D&D 5E Essentials: More like 3.9e than 4.5e (link inside)

[Uder]

If you are taking this strategy in game design, you had better have lower price points on products, which they are going to. Good times ahead for D&D.

This is Games Workshop's strategy. Rules every x number of years, with a rotating schedule of codices (splat books, or class books). They tried the lower price point for smaller releases track, and the fan base howled at the loss of background information. If WotC is taking their cue (at least on the rules side of things), I expect they're smart enough to jump a step and stick with expensive books full of content.

I like the idea of an evolutionary system with a core set of rules and modular bits, but [EW]I wish they'd done it with a version of the game I'd bought into.[/EW] Hopefully they don't fall into the release trap where less popular choices are stuck with older versions of the rules. Somewhere down the line people may find themselves at a table with 6e rules, a 6e fighter and wizard, 5e cleric, an Essentials thief and a 4e monk.

 

[Primal]

Just out of curiosity why not?

One of the big things they seem to be harping on is that the "new" style class will play nicely with the "old" style (and they can even gank powers/feats from each other.)

Is it just a personal preference thing, or did you notice some rules thing that you find will be problematic?

Well, it seems that the "new" cleric class is built a bit differently (more "specialized") and looks like they get less generic feats and more domain-related stuff than their core counterparts. Naturally it's too early to say, but (using 3E analogies) somehow I feel like it would be the same as having UA mana point spellcasters or ToB swordsages alongside "traditional" spellcasters and fighters. Yeah, the core "engine" is still the same behind all class mechanics, but somehow it just doesn't work for me.

It may be that the 4E, as a system, is a bit too "fluid" or "loose" for me; just as I hated new mechanical categories or "innovations" in 3E (stuff like Tactical Feats or Combat Style Feats in Complete Warrior or the classes in ToB) I feel a bit uncomfortable with constantly evolving game mechanics such as revised classes or new racial stats. In most RPGs evolution on this scale is linked to edition changes; I just don't see the point in creating an "alternative" rules set and still calling it 4E. If they released the revised 4.5 books, I'd instantly buy them.

Does this make any sense?

 

[Stormonu]

4E "hater" here. Surprisingly, I have this set on preorder (for the collectability, actually) and the news of the different builds actually has my interest up. I'm curious to see what changes - if any - the essential line brings to the game.

 

[ruemere]

Since Essentials line is supposed to contain new version of rule system, the real question here is, why would anyone need that rule system?
The key aspects (as per marketing so far) appear to boil down to the following: new, updated, simplified, yet still the same in terms of effect.

Is it really another case of a shinier version of older toy? Or can it sell on it's own merit?

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Remathilis]

Well now, this strikes me as interesting...

I'm not a 4e adopter (I tried, I really did) but my list of complaints could be fixed fairly simply. Lets see if WotC does it.

1.) A bit more diversity in classes (mages feel different than clerics, who feel different from fighters and NOT just because of some pre-defined role, but powers that actually do different things).

2.) Rebalanced math to keep fights fluid and unpredictable; grindspace BEGONE!

4.) Monsters with more damage, less hp, and more cool abilities (no 1-trick ponies except for minions).

5.) less emphasis on two-stat-and-dump (primary, secondary, and the rest can be 8s for all I care). While your at it; get rid of the dual-stat classes (cleric, warlock, ranger, etc).

6.) Add some of the better ideas (Mwk implements, domains, errata, etc) right into the books so that I don't need to chase errata and patches across several books (or hundreds of Compendium entries).

7.) Fix Skill Challenges and Rituals once and for all.

I'm not sure I'm going to get all that, but I'm hopeful something like this comes out. I may even give it another look if they can meet most of my demands.

 

[knightofround]

I'm surprised that so many people who play 4E are against this. Seriously, they have *25 core classes* in this game already. PHB 1 was solid, PHB 2 filled in many of the blanks missing from traditional D&D, and although PHB 3 had some *great* content, it mostly showed that the devs had reached a limit with race/class combos that are easily integrated into the D&D culture.

I'd *much* rather have them continue to develop new ways to approach old race/class, rather than coming up with goofy stuff like wildens, or redundant stuff like runepriests and seekers. 5 power sources is enough for me. I think if you go any further it would need to be heavily flavored towards a specific campaign. (Such as Kalashtar & artificer from Eberron, Spellscarred & swordmage from FR)

The only way I would be consider this a 4.X edition is if the new models of classes are so much more powerful & flexible than the old ones, that it makes them obsolete. So far I think they've done a bang-up job with balancing in this edition, so I'm not nearly as worried as I was with 3E.

 

[Primal]

I'm surprised that so many people who play 4E are against this. Seriously, they have *25 core classes* in this game already. PHB 1 was solid, PHB 2 filled in many of the blanks missing from traditional D&D, and although PHB 3 had some *great* content, it mostly showed that the devs had reached a limit with race/class combos that are easily integrated into the D&D culture.

I don't think it's surprising at all; there are probably a lot of people who skipped 4E and were hoping for a revised 4.X. I personally see two major groups that could be potential 4E customers: those who are 3E/Pathfinder fans who feel intrigued about some new innovations in 4E, and others who are guys who were originally in the "wait-and-see" camp but didn't embrace 4E and soon it was "too late" (i.e. too many books were out). I personally know people who might be interested but they don't want to pay for books that don't include errata (or, rather, they don't want to pay 75 euros per book for that errata). And as mechanics have constantly evolved and now there are... what... around 200 pages of errata and rule changes? A bit too much for most new customers, if you ask me.

I don't want or need *new* races or classes; I think "thematic" books like Demonomicon or Open Grave are the right way to go, instead of creating alternative versions of classes, powers and paragon paths. More feats and powers? Yes, please.

I'd *much* rather have them continue to develop new ways to approach old race/class, rather than coming up with goofy stuff like wildens, or redundant stuff like runepriests and seekers. 5 power sources is enough for me. I think if you go any further it would need to be heavily flavored towards a specific campaign. (Such as Kalashtar & artificer from Eberron, Spellscarred & swordmage from FR)

The only way I would be consider this a 4.X edition is if the new models of classes are so much more powerful & flexible than the old ones, that it makes them obsolete. So far I think they've done a bang-up job with balancing in this edition, so I'm not nearly as worried as I was with 3E.

I think it's confusing if there are several versions of the same power, class or race in the game ("You want to create an Eladrin Barbarian? Which version of the Eladrin and which version of the Barbarian?"). YMMV, of course.

As far as balance goes... well, YMMV but IMO they've screwed up the math pretty badly. If not, why the need for halving solo HPs in MM2? Or revising *every* monster's damage? Or is this due to power creep? I think there must be a reason for those changes. I agree that the math is much more balanced than in 3E, but if I have to start modifying the stat block for every monster published so far, I'd hardly call it a "bang-up job".

 

[Primal]

Why not? They are intended to be balanced when played alongside each other. Call this guy a Warpriest, and the PHB guy a Cleric, and where is this issue between allowing this vs allowing someone to play a Runepriest from PHB3?

This isn't a revised edition. There a handful of previous elements being changed, like racial stat modifiers. But this version isn't overwriting the old version in any way.

It is a simplified version in several ways. Presentation, for one - clearer language in the class traits, an actual class level advancement table (rather than making you piece it together yourself), along with mechanics like built in 'ritual' abilities (Cleanse, Resurrection) rather than having to learn your own rituals, plus having various options chosen for you by your domain choice, rather than needing to select lots of individual powers.

I absolutely wouldn't want them to go with your plan, drop the old material, and launch a 4.5 - and fortunately, they aren't doing so. The old stuff remains intact, which is important to me. I don't know whether I'll use Essentials or not, but I like the idea of a simplified version of things that makes it easier for people to get into the game.

This seems the best of both worlds - a slimmed down approach for people to step on with, but which is also able to coexist alongside the existing material.

I mean, they could screw it up - the Warpriest could be twice as good as the PHB Cleric, and could render him obsolete. But there are absolutely no indications this is the case, and I just don't see any reason to assume that would happen.

Please refer to my reply to Scribble, because I hate repeating myself (he essentially asked the same questions).

 

[outsider]

Tied to this was a secondary goal: Find ways to give the classes different levels of complexity. One of the genius strokes of the original Dungeons & Dragons game design was that it allowed players to find their own level of mastery. Playing a wizard presented different challenges and required more rules mastery than playing a fighter. We wanted to preserve and return to that aspect of the Dungeons & Dragons game in the Essentials products.

GROAN. I absolutely HATE this. They could have given into pretty much ANY demand of the non-adopters other than this one, and I'd have supported it, but putting every class on an equal(roughly) level of system mastery was by far the best thing they did in 4e.

I enjoy tactical game mechanics. I also enjoy playing martial characters. It was nice that in 4e I could -FINALLY- play the characters I liked rping without giving up the mechanical/tactical complexity I love. Now Wizards is promising a return to the days where finger wigglers get more options than sword swingers.

The only way I will buy into this is if the current character classes are the top of the line complexity-wise, and they are just going to gimp down the future martial classes. As long as existing martial classes are on the same complexity level as future caster classes, I can just ignore the new gimp martial stuff. If, however, they intend for the new casters to be more complex than existing martial characters, I'm out.

 

[I'm A Banana]

GROAN. I absolutely HATE this. They could have given into pretty much ANY demand of the non-adopters other than this one, and I'd have supported it, but putting every class on an equal(roughly) level of system mastery was by far the best thing they did in 4e.

Clearly, a lot of people disagree.

But no one is making you switch to the Essentials versions, either.

Now Wizards is promising a return to the days where finger wigglers get more options than sword swingers.

I don't think that was one of those design goals they talked about, no.

If, however, they intend for the new casters to be more complex than existing martial characters, I'm out.

Since these books are intended mostly for newbies, I really doubt there's going to be anything more complex than there is in the existing books.

From the cleric preview, we find that choosing your domain defines your powers (at least at first level). This is a huge simplification from the current "mix-n-match your powers" design, yet is evocative of a focused cleric.

There's not much evidence for your doomsday scenario at all.

Though I would personally like "more complexity" for all characters outside of combat.