Essential Essentials

[mneme]

Thanks, you don't need to say anything else. You have already confirmed what I already knew and you helped my argument.

You don't really understand how this works, do you?

You can say I'm wrong all day long but that won't make it true. Just because it doesn't have the word "Essentials" on the cover doesn't mean it's not an essentials book.

*laughs* Actually, yes. That's exactly what it means.

Essentials means "the line of books that Wizards has designated as the new core; the "Essentials" line.

It doesn't mean "The books that follow the new D&D philosophy shown in Essentials" -- thats "the books -after- Essentials," eg "post-Essentials". Sure, somewhere on the internet, some people have come up with this terminology that confuses "Essentials" with "all of 4e D&D going forward" because people do stupid stuff in Internet arguments.

But the fact is, that's just not a smart thing to do; it doesn't fit Wizards marketing (which means it doesn't fit the terminology they're establishing), and frankly, it's confusing. There -is- a difference in philosophy between pre-Essentials and post-Essentials work -- but you have to use words describing this that actually convey this concept, rather than repurposing an existing term that means something else, if you want to be understood and understand what other people are talking about.

Bill Slav has already said that Essentials is the design going forward.

No...he's said that going forward they're using the layout and concepts in Essentials. Thus, -after- essentials. That's what "post" means -- after.

Also, saying "people on the Wizards forum do it, so I should do it here" is specious. This is Enworld, not Wizards. We don't use PEACH here either. Support your arguments with logic, not a false comparison.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You don't really understand how this works, do you?



*laughs* Actually, yes. That's exactly what it means.

Essentials means "the line of books that Wizards has designated as the new core; the "Essentials" line.

It doesn't mean "The books that follow the new D&D philosophy shown in Essentials" -- thats "the books -after- Essentials," eg "post-Essentials". Sure, somewhere on the internet, some people have come up with this terminology that confuses "Essentials" with "all of 4e D&D going forward" because people do stupid stuff in Internet arguments.

But the fact is, that's just not a smart thing to do; it doesn't fit Wizards marketing (which means it doesn't fit the terminology they're establishing), and frankly, it's confusing. There -is- a difference in philosophy between pre-Essentials and post-Essentials work -- but you have to use words describing this that actually convey this concept, rather than repurposing an existing term that means something else, if you want to be understood and understand what other people are talking about.


No...he's said that going forward they're using the layout and concepts in Essentials. Thus, -after- essentials. That's what "post" means -- after.

Also, saying "people on the Wizards forum do it, so I should do it here" is specious. This is Enworld, not Wizards. We don't use PEACH here either. Support your arguments with logic, not a false comparison.

I understand completely how it works. Trying to dismiss what I say or shrug it off as something idiotic doesn't make you correct in any way.

Besides the word "Essentials" what makes essentials, well essentials?

 

[doctorhook]

Besides the word "Essentials" what makes essentials, well essentials?

"Essentials" is a product-line published by WotC in late 2010. They were all marketed together and released within a narrow window. That's it.

"Post-Essentials" refers to D&D content produced in the style or format of the Essentials books. Sometimes, people slangily refer to "post-Essentials" as "Essentials", as though "Essentials" is a new edition... but that's not a correct usage, technically speaking, for reasons described above.

 

[herrozerro]

The wording debate aside, I have to echo the comments of an earlier poster that this new way of doing this is quite fast.

Its much easier to build and play these PCs with less decisions.

I have this weekend played a very fun game with a large group and character creation included we were able to play a full 4 hours adventure with a combat or two.

 

[doctorhook]

Honestly, I know this kind of thing gets said a lot, but I really believe that Essentials is what 4E should have been. (Not that I disparage what 4E actually was, but Essentials does 4E better than 4E does.)

It almost disappoints me when they "Essential-ize" old classes and release them on DDI, because damned if they aren't always just the same old class (mildly revised) presented in the new format. Not the same, not as good. Essentials is more than a publication format, it's a design philosophy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks, you don't need to say anything else. You have already confirmed what I already knew and you helped my argument.

From the back of Book of Nine Swords "For use with these Dungeons and Dragons (R) core books Players Handbook™ Dungeon Masters' Guide™ Monster Manual™"
Is the Book of Nine Swords Core 3.X?

Because by your logic it must be. The wording is almost exactly the same. But if I were to say Core 3.X it would most emphatically not include the Bo9S.

So is the Book of Nine Swords Core 3.X?

 

[Obryn]

I don't see how much more clear it could be.

If someone's running an "Essentials-only" game, you don't expect them to include Heroes of Shadow or Heroes of the Feywild (or Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, for that matter).

-O

 

[Kzach]

But other than that, there's nothing that Essentials does that 4e classic doesn't do better.

In your opinion.

I happen to think that the Essentials classes are in many ways superior to the old classes.

 

[Droogie128]

My main problem with the Essentials design is that it embraces the "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" philosophy that I hated so much in previous editions. The Mage is a very dynamic and diverse class, while the Slayer and Knight are very cookie cutter with very few real choices. Not to mention that the Mage is almost fully compatible with its PHB1 counterpart, while the martial classes are mostly incompatible besides utilities.

 

[Obryn]

My main problem with the Essentials design is that it embraces the "Wizards rule, Fighters drool" philosophy that I hated so much in previous editions. The Mage is a very dynamic and diverse class, while the Slayer and Knight are very cookie cutter with very few real choices. Not to mention that the Mage is almost fully compatible with its PHB1 counterpart, while the martial classes are mostly incompatible besides utilities.

I think this is nonsense.

The problem hasn't ever been in the amount of choices or decisions, except indirectly. The problem was that martial classes weren't viable past a certain level. Slayers, Knights, and Thieves are completely viable classes that hold their own with mages and wizards - or with their PHB counterparts.

-O