So, how many are avoiding Essentials?

[Scribble]

"The new Ultimate product line is fully compatible with 4e and Essentials. It's intended to replace Essentials as the recommended entry point into D&D 4e for new players and incorporate all of the rules updates to date. If you already own 4e or Essentials products you can of course continue to use them but you may still be interested in getting Ultimate D&D because it includes new builds, feats, themes, backgrounds, and a ton of exciting new options for your favorite classes and races."

So long as it's as easily slotted into the existing game as essentials is, I'd be totally down for this!

Wooot Ultimate Line!

 

[Raikun]

I'd argue, though, that we wouldn't have seen several of the large-scope updates if they didn't have worked on the Essentials product line.

I just don't see it. The "Essentials" name is just for marketing...I quite believe that without that marketing attempt, the rules would still be the same as they are now, and instead of HotFL we'd have a PHB4, etc.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to 4E from SW saga, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in 4E, and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?

Same here. Everyone in my group likes daily/encounter powers, so why pay for a splatbook full of inferior classes? It's like Complete Warrior all over again!

If somebody really wanted to play an essentials class, I'd take a look at that class. But as of now, I'm completely disinterested in Essentials, with the exception of Essentialized racial boosts--I wish WotC would just get on with it, and Essentialize all of them!

 

[Raikun]

Fortunately, it seems there are a lot of classes in Essentials that have Daily powers, and all of them have Encounter powers. =) (Some of the Daily powers for the Cavalier in HotFK are pretty sick for instance.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I think the majority of the rules updates that we see in Essentials are things we'd have seen anyway, yes. The rehashing of existing class concepts with somewhat reworked mechanics? I doubt they would have done that in a PHB4. Honestly I think what they had left in the existing design space for new classes was pretty niche anyway. They may well have been planning something like a Heroes of Shadow type supplement to introduce the obvious ones, but it is hard to see it all amounting to a book so core and so extensive that it required being a PHB. Especially when the classes would be such niche concepts for D&D.

Basically I think half the reason we HAVE Essentials is they just didn't have that much more material that would have really wide appeal in the existing format. Notice too that at least for some of the Essentials classes they DID kind of slant things in the direction of what holes there still are in 4e generally, like with the hexblade style eWarlock. On the whole I don't think you can speculate much on what 4e would have done without Essentials. All we'd have been likely to see going forward would have been 'options' type stuff and the basic rules updates. There are only so many PHBs etc you can churn out before there's nobody that needs more classes built to the same design. Heck, 1e got by on 8 classes for most of its entire run and that was plenty.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

3.5 obsoleted the 3.0 material, and what happened afterwards was a reprinting of most of the old content so that it was compatible with 3.5. With Essentials, while the game around it may have been errata'd to the point of being a new game, Essentials itself has still releasing new content while allowing the old content to continue to exist, not "it can be jury rigged to fit until we issue the official reprint using the updated rules". It may be simply a matter of technology catching up with the goals of 3.5, but it's a lot cheaper to get the errata for free than to have to buy the same book twice to get the rules updates.

Good point, but what about the weaponmaster? Will he not replace the PH1 fighter? Is he not a reprint?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Note that this also might warrant a different thread, but I'm wondering what you feel has so much power inflation in Essentials that it makes it actually imbalancing when compared to the rest of the game.

Doesn't seem too imbalancing, yet, just clearly incrementing up in power a bit.

The new builds? The new feats?

Yes. The old feat taxes are even more must-have, and the new builds look pretty tough on paper - and the one I've gotten to try more than once, the Knight, has definitely taken some steroids compared to the 4e fighter (mark punishment per turn instead of per round, and that mark punishment OA is like Reaping Strike (damage on a miss) combined with another at-will (like Tide of Iron if you're in Hammer Hands stance, for instance) that's really something).

If you were playing a halfing and you changed from 3 to 3.5, your weapon sizes changed. If you were a ranger, your HP changed. Etc.

Sure, and if you're playing a 4e halfling with a rapier and melee training, you're suddenly up a feat (the rapier is no longer superior) but down damage (melee training nerf). If you're a Wizard, some of your spells changed and a couple of your rituals (the magic-time related ones) no longer work the same.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes. The old feat taxes are even more must-have, and the new builds look pretty tough on paper - and the one I've gotten to try more than once, the Knight, has definitely taken some steroids compared to the 4e fighter (mark punishment per turn instead of per round, and that mark punishment OA is like Reaping Strike (damage on a miss) combined with another at-will (like Tide of Iron if you're in Hammer Hands stance, for instance) that's really something).

Yeah, having played the Knight in Encounters, I'm actually pretty impressed, they're tough. He does more slaying than the Slayer.

 

[Terramotus]

I'm avoiding it, and in fact I've banned Essentials material. I don't care whether or not it's "all 4e". It still majorly changes the feel of the characters. Everything that Essentials changes in the classes is a step back from what made 4E an improvement over 3.xE.

Classes with no decisions to make about resource expenditure are boring. 4E actually convinced me that it could be fun to play "martial" characters, and now Essentials wants to take that away with new characters? No thanks. I've read over Essentials, and while there are some interesting ideas that would have been cool to add to core 4E, for the most part they're just boring.

I also think the product release was misguided. There's no point in courting Grognards - they're seldom going to be happy no matter what you do, because any new product can only be a pale imitation of their favorite edition. For people new to D&D, Essentials is still complicated. I don't see it being that much easier to a reasonable intelligent person. And I don't care to play with people who aren't reasonably intelligent.

Also, offsized softcover books suck.

End Rant

 

[Raikun]

Classes with no decisions to make about resource expenditure are boring. 4E actually convinced me that it could be fun to play "martial" characters, and now Essentials wants to take that away with new characters? No thanks. I've read over Essentials, and while there are some interesting ideas that would have been cool to add to core 4E, for the most part they're just boring.

Except, resource management is part of classes in Essentials just like in non-Essentials. Classes like the Slayer/Knight with only some Encounter powers are the minority it seems; Daily powers are very much a part of Essentials.

And yes, there were some cool ideas, I'm glad Essentials did add them to core 4e.