Dungeons & Dragons 4e vs. Essentials

[Matt James]

What's the beef? And, more importantly, why does it matter to existing content? These are not rhetorical questions. I am always trying to poke into other people's views so that I can improve my own designs.

Neuroglyph recently put up a blog post that was quite critical of WotC. While there are some logical fallacies in his writing, I respect that he has a grievance with the game. I am trying to learn--so please help and enlighten me.

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Oh, I should mention that I rule my website with an iron fist. Meaning, free speech is only valid here as long as it is respectful and intelligent. Trolls will be booted without thought. This is a hot-bed topic amongst a very small slice of the community. Let's be cool and talk like adults.

[James Knevitt]

I'll be perfectly honest and say that when Essentials debuted, I wasn't sold on the design philosophy (in that there were new ideas incorporated into the existing 4e framework). The more I read on it, though (and many Essentials purchases later), the more I like what I see.

My personal problem with Essentials is that some of the newer concepts can be a bit opaque for existing players of 4e. For example, stances. It's not exactly a new mechanic, since it just modifies existing mechanics (and were showcased prior to 4eE), but the concept of "You adopt XYZ stance. You can do XYZ until you take a new stance." was so foreign to the way powers work in core 4e that it seemed a bit jarring. There was no real lead-in when it came to these different approaches (no "here's another way you can do things"), and I think many players (incorrectly) saw Essentials as a replacement to 4e core, rather than a complementing piece.

The additions in 4eE take some getting used to, but that's the same as getting used to, say, 4e psionics and their own power modification system.

EDIT: I'm aware that I picked a bad example in stances, since they were in other products prior to Essentials, but since they got the full class treatment there it seemed like a good spot to start the conversation with.

[Matt James]

James,

I agree that the way Essentials characters work can be a bit jarring, especially when you are used to the core D&D classes. On a personal level, I have mostly stayed away from them as a player because I am still enjoying the core classes. That being said, Essentials characters exist in my ongoing Dark Sun campaign, and I can say unequivocally that they have not changed anything. They feel like additional classes, not like a new game. I still use the core system, with the necessary errata, and have not been affected like others claim to be. This is not to say there is not some anomaly out there, I just haven't seen it. I want someone to point it out. I also subscribe to the notion that Essentials characters are still optional content.

[James Knevitt]

Matt, I agree 100%. I feel the same way because I still get a lot of mileage out of the core classes. I'm a kitchen-sink DM (if its available in a WotC print product and/or DDI, my players are welcome to try it -- an attitude recently extended to include 3PP products like your own Soldiers of Fortune) so I want to offer my players a different play experience if they want it, and I've found if anything Essentials has simply broadened that range of options, which makes my players happy. Happy players, happy DM.

[Rev. Lazaro]

The following are just my personal beefs, some of them I got over, others I still dwell on. For the record, I ended up enjoying Monster Vault and the Master Tile sets.

1) At the time Essentials came out, I was seeing things I didn't like with the whole of the D&D experience. Errata being the big one to me....I understand making corrections, but complete overhauls to how powers work got to me. A big example? Magic Missile. My group prefers the old version, warts and all, over the static point instant hitter. A lot of peeps were talking about how Essentials was going to include the "updated" versions of powers....and then I saw glitches and errors in the updates, and an announcement when the next batch of Errata would be. So our "Essentials" would eventually have corrections unto themselves......

2) I hate repurchasing rules. Disregarding already published stuff, you still see a good chunk of the rules reprinted over and over across the various core Essentials books. I think Rules Cyclopedia spoiled me for this kinda stuff.

3) Half of the appeal of 4E to me and my players was options and choices. Hearing Essentials being straight laced builds turned my group off. The options that are there.....seemed alien to the original 4E paradigm, and was trying to shoe-horn in old terminology to appeal to old schoolers.

4) I'm also leery any time new mechanical or character options come out that really need to be expanded upon, since WoTC never seems to follow through on their own. The Cleric domains, for example....we have Sun and Storm.....any DM worth his salt is salivating for more....have they put out more domains yet? It reminds me too much of the Character Themes from Dark Sun, and how we still have yet to see any more of those put out. (BTW, thank you for the Mercenary theme in SoF.)

That's just my beef.

[TheGreatZomboni]

Ok, so here is where I feel that 4e and Essentials don't mash up.

To bullet them out it's really 2 points with me:
1. Modularity between the Sub-Class and their Parent Class.
2. Inability to Hybrid using Sub-Class as an option.

1. Modularity: The "sub-classes" really don't come across as being their own entities. Page 33 explains that the classes in the book are fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue...and then each description drills down into a types of these class that they can be created.

So when you look at the Slayer, you see the class abilities that they have: stances, the heroic slayer, weapon talent, and the powerstrike. The problem is that he is still a "Fighter" - which means that he's still taking the fighter feats, and in some cases can take fighter utilities, but I can't do things like multi-class with him and get an ability from a different class because I don't have that option to trade off.

At the same time, as a PHB1 Fighter, I can never opt to trade out one of my other class abilities to get any of the class abilities of the Fighter:Slayer (say, to trade Tempest Technique for Heroic slayer). I completely understand the balance issue behind it, but it's tough for me as a DM to tell a player "No, sorry - I know you're playing a fighter, and HotFL says this is a fighter, but because it doesn't say it replaces any abilities and there is no level on this attack power you can't trade anything for it"

If it had just been a new martial striker class - the Slayer, the issue wouldn't be so bad, it would be like the runepriest, another class out there. Instead I have created the house rules for my group to allow them to take these options.

Other classes aren't so bad, such as the Wizard/Mage, and the Battlepriest is passable, but even something as simple as the Channel Divinity power - the Cleric (PHB1) can't take Smite undead, only turn undead (and vice versa) - that kind of modularity would have been nice.

2. Missing Hybrid rules have also made them harder to intergrate.

I don't want to come across as a person who hates essentials, far from it - I do like the powers, I love the set up of the books, and I think some of the concepts are great. I just wish they were more modular.

[Nai_Calus]

It matters to existing content because it is largely replacing existing content - Most support we've seen since the release is for Essentials and Essentials classes, and other than the excellent Ardent article that was exactly what I want for pre-Essentials support, it's been slim pickings. The Runepriest article was nearly insulting, for example. Here's five items that are probably not usable for you, what do you mean you want powers?

Let's take my Paladin for example. All Essentials has to offer him is feats and utility powers, and it's been questioned on the latter. The one Essentials option he has is Summon Celestial Steed, chosen because I frankly didn't like any of the L6 Utility Powers for actual Paladins and my DM is one of the ones who allows it, plus it fits storywise since Frank the Mule had already been my Paladin's occasional companion in times of great mental crisis. Otherwise? Meh. I'll take Improved Celestial Steed: Pegasus and have a ridiculous mule with wings, because it's amusing. Nothing excites me for him. I don't have new shiny things to look forward to, because all the support has been going mostly to Essentials. There will never be a Divine Power 2, which is sad because the first one was so amazing - Especially for Paladins, who underwent a friggin' paradigm shift with the introduction of Divine Sanction and went from meh to amazing. There won't be anything like that anymore.

The two are compatible, yes. I can crib the options I can crib between them. But I don't want a L4(!) utility power taken for a L6 option cribbed from what's basically another class. I want something designed with my actual class in mind. But it feels like I'm playing a 3.0 Ranger. Sure, I can play in a 3.5 game without much trouble. But there's no support for me. Those Ranger feats in that splatbook are designed with that new Ranger in mind.

Or when I play a Swordmage or Bard, it's like I'm playing a Swashbuckler in Pathfinder. Sure, it works. But there's nothing that's even remotely compatible except a few general feats. I'm not a class that exists in the new way of things, why should they care about me? And look, they don't. No Arcane Power 2.

Now maybe there are a bunch of exciting things for the Swordmage or Bard coming out in future products we don't know about, but... You know, Swordmage utility powers I'm pretty damn happy with. Attack powers... That I want more of. Just not L3 and L7 Encounter powers, since those are *both* drawn from L3 for a Shielding Swordmage. :P And an Essentials Swordmage would likely not use the AEDU structure.

I also don't like the new structure. I like AEDU. I like the variety. I like having Options at every level. I like making my character the way I want. Essentials for the most part rips that away from me, especially on the classes where I appreciate the choices the most. Dear god NO I don't want a fighter I just choose a couple of stances on and use MBAs for the rest of my life! No, no, NO. If I want a Fighter who just says 'I attack it with my axe' every round, I'll go play 3.5(OK, no, I'll go play a Bard in 3.5 because I love the 3.5 Bard). They had something so amazingly good going... And then they threw it out and I'm just left wondering 'WTF'.

And see, before we saw Essentials, I was for it. I was rolling my eyes at the nay-sayers and sniping at anyone who dared suggest that it was 4.5 or meant the abandonment of 4.0. It was just going to be a slightly different thing, an onramp, it would come and then it would go and we'd get back to our regularly scheduled 4E.

Except it was radically different. Except it has in practice meant the abandoning of 4.0. It's gone from an onramp to the entire system. We aren't getting back to our regularly scheduled 4E. In every way *I* personally care about, it's 4.5.

What I want isn't coming out, I have no interest at all in the new way of things since it's not at all something that appeals to me, and it's hard at that point to not feel that the game has simply abandoned you and left you behind.

*That's* the problem I have with Essentials. Not that I somehow think the classes can't play together(They can, obviously). Not that I somehow think the designers are evil jerks, they aren't, they're awesome guys. And they want to play with their cool new toys, I can dig that. But me, for myself? Not feeling it. Monsters are eternal, as evidenced by how I used to run 3.5 with a 3.0 MM and DMG and there was never a problem; and Monster Vault was an amazing product. I'll buy the second one, sure, since I love the MM3+ format so much that I hugged Greg Bilsland at GenCon last year over it. I'll get the FR book, because it's FR and awesome people are working on it. I might get the Shadowfell set since awesome people are working on that. I won't be getting Heroes of Shadow. I probably won't get Heroes of the Feywild either, even though Fey stuff is far more relevant to my interest than Shadow stuff. Because I know it's going to be Essentials-style class stuff. And I don't *want* that.

I want to play a Seeker again with new exciting options. I want cool new stuff for my Runepriest. I want new toys for my Paladin, my Swordmage, etc. I'm not getting them. And whether it's rational or not, I can't help but look at Essentials as being the thing that's caused them to be left behind. (I find 'Nobody plays that so it doesn't need options, let's make some more Fighter powers' like has been done in the past to be complete nonsense. Of course nobody who likes options is going to play something that lacks them. It's why I don't play Essentials martial classes and why I don't play a Seeker or Runepriest anymore, in favor of classes that at least got one book of support.)

*shrug* tl;dr Essentials killed my original 4E classes and took their stuff, but made it different in the process and I am grumpy.

[Matt James]

Great conversation so far. So, at the risk of marginalizing this too much, is it safe to say that many of you are upset with player content? This issues brought up appear to be related to character options and less on the game system. Yes?

[AlphaAnt]

Great conversation so far. So, at the risk of marginalizing this too much, is it safe to say that many of you are upset with player content? This issues brought up appear to be related to character options and less on the game system. Yes?

Player content is my big problem. I have several characters that haven't gotten new options since 2009. I don't mind them putting out the new stuff, but where's the stuff for my warden, avenger, or invoker?

[TheGreatZomboni]

Eh, I'm hesitant to say yes, becuase in my opinion, the game system dictates how I select my options. Since Essentials didn't follow the "old" game system structure of AEDU fully, that limits my ability to select the options I would like.

But overall I'll say yes.