D&D 4E Let's Talk About 4E On Its Own Terms [+]

[cbwjm]

There were a lot of people who hated Essentials as well. To me the big thing missing from Essentials was the Elementalist Sorcerer - with a pyromancer as easy to use as a fighter is. That balance between roles of base 4e and not the casters getting all the cool toys was a huge plus for many.

Most of the people I came across (online, never in person) who disliked essentials seemed to be people who had been in 4e since the beginning; they didn't want to move away from the AEDU system for each class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You don’t need to juggle powers if you don’t want to. Spamming Twin Strike with a bow and arrow is pretty good already. Now, you could argue Hunter’s Mark is more complicated, but it’s all in the presentation to the player.

Personally, I’m still not convinced the style of braindead Fighter folks seem to want to be the simple class is worth shoe-horning into a game like 4e.

I'm absolutely sure that social gamers need something - a real strength of a class system is that different players with different tastes and different strengths can work together at the same table. And it doesn't take that much work to include the slayer, scout, knight, hunter, and elementalist.

Most of the people I came across (online, never in person) who disliked essentials seemed to be people who had been in 4e since the beginning; they didn't want to move away from the AEDU system for each class.

There were two groups here; one group who disliked breaking AEDU - and the other that disliked the return of caster supremacy and the casters getting all the interesting options. This is why I always bring up the pyromancer elementalist here. A caster as simple as a fighter and where "I burn it" is as legitimate as "I hit it".

 

[cbwjm]

I'm absolutely sure that social gamers need something - a real strength of a class system is that different players with different tastes and different strengths can work together at the same table. And it doesn't take that much work to include the slayer, scout, knight, hunter, and elementalist.

There were two groups here; one group who disliked breaking AEDU - and the other that disliked the return of caster supremacy and the casters getting all the interesting options. This is why I always bring up the pyromancer elementalist here. A caster as simple as a fighter and where "I burn it" is as legitimate as "I hit it".

Yeah, I thought the elementalist was great as a nice simple caster class, the theme is a great one which really fit with the simple burn it caster class.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Most of the people I came across (online, never in person) who disliked essentials seemed to be people who had been in 4e since the beginning; they didn't want to move away from the AEDU system for each class.

I can speak to this a bit, the essentials classes worked well around the table and were fun as a supplemental style built on the 4e framework, the dislike was predicated on the (accurate) feeling that they weren't going to go back to publishing AEDU stuff afterward.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Most of the people I came across (online, never in person) who disliked essentials seemed to be people who had been in 4e since the beginning; they didn't want to move away from the AEDU system for each class.

For me, it was more a question of "why would I need to buy those rules, when these rules are just fine as they are?"
In other words - It wasn't "don't like"; it was "don't need"

 

[cbwjm]

For me, it was more a question of "why would I need to buy those rules, when these rules are just fine as they are?"
In other words - It wasn't "don't like"; it was "don't need"

That's fair; it's been a question raised by many over the years with new editions or half editions so I can understand many looking at essentials and feeling like they need them. I was talking to a friend the other day who mentioned the reason he and his friends never got into 2e was because they had a nice stack of 1e books to use.

 

[Undrave]

Most of the people I came across (online, never in person) who disliked essentials seemed to be people who had been in 4e since the beginning; they didn't want to move away from the AEDU system for each class.

There were two groups here; one group who disliked breaking AEDU - and the other that disliked the return of caster supremacy and the casters getting all the interesting options. This is why I always bring up the pyromancer elementalist here. A caster as simple as a fighter and where "I burn it" is as legitimate as "I hit it".

This! In addition to reintroducing the stupid spell schools, having TWO blocks of fluff text per power, feeling like a huge step back and turning your back on those who had embraced 4e, and the end of support for AEDU classes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, it was more a question of "why would I need to buy those rules, when these rules are just fine as they are?"
In other words - It wasn't "don't like"; it was "don't need"

I treat Essentials like Bo9S-era 3.5 or even Tasha's-era 5e. They'd filled out almost all the obvious parts of the framework so the next thing to do was warp the framework and add in things that couldn't really be done in the initial framework. Useful and interesting splat material.

But I disagree Essentials ended support for AEDU classes given the Heroes Of X series.

 

[Mannahnin]

I treat Essentials like Bo9S-era 3.5 or even Tasha's-era 5e. They'd filled out almost all the obvious parts of the framework so the next thing to do was warp the framework and add in things that couldn't really be done in the initial framework. Useful and interesting splat material.

But I disagree Essentials ended support for AEDU classes given the Heroes Of X series.

Agreed. I played a couple of the Heroes of classes in campaigns; I thought the Essentials classes were nice supplementary options for those who wanted something a bit simpler than the main classes.

I also thought the Rules Compendium was a nice compilation and update, a handy reference volume.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This! In addition to reintroducing the stupid spell schools, having TWO blocks of fluff text per power, feeling like a huge step back and turning your back on those who had embraced 4e, and the end of support for AEDU classes.

The other point I'd make here is that an "Enchanter" or an "Evoker" is a far more evocative concept than a "Staff wizard" or an "Orb wizard". I consider the traditional spell schools a bit like I do alignment; there's a useful idea there but when you force everything to fit it becomes a Problem.