Ferdil
First Post
I posted this thread on RPGnet, with a detailed analysis of how are the Essential classes balanced with each other. I repost it here because I think my analysis might be useful to some.
-
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!
Trying to understand the design mechanism of Essential classes
- Thread starter Ferdil
- Start date
Amongst themselves the classes are remarkably similar fundamentally. As in, they all use powers and the powers are all designed using the same framework. Really 4E is the easiest to classify and compare due to how every class fits into a nice little predictable scheme.
I think essentials are just going backwards and starting over again without having such a straightforward design framework. The power system is basically the entire foundation of 4E but powers when 4E first came out were very rigid and often extremely uninteresting. Years later now they can go back to the core elements every class shares, powers, skills, feats and design things that really leverage the power already available to the current structure but not really utilized in an interesting way.
The essentials classes are much more interesting I think; they take a step away from what I think is a very homogenized and sometimes rather bland set of powers that the game began with.
The power structure is absolutely a wonderful thing. It's just really starting to hit its stride now with Essentials. It is unfortunate it has taken so long and I've spent the money I have on books that are not very interesting/well considered. Essentials are just an example of Wizards flexing the 4E systems muscles. It has legs, that's for sure and really it's just up to them (and us) to take advantage. The PHB was designed conservatively. They'd developed the powers system and when applying it to classes wanted to make things pretty even across the board. Essentials seems to be a bit more daring since the classes don't all follow an identical build structure. Really they need to push more and I'm hoping they'll do just that.
Wizards has done what they did with Magic when they transitioned to using keywords and an easily understandable (to both designer and player) structure. Before that there were a lot of oddities and differently phrased effects and lots of confusion over how some things interacted. Now everything is codified and organized in an extendable format.
I have done back and forth 4E and 3.5 DMing since 4e came out so I think about both editions structures all the time. They're both wonderful games for different reasons which is excellent. Kudos to Wizards for reminding us they do know what they're doing. Even if sometimes (such as right now) they seem utterly scatter brained management wise they created a great foundation. They just need to continue to stretch the usage of powers and structure of classes which is what I think your write up illustrated. Multiple paths to the same destination.
Edit: Gamma World is a good example of flexing 4Es power and stretching powers further.
I think essentials are just going backwards and starting over again without having such a straightforward design framework. The power system is basically the entire foundation of 4E but powers when 4E first came out were very rigid and often extremely uninteresting. Years later now they can go back to the core elements every class shares, powers, skills, feats and design things that really leverage the power already available to the current structure but not really utilized in an interesting way.
The essentials classes are much more interesting I think; they take a step away from what I think is a very homogenized and sometimes rather bland set of powers that the game began with.
The power structure is absolutely a wonderful thing. It's just really starting to hit its stride now with Essentials. It is unfortunate it has taken so long and I've spent the money I have on books that are not very interesting/well considered. Essentials are just an example of Wizards flexing the 4E systems muscles. It has legs, that's for sure and really it's just up to them (and us) to take advantage. The PHB was designed conservatively. They'd developed the powers system and when applying it to classes wanted to make things pretty even across the board. Essentials seems to be a bit more daring since the classes don't all follow an identical build structure. Really they need to push more and I'm hoping they'll do just that.
Wizards has done what they did with Magic when they transitioned to using keywords and an easily understandable (to both designer and player) structure. Before that there were a lot of oddities and differently phrased effects and lots of confusion over how some things interacted. Now everything is codified and organized in an extendable format.
I have done back and forth 4E and 3.5 DMing since 4e came out so I think about both editions structures all the time. They're both wonderful games for different reasons which is excellent. Kudos to Wizards for reminding us they do know what they're doing. Even if sometimes (such as right now) they seem utterly scatter brained management wise they created a great foundation. They just need to continue to stretch the usage of powers and structure of classes which is what I think your write up illustrated. Multiple paths to the same destination.
Edit: Gamma World is a good example of flexing 4Es power and stretching powers further.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Interesting analysis. I totally grok the idea that daily damage is rolled into other bonuses unique to those classes. Cool. 
Similar Threads
