Essentials Line and HS series: It appears WoTC really is listening.

[Stormonu]

I just bought HS1 Slaying Stone this afternoon, as I'm considering doing (another) stab at 4E with essentials line coming up.

I see the adventure has some good ideas and it strikes me as a heck of a lot better than Shadowfell. It looks like it's got several interesting encounters, but the adventure layout has me pretty confused - it's certainly not the best layout I've run across for conveying the overall story.

My only beef with the adventure (and it's pretty small) is:
[sblock]
I still don't really understand why Treona wants the stone destroyed, rather than just removed - or use it to try and clean out/recapture Kiris Dahn from the humanoids. Destroying it just seems an arbitrary way to keep it out of PCs hands for the long haul or as a mcguffin to kick off the quest.

Also, the opening "here's how you get the quest" is pretty lame. I think I'd rather use "Treona has summoned you to this tower for a quest she wants you to undertake - oh, and by the way Dreus sents these wolves to stop/delay you" instead of "Hi, I'm Treona and after I saw how you folks who I have never met before handled that wolf ambush I think I can trust you to recover this powerful artifact for me..."
[/sblock]

Reading through it, my initial impression it does still suffer from "too many fights" syndrome, but we'll see how it goes.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

I'll be making a full review on my blog on the new Tomb of Horrors, but it also is indicating a substantial change on adventures from WotC.

It's got roleplaing, it's got exploration, it still has cool encounters, it has combat encounters you can avoid, it has puzzles. It has easy encounters, it has nearly impossible encounters, it has encounters you can end quickly.

I haven't taken a look at these shorter adventures, or at any DDI adventures lately either so I don't know how that applies to those.

But with the MM3 damage adjustments, I'm starting to get pretty happy.

Now if we can just solve the combat length issue...

 

[IronWolf]

One of the big appeals to me of 4e was everyone going to a same baseline complexity for classes. Varying complexity is a deal-killer for me. I could just play a 3.x game.

I've liked varying complexity amongst classes. It sort of leaves something for everyone allowing some to play a more complex class than others helping cater to varying degrees of experience with the game.

I'll be making a full review on my blog on the new Tomb of Horrors, but it also is indicating a substantial change on adventures from WotC.

It's got roleplaing, it's got exploration, it still has cool encounters, it has combat encounters you can avoid, it has puzzles. It has easy encounters, it has nearly impossible encounters, it has encounters you can end quickly.

This is good to hear. I don't play 4e, but the more sources I have for adventures and such is a good thing. Variety is nice.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I've liked varying complexity amongst classes. It sort of leaves something for everyone allowing some to play a more complex class than others helping cater to varying degrees of experience with the game.

That's the theory.

Of course it means that if someone wants to play the more complicated class but doesn't want to play the extra resource management game, then they're left out in the cold. Yes it's classic and always been that way. It used to be the wizard was the more complicated one. Moving forward, I've got no idea, other than the fact that some of use are being told, "You don't deserve to play [this class] because you don't want to put in the extra work." That's why it was so nice and refreshing that 4e briefly stepped away from it. And now it's back.

Like I said, I know I'm not in the majority here and everyone else thinks it's the greatest thing. To me, it's just a step backwards to what 4e was getting away from originally. At this point, it doesn't matter. It's a done deal. Folks like me are enough in the minority that it doesn't matter if we don't buy any more new product. *shrug* No biggie. I've got everything pre-Essentials to pick from. The OP simply asked for folks opinions, so I offered up a minority one.

 

[Stormonu]

I'll be making a full review on my blog on the new Tomb of Horrors, but it also is indicating a substantial change on adventures from WotC.

It's got roleplaing, it's got exploration, it still has cool encounters, it has combat encounters you can avoid, it has puzzles. It has easy encounters, it has nearly impossible encounters, it has encounters you can end quickly.

Glancing through it a the book store, I almost picked it up*. From a quick glance-through, it had a lot that interested me, including throw-backs not only to the original Tomb of Horrors, but to Return to Tomb of Horrors as well. Plenty of new, wicked content that, from the pictures, would fit right into a modern continuation of the old adventure. I did not, however, appreciate their treatment of the original tomb in the book - it was incredibly dismissive, and I hope it was for space concerns (and hope they will expand it with a web supplement to flesh it out in a 4E-meets-1E fashion).

* The only reason I didn't was because I don't have a group of characters at that level. Well, actually, I don't have a 4E group at all, really. Though I'm willing to try 4E again (for the 3rd time).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Glancing through it a the book store, I almost picked it up*. From a quick glance-through, it had a lot that interested me, including throw-backs not only to the original Tomb of Horrors, but to Return to Tomb of Horrors as well. Plenty of new, wicked content that, from the pictures, would fit right into a modern continuation of the old adventure. I did not, however, appreciate their treatment of the original tomb in the book - it was incredibly dismissive, and I hope it was for space concerns (and hope they will expand it with a web supplement to flesh it out in a 4E-meets-1E fashion).

* The only reason I didn't was because I don't have a group of characters at that level. Well, actually, I don't have a 4E group at all, really. Though I'm willing to try 4E again (for the 3rd time).

The original Tomb has been re-issued as an RPGA award to DM (just got my copy this week) and so is unlikely on current form to be published for sale.

 

[Stormonu]

The original Tomb has been re-issued as an RPGA award to DM (just got my copy this week) and so is unlikely on current form to be published for sale.

Doh! Well, that's pretty awesome at least.

 

[FireLance]

Of course it means that if someone wants to play the more complicated class but doesn't want to play the extra resource management game, then they're left out in the cold.

What makes it okay for me is that the "baseline" level of complexity for each class will always be available (in the various PHs and DDI, if not necessarily in the Essentials line). The variant levels of complexity for those who want simpler or more complicated characters of a particular class will be exactly that: variants.

 

[Dykstrav]

I got Tomb of Horrors at my FLGS yesterday. I haven't had much of a chance to read through it yet, but one thing I already dig immensely is a sidebar in the beginning, called "Step and Die." It basically tells you how to make the content more lethal if you want the old-school 1E feel. Things like increasing trap damage or reducing the number of death saves that you can fail before you die. Good stuff.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moved to 4e forum.

Cheers