Essentials' "Give Backs"

[TerraDave]

It turned into a tangent (mea culpa). But some comparison may be hard to avoid if the thread is about adding back in some features similar to those of past editions.

EDIT: And I don't really think it was meant to be an edition war...I think it was just AAs belief, though the druid is an example of how complicated a 1E charecter...oops, there I go again.

 

[Grimgrin]

"Essentials" can be considered supplimentary, but I think a lot of people are treating it as replacement. I can't help but wonder if this reboot/relaunch of the "4e core books" will result in another split in the D&D audience. 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5/Pathfinder, and now 4e classic and 4e essentials.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As someone who has played (and enjoyed) every edition back to AD&D and up to 4Ed, I can't say Essentials has really grabbed me.

Yes, there are certain changes in it that make it more similar to previous editions...but not so many that I actually want to spend money on it. Its still 4Ed, and I've bought enough of that to last me until 5Ed pops up.

To be clear: I think that 4Ed is a decent game, and I'm loving playing my 4Ed Dwarven Starlock. Its just that too much was changed- even with the Essentials "givebacks"- that it doesn't seem like D&D to me. Its a good FRPG, just not the D&D experience I'm looking for.

And Essentials simply doesn't give back enough of the 4Ed design changes to appeal to me as a significant change worthy of purchase.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Listen.

There are far more people who used to play D&D than those who currently play.

This has been true since, I dunno, 2e. So it's not 4e's fault (though at least up until Essentials, 4e had done little to rectify the problem).

Something that harkens back to how the game worked long before, that does nothing to throw off 4e's sacred maths, does not hurt any current 4e players in the slightest, and adds an element of continuity to the game.

If someone who played D&D back in college can pick up a D&D book today and look at Magic Missile and see that it hits automatically, they can smile to themselves as they remember how much fun it was to play their first wizard. Then, they can try and share that fun with their kids now.

On the other hand, if someone like that picks up the book and sees little that reminds them of their previous adventures, what reason do they have to share this new thing wearing the D&D name with their kids? They don't remember having fun with this. They have no previous investment in it.

It's worth it to note that a big HASBRO thing is banking on the nostalgia of people who used to heart these things as kids (it is the reason for the Transformers movie -- and specifically mentioned in a lot of HASBRO reports to investors and the like).

Something that Greg Leeds I'm sure knows: nostalgia can frickin' sell.

I've played 4e since it came out, but I love a lot of the changes Essentials makes, because I did think that 4e did, in a lot of cases, throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, Fighters need more things to do than "full attack, full attack, shift, full attack." No, Fighters do not need mind-bending goofiness like Daily powers to be able to do more than that. Yes, more things than the Cleric need to be able to heal the party. No, this does not mean we need Warlords screaming at you until your head reattaches itself. Yes, classes need to have about the same amount of options. No, this doesn't mean they all have to share one unified "Deck Of Many Powers" advancement and expenditure mechanic. Yes, you shouldn't have to choose between a "narrative" power and a "combat" power. No, this doesn't mean that all "narrative" powers need to be Rituals (I also don't think they all need to be Utilities, but that's one of the quibbles I have with Essentials). Yes, fluff can solve many problems. No, it shouldn't be a crutch to use just because you have a neat mechanical trick you want to try in pushing your little collectible pieces of plastic around the game board.

In a lot of ways, they're kind of trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and I applaud the steps they're making even if I know they're not going to get back to where my ideal game lies until 5e due to the fundamental changes needed. But it's a bone. It makes swallowing the pill of 4e easier. Because I think the pill is good for me, and for my group. I just wish it didn't also cause premature grognardism and explosive message board diarrhea and uncontrolled game-night crying. Essentials will cause a bit less of that for me, and for some of the groups I play with.

Which is cool. And definitely the reason I don't have a 4e PHB sitting on my shelf, but I've got Heroes of the Fallen Lands there instead. Right next to my big imposing Pathfinder Core Rules....

 

[FireLance]

Have their been any reports from people using the new monster and essentials characters? (I've been crazy busy lately so haven't kept up on the happenings here...)

Any difference in combat length, or how it plays out?

I played in an Essentials-only game just last weekend. The party was quite large, consisting of:

1. Human knight
2. Human slayer
3. Dwarf slayer
4. Elf thief
5. Eladrin mage
6. Dwarf sun warpriest
7. Human storm warpriest

We had about four encounters, each of which was over in half an hour or less, namely:

1. Eight kobolds, four with short swords and four with slings
2. Two waves of 2d6 (yes, the DM actually rolled each time ) kobold minions, and more would have come had we not succeeded in a skill challenge to make them stop fighting us
3. Two Medium-sized zombies and a Large zombie (which the storm warpriest destroyed in one single hit by rolling a critical hit with smite undead )
4. One fledgling white dragon

Although the fact that we were playing 1st-level characters and Essentials characters probably helped cut down on the time required per encounter, I think the key contributor was that we were playing without a battlemat and resolved all movement and positioning questions via DM adjudication.

 

[TerraDave]

No, Fighters do not need mind-bending goofiness like Daily powers

KM, I get a lot of what you say (I did start this thread...) but in practice, the martial dailies don't really bend the mind (or my mind) that much. They are a little metagamey (as are other things you touch on), but in play, they can be pretty cool.

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I get a lot of what you say (I did start this thread...) but in practice, the martial dailies don't really bend the mind (or my mind) that much. They are a little metagamey (as are other things you touch on), but in play, they can be pretty cool.

Everyone's got different things that pull the switch for them. The main reason I don't play much Pathfinder is because I can't bother with buffs. That's not always a deal-breaker for folks, though.

Overall point being that if you're trying to get people who used to love the game to look at the game again, having a clear continuity is a selling point.

Which does seem a bit counter to where they were at the launch of 4e, with all the strident "We've killed all the sacred cows, because they clearly sucked!" tone. But it's better, IMO, that D&D realize that it is D&D and do D&D better than anyone else can, rather than letting, say, Pathfinder be a better D&D.

That doesn't make sense, but I'm heading out the door to meet my girlfriend and eat some food, so I won't bother to correct it.

 

[Henry]

I have to agree with KM -- The Knight and Slayer, now having played them in Essentials Encounters, are perfect for new players, and people who don't want to worry about lots of fiddly rules bits while still kicking butt. It needs something like this, and though I find a lot of use in the regular 4E fighter, there's a place, and a good place, for the essentials martial classes.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've played 4e since it came out, but I love a lot of the changes Essentials makes, because I did think that 4e did, in a lot of cases, throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, Fighters need more things to do than "full attack, full attack, shift, full attack." No, Fighters do not need mind-bending goofiness like Daily powers to be able to do more than that. Yes, more things than the Cleric need to be able to heal the party. No, this does not mean we need Warlords screaming at you until your head reattaches itself. Yes, classes need to have about the same amount of options. No, this doesn't mean they all have to share one unified "Deck Of Many Powers" advancement and expenditure mechanic. Yes, you shouldn't have to choose between a "narrative" power and a "combat" power. No, this doesn't mean that all "narrative" powers need to be Rituals (I also don't think they all need to be Utilities, but that's one of the quibbles I have with Essentials). Yes, fluff can solve many problems. No, it shouldn't be a crutch to use just because you have a neat mechanical trick you want to try in pushing your little collectible pieces of plastic around the game board.

But... but... I like the Warlord that reattaches my head.

Okay, admittedly i am interested in how they implement a "Essentialized" Warlord. Not sure if they are willing to give up INspiring Word, but I think Mearls might be doing just that. Leaving the same-old "Healing Surge"+X healing 2/encounter and give something that works just as well but has a better "mechanical flavor".

Also I wish that 4E had siloed combat utility powersfrom non-combat utility powers. I want more "story" powers.

 

[TarionzCousin]

But... but... I like the Warlord that reattaches my head.

Yeah, because you might want that Warlord with you when you find the Head of Vecna.