D&D 4E Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E Essentials?

[Garthanos]

Yeah tbh I think Protection fighting style should give you more opportunity attacks that don’t use your reaction, even if it’s limited somehow. Something. I don’t think it needs to be system wide, though.

Sure so we fix that element but there is more to defender than snagging the ones that come to you.
There are abilities that allow marking them in quantity (such as a threatening rush or regnant shout) and there is tempting them to come to you. (Warriors Urging / Come and Get It) heck those are not as dramatic as movie tropes.

But I really think it all comes down to fighting against this intensional limit in the 5e Design Space I mentioned earlier -> "in 5e you arent the minion mower able to affect lots of bad guys type anymore.".

 

[Vaalingrade]

But what you’re “quoting” is something I never saw anyone say, IRL or online.

Then say that instead of low key calling me a liar or...

What I did see was that it’s a fighter, and fighters have always been able to focus on killing things quickly, so the fighter should be able to do that, but you have to jump through defender mechanic hoops to do that at all, and you still won’t match the Ranger.

...then making the same argument with different words.

Unless there's a way to 'focus on killing things' without dealing tons of damage, ala 'being a Striker'.

 

[Undrave]

The change from 1 reaction per turn to 1 reaction per round puts a significant nerf to both of those, however.

Yeah there is that.

also, it would have been nice if Sentinel or even Goading Attack (without the extra dmg) were a standard part of the Fighter and not a feat or in one subclass.

 

[Mordhau]

Yeah, I ment one reaction per round.

In 4e, if 4 orcs rush by your fighter to stab the pointy hat, you get 4 Oppertunity Attacks, and stop them from moving if you are a fighter.

In 5e, if four orcs rush past you to kill the wizard, you get one attack, and unless you are using optional rules, you can't stop them from moving at all.

I think in 5e you also have the problem that it's really hard to weather the amount of attacks you would need to in order to cope with stickiness.

I played a Cavalier for a while with Sentinel and Shieldmaster, and found that in practice, I could usually do pretty well at being sticky by using push with shieldmaster and good positioning to make bottlenecks. What I couldn't do is weather the amount of attacks that a 4e defender could weather. Defences aren't as good; healing from healers has a greater opportunity cost. In 4e you could rely on those two encounter powers from a leader every combat, plus whatever daily heals they had didn't come at the cost of something that wasn't healing. You also had more ways to push your defences higher.

 

[Garthanos]

I think in 5e you also have the problem that it's really hard to weather the amount of attacks you would need to in order to cope with stickiness.
I played a Cavalier for a while with Sentinel and Shieldmaster, and found that in practice, I could usually do pretty well at being sticky by using push with shieldmaster and good positioning to make bottlenecks.

In 5e TOTM default isn't good positioning just DM pretty please provide me a place to choke.

What I couldn't do is weather the amount of attacks that a 4e defender could weather. Defences aren't as good; healing from healers has a greater opportunity cost. In 4e you could rely on those two encounter powers from a leader every combat, plus whatever daily heals they had didn't come at the cost of something that wasn't healing. You also had more ways to push your defences higher.

I think you are right typically although I have seen multi-class shenanigans.
Like Barbarian(Ancestral Guardian)/Artisan(Armorer)/Mage(abjurer) that do 2 or 3 forms of sticky and or defense and allie defense improvements that stack if you are careful.

Hurray for an 85 percent caster being a better 5e defender when a Cavalier isnt hearty enough

 

[Garthanos]

Unless there's a way to 'focus on killing things' without dealing tons of damage, ala 'being a Striker'.

Like spending 1 feat on chainmail or 2 for scale and making a Melee ranger (Str/Dex or Str/Wis) ranger with the right backgrounds to open up even more "fighter" style skills and tada its a Striker fighter add a cool Theme and its even more so. but it lacks the magic of the "fighter" name . I also dispute that the AD&D 1e fighter was ever a big damage dealer. The ranger was further just a type of fighter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then say that instead of low key calling me a liar or...

...then making the same argument with different words.

Unless there's a way to 'focus on killing things' without dealing tons of damage, ala 'being a Striker'.

So you aren’t hearing what I’m saying. Got it.

I didn’t make the same argument.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So you aren’t hearing what I’m saying. Got it.

I didn’t make the same argument.

IF it's not the same argument despite looking like it, explain it instead of making snide insults.

 

[S'mon]

I think in 5e you also have the problem that it's really hard to weather the amount of attacks you would need to in order to cope with stickiness.

I played a Cavalier for a while with Sentinel and Shieldmaster, and found that in practice, I could usually do pretty well at being sticky by using push with shieldmaster and good positioning to make bottlenecks. What I couldn't do is weather the amount of attacks that a 4e defender could weather. Defences aren't as good; healing from healers has a greater opportunity cost. In 4e you could rely on those two encounter powers from a leader every combat, plus whatever daily heals they had didn't come at the cost of something that wasn't healing. You also had more ways to push your defences higher.

4e though has its own version of 'bounded accuracy' in that it seems* pretty well impossible to get an AC that monsters of similar level have trouble hitting. It actually seems a lot easier in 5e to get a PC with a really high AC relative to monster attack bonus, and you can use the Dodge action to become extremely hard to hit; great for eg holding a doorway. In 4e I know I'm most likely taking a ton of damage every round, and hoping the Cleric does his job (our Cleric Oorie the Halfling is great!)

*Certainly in Heroic Tier.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My dislike of Essentials was mostly targeted at specific parts and philosophy issues, rather than the whole of it. Some parts of Essentials were quite good, like the improved Expertise feats (which were actually interesting and involved choices) and the much, MUCH better MM3/MV math.

I emphatically DID NOT like the "alternate roles within a single class" concept of subclasses. It added a ton of weird jank for very minimal benefit. "Slayer," "Blackguard," etc. could easily have just been presented as standalone classes (call Slayer "Myrmidon" maybe, for a classic vibe). Several other Essentials subclasses were also just...really really not good, some of the very few outright weak options in the game. Binder and Bladesinger primarily. Vampire was a tough call, because it could be made to work, but it required rather a lot of optimization to perform, which ran counter to 4e's prior commitment to being at least okay at whatever a class's core function was supposed to be.

I also, as others mentioned earlier, disliked that it felt like openly caving to the vocal minority of critics. It felt like the first round of repudiation, to be followed up by the Next Playtest, where I got the "expectation delay" parade.*

Finally...it just felt like they didn't really know what they were doing. For example, the Sentinel Druid has seasonal sub-sub classes, Spring and Summer. Someone--IIRC Mike Mearls--responded with utter incredulity when players asked when we might see Autumn and Winter Sentinels. Instead of doing stuff like that, they hyperfocused on spellcasters, particularly Arcane ones.

Now, again, I don't want to give the impression that I dislike EVERYTHING about Essentials. It did plenty of good things too. Beyond the two examples I gave above, I love the Elementalist Sorcerer, because it gave us, for the first and thus far only time, a TRULY SIMPLE spellcaster, literally AS simple as the truly-simple Slayer Fighter. That's great! I would absolutely love it if 5e took a leaf out of 4e Essentials' book and made an Elementalist Sorcerer that was of comparable simplicity to most Fighter subclasses in 5e.

*That is, "oh don't get upset, they'll give you 4e options later in the playtest." When nothing shows up for over a year, "oh don't get upset, they'll include something in the final packet." When nothing shows up in that packet, "oh, don't get upset, they'll add options to the first book." When nothing shows up there, "oh don't get upset, give it another two years, you'll get something by then." And then finally, "Be happy you got anything at all, they could've cut dragonborn entirely." I was literally told, for years, that I wasn't allowed to be upset--and then, finally, when I'd cleared every last hurdle, I was told I wasn't allowed to be upset because at least I got something out of it.