Core and Essentials

[cavalier973]

So, in Dragon # 418, I found the 4e version of the Thoul. Awesome. Someone in a MM/MV readthrough thread made the observation that 4e was derived more from Moldvay/Mentzer Basic than from AD&D, which means that the Thoul should have been in MM1.

Anyway...

Essentials dragons are cooler than their Core counterparts, because they get to act twice (at least in the first turn) and get to act first, basically, with their "Instinctive action" which give them an extra action on their initiative roll + 10 (if the dragon's initiative roll is 24, and the players all roll initiatives of, say, 25 through 30, the dragon still goes first, with its instinctive action on an initiative of 34.) I am unsure whether they get this second action each round, or just on the first one.

 

[dave2008]

Essentials dragons are cooler than their Core counterparts, because they get to act twice (at least in the first turn) and get to act first, basically, with their "Instinctive action" which give them an extra action on their initiative roll + 10 (if the dragon's initiative roll is 24, and the players all roll initiatives of, say, 25 through 30, the dragon still goes first, with its instinctive action on an initiative of 34.) I am unsure whether they get this second action each round, or just on the first one.

Each round they get the extra action. That is how we read it and played it. Notice they often loose the action to overcome a condition (if a remember correctly). That is not very useful if it is only available the first round and your acting before most of your attackers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Each round they get the extra action. That is how we read it and played it. Notice they often loose the action to overcome a condition (if a remember correctly). That is not very useful if it is only available the first round and your acting before most of your attackers.

Or they take the ("Instinctive?") action even if under a condition, but still suffer the condition on their regular initiative count.

 

[dave2008]

Or they take the ("Instinctive?") action even if under a condition, but still suffer the condition on their regular initiative count.

Hmm - I don't remember reading it that way. Of course that is generally a worse choice for the dragon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hmm - I don't remember reading it that way. Of course that is generally a worse choice for the dragon.

Some were written one way, I'm sure, I remember some (one in particular in Encounters) written the other.
Still others didn't get an instinctive action or extra initiative, but negated conditions at the start of their turn. There was quite a variety of Solo 'action preservation' traits & powers, so I'm not certain I'm remembering any of them right.

 

[cavalier973]

So, one of the worst omissions, in my opinion, from the Essentials DMB is a section on mapping,out dungeons. This should be a basic bit of instruction.

Brand new DMs may be able to figure out how to design dungeons/draw maps from the included 2-part adventure, but it seems to me a DM's guide should have an explicit section on the subject. The core DMG has such a section, includong map symbols one could use, and how to create dungeons randomly.

As it turns out, the 4eE Red Box starter set does have a section discussing the design and mapping of dungeons, so a brand new DM would need that product as well as the DM kit.

 

[dave2008]

Some were written one way, I'm sure, I remember some (one in particular in Encounters) written the other.
Still others didn't get an instinctive action or extra initiative, but negated conditions at the start of their turn. There was quite a variety of Solo 'action preservation' traits & powers, so I'm not certain I'm remembering any of them right.

Good point, I was thinking about the dragons specifically, which I believe were all similar, but other solos handled it differently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is grievously unfortunate that there was not an Essentials Warlord, especially since five classes---knight, slayer, thief, scout, and hunter--all used basic attacks modified by stances,,which would,have been ideal when paired with a warlord who could dish out basic attacks like candy

That might have been part of the issue. Also, the Warlord was a poster-boy for most every innovation in 4e that was a lightning rod for edition warring. And, following the apparent Essentials Martial paradigm, would, himself, have had to have been a stance-holding, basic attack spammer. How /that/ would've worked IDK - either that or, like the Hunter, hybridized martial with some other source to pull in acceptably-supernatural role support. Like, the eWarlord could've been a … IDK, paladin, crusader, templar were all taken, something connoting a religious-military-leader Joan of Arc type … pulling in Divine leader powers. Heck, if they'd thought've it they could've made the Warpriest a sort of Warlord|Cleric, with eMartial at-will stances, a choice of smite/heal/turn encounters, and Divine dailies & utilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some missing crunch may be found in the Essentials RC, which I found much more worthwhile than the DM kit... really, the RC was prettymuch the sole bright spot in Essentials, and even then only for the convenience.

Though it suffered from the initial take on SCs, the DMG1 was otherwise pretty good, the DMG2 was better and fleshed out Paragon. Too bad there was never a 3 to expound upon Epic DMing.

Ah, come on, man. Outside of CharOp games and the Vampire and Binder, nothing in essentials was actually noticeably unbalanced, and there were a ton of really fun options. The player books were presented well, the "e+" content like the Skald and executioner were a hell of a lot of fun to play, but so were the E rangers, thief, etc. I know that on paper the spell casters get a power up, but through a few hundred hours of play with different groups, it just doesn't show up in play.