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

[Aegeri]

The thing to me is it looks like a different interpretation, without being different. If you're watching this hoping for some massive design change I think you're going to be in for a shock because what I've seen and read thus far indicates its not. I definitely approve in the variations in classes, because this actually will make designing and balancing new classes a lot easier (in that making them distinct and fulfilling their roles much easier to design).

Ultimately the more I've seen of this and with the Cleric today the less worried I am they are doing something zany that will ruin 4E. It's going to be the same system, but I definitely like this new philosophy in design. This sort of evolution is a good thing.

Now what will upset me?

If there are no more books like DMG3, MM4, a feywild book, a far realm book and those other "fluffy" books that I've enjoyed immensely (Examples; Draconomicon, Plane Below and Open Grave) on the horizon after essentials. That will make me very annoyed. That's all I'm worried about and while I'm pretty sure that's just an unreasonable worry, I really would like to see something in the future to assuage my fears about these books disappearance.

 

[Scribble]

I wouldn't allow, say, an Essentials cleric in the same party with a core cleric.

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?

 

[bouncyhead]

If you're watching this hoping for some massive design change I think you're going to be in for a shock because what I've seen and read thus far indicates its not.

Personally, I have no such expectations. I'm not getting any kind of signals (though some clearly are) that this is a re-design or an edition change or what have you. Not even sure that the concept of 'edition' really fits D&D any more.

Instead my sense is that of an overlay of new options that work with the established core but offer play experiences more in line with the preferences of some non-switchers. I'm not sure that they will go far enough for me, but it will be interesting to see where they're headed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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?

I was wondering this too. One of my concerns is not the allowing/disallowing thing but one of preference. Will the new versions have stuff that make the original versions largely undesirable or will it be the reverse?

 

[Scribble]

I was wondering this too. One of my concerns is not the allowing/disallowing thing but one of preference. Will the new versions have stuff that make the original versions largely undesirable or will it be the reverse?

Well- as long as they make them balanced to the old class style this is largely subjective opinion wouldn't you say?

 

[FireLance]

Instead my sense is that of an overlay of new options that work with the established core but offer play experiences more in line with the preferences of some non-switchers.

I like this philosophy. I hereby dub it: Manytruewayism.

EDIT: More importantly, it will hopefully also appeal to non-adopters.

 

[bouncyhead]

EDIT: More importantly, it will hopefully also appeal to non-adopters.

non-adopters it is!

(Would not normally reply but had to get to my 100th post somehow )

 

[MrMyth]

Uhm, so they're rebuilding/restructuring the core classes? Because it doesn't look to me like a simplified version of cleric, e.g. regarding domain powers and automatic domain feats.

In the light of all the revisions and errata they've released this year (including the "updated" monster damage and the new direction with racial stat bonuses) it seems to me like a revised edition (4.5 or whatever you want to call it) than anything else. If the Essential books are supposed to be a different, simplified version of 4E (similar to Basic D&D), I wouldn't market them as 4E supplements; why mix different versions of the same powers -- or even different versions of the same classes? I wouldn't allow, say, an Essentials cleric in the same party with a core cleric.

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.

 

[malraux]

Well, 4e is pretty modular. You could change out how some classes work without needing to rework the entire system. I could see a 4e Unearthed Arcana doing exactly that. Actually, I could see a splat for each power source (Unearthed Martial, Unearthed Primal, etc) that reworked the same classes but with more unique takes on the power system.

Quoting myself from a year and a day ago.

From what I've heard, this sounds a lot like what I envisioned in my head. I'm cautiously optimistic. In theory I want more class differentiation on the implementation of the core structure. In practice, I haven't really cared that much around a gaming table.

 

[malraux]

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.

Based on the recent history, if the balance was screwed up, I'd imagine WotC would errata things back to a more reasonable number pretty quickly.