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

[amerigoV]

I don't agree with the proposition that making 4e characters is easy.

To be clear, I do not think it is "easy" (I mean, nothing beats 1e and earlier fighters), just easier than 3.5 as you level up. 3.5 is pretty darn close to a building block system with all the feats, multiple-classing, and PrCs. Now, I'll admit I have not tinkered with the hybrid stuff in 4e, so perhaps that brings 4e complexity up to something comparable.

On the other hand, optimized characters in 4e look to take a lot of work. What little I have played 4e it feels like when I was playing WOW - I needed to frequent the equivalent of Elitist Jerks to get the build/rotation right.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Welcome Home, Schools of Magic. While we're at it, its nice to see Magic Missile is STANDARD, and a spell-chart (of sorts).

I love Magic Missile being auto-damage.

Love love love love love love love it!

Also excited to see the return of schools of magic! Especially as an organizing concept! Though I would've liked to see the Illusionist's at-will, to see if they have re-examined the idea of "lets just slap Psychic damage on the standard Damage + Condition format for illusion spells!"

Wondering a little if the Essentials line ever re-examines psionics, if they can make the Telepath distinct from the Enchanter, since they seem to jump all over each others' feet a lot.

Would maybe have liked to see a "combat librarian" build using runes and such, but focusing more on the spellbook is also a positive (and really interestingly balanced).

4e is looking to have significantly fewer warts when the Essentials line comes out.

 

[Jack99]

On the other hand, optimized characters in 4e look to take a lot of work. What little I have played 4e it feels like when I was playing WOW - I needed to frequent the equivalent of Elitist Jerks to get the build/rotation right.

Lots of assumptions from someone who hasnt played it (much?)

So take it from me. Its the same. 3 actions to optimize, an attack, some weird combinationof the same broken items, the same broken combination of broken feats, and presto, one optimized character. No different than in 3.5..

 

[Mark CMG]

So take it from me. Its the same. 3 actions to optimize, an attack, some weird combinationof the same broken items, the same broken combination of broken feats, and presto, one optimized character. No different than in 3.5..

It's quite different actually. With the DDI it takes a lot less time.

 

[Remathilis]

4e is looking to have significantly fewer warts when the Essentials line comes out.

I share your enthusiasm here, but with two caveats...

1.) So far, we've been told 8 classes and 10 races get the "essentials" remake. Not counting the PHB3 material (which seems closer in line with Essential) there are still plenty of classes that could use an essential-line spit and polish (like Deva, bard, or warforged). While they could mechanically work with the revised classes, the bard and warlord (for example) seem a little less interesting compared to the new mage or warpriest.

2.) Similarly, Future stuff will have to serve two masters; compatible with the new classes, and the old. Will a power that works fine for the mage's enchantment school bonus break when combined with the wizard's orb of imposition, for example? Will we get redone monsters (new "red dragon") for example and if so, which version will be used in the next upcoming module to feature a big-red? Will the compendium even keep the old RD or replace it with the new essential RD?

I want to try the essentials line (kinda, I'm on the fence actually, which is a dang-sight better than last year when I'd rather have a root canal than play 4e) but I'm afraid the "limited" scope of Essentials makes it a self-contained game compatible with 4e rather than a new way forward that fixes many of the goofs 4e made the first time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I share your enthusiasm here, but with two caveats...

I think WotC is probably well aware of those two things.

The first will probably be solved if the Essentials line sells well. They'll make it if there's a demand. It could also be solved with Dragon articles presenting new "essentials" builds. If people want to buy these things, I'm sure WotC will make them. If not, then there won't be much of a reason for them.

The second I think is something I do trust WotC to do: balance 4e. If there was any universal praise about 4e it is that it was well balanced. They've been careful to imply that the balance won't shift with Essentials, and I believe 'em. They'll use whichever version is better for their purposes (more than likely, the more recent versions, but sometimes they may use the originals), and the compendium will probably have both (it already has multiple versions of many monsters, and contains the hybrid classes right next to the normal ones).

That's not to say all the goofs will be fixed. They might still have fighters with encounter and daily powers, they might still rely on "damage + status" sameness with powers, they might still have monsters whose only reason to exist is to kill PC's, they might still have sameness in the skill challenges and rituals that aren't worth their price, but I think the builds we've seen so far are cause for optimism.

 

[Aegeri]

That's not to say all the goofs will be fixed. They might still have fighters with encounter and daily powers

This is entirely debatable that it was or ever will be a "goof". In the minds of some people who think fighters should be the guy with the wooden spoon and colander helmet - effectively entirely useless after level 3 or so - maybe it's a 'goof'. I happen to actually like them being equivalent to other classes and not being wastes of space in the party. Being equivalent to everything else is sometimes a good thing and I will be extremely irritated if Wizards throw out what is - despite some warts - a very well balanced system across classes over 30 levels of play.

I do agree with most of your other points to an extent, except for the point on monsters as the DM it's my responsibility to determine how they are used: Not wizards. I need stat blocks that I can use or draw inspiration from (like many in MM3). I don't need Wizards to tell me how to use monsters when I feel like it outside of combat - I need what they do in combat in a stat block. What they do outside of it is their own devious business and best determined by me, the DM.

Skill challenges and rituals though are still massive flaws.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is entirely debatable that it was or ever will be a "goof".

And magic missile was fine for many people as a power with an attack roll.

It's clearly pretty subjective.

In the minds of some people who think fighters should be the guy with the wooden spoon and colander helmet - effectively entirely useless after level 3 or so - maybe it's a 'goof'. I happen to actually like them being equivalent to other classes and not being wastes of space in the party.

As I pointed out in another thread: "be believable in context" =/= "be weak."

Here's an example: I'd love for a fighter (or any martial character) build that relies on at-wills. These at-wills are more frequent and higher-level than other characters' at-wills (they can be more powerful). They might also have situational "kickers" that flash in, when in particular situations (say, there's an additional effect if they're flanking, or if the enemy is prone, or if they're not next to any other enemies). If they can make a class mostly devoid of encounters (psionic classes), they can boil a class down to a half-dozen awesome, evolving, at-wills with situational kickers that make the fighter a powerhouse whose tactics change with a changing battlefield.

A badass with a sword.

So, again, with feeling, a fighter without Daily abilities doesn't mean a fighter that sucks. It just means that the fighter should rock without suddenly becoming Vancian and having narm-worthy moments like "I can't hit this guy with my sword again, guys, 'cuz I did it less than 5 minutes ago" for a class that is, ostensibly, powered by their own physical prowess.

 

[Aegeri]

If they can make a class mostly devoid of encounters (psionic classes)

You do know the three psionic classes that use PPs are all variously terrible given they can be broken in half by a *single* low level at-will don't you? The best of the psionic classes has a different mechanic the monk that is new, fun and interesting I agree - but still adheres to the same overall at-will, encounter and daily system.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'm actually disappointed in psionics, they were released needing severe errata to the PP system to genuinely fix them.

 

[Jack99]

It's quite different actually. With the DDI it takes a lot less time.

I didn't realize speed had entered into the equation. /boggle