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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8713961" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p><em>Formally</em>, there is no difference, other than the inclusion of additional material.</p><p></p><p><em>Informally</em>, there was a noticeable shift in the design for new material. It wasn't absolute, there were still some things supporting classes more generically. But, as a general rule, the class design shifted in the following ways:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Most (though not all) PHB classes got 1-3 new "Essentials" subclasses. These subclasses usually had very few choices, and most of the choice involved in playing them came right at the start, when you chose the particular flavor you wanted to play. (Sound familiar? It should. Essentials was Mearls' influence on 4e.) For example, Cavaliers (the Essentials Paladin) could choose the Virtue of Sacrifice or Virtue of Valor, which would determine one of their at-will powers, several fixed powers later on, etc. In other words, <em>basically</em> what Subclass does in 5e. This was different from standard 4e, because "subclass" in 4e was <em>mostly</em> a personal choice, where you had the freedom to ignore your subclass benefits if you wished to and take other powers instead.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As a general rule, beyond just the "streamlining" of build choices down to one or two choices made very early on, most Essentials classes were <em>really simple</em>. Some were EXTREMELY so, like the Slayer (a damage-dealing Fighter subclass), but even the Wizard subclasses were a noticeable step down in number of moving parts. If you <em>liked</em> what Essentials did, you'd probably refer to it as "elegant" etc.; if you <em>disliked</em> it, you'd probably refer to it much less positively.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Certain features and powers were made intentionally so they could not interact with pre-Essentials content. The rule was simple: <em>if it's a power that has a level requirement, it can be taken by anyone of that class; if it does not have a level requirement, it can only be taken by the Essentials version</em>. (This led to one of the stupidest rules changes in the game IMO: they <em>originally</em> published the power Call Celestial Steed, which opened up a line of AWESOME holy mounts for Paladins, as a Utility power with a level, so non-Cavaliers could take it if they wished. Later, they secretly removed the level without noting this as errata. I was <em>very annoyed</em>.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">As a general rule...Essentials classes aren't as strong as pre-Essentials classes. There are some exceptions, but overall they tend to be weaker <em>and</em> harder to improve than "original" 4e classes. The Vampire, for example. Awesome idea, super flavorful, very interesting concept...<em>extremely weak</em> class. You basically had to delve into some very specific Sorcerer multiclass stuff in order to eke out reasonable damage. The Defender options were mostly pretty good, albeit much less versatile because Defender Aura only affected things adjacent to you.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The one* area that Essentials was, IMO, unequivocally superior to what came before: Expertise feats. Essentials gave us a series of flavorful, class-specific Expertise feats that did something <em>interesting</em> beyond just a dull +1-per-tier bonus to your various things. These feats were simply better than the original options, other than <em>maybe</em> Versatile Expertise, so I give props where they're due.</li> </ol><p>Overall, Essentials <em>really is</em> the same game, as in, nothing about how the rules work or what you were allowed to do had changed <em>in the rules themselves</em>. Instead, any perceived gap between "original" 4e and Essentials comes from people enforcing some kind of artificial barrier between the two, disallowing options from before Essentials came out. Which...is completely silly and not at all supported by the actual text nor the things WotC made.</p><p></p><p>*Technically there is a second thing I think was unequivocally good, but it wasn't a rules change. That second unequivocally good thing was the Elementalist Sorcerer subclass, because it, for the first time in D&D, was ACTUALLY A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD SPELLCASTER. You were elementally magical, and you were a straightforward, no-nonsense blaster. You also prioritized Charisma and Constitution, meaning your character would be beefy, relatively well-defended, and decent at socializing--a <em>perfect</em> choice for a novice player wanting something flashy and cool but also wanting to have a shot at dealing with socialization stuff.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8713961, member: 6790260"] [I]Formally[/I], there is no difference, other than the inclusion of additional material. [I]Informally[/I], there was a noticeable shift in the design for new material. It wasn't absolute, there were still some things supporting classes more generically. But, as a general rule, the class design shifted in the following ways: [LIST=1] [*]Most (though not all) PHB classes got 1-3 new "Essentials" subclasses. These subclasses usually had very few choices, and most of the choice involved in playing them came right at the start, when you chose the particular flavor you wanted to play. (Sound familiar? It should. Essentials was Mearls' influence on 4e.) For example, Cavaliers (the Essentials Paladin) could choose the Virtue of Sacrifice or Virtue of Valor, which would determine one of their at-will powers, several fixed powers later on, etc. In other words, [I]basically[/I] what Subclass does in 5e. This was different from standard 4e, because "subclass" in 4e was [I]mostly[/I] a personal choice, where you had the freedom to ignore your subclass benefits if you wished to and take other powers instead. [*]As a general rule, beyond just the "streamlining" of build choices down to one or two choices made very early on, most Essentials classes were [I]really simple[/I]. Some were EXTREMELY so, like the Slayer (a damage-dealing Fighter subclass), but even the Wizard subclasses were a noticeable step down in number of moving parts. If you [I]liked[/I] what Essentials did, you'd probably refer to it as "elegant" etc.; if you [I]disliked[/I] it, you'd probably refer to it much less positively. [*]Certain features and powers were made intentionally so they could not interact with pre-Essentials content. The rule was simple: [I]if it's a power that has a level requirement, it can be taken by anyone of that class; if it does not have a level requirement, it can only be taken by the Essentials version[/I]. (This led to one of the stupidest rules changes in the game IMO: they [I]originally[/I] published the power Call Celestial Steed, which opened up a line of AWESOME holy mounts for Paladins, as a Utility power with a level, so non-Cavaliers could take it if they wished. Later, they secretly removed the level without noting this as errata. I was [I]very annoyed[/I].) [*]As a general rule...Essentials classes aren't as strong as pre-Essentials classes. There are some exceptions, but overall they tend to be weaker [I]and[/I] harder to improve than "original" 4e classes. The Vampire, for example. Awesome idea, super flavorful, very interesting concept...[I]extremely weak[/I] class. You basically had to delve into some very specific Sorcerer multiclass stuff in order to eke out reasonable damage. The Defender options were mostly pretty good, albeit much less versatile because Defender Aura only affected things adjacent to you. [*]The one* area that Essentials was, IMO, unequivocally superior to what came before: Expertise feats. Essentials gave us a series of flavorful, class-specific Expertise feats that did something [I]interesting[/I] beyond just a dull +1-per-tier bonus to your various things. These feats were simply better than the original options, other than [I]maybe[/I] Versatile Expertise, so I give props where they're due. [/LIST] Overall, Essentials [I]really is[/I] the same game, as in, nothing about how the rules work or what you were allowed to do had changed [I]in the rules themselves[/I]. Instead, any perceived gap between "original" 4e and Essentials comes from people enforcing some kind of artificial barrier between the two, disallowing options from before Essentials came out. Which...is completely silly and not at all supported by the actual text nor the things WotC made. *Technically there is a second thing I think was unequivocally good, but it wasn't a rules change. That second unequivocally good thing was the Elementalist Sorcerer subclass, because it, for the first time in D&D, was ACTUALLY A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD SPELLCASTER. You were elementally magical, and you were a straightforward, no-nonsense blaster. You also prioritized Charisma and Constitution, meaning your character would be beefy, relatively well-defended, and decent at socializing--a [I]perfect[/I] choice for a novice player wanting something flashy and cool but also wanting to have a shot at dealing with socialization stuff. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)
Top