3.5e/Pathfinder fans tell me what you think about essentials

[Dark Mistress]

Given that Essentials is the same core mechanics, with less in the way of flexibility in character building, I'm going to guess that Essentials removed none of the things that 3.x fans found wrong with 4e, and added little of what they prefer from the 3.x engine.

In essence, Essentials is not different. I have seen nothing in it that would lead a person that doesn't like 4e to like Essentials.

That was my impression of it from what I read of it.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I tried out Essentials when it came out, much like I did 4th edition. I did not find Essentials to be a significant improvement over the previous edition of the game to warrant a switch from D&D as my primary game. Though I have been able to find bits and pieces of 4th edition and Essentials to supplement my D&D game, so it hasn't been a total loss. Giving money to WotC mildly offends my delicate sensibilities, though, so I don't do it too often.

I am pretty fond of some of the changes introduced in Pathfinder, and I use much of the Pathfinder material to supplement my D&D 3x game. I like giving my money to Paizo and some of the remaining OGL publishers though, so I do so probably more frequently than my gaming needs absolutely dictate.

 

[SteveC]

Given that Essentials is the same core mechanics, with less in the way of flexibility in character building, I'm going to guess that Essentials removed none of the things that 3.x fans found wrong with 4e, and added little of what they prefer from the 3.x engine.

In essence, Essentials is not different. I have seen nothing in it that would lead a person that doesn't like 4e to like Essentials.

I have to really disagree with this: a big area of complaint with 4E classic is that there's no class that's simple and good for beginners. It's a huge deal with many, many people. In addition to that, the notion that "martial characters shouldn't have powers like spell casters," is also a big deal. Essentials addresses both of those issues.

I play with a very experienced group, and one of the players jumped all over the slayer. With a farbond weapon, they can literally hold a D20 in one hand and a D12 in the other (it's a fullblade). Their turn consists of rolling the D20, and if they hit, rolling the D12. A couple times during a battle they add their power strike bonus. To me, it's tedious as all get out, but they love it!

And when we're not in a combat situation, they come alive: they enjoy the non-combat portion of the game more than battles, which has been true since 3.0 (when I first started playing with them). With Essentials, they're much happier than with earlier 4E. I think there are quite a few players like that out there. Whether any of them will give 4E Essentials a try or not is unknown.

 

[Eridanis]

I adore the form factor of the Rules Compendium. A nice, thick trade paperpack that purports to have everything you need to play a game? (This is also why I like GR's Pocket Guide for Mutants & Masterminds and Mongoose's pocket edition of the Traveller core book.)

I've never delved into the mechanics; I bought it for 70% off when my local Borders went the way of all flesh, and haven't taken the time to sit down and read it. But I applaud the physical form factor.

 

[BriarMonkey]

What's the point?

It's still 4E and it still has all the elements that made me not like 4E to begin with. I tried it, and it was found sorely lacking.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

3.5e/Pathfinder fans do you like essentials

No.

If not why is that?

I have no exposure to it. I don't play 4E.

Do you like Tuvan throat singing? If not, why is that?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I bought it for 70% off when my local Borders went the way of all flesh

A bookstore made of flesh sounds like an awesome horror hook.