The Essential Knight

[Remathilis]

Um.. That is an Elmore Redbox cover. Turn in your D&D geek card.

I always get the names mixes up...

 

[pemerton]

Some will perfer (and use) only Essentials, others will use only stuff that follows the PHB line. You're creating a BD&D vs. AD&D scenario again; a basic game that uses different rules (and a high degree of interchangeability) vs. the more complex and better supported "bigger" cousin.

I'm not sure this is true. Basic and AD&D were different games with incompatible approaches to character building and different action resolution mechanics. Essentials and PHB offer different character builds for individual PCs, but are (ostensibly) compatible, and will use the same action resolution mechanics.

If Dragon publishes an article supporting Knights, Knight players will use that stuff. Just like if Dragon publishes an article supporting Half-Orcs, Half-Orc players will use that stuff. I don't see that there is any splitting of the fanbase here, beyond that which is implicit in a system where a whole lot of character building elements are relevant to only a fraction of your total player base (given that most players are using only one each out of the wide range of races and classes).

 

[Piratecat]

I always get the names mixes up...

Oh, for shame!

 

[Ajar]

I gave 4e more than its fair-share of time to wow me. It didn't. However, as I've read more about the Essentials line, I've seen more and more evidence they are extending an olive branch to people like me. Do you really think today's teenagers care the Red box uses the vintage logo and Errol Otis artwork? (I work with kids for a living; 1983 might as well be pre-history to them.) For the first time since literally PHB 2 came out, I'm excited about a D&D product again; after I thought I had been left in the dust, content to spend my cash on Pathfinder and similar d20 material. Here is WotCs only chance to win me back; so far I like what I see.

I get the impression that as much as WotC reps talk about Essentials being for beginners/new players, it's actually intended for lapsed players. Hence the retro aesthetic of the boxes, and more importantly, the retro aesthetic of the mechanics. The more Essentials preview content I read, the more I feel like WotC are trying to graft some of the mechanics of previous editions onto 4E.

The problem, at least for me, is that I don't think they really fit. One of the things I liked most about 4E vs 3.x/d20 in particular was its focus. I found it easy to pick up, incredibly easy to play, and was astonished by the number of new players who were drawn to the game. Meanwhile, the people I know who loved 3.x/d20 and disliked 4E are either still playing 3.x/d20 or are playing Pathfinder. I think Essentials is at least in part intended to appeal to those people, but I don't think it's good design and I also don't think it's good business. I could certainly be wrong, and in some ways I hope I am, but personally I would rather see WotC devoting their time and energy to extending the existing framework (e.g. psionic power points) rather than grafting old mechanics onto that framework.

How would you construct a hybrid of an Essentials class build with a non-Essentials class build? There's no way to do it that isn't incredibly cumbersome and crufty. I expect that at most we'll see some Essentials build perks become available to hybrids via Hybrid Talent. That alone should be an indication that the Essentials builds don't really belong in 4E, but in some other iteration of the game.

On the business front, just how many players are there out there who will look at the red box aesthetic of Essentials and say "wow, that looks cool?" I think it's neat, but I just don't see how it could possibly appeal to people who have never played D&D before. To someone who isn't a gamer and has never played D&D, I don't see how the red box aesthetic is even as appealing than the 4E PHBs, let alone more appealing.

So I'm concerned, both about the dilution of WotC's focus on 4E's core mechanics and about the profitability of Essentials as a business venture. I hope I'm wrong, of course, because I like 4E far more than any previous edition of the game and want to see it prosper.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I get the impression that as much as WotC reps talk about Essentials being for beginners/new players, it's actually intended for lapsed players. Hence the retro aesthetic of the boxes, and more importantly, the retro aesthetic of the mechanics. The more Essentials preview content I read, the more I feel like WotC are trying to graft some of the mechanics of previous editions onto 4E.

I think you're right on the money, there.

The problem I see is that the fans who didn't make the switch to 4e like 3.5 not because of the differences in mechanics between the two, but because of the volume of mechanics. 3.5 is a very mature itteration of D&D, it has many, many, /many/ options. The level of system mastery it calls for is profound. That's it's own special kind of pride and fun, and making 4e 'feel' a bit like 2e or 3e isn't going to do much to tempt them away.

 

[Ajar]

...making 4e 'feel' a bit like 2e or 3e isn't going to do much to tempt them away.

Yeah, exactly, and I don't think it will be unusually attractive to new players, either. That's why I'm concerned that Essentials will prove to be a bad business strategy. If so, I hope it ultimately doesn't do too much harm to 4E.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Are tons of feats/items/etc going to now get errata so they play well with the Knight? How is that going to affect their utility for the existing classes? Or will DMs simply be forced into saying "no, no, Mr Knight, YOU can't use existing 4e stuff, unless I look at it first." UGH!

This right here! I honestly believe this is where the "design going forward" comes into play. I believe the PHB Fighter will not receive future support because the Essentials Fighter will be the default Fighter for D&D.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think you're right on the money, there.

The problem I see is that the fans who didn't make the switch to 4e like 3.5 not because of the differences in mechanics between the two, but because of the volume of mechanics. 3.5 is a very mature itteration of D&D, it has many, many, /many/ options. The level of system mastery it calls for is profound. That's it's own special kind of pride and fun, and making 4e 'feel' a bit like 2e or 3e isn't going to do much to tempt them away.

You are 100% right!! As long as Pathfinder is still around then those players (like me) who really enjoyed 3rd edition will stick with 3rd/Pathfinder.

Only 5th edition will most likely cause us to even glance at what Wizards is offering.

 

[Jack99]

I get the impression that as much as WotC reps talk about Essentials being for beginners/new players, it's actually intended for lapsed players. Hence the retro aesthetic of the boxes, and more importantly, the retro aesthetic of the mechanics. The more Essentials preview content I read, the more I feel like WotC are trying to graft some of the mechanics of previous editions .

Considering WotC have said it was also for lapsed players, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

You are 100% right!! As long as Pathfinder is still around then those players (like me) who really enjoyed 3rd edition will stick with 3rd/Pathfinder.

Only 5th edition will most likely cause us to even glance at what Wizards is offering.

I don't think you are the target. More likely it is those that weren't that happy about 3.x, but didn't like the more radical changes that 4e brought along.

 

[mkill]

Considering WotC have said it was also for lapsed players, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

They didn't just say it, they did a press conference where they said "We want to bring back lapsed players!"

(For those who don't know what a press conference is, it's kind of like an Internet rumor + you have a video of the guy actually saying it on youtube. And it was uploaded by the company.)