Essentials: why the hate?

[keterys]

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.

Did you have the same problem with PH3 (Psionic classes)?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Yeah, I just don't get the whole banning PLAYERS from choosing what class to play based on its mechanics. If I want to play a slayer I don't even get where the DM has a stake in that decision at all, unless there's some really broken rules issue going on, which isn't the case at all with any 4e class.

I mean, races, and classes in terms of world concept, yeah I can see a group deciding only a subset is going to be used in a given setting. I can see the players deciding collectively they don't want to bother with certain material for whatever reason. The DM saying "Oh, I just don't enjoy class X or book Y, so you can't use it in my game", bah, humbug. As with the OP, I'd just go find another group to play with. It seems dickish to me and smacks of people who can't separate their own personal preferences from what other people at the table like or want to play with. I mean really, you're going to tell me I HAVE to play some other fighter subclass and can't play the slayer I happen to like? It isn't as if it matters to the story, you're going to impose Weaponmaster on me instead is all.

There are IMHO boundaries to what DM taste gets to decide, and personally as a player I draw that line at what class I'm going to use to build my concept, that's a player choice and DM has no business butting into that without a rules based argument that it won't work right or will somehow break the setting concept. Otherwise keep to your own lawn! lol.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, I just don't get the whole banning PLAYERS from choosing what class to play based on its mechanics. If I want to play a slayer I don't even get where the DM has a stake in that decision at all, unless there's some really broken rules issue going on, which isn't the case at all with any 4e class.

I'd argue it is the case with paragon and epic psionic classes. And it's definitely the case with some hybrids.

But with those exceptions I agree with you. As far as possible let the players have control over the implementation.

 

[Osgood]

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).

The paladin wields a fullblade. I can't recall the power names, but both dailies are 4[W] powers, and one encounter is 3[W] while the other is 1[W] in close burst 1. I don't know the rogue's powers, I just have stats from a couple of sessions where we tracked everyone's damage output for giggles.

Alas in months of play, the executioner has yet to get a monster under 10 hp... it's actually become a running joke as the player asks after every single hit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The paladin wields a fullblade. I can't recall the power names, but both dailies are 4[W] powers, and one encounter is 3[W] while the other is 1[W] in close burst 1. I don't know the rogue's powers, I just have stats from a couple of sessions where we tracked everyone's damage output for giggles.

Alas in months of play, the executioner has yet to get a monster under 10 hp... it's actually become a running joke as the player asks after every single hit.

Ah. Striker Paladin. Still shouldn't quite be trebling damage like that.

But could you post the Executioner's build please? (Character builder summary if you have it). Because if his average damage is as low as 13, he's doing something weird. Or just very, very unlucky. A Melee Basic Attack with Dex 18, a +1 weapon, and a level 2 common item should do an average of 16 damage. Also, how does he like to play his character? Executioners are tricky to play well and are generally underpowered, and I'd suggest a respec.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd argue it is the case with paragon and epic psionic classes. And it's definitely the case with some hybrids.

But with those exceptions I agree with you. As far as possible let the players have control over the implementation.

Yeah, and just to say personally as a player I'm not all that wrapped up in getting my way either. I mean it is easy enough for the DM to say "psionics, that's weird and doesn't fit!" and my answer would be "oh, yeah, cool, I'll play something else" and same for whatever. I just can't get with the whole ESSENTIALS is bad or X other splat book or whatever is bad. Of course if the DM really feels like a certain class or other option is plain OP or something, well, again I am not that picky. I just don't think you can level such charges against Essentials as a whole, or really even specific parts of it to any degree.

 

[Jack99]

Alas in months of play, the executioner has yet to get a monster under 10 hp... it's actually become a running joke as the player asks after every single hit.

might just be anecdotal. The executioner in my campaign triggered it several times per session for several levels, until he died.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I triggered it 3-4 times in the one session I played an Executioner.

I gave a similar benefit out to my paragon table of heroes and it comes up all the time - one of my favorite features, that I wish there was a way to pickup.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Did you have the same problem with PH3 (Psionic classes)?

Yes.

However, The Psionic's systems in every version of D&D since the 2nd edition have always been the 'And Now for Something Completely Different' chapter of the D&D rules. Since Psionics are often hard to fit into many D&D settings, it was always a 'nod, smile, and ignore it' kind of problem.

With D&D it has always been a case of 'accept the core books and handle the rest on a case by case basis'. Psionics classes and Essentials classes fall on the wrong side of the line for me, though for somewhat different reasons.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Windjammer]

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?

You could be forgiven for thinking so, but no it ain't. Of course people can build whatever characters they want at home. But bringing a godamn slayer to MY GAMETABLE! Now that... shudder... splutter... fhtgan....

Hm, let's run with an analogy. (In fact, it's not analogy at all, it's the real thing.)

So me and my manly friends have this monthly meet up to celebrate our high levels of testosterone. Lots of booze and cigars, shouting and dueling.

Now imagine what'd happen to that meekly guy (you know who you are!) who'd turn up with alcohol free beer cans and nicotine free cigarettes. (Actually, on reflection - don't imagine, it's not pretty.)

Similarly with Essentials. If 4.0 is D&D on steroids, Essentials is steroids on weaksouce. You get the picture.