|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:05AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2001
|
Despite the above, Essentials IS 5e. Nearly all the design paradigms from 4e have been flushed in some misguided attempt to attract Pathfinder grognards.
Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Next was Game Balance. Everyone knows Wizards must dominate.
Lastly was simplicity. Its just wayy to complicated to pick a power off your list and roll the attack. Its MUCH simpler to spend a minor action to pick a stance, use the move described, make an attack roll, add whatever your stance benefit is and then decide if you want to throw on your encounter boost.
I cant sell it to you, cause I see about 3 steps forward and 12 steps back.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:17AM
#12
|
|
|
Despite the above, Essentials IS 5e. Nearly all the design paradigms from 4e have been flushed in some misguided attempt to attract Pathfinder grognards.
Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Next was Game Balance. Everyone knows Wizards must dominate.
Lastly was simplicity. Its just wayy to complicated to pick a power off your list and roll the attack. Its MUCH simpler to spend a minor action to pick a stance, use the move described, make an attack roll, add whatever your stance benefit is and then decide if you want to throw on your encounter boost.
I cant sell it to you, cause I see about 3 steps forward and 12 steps back.
Funny stuff.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:30AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2008
|
Although we can argue the OP characterizing Essentials as a "direction for 4e," to try to answer the original question I would say that Essentials is generally a good thing because it's designed specifically to attract new players to the game.
Despite all the alarmism, Essentials is not much more than a cheap and easy way for new people to get into the hobby, and the really cool thing about it is that the guy who only ever buys the red box Essentials set can still drop his character into any 4e game, but he's only looking at a minimal investment to become a D&D player.
I think that's pretty great, and I think anyone who's genuinely interested in the future of the game should think that's pretty great too.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:46AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2006
|
Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Yes. YESSSSSSSSSSSSS. The tears of anger nourish us grognard DMs! Our cunning plans have come to fruition.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net
My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna
My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:47AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
The Red Box and other introductory aspects are great. Having "Master set" dungeon tile packs is a great - and long overdue - idea. Giving players tokens for monsters is an excellent way to start things out. So yeah, it covers the basics, and it covers them well.
However, it could have been an introduction and introduced players to the game that already existed, rather than using this "introductory" product line to alter the game ("going forward").
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 11:53AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
Despite the above, Essentials IS 5e. Nearly all the design paradigms from 4e have been flushed in some misguided attempt to attract Pathfinder grognards.
Player empowerment was the first concept to die. Gygax style DMs are thrilled.
Next was Game Balance. Everyone knows Wizards must dominate.
Lastly was simplicity. Its just wayy to complicated to pick a power off your list and roll the attack. Its MUCH simpler to spend a minor action to pick a stance, use the move described, make an attack roll, add whatever your stance benefit is and then decide if you want to throw on your encounter boost.
I cant sell it to you, cause I see about 3 steps forward and 12 steps back.
Uhm... no.
First thing, it isn't anywhere close to 5th edition. The next edition will not have the level chart at the beginning of the book, that will depend on class. This will be an attempt (an successful one I would wager) to get away from the "cookie cutter" aspect of 4th.
Second, game balance is always a problem in any new products that come after the "first three." PHB3 failed on that front. (though Weaker may not count for some) Wizards are not getting "amped" just because they are more effective even when they miss. I still want to fast cast dailies instead of "memming" them.
The Stance thing is something I have yet to see, but it sounds like the crap from the 3.5 book that came out just before the 4th edition announcement. They ain't difficult.
I like what changes I have seen thus far, but some do not go far enough. The Parcel System is still in place, with item rareties and random charts for those that want to use them. I wanted a complete alternative, though, not a improvement.
Terms you should know... Spoiler:
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
Show
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 12:18PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
This is in no way meant to be flammatory, please keep the comments positive. I love 4e embraced it hardcore. At first WotC "hinted" that Essentials would not replace 4e but be the basic set to Advance Dungeons and Dragons of years gone by. But the more I hear and see, it looks like 4e will no longer be supported
We've certainly gotten some mixed signals. The impression I get is that 4e may have been delivering what it's fans wanted - balance, and playability and gamist fun, perhaps - but the fans, for lack of numbers, electronic piracy, or sheer cheapness, weren't delivering what WotC needed (revenue). There were a lot of 3.x and earlier fans who never adopted 4e, who complained bitterly of the death of each sacred cow and the imposition of class balance. There were a lot of kids in the 80s who bought D&D then, but never since. Those kids are now middle-aged, the prime age for nostalgia marketing. There's a younger generation playing WoW but not D&D (aparently, 4e didn't nab as many of them as was hoped, either).
So, Essentials is trying very hard to be all things to all people, with fewer staff to pull off the miracle. It's hardly surprising that the communication about what it is doesn't seem consistent. It needs to be a return to the original Red Box basic D&D that sold so well in the 80s. It needs to be a return to 3.x 'system mastery'-rewarding class imbalances. It needs to be an 'on-ramp' for completely new gamers. It needs to fix every little thing anyone's ever whined and bitched about - and also not change any of the things everyone else loves.
Or, it needs to at least pretend to be all those things long enough to get all those folks to give it a shot...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 12:21PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
Good point Tony. I predict disaster.
-Polaris
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 12:40PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
I played in an essentials game yesterday, for worldwide D&D game day. It was the Red Box adventure, Sunderpeak Mountain I believe it was called. It....was.....a....blast.
We all used essentials pregen characters (except one old dude who absolutely HAD to play his Shifter Shaman from PHB2), but if you weren't paying close attention, you'd never know anyone was playing anything other than normal 4E builds. Except that the newbies at the table had the mechanics of their characters figured out in about half the time.
The play, the feel, the encounters were all 100% 4E goodness. I've been quietly reading all the rants and complaints about Essentials and how it's some new version of the devil, but I have absolutely no idea what people are talking about. The Essential builds felt like nothing other than different builds with slightly simplified concepts. Not to mention, they are a blast to play. I must not be old or angry enough or something, because I had a blast at the table and the game felt just like every other great 4E game I've played. Honestly, if you didn't tell me people were playing new builds, I'd not have noticed on any of them except the fighter due to the mention of stances, (which worked really well btw).
Last point, I grew up on AD&D in the 80s and my one complaint about 4E is that the combat mechanics are designed so heavily around a grid and minis, that it's nearly impossible to play without them. Having played some Essentials now, and having read the new Heroes book that was just released, I'm beginning to think that if you're running all Essentials builds, you might realistically be able to run combat withOUT a grid and minis, just like the good 'ol days.
I'll have to read some more and give it a try in my group, but if we could ditch the grid and minis for all but the most epic battles, I would be pretty happy. I like the tactical combat with the grids, but for smaller skirmishes, I'd rather avoid using them and just move more quickly to the next story point, rather than going to all the trouble to grid the entire combat everytime a sword is swung.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 12, 2010 - 2:12PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2001
|
You'll get a lot of people covering their ears and pretending this isn't a revision, but since you made the OP it seems like you've already seen through that and are calling it like it is. Why is it a good direction for us? I don't know; personally it's a really bad direction for me. Why is it a good direction for WotC? Because, like 3.5e, they know it will sell, and be cheaper to design, because they just have to re-release and reprint all their existing material with slightly modified rules. And there are a lot of people who are far more likely to buy the new official elf and dwarf and fighter and cleric because they want to stay official than there are who will buy some random new race or class that WotC comes up with. PHB3 made it seem like WotC was running out of steam for new ideas (Psionic Generic Defender and Psionic Generic Leader! For all of you people who want to play a Fighter or Warlord but with a halo around your head! Oh, and your favorite races, like red crystal man and living bush!) I think their newer original material wasn't selling that well, especially since most of the hardcore fans have DDI anyway and were getting a lot of it that way, so they're hoping a revision aimed at 3.5 holdouts and even older folks like 1e/2e parents with kids will be more likely to buy physical books. And along with that, the hardcore current 4e fans that feel like they have to stay current will feel the need to buy the new and slightly upgraded versions of everything they currently have. For all the complaints that 3.5 got and all the whining about "having" to buy new books, and the hundreds of threads saying no one "had" to buy new books, almost all the people on both sides of that argument did eventually feel like they had to buy the new books and went and bought a few of them.
|
|
|
