D&D 4E Do you mix'n'match Essentials with standard 4e?

[Kzach]

So, I've finally gotten to experience a bit of Essentials flavour by playing a couple of Essentials classes as well as trying out some new stuff in standard D&D to compare and I have to say that, overall, I'm a fan of the different play-style that Essentials brings to the table.

It seems, however, that not everyone agrees. In one of the games I played in, Essentials was looked down on to the point where it was banned from the game. The argument being that it didn't work well within the existing 4e structure and that a lot of the Essentials feats 'broke' D&D.

I can't say I agree, having played an Essentials character in an otherwise non-Essentials party, but given how many feats there are that seem to completely wipe other feats (that have been around a lot longer) completely off the map, and given the distinctly different feel to how an Essentials character plays at the table, I can see how these conclusions might be reached.

What do you do? Do you allow Essentials in your standard games? Are there conditions? Do you only play Essentials? Do you ban Essentials or part of the Essentials rules? Do you discriminate at all or allow carte blanche?

 

[Obryn]

I freely allow all of it for my Dark Sun campaign (except for the Divine classes, because Dark Sun). In my experience, the classes work just fine together. I really don't get the angst and anger.

I love the new feats, too; I've stopped giving Expertise feats out for free now that they're more than just a math fix.

-O

 

[Colmarr]

In my upcoming Zeitgeist campaign, I'm allowing the players open access to Essentials and Original content.

I'm currently planning to give out the old Expertise feats for free at approximately level 10. If the players want one of the E-Expertise feats, they need to spend a feat as usual*.

I'm still weighing up whether to do the same for the defense feats. I feel like I should, but I also feel like I'm throwing the players plenty of bones as it is.

* I believe that getting the +2 and +3 bumps 5 levels early, together with whatever rider attaches to the E-feat, makes this a true choice.

 

[Aegeri]

I don't really restrict anything in the entire system actually. My personal preferences on if I like certain classes or not shouldn't have a bearing on if my players play it. The only class I will actively encourage a PC not to play is the Binder: Because it's literally a crappy Warlock and does everything a Warlock does, just infinitely worse. So I just tell players to play a Warlock instead :O

Otherwise I try not to tell my players how to have fun and enjoy their characters. In general though, weaker classes will soon become exposed in play through my games anyway, but if they work then why bother changing it if the player is having fun?

 

[Dice4Hire]

I own the two essentials basic class books, and some other things, but I do not allow essentials in my face to face.

Partly that is because we use a gestalt-like ststem and essentials does not play nice with that. Seconmd is essentials is just so ugly....


Essentials is a different game, slightly, and after reading over the essentials books, though they have some good ideas, we do not want them at our table. Simple enough.

 

[Terramotus]

I'm still deciding how I want to run it when I start my 4e game back up, continuing the old campaign in epic levels. Options are:

1) Rules are frozen where they were at the last offline CB. Free Expertise feat.

2) Full up-to-date rules, allowing feats, PPs, and EDs from Essentials and other unlabeled Essentials books such as HoS. No free feat. No Essentials base classes - if it doesn't have At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies you can't play it. Possible reversions of certain rules such as the new Melee Training. If we had a cleric in the group, we'd probably be reverting some of the new changes.

Before the warlock preview, I was dead set on option 1. Now I'm seriously considering 2, but it seems like a lot more work.

Also, my refusal to allow Essentials classes goes something like this. You never had a problem keeping track of your stuff before. Why do you need fewer options now? You don't need more "free time" in combat - you're supposed to be paying attention. We get off-track enough as it is. If it's because you think it's more powerful, I don't care. Why do you want to screw with our game balance?

 

[Obryn]

The only class I will actively encourage a PC not to play is the Binder: Because it's literally a crappy Warlock and does everything a Warlock does, just infinitely worse. So I just tell players to play a Warlock instead :O

If someone in my game wanted to play a Binder for some reason, I think they become viable with two quick house rules:

(1) Implement the old Curse mechanic, as far as cursing enemies &etc. goes
(2) Instead of extra damage on a cursed target, allow some minor Control effects (like those found in the Hunter's Clever Shot At-Will).

-O

 

[Obryn]

No Essentials base classes - if it doesn't have At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies you can't play it.

What about Warpriests, Hexblades, etc.?

If we had a cleric in the group, we'd probably be reverting some of the new changes.

The designers themselves are rolling it back or changing it some more. It's being revisited this month, thank goodness, per Trevor over at WotC.

-O

 

[Mentat55]

I currently play a level 16 slayer in our Eberron game, and I am the only one playing an Essentials class. I am not sure if anyone else uses feats from Essentials, as really only myself and one other player are particularly keen about optimizing and tweaking our characters. So far, the slayer stands out because I do a lot of damage with basic attacks, but I lack the nova capability of my comrades.

I think everything works well together so far.

 

[Neverfate]

I'm still deciding how I want to run it when I start my 4e game back up, continuing the old campaign in epic levels. Options are:

1) Rules are frozen where they were at the last offline CB. Free Expertise feat.

2) Full up-to-date rules, allowing feats, PPs, and EDs from Essentials and other unlabeled Essentials books such as HoS. No free feat. No Essentials base classes - if it doesn't have At-Wills, Encounters, and Dailies you can't play it. Possible reversions of certain rules such as the new Melee Training. If we had a cleric in the group, we'd probably be reverting some of the new changes.

Before the warlock preview, I was dead set on option 1. Now I'm seriously considering 2, but it seems like a lot more work.

Also, my refusal to allow Essentials classes goes something like this. You never had a problem keeping track of your stuff before. Why do you need fewer options now? You don't need more "free time" in combat - you're supposed to be paying attention. We get off-track enough as it is. If it's because you think it's more powerful, I don't care. Why do you want to screw with our game balance?

. . . balance? Really? Psionic classes? PHB1 classes? There's just as much bad in 4E as there is in, well, 4E. There are inherent balance problems with PHB1. There will always be.

In LFR play, since you can't ignore things you see countless 4E builds of every race and class. A Shade Vampire compared to a Elven Twin-Strike Ranger isn't balanced. A Slayer or Thief out-charging a Barbarian isn't balanced. However, Clerics and Warlords aren't balanced in terms of Leaders and they're from the same book... The list goes on. Some of the worst options in the game come from PHB1 along with some of the best. Strictly sticking with just that book there's no balance.

No one screwed with the game balance. It was quite screwy before ANY of us got here. Even Essentials.

Regardless of anyone's feelings on Essentials I think anyone claiming it ruined the balance of the game hasn't really looked closely at any of the books released in the last 3 years. I don't mean to slight you, I just chose your post when I notice "balance" come up. Until they come out with a character at first level that has a 68 Armor Class and +76 damage modifier I think we can safely say the game is as "balanced" as it can really get and as "balanced" as it has been if you take the Class Compendium into account (again, Cleric vs Warlord got more one sided).