Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E 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="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8438710" data-attributes="member: 6704184"><p>There is no need to reconcile them. I've done long days, short days, marathon days where the group got more than 2 extra action points over 3+ sessions, and it does not matter. At all. All it does is broaden the player experience, so that players who dislike the play experience of stressing over daily and encounter resources can play in the same game as people who love the resource management mini-game of a tome-wizard with a bunch of magic item daily powers.</p><p></p><p>Okay? So did I. In fact I purchased every supplement except the elemental chaos one and maybe a couple X Power books, on top of having a DDI sub throughout the run of 4e, and introduced a <em>lot</em> of people to dnd using 4e.</p><p></p><p>You won't find me supporting or defending Mearls. My opinion of him is not the sort of thing I like to say in these forums (although I sometimes slip). However, Essentials was good for 4e. Full stop. It sucks that it didn't help save the edition from getting the axe, because the direction they were going around the time of Heroes of The Feywild was <em>really</em> good.</p><p></p><p>The point of a statement like that is pretty much that I'm saying exactly what you're saying here, to you. You use a lot of words to say stuff that is unsupported by literally anything, but the extra words don't make it more convincing.</p><p></p><p>If you won't acknowledge the difference between choosing whether to use an at-will, encounter, or daily power, and choosing whether to change stances or not (which isn't an actual decision point unless you have reason that turn to consider changing it, most of the time people just stay in the same stance for most or all of a fight) and then attacking, there is no point in this discussion continuing.</p><p></p><p>You've misunderstood. A large number of players <em>did not care</em> about the increased options of every class having a suite of powers with different power levels and refresh rates that fostered different tactical play experiences. Having every class have to have that, no matter what, was a problem for a large number of players. </p><p></p><p>The fact that some classes weren't the stars of CharOp discussions is so far into the realm of inconsequential trivia that I can't even manage to muster a tiny sliver of interest.</p><p></p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite18" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL :ROFLMAO:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" /></p><p></p><p>You can write out convoluted nonsense slanted by your own bias and desire to win an argument all you want. </p><p></p><p>Anyone who isn't desperately trying to win knows that the Slayer is simpler to build and to play than the PHB Fighter. Trying to claim otherwise is complete absurdity. </p><p></p><p>Trying to claim that choosing whether to change stance or not before attacking with a basic attack is the same as reviewing several powers with different costs and power levels and different kinds of effects is just...mind-bogglingly strange. There is objectively less to review, less to analyze, while building and playing a Slayer.</p><p></p><p>Neither were the sales numbers <em>for 4e DnD before Essentials</em>. The fact that Essentials didn't manage to save the edition does not, by even the most incredible stretch of logic, mean that a doubling down of what 4e was going would have done so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8438710, member: 6704184"] There is no need to reconcile them. I've done long days, short days, marathon days where the group got more than 2 extra action points over 3+ sessions, and it does not matter. At all. All it does is broaden the player experience, so that players who dislike the play experience of stressing over daily and encounter resources can play in the same game as people who love the resource management mini-game of a tome-wizard with a bunch of magic item daily powers. Okay? So did I. In fact I purchased every supplement except the elemental chaos one and maybe a couple X Power books, on top of having a DDI sub throughout the run of 4e, and introduced a [I]lot[/I] of people to dnd using 4e. You won't find me supporting or defending Mearls. My opinion of him is not the sort of thing I like to say in these forums (although I sometimes slip). However, Essentials was good for 4e. Full stop. It sucks that it didn't help save the edition from getting the axe, because the direction they were going around the time of Heroes of The Feywild was [I]really[/I] good. The point of a statement like that is pretty much that I'm saying exactly what you're saying here, to you. You use a lot of words to say stuff that is unsupported by literally anything, but the extra words don't make it more convincing. If you won't acknowledge the difference between choosing whether to use an at-will, encounter, or daily power, and choosing whether to change stances or not (which isn't an actual decision point unless you have reason that turn to consider changing it, most of the time people just stay in the same stance for most or all of a fight) and then attacking, there is no point in this discussion continuing. You've misunderstood. A large number of players [I]did not care[/I] about the increased options of every class having a suite of powers with different power levels and refresh rates that fostered different tactical play experiences. Having every class have to have that, no matter what, was a problem for a large number of players. The fact that some classes weren't the stars of CharOp discussions is so far into the realm of inconsequential trivia that I can't even manage to muster a tiny sliver of interest. :ROFLMAO: You can write out convoluted nonsense slanted by your own bias and desire to win an argument all you want. Anyone who isn't desperately trying to win knows that the Slayer is simpler to build and to play than the PHB Fighter. Trying to claim otherwise is complete absurdity. Trying to claim that choosing whether to change stance or not before attacking with a basic attack is the same as reviewing several powers with different costs and power levels and different kinds of effects is just...mind-bogglingly strange. There is objectively less to review, less to analyze, while building and playing a Slayer. Neither were the sales numbers [I]for 4e DnD before Essentials[/I]. The fact that Essentials didn't manage to save the edition does not, by even the most incredible stretch of logic, mean that a doubling down of what 4e was going would have done so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Inquiry: How do 4E fans feel about 4E Essentials?
Top