Community

At least it provides some insight into the process...

Originally Posted by LogicNinja
If 4e up unilt now has had a focus of functional mechanics, Essentials adds a focus on *presentation*.


Originally Posted by Mearls
This is a great observation. A fair amount of the thinking behind essentials, and its ease of use, came from watching people (both veteran RPGers and newbies) struggle with the concept of powers.

People seemed to have a fairly easy time grokking a power for the casting classes - wizards, clerics. They have in their mind a concept of what a spell is, and that maps fairly easily to the concept of a power.

On the other hand, there were the people who just wanted to smack an orc over the head with an axe. Time and again, you'd see someone playing a 4e weapon user for the first time struggle to remember to use a power. The power was getting in the way of axe + orc's head = win.

(It would be ridiculous to characterize these players as dense or dumb, by the way. It really comes down to how you perceive the game fiction and how it interacts with the rule set. Some people start with mechanics. Others start with the world.)

The idea behind the essentials mechanics is to find the same relationship between power and spell for the martial classes. That's why you see stances for the fighter, tricks for the thief, and powers that kick in after an attack like power strike. For someone who has experienced fantasy in books, those frameworks are easier to understand. There's a clearer relationship between what the mechanic does and what happens in the game world.

That also points to why the design isn't interested in replacing the earlier classes. Many people obviously did pick them up and understand them. Why mess with those folks' fun?

And while not a direct response to Mearl's post (which was on RPG.net), here's a post from AbdulAlhazred from the thread on ENWorld:

Originally Poste by AbdulAlhazred

My real core of dissatisfaction with the whole design of Essentials martial classes though boils down to a fundamental disconnect. I never saw martial powers as really being character resources but PLAYER resources that attach to the narrative of the story. Its not that a martial character COULDN'T possibly pull some exploit more often, it is just that the player is only allowed so many chances to make a big impact on the narrative. Its like martial character players are now going to the back of the classroom, they get to attend, but they don't get to grab hold of combat narrative in any big way like they used to. It isn't that they're weaker than the older classes, its that the actual underlying philosophy of how the story gets told has regressed somewhat. Its like we're going back to some kind of simulationist past that never really worked all that well for D&D.

I agree with Abdul.  I'd go a step further and say the powers (and their use limitation) "simulated" the narrative found in heroic stories, in that the hero doesn't immediately pull out his "big gun" (except when dramatically appropriate), nor does he use his "super attack" every single time.  He throws a couple punches, does the ol' One-Two (At-Will) before coming out with the Power Hook, or the Big Uppercut (Encounter).  And only in the climactic scene does that uppercut not only lift the bad guy off his feet but over the edge and off the cliff (Daily).

The hero breaks a lot of window panes with bullets before he flips the car.  And he flips a car or two before he blows up the helicopter with a rocket launcher.

Still, the dialogue is interesting.  Clearly, WotC is trying to reconnect with players that were "left behind" with 4e, as well as new players who couldn't wrap their heads around the (somewhat abstract nature of the) power system.  There is also the easily inferred conclusion that these radical changes (thief and knight) will apply to all Essential martial builds and classes, but also only to martial classes.  Divine and arcane classes will likely remain far more 4e-ish than the martial ones (as evidenced by the warpriest and mage).

Still, the one thing I'd like to know for certain is whether we'll ever get new "caster style" martial stuff again, once the Essential releases are done.  I know Mearls said that "design isn't interested in replacing the earlier classes", but that's not the same as directly supporting them, either.

Thoughts?

Jul 31, 2010 -- 2:34AM, Foxface wrote:

Originally Posted by Mearls
That also points to why the design isn't interested in replacing the earlier classes. Many people obviously did pick them up and understand them. Why mess with those folks' fun?

More people need to read this quote.

Jul 31, 2010 -- 2:45AM, Foxface wrote:

That's exactly what I've been saying in every Essentials thread since the Fighter was previewed.  Couldn't care less if one exists along side the other, but there is this lingering possibility that one is "dead in the water" next to the other.

This isn't supported by any information we've gotten, though. Nowhere has anyone suggested that only Essentials builds will get articles in Dragon or powers books (or vice versa). On the contrary, WotC has repeatedly mentioned that nothing is being made obsolete.

@Foxface:

Why is this possibility lingering in your mind? What will it take to lay it to rest? If Class Acts articles come out with new Daily and Encounter powers for martial classes after Essentials has launched, are you going to say, "Well they're just running out their backlog."?

The Mearls quote Crimson Concerto highlighted above isn't enough? Other quotes about the PHB still being the primary design reference for next year's slate doesn't mean anything to you? The Mearls quote Crimson Concerto highlighted above isn't enough? The talk about Essentials being a ten-and-done line and then it's back to business as usual doesn't mean anything to you? The part where they clarified that "new baseline" means they wanted to create an "earlier on-ramp", so to speak, doesn't allay your fear that "new baseline" means "we're laying waste to everything old and starting anew"? The Mearls quote Crimson Concerto highlighted above isn't enough?

Yes, I know, I said that three times, but seriously: how explicit does something have to get before it undoes the "implication" you've latched on?