Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Neonchameleon]

1) The difference is great enough to cause a cognitive dissonance that bug some people while playing. Some people can get past it, others can't, especially if they really liked O4E.

That claim alone is enough to tell me you appear to not be reading the thread. A repeatedly made and never accepted challenge has been to find people who have had problems mixing essentials and non-essentials in actual play. There have been plenty of people claiming that because the classes are different they are incompatable, but all the tabletop experience posted has said it's fine. So either you are the first person to be bugged by it while playing (are you? This would be interesting. And new.) Or you are making things up about the thread.

3) Some find Essentials boring. For me, this is my biggest hangup. Conceptually, I love the martial classes. In practice, most anything but the Wizard or classes in some way "power heavy" have been boring to play in all editions of D&D. Sure, you can work outside the rules and find ways to have fun in non-supported ways, but the core combat mechanic doesn't even need human intervention. For example, as a Fighter, especially in early levels, I can simply place a sign on my chair stating, "I attack the closest enemy," and go watch a movie and the tactical ability of the party won't be significantly diminished. There are very few actual choices to be made in combat. 3E is slightly better, but not by much.

We've been through this on this thread. Several times. I'm not going to ever want to play a Slayer. And neither are you. But there are people that like simple classes with restricted tactical and character options. And who get overwhelmed with analysis paralysis with complex characters and lots of tactical options. Others would rather autopilot the combats and star the rest of the time - or just be given something to do while hanging out with friends and don't want it to take up too much of their attention. I'm going to repeat the spirit of a challenge I made earlier in this thread. Why is it important to your fun that these people do not get classes to suit them?

The irony about Monopoly is that I have never once seen or heard of anyone ever playing it by the rules.

Believe it or not my family did. With my father checking the rulebook every game. But I can't think of another case.

 

[DracoSuave]

Believe it or not my family did. With my father checking the rulebook every game. But I can't think of another case.

Now I can say I have heard of someone who played it by the rules. Most people play with 500$ free parking windfalls.

I played in one (and this was an awesome variant) where players could actually combine their assets into corporations. Losing players with strategic properties would get merger offers... it was just a very interesting (and cutthroat) way to play.

 

[Scribble]

What's weird is now people seem to be saying that if they dislike Essentials others in this thread are telling them they're wrong? Maybe I missed it (the thread is huge) but I'm not seeing that- anywhere...

Someone disagreeing with your stance that it's incompatible and a new edition is not the same as them telling you you have to like the new options.

 

[MrMyth]

I think that about does it. Now can we please stop pretending that disliking Essentials either violates some clear, fundamental aspect of logic, that people who dislike it are literally too stupid to figure out how to play with their old books, or that people who dislike Essentials are literally too stupid and hidebound to accept anything at all that's new?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that isn't what anyone was saying... at all.

It is perfectly fine to dislike Essentials. The objections most folks have are to portraying it as something it is not.

Honestly, of your complaints, I totally get 1-3 (even though I don't have the same issues myself). Issue 6... yeah, I think they were unclear in some areas, though I do think some folks love to take things out of context or read more into things that is actually there.

Issue number 4 is one of those things I'm less convinced about - yes, WotC renaming the original classes the way they did was an odd decision and badly executed. Saying that means they are trying to make it hard to "just not play with Essentials", though? That's what I'm going to really object to. Yeah, it makes it a little harder to use the CB, and I do find fault in WotC for that. But that's got nothing to do, honestly, with Essentials being forced on anyone.

If you have an issue with errata, that's fair. I like it myself, but not everyone will. But, again, the issue here is pretending it is something new. It's not.

Number 5 is where I really am starting to disagree. We're fooling ourselves if we don't think Essentials is a new edition? Come on! We've shown, repeatedly, how by those same standards, PHB2, PHB3, FRPG, Arcane Power, etc, all would count as new editions. No new edition has taken place. Pointing to the class compendium articles as proof only really undermines your point - they have almost nothing to do with Essentials. They are simply a handful of - generally minor - fixes and updates for the PHB classes. Again, you can object to errata itself if you dislike it. But, again, it isn't anything new - they've been making those same sorts of fixes since 4E started.

Again - feel free to dislike Essentials. Feel free to not use it. But insisting that it is being forced on you, or that it is a new edition... that I will disagree with. Not because I think you are stupid or hidebound or any other insulting reason - but because the vast majority of evidence convinces me otherwise.

Folks get so caught up in trying to compare this to 3.5 or call it a new edition that, I think, it actuall undermines their arguments significantly. Neither of those things are true. From my perspective, honestly, not even close to it. What 4E has done, with ongoing errata and updates, is something entirely new.

That doesn't mean it is immune to criticism. But folks should be criticizing it on its own merits, rather than just trying to latch on to some comparison that they think will stir up sentiment on their behalf. "Essentials is 4.5!" is a pithy soundbite, sure - but, like many such things, is effective only in its rhetoric rather than its accuracy.

And that's the sort of thing I've been objecting to.

 

[Estlor]

You know, I've mostly stayed out of this thread after my original comments, not even to defend my assertions that I made earlier, because I mostly don't care to argue with people on the Internet. But having checked in on this thread, finding it still going, I've seen a couple of responses that are, first, a ridiculous strawman:

My "strawman" was in response to McGrendaline's comment:

As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes. I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.

Like I said, differences in guidelines between Guardian and Greatweapon versus Knight and Slayer. See Warrior, Fighter or Paladin or Ranger, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition Player's Handbook. I know that's not everyone's issue with Essentials.

I guess I just don't get the issue here. Where once there was one class design - AEDU - there is now three. All are enriched by the experience.

I mean, weren't people complaining about every class looking/feeling/playing exactly the same a little over a year ago?

 

[DracoSuave]

It is perfectly fine to dislike Essentials. The objections most folks have are to portraying it as something it is not.

Hear hear.

My suggestion is that if you object because it feels like it's incompatible, then try it out, and see for yourself. It works better than it looks.

If you're objecting cause you don't like a particular class, if you're a player, don't play that class. If you're a DM, don't play with that class.

If it's every class... don't play them.

But don't reject them just because someone claims they aren't compatible, and makes points that aren't really important to the day to day playing of a character. Some of the essentials classes are really good and enjoyable!

Try everything on its own merits, is all I'm saying. And if you find you don't like it, don't play it, no one's going to hate you.

Except Billy.

 

[Zaran]

I think we can all agree that it's great to have a slightly less complicated set of classes for new players. The problem only arises when this is the only thing that is being developed. This means core made characters only get supported if they share simular builds with their essentials counterparts. If they dont then support is reduced to hope of a dragon article. I think this is the reason why people get so up in arms over essentials and to them it makes the two ideals incompatible.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I mean, weren't people complaining about every class looking/feeling/playing exactly the same a little over a year ago?

Yes! I was one of them. And, again, to be clear, I like the essentials classes, in part for that reason.

 

[Saracenus]

Passionate, yes. And probably also extra-careful when posting opinions about 4e on a public forum like this.

Most employers don't appreciate it if their employees (or freelancers) are overly critical about their company's products. It's actually an excellent way to get fired (or in the case of the freelancer no longer being assigned any work).

You won't catch anyone working for WotC (or hoping to (continue) work for WotC) being overly negative about what they're doing (unless they're stupid). So, I'd wager even if Matt thought Essentials was crap and utterly incompatible with 'classic' 4e (which, I should stress, I do not actually believe!), he probably wouldn't say so (at least not in these words ), unless he planned to work in a completely different line of business.

It's only okay to freely share your criticism after the game has moved on, i.e. once WotC have published '4e Ultimate' which is replacing the obviously flawed '4e Essentials', you're free to tell everyone how much better '4e Ultimate' is, and how you always felt that '4e Essentials' was a step in the wrong direction...

It's happened before: Just look at the initial marketing campaign for 4e (i.e. the preview articles).

Um, SRM, he of "Save My Game Column" on DDI and Designer from Paizo has said many a positive and harsh things about 4e in his blog:
NeoGrognard

Granted folks are probably not going to get vitriolic about it, but then again they don't have to, they can talk to folks in the biz and be heard. Also being professional is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think we can all agree that it's great to have a slightly less complicated set of classes for new players. The problem only arises when this is the only thing that is being developed. This means core made characters only get supported if they share simular builds with their essentials counterparts. If they dont then support is reduce to hope of a dragon article. I think this is the reason why people get so up in arms over essentials and to them it makes the two ideals incompatible.

It's a good thing then that simple classes are not the only ones being developed.