Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How far are they going with Essentials
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5471481" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>I think they all are reduced complexity, just to different degrees. The Slayer might be the poster child for "as simple a class as 4e can probably do," but it STILL has fiddly bits and unexpected synergies. The mage is a little closer to the default 4e classes, but it STILL revolves around a single thematic choice (school, in this case) that presents clear and unambiguous options to choose from when gaining new ones. Anyone who wants complexity would be better served, in all cases, choosing a 4.0 build. No Mage is going to be as complex as a core PHB fighter is. </p><p></p><p>But, to your broader point, I don't grok why 4e having different levels of complexity is a bad thing. If you like complexity, no one is forcing you to pick an Essentials class, and you still have a galaxy of options for the majority of your 4.0 classes (PHB3 classes perhaps aside), options that are still being expanded, even if it is at a slower rate than before. Fighters especially are an embarrassment of riches when it comes to options and features (and, in large part, the Essentials Slayer and Knight benefit from these riches, too). </p><p></p><p>If you DON'T like complexity, I don't see why shoving you into some not-true-D&D ghetto is the best solution. There shouldn't be any reason a complexity-loving gearhead and a beer-n-pretzels mage player shouldn't be able to sit at the same table, have fun, and contribute equally. D&D is not an activity purely for the dorky elite who get all excited over the fact that the rules for OAs have over 1,000 points of interaction with other rules that you can memorize and debate over. It is also for the lady who likes to hang out with her buddies and pretend to be Dwarfbeard the Slayer for a few hours, who wouldn't know an OA if one of her dorky buddies didn't keep pointing them out. </p><p></p><p>As someone closer to Dwarfbeard in my playstyle, I don't want to rule out Dorky McRulesman from my games. I also don't want to be ruled out of HIS. What is so awful about playing together? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You realize that Essentials builds are compatible with pre-essnentials classes? That they can play alongside each other? That E-classes can make use of non-E powers and feats, and that non-E classes can make use of E powers and feats? That the Blackguard can swap out certain Paladin powers, and that the Paladin can swap out certain Blackguard powers? That they can both take the (usually quite solid) Essentials feats?</p><p></p><p>I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that HoS is going to contain feats and powers. </p><p></p><p>There should be no reason your current characters shouldn't be able to make use of at least some of them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5471481, member: 2067"] I think they all are reduced complexity, just to different degrees. The Slayer might be the poster child for "as simple a class as 4e can probably do," but it STILL has fiddly bits and unexpected synergies. The mage is a little closer to the default 4e classes, but it STILL revolves around a single thematic choice (school, in this case) that presents clear and unambiguous options to choose from when gaining new ones. Anyone who wants complexity would be better served, in all cases, choosing a 4.0 build. No Mage is going to be as complex as a core PHB fighter is. But, to your broader point, I don't grok why 4e having different levels of complexity is a bad thing. If you like complexity, no one is forcing you to pick an Essentials class, and you still have a galaxy of options for the majority of your 4.0 classes (PHB3 classes perhaps aside), options that are still being expanded, even if it is at a slower rate than before. Fighters especially are an embarrassment of riches when it comes to options and features (and, in large part, the Essentials Slayer and Knight benefit from these riches, too). If you DON'T like complexity, I don't see why shoving you into some not-true-D&D ghetto is the best solution. There shouldn't be any reason a complexity-loving gearhead and a beer-n-pretzels mage player shouldn't be able to sit at the same table, have fun, and contribute equally. D&D is not an activity purely for the dorky elite who get all excited over the fact that the rules for OAs have over 1,000 points of interaction with other rules that you can memorize and debate over. It is also for the lady who likes to hang out with her buddies and pretend to be Dwarfbeard the Slayer for a few hours, who wouldn't know an OA if one of her dorky buddies didn't keep pointing them out. As someone closer to Dwarfbeard in my playstyle, I don't want to rule out Dorky McRulesman from my games. I also don't want to be ruled out of HIS. What is so awful about playing together? You realize that Essentials builds are compatible with pre-essnentials classes? That they can play alongside each other? That E-classes can make use of non-E powers and feats, and that non-E classes can make use of E powers and feats? That the Blackguard can swap out certain Paladin powers, and that the Paladin can swap out certain Blackguard powers? That they can both take the (usually quite solid) Essentials feats? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that HoS is going to contain feats and powers. There should be no reason your current characters shouldn't be able to make use of at least some of them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
How far are they going with Essentials
Top