really embracing, that's back to cherry-picking, which is fine, in itself.  You can pick and choose elements from different editions or different systems and come up with something that suits you.  




You know what?  everyone cherry picks to some degree.  Even with original 4e.  Some might not like clerics, while rangers might not be someone elses cup of tea.

Your idea that no one could like both Essentials and Original 4e without having blind fanboyism is insulting.  I know that most of my group likes both, as well as myself.  and it would appear that there are several other people in this thread. 


@Tony: are you really saying this?  If so, please just drop it, because, as Herro says, it really is very insulting.  Feel free to say that you, personally, don't like Essentials, or feel that you can't combine the two, or feel that Essentials is 4.5, or anything else regarding your own opinion.  But don't project your opinion onto others.  I also happen to like material from both the PHB 1, 2, and 3 as well as from the "Heroes Of" line of books.  At the same time, there is also material from all those books that I don't like.  The rest of my group feels the same way.  We don't decide to like or dislike something just because it is new or old; we decide based on the actual merrits of the material.
Frankly it just makes people feel important to have strong opinions about things, one way or another. Rely on your own observations and just play what you have fun playing. All the BS theorizing and parsing and labeling things is just people pontificating. Its a game, it is supposed to be fun, do what's fun. If you can't have fun while other people have fun doing it a bit differently then you're probably taking things WAY too seriously, go take a break and enjoy a different hobby for a while...
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I like what Wizards claimed to intend to do with Essentials, particularly making it easier for new players to pick up.

Sadly...

* The new format is easier for the person who's never dealt with D&D before. However it sacrifices usability and clarity for anyone who HAS dealt with D&D before... such as the player advancing his first character from level 1 to level 2 after a suitable amount of play. Or anyone who's ever played any caster class in a previous edition of D&D, or any class whatsoever in O4E.

* The Essentials martial classes and other railroaded classes ARE easier for the first-time player... up until the first occasion when the DM says "roll initiative". After that, IMHO, the advantages are lost, and are not regained until level 5 (when the non-railroaded classes get a second daily power). New players generally shouldn't be playing level-5 characters.

* The non-railroaded classes are not simplified to any meaningful extent, other than the absence of spellbooks and Ritual Caster in a few classes.

In other words, Essentials mostly fails at its alleged purpose.

Its other alleged purpose, bringing back certain old-timers, was problematic. Apparently this was to be achieved by making casters flexible and weapon-wielders monotonous again. However, in my observation the complaint was not that the weapon-wielders were flexible, it was that they were approximately as powerful as the casters - what was desired was uber-powerful casters accompanied by wimpy weapon-wielders. And this was desired primarily by people who wanted to play the casters, not the weapon-wielders - so could not be achieved except by *removing* the O4E weapon-wielders from the game.

Essentials could not achieve that purpose unless it WAS a new edition. And in the process it would have lost all the players who like for weapon-wielders to be powerful and flexible too.

In the process of these failures, Essentials invites serious power creep, particularly by elevating Basic Attacks from "rarely used except for charges and granted/triggered actions" (and thus safe to juice up via feats) to "first choice, and juiced by class features PLUS feats".

Also, several existing classes need adequate Melee Basic Attacks, and had them ONLY because of the Melee Training feat. But WotC recognized that this feat in combination with the basic-attack-spammer Essentials classes opened up a lot of potential abuse (making all those classes pick-your-own-preferred-stat-primary), so nerfed Melee Training.

Because of these problems and the failure at its intended purpose, I think 4E would be better if Essentials, or at least the railroaded and basic-attack-spammer classes, had not been published.

That said, there are no rules changes. The differences are in the architecture of individual classes. Even most of the stuff that was updated to be more compatible with Essentials, an O4E character using the older version (such as Magic Missile or Melee Training) would be not at all problematic. If a game session is run completely by Essentials rules, it is run completely by O4E rules (and vice versa except for a few things Essentials forgot to mention, like rituals).

3E and 3.5E are similar enough that a character built in one system can be played in the other, but different enough that the group must agree on which set of rules will be in force when running encounters. 

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Honestly, I don't exactly have anything against Essentials.  My annoyance with it is mainly Wizard's implementation.  They were building up 4th, had just dropped two new classes, and then BAM! and now we get all this talk about them releasing Essentials as this sorta companion format to 4th.  When in fact it really has grown into 4.5 because it replaced the format in which classes are built now.  Sure, some powers and obviously feats can be used, but all in all everything(except for maybe the odd dragon article on the runepriest) is build around the Essentials format.  That just annoyed me to no ends.

Will I play an Essentials class eventually?  Yeah probably, was going to shoot for the E-Fighter but my DM didn't want to mix things up since everyone else was 4th.  Though really that argument was moot because it wouldn't have been any real difference considering we were all lv 30 at the time.  But yeah nothing exactly against Essentials though I do feel it is kind of a step backwards in terms of design format.  It's more of a 3.6, or maybe 3.8.  But whatever no big.  Definitely don't have a real hate for it or anything.  If our group wants to play we'll play, otherwise there's still plenty of normal 4th classes for me to explore if I don't. 


As for class balance, that really only seems to get terribly out of whack in Paragon tier and beyond anyway. Then again, 4th edition has always had problems in Paragon tier and beyond in terms of "balance". There's a reason why a large amount of 4e blogs talk about how the players' power levels start to run away once you hit the middle or end of Paragon tier. Running away from each others' classes isn't much different than them running away from the monsters, which lands us back in why I like them through the lens of DM. The less crazy essentials classes that are "underpowered" (such as many consider the Vampire or Binder) also don't get carried away so hard and stick closer to the monsters rather than going absolutely out of control. They're actually better designed from that standpoint (that is, the standpoint of player vs. monster balance), it's just that they don't fit with the worse designed concepts that existed at the start of the edition and are therefore "underpowered" relative to them.



The reason many Essentials classes are underpowered compared to classic 4e classes is because there is very little choice in powers and class features with them. Customization is what makes character creation and leveling up fun, so this was definitely the wrong way to achieve balance. Also, that approach can't work as long as the old powerful classes are still around. Vampire players will just feel gimped next to the classic 4e fighters and rangers in their party.

What WotC should have done instead was to increase paragon and epic monster power levels more. Not just more damage but more ways to combat the myriad status effects that characters can impose upon them. Nerfing some of the more broken options would also work (radiant and frost cheese, charge items, etc.).


Its other alleged purpose, bringing back certain old-timers, was problematic. Apparently this was to be achieved by making casters flexible and weapon-wielders monotonous again. However, in my observation the complaint was not that the weapon-wielders were flexible, it was that they were approximately as powerful as the casters - what was desired was uber-powerful casters accompanied by wimpy weapon-wielders. And this was desired primarily by people who wanted to play the casters, not the weapon-wielders - so could not be achieved except by *removing* the O4E weapon-wielders from the game.




Just noting..that this general attitude shows you have no idea whatsoever why most people who stay with 3.5 or switch to pathfinder instead of going to 4e.  I'm sure a few do with that reason..but that isn't the complaint.

The complaint is a mixture of things...one was casters loosing somethinglike 4/5's of their power..while the non caster types gained only a tiny amount of power.  So most casters got unhappy that instead of the melee's being brought up to their level..instead the casters got brought down.  You also had an increased focus on combat...and making combat longer, reducing ways to finish it quickly (unless your DM used nothing but minions).  Many tricks being removed.

There was also, with 4e starting off, a huge decrease in options for most people.  Powers?  With feats getting weaker..you had more options available at once....but less choice of options overall (for the melee types).  And with the casters..just a pure and out loss of options and abilities period.  The change to multiclassing just helped add to this overall loss of options and abilities.  Since then more options have been introduced...but honestly at this point its overwhelming for those who prefered the 'simple' melee (pick a group of related options and you know what you'll be doing) and still limited for the more advanced casters....as you can only have so few options period.

And even still..with all of this said and done....the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.


Then Essentials comes out....if honestly the thought at wizards was 'we need everything but wizards to be gimped to attract the older crowd.'  Then I'm completely disapointed.  What wound up happening with essentials was a further decrease in options for all classes involved, except for wizards.  So this wound up pushing away many of the older players even more.

A further loss in options, in abilities..in tricks..in fun things to do in general, even moreso than 4e represented is all essentials managed to provided to those who like the older games.  I've found among the people I play with...it actually stiffles creativity and interest.  I took the same group that for 3 years has been playing 4e...and managed to get them willing to try pathfinder.

In that one game....everyone had actively more fun, more roleplaying was had overall, more creativity, more interest in the game.  I saw people adlibbing much more..the DM was much more willing to make up crap on the fly (same DM as always in both cases), people getting more into character.  Having characters who had personality (over just catchphrases as their chars have in 4e).  And the only thing changed was the system being played in....some of them playing just because we asked them to..even had us make a character for them.  Heck I'm even the one playing a 'powerful' class (divine caster) the rest of them have different melee classes, and yes even with them playing non caster classes they are having a great time.


But honestly, having been gaming for awhile..to answer the threads origional question.  Essentials is 4.5...the only thing that makes it not 4.5 is that wizards said 'its not 4.5'.  Essentials has presented just as much change, if not more, than 3.5 gave to 3.0.  Yeah sure you can still use pre-essentials stuff...3.0 and 3.5 mixes just as easily though.  And honestly in most cases...the core books from either group (4e or 3.0) both feel just as useless with the newer release.

So yes..Essentials just is as big a change...Wizards just didn't want to admit it as 3.5 brought a lot of heartache.  Of course without them admitting its an edition rewrite, people start mixing the two sources...creating much more power than is ever ment to be found in game.  And it helps just make the 4e game even more unbalanced (yaknow the big thing touted for 4e, being all balanced and crap..sure I think thats a load of hogwash to focus on...but if you're going to focus on it..don't go around and release things that breaks what you are trying to sell your game on!)


Honestly...I just noticed I started ranting..I think my points are in here somewhere..so I'm gonna stop here.
.the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.





Stopped reading there. Clearly, you've never played the game.



Its other alleged purpose, bringing back certain old-timers, was problematic. Apparently this was to be achieved by making casters flexible and weapon-wielders monotonous again. However, in my observation the complaint was not that the weapon-wielders were flexible, it was that they were approximately as powerful as the casters - what was desired was uber-powerful casters accompanied by wimpy weapon-wielders. And this was desired primarily by people who wanted to play the casters, not the weapon-wielders - so could not be achieved except by *removing* the O4E weapon-wielders from the game.




Just noting..that this general attitude shows you have no idea whatsoever why most people who stay with 3.5 or switch to pathfinder instead of going to 4e.  I'm sure a few do with that reason..but that isn't the complaint.

The complaint is a mixture of things...one was casters loosing somethinglike 4/5's of their power..while the non caster types gained only a tiny amount of power.  So most casters got unhappy that instead of the melee's being brought up to their level..instead the casters got brought down.  You also had an increased focus on combat...and making combat longer, reducing ways to finish it quickly (unless your DM used nothing but minions).  Many tricks being removed.

There was also, with 4e starting off, a huge decrease in options for most people.  Powers?  With feats getting weaker..you had more options available at once....but less choice of options overall (for the melee types).  And with the casters..just a pure and out loss of options and abilities period.  The change to multiclassing just helped add to this overall loss of options and abilities.  Since then more options have been introduced...but honestly at this point its overwhelming for those who prefered the 'simple' melee (pick a group of related options and you know what you'll be doing) and still limited for the more advanced casters....as you can only have so few options period.

And even still..with all of this said and done....the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.


Then Essentials comes out....if honestly the thought at wizards was 'we need everything but wizards to be gimped to attract the older crowd.'  Then I'm completely disapointed.  What wound up happening with essentials was a further decrease in options for all classes involved, except for wizards.  So this wound up pushing away many of the older players even more.

A further loss in options, in abilities..in tricks..in fun things to do in general, even moreso than 4e represented is all essentials managed to provided to those who like the older games.  I've found among the people I play with...it actually stiffles creativity and interest.  I took the same group that for 3 years has been playing 4e...and managed to get them willing to try pathfinder.

In that one game....everyone had actively more fun, more roleplaying was had overall, more creativity, more interest in the game.  I saw people adlibbing much more..the DM was much more willing to make up crap on the fly (same DM as always in both cases), people getting more into character.  Having characters who had personality (over just catchphrases as their chars have in 4e).  And the only thing changed was the system being played in....some of them playing just because we asked them to..even had us make a character for them.  Heck I'm even the one playing a 'powerful' class (divine caster) the rest of them have different melee classes, and yes even with them playing non caster classes they are having a great time.


But honestly, having been gaming for awhile..to answer the threads origional question.  Essentials is 4.5...the only thing that makes it not 4.5 is that wizards said 'its not 4.5'.  Essentials has presented just as much change, if not more, than 3.5 gave to 3.0.  Yeah sure you can still use pre-essentials stuff...3.0 and 3.5 mixes just as easily though.  And honestly in most cases...the core books from either group (4e or 3.0) both feel just as useless with the newer release.

So yes..Essentials just is as big a change...Wizards just didn't want to admit it as 3.5 brought a lot of heartache.  Of course without them admitting its an edition rewrite, people start mixing the two sources...creating much more power than is ever ment to be found in game.  And it helps just make the 4e game even more unbalanced (yaknow the big thing touted for 4e, being all balanced and crap..sure I think thats a load of hogwash to focus on...but if you're going to focus on it..don't go around and release things that breaks what you are trying to sell your game on!)


Honestly...I just noticed I started ranting..I think my points are in here somewhere..so I'm gonna stop here.



Agreed and I would like to add something.

It's really bad observation to think that people want to be a wizard just so they can loo down their nose at the melee people. People want to play casters because they play different from the melee guys. In our games the casters never out do the melee guys so I still don't see this problem.

To keep the balance in 4th edition they made all the classes essentially follow the same road. Pretty much all the classes do the same thing just in a few different ways. It's instead of giving a class an encounter power they made the at-will augment-able to give the same effect as an encounter. It's like writing "Word" this way or writing "Word" that way.


Anyway, some aspects of Essentials was supposed to take the place of some things in O4 and I think that was the designers trying to bring in new changes while bringing us Essentials. I honestly think that if Essentials did what the designers thought it would do we would no see the things we are starting to see again. I think the plan was to get rid of things like racial feats and the designers now see that was a mistake and have done a 180. It's like someone tripping over their feet and telling you that was their plan all along. Since we don't know the true purpose of the Essentials line the designers could say that was their goal to start with and we would never ever know. I don't believe Essentials was for beginners because that was what the Red Box was for. I think the Essentials line was supposed to be the new direction going forward but it didn't get the open arms treatment like Wizards thought and they had to change some direction. 


I took the same group that for 3 years has been playing 4e...and managed to get them willing to try pathfinder.
In that one game....everyone had actively more fun, more roleplaying was had overall, more creativity, more interest in the game.  I saw people adlibbing much more..the DM was much more willing to make up crap on the fly (same DM as always in both cases), people getting more into character.



Frankly, that sounds like you are the type of players for whom well-defined rules (4e) kill imagination and role-playing. Creativity and adlibbing are needed in earlier editions of D&D and Pathfinder since their rules are not neatly and clearly defined. To each his own, but our group is not limited by well-written rules.
Just noting..that this general attitude shows you have no idea whatsoever why most people who stay with 3.5 or switch to pathfinder instead of going to 4e.  I'm sure a few do with that reason..but that isn't the complaint.

The complaint is a mixture of things...one was casters loosing somethinglike 4/5's of their power..while the non caster types gained only a tiny amount of power.  So most casters got unhappy that instead of the melee's being brought up to their level..instead the casters got brought down.  You also had an increased focus on combat...and making combat longer, reducing ways to finish it quickly (unless your DM used nothing but minions).  Many tricks being removed.

I'll agree with the complaint about the casters being knocked down, but it has consistently seemed to me (and I'm offering nothing other than my own personal observations and opinions here - there are no cold hard facts on the ground) that the complaint about the weapon-users being brought up to the same level that the casters were brought down to was at least as loud as the complaint about the casters being brought down. I didn't hear "we aren't as powerful as we used to be" much; instead I heard "we're no more powerful than them!"

And those complaints about weapon-users being too complicated in 4E, the simpler ones of 3X were better for players? It seemed to me that the people making THAT complaint were mostly the same people who wanted casters to be more powerful than weapon-users.

If your observation disagrees with mine... that's entirely possible. We don't necessarily see/hear the same people talking, or interpret their words the same. I don't  have a problem with that.

You also had an increased focus on combat...and making combat longer, reducing ways to finish it quickly (unless your DM used nothing but minions).  Many tricks being removed.

Gee, that's odd... you've clearly never played with any of the people I've ever played with. Because everyone I've played with saw the opposite: that 4E is much more conducive to role-playing, and to advancing in levels with minimal combat.

There was also, with 4e starting off, a huge decrease in options for most people.

That's a very common consequence of a new edition.

However, in this case I disagree - unless by "most people" you mean "high level casters". Low-level casters, and weapon users, brought more options to the table in 4E than in 3.5. Sure, the casters had fewer options in character building - but they still brought more options to the table.

And even still..with all of this said and done....the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.

It remains true that the wizard can do anything (except healing? not sure about that one - without multiclassing or themes); it's definitely the most flexible class. What's different is that the wizard, like every other class, cannot do everything effectively. He can be an effective controller OR striker OR leader OR defender; but he cannot be an effective controller AND striker AND leader AND defender.

Then Essentials comes out....if honestly the thought at wizards was 'we need everything but wizards to be gimped to attract the older crowd.'  Then I'm completely disapointed.  What wound up happening with essentials was a further decrease in options for all classes involved, except for wizards.

That's about right, and why many people who love 4E for how well it does what you say it doesn't do, dislike Essentials.

I took the same group that for 3 years has been playing 4e...and managed to get them willing to try pathfinder.

In that one game....everyone had actively more fun, more roleplaying was had overall, more creativity, more interest in the game.  I saw people adlibbing much more..the DM was much more willing to make up crap on the fly (same DM as always in both cases), people getting more into character.  Having characters who had personality (over just catchphrases as their chars have in 4e).

I saw exactly the same thing - more fun, more roleplaying, more creativity, more interest, more adlibbing - when the group I was in went from 3.5E to 4E. I've never seen a 4E character in play with just catchphrases, even in the one encounter I played at a con with pregen characters.

But honestly, having been gaming for awhile..to answer the threads origional question.  Essentials is 4.5...the only thing that makes it not 4.5 is that wizards said 'its not 4.5'.  Essentials has presented just as much change, if not more, than 3.5 gave to 3.0.  Yeah sure you can still use pre-essentials stuff...3.0 and 3.5 mixes just as easily though.



But you can go to a group that is playing a mix of 3E and 3.5E characters, watch a combat encounter for a while, and (if you're familiar with both rulesets) figure out of a group is playing by 3E or 3.5E rules.

You CANNOT watch a combat encounter with a group of O4E and Essentials characters, and figure out whether group is playing by O4E or Essentials rules, because the two have the same ruleset.

And honestly in most cases...the core books from either group (4e or 3.0) both feel just as useless with the newer release.

I agree, the 3E core books are not much use in 4E.

Oh, that isn't what you meant? Then you should learn that everything in O4E PHB1 is fully legal in Essentials. Not only can Essentials character classes take PHB1 feats and powers and paragon paths and epic destinies (thus the book is something other than useless for people playing the Essentials classes), but the PHB1 classes and races are legal too (and can take feats and paragon paths and some powers from the Essentials books).

Essentials is a new edition in the same sense that PHB3 is a new edition.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Honestly I'm not gonna quote and reply to most of it...as it wound up being a ton of my group/your group stuff..and yeah I can let it sit at that.  I just know with my group the people complaining were the ones who played the melee the most (though appreciated having a good caster around).  The fellow playing our completely broken wizard in 4e...is actually the one having the least fun with 4e right now...in 3.5 he played a melee focused mutt with high charisma and had classes (and so on) that wound up giving everyone in the group high bonuses.  Also had a lower level group and he played a weird mutt that was a grapple build (we did our best to rebuild him for pathfinder..and thats the grappler player we mentioned earlier).  So I know most of the group I play with..and people I talk with..are unhappy with an overall loss in power.  And while I'm the one who 'created it' for my group..everyone agrees with me..the problem is they essentially brought everyone down to the melee's level....instead of bringing everyone up to the casters level..in terms of what you can do (not in terms of who beats who).


As for essentials vs 3.5.

The only reason you are allowed to take old spells, feats, etc..is because wizards decided to say 'its not a new edition' instead of admitting it was.  So of course they had to say 'yes you can combine'.

Here's the thing....if they did the exact same with 3.0 to 3.5 it woulda worked just as well.

Also don't forget the rewrite in rules essentials brought with it..older books being updated.  Multiple classes changed, features completely re-written from time to time.  Multiple wizard spells I know got massive changes to them.  Multiple rules got rewritten, some issues of timing are rewritten.

Essentials is a huge change..as big as 3.5 was.  They just chose to say 'hey this is a different version of the class' instead of saying 'hey this is how the class now works'.  You can work 3.0 characters with 3.5 characters...share feats..with about the same amount of problems that essentials gives.
Essentials brought melee down to where they were, almost. They still have more tactical options than they had in previous editions. Martial characters are most certainly well above where they were previously in O4e, though. Way above. 

Casters can just no longer bypass challenges with the wave of a hand anymore. I consider that a good thing. 
There is nothing objectively wrong with either standard or essentials (at least not in the ways in which they differ).  There are things about both that I like, and for the most part they play well together.

However there is a serious problem with 4e that strongly relates to the publication of Essentials, and that mainly lies in the organization and presentation of the material, which is very unintuitive and pretty abysmal.  I feel that I'm practically forced to use the CB (even though it is still very imperfect), even though I have most of the books, simply because the materials are so scattered, disorganized, and inconsistently presented in the books that it's an extreme chore trying to build a character using them.  The formatting of the classes since Essentials is terrible, I can't for the life of me figure out why they're still using it.  There are all kinds of minor issues too that just seem very half-assed, like how they've started using subclass names but have only partially implemented them - several classes with multiple versions have no subclass names, and a few that don't do, which doesn't at all make sense. 

Secondly, Essentials failed to fix a few serious problems with the original game, the most significant of which is the scaling math problems.  The feats that are intended to correct the math, as well as Masterwork Armor, are so terribly conceived and executed that they single-handedly drag the overall quality of the game through the mud, and the game designers seem to be okay with this continuing instead of issuing a badly needed errata to correct it.

On another note, one of the major problems with 4e is that if they were going to have a system where every class is going to have a full breadth of powers to choose from, they should have gone with fewer classes with broader build/customization options.  That would have been a much more logical way of doing it. 
However there is a serious problem with 4e that strongly relates to the publication of Essentials, and that mainly lies in the organization and presentation of the material, which is very unintuitive and pretty abysmal.  I feel that I'm practically forced to use the CB (even though it is still very imperfect), even though I have most of the books, simply because the materials are so scattered, disorganized, and illogically formatted in the books that it's an extreme chore trying to build a character using them.



I've needed to use the character builder since the fist slew of 'Power' books came out... there's just so much material out there I don't see how essentials made it any more or less intuitive. It's been a nightmare to make a character on paper for me and everyone I play with since about the PHB2. So many choices, races, items, and feats spread over so many different books.... Essentials is illogically formatted, I agree - and it's illogically formatted in a different way than the pre-Essentials books are illogically formatted. It's all a mess. In 4E's defense, though, I was using a builder for 3e by the end with its dozens of classes and hundreds of feats and abilities. And I have Herolab to organize all the pathfinder material that's spread out all over God's green earth as well.

All I can say about the Essentials is/is not 4.x or ruined the game as we know it is that our group been playing with essentials and non-essentials classes in our games for well over a year and everything has been totally smooth. No problems... the game hasn't come to a crashing halt or even had to adjust its course. There have been fighters, rogues, bards, scouts, knights and slayers in the same group with clerics, warpriests, druid sentinels, hybrids, warlocks, artificers and hexblades. No one is complaining at our table... it all runs the same and to people's individual tastes. I just don't get all the frothing apoplexy about it... we freely steal feats and powers from whatever source we can to make whatever character we want to play, and we use the character builder to do it 'cause it's all there jumbled into one massive pile. Frankly I don't know which sourcebook what power comes from... I choose them from the dropdown menu.

What we DO complain about is the fact that you spend most of heroic tier taking the same feats over and over again to bump the math. That irritates us all. I don't think essentials makes everyone the same, I think it's the fact that everyone pretty much takes the same feats for many, many levels - there's very little customization because certain feats are pretty much a given. We selfishly want to hit as often as possible and get hit as infrequently as possible, and the feats that help us do that always get taken.



.the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.





Stopped reading there. Clearly, you've never played the game.




Bloodmage Wizard is one of the most powerful characters in the game.
.the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.





Stopped reading there. Clearly, you've never played the game.




Bloodmage Wizard is one of the most powerful characters in the game.



Excluding everything but phb1 really diminishes it, though. The straight PHB1 wizard has no idea what it wants to be. Really has nothing on the Scimitar Wielding Ranger/Stormwarden/Demigod if you're talking straight PHB1 stuff.
.the most powerful class I've seen in action is still the wizard..using mostly powers and items from the first players handbook.  So really WoTC still failed in making non-wizards equal to wizards.





Stopped reading there. Clearly, you've



Stopped reading there. Because I was distracted. By an acorn.

The reason many Essentials classes are underpowered compared to classic 4e classes is because there is very little choice in powers and class features with them. Customization is what makes character creation and leveling up fun, so this was definitely the wrong way to achieve balance. Also, that approach can't work as long as the old powerful classes are still around. Vampire players will just feel gimped next to the classic 4e fighters and rangers in their party.

What WotC should have done instead was to increase paragon and epic monster power levels more. Not just more damage but more ways to combat the myriad status effects that characters can impose upon them. Nerfing some of the more broken options would also work (radiant and frost cheese, charge items, etc.).



I agree that there is definitely something rotten in the state of Denmark regarding the class design, because it seems to go like this -

1) Core classes get ridiculous, especially compared to monsters, in the "late game".
2) New design philosophy: make monsters more dangerous and slightly more brittle to help keep up from one end, and reduce the overwhelming heap of options the players get on the other end.

While that's a great idea, they may have taken simplification a step or two too far. That being said, less options is, surprisingly, sometimes a good thing (especially when options get entirely too far out of hand and begin to bog the game down, which many people were complaining about). See the peanut butter problem for why this can be the case. (As a side note, you'll often find on DMing blogs that while players will be reluctant to play a themed party, like all divine classes, or all one race, that in the end they tend to enjoy it a lot - reducing options can result in a very good play experience contrary to everything logic is trying to tell us). 

On the other hand, you bring up a good point that the new classes do feel very "plain" compared to the old classes at times (although it could be argued that this is a problem you can work around via flavoring your abilities based on context more heavily than the core classes might - a basic attack is just a basic attack until you describe it, whereas a Holy Strike is probably some sort of glowing weapon slash or whatever). In terms of game design, maybe they would've worked better if they were in fact a "4.5e" designed to replace 4e, even if the rules are compatible. That would (help) avoid the inevitable comparisons on "hey, this class has more options than that one". On the other hand, as a business decision, that probably would've sucked.


In terms of fixing math? Yeah, you're right, probably more focus on paragon and epic tier monster design might've been warranted instead. In terms of fixing the overwhelming deluge of player options that causes the game to bog down to a crawl? Well, they were on the right track, I think, they may have just gone a tiny bit too far. Still, that's the good kind of failure, going a bit too far. If you go too far you can say "hey, guys, we went a bit too far, let's just tone it down a little bit" and have a realistic, specific goal. If you don't go far enough? Well now your goal is very ambiguous: "go farther". How much farther? Who can really tell until you pass it. So I think it's probably a good thing for the designers to have screwed up potentially going too far than not far enough. That being said, maybe they haven't screwed up at all, and maybe players have been riding the crutch of self-descriptive powers for too long. I know every time I come across a monster whose MBA is described as "bash" that I'm going to have to start pulling colorful descriptions out of thin air, and I'm totally fine with doing that, so why wouldn't a player? Or maybe I'm just waxing elitist, who knows.



However there is a serious problem with 4e that strongly relates to the publication of Essentials, and that mainly lies in the organization and presentation of the material, which is very unintuitive and pretty abysmal.  I feel that I'm practically forced to use the CB (even though it is still very imperfect), even though I have most of the books, simply because the materials are so scattered, disorganized, and inconsistently presented in the books that it's an extreme chore trying to build a character using them.



This sort of always happens once a game starts drowning in supplements, though. At least we have a character builder and online compendium to act as a centralized database... imagine if we didn't... I shudder to remember the days of 3rd edition poring over a dozen splatbooks Tongue Out


The formatting of the classes since Essentials is terrible, I can't for the life of me figure out why they're still using it.



If this at all refers to the decision to include powers as class features I actually quite like that decision since it seems to centralize design a lot better. That being said...

There are all kinds of minor issues too that just seem very half-assed, like how they've started using subclass names but have only partially implemented them - several classes with multiple versions have no subclass names, and a few that don't do, which doesn't at all make sense.



I am definitely behind this. Why on earth are we renaming things that don't need to be renamed again? Marshal? What? It's like some kind of cheesy marketing fix because people found the name too scary or something? I don't know.
Your idea that no one could like both Essentials and Original 4e without having blind fanboyism is insulting.

Remember, I'm not qualifying that with liking 'parts' of one or the other.  What I actually said was that if you liked the improvements 4e made to D&D, you couldn't very well apreciate having those same advances rolled back in Essentials.  

I make no assertions about folks who may like some aspects of different editions and not others.




 

 

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

Your idea that no one could like both Essentials and Original 4e without having blind fanboyism is insulting.

Remember, I'm not qualifying that with liking 'parts' of one or the other.  What I actually said was that if you liked the improvements 4e made to D&D, you couldn't very well apreciate having those same advances rolled back in Essentials.  

I make no assertions about folks who may like some aspects of different editions and not others.



I think your assumption is that all the "rollbacks" as you call them of Essentials are not indeed further advancements.

Personally I see essentials as a further refinement of 4e. 

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

Sign In to post comments