Community

uuuh. There we go, horrifying stuff, if you really read a thread to this end. No, not the quality of posts, but ideas like powers that renew every n encounters or are recharged.

Horrible! Why? Because it's complicated and isn't the whole thing about making it easier? How is it easier if I suddenly have to track more than before? Especially if things really were to develop differently. One class goes by daily powers, others recharge with a percentage chance and others count encounters.

Oh well, it will not very likely come to such things.

But one thing that really bothers me, and that I only discover now, after having discussed the essentials with quite some people in many different places: Many players are speculating  a lot and not necessarily in good ways about the D&D Essentials. Why is that and why do the Wizards accept that? Why do they explicitely have to claim compatibility and deny D&D 4.5?

Because we haven't been given enough to work with! So far we've always had the chance to playtest new builds. There was always a limited set of options available, limited but complete enough to play a new build of a character at least through half of the heroic tier. But with the essentials classes we've been given nothing but bits and pieces with too much missing to really know how it works. I wonder why that is. Why don't we have one Essentials build (with its limited options even more limited. I don't  care about that) to try out for ourselves and SEE if its compatible, and how it works. Personally I think that is not a good sign.

But think of the publicity we could generate, if we really saw one of the classes and could try it. Think of the publicity it could generate for new players, if such a class was available not only in the DDI, but publically as the limited bits and pieces previews we've been given now!

Aug 2, 2010 -- 5:29PM, Foxface wrote:

Having revised my opinion about Essentials somewhat, I have only one real "complaint" about the design.  And by "complaint", I mean "things we haven't seen yet, that may possibly be there, but if they aren't I'm going to be disappointed".

4e made bold attempts to move forward and re-examine old tropes.  It turned a lot of sacred cows into sacred hamburgers along the way.

I get why the designers want simple to play classes in a starter box set, as well as complex classes to explore later, but why must weapon users be the simple to play classes, and casters be the complex ones?  I can see the appeal of having a "hit with my sword" class, and a "stab it in the back" class, but why not also have a "blast them with fire" class, or a "shield them with light" class?  If the designers can make Fighters both simple (Knight) or complex (PHB), why can't they make Wizards simple as well?  Certainly not everyone who wants a simple-to-play "fire and forget" experience necessarily wants a martial character.  Is it not possible that such a player might want a character who causes enemies to explode with but a gesture of their hand?

In an ideal world, Essentials would have two subclasses for every class.  The Fighter has been openly stated as having two: the Knight and Slayer.  The Knight is obviously simple.  Perhaps the Slayer is as complex as the Mage or Warpriest.  And perhaps instead of only one subclass for the other classes (as implied but not confirmed), there is a second as-of-yet unmentioned subclass that is as simple and stripped down as the Knight.

If the Red Box is meant as a true starter/ intro set, wouldn't it make sense to have really simple classes for everyone to play?  Trying to put myself in the shoes of a complete newbie, if I bought the box set to play with my equally inexperienced friends, I might be frustrated if the person playing the Mage or Warpriest was struggling just because there wasn't a simpler option available.

Perhaps this has all been thought of already, and is present in the final product.  If not, I believe there is room to explore such an idea.

NO in an ideal world new players would learn the power system.  THere shouldnt be classes that play on different levels.  You cannot possibly balance classes with daily powers with those without it cant be done.  When you simplify something too much you take away everything that makes it fun and interesting and will drive away new players.  The class has to have options to be interesting.  I have never met a player who enjoys just saying I attack, why because I doubt they are that comon.  What is wrong with wanting every class to be interesting and complex, for every class to have something different to do each round?