Essentials: why the hate?

[KarinsDad]

I was introduced to Essentials when a player started bringing in stronger Essential feats to a 4E PC. That left a sour taste right off the bat.

But having played with Essentials, my opinion has improved some.

I like the Rules Compendium and the Monster Vault books.

I am "Meh" on the "Heroes of xxx" books. I do see them as just some more ways to introduce bigger, better, badder. Out of the 6 main players in our current game, 3 are playing Essential PCs and 1 is using the Neverwinter Bladesinger. I do think that there is a bit of "try the newer stuff" and a bit of the "newer stuff is stronger" aspects to it, so I can understand not hate, but a firm dislike of it.

 

[chitzk0i]

In my experience, people ban 4e material in general based on emotional biases instead of empirical decision-making. There's a number of DMs that blanket ban tons of sources instead of having a conversation about the level of optimization they want or don't want to see.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I started a very similar thread to this several months back. So far, this one is a lot more tame. I'd say that while there still are haters, the furor has died down somewhat (at least on ENWorld), and is now more like smouldering ire. Every now and then you get another flare-up, then it dies down again. I guess people got used to it being here to stay, and decided to ignore what they don't like, or moved on to other games, while some others have gotten over it, gave it a chance and accepted it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI]It's okay to not like things - YouTube[/ame]

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In my experience, people ban 4e material in general based on emotional biases instead of empirical decision-making.

There's over 7000 powers in 4e now (source: Sly Flourish), and the number is always growing larger. There's always new items, feats, themes, backgrounds, of varying qualities (some balanced, some pathetic, some as broken as Destructive Salutation) and of course, an ever-increasing number of combos.

No DM can process that, nor can any computer.

There's a number of DMs that blanket ban tons of sources instead of having a conversation about the level of optimization they want or don't want to see.

It's just easier that way. You can avoid fighting with angry players, or getting one PC twice as powerful as another. If optimizers can only use sources you're familiar with, it's a lot harder to get a nasty surprise.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's just easier that way. You can avoid fighting with angry players, or getting one PC twice as powerful as another. If optimizers can only use sources you're familiar with, it's a lot harder to get a nasty surprise.

Or in some cases, avoid overwhelming the players. Believe it or not, not every players likes tons of options. The PHB was a tiny bit limited for our taste, but we could have made do with it for a long time. Once you had PHB II and the first round of power books for those power sources, we are good. If I could easily exclude all Dragon mag material in the CB, I would exclude it for the same reason.

I think it comes from approach. Instead of, "I have an idea for a character--now lets dig through every possible option to make the best fit," their approach is generally, "What are my options? Cool, I'll go with that--and immediately start building the character concept around whatever spark is there." Without the limited set, that latter method can be hard to do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Or in some cases, avoid overwhelming the players. Believe it or not, not every players likes tons of options. The PHB was a tiny bit limited for our taste, but we could have made do with it for a long time. Once you had PHB II and the first round of power books for those power sources, we are good. If I could easily exclude all Dragon mag material in the CB, I would exclude it for the same reason.

I think it comes from approach. Instead of, "I have an idea for a character--now lets dig through every possible option to make the best fit," their approach is generally, "What are my options? Cool, I'll go with that--and immediately start building the character concept around whatever spark is there." Without the limited set, that latter method can be hard to do.

Cheers.

Ironically, Essentials (at least at first) did make things simpler for players. The CB still allows for near-infinite build options, but the combat options are quite limited, preventing option paralysis. (The lack of options is, of course, one of the biggest complaints against Essentials.)

 

[korjik]

Why does banning Essentials have to be hate?

If I were running a 4e game right now, I would ban essentials stuff only because I do not own it so I dont have access to the rules. That applies to every game I run. There isnt any like or dislike of the rules involved, just a lack of access. In general, if a player wants to use some set of rules that I dont own, they need to get me access.

Admittedly, I am not running a 4e game because the incessant fiddling the rules drove me nuts and I wont run D&D anymore because of that. Technically I see essentials as more of the fiddling so I dont really care to learn it, and the fact that it isnt 4.5e means I wont buy it. Until the game is properly editioned again, and all the parts are rebalanced against one another, I dont really want to buy any more D&D.

So, I would ban Essentials in general, but if someone wanted to use some aspect of it, and got me the rules, I would look over it and maybe let it in. I would still demand they use the rules they handed me, even if they were changed later tho. Fiddling with the rules really annoys me

 

[Istar]

Lately I've been trying to get into Maptools games primarily through the RPTools forums. I'm in one good group as a player and am about to start a new game with this group as their DM. But even amongst them, there are several people who disdain Essentials-anything.

And that's the kicker. There is a LOT of Essentials hate out there. More often than not, Essentials classes are either looked down on, or outright banned. The reasons I get told never make any logical sense or have any empirical fact behind them and seem to be purely emotional responses. This isn't restricted to Maptools games, btw, it's simply the latest in a long-line of E-hate that I've experienced and was the tipping point for making this post.

I consider myself a pretty open-minded person. I'll give anything a go once, twice if I like it. I tend to want evidence and facts before conjecture or any form of emotional bias. In this, I tend not to trust anyone's judgement but my own, so I'll investigate things myself before making up my mind.

It's for the above reason that I find myself unable to understand why so many people hate Essentials so much. I just don't see any reason to hate on them this passionately. I can understand that for some people they may not play like they prefer, or that some lack encounter powers and so may not appeal, or that some aren't very good (looking at you, Binder). But none of those reasons seem like justification to HATE them or ban them from a game.

So I'd like to hear some GOOD reasons why Essentials should be so passionately hated. By good, I mean reasons that justify a vehement response like banning from games. "Just because I don't like them," isn't really a good reason. I'm talking about evidence, data, facts about Essentials that make them a poor choice to include in a game or to have such a passionate dislike for them that you refuse to use them either as a DM or player.

Hate due to:

1. Straightjacket limited development like the old days.

2. No more development or creativity in the standard class's.

 

[S'mon]

I don't hate Essentials, I very much enjoyed playing an E-Thief since I enjoyed the ease & simplicity of it, which I value as a player.

However I recall a player with an E-Slayer who swapped it out for a Brawler Fighter from MP2, and the difference was striking. The Brawler may not have been stronger, but he certainly plays a lot more interesting, with far more options in play. Likewise the player of the Guardian Fighter has a lot of good options that can become very powerful when used well - using Tide of Iron to break a Grab and free the Brawler from being chewed on by a giant crocodile, for instance, thus saving the other PC's life.

I think pre-Essentials classes have a lot of emergent dynamics that the simpler E-classes lack. I'm not sure that justifies hate, but it does mean that Essentials loses something that a lot of people value. Playing my Thief I was happy to have an enormous attack bonus and reliably huge damage, but occasionally frustrated I had no way to eg multi-attack minions or pull off special tricks. Whereas playing a PHB Fighter I greatly valued the ability to really Nova (eg Encounter, AP, Daily) and deny the GM/enemy's plans now and then, I don't think E-Fighters can really do that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't hate Essentials, I very much enjoyed playing an E-Thief since I enjoyed the ease & simplicity of it, which I value as a player.

However I recall a player with an E-Slayer who swapped it out for a Brawler Fighter from MP2, and the difference was striking. The Brawler may not have been stronger, but he certainly plays a lot more interesting, with far more options in play.

Brawlers are all about fun options They aren't powerful, but are great fun.

Likewise the player of the Guardian Fighter has a lot of good options that can become very powerful when used well - using Tide of Iron to break a Grab and free the Brawler from being chewed on by a giant crocodile, for instance, thus saving the other PC's life.

Thus doing exactly what the Hammer Hands stance does for a Knight.

Playing my Thief I was happy to have an enormous attack bonus and reliably huge damage, but occasionally frustrated I had no way to eg multi-attack minions or pull off special tricks.

Tumbling Trick (At Will) - when you hit with your MBA you get to do Str-mod damage to another adjacent target. (I may mean Thug's Trick). There's your multi-attack; the thief's version of Cleave. (And that's why I don't like your damage thresholds for minions rule - it makes powers like this useless while doing almost nothing about the wizard AoEs that drive armies off the battlefield).

As for a thief's special tricks off the top of my head:

Acrobat's Trick: You get a climb speed.
Unbalancing Trick: Knock a foe prone in melee.
Thug's Trick (I think): pin a foe down; OA if they try to shift out of your flank.
Sneak's Trick: Hide easily.
Escape artist's trick: move out of cover, attack, and leap back into it and into hiding.

Tactical Trick is the thief's most obvious trick but especially for a melee thief is simply a baseline level of performance. It's what you use when you can't set up a better trick. (Ambush trick is weaker and feinting trick is just a waste).

Whereas playing a PHB Fighter I greatly valued the ability to really Nova (eg Encounter, AP, Daily) and deny the GM/enemy's plans now and then, I don't think E-Fighters can really do that.

Knights don't get the nova. But as for denying the GM's plans, Combat Challenge is an Immediate Action, Battle Guardian is an Opportunity Action. Which means that a Knight can get Battle Guardian off against a dozen different foes (or against a Beholder every time a PC gets to act and the beholder zaps with an eye ray at the start of the turn - that gets ugly fast). And because they get replacements rather than dailies, knights are still good over a five or six encounter day when the fighters have run out of steam.