Essentials: why the hate?

[D'karr]

Yes the essentials feats are very very strong. I can imagine players wanting to snag them.

I think the essentials feats were designed with the idea of "correcting" a lot of the previous feats and the associated feat taxes. Master at Arms is a good example of such. It is "essentially" (no pun) Expertise+, and it works very well in that role. Expertise was not a feat I ever even considered to use, but I have two characters that have chosen Master at Arms, not for the expertise bonus but because of the weapon swap.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the essentials feats were designed with the idea of "correcting" a lot of the previous feats and the associated feat taxes. Master at Arms is a good example of such. It is "essentially" (no pun) Expertise+, and it works very well in that role. Expertise was not a feat I ever even considered to use, but I have two characters that have chosen Master at Arms, not for the expertise bonus but because of the weapon swap.

Yeah, I agree. The feats they replaced were basically all stuff nobody was going to pass up taking and gave you nothing but a boring static bonus. One can argue that there's a power creep thing going on here. OTOH at least nowadays you get something WORTH a feat for your feat slot now besides some bonus you shouldn't have had to pay a feat for in the 1st place.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think the essentials feats were designed with the idea of "correcting" a lot of the previous feats and the associated feat taxes. Master at Arms is a good example of such. It is "essentially" (no pun) Expertise+, and it works very well in that role. Expertise was not a feat I ever even considered to use, but I have two characters that have chosen Master at Arms, not for the expertise bonus but because of the weapon swap.

Yeah, I feel the same. I never would have taken the boring old +1 at 5/15/25 feats, but now that they offer carrots, I have occasionally taken them for the "other" benefit.

Yeah, I agree. The feats they replaced were basically all stuff nobody was going to pass up taking and gave you nothing but a boring static bonus. One can argue that there's a power creep thing going on here. OTOH at least nowadays you get something WORTH a feat for your feat slot now besides some bonus you shouldn't have had to pay a feat for in the 1st place.

There is a little bit of power creep, but the lion's share of the creep happened when expertise got introduced in the first place. Though I think a good argument could be made for keeping the bonus increments at 5/15/25.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is one of the reasons why I'm liking E-classes a lot. Whether factually accurate or not, I *FEEL* like the E-classes are just more like previous editions classes. When playing them, the thief FEELS like a thief, the mage FEELS like a mage, etc. I never get that sense with AEDU classes.

True. 4e achieved much greater class balance than prior eds, and came a lot closer to some sort of parity between casters and non-casters. That inevitably changed the 'feel' of them. The 4e Rogue doesn't feel useless and overshadowed the way the AD&D Theif did - he doesn't start his career able to do little but climb walls and launch sling stones, nor does he find that by the time he can 'hide in shadows' half the time, the magic-user can simply be invisible all day. The 4e Cleric or Druid doesn't feel like CoDzilla stomping through Tokyo.

4e was different. Essentials is less different.

By 'different' of course, I mean 'better.'

Thus, the apeal - and the hate.

I'm not saying that AEDU classes are bad because of this, just that they're much different in how they play at the table (to me) than how an E-class plays and that, on the whole, I prefer the E-class experience because of that nostalgia hit I get.

Nostalgia is fun and all, but couldn't you get as good or better a nostalgia hit from playing an older edition? I mean, paleo-gaming is fun precisely because of the nostalgia of playing the old game 'warts and all' - fond memories aren't all of things that went well, the craziness of a wildly-overpowered old character or whacked 'murphys rule' can be a source of amusement, too - but why aflict the latest-and-greatest with such things?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the thing is something like "the feel of a mage" is precisely defined by what an AD&D (or whatever edition) mage did. Nostalgia is fine. OTOH the idea that every new edition has to feel exactly like the one that is fondly remember is just not that interesting to me. The 4e characters made with the 4e classes have their OWN unique feel and are interesting in their own right. Play 4e to play 4e. It has no need to provide the feel of some game that it isn't and never will be nor was ever intended to be. Play it and enjoy it (or not). People who are trying to change it to be like something else? I just don't get it at all.

 

[TerraDave]

I never did hate essentials, I WTF essentials. And in hindsight, still do.

But this was about positioning, presentation, etc. Basically saying they were one thing here, and another thing there, when they were really something else entirely. I also say this as a DM...

Now, my players that have the online CB have access to essentials material, but don't use much of it. The PHB I still reigns supreme in practice. Long live the PHB I. One key exception are some feats that the offline CB users don't have (easy) access to. Its an issue, but a pretty minor one.

Like I said, no hate. Just WTF.

 

[Rechan]

What surprises me is the banning.

See, I can understand: "Because E-classes have limited options, I dislike them therefore I shall not play them."

But what I don't understand is, "You shouldn't be allowed to play them (i.e. banning) because they have few options."

Why would you say someone can't play something they like because it's mechanically limited? If they want that, that's their choice isn't it?

I mean I dislike certain AEDU classes - for various reasons. That one is weak. That one's mechanics are wonky (for instance I think the Battlemind is a poor defender). That one is silly. But that's why I won't play them. I think it's an extra step to say "Because I think that class's mechanics are weak or unfun to play, YOU can't play it."

 

[Kzach]

Nostalgia is fun and all, but couldn't you get as good or better a nostalgia hit from playing an older edition? I mean, paleo-gaming is fun precisely because of the nostalgia of playing the old game 'warts and all' - fond memories aren't all of things that went well, the craziness of a wildly-overpowered old character or whacked 'murphys rule' can be a source of amusement, too - but why aflict the latest-and-greatest with such things?

Oh hell no. I hate 1e, 2e and 3e.

Since day one of picking up 1e/2e, I was looking for ways to 'fix' it. I was never, ever, satisfied with the results. 3e came along and I thought it was heaven-sent because it addressed all the problems I thought AD&D had; yet it, IMO, jumped the shark and I eventually gave up on it as well.

I still try to fix 4e, but yet even using 100% strict rules-as-written, I still enjoy both DM'ing and playing 4e games to about 90%. There is a niggling 10% of annoyance with the quirks of the rules but that's the highest percentage of enjoyment I've ever gotten out of any edition of D&D. 1e/2e was, for me, about 70% and 3e was about 20%. So for me personally, 4e is the best edition of D&D to date.

So if E-classes give me a sense of nostalgia AND I enjoy playing them more than their AD&D counterparts, why the hell would I play AD&D?

Why would you say someone can't play something they like because it's mechanically limited?

Who knows? All I know is that the motivation for posting this thread was a particular group that knocked me back for wanting to play a drow fey pact hexblade. I could've easily just played an AEDU class but the whole notion of not being allowed to join a group based on wanting to play an E-class bugged me to the point where I put the recruiter on ignore and decided I didn't want to be part of such a group.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I put the recruiter on ignore and decided I didn't want to be part of such a group.

Historically, I have 2 reactions to that kind of situation.

1) I play something else- I've literally thousands of PCs on paper, and more bubbling up in my mind, so it's not that big a deal.

2) I don't participate in that group, as you chose. That kind of attitude, if prevalent, could indicate that they're not a group I'd be comfy with.

And which actually happens is extremely fact dependent. I've enjoyed playing in groups where they banned core stuff like Monks and Paladins (in a variety of editions), but I knew the game was going to be a good one. The trick is reading the gamers you'd potentially be gaming with. Cool group = cool games, regardless of restrictions.

 

[keterys]

I actually avoid psionic (except the monk) a lot more than I avoid essentials. There are Essentials classes I wouldn't play, sure - Slayer, in particular, and I'd never choose to play a Knight or Cavalier over a Fighter or Paladin either... but I would play a Mage, Sentinel, Warpriest, Blackguard, Executioner, Thief, Scout, etc... even if I haven't gotten around to all of those, and might restrict that decision to a Heroic only game.