Gabe (Penny Arcades) take on Essentials Red Box

[MrMyth]

But doesn't the removal of tier requirements significantly alter characters development as they level up? And you could keep the level requirements in your game, but its not really presented as an option--its presented as "this is how feats work now".

No more, honestly, than the addition of new feats to the game with any
new supplement.

I don't think existing feats are being changed in any way. I think new feats from here on out (or at least within Essentials) will be mainly designed without feat tiers.

That doesn't mean we'll see an Epic level feat available at Heroic levels. Instead, we'll see a version of it appropriate for Heroic level power which then slowly evolves into the Epic version at Paragon and then Epic levels.

 

[CovertOps]

But like I said in this thread's second post - it should help ease the minds of "the End is nigh!" crowd.

You sir are asking for the impossible. We will always have "the sky is falling" crowd of people.

I wonder if people have the same discussions about computer games, like WoW or Diablo, that do regular updates to add new options, tweak existing ones, etc. Ie, "Man, just call it WoW 2, if you're changing Hunters so much!" "Runes!? That's some crazy Diablo 2.5 nonsense."

Having played WoW for 4 years I can say that the debate occurs, but it somehow always occurs in terms of balance....such and such really needed the nerf bat....or that ability was useless so I'm glad they beefed it up.

I think the way WoW really got around the issue is they had "named" expansions which is where the big changes were always introduced.

• Vanilla WoW - the original game with level 60 cap
• Burning Crusade - level 70 cap and complete class talent tree redesign
• WotLK (Wrath) - level 80 cap and complete class talent tree redesign
• Cataclysm - level 85 cap and complete class talent tree redesign - and major systems overhaul.

For Blizzard you can't change the level cap without basic game redesign so that analogy isn't valid for 4e because we're not changing the level 30 cap.
Blizzard never introduced new classes as a patch, they were always part of one of the expansions - even if it was just adding new race/class combos - like when Horde finally got "Blood Elves" that could be Paladins and Alliance got Shaman.
Now within each "version" of the game they did anywhere from monthly to quarterly class tweaking which would be akin to 4e's errata.

We can all at least agree that reorganizing feats doesn't constitute a change, right? After all, if I give you a web page with a table listing all the feats in the game, and let you reorganize the table by several different headings (Attack/Defense/Tier/Multiclass/etc.), you haven't created a new table when you do reorganize the table. You've just sorted that single table.

That's all that they're doing with the feat reorganization, as far as I can tell.

They removed "Tier" restrictions. A good move IMO.

There is no room for subtlety of thought or complicated positions in most of these threads.

Amen.

 

[CovertOps]

No more, honestly, than the addition of new feats to the game with any
new supplement.

I don't think existing feats are being changed in any way. I think new feats from here on out (or at least within Essentials) will be mainly designed without feat tiers.

That doesn't mean we'll see an Epic level feat available at Heroic levels. Instead, we'll see a version of it appropriate for Heroic level power which then slowly evolves into the Epic version at Paragon and then Epic levels.

I actually hope they DON'T do this. Using just one feat as an example (Epic Will) and the preview they did on that other feat...I'd rather they just change the existing feat "Epic Will" to be +2/+3/+4 with no stat requirement. Having two feats creates clutter.

 

[MrMyth]

I actually hope they DON'T do this. Using just one feat as an example (Epic Will) and the preview they did on that other feat...I'd rather they just change the existing feat "Epic Will" to be +2/+3/+4 with no stat requirement. Having two feats creates clutter.

Well, the approach they seem to be taking is to have stat requirements keeping the feat distinct. So we have Superior Will that is +2/3/4 (with some other bonuses), but requires Cha 15 or Wis 15.

So those who qualify for it get a perk (an extra bonus and access at Heroic), but anyone can pick up Epic Will eventually.

Now, I still hate it because having such good defense feats is just the Expertise problem all over again... but the stat requirement approach does ensure that there is room in the game for both the new feat and old.

 

[TerraDave]

However, it is my experience that if you look through most of the threads, you find the same people repeatedly taking the anti-4e, anti-WotC line from one complaint to the next. It'd be rude and inappropriate for me to name names, but if you look to some of the regular anti-4e posters from the WotC General Discussions forums (the ones who get accused of being sock-puppets for each other) you'll see this pattern, for example.

Yes, exactly, in that forum, with broad brush, as you say, attacks. It is true some might troll here, once in a while.

You make a good point that is it odd to see these anti-4e posters spending so much time reading about, studying about, and posting about 4e. However, I don't think this means they should be counted as fans of 4e. They may simply like being troublesome, or they may secretly like 4e but can't admit it to themselves ("no, I can't like this, it's too much like WoW, and it isn't cool to like that!"). Who knows what secrets lie in the hearts of the anti-4e crowd? I'm just judging their posts.

I know of plenty of *troublesome* people in this forum (and this thread) who seem to play or like the 4E or some version of it.

 

[lutecius]

I think the fact that Gabe is a fan or 4e is part of why he likes Essentials.

did we read the same article? I mean, he's not really slamming it but…

Essentials attempts to solve two problems that I don’t actually have, so it’s hard for me to really comment on it. It does a great job of doing something I’m not interested in doing. […] The idea of only being able to do basic attacks from a couple different stances just doesn’t cut it for most of the players I know […] The end result just happens to be something I’m not interested in.

where did you get the impression that he likes essentials?

In my experience, a very high percentage of the anti-Essentials crowd are the same anti-4e-in-general types who were also up in arms about MM3 fire resistances, scaling skill bonuses, every errata release, katanas not having special rules, minions, and so on and so on.

I don't know about the wotc forums, but the only people I see whining about Essential here are 4e players.

I'm sure many 4e haters find the 4.5e debate amusing and some may even add fuel to it but rule-wise I don't see them getting up in arms over changes that actually address some of their gripes (class sameness, fighters with dailies… even the 'martial healer' got booted from the first batch of books and replaced by the druid)
that may be too little, too late to win over the holdouts it's still a step in the right direction.

 

[Gradine]

I don't necessarily think the important thing to take away from this is that Gabe disliked Essentials (it just wasn't for him), but that he doesn't take particular issue with it. It wasn't his or his players' cup o' tea, but if one of his players for some reason decided to play an Essentials wizard or knight mixed in with an otherwise bog-standard 4e party he sees absolutely nothing that would prevent that from working.

The important thing to take away is that there's nothing to fear about Essentials.

 

[ourchair]

Yeah, this thread is pretty incredible. "Someone who we think is cool agrees with our opinion, so now we KNOW our opinion is right." And the posts about people worrying about WotC destroying their old books? Hilarious! (the first hundred or so times, anyway.)

I don't thin Gabe's opinion reflects the entirety of MY opinion, but both sync with one another.

The REAL thing that bothers me is the number of people I'm talking to who ordinarily dismissed my opinion and then the points of it which Gabe brought out, they're all like "YEAH I TOTALLY AGREE" and I'm all like, "That's what I've been saying the whole time! Suddenly my opinion is valid because Gabe is echoing it?!"

Whatevs. *shrug*

 

[Jack99]

The only really anti-essentials posters I know of are fairly rabid 4E fans. So much so that they don't want to see it change. More generally, you can criticize WotC or particular game elements and not be anti-4E. In fact, you may be doing that because you are pro-4E.

I think I am considered a fairly rabid 4e fan, even amongst the rabidest 4e fans, and so far, I like 4Essentials. Of course, the real test will come when I actually get the books. So its not all of us

I know of plenty of *troublesome* people in this forum (and this thread) who seem to play or like the 4E or some version of it.

Yeah, lots of people claim they play 4e, even that they "love" 4e, and yet, in two years, I have yet to see them express anything positive about the game. But maybe they are just the "glass is half-full" kinda guy, which is not necessarily their fault. It can be hard to break ones habitus.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess it is just the usual feedback filter:

You don´t go around telling everyone what works and is great. You just complain about the things you don´t like. Especially when you like a lot and are only rubbed off by a few things.