D&D 4E 4E feats vs Essential Feats. A list?

[Jhaelen]

Yeah, it'd be nice if WotC made a list somewhere of the useless feats, but they haven't (and thank you to the EN community members who did!) But that's not "confusion," that's "inconvenience," and a minor one at that, since virtually every player who's going to care or notice is one who already is familiar with PHBI-III, and is therefore pretty much by definition not a new player.

I disagree. You may want to search this very forum for posts of confused players asking things like: "If I take (Essentials) feat X why would I want to take (pre-Essentials) feat Y?"

You have no idea how confusing it is for a new player who has bought a mix of Essentials and pre-Essentials stuff (and that's assuming they managed to evade the trap of buying products from different editions!). Quite often they got it as a present from people even more clueless than a newbie.

Acting like you're an old hat while demanding that WotC hold your hand about this seems... I dunno... like you're just concern-trolling against Essentials.

If I'd be fond of flinging accusations around, I might consider mentioning your post seems... I dunno... like you're just concern-trolling pro-Essentials

 

[twilsemail]

I disagree. You may want to search this very forum for posts of confused players asking things like: "If I take (Essentials) feat X why would I want to take (pre-Essentials) feat Y?"

You find the same questions for *Power books, Dragon articles and even the PHBs. New feats aren't an Essentials problem. They're a concern with any game system still in print. Some things end up outdated.

Why would I take Feyborn Charm when I can just take Implement Expertise(Orb)?

 

[Jhaelen]

You find the same questions for *Power books, Dragon articles and even the PHBs. New feats aren't an Essentials problem. They're a concern with any game system still in print. Some things end up outdated.

Why would I take Feyborn Charm when I can just take Implement Expertise(Orb)?

In other words, you agree it's confusing, although only about as confusing as releasing similar feats in pre-Essentials products was?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In other words, you agree it's confusing, although only about as confusing as releasing similar feats in pre-Essentials products was?

Exactly. When Versatile Expertise was published it replaced Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise (at least for some builds of characters). There are still people around that may not know about that feat. If they use the old feats, well, they will use up an extra feat slot. It isn't the end of the world. Is it some kind of perfect situation? No, but this kind of thing happens all the time in any fairly extensive game system.

There are some things WotC could do, and may do, that might be helpful. They have already done some of it by for instance making CB with a mode that only presents Essentials stuff for people that are playing with just those rules. They could put in a deprecation flag to hide obsolete feats too, which would be nice and would cover a lot more than just Essentials (Fey Charm was a good example).

In terms of confusion with people not being clear on whether they should buy Essentials or older stuff, or both, or maybe even confused by 3.x stuff that is on the FLGS's shelves still... That's an issue for the retailer to some extent. I think WotC has done as much as is humanly possible to label the Essentials stuff as "this is what you want to buy first if you want to get into D&D". Certainly the retailers at a game store should be able to provide guidance to customers at that level. In an ideal world only the latest and greatest stuff would be on the shelves, but in the real world this kind of issue always exists.

I'm sure if someone has some great idea about how to make things clearer for customers WotC is all ears. Let them know.

 

[DracoSuave]

Changes happen in a game that is in evolution. This has happened in every such game ever.

People got confused when clerics had a different spell progression in the TSR printing of 2nd edition D&D vs the Wizards printing. People got confused when haste turned from extra actions to just an extra attack in 3.x. People get confused because they see two products and go 'holy crap this is different and better why would I what is this I don't even'

But, the game evolves. Evolution requires change. Change requires, at some point, something is differnet.

In the case of certain feats, they changed their minds about the power levels of certain feats. They decided they weren't right; so they changed them. This isn't a tragedy. This is what is necessary for the evolution of the game. At some point, when something isn't right, someone has to change their mind. It happens.

This is not an essentials vs core debate. This is not a PHB vs PHB2 debate. This is not even a 3.0 vs 3.5 debate. This is a 'they changed their minds' debate. The debate should then be 'Is the new way of doing it better than the old way?' Let that answer, and nothing else, decide your course of action from there.

The nonsense rhetoric surrounding Core vs Essentials is silly; it's a 'they changed their minds on something, deal with it like you always have' issue.

 

[Primal]

I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Jacob et al.

DracoSuave seems to imply (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that this is a non-issue; it's simply about preference and style, and nothing else. It's not even in the same ballpark as the 3.0 vs. 3.5 debate. There's actually nothing to be confused about, since we can chalk it up to natural evolution of the game.

Well, I beg to differ; to me it looks confusing as hell. Then again, I'm a dedicated Pathfinder GM. But here's the thing: even though I originally dismissed 4E because I felt certain thematical and mechanical changes were too profound for me, these days I'd actually want to run 4E alongside PF. Despite my earlier prejudice against 4E, I always felt it had some pretty good qualities, too; simplified monster/NPC stat block, more elegant SoS/Sod system than 3E, skill challenges, utility spells transformed into rituals, and a very coherent power format that reminded me of bibliograhic records. It took me almost two years to realize that maybe I should give 4E another try, with nigh-mystical martial powers and all. Unfortunarely, I'm becoming convinced that it's too late for that.

When they announced the Essentials, I thought it would my "ticket to ride"; 4E with updated, errata'ed and clarified core rules, plus revised monster rules and stats. But, then the previews started coming in, and I felt confused. Subclasses, but no core classes? Knight, mage, slayer, thief... where was the fighter and the wizard and the cleric? No dailies for some classes? New racial attribute system and powers? New magic item and treasure rules? Feat categories? What the hell was with all these changes?

You see, I thought I'd be one of the guys they were targeting with Essentials; an old skool DM with 20+ years of running the game under his belt, who would be willing to jump on board if given the chance. I don't need anyone to "hold my hand", as Mudlock put it; all I actually ever wanted was a new printing of the core rules with all the errata, updates and revisions included, without having to get a DDI account or paying a ridiculous sum for the Deluxe edition books. I'm a bibliophile and a librarian, so I want real, hardback books. And constantly referecing a folder of printouts -- or using a marker or a pen on dozens of pages -- is something I also don't want to do.

So I went to my FLGS and leafed through the Essentials books, and the first thing in my mind was: is this 4.5 or not? As I already said above, I felt confused as hell. The problem, in my opinion, doesn't lie in whether Feat X is better than Feat Y or Power Z. Or whether you prefer W or Q, or whatever. Rather, it is about how Essentials and 4E Classic relate to each other, and how the mechanics "click" in practise. I've seen many posters repeat the mantra that Essentials is NOT a revised edition; it's simply add-on mechanics that function in harmony with the "old" stuff.

However, Let's take a look at how ODLIS (Online Dictionary for Library and Information Sciences; ODLIS: Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science) defines 'revised edition':

"An edition in which a previously published work is substantially altered by correction, deletion, or the addition of supplementary material, either by the original author/editor or another writer, usually to expand the content or bring it up-to-date. Some revised editions are not as 'revised' as they claim to be (caveat emptor). The extent of revision may be indicated in a new foreword or preface. Frequency of revision usually depends on the amount of new material available but may also be linked [sic] to a decline in sales of the preceding edition..."

By this definition Essentials could be called a revised edition; but, since it is a whole new product line, it's not that simple. However, as WoTC staff members consistently like to claim, "it's still 4E", and since Rules Compendium contains material that is meant to replace equivalent mechanics in PHBs, I'd definitely call it a revised edition. Not just based on my knowledge on literature and publishing, but also my 20+ years of experience as a gamer.

But that's actually beside the point; what's really bothering me is that I feel Essentials was a mistake. To me it's pretty clear that WoTC didn't know who 4EE should primarily be marketed for: a simplified starter set for newbies, a revised and updated edition for 4E Classic fans, or an alternative core set with a different thematic and mechanic design direction (3.75) to hook the "naysayers". In the end they tried to please everyone, and I think it's a mess. Now they're trying to sell it with marketing phrases such as "It's a new way to approach things,
but it's still the same game! And it works seamlessly alongside the older material!" or "Yes, any 4E fan should buy these products, but they will be especially enticing to lapsed players and newcomers, because we've backpedaled a bit towards 3.5 while cutting extranous rules to make it a smoother and a bit simpler experience!" (and those are
not direct quotes, but rather how I interpreted their words). Dammit, WoTC, that's not what guys like me want; as I said above, I want the core rules reprinted with errata, with rituals and all!

What finally killed the Essentials (and 4E, I guess, since in truth I don't think they'll ever reprint the PHB, DMG and MM) for me was the announcement that the 'Heroes of Sword and Spell' was cancelled; yeah, they've promised to deliver the contents in SOME form in the future, but given their track record so far, I wouldn't be holding my breath. I mean, they're giving their customers Fortune Cards, but no book about making 4E Classic seamlessly fit your Essentials game, and vice versa. What about multiclassing your Avenger into Knight or Mage? What should I say if someone exclaims "How come your guy gets +2 to ALL his defenses, while I had to wait until 11th level before I got this crappy Iron Will?!?". What to do if a visiting player's PC has Rituals, and I'm running the game with nothing but Essentials books? And given that I'm not too keen on getting a DDI account (and MME has also been cancelled), how do I manage with a handful of magic items in Essentials? Etcetera, etcetera.

In addition to a new and revised printing of the rules, I also would have wanted to have more information on designing NPCs and monsters. Although I like the idea behind "unique" powers, it's a bit too "artistic" for me (and I have posted about this before). Why couldn't a brute have "stunlock" powers? Can a 1st level monster have Daze/Stun powers at all? Why don't brutes (at least in MM1, IIRC) get any "save ends"-type of powers? How many powers should a 9th level monster have? How many traits? Which numbers should certain type of powers, for example "Target falls prone and becomes stunned and grants Combat Advantage (save ends both)" recharge on? And so on. People often talk about players having "power paralysis", but I would certainly feel it when creating new monsters for 4E, because unless I'm wrong, all the official guidelines are pretty loose and scattered among several books and Dungeon articles. All this is probably very clear to the designers, but it's not that easy for tactically less inclined guys like me.

In closing I'd like to repeat that I think Jacob's assessment about Essentials being confusing and even incompatible with the core rules to some degree is correct. These are not simple add-ons; they're revised classes that show the new design principles, and I think using them alongside core classes would be like using 3.0 and 3.5 PCs in the same game. Or maybe I just don't get what the modular nature of 4E really means? Anyway, I feel like even though I'd like to get onboard, the ship has apparently sailed for me. And it's a damn shame. Although perhaps it's for the better; I wouldn't be surprised at all if they announced 5E at GenCon this year.

 

[mudlock]

D&D is no longer just a set of books; it's a constantly changing thing now. You will never be able to physically hold the one, true, complete, and definitive D&D in your hands ever again. Never. If you can't get used to that, then walk away now.

(Being a librarian isn't going to be a lot of fun for you either in the coming years, I imagine.)

If you want the updated rules, in print, buy the RC. If you want rituals, buy PH1. If you don't want to pay for both, live without. If you've got players complaining that the feats in the books they bought aren't as good as the feats in the books your other players bought SHARE BOOKS; you're a librarian, this shouldn't be a difficult concept.

On some of your points, though, I agree.

The lack of a broad choice of magic items in essentials products is a short coming for that product line, and I don't know what WotC will be doing, if anything, to fix it. I've got PH1 and AV1, so I'm all set, but I feel sorry for people who are new to the game that are trying to stick to just the essentials and haven't yet gotten the feel for designing their own magic items.

And more in-depth guidelines for designing your own monsters, particularly how powerfully status effects should be weighted and how many powers a creature should have, would be nice. Hasn't come from WotC, but there are some blogs I can point you to for advice. (Conspiratorially, I don't think you'll ever see any more details for that "secret formula"; partly because I think they don't have one and just feel it out "artistically", but partly because that's how they sell more monster books.)

But there is nothing *incompatible* between 4e and essentials.

All these things, all these feats and all these classes, exist in the same space. Yes, some more-recently published feats are obviously dominant choices. I guess some people find that confusing? Fine, I'm willing to accept that they are legitimately confused. Well, if your confused, here's how it works: sometimes, things don't work out exactly how the game designer thought they would. And printing new, more-powerful stuff is easier than printing errata to weaken things. Call it power creep, or call "Who in their right mind would ever take Astral Fire anyway?," or whatever. I think the changes have been, almost to a number, for the better. And since this is a living game, not a once-and-done book, a better game is what I care about. And I'm sorry if that makes your deadtree shelf weep.

(For the record, although I'm taking a crack at the decidedly non-digital, I'm not actually a DDI subscriber myself. I buy the books that provide me the things I want, skip the ones that don't provide me enough of what I value, and keep an ear to the ground for major errata.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Jacob et al.

DracoSuave seems to imply (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that this is a non-issue; it's simply about preference and style, and nothing else. It's not even in the same ballpark as the 3.0 vs. 3.5 debate. There's actually nothing to be confused about, since we can chalk it up to natural evolution of the game.

...snipped...

In closing I'd like to repeat that I think Jacob's assessment about Essentials being confusing and even incompatible with the core rules to some degree is correct. These are not simple add-ons; they're revised classes that show the new design principles, and I think using them alongside core classes would be like using 3.0 and 3.5 PCs in the same game. Or maybe I just don't get what the modular nature of 4E really means? Anyway, I feel like even though I'd like to get onboard, the ship has apparently sailed for me. And it's a damn shame. Although perhaps it's for the better; I wouldn't be surprised at all if they announced 5E at GenCon this year.

Not meant as a criticism at all, but have you played Essentials or 'classic' 4e? There simply is no mechanical incompatibility between them AT ALL, none. The Essentials RC reprints the general rules of the game, taking into account the errata, and makes a very few minor additional changes that basically are only of interest to rules lawyers or in very specific situations (and are very minor things at that).

The addition of new character options with Essentials is just that, addition. As with any supplement they do sometimes tend to obsolete a few older options, but you have to understand that for all the words expended on the subject it is really not all that consequential.

In terms of terminology like what the sub-classes are named, well, they had to call them something. I really don't think Essentials qualifies as an 'edition' even in the most technical sense. It is a different product, an extension of the existing product and also a stand-alone product.

OTOH I think there is a certain equivocal attitude at WotC HQ these days. I don't think it centers on Essentials though. I think it centers on classic 4e itself. I think basically they created an almost entirely new game from whole cloth 3 years ago. It is all new mechanics and different concepts. 4e was a prototype. It is a great game, but it is also an imperfect game. 3 years of experience and it is PAINFULLY obvious how it could be improved and could have been better. Yet the long shadow of 3.5 lies across everything WotC does. They CANNOT revise it. As much as 4e begs and weeps to be reforged and re-released in a "4.5" it simply cannot be done. Moreover it can't be done for business reasons either, there's a big inventory of MM1, PHB1, DMG1 still stacked in warehouses that they simply cannot afford to write off. Essentials is a half measure. It is what CAN be done.