D&D General Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)

[Reynard]

I would like to be clear that I would not be okay with Essentials.

Since I don't know the difference (although i do own the Essential Monster Book, whatever it is called) can you articulate the differences?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Since I don't know the difference (although i do own the Essential Monster Book, whatever it is called) can you articulate the differences?

Essentials basically introduced a bunch of classes that didn't work the way the rest of the game worked, and said it was backward compatible, but the reality is that most tables available became Essentials only so the old fun stuff was for all intents and purposes inaccessible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Since I don't know the difference (although i do own the Essential Monster Book, whatever it is called) can you articulate the differences?

Base 4e classes are all built similarly, and people complained this made them feel samey. Essential classes abandoned this unified structure, and the classes were more different. Personally I feel that was good direction. However, in doing so they ended up simplifying some classes a lot, martial classes in particular. As complex martials was one thing many 4e fans liked, this was not well received. And even though I like the overall aims and direction of the Essentials, I think they overdid this simplification.

In any case a lot of people have strong feelings about this, so I think it was the right call to make the base 4e and the Essentials different options on the poll. The difference in design philosophy is significant.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why not? I don't think there are any significant differences, except the inclusion of setting material.

Oh decades of people telling me they weren't the same and I was an idiot for thinking they were mostly. If they are basically the same thing I'd go for that pretty readily.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since I don't know the difference (although i do own the Essential Monster Book, whatever it is called) can you articulate the differences?

Formally, there is no difference, other than the inclusion of additional material.

Informally, there was a noticeable shift in the design for new material. It wasn't absolute, there were still some things supporting classes more generically. But, as a general rule, the class design shifted in the following ways:

1. Most (though not all) PHB classes got 1-3 new "Essentials" subclasses. These subclasses usually had very few choices, and most of the choice involved in playing them came right at the start, when you chose the particular flavor you wanted to play. (Sound familiar? It should. Essentials was Mearls' influence on 4e.) For example, Cavaliers (the Essentials Paladin) could choose the Virtue of Sacrifice or Virtue of Valor, which would determine one of their at-will powers, several fixed powers later on, etc. In other words, basically what Subclass does in 5e. This was different from standard 4e, because "subclass" in 4e was mostly a personal choice, where you had the freedom to ignore your subclass benefits if you wished to and take other powers instead.
2. As a general rule, beyond just the "streamlining" of build choices down to one or two choices made very early on, most Essentials classes were really simple. Some were EXTREMELY so, like the Slayer (a damage-dealing Fighter subclass), but even the Wizard subclasses were a noticeable step down in number of moving parts. If you liked what Essentials did, you'd probably refer to it as "elegant" etc.; if you disliked it, you'd probably refer to it much less positively.
3. Certain features and powers were made intentionally so they could not interact with pre-Essentials content. The rule was simple: if it's a power that has a level requirement, it can be taken by anyone of that class; if it does not have a level requirement, it can only be taken by the Essentials version. (This led to one of the stupidest rules changes in the game IMO: they originally published the power Call Celestial Steed, which opened up a line of AWESOME holy mounts for Paladins, as a Utility power with a level, so non-Cavaliers could take it if they wished. Later, they secretly removed the level without noting this as errata. I was very annoyed.)
4. As a general rule...Essentials classes aren't as strong as pre-Essentials classes. There are some exceptions, but overall they tend to be weaker and harder to improve than "original" 4e classes. The Vampire, for example. Awesome idea, super flavorful, very interesting concept...extremely weak class. You basically had to delve into some very specific Sorcerer multiclass stuff in order to eke out reasonable damage. The Defender options were mostly pretty good, albeit much less versatile because Defender Aura only affected things adjacent to you.
5. The one* area that Essentials was, IMO, unequivocally superior to what came before: Expertise feats. Essentials gave us a series of flavorful, class-specific Expertise feats that did something interesting beyond just a dull +1-per-tier bonus to your various things. These feats were simply better than the original options, other than maybe Versatile Expertise, so I give props where they're due.

Overall, Essentials really is the same game, as in, nothing about how the rules work or what you were allowed to do had changed in the rules themselves. Instead, any perceived gap between "original" 4e and Essentials comes from people enforcing some kind of artificial barrier between the two, disallowing options from before Essentials came out. Which...is completely silly and not at all supported by the actual text nor the things WotC made.

*Technically there is a second thing I think was unequivocally good, but it wasn't a rules change. That second unequivocally good thing was the Elementalist Sorcerer subclass, because it, for the first time in D&D, was ACTUALLY A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD SPELLCASTER. You were elementally magical, and you were a straightforward, no-nonsense blaster. You also prioritized Charisma and Constitution, meaning your character would be beefy, relatively well-defended, and decent at socializing--a perfect choice for a novice player wanting something flashy and cool but also wanting to have a shot at dealing with socialization stuff.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I have a sense that this site does not tolerate edition bashing. Which means that perhaps (perhaps!) those who are 4e bashers have moved on or been asked to move on. Leaving behind those who are 4e likers/lovers. But no way to prove that sense.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have a sense that this site does not tolerate edition bashing. Which means that perhaps (perhaps!) those who are 4e bashers have moved on or been asked to move on. Leaving behind those who are 4e likers/lovers. But no way to prove that sense.

I mean, that is a thing, yes, but even on places that are much, MUCH more strident about that sort of thing, there was plenty of anti-4e sentiment in the first 2-3 years of 5e's run.

Those fires have simmered long.

 

[payn]

I mean, that is a thing, yes, but even on places that are much, MUCH more strident about that sort of thing, there was plenty of anti-4e sentiment in the first 2-3 years of 5e's run.

Those fires have simmered long.

I do recall (across the net) that things had calmed down with the E-war a bit, but the announcement of D&D Next was a wild gust of wind back into those embers.

 

[Reynard]

I do recall (across the net) that things had calmed down with the E-war a bit, but the announcement of D&D Next was a wild gust of wind back into those embers.

The popularity of Pathfinder certainly kept the old hatred simmering when they would have otherwise dwindled as from previous edition wars.

 

[payn]

The popularity of Pathfinder certainly kept the old hatred simmering when they would have otherwise dwindled as from previous edition wars.

At first, but I recall folks retreated to their camps and left each other alone for the most part. Did some chuckle head come along and say something incidnerary once in awhile? Sure, but things had restored to a reasonable decorum.