D&D 4E What was the big difference between 4e and "essentials"?

[Tony Vargas]

I want to argue here, but I can't because I don't know 4e well enough.

The thing that bothers me about the "tiers" is that not everyone understand what they meant. They aren't about raw power, but rather utility and versatility.

They are primarily about versatility, but power comes into it, too. A wizard isn't Tier 1 because he can cast a powerful spell, but because he can prep from a wide range of powerful spells to deal with virtually any challenge. Otherwise he'd be only be Tier 2, like the Sorcerer.

So did 4e really remove this problem? Did the fighter really get so much more versatile than previously?

Yes (if you consider it a problem - you could use the Tiers to run less-class-imbalanced 3.5 campaigns by just having everyone choose from the same Tier, and the innate imbalances the Tiers were sorting had been with the game since the begining, so were part of the classic feel).

No, casters got a LOT LESS versatility, and the non-casters like the fighter got a bit more versatile. So it was a 'meet in the middle' kinda thing.

The Wizard remained the king of versatility, with Rituals by default (essentially just a bonus feat), some minor utility cantrips over-and-above at-will attacks, and the ability to 'know' 2 and prepare 1 spell for each of his utility and daily slots (and know a 3rd in each with a feat). Caster powers, whether attack or utility, also tended to have greater breadth of effects than martial powers.
But, it still prettymuch left all classes in the same Tier by 3.5 standards, arguably Tier 3. Essentials martial classes, particularly the Knight & Slayer, (as well as the bizzaro HoS Vampire 'Class'), could arguably be relegated to Tier 4. As much as Essentials & later pumped up the wizard, I doubt it could be said to have emerged from Tier 3.

 

[MwaO]

So did 4e really remove this problem? Did the fighter really get so much more versatile than previously?

Fighters were one of the most versatile classes. One Fighter could be a close burst attacker, another could be a mock-striker, and yet another could exploit say Paladin MC to do automatic multi marking — in a way that all three would play differently enough that if you didn't know 4e, you'd say they were all different classes.

 

[Ancalagon]

Fighters were one of the most versatile classes. One Fighter could be a close burst attacker, another could be a mock-striker, and yet another could exploit say Paladin MC to do automatic multi marking — in a way that all three would play differently enough that if you didn't know 4e, you'd say they were all different classes.

... those are all ways of fighting. That isn't variety.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I used the wrong word - it might be variety, but it's not *versatility*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So did 4e really remove this problem? Did the fighter really get so much more versatile than previously?

It's more that they took a lot of things away from the wizard, which brought the (so-called) tier 1 class more into line with the tier 4 classes. The fighter could basically only fight, so they made it that the wizard could also basically only fight.

They also stuck a minute fraction of the wizard's old power into the ritual system, which anyone could access for the price of a feat, but which the wizard could access automatically. Given how pointless those rituals were, though, it was irrelevant to over-all class balance. (At least, such was the case when I played. It may have changed with later supplements.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

... those are all ways of fighting. That isn't variety.

You could do a lot of quite different fighter builds in 3e & 4e, for quite different mechanical reasons, but one given build didn't have the kind of game-breaking versatility that earned you Tier 1 standing, nor, in the case of 3e, even Tier 3...

 

[Ted Serious]

Hello

I read a little bit of 4e, and I dabbled a bit with the "essentials" when it came out... but to be honest, I don't know enough about either system to compare. So what were the major differences between the two?

Same game, different packaging.

 

[Ancalagon]

Fighters were one of the most versatile classes. One Fighter could be a close burst attacker, another could be a mock-striker, and yet another could exploit say Paladin MC to do automatic multi marking — in a way that all three would play differently enough that if you didn't know 4e, you'd say they were all different classes.

Ok, so I have more time to answer this properly now. The tiers are strongly based on *versatility* (not variety, sorry about that) - the capacity for a character to deal with a wide array of problems. To see if a class is good, you must think about how they would do at these following challenges:

Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

Of course, a fighter will help in situation 1 and 3... by fighting. He might have a skill or two that are useful outside of fighting too. But his capacity to help *pales* before the wizard. Outside the pretty obvious fireball slinging, she can do a host of things to help - she can use magic to scout ahead, or cast spells on scouts to make them more stealthy. She can use communication to coordinate or summon aid. Charm magic to bypass hostile guards. Summon allies. Cast walls of stone to reinforce city walls. Use elementals to change the course of a river. Cast protective magic on other party members to help them resist dragon breath, or dragon fear. Dimensional magic to bypass trap, free a captive or set up a flanking maneuver. etc etc etc etc.

These are all things a 3.X/PF wizard could do (or cleric, or druid, with some variation). The reason why the sorcerer was tier 2 instead of 1 is that his shorter spell known list made it harder for him to do all those things - only some of them. 5e also has some of that but it's been toned down a wee bit, esp by the concentration mechanism (and several spells have been outright nerfed). Also, fighters have a little bit more out of combat utility. Not a ton, but it helps!

The real power of a full caster is not in battle (although they are really good there too!) it's *shaping events* - changing the battle before it even occurs, and solving a host of problems.

So I know this is getting a bit off topic but... with this formal definition of "tiers" in mind, was the gap truly reduced?

 

[Ancalagon]

It's more that they took a lot of things away from the wizard, which brought the (so-called) tier 1 class more into line with the tier 4 classes. The fighter could basically only fight, so they made it that the wizard could also basically only fight.

They also stuck a minute fraction of the wizard's old power into the ritual system, which anyone could access for the price of a feat, but which the wizard could access automatically. Given how pointless those rituals were, though, it was irrelevant to over-all class balance. (At least, such was the case when I played. It may have changed with later supplements.)

If wizards can basically only fight... wow. That's pretty drastic. I'm not sure I like that.

 

[Jester David]

Ok, so I have more time to answer this properly now. The tiers are strongly based on *versatility* (not variety, sorry about that) - the capacity for a character to deal with a wide array of problems. To see if a class is good, you must think about how they would do at these following challenges:

Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

Of course, a fighter will help in situation 1 and 3... by fighting. He might have a skill or two that are useful outside of fighting too. But his capacity to help *pales* before the wizard. Outside the pretty obvious fireball slinging, she can do a host of things to help - she can use magic to scout ahead, or cast spells on scouts to make them more stealthy. She can use communication to coordinate or summon aid. Charm magic to bypass hostile guards. Summon allies. Cast walls of stone to reinforce city walls. Use elementals to change the course of a river. Cast protective magic on other party members to help them resist dragon breath, or dragon fear. Dimensional magic to bypass trap, free a captive or set up a flanking maneuver. etc etc etc etc.

These are all things a 3.X/PF wizard could do (or cleric, or druid, with some variation). The reason why the sorcerer was tier 2 instead of 1 is that his shorter spell known list made it harder for him to do all those things - only some of them. 5e also has some of that but it's been toned down a wee bit, esp by the concentration mechanism (and several spells have been outright nerfed). Also, fighters have a little bit more out of combat utility. Not a ton, but it helps!

The real power of a full caster is not in battle (although they are really good there too!) it's *shaping events* - changing the battle before it even occurs, and solving a host of problems.

So I know this is getting a bit off topic but... with this formal definition of "tiers" in mind, was the gap truly reduced?

Pretty much every class only had combat abilities. They had the various attack powers differentiated by their recharge, as well as Utility powers that grant you bonuses in combat but do not involve directly attacking. A small percentage of Utility powers weee also useful outside of combat, but these were not the norm and typically granted skill bonuses.

There was out of combat magic, through rituals. These were a lot of the flavourful utility spells of prior editions, like knock or floating disc but also raise dead. Some classes got the ability to cast rituals for free, like the wizard and cleric, while other classes had to burn a feat. (Which didn’t happen often as burning a feat lowered your combat power, which was needed to keep up with monsters. There were a lot of feat taxes.)
However, casting a ritual required spending gold. You spend a few hundred gold and could cast the ritual once. However, each level you got exactly enough gold from monsters each level to buy a magic item of your level. So casting rituals meant fewer custom magic items. And you had to justify having those components in a dungeon.

Players can be pretty reluctant to spend hard earned treasure.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If wizards can basically only fight... wow. That's pretty drastic. I'm not sure I like that.

They also had access to the skill system, of course, though their stats meant they probably weren't going to be climbing many ropes. Outside of combat, they could contribute by knowing about stuff, which put them about on par with the social character.

It's just that most of the non-combat spells were trimmed out of the wizard power list, because your class powers are supposed to be what makes for an interesting combat. The fighter doesn't get any innate out-of-combat powers, so the wizard was brought down to that level, and they called it balance.