Reasons why going down the Essentials line of thinking is a mistake !!!

[Tony Vargas]

I think it's pretty weird that a series of books (well too books, I hardly think the DM's kit or tile sets are being referenced here) that ADDED options to the game, ruined it, by taking away options?

Heh. Essentials didn't 'take away options' by adding to the already option-rich game, not anymore than it 'reduced complexity' by adding to the already complex game.

It's only when you consider 'Essentials only' (new players starting with Essentials) or 'Essentials+' (D&D Encounters) experiences that the game has been arguably simplified and options, obviously, taken away.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I don't actually agree with that - well, at least not unless you are doing your character all by yourself and looking at all the options.

If you are helped by someone, and they realise that you are the type who prefer simple options, and steer you to the appropriate essentials class, then it is reducing complexity, as you don't have to deal with a class with a higher complexity.

Likewise, if you are a beginning player, and just buy an (or both) Heroes book, it is reducing complexity by a) offering you less choices than if you looked at all the books; and b) offering classes with less complexity.


So, ironically, Essentials adds complexity to the system by adding different options that work differently, but also reduces complexity by offering characters that are themselves (for the most part - the mage is about as complex as PH characters) less complex. That said, I think where it matters it reduces complexity - because for those who it matters (who want less complexity) will not be canvassing all the options anyway.

Take, as an example, my friend's wife. He's been trying to get her to play D&D, but she's been reluctant. She has never played any RPG or wargame. He has played the D&D wargame (not Ravenloft, the other one like it named after a red dragon), and she liked it. Now, if he were to get her to start D&D, and suggest a slayer instead of a barbarian, how is Essentials, by providing a simpler option, adding complexity for her?


For me, arguments that Essentials is more complex strikes me as similar to arguments that early Macs were harder to use than DOS - sure, that's true if you are the type who wants to program in options, but for those less computer litterate that just want to type up a letter (the consumers for which it was first intended)... no way.

 

[Istar]

Maybe it's cause I am drunk, but has essentials ruined (or lessened) support for your Warden and your Thief?

I mean, I get the Warden issue (although Heroes of the Feywild might give ya a little something?), but Thief? It's an Essential class, without Essentials, there would be no thief at all.

LOL... yeah it took someone drunk to get my weird sense of humour.

But to the other guy who said you cant be banned from something for just saying you dont like essentials, well guess what

People are a bit protective of them, and sorry to the mods if you think I am having a go at you, not, just proving the other chappy wrong.

Essentials, is just like "Fighter in 2e", or Rogue, you get given your list of powers and thats it basically.
The excitement and intrigue of 4e to me is developing a unique and different character to anyone else and creating something to roleplay.

Essentials is just, blah, here you have it on a plate, you dont even need a brain really just spit it out of character builder.

 

[Neonchameleon]

LOL... yeah it took someone drunk to get my weird sense of humour.

But to the other guy who said you cant be banned from something for just saying you dont like essentials, well guess what

I'll take "You weren't" as my guess. You were thrown off the thread (not banned) for taking a great steaming content-free dump in the thread rather than actually providing anything useful. Saying you don't like something is one thing, threadcrapping is another. And threadcrapping, as you did, can be done by people with any opinion.

The excitement and intrigue of 4e to me is developing a unique and different character to anyone else and creating something to roleplay.

There were two critically important words in that sentence. "to me" Guess what? You are not everyone. There are people who prefer RPGs to be about what happens at the table and who want to think about their character sheets as little as possible. 4e catered to you before essentials and did not cater to them. You have a massive 4e system to help you there. Essentials provides options for people who have different preferences from you. Which means that your objection boils down to "I hate Essentials because it allows people who think differently from me to have fun at the same table I play at."

 

[rangerjohn]

Actually, thats probably not true. I don't play 4e so have no vested interest in this argument. However, experience shows, DMs usually decide what is going to be used at their table. So unless we're talking about one beginner with a bunch of veterans. I don't see both at the same table. The DM is likely to prefer one or the other.

 

[Grydan]

Actually, thats probably not true. I don't play 4e so have no vested interest in this argument. However, experience shows, DMs usually decide what is going to be used at their table. So unless we're talking about one beginner with a bunch of veterans. I don't see both at the same table. The DM is likely to prefer one or the other.

Both the game I DM, and the game I play in, have both pre-Essentials and Essentials characters played at the same table. In neither case is the player a "beginner with a bunch of veterans".

 

[MrMyth]

Actually, thats probably not true. I don't play 4e so have no vested interest in this argument. However, experience shows, DMs usually decide what is going to be used at their table. So unless we're talking about one beginner with a bunch of veterans. I don't see both at the same table. The DM is likely to prefer one or the other.

I haven't seen this as too common. They are alternate builds - they don't require the DM to say "Essentials only" or "no Essentials" or whatever. I mean, that does happen, but isn't especially common, and probably less likely than someone running Dark Sun and having no divine characters, etc.

In 4E, there really isn't as much need for the DM to have an absolute list of what is allowed at the table. In all the games I am in, we have Essentials classes alongside pre-Essentials classes without any noticeable issues.

 

[rangerjohn]

So essentials isn't a "dumbed down" version of the game? I thought from what was being described they used different rule sets, to help beginners. Like what came out with the first module for 3.0 before the Player's Handbook was released.

 

[Grydan]

No. It uses the exact same rules as the other 4E books. It simply contains new versions (not replacements, additional versions) of some of the classes. Some of these versions are, in some ways, simpler than the versions presented elsewhere. Others are not.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Essentials uses all the same rules as the rest of D&D, its just the mechanics of the individual classes that tend to be easier to build and to run - there tend to be less decision points, and the decision points tend to be easier to make.

For example, many of the martial classes get the "power strike" power instead of encounter powers. Given that they don't get to chose, that removes a decision point in character building. Additionally, since power strike triggers on a hit, you don't have to decide to use it before you roll like you do traditionally with encounter powers - making that decision point in the game much easier to make.

SInce they are fiddling with the class mechanics, rather than those of the "core" ruleset (and by that I mean the rules that apply to everyone, like how to make a skillcheck or what dazed does), they fit into the game just like any other class does - so having an essentials character play in an otherwise PH1 group really is no different than having a Battlemind play in the same group - different mechanics for the class, but same game.