How far are they going with Essentials

DEFCON 1 · Feb 16, 2011

Jhaelen said:
Every future 4e product will be an Essentials product in all but name. Depending on your stance that's either great or dire news.

But fortunately for everybody, Essentials pretty much IS nothing but just a name. Essentials classes are just new builds of existing classes, and Essentials feats are just feats (some of which can replace older feats that were proven to be a bit underpowered). So there's really nothing to worry about. There's nothing else about Essentials that is any different from the actual game.

Incenjucar · Feb 16, 2011

I think post-Essentials products will be readily distinguished by not having as much repeat hand-holding text. The main question is whether post-Essentials products will strictly have limited-option classes, or whether the range of options on classes will vary wildly between classes.

peach · Feb 16, 2011

it appears to me that 'essentials' has a lot fewer choices regarding "builds" for classes so probably appeals to those who want to get up and playing quicker and not have to worry about tracking power usages.

[MENTION=91777]Dungeoneer[/MENTION]: not releasing XXXXpower books will "force" folks to subscribe to DDI to get new feats, classes, builds, powers.

[MENTION=46713]Jhaelen[/MENTION]: this is dire news for those of me who like to hold a real book.

also WTOC has said "encounters" can only use "essentials" so you can forget the core classes/builds.

gjnave · Feb 16, 2011

I really like how essential classes seem to do more damage, and altogether "feel" more true to their class. I hope that we see a continuation of the same.

MrBeens · Feb 17, 2011

DEFCON 1 said:
But fortunately for everybody, Essentials pretty much IS nothing but just a name. Essentials classes are just new builds of existing classes, and Essentials feats are just feats (some of which can replace older feats that were proven to be a bit underpowered). So there's really nothing to worry about. There's nothing else about Essentials that is any different from the actual game.

Essentials classes/builds whatever are more that just that.
It is a style of character building that has no choice, that is what everyone is worried about.
There may be loads of new fighter builds in the new Essentials character format, but that means there will be no more daily fighter powers.

Jhaelen · Feb 17, 2011

MrBeens said:
Essentials classes/builds whatever are more that just that.
It is a style of character building that has no choice, that is what everyone is worried about.
There may be loads of new fighter builds in the new Essentials character format, but that means there will be no more daily fighter powers.

Yup. And one of the things I dislike about the new builds is the difference in complexity. In 'classic' 4e all classes and builds were about equal in complexity and probably even more important they followed the same pattern.

'Classic' 4e was the first edition I had a player who had never played anything but fighters in previously choose to play a wizard _and_ loving it.

Just like 'classic' 4e managed to give the impression that it's easy to DM it gave the impression that everyone could play every class or build and be successful at it.

Now the asymmetrical Essentials builds give the impression that 'beginners' or 'slow thinkers' or 'casual players' should stick to low-complexity builds like the slayer, while the high-complexity builds like the mage should be reserved for the 'pro's'.

And that's something I consider a bad thing.

I also dislike the presentation - boxes vs. hardcover books and changes to things that worked perfectly well in my game, like magic item rules and the elimination of rituals.

So, for me it's dire news. I will probably still buy a couple of new products but nowhere near as many as before Essentials.
E.g. I've bought the Monster Vault which is a good product but could have been a lot better if they had simply kept the format established in MM3.

DEFCON 1 · Feb 17, 2011

MrBeens said:
There may be loads of new fighter builds in the new Essentials character format, but that means there will be no more daily fighter powers.

As there already is a PH, Martial Power, Martial Power 2, and various Dragon Magazine articles that have given us Daily fighter powers up the ying-yang... I have a hard time getting depressed that I'm only going to be stuck with like a dozen choices per Daily power level.

Jhaelen said:
Now the asymmetrical Essentials builds give the impression that 'beginners' or 'slow thinkers' or 'casual players' should stick to low-complexity builds like the slayer, while the high-complexity builds like the mage should be reserved for the 'pro's'.

Do they truly give the impression that they SHOULD stick to the Slayer, Knight, or Thief? Or is it more that they just point out that these three build can be easier to play if that matters to you? It sounds like you might be putting a little more 'hammer-of-God' This is what you must do! emphasis that doesn't really exist.

Obryn · Feb 17, 2011

peach said:
also WTOC has said "encounters" can only use "essentials" so you can forget the core classes/builds.

I thought this was just last season.

-O

Incenjucar · Feb 17, 2011

Obryn said:
I thought this was just last season.

-O

Nope.

You have to use only material from the two Essentials player books or any Dragon/Dungeon article with the Essentials symbol.

MrBeens · Feb 19, 2011

DEFCON 1 said:
As there already is a PH, Martial Power, Martial Power 2, and various Dragon Magazine articles that have given us Daily fighter powers up the ying-yang... I have a hard time getting depressed that I'm only going to be stuck with like a dozen choices per Daily power level.

I was using fighter as an example - you could also put Runepriest, Seeker, Barbarian etc in there