D&D 4E Outstanding later 4e products +

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't disagree. A lot of the essential classes don't have as much of a "little brother" feel if they don't have the "big brother" PHB classes to compare them to.

I never got any “big brother/little brother” feeling from any combination of essentials and phb classes. I don’t really get that idea, tbh.

 

[TwoSix]

I never got any “big brother/little brother” feeling from any combination of essentials and phb classes. I don’t really get that idea, tbh.

It's certainly a "feel" thing, and difficult to define, but comparing Slayer and Knight to PHB fighter, or Binder to PHB warlock, always gave me that feel.

 

[Joshua Randall]

You're obviously not an intra-4e edition warrior, then. *rolleyes*

I'm not a huge fan of the Essential-ized versions of certain classes (Fighter, *cough*), but that's OK. Not every single thing Wizards makes need to be for me personally.

Essentials may have been a failure as a business product, but it was great in terms of design and value for money. The Monster Vault boxed set was crazy good value, as was the DM's Kit.

 

[sfedi]

What does it mean "big brother/little brother feel"?

 

[MoutonRustique]

What does it mean "big brother/little brother feel"?

Some of the Essential classes can feel [simple] or [lesser] when compared to their PHB counterpart.

This is a matter of perspective and taste - as such, if it's not something you've noticed, it's not a thing to you. For myself, I find the Hexblade to be feel a bit like a "lesser" version of Swordmage with regards to implementing the Fighter/Mage archetype. In some ways, in MMO-speak, it's comparing a (let's say Wrath of the Lich King) Warrior tank with a Pally tank. One can feel a bit like "easy-mode".

It's not about knocking the class - it's really more a question of preference. Hexblade was an awesome addition to the game, and I would not prefer that it did not exist.

 

[sfedi]

I thought the whole point of the essentials was to give the option to play 4e classes that are as powerful as the previous ones, but much simpler to handle.

That's what I would do if a 10 year old would join us, adults.
Or any other player that wasn't ready or unwilling to handle the complexity of a 4e class.

 

[darkbard]

I thought the whole point of the essentials was to give the option to play 4e classes that are as powerful as the previous ones, but much simpler to handle.

That's what I would do if a 10 year old would join us, adults.
Or any other player that wasn't ready or unwilling to handle the complexity of a 4e class.

That was the design intent. Delivering, on that promise, however.... (Most Essentials classes are vastly underpowered compared to their counterparts, and, quite frankly, some are virtually unplayable, or close to it, beyond Heroic tier, e.g. Binder, Bladesinger, etc.).

Furthermore, the lack of flexibility of build choice (compared to their counterparts) was galling to players who found this element of 4E's design a selling point.

 

[sfedi]

I wasn´t aware of that.

I only DM'd for a Knight on the Heroic Tier and it felt more powerful than de fighter, although more dull.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's certainly a "feel" thing, and difficult to define, but comparing Slayer and Knight to PHB fighter, or Binder to PHB warlock, always gave me that feel.

Fair enough! The Trapper Keeper was pretty poorly made, sadly. There was a lot that was excellent conceptually, but the math just didn’t reach the basic numbers for the role.

Still, I think there was more good than bad, overall. The only real duds, IMO, were the Binder, Bladesinger (mostly after heroic, and mostly in that it only had at wills contributing to its concept), vampire, and arguably the Berserker?

The Fighters, Rangers, thief rogue; Mage, Executioner, Cavalier, Blackguard, and Skald, were all within pre-essentials power levels, and quite fun to play, for us at least.

That was the design intent. Delivering, on that promise, however.... (Most Essentials classes are vastly underpowered compared to their counterparts, and, quite frankly, some are virtually unplayable, or close to it, beyond Heroic tier, e.g. Binder, Bladesinger, etc.).

Furthermore, the lack of flexibility of build choice (compared to their counterparts) was galling to players who found this element of 4E's design a selling point.

Nah, none of them, except maybe the vampire, were close to unplayable at any level. They were “viable” for a CharOp game, but that isn’t important at all. They played fine in actual games, so long as your goal wasn’t to win dnd through superior system mastery (or you weren’t playing with people who were into that, obv). Except the vampire. It just...doesn’t work.

But the Binder was totally playable. It just didn’t have a clear mechanical identity, and tried to be a worse swordmage, both conceptually and mechanically, by not having significant power that blended magic and fighting. It just has cool at wills. What a waste.

But “vastly overpowered” is one of those phrases that only makes sense on a CharOp forum, tbh.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

You're obviously not an intra-4e edition warrior, then. *rolleyes*

Now this is an edition war I can get behind!