Playing Essentials-Only

[Windjammer]

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.

Yes, that was exactly my point with respect to the Essentials druid's abilities Herb Lore and Beast Empathy. I'm supposed to write codified, highly circumstantial and numerically underwhelming bonuses on my skill checks on my char sheet ('+2 to Intimidate checks vs. bears, but only when near caves or it's Thursday') instead of winging such stuff based on PC's skills and classes as we did in 4.0 ('Your PC is a druid, roll on Nature').

Not saying that one thing is better than the other, but don't give me the 'Essentials is for players who like to winge stuff' line of argument.

That's why I basically said Essentials is only one step away from this (and why the designers were at it, why not go the whole way?):

Level 5, Druid.

Pick one of the following Garment Knacks.

Green: You dress in green garments. You usually get up late for breakfast, and in a foul mood too! -2 on Diplomacy checks before 10 am.
Red: Crimson velvet is your thing. The ladies fall for it. +2 to Bluff vs. middle aged urban wenches.
Blue: Your sandals have blue soles. Whenever you use a power with the Elevation keyword, you gain partial concealment against creatures below you.

Why not indeed.

 

[Klaus]

My essentials druid at the same level had 1 at will.

ONE.

Actually, two. The basic attack of the animal companion counts as another at-will.

 

[Zuche]

Yes, that was exactly my point with respect to the Essentials druid's abilities Herb Lore and Beast Empathy.

You described your experience as a snooze fest, because you confused the number of mechanics available to you for making an attack with the amount of options available to you in combat. A few earlier posters even refer to Essentials as limited D&D, which is only true from a very self-limited perspective.

You also dismissed the feature you've just mentioned as meaningless. Your group cooperatively gives choices meaning, not the rules. If you want to ignore a class feature entirely, whether it's a +1 bonus on Perception checks to notice differences in regional accent or your hunter's quarry, your game does not suffer.

I've met too many people who can't tell a story from their game without introducing it in terms of race, class, and level, followed by a run-down of every power used and die roll made. Consider yourself lucky if they describe their tale's opponent as anything more than a heading you could look up in a Monster Manual, and blessed beyond riches if there's even a hint of dialogue.

Your ability to relate a good story from your last game session may not be limited by how complicated the system is, but complexity does distract a lot of people from story making. A lot of people find it hard enough to react in character to what's happening as it is without being distracted by the need to determine which power is "best" for this attack.

On the other hand, those bells and whistles you dismiss as meaningless do provide some people a few footholds they can use to help them shape their character. No one's going to worry too much if they overlook such things, not the way some do if you fail to go after combat advantage with a rogue.

And if there comes a point that DM and player agree that prior events in the game have led to people treating you better when you dress in red, you've done something pretty special with that game in ways that are not accomplished by taking a +6 weapon to Orcus' head for 11d12 + 82 damage, plus effects a save ends.

I'm not saying Essentials is a better system either. It needs work too. Its advantage is that I have to worry less about busy-body players telling the new guys exactly how they need to rebuild the characters they brought to the table. The annoyance isn't entirely eliminated, but neither does it mean quite as much.

 

[Windjammer]

The remainder of your post was really well put and convincing, so thank you, but this point I wanted to correct:

You described your experience as a snooze fest, because you confused the number of mechanics available to you for making an attack with the amount of options available to you in combat.

It's not just the number of options that made the Essentials cleric a 'snooze fest' for me. I found I had nothing interest to do. Whether that's two not-interesting things or eight is here peripheral. I found each of the options lacked punch. That's not something I'd say about the Essentials wizard or rangers, some of whose powers I like. But the cleric - much like the Class Compendium variants of the PH 1 cleric and wizard - lack some of the oomph that the classes had right out of the gate in June 2008.

Finally, I've myself expressed sentiments similar to yours before, and before Essentials was even a rumour, here. (I'll add that the group soon abandoned the houserule with poker chips, because it did alter the game too much.) In the end we agree about most of the underlying philosophy that makes playing an RPG great. It's 5% mechanics and 95% group dynamics. It's just that I don't think Essentials gives us an interesting 5%. I also feel that it solved (what in the linked to post I call) the 'complexity dial' in a very, very heavy handed way, and that it doesn't offer enough by way of upward complexity.

 

[Zaran]

I don't know. I think it would have to be a very good gm to keep me interested with an all essentials game. There are too many levels where I level an eCharacter and everything is done for me. I dislike that greatly. I still like playing the character but I don't know if I would like to be limited even more in the choices.

I guess it depends on your group. If its a kick in the door dungeon crawling group I wouldn't do it. If they are a roleplay heavy group I don't think they would mind.

 

[Rechan]

Different people enjoy different things. Some people care nothing for options. Some people have real trouble picking options/have problems making choices in battle. Some people love options and having many choices in battle.

For these reasons, Essentials appeals to some and not to others.

So it depends on your players. Or, make sure everyone is on board and wants it.

 

[Droogie128]

Different people enjoy different things. Some people care nothing for options. Some people have real trouble picking options/have problems making choices in battle. Some people love options and having many choices in battle.

For these reasons, Essentials appeals to some and not to others.

So it depends on your players. Or, make sure everyone is on board and wants it.

Not liking options is fine. The trouble I have is that they only really neutered the martial classes for options, while the wizard lost nothing.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Baz King]

Ask the question, what would you be trying to achieve by playing E only? I suggest that the answer to that question is perfectly achievable while still including the whole game.

 

[Zuche]

Hmm. Okay, if a lack of options in an important 5% of the game is a problem for people, I have to concede that point.

I'm not convinced that the fighter and rogue classes suffer as heavily from loss of encounter and daily power flexibility as others think, as timing and placement should already leave you with a lot to consider. I'll concede that some arrangement should be made between a DM and a player that wants the character to focus on some weapon other than a heavy blade or axe. (Ranged weapons deserve some consideration as well. Even trading the axe/blade class feature for one that would let you use Power Strike with the selected ranged weapon might be acceptable.)

I still think designers need to focus more on means of encouraging players to think beyond their powers, and that this is easier to do when the power options open to players are limited. No matter how cinematically superior the use of a terrain effect or social interaction may be, it's likely to be rejected so long as the effect is seen as inferior in every way to what your class and item powers can achieve. Recent developments in the official program lead me to believe designers are working on that issue, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

Having to account for fewer power lists also makes my job as a DM easier. Having fewer pages of powers to sort through for any given class has made it easier to determine when a player has been using a power incorrectly (sometimes to the party's disadvantage). That said, wizards can still be a pain in this regard.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not liking options is fine. The trouble I have is that they only really neutered the martial classes for options, while the wizard lost nothing.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Essentials only would not work for me, but essentials, is a great addition to the game...

I like the new martial classes... but I also liked the old martial classes...

But both designs fail in a certain way, actually thats the case with most of the classes:
You have too many choices at first level!
It really would be sufficient to pick a race and a class and maybe a build and a few skills and be done with it. And only afterwards, hopefully at every level, you get a little choice:
a new at will, a new encounter, a new skill, a new weapon talent, upgrading an encounter to an at will...

Right now I have the feeling, old classes allow too much freedom, as former power choices are meaningless, and i really feel it is a problem, when you have to take a new power, and there is no way to upgrade a power...

Essential classes don´t have this problem, because you don´t chose powers...

I like the design philosophy of the skald (though i do not totally agree wit the execution):
You can pick different powers, but you can upgrade lesser ones.