Are Essentials more old school or just a clever marketing ploy?

[Jack99]

In the Cavalier thread (misnamed Sentinel) we had a bit of a discussion about 4e vs Essentials.

Paladins with Alignment restrictions? I don't think they could be more blatant that Essentials is meant to pull in the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd. Good job standing up for the principle of alignment being unconnected to mechanics WotC.

Anathos - if you don't like that restriction, don't use it. It's not necessarily the 3.x crowd, because IIRC paladin's always had to be LG going way back to at least 2e (my first edition). They have been pretty clear that they are trying to market to non-current 4e gamers as a major push of Essentials, so I don't really get the implied evil-underhanded WotC vibe from your post.

I don't think its the hundreds of thousands 3.5/Pathfinder players, as much as the 25 millions lapsed players of former editions.

On topic: I honestly didn't think I would find a use for Essentials, but as it is now, I am ditching 4e core asap. Essentials is what 4e should have been from the start.

Essentials is what 4e has been all along. The difference is almost entirely in presentation and restriction of options.

I don't know. The fighter and rogue are really different. The Wizard and Cleric are more-or-less the same.

I do feel like it's just better designed. Which I suppose isn't shocking given they've had practice.

I disagree. While you are right that there are many similarities*, I think that Essentials classes "feel" much more like the classes of old editions. Hence my comment earlier. I think it would have been better to start there, and then expand the classes later on, to what we know as the core 4e classes.

*while indeed the new stances+encounter powers=old powers to a certain degree, it doesnt paint an accurate picture of it all.

Which is a result of their presentation. They were designed to evoke that feeling while diverging very little from the mechanics of their base class. It was a marketing ploy, the efficacy of which is proved by your positive response.

Now, in order not to derail the thread any further, I decided to fork the discussion (whatever happened to the fork button, anyway?) to this thread.

Anyway, I do not think its a marketing ploy, at least not as Athanos seems to insinuate it is. I agree that it is intentional that the classes look and feel more like the 1e/2e classes, since they (wotc) are going after lapsed players with the Essentials, while providing an easier entrance to D&D. It is however not just that, as I think the E-classes are different enough to warrant the E-label. Meaning that the E-classes will play differently than the Core classes. Now, if that is true, then Essentials is not just another marketing ploy from the evil wizards, but instead new options, a new take, a new edition (call it whatever you want) of my favorite (and only RPG).

Opinions?

 

[Truename]

I agree, not (just) marketing. Rather, an increased facility with the game's design combined with real care for the feel invoked by the mechanics. It's evident in the prose describing the cavalier, martial classes' use of basic attacks, and slimes' new immunity to being knocked prone. It all helps convey a feel--an image--and that makes for better suspension of disbelief and better roleplaying.

4e was always great in the mechanics and game balance department. Now it's growing up to be great in the design department, too.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think what it does is using the 4E core rules and make them more "thematically fitting". The theme evokes old school "memes". But since it's still 4E and using its unique mechanics and game balance concepts, one could argue it's just marketing - or at least "fluff".

 

[FireLance]

IMO, Essentials is an expansion of 4E. As an expansion, it introduces new rules, in particular, new class structures and other changes that have been designed to embrace several "old school" tropes, such as fighters and rogues that primarily use melee basic attacks, druids with healing powers, and at least one type of paladin that has to be Lawful Good. Nonetheless, it still fundamentally runs on the same 4E engine.

So, I agree that there have been some changes, so it's not "just marketing", but the changes are not so major that they are incompatible with pre-Essentials 4E.

 

[Jack99]

I agree, not (just) marketing. Rather, an increased facility with the game's design combined with real care for the feel invoked by the mechanics. It's evident in the prose describing the cavalier, martial classes' use of basic attacks, and slimes' new immunity to being knocked prone. It all helps convey a feel--an image--and that makes for better suspension of disbelief and better roleplaying.

4e was always great in the mechanics and game balance department. Now it's growing up to be great in the design department, too.

Perhaps its just that. To be honest, I never felt it was lacking in 4e, and when people on various messageboards claimed it, I thought they were silly. But now that we have the Essentials, I have to admit that they were at least somewhat right. While it still doesn't bother me that 4e core was set up as it was, I do prefer the Essential way.

I think what it does is using the 4E core rules and make them more "thematically fitting". The theme evokes old school "memes". But since it's still 4E and using its unique mechanics and game balance concepts, one could argue it's just marketing - or at least "fluff".

I think my point was, that if the core classes and the essential classes play differently, how can the argument "its only marketing" be true? I mean, if it walks like a duck (evokes another feel) and quacks like a duck (plays differently), then surely it must be a duck?

IMO, Essentials is an expansion of 4E. As an expansion, it introduces new rules, in particular, new class structures and other changes that have been designed to embrace several "old school" tropes, such as fighters and rogues that primarily use melee basic attacks, druids with healing powers, and at least one type of paladin that has to be Lawful Good. Nonetheless, it still fundamentally runs on the same 4E engine.

Aye, expansion is another term that could be used to describe the E-line, but I must admit that I purposely didn't use it in the OP, considering all the time I spent arguing whether 4e feels like WoW or not - I figured it would be perceived negatively by a lot of people and could potentially start things over again.

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

And sorry Jack but when you posted:

I disagree. While you are right that there are many similarities*, I think that Essentials classes "feel" much more like the classes of old editions. Hence my comment earlier. I think it would have been better to start there, and then expand the classes later on, to what we know as the core 4e classes.

*while indeed the new stances+encounter powers=old powers to a certain degree, it doesnt paint an accurate picture of it all.

I have to "disagree", which isn't really the word I want to use here.

They do feel like the classes of older editions, and that is why I don't like them. When I tried to play a PF rogue, I hated my only real option in combat was "I slash with my sword" or "I try to flank to backstab with my sword", and that no matter what I did, it seemed like the same option over and over again.

The new fighter builds are bland to me. "I take a stance and swing my sword" is what I found myself saying during Encounters over and over again.

And clerics and wizards seem to be on the path of unbalanced again as well.

I like some of the stuff, but as a whole I like "core" 4E better.

 

[Jack99]

And sorry Jack but when you posted:



I have to "disagree", which isn't really the word I want to use here.

They do feel like the classes of older editions, and that is why I don't like them. When I tried to play a PF rogue, I hated my only real option in combat was "I slash with my sword" or "I try to flank to backstab with my sword", and that no matter what I did, it seemed like the same option over and over again.

The new fighter builds are bland to me. "I take a stance and swing my sword" is what I found myself saying during Encounters over and over again.

And clerics and wizards seem to be on the path of unbalanced again as well.

I like some of the stuff, but as a whole I like "core" 4E better.

No need to be sorry, we are all entitled to an opinion, especially when it comes to taste. While the goal of this thread was not to debate whether we like Essentials more than Core or vise-versa, the quote below made me curious.

And clerics and wizards seem to be on the path of unbalanced again as well.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[Pickles JG]

It's a clever marketing ploy as they are trying to appeal to gamers outside the core 4e fanbase.

It's a not so clever marketing ploy as they are adding new stuff that is different to appeal to people with in the core 4e fanbase (like me & Jack99). This stuff has a mixed reception amongst 4e fanboys as a lot of it seems retrograde as eg a slayer or thief looks pretty dull to play cf core 4e classes. I am pleased to see WOTC are sufficiently confident in their power model that they feel they know how much they can break it without unbalancing the game, I just hope they do it in a more interesting way in future.

Psionics looks like it has this extra interest but I have not played one yet & fear that they are not quite right & spamming the uber power takes over from having a huge suite of options.

The not so different Essentials classes look fine - warpriest is my favourite cleric & the ranger controller looks so far to be goood with versatile at will control - the old style classes well not much.

 

[whearp]

I know it is hard for hardcore 4e players like us to understand, but there are a lot of people out there who actually like the idea of having limited options. I have two essential fighters in my current game (A Knight and Slayer), and both of them have remarked how much they enjoy not having to manage a bunch of power cards.

I think one of the unfortunate aspects of core 4e was that there was really no class for the younger/casual/newer player to play. Until 4e, things like the fighter and the rogue filled that role, but even they are quite complex and daunting by the original core rules.

I feel like essentials offers a nice stair-step approach to classes. A newer, less sure player might start with a martial class like slayer, but for his or her next character choose to make a Ranger. The tiers of complexity seem less a failing and more a feature. And beyond that, a person who wants to play a more complex fighter can still make one with the core set rules.

So I say it is a CLEVER use of OLD SCHOOL feel that they are using as a PLOY for more of us to get together and have some excellent fun. Go WotC!

 

[Imaro]

To me it feels more oldschool... and it's got me and Jack99 agreeing on something we both like and not arguing...so it has to be a good thing.