Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 7449464" data-attributes="member: 158">Speaking as someone who liked 4e less than some other implementations, Essentials I think was an experiment to see if the rather strong backlash to 4e (remember this was right after the ICV2 numbers came out stating that Pathfinder was actually selling more than D&D) was in part due to presentation, and Essentials was one of the first projects at the point that Mike Mearls was in full charge of D&D. It still had the same underlying math and assumptions, but tried to present it in a way more similar to what had come before. It may have had quite a few technical improvements, but from a sales standpoint, there were definitely multiple issues that WotC felt the need to address. Not all of them were attributed to system - there were behind-the-scenes mistakes made, bureaucratic nonsense from Hasbro on how to evaluate successful numbers, etc. But there were problems.What 4e did fantastically well? As you note, it was the first time that “milestone leveling” was officially introduced in D&D; they changed from monsters designed the same way as characters back to simpler design methods, to incorporating a strong math-based component that synced with character capability by level; they encouraged party cohesion sheerly by class design, something that had been increasingly dropped from OD&D onward throughout the editions, and which players were starting to completely discard in 3rd Edition. To me, D&D is a much better game when you worry less about being the independent MVP via a super-optimized build, and focus more on doing a role well and synergizing with the other characters in your group. My basketball knowledge is probably inadequate here, but to use an analogy, Characters who are less Dennis Rodmans, and more Wilt Chamberlains/John Stocktons.</blockquote>

Verification