Are Essentials more old school or just a clever marketing ploy?

[Mercurius]

That said I think the grid/tactical nature of 4e also caused my group and I to look at the gameplay experience differently. My players slowly transitioned from making characters inspired wholly on what they imagined would be cool (and who were not tactically sound in a group way)... to a point where trying to make characters whose powers and feats were tactically sound and meshed well with the group was more important than the "character" they had imagined in their head. And I guess as much as I didn't care for it I understood this shift as group tactics and survivability really are much more focused on teamwork in 4e (and honestly no one wants to be that guy who caused someone else's character to die.). However this definitely created a game that became more focused, along with my players, on combat, tactics, power selection, etc. to, IMO, the detriment of the other aspects of the game.

For me as a DM... I started creating my "encounters" in the way I saw that WotC's modules and books set them up... as static, tactical pieces, with monsters already situated and a prescribed "start" area for PC's... and where interesting terrain and cool monster powers became more important than the actual reasons and consequences (storywise) of the combat. after awhile this started to feel stiff, non-malleable and unsatisfying for me insofar as what had always enthused me about runing games. That added with my lack of rules mastery with 4e caused me to grow less and less enthused with 4e. Now I know this isnt the fault of the game but it definitely was a paradigm shift that I experienced when trying to play 4e.

Very well put. On a similar note to the first quoted paragraph, I always tell my players that, when building a new character, they should just make what they want to play and not worry about role. But because of the importance of having all roles in a party it ends up disadvantaging them as a party if they don't have a well-rounded group. Leaders in particular seem particularly important, even the most important of all roles in terms of total party impact.

I've noticed the same thing Jack99 is referring to. The Cavalier preview and Scarecrow article were particularly good.

Yes, very true. They have a kind of folklore quality that tickles the imagination. On face value the ranger description is similar, but it doesn't quite inspire as much; I can't really put my finger on why.

 

[xechnao]

The only way it would be correct would be if Essentials was designed to be the complete game, but it's not.

This mentality is...exaggerated. If players do not use "unearthed arcana" in their games you can't say they do not play the complete game.

The D&D product line is distinguished in core products, expansions, accessories and novels.

Imaro is talking about the core things. The 10 essential products are the complete core game.

Options and rules that one finds in expansions could alter, enhance or complicate the overall experience but if we want to use some lingua franca over here as a basis for this discussion so to understand the spirit and essence of our points and arguments, Imaro is right in what he is saying about rituals: they took a step back and intentionally made it so like Old School Basic D&D where these things were controlled by the DM.

 

[xechnao]

And for the record, I would play in an Essentials game, but I don't think I'd mix the Essentials and the "non-Essentials" classes.

I am curious as to why you feel it that way.

 

[Imaro]

Very well put. On a similar note to the first quoted paragraph, I always tell my players that, when building a new character, they should just make what they want to play and not worry about role. But because of the importance of having all roles in a party it ends up disadvantaging them as a party if they don't have a well-rounded group. Leaders in particular seem particularly important, even the most important of all roles in terms of total party impact.

Ha, this is kind of funny as in my group, for some strange reason, nearly everyone was drawn to strikers... the problem with that is most strikers really do need a leader, or at least a defender in the party to mitigate damage against them.

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

I am curious as to why you feel it that way.

To be honest, I don't believe that the balance of classes in 4E is totally there in Essentials.

Casters seem to be a bit more "powerful" than standard 4E casters. Essentials clerics are getting "abilities" for free that 4E have to "pay" for (i.e., resurrection for one example).

The essentials domain clerics (i.e., earth domain) are much more "powerful" than the Divine Power clerics (again, earth domain -- spend a feat, get an encounter that slows until the start of your next turn, as opposed to all the stuff that an Essentials earth domain cleric can do).

The essentials mage starts more "powerful" in the fact that they start with 3 at-wills, get bonuses for schools, along with all the stuff that wizards get.

I don't feel that Essentials fighters and rogues are as versatile (in combat) with their lack of encounter and daily powers as 4E fighters and rogues are. I also feel that they have now become "bland" with a choice of 2 stances that they get to use basic melee attacks with (or just a BMA in the case of the thief).

I didn't really look at the new paladin or ranger builds for Essentials yet, but I don't like (at least from the write up) that the druid is now a leader, with an animal companion, and there is no mention of the companion having to share actions with the druid (along with the fact that the druid is now a leader and not a controller, no wonder the Character builder is taking so long...).

That's just a few off the top of my head.

Mind you, I will probably get most of the essentials stuff (minus the DM kit, it was ok, but I already have most of that stuff in one form or another), and wouldn't mind playing in an Essentials game.

 

[Truename]

Yes, very true. They have a kind of folklore quality that tickles the imagination. On face value the ranger description is similar, but it doesn't quite inspire as much; I can't really put my finger on why.

I know what you mean. The Ranger description just falls flat. Here it is again:

A ranger knows that in the wilderness, only the clever survive. To be clever, one must to come to terms with the rules of their stretch of wilderness and the rhythms of its inhabitants both savage and benign. Beastmaster rangers have not only come to terms with the wilderness, they’ve found companions within it—hunting companions both wondrous and steadfast. Stories abound of exotic beast companions. There is the villainous ranger, Dail the Hardfoot, who brought back a catoblepas from the Shadowfell, and the eladrin archer Galival who lassoed and tamed the ki-rin of Tza, even if these stories are often dismissed as myths. Most rangers share their near primal link with ordinary animals that are abundant in the world, both wild and domesticated.

I think the core problem would be addressed by that age-old piece of writing wisdom: "show, don't tell." This paragraph, in addition to being very nearly the only flavor in the entire article, is really just a list of names introduced by a cliché. (In passive voice, no less. Sorry, Mr. Radney-MacFarland.) It's typical of pre-Essentials flavor: provide a list of possibilities for the reader to flesh out and make his or her own.

The new material is more assertive, I would say. It doesn't tell you what might have happened, maybe; it tells a story or evokes a specific image. It shows you the possibilities rather than tossing off a list of ideas.

I don't think I can do better than the ranger article, but here's an attempt.

The exile Galivel survived her first three years in the wilderness by luck, not skill. If the panther had seen her shivering in the brambles, or the fire bats had been a bit more hungry that day, there would be no tales told of the famous eladrin archer. But she did survive, and she learned. She learned to read the spoor of the panther and the favored treats of the fire bat, and when she returned triumphant to her empty throne, she did so with the beasts of the forest at her side.

The intrigues of the eladrin court tempt and trap the unwary. But to one who had breathed the rhythm of the forest, they had nothing to offer. Three months later, the throne was empty. Travelers told tales of a woman, practically a beast herself, protecting those who lived in harmony with the forest, and bringing justice to those who would not. When the ki-rin of Tza threatened her people, it was Galivel who lassoed and tamed it. To this day, the throne stands empty, and the eladrin of Galivel's kingdom live in harmony with the beasts.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'll add to the chorus that 4e has slowly subverted our groups play style. Kamikaze Midget hit the nail on the head - the interface of a game effects the experience of the game. Essentials - its physical presentation, its class and race descriptions, its separating the entire rules from the rules the players need, its character sheet - is a different interface with more emphasis on story. (I dislike the term "fluff", since when did story become optional window dressing in D&D?) When I DMed 4e there was a noticeable change that snuck up on us. It was as if I was fighting the group's tendency to focus on tactics and suspend their imagination. We became so pressed for time during long fights that players stopped describing what they were doing and started calling out power names. While the players who had no trouble getting into character still had no trouble, and the players who couldn't get into character for the life of them still couldn't, the players in between had greater difficulty getting into character. I asked our DM to conduct an experiment at our last game - use minis without a battle grid, and forbid us players from using powers. Man did the group have trouble coming up with things to do without their precious powers. I could see everyone struggling where a year ago before we started 4e it wouldn't have been *such* a struggle. If that's not interface effecting game play I don't know what is. I hope that Essentials changes this trend in 4e. Actually I would like to see Essentials go even further than it does now with guidelines for improvisation and quick skirmish type combats.

 

[yesnomu]

I asked our DM to conduct an experiment at our last game - use minis without a battle grid, and forbid us players from using powers. Man did the group have trouble coming up with things to do without their precious powers.

I can imagine! "Wizards et al: you may not play the game tonight. Well, you can, but only when I ok it." Sheesh, I hope your group didn't have a druid who liked to Wild Shape!

Powers (and spells and maneuvers in 3.5) provide a foundation for players--they are abilities that are guaranteed to work. Can you really blame your group for not wanting to rely on DM approval to make their characters work?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First of all, thanks for getting this thread back on track.

Second of all, thanks for putting into words something I have been struggling to do. I do actually think you are right. Core 4e is this "surface" game. I however was very happy with it, because I always believed it wouldn't matter. Roleplaying and immersion doesn't come from the books, especially not the rules, but from us, the DM's and the players.

What I have been realizing, slowly, is that in fact 4e has made my group more grid-centric, more focused on what the character can do in combat. Its been slowly creeping up on us, and while I had a feeling of je ne sais quoi, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong. It's not that it is a huge problem, my players all seem happy enough with the game, but there is this feeling that we lost some of the magic along the way.

Of course, it might not be 4e that has done this. Maybe its us getting older, maybe it's something else entirely. But I do get a totally different vibe when reading stuff from WotC lately - especially Essentials, but also some of the dragon/dungeon articles who seem much more.. alive(?)

You're melting my brain dude!

The fact that Gold Dragons are now listed as "unaligned" in MM3 and whatever the other thing KM mentioned was, I forget is actually causing people issues? Are we now reduced to such a pitiful level of total utter slavish dependence on printed material that DMs can no longer improvise AT ALL???!!! That they NEED to have paladins that can only have one alignment?

What happened to creativity?

Honestly, if your game is 'grid-centric' maybe it is time to look at the people at the table and ask if there's something going on here. I mean I ADMIT that SOME parts of my games ARE played on the battle grid, absolutely. Those parts are still pretty free-form and creative. I certainly understand how that part of the game can get lazy and people stop extemporizing much, but if that is the whole focus of your game, then maybe there's a level of creative imagination that has drained out of the game.

Honestly I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, and I think Mike certainly is right that 'tone' is a significant part of a game. I'd just like people to understand where some of the people playing 4e are coming from, like myself.

I pretty much dropped D&D from the lineup of games I ran back in the 2e days, around the mid 90's. The reason being it was just WAY too buttoned down. There were fun things about it, but besides the system being clunky it was just TOO LIMITED. You made the characters that the game allowed you to make. If your concept didn't fit into the pigeon hole of one of the existing classes you were pretty much SoL. The rules actively prevented you from doing anything outside of what they provided.

4e TO ME is a marvelous toolbox. The classes follow similar rules and are really very modular. They were designed carefully (for the most part) to allow for a LOT of jiggering within the system. A Ranger could be a twin rapier wielding swashbuckler. A fighter could be a sword-n-board con based knight, or a dex based rapier wielding fencer, or a highly intuitive glaive wielder.

I think the mechanics of the E-classes are fairly clever and I have nothing against them, but when I look at the Sentinel and the Cavalier I see classes that are VERY set-piece. They are boxed right into a single concept like the old AD&D classes were. It really isn't quite that severe but THERE IS a good bit that is lost. Imagine if Essentials WAS 4e. You could play a 2-handed wielding Slayer or a sword and board Knight. You can't really do much else, except either homebrew or wait around for a class that matches what you want, or just not play what you want to play.

It may be a small nit in the overall scheme of things, and 4e Essentials is still a lot more flexible than AD&D was, but not as flexible as classic 4e. Something IS lost when you delete rituals and button down all the classes.

 

[Quickleaf]

That's the point. Prior to 4e our group improvised more with called shots, awesome stunts, bizarre uses for spells, etc. With our switch to 4e a "card game" mentality emerged where players forgot they could do anything not codified in a power - similar to the concern you raised. IMO this was to the detriment of the game. The reason I asked our DM to run a short encounter without powers was to reflect to the other players how our gaming style had changed since 4e. And it did get everyone thinking about what was different. We're all good friends who trust our DM so YMMV. I'm thinking of running a one shot game to test out Essentials for our group and doing the same experiment for an encounter to see if Essentials plays differently in terms of encouraging improvisation.