Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6258248" data-attributes="member: 82106">It did introduce an idea of 'scaling DCs' which was totally absent in the original system. They seemed to sort of semi-arbitrarily apply them to some types of skill checks and not to others, but you could always just safely ignore the whole (IMHO ill-conceived) concept. Essentials didn't list DCs for a lot of the 'environmental' stuff that the DMG did, so its not entirely clear if they meant things like breaking down a door to fall into the 'scaling' type of checks or not. Otherwise the main thing you could complain about is that Essentials trod heavily on the class power structure of 4e, many of the 'e-classes' have things like fixed powers or somewhat different types of powers, which can create issues when integrating with older classes. MCing and such things work rather poorly in Essentials for the most part. They also left out ritual magic and instead grafted in a few class features like Ressurection for the Warpriest to cover a few of the most vital missing features (since Enchant Item is missing in Essentials it is technically impossible to make a magic item too, except by DM fiat). Most of that is omission though. I think a lot of the complaints about it being a 'different game' were pretty overblown altogether, but if you play "Essentials Only" and play it by the book it is a lot more restricted game. There are effectively no PPs or EDs, just a default one for each class that you always take. The inventory of items is pretty limited, I don't think they even mention artifacts at all, obviously no rituals, etc. It fits with their goals though, which were a simpler and cleaner system that requires less game mastery to play. In that they sort of half-succeeded at least.</blockquote>

Verification