Golden Rules

Hmm... darn if these don't sound pretty interesting. (Not so much the Rules Compendium, but the Heroes of the Fallen Lands & Forgotten Kingdoms really do sound interesting... sigh... resist, resist...) :P

Dean (TMW)

I wish they'd release more of the same type of hero books at this price.

Hmmm... seems like we're missing a few races (unless the Essentials Line scales back on some of the races (re)introduced to the 4th Edition of D&D.

Okay... we have Heroes of the Fallen Lands, the Forgotten Kingdoms...
covering 4 classes (each) and five races (each).

What about Heroes of the Frontier Realms (working title, keeping with the "theme" as it were) and this one provided the same stuff for barbarians, bards, wardens, and warlords. (Or any 4 suitable classes... if some of these have gone by the wayside with "Essentials"). Oh, and stuff for these races... devas, genasi, gnomes, goliaths, and shifters.

Seriously... I haven't done much with my 4e... it's not that I dislike it... I just don't like it as much as I like Pathfinder.

But these "Heroes" books... really DO sound intriguing.

Dean

I got the RC and HotFL and though it will never replace Pathfinder as my game of choice, they made me warm up to 4e. My original 4e books will likely continue to gather dust on my gaming shelf, but I foresee Essentials getting some table time. I taught my daughter to play using these books and we both had fun.

I got the RC and HotFL and though it will never replace Pathfinder as my game of choice, they made me warm up to 4e. My original 4e books will likely continue to gather dust on my gaming shelf, but I foresee Essentials getting some table time. I taught my daughter to play using these books and we both had fun.

Hmm...can you tell me why you thought made this a better buy then the original 4E books? I'm kind of curious now.

I got the RC and HotFL and though it will never replace Pathfinder as my game of choice, they made me warm up to 4e. My original 4e books will likely continue to gather dust on my gaming shelf, but I foresee Essentials getting some table time. I taught my daughter to play using these books and we both had fun.

Hi Capt. D... same question that Jeremy MacDonald asked... what was better/different about these books than the "original" 4e? I find that I too am curious to know. (And do the Essentials, by the "look" of the 'Heroes' books... do they "take away" certain classes & races, or is it more of a "we haven't gotten around to these others yet" type of thing?

Thanks in advance,

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm

One thing to note is that the Essentials classes don't replace existing ones - they are new, alternate builds that are a bit more 'old-school' in feel. But you can play a standard 4E fighter alongside an Essentials one, for example. Now, whether we'll eventually see Essentials-style variant of other classes, like Wardens, Psions, etc... no idea.

Anyway, for me, while I like the content of the books, I have mixed feelings about the smaller paperback format. It is fantastic for the Rules Compendium - having a cheap, portable reference book is excellent. I'm not as sold on it for the actual Hero books, though I get why they did it - a lower price tag makes it easier for people to get into the game.

Hi Capt. D... same question that Jeremy MacDonald asked... what was better/different about these books than the "original" 4e? I find that I too am curious to know. (And do the Essentials, by the "look" of the 'Heroes' books... do they "take away" certain classes & races, or is it more of a "we haven't gotten around to these others yet" type of thing?

Thanks in advance,

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm

The classes are supposed to be playable side-by-side with standard 4e builds, as M.K. mentioned, but the Essentials classes have a more streamlined/simplified feel to them. Some call it an old school feel, to me they are just easier to manage.

So far rituals have gotten nothing but a slight mention in a sidebar, powers don't seem as annoying(to me at least), and everything seems to have more of a purpose now. There are still options that are basically useless for my group, but that is just because we tend to not use minis.
None of us liked messing with rituals so their absence was welcomed. I still think that fighters ability to fight should not be considered a "power", it is more of a feat/skill. If you are going to put their abilities as powers, then WotC should have gotten rid of the feats. Having both seems redundant to me.
Still the Essentials books cleaned up a lot of what made me dislike 4e. They are better organized and more interesting to read. It is hard to describe, but Essentials feels like it is a much better thought out system than 4e was originally. Kind of like the way Pathfinder feels like it is what 3e should have been when it was first released.
I know that many 4e players will disagree, but to me 4e felt sterile, clumsy and dull when it first came out. Even with just the minor tweaks made to the Essentials, the game just seems to play better. I won't discount the fact that the books released so far are much more appealing, and put the other books to shame in regards to organization and flavor text. To me it feels like 4e was the playtest and Essentials is the official release.
As for the other races and classes I think they are going to be in the Heroes of the Lost Kingdoms PHB. If I remember correctly the races in that are Drow, Tiefling, Dragonborn, Minotaur(?)and I can't remember the rest. Plus they put in the remaining core classes.

i dont think the missing races are going to ever be in esentials books. there are only 10 esentials products being released: red box, rules compendium, the two heros books, a boxed dm kit, a boxed monster kit, three tiles sets, and a dungeon masters screen.

the same with all the classes. its not a seperate game, its a begginer's version of the full game. rituals have not been removed, and i cant think of any reason why you wouldn't want them in a game. the rituals represent all the magic that doesn't have a direct combat element. unless you dont want any role playing in your combat game.

i think its funny that the argument many used for not likeing 4e is the same argument that many are using to like essentials. ie: 4e characters are too simple, they dont do enough, dont like powers etc. now that essentials is out, people like essentials because the characters are simple, they dont have to many powers (or they are not refered to as powers, but actually, they are powers).

i dont think the missing races are going to ever be in esentials books. there are only 10 esentials products being released: red box, rules compendium, the two heros books, a boxed dm kit, a boxed monster kit, three tiles sets, and a dungeon masters screen. the same with all the classes.

"...

exciting new builds for the game’s most popular classes: the druid, the paladin, the ranger, and the warlock.
In addition to new builds, this book presents expanded information and racial traits for some of the game’s most popular races, including dragonborn, drow, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings." <Product Description: Amazon.com>

its not a seperate game, its a begginer's version of the full game. rituals have not been removed, and i cant think of any reason why you wouldn't want them in a game.

Essentials feel more like the final version with the originally released 4e being the clunky playtest version. Rituals have not been removed from the game, but they are not in the Essentials books I have. Every thing in Essentials is compatible with "regular" 4e for those that like the original. Otherwise you can use Essentials by itself and ignore the stuff that came before.

Essentials is also not just for beginners. It is just as much to draw the people that did not like 4e back by making the game seem more like the kind of RPGs that those gamers are drawn to. They wanted to appeal to the gamers that abandoned D&D to play OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Dark Dungeons & Labyrinth Lord. They also wanted to extend an "olive branch" to the gamers that stuck with 3.5 or who switched allegiances and started playing Pathfinder.
The box-sets are for both the new players as an introduction and a appeal to the nostalgia of older players. The Essentials books are the next step for the beginning players, but they are also meant to say "forget about the 4e you dislike and try this" to the Pathfinder player and 4e haters.
I still have a few issues, but I think Essentials was a good step in the right direction.

the rituals represent all the magic that doesn't have a direct combat element. unless you dont want any role playing in your combat game.

My group is incapable of rolepaying unless they use rituals? That's a bit presumptuous and completely incorrect. If you know how to roleplay you don't need any specific mechanic to do so. For beginners it may be that way, though I think even that is a bit far fetched.

Many of the "magic" powers can be used outside of combat. An encounter can be anything from trying to solve a puzzle, influence an NPC, and any number of non-combat actions. Any action your characters takes is an encounter.
My group just found rituals, like some feats and some powers, to be cumbersome when you are actually roleplaying. Since we don't rely on battlemat or minis to play, feats & powers that specifically require their use are of no use to us. So we throw them out. Rituals tended to predominately fall into the "why do we need this?" category.
The "flavor" of some of the rituals can be appealing, but they often end up being more of a hassle during games. I've come across a lot of players that don't like and don't use rituals. They are not necessary to play and leaving them out does not impact gameplay.
I've heard, from various sources, that the dislike of rituals is why they were left out of the Essentials books. Of course I haven't seen Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms yet (due out in November?) and they may be in there. But as far as I know they were not included in any of the Essentials books.

i think its funny that the argument many used for not likeing 4e is the same argument that many are using to like essentials. ie: 4e characters are too simple, they dont do enough, dont like powers etc.

I am going to assume here that this is not aimed towards me, but is just a generalized statement/observation. I for one did not find the "original" 4e to be simple. With the exception of the DM's job of course. 4e did make DM prep much easier.

One of the reasons my group did not like 4e was because it felt like a clunky mess with all the powers, feats, abilities, skills and rituals to keep track of. These things may have made battle-mat games easier, though I've heard quite the opposite, but for us they were mostly a headache.
That is why I like essentials. It did simplify 4e. Well simplify is not really the right word. Essentials took the stuff that many gamers found useless or unappealing and made it more of an option than a necessary part of the game. Most of the stuff that people claimed made 4e a table top MMO has been reworked or made optional. That's another reason Essentials is more appealing to those that did not like 4e.

now that essentials is out, people like essentials because the characters are simple, they dont have to many powers (or they are not refered to as powers, but actually, they are powers).

Powers are just the skills, feats or the basic abilities from every other edition of D&D that have been labeled "powers". The labeling of a fighter's skill/ability to fight as an "at will/encounter/daily power" is one of the things that caused some older players to scratch their heads. Why name something that is an innate part of the class as a "power"? Then give them limitations on something that is a part of their character? I don't have my book infront of me, but I'm pretty sure the non-magical classes no longer have daily powers in Heroes of the Fallen Lands. This makes sense. After all they are a fighter, fighting is what they do. Just like magic users use magic and a thief steals things. Now magic users and clerics use magical "energy" or draw power from divine sources. Having a once per day ability for them makes sense. For non-magical classes, it is just a useless limitation.

Essentials just seems more sensible than standard 4e.

The thing for both sides to keep in mind is that Essentials isn't intended to replace the previous classes. It isn't condemning anyone for liking the earlier versions, and I'm sure we'll continue to see support for both types of builds.

The key is that the goal here was to be able to support both types of players - something I'm sure they would have liked to do at release, but didn't feel confident enough in being able to do so in a balanced fashion. A few years of experience with the game behind them, and they are ready, and I think they've succeeded. I think they also learned some valuable lessons about presentation along the way.

The game is still far from perfect, but I think the broader the base they can expand it to, the better. I like that both donnald johnson's and Capt D's styles of play are supported by the system. I can't think of that as anything other than a good thing.

The thing for both sides to keep in mind is that Essentials isn't intended to replace the previous classes. It isn't condemning anyone for liking the earlier versions, and I'm sure we'll continue to see support for both types of builds.

The key is that the goal here was to be able to support both types of players - something I'm sure they would have liked to do at release, but didn't feel confident enough in being able to do so in a balanced fashion. A few years of experience with the game behind them, and they are ready, and I think they've succeeded. I think they also learned some valuable lessons about presentation along the way.

The game is still far from perfect, but I think the broader the base they can expand it to, the better. I like that both donnald johnson's and Capt D's styles of play are supported by the system. I can't think of that as anything other than a good thing.

I for one applaud WotC for trying to bring us non-4e players back into the fold. You are exactly right, Essentials is not perfect, but like you said 4e is now much more capable of supporting different styles of play. The Essentials products are very nice products and the tweaks to the mechanics make my style much easier to play. Essentials is not Pathfinder and will never replace PF at my table, but for the first time in a long time I'm actually excited to buy a WotC product and enjoying reading and playing it.

Over all it is a much more appealing product to me and my group. That's not to say that someone who likes non-Essentials 4e is wrong by any means. I would never begrudge anyone for liking a certain game or style of play.
Personally I can't stand Hero System, but I know people who think it is the greatest system out there. There's nothing wrong with that, I just don't like playing it. I'm happy just to know that people are playing the games, because if they are playing which ever system they like, then there is a good chance that the systems I like will survive. Selling product, no matter which company it is, has nothing but good repercussions for the rest of the hobby/industry.