Essentials' "Give Backs"

[TerraDave]

On rituals: The not anounced by WotC but not just a rumor "Class Compendium", being discussed in another thread, is suppossed to have rituals. Would expect some changes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This sounds much more to do with the amount of time/effort you've spent on the particular editions than in any difference of complexity between them. Folks who've played lots of 4e from day one can build characters from memory too. They might not know every option from every level--same as even hardcore 1e players are unlikely to recite every spell effect from memory--but they'll know enough to jot things on a character sheet and get playing sans books.

Sorry, I've played every edition except 3.x basically and I'm just going to have to totally disagree with you here. It isn't even close. 4e (and I would say 3.x in general though with the understanding that I haven't really studied it much) is VASTLY more complex than AD&D, Basic, or OD&D. I can't even comprehend how someone could come to any other conclusion with a straight face. Either you haven't played AD&D or your memory of the system has been badly clouded by time.

Late 2e STARTED to reach the levels of complexity that exist in 4e, but you could still play a dirt simple fighter. Said character could be described by class, race, level, xp, ability scores, hit points, AC, weapons, proficiencies, and not much else. It can easily fit on a single sheet of paper with a big chunk of empty space left over. Even a 2e wizard is significantly less complex than ANY 4e character, even an Essentials Slayer. The game is MUCH simpler in play too, generally speaking. Things COULD get ugly with certain types of monsters in play at higher levels but IN GENERAL it was a less complex system for players by a LOT.

 

[TerraDave]

Not to get too off topic...

4e (and I would say 3.x in general though with the understanding that I haven't really studied it much) is VASTLY more complex than AD&D, Basic, or OD&D. I can't even comprehend how someone could come to any other conclusion with a straight face. Either you haven't played AD&D or your memory of the system has been badly clouded by time.

Attacking "you" now are we?

By the book, unsupplemented (undragoned?) B/X, white box, and AD&D might, overal, might, be simpler, and can certainly play faster most of the time, BUT

The core rules of 4E are much simpler then AD&D (or supplemented OD&D) as written (not nec. as played, but as written). Sure, your fighter might be simple on paper, but what if he tries to overbear or grapple, or gets attacked psionically, or has tied initiative? And all those subsystems and special cases. I can still pick up the DMG and find obscure rules I didn't know about when I actually used it.

Complexity in 4E comes from too many options (obviously you win that argument) and the power system. But I still find the power system more DM and player friendly then the classic spell system. I remember trying to adjudicate wonkier spells (and magic items). I had headaches and game stoppages much worse then in 4E.

 

[Festivus]

@ 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.

I have offered to run a Essentials 4E game for my friends who really like Pathfinder... no response was the reaction from them. So yeah, I suspect my friends are people who REALLY like pathfinder and aren't even interested in any other game right now. Which is fine, Pathfinder is a good game, just not my personal favorite.

I like the "Advanced, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons", that really fits it well.

I remember OD&D/AD&D days... I have a three ring binder stuffed full of my own house rules. It was FAR more complex than anything modern. Perhaps I made it so, but otherwise my friends would bark that I keep changing the rules on them, and portability of characters from one game to the next just didn't happen.

As for speed of combat... I just don't see it all the time. Sure, some fights bog down, but they are few and easier to spot with experience (e.g. don't put monsters that weaken alongside monsters that are incorporeal and regenerate... or whatever). Rules familiarity, knowing your characters abilities and team capabilities really help with speed of fights. Particularly with essentials getting rid of some of the stuff that tended to slow down fights (hey, that guy has condition x, y and Z on him, plus I have him marked) are all gone now. I have been in Pathfinder fights that lasted for 3 hours... trust me, it can happen in any game. In my experience, long drawn out fights are the fault of the DM or the adventure designer, not the game itself.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You say that in jest but I could literally almost dictate word for word the content of the 1e PHB from memory, lol. There are a few of those numbers I'm not 100% sure about, BUT I HAVEN'T PLAYED 1e IN 20 YEARS at this point and I can still write up a character sheet pretty much from memory. It was a LOT simpler. Thieves have from memory Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Remove Traps, Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and Climb Walls.

Nothing like enough. I need numbers not just random names. In order to back things up, I need the information you actually need on your character sheet. Your saves (I can do those with any starting class I know at all) and the percentage chance to climb walls, pick pockets, open locks, read languages, etc. Otherwise you don't have your character sheet.

Level 1 fighter hits AC 9 on an 11 (well, actually all classes do at level 1 they're all the same).

And I'll match that with 4e.

I can go on. Back when that was our primary system I absolutely could give you the numbers for all classes at all levels for all that stuff. I could give you MU's chance to know spell and min/max spells known values for every INT score as well. % spell failure and bonus spells for clerics by INT, all the ability score mods for all scores, etc. It really wasn't that hard. I can still probably tell you the stats for every weapon and armor type and most magic items as well.

Exactly. You put a massive amount of time and work into the game. Of course it's easier for you. But this is not doable by most people without spell books.

Sure, you can click on "take the defaults", make a few selections that doesn't cover and switch a power around, you won't be figuring out your character's best choices based on desired feat and power progression, etc.

So what you are saying is that I won't have a character that will be the envy of the Character Optimisation forum? Feat progression is limited - 4e isn't 3e where most of the good feats have pre-requisites of other feats. And power progression really isn't an issue. Just pick a power that fits at each level from the good list. And the character in question is my Warlord - a slightly off-beat build (a cold blooded bravura warlord who waits before acting) and if not the most powerful PC in the party, he's close and the most powerful is a nice custom crafted hybrid with an absurd static damage modifier (and as strong as anything on the Character Optimisation forums).

I mean basically you have a pre-gen.

Are you trying to be insulting? If he was a pregen it was only in that I didn't count the time to write his background down.

I am relatively certain the equivalent code in the 4e CB is around 100x bigger than that.

Almost certainly. But this doesn't mean that the parts someone needs to interface with are any bigger. In 1e/2e with splatbooks, you have a massive number of first level wizard spells. In 4e you have many more first level powers - but fewer first level wizard powers. And what they do is much more transparent. Even if there were the same number, the categorisation reduces the overload.

I'm not bashing 4e at all, but I think that they came up with a great core design and then they messed up in a few relatively small areas. Unfortunately those areas have a big impact on the appeal of the game.

I think what you forget is how clunky, unwieldy, and downright bloated 1e itself was. I can do all a 4e character's defensive numbers in my head. 1e, you ducked my challenge. Do a 1e character's saving throws without the book. For any class. And the level of the thief's starting skills.

There are simply WAY too many feats and powers in 4e. They should have been MUCH more careful about minimizing the numbers of slight variations of things and designing each one so it had maximum utility for the most use cases vs making 10 very similar things.

Feats, yes. Particularly the fool conditional damage modifiers.

Powers should have stuck with a much smaller set of variations of buffs and debuffs and such and been more individually distinct.

Powers should have less variation but be more distinct...

I mean, it is great to have options of all kinds. The problem is at a certain point option bloat just kills your system for the players. Nobody can really comprehend all of what is available now in CB and no group in 100 years of play could even come close to using the vast majority of it.

So? Enough people will want enough parts of it.

THAT more than any other thing IMHO is the reason for the existence of Essentials. It is a great idea. Put out a bounded subset of the system that will never grow out of control because it is always just basically 5 small books.

And this is a good plan.

Most groups never need more. They will be happy with that.

The popularity of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons tells me that people will want all the options possible. What was wrong with D&D that you needed AD&D?

 

[SabreCat]

Sorry, I've played every edition except 3.x basically and I'm just going to have to totally disagree with you here.

Er? You disagree that an experienced 4e player can create a character without her books? Is that a challenge or something?

I've only played a little bit of the older editions of D&D. I don't know if they're more or less complex than 4e. My point was that your assertion that you could create a character without your books sounded like it compared a master of one edition vs. a new or moderately experienced player of another edition. That doesn't support your argument.

 

[TerraDave]

The druid preview just up seems to be a clear compramise between keeping things simple enough--for essentials--translating things into 4E terms, but still keeping a lot of the traditional druid class.

Though I would be surprised if "restore life" could reincarnate you into a kobold...or a badger.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Encounters, Encounters, Encounters, Encounters.

I've been encouraging 4E haters to try just one session of the current season of D&D encounters.

In two hours you get to experience much of what 4E post-Essentials has to offer.

Granted, a bad DM might turn it into a boring combat. But you should experience role-playing, combat, probably a skill challenge (almost certainly **will** encounter a skill challenge if you're at my table), and character creation if you don't use one of the pregens.

 

[TerraDave]

And here I was hoping that you would advocate reincarnating into a badger.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Er? You disagree that an experienced 4e player can create a character without her books? Is that a challenge or something?

It's just an example of someone trying to start yet another edition war. The comparison of pre-4E to 4E anything has absolutely no place here. My recommendation is to ignore all the posts by AbdulAlhazred in this thread. Just look how riled up Neonchameleon got.