Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
August 2012--Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5744803" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Yeah, that was my question. Especially considering all the chicken little "there will never again be support for non-Essentials classes!" doomsaying has been amply disproven (and I notice WotC got zero credit for doing exactly what they said they would and continuing to support everything). Beyond that lumping everything that happens to use some sort of Essentials-like power progression together seems odd to me. There's a pretty decent range of different classes within that 'box'. It seems hard to me to lump the Thief, the Warpriest, and the Mage together, they're all rather different and even if some players dislike the 'on rails' style of the Thief and Slayer there's no reason to dismiss the Warpriest at the same time, which has a lot more options.</p><p></p><p>I don't think the vast majority of the audience really cares that much one way or the other about Essentials. The game I started last month has a Cavalier, a Mage, and 2 PHB1 characters in it (ranger and rogue). I notice that the Cavalier's lack of a daily option seems a little limiting, but the person playing the character seems perfectly happy with it. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure EXACTLY what WotC said about settings, but I kind of doubt they ever said they would never ever again ever provide the slightest support for, or set new products in, any of the currently released settings. All I remember them saying was that each setting would have 2 books and an adventure. Maybe somewhere someone said that would be IT absolutely and without exception nothing else, but I kind of doubt it. FR has always been a rather heavily supported setting in any case. It probably IS pretty popular and given how 'kitchen sink fantasy' it is it doesn't seem surprising at all to me that they would use it as a backdrop. There's a lot of depth of history and background in FR, so it makes a pretty good place to put more story-intensive products like Neverwinter. They could have used PoL and recreated a whole lot of background to support all the conflict and whatnot involved, but why would you if you could just leverage decades of existing lore in FR? </p><p></p><p>I don't see where it particularly shows some kind of desperation to use your existing IP assets efficiently when you make up new stuff. Everyone around here likes 4e pretty well. I kind of think it has a different kind of audience than previous editions where pretty much everyone would just switch eventually though. That probably does make WotC nervous. Lots of people seem to play 3.5 happily, but IME they also play 4e and all I ever hear about it is "Oh, 4e, that's a great game to play that's different from 3.5." which is kinda true. Aside from a couple of FLGS grognards nobody seems to care one way or another about it. I think 4e is seen more as an alternate take on D&D perhaps than as the linear evolution of the game. Maybe that's a bad thing (for WotC), but I'm not sure. I think there is just always going to be a kind of equilibrium between 3.5, PF, and 4e, and maybe other D&D variants. Essentials might not have really been enough of a variation on 4e to have mattered much, but it seems odd to me to say that it 'wrecked' anything.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5744803, member: 82106"] Yeah, that was my question. Especially considering all the chicken little "there will never again be support for non-Essentials classes!" doomsaying has been amply disproven (and I notice WotC got zero credit for doing exactly what they said they would and continuing to support everything). Beyond that lumping everything that happens to use some sort of Essentials-like power progression together seems odd to me. There's a pretty decent range of different classes within that 'box'. It seems hard to me to lump the Thief, the Warpriest, and the Mage together, they're all rather different and even if some players dislike the 'on rails' style of the Thief and Slayer there's no reason to dismiss the Warpriest at the same time, which has a lot more options. I don't think the vast majority of the audience really cares that much one way or the other about Essentials. The game I started last month has a Cavalier, a Mage, and 2 PHB1 characters in it (ranger and rogue). I notice that the Cavalier's lack of a daily option seems a little limiting, but the person playing the character seems perfectly happy with it. I'm not sure EXACTLY what WotC said about settings, but I kind of doubt they ever said they would never ever again ever provide the slightest support for, or set new products in, any of the currently released settings. All I remember them saying was that each setting would have 2 books and an adventure. Maybe somewhere someone said that would be IT absolutely and without exception nothing else, but I kind of doubt it. FR has always been a rather heavily supported setting in any case. It probably IS pretty popular and given how 'kitchen sink fantasy' it is it doesn't seem surprising at all to me that they would use it as a backdrop. There's a lot of depth of history and background in FR, so it makes a pretty good place to put more story-intensive products like Neverwinter. They could have used PoL and recreated a whole lot of background to support all the conflict and whatnot involved, but why would you if you could just leverage decades of existing lore in FR? I don't see where it particularly shows some kind of desperation to use your existing IP assets efficiently when you make up new stuff. Everyone around here likes 4e pretty well. I kind of think it has a different kind of audience than previous editions where pretty much everyone would just switch eventually though. That probably does make WotC nervous. Lots of people seem to play 3.5 happily, but IME they also play 4e and all I ever hear about it is "Oh, 4e, that's a great game to play that's different from 3.5." which is kinda true. Aside from a couple of FLGS grognards nobody seems to care one way or another about it. I think 4e is seen more as an alternate take on D&D perhaps than as the linear evolution of the game. Maybe that's a bad thing (for WotC), but I'm not sure. I think there is just always going to be a kind of equilibrium between 3.5, PF, and 4e, and maybe other D&D variants. Essentials might not have really been enough of a variation on 4e to have mattered much, but it seems odd to me to say that it 'wrecked' anything. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
August 2012--Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue
Top