Is essentials basically...

[UngeheuerLich]

@Toni Vargas

we agree on most parts i guess... it is just, that i don´t believe in "trap otions"...
on the other hand, i also don´t believe in doing it wrong...

it is just that I think it is a bit depressing if I see a player aiming for a concept and finding out, that it just does not work... and essential classes have a good concept backed up by good flavourful mechanics...

I rather liked the you can´t really do wrong in your build concept of ADnD... Those parts that you get while playing... items and experience and training should define your character more than what you do between sessions...

On the other hand I really like the idea, that a character is not only capable of doing something through his items... (a character without magic items in ADnD was more than useless...)

And in the end, i like having a capable base structure like those of the essential builds and the possibility to customize with feats, RARE magic items and maybe grandmaster training/learning new spells and maybe even skill training as a result of actual roleplay...

 

[MrMyth]

Just cobbling together an 'easy mode' character leaves you effective out the gate, which has got to be good for morale, but you don't learn much from it. And, if you're playing a character that's radically different in structure from others, the little you are learning is only narrowly aplicable.

So, Essentials easier for new players? Yes. Better? Not so much.

Maybe true, maybe not. But I think it easy to miss the fact that new players aren't always the only ones want 'easy mode'. I mentioned a couple times having players who will just roll the dice, not wanting to have to choose a power, compare at-will vs encounter, etc. These aren't necessarily new players - some folks just aren't wanting to mess around with several layers of tactical complexity and options, and Essentials very directly answers many of the issues that have come up during games.

Whether designing their own characters or not, having this alternate structure available is very useful for them. And I imagine one of the reason Essentials makes some of the design choices it did, since I'm assuming my experience with such players isn't unique.

I'd love a system that more seamlessly merges the two, where you get both options within one unified design - but I think that would require rebuilding the game from the ground up, and couldn't be bolted on to 4E as the Essentials designs were. So for what the options were, I think Essentials did well what it set out to do - present a new set of options that avoided many of the complexities (both in creating and running characters) that some folks didn't want to deal with.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it easy to miss the fact that new players aren't always the only ones want 'easy mode'. I mentioned a couple times having players who will just roll the dice, not wanting to have to choose a power, compare at-will vs encounter, etc. These aren't necessarily new players - some folks just aren't wanting to mess around with several layers of tactical complexity and options

'Casual players,' sure. They exist. Maybe they're at the table for social interaction, or maybe they like playing a role, but not dealing with minutiae of mechanics.

4e already seemed pretty forgiving, to me - compared to 3.5, anyway - it takes very little 'optimization' to make a viable 4e character. Essentials takes it farther. In some ways, it's fine. There's nothing wrong with a few more SAD classes that don't give you devilish stat trade-offs to juggle, and certainly nothing wrong with getting away from dual-primary classes. There's nothing wrong with a build that has a sort of 'power steering' - a clear set of default choices that flow from a single choice about general concept. You pick axe or sword, sun or storm, evocation or enchantment, and *boom* a viable path for your character is right there, no /need/ to go further.

But, begginer or casual player, they may want to deviate from that obvious path a bit at some point. With a Mage, you start out able to deviate from the obvious path, you maybe even have to think about it a bit, because it's not quite /perfectly/ obviuos, not dictated to you. With a Warpriest, you can't deviate much from the path, your initial domain choice dictates much of your future choices over the next 30 levels. With a Slayer, choice of weapon is about it. While Essentials delivers on the mandate to provide simpler classes, it does it haphazardly and with prejudice. Some concepts can't ever be that simple, some can never grow in complexity with the player.

On top of that, the simplest classes are all martial. So there's a link between concept and player experience/seriousness. If you're the new/casual guy, you're put in the martial ghetto. No dailies, no choices for you. Want to play an archanist? Too bad, they're too 'advanced' for you. Once you've learned that lesson, and graduated to playing 'real' classes as you begin to master the game, why even look back at the other martial characters in the obsolete PH1?


Yeah, Essentials is designed for new & casual players. It also patronizes them and, in it's zeal for AD&D retro-nostalgic 'feel,' teaches them old-school prejudices, as well. Successful at some it's goals? Yes. Good for the game overall? No.

 

[MrMyth]

'Casual players,' sure. They exist. Maybe they're at the table for social interaction, or maybe they like playing a role, but not dealing with minutiae of mechanics.

Well, I think it depends what one means by casual. Not pursuing system mastery? That certainly applies here. But in terms of only occasionally plays? Some of them, maybe - but others are smart and clever players who play in 2-3 campaigns a week or more - they are invested quite heavily in the game and the gaming.

They just find the power structure format unwieldy, and so having the options for a simpler approach works for them. I'm not saying 4E didn't have decent options previously - but the ones Essentials provided explicitly answered specific situations that often cropped up for such players.

But, begginer or casual player, they may want to deviate from that obvious path a bit at some point.

...

While Essentials delivers on the mandate to provide simpler classes, it does it haphazardly and with prejudice. Some concepts can't ever be that simple, some can never grow in complexity with the player.

I do sorta get this concern, except that... they can expand to use many of the existing options out there, and WotC has at least started to providing the multiclassing/hybrid choices to make fully robust mingling of the material. Again, if it was the entire game, I'd see your concern. But as an option, I think it works fine.

On top of that, the simplest classes are all martial. So there's a link between concept and player experience/seriousness. If you're the new/casual guy, you're put in the martial ghetto. No dailies, no choices for you. Want to play an archanist? Too bad, they're too 'advanced' for you. Once you've learned that lesson, and graduated to playing 'real' classes as you begin to master the game, why even look back at the other martial characters in the obsolete PH1?

This sounds more a hypothetical problem, at least to me. I don't think most groups will so easily end up locked into these potential mindsets. That said, I wouldn't mind some of these being addressed, sure, and hopefully WotC does so at some point.

Yeah, Essentials is designed for new & casual players. It also patronizes them and, in it's zeal for AD&D retro-nostalgic 'feel,' teaches them old-school prejudices, as well. Successful at some it's goals? Yes. Good for the game overall? No.

Eh... again, options aren't laws. I'm not really seeing patronization in providing these options to those who want it. I do get your concerns, again, but I think we'll have to wait quite some time to see if Essentials really does leave lingering prejudices on those who use it, especially when it is offered alongside the existing options as well that so readily undermine any such prejudices.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do sorta get this concern, except that... they can expand to use many of the existing options out there, and WotC has at least started to providing the multiclassing/hybrid choices to make fully robust mingling of the material.

The Essentials martial builds don't have any meaningful capacity to expand to use existing options. They can pay a feat tax to get /one/ encounter power. Hybriding - and to a lesser extent, mutliclassing - is a very advanced option, and expecting a player who's just starting to want a few more options for his Knight or Slayer to re-build a Fighter are start hybriding or crawling feat trees just to get the added option a Mage gets by retraining a power when he levels up doesn't seem like it addresses the issue at all.

This sounds more a hypothetical problem, at least to me. I don't think most groups will so easily end up locked into these potential mindsets. ...I think we'll have to wait quite some time to see if Essentials really does leave lingering prejudices on those who use it, especially when it is offered alongside the existing options as well that so readily undermine any such prejudices.

The mindset that 'martial' or 'melee types' are meant for new/casual/low-skill players and casters for experienced 'master' players has been with the game for decades . 4e was the first ed that openly defied that expectation. Essentials represents WotC caving to it.

That said, I wouldn't mind some of these being addressed, sure, and hopefully WotC does so at some point.

While it'd be a step in the right direction, it also wouldn't help much. Essentials is the 'evergreen' product line. If a simplified Sorcerer, say, were released in some future suplement, it'd be an option that new players, starting with Essentials, might get to - after they'd learned the martial=simple/caster=complex lesson - or not, and that would eventually be off the shelves again.

While Essentials does just represent a set of options in addition to the vast and growing universe of all 4e options, it also represents the sub-set of options that form the new core of the game, the only ones that we can assume everyone will have in common going forward. So, Essentials - by itself - has begun defining the game.

 

[MerricB]

The mindset that 'martial' or 'melee types' are meant for new/casual/low-skill players and casters for experienced 'master' players has been with the game for decades . 4e was the first ed that openly defied that expectation. Essentials represents WotC caving to it.

No, 4E was Wizards failing to realise that the divide existed.

As a result, they created a system where one of the most difficult characters to understand (ruleswise) was the fighter.

That's pretty impressive, in a negative sort of way.

The simple fact is that D&D works best when there are roles that fit the less mechanically-inclined players. Why do we get this with the martial/caster split? Because its very easy to have a simple martial character, but it is far less easy to have a simple caster character.

However, when I first started playing AD&D, back in the early 80s, I played a magic-user. There are new players now who will start with a mage or wizard. Mechanical complexity and difficulty of play aren't a barrier for everyone, but assuming that they're not a barrier for anyone (as Wizards seemed to with the 4E Fighter) is a blunder.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, 4E was Wizards failing to realise that the divide existed.

I know WotC never exactly had thier finger on the pulse of the community, but there's no way, with hundreds of pages of 'Fighter SUX' threads on their own forums, they could possibly have been unaware of the attitudes towards that class.

As a result, they created a system where one of the most difficult characters to understand (ruleswise) was the fighter.

Again, given the consistent - and valid - streams of complaints about class balance the system had been getting for so long, it was hardly a bad idea to shoot for class balance. 4e did that, and succeeded. It was no small accomplishment. That there were fans who were so accumstomed to imbalance that they'd /hate/ the idea of anyone getting to play a balanced/interesting martial character may have been hard to imagine - achieving balance was hard to imagine, so I can see how the consequences thereof might also have been tough to anticipate.

The simple fact is that D&D works best when there are roles that fit the less mechanically-inclined players. Why do we get this with the martial/caster split? Because its very easy to have a simple martial character, but it is far less easy to have a simple caster character.

No, because of that ingrained mind-set. In the past, the Fighter was the simplest class. Since 3e it hasn't been (in 3e, that was the Barbarian, in 4e, initially, the Ranger). Nothing stopped WotC from putting a bone-simple eldritch-blast + add-on curse effect version of a Warlock in Essentials, for instance.

 

[catastrophic]

Cool thread everyone

I really do feel like the essentials fighters were a compromise. There is some interesting design in there, but I think the two motives- making a newbie-friendly class, and making a lapsed player friendly class- were not not nearly as compatable as people would hope.

A new player needs a pregen, power cards, and to have a cool guy to use so they have fun. If you don't like pregens well, a 'simple modular system' like mr mearls talks about would be best starting from a uniform or near-uniform base in any event.

The actual mechanics of essentials don't really back up the idea of simplicity or new players, either. Consider the essential's defender mechanic. A situational aura replacing a mark does not suit a new player nearly as well as some people would claim.

If anything, a newbie-friendly fighter would not have interupt mechanics- it would create a kind of reverse-mark that the DM would manage, as opposed to the player. Marks kind of work like this already, but by removing marks- by putting the mechanic more onto the player instead of in a space the GM could help them more readily with, the essentials defender fighter is actually less newbie friendly in my opinion.

A lapsed player needs any number of things, depending on their 'ancestry', so to speak. A lot of lapsed players came back not due to the essentials fighter, but the PHB1 fighter, and other similar design successes. Moving away from the phb fighter may have brought some people back, but it wasn't good damage control, because clearly many fans of 4e like phb1 fighters, and consider them example of the early promise of the system.

 

[catastrophic]

As a result, they created a system where one of the most difficult characters to understand (ruleswise) was the fighter.

This isn't really true. Compared to Psions? Paladins? Warlocks, with their hilarious v-shaped hyjinks?

The simple fact is that D&D works best when there are roles that fit the less mechanically-inclined players. Why do we get this with the martial/caster split? Because its very easy to have a simple martial character, but it is far less easy to have a simple caster character.

That's an assumption, but it's not based on anything but D&D convention.

Why not have a caster who has a small set of simple burst powers with a strong focus on 'flavour your spells how you like'? That would be simple. Why can't a wizard be a mainly skill based guy who occasionally makes his staff glow really bright, like gandalf usually is?

 

[MerricB]

This isn't really true. Compared to Psions? Paladins? Warlocks, with their hilarious v-shaped hyjinks?

Psions weren't in the original book. Paladins don't impress me as being that more complicated than Fighters. Warlocks have really odd design, but aren't particularly complicated to play.

This is compared to the two key abilities of the Fighter:

COMBAT SUPERIORITY
An enemy hit by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If the enemy still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.

COMBAT CHALLENGE
Whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you as a target, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy.

Those two abilities - especially with the way they were originally worded - make the fighter one of the most complex characters to run on the battlefield, because they need to know the combat movement rules intimately. I've seen novice players get confused by them more often than any other rule or ability.