Essentials' "Give Backs"

[TerraDave]

Whether by accident or design, Essentials seems to take into account criticisms made by many 4E non-adapters (and I guess some 4E players as well). Specifically criticisms of the “you changed this too much and in the wrong way” variety.

Here’s an attempt at a list of things changed that may be a response to these criticisms:

-Several changes to make characters more different and less similar, including…
---An “EZ” class similar to past edition fighters
---Removal of “non-magical” dailies
---More variation across/within class powers

-De-emphasis on rituals (well, there removal actually) and moving some of these effects back into powers and class abilities

-(Following from above) Making things that seem like magic into magic, probably done by a person who can do magic

-Giving DMs more control over magic items

-Restoring flavour text (not keyed to a check) in monster descriptions

-Reemphasis on core classes and races

-Additional assorted “retro” touches (a charm person type power, rangers that can use “magic”, paladin/cavaliers…)

I would distinguish these changes from more convetional rules updates in response to in-play experience or just making things simpler for newbies (though there is some overlap).

 

[Zaran]

-De-emphasis on rituals (well, there removal actually) and moving some of these effects back into powers and class abilities

I don't think anyone screamed about how rituals were terrible. In fact I think there was more people saying Rituals had not enough support.

Other than that I agree that they did try to appease people. I don't think it was a good idea to this though. Now they have appease both the ePlayers and the cPlayers and I don't think they have the manpower to keep that up.

 

[TerraDave]

I don't think anyone screamed about how rituals were terrible. In fact I think there was more people saying Rituals had not enough support.

We may have said they didn't get enough support...but as someone who defended them (see inside my sig)...

The blanket complaint from 4eres was that they were just not used. Sub-complaints...to costly, too much time, (hence) can't be used in combat, not flexible enough.

The retro version of this was that non-combat spells had gone, we would say wait, check out rituals, and then some variation on the above would be noted.

 

[Jack99]

I don't think anyone screamed about how rituals were terrible. In fact I think there was more people saying Rituals had not enough support.

Other than that I agree that they did try to appease people. I don't think it was a good idea to this though. Now they have appease both the ePlayers and the cPlayers and I don't think they have the manpower to keep that up.

You haven't been around enough in the early days of 4e then. Up to and following the release of 4e, there was a_lot of threads filled with ritual complaints.

 

[fuzzlewump]

[MENTION=56710]Zaran[/MENTION]

Huh? What is this business about appeasing two crowds?

We know that the essentials books stop at 10 and we get other stuff afterward, like Mordenkeinen's Maginifiglorindous Emporium and the Shadowbad box set. Besides, is it really a bad idea to make and sell one product that will only reach a demographic once even if it doesn't get that demographic hooked on the rest of D&D to the point where none of them even buy a single other book?

Like, is selling a "The D&D Book for Women; Subtitle: Don't buy anything else please" book really a bad idea just because it's the only book women will buy (let's say?) They reach that demographic once and then get money on it. If they decide to make a sequel to the D&D for Women book later on, they get more money. Where is the problem?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, there's no question that Essentials is gunning for the holdouts - non-adopters of 3e as well as non-adopter of 4e, though, I'd say. There's a lot of 3.x they /aren't/ bringing back. No modular multiclassing, an the crazy powergaming combos it brings, for instance. And most of those complaints would aply as much to someone returning after last playing AD&D, too.

Of course, they're also gunning for brand-new players.

The only people they're not interested in attracting with Essentials: people who already like 4e. I guess they figure we can be taken for granted.

 

[TerraDave]

@ TV: Good points...

I like to think of Pathfinder as Advanced Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and for people into that, Essentials will not appeal too much. But there may be many, even millions, of the retro but curious that it could theoritically appeal to.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yep, there's no question that Essentials is gunning for the holdouts - non-adopters of 3e as well as non-adopter of 4e, though, I'd say. There's a lot of 3.x they /aren't/ bringing back. No modular multiclassing, an the crazy powergaming combos it brings, for instance. And most of those complaints would aply as much to someone returning after last playing AD&D, too.

Of course, they're also gunning for brand-new players.

The only people they're not interested in attracting with Essentials: people who already like 4e. I guess they figure we can be taken for granted.

Eh, I think the 'retro' in Essentials is overrated. As someone that started pretty much a week after the original 3 book OD&D hit the local store shelves in '75 I don't find there to be the slightest thing that is retro about Essentials, lol. It isn't even really retro WRT to say 2e. The rules are vastly different, character power levels and mechanics are just about as little like AD&D/OD&D as could be and still be worthy of the name D&D.

Look at 4e in its own light. Characters are VERY complex. With a pencil, a handful of dice, and 5 minutes to burn you could make an AD&D or Basic character. Heck you didn't even really need to crack a book. It takes an hour in CB to do that now with 4e. The results are more interesting, but I think the primary emphasis of Essentials is just to cut back on the complexity of building a character for at least SOME classes. You can call that retro but I just call it a tweak in the system to make a better system.

Other stuff I see pretty much the same way. It MAY appeal to some people that like PF or whatever but mostly it is just going back to the drawing board and seeing where some minor things didn't seem to work as well as they wanted or could be improved. Like schools of magic. They're just more evocative. Being a 'wand wizard' doesn't tap into much of anything, it doesn't tell you anything about the character. Being an Evoker OTOH or an Illusionist does. Even if schools never existed in 2e they would still be a good idea.

Mostly look at what has NOT changed. This is still 4e. Personally I think at most they did the least number of things that would stir up the interest of the PF people and get them to switch. Look at the industry sales numbers on 4e and PF, they are split evenly for top selling RPG. You can bet that WotC is going to respond to that. If the top selling RPG was WHFRPG they'd be aiming to add some chrome to the next 4e product that targeted THOSE players.

 

[Scribble]

Yep, there's no question that Essentials is gunning for the holdouts - non-adopters of 3e as well as non-adopter of 4e, though, I'd say. There's a lot of 3.x they /aren't/ bringing back. No modular multiclassing, an the crazy powergaming combos it brings, for instance. And most of those complaints would aply as much to someone returning after last playing AD&D, too.

What I find interesting is that I've said a number of times that I feel 4e feels a lot more (to me anyway) like older editions.

Essentials just kind of highlights this even more.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Look at 4e in its own light. Characters are VERY complex. With a pencil, a handful of dice, and 5 minutes to burn you could make an AD&D or Basic character. Heck you didn't even really need to crack a book.

OK. Give me all the saving throws of a first level fighter. And all the skills of a first level thief. Without cracking a book. And then tell me how to do spells

It takes an hour in CB to do that now with 4e.

I've done it in under 10 minutes including loading the character builder for a class I didn't know. And my Bravura Warlord worked out pretty well

The results are more interesting, but I think the primary emphasis of Essentials is just to cut back on the complexity of building a character for at least SOME classes. You can call that retro but I just call it a tweak in the system to make a better system.

I call it broadening the appeal I've no objection to the Slayer as long as they don't take away my fighters and barbarians.

Like schools of magic. They're just more evocative. Being a 'wand wizard' doesn't tap into much of anything, it doesn't tell you anything about the character. Being an Evoker OTOH or an Illusionist does. Even if schools never existed in 2e they would still be a good idea.

Absolutely! Not all the changes in 4e were good ones - just most of them