Playing Essentials-Only

[Zuche]

I find limiting options to things printed only since Essentials much more relaxing, especially with Dragon removed from the list of options. Fewer steps makes immersion easier to achieve.

 

[Droogie128]

I don't see that as edition warring: if I'm reading that post correctly, he feels Essentials versions of classes have fewer options than the broader 4Ed system as a whole allows.

In a sense, it would be kind of like asking about playing a no PHB campaign in 3.5Ed, and someone lamenting the loss of classes like Wizards & Druids.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Specifically, the martial classes. They're my favorite classes in O4E, and my least favorite in Essentials.

Definitely make sure the entire group is on board, because if they feel the same way as me, it might not end well. A DM announcing Essentials only would be me looking for the door.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Specifically, the martial classes. They're my favorite classes in O4E, and my least favorite in Essentials.

I like the E-Thief and E-Ranger (Hunter), but I have to agree that IME the Slayer & Knight seem very limited compared to the PHB-Fighter. Most players seem to swap them out first chance they get. It doesn't help that the online charbuilder presents their abilities so poorly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I like the E-Thief and E-Ranger (Hunter), but I have to agree that IME the Slayer & Knight seem very limited compared to the PHB-Fighter. Most players seem to swap them out first chance they get. It doesn't help that the online charbuilder presents their abilities so poorly.

I've noticed something similar. The Slayer and the Knight are both solid classes, but neither really shines at anything unless work has been put into the build (I'm fairly sure there were absolutely no complaints about my Bludgeon Expertise/World Serpent's Grasp/Avalanche Craghammer dwarf knight pregen who was gleefully smashing people about or to the ground or using Come and Get It). But I needed to work on making the build shine rather than just come up with continual solid numbers.

The thief is of course arguably the best skill monkey in the game (seven trained skills and a climb speed without trying - normally only Bards are in much of a position to argue). And the hunter and scout are both top tier skill monkeys (five trained skills IIRC, plus knacks, plus certain stances providing skill bonusses - that's right up there with the PHB rogue, the shaman, and the Bard) who have distinctive effects beyond the damage numbers on the enemy. The two e-Fighters only get three trained skills, the Slayer's numbers get beaten, and the Knight needs tactical acumen and synergy to shine - the very simplicity makes it most suitable fro advanced players.

I honestly think all the Slayer needs is something like the Barbarian's Rampage - a way to look really good once in a while.

 

[Klaus]

It sounds like, however, that what you mean is the soft-cover rules books only. In that case, I'd say, "Why?"

Sometimes limiting your resources is a great way to improve your skill -- both as a DM and as a player.

For instance, there's an art exercise that requires you to paint something -- say, an apple -- in 10 minutes or less (or 10 brushstrokes or less). Through this exercise, you learn to forgo the bells and whistles and focus on making each stroke count.


Example (not by me, mind you):

So, by limiting the available options, you force DMs and players to make the most out of what they have. Later you can slowly introduce more material.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Definitely make sure the entire group is on board, because if they feel the same way as me, it might not end well. A DM announcing Essentials only would be me looking for the door.

Ditto.

Or I might stay and ask the group "So who wants to play a full D&D game? I'll DM!"

 

[GameOgre]

I would have no issues with Essentials only,mixed Core and Essentials but I would have issues with core only.

I like core class's/Essential class's pretty much love it all but some of the people I love to play with.....NEED essentials.

Playing Core for them means playing badly. Thats fine, no biggy they make up for the lack of even simple character creation and managment skills with great role playing and being great people to game with.

I tell you in all honesty though,I was so happy when essentials came out I felt like crying(ok well maybe not THAT happy).

I'm NOT going back!

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I started an Essentials-only game a while back with a group of mostly new players I was trying to keep the game simple for. At this point, about 18 months into running the game (we don't manage to play more than an average of once/month, and our sessions are only 3 hours long) the party is about half essentials and half normal. I found that there were just not enough options available to suit the flavor needs of some of the players at the table. Especially when it came to the party leaders.

We started with a cleric, but the player only wanted to shoot crossbows -- god help me I don't understand his fixation on crossbows. But the only way to make his character worth having along was to set him up as an archer warlord -- which is not an essentials build.

But, it's not a very serious game -- the players don't do much obsessing about tactics and teamwork. Essentials made a pretty good fit for the game, but I did have to fill in a few gaps in what's available.

-rg

 

[Windjammer]

My first ever 4E PC was a cleric, played on June 6 2008. The char I currently run is a PH 2 druid.

In the past months I played 1 session each as an essentials cleric and an essentials druid, both at level 5 (me meaning my PC). It was a snooze fest. At the very same level my PH 2 druid got 6 at-wills (8 if you factor in his hedge wizard gloves - he's a druid on the run masquerading as wizard). My essentials druid at the same level had 1 at will.

ONE.

And oh, he also had his two basic attacks, melee and ranged.

The cleric was similarly boring. I had nothing interesting to do. This really irked me. I love the 4.0 cleric. Next to the fighter it's one of the classes that 4.0 got really right, and right out of the gate. That Essentials was the stated excuse to rewrite the PH 1 cleric into something vastly less interesting didn't exactly endear me to Essentials either; though I wish they'd just left it alone. Nowadays I can't even point friends who only got DDI to the char builder and say 'hey look at that, that's a class I really love and think well designed'. The class I like is gone from DDI.

So yeah, essentials druid and cleric. It's not just the slayer or the knight, it's really a lot more pervasive. There's also a lot of goodness in individual powers - e.g. getting rid of crit expanding stuff; having multiple options in 1 at-will (Essentials ranger, cf. PH 3 psion) - but the point is, this comes to little if the overall class design doesn't come well together. And in my limited experience, it just doesn't.

And it's not just the classes in Essentials. It's the races too. I loved the goodies that humans and half elves originally got - precisely because they enhance your at-wills. Now their racial bonuses are... not that great, if you ask me.

The one thing I'll give Essentials is flavour. I really liked some of the Essentials druid's class abilities. I think the opening paragraph to the Class Compendium on the rogue (which is the PH 1 rogue rewrite) is great; much greater than anything in PH 1. But such flavour text is not relevant in play, or at least it quickly fades away. And the druid's extra stuff - well, stuff like 'talk to animals at will, ask 3 questions' was already part of our campaigns, druid can speak to animals, yes of course. Can't really see how that type of thing can make up for a lack of meaningful choice in the power array. Might as well be allowed to wear green garments by trading away 5 at-wills.

I don't begrudge people who use essentials classes (some of my friends do), or those who run essentials-only campaigns. But personally I'd see it as a significant bump on my fun playing 4th edition if my GM said to me 'you got to play an essentials character'.

 

[Zuche]

Choice is not defined by the number of attack powers available to you. A good game encourages players to attempt something beyond what's listed on the character sheet.

Are you given bookshelves or piled crates to topple? Have you ever been given the option to create hindering terrain with a skill check? Were you ever given options to use siege weaponry or other mechanical devices in the middle of a fight? Did you ever stop to motivate or direct a potential ally?

If none of these options were ever available to you, your game is lacking something vital. If you've consistently passed over all of these options because you saw none of them as reasonable alternatives to any of your attack powers, the limit isn't defined on your character sheet.

If the number of powers on your character sheet determine whether or not you're playing D&D, you're missing out on the best parts of the game.