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

[Henry]

I'd go so far as to say that the Fighter being "too hard" goes back even to 3E. Someone who gets 18 feats to pick over 20 levels? Plus said feats are all over the map when it comes to usefulness and versatility? Used to be, the human fighter was the "entry-level" choice. Then in 3E, the half-orc barbarian was perhaps the simplest, which wasn't saying a lot. I agree that 4E does need a few classes that are very straightforward on their choices, for the sake of new players.

 

[Danzauker]

Let me try to recap...

Essentials seem to target different kinds of people:

- Current 4E players, that will find new options, fully compatible with their PHB/DMG/MM/Splatbooks

- New players, that will find easier and streamlined classes and things in order to learn playing in a moment

- 3E fans, which will finally get back some of the things lost in 4E,such as spell-less, em, daily-less fighters, classes with different mechanics

- Older editions' fans, wich will get the "nostalgia vibe" of a Red Box complete with Elmore's art!

If they really can make it and make everyone happy, they'll score the biggest crit of all D&D history!

 

[Roland55]

Especially if you can make your friends say "kamehameha!!!!" when they use Ultra Super Fist Smash.

Alright, mudbunny. That hurt.

 

[outsider]

You're not the target audience of the Essentials line, and I think the devs made this very obvious.

I'm in 4th edition's target audience, as I'm a 4th edition player. They are taking 4e in a new direction, so I think it's pretty relevant to me. Especially considering that every D&D product they have announced for september forward so far is Essentials branded.

 

[MerricB]

I'd go so far as to say that the Fighter being "too hard" goes back even to 3E. Someone who gets 18 feats to pick over 20 levels? Plus said feats are all over the map when it comes to usefulness and versatility? Used to be, the human fighter was the "entry-level" choice. Then in 3E, the half-orc barbarian was perhaps the simplest, which wasn't saying a lot. I agree that 4E does need a few classes that are very straightforward on their choices, for the sake of new players.

The 3E Fighter still plays pretty simply, unless you take some rather obscure feats. The 4E fighter requires you to understand a lot of non-obvious rules just to begin with, and then apply them during the DM's/monsters' turn. It's not even they only apply on your turn: the most complex fighter rules are present during the DM's turn, and you have to use them in reaction to what the DM is doing, while the DM is distracted by running the monsters!

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I gotta agree that the 4e fighter is not the simplest of classes. I'd say that would either be the 4e ranger or the 4e warlock. And, really, I'd give the nod more to the warlock. Very straight forward powers, not a whole lot of reactive powers, and most of the effects are pretty much straight damage, depending on the build.

I'm still not really convinced we need a "training wheels" class. If you start small enough, and then grow complexity over the course of the campaign, any class can be a "training wheel" class.

 

[Mark CMG]

With all of the newer classes included, who does the most damage (or has the most ways to do damage) when they miss? Some newer players don't seem to grasp the concept of that.

 

[The Human Target]

Possibly. (Using just the PHB? At 1st level?)

To some extent, I feel that the 4e wizard, while it can become complicated, does at least allow simple builds. If a power is not understood, at least a different power can be chosen. Alas, every single fighter in 4e suffers from the complication of its defender features.

A simpler wizard, while perhaps not strictly needed, isn't something to be frightened of IMO.

A simpler fighter is required.

As for outsider's contention that every class should have the same level of rules complexity, it's something I oppose wholeheartedly.

Cheers!

I agree, the fighter does need hit with the errata bat for sure.

But I want all classes to have a relatively equal level of rules complexity.

 

[KidSnide]

I agree, the fighter does need hit with the errata bat for sure. But I want all classes to have a relatively equal level of rules complexity.

I like the fact that the PH1 fighter is a class that is complicated enough to be interesting. It lets me enjoy combat tactics while playing a character archetype I used to avoid. But I'm still sympathetic to players who want a simpler character. I enjoy the complexity, but I don't enjoy the irritated looks at the gaming table that say "I used to enjoy this, but now you're making me do a lot more work to contribute effectively."

So, while I think it's important to have mechanically complicated fighters in the game, I don't begrudge WotC for also including a less complicated fighter.

-KS

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, would it really hurt to have both? A simpler mechanics class and a complicated mechanics class, so long as neither is definitively better than the other?

The simpler class would be more direct damage, less reactive effects. The more complicated clase would focus more on the fiddly bits at the cost of direct damage. I can live with that.