# Essentials Cleric



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2010)

Today's Ampersand is doubling as a preview of the Cleric from Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Well, sort of. Mearls and Slavicsek took the time to re-address the compatibility issue. 



			
				Ampersand said:
			
		

> The Essentials products aren’t a new version of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, though they do give us a chance to clean up and clarify a few things that have been causing issues the past two years. In the end, current players had to endure as few changes as possible. The only changes we embraced were ones that we would have implemented even if we were not producing the Essentials products. That’s why things like the new approach to racial stat modifiers appeared in Player’s Handbook 3 and the higher monster damage appeared in Monster Manual 3. Regardless of the directions the Essentials products took, we wanted to implement these new approaches in the game.




Here are the differences I noticed immediately: 

+1 to Fort
Only lists Wis and Con as key abilities
Prof with shields
At-wills and encounters seem to be chosen via choosing a domain.

If I'm reading this correctly, this seems to be the "sub class" Warpriest, thus only Warpriests would get the +1 to Fort and Proficiency with shields.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

Initial impression: god damn!


----------



## Otterscrubber (Jul 9, 2010)

Well i'm a little confused, what exactly are the D&D essentials.  There seem to have been a lot of things trying to explain it but those explanations on wizards.com have only served to confuse me a bit more.  Are they actual rules changes?   Or just "practice" version of D&D for beginners to get them into the game?


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

Otterscrubber said:


> Well i'm a little confused, what exactly are the D&D essentials.  There seem to have been a lot of things trying to explain it but those explanations on wizards.com have only served to confuse me a bit more.  Are they actual rules changes?   Or just "practice" version of D&D for beginners to get them into the game?




Both. They are new rules to play which can be combined with the standard rules, and a version specifically geared to beginners.


----------



## samursus (Jul 9, 2010)

Wow..big changes...but I can see how they can exist alongside the previous incarnations.  Starting to wonder if anyone _will_ stick with the old builds.  Actually I am kind of excited...wondering if these changes will address many of the minor issues I have had with my group of new players.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

samursus said:


> Wow..big changes...but I can see how they can exist alongside the previous incarnations.  Starting to wonder if anyone _will_ stick with the old builds.




Old builds will be more flexible. The listed Warpriest seems to have all Encounter powers pre-chosen, determined by Domain


----------



## hbarsquared (Jul 9, 2010)

So, it's definitely not 4.5....

It actually looks more like 3.9E.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2010)

Beyond mechanics, there seems to be a conscious effort to weave more fluff from the default setting into the class. The class entry previewed starts off with how the class fits into the mythology of the default campaign setting. 

I like that.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jul 9, 2010)

Anyone else notice the lvl 8 ability of Resurection?  I wonder if that's a built in ritual ability?

It's pretty interesting to see them drop strength for a warpriest build.  Maybe they'll errata all of the PHB classes to the one primary attribute style of PHB II and III.


----------



## Markn (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm looking forward to the Essentials.  I've long felt that there just wasn't enough variation within a given class.  Taking the cleric for instance, your build type may affect some of your encounter powers but ultimately you were still a standard stock cleric.  Now the subtypes are the answer I have been looking for - that is much greater variation.  Playing a warpriest will be a vastly different experience from the standard cleric.  I love this!

One thing I wonder though, is, are they reintroducing classes gaining levels at different experience thresholds?  With 3e (and up), the standardization of class XP was nice and it allowed our group to do away with it.  We just level as appropriate for the story.  That won't work so well if classes gain levels at different rates now.  Of course, I'm jsut speculation as the Warpriest is gaining levels at the same rate as every other class in 4e, but still...

In regards to the cleric I REALLY like that some of the powers are tied to the domains now.  This should further differentiate a sun warpriest from the storm warpriest giving a much greater variety in play!

All in all, I can't wait for it!!!!


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 9, 2010)

Another obvious change is that they've given the build class features (e.g. resurrection) that unlock as you level up. That ends the whole front-loading tradition that has held so far.

I think that only some of those powers (the at-wills and some bonus domain powers) are assigned according to the build. It looks like some can be chosen from the more general list of powers. The article suggests that the new fighters (slayers and knights) can, for example, take powers from the general class whenever they receive a level-numbered encounter/utility/daily power. They can also take the feats, paragon paths, etc. from the main class.

The warpriest has basically killed the strength-cleric and taken its stuff. I can't see much reason to play the poor thing anymore. I am DYING to see how they fixed the paladin and warlock.


----------



## Markn (Jul 9, 2010)

samursus said:


> Wow..big changes...but I can see how they can exist alongside the previous incarnations.  Starting to wonder if anyone _will_ stick with the old builds.




I wonder this too...Just because you CAN play the original 4e builds doesn't mean that people should or would.  Does the original class designs get played by only a small percentage of the people now with the most wanting to use the new designs?  Time will tell.  I guess either way it makes no difference but it would be fun to look back on that after 2 years of Essentials and see if that is a trend!


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 9, 2010)

Anybody else notice that the article seems to indicate that Warpriests also get a Utility power from their Domain features at 1st level?

I'm excited about this new approach being taken. Most of what I see, I like. That said, I'm somewhat worried about how much "structural difference" we're gonna see between classes, especially when the class comes with a chart indicating feats and XP required for leveling. (I assume that each class comes with a similar chart, and that these "class neutral" details are listed on each chart for the sake of convenience.) I wouldn't be very excited if, for example, one class were to get a bunch of extra feat selections as its class feature; that's a cop-out with almost no way to be balanced appropriately, since the benefits vary from character to character -- see 3E's Fighter class for examples of how much this kind of "benefit" can blow.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 9, 2010)

I thought the warpriest was disappointing.  

I was ready to give the game another look, but if this is the design to "form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward",  I guess  that I will stop looking


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

Greg K said:


> I thought the warpriest was disappointing.




It's still clearly 4E mechanics and they've been saying that (despite the bleeting about 4.5) for a while now. Personally it looks like more of the same thing, with an alternative take on some power progression and similar.

I actually quite like what I've seen thus far and I'm looking forward to more previews.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 9, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> I am DYING to see how they fixed the paladin and warlock.



Me too, especially the Warlock. In hindsight, it's obvious that they should've let pacts serve as builds for Warlocks from day-one, rather than trying to include both. Who the hell ever even talks about "Scourge Warlocks" anymore? It's all about the pacts, and I hope it becomes even more all about the pact with Essentials. As for ability scores, personally, I'm rooting for Charisma-based Warlocks.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> That said, I'm somewhat worried about how much "structural difference" we're gonna see between classes, especially when the class comes with a chart indicating feats and XP required for leveling. (I assume that each class comes with a similar chart, and that these "class neutral" details are listed on each chart for the sake of convenience.) I wouldn't be very excited if, for example, one class were to get a bunch of extra feat selections as its class feature; that's a cop-out with almost no way to be balanced appropriately, since the benefits vary from character to character -- see 3E's Fighter class for examples of how much this kind of "benefit" can blow.



Yeah, I do not want a return to varying levels of XP, and some classes getting extra feats in place of class abilities. The Cleric previewed had normal level and feat progression though. At least through the heroic tier.

Part of the problem though is that it's easy to misinterpret the slightest thing. I remember, in the days leading up to 3.5, there was a shirt with the new Pit Fiend statblock on it. It didn't have it's CR listed, and people speculated that 3.5 was going to drop the CR mechanic.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

Ahrimon said:


> Anyone else notice the lvl 8 ability of Resurection?  I wonder if that's a built in ritual ability?
> 
> It's pretty interesting to see them drop strength for a warpriest build.  Maybe they'll errata all of the PHB classes to the one primary attribute style of PHB II and III.




They are not going to errata them. Those classes are still going to exist post-essentials and will still work. They aren't changing anything about the original ones and these are basically new builds.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> They are not going to errata them. Those classes are still going to exist post-essentials and will still work. They aren't changing anything about the original ones and these are basically new builds.




The Essentials Warpriest supplements the existing 4E Clerics, it does not replace them.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 9, 2010)

What I would still like to know is whether or not you can mix and match between the two versions of the classes.  If I start out as an Essentials Cleric, can I then progress into a regular Cleric paragon path or do the Essentials classes have their own paragon paths which match up more closely with the different rules?  Will multiclassing into or out of an Essentials class be different than normal?


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 9, 2010)

Johnny3D3D said:


> What I would still like to know is whether or not you can mix and match between the two versions of the classes.  If I start out as an Essentials Cleric, can I then progress into a regular Cleric paragon path or do the Essentials classes have their own paragon paths which match up more closely with the different rules?  Will multiclassing into or out of an Essentials class be different than normal?





I'm pretty sure that you can take whatever paragon path you want assuming you have the relevant feats and features (note that some paragon paths are build specific). The warpriest most obviously could take the warpriest paragon path!


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2010)

Regarding the fact that the class has XP and feats included in a table. Their marketing probably shows that it is easier to look up for new players if they have a table for each class in the class' section, instead of having a unified table somewhere else, as is the case in the 4e PHB.

I doubt we will be seeing classes which get feats instead of class features - or whatnot.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Regarding the fact that the class has XP and feats included in a table. Their marketing probably shows that it is easier to look up for new players if they have a table for each class in the class' section, instead of having a unified table somewhere else, as is the case in the 4e PHB.
> 
> I doubt we will be seeing classes which get feats instead of class features - or whatnot.




They might give some bonus feats to fighters or rangers ala 3e rather than these features (domain abilities, expanded defenses, free rituals, etc.). That captures some nostalgia and lets them specialize in a fighting style.


----------



## mearls (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Regarding the fact that the class has XP and feats included in a table. Their marketing probably shows that it is easier to look up for new players if they have a table for each class in the class' section, instead of having a unified table somewhere else, as is the case in the 4e PHB.
> 
> I doubt we will be seeing classes which get feats instead of class features - or whatnot.




That's what's going on here. It's easier to reference once table, rather than multiple tables, so stuff like feats that everyone gets are inserted into the class table.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> That's what's going on here. It's easier to reference once table, rather than multiple tables, so stuff like feats that everyone gets are inserted into the class table.



You just knew things were going to spiral out of control hours after the preview was posted, didn't you?


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 9, 2010)

Greg K said:


> I thought the warpriest was disappointing.
> 
> I was ready to give the game another look, but if this is the design to  "form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward",  I guess   that I will stop looking



...What exactly were you expecting? If 4E didn't interest you before, why were you expecting it to interest you now? I assume this is collateral damage resulting from the widespread (unfounded) rumours that Essentials is "4.5E".

At any rate, I wish you the best, and hope that you do find a game that you enjoy.



Jack99 said:


> Regarding the fact that the class has XP and feats included in a table. Their marketing probably shows that it is easier to look up for new players if they have a table for each class in the class' section, instead of having a unified table somewhere else, as is the case in the 4e PHB.
> 
> I doubt we will be seeing classes which get feats instead of class features - or whatnot.



I agree, and I hope we're correct. I'm confident that WotC still remembers the lessons it learned with 2E and 3E.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 9, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> They might give some bonus feats to fighters or rangers ala 3e rather than these features (domain abilities, expanded defenses, free rituals, etc.). That captures some nostalgia and lets them specialize in a fighting style.



Ugh, please no. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm worried about. There's nothing that "extra feat choices" can do that class features can't do better.



mearls said:


> That's what's going on here. It's easier to reference once table, rather than multiple tables, so stuff like feats that everyone gets are inserted into the class table.



*Phew!* Thanks, Mike! That's a big relief.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> That's what's going on here. It's easier to reference once table, rather than multiple tables, so stuff like feats that everyone gets are inserted into the class table.




So as a clarification if you don't mind:

Everyone still levels up at the same rate?

Everyone still gets feats at the same rate?

Everyone still gets the same stat bonuses at the same rate?

Power progression and gaining of class features may be different between classes to provide more mechanical variation?


----------



## mearls (Jul 9, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> So as a clarification if you don't mind:
> 
> Everyone still levels up at the same rate?
> 
> ...




Yes to all four.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> Yes to all four.




Awesome. That's exactly how I interpreted it, but just hearing the confirmation just makes explaining it to others a lot easier.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 9, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> ...What exactly were you expecting? If 4E didn't interest you before, why were you expecting it to interest you now? .




 I was getting interested in giving 4e another look based on PHB2, Martial Power, Martial Power 2, Divine Power, MM2, and MM3.

I liked what I was reading in the Ampersand article until I got to the build.  As a DM and player, I don't want WOTC telling me that a warpriest has resurrection or smite undead as class features.


----------



## Nightfly (Jul 9, 2010)

There will surely be some mechanism for making the original strength-based cleric powers into wisdom-based powers.

It doesn't take errata, though. All you need a class feature for the warpriest: "When you use a cleric power, you may replace strength modifiers to attack rolls and damage rolls with your wisdom modifier". Done. Now the original PH1 strength cleric still exists, but there's an escape route for those who want to avoid the multi-attribute madness of that build.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 9, 2010)

Greg K said:


> I was getting interested in giving 4e another look based on PHB2, Martial Power, Martial Power 2, Divine Power, MM2, and MM3.
> 
> I liked what I was reading in the Ampersand article until I got to the build.  As a DM and player, I don't want WOTC telling me that a warpriest has resurrection or smite undead as class features.



EDIT: Nevermind, I understand what you're saying.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jul 9, 2010)

One thing I noticed is that this Warpriest doesn't get Ritual Casting as a free feat, which probably explains what "Resurrection" is...  

Anyways I like that classes are getting features over the levels.  It was something I liked about classes in 3e and Pathfinder.  It just feels more special if you get something that's more unique than just another power, which is something that was sort of missing from 4e.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

> As a DM and player, I don't want WOTC  telling me that a warpriest has resurrection or smite undead as class  features.




Seem like things that are fair enough to me. The point isn't to make super flexible builds that make everything else irrelevant, but provide a different option. I would be most concerned if it could just mix and match class features.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> Yes to all four.




Would you clarify: are there plans to eventually give the "essentials" treatment to the other classes in PHB I & II (e.g. the warlord and the barbarian)?

"I am not at liberty to discuss that yet," is an acceptable answer. I just want to get a sense of what is going to happen to those classes not covered in the two, "heroes" books this year.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> Would you clarify: are there plans to eventually give the "essentials" treatment to the other classes in PHB I & II (e.g. the warlord and the barbarian)?




This is another very good question. I'd love some of the other classes, especially the seeker, barbarian, warlord and others to also get some of this treatment.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 9, 2010)

Greg K said:


> As a DM and player, I don't want WOTC telling me that a warpriest has resurrection or smite undead as class features.




I have to wonder if you have this same reaction to every edition of D&D (or most other RPGs, for that matter), since it's the standard. Want to play a thief in 2e? You've got Backstab as a class feature. Want to be a Toreador? You have Auspex, Celerity, and Presence as clan Disciplines.


----------



## mearls (Jul 9, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> Would you clarify: are there plans to eventually give the "essentials" treatment to the other classes in PHB I & II (e.g. the warlord and the barbarian)?
> 
> "I am not at liberty to discuss that yet," is an acceptable answer. I just want to get a sense of what is going to happen to those classes not covered in the two, "heroes" books this year.




I am not at liberty to discuss that yet. Sorry!


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> I am not at liberty to discuss that yet. Sorry!




Quick everyone, time to make with the rampant speculation so he can glare at his computer and be all "u mad".


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 9, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Quick everyone, time to make with the rampant speculation so he can glare at his computer and be all "u mad".



Obviously, any attempt to "essentialize" the other classes will result in "spontaneous" combustion of your old books.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

Mike, another question if you will:

The essentials classes gain extra class features as they level up, can the existing classes also get these new class features? Or are they a core part of what an essentials class is? Are they balanced against other classes that don't have them?


----------



## Reigan (Jul 9, 2010)

Going forward, will new classes look like essential classes, the original classes or something completely different?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> That's what's going on here. It's easier to reference once table, rather than multiple tables, so stuff like feats that everyone gets are inserted into the class table.




Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Mearls.


----------



## Shazbot79 (Jul 9, 2010)

mearls said:


> I am not at liberty to discuss that yet. Sorry!




This is CYA parlance for "yes".


----------



## Baumi (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm a bit confused ... I thought that there are no dailies for the new sub-classes anymore.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 9, 2010)

Baumi said:


> I'm a bit confused ... I thought that there are no dailies for the new sub-classes anymore.




One of the variants may not use dailies, but they didn't actually say that none of them used daily powers. This is something silly that rapidly spread around with no basis in the actual truth.


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 9, 2010)

wow. My internal 4e parser threw up a load of errors when I tried reading that article - looks like I'll have to try a previous version of the software, maybe even go back to v1.5. This is a good thing!

Anyway, I'm having a bit of trouble fitting this in with the rest of the classes ATM; 4e has institutionalised me!

Back to the reading the article.

FAKE EDIT: oh crap i just realised I might be tempted to buy the damn books now. I was happy to just get it through DDI...


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 9, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Old builds will be more flexible. The listed Warpriest seems to have all Encounter powers pre-chosen, determined by Domain



This.
as mentioned in the other thread, it reminds me a bit of 2e kits. It's a more specialized build with some features preselected and some features that are only available if you pick this 'kit'.

This 'kit' will also be better suited for beginning players:
The pre-selected features will make sure a pc continues to fill it's original role. It's an extension of the builds. It trades flexibility for a guarantee that the class's powers and features work well together. 
A while ago someone mentioned, that creating a character was difficult without consulting one of the class guides on the CO boards. I don't agree with that notion, but apparently here's WotC's answer to these concerns.

Unless the kit-specific features are clearly better than the class features you can get otherwise, I don't see anyone who's fairly good at optimizing play one of them. Because if you know where to look, you'll always find options that will work even better than the pre-selected ones!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 9, 2010)

A great article and very kind of mr. mearls to reply in this thread. I actually like where essentials will take the game, and i am glad i have waited to buy a lot of stuff to get into the game with this way.

The character builder will allow advanced players to create a very flexible class, kits are to get people into the game. With the amount of material released until now, it is too much to use books actually. Essentials will help a lot i guess. The ony thing that makes me sad is that strength will no be cleric essential attribute anymore.  Lets see where it will lead us...


----------



## Vaeron (Jul 9, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> They are not going to errata them. Those classes are still going to exist post-essentials and will still work. They aren't changing anything about the original ones and these are basically new builds.




That's not entirely true, see here: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)

At the very bottom you will see that, as part of Essentials, EVERY Wizard encounter power will be errata'd to have a miss effect.  So classes from the original PHBs _will_ be impacted by the changes introduced in Essentials.  So other changes, including streamlining of primary ability scores, isn't totally outside the realm of possibility (except probably for warlocks, who would become immensely powerful if they could use all the different Pact powers with one primary attribute)


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 9, 2010)

Vaeron said:


> That's not entirely true, see here: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)
> 
> At the very bottom you will see that, as part of Essentials, EVERY Wizard encounter power will be errata'd to have a miss effect.  So classes from the original PHBs _will_ be impacted by the changes introduced in Essentials.



I think you are misinterpreting this: Every *Essentials* Wizard will get encounter powers with a miss effect, since they don't get dailys.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 9, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I think you are misinterpreting this: Every *Essentials* Wizard will get encounter powers with a miss effect, since they don't get dailys.



Reference please:

where is it stated that they dot get dailies?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Reference please:
> 
> where is it stated that they dot get dailies?



It's not stated per se (at least not in this article), but it says this:







> This time, though, we looked at eliminating daily powers and simplifying encounter powers.



I _think_ someone official mentioned that Essential Wizards don't get dailies, but maybe I've mixed speculation with fact.

Either way, it's no more speculative than the post I replied to


----------



## andarilhor (Jul 9, 2010)

I liked the article.
As some already said the essentials seems like a more direct, with less choices, version of the original classes. That is perfect to new players.

To me, I am already thinkins how to "cannibalize" the new options in the main system  and came the question if will be specified rules to that in the book.

Until now, thats are my wonderings about:

Smite Undead can become a option to clerics channel divinity arsenal as Healer's Mercy.

Anyone else noticed there is no "feat" in the cleric table? Thats a  error or the features are substitutes for feats? If the second is true, will be easier to transform the features in feats to the main system.

The 1st level utility power can became a feat too, same way one can acquire extra skill powers.

As about the domain tied powers: Something like the other classes powers tied to specific class features (warlock pact, warlord commanding presence, etc) would be cool for all divine classes.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2010)

andarilhor said:


> Anyone else noticed there is no "feat" in the cleric table? Thats a  error or the features are substitutes for feats? If the second is true, will be easier to transform the features in feats to the main system.




What do you mean? The table at wizards.com/dnd clearly shows feats on my computer. One feat at level 1, and then one more feat at every even level, just like the rest of the 4e classes.


----------



## andarilhor (Jul 9, 2010)

andarilhor said:


> I liked the article.
> Anyone else noticed there is no "feat" in the cleric table? Thats a  error or the features are substitutes for feats? If the second is true, will be easier to transform the features in feats to the main system.




Never mind, jus saw the feat column


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 9, 2010)

Greg K said:


> I was getting interested in giving 4e another look based on PHB2, Martial Power, Martial Power 2, Divine Power, MM2, and MM3.
> 
> I liked what I was reading in the Ampersand article until I got to the build. As a DM and player, I don't want WOTC telling me that a warpriest has resurrection or smite undead as class features.




As far as I know, the old cleric builds are still available for play allowing just as much customization as you have now. 

I am looking forward to seeing builds with _fewer _choices to worry about and simpler overall functionality. The build and optimization minigame can still be played by those who enjoy it. 

The key part of the article that made me curious about certain abilities was the mention of the level (or lack thereof) of a certain ability. For example if a fighter build gets an encounter power at a certain level but the description of that power does not state that it is a "level X" encounter power then _only _that build has access to that power.

The power becomes more of a class (build) feature at that point. 

One concern I have with such a system is the potential for an insane amount of subclass bloat similar to the proliferation of prestige classes from 3.X.


----------



## Verision (Jul 9, 2010)

This looks....interesting.

I can definitely see how these builds will be better for new players, since some of the grunt work is being done for you (Ex:It looks like you won't have to read through all the powers to find ones that work with your build; the powers that work with your build are part of your build in the first place. I.E. Domain Encounter powers)

However, this also means that the new builds are much more restrictive. No (or at least less) mixing and matching, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for new players. 


One thing that looks interesting, though this is only speculation: It looks like the new Cleric doesn't get rituals. This would be great for new players and great for people like me; I like playing magic casters, but I hate having 20 different rituals. I'd rather have a few class features that cover the basic rituals, especially since I tend to forget to check my rituals in some situations. (More than once I've looked at my rituals after a session and realized I could have solved an issue by casting one of the stupid things).


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 9, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> It's not stated per se (at least not in this article), but it says this:I _think_ someone official mentioned that Essential Wizards don't get dailies, but maybe I've mixed speculation with fact.



You've mixed speculation with fact.  At the end of his Tuesday Countdown to Essentials article, Mearls stated that the changes to wizard encounter powers is the only Essentials change that will directly impact non-Essentials players, outside of the recent rules updates they were going to make anyway.


			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> This point bears repeating—Aside from rules updates and changes to one category of wizard spells, the character you are playing today does not change in any major way.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 9, 2010)

A thought just occured to me. In the same way that clerics get to choose domains, I wonder if wizards will get to choose schools that have a similar mechanical effect: features and pre-selected at-will and encounter powers, and possibly a level 1 utility power as well. That would be one way to bring the eight schools of magic back into 4E.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 9, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> This 'kit' will also be better suited for beginning players:
> The pre-selected features will make sure a pc continues to fill it's original role. It's an extension of the builds. It trades flexibility for a guarantee that the class's powers and features work well together.



Yes!  I hope this is exactly what's going on with Essentials class design.  I do wonder what ability-score-generation method Essentials will give to new players, and how Essentials will help new players select from a sea of feats.

Also, I just wanted to say that I like that dwarves are now _exceptionally_ well-suited to become clerics.  I want to play a dwarf warpriest with dwarven weapon training!


----------



## DarthMouth (Jul 9, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Mike, another question if you will:
> 
> The essentials classes gain extra class features as they level up, can the existing classes also get these new class features? Or are they a core part of what an essentials class is? Are they balanced against other classes that don't have them?




This. I guess some of this new stuff may (and will) be used as options for old classes, somehow.. 


And this is just too much options for anyone.. old classes, essential, hibrid, and i guess more to come.. (like that shadow power book)..

I would love some interaction with the old classes IN BOOKS, not in article or compendium..

You know.. i sign DDI, but i'm still old school enough to like using my books and a pen and blank sheet papers...


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 9, 2010)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Yes!  I hope this is exactly what's going on with Essentials class design.  I do wonder what ability-score-generation method Essentials will give to new players, and how Essentials will help new players select from a sea of feats.
> 
> Also, I just wanted to say that I like that dwarves are now _exceptionally_ well-suited to become clerics.  I want to play a dwarf warpriest with dwarven weapon training!



I'm wondering now whether it will actually be a correspondence of that sort of strength with all the classes.

Rogue->Halfling... seems plausible.
Wizard->Eladrin... would certainly fit
Elf-> Fighter?


----------



## Stumblewyk (Jul 9, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Elf-> Fighter?




More likely: Elf -> Ranger


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

Kobold Avenger said:


> One thing I noticed is that this Warpriest doesn't get Ritual Casting as a free feat, which probably explains what "Resurrection" is...
> 
> Anyways I like that classes are getting features over the levels. It was something I liked about classes in 3e and Pathfinder. It just feels more special if you get something that's more unique than just another power, which is something that was sort of missing from 4e.




They also get a nerfed version of Turn Undead.  I didn't realize that Turn Undead was overpowered or hard to understand.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> It's not stated per se (at least not in this article), but it says this:I _think_ someone official mentioned that Essential Wizards don't get dailies, but maybe I've mixed speculation with fact.
> 
> Either way, it's no more speculative than the post I replied to




It's funny that the class that has always been the Daily power class since first edition will not have daily powers in Essentials but the Cleric still does.


----------



## Markn (Jul 9, 2010)

FireLance said:


> A thought just occured to me. In the same way that clerics get to choose domains, I wonder if wizards will get to choose schools that have a similar mechanical effect: features and pre-selected at-will and encounter powers, and possibly a level 1 utility power as well. That would be one way to bring the eight schools of magic back into 4E.




Given that they changed MM to be more consistent with older editions, I hope this is the approache they take!  I would welcome it!


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 9, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Mearls.




Here's one in Mearls' honor: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







FireLance said:


> A thought just occured to me. In the same way that clerics get to choose domains, I wonder if wizards will get to choose schools that have a similar mechanical effect: features and pre-selected at-will and encounter powers, and possibly a level 1 utility power as well. That would be one way to bring the eight schools of magic back into 4E.



This would be rather cool. I hope this--or something like this--happens.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 9, 2010)

Turn undead is charisma dependant... so it doesn´t fit into the essential (and post PHB1) design of having only one main attribute and one secondary based on build.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jul 9, 2010)

I think one of the first places we might see classes like the one in the essentials series outside of that series would be "Heroes of Shadow".  It seems like a good place to include subclasses when they (re-)introduce the Shadow Classes.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

Kobold Avenger said:


> One thing I noticed is that this Warpriest doesn't get Ritual Casting as a free feat, which probably explains what "Resurrection" is...
> 
> Anyways I like that classes are getting features over the levels. It was something I liked about classes in 3e and Pathfinder. It just feels more special if you get something that's more unique than just another power, which is something that was sort of missing from 4e.




I doubt the Essentials stuff has Rituals in it.   Those class features at different levels will be to replace Rituals.  Besides giving clerics shields I see no use in this new build.  I also note that they didn't give the war priest the Healer's Lore feature.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 9, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Old builds will be more flexible. The listed Warpriest seems to have all Encounter powers pre-chosen, determined by Domain




Kind of like the Styles listed in Martial Power 2.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 9, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I also note that they didn't give the war priest the Healer's Lore feature.



Yeah, but it looks like it will get a level 1 utility power from the domain, possibly to replace it.



> Besides giving clerics shields I see no use in this new build.



I see it as a way to give clerics more tightly focused flavor through the use of domains. Now being a Sun cleric or a Storm cleric affects your at-will attacks, your channel divinity power, and your level 1 utility, and you have to make a deliberate decision to swap out your default encounter powers.


----------



## twilsemail (Jul 9, 2010)

Zaran said:


> It's funny that the class that has always been the Daily power class since first edition will not have daily powers in Essentials but the Cleric still does.




Source?

I don't remember reading that, but I'm a goldfish.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

On an interesting note, the Essentials Rules Compendium is listed as 320 pages, and Heroes of the Fallen Lands which covers Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and the races Human, Elf, Eladrin, Dwarf and Halfling is a whopping 368 pages. 

Makes you wonder what is in these books.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> Source?
> 
> I don't remember reading that, but I'm a goldfish.



This is what the Countdown article said:


> Taking a cue from Player’s Handbook 3, we broke down the basic math of character classes in a similar manner. This time, though, we looked at eliminating daily powers and simplifying encounter powers. That approach would allow us to create a character class that is simpler to use while still offering a compelling array of choices during play.





> Aside from the rules updates introduced over the past few months, of which the relevant pieces are included in the Rules Compendium, little (if anything) on your character sheet has changed. The only real changes rest in wizard encounter spells (they have miss effects now), and those changes are almost entirely additive in nature. Your burning hands spell is the same spell as before, except now it deals half damage on a miss.




Here's how I interpret it:

"We figured out we could change the formula in PHB3(by getting rid of Encounter powers for some classes and replacing it with a different mechanic), so we took at look at what kind of changes we could make to the already existing classes.  One of the things we looked at was removing Dailies for some of the classes since we figured having classes without dailies might be easier to understand for new players.  In the process, we determined that Wizard Encounter powers should have miss effects for balance reasons.  So we will errata the previously existing Wizard Encounter powers in October to have these."

The article never actually says that Wizards will not have Daily powers in Essentials.  It says that they are looked at whether they could remove Dailies in Essentials.  Which classes(or subclasses) do not have Dailies is never said.

He's assuming Wizards don't have Dailies because of the errata to their Encounter powers.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 9, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> On an interesting note, the Essentials Rules Compendium is listed as 320 pages, and Heroes of the Fallen Lands which covers Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and the races Human, Elf, Eladrin, Dwarf and Halfling is a whopping 368 pages.
> 
> Makes you wonder what is in these books.



Those are both trade paperback sized, so 320/368 pages isn't as much real estate as it would be for full-sized hardcovers.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 9, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The ony thing that makes me sad is that strength will no be cleric essential attribute anymore.




Except it's only not "essential" for that build. And fits prefectly in to the traditional Dwrf wheelhouse of stats.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Jul 9, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> On an interesting note, the Essentials Rules Compendium is listed as 320 pages, and Heroes of the Fallen Lands which covers Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and the races Human, Elf, Eladrin, Dwarf and Halfling is a whopping 368 pages.
> 
> Makes you wonder what is in these books.




Well, it is a paperback, and I wish I could find the info to back me up, I swear I saw something that described the Essentials line of books being smaller dimensions than the "standard" D&D line of hardback books.


----------



## Solvarn (Jul 9, 2010)

Verision said:


> I'd rather have a few class features that cover the basic rituals, especially since I tend to forget to check my rituals in some situations. (More than once I've looked at my rituals after a session and realized I could have solved an issue by casting one of the stupid things).




It doesn't help that 4E treats rituals like 1E treated psionics, awkward rules that didn't dovetail with the rest of the game, hidden at the end of the book.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

twilsemail said:


> Source?
> 
> I don't remember reading that, but I'm a goldfish.




I was going off what the person I quoted said.  I honestly don't know if Wizards will have Daily powers.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 9, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> This is what the Countdown article said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Yeah I think in the end it boils down to:

After PHB III we realized we could mess with the traditional everyone gets a basic, at-will, encounter, daily approach for some classes without harming the balance.

After seeing the Warpriest (Can we call it the E-Cleric???) it's obvious they're not getting rid of dailies for all classes- or even any.

They're just re-structuring how and when some classes get powers, what type they are and whether they're built in or selected from the power lists.

And it seems it's probably not going to be the same for each class. 

Looks to me like the end result is they realized they could open up the system to a lot of neat stuff.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 9, 2010)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Also, I just wanted to say that I like that dwarves are now _exceptionally_ well-suited to become clerics.  I want to play a dwarf warpriest with dwarven weapon training!




I play a dwarven Str cleric with DWT. It rocks. Assuming the domain powers would replace what I've got, I can see the warpriest version being a lot more powerful. If I didn't have to throw an 18 into STR, I'd have a lot more points to play with. I might even have a Reflex defense that could beat a 2 on the die. 

PS


----------



## Shazbot79 (Jul 9, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I doubt the Essentials stuff has Rituals in it.   Those class features at different levels will be to replace Rituals.  Besides giving clerics shields I see no use in this new build.  I also note that they didn't give the war priest the Healer's Lore feature.




You will recall that Ritual Caster is a feat, and that all feats will be available to Essentials characters if you wish.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

Scribble said:


> After PHB III we realized we could mess with the traditional everyone gets a basic, at-will, encounter, daily approach for some classes without harming the balance.
> 
> After seeing the Warpriest (Can we call it the E-Cleric???) it's obvious they're not getting rid of dailies for all classes- or even any.
> 
> .




Actually I'm willing to bet the cleric in the red box doesn't have dailies. The warpriest build is from Heroes of the Fallen Lands.


----------



## Markn (Jul 9, 2010)

Zaran said:


> Actually I'm willing to bet the cleric in the red box doesn't have dailies. The warpriest build is from Heroes of the Fallen Lands.




Keep in mind the Red Box deals with level 1 and 2.  It's not meant to give you complete builds.  Just an introduction into the game by limiting the information overload of feats, options and other info that wouldn't apply at those levels.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

Shazbot79 said:


> You will recall that Ritual Caster is a feat, and that all feats will be available to Essentials characters if you wish.




Sure I do but it's free to the orginal Cleric and Wizard .  The warpriest doesn't have the feat.  I can see them omitting rituals from the essentials to save room and complexity.


----------



## Zaran (Jul 9, 2010)

Markn said:


> Keep in mind the Red Box deals with level 1 and 2. It's not meant to give you complete builds. Just an introduction into the game by limiting the information overload of feats, options and other info that wouldn't apply at those levels.




That's correct and i'm not complaining about the red box.  I've also come to the conclusion that the essentials isn't going to destroy anyone's game or ruin 4th Edition.  I'm just surmising that if dailies are too complicated for new players that no classes in the red box will have them.


----------



## keterys (Jul 9, 2010)

Or... maybe they'll appeal to people who complain about the Martial source, and Essentials fighters and/or rogues won't have dailies.


----------



## Atlemar (Jul 9, 2010)

*100 percent compatible*

My initial thought on reading the article was that this 100 percent compatibility claim was not valid, because we would have two sets of rules out there for each class. A DM would have to ask a new player, are you playing an Essentials cleric or a regular cleric? 

After reading this board, though, it seems the consensus is that the warpriest, slayer, knight, and other Essentials subclasses will function entirely within the parameters of the existing classes, and will do things that clerics do.

I'm still nervous about Essentials.


----------



## KidSnide (Jul 9, 2010)

Atlemar said:


> My initial thought on reading the article was that this 100 percent compatibility claim was not valid, because we would have two sets of rules out there for each class. A DM would have to ask a new player, are you playing an Essentials cleric or a regular cleric?




Well, you'd still want to ask a new player that.  But that's not any different than asking someone if they are playing a melee cleric or a laser cleric.  From a game-running perspective, builds matter a lot -- and they should.

What looks different about the Essentials builds:
(1) Some of them are mechanically less complicated than 2008-9 builds.
(2) There are fewer mandatory choices to make in constructing such a build.  (It looks like the domains include sets of default powers.  You can customize them to a certain extent, but only if you want to.)
(3) Some or all of them use a non-standard set of at-will/encounter/daily powers.

-KS


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 9, 2010)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> He's assuming Wizards don't have Dailies because of the errata to their Encounter powers.



You are indeed correct that it is just an assumption of that guy. 

I do not think the wizard will lose his dailies - that would more or less go against all that they are trying to do. Now, I had hoped that they had removed the encounter powers completely (for the wizard, that is), but alas, that seems not to be the case. 

On the other hand, I agree that there is a good chance that the martial classes will be the ones (or some of them at least) who lose all dailies. 



Zaran said:


> Actually I'm willing to bet the cleric in the red box doesn't have dailies.



I will be your Huckleberry! 

Too bad you aren't a paying member, and we could bet the right to pick the other's avatar, for say a month or two


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 9, 2010)

Thats a build with benefits.

For most people who wanted to play a melee cleric, this already seems just better. 

"The Heroes" book will certainly have more domains, will it have other cleric subclasses?


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 9, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> Thats a build with benefits.
> 
> For most people who wanted to play a melee cleric, this already seems just better.




How so? 

Aside from getting access to shields, I'm not feeling any real power creep compared to existing builds. I think it will be useful and stand on its own well - and probably work well as a cleric that is able to hang out on the front lines (as compared to the more fragile beat-stick of the PHB Strength Cleric), but I don't see anything too out of balance here.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 9, 2010)

Atlemar said:


> My initial thought on reading the article was that this 100 percent compatibility claim was not valid, because we would have two sets of rules out there for each class. A DM would have to ask a new player, are you playing an Essentials cleric or a regular cleric?
> 
> After reading this board, though, it seems the consensus is that the warpriest, slayer, knight, and other Essentials subclasses will function entirely within the parameters of the existing classes, and will do things that clerics do.
> 
> I'm still nervous about Essentials.





To me it seems like all they essentially are (hah see what I did there???) are builds where WoTC has made many of the choices for you.

Instead of getting a slot for a new power you have a set class feature that is basically the same as whatever power it takes the place of.


----------



## mkill (Jul 9, 2010)

There is an interesting "back to the roots" flavor in the current announcement. The class table of the Cleric has a distinctive "old school" feel to it, and before that we had the reinstated auto-hit magic missile...

Looks like they're not just aiming for completely new players, who weren't even born when TSR faltered, but also for some of the old guard who are still on the fence because 4th edition is missing some key D&D feel for them.

Speculating about the other classes...

- Ranger (Dex) and Paladin (Cha) will be A-shaped like the Cleric
- The Slayer Fighter will lean striker, the Knight will lean pure Defender / Tank. I don't expect a mounted path as that would be too complicated.
- Wizard will see some nod towards Spell schools (old school)
- Rogue will likely have a Duelist and a Sniper build. One will be Cha (Halfling), the other could be Wis (Elf) or Int (Eladrin)
- It's possible (but unlikely) that the Warlock will be the one without Dailies, to distinguish him from the Wizard more
- If the Essentials Line sells well enough we'll see a third book with Warlord, Bard etc.


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 9, 2010)

Markn said:


> Keep in mind the Red Box deals with level 1 and 2.



Hasn't it been said repeatedly that the red box goes up to level 3? I thought it was just the sample adventure that only spanned levels 1-2.

The misquotes and clarifications on all of this are starting to make my head hurt...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

mkill said:


> - If the Essentials Line sells well enough we'll see a third book with Warlord, Bard etc.




I can definitely see it. My guess for a third book of four Essentials classes would be Warlord, Bard, Barbarian, and Swordmage.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 9, 2010)

keterys said:


> Or... maybe they'll appeal to people who complain about the Martial source, and Essentials fighters and/or rogues won't have dailies.




Exactly my thought. A simpler set of martial classes without daily powers. Give them some stronger basic class features, like a better but simplified control mechanic and you can hand it to a newbie and they can hope to play it. A rogue and ranger with a simple flat damage bonus to all attacks, etc. 

Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.




You have summed up what I have been thinking right here. With the CB and DDI, along with the ability for a DM to select what is allowable... I don't believe character creation is where the complexity for new players is at either. 

I honestly am starting to get the vibe that "Essentials" is more aimed at the current market (new builds, racial stat changes, incorporation of all eratta, new powers, and new feats) and lapsed players (Hey retro-red box packaging) than at being a cheaper and easier to use game for new players (In fact it will now cost you more to get into D&D than before.). 

I'm just not seeing how the "Essentials" line in and of itself will draw in new players, or (especially once this stuff and the older hardbooks are all mixed together as D&D on shelves) any easier to get into the game with? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Markn (Jul 9, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.




You may be right - and maybe they have addressed it with better designed feats (or what have you) in the Essentials line.  Short of only designing new feats that are less fidldly, there really is no way to fix what they have already put it out.  And remember, compatibility was one of the main design goals of Essentials so that means they can't retroactively fix what they already have put out.


----------



## keterys (Jul 9, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.




Not really - if you want to simplify the game, you do two things:
1) Make the characters simpler
2) Make the monsters simpler

So, once we can see what they do with Monster Vault we'll know if they did step 2, but step 1 is absolutely part of it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm just not seeing how the "Essentials" line in and of itself will draw in new players, or (especially once this stuff and the older hardbooks are all mixed together as D&D on shelves) any easier to get into the game with? Am I missing something here?




Its easier to get into the game with when you look at using Essentials alone without any previous books. Its both integrated into base 4E, and designed to stand by itself. Its the stand by itself half that is aimed at new players.


----------



## Markn (Jul 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm just not seeing how the "Essentials" line in and of itself will draw in new players, or (especially once this stuff and the older hardbooks are all mixed together as D&D on shelves) any easier to get into the game with? Am I missing something here?




I think WotC research has shown that 3 big hardback books (DMG, PH amd MM) don't appeal to certain age groups and newcomers who are not already into RPGs.  With all the pages, and the DMG with a lot of writing, the books are intimidating and will turn off some users from the game without even trying it.  The red box addresses this by not only teaching the game but does so in less pages.  I think you are right though, that the price point is not part of the aim at getting new players into the game.  That is simply brand design or more specifically brand survivability.  The more core books that are bought over and over, the far more profit and much more success as a company WotC is.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its easier to get into the game with when you look at using Essentials alone without any previous books. Its both integrated into base 4E, and designed to stand by itself. Its the stand by itself half that is aimed at new players.




casualoblivion... what I'm asking is why? You don't have to use previous books with the first 3 hardbacks... weren't they designed to stand by themselves? Didn't they even have a starter set so many people on this very site defended as great for new players ( I remember that because I bought it early and started a thread on here about why I didn't think it was that great for new players... though many posters rushed to it's defense)? I guess what I'm asking is how does this "Essentials" line differ as far as new players are concerned?


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Didn't they even have a starter set so many people on this very site defended as great for new players ( I remember that because I bought it early and started a thread on here about why I didn't think it was that great for new players... though many posters rushed to it's defense)? I guess what I'm asking is how does this "Essentials" line differ as far as new players are concerned?



Everything starts with the new Red Box.  It's $20, far cheaper than getting the core three for $105.  If you like, consider the Red Box a second attempt at the starter set, backed up by the rest of the Essentials line.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jul 9, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.



Well, we've only really seen the character-building side (and then, only a glance).  I'll be curious to see more of the details.  Will someone playing a fighter still need to track marks and the difference between Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge?

Nevertheless, I do think that doing everything possible to make character generation less intimidating can only help.

I really want to see what Essentials character sheet looks like.  It needs to be more like the Encounters and Game Day pregens, and less like a worksheet.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 9, 2010)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Everything starts with the new Red Box. It's $20, far cheaper than getting the core three for $105. If you like, consider the Red Box a second attempt at the starter set, backed up by the rest of the Essentials line.




How does this relate to what I'm talking about?  The $17  blue box starter set was even cheaper than the new one, and backed up by the three hardbacks that cost less than "Essentials" to play... It didn't bring in a flood of new blood


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 9, 2010)

keterys said:


> Not really - if you want to simplify the game, you do two things:
> 1) Make the characters simpler
> 2) Make the monsters simpler
> 
> So, once we can see what they do with Monster Vault we'll know if they did step 2, but step 1 is absolutely part of it.




I disagree. The fiddly bits are the intricate interactions between Immediate Interrupt and its difference from Opportunity Attack and Immediate Reaction, etc etc etc. None of that is going away. How many times have I had to try to explain to someone that their Opportunity Action doesn't benefit from their bonus to Opportunity Attack rolls? How many 12 yr olds are going to successfully track marks, conditions, and effects by themselves in actual play? 

Now, I don't disagree that SOME of that can be mitigated by ditching most powers that apply effects that need tracking, getting rid of niggling subtleties of mechanics of classes like CC and CS on fighters, etc. That will HELP, but the fundamental complexity is in the application of the (already stated not to be changing) core of the rules. 

I have spent a good bit of time over the last 2 years answering questions on the WotC 4e Q&A boards. A lot of the same questions come up here too, just with less frequency. There is an unofficial sticky FAQ/quick answer thread there that is up to something like 269 PAGES, plus the Shaman SC FAQ that is 17 page and the Ready an Action FAQ that is 15 pages and another one that I forget the title of that is 112 PAGES. I have literally cranked up a post count there of over 4,000 posts in a year and I'd say a good solid 75% is answering questions. Heck I've slacked off in the last 6 months, so I was answering between 20 and 30 rules inquiries a DAY solid for half a year. 

Now a lot of those were on questions about class features and powers that in theory might largely go away in a cleaner class design, but a LOT of them are the same basic questions week after week asking how interrupts work, how CC and CS works, how does Stealth work (big one), etc etc etc. None of those are going to get much clearer with Essentials. Sure, they may be able to clear up the language some, but without breaking compatibility there's only so much you can do. They can issue a whole slew of errata to try to keep the two versions in sync but the fundamental combat mechanics are simply not that easy for people to grasp that aren't already pretty conversant with RPGs and wargames. 

So I still have to wonder just how much more accessible you CAN make 4e. Some, certainly, but enough to pull in tons of newbies (especially kids)? I'm not convinced its POSSIBLE let alone that Essentials will do it. BECMI was a pretty darn simple game, even for its time, and kids could easily play it. 4e Essentials is no BECMI, not by an order of magnitude of complexity.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jul 10, 2010)

but this is more a problem with your players than anything else... it shouldn´t be hard to remember 3 different phrases...


----------



## Crazy_Dragon (Jul 10, 2010)

Economically this is a brilliant idea, a product that can bring in new people ($$$) and will likely be bought by a fair number of current people ($$)


----------



## Pour (Jul 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I disagree. The fiddly bits are the intricate interactions between Immediate Interrupt and its difference from Opportunity Attack and Immediate Reaction, etc etc etc. None of that is going away. How many times have I had to try to explain to someone that their Opportunity Action doesn't benefit from their bonus to Opportunity Attack rolls? How many 12 yr olds are going to successfully track marks, conditions, and effects by themselves in actual play?
> 
> Now, I don't disagree that SOME of that can be mitigated by ditching most powers that apply effects that need tracking, getting rid of niggling subtleties of mechanics of classes like CC and CS on fighters, etc. That will HELP, but the fundamental complexity is in the application of the (already stated not to be changing) core of the rules.
> 
> ...




I'm hoping the Red Box has a solid equivalent to the DMG, more than even  simplified classes or cleaned-up rules. While there are multiple snags and plenty of places to get confused and even frustrated, the life and expansion of the hobby doesn't fall on the player in my mind, but the DM. The DM is the conduit through which the game is experienced. His or her accessibility equates to the game's accessibility.

A savvy DM, one conscious of pacing and who learns  when to follow the rules to a T and when to lay off and allow things to  happen, will make or break a first  timer's experience. The DMG must convey that DMs should improvise and expand and make things their own for the sake of fun. It should be encouraging, and hardly a rulebook at all... I guess more of a guide book, emphasis on the DM*G*.

Admittedly, I never DMed 12 year olds, but I have DMed 17-18 year olds, sophomores, juniors and seniors in high school. Between video games, sports and all their other time-eaters, to have them consistently want to game, weekly even, isn't because of the clarity of the rules (though of course they help) or the ease of the classes or their understanding of attacks of opportunity. It's in how the game is run and the freedom they are given.

I'm not sure how much a book can impart in regards to DMing ability, but there are certain key points that should be addressed. And if the Red Box as a whole does it's job, which is sparking the imagination, hooking the DM or convincing another player to take up DMing and a group, then that first-timer will make it a point to get better.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Jul 10, 2010)

I think this could be the beginning of the 4th renaissance for D&D, the first in the late 70's, the second in the early 90's, the third in the early 00's, and the fourth starting late 00.

I hope that the world is starting to crave some other disconnect than video games.  RPG's, boardgames, and wargames offer the personal social touch that has been lacking in the last ~10 years.  Essentials could be (and will be if I am right) the product that is in the right time, at the right place in history to help the tide, and at the same time will become legendary like 1e and Moldvay/Cook(or Mentzer) D&D to future gamers.

D&D needs another simple, easy to play, and easy to get into product.  All 'starter sets' for ~15 years have blown.  This one has the potential of not being sucky.  Something I would actually buy my kids or other kids.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2010)

Pour said:


> I'm hoping the Red Box has a solid equivalent to the DMG, more than even  simplified classes or cleaned-up rules. While there are multiple snags and plenty of places to get confused and even frustrated, the life and expansion of the hobby doesn't fall on the player in my mind, but the DM. The DM is the conduit through which the game is experienced. His or her accessibility equates to the game's accessibility.
> 
> A savvy DM, one conscious of pacing and who learns  when to follow the rules to a T and when to lay off and allow things to  happen, will make or break a first  timer's experience. The DMG must convey that DMs should improvise and expand and make things their own for the sake of fun. It should be encouraging, and hardly a rulebook at all... I guess more of a guide book, emphasis on the DM*G*.
> 
> ...




Yes, but the key is that if a group of young people are going to play amongst themselves, that is assuming they don't have an older player to DM, then they will have to COMPREHEND all of these subtleties of the rules. Now, there are certainly teenagers that are as capable as anyone of doing that (no doubt some are on this forum) but still when you are starting out cold simpler is better. My point is that no matter how simple the PCs are the core rules themselves are NOT simple.

I mean really, just examine the endless debates that go on in this very forum about the 4e rules. How does Stealth work? How do immediate actions work? etc. Its not that hard to grasp in a general way but the 4e rules are not the easiest RPG rules to actually APPLY, in fact I'd say from long experience with a lot of systems they are quite the opposite. No doubt we can easily find ones that are trickier (Aftermath immediately springs to mind, lol). Still, they are FAR from the easiest and I'd not hand any version of 4e to a bunch of 12-14 yr olds and expect them to really figure it out. I'd much sooner hand them my Basic books. 

I don't think attempting to make 4e into Basic is going to work all that well. I think a lot of kids are going to look at it scratch their heads, fiddle with it a bit and go on to other things.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jul 10, 2010)

If everything in the Essentials is compatible with the previous bunch of PHB classes.  Then I wonder how Hybrid classes using the Essentials build might work...

They'd better have rules for Hybrids in the Essentials series somewhere, even if it's the Rules Compendium, because that's something that probably would appeal to "returning players" who fondly remember their multi-classed characters.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 10, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Too bad you aren't a paying member, and we could bet the right to pick the other's avatar, for say a month or two




I have it on good authority you don't need to pay to do that.

I'm sort of an expert in the field.


----------



## Pour (Jul 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, but the key is that if a group of young people are going to play amongst themselves, that is assuming they don't have an older player to DM, then they will have to COMPREHEND all of these subtleties of the rules. Now, there are certainly teenagers that are as capable as anyone of doing that (no doubt some are on this forum) but still when you are starting out cold simpler is better. My point is that no matter how simple the PCs are the core rules themselves are NOT simple.
> 
> I mean really, just examine the endless debates that go on in this very forum about the 4e rules. How does Stealth work? How do immediate actions work? etc. Its not that hard to grasp in a general way but the 4e rules are not the easiest RPG rules to actually APPLY, in fact I'd say from long experience with a lot of systems they are quite the opposite. No doubt we can easily find ones that are trickier (Aftermath immediately springs to mind, lol). Still, they are FAR from the easiest and I'd not hand any version of 4e to a bunch of 12-14 yr olds and expect them to really figure it out. I'd much sooner hand them my Basic books.
> 
> I don't think attempting to make 4e into Basic is going to work all that well. I think a lot of kids are going to look at it scratch their heads, fiddle with it a bit and go on to other things.





I don't disagree with you on comprehending the rules to play, but there is a point where all of us comprehend the rules _enough_ to play.

Despite all the debate and discussion on how Stealth works, immediate actions and so on, all of us still manage to run or play in games whether or not we fully get the tinier cogs. And I think that's largely due to our understanding of the larger tropes of D&D, a group of characters on some sort of adventure, with the expectation of fighting monsters, overcoming skill challenges, gaining treasure and eventually facing some sort of ultimate villain/instance for a resolution they themselves had a hand in. Then they have the added joy of leveling up and doing it all again, in so many variations (and that is being extremely general, I know). When we don't understand a rule along the way, we improvise, we play it as fairly as we can, and then we move on. Later, many of us will research what we didn't get, and dedicated players as well. This generation of 12 - 14 year old players know exactly how to find answers on sites like ENWorld.

Going back to my earlier post, I hope the Red Box's DMG stresses the goal of D&D is to play the game and have fun and use what you can out of the finer rules. I worry a new player opening a box is going to assume they must memorize everything in order to play. It's just not true, from my experience, and a daunting task for anyone trying something for the first time. I'm not dancing around the issue, I know that they will need to understand the concept of rolling the d20 and adding modifiers, of defenses and other concepts, but that's well within the grasp of all 6th graders. 

It's really in how you present things. And I think special care should be given toward the new DM. But it can be successful. I think the average kid can manage it, with the proper encouragement and guidance.


----------



## mkill (Jul 10, 2010)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Then I wonder how Hybrid classes using the Essentials build might work...
> 
> They'd better have rules for Hybrids in the Essentials series somewhere, even if it's the Rules Compendium, because that's something that probably would appeal to "returning players" who fondly remember their multi-classed characters.




I hope they don't waste even a page on that. The hybrid rules represent exactly that kind of fiddly bit that beginners (and returning players with wife, kids and a full-time job) shouldn't have to deal with. I wouldn't mind a dragon article some time later that updates the hybrid rules for essentials, but for the moment, please leave it out.


----------



## tbarrie (Jul 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I disagree. The fiddly bits are the intricate interactions between Immediate Interrupt and its difference from Opportunity Attack and Immediate Reaction, etc etc etc. None of that is going away.




What's your basis for that conclusion? Have they revealed an Essentials power or class feature that says it's an Immediate Interrupt or Reaction? Because it seems entirely possible that no Essentials build will use Immediates at all, in which case poof, that particular bit of fiddliness goes away.


----------



## keterys (Jul 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I disagree. The fiddly bits are the intricate interactions between Immediate Interrupt and its difference from Opportunity Attack and Immediate Reaction, etc etc etc. None of that is going away. How many times have I had to try to explain to someone that their Opportunity Action doesn't benefit from their bonus to Opportunity Attack rolls? How many 12 yr olds are going to successfully track marks, conditions, and effects by themselves in actual play?




Sure seems to me that a simplified fighter could dispel that confusion pretty easily.

Hell, I'd avoid immediate interrupts like the plague on simplified classes and monsters. Having to notice something that can potentially rewind time? Yeah, let's avoid that.



> Now, I don't disagree that SOME of that can be mitigated by ditching most powers that apply effects that need tracking, getting rid of niggling subtleties of mechanics of classes like CC and CS on fighters, etc. That will HELP, but the fundamental complexity is in the application of the (already stated not to be changing) core of the rules.




It's really not hard to make the game a couple orders of magnitude less complex by just doing what I said. I'm not sure they'll actually do it, but if they make the powers _far_ more likely to have instantaneous effects (forced movement, damage, prone) than conditions you need to track, avoid immediates, and have standardized durations as much as possible, they'll be miles ahead of core 4e. I do think you'd need to change a few actual rules to really finish it off (like Readied actions), but eh, can't be perfect. 

For example: The shaman would be a horrible Essentials class. In order for it to work, I think the spirit would have to become a summon instead of a conjuration, at a minimum, and even then... maybe just have it be an extension of the shaman itself, or ditch the spirit entirely. So... yeah, just don't be an Essentials class.

BECMI was pretty damn complicated if you considered it purely from the perspective of a high level wizard. So... don't do that


----------



## KidSnide (Jul 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, but the key is that if a group of young people are going to play amongst themselves, that is assuming they don't have an older player to DM, then they will have to COMPREHEND all of these subtleties of the rules.




I think have to disagree with you there.  I've been GMing since I was about 10, and if there are two crucial things I learned about the experience:

1) Almost any failure of rules comprehension will be forgiven by a sufficiently undiscerning audience.

2) 10-year-old boys are an extremely undiscerning audience.

So, while I agree that a bunch of kids are going to be playing D&D "wrong", I'm also sure "wrong play" has been a staple part of the hobby for many years.  If you can roll to hit, roll damage and subtract hit points, you can play a rudimentary version of D&D.  Understanding all the rules subtleties is nice, but hardly a requirement to enjoy the game.

-KS


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 10, 2010)

KidSnide said:


> I think have to disagree with you there.  I've been GMing since I was about 10, and if there are two crucial things I learned about the experience:
> 
> 1) Almost any failure of rules comprehension will be forgiven by a sufficiently undiscerning audience.
> 
> ...




Well, I don't really disagree with that in general. 4e is just significantly more complex from a rules complexity standpoint than Basic or even AD&D were. If you did things a bit cockeyed in those games it didn't matter much, there really wasn't much to mess up. Get your Immediate actions wrong and 4e will get a bit strange. Unlike Keterys I don't believe you can excise that stuff from the game. Of course the real question will be is it enjoyable. Still, I think it represents a good deal bigger barrier than it ever did in Basic or Old D&D. Honestly the only issues we had back in the day (at age 12) with that was the incredible obtuseness of the rules themselves. 4e is vastly better written and presumably will be even better on the 2nd go around. I just wonder. I think a clearly written game of the complexity of Basic would work better for that audience. I can't say I would want WotC to go that route personally, but I do wonder if 4e will prove popular with younger players. 

I guess we'll see! I certainly hope it is.


----------



## Echohawk (Jul 10, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, but the key is that if a group of young people are going to play amongst themselves, that is assuming they don't have an older player to DM, then they will have to COMPREHEND all of these subtleties of the rules.



I don't think the success of the Essentials is at-all dependent on the ability of young people to comprehend all of the subtleties of the rules. As long as someone who buys into the Essentials line has plenty of *fun* playing the game wrong, those products will still be successful.

And, in any case, hands up anyone in here who didn't play the game at least a little bit wrong when they started out? Anyone? Anyone at all? Didn't think so. And we all turned out okay, didn't we?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 10, 2010)

Echohawk said:


> And we all turned out okay, didn't we?




Well, all of us except You Know Who. He's just incompetent.


----------



## Shazbot79 (Jul 10, 2010)

mkill said:


> - If the Essentials Line sells well enough we'll see a third book with Warlord, Bard etc.




My personal speculation is that the "Power" source books will cease and will be replaced by player's option books, such as the forthcoming Shadow book.

So we will see a "Players: Option: Heroes of the Arcane" or something along those lines that will have Essentials style builds for Bards, Wizards, Warlocks, Swordmages, Sorcerers and possibly Artficers, along with books specific to other power sources.


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (Jul 10, 2010)

Shazbot79 said:


> My personal speculation is that the "Power" source books will cease and will be replaced by player's option books, such as the forthcoming Shadow book.
> 
> So we will see a "Players: Option: Heroes of the Arcane" or something along those lines that will have Essentials style builds for Bards, Wizards, Warlocks, Swordmages, Sorcerers and possibly Artficers, along with books specific to other power sources.




I think you are correct but have it backwards.  The Heroes of books will replace the printing of the PHBS since they are released in march.  The Powers books could easily still be printed and sold in October as they are now as a supplement to the Heroes books


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 10, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> I have it on good authority you don't need to pay to do that.
> 
> I'm sort of an expert in the field.



Haha. Totally forgot about that. Then we just need Zaran to accept the challenge. I already have the perfect pic in mind. 


Mouseferatu said:


> Well, all of us except You Know Who. He's just incompetent.




There you go again, being mean to He Who Shall Not Be Named. Watch out, or you will be slapped with some moderation!!!


----------



## Scribble (Jul 10, 2010)

Imaro said:


> casualoblivion... what I'm asking is why? You don't have to use previous books with the first 3 hardbacks... weren't they designed to stand by themselves? Didn't they even have a starter set so many people on this very site defended as great for new players ( I remember that because I bought it early and started a thread on here about why I didn't think it was that great for new players... though many posters rushed to it's defense)? I guess what I'm asking is how does this "Essentials" line differ as far as new players are concerned?




I think what they're trying to do this time is emulate what I think helped make the old boxed sets so successful. They kind of "led you along" as your experience with the game grew. 

Instead of try it, then dive in head first, they seem to be trying to give people paths to travel down, so the buy in doesn't seem as huge, and the confusion over what exactly they need to play the game isn't as large.


----------



## jbear (Jul 11, 2010)

FireLance said:


> A thought just occured to me. In the same way that clerics get to choose domains, I wonder if wizards will get to choose schools that have a similar mechanical effect: features and pre-selected at-will and encounter powers, and possibly a level 1 utility power as well. That would be one way to bring the eight schools of magic back into 4E.



And is this where the 'Necromancer' for Wizards and 'Hex Blade' for Warlocks who use the shadow power source that has been mentioned in a blurb from an upcoming release fit into the picture???


----------



## jbear (Jul 11, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> I'm wondering now whether it will actually be a correspondence of that sort of strength with all the classes.
> 
> Rogue->Halfling... seems plausible.
> Wizard->Eladrin... would certainly fit
> Elf-> Fighter?



And in the future it will be very easy for them to make subclasses for other races that thematically fit with a class fit mechanically as well. I guess if each race gets a third possible bonus variation to stats as per phb3 races, this will be easier to achieve. 

They had made an effort via feats to make classes viable/attractive to races with non-optimal stats. I wouldn't be surprised if down the track we see something similar happen with 'subclasses'.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jul 11, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.




I don't think those are two separate things.  Joe's GF didn't build her own character b/c the process was too complicated.  Now she doesn't understand what her character does or how it's supposed to be played, so she just stays at the back of the battlefield and spams At-Wills.

I've seen this MORE than once.


----------



## mkill (Jul 11, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> 4e is just significantly more complex from a rules complexity standpoint than Basic or even AD&D were. If you did things a bit cockeyed in those games it didn't matter much, there really wasn't much to mess up.



Uh, what ? AD&D not complex? You may have felt that way after years of playing gave you a comfortable level of system mastery, but if you allow me to refresh your memory...

- To calculate whether you hit, you have to roll above a number. So far so good. That number gets lower as you level. Counterintuitive, but okay. You substract your opponents AC from that number. Wait, what?
- Magic weapons have a _positive_ bonus, which you _substract_ from your attack stat... Err?
- Magic armor has a _positive_ bonus, that you have to _substract_ from your AC. At least there is a pattern.
Okay, so your attack stat is 4, you wield a +5 sword, your enemy has plate (AC 1) +4, what do you have to roll to hit? So my attack stat is negative, and the enemy's AC is negative, so I add it, which brings my attack stat back into positive, ... Ok I give up.

Now, if you're a Wizard, you don't roll to attack at all, but your enemy has to roll against a number on his sheet.

And of course each class has its own XP progression.

You roll initiative every turn, and it depends on things like which level of spell you cast.

To cast your spells, you have to keep track of ... bat guano.

Forget about using that magic sword you found immediately, the wizard has to take an 8 hour break and burn a 100 gp gem to identify the damn thing. At least he doesn't have to roll a spellcraft check. Uh, that item was cursed? Pointy hat spent 8 hours analyzing the matrix and didn't notice? Let's all rest another 8 hours so the cleric can pray for remove curse.

I'll stop here. AD&D was incredibly complex, but in a "watch out or I'll screw you over" kind of way. And in a "scrap that who cares about material components anyway?" kind of way. And in a "unified mechanics what's that?" kind of way.

3rd and 4th edition simplified and streamlined a lot of that. The core rules of the newer editions are much simpler and more streamlined. What makes 4th edition more complex in play are not the rules itself, but the tactical options you have and the interactions between PCs.

In short, AD&D complexity and 4th edition complexity is very different, and it's not the 4th edition rules that are complex.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 14, 2010)

So, what is the difference between the Essentials Warpriest Cleric and the other Cleric builds out there (Battle Cleric and Devoted Cleric)?

Is it just another build, like one you would find in Divine Power?  Or is there something that differentiates the Essentials builds with the current builds out there?


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 14, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> So, what is the difference between the Essentials Warpriest Cleric and the other Cleric builds out there (Battle Cleric and Devoted Cleric)?
> 
> Is it just another build, like one you would find in Divine Power?  Or is there something that differentiates the Essentials builds with the current builds out there?




The essential classes are different to the builds you are used to. The essential clerics loose ritual casting & healers lore & switch to a weaker channel divinity power. The essential clerics gains shield proficiency (light & heavy) & domain class features (1/5/10). Also, depending what domain you choose your powers will be largely chosen for you. You also will not gain access to all your class features at first level like the non-essential classes.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 14, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> So, what is the difference between the Essentials Warpriest Cleric and the other Cleric builds out there (Battle Cleric and Devoted Cleric)?
> 
> Is it just another build, like one you would find in Divine Power? Or is there something that differentiates the Essentials builds with the current builds out there?




The Warpriest has a few minor changes specific to it (shield proficiency, different bonus to Non-AC Defenses), but we've seen those sort of differences between builds before (Warlords, Monks). 

What makes it more unique as a build is that a number of elements are pre-defined. You choose a Domain, and from what I can tell, that determines your level 1 At-Will Powers, level 1 Encounter Power, and one or two other features. Later encounter powers have 'default' versions chosen for you by your domain, but you can choose to switch those out for standard Encounter powers. 

In some ways, it is similar to how Warlocks are defined for their pacts, just taken a bit further. But it also isn't completely locked in - while the new player might be able to grab the Warpriest and play it with all the default choices, more experienced players still have room to choose powers and customize as desired.


----------



## keterys (Jul 14, 2010)

It's probably reasonable to compare the cleric to warpriest like comparing the battlefront archer warlord to the phb warlord.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 17, 2010)

abyssaldeath said:


> The essential classes are different to the builds you are used to. The essential clerics loose ritual casting & healers lore & switch to a weaker channel divinity power. The essential clerics gains shield proficiency (light & heavy) & domain class features (1/5/10). Also, depending what domain you choose your powers will be largely chosen for you. You also will not gain access to all your class features at first level like the non-essential classes.




So if this is true, I agree with those who call it 4.5 or even 3.9.  I mean, its not like they are using Essentials to clarify any rules or "fix" things that are broken.  They seem to be adding things just for the sake of doing so.  Which is fine.  I am all for that.  But let's call it what it is, an updated version.

This is basically what they did in 3.5.  Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk.  How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?

I will probably still buy essentials myself.  I'm the kind of person that needs to have "the latest" edition, which is why I got into 4E to begin with.  So I am fine with that.  And more options is always good IMO.  But lets call it what it is, an upgraded edition...


----------



## Storminator (Jul 17, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> This is basically what they did in 3.5.  Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk.  How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?




It's very different. 

In 3.5, the rules for grappling change. Half the spells changed, including whole categories of spells. Damage reduction changed completely. Power attack changed. The list of changes that had nothing to do with how your PC acquired abilities was huge. There's no indication anything like that is going to happen with Essentials.

If all 3.5 did was change monks and rangers, it wouldn't have been another edition.

PS


----------



## mkill (Jul 17, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> This is basically what they did in 3.5.  Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk.  How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?




Could 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 Ranger take powers from the book the other one was printed in, and could they play at the same table?

In other words, did they have this compatibility thing going on that Mearls is talking about?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 17, 2010)

mkill said:


> Could 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 Ranger take powers from the book the other one was printed in, and could they play at the same table?
> 
> In other words, did they have this compatibility thing going on that Mearls is talking about?




I no longer have my 3.0 stuff but the real meat of the changes was not the classes but the rules engine that changed. Thus you could play two of the classes in the same game without much problem but you had to decide were you using 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules and that is where the major differences arose.

What I guess I am saying that a 3.0 magic user using 3.0 rules was more powerful than a 3.5 one as the 3.0 had buff spells that lasts 1 hour/level, haste that allows 2 standard action/round (thus two spells/round) that lasted longer than the 3.5 haste so could devote more slots to offense.

Of course that only applies to early 3.5 builds, I'm pretty sure that by late 3.5 you mage a pretty competitive mage.

The real point is that you could not mix and match. 3.0 and 3.5 used the same words to mean different things.


----------



## fba827 (Jul 17, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> So if this is true, I agree with those who call it 4.5 or even 3.9.  I mean, its not like they are using Essentials to clarify any rules or "fix" things that are broken.  They seem to be adding things just for the sake of doing so.  Which is fine.  I am all for that.  But let's call it what it is, an updated version.
> 
> This is basically what they did in 3.5.  Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk.  How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?




I would not call "adding things for the sake of doing so" an _updated version_.

They did the same thing as early as Martial Power 1 (which was the first supplement book back in 4e's early days) -- you have a build option for an existing class that takes away some default class features and replaces it with others.  (example: see optional fighter builds in MP1; default fighter features are removed and replaced if you chose that optional build).  So it is a bit of a stretch to say that adding different build options is enough to call it a new edition since the precedent was established back in the very first Power book.

That's just what the essentials line is doing as well: optional builds that take away some default class abilities and replace them with others (albeit, in the case of the Essential line's optional builds, the features being replaced in are spread out over levels).

They are not changing the progression for base classes (like 3.5 did to 3.0 monk, ranger, etc. that your existing class did change, but for this, if you're playing a cleric, your cleric does not change) nor are they changing rules (like 3.5 changed grapple, DR, etc. from 3.0).

It's all very modular really.  If no one in your group uses the build options presented in the Essentials product line, then you won't really see anything different to base game mechanics.  Or you can completely mix-and-match from original 4e product lines and the Essentials product line (that's not something you could do between 3.0 and 3.5).

Anyway, just my opinion as a random person on the Internet (which means my opinion is worthless  -- but anyone can call it what they want to call it.  I just don't think that "adding things for the sake of doing so" (as was said above) is enough of a reason to call it an _updated version_.

(Though I might call it an updated version for completely different reasons depending on what sorts of errata updates we see at that time, but that's another topic entirely).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 17, 2010)

mkill said:


> Uh, what ? AD&D not complex? You may have felt that way after years of playing gave you a comfortable level of system mastery, but if you allow me to refresh your memory...
> 
> - To calculate whether you hit, you have to roll above a number. So far so good. That number gets lower as you level. Counterintuitive, but okay. You substract your opponents AC from that number. Wait, what?
> - Magic weapons have a _positive_ bonus, which you _substract_ from your attack stat... Err?
> ...




Yeah, I disagree. Once you know how to calculate your to-hit nothing really changed in 1e. The fighter would add his static bonuses to the die roll and cross reference it to the attack chart column for his class/level vs a specific AC and if the number you got on your d20+static bonuses was equal or better than the number in the chart you hit. THAC0 got rid of the chart having you subtract the other guys AC and if you rolled your THAC0 (which folded in a level based bonus) you hit. Now, I totally agree this system was clunky, but it was always the same and once you did it 3 times you understood it. 

The to-hit calculation in 4e is indeed simpler and less clunky, YAY! However 4e adds action economy mechanics, which means the players need to understand how actions work (vs you just moved and attacked in 1e/2e and anything else you wanted to do was pretty much up to the DM to decide if you could still attack if you did X other thing, the general rule being 'you can do one thing per round plus move'). On top of that you have to understand Free Actions, Opportunity Actions, Immediate Interrupts, and Immediate Reactions, plus Ready and Delay. These actions can and do interact in complex ways. This can easily be seen by going to any forum where people ask 4e questions and see that CONSTANTLY they are confused by these interactions. There have been millions of forum posts all over the net just debating simple things like do you have to declare both targets for Twin Strike before the first attack or not. This is only the tip of the iceberg too. Every type of power brings up more similar types of issues. How do the at-will powers of whirling barbarians actually work? NOBODY KNOWS, this issue has never been resolved! 

Sorry, I consider 4e actually at the table to be considerably more complex than AD&D, and that isn't even touching on the whole issue of needing to be organized enough to track multiple effects and conditions for example, something that was VASTLY less important back in AD&D where buffs and debuffs were fairly rare (admittedly it could get messy now and then but that was the exceptional situation).

I agree that AD&D had its own 'fiddly' bits but they were far more peripheral to the central issue of running a combat. The game played well enough if you ignored spell components for instance. You can't avoid the 'fiddly' bits of 4e, they are in your face and have a significant impact on central issues of the game, like what tactics you will use in combat.


----------

