Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 5315826" data-attributes="member: 7635">So I've done a lot of thinking, and reading, about Essentials. While a lot of people have screamed "4.5" around here and elsewhere, I finally realized why it wasn't. Its Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal sets, redux; BECMI 2.0.BECMI was its own sub-game of D&D built on the same premise but easier to use and less complex. It was a complete game in-and-of itself; using just the box-sets you had all the spells, magic items, and monsters to go from levels 1 to 36. It focused on the classics (fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling, human) but as it developed added its own unique twists (many of the odd monsters of D&D get their birth in Basic). The game was even cross compatible with AD&D to a degree; modules spells or magic items worked from one system to the other (monsters needed a bit more work, and PCs needed a lot of converting). Essentials recaptures a lot of that. Its self-contained (you don't need the PHB/DMG/MM to play), it focuses on the classics and its less complex than the "Core". The core difference between BECMI and Essentials is that the latter was built with compatibility in mind (it runs on the same chasis as regular 4e) and thus there is a lot less converting than BD&D -> AD&D. Now, the core 4e experience will change at bit to reflect the Essentials "errata" (like melee weapon training or magic missile), the price of the inter-compatibility. However, Essentials could literally be the next "Basic" D&D set for those not interested in the complexities of regular 4e and eventually supported like BECMI was, with the added benefit of being compatible with regular 4e games if people so chose.Best of both worlds.</blockquote>

Verification