D&D 4E Gave up 4E would essentialls win us back?

[mattcolville]

We played 4E for about a year before the group decided it wasn't for us. While we liked a lot of what 4E offered, the group gave it up as we felt the classes and powers played too similar and combats became too predictable (you knew who was going to win well before the combat ended).

The previews of the essentials classes peaked our interest. I figured I'd ask the 4E experts here if the essentials line changes would make it worth giving another shot. If so, which products would be best to start with.

Please don't chime in just tell us how we're wrong in what we thought, it's the conclusion the group as a whole made.

Thanks.

It is absolutely worth it. Worth trying out.

We played with Essentials mixed in with vanilla 4E last night and I had at least one "Oh my god" moment when I realized what Essentials was doing.

Mind you, when I *very first read about it* I thought I understood it and now that I've seen it in play, I believe I was correct. Essentials extends the complexity range of the game *downward*. It creates a layer of 4E compatible play that is more direct, simpler, but not necessarily less effective. Perhaps less flexible, certainly. There is some trade-off. Fewer options, but the options that you have as an Essentials character are really good.

In fact, I wrote a post explicitly calling out the difference for at least one player and one issue.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-dis...-4th-edition-essentials-play.html#post5347407

 

[mattcolville]

Ok, well I thought about it some more and I should modify my earlier statement.

First, let me say that as a game designer and someone who's played every edition of D&D natively since AD&D, your observation is correct. You do have a pretty good...really, an *excellent* idea of who's going to win any given 4E combat, all things being equal, and the answer is, as you know, The Players.

And, indeed, in AD&D, especially at super-low levels, that was not the case. It was certainly possible for one lucky die roll on the part of a monster to kill a PC. This was even more true in D&D0, where I don't believe there were rules for unconsciousness.

Essentials doesn't change that, because the 4E design team, and I (though what I think doesn't matter) think that's Bad Design. Combat isn't more random with Essentials, it's not down to the whim of the dice. It's just simpler and more direct.

 

[nyenyec]

[...] and combats became too predictable (you knew who was going to win well before the combat ended).

I believe that this is very easy to fix:
the DM can always increase the number and/or level of the monsters to make the fights more challenging.

Also, Monster Manual 3 and later books have increased the challenge level of monsters. As a DM, I love the new monster design.

 

[Shin Okada]

.... and combats became too predictable (you knew who was going to win well before the combat ended).

While I do not agree with you that combats in 4e are that predictable, I say if you think it to be an issue, Essentials will actually make it WORSE, if any.

About half of the essentials PCs don't have encounters/dailies which may dramatically "change the tide of battle". Essential fighter, rogue & upcoming rangers seem to be solid build. They will consistently do what they are supposed to do. But they don't have, at least comparing to pre-essential builds, some "last resorts". Also, powers of other builds in 4e are much simpler in mechanic comparing to powers in PHBs and various Power books. That means, while they are consistent, again, don't suit for making a gamble.

In overall, I say combats with Essential materials only will be more predictable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We played 4E for about a year before the group decided it wasn't for us. While we liked a lot of what 4E offered, the group gave it up as we felt the classes and powers played too similar and combats became too predictable (you knew who was going to win well before the combat ended).

The previews of the essentials classes peaked our interest. I figured I'd ask the 4E experts here if the essentials line changes would make it worth giving another shot. If so, which products would be best to start with.

Please don't chime in just tell us how we're wrong in what we thought, it's the conclusion the group as a whole made.

Thanks.

The grind in combat has been largely taken care of - they raised monster damage so you now use slightly smaller monsters with lower defences for the same threat and so they go down faster when they go. My tables are normally worrying about a TPK a round or two before the combat is over. Also cutting the solo hit points by 20% and raising damage helped massively.

And the essentials fighters and rogues are definitely obviously different from the casters (and each other).

Where to start? Rules Compendium (natch) and the Red Box and go from there? Monster Vault isn't out yet or I'd suggest skipping the Red Box and going with Heroes of the Forgotten Lands and the Monster Vault (and possibly the DM box). Not that the Monster Vault is really needed with the Monster Builder. (Just check you're using MM3 or Dark Sun monsters - or tell it to recalculate their damage).

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I've played an Essentials knight for two sessions now and I'm loving it. I'm never going to back to pre-Essentials classes, and I may never play a class with daily powers again. I'm not stupid, I simply disagree with the concept and would remove them from all classes if I could.

All that said, in my limited experience I personally don't think Essentials D&D plays significantly differently from pre-Essentials. You still have your close bursts, your reliance on the grid, your push 1 squares, and so on. 4e is still unabashedly "gamist" (although Heroes of the Fallen Lands does a little better with describing how powers are used). None of that changes. My knight plays basically the same as any other 4e fighter.

But I will admit I still have a subtle, satisfying change in perception about the classes. To me, playing the knight, it feels "right" somehow. I guess having at-will/encounter/daily powers bugged me more than I thought. I like being different from the group's wizard, bard, and seeker, even if those differences end up being mostly cosmetic.

 

[eamon]

To the OP: I understand (and share) your concern regarding the classes' similarity. Though it's a step in the right direction, it's a very small one; you'll be happiest if you don't expect miracles here. Of course, the 4e roles are still present and provide most of the class differentiation and fun tactics - so there's that too. Heavy usage of Rituals can further help differentiation; but there's a chicken and egg problem here - that takes knowledge of the game; rituals are one of the least well presented aspects of 4e and thus the least likely to be used in initial experimental play.

On the other hand, the predictability of combat is quite a bit better so long as you use new monsters and a DM that understands how to avoid grind.

And of course, as always, you should modify the game to suit your needs. If you feel that there's too much "sameness" in 4e, then keep that in mind when designing the adventure - encourage alternative solutions to encounters and support differentiating factors. Make rituals and/or Martial Practices easy to learn and come-by, and make them matter. Let damage types matter by picking monsters with resistances and occasionally vulnerabilities.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've deleted three posts in the thread which were wildly off topic - either 'correcting' the original posters opinion or arguing about something off topic.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Speaking as someone who was put off 4e after playing it for a year or so, I'm feeling drawn back by essentials.

I like the way that they have changed classes round, so that the difference between caster classes and martial classes is more distinct in terms of the way they typically fight. I also like the way in which cleric domains are more distinct here (even if there are only two!) and I love the way they have brought specialist wizard feel back in the mages.

I've not had the chance to play or run it yet, but I think it looks promising enough to try. You probably only need the Heroes of the Forgotten Lands to give it a try.

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

Speaking as someone who was put off 4e after playing it for a year or so, I'm feeling drawn back by essentials.

I like the way that they have changed classes round, so that the difference between caster classes and martial classes is more distinct in terms of the way they typically fight. I also like the way in which cleric domains are more distinct here (even if there are only two!) and I love the way they have brought specialist wizard feel back in the mages.

I've not had the chance to play or run it yet, but I think it looks promising enough to try. You probably only need the Heroes of the Forgotten Lands to give it a try.

Cheers