How far are they going with Essentials

[Prestidigitalis]

Now the asymmetrical Essentials builds give the impression that 'beginners' or 'slow thinkers' or 'casual players' should stick to low-complexity builds like the slayer, while the high-complexity builds like the mage should be reserved for the 'pro's'.

Maybe some of us want a character that's mechanically easier, so that we can focus more on roleplaying or tactics.

I write computer software for a living. I've used assembly language extensively throughout the years, but I avoid it when I can. Abstracting away needless complexity is a large part of the art of engineering.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Nope.

You have to use only material from the two Essentials player books or any Dragon/Dungeon article with the Essentials symbol.

Are you certain? One of the blogs I follow has a battlemind PC - from the blog's week 1 Encounters report:

The party consisted of Belgos the Drow Ranger, Brandis the Human Cavalier, Fargrim the Dwarf Slayer, Jarren the Human Wizard, Valenae the Eladrin Cleric and a Battlemind.

I confess that I don't know the character creation rules for this season, and I know DMs have a lot of leeway in what happens in their Encounters game. However, I've beeing following the DM from the blog for a while and he appears to be an avid Encounters player who know his stuff. I could find no indication from his blog that character creation was limited to Essentials. Is there a place where the rules of character creation are listed for this season?

Having said all that, I have a definite preference for Essentials material. I don't think anyone is stupid or smart for wanting to play one class or the other - people just have preferences for a certain kind of gameplay or theme.

 

[SSquirrel]

'Classic' 4e was the first edition I had a player who had never played anything but fighters in previously choose to play a wizard _and_ loving it.

Now the asymmetrical Essentials builds give the impression that 'beginners' or 'slow thinkers' or 'casual players' should stick to low-complexity builds like the slayer, while the high-complexity builds like the mage should be reserved for the 'pro's'.

And that's something I consider a bad thing.

I definitely agree with the first statement, it leveled the playing field significantly. It made things much easier on people who hated Wizard complexity to get into it and it helped people who loved having more options feel ok about playing a Fighter instead

As far as the second part, I started with Red Box basic. Wasn't that the whole thing there? You had a basic set that was simpler and more streamlined w/less options and AD&D with more options. The Essentials classes are much more focused versions of the 4E classes and when I noticed my wife had made a Scout instead of a Ranger, I pointed this out to her and reminded her that knowing her, she would get bored of only having 5 moves at level 8 heh. I really don't see what the big deal is. If people want to play a more focused (and limited) version of a class, they can be my guest. I'll be playing something w/more options.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I was using fighter as an example - you could also put Runepriest, Seeker, Barbarian etc in there

No you couldn't. Your point was that new class builds would be all 'Essentialized' and thus we wouldn't get new daily fighter powers since Essentials fighters don't get daily powers. But since there hasn't been 'Essentialized' Runepriests, Seekers, or Barbarians... you can't replace them in your statement. Any future Runepriest, Seeker, or Barbarian stuff that gets created will apply to the base class and Essentials will have nothing to do with it.

 

[gjnave]

... 'Essentialized' Runepriests, Seekers, or Barbarians...

this is what i would like to see more of.

 

[Dausuul]

this is what i would like to see more of.

Or, in my case, an Essentialized sorceror, somewhere in complexity between the thief and the mage, and specifically eschewing the "daily power" and "encounter power" mechanics (where you use each one once and then it's gone till you rest). I want my non-Vancian casters back, dangit!

 

[Prestidigitalis]

this is what i would like to see more of.

The Slayer and Hunter occupy the same design spaces that the Essentialsized Barbarian and Seeker would fit into. I suspect it was intentional.

 

[gjnave]

The Slayer and Hunter occupy the same design spaces that the Essentialsized Barbarian and Seeker would fit into. I suspect it was intentional.

Well.. the point is that I would like to see more and more classes "essentialized". What can i say? I really dig Essentials

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is a style of character building that has no choice, that is what everyone is worried about.

"No choice" isn't how I'd describe it. The Essentials classes I've been playing have a good amount of choice, thanks to the ability to swap out same-level powers. They let me build, for instance, a Pyromancer who has more than enough stuff to stick in his spellbook that is pure fire damage dakka, even though the Heroes books don't have a whole lot in the way of that directly.

There may be loads of new fighter builds in the new Essentials character format, but that means there will be no more daily fighter powers.

Do you not have enough daily fighter powers to make the kind of fighter you want?

Yup. And one of the things I dislike about the new builds is the difference in complexity. In 'classic' 4e all classes and builds were about equal in complexity and probably even more important they followed the same pattern.

But you see how this is a problem when people want to play at different levels of complexity, yes? I am one of those players who rarely picked up wizards in previous editions because I do not like that level of complexity. Then 4e comes along and everyone is a Vancian wizard, and I am turned off by ALL the classes, because they are ALL too complex for me.

And then we have Essentials, and suddenly I have a lot more variety in complexity, and I love it.

And just because someone actually likes to play the Slayer over the PHB fighter, this doesn't remove the option for others to play the PHB fighter in the slightest. A broad selection of appeal is a good idea. If your fighter does not have enough daily powers, write some up and submit them to Dragon. I really don't think they'll reject more powers. I just think that perhaps 12 powers/level is quite enough for meaningful options.

Now the asymmetrical Essentials builds give the impression that 'beginners' or 'slow thinkers' or 'casual players' should stick to low-complexity builds like the slayer, while the high-complexity builds like the mage should be reserved for the 'pro's'.

And that's something I consider a bad thing.

Honestly, as someone who has played these classes, the mage is already a lot simpler than the PHB fighter for a lot of reasons.

But no one should be penalized for wanting to be simpler and more straightforward. In "classic" 4e, you essentially told those people who don't want to be 'pros' at pretending to be magical gumdrop elves to go get lost and play Diablo. That's not a great thing, from a business or D&D perspective.

 

[Canor Morum]

I think the new class builds are fine, even better in some respects. I just look at them as player options. It's up to them.

Personally I don't like the format, I prefer hardbound books with less reprinted information. Give me a hardbound copy with all the new class builds and racial information in one book and I'll buy it. Same goes for the Monster Vault and DM's Kit. I don't need boxes, counters, maps, and adventures I will never use. Just give me the books.

The Rules Compendium is perfect for this format however. It doesn't take up a lot of room on the table and serves it's function well as a quick rules reference.