Essentials: why the hate?

[Nemesis Destiny]

I actually avoid psionic (except the monk) a lot more than I avoid essentials.

I feel the same way about it. I make a lot of characters, but I have yet to feel the desire to play a non-Monk psionic class, and found the whole psionic system much more of a jarring departure from what D&D is supposed to feel like than classes that "just spam MBAs" all day long. Heck, if you come from AD&D like I do, the Essentials classes feel more like traditional D&D than the AEDU power structure, regardless of what name they put on the individual powers.

I guess that was the whole point, and it worked.

 

[Greg K]

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."

As a DM, if I think a race (e.g., Wilden, Shardmind) or class is silly or lame, I don't make a place for it in the campaign setting . Other classes like Warlock (Infernal and Star Pact) and Vampire would not be available to the PC. Others I would only use in specific settings (Dragonborn as NPCs in Dragonlance, Warforged in Eberron)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The only time in the last 25 years that our group has played a game without self-imposed limits on character options has been when we have played a game that was just released, and thus already had a highly limited set of options. I've never run one of these games were I didn't immediately limit myself to a 1/4 to a 1/3 of the available monsters--again, assuming there are more than 10-12 monsters available to start with.

Not that this makes us dislike any particular option, inherently (though I confess to a bias against psionics and anything remotely steam-punk-ish). As far as we are concerned, more options means more to select from when we go to make our list of what we will use.

I bought a smattering of the Essentials books, and I have only one real complaint that might affect my tendency to want to use that material: I found it not simplified enough from the 4E standard to really help any with a player that doesn't get 4E, but yet still overly restricted in some cases. That is, I thought it tried to split the middle on options/complexity, and didn't strike a good balance.

But maybe that is the nature of the players in our group, who sometimes have rule trouble with strange things. Every character working the same (relatively complex) way is a huge boon in our group, because the players tend to help each other a lot, and having a common mechanical "language" aids that greatly. They had no trouble with Fantasy Hero for the same reason.

 

[Greg K]

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.

This. Although, I have known some cool gamers that I won't game with, but with whom I enjoy hanging out away from gaming table.

 

[Rechan]

As a DM, if I think a race (e.g., Wilden, Shardmind) or class is silly or lame, I don't make a place for it in the campaign setting . Other classes like Warlock (Infernal and Star Pact) and Vampire would not be available to the PC. Others I would only use in specific settings (Dragonborn as NPCs in Dragonlance, Warforged in Eberron)

Then we have very different philosophies on being a DM or playing in such a game.

 

[Greg K]

Then we have very different philosophies on being a DM or playing in such a game.

I prefer to build a campaign setting that I enjoy running (e.g., no "cantina" (primarily, human, with a few select races that don't make me groan), a world with predetermined cultures (that can limit some classes to specific cultures, religious or cultural organizations, ), world specific deities (that affect the abilities of divine characters ), no evil PCs).

Once I have the setting overview done with player notes and house rules, I find players that are interested which is never a problem, because my friends have similar tastes and trust me to run a fun game and give them a lot of freedom in the game world.

 

[Osgood]

I dont know where you are getting this, my executioner player loves her class, she is constantly doing massive amounts of damage each and every attack. Not including the use of her atwills and poisons for even more damage.

As I said, I was speaking from personal experience. I'm sure others' experiences have been different. It bears pointing out that the characters that this players compares himself to are very optimized, and there are considerably fewer optimization options for the executioner than a rogue or paladin.

We're 5th level, and while the average damage with an at-will is comparable (13 for both the executioner and paladin, 16 for the rogue), the executioner has one, perhaps two opportunities per encounter to deal roughly twice normal damage (with poison or the assassin strike). The rogue and paladin usually have three opportunities per encounter to double or (in the case of the paladin) triple their normal damage. The biggest issue for this player is the lack of encounter powers, which will only get worse as the party gains levels.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I said, I was speaking from personal experience. I'm sure others' experiences have been different. It bears pointing out that the characters that this players compares himself to are very optimized, and there are considerably fewer optimization options for the executioner than a rogue or paladin.

We're 5th level, and while the average damage with an at-will is comparable (13 for both the executioner and paladin, 16 for the rogue), the executioner has one, perhaps two opportunities per encounter to deal roughly twice normal damage (with poison or the assassin strike). The rogue and paladin usually have three opportunities per encounter to double or (in the case of the paladin) triple their normal damage. The biggest issue for this player is the lack of encounter powers, which will only get worse as the party gains levels.

The executioner is a mechanically weak striker. But seriously? A 1st level executioner with a Dex of 18 and wielding a rapier will do 2d8+4 = 13 average damage on a melee basic attack. A 1st level Rogue with, a shortsword, a Dex of 18, and a Cha of 14 will do 3d6+4+2 = 16.5 average damage on a Sly Flourish with Sneak Attack. Both with no special weapons or feats.

Neither Rogue nor Assassin are optimised in the slightest - they are doing damage equal to average first level characters there.

The Paladin's more interesting. With a Str of 18 and a two handed (d12) axe, at first level he should be doing an average of 10.5 damage per hit. A +1 weapon (as any fifth level character should have) will bring him up to 11.5. Axe Expertise for 12. And Weapon Focus for 13.

He still isn't a hard-line optimised character. Two feats and a two handed weapon is all.

Let's do a little obvious optimisation starting with a Thief.

Dex 19 (meaning 20 at level 5). Melee basic attack with shortsword is now 1d6+7. With Sneak Attack that makes 3d6+7.
+2 shortsword, Bracers of Mighty Striking (L2 common). We're up to 3d6+11 damage on a melee basic attack with combat advantage (which we should always have thanks to tactical trick).
Backstabber feat and Light Blade Expertise. d6+2d8+12 damage on a melee basic attack with CA.

I still have a feat to spare and my racial abilities (or two feats for a human) and I'm doing 24.5 average at will damage with Tactical Trick (rising to 26.5 with Acrobat's trick assuming CA). Yes, Backstab doesn't double my damage output - does it need to?

I'm also curious how the paladin gets +26 damage twice per encounter. For that matter I can think of few rogue powers that do +16 damage. And are you remembering to drop the low-hp monsters with the assassin? (It helps to think of powers like garotte strangle as encounter powers).

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Lately I've been trying to get into Maptools games primarily through the RPTools forums. I'm in one good group as a player and am about to start a new game with this group as their DM. But even amongst them, there are several people who disdain Essentials-anything.

And that's the kicker. There is a LOT of Essentials hate out there. More often than not, Essentials classes are either looked down on, or outright banned. The reasons I get told never make any logical sense or have any empirical fact behind them and seem to be purely emotional responses. This isn't restricted to Maptools games, btw, it's simply the latest in a long-line of E-hate that I've experienced and was the tipping point for making this post.

In my game, I have basically ruled out the vast majority of Essentials materials. The reason for it is that the Essentials rules appear to be trying to claw back several of the things that I actually like very much about 4th edition. I like that each class gets encounters, dailys, and at will powers at about the same rate. Finding out that the fighter from essentials is built around making basic melee attacks with modifiers rather then the at will / encounter / daily system was a deal breaker for me.

In any case, this is just a game, and the ultimate goal is to have fun. There is an emerging tradition of edition wars within D&D, so the nerd rage about Essentials you describe should not be that big a shock. Some poeple absolutely love the Essentials rules for exactly the reasons I dislike it. Some people hate 4th edition because it did not ship with Gnomes and it had Dragonborn. Some people are convinced that Arneson and Gygax got it right the first time and wont play anything past the initial D&D rulesets.

Many of us are grown men who essentially sit around pretending to be Elves for several hours. Personally I do not think any of us are in an especially strong position to criticize what other people do for entertainment, especially if the disagreement is as trivial as liking one subset of rules more than another.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Skywalker]

This is a tricky situation. I personally like Essentials but, though they are mechanically compatible with D&D4e, I have found the new presentation to be conceptually confusing for people when lumped together. So, I now run either all Essentials game PCs or all classic 4e PCs, but don't have any cross overs.

It also means that though I have bought all D&D4e releases to date, I have avoided those that have PC material lumped together like Heroes of Shadow and Neverwinter. I am happy with the Essentials PCs as presented in the Essential line and don't see the need to expand them.

This made me a little resentful of Essentials when it was first released. I like what I saw but I was disappointed that WotC essentially abandoned the previous presentation of PCs in favour if it. I am now more philsophical about it but WotC gets less of $ as a result.