My first thoughts after reading the Essentials

[MrMyth]

Yeah, it's the old logic that a level 20 fighter will have an easier time climbing a wooden wall than a level 5 fighter... but that doesn't matter, because at level 20, if a climb check needs to be rolled, it should be because the level 20 fighter is climbing a flaming wall of tentacles in the pits of hell.

I like the idea of more guidance on just 'quick-scaling' DCs, though my impression was that this would be in addition to more standard formulaic DCs for skill checks, since there are times when that can also be useful.

I'm liking the bulk of what I hear about Essentials. The two worries that are on my mind are poor classification and balancing of common/uncommon/rare items, and, as noted, the fact they are taking the feat tax philosophy of Expertise and cranking it to a whole new level. Blah.

 

[Lord Ernie]

I really dislike that they do not have a Turn Undead power. I think that's an iconic power for the cleric.

Ironically, I can only cheer the lack of Turn Undead. While for some domains such a power would make sense, an unaligned cleric of war, or storm, or whatnot, has ho business turning undead.

Worse, turning undead is a very situational ability in the first place, and suffers from the same issues Racial Enemies did in 3.X. While a certain level of influence of the campaign on the overall usefulness of powers is to be expected (very similar example: radiant powers vs. undead), if the presence/absence of one creature type can make a power simply useless (turn undead), it might as well not be there in the first place. In the first case, the power is more useful in some circumstances, but still works in others; in the second, it's an either/or situation, where the usage of the ability becomes trivial.

There's a reason my cleric (of the Raven Queen, mind, so he's no fan of the undead) jumped on the chance to replace Turn Undead with the much more universally useful Healer's Mercy.

 

[KidSnide]

Yeah, it's the old logic that a level 20 fighter will have an easier time climbing a wooden wall than a level 5 fighter... but that doesn't matter, because at level 20, if a climb check needs to be rolled, it should be because the level 20 fighter is climbing a flaming wall of tentacles in the pits of hell.

I like the idea of more guidance on just 'quick-scaling' DCs, though my impression was that this would be in addition to more standard formulaic DCs for skill checks, since there are times when that can also be useful.

I'm liking the bulk of what I hear about Essentials. The two worries that are on my mind are poor classification and balancing of common/uncommon/rare items, and, as noted, the fact they are taking the feat tax philosophy of Expertise and cranking it to a whole new level. Blah.

This is all true. It's not that quick scaling DCs is wrong, it's that the challenge needs to scale will the DC. I think the falling table is the best example of the right sort of advice. Falling 50 feet (correctly) does the same amount of damage regardless of level. However, a 50-foot fall performs a different purpose in a 2nd-level adventure than it does in a 12th-level adventure.

Similarly, I like how the DC for jumping a given distance stays the same, but it would be useful to have a table of "appropriate distances" so that GMs can draw maps with the right idea of how big a gap they need to create an appropriate challenge. Similarly, it would be appropriate to include a list of 20 or so climbing tasks with suggested DC ranges.

Good adventure design involves the use of appropriate DCs. However, good design also involves giving GMs (and, correspondingly, players) information about the sort of challenges those DCs represent.

-KS

 

[frankthedm]

Wizard:
I love that some of the most potent effects are very powerful but fade if the target takes damage...making them control powers not gank the solo powers.

A very good thing.

Bad: Skill DCs are now even more based on your level and less on the situation. Some Dcs should not get higher simply because I'm higher level.

Agreed

 

[Stalker0]

I like the idea of more guidance on just 'quick-scaling' DCs, though my impression was that this would be in addition to more standard formulaic DCs for skill checks, since there are times when that can also be useful.

This is my preference as well.

I love the standard DC chart as a way of going "If I want to throw something at my party and provide X level of challenge, what DC should I use?"

That is a wonderfully useful mechanic.


But on the other hand, I like DCs that represent specific obstacles in the world...which becomes very important for sandbox games. One of the best ways I have found to make players feel taht they are really progressing in the world is to throw an old challenge at them and watch them smash it.

When they go from considering a 20 foot jump to be a terrifying experience to now auto passing it, that's a really feeling of growth.


Now as a DM I respect any DMs right to toss the DCs and just say "You guys are now so cool you just auto pass that stuff". But from my rulebooks I would like the information there in case I want to use it.

 

[mkill]

It's unlikely that a PC will climb a wall at lvl 1 and the same wall again at lvl 20. If that happens, the DM can still grant the lvl 20 PC the DC that is meant for lvl 1 PCs. It's just that usually, lvl 20 PCs will adventure in the "lvl 20 area" of the game world, because the "lvl 1 area" isn't much of a challenge anymore. And if PCs don't go adventure there, you don't need rules for it.

 

[KidSnide]

It's unlikely that a PC will climb a wall at lvl 1 and the same wall again at lvl 20. If that happens, the DM can still grant the lvl 20 PC the DC that is meant for lvl 1 PCs. It's just that usually, lvl 20 PCs will adventure in the "lvl 20 area" of the game world, because the "lvl 1 area" isn't much of a challenge anymore. And if PCs don't go adventure there, you don't need rules for it.

Sure, but sometimes my level 8 PCs face level 6 challenges, and sometimes they face level 12 challenges. When the challenge is a combat challenge, they can look at the opposition and - based on the type and number of monsters - tell whether this challenge is on the high or low end of their ability. When the challenge is a skill check, there is almost nothing in the rules to help them figure out how easy or difficult the DC might be.

-KS

 

[nookiemonster]

When the challenge is a skill check, there is almost nothing in the rules to help them figure out how easy or difficult the DC might be.

Describe it. A rough stone wall is going to be easier to climb than a glass-smooth wall that's slick with beholder boogers. If it's to decipher a ritual using Arcana, the character probably has some idea if he's familiar with that type or not, and to what degree. And so on.

 

[nookiemonster]

Bad: Some of the common items are so strong I don't think people will look at uncommon and rares in certain cases. For example, the old fan favorite Bracers of Mighty Striking are still there (yes your slayer can have a permanent +6 to damage rolls, step right up).

This applies only to melee basic attacks, not any other kind of attack. The Slayer and Knight will rely heavily on MBAs, but on the other hand do not get any dailies or much in the way of encounter powers, which should balance things out. Probably be doing something like 2[W] + huge static damage bonus per hit. Making them fairly reliable hitters I should think.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Describe it. A rough stone wall is going to be easier to climb than a glass-smooth wall that's slick with beholder boogers. If it's to decipher a ritual using Arcana, the character probably has some idea if he's familiar with that type or not, and to what degree. And so on.

But this is exactly the point - it would make more sense to give a range of DCs for actual circumstances (rocks, brick wall, rough stone, glass) which the DM can then pick for their adventurers as appropriate, rather than say "There is always a challenging wall and a challenging jump, at whatever level the PCs come to this place".

The latter approach is antithetical to one of the most traditional forms of worldbuilding, and frankly strikes me as lazy game design.