Do You Plan To Use Essentials In Your Game (No '4.5 Edition Sucks' Plz, Kthx)

[MerricB]

I can't wait for Essentials to come out. I'll be running games with all the options available. There are some players who will delight in the simpler characters, and the more complicated characters will still be available. Very nce indeed.

Cheers!

 

[ggroy]

If the newer 4E Essentials classes are as easy to play as the 4E PHB1 ranger, most likely I'll end up playing some evening one-shots with 4E Essentials.

 

[NMcCoy]

I'm quite excited by the Mage, and the other new classes look like fun new twists. I'm not the DM for my group's current campaign, but I do have the job of "rules guru" in my group, and I foresee no balance issues with Essentials. (We houserule all sorts of things for plot reasons anyway - one character's getting a Paragon Path from the wrong class because it fits their theme brilliantly.)

And I'm personally planning on running a Red Box side-game for some sweet oldschool dungeoncrawling.

 

[deganawida]

Yes, this describes my plan too. I'm even going so far as to only allow class/race combinations that match AD&D 1st restrictions.

Glad to know that I'm not alone, though this might be a regional thing (I'm from Statesboro). I might have to give the race/class combinations a shot. I'm also going to be adapting the domain rules from Birthright into the campaign, to again alter the way things play in the higher tiers.

 

[ourchair]

If the newer 4E Essentials classes are as easy to play as the 4E PHB1 ranger, most likely I'll end up playing some evening one-shots with 4E Essentials.

That is an excellent yardstick by which to measure future classes for ease of play.

 

[thewok]

I dislike what I've seen of Essentials so far. I'll allow them in games I run, of course, but I have no interest in them myself.

This is how I feel about it right now. I haven't been truly impressed with what I've seen so far, at least as far as what I would like to play.

What I have been impressed with is the knight, which seems like it might be a good option for a 4e-resistant person in our group. She loved playing fighters in 3E, and hates the powers system in 4E. The stances might be a good compromise for her. I'm hoping there'll be a two-hander option to replace Shield Mastery (or whatever it was called on the knight), as she likes using two-handers. If not, maybe I'll make something up for her.

It may be that Essentials actually saves 4E for our group, since the person in question is very vocal about her dislike (even though she only played like 2 sessions, which had little combat), and if she finds it more enjoyable, we might actuaally get to play again.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you guys have any immediate/concrete plans for your gaming group and Essentials?

I run games for newbies on a fairly regular basis. Our reputation at My Girlfriend Is A DM is that of 'those ppl who make everybody play' so I'm actually thinking I like the Essentials. I think they'll make better options than making newbies play simple classes or giving them pregens.

Thoughts?

I don't run a 4e campaign, but when I do run, it's often at conventions or otherwise for people new to the game, or even new to gaming in general.

4e has proven, IMX, much easier for new players to pick up than 3.x or 2e. The sheet-and-card format of character builder, in particular seems to help. New players can quickly pick up on the choices available on their turn, and the 'cards' have all the calculations for each power already made. Pre-generated characters /do/ seem to be the way to go for an introductory adventure, though. I don't see how Essentials could be a lot easier for them to pick up, since 4e is already so easy.

Now, I have noticed seasoned 3.x or old-school players having trouble picking up 4e. I'm not why, exactly, I suppose it varies with the individual. 4e is a non-trivial departure from the past, while earlier editions have been more evolutionary. Perhaps familiarity with an older version of D&D is a bit of a handicap.

From the previews I've seen of Essentials, it seems like it's being made more familiar to such players, at least in some ways. The Essential alternative to the fighter, for instance, could be played like a 1e fighter, without overlooking many of it's options. The Essentials Thief, by the name alone, would seem more familiar to really old-school D&Ders who have been away from the hobby for a long a time.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Now, I have noticed seasoned 3.x or old-school players having trouble picking up 4e. I'm not why, exactly, I suppose it varies with the individual.

It's because of a disease called grognardism.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have no plans at all regarding Essentials. That might change in an instant if there was a German translation of it in the works, though...

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I haven't DM-ed 4e, and probably won't in the near future, but all the other players in my group take turns DM-ing their own campaigns. I hope that one of them will start an Essentials-only campaign just to try it out -- I'm an engineer by training and inclination and I just enjoy seeing how systems work "in the field". As one DM in the group really doesn't like the complexity of 4e rules, I suspect he will be the one who makes the leap.

For myself, I like the feel of the E-Rogue and to a lesser extent the E-Fighter. The E-Wizard and E-Cleric are so sketchily described that it's hard for me to know what to think. It would be nice if they fleshed out those two previews just a smidge, though I know they probably won't.

But overall, the Essentials builds feel more like what I expected from 4e before it was released, and that makes me like it.