Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Reasons why going down the Essentials line of thinking is a mistake !!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5670517" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>A lot of complaints about Essentials aren't well-articulated. Part of it is that Essentials is cloaked in plausible denyability. It's very officially and formally /not/ 4.5, for instance, even though it very clearly is 4.5 in some sense. It's very officially and litteraly not 'replacing' PH1, but, it does cover some of the exact same character archetypes from the PH1 in mechanically novel ways, while little more than re-printing some, and ignoring others. </p><p></p><p>The 'support' complaint really speaks to the 'new direction,' of which Essentials was just the first shot accross the bow. 4e delivered class balance. It gave us casters that weren't out of control and melee types who very nearly were - it finally put most traditional fantasy archetypes on nearly even footing in the game. The 'new' direction, OTOH, puts modeling a vision of the archetype the class is being aimed at ahead of balancing it - either with other classes, or in terms of filling a role, to help the players keep the party balanced or the DM keep his encounters balanced. That's not really a 'new' direction, it's what D&D always did prior to 4e. But, the commitment to that new design philosophy means that older classes that don't fit into it - like Fighters 'who cast spells' (ie, have powers, even daily powers) - are going to have to fall by the wayside, eventually. Be that by errata, lack of support as power inflation leaves them behind, banning from organized play, or simply ignoring them and hoping they go away. </p><p></p><p>What the 'lack of support' thing boils down to is not liking the new direction - because that's where future support is going to be headed. It's like the 4e haters who go on about how '4e stifles RP' when what they really mean is that the rules just don't suck in quite the way they'd become accustomed to. </p><p></p><p></p><p>When people complain, they want to sound reasonable - most especially when they're not being reasonable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5670517, member: 996"] A lot of complaints about Essentials aren't well-articulated. Part of it is that Essentials is cloaked in plausible denyability. It's very officially and formally /not/ 4.5, for instance, even though it very clearly is 4.5 in some sense. It's very officially and litteraly not 'replacing' PH1, but, it does cover some of the exact same character archetypes from the PH1 in mechanically novel ways, while little more than re-printing some, and ignoring others. The 'support' complaint really speaks to the 'new direction,' of which Essentials was just the first shot accross the bow. 4e delivered class balance. It gave us casters that weren't out of control and melee types who very nearly were - it finally put most traditional fantasy archetypes on nearly even footing in the game. The 'new' direction, OTOH, puts modeling a vision of the archetype the class is being aimed at ahead of balancing it - either with other classes, or in terms of filling a role, to help the players keep the party balanced or the DM keep his encounters balanced. That's not really a 'new' direction, it's what D&D always did prior to 4e. But, the commitment to that new design philosophy means that older classes that don't fit into it - like Fighters 'who cast spells' (ie, have powers, even daily powers) - are going to have to fall by the wayside, eventually. Be that by errata, lack of support as power inflation leaves them behind, banning from organized play, or simply ignoring them and hoping they go away. What the 'lack of support' thing boils down to is not liking the new direction - because that's where future support is going to be headed. It's like the 4e haters who go on about how '4e stifles RP' when what they really mean is that the rules just don't suck in quite the way they'd become accustomed to. When people complain, they want to sound reasonable - most especially when they're not being reasonable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Reasons why going down the Essentials line of thinking is a mistake !!!
Top