It really has more to do with flavour (though legacy is important too).
Druids have a primary relationship with the animal world. Some druids shapeshift into animals. Some druids even summon animals to fight alongside them. Sentinel Druids have an animal companion that they have learned to fight in-tandem with quite effectively.
Shamans, on the other hand, have a primary relationship with the spirit world. Yes, some Shamans have spirit companions that resemble animals. But they are guardian spirits – ancestors or manifestations of nature and place – rather than animals like the Sentinel's companion. The Shaman holds communion with the spirits of nature and place, the ancestor spirits, and the Great Elders. The Druid taps into his or her inner Primal Beast, and fights alongside a host of fang and fur.
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
Is it bad that I don't understand the uproar about essentials? I started D&D a month ago. Me and my players just use the online character builder, picked a class/race they liked, and started playing...
I later learned that some were from essentials, and some were from before.
It is not essentials exist it is that essentials is taking over. Uptill Dark Sun 4e was getting better and better. They were fixing the Wizards proble about only being a fire balls thower like class with new builds and powers. And ohter classes had there own way of getting spell like abilities. Monster and Character themes added more customization to your character and monsters
Now that essentials is out its more like were DUMBING Down the Game to Get more People. Characters from the same class are now 90% the same. Wizars and other magic user are now the only ones with spells. And Monster and Character themes are being tossed out to not confuse the 10 and under people.
If essentials were limetied to 2 or so books it would be fine. But essentials are now becoming the design norm. Which means that my wish list will never see the light of day.
Shadow as a full power source and not as and add on. The Element power source will more than likely get the same treatment. More Character themes for stander settings, think of if the vampire was a character theme instead of an essential basiced class, with the right monster themes werewolfs can be added to any monster. But no things like customization are being thrown out to DUMB DOWN THE GAME!
Dumbed down for whom? My group is looking at Essentials because we are tired of 2 1/2 hour combats. Its almost as bad as 3E (or 3.5). Its just that the time is spent differently. Now instead of prep'ing up for 45 minutes to watch it all erased by a dispel, or an entire night ender like a Mordys disjunction-players and monsters spend lots of time being dazed, slowed, stunned, immobolized, or weakened. Combat still takes for ever, it just takes for ever differently.
Hell we're even looking to going back to 1E with some much needed updates, and we are not the first group in our area to do so-2 other groups are already doing this, one for about 6 months.
This is also a reaction to dungeon masters that are bringing out the nerf hammer or ban hammer -you say you want to run a vampire or werewolf? Not in any campaigns that I know off, DM's dont want the freaking hassle. Same thing goes for warforged-uhm no robots in my game, thanks. (yes,yes, blah,blah,blah-they're cyborgs not robots...whatever!).
Its not so much that Essentials is a new edition.
The proper question is, "Has WotC deaded out Core 4E? "
Yes the designers have gone out of their way to assure players that Essentials is backwardly compatible with Core 4E( and there is running debate on whether that is true), but the larger question is where the game is headed.
I think that 5E, whenever it comes, will look a lot more like Essentials than Core 4E. Why?
Look at the really commercially successful D & D type products (in the last year): Castle Ravenloft and s Wrath of Ashardalon.
Simplicity Playability in 2-4 hours Self contained-yet still mixable with new offerings
Frankly, competing with WoW or other MMORPG's with a table top is a losing proposition. Yet CR & WoA sales are booming? Why? I think it goes back to the 3 stated features of the games above.
my 2 coppers,
Ian
I dont really understand your statement here. As an old time gamer i remebered the old times with roleplaying games. Its not the same as WoW or tabletop games.
I play roleplaying games to be able co customize my character to my liking and the Essentials have limited many of the interesting ways of doing that. If they should continue with essentials i think they should differ it from 4e and still making thoose classes like hexmage, knight and vampire like the old classes so everyone could be pleased.
If you want to play tabletop games play talisman or something else. The game is hard enough to roleplay properly already with so much focus on the combatsequences instead of characteristics, mannerism and quirks.
I dont care much for the new essentials classes, frankly i believe that wizards are just a bit lazy and dont want to have to work hard to balance the classes, find interesting builds that could develop the character. They want cutout ready to go characters for other lazy people who just want to pick a class and be ready to roll the dice.
Is it bad that I don't understand the uproar about essentials? I started D&D a month ago. Me and my players just use the online character builder, picked a class/race they liked, and started playing...
I later learned that some were from essentials, and some were from before.
It is not essentials exist it is that essentials is taking over. Uptill Dark Sun 4e was getting better and better. They were fixing the Wizards proble about only being a fire balls thower like class with new builds and powers. And ohter classes had there own way of getting spell like abilities. Monster and Character themes added more customization to your character and monsters
Now that essentials is out its more like were DUMBING Down the Game to Get more People. Characters from the same class are now 90% the same. Wizars and other magic user are now the only ones with spells. And Monster and Character themes are being tossed out to not confuse the 10 and under people.
If essentials were limetied to 2 or so books it would be fine. But essentials are now becoming the design norm. Which means that my wish list will never see the light of day.
Shadow as a full power source and not as and add on. The Element power source will more than likely get the same treatment. More Character themes for stander settings, think of if the vampire was a character theme instead of an essential basiced class, with the right monster themes werewolfs can be added to any monster. But no things like customization are being thrown out to DUMB DOWN THE GAME!
Dumbed down for whom? My group is looking at Essentials because we are tired of 2 1/2 hour combats. Its almost as bad as 3E (or 3.5). Its just that the time is spent differently. Now instead of prep'ing up for 45 minutes to watch it all erased by a dispel, or an entire night ender like a Mordys disjunction-players and monsters spend lots of time being dazed, slowed, stunned, immobolized, or weakened. Combat still takes for ever, it just takes for ever differently.
Hell we're even looking to going back to 1E with some much needed updates, and we are not the first group in our area to do so-2 other groups are already doing this, one for about 6 months.
This is also a reaction to dungeon masters that are bringing out the nerf hammer or ban hammer -you say you want to run a vampire or werewolf? Not in any campaigns that I know off, DM's dont want the freaking hassle. Same thing goes for warforged-uhm no robots in my game, thanks. (yes,yes, blah,blah,blah-they're cyborgs not robots...whatever!).
Its not so much that Essentials is a new edition.
The proper question is, "Has WotC deaded out Core 4E? "
Yes the designers have gone out of their way to assure players that Essentials is backwardly compatible with Core 4E( and there is running debate on whether that is true), but the larger question is where the game is headed.
I think that 5E, whenever it comes, will look a lot more like Essentials than Core 4E. Why?
Look at the really commercially successful D & D type products (in the last year): Castle Ravenloft and s Wrath of Ashardalon.
Simplicity Playability in 2-4 hours Self contained-yet still mixable with new offerings
Frankly, competing with WoW or other MMORPG's with a table top is a losing proposition. Yet CR & WoA sales are booming? Why? I think it goes back to the 3 stated features of the games above.
my 2 coppers,
Ian
I dont really understand your statement here. As an old time gamer i remebered the old times with roleplaying games. Its not the same as WoW or tabletop games.
I play roleplaying games to be able co customize my character to my liking and the Essentials have limited many of the interesting ways of doing that. If they should continue with essentials i think they should differ it from 4e and still making thoose classes like hexmage, knight and vampire like the old classes so everyone could be pleased.
If you want to play tabletop games play talisman or something else. The game is hard enough to roleplay properly already with so much focus on the combatsequences instead of characteristics, mannerism and quirks.
I dont care much for the new essentials classes, frankly i believe that wizards are just a bit lazy and dont want to have to work hard to balance the classes, find interesting builds that could develop the character. They want cutout ready to go characters for other lazy people who just want to pick a class and be ready to roll the dice.
I've loved the idea of D&D for a long time but never actually played it. Sure I played games based on it but I had never gotten into the actual game because of the complexity. With Essentials I was able to learn the game and have fun playing it fairly easily. My only problem with Essentials is that the melee classes are very boring. I was looking into creating a 4e character and playing it in our Essentials game, but I don't know how well it will work.
I've loved the idea of D&D for a long time but never actually played it. Sure I played games based on it but I had never gotten into the actual game because of the complexity. With Essentials I was able to learn the game and have fun playing it fairly easily. My only problem with Essentials is that the melee classes are very boring. I was looking into creating a 4e character and playing it in our Essentials game, but I don't know how well it will work.
It works just fine. I've been playing in several games since September of last year which have integrated Essentials into the mix (3 home games, 1 of which I DM, + Encounters with integrated parties), and we have expereinced no problems.
Play what is fun for you. If you aren't enjoying the character you are playing, you should play a character you will enjoy.
It works just fine. I've been playing in several games since September of last year which have integrated Essentials into the mix (3 home games, 1 of which I DM, + Encounters with integrated parties), and we have expereinced no problems.
Play what is fun for you. If you aren't enjoying the character you are playing, you should play a character you will enjoy.
I've heard it works fine with Essentials characters in a 4e game, but how about a 4e character into an Essentials game?
It works just fine. I've been playing in several games since September of last year which have integrated Essentials into the mix (3 home games, 1 of which I DM, + Encounters with integrated parties), and we have expereinced no problems.
Play what is fun for you. If you aren't enjoying the character you are playing, you should play a character you will enjoy.
I've heard it works fine with Essentials characters in a 4e game, but how about a 4e character into an Essentials game?
Its the same game. Why would it not work?
The Essentials books were printed with the most up to date eratta for 4e and added more options to the 4e game. It was not a separate game.
People are confusing me about Essentials I thought It was just another way to learn the game. I really didn't have any issues about the different lines till people started telling me there was an issue. So what are the major differences between the Rules Compendium and the PHB? Also what about the Power books? I like the fact that we don't have a RC 2 or RC 3, one of the problems with CBs is that there are too many sequals and its too much money. I love the 20 price on most of the RC books and the box sets are worth their price. Thanks WoTC I really like these books.
I've loved the idea of D&D for a long time but never actually played it. Sure I played games based on it but I had never gotten into the actual game because of the complexity. With Essentials I was able to learn the game and have fun playing it fairly easily. My only problem with Essentials is that the melee classes are very boring. I was looking into creating a 4e character and playing it in our Essentials game, but I don't know how well it will work.
It works just fine. I've been playing in several games since September of last year which have integrated Essentials into the mix (3 home games, 1 of which I DM, + Encounters with integrated parties), and we have expereinced no problems.
Play what is fun for you. If you aren't enjoying the character you are playing, you should play a character you will enjoy.
Couldnt you use the other melee builds fromt he PHB if you like all the different power flavors?
I've heard it works fine with Essentials characters in a 4e game, but how about a 4e character into an Essentials game?
There is no distinction between a "4E game" and an "Essentials game." D&D Essentials uses the 4E system, with the only difference being in how characters are built. Thusly, since one is compatible with the other, the other must be compatible with the one.
Ever feel like people on these forums can't possibly understand how wrong they are? Feeling trolled? Don't get mad. Report Post.
I went to this week's Rule of Three article and found a link to send them a question directly (which didn't work) and then another link to the forum boards. Following it (hoping to be directed to the "Submit a question for the Rule of Three" thread, if it exists), I instead just wound up at the message boards. This is the closest thread I can see to what I was looking for, so here's hoping this actually finds its way back to the Rule of Three.
...
When 4E first started the new Essentials direction, I was under the impression that “like elements” were still interchangeable with the different variations of a class.
For example, the Mage has Burning Hands, Charm of Misplaced Wrath, and Illusory Obstacles available as level 1 Encounter powers. Since the original Wizard also had Burning Hands as an option, I just assumed that the Mage only had those three listed for the sake of brevity. If a player with a Mage character wanted, say, Force Orb or Icy Terrain instead (even given that those powers don’t have School keywords), they would still be able to take them. Likewise, a regular Wizard would be able to take Charm of Misplaced Wrath.
And not just the Wizard/Mage, but any of the Essentials classes. Granted, some variant classes had more “like elements” than others (the Warpriest has At-Will attacks, Encounter attacks, Daily attacks, and Utilities just like the Cleric, whereas the Thief only shares Utilities with the Rogue (the Backstab power and the At-Will stances are Utilities, but without levels, so they don’t count)), but I was under the impression that where likes existed, they could be interchanged.
But when Heroes of Shadow came out, I saw something that made me second-guess this. According to page 90 (the beginning of the Warlock Options section), it says that the powers featured there could be selected by any Warlock of the appropriate level. That would seem to imply that it is only those powers specifically on pages 90-92 that are available to regular Warlocks, Hexblades, and Binders, and therefore other powers listed specifically with their featuring classes were limited to those classes.
I.e., any Warlock can take Malicious Shadow, but only a Binder (not a Hexblade or a regular Warlock) can take Web of Shadows. Any 2nd-level Warlock would be able to take Shadow Blend, but only a regular Warlock (not a Hexblade or a Binder) would be able to take Beguiling Tongue from the PHB.
This becomes further confusing with the Wizard. According to page 99 of Heroes of Shadow, the new Nethermancy and Necromancy powers are intended for Nethermancer and Necromancer Mages, but are still available to Wizards of other traditions. Is that other Mages (Evokers, Enchanters, and Illusionists, but not regular Wizards) or is that any other Wizard, Essentials or not?
This becomes even further confusing by the Binder pact powers. Pages 76 and 79 say that any Warlock can choose to take powers of the gloom or star pact, but that they are particularly suited to the Binder, in that Binders of the appropriate pact gain an additional benefit noted in the power’s description. I.e., this seems to be saying that while any Warlock (regular, Binder, or Hexblade) could take Hound of Dark Omen, Binders in particular gain more out of it.
But on the other hand, everywhere in the main description of the Binder class (pages 66 through 75) where it features the Pact Encounter Power, it says that the encounter attack power you gain is the one associated with your pact. I.e., a Gloom-Pact Binder can’t take any level 1 Encounter attack power BUT Hound of Dark Omen.
And of course, that combined with page 90 means that no one who is not a Gloom-Pact Binder will have the option to take Hound of Dark Omen.
Except if that’s really the case, then it seems like all those powers would have been written with those extra benefits written into the powers themselves. I.e., Hound of Dark Omen has a normal effect, and an improved effect for Gloom-Pact Binders, but since you’ll only ever have this power if you’re a Gloom-Pact Binder anyway, the power might as well have been written up as just one single entry.
So which is it? Are likes interchangeable or are the subclasses completely distinguished and separate? And if the answer isn’t a definite yes or no but a mix depending on a specific situation, how do we tell them apart?
I've finally figured out how to put in a sig. Yes, I'm including this here for no other reason than to express how happy I am that I could finally do this. For goodness' sake, change these forums back (or just change, I don't care).
