|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:09PM
#31
|
|
|
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.
My first D&D book was the Moldav Red Box set, I still have the dice. The Essentials line reminds me of those days somewhat. I guess it's a matter of what you know, because I consider it a lot easier to roleplay with the Essential Classes than main line 4E. I don't really know what the magic ingredient is in Essentials that main line doesn't have. I look forward to playing Essentials, where as I quit 4E.
Please keep the Essentials stuff coming Wizards. Consider me won back.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:13PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I dont get all this love for essentials at all. How is the power system hard to learn? Does it really take that much thought process to go through just a few abilities? I personally see essentials as an insult and regression to the days when melee classes had nothing to do but toss dice. I cant fathom why anyone would enjoy that. Our group has 3 people all new to dnd all of them have picked up 4e as is with no problem if they can do it anyone can do it. I also dont feel different classes need different mechanics I feel that that is a mistake you cannot balance classes if they do not get abilities at the same rate.
A great many people quite liked the simple nature of the martial classes. Many also noticed that even the new, big list of martial abilities tended to get pushed aside in favour of using one or maybe two powers over and over.....which was like it used to be anyway.
Essentials is 4th edition with a bit more honesty and a lot of the needless "shiny bits" chopped off, in favour of the parts people actually want.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:14PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.
My first D&D book was the Moldav Red Box set, I still have the dice. The Essentials line reminds me of those days somewhat. I guess it's a matter of what you know, because I consider it a lot easier to roleplay with the Essential Classes than main line 4E. I don't really know what the magic ingredient is in Essentials that main line doesn't have. I look forward to playing Essentials, where as I quit 4E.
Please keep the Essentials stuff coming Wizards. Consider me won back.
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure. That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:29PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure. That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class
The only real premise you have there is the power structure thing. The rest is your personal preferences, and if you can't get that other people have different preferences, then, wow.
As far as the power structure thing goes, the power structure is not the system, full stop. You only have to learn one system, but that system contains many elements and more may be added, easily. A game cannot do one thing, and only that one thing, and always that one thing, and survive/have concept or design space to add material to it. Stagnation is the enemy of fun, curiosity, and invention.
The base 4e power structure is solid - but they've done so much in it they needed to deviate from/within it, which they started, if you want to pick the latest possible point, in the PHB3.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:49PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2008
|
Well said, Inarai.
"You cannot balance classes if they do not get abilities at the same rate" is not at all accurate, though. I have had some good back-and-forths with people not so keen on Essentials (Tony comes to mind) and what we agree on is that it's harder to balance classes if they don't get abilities at the same rate. That's where the fear of the change in class structure has merit. How does not having a daily but doing more sustained damage impact overall balance, variable extended rest spans, and individual encounter difficulty levels? That's where the crux of the real issue is.
It's not impossible to balance differing classes... difficult, maybe, but not impossible. In fact, the different Roles and how they effect combat all result in classes that preform differently in combat which require a careful eye on how they balance. Just like every new power that enters the game has potential balance impacts (and why we get errata sometimes for them). So far, Wizards has done a pretty good job of it in 4E and Essentials, but it doesn't mean that it couldn't go wrong if they continue to diverge from the original structure. I trust they won't, though, and where issues arise, they'll continue to support us with Errata and quick fixes.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:55PM
#36
|
|
|
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure. That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class
The only real premise you have there is the power structure thing. The rest is your personal preferences, and if you can't get that other people have different preferences, then, wow.
As far as the power structure thing goes, the power structure is not the system, full stop. You only have to learn one system, but that system contains many elements and more may be added, easily. A game cannot do one thing, and only that one thing, and always that one thing, and survive/have concept or design space to add material to it. Stagnation is the enemy of fun, curiosity, and invention.
The base 4e power structure is solid - but they've done so much in it they needed to deviate from/within it, which they started, if you want to pick the latest possible point, in the PHB3.
Well williamhm75 more power to you, different strokes for different folks. Luckily Wizard's is going to give us both. I am glad that all of us can get a D&D system that we enjoy playing.
As I have stated in this thread, I am not overly fond of 4E. It is ok. It has been two years since the release. They are due to add some fresh blood to the system.
I am also going to re-post something I said elsewhere:
I'm sure that they have had every intention of supporting two lines. In their current environment trying to keep up two lines would be a death knell for D&D and possibly product confusion. One of the lines will become electronic content only. The developers have said that this will be Essentials. As my wife likes to tell me, past experience speaks volumes. I'm not trying to start a flame war or a debate about evil corporations. I am stating a reality, not my reality, the reality of economics. You don't want to go to my reality, believe me.
They have lost a substantial piece of the market to Pathfinder. D&D has always been King of the RPG Hill, by far. In the past, other RPGs haven't even received twenty percent of the market share, all of them together. The D&D developers have made a mistake and are trying to correct it. This last Ennies was just an example, perhaps not a good sample, but fairly close to accurate.
The question is, how are they going to keep current customers while creating new ones?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 5:58PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I really like the essential class build. I can't wait to try an essential assassin as a player. I love the flexability of 4e class build, but not everybody is as obssessive about DnD as I. I think the essential class builds are great, the will appeal to older gamers and work very well for the casual gamer. As an obssessive 4e fan, I can't wait to see the essential builds in action.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 6:08PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2008
|
See I didnt like 2e that much or even 3e I wanted 4e to be different and to NOT feel too much like previous edditions, so Id prefer them to stop with essentials, I hate that essentials feels like it belongs back in the 80s I hate the idea of classes having different mechanics EVERY class should use the same power structure. That way you only have one system to learn and then can play every class
The only real premise you have there is the power structure thing. The rest is your personal preferences, and if you can't get that other people have different preferences, then, wow.
As far as the power structure thing goes, the power structure is not the system, full stop. You only have to learn one system, but that system contains many elements and more may be added, easily. A game cannot do one thing, and only that one thing, and always that one thing, and survive/have concept or design space to add material to it. Stagnation is the enemy of fun, curiosity, and invention.
The base 4e power structure is solid - but they've done so much in it they needed to deviate from/within it, which they started, if you want to pick the latest possible point, in the PHB3.
Well williamhm75 more power to you, different strokes for different folks. Luckily Wizard's is going to give us both. I am glad that all of us can get a D&D system that we enjoy playing.
As I have stated in this thread, I am not overly fond of 4E. It is ok. It has been two years since the release. They are due to add some fresh blood to the system.
I am also going to re-post something I said elsewhere:
I'm sure that they have had every intention of supporting two lines. In their current environment trying to keep up two lines would be a death knell for D&D and possibly product confusion. One of the lines will become electronic content only. The developers have said that this will be Essentials. As my wife likes to tell me, past experience speaks volumes. I'm not trying to start a flame war or a debate about evil corporations. I am stating a reality, not my reality, the reality of economics. You don't want to go to my reality, believe me.
They have lost a substantial piece of the market to Pathfinder. D&D has always been King of the RPG Hill, by far. In the past, other RPGs haven't even received twenty percent of the market share, all of them together. The D&D developers have made a mistake and are trying to correct it. This last Ennies was just an example, perhaps not a good sample, but fairly close to accurate.
The question is, how are they going to keep current customers while creating new ones?
Im not sure the only thing Im sure of is that I hate the idea of simple classes so much that Im thinking of quiting dnd all together I see it as a betrayal of what they said in the preview books. Essentials goes against every single design philosophy of 4e I hate getting static features as you level as opposed to choosing abilities. I HATE classes that have different mechanical systems and subsystems, if this is where dnd is headed then yeah not sure I can keep playing it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 6:09PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
It's fairly obvious that Essentials are meant to win back some Pathfinder converts.
...
That is an assumtion. I assume Pathfinder players have no interest in 4e. Essentials looks more like 2e, its aimed for the audience the marketers have been telling us, those who don't play 4e new gamers and those playing the older editions 3.x and later. The scope of the marketing is beyond the Pathfinder converts, they want as many people playing DnD as possible. 4e essentials is a good step in that direction, it also got my interest, a 4e fan since '08. I doubt Pathfinder converts are the target audience, WotC wants to bring more gamers into the table top Rpg market, not just compete against Paizo.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 16, 2010 - 6:14PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
....
Im not sure the only thing Im sure of is that I hate the idea of simple classes so much that Im thinking of quiting dnd all together I see it as a betrayal of what they said in the preview books. Essentials goes against every single design philosophy of 4e I hate getting static features as you level as opposed to choosing abilities. I HATE classes that have different mechanical systems and subsystems, if this is where dnd is headed then yeah not sure I can keep playing it.
Wow we were reading different things into the previews, I feel I got what I was advertised with 4e essentials. But after reading that I think you should quite Dnd, it is obvious WotC cares nothing for the feelings of William 75. Quite DnD altogether, that'll show everyone. 
|
|
|
