D&D 4E Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E Essentials?

[UngeheuerLich]

It's not a trap as in it's completely useless or anything but...

I'd say Monks are a trap in so much as they only function if you play them in a specific way that in no shape or form actually matches the fiction people who would be attracted to the Monk want to play out. What's the best way to play a Monk according to its defender when you complain your character suck? "Slip into enemy ranks and stun the Casters!". Note that it doesn't say 'kill the casters' but 'stun the casters'. Basically the Monks is built like a 4e Lurker Monster, but it's not the fiction people want to play when picking a martial artist.

They're also a trap in so much as their Ki-using features aren't at all worth the same thing and that you can't just play fast and lose with that ressource. The Monk is much more difficult to master than it first appear.

Ok. I do agree with that.
The monks I played with and played were quite effecive.
They mainly suffer from usual rest patterns (too few short rests) and the lack of feat support/multi stat dependancy.

 

[Undrave]

I think that a lot of this depends on your subclass. Slipping into the back lines and taking out the enemy silently is exactly what I signed up for when I signed up to play a Way of Shadow ninja given the hit point bloat in 5e, and the Way of the Drunken Master bumbling through to hit the important targets also works. But Four Elements doesn't work and I'd expect to do a beat down if playing Open Fist

Oh yeah, totally... just replace "take out the enemy" with "mildly incovenience the enemy" because the Way of the Shadow Monk lacks an ability like a Sneak Attack or something to just destroy surprised enemies.

Well aint that the core issue D&D has with its class system.

The fanbase and community don't let all the classes come out. Instead they put too many ideas in the same class or make 1 version of the class and label it all of them. I mean the stun the casters isn't an incorrect fantasy of the Monk. It's just not the only one. You could easily make Ki it's own power source and make a Ki defender, striker, controller, and leader.

Defender	Striker	Controller	Leader
Brawler	Monk	????	Mystic

But I get it as we would have to wait longer for monk or psion.

However that was the key issue with Essentials. What is the essence of each class? Which archetypes would you have to abandon?

It didn't answer the question because saying outloud would cause problems.

Personally I'm a fan of smaller, narrower, classes that do their specific schtick well, over bloated giant classes that try to do everything. Which is why I'm not a fan of the Wizard and why I had no problem with a Fighter that was JUST a defender. 'course, the 4e classes had issue with having too much STUFF in them, but all of that stuff was aimed at expressing the class' schtick in different ways, but it was still doing the same thing. the 4e Fighter had different fighting styles but you ALWAYS were a type of defender who's goal was to protect others and punish those who attacked them.

Ideally, we'd have short 2 to 4 pages classes like 'Archer' and 'Pyromancer' and 'Sentinel' and 'Thief' and so forth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a trap as in it's completely useless or anything but...

I'd say Monks are a trap in so much as they only function if you play them in a specific way that in no shape or form actually matches the fiction people who would be attracted to the Monk want to play out. What's the best way to play a Monk according to its defender when you complain your character suck? "Slip into enemy ranks and stun the Casters!". Note that it doesn't say 'kill the casters' but 'stun the casters'. Basically the Monks is built like a 4e Lurker Monster, but it's not the fiction people want to play when picking a martial artist.

They're also a trap in so much as their Ki-using features aren't at all worth the same thing and that you can't just play fast and lose with that ressource. The Monk is much more difficult to master than it first appear.

I don’t know that any of that is true. I’ve certainly never told people to run in and stun the caster as a primary tactic. I use stun as a accuracy multiplier for myself against enemies it has a high chance of landing on, otherwise I don’t bother with it, and the monk plays great.

People who don’t go on these kind of forums tend, IME, to be quite surprised at the “monks suck” and “monks are hard to play effectively” sentiments.

 

[Weiley31]

As a slight aside, I honestly think that the 5E monk just needs to get extra Ki based on their Wisdom Modifier and Patient Defense being turned into a Reaction instead of a Bonus Action. Also the new Dragonhide Belt from Fizban is super tight and is probably one of their must have items for the class.

Also Monk Robes should be the equivalent of a shield: either giving Monks a flat +1/+2+3 to their AC, without interfering with their Unarmored Defense. (Sorta kinda somewhat a notion Neverwinter Nights 1 did. Although they didn't get no points to armor. But, since Monks can't use Shields, it would be the next best option or hell, even a refluff version of it.)

 

[Minigiant]

Personally I'm a fan of smaller, narrower, classes that do their specific schtick well, over bloated giant classes that try to do everything. Which is why I'm not a fan of the Wizard and why I had no problem with a Fighter that was JUST a defender. 'course, the 4e classes had issue with having too much STUFF in them, but all of that stuff was aimed at expressing the class' schtick in different ways, but it was still doing the same thing. the 4e Fighter had different fighting styles but you ALWAYS were a type of defender who's goal was to protect others and punish those who attacked them.

Ideally, we'd have short 2 to 4 pages classes like 'Archer' and 'Pyromancer' and 'Sentinel' and 'Thief' and so forth.

I have the same preference.

Ultimately both 4e and Essentials miss the boat on letting classes of the same power source share powers. Yes there would be fewer builds at the start but the first books of each run could have fit 10-15 classes in them.

 

[Undrave]

I don’t know that any of that is true. I’ve certainly never told people to run in and stun the caster as a primary tactic. I use stun as a accuracy multiplier for myself against enemies it has a high chance of landing on, otherwise I don’t bother with it, and the monk plays great.

Doesn't make Stunning Strike sound like a particularly compelling class feature when you put it that way. It LOOKS cool to be able to stun but in the end it's another niche ability on top of all the niche ability the Monk have.

People who don’t go on these kind of forums tend, IME, to be quite surprised at the “monks suck” and “monks are hard to play effectively” sentiments.

People who don't go on these kind of forums tend, IME, to be less critical of game design as a whole, so it's no surprise they're fine with their Monks.

I rail against the Monk, but nothing in 5e is egregiously BAD if you don't take the time to study the design and look at other characters' performance. If you squint or take off your glasses, the imperfections are barely noticeable.

But I looked at it with my glasses on and now I can't unsee the issues. I went from playing a Druid, that I found boring because he was TOO good and had too clear of an optimal game plan, to a Monk... that kind of power drop was way too noticeable for me to ignore.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Personally I loved loved loved 4e Essentials. I thought it was taking the basis of bones of 4e that I liked and adding back in the flavor and flexibility of more traditional D&D to bring the rules around to where I wanted them.

But I also knew a lot of people who didn't like them at the time.

Looking back now, I have come to appreciate Essentials better for some of its innovations and interpretations of the original core design. I could easily take the core Essential products as-is today and enjoy a full campaign with just a handful of pocket-sized books and a few select articles from Dungeon/Dragon magazines of the time. That in itself is worth my consideration. Back when it came out, however, I wasn't much of a fan.

My biggest complaint was the new class designs and how (I felt) the company shoved them down everybody's throat. I didn't care if they were compatible with the pre-Essential materials or not. The point was that we were told that it would be wrong to reject them. These were the new toys that we made so the new kids will want to play, so you're going to play with them, too. In fact, when you're in public (i.e. organized play and conventions), you were no longer allowed to play with your old toys. That was the end of my DM run for Encounters and conventions.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Dammit guys all this 4e talk makes me want to play it, like, RIGHT NOW.

I had been DMing it every week pre-COVID, but me and my group are frankly too lazy to do an online version of it (yes, we know there are lots of resources available) so we've been playing other games. Jonesing for COVID to definitively end so we can get back together in person will our grip of dice, our minis, our maps, our condition trackers, etc. etc. etc. Because not gonna lie, one of the things I like about D&D is the physical stuff.

I'm so desperate I would even play in an Essentials-only game.

I feel you.

One of the reasons we don't see a lot of 4e games played online is because there is no real support for it. You would think a game designed specifically for VTT use would see a lot more options out there. But because the GSL is so restrictive, there is little anyone can do to create content for the system in any way, shape, or form. It would actually be easier to use a different OGL (3e, pathfinder, or even 5e) and create a similar game design from scratch.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Well... I present for your enjoyment the 4e Discord server, where there is a lot of discussion of playing the game online (primarily on Roll20):

Join the D&D 4e Discord Server!

Check out the D&D 4e community on Discord - hang out with 5931 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

discord.gg

P.S. I was in the open beta of the 4e VTT. (Not the smoke-and-mirrors ones they demo'd at launch, but a real working version later.) I played several complete sessions over the course of several weeks. It was AWESOME. Yes, it had all the usual issues of an early release build (poor U.I., opaquely described controls, etc.) but being able to play 4e online without the need to do a bunch of other prep work was GREAT.

That's my biggest regret from the 4e days, that we never got a working version of the official VTT.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Doesn't make Stunning Strike sound like a particularly compelling class feature when you put it that way. It LOOKS cool to be able to stun but in the end it's another niche ability on top of all the niche ability the Monk have.

That…is good, though. It shouldn’t be a no-brainer use every turn until it runs out ability.

People who don't go on these kind of forums tend, IME, to be less critical of game design as a whole, so it's no surprise they're fine with their Monks.

I think you’re missing the point there. The people who aren’t as critical are more important than us. They’re more “correct” in their assessments than us. The monk is fun and the vast majority of players don’t feel like they’re losing anything by playing them.

I rail against the Monk, but nothing in 5e is egregiously BAD if you don't take the time to study the design and look at other characters' performance. If you squint or take off your glasses, the imperfections are barely noticeable.

That’s a lot of words to say “nothing in 5e is actually anything like a trap.”

But I looked at it with my glasses on and now I can't unsee the issues. I went from playing a Druid, that I found boring because he was TOO good and had too clear of an optimal game plan, to a Monk... that kind of power drop was way too noticeable for me to ignore.

If the Druid was boring because it was too good when using it’s “optimal game plan”…you know you could have just played differently, right?

Optimized groups full of people with very high system mastery should never be the priority of design, unless you’re making a very niche game for those groups.