Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What was the big difference between 4e and "essentials"?
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: 7451293" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>No, they were not, they were actually less consistent in design and put in a redundant 'padded' format. And don't forget returning players from the fad years. OSR was taking off at the time. Thus the "Red Box" cover re-printing the fad-era one.</p><p></p><p> Even in PHB 3, the resource numbers remained about on par, even if psionics used encounter power points to augment at-wills instead of getting separate encounter powers, it was a comparable '<u>E</u>ncounter' resource. </p><p></p><p>And that was the key difference. AEDU could have been ADU or AED or per Round/Minute/Day/Week or Attack/Defense/Social/Exploration. The important difference from prior eds wasn't adding 5 min short-rest recharges and formally breaking out 'Utilities.' It was giving all player characters rough parity in resources, regardless of desired character concept. About the same number of at-will, encounter, milestone, and daily resources (including surges as well as powers). About. There were variations: Defenders & primal classes got more hps/surges, controllers fewer. Wizards got extra at-will cantrips. Divine classes got an additional encounter in channel divinity, leaders in a surge-trigger of varying sorts. Etc. In spite of (and with the help of) those variations, a player could play the character he wanted, without having to accept the innate inferiority of a lower-Tier class. Wanting to play an innately-magical concept didn't force you in under the glass cieling of Tier 2 as a Sorcerer. Wanting to play a valiant warrior without any magical abilities didn't drop you into Tier 5. Or, to compare to the classic game, wanting to play a bookish mage didn't mean you'd have to be suicidally fragile and wait, throwing darts most rounds, until 3rd-5th level to become a regularly-contributing member of the party.</p><p></p><p> Sure seemed like it. Where 4e delivered much better class balance (though still, certainly not perfect, and still favoring 'caster' types) than any other edition of D&D had before - or shows any sign of shooting for in the future - Essentials clearly back-peddled from that, gutting it's version of the martial classes and relentlessly powering up and expanding the wizard at every opportunity. Oh, and re-introducing broken magic items, and mass errata to 'bring X back into line with the classic game,' pretty indicative of very intentional backsliding. </p><p>Sure, it did other stuff that wasn't exactly backsliding - power inflation and feat bloat aren't exactly backsliding, for instance.</p><p></p><p>Essentials, as a system, was not as good for casual gamers as 4e was, but the smaller-format RC was convenient to carry around, FWLTW. </p><p></p><p>The logic at the time was hard to follow. Some new players were confused by the numbering of PHs, thinking that maybe buying a PH2 would be as good as getting a PH1, or thinking they needed all three. So, to address that, instead of having a new offering with just one PH, they split the PH in half, put it in two books, neither of which sounded like a PH, and made the material redundant, then labeled buying said redundant material 'Essential.' </p><p></p><p> Another of the odditites leading up to Essentials was the 'need' for a 'simple fighter,' even though the fighter remained the most popular class, regardless of what was done to it in each ed. At least, post-E, the game delivered on a 'simple caster,' the Elemental Sorcerer, as well. </p><p></p><p>I've heard a theory that Essentials was designed, intentionally, to fail. I wish it sounded more far-fetched.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7451293, member: 996"] No, they were not, they were actually less consistent in design and put in a redundant 'padded' format. And don't forget returning players from the fad years. OSR was taking off at the time. Thus the "Red Box" cover re-printing the fad-era one. Even in PHB 3, the resource numbers remained about on par, even if psionics used encounter power points to augment at-wills instead of getting separate encounter powers, it was a comparable '[u]E[/u]ncounter' resource. And that was the key difference. AEDU could have been ADU or AED or per Round/Minute/Day/Week or Attack/Defense/Social/Exploration. The important difference from prior eds wasn't adding 5 min short-rest recharges and formally breaking out 'Utilities.' It was giving all player characters rough parity in resources, regardless of desired character concept. About the same number of at-will, encounter, milestone, and daily resources (including surges as well as powers). About. There were variations: Defenders & primal classes got more hps/surges, controllers fewer. Wizards got extra at-will cantrips. Divine classes got an additional encounter in channel divinity, leaders in a surge-trigger of varying sorts. Etc. In spite of (and with the help of) those variations, a player could play the character he wanted, without having to accept the innate inferiority of a lower-Tier class. Wanting to play an innately-magical concept didn't force you in under the glass cieling of Tier 2 as a Sorcerer. Wanting to play a valiant warrior without any magical abilities didn't drop you into Tier 5. Or, to compare to the classic game, wanting to play a bookish mage didn't mean you'd have to be suicidally fragile and wait, throwing darts most rounds, until 3rd-5th level to become a regularly-contributing member of the party. Sure seemed like it. Where 4e delivered much better class balance (though still, certainly not perfect, and still favoring 'caster' types) than any other edition of D&D had before - or shows any sign of shooting for in the future - Essentials clearly back-peddled from that, gutting it's version of the martial classes and relentlessly powering up and expanding the wizard at every opportunity. Oh, and re-introducing broken magic items, and mass errata to 'bring X back into line with the classic game,' pretty indicative of very intentional backsliding. Sure, it did other stuff that wasn't exactly backsliding - power inflation and feat bloat aren't exactly backsliding, for instance. Essentials, as a system, was not as good for casual gamers as 4e was, but the smaller-format RC was convenient to carry around, FWLTW. The logic at the time was hard to follow. Some new players were confused by the numbering of PHs, thinking that maybe buying a PH2 would be as good as getting a PH1, or thinking they needed all three. So, to address that, instead of having a new offering with just one PH, they split the PH in half, put it in two books, neither of which sounded like a PH, and made the material redundant, then labeled buying said redundant material 'Essential.' Another of the odditites leading up to Essentials was the 'need' for a 'simple fighter,' even though the fighter remained the most popular class, regardless of what was done to it in each ed. At least, post-E, the game delivered on a 'simple caster,' the Elemental Sorcerer, as well. I've heard a theory that Essentials was designed, intentionally, to fail. I wish it sounded more far-fetched. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What was the big difference between 4e and "essentials"?
Top