Results for tag: essentials
Posted by: firstname.lastname@example.org on May 19, 2013 at 07:19:25 PM
I know that 4th edition is being phased out and all, but would it have been the end of the world to rework the edition, and the Essentials line specifically, before turning out the lights and closing the door?
What I propose is the development of three boxed sets, one for each tier of play.
The Basic Set would include the necessary materials to play through the end of the Heroic tier, including players' options, monsters, maps, tokens (or miniatures, with "deluxe" sets!), an adventure or two.
The Expert Set would deal with the Paragon tier, and the Master Set the Epic tier.
Posted by: lofgren on Nov 11, 2012 at 02:32:34 AM
Thoughts: The druid has always been a kind of mess to me. The problem with the class is that it is trying to be every nature guy at once. Animals, elements, and plants all fall under the druid's auspice. 4e started the necessary process of teasing out the druid's myriad concepts into distinct classes that were generally better at representing each archetype, but in my opinion it didn't go far enough. I've given what I call "environmental control" entirely over to the warden, meaning weather, plants, and firmament, leaving the druid free to specialize completely in the animal realm.
Unfortunately, the 4e druid utterly failed to capture the sense of a shapeshifter in my opinion. Whether in animal form or casting a spell, you just make an implement attack against a non-AC defense.
Posted by: The_Jester on Jul 15, 2012 at 04:22:45 PM
It's time again for the contract-mandated Doom 'n' Gloom entry for "Jester" David's blog.
5e is coming closer and closer with the first playtest done and the second due "sometime". Last I heard the second round was the end of summer, so late August or early September, meaning it might be the last playtest before the books have to get finished and out to the printers. So there's still time for WotC to royally F-up D&D Next, producing instead what more cynical people have called "D&D Last".
But just how could WotC turn such a hyped and positive experience built around a framework of crowd sourcing and open playtesting into a poor edition and commercial failure?
I'll tell you.
Not Enough Testing
Despite the mass public playtest, this might happen. While WotC is being silent regarding...
Posted by: CirinEvada on Jul 9, 2012 at 11:28:28 PM
My, oh my.
Jacob and I are prepping for our first DND Encounters event. I was planning to take a rogue character. Only one rogue build is available through the character builder, so I built one. IT HAS NO AT-WILL, ENCOUNTER, or DAILY POWERS!!!
After much research, I figured out that this is not a bug in the Character Builder. It is actually the way that the "Essentials Rogue" is designed. I think this character class is completely different from 4ed rogue class, and significantly broken. Not having a "lets take it up a notch" encounter or daily power available means that gameplay gets simpler, but that's also unbalanced. What happens at higher levels? Normally you'd start with 2/1/1/0 and max out at 2/4/4/4, and no at-will attack powers are ...
Posted by: Nakana on Jul 9, 2012 at 03:44:44 AM
Before I take this to the forums, I'd like to see if anyone is willing to provide feedback here.
As I said before, I'm new to DnD (for the most part) and have recently bought the Red Box. I'm loving it so much that I'm thinking about going all out and buying basically the entire Essentials line.
I weighed the differences between buying the core 4E books vs. the essentials line. I know it's the same thing in essence however in the end I believe the Essentials products are better suited for me. (As well as any true newcomers to DnD.)
However, knowing that DnD Next is coming out (sometime in 2013 I assume) as well as knowing that 4E is approaching "end of life" as far as WoTC is concerned. I'm asking myself if it would be better to just save my money and...
Posted by: lofgren on Jun 29, 2012 at 05:56:26 PM
Thoughts: I wanted the warden to pick up the plant and elemental aspects of the druid. The traditional druid has always been animal-focused in my opinion, with the elemental and plant control elements tacked on. Sure they were some of his more powerful abilities in 3.x, but they were not really. I treat spirits as having several different representations. If you look at the primal classes based on the level of abstraction of the spirits they engage with, I wanted it to feel like druid -> warden -> barbarian ->
I wanted the warden to feel like a character whose primary benefits come from manipulating their local environment. Not by conjuring magical zones...
Posted by: lofgren on Jun 15, 2012 at 01:06:56 AM
Thoughts: The 4e seeker suffers from no unifying theme, in my opinion. Aside from using ranged weapons to attack, his abilities are no different from those that might be possessed by a druid or wizard. OK, I thought, so let's make his weapons the focus of his mechanics. Clearly there should be a reason that the seeker uses this unique method of spell delivery. I also made him connect to the most basic of spirits. These are not the spirits of animals or plants, they are the spirits of those spirits' desires. The seeker consults spirits of hunger, fear, and desire in the same way that the druid can talk to a horse. However there is inherent danger in consulting with spirits so alien.
Posted by: lofgren on Jun 13, 2012 at 02:00:01 AM
The Essentials line introduced a new way of creating and playing martial characters. Rather than choosing a standard action attack, these classes used minor action stances to change the effects of their melee basic attacks. Stances combined with weapon feats could produce a wide range of effects, giving the class in effect far more at-will attacks than its original 4th edition counterpart. In addition, each class received a single encounter power which it was able to use multiple times per encounter rather than multiple encounter powers. In some cases those powers augmented existing attacks, and thus the character had little need for a variety of encounter powers that amounted to slight improvements over
Posted by: The_Jester on Mar 21, 2012 at 05:22:13 PM
And now for something a little controversial: where 4e went wrong, and the mistakes WotC made.
This is a long one, be warned.
Now, this blog is not to bash the edition (much) or be unfairly negative to Wizards of the Coast. Instead, I’m viewing this as a way to establish what not to do the next time round, or at least what I think shouldn’t be done. It’s a “those who do not learn from history...” and such. Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about WotC and their potential mistakes (as seen by the territory my review of the Chaos Scar blog meandered into) and looking at where the last edition failed seemed like a good idea and worthy of blogging.
But did 4e Fail?
Without sales numbers this is impossible to quantify.
If you count 3.0 and 3.5 as one...
Posted by: Dungeoneering on Aug 12, 2011 at 10:51:58 AM
I never felt like the AEDU classes were too complicated so simplified versions of everything weren't something that was missing from my life. Meanwhile, they are mixing up the role system, one of the strengths of 4e and blurring the lines between builds and classes. It's like they keep hitting the 'undo' button on Fourth Edition class design.
3e 4e 4th Edition 5e AD&D Adventure adventures art Avatar blog campaign Combat Commander D&D D&D D&D Next Dark Sun deck DM DMing DnD Downtime dragons dungeon master dungeons dungeons & dragons dungeons and dragons eberron EDH encounters Fantasy Forgotten Realms Fr gaming homebrew LFR Magic Magic Online magic the gathering mtg MTGO pathfinder RPG Scales of war standard Star Wars wrecan writing Zendikar