Jack99
Adventurer
In the Cavalier thread (misnamed Sentinel) we had a bit of a discussion about 4e vs Essentials.
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?
Anathos said: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.
renau1g said: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.
Jack99 said: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.
Anathos said:Essentials is what 4e has been all along. The difference is almost entirely in presentation and restriction of options.
brehobit said: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.
Jack99 said: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.
Anathos said: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?