D&D 4E What was the big difference between 4e and "essentials"?
Jester David
Hero
Mechanically... nothing. You can drop classes from one into a game of the other and use monsters interchangeably.
They tweaked a few monster numbers and the DCs by level numbers, but they’d done that with the base game a couple times before so that was nothing “new”. The differences for Monster Manual 3 were larger.
Essentials just offered variant versions of the classes, which amounted largely to different powers. Which isn’t that different from past expansions as all of the ____ Power books did largely the same thing and replaced all the powers and class features of a class. But the base numbers of the class remained the same (skills, hit points, etc) but the classes received variant abilities.
The big difference was that not all classes received powers at the same rate, with some classes having more powers and some having fewer, and more classes relying on basic melee attics rather than choosing between At-will powers. Secondary differences were that some classes had a different role and some classes mixed power sources.
It also updated and revised some feats and options. But 4e had been doing that for some time anyway through their errata/ update documents.
They tweaked a few monster numbers and the DCs by level numbers, but they’d done that with the base game a couple times before so that was nothing “new”. The differences for Monster Manual 3 were larger.
Essentials just offered variant versions of the classes, which amounted largely to different powers. Which isn’t that different from past expansions as all of the ____ Power books did largely the same thing and replaced all the powers and class features of a class. But the base numbers of the class remained the same (skills, hit points, etc) but the classes received variant abilities.
The big difference was that not all classes received powers at the same rate, with some classes having more powers and some having fewer, and more classes relying on basic melee attics rather than choosing between At-will powers. Secondary differences were that some classes had a different role and some classes mixed power sources.
It also updated and revised some feats and options. But 4e had been doing that for some time anyway through their errata/ update documents.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
Thank you, I'm not sure how I managed to bungle this.
Edit: I know, it's the "what is the essence of 4e" thread that threw me off!
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Mechanically, the characters were entirely different (sorry [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION]). They entirely went away from the AEDU framework where each character was designed the same with the same number of powers. They had an entirely different mechanical feel, and that lead to some play differences as well.
Now, they were numbers-compatible with the earlier characters - it was the same edition so they could co-exist with other characters and run the same adventures. I seem to remember that some may have dealt better or worse if you changed up the number of encounters per day a lot, but that was a lesser quibble.
The classes were streamlined. Some say that they were more like earlier editions to try to woo the players who were still playing 3.5 or switched to PF, and in some ways they were because they didn't follow AEDU, but they were still the heavily tactical 4e type of character.
Now, they were numbers-compatible with the earlier characters - it was the same edition so they could co-exist with other characters and run the same adventures. I seem to remember that some may have dealt better or worse if you changed up the number of encounters per day a lot, but that was a lesser quibble.
The classes were streamlined. Some say that they were more like earlier editions to try to woo the players who were still playing 3.5 or switched to PF, and in some ways they were because they didn't follow AEDU, but they were still the heavily tactical 4e type of character.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
If there was a problem with essentials classes it seems that according to those with experience of them any of the Martial ones who were deprived of dailies and the like were functionallyl allowed to fade out and be less effective at high levels.
Conversely -- Wizards/Mages were as part of the release of Essentials also given an across the board boost for instance many encounter powers were enhanced. And certain cantrips produced that in effect made them functionally as skilled as any Bard. Also by putting big enhancers in
(I am not thinking anybody in Char-op even vaguely thought wizards needed a boost but someone else will answer that better)
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
The design of classes making their basic attacks effectively at-will strength and sometimes spikey more, was also rather a poor thing as it interacts much too well aka badly with anything granting basic attacks (almost like a narrow perceptioned designer in charge didnt even consider the most popular Warlord type)
Jester David
Hero
The thing is, even before Essentials they were changing that. The psionic classes in PHB3 had a different number of powers. Which also played very differently than the traditional classes.
And 4e fans are always quick to comment that all the classes played very differently despite the same number of powers.
I've often commented that when comparing RPGs, differences come down to your sample size. If you're just looking at 4e and Essentials you can find quite a few small differences. But when you add just 3e to the mix, Essentials and 4e seem pretty much identical.
The funny thing is, the classes in 4e were never supposed to have the identical design of powers. Essentials is closer to what the original designers had in mind. They just ran out of time in designing the game and couldn't spend more time fine-tuning and varying the classes.
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
You're going to get a lot of answers about redefining class power structures, different approach to design for each class, and better math balance. But what you really need to understand is that Essentials was a mistake. It was the company back peddling from its original design goals trying to appease and regain a section of the playerbase that wasn't subscribing to their new approach. But by introducing this radical change in direction, they only managed to confuse, frustrate, and divide the small following that they had. That is not to say that Essentials wasn't good or had any merit, but like everything else at the time, they just expected us to accept it and cram it into the existing game. It was the beginning of the end, or maybe the "hail mary" pass at the end.
That said, I would definitely use Essentials exclusively as a "Basic" version of the game today for friends and family who are more casual players, and reserve 4e Core for the more hardcore table. Either way, still my edition of choice. But like the peas and gravy on my plate, I like to keep them separate.
That said, I would definitely use Essentials exclusively as a "Basic" version of the game today for friends and family who are more casual players, and reserve 4e Core for the more hardcore table. Either way, still my edition of choice. But like the peas and gravy on my plate, I like to keep them separate.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
I actually purchased the essential books because I was told they would be good for casual games... maybe they were compared to core 4e (or even 3.x/PF), but since I have 5e now I can't picture myself using them for that...
Similar Threads
