D&D 5E Essentials: More like 3.9e than 4.5e (link inside)

[Dedekind]

It seemed to me that choosing powers currently allows a player some control over the complexity of their character. I can certainly remember trying to decide between a power that was straightforward and one that was complex. By straightforward, I mean you can use it most anytime and its effects are easy to understand. By complex, I mean that it was better under certain conditions that you might have to work to bring about and the effects may be conditional on other things.

So, a player has some control already, though it seems that Essentials makes it all more explicit.

 

[SkidAce]

So now you can choose to either fine tune tweak your guy old style, or let WoTC do a lot of the work New Style.

or 3rd option...use simpler options from old style...you can get the same result as New Style (and we always could).

You dont have to fine tune basic 4th edition, pick stuff with a theme and go to town! (sure you could tweak it for synergy etc...but you didnt have too)

win/win/win!

 

[erf_beto]

It seemed to me that choosing powers currently allows a player some control over the complexity of their character. I can certainly remember trying to decide between a power that was straightforward and one that was complex. By straightforward, I mean you can use it most anytime and its effects are easy to understand. By complex, I mean that it was better under certain conditions that you might have to work to bring about and the effects may be conditional on other things.

So, a player has some control already, though it seems that Essentials makes it all more explicit.

True, but like they said, it's hard to adjucate which is better: "2d6 dmg + prone" or "1d4 dmg + dazed (save ends)", specially when you don't even know which dice is which. It's actually worse, because you have many more powers to compare...

In fact, my favorite line on the article is the one telling that people instinctvely know that a two hander means better offense, and a sword-and-board means better defense. These are the choices a newbie should answer when creating a character.

The overriding goal for the Essentials character designs was simple: Create character classes with easy-to-understand decision points. A new player might not understand the difference between an attack that dazes and one that knocks an opponent prone. It takes some experience with the game, or an appetite for a more complex or nuanced character, to make such differences appealing to beginners. On the other hand, decisions with obvious contrasts are much easier to grasp and make. Even if you have never played the Dungeons & Dragons game before, you understand the difference between fighting with a sword and shield or opting for using a two-handed axe. One provides better defense, the other better offense. A new player can draw on a basic knowledge built from watching movies, playing videogames, and reading novels to grasp that difference.

------------------

EDIT: I don't know if anyone else noticed, but I think we have the name of an Essential Rogue build, just click on the pictures, here:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Home (Dungeons & Dragons Novel Line)
And me likez it a lot.

 

[outsider]

"Rules mastery" is not, AFAICT, code for "Now all wizards will be more fun than all fighters

For some of us, rules mastery = fun. Thus, saying "we want to make wizards more complicated than fighters again" actually is code for "now all wizards will be more fun than all fighters" to people like me.

Reading this article again while I'm a bit less ticked off, I kindof see where they are going. They are just making noob builds for a bunch of classes. It would be nice if they would actually call these builds, instead of classes. If they had have said "we want there to be less complex builds for each class" rather than "we want some classes to be more complicated than others", their intent would be alot more clear.

I still don't think it's a good idea. I didn't think the psionic mechanics were a good idea either. All characters should be structured in roughly the same way. Will the noob builds be valuable enough to justify the change? My experience suggests probably not, but the sample of players I've played with over the years is pretty heavily biased towards powergamers. Maybe there really are enough "I don't want to think, I just want to roll dice" players out there to justify it. Personally, if I was new to the game and had one of these characters pushed onto me, I'd probably recognize the difference pretty quick(first time I ever played D&D I immediately noticed the complexity difference between the fighter and the mage), and be insulted enough by the suggestion that I couldn't handle a more complex character that I wouldn't play with that group again.

 

[mkill]

For some of us, rules mastery = fun. Thus, saying "we want to make wizards more complicated than fighters again" actually is code for "now all wizards will be more fun than all fighters" to people like me.

You're not the target audience of the Essentials line, and I think the devs made this very obvious.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I really like the idea of what wizards is doing with their rules revision. I, as a fan of 4e (and 3.5, and 2, and ... ...) wanted a revised set of rules anyway. I knew when I started seeing the power model change slightly with each new PHB that Wizards was figuring out how to properly use their class system, and needed to go back and refine the PHB 1 classes to adopt the options that the newer classes built up.
The essentials line are just the revision I was looking for. A fresh look at the errata'd rules with the newer options presented with them.
I look forward to seeing what actually comes out, and I hope my best friend and 3.5 hard-core "I won't try 4e ever" player will give it a shot with the new options and rules.

Thank you WoTC, for listening to your fans, and bringing new, fun stuff to an already awesome and fun game! Keep up the good work!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Bands are good... wagons are good... How can the two be negative when put together?

Well, but we are speaking figuratively, e.g. imaginary here.

So (good * i) * (good * i) = - good.

Linguistic math can be hard.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't play 4E, but from the releases about Essentials I've read, it sounds pretty good.

Easier character build for both new players, and older players that haven't played for a while or played 4E at all (those that prefer a simpler style or may not have the time for more detailed building). May bring in some other customers that 4E initially didn't. - Win for WotC and players.

Expanded information and mechanics that can be mixed and matched with older builds without upsetting the balance of the game... - Win for current players.

Creating new products for 4E that keep the game evolving, current, and on consumers radar...thus generating income... - Win for WotC.

Game night with your friends - Priceless. (sorry, couldn't help it...)


Sounds like a good thing all around.

Hell, if I had the extra money right now, I'd probably pick them up just to plunder for ideas.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, the REAL test will be making the magic-items worth giving a damn about!

 

[Insight]

I wouldn't be entirely surprised... but, on the other hand, it might just be better explained. I'm not so worried about giving the DM slightly more complex actions to adjudicate, especially if there's a note in the text explaining how it works. A new player really doesn't need the complexity, though.

Cheers!

That's one thing the Essentials line could do would be to better explain to DMs how to use monsters (tactics, powers, roles, etc). New DMs could sure use the advice.