D&D 4E Essentials isn't 4.5e, but is 4e as we know it over?

[Terramotus]

So, reading over the Ampersand preview, this one paragraph stuck out at me, particularly the part I've bolded:

The Future

We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out. It’s important to remember, however, that we specifically built this to maintain compatibility with material that came before. A knight can select fighter feats and utility powers from any source, and the same is true for all of the other classes. The Essentials products allow us to roll out new approaches within the scope of the current game, not force you to buy new books and abandon your old ones.

That's very troubling, as this whole Essentials line seems like a pretty radical departure from the existing 4e class structure, and it gives lie to the idea that Essentials is the "beginners" version and regular 4e is AD&D. It also makes sense given the lack of "traditional" 4e product that's coming down the pipe. And it's rather frustrating.

I was one of the guys that was on board with 4e from the beginning. I love the powers for the martial classes, and, in fact, I thought that the Book of Nine Swords was the best thing that ever happened to 3.5e. I agreed with almost all of the self-criticisms they gave of 3.5e and was ready to make the change. Now it seems that many of those design elements are being shoved aside to make room for Essentials.

I'm not interested in simplified classes. I understand they intend to maintain compatibility going forward, but we all know that such compatibility becomes increasingly clunky as time goes on with the new direction. I know they've said that Essentials isn't 4.5. That's fine, if they don't want brand it that way. But honestly, 3.5 was just rule changes, but design-wise it was more of the same. Essentials seems more fundamental than that.

I understand that the game moves forward, and that you have to choose if you're going to continue to move with it. I hope this post doesn't start any kind of flamewars. I guess to sum things up I'll say, Damn, I expected more than 2 years.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think the main thing they are talking about its the rigid At-will, encounter, dialy, utility structure of the classes. They already broke out of that with Psionics, and seem to be thinking of doing it more

One thing I think it intersesting is having wizards do more encounters, maybe too many ofr a single fight, allowing htem mroe choice, but also more flexibility later in fights.

I would also like to see controllers guaranteed some dmage, like from miss effects on encounters, giving them a stronger niche.

But you re doing a lot of speculating with few facts.

 

[fanboy2000]

Dice, I think your right. I think the best criticism leveled at 4e is the ridged at-will/encounter/daily structor. It's also a criticism that can be addressed without changing existing classes.

 

[Dungeoneer]

PHB3 was a pretty big departure from the existing structure. And really, PHB2 before it. And don't forget that each Monster Manual has included a change to the monster formula.

4e is one big departure from existing structures.

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, I really love 4e's "every PCs have the same amount of resources and thus rest in the same timing" structure. Before 4e, a party took a rest when a PC with the fewest resources (usually the fewer spell slots) used up all of his tricks for the day, even if other PCs still have plentiful of spell slots and HPs.

But at the same time, I somewhat miss "classes for lazy people". Some players do love using simpler PC. And I want such a class when I invite a player who is not so good at handling complex rules or vast resources.

As long as the new class (or build option) can do well with existing classes, say, having relatively the same level of strength and having relatively the same frequency to need a rest, simpler PC options will be a good addition. But I will wait to say more until actually seeing those new PCs.

By the way, regarding BoNS. I do not think that was a good thing happened to 3.5e. The book was a good testbed for new D&D (ie. 4e). But did not work well as a part of 3.5e. And also, poorly play-tested.

 

[Dice4Hire]

PHB3 was a pretty big departure from the existing structure. And really, PHB2 before it. And don't forget that each Monster Manual has included a change to the monster formula.

4e is one big departure from existing structures.

My first post got eaten, so a summary this time.

I thin the MM stuff is more the designers learning the game than actual changes to the system overall. Sure the changes are large, but if the MMI was written today, it owuld be a lot different, and deeper, I guess I could say.

I think we need to keep a seperation between development and actual changes to the gmae system. Having level 20+ at wills is a change to the game system, upping monster dmaage is development.

though I am sure everyone who disagrees will post momentarily.

 

[Obryn]

I think we'll really have to stick around and see what actually comes out before we start fretting overmuch about it.

I'm pretty comfortable with the following facts, taken together...

(1) 95% of all the classes I could want have been released already, in their full, non-Essential glory. We're reaching the long tail of classes, with only really a Necromancer of some sort left as a main trope.
(2) New Powers released for Essentials classes will remain compatible with the existing classes, so the existing classes will get plenty of support without getting outdated.

The only way in which I'll "have" to work with an Essential version of a class will be with a brand, new one. The real indicator will be Heroes of Shadow. I'm pretty sure that will be full of Essentials-style classes, but I also can't say I'm too concerned by it.

I don't think this is anywhere near the sea change that 3.5 was. We're not seeing any hints of straight-up replacements so far. (Now, if the Essentials classes are simply better than the existing ones, they will, effectively, be replacements, whether or not WotC decides to call them that. IMO, we still need to wait and see if that's the case.)

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, IIRC originally WOTC said that the essentials line would represent most all of their focus for the last quarter of 2010 and that 2011 would bring more "regular" 4E product offerings back to the release schedule.

Based on the quoted blurb this doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

The biggest concern will not be one of compatibility but relative viability with the new material. If the new classes are largely better in every way then the fact that they are fully compatible with the old is meaningless.

When the 1E UA came out and introduced weapon specialization for fighters it was still possible to create one and not specialize. If the rules were being used how many took that option?

I suppose once we see the actual final versions of all the classes it will become clear fairly quickly whether essentials has effectively replaced standard 4E or merely supplemented it.

 

[Scribble]

The biggest concern will not be one of compatibility but relative viability with the new material. If the new classes are largely better in every way then the fact that they are fully compatible with the old is meaningless.

When the 1E UA came out and introduced weapon specialization for fighters it was still possible to create one and not specialize. If the rules were being used how many took that option?

I suppose once we see the actual final versions of all the classes it will become clear fairly quickly whether essentials has effectively replaced standard 4E or merely supplemented it.

I think an important difference to think about though is what you mean by "better."

If you mean better in the sense that the new classes will be more powerful, that's one thing.

That I think would be a problem. Like the "must have" feats if the class is better, they effectively replace the old versions.

If you mean better as in "more fun" that to me is an entirely different ball game.

It doesn't speak to any idea of "new edition," it just means a new design idea for the edition was well received.

If I can play an old character and an essentials character in the same party and the two are roughly balanced the same, then I'm happy.

That just means more options for players!


So far it looks like the later option. The essential Cleric just seems kind of like someone else who knew more about character building was building your character for you, and only every now and then asked you for some thematic input.

 

[webrunner]

As long as this 'new class design' doesn't mean that in the future we won't have any classes remotely like classic classes, or that new feats/powers/etc aren't pointed directly to the new classes - ie, half the powers in the average X Power book only really work with the new builds in teh book.. if all the new powers only work with Knights, (or are substandard with Fighters), then really, Fighter is dead.


Also, I don't understand why they don't have a Martial Controller yet.. "Trapper" or "Gadgeteer" would be completely obvious for it.