Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Obryn]

OK. I think you've basically recapped most everything I've read, and I'm not going to get into quote war territory. So...

Essentials uses an entirely different design philosophy from O4E. This point should not be under debate, and in and of itself is by no means a bad thing. The designers stated it, and it's patently obvious from looking at how the classes are built. All the O4E classes are built one way, all of Essentials another. This isn't the same as the difference between 2E Rangers having spells while Fighters don't. For those of you who are unable to or refuse to understand this... well, I guess I don't really have anything to talk about with you.

I think it's more fair to say that Essentials expanded the kinds of classes we have in 4e. It didn't replace the AEDU structure, it kept AEDU and stretched it outwards. The only consistent new thing in Essentials classes is that they get class features at some levels. Many, but not all, classes have restricted choices at some levels. Some have no Daily attack powers. A normal AEDU class fits just as well into the new philosophy as any of the other classes.

On to your list...

1. I kinda think this sounds like a personal problem. When you bring in cognitive dissonance, you're going in a weird direction. I don't think in play that you can tell the difference between a Hexblade or Blackguard and a normal AEDU class, though. Slayers and Knights play a bit differently, for sure, but those are hardly all of Essentials.

2. I personally think they are a great new addition. I like having a spectrum of class complexity for new players. You disagree; that's fine.

3. This is one of those parts again where I'm going to say, "Then don't play one" and you're going to say, "You don't understand." We can skip that part. You're right - I don't understand. Can you explain it? I mean, when you say, "Essentials changed it," I just don't get it; it didn't change the PHB Fighter at all. It added a Knight and a Slayer, which are other options.

4. I'm in agreement that the nomenclature is silly, but I'm content just to call it silly and leave it. But I think it's completely reasonable for a Build to be "hidden" under the Weaponmaster or what have you - that's where builds belong. Subclasses and classes are a level above it.

5. You think I'm fooling myself for thinking it's not an edition. Is it okay for me to think you're fooling yourself for thinking it is? This isn't any more productive than the stuff you're protesting.

6. If there's one thing I know about the 4e WotC team it's that they're often bad at public relations. Thank goodness the past few months have been better. Essentials was released during a low point where information was confusing and often absent. So yeah, they mishandled the launch. At the same time, they said "It's a new starting point and an expansion." That's exactly what we got. It's not their fault we didn't believe them.

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?

I don't think that disliking or disallowing classes is stupid. Different tastes.

I also don't think it's insane to be dissatisfied with how you see the future of the game, but I think it's too early to predict. We've had all of one player-centric book released since HotFK, which was mostly a collection of powers, races, feats, and some (new-style) classes. We've had plenty of Dragon content, though, and it's either been mostly geared to increasing multiclassing and switching class features between subclasses, giving content useful to all sorts of classes, or helping out PHB-style classes. There hasn't been any E-only Dragon content this year that I can remember. It looks like WotC is going to continue to support all of it, which is great by me.

I do take issue with calling Essentials incompatible, an "obviously" new edition, or that it's somehow invalidated everything before it. Those are just ... not really honest. It's edition-war-style nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

-O

 

[MerricB]

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

I've done it. We had a, erm, five or six player game played entirely by the rules (no money on Free Parking, etc.) This was a few years ago when I was getting into knowing a lot more about boardgames, and I wanted to see how it went when actually played by the rules.

I might actually drag it out again this weekend for my regular boardgame day and see what happens...

Cheers!

 

[Redbadge]

I've done it. We had a, erm, five or six player game played entirely by the rules (no money on Free Parking, etc.) This was a few years ago when I was getting into knowing a lot more about boardgames, and I wanted to see how it went when actually played by the rules.

I might actually drag it out again this weekend for my regular boardgame day and see what happens...

Cheers!

I once had another player try to convince me that auctions were a house rule. When I opened the rule book and pointed to the large section on specifically that, he seemed baffled, and said that it was never in the original/the earlier editions he played. Then I was baffled because I knew he was wrong; I mean, that's like 90% of the gameplay/strategy right there.

Now when I play Monopoly, we play on the computer (hot seat) and we occasionaly play with all the default rules. Although I think many of the houserules available in the computer game (immunities, larger options for trades and bargains, a few others, but certainly not free parking) add to its strategic value.

Sorry for the derail.

 

[FireLance]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to MrG. If I understand him correctly, Essentials is harder to ignore than psionics because statements WotC made infer that the game will heavily lean towards the design scope of Essentials, whereas there was no comment that design would continue to follow the route of psionics.

We only have one book in hand to tell where the design focus is leading. So I could see why MrG and others could be slightly worried that WotC will continue to produce material that does not appeal to their tastes. I don't agree with the need to worry, but I can understand where you're coming from MrG.

Yes, but what does this mean, exactly?

So far, the only real effect I've seen is that WotC is pointing to the Essentials line as a starting point for new players (see: the back cover of Heroes of Shadow) as opposed to the PH.

In terms of adventures, they should be playable by a party of entirely Essentials PCs, entirely pre-Essentials PCs, or a party that has a mix of both.

Now, there might be some cause for concern in terms of new options for released classes. New specializations for mages and domains for warpriests do add to the options for pre-Essentials wizards and clerics, but there may less support in terms of new encounter and daily attack powers for pre-Essentials fighters since the slayer and knight do not have such abilities. However, whether you see that as an actual problem depends on how important new options are to your continued enjoyment of the game.

 

[Herschel]

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?

The only way anyone is "too stupid" is where they claim Essentials classes are incompatible, because they're not. They work just fine in tandem and can even share feats (and powers in numerous circumstances) while fulfilling their roles. Heck, I don't like Essentials classes and don't play them and I'm tired of all the goodies tossed at the PH1 classes and races instead of fleshing out what was already released (Seeker, Runepriest, etc.) but I sure don't have delusions of incompatibility.

 

[Terramotus]

Uhhhhhhhhh...

You do know who you're replying to, yeah?

Not a clue. Don't really care, either. I stand by what I wrote.

3. This is one of those parts again where I'm going to say, "Then don't play one" and you're going to say, "You don't understand." We can skip that part. You're right - I don't understand. Can you explain it? I mean, when you say, "Essentials changed it," I just don't get it; it didn't change the PHB Fighter at all. It added a Knight and a Slayer, which are other options.

---snip---

I do take issue with calling Essentials incompatible, an "obviously" new edition, or that it's somehow invalidated everything before it. Those are just ... not really honest. It's edition-war-style nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

-O

Man, I'm done with raging about Essentials. I don't care for the material, but it no longer gives me the rage. The thing about point number 3 that means I can't ignore the content is that because of it, I don't get to buy new D&D products, because they're not making stuff I'm interested in. For pretty much the first time. I've been waiting for a 4E Elemental power source since the two preview books. Am I going to get it? I'm guessing not in a way that I would want it. The other points kind of tie into making it difficult to ignore too.

To me, "new edition" isn't an insult. I've been on board for every new edition since I started playing 2E as a kid (including "2.5", the player's option stuff). But whatever. I pay less and less attention to what's going on with WotC these days anyway. Considering how much of a diehard I've been and the ridiculous amounts of money I've spent, that's probably not a great thing for them. They've got serious problems with PR and fracturing their fanbase. But again, whatever.

Mostly, I came here looking for legit information about Essentials changes and compatibility, since I'm starting a new 4E game that's going to be using the online character builder. I had heard about the (senseless?) nerf to the Melee Training feat to balance Essentials classes, and the lackluster benefits added to soften the "feat tax" effect of the math fix feats, and was wondering if there were any other gotchas that I would need to be aware of, not just in the sense of the new rules being broken with old rules, but changing the feel in a negative way as well. I'm incredibly wary of the new Class Compendium changes as well.

Instead, I found a lot of posts denigrating anyone who dared to dislike Essentials, implying that there's something seriously wrong with someone who doesn't like Essentials. That pissed me off. I posted.

 

[Dannager]

Not a clue. Don't really care, either. I stand by what I wrote.

Matt James is one of the authors of the newest Monster Vault. It just struck me as a little comical that you accused a guy with his name on the cover of an official 4e rules book of not being passionate about the 4e rules.

 

[Kzach]

I just realised that nobody has yet brought up the most important matter in regards to this thread's question.

Therefore I just ask for your extra time and your... kiss.

 

[FireLance]

Instead, I found a lot of posts denigrating anyone who dared to dislike Essentials, implying that there's something seriously wrong with someone who doesn't like Essentials. That pissed me off. I posted.

I'm not condoning people who denigrate others, but have you considered that they might have felt attacked by posts such as the following which seem to suggest that their favored game elements or playstyles are boring or bad?

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.

04E changed that. Now Fighters were interesting to play. All of them were. Leaders, a concept it introduced, were no longer just healbots (or in 3.5E, better fighters than the Fighter instead). Essentials went a long way towards changing it back to the bad old days.

 

[Jhaelen]

Matt James is one of the authors of the newest Monster Vault. It just struck me as a little comical that you accused a guy with his name on the cover of an official 4e rules book of not being passionate about the 4e rules.

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).