non-4e D&D Players . . .

[coyote6]

Probably not; there are other RPG things I'd rather spend my suddenly limited funds on. Plus, the primary reasons I don't play 4e are that (a) I'm a bit tired of certain D&Disms, and (b) nobody in my circle of gamers wants to play 4e. (a) isn't changing, and I don't think (b) is either.

 

[fjw70]

I thought about posting ove at the WotC boards, but thought I would reach more non-4e players here.

Actually Essentials will have only have 6 books/book sets (3 of the products are Dungeon Tiles and 1 is a dice set):

-- Red Box Starter Set
-- Two Players Books
-- DM Toolkit
-- Monster Vault
-- Rules Compendium

 

[Evilusion]

Nope.

Sticking with Pathfinder.

Evilusion

 

[Azgulor]

No. That ship sailed. Truthfully, I haven't missed it and I've made peace with not being WotC's target demographic.

Pathfinder all the way, baby! I've also gleeful that I DO apparently, fall within Paizo's target demographic.

 

[fjw70]

Essentials seems to eliminate or greatly reduce a couple issues I have heard other have with 4e.

1) The classes are too similer -- that is definitely not true for essentails. They are mixing up class design much more.

2) Classes like Fighters get "spells" (i.e. powers) -- This is significantly reduced (no dailies and limited encounter abilities). The class features now focus on buffing Basic Attacks.


Some complaints it doesn't seem to address are:

1) Requires minis -- It looks ike essentail would be easier than current 4e to run without minis, it is still designed for minis.

2) Not enough customization in Skills -- No change here. Skill list will be the same with the same trained/untrained mechanic.

3) Multi-classing -- there is no indication the this is changing from the current system.


What other things about 4e that you don't like would not be addressed by Essentials?

 

[Aeolius]

The poster on the WotC boards said "these products are 100% catering to people who like the flavor of oldschool 2e D&D". And therein lies the problem. I didn't care for the 2e core rules either. In fact when 2e came out, I stuck with 1e, just as I am sticking with 3.5e/d20 now. Perhaps 5e will bring me back to the fold.

 

[fjw70]

The poster on the WotC boards said "these products are 100% catering to people who like the flavor of oldschool 2e D&D". And therein lies the problem. I didn't care for the 2e core rules either. In fact when 2e came out, I stuck with 1e, just as I am sticking with 3.5e/d20 now. Perhaps 5e will bring me back to the fold.

What about the changes are more 2e-focused than 3e-focused? (I never played 2e and only a little 3e -- I played a ot of 1e in my youth and 4e now).

 

[Shemeska]

Lipstick on a flumph and all that...

Nope. The 4e PoL core and its changes and tropes that get pushed into everything in 4e make it essentially a different game than I play or am interested in.

If they ever produced something that literally ignored the entirety or vast majority of what, flavor-wise, makes 4e core different from 1e/2e/3e and just used the 4e rules on something that was full of flavor and really well written, I would certainly look at it. But the way they've perfused the 4e PoL core into everything at this point, I don't see that as very likely to happen.

 

[IronWolf]

I've started too much of an investment in Pathfinder products to warrant up and switching again. As an earlier poster mentioned, I seem to fall into Paizo's target demographic which results in a lot]/i]]/b] of products that come out that appeal to me with minimal or no tweaking.

 

[Shemeska]

The poster on the WotC boards said "these products are 100% catering to people who like the flavor of oldschool 2e D&D".

Wha? The same 2e that had things that they called "the antithesis of fun" and which were laughed at in the early 4e podcasts? They're going to try to market 4e in a differently dressed up package to people that liked 2e AD&D flavor?