Yeah, this is similar here and hence why I associate band-wagon with being a negative term: EG it is a short lived thing for something that will only be successful for a short time, then abandoned.
D&D 5E Essentials: More like 3.9e than 4.5e (link inside)
Yeah, this is similar here and hence why I associate band-wagon with being a negative term: EG it is a short lived thing for something that will only be successful for a short time, then abandoned.
I know you can choose not to update and I know that it works off line I have not verified if it only updates when one updates or if it pulls stuff from the compendium when a connection is available.
I suspect not,I believe that it pulls all data from the local cache. However, the monthly update is a user driven act and you can have 5 installations of the CB et al at the one time. So in principle you should be able to preserve the state of one installation at a particular point in time.
The only downside is that when you get DDI initially it is the most current at the time so you cannot go back to the initial books, if that is what you want.
Shroomy
Adventurer
But you can swap out all the powers with a level for similar powers with a level from the larger class grouping.
malraux
First Post
Just because there will be differentiation between class complexity doesn't mean that all future martial classes will be less complex than all future arcane classes. Plausibly, they could decide to make a complicated martial class, just as they could make a simplified caster.
But I will agree that returning to the idea that all martial classes should be simple is bad.
Shroomy
Adventurer
Did I miss something? When did we get confirmation that martial characters were going to be "simple" or that having no dailies actually means simple? It seems pretty clear to me that the newb-friendliness of the Essentials line comes from having pre-made packages of abilities, clearer explanatory text, a cheaper price point, and consolidated materials.
I would also argue that 4e already has a "simple" vs. "complex" split in terms of classes (sometimes within classes). There's hybrid classes, psionic augmentation classes, the monk's full discipline powers, runepriest rune states, the shaman and its spirit companion, summoning classes, the beastmaster ranger, the encounter long implications of barbarian rages and warden guardian forms, etc., etc. Next month, Dark Sun will be adding themes, which I'm sure will be expanded upon in other settings.
There's nothing wrong with having both "simple" and "complex" classes within 4e, and we need to remember that it's all relative anyways. Given 4e's usage of powers and the tactical nature of combat, we're not going to be going back to the days of "I swing my sword" or "full attack!"
I would also argue that 4e already has a "simple" vs. "complex" split in terms of classes (sometimes within classes). There's hybrid classes, psionic augmentation classes, the monk's full discipline powers, runepriest rune states, the shaman and its spirit companion, summoning classes, the beastmaster ranger, the encounter long implications of barbarian rages and warden guardian forms, etc., etc. Next month, Dark Sun will be adding themes, which I'm sure will be expanded upon in other settings.
There's nothing wrong with having both "simple" and "complex" classes within 4e, and we need to remember that it's all relative anyways. Given 4e's usage of powers and the tactical nature of combat, we're not going to be going back to the days of "I swing my sword" or "full attack!"
mach1.9pants
Hero
I think what 4E lacks in a class which has less complexity in character creation, making a non spellcasting PC in many former editions was often very simple with little decisions to be made. Some people want that, especially much younger players. 4E has normal and MORE complex classes ot play and create, but not much simple to play and certainly no simple to create (even with DDI there are a lot of decisions)
outsider
First Post
At the very least, they intend for the new fighter to be less complex than the new wizard. Do they also intend for the old fighter to be less complex than the new wizard? Do they intend for all martial characters to be less complex than the new wizard? Many of the people that they are trying to appeal to here specifically want spellcasters to be more complex than martial types. Just how far backwards is Wizards moving in order to please these people?
You're right that differences in class complexity already exist in 4e, and I've argued pretty vehemently against it every time it's announced. There'll always be small differences in complexity, but 4e is better off without stuff like psionic power points, and classes deliberately designed to have less complex options than others. Classes are both mechanics and character themes. The level of mechanical complexity should -NOT- be tied to character theme.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I read that as saying, essentially, "We're going to use Essentials to give options to people who think that a wall of 200 powers is too complex of an experience. In previous editions, the fighter provided that experience, but these days, we don't currently have an option for the player who doesn't have the level of rules mastery that we assumed with the 4e launch, since with the 4e launch, we were more targeting current players, and now we're targeting newbies, who could really benefit from a "just hit things" class that is as effective, in its own way, as any other. We're also gonna make the classes play more differently. In earlier editions, a fighter and a wizard played very differently, but right now, everyone uses the same power scheme. Feedback has told us that people are bored with that, and like stuff that changes it up a bit."
"Rules mastery" is not, AFAICT, code for "Now all wizards will be more fun than all fighters, because we've decided all of our previous findings about how people actually enjoyed playing fighters and wanted more options was wrong, and clearly they are only meant to be effectively hirelings for the omnipotent Wizard. Also, we will give arcane spellcasters cake, and fighters will get no cake, ever, and will have to eat wizard-poo, which, in the Essentials line, smells like cinnamon, because Wizards are perfect and Fighters suck."
I believe you're jumping at shadows.
FWIW, it would suck if they made all fighters less fun than all wizards.
I don't think there's even a remote chance of that happening. Take a deep breath, and repeat to yourself, swords are awesome, swords are awesome, swords are awesome...
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
For that to be the case, they would have to make the new wizard more complex than the old wizard, since right now the old fighter and the old wizard are close to being on par. (I suppose the old wizard is a little more complex, what with the spellbook, but it's a very minor difference.) Thus, they would have to make an Essentials class markedly more complex than its PHB counterpart.
I think the odds of that happening are so close to absolute zero that my keyboard's actually threatening to frost over.
Similar Threads
