Essential Essentials

[herrozerro]

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

No daily powers does not equal drooling either.

In many ways i wish they had gone the at-will and encounter only route from the beginning.

 

[The Little Raven]

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

How about the key characteristics that I pointed out, which coincidentally enough come straight from Wizards' own oft-repeated-verbatim marketing:

The Essentials line is defined by two key characteristics.

1. Evergreen. They will remain in print so long as the edition remains in print.
2. The foundation. This means that all future books will assume these are the books you have and no more (very deliberately niche books aside).

Heroes of Shadow is not an evergreen product, and future books will not assume that you have it. Therefore, while it supports Essentials-style design philosophy, it is not an Essentials book.

 

[herrozerro]

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.

Lack of choice and lack of power are two separate things.

 

[rjfTrebor]

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

in all the essentials only games i've seen anything built from the essentials model was allowed, including things from HoS. likewise a game that was "no-essentials" wouldn't allow someone to play a blackguard or binder.

i'm honestly really surprised to see that this bothers you guys so much, i've seen the term "essentials" used as an adjective on the wotc boards for nearly a year now.

 

[Obryn]

encounters is essentials only and they had a whole season based on HoS

That's actually your counter-example.

Encounters allows Essentials and one new product release. Last season it was Essentials + HoS. This season it's Essentials + Neverwinter. Next season will be Essentials + Feywild.

If HoS was an "Essentials" product, HoS would have been a valid source for the Neverwinter season. It wasn't.

EDIT: And I see that you changed your post. Maybe because you've realized it was a counter-example.

-O

 

[Droogie128]

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

I never said they weren't viable. It just seems that they've been deemed non worthy of being versatile and dynamic. They're back to being linear, and that's very disturbing. They've also been deemed non worthy of compatibility with their PHB1 counterparts. Also, they've been returned to one option every round... "I swing my sword". Very cookie cutter now, very few customization options.

It would have been nicer to see stances that become available at paragon, and then epic stances. At least it would provide some feeling of real advancement. At level 30, you're mostly using the same stuff you had available to you at level 1, just more of it.

Martial classes have been reduced back to the training wheels of D&D. That's why I despise most of Essentials.

The only saving grace to these classes for me has been Martial Cross Training. It actually opens up some real customization options that these classes sorely lack.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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?

You are not comparing like for like. The book of Nine Swords was made for the core rules and the core rules consisted out of the 3.5 books because they were meant to replace the 3.0 books. The situation with beginning 4th edition and Essentials is not the same thing with regards to the example that you gave.

Before you try and argue my logic you might want to first understand that logic a little better and actually give an example that actually goes with the argument.

 

[rjfTrebor]

That's actually your counter-example.

Encounters allows Essentials and one new product release. Last season it was Essentials + HoS. This season it's Essentials + Neverwinter. Next season will be Essentials + Feywild.

If HoS was an "Essentials" product, HoS would have been a valid source for the Neverwinter season. It wasn't.

EDIT: And I see that you changed your post. Maybe because you've realized it was a counter-example.

-O

sometimes i make mistakes, and it was hardly a counter point, it just shows how identical HoS is to those other books

the only difference between HoS and HotFl is the dis-inclusion of the word "essentials" on the cover of HoS. the design in both of them is identical. HoS may not be in the essentials line but it's a book full of content that's identical to what's in HotFL and HotFK. the word "essentials has come to be a descriptive word for all the content that follows the design style of those first ten books. wotc uses it as such and so does everyone else on the wotc boards.

 

[Droogie128]

HoS is not an "Essentials" product. It does follow Essentials design, though... mostly. Essentials design isn't really well defined either, though. The Mage, for example, is largely unchanged from the PHB1 design, except for a few minor details. It's really just a new build for the Wizard. The Warpriest still follows the classic design, only trimmed down. The Slayer and Knight are a complete rework of the mechanics. The Vampire doesn't really follow any kind of design philosophy. You could maybe just call it the classic 4e design put on rails.

The only thing I could consider "Essentials design" now would be.. extremely inconsistent design and mechanics. Put an idea in our head, and throw it out there to see what happens. Who cares if it works. That's kind of the impression I've been getting lately, especially with HoS. You have relatively well built classes (Blackguard and Executioner), and classes that aren't really good at anything (Binder and Vampire). So, that's Essentials design to me.

 

[Kzach]

You have relatively well built classes (Blackguard and Executioner), and classes that aren't really good at anything (Binder and Vampire).

Conjecture, not fact.

Many people consider the Executioner to be a fail-class whilst others think the Vampire is the best thing since whipped cream in a can.

The only Essentials class that everyone agrees is a complete fail, is the Binder.