Gabe (Penny Arcades) take on Essentials Red Box

[Storminator]

So am I, for the same reason. The box is brilliant marketing. The rules philosophy, less so, IMO, but we'll see.

Of course, I love the box mainly because I intend to give it to kids... whose parents will then be on the hook almost immediately to buy them rules to get them past level 2...

I am worried that I may end up with dice embedded in my forehead, thrown by a vindictive parent.

But the parents can play too!

PS

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

But the parents can play too!

PS

In most cases, that ship sailed long ago. Though we can hope the notion of playing with their spawn might be more successful than playing with me was back in the day.

 

[Aegeri]

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.)

This is the first opinion from someone who has played the red box that I have seen. I will take his opinion quite highly not only because I'm a regular poster at PA (I will admit that) but because Gabe runs a 4E game actively and done consistently awesome things with it. Like running through it and giving commentary is fine, but the point is that ultimately essentials is going to be awful/good on how it plays (or how it impacts peoples games). I am not sure how mechanically inclined Gabe is compared to say myself, but I'm willing to take his opinions at the moment over the billion threads of complete speculation with no basis in anything.

But we're going to see for ourselves very soon anyway!

 

[Odhanan]

Call me naive, but I steadfastly hold to my belief that my 4e books will remain in perfectly working order come the arrival of Essentials.

*nod* What about DDI and the rules updates that will align its contents with Essentials (akin to the magic missile update)? I've seen many a 4E fan actually quite worried about this. There might be a huge discrepency between the DDI content and how it will compare to the original Player's Handbook. Two different games, one original, the other gradually modified through zillions of tiny updates, in the end.

 

[tuxgeo]

So am I, for the same reason. The box is brilliant marketing. The rules philosophy, less so, IMO, but we'll see.

Of course, I love the box mainly because I intend to give it to kids... whose parents will then be on the hook almost immediately to buy them rules to get them past level 2...

I am worried that I may end up with dice embedded in my forehead, thrown by a vindictive parent.

(Emphasis mine.) Yep! ("Brilliant" IMHO also.)

Re: getting past level 2: The parents could download the free version of the Character Builder that contains the rules for Level 3; and they could go to a FLGS and sneak a peek into the PHB1 to see how many HP are required for Level 4, which does not require any new "powers" text.
Those same parents might easily "be on the hook almost immediately to buy them rules to get them past level" 4, however. . . .

 

[Aegeri]

*nod* What about DDI and the rules updates that will align its contents with Essentials (akin to the magic missile update)? I've seen many a 4E fan actually quite worried about this. There might be a huge discrepency between the DDI content and how it will compare to the original Player's Handbook. Two different games, one original, the other gradually modified through zillions of tiny updates, in the end.

Let's be fair here: We're already at this point. If you think essentials changes the fact the original PHB is made out of swiss cheese even before anything essentials changes, you're mistaken. It might add to the swiss cheese factor, but in the end the PHB has suffered the most errata and it clearly shows. Without essentials, the PHB has already taken a massive amount of errata to numerous areas, like skills, feats, powers, conditions and similar. I mean, what do you think essentials can change that will make the original PHB even worse? In fact, if they're going to do something like essentials a reprint of the original PHB with rules updates was already firmly warranted and so we're not terribly worse off.

Some changes I admit don't need to be made, like magic missile and it's the one most frequently picked on. But it's a single example and in reality they are hardly changing things willy nilly for the sake of it. Where they have made great changes, they are compartmentalized into builds like the knight, thief and slayer. Builds that are utterly ignorable and don't do a single thing to the original classes.

Now if it turns out they have done something stupid like errata'ing marks out of the game or something with essentials then I will criticize them. But based on what I know about essentials it's no worse than the errata process they have been doing for a while now anyway. This is an evolving game, not everyone has to like that concept or even want to play a game that has errata - but I for one appreciate they are willing to listen, learn and update things. They could always throw the baby out with the bath-water and just dump everything for a straight new edition. But this way is far better and most books, most books released in 4E are still relevant now despite how long ago they were published.

The core original three books are by far the ones begging most for an update IMO. Even then, I can live with things because the CB keeps everything up to date and the rules compendium will solve my other complaints.

 

[The Human Target]

Uh, we do all know feats are getting a massive game changing overhaul in the Essentials line right?

 

[keterys]

Also, you can play unicorns as a race and the rainbow class is the new martial controller.

 

[Aegeri]

Uh, we do all know feats are getting a massive game changing overhaul in the Essentials line right?

Yes, they are getting assorted by what they do and not by tier. This is a fantastic, logical change and doesn't alter the fact the other feats are going nowhere. Even the much maligned "tax feats" like epic defense feats still have their place. Epic will for example will sit alongside superior will for those builds unable to get the wisdom or charisma required to get superior will.

In fact, I hope the CB updates everything to the new format. So PCs can look through "Attack feats" and "Defense" feats. The single most painful thing in all of 4E as a DM is watching players get bogged down looking for feats for their character - Let's be honest here too, in mostly huge sea of pure crap - for something that's useful. Organizing by tier is nowhere near as efficient as by what the feat actually does.

I am sure a lot of feats will be made less useful or relevant by feats introduced in essentials. If the new feats are better, more interesting and reduce arguments about "taxpertise" among other things I am actually going to be a happier DM.

The point was is redoing feats in this manner "pointless" or just change for the sake of changing something - or - is it a legitimate point that will improve the game?

Because I'm sorry, I can't get outraged over logical changes that from everything I understand can only improve the game.

 

[darjr]

At least it's clear, now, what level the box goes to.