So, how many are avoiding Essentials?

[gourdcaptain]

Both my 4e groups have pretty much shot down the Magic Item rarity changes for one (Ironically, one DM thinks the new system is too much work). The difference between Essentials and something like Martial Power is its ripping up of numerous design concepts and subsystems of the game and replacing them either for the character and the game as a whole. If it was just new classes I wouldn't be nearly as dubious about it.

We do have a slayer in one group, and the player is pretty happy about it, but they're pretty much 95% of the time unable to contribute to the combat in any meaningful way besides damage, which is slightly irritating.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, and no.

I'm playing in 2 games that don't, and probably won't use Essentials. I'm playing in another that allows you to use Essentials material should you choose to. Personally, I'm indifferent to the matter. Essentials is a variant to me, although I like certain aspects, such as the changes to racial bonuses, I dislike some of the class changes. ie: i play D&D Encounters and I find the new fighter setup to be incredibly boring.

Overall, I'm not going to buy the books for it, at least, not anytime soon. But I don't have any issues playing with it.

 

[fanboy2000]

For new players and DMs, I am thinking its all replacement. They are making great efforts to stear to essentials and have those replace the 08 hardbacks.

I don't know. A lot of the new player's I'm encountering are buying the PHB and using that.

For us, the RC basically replaces the PHB and DMG as a rules reference.

The RC (and the book from the DM's kit) are actually a little disappointing in that area. For example if you want the vehicle rules, AV is the better place to find those. Probably the rule I look-up the most is how many hit points a monster role has (e.g., how many hit points does a lurker get per level?) No essentials book has that. (Maybe it'll be in the monster vault.)

The MV better replace the the MM (a book that almost ties the 2E core books in its level of disapointment).

I swear, I'm the only person who finds this book still useable? I want MV as much as the next guy, but I still like a good old fashioned MM1 Beholder.

And then there is this. These are more changes then options. Just about every session, we have things come up that are based on an "update". And do we have all this in errata? And do you want to incorporate rate it through errata? Otherwise, if you want it you have to pay for it one way or another. (Don't think that the CB is not part of this).

I haven't had a problem with the errata so far. I rearly run-up against it in my own game.

Of course, you can play 08 4E. You can play any game you want.

Currently my Eberron game is "use most any supplement you want that isn't campaign setting specific (except for, of course, Eberron)."

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is probably worthy of a thread in itself, but it seems to me that there are people who think that Essentials is an addition to "classic" 4E and there are people who think that Essentials is a replacement for "classic" 4E.

For those in the former group, Essentials is just another bunch of options. The operative verb is not "switching", but "adopting".

Quoted for emphasis, because I think this is an important distinction.

For many (most?) people Essentials is an addition to what they already do with 4e. Expanded options, more stuff to play around with.

For some people (such as myself), I'd run an Essentials-only game very happily, and the next time I run 4e it will be Essentials only, because I like it better.

I guess there is also a third approach which is 'wouldn't touch it with a bargepole', but I don't think many people would find themselves in that boat (although I can't be sure, of course!)

Cheers

 

[Rydac]

We see Essentials as an addition, not a replacement, and I love almost everything I've seen so far. I'm currently encouraging several of my players to look at Essentials next time they're character building. I'm also really excited about the Monster Vault.

So, not me. I'm fine with both Essentials and non-Essentials PCs... whatever the players want.

Same song second verse....this is my take on it too. Big fan of the Monster Vault...what Monster Manual I should've been.....but I'm not complaining that as they've learned more about the system WoTC is making great improvements.

 

[badmojojojo]

It's not a replacement, it's an addition.

Thats how I see it too. So far our group is still playing core 4e and will be starting DS soon after the new CB goes online.

I have played a few Essential games at my LFGS and have had a blast, so much so that when I run DnD I will be using Essentials. I agree that I dont see it as an either/or but as an addition to core DnD, you can use both simultaneously.

 

[Anthraxus]

I've used a few of the feats for my regular 4E classes, but I don't like the new Essentials classes. I'd probably not be interested at all in an "Essentials Only" campaign.

 

[TerraDave]

I don't know. A lot of the new player's I'm encountering are buying the PHB and using that. (SNIP)

The RC (and the book from the DM's kit) are actually a little disappointing in that area...Probably the rule I look-up the most is how many hit points a monster role has (e.g., how many hit points does a lurker get per level?) No essentials book has that. (Maybe it'll be in the monster vault.)

PHB: Sure, its hasn't been out THAT long. But the redbox only references the essentials, the essentials only reference the essentials, and stores are, through time, supposed to keep essentials in stock.

Monster stuff: The complety updated info is only in the DMG errata, as far as i know. (thats what I am using).

 

[Solvarn]

Cavalier

I'm running a cavalier of sacrifice in a new campaign we've just started and I like it. The mage seems appealing to me also.

The Red Box was rubbish. The Essentials books I feel just the opposite about, they have exceeded my expectations. I like the design philosophy behind them.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

The Red Box was rubbish.

I think for 13 bucks (amazon for example) calling a product like the red box "rubbish" is really harsh.