Joshua Randall
Legend
A board game called conquest of Nerath.
D&D 4E Have you ever run 4e using just Essentials?
Voadam
Legend
Was there a later one on non-demonic gnolls? The Dragon 367 article "Playing Gnolls" is heavily focused on the inherently demonic savage nature of gnolls, although there are sections focusing on some who do not worship Yeenoghu, focus on the hyena hunter aspects, and are baseline unaligned instead of Chaotic Evil.
"The Soul of the Hyena
Gnolls agree that Yeenoghu crafted their race from demon and beast. But not all gnolls worship the Beast of Butchery. Though the fury of the fiend runs through the blood of the gnoll, some reject this demonic heritage and find solace in the spirit of the hyena that lies within them. Over the course of generations, this has produced clans of gnolls that are less savage than the Butcher’s Brood. Typically unaligned as opposed to chaotic evil, these gnolls still live as nomadic hunters on the fringes of society. However, they are more likely to hunt wild beasts than civilized creatures, and they take no joy in torture or unnecessary cruelty. These gnolls still love the thrill of the hunt, especially when tracking together with others of their pack; it is this that keeps them tied to the wild life, instead of settling down to form static communities. But they do not attack peaceful villages without serious provocation. They love to hunt and track—not to slaughter."
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
So when I say Essentials is a simpler version of 4e, I mean it in terms of being more streamlined and easier to manage for players. As a standalone, you don't need to decide between half-a-dozen or more powers to choose at every level. Plus, Essentials give you more than just powers to choose from at every level. So there's that.
When I use the term "OSR", I am talking about having old-school aesthetics, like limited class/race selections, straightforward class designs, and mostly linear progressions. It's simply going back to basics, which I believe is what a lot of the OSR movement is about. Simpler times, simpler games. And again, as a standalone.
As far as the other complaints about 'betrayal' and whatnot, I know. I was there. But that was more than a decade ago when I was actively playing and enjoying 4e for what it was, only to have Essentials forced upon us when nobody was asking for it. I get that. But continually drawing that line in the sand after more than a decade has passed doesn't help anybody. So rather than complaining now for something that transpired ages ago, how about we appreciate the fact that we have this extra material that provides us with more alternatives and a lot of pretty good ideas that we can use today? Maybe some less gatekeeping and elitism would give new people a better impression that there is a game with a community who welcomes different ideas and philosophies, instead of a cult-like tendency to ensure people conform to the "one-true way". The last thing 4e needs is continued division among its own over what little we have to enjoy.
I mean, if we want to be mad about something, how about the fact that we STILL don't have a fair and open license that allows anyone to continue supporting this edition with digital tools and accessible content without having to jump through a million hoops?
When I use the term "OSR", I am talking about having old-school aesthetics, like limited class/race selections, straightforward class designs, and mostly linear progressions. It's simply going back to basics, which I believe is what a lot of the OSR movement is about. Simpler times, simpler games. And again, as a standalone.
As far as the other complaints about 'betrayal' and whatnot, I know. I was there. But that was more than a decade ago when I was actively playing and enjoying 4e for what it was, only to have Essentials forced upon us when nobody was asking for it. I get that. But continually drawing that line in the sand after more than a decade has passed doesn't help anybody. So rather than complaining now for something that transpired ages ago, how about we appreciate the fact that we have this extra material that provides us with more alternatives and a lot of pretty good ideas that we can use today? Maybe some less gatekeeping and elitism would give new people a better impression that there is a game with a community who welcomes different ideas and philosophies, instead of a cult-like tendency to ensure people conform to the "one-true way". The last thing 4e needs is continued division among its own over what little we have to enjoy.
I mean, if we want to be mad about something, how about the fact that we STILL don't have a fair and open license that allows anyone to continue supporting this edition with digital tools and accessible content without having to jump through a million hoops?
Voadam
Legend
My biggest complaint.
Zeromaru X
Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
I came to this conclusion when I was writing my History of the Nentir Vale document. While I don't like some of the new lore added by Essentials, I like some of it as well. And I appreciate that they have expanded on the lore, nonetheless.
And now that I'm looking for a simpler game to play, Essentials looks just perfect.
To some extent this is true, in that it did not seem to evolve the good parts of 4e into something better.
Refine Rituals so they are a more integrated part of the game by giving a few free rituals per day to traditional full casters and automatic rituals known per level? Nope, let's just throw it out altogether!
But while they are not my favorite, the classes themselves are fine alongside pre-essentials, even the Mage.
I would never run only essentials though. Not that it wouldn't work but it would take too much of the good things out of 4e for me.
Perfectly fine. I never had an issue with Essentials. TBH, having a simple, ready to go class like the Slayer did a lot to make 4e more approachable, as I have had the "I just want to attack" players that did not care for 4e powers, who just loved the Slayer. It's been awhile, but I think I can remember having a Pre-Essentials and Essential Rogue in the same party and not seeing a major difference between them.
I've found 4e's balance point quite good, you really couldn't build a completely ineffectual character unless you tried, which was a blessing after 3.5. So even the weaker, less supported classes, your Runepriests, Assassins, Seekers and Vampires could still hang and work well.
Eyes of Nine
Everything's Fine
I mean, besides my sciatica
Joshua Randall
Legend
After years of playing in the hardcore optimization hell that LFR became (and yeah, I totally indulged in it, don't get me wrong) -- all the usual "good" 4e classes -- I had a ton of fun with...
- A hybrid runepriest/cleric who focused on buffing the party and himself and then whaling on people.
- A vampire who introduced himself as a priest, and could he just borrow a leeeetle bit of your life-force now and then?
- A hybrid seeker/ranger who swore off Twin Strike and all the O.P. ranger powers yet forced herself to be effective anyway because I just can't help myself.
Similar Threads
