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

[AbdulAlhazred]

It also needed to not have the tools derailed by the lead developer's murder-suicide.

As a guy who has a very long history of building applications at the bleeding edge of possible, I always considered this a very poor excuse. The functionality that they envisaged for 4e's DDI was something that was ALWAYS going to require a team of 150 people 2-3 years to build. One guy dropping off that project, regardless of how key he might be, is not an excuse for a derail of the kind they had. The fact is, their ambitions were FAR beyond their means from day 1. Even today, with 12 years better tech and a considerably strengthened capability, WotC cannot pull off what they described in 2008. I rolled my eyes when I read about it, lol. It was a fantasy of a fantasy game, sadly. It was never going to happen. If they'd handed it to Blizzard and put a full blown top notch class A video game crew on the thing, they'd have had about 50/50 chance of success, and that would have cost 3x the entire budget of 4e from day one to its shutdown.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The fact that we got character builder (and monster builder!) and they were good is rather astonishing given what happened to the dev team.

Right, the DDI we actually ultimately got was NOT BAD AT ALL! Heck, there was even a pretty solid VTT towards the end. Had they not had this grandiose vision and started on a realistic path from day one, they probably would have gotten even further with it. The truth is, they produced a VERY flexible system for representing and managing powers, classes, feats, etc. in such a way they were able to use that information in multiple ways, as compendium, as CB, as MB, and to drive the VTT. Masterplan also showed that the same data could be put to quite a few other uses, and there were a lot of people that hacked together stuff like power card printing tools and whatnot. WotC COULD have done a lot of that. They could have opened up that whole format to 3PPs like 5e has done with its stuff too. The possibilities were there, they were just not organizationally at a level of maturity to get the business and product side of it quite right. I think they really did pretty well overall though.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, I am 'complaining' but really as a contrast, not so much because I had some goal of complaining about some 5e thing. Heck, I WROTE MY OWN GAME, so I can just go do what I want . But I would say that, while 4e has a goodly number of classes, a large fraction of them seem kind of redundant to me. Like, all the e-classes for one! I mean, the post-essentials era is RIFE with stuff that barely rises to the rank of 'class', or is effectively just a build, like the Witch.

Oh, there were a lot that could be cut. But as you say there were already 20 classes in the game. Also in the Essentials era classes I've either played or run for in Heroic tier and that were fun and couldn't be replaced with pre-4e classes without serious reworks for the player:

• Thief
• Slayer
• Knight
• Hexblade (currently one in the campaign I'm dropping in to)
• Scout
• Bladesinger (yes, really)
• Vampire
• Executioner (needed polish but there's a decent class there)
• Berserker (currently playing one)
• Elementalist

Not included includes the Witch, the Sha'ir, the Binder, the Blackguard (there could have been something there), the Skald, the Hunter (again an execution miss). The Crusader's very borderline. And I'm not sure whether there's anything to the Skald. Also the mage and the warpriest were pretty redundant and the Sentinel I've only ever seen once, and that for a dog-obsessed drop-in.

It also contains a lot of dubious experimentation, much like late 3.5 material does. In fact, in my ACTUAL play of 4e, I think classes outside of PHB1 and 2 were ALMOST never even contemplated.

As I mentioned in my current campaign group there's an active hexblade and I've a berserker. The thing is that once you've filled out the basic classes then you have to experiment. Some of the best 3.5 stuff came from the experimenting.

There were a smattering of e-class characters that a couple players experimented with, a Slayer we made to be a "visiting player" PC, a psion that a guy dropped in and played for a few sessions (we weren't charops enough for him, lol) and that was about it, really.
Nobody ever played a PHB3 class, except the one psion. Nobody played an HoS class, or a HotFW class that I can remember either.

Your experience is very different from mine (The Esassin is a HoS class - but that book was the biggest mess in 4e)

Blackguard, Necromancer, both good concepts. Oh, we did have a Esassin, which was a bit of an odd class, but seemed pretty solid.

Blackguard was a good concept but HoS was a Mike Mearls project.

The Necromancer and the Nethermancer were both HoS subclasses and nicely fluffy. I've said before and I'll say again that one of the things where Essentials improved on base 4e is that evokers and necromancers are more inspiring than orb wizards and staff wizards.

There was also the Swordmage and Artificer, making 25. ALL of those are pretty solid, though I think about 5 of the 6 PHB3 ones are fairly unneeded (the monk being the exception). Actually the Seeker is a good concept, though it needs more love to make it really on a par with the others.

Point. I really don't like the Artificer as it doesn't feel like it builds stuff - indeed I'd go so far as to say that it's the only time I actively prefer the 5e version of a class.

I don't know about Cancer Mages... lol. I think 5e could use a few more classes, but as I said above, there's a bunch in 4e that are just cruft, at least TO ME. But 'class' means a bit different thing in each game, so we should be careful how we look at that.

Yup. 5e's taken 4e's subclasses and run with the way it opens up design space right to the point of making the Psion a subclass of Sorcerer ("Abyssal Mind sorcerer"). It's made the decision for both good and ill to keep down the number of classes and instead do as much as possible with subclasses (putting a lot of what was done in 4e by both feats and powers there), and it's a choice I can respect.

 

[Garthanos]

Yup. 5e's taken 4e's subclasses and run with the way it opens up design space right to the point of making the Psion a subclass of Sorcerer ("Abyssal Mind sorcerer"). It's made the decision for both good and ill to keep down the number of classes and instead do as much as possible with subclasses

which are to me like taking away individual power choices and wrapping them all in one choice (pick a build and you get this this this and this one choice to rule them all and in the darkness bind them). We never would have another lazylord/princ(ess) build warlord, in 5e land.

Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies provide similar clumped choices in 4e but are usually cross class compatible not class specific.

(putting a lot of what was done in 4e by both feats and powers there), and it's a choice I can respect.

Far fewer less surgical feats though. (even from the beginning)

The customization option that is increased in 5e is multi-classing if you want to customize the character its kind of open ended grab bag.

And spell casters getting few class specific spells? For me powers were much more class defining in 4e anyone can steal a fighters maneuvers and on top of that class features also customizing powers. If I steal come and get it... and I am not a fighter I do not get the mass marking and hence the challenge benefit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

which are to me like taking away individual power choices and wrapping them all in one choice (pick a build and you get this this this and this one choice to rule them all and in the darkness bind them). We never would have another lazylord/princ(ess) build warlord, in 5e land.

Oh indeed. If I've ever said or even implied that 5e is my favourite D&D my apologies. I'd both rather run and play 4e than 5e. But it does have its strengths, especially with ease of access, and to me it leaves any other D&D before 4e in the dust unless you want a tight dungeon crawl.

Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies provide similar clumped choices in 4e but are usually cross class compatible not class specific.

And here's another thing that 5e could do with. Especially a paragon path as fighters and rogues basically stop getting new abilities at level 11.

And spell casters getting few class specific spells? For me powers were much more class defining in 4e anyone can steal a fighters maneuvers and on top of that class features also customizing powers. If I steal come and get it... and I am not a fighter I do not get the mass marking and hence the challenge benefit.

This is something else 5e learned from 4e; the specialist wizards, for example, get to improve spells based on their schools rather than simply getting extra spells per day of their school. A high enough level illusionist, for example, can make parts of their normal illusion spells real.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, there were a lot that could be cut. But as you say there were already 20 classes in the game. Also in the Essentials era classes I've either played or run for in Heroic tier and that were fun and couldn't be replaced with pre-4e classes without serious reworks for the player:

• Thief
• Slayer
• Knight
• Hexblade (currently one in the campaign I'm dropping in to)
• Scout
• Bladesinger (yes, really)
• Vampire
• Executioner (needed polish but there's a decent class there)
• Berserker (currently playing one)
• Elementalist

Yeah, basically the hexblade is the only true e-class that gets a solid thumbs up from me, and I don't see why we needed Essentials to have that, it could have just been a standard warlock build (which it almost is). The Vampire is not really an E-class at all, it is a standard class with just very few powers provided. And Elementalist definitely fills a niche, though I would have loved to have seen the sorcerer done as an Elemental class.

Not included includes the Witch, the Sha'ir, the Binder, the Blackguard (there could have been something there), the Skald, the Hunter (again an execution miss). The Crusader's very borderline. And I'm not sure whether there's anything to the Skald. Also the mage and the warpriest were pretty redundant and the Sentinel I've only ever seen once, and that for a dog-obsessed drop-in.

As I mentioned in my current campaign group there's an active hexblade and I've a berserker. The thing is that once you've filled out the basic classes then you have to experiment. Some of the best 3.5 stuff came from the experimenting.

but why even make more classes, there are tons of builds that were hinted in 4e but never provided, and many more that could have been.

Your experience is very different from mine (The Esassin is a HoS class - but that book was the biggest mess in 4e)

HoS is a very solid book, except it has to dual use for both Essentials and classic, which is where it runs into some issues.

Blackguard was a good concept but HoS was a Mike Mearls project.

Blackguard is quite solid, but again it wasn't necessary to have Essentials to have that.

The Necromancer and the Nethermancer were both HoS subclasses and nicely fluffy. I've said before and I'll say again that one of the things where Essentials improved on base 4e is that evokers and necromancers are more inspiring than orb wizards and staff wizards.

But again, the problem with Necro/Nether is they are stuck being Mage subclasses, which serves no real purpose. I think that the different types of implement specialities are just as interesting, potentially as whatever is in Mage. It didn't get quite the focus I would have given it though. The summoner thing was a good start, with the tome. The IDEA of a more accurate wizard, a more potent effect wizard, and a more melee capable wizard (staff) were solid ideas though. I don't see the point of the change midstream to a different way of parsing it. Instead why not actually develop those themes? Necro could easily involve a new implement for instance, and Nether, meh, who asked for it?

Point. I really don't like the Artificer as it doesn't feel like it builds stuff - indeed I'd go so far as to say that it's the only time I actively prefer the 5e version of a class.

I don't know the 5e version. I found the 4e version rather fiddly, but thematically it is in a good space. Still, I agree I would have made it more focused on the crafting thing.

Yup. 5e's taken 4e's subclasses and run with the way it opens up design space right to the point of making the Psion a subclass of Sorcerer ("Abyssal Mind sorcerer"). It's made the decision for both good and ill to keep down the number of classes and instead do as much as possible with subclasses (putting a lot of what was done in 4e by both feats and powers there), and it's a choice I can respect.

I don't have an issue in some sense with it, but 5e's classes, that is 5e's PCs, overall are a lot less interesting IMHO than 4e's are. I like that it is a bit easier to achieve a specific concept, but there's not really enough leeway in there, and the lack of really interesting martial classes is quite telling.

 

[Mordhau]

Like I've said, I'm not a fan of dailies at all and would have rather we went entirely to encounter-based design, but what I feel is a fair critique of some daily powers if you're using them is that some could only be maximized by ideal conditions and some where just good all the time. So sometimes it was just better to blow one on a lower tier fight because that's the one where you would get to feel badass and you knew, for example that most fights wouldn't feature so many delicious minions to disem- and then reembowel.

This is part of the issue with the design that separates them all out vancian style rather than accounting them out of a budget.

If you had 3 daily slots you could use on any daily you have then it would actually make a lot more sense to dailies to cover different kinds of situations.

But this does put more burden on playtesting as an unbalanced power will have more impact.

 

[S'mon]

Whuuuuhhhh??? If I can't Action Point into a Daily that is further enhanced by some kind of cheesy magic item power, I don't even want to play in your stupid game.

(I do wear my power gaming heart on my sleeve.)

This is definitely a big part of the fun of 4e for me. I look forward to my Fighter reaching 5th level so I can Minor Action Rain of Steel on the same turn I Encounter Power - action point - Encounter power - and probably use an item Daily on the same turn too.

 

[pemerton]

From my point of view it meant more consistency in what to expect from PCs combat to combat as there was less spikey daily powers that might or might not enter a combat.

The flip side of this is players have less ability to affect the shared fiction.

Part of what I found distinctive about 4e D&D is its player-side resource suites which give players a lot of scope to make decisions about when they really want to try hard and impose their wills on the unfolding situation (action points, daily powers, and so on).

 

[Joshua Randall]

As a guy who has a very long history of building applications at the bleeding edge of possible, I always considered this a very poor excuse. The functionality that they envisaged for 4e's DDI was something that was ALWAYS going to require a team of 150 people 2-3 years to build. One guy dropping off that project, regardless of how key he might be, is not an excuse for a derail of the kind they had.

I think there are two issues here.

(1) Wizards' initial vastly unrealistic overpromising of DDI ("Gleemax" LOL) functionality. That grandiose vision would've required the team of scores of experienced devs and the multi-millions of dollars you talked about.

(2) However, for what it turned out Wizards was actually working on (a character builder), with a small team, the loss of a key person or two can be devastating.

For comparison, in a past life I worked for a major auto insurance company (it's one you've heard of) on rebuilding the rating engine with a team of 6 developers. Yeah. A half-dozen people were responsible for arguably the most important piece of software to the entire company. Our lead dev / technical architect was very, very smart and experienced and savvy about business operations. If we had lost him for any reason, the project would have had major problems.

So I can image that Wizards losing their key person was equally devastating.