Just a concern, more of an opinion(get your flame-throwers ready), but I thought 4e was already supposed to be the "friendlier to new players, easier to learn" DnD game all by itself? So, we have a newer, younger player friendly version of the newer, younger player friendly edition?To get into a bit of philosophizing here for a moment, I think when you look at the tradition of D&D as a whole, there is actually a really broad spectrum of complexity. Taking 3rd Edition for example, you have a broad range of complexity for players, with fighters on one end and, say, druids on the other (I could easily have picked wizards or clerics there, but druids add in wild shape and stuff like that). So, imagine that the complexity of D&D as a whole (even considering the varying level of complexity of other editions) as this line:
|----------------------------------------|
Low-------------------------------------HighWhat I think 4E did was actually cut a slice right out of the middle, so that the complexity of 4E as a game looks something like this:
|--------|----4th Edition----|-----------|
Low-------------------------------------HighSo, for the people accustomed to a higher complexity in their playstyle (people that played spellcasters often, people that put a lot of work into character building, etc.) 4E looks like a less complex game. However, to the more casual player, the player who just plays the fighter and likes to hit things (I've got a couple of those guys in my regular weekly games), or the player that wants to play as straightforward a game as possible, 4E looks like a more complex game.
What the Essentials do is try to broaden that center spectrum a bit by offering classes of different complexity levels. For some, that means providing a selection of classes that are simpler, faster, and more straightforward. For others, it means providing classes that scratch that druid/cleric/wizard player's itch.
So it's not about "younger," but it IS about...
That makes sense, honestly more sense than other players I know trying to explain 4e put it. I pretty much wrote off 4e, but I'll give the Essentials line a good read-through. Maybe I've just been approaching it from the wrong direction. Thanks again!
After reading some of Rodney's comments, and after reading the article he linked to on the Wizards of the Coast website, it sounds like Essentials provides options more like 3.5's Unearthed Arcana or the Book of Nine Swords. One might also compare Essentials to the variant racial classes presented in the 3.5 Races series. Am I right in this assumption?
|
Rodney -
Thanks for coming over and commenting in this thread. It has been helpful.
Also, I want to say thanks for all the hard work you put into Star Wars Saga Edition. I'm currently running my home group through a modified Dawn of Defiance campaign. We're really digging the system. Plus, I've had the opportunity to review WotC's Star Wars submissions for the ENnies this year.
Lastly, excellent choice of avatar.
What the Essentials do is try to broaden that center spectrum a bit by offering classes of different complexity levels. For some, that means providing a selection of classes that are simpler, faster, and more straightforward. For others, it means providing classes that scratch that druid/cleric/wizard player's itch.
Erk. This is killing me.
It is tempting me a lot to be ready to buy Essentials when it comes out. I thought I could just let it safely pass by and ignore it, now I want to take a better look.
|
Thanks! And thanks to everyone else who has said so. I really loved working on the Star Wars books, and I think it's given me a unique perspective when it comes to working on D&D. Obviously they are two different games, but working on Star Wars also afforded me the chance to really interact with a lot of the players of the game on an up front level, which is nice! With D&D, there's a very different signal-to-noise ratio that makes it harder to have the same relationship (there's just so many more D&D fans!).
Rodney, I am glad WotC kept you after Star Wars, it is good to see WotC talking to the fans, I know for awhile there they got quiet for a bit, but it seems more and more we hear more from you guys.
|
It is tempting me a lot to be ready to buy Essentials when it comes out. I thought I could just let it safely pass by and ignore it, now I want to take a better look.
Ditto. I had no plans to purchase Essentials (I and my players are perfectly content with the current 4E) until this thread broke out.
Thanks for your answers Rodney! This sounds very tempting indeed.
|
|
Essentials does sound well worth a look. 4e for me is fun but I can take it or leave as an RPG not due to it's design mechanically just the implementation of said mechanics isn't very inspiring for me. Essentials seems to be shaping into the great mechanics of 4e without the "bleh" feeling of the books. Being a "closed system" it really suits my type of DMing. That and the hints that the "powers" wouldn't be so much mechanics with haphazard fluff written, as current, but rather fluff-mechanics in sync really super-dooper appeals. For me it means that 4e's great mechanics will finally find it's place in the RPG world.
I'm I right in assuming; 1 x Rule Compendium, 2 x Players books, 1 x Monsters book = years of fun RPGing? (working on the fact I like making my own worlds / adventures). If so, where do I sign up for pre-ordering :)
Looking forward to having "4e" inspire me,
S.
|
|
Sorry - for me...that ship has sailed.
I'm still way too bitter over the 4E design changes (Forgotten Realms, Great Wheel, vancian magic, demon/devil changes, etc.).
That doesn't mean I am going to stop trying to make products you would like. :-D
You got a job at Paizo!?!?!?!
;)
This wins the thread. Hell, this wins the internet.
Game Over; everyone can go home...
(He certainly would have more job security at Paizo).
:)
One of the main reasons I don't DM 4e is because it is to easy to prep for the games,
Well for me it is a complaint. I enjoyed the complexity and using my brain to prep for a game in 3.5, in 4e that is not there, most is done for me and is just not as enjoyable for me..
As a player I don't mind 4e, since as a player I am more into the roleplay then the rules.
I have to admit you are the first that I have seen that likes working out complex NPCs and game mechanics. For myself I 'use my brain' coming up with interesting personalities and plots. 3E used to drive me to distraction when it came time to design a creature or (heaven help me) build a high level spell caster.
Rodney,
If Essentials characters don't have daily powers what makes them balanced in a game using PHB Characters..also..have the Monsters in Essentials been revised to take the lack of dailies for the PCs into account?
|
|
drive me to distraction when it came time to design a creature or (heaven help me) build a high level spell caster.
I guess I must be missing something. No encounter or NPC has taken me any shorter or longer in any edition to date. I have never made in NPC using the full PC generation rules ever. Honesty, with the exception of an academic exercise why bother? The NPC is just going to be killed at some point. High level spell caster in my opinion should be no more difficult than a high level fighter. Note down the personality traits, motivation and few signature spells, the odd feat if you really feel the need, and your all good. If your DMing you more than likely have a pretty good idea of the number of spells allowed etc at level X or Y, does it really matter if your wrong by a spell or two per level? I'm not talking about completely winging it, just not dotting all your "i"s and crossing all your "t"s. Conversely I insist on RAW for the players. Life is a dichotomy.
Curious on the obvious fact that some spend a large amount of time on the mechanics of an NPC,
S.
If Essentials characters don't have daily powers what makes them balanced in a game using PHB Characters..also..have the Monsters in Essentials been revised to take the lack of dailies for the PCs into account?
Unfortunately, I can't say much on this issue right now, but keep an eye on the D&D website this month. We're going to be previewing some stuff that should answer your questions.
I have to admit you are the first that I have seen that likes working out complex NPCs and game mechanics.
Hi. My name's Dove. I'm crazy too. :-) However, I wouldn't say that 4E is lacking in complexity. It's just different.
It is my understanding that their encounter powers will be more powerful, and that leads to me to wonder if issues of balance will arise if regular 4E characters start trying to use Essential encounter powers.
Rodney,
If Essentials characters don't have daily powers what makes them balanced in a game using PHB Characters..also..have the Monsters in Essentials been revised to take the lack of dailies for the PCs into account?
Rodney,
If Essentials characters don't have daily powers what makes them balanced in a game using PHB Characters..also..have the Monsters in Essentials been revised to take the lack of dailies for the PCs into account?
I'd look at something like PHB3 for my answers.
There you have the psi classes with no encounter powers and only at-will and daily.
Each character still has an action budget of one standard action, one move action, and one free action. Usage of a daily power only consumes the same action as an at-will or encounter power.
My guess would be that the encounter powers or at-wills are written with some sort of special 'budget' feature. The encounter power has a regular setting and you can <once every so much time> choose to bump it up to a higher value setting.
For example, a wizard might be able to get 'Fling Fire' as an encounter power. They might then specify that once a day, the Wizard draws upon their inner stored resources and can upgrade 'Fling Fire' to a full power 'Fire Ball'.
Essentially (hehe Pun intended) the three categories are still there but they have hidden one of the categories inside another. You'll just get powers that have more of a linked theme of the encounter to the daily because you'll get two powers with one pick choice.
From a player perspective it will simply the number of 'different' powers they will see arrayed in front of them. You'll have less of the eight or ten powers that work well but have no real coherent theme to the group (like all cold or fire) which you can get now. The gain in benefit to a wizard is that they have a few more choices to which encounter spell will they 'promote' to the daily value instead of having to 'choose' ahead of time which is the memorized daily.
Again, this is all conjecture but probably not too far off the base.
Then again, there was plenty of conjecture on what 4E was going to be like and I don't think anyone ended up near the mark on that one. hehe.
|
|
If Essentials characters don't have daily powers what makes them balanced in a game using PHB Characters..also..have the Monsters in Essentials been revised to take the lack of dailies for the PCs into account?Unfortunately, I can't say much on this issue right now, but keep an eye on the D&D website this month. We're going to be previewing some stuff that should answer your questions.
Coolio.
All discussion aside, after review of the Essentials line and such, I am absolutely certain I will NOT be purchasing this product. 4E right now is just fine for me and my group, so I don't feel the need for "less complex play." I'm quite happy with 4E as it is.
+1
I do hope they sell the tokens separately though.
|
|
All discussion aside, after review of the Essentials line and such, I am absolutely certain I will NOT be purchasing this product. 4E right now is just fine for me and my group, so I don't feel the need for "less complex play." I'm quite happy with 4E as it is.
In a classic example of how we are all different I'm the complete reverse. I'll be getting 4e books out of interest only once Essentials is in my hands. Gives me as DM the control, meaning not at the mercy of the WotC game designers every 6-12 months, I'm after. Looking at the races/classes provided I'm finding it hard to see how there isn't a life time of characters and adventures in the Essentials line.
ToMAYtoe, ToMAHtoe,
S.
|
In a classic example of how we are all different I'm the complete reverse.
And this is perfectly fine. As always, the only significant things of matter are what happens at your own game table and with what you and your fellow gamers feel comfortable with.
I have to admit, I *am* curious as to the "at the mercy of the WotC game designers" comment and would like you to perhaps clarify what you mean.
I have purchased almost every 4E product that has come out so far. I don't recall a single purchase that "invalidated" a previous 4E release, which is what as I am assuming that you are talking about. The most notable "changes" that have come out during the 4E lifecycle would be the clarifications of certain game terms in PHB 2, the change in target numbers of skills checks and more clarification of skill challenges in DM2. Everything else seems to have been simply a build on what has come before - the new mechanic regarding psion powers for example. Like you, right now I have a lifetime of characters and adventures even if I never purchase another 4E item.
As to the campaign worlds and generic "universe as we know it" books released, I have no vested interests in previous edition releases so I'm not upset by any of the changes they've made. The only comment I would have on this is that I feel they do an injustice by not releasing an Annual for each campaign world as well. I think some articles, lore, monsters and adventures tucked in a single hardbound would be the perfect way to continue campaign world legacies.
But again, as you emphasize, the tomato is a delicious fruit, regardless of how you pronounce it.
|
|
I have to admit, I *am* curious as to the "at the mercy of the WotC game designers" comment and would like you to perhaps clarify what you mean.
Closed system - the players have these classes and these races. Full stop. I can design my campaign world and adventures based on these unchanging facts. Currently new lands and new classes have to suddenly start appearing - for example.
That is what I mean, new "options" can equal headache of integration into the current campaign/world for the DM. This is fine if you are "playing a game" but troublesome if you are "creating a world". Essentials gives me a defined work-space in which to operate as a DM.
Cheers,
S.
Closed system - the players have these classes and these races. Full stop. I can design my campaign world and adventures based on these unchanging facts. Currently new lands and new classes have to suddenly start appearing - for example.
Interesting, I've never needed to add new lands to a game world for this. I can see new races being more troublesome than new classes, but it's just as easy to say "There isn't X race" or "No psionic based classes" if you feel certain things don't fit into your world.
Of course, I tend to run planar games, so it's easy enough for me to add just about anything to my game.
I do see the appeal to a limited game set, but "Core Only" is just as easy as "Essentials Only". I am curious to see what the essentials set turns out like, I may pick it up.
|
|
I do see the appeal to a limited game set, but "Core Only" is just as easy as "Essentials Only". I am curious to see what the essentials set turns out like, I may pick it up.
What is "core" has become a bit of a grey area, and saying "no" is a capital offense in 4e it would seem. I'm really looking forward to "Essentials" play, all the freedom of 1e-like DMing (yay for me) with a modern ruleset (yay for the players) that isn't 'splatbook/bloatware' = perfect. WotC can have my first child - no really.
S.
What is "core" has become a bit of a grey area, and saying "no" is a capital offense in 4e it would seem. I'm really looking forward to "Essentials" play, all the freedom of 1e-like DMing (yay for me) with a modern ruleset (yay for the players) that isn't 'splatbook/bloatware' = perfect. WotC can have my first child - no really.
S.
I know WotC marketing is trying to convince everyone that "everything" is core. But that won't convince me that the 3 book set isn't Core. Everything else is just that, optional expansions.
I'm sure essentials will work well for your needs, but if your players are happy with that I'm betting you could get away with just the 3 main books.
|
|
To give you an example, I'm playing a fighter in a playtest game, using the fighter material from the first Player's Essentials book. The DM is running an upcoming adventure, and my fellow players are a mix of existing classes (we have an assassin, a non-Essentials rogue, etc.) and stuff from Essentials (another player is playing a cleric using Essentials material). They work just fine alongside each other.
After taking a look at the wizard preview, I feel confused by your comments here. For example, Magic Missile seems to have changed dramatically in 'Essentials'; it's now an "auto-hit" spell that is obligatory to all wizards (or magi) and causes a fixed amount (X + Int) of damage. In fact, after a quick look it seems that *ALL* the powers (at least the previewed ones) inflict far less damage. Also, the some of the previewed powers seemed to give you two options to choose when the power hits; this is also different from "core". What this practically means (unless I've misunderstood something) that there will be two versions of the same powers in 4E, correct?
Yes, I can see that, say, a mage and a PHB wizard could exist in the same party, but that might not work so smoothly after all. Now, if both of them cast Magic Missile, their spells function differently; magi hits automatically for around *half* the damage the wizard does? I know that this should be compensated by the fact that the wizard (on his own) should miss around 50% of the time, but this seems like a weird design direction considering that most groups likely have Leaders to even the odds (resulting in the wizard hitting nearly as often as the mage). If the same applies to other classes as well, I'd compare it to running the same game for 3.0 and 3.5 PCs -- most of the mechanics are fully compatible, but spells and class abilities vary somewhat between the characters of the same classes.
How does the "new" math behind the powers relate to the existing classes -- or even more importantly -- to the monsters? How can you try to maintain balance (and avoid "grind" or PCs breezing through encounters) if damage varies so wildly within the group? I mean, if 80% of the group consists of 'Essentials' PCs, shouldn't the DM adjust the numbers in MMs? And won't the 'Essentials' monsters be a bit too weak for PHB heroes?
There is already an auto hit power for the wizard, i.e. storm pillar, so there will always be variances on how powers are implemented, and while adding more diversity, this will also add more challenges to keep everything balanced. But the concept of balancing in itself it only a goal, and can never be achieved.
The power system remains in tact, you just see them expressed in different formats. Psionics also falls under this category.
Only time will tell if there is a huge discrepency. But this is evident in any version of D&D. One huge benefit of DDI and character builder, is these discrepencies crawl out of the woodwork as everyone is pushing the evelope and trying new builds.
But you can choose just to use essentials by itself, exlude it, or combine with other sources, as you prefer.
As to monsters, many DMs tweak encounters based on the party, but I doubt you will see much of a change, except to include corrections that have occured over the time period of the three monsters manuals.
Note that in the last batch of Errata, the current Magic Missile was already updated to the same form as it is showing up in Essentials. It wasn't given to all Wizards for free, admittedly - but the power is the same.
Despite liking the newer magic missile power better, this irritates me. While this might be a very special case for such an iconic spell, I don't like updates of this magnitude because I feel like it puts someone who doesn't have a D&DI subscription at a disadvantage. Especially so if the venue they play at enforces playing with the current updates. It feels like buying the books is more pointless at this point.
Bill Slavicsek seems quite perturbed in the current Ampersand by the continued use of the "4.5" moniker.
Here's the deal: Despite Bill and others repeating the "Essentials is not 4.5" mantra, all the information they release makes Essentials look more, rather than less, like a significant revision (i.e., a 4.5).
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck...
Well, D&DI isn't required - the updates are free. But yeah, hunting them down and keepin track can be a hassle, and I agree about Magic Missile. I might like the new version better, but don't feel it was a necessary change. I really like having regular updates and errata, but I'd prefer if it was kept to the things that really needed it.
Still, that said... I don't think I've seen any place that enforces having the most current updates. Anywhere that does, likely just means they'll tell the new player how things work. And in the end, it is one power out of a very many - even with all the updates combined, 95% of the books remains accurate, so I don't think they are approaching anything resembling obsolesence.
Right, that is pretty much how I feel.
I didn't mean to say that the books are obsolete because of this, just that buying the book is less preferable to just subscribing to D&DI for a month to get the latest rules.
...It feels like buying the books is more pointless at this point.
+1
...It feels like buying the books is more pointless at this point.+1
+2
Bill Slavicsek seems quite perturbed in the current Ampersand by the continued use of the "4.5" moniker.
Here's the deal: Despite Bill and others repeating the "Essentials is not 4.5" mantra, all the information they release makes Essentials look more, rather than less, like a significant revision (i.e., a 4.5).
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck...
..it's clearly a Mimic - or some other assorted monster designed solely to ambush and devour PCs. :)
Seriously though, I see no real support for any claims of "4.5". The current material will exist completely alongside the new material. The Essentials material isn't replacing anything - just providing new builds, just like books like Martial Power did. A handful of things might be getting changed in this - Magic Missile, for example, and some racial stat modifiers. Changes, WotC has made clear, would have been made with or without Essentials, and that don't particularly invalidate any existing characters.
I mean - I certainly get the worry about 4.5... I just don't see anything to really support it.
For me, the issue with 3.5 was that my previous books had to be replaced, and were likely to have compatibility issues with new products. Existing characters had significant updates to bring them in line with the new rules. Core design rules of the game were changed.
I don't see any of that here. Does '4.5' mean something differently to you? Or are you seeing something else that I am missing? I'm genuinely trying to understand here, because while I'm seeing some interesting products that provide cool new rules, I'm only seeing a few minor things that actually revise any existing content.
I heard the same thing said about 3.5. It never actually happened. Time will tell, but words beforehand will never settle anything.
Bill Slavicsek seems quite perturbed in the current Ampersand by the continued use of the "4.5" moniker.
Here's the deal: Despite Bill and others repeating the "Essentials is not 4.5" mantra, all the information they release makes Essentials look more, rather than less, like a significant revision (i.e., a 4.5).
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck...
..it's clearly a Mimic - or some other assorted monster designed solely to ambush and devour PCs. :)
Seriously though, I see no real support for any claims of "4.5". The current material will exist completely alongside the new material. The Essentials material isn't replacing anything - just providing new builds, just like books like Martial Power did. A handful of things might be getting changed in this - Magic Missile, for example, and some racial stat modifiers. Changes, WotC has made clear, would have been made with or without Essentials, and that don't particularly invalidate any existing characters.
So for me, all the information they release makes it more and more clear that Essentials will be a nice supplement for the game, and won't be a revision in any real way. :)
Probably all true but it's the way WotC is doing it along with what they did with 3.0-3.5 is making alot of people concerned about how the game they adopted is being changed underfoot without asking.
I don't get the "4.5 label" because any new class, or class feature change and/or addition, would constitute a version bump. However, it may be a perception problem, as any minor change to 4E (even to a class), appears to be huge jump, by the nature of the streamlined mechanics.
I gave up on keeping up on books since D&D 3.0 and GURPS 4th. My biggest problem is being hooked on the DDI subscription, but that just shows the strength of that product (in my opinion).
..it's clearly a Mimic - or some other assorted monster designed solely to ambush and devour PCs. :)Seriously though, I see no real support for any claims of "4.5". The current material will exist completely alongside the new material. The Essentials material isn't replacing anything - just providing new builds, just like books like Martial Power did. A handful of things might be getting changed in this - Magic Missile, for example, and some racial stat modifiers. Changes, WotC has made clear, would have been made with or without Essentials, and that don't particularly invalidate any existing characters.
I mean - I certainly get the worry about 4.5... I just don't see anything to really support it.
For me, the issue with 3.5 was that my previous books had to be replaced, and were likely to have compatibility issues with new products. Existing characters had significant updates to bring them in line with the new rules. Core design rules of the game were changed.
I don't see any of that here. Does '4.5' mean something differently to you? Or are you seeing something else that I am missing? I'm genuinely trying to understand here, because while I'm seeing some interesting products that provide cool new rules, I'm only seeing a few minor things that actually revise any existing content.
I respectfully disagree. The quintessential class-based RPG rewriting its most iconic classes is the definition of significant revision.
Instead of getting annoyed at the ongoing confusion, perhaps Bill should consider why that confusion persists, in spite of his assurances...
A re-write would imply the prior class is invalid, which is not the case. For the sake of argument, they could have just called it a different name like witch, or magi, etc.
A re-write would imply the prior class is invalid, which is not the case. For the sake of argument, they could have just called it a different name like witch, or magi, etc.
They did - if your an essentials wizard your a 'mage'. If your a wizard from the PHB1 then, well, your a 'wizard'.
A re-write would imply the prior class is invalid, which is not the case. For the sake of argument, they could have just called it a different name like witch, or magi, etc.
...which would have alleviated my concern. On the other hand, if I can come to the table and my wizard works, looks, and acts differently enough from your wizard that I don't recognize it, imo we've gone past builds to "Are we even playing the same game?"
For the record I wish they WOULD just print a set of 4.5 core books. I like 4E, but enough fundamental changes (Stealth, skill challenge math, expertise feat tax, NADs,etc., etc.) have been made to warrant it (imo).
While they're at it, they could remove pluses from all magic items (like they did for shields) and fix the magic item dependency, too. But I digress. :)
For me, the issue with 3.5 was that my previous books had to be replaced, and were likely to have compatibility issues with new products. Existing characters had significant updates to bring them in line with the new rules. Core design rules of the game were changed.
I don't see any of that here. Does '4.5' mean something differently to you? Or are you seeing something else that I am missing? I'm genuinely trying to understand here, because while I'm seeing some interesting products that provide cool new rules, I'm only seeing a few minor things that actually revise any existing content.
For me, it doesn't really matter. Looking back at 3.0 and 3.5 I can say, "Ehh, they are close enough. The rules weren't completely turned around so they are still mostly the same system."
If allowed by the GM, I could still play a 3.0 ranger in a 3.5 game without much revision. Similar things could be said of feats, spells, prestige classes, and magic items.
So, from my perspective, a 4.5 doesn't require that my previous books have to be replaced, changes in core design rules, or compatibility issues.
I even think that every update and product added increases the "version number" and don't consider that a bad thing.
The biggest part of why this sort of feels like a 4.5 to me is that it is releasing revised versions of the core classes*. Following this point, I think that, while new wizard/cleric/fighter/rogue powers will be usable by the classes in the Player's Handbook, that their focus will be on the essentials classes. More domains, more powers with a school of magic, and such things that the original classes might be able to take, but just weren't intended for them.
I don't really count any of these as bad things, I just think that this is a 4.5, a 4.1.2, or whatever rather than being permanently just 4th edition. To me, it would be like WoW updating the game with lots of stuff, and refusing to increase the stated version number just because people didn't have to buy the game disks all over again.
*It didn't matter if they call the classes Larry, Moe, and Curly, if they are intending to take the same role** as the other class, then I consider them to be revised versions of the other class.
**As in, studious mage that draws arcane power from intense study as opposed to controller, striker, etc.
More stuff than the systme would automatically include
The difference between Essentials, and say, Martial Power is that one is a supplement, the other a complete, stand-alone game. If I go to the store and buy Essentials, it had better be the case that what I'm buying is D&D 4E. With Essentials, what I get isn't a wizard build -- it's THE 4E wizard. Only it's not, and that's the problem.
If WotC says Essentials doesn't replace the PHB, that it's another expression of 4E, then how can it differ from the previous expression?That sounds like the definition of a new edition to me. Coexists != same.
But I think we're going in circles. Let's just say we don't agree. If the number of threads popping up and causing Bill such heartache is any indication, I'd say we're both in good company. ;)