# So, how many are avoiding Essentials?



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 14, 2010)

I've noticed all the Essentials threads on here and I am wondering how many of us are still playing ordinary 4th Ed with no intention of going over.

I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to 4E from SW saga, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in 4E, and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?

4E is not something we are *completely* satisfied with, particularly those of us who have played older editions, so all these changes seem a little...much.


----------



## Neverfate (Nov 14, 2010)

Nearly everyone in my next campaign will be using Essentials in some shape or form and I love it. It's a great direction due to it just being cleaner, which gives us more options for customization.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Nov 14, 2010)

Currently about half my players have "gone over" and are using options from the essentials books, a couple are even playing an essentials class! I see no problem with treating essentials as a new set of option rather than a half edition, once the options hit the CB I see no reason for any group to disallow/ignore them.


----------



## whearp (Nov 14, 2010)

I for one switched over completely to essentials for my newest campaign. I have been playing and loving 4e since release, and have happily embraced the new essentials stuff. I was worried at first, but the more I read about the new materials, the more I got excited. I have to say, I'm absolutely satisfied.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Nov 14, 2010)

It's not a replacement, it's an addition. 
I haven't had a huge look at essentials yet but I've got the first 'Heroes of...' and the second one and the Monster Vault are about to be shipped from Amazon.

I see the Monster Vault as providing better monster designs than the original monster manual and the Essentials players books giving different options that I might want to use at some stage (and improved feats, some of which I have already picked up)


----------



## the Jester (Nov 15, 2010)

Asking "Who is switching to/avoiding switching to Essentials?" is about the same as asking, "Who is switching to/not switching to Martial Power?"


----------



## BobTheNob (Nov 15, 2010)

My tenure as DM is coming to a close (at last...I have been DM'ing since 4e came out!) and we are strongly considering a essentials only changeover when the new DM steps in.

Essentials just appeals.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 15, 2010)

Neverfate said:


> Nearly everyone in my next campaign will be using Essentials in some shape or form and I love it. It's a great direction due to it just being cleaner, which gives us more options for customization.




This is not an attack in any way, but what do you mean by "customization" here? Do you mean inside the rules or outside them, in the areas of fluff/backstoreis/gameplay?

To me the classes, with only one PP per build and only one ED in the whole first book, offer far less customization than classic 4E. Fluff/backstoreis/gameplay seem to be the same to me.  

My group has decided not to do essentials at all. There are some nice options, and some AMAZING feats, but it is not what we want to do and does not fit with our playstyle, which is a gestalt-type way of making characters. 

So we decided to not go that route and hope WOTC goes back to classic 4E stuff soon.


----------



## Aegeri (Nov 15, 2010)

I have no issues with essentials and actually don't view it as terribly different to anything else in 4E. The main problems I have with the current direction is I hate the new book format (all my essentials books are damaged/falling apart already - unimpressed) and the fact it looks like there is a massive heroic focus. That of course means the tiers of play I like most, paragon and epic are going to be ignored for a long time. Nothing in the stuff upcoming list of books gives me any indication that is changing either.

That's all that annoys me, but essentials stuff won't be banned or barred from my games any more than I would throw out Martial Power or Psionic Power.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 15, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Asking "Who is switching to/avoiding switching to Essentials?" is about the same as asking, "Who is switching to/not switching to Martial Power?"




I do not agree in any way with this.

Essentials is a far bigger change than Martial power was.


----------



## Neverfate (Nov 15, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> This is not an attack in any way, but what do you mean by "customization" here? Do you mean inside the rules or outside them, in the areas of fluff/backstoreis/gameplay?
> 
> To me the classes, with only one PP per build and only one ED in the whole first book, offer far less customization than classic 4E. Fluff/backstoreis/gameplay seem to be the same to me.
> 
> ...




Well, you have to figure, by the time an average character has a theme, magic items, boons, grandmaster training, additions and subtractions due to background and character "fluff" (something I give bonuses and penalties for); play just gets convoluted. I like my players to have every options as opposed to none. Essentials just makes baseline characters, before all the add-ons, simpler to got in with. 

Also, are your players even avoiding new feats? I don't think they have to separate themselves that much from "Essentials". Some of the feats are a lot of fun. 

Just as a general side note, I think once the new character builder goes online, a lot of people are going to end up with Essentials feats without even knowing it. I know a lot of players with the old CB that don't look at the "source" at the bottom of the description.


----------



## Katana_Geldar (Nov 15, 2010)

Neverfate said:


> Just as a general side note, I think once the new character builder goes online, a lot of people are going to end up with Essentials feats without even knowing it. I know a lot of players with the old CB that don't look at the "source" at the bottom of the description.




No way, we won't be using online builder.


----------



## Aegeri (Nov 15, 2010)

Some of the essentials feats, like the much improved feat tax feats (Expertise and various +will etc feats) are the way they should have always been done IMO. So I am actually quite happy about them and am very pleased at their presence.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Nov 15, 2010)

One of my players is insisting on being an Essentials fighter, but no one else is interested in switching.

I don't know what to do with the feat taxes. I suspect the campaign won't go into paragon, so it _shouldn't_ be a problem, but if it does, I'll need some reasonable solution.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 15, 2010)

4Ed hasn't really converted anyone in our group.  We're really only playing because the new guy in the group is a cool dude...and the guy running the 3.5 game needed a break.

So there's one DM with some 4Ed books; add me as a non-convert who finds the game fun enough to play, but not to run...and who is also Mr. Librarian so I own a small stack...

Except there's nothing cool enough in Essentials to make ME buy, and the DM is taking a conservative approach- we aren't even using all of the PHBs and Powers books yet- so Essentials would seem to be an unlikely addition.

So we have only 2 4Ed buyers in the group; everyone else using CB...

Oh wait- the new online-only CB will kill that.


----------



## Aegeri (Nov 15, 2010)

You shouldn't have to bother doing anything with them. They are good enough to take on their own and the benefits are worth the cost of needing to do so. I used to give expertise feats out for free and now I no longer do so. That's because they are worth taking on their own merits and so I just leave them to my players to pick up (Paragon is about the minimum they become required though).

It's really a problem that solves itself now. They just need to add more of them for weapliments, totems, flails and other missing weapon groups.


----------



## Raikun (Nov 15, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Asking "Who is switching to/avoiding switching to Essentials?" is about the same as asking, "Who is switching to/not switching to Martial Power?"




Yep.

IMO, every table should have the Essentials Rules Compendium now, because it's the most current rules in book form (and laid out very neatly).

The Monster Vault pretty much replaced the MM1 here when designing encounters (it absolutely blows away the MM1 in monster balance).

And we treat the "Heroes" books as basicly the PHB4.

It's all 4e D&D...I don't see it as a "switching over", it's all just various content for the exact same game.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 15, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Essentials is a far bigger change than Martial power was.



This is probably worthy of a thread in itself, but it seems to me that there are people who think that Essentials is an *addition* to "classic" 4E and there are people who think that Essentials is a *replacement* for "classic" 4E. 

For those in the former group, Essentials is just another bunch of options. The operative verb is not "switching", but "adopting".


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Nov 15, 2010)

We're using the new feats, and I have an essentials Cleric in one game.  While he's absurdly survivable, he's kinda boring.  I miss my Battle Cleric.

I would run an Essentials Thief in a heartbeat, though.

Brad


----------



## mikeloop86 (Nov 15, 2010)

I am personally avoiding Essentials like the plague. Wootsie's not making it to easy on CB users to do this  from what I hear (item restrictions are implemented by default, and must be worked around to bypass), but I don't use the CB anyway.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 15, 2010)

FireLance said:


> This is probably worthy of a thread in itself, but it seems to me that there are people who think that Essentials is an *addition* to "classic" 4E and there are people who think that Essentials is a *replacement* for "classic" 4E.
> 
> For those in the former group, Essentials is just another bunch of options. The operative verb is not "switching", but "adopting".




It isn't an either/or thing; in fact, it is somewhere between the two. But I agree that one doesn't have to replace "classic" 4E with Essentials and that one can view the bulk of it as additions ala Martial Power, but there are also more wide-ranging systemic effects, like magic item rarities and a bunch of little tweaks that I'm not aware of but have heard about.

I also agree with whoever said that the Rules Compendium is a "must have." I have used that little book with greater frequency at the table than any other game book in memory. It is a gem.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 15, 2010)

We see Essentials as an addition, not a replacement, and I love almost everything I've seen so far. I'm currently encouraging several of my players to look at Essentials next time they're character building. I'm also really excited about the Monster Vault.

So, not me. I'm fine with both Essentials and non-Essentials PCs... whatever the players want.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Nov 15, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I've noticed all the Essentials threads on here and I am wondering how many of us are still playing ordinary 4th Ed with no intention of going over.
> 
> I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to 4E from SW saga, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in 4E, and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?
> 
> 4E is not something we are *completely* satisfied with, particularly those of us who have played older editions, so all these changes seem a little...much.




I expect others have said this before me, but it probably bears repeating. There is no "going over" so to speak. It isn't an either/or proposition. Given that the E classes can just fit right into an existing campaign like any other new class could I don't really see how it would be possible to "switch in mid stream". 

As far as I'm concerned if a player wanders in with an Essentials character sheet and wants to play the character then it will be treated no different than if someone brings any other character to the table. I know all the rules I need to know to run the game, beyond that it is a non-issue.

As far as core rules go we've pretty much always kept up with the errata here. Honestly it has only impacted a character maybe twice in the whole game and only slightly. Some of the RC level rules patch has SOME very modest implications. In theory we decided to use the new item rarity system. I think the players really wanted it mostly because it lets them use their daily item powers more often, lol. It will amuse me to send them off to the ends of the Erth to find ingredients for their next item they want to craft, but that will be fun for all.

So I guess you could say we're "using" Essentials. In a way. For established games the whole thing is kind of a tempest in a teacup. There is no 'conversion', you just keep playing exactly the same as you have been for the last 3 years...


----------



## Obryn (Nov 15, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I've noticed all the Essentials threads on here and I am wondering how many of us are still playing ordinary 4th Ed with no intention of going over.
> 
> I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to 4E from SW saga, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in 4E, and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?
> 
> 4E is not something we are *completely* satisfied with, particularly those of us who have played older editions, so all these changes seem a little...much.



First, I have to ask for some clarification - what do you mean by "going over" to Essentials?  I'm honestly confused by the terminology, given what's actually in the Essentials books.

We're using the options from the books, but it's seriously not a different game.  Am I "going over" to Essentials?  Really doesn't feel like it.

I'm running Dark Sun 4e, and at last count, two of my 6 players are using Essentials versions of classes.  (I had an Executioner Assassin in the game, too, but he's a flake.)  They work seamlessly alongside "normal" 4e characters.  Some of the non-Essentials classes are taking Essentials feats, and vice-versa.

There' no way I'd run Essentials-*only*, but the newer Essentials classes work entirely seamlessly in a game with traditional 4e classes.

Edited to add: 


> 4E is not something we are completely satisfied with, particularly those of us who have played older editions, so all these changes seem a little...much.



If your table hasn't taken a look at the Essentials classes at all, you might enjoy taking a look, given that you're coming from older editions.  Really, Essentials classes hew a lot closer to 3e (or even AD&D) classes.  And trust me as someone who's doing it - they work seamlessly alongside everyone else and can slide right into an existing campaign.

-O


----------



## Mengu (Nov 15, 2010)

Essentials is just an addition, not a switch. Are my players able to pick up feats from Essentials? Sure. Are they going to be ditching their characters and playing essentials classes and races only? No way. Am I going to allow a player to retrain racial stat bonus or racial abilities based on Essentials stuff? Sure. Is my Fighter player likely to switch a Slayer? No more than he's likely to switch to a Barbarian (so, no he won't). If a new player wants to play a Warpriest will I let him? Sure just like I let a player come in with a Sorcerer after PHB2 was released.

As far as I'm concerned, essentials is sort of a combination book of PHB4, and MP3, AP2, DP2. It has new classes (I consider Slayer, Knight, Thief to be classes), allows some old options to be used with these new classes, provides new options for old classes, provides new build options for the Wizard, and has the Warpriest straddling that thin line between new class and new build.

For my game (and my fellow DM's games), Essentials is not a replacement to anything. It's an addition.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 15, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I do not agree in any way with this.
> 
> Essentials is a far bigger change than Martial power was.




Essentials doesn't change much, it just adds stuff.

Obviously there are those that disagree, but since you can play a PH fighter alongside a knight just fine, I think they are wrong.


----------



## blalien (Nov 15, 2010)

A few of my players are using feats and such from Essentials.  I don't see how anybody who regularly plays 4e would have any incentive to switch to an Essentials class.


----------



## Mengu (Nov 15, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Essentials doesn't change much, it just adds stuff.




Well... technically Essentials does change quite a few things. Many wizard powers now do half damage on a miss, rogues can sneak attack once per turn instead of round, melee training got changed, weapon focus got split into weapon and implement focus, two weapon fighting got an update, rapier became military weapon, item rarity was introduced, etc. Some are good changes some are dubious. But this is no different than errata (or updates, or whatever you want to call it). And if you were playing with updates before, there is no reason to ignore the updates in Essentials. 

Having said that, *most* of Essentials is new material and as such, additions.


----------



## Aegeri (Nov 15, 2010)

All of those things are parts that rumours were saying were going to be errata. In fact, well before essentials there was rampant speculation that races would pick up stat choices like the Changeling in Eberron. So if you were looking at the rumor mill at Wizards most of those "Changes" were called out as things Wizards were planning on changing/errataing anyway. Essentials is really a way of publishing those updates in one place.

Without essentials I am convinced they would have done it anyway.


----------



## darkwing (Nov 15, 2010)

I've noticed all the PHB2 threads on here and I am wondering how  many of us are still playing ordinary PHB1 with no intention of going  over.

I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to PHB1 from World of Warcraft, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in PHB1,  and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're  also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?


----------



## SoulsFury (Nov 15, 2010)

We are playing without essentials, and no one in our group even cares about it. I am actually willing to bet I know the most about essentials than the rest of my group, and I know almost nothing about it.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 15, 2010)

I echo the statement of many here: Essentials is an addition, and that's how I'm treating it in my campaign.

I've done the same as with the release of any other options book: I allow those with character concepts that are close to the one in the book to remodel their character, should they so choose. 

With the release of HotFL, two players have done so: our wizard has switched to an enchanter Mage, and our fighter has switched to a Slayer, partially at my urging (he's the kind of guy who never knew what option to pick during combat, and ended up charging things with Knockdown Assault). Both of them seem to be having a blast with their new characters: the Mage player loves to use tactics, and his new powers are more about control than dealing damage; the Slayer player is loving his new damage output and the relative simplicity of his new character.

I can understand staying away from Essentials options, if none of your players are interested in any of them. But that's the same thing for any other powers book out there. For example, none of my players is currently playing a psionic character, which is why none of us owns Psionic Power.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Nov 15, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I do not agree in any way with this.
> 
> Essentials is a far bigger change than Martial power was.




Just played a game with a Battlemind, Monk, Druid, Bard, and Essentials Thief.

No one really noticed. No one really cared. It did not change the game in any way. A dramatic and fancy double-weapon would have made a bigger splash.

The Essentials is 4.5, a new game, totally awesome, totally sucks, money-making conspiracy, Illumati consipiracy is all bunk.

It is just another charcter build. Cool, but not so cool that anyone really noticed.


----------



## jbear (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm not seeing the 'going over to essentials' either, personally.

Do I find some of the new spins on classes interesting? Yes, especially in the case of the Mage, the Thief, the Scout and the Assassin.

But I have a campaign underway, all the players adore their characters. 2 of the players could well do with simpler characters as they ignore 70% of their character options regularly, but I hope I have adressed that issue with a new power sheet I have designed for them ordering powers into actions a la monster builder. Time will tell. 

Personally, if I was to start a new game as a player I'd play a mage in a heartbeat. The Enchanter/Ilusionist is really really cool.

But like other's have said, i see this as an addition, an amplification of options available to players which is designed to allow players play the style of character they prefer. The great thing is that they remain on the same power curve so they can play side by side and everyone is happy.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 15, 2010)

In the campaign I'm in, it's in progress, and we are maybe halfway to leveling. Short of a character "death", we won't be using any essential stuff (outside of bits of errata, like treasure rarity ... but we don't have enough cash on hand to buy significant magic items anyway, and that now the rogue can sneak attack each turn instead of round) until that happens, and even then, it's probably feats if anything.

As for a new campaign I'm starting, there will likely be a mix of characters. So far confirmed is an Essential Rogue Thief, and a normal Starpact Warlock, both using themes from Dark Sun. We'll probably end up with a controller Druid, some form of leader (probably non-Essential since Cleric is out, and we already have one type of druid), and the other player will probably end up as an Essential Fighter Knight, for simplicities sake.

From my side (the DM side), the monster updates were already in place for MM3 and the Dark Sun Creature catalogue, so the Essential transition isn't too big. Also, rules about magic items and the like are already going to be different because of the Dark Sun setting, so the rarity thing doesn't impact much.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 15, 2010)

*addition...replacement...*

For new players and DMs, I am thinking its all replacement. They are making great efforts to stear to essentials and have those replace the 08 hardbacks. 

For us, the RC basically replaces the PHB and DMG as a rules reference. The MV better replace the the MM (a book that almost ties the 2E core books in its level of disapointment). 



Mengu said:


> Well... technically Essentials does change quite a few things. Many wizard powers now do half damage on a miss, rogues can sneak attack once per turn instead of round, melee training got changed, weapon focus got split into weapon and implement focus, two weapon fighting got an update, rapier became military weapon, item rarity was introduced, etc. Some are good changes some are dubious. But this is no different than errata (or updates, or whatever you want to call it). And if you were playing with updates before, there is no reason to ignore the updates in Essentials.
> 
> Having said that, *most* of Essentials is new material and as such, additions.




And then there is this. These are more changes then options. Just about every session, we have things come up that are based on an "update". And do we have all this in errata? And do you want to incorporate rate it through errata? Otherwise, if you want it you have to pay for it one way or another. (Don't think that the CB is not part of this).  

Of course, you can play 08 4E. You can play any game you want.


----------



## Cormacolinde (Nov 15, 2010)

The only Essentials book I've bought is the Monster Vault. We've integrated some essentials changes, namely those that have been put into the Character Builder, but I have had no specific request for it so far, and I wouldn't want my players to change their characters mid-campaign like this.

Maybe for the next campaign.


----------



## Osgood (Nov 15, 2010)

Everyone in my group agrees that they want nothing to do with the essentials.  On the DM side, I'm sure I'll wind up using essentialized monsters and traps from the compendium, but that's about it.


----------



## UnknownAtThisTime (Nov 15, 2010)

Initially, I was of the mind to keep our play free from Essentials.

I realize now, we will use essentials just as we use:

Dragon issue 383
Martial Power
Adventurers Vault
Anything Else that shows up in CB (Except Dark Sun and Eberron)
yadda yadda yadda

I guess our game is much less strict than others. I don't forsee many scenaruos coming up where there has to be an "Essentials vs. original 4E" judgement call. Truth be told, we are probably using 20% of the released errata anyway, without knowing it. It just doesn't matter all that much...

EDIT:  Oh, I am also getting Monster Vault because it looks interesting and is a fine value considering the "discounted" prices at which it can be purchased.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 15, 2010)

So far I'm not interested in 'Essentializing' my 4e game. Apparently the Monster Vault is quite well done, so I might get it eventually, but that's about it.

None of the previewed character builds struck me as something I'd want to play, so I'll ignore the HotF**K books, despite the intriguing acronym 

At the moment I also don't feel I need a Rules Compendium or the DM's Kit.

I bought the 'City Tiles' Master set and may get the 'Wilderness Tiles' set.

Did I forget anything? Shouldn't it have been 10 products? Hmm... ah, I guess, there's also the Red Box and a revised DM screen. I'm not interested in either.


----------



## gourdcaptain (Nov 15, 2010)

Both my 4e groups have pretty much shot down the Magic Item rarity changes for one (Ironically, one DM thinks the new system is too much work). The difference between Essentials and something like Martial Power is its ripping up of numerous design concepts and subsystems of the game and replacing them either for the character and the game as a whole. If it was just new classes I wouldn't be nearly as dubious about it.

We do have a slayer in one group, and the player is pretty happy about it, but they're pretty much 95% of the time unable to contribute to the combat in any meaningful way besides damage, which is slightly irritating.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 15, 2010)

Yes, and no.

I'm playing in 2 games that don't, and probably won't use Essentials.  I'm playing in another that allows you to use Essentials material should you choose to.  Personally, I'm indifferent to the matter.  Essentials is a variant to me, although I like certain aspects, such as the changes to racial bonuses, I dislike some of the class changes.  ie: i play D&D Encounters and I find the new fighter setup to be incredibly boring.

Overall, I'm not going to buy the books for it, at least, not anytime soon.  But I don't have any issues playing with it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Nov 15, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> For new players and DMs, I am thinking its all replacement. They are making great efforts to stear to essentials and have those replace the 08 hardbacks.



I don't know. A lot of the new player's I'm encountering are buying the PHB and using that.



> For us, the RC basically replaces the PHB and DMG as a rules reference.



The RC (and the book from the DM's kit) are actually a little disappointing in that area. For example if you want the vehicle rules, AV is the better place to find those. Probably the rule I look-up the most is how many hit points a monster role has (e.g., how many hit points does a lurker get per level?) No essentials book has that. (Maybe it'll be in the monster vault.)



> The MV better replace the the MM (a book that almost ties the 2E core books in its level of disapointment).



I swear, I'm the only person who finds this book still useable? I want MV as much as the next guy, but I still like a good old fashioned MM1 Beholder.



> And then there is this. These are more changes then options. Just about every session, we have things come up that are based on an "update". And do we have all this in errata? And do you want to incorporate rate it through errata? Otherwise, if you want it you have to pay for it one way or another. (Don't think that the CB is not part of this).



I haven't had a problem with the errata so far. I rearly run-up against it in my own game.



> Of course, you can play 08 4E. You can play any game you want.



Currently my Eberron game is "use most any supplement you want that isn't campaign setting specific (except for, of course, Eberron)."


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 15, 2010)

FireLance said:


> This is probably worthy of a thread in itself, but it seems to me that there are people who think that Essentials is an *addition* to "classic" 4E and there are people who think that Essentials is a *replacement* for "classic" 4E.
> 
> For those in the former group, Essentials is just another bunch of options. The operative verb is not "switching", but "adopting".




Quoted for emphasis, because I think this is an important distinction.

For many (most?) people Essentials is an addition to what they already do with 4e. Expanded options, more stuff to play around with.

For some people (such as myself), I'd run an Essentials-only game very happily, and the next time I run 4e it will be Essentials only, because I like it better.

I guess there is also a third approach which is 'wouldn't touch it with a bargepole', but I don't think many people would find themselves in that boat (although I can't be sure, of course!)

Cheers


----------



## Rydac (Nov 15, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> We see Essentials as an addition, not a replacement, and I love almost everything I've seen so far. I'm currently encouraging several of my players to look at Essentials next time they're character building. I'm also really excited about the Monster Vault.
> 
> So, not me. I'm fine with both Essentials and non-Essentials PCs... whatever the players want.




Same song second verse....this is my take on it too. Big fan of the Monster Vault...what Monster Manual I should've been.....but I'm not complaining that as they've learned more about the system WoTC is making great improvements.


----------



## badmojojojo (Nov 15, 2010)

Mad Hamish said:


> It's not a replacement, it's an addition.





Thats how I see it too. So far our group is still playing core 4e and will be starting DS soon after the new CB goes online.

I have played a few Essential games at my LFGS and have had a blast, so much so that when I run DnD I will be using Essentials. I agree that I dont see it as an either/or but as an addition to core DnD, you can use both simultaneously.


----------



## Anthraxus (Nov 15, 2010)

I've used a few of the feats for my regular 4E classes, but I don't like the new Essentials classes. I'd probably not be interested at all in an "Essentials Only" campaign.


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 15, 2010)

fanboy2000 said:


> I don't know. A lot of the new player's I'm encountering are buying the PHB and using that. (SNIP)
> 
> The RC (and the book from the DM's kit) are actually a little disappointing in that area...Probably the rule I look-up the most is how many hit points a monster role has (e.g., how many hit points does a lurker get per level?) No essentials book has that. (Maybe it'll be in the monster vault.)




PHB: Sure, its hasn't been out THAT long. But the redbox only references the essentials, the essentials only reference the essentials, and stores are, through time, supposed to keep essentials in stock. 

Monster stuff: The complety updated info is only in the DMG errata, as far as i know. (thats what I am using).


----------



## Solvarn (Nov 15, 2010)

*Cavalier*

I'm running a cavalier of sacrifice in a new campaign we've just started and I like it. The mage seems appealing to me also.

The Red Box was rubbish. The Essentials books I feel just the opposite about, they have exceeded my expectations. I like the design philosophy behind them.


----------



## UnknownAtThisTime (Nov 15, 2010)

Solvarn said:


> The Red Box was rubbish.




I think for 13 bucks (amazon for example) calling a product like the red box "rubbish" is really harsh.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 16, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I've noticed all the Essentials threads on here and I am wondering how many of us are still playing ordinary 4th Ed with no intention of going over.



My gaming group is sticking with 4e.  Part of the reason is that several of them are only just getting into it.  There's so much material we haven't even touched yet that it'll be years before we notice the 'lack of support.'  

Personally, I haven't been sold on Essentials, and have yet to buy any Essentials books.  I am trying it out at D&D Encounters, though, and it's not as bad as 3.5 or Spawn of Fashan or anything like that.  It just hasn't got anything going for it over 4e except power inflation (which I don't tend to care for in the first place), and retro-apeal (which I get by actually playing older games now and then).  Once post-Essentials has slogged through the re-print phase, I might consider picking up any genuinely-new material produced.  If it doesn't suck, and wouldn't be imbalancing in a 4e game.  Which, given the power inflation of Essentials, seems pretty darn unlikely.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 16, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Personally, I haven't been sold on Essentials, and have yet to buy any Essentials books.  I am trying it out at D&D Encounters, though, and it's not as bad as 3.5 or Spawn of Fashan or anything like that.  It just hasn't got anything going for it over 4e except power inflation (which I don't tend to care for in the first place), and retro-apeal (which I get by actually playing older games now and then).  Once post-Essentials has slogged through the re-print phase, I might consider picking up any genuinely-new material produced.  If it doesn't suck, and wouldn't be imbalancing in a 4e game.  Which, given the power inflation of Essentials, seems pretty darn unlikely.



Note that this also might warrant a different thread, but I'm wondering what you feel has so much power inflation in Essentials that it makes it actually imbalancing when compared to the rest of the game. The new builds? The new feats?


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Asking "Who is switching to/avoiding switching to Essentials?" is about the same as asking, "Who is switching to/not switching to Martial Power?"




Were there more (rules) changes between 3.0 and 3.5 or between 4e and Essentials?

And you can argue hat 3.5 was no new addition, as it was advertised as 90% compatible with the old splat books (the Forgotten Realms Setting, for example, got no 3.5 version, but the changes were included in the FR Player's Handbook).

So, was it back then ok to ask if one switched to 3.5 or not?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 16, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Were there more (rules) changes between 3.0 and 3.5 or between 4e and Essentials?
> 
> And you can argue hat 3.5 was no new addition, as it was advertised as 90% compatible with the old splat books (the Forgotten Realms Setting, for example, got no 3.5 version, but the changes were included in the FR Player's Handbook).
> 
> So, was it back then ok to ask if one switched to 3.5 or not?



Not to drag out this debate again, but besides some general rules revisions, most of Essentials didn't change the existing classes, powers, feats, or any game-central systems nearly as much as the 3.0->3.5 transition. The only real exception I can see is the change to the Rogue's sneak attack, some changes to existing defense-boosting feats so they don't suck in comparison to the Essentials ones, and updates to a bunch of existing Wizard powers. If I'm missing any, feel free to point them out.

The reasons behind these changes are sometimes obvious, sometimes not. I reckon Sneak Attack got changed to eliminate the need for having to remember whether your rogue/thief dealt sneak attack damage yet that round. The reason Warlocks and Rangers don't follow suit, is that the Essentials versions use different striker mechanics, so they're not updated. This may or may not change when they re-release the other classes in Essentials format early next year. I already mentioned why the defense feats were changed. As to the changes to Wizard powers: I have no real clue, yet. Maybe miss effects will become a controller shtick? We'll see.

However, none of the classes suddenly had a different number of skills or HP allotment (among others, ranger + bard in 3.5), there were no changes to the vulnerability mechanics any more than they already changed with the rest of the updates (compared to DR changes in 3.5), etc. The difference may be subtle to some, but I believe it's there. 

And seriously, it can be argued that with the constant stream of updates/errata, 4.5 has come and gone, along with 4.1, 4.2,... since every rules update ever has changed some aspect of the game. 

Comparing the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 to Essentials makes no sense, either way: either the updates don't count as enough of a revision to warrant this comparison, but then Essentials doesn't either, since it changes no more core mechanics than the updates did; or the updates already did enough to warrant this comparison, in which case the question is: why all the noise over the changes in Essentials?


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

4e and essentials is all the same rules.  It's all 4e.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2010)

Classes that can suddenly fill other roles:
Fighter, Ranger, Druid

Multi power source classes!

Multi role classes!

Different starting proficiencies (cleric vs warpriest)

---

Add all the slow changes they made in preparation of essentials (like many people pointed out they made in 3.5 with sourcebooks like 'Tome of Battle'), like being able to choose between race ability bonuses.

Yes, many things are listed as options, but like many of the new feats, showing a better, more supported option (nerf to the feat that allows to change the ability used for melee basic attacks -> new classes get it as class ability; new expertise feats) is also a slow replacement.
See also the fluff support between standard infernal warlocks and infernal hexblades with their 'iconic' race: The new tiefling can get 'perfect' stats for the essential variant, but not the old 4e.

And I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with people who treat other like being dumb for comparing essentials with a revised edition. It is to similar.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2010)

Raikun said:


> 4e and essentials is all the same rules.  It's all 4e.



Runequest 2 is the same as Call of Cthulhu, because both are based on the BRP rules?

And no, when I look in my hardcover 4e Player's handbook, it seems different to the Heroes of the Fallen lands book. 'Errating' older books to a new version is IMHO a revision.


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

The 4e PHB with current errata = essentials with current errata.  It's all the same rules, the 4e PHB is simply out of date.

That's why the new Rules Compendium rocks right now even if you don't use any other essentials stuff - it's all the original 4e rules brought up to date.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2010)

Raikun said:


> The 4e PHB with current errata = essentials with current errata.  It's all the same rules, the 4e PHB is simply out of date.
> 
> That's why the new Rules Compendium rocks right now even if you don't use any other essentials stuff - it's all the original 4e rules brought up to date.




You know why companies do revised and new editions... because the old product was out of date...

And the new Rules Compendium will 'rock' for 3-4 months. Then were will be errata for it. If you want to stay current and say you use the old, but errated rules, you need DDI.

(Sarcasm, don't take serious: Look, it is still D&D 1st! Fighter, cleric, str, wis... magic missle all there! Nice they got the rules errated.)

What is the difference between RPG editions that don't change the background? More current and updated rules.

And I'm not saying 'Essentials is 5e!'.

It is more like Diablo 2 plus LoD than Diablo 3.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 16, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Classes that can suddenly fill other roles:
> Fighter, Ranger, Druid



Eh. That doesn't change existing rangers, druids, or fighters in any way, shape, or form. Yeah, they added new builds for these classes that actually fill different roles. But that still falls under options, not changing the existing gameplay.



Walking Dad said:


> Multi power source classes!
> 
> Multi role classes!



I'll give you these, but it's not like these are OMG things. It opens up some options for the new builds (like taking Second Skin for Something | Primal classes), but beyond that... eh. Power Sources mostly function as window dressing, anyway.



Walking Dad said:


> Different starting proficiencies (cleric vs warpriest)



Different proficiencies for different builds is nothing new. The Warlord can give up certain proficiencies for Archer Warlord, the Fighter has the Arena Training (more proficiencies) option, and Ruthless Ruffian rogues gain mace and club proficiencies (and sneak attack).

In other words, nothing new.



Walking Dad said:


> Add all the slow changes they made in preparation of essentials (like many people pointed out they made in 3.5 with sourcebooks like 'Tome of Battle'), like being able to choose between race ability bonuses.



I had missed the ability score changes, but to say these were made 'in preparation for' Essentials is slightly disingenuous. The first versatile stats were those of the Changeling, introduced way back in the EPG.

Also, note that all these changes made sure that the old stat arrays were still perfectly legal, meaning that while some of your old characters might not have optimal choices anymore (Elven Wizards, Dwarven Fighters, etc.), they still work.



Walking Dad said:


> Yes, many things are listed as options, but like many of the new feats, showing a better, more supported option (nerf to the feat that allows to change the ability used for melee basic attacks -> new classes get it as class ability; new expertise feats) is also a slow replacement.



The nerf to Melee Training is because of the Knight and the Slayer, so they couldn't take one feat to drastically change their class balance. The Thief and the Scout do not have this problem, since they were build with Dexterity as primary statistic in mind (neither adds it as a static bonus to damage rolls, for instance).



Walking Dad said:


> See also the fluff support between standard infernal warlocks and infernal hexblades with their 'iconic' race: The new tiefling can get 'perfect' stats for the essential variant, but not the old 4e.



While I, too, would've liked to see an Int/Con race, and the Tiefling looked like a good fit, they already have the feat support to be very capable Infernal Warlocks, and refitting the Warlock to a class with one single central attribute is much better from a design standpoint.



Walking Dad said:


> And I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with people who treat other like being dumb for comparing essentials with a revised edition. It is to similar.



I disagree. I think the idea of '4.X' edition is, to state it lamely, 'so last decade'. With the constant stream of updates and errata, the rules are almost in a permanent state of flux, albeit with a rather stable central core. If Essentials is 4.5, then every update from release date until now was some version of 4.XY, with X < 5.

Whether or not you like this constant change, is of course entirely up to you.

EDIT: Addition: 







Walking Dad said:


> It is more like Diablo 2 plus LoD than Diablo 3.



For some reason, I actually really like this comparison. LoD followed a stream of patches that fixed bugs, and while it fixed more bugs by itself, but provided mostly added options and possibilities that don't invalidate old characters. Well done .


----------



## Zaran (Nov 16, 2010)

I have bought the DM Kit, the Rules Compendium, and the Monster Kit.  I will not buy the character books.  Everything I have seen about them besides maybe the Wizard makes me believe that they will quickly become boring.   Having daily and encounter powers changes up the action.   I admit that some features in eClasses seem interesting but until I can mix them with my cClasses I will not be using them.  

I do believe that Essentials is not compatible.  When I see an article in Dragon for a Paladin build and CAN'T use it for my cPaladin I have a problem.  The fact that Cavaliers get powers at a different time than other Paladins make them use a different set of rules.  Sure they still roll a d20 but Mutants and Masterminds rolls a d20 too.  Yes, I know that there will be some book created that allows us to switch between the versions.  That's what Revised editions do.  They give us conversion rules.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 16, 2010)

Dude... this argument is so last month!

Guys c'mon we only have like 3 hours left to argue about the new character builder ruining everything, why are we wasting time arguing about whether Essentials is 4.5 or not?


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I
> I do believe that Essentials is not compatible.  When I see an article in Dragon for a Paladin build and CAN'T use it for my cPaladin I have a problem.




That doesn't make Essentials "Not compatible";  there's a Soreror article this month that is pretty equally non-usable for my present Sorceror.    Being compatible doesn't mean that every build has to have all their features apply to every other build.

Hell, there are Ranger paragon paths in the PHB1 that are only allowed if you play a specific type of Ranger...does that make PHB1 incompatible with itself?


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Y
> And I'm not saying 'Essentials is 5e!'.
> 
> It is more like Diablo 2 plus LoD than Diablo 3.




I agree, except I'd also add that the analogy equally applies to Martial Power, PHB2, PHB3, etc.

They all add to the game in the same way, and can be mixed and matched depending on what you want.

It's all part of the same game, with the same rules.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2010)

Lord Ernie said:


> ...
> 
> I disagree. I think the idea of '4.X' edition is, to state it lamely, 'so last decade'. With the constant stream of updates and errata, the rules are almost in a permanent state of flux, albeit with a rather stable central core. If Essentials is 4.5, then every update from release date until now was some version of 4.XY, with X < 5.
> 
> ...



My sentiments exactly. I'm only saying that a constant stream of updates will change the subject to something else with time. 'Italian' is updated 'Latin', but both are recognized as different languages. Not that this mattered for their users.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 16, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Classes that can suddenly fill other roles:
> Fighter, Ranger, Druid
> 
> Multi power source classes!
> ...




If you were playing a halfing and you changed from 3 to 3.5, your weapon sizes changed. If you were a ranger, your HP changed. Etc.

If you were playing a fighter, unless you build a NEW fighter from the ground up, the fact that another version of the fighter can be a striker doesn't effect you any more than a PHB1 fighter might be envious of the battlerager from Martial Power.

All the things at the start have no impact on existing content. Those are new areas of design space that have opened up. Just like the addition of psionics which go a different direction as far as encounter powers are concerned, Essentials opens up new avenues of design space.

With 3.5 the old classes were themselves changed. With Essentials, the old classes were given new builds. Those new builds are, in some cases, radically different from existing builds. They do not, however, REPLACE the old builds. If you play 4e, with the Essential rules, outside of some powers being errata'd for wizards, and access to some new uility powers and feats ... they old classes are still the same. Ditto with races. Yes, you now have more options with the races, but the original versions are still valid, they just happen to be one way to build a character of that race, not one of many.

The reason people say addition not revision is that 3.5 took the existing content and updated it, making the old version no longer valid. Essentials adds new content, some of it very different, but outside of some powers being errata'd, and the change to sneak attack, etc, the old stuff is still valid. The PHB classes were not replaced by the Essential builds anymore than they were replaced by Martial Power builds.

There are legitimate questions that some people raise, such as whether or not there will be support for pre-Essential stuff going forward. Will the fighter, for example, ever get new encounter and daily powers to support their older builds, or will all new content be tinted by the lens of the Essentials mindset. However, the old content, even if it is not directly supported going forward, is still core to 4e and part of the post-Essentials game system. It hasn't been overwritten by 'fixed' versions of the classes, it has been complimented by more variations of the same class. Now, because of each build having different "parts", some of the old feats and the like are not compatible with the new builds ... then again, there has been build specific feats for a while now, that is nothing new.

The biggest "problem", from my point of view is that many of the Essential classes are not compatible (at the moment) with hybrid or multiclassing. However, it seems that the upcoming book which reprints the original builds for the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord and Wizard will also contain that information.


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> My sentiments exactly. I'm only saying that a constant stream of updates will change the subject to something else with time. 'Italian' is updated 'Latin', but both are recognized as different languages. Not that this mattered for their users.




That may be the case, but that's an entirely different topic than Essentials, seeing as the rules updates have been happening and would continue to happen whether or not Essentials existed.


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

WalterKovacs said:


> The biggest "problem", from my point of view is that many of the Essential classes are not compatible (at the moment) with hybrid or multiclassing. However, it seems that the upcoming book which reprints the original builds for the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord and Wizard will also contain that information.




For that matter, I've never thought that every class and build should be 100% multiclass-able with everything else.  I like the idea of having some classes be different enough with their own set of quirks that make them stand separate from the rest, and options like that have existed in some form ever since the PHB1, so I don't see why there should be outcry over Essentials continuing and expanding that trend.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 16, 2010)

Raikun said:


> That may be the case, but that's an entirely different topic than Essentials, seeing as the rules updates have been happening and would continue to happen whether or not Essentials existed.



I'd argue, though, that we wouldn't have seen several of the large-scope updates if they didn't have worked on the Essentials product line.

WotC knew they'd get away with such widespread errata because they had 'new' products available that would include them all. People were already starting to complain about the size of the Rules Updates document well before the arrival of Essentials.

Since we now have Essentials they've in effect rebooted the rules and the errata train is ready to move forward again.

If they continued to update the game at the same rate, we'll see the next product update line two years from now. Let's call it 'Ultimate D&D'. And they'll say something like this:

"The new Ultimate product line is fully compatible with 4e and Essentials. It's intended to replace Essentials as the recommended entry point into D&D 4e for new players and incorporate all of the rules updates to date. If you already own 4e or Essentials products you can of course continue to use them but you may still be interested in getting Ultimate D&D because it includes new builds, feats, themes, backgrounds, and a ton of exciting new options for your favorite classes and races."


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 16, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> My sentiments exactly. I'm only saying that a constant stream of updates will change the subject to something else with time. 'Italian' is updated 'Latin', but both are recognized as different languages. Not that this mattered for their users.




True, however it took a long time. It wasn't simply a matter of new words being added to the language, but the loss and replacement of old words/pronunciations/etc. The English language is constantly getting yearly patches with slang words (house rules?) becoming official, but we are yet to declare it English.5 It's obviously barely compatible with Ye Olde Englyshe and the like which predated widespread literacy and the printing press.

I see it like people. If you see them everyday, you won't really notice the slow changes that occur over time. However, if it was say an old friend you run into again at the tenth school reunion, you may be shocked at how different they look.

If you have been playing 4e regularly, Essentials is just another small change to things. If you haven't looked at 4e since day one, it's a radical change ... but since you haven't been looking at 4e, or you've been playing with just the first core books and nothing else ... it seems kind of moot. You were happy ignoring the changes that were going on [either because you weren't playing at all, or didn't feel the need to add to your existing game], why the change of heart? Either you gave up on 4e initialy (in which case, you likely wanted something different, in which case at 4e has changed since then).

Putting a stamp on "it's different now" is sort of a moot point. Every single edition has put out new content over time which adds to the game, and occaisionally, especially with the internet making it easier, issue errata to fix problems. There have been revised editions, ones that basically took a lot of errata and dropped it in a single chunk, making most older content out of date as a result. Because of the internet, 4e has been able to release it's errata over time instead of a single chunk. So, while the 4e may now be a possition where it is as different from where it started as 3 was from 3.5, the comparison is still wrong.

3.5 obsoleted the 3.0 material, and what happened afterwards was a reprinting of most of the old content so that it was compatible with 3.5. With Essentials, while the game around it may have been errata'd to the point of being a new game, Essentials itself has still releasing new content while allowing the old content to continue to exist, not "it can be jury rigged to fit until we issue the official reprint using the updated rules". It may be simply a matter of technology catching up with the goals of 3.5, but it's a lot cheaper to get the errata for free than to have to buy the same book twice to get the rules updates.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 16, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> "The new Ultimate product line is fully compatible with 4e and Essentials. It's intended to replace Essentials as the recommended entry point into D&D 4e for new players and incorporate all of the rules updates to date. If you already own 4e or Essentials products you can of course continue to use them but you may still be interested in getting Ultimate D&D because it includes new builds, feats, themes, backgrounds, and a ton of exciting new options for your favorite classes and races."




So long as it's as easily slotted into the existing game as essentials is, I'd be totally down for this! 

Wooot Ultimate Line!


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I'd argue, though, that we wouldn't have seen several of the large-scope updates if they didn't have worked on the Essentials product line.




I just don't see it.  The "Essentials" name is just for marketing...I quite believe that without that marketing attempt, the rules would still be the same as they are now, and instead of HotFL we'd have a PHB4, etc.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Nov 16, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to 4E from SW saga, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in 4E, and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?



Same here. Everyone in my group likes daily/encounter powers, so why pay for a splatbook full of inferior classes? It's like Complete Warrior all over again! 

If somebody really wanted to play an essentials class, I'd take a look at that class. But as of now, I'm completely disinterested in Essentials, with the exception of Essentialized racial boosts--I wish WotC would just get on with it, and Essentialize all of them!


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

Fortunately, it seems there are a lot of classes in Essentials that have Daily powers, and all of them have Encounter powers. =)  (Some of the Daily powers for the Cavalier in HotFK are pretty sick for instance.)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Nov 16, 2010)

Well, I think the majority of the rules updates that we see in Essentials are things we'd have seen anyway, yes. The rehashing of existing class concepts with somewhat reworked mechanics? I doubt they would have done that in a PHB4. Honestly I think what they had left in the existing design space for new classes was pretty niche anyway. They may well have been planning something like a Heroes of Shadow type supplement to introduce the obvious ones, but it is hard to see it all amounting to a book so core and so extensive that it required being a PHB. Especially when the classes would be such niche concepts for D&D. 

Basically I think half the reason we HAVE Essentials is they just didn't have that much more material that would have really wide appeal in the existing format. Notice too that at least for some of the Essentials classes they DID kind of slant things in the direction of what holes there still are in 4e generally, like with the hexblade style eWarlock. On the whole I don't think you can speculate much on what 4e would have done without Essentials. All we'd have been likely to see going forward would have been 'options' type stuff and the basic rules updates. There are only so many PHBs etc you can churn out before there's nobody that needs more classes built to the same design. Heck, 1e got by on 8 classes for most of its entire run and that was plenty.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 16, 2010)

WalterKovacs said:


> ...
> 
> 3.5 obsoleted the 3.0 material, and what happened afterwards was a reprinting of most of the old content so that it was compatible with 3.5. With Essentials, while the game around it may have been errata'd to the point of being a new game, Essentials itself has still releasing new content while allowing the old content to continue to exist, not "it can be jury rigged to fit until we issue the official reprint using the updated rules". It may be simply a matter of technology catching up with the goals of 3.5, but it's a lot cheaper to get the errata for free than to have to buy the same book twice to get the rules updates.




Good point, but what about the weaponmaster? Will he not replace the PH1 fighter? Is he not a reprint?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 16, 2010)

Lord Ernie said:


> Note that this also might warrant a different thread, but I'm wondering what you feel has so much power inflation in Essentials that it makes it actually imbalancing when compared to the rest of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes.  The old feat taxes are even more must-have, and the new builds look pretty tough on paper - and the one I've gotten to try more than once, the Knight, has definitely taken some steroids compared to the 4e fighter (mark punishment per turn instead of per round, and that mark punishment OA is like Reaping Strike (damage on a miss) combined with another at-will (like Tide of Iron if you're in Hammer Hands stance, for instance) that's really something).




WalterKovacs said:


> If you were playing a halfing and you changed from 3 to 3.5, your weapon sizes changed. If you were a ranger, your HP changed. Etc.



Sure, and if you're playing a 4e halfling with a rapier and melee training, you're suddenly up a feat (the rapier is no longer superior) but down damage (melee training nerf).  If you're a Wizard, some of your spells changed and a couple of your rituals (the magic-time related ones) no longer work the same.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 16, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes. The old feat taxes are even more must-have, and the new builds look pretty tough on paper - and the one I've gotten to try more than once, the Knight, has definitely taken some steroids compared to the 4e fighter (mark punishment per turn instead of per round, and that mark punishment OA is like Reaping Strike (damage on a miss) combined with another at-will (like Tide of Iron if you're in Hammer Hands stance, for instance) that's really something).




Yeah, having played the Knight in Encounters, I'm actually pretty impressed, they're tough.  He does more slaying than the Slayer.


----------



## Terramotus (Nov 16, 2010)

I'm avoiding it, and in fact I've banned Essentials material.  I don't care whether or not it's "all 4e".  It still majorly changes the feel of the characters.  Everything that Essentials changes in the classes is a step back from what made 4E an improvement over 3.xE.

Classes with no decisions to make about resource expenditure are boring.  4E actually convinced me that it could be fun to play "martial" characters, and now Essentials wants to take that away with new characters?  No thanks.  I've read over Essentials, and while there are some interesting ideas that would have been cool to add to core 4E, for the most part they're just boring.

I also think the product release was misguided.  There's no point in courting Grognards - they're seldom going to be happy no matter what you do, because any new product can only be a pale imitation of their favorite edition.  For people new to D&D, Essentials is still complicated.  I don't see it being that much easier to a reasonable intelligent person.  And I don't care to play with people who aren't reasonably intelligent.

Also, offsized softcover books suck.

End Rant


----------



## Raikun (Nov 16, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> Classes with no decisions to make about resource expenditure are boring.  4E actually convinced me that it could be fun to play "martial" characters, and now Essentials wants to take that away with new characters?  No thanks.  I've read over Essentials, and while there are some interesting ideas that would have been cool to add to core 4E, for the most part they're just boring.




Except, resource management is part of classes in Essentials just like in non-Essentials.  Classes like the Slayer/Knight with only some Encounter powers are the minority it seems; Daily powers are very much a part of Essentials.

And yes, there were some cool ideas, I'm glad Essentials did add them to core 4e.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 16, 2010)

Terramotus said:


> Classes with no decisions to make about resource expenditure are boring. 4E actually convinced me that it could be fun to play "martial" characters, and now Essentials wants to take that away with new characters? No thanks. I've read over Essentials, and while there are some interesting ideas that would have been cool to add to core 4E, for the most part they're just boring.



I play the Knight in encounters, and I gotta say, it's NOT resource short.  The resources are just different.  Yes, I will mainly be "basic melee" attacking every attack, but I have different stances to pick from, which make a huge difference in what happens WHEN I hit.  I also have different "auras" that add to that effect.  

Yeah, I may not have the "Push 'em one square" attack, but I have a stance that makes every attack do this.  

It's not resource short, the resources are just different.


----------



## Stormtower (Nov 17, 2010)

My group and I are avoiding Essentials.  The apparent lack of support for "legacy" 4E (i.e. 2007-Aug. 2010 edition) going forward in Essentials and the stupidity of the new online CB were the last straws.

I am happily preparing my first Pathfinder campaign after spending 2007 thru 2010 supporting both 3.5/OGL and 4E.  We're leaving 4E and Wizards of the Coast behind entirely when our "legacy" 4E campaign concludes in the next few weeks.

So long, Dungeons & Dragons Brand.  You've been a good pal since 1982 when we first met.  In my opinion -- and that's all it is, haters -- the soul of D&D lives on in the OGL and Pathfinder. 

I'm no edition warrior, so save your flames.  I've run 4E at the last three GenCons, since it was launched (LFR in 2008-09, D&D Open Championship this year 2010).  Done now, and going happily to join the other grognards in the back of the room with my Trailblazer, Pathfinder, and other 3.5-based OGL stuff to tinker and create stuff in my game system of choice.

I hope Essentials works out for those of you sticking with the 4E/WotC line, and that they eventually squash the myriad bugs from CB, which had become quite a useful little application until the re-launch today.  

Whatever game you play, remember that if we want our TTRPG hobby to survive, we must enthusiastically recruit younger gamers and especially younger potential GMs.  Regardless of system, without new GM blood our hobby will fade.


----------



## TheHand (Nov 17, 2010)

While I really liked the tidiness of the new Rules Compendium (and picked up a copy), our group didn't much appeal from the Essentials classes. Some of my players were even a little annoyed that the new classes didn't follow the previously established 4E At-Will/Encounter/Daily architecture.

However, I haven't "banned" the materials in my games. If someone came to my table really wanting to play an Essentials class I wouldn't stop 'em, but we're not going out of our way to grab the books.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 17, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Good point, but what about the weaponmaster? Will he not replace the PH1 fighter? Is he not a reprint?




From what was shown in the preview section, it is a reprint. But it's not a replacement, because it is reprinting the exact build information from PHB1. You would still be able to use your original PHB to build that fighter, but for new players who already have the Rules Compendium and the Heroes of the Fallen Lands, they don't need to buy the PHB, which will have redundant rules info (some of which is out of date) in order to play this version of the fighter, they can instead by the new book. Now, I don't know how many powers are being reprinted, but the weaponmaster build is the same build you find in PHB1. It's a reprint of the original fighter, not a replacement.

A replacement, for example, would be the new assassin article posted today which replaces the original "playtest" version of the Essential assassin. The old version is no longer considered legal for play (when the new assassin is added to the character builder, which is the approach for most organized play, each group decides how to implement their own changes).


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 17, 2010)

I was answering to this:



> Originally Posted by WalterKovacs
> ...
> 
> 3.5 obsoleted the 3.0 material, and what happened afterwards was a reprinting of most of the old content so that it was compatible with 3.5.
> ...




Where he declared reprinting as a sign of a 'new' edition. And the weaponmaster replaces the 'fighter without conversion document / errata'.

They called it themselves 'Changes coming with Essentials' and then put it into the Compiled errata.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2010)

It seems my adoption of Essentials material will take some extra time, since the new character builder disappoints me. But in theory, I think I'll use material, if I like it, like usual. It's just like PHB III. Some stuff I might use, some stuff I might not.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 17, 2010)

Stormtower said:


> My group and I are avoiding Essentials.  The apparent lack of support for "legacy" 4E (i.e. 2007-Aug. 2010 edition) going forward in Essentials and the stupidity of the new online CB were the last straws.
> 
> I am happily preparing my first Pathfinder campaign after spending 2007 thru 2010 supporting both 3.5/OGL and 4E.  We're leaving 4E and Wizards of the Coast behind entirely when our "legacy" 4E campaign concludes in the next few weeks.



While I dislike most of the Essentials stuff, going back to Pathfinder/3.5 is not something I would ever contemplate.

I'll just freeze my "legacy 4e" material and maybe add the occasional option I happen to like in forthcoming products. The only problem: I basically cannot use a character builder any more. I think, I'll survive it.


----------



## nerfherder (Nov 17, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I've noticed all the Essentials threads on here and I am wondering how many of us are still playing ordinary 4th Ed with no intention of going over.



I play a mix of games and currently my players are only part way through H2.  4e straight from the original 3 books (plus some of the power books I bought) seems to work fine for us.  I bought a 1 month DDI subscription about 6 months back and downloaded the original CB & content.  We will use that and the books we currently own for our game.  Our ruleset is now fixed (barring houserules).  No need for us to buy Essentials, and keep applying errata.

We also stuck with 3e for years after 3.5 was available.


----------



## igniz13 (Nov 17, 2010)

Some threads and arguements should simply be ignored because their premise is so obviously maligned from the truth and essentially nonsense.


----------



## nerfherder (Nov 17, 2010)

igniz13 said:


> Some threads and arguements should simply be ignored because their premise is so obviously maligned from the truth and essentially nonsense.




True.  I make a point of not posting in them.


----------



## babinro (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm interested in the Heroes books for further options on classes.  However, I'm not set on a purchase yet.  It feels incomplete in terms of options.  

It is quite possible that I'll be done with purchasing 4e books going forward.  However, the material released prior to Essentials should give me years of fun gameplay so long as those around me continue to show interest.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 17, 2010)

igniz13 said:


> Some threads and arguements should simply be ignored because their premise is so obviously maligned from the truth and *essential*ly nonsense.




_Bolded by me._


Nice wordplay. Any relevance to this thread?


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 17, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Nice wordplay. Any relevance to this thread?



Nah, of course not - because I never post in such threads, either


----------



## UnknownAtThisTime (Nov 17, 2010)

Message Deleted


----------



## Xyrlove Woodsoul (Nov 21, 2010)

I was very skeptical of Essentials at first, but a lot of the feats and powers have been "fixed" in Essentials; so our group just reconfigured their charaters with some of the new feats and powers. I agree that Essentials and regular 4ed are one in the same, especially, in that the defense and expertise feats continue to be feat taxes (ha), and for someone who frequents the optimization boards a lot I notice that most of the Essential and HotFL stuff is rated much higher than the normal 4ed stuff- Almost all of it. I also notice that some of the erratta that I've been using is actually rules in Essentials. So that's a little confusing. In all, I tool box things; I use some Essential feats and some of the powers. I really don't like the classes in Essentials though. Many of them seem too arcade-like, or something, to me- they don't give me the DnD "vibe."; and yet, some do intrigue me, like the martial Assassin and the Enchanter. I see Essentials as a more casual thing than normal 4ed. I don't think there is a compatability issue, but i do notice that the tone of the two are not the same. Sort of like the difference between golf, and put-put golf. Both are cool. One is just more complex than the other.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 21, 2010)

Against my better judgement(and current funds) I picked up Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms today.  I gotta say, it's not bad.  It's well written, a little more portable due to the smaller size, and some of the changes are good.  I would still use it as a variant, not a replacement for the existing material though.


----------



## bbbmmmlll (Nov 21, 2010)

Against my better judgement I bought three of the Essentials books. I think I spent about 20 minutes looking at each and for the most part I couldn't find anything that was useful or interesting. Mostly lots of duplicate information from the 4E books. The new classes were lackluster. Maybe they are helpful for first time players, but is a level one 4E character that difficult to make and play? One of my players has the rules book and we found it difficult to look up information. I'm also not a fan of the smaller format. I like to lay my books open, especially the monster books, and this format doesn't lend itself to this. The tokens are nice, but we have a ton of minis.

I think I'm done with DnD. The new CB changes and the Essentials mess rubbed me the wrong way by making the game more work, forcing me to deal with two rule sets and strongly encouraging me to pay to play. I abruptly ended my campaign last Thursday. Players had advanced from 1st to 17th. I'm playing in a game and once it ends I'm done.

I happily embraced 3.5 and 4E, but sadly Essentials just doesn't improve the game for me.


----------



## Votan (Nov 21, 2010)

babinro said:


> I'm interested in the Heroes books for further options on classes.  However, I'm not set on a purchase yet.  It feels incomplete in terms of options.
> 
> It is quite possible that I'll be done with purchasing 4e books going forward.  However, the material released prior to Essentials should give me years of fun gameplay so long as those around me continue to show interest.




I kind of go the opposite way; 4E was rapidly feeling like it was too complicated in character construction for me (feats, powers, classes).  Options are good but they can be overwhelming when you try to apply them all.  So I liked the essentials approach to classes.  I was also favorably impressed with the fluff in the book -- the people who wrote it obviously want to give new players hooks to try and integrate role-playing into their sessions.  

They were very good books (and, before I bought them, I really wanted to dislike them).


----------



## ourchair (Nov 22, 2010)

Katana_Geldar said:


> I've noticed all the Essentials threads on here and I am wondering how many of us are still playing ordinary 4th Ed with no intention of going over.
> 
> I don't, and no one in my group does. We came to 4E from SW saga, a natural step. We've also invested quite a bit of time and $$$$ in 4E, and see no reason not to continue with things as they are. And we're also in the middle of a big campaign, why change horses midstream?
> 
> 4E is not something we are *completely* satisfied with, particularly those of us who have played older editions, so all these changes seem a little...much.



I don't see Essentials as something distinct from 4th Edition, since as far as I as a DM am concerned, it just means my players have the option of using different classes.

Oh sure, they're introducing concepts like magic item rarity, random treasure parcels, various changes to basic DCs and new floating modifiers to race stats and new feats. 

But otherwise, the way I run my game hasn't changed (I still don't follow the parcel system, I don't make use of rarities and skill DCs are higher than recommended) so it's really a non-issue for me.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 22, 2010)

ourchair said:


> ...
> 
> Oh sure, they're introducing concepts like magic item rarity, random treasure parcels, various changes to basic DCs and new floating modifiers to race stats and new feats.
> 
> But otherwise, the way I run my game hasn't changed (I still don't follow the parcel system, I don't make use of rarities and skill DCs are higher than recommended) so it's really a non-issue for me.




Yes it isn't more different than Pathfinder from D&D 3.5...


----------



## ourchair (Nov 23, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Yes it isn't more different than Pathfinder from D&D 3.5...



I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. 

But regardless, Pathfinder isn't much different from 3.5 and IS different from 3.5. 

For one thing, because of the class-based design of 3.5, where the base operational mechanics differ between one another,  (as opposed to the 'unified assumptions, multiple exceptions' design of 4th edition... Pathfinder's changes actually implement a lot of differences. Simply put, Pathfinder effects a great number of changes in such a manner that it IS more different from 3.5 than Essentials is from 4th Edition.

However, in terms of design philosophy and play assumptions, the proportion by which the game is simulationist or gamist, and the various subsystems itr maintains, Pathfinder is 3.5 in spirit.


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 23, 2010)

ourchair said:


> I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.
> ...



Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).

P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.
4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.

P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).
4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.

P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.
 4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.

...


----------



## FireLance (Nov 23, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).



Frankly, I'm not familiar with the Pathfinder system, but in all the examples below, Essentials wouldn't change anything about an existing character.



> P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.
> 4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.



If you created your dwarf fighter in "classic" 4E, you would have got bonuses to Constitution and Wisdom. If you create an Essentials dwarf fighter, you might want to give him a bonus to Strength instead of Wisdom, but a dwarf fighter with bonuses to Constitution and Wisdom is still a "legal" character.



> P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).
> 4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.



Technically, the Essentials Hexblade is a new Charisma-primary build for the warlock, but not all warlocks are Charisma-based because the "classic" 4E warlock builds still exist.  If you are currently playing a "classic" 4E warlock, nothing about the Hexblade requires you to make changes to your character, although if you wanted to, you could choose one or more of the new warlock powers introduced in Essentials (those that are not Hexblade-specific, of course). This is the kind of thing that happens all the time in supplements.



> P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.
> 4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.



Again, this is the kind of thing that happens ... okay, maybe not all the time, but occasionally in supplements. You get a new spell, feat, power or whatever that works better than something similar that has come out before. At least 4E has retraining rules that allow you to replace the old game element with the new one.

Now, it could be argued that Essentials prompted certain revisions such as the change to Melee Training. However, because such changes are also presented as errata, an Essentials game and a "classic" 4E game with the latest errata are effectively running on the same game system.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Nov 23, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).
> 
> P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.
> 4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.
> ...



Except your second and third points are, again, addtions. They didn't change the old Warlock, they just made a new variant that uses Cha as primary statistic; likewise, they didn't remove the old expertise feats, they made new ones that are indeed a lot better - you may say that is in effect replacing them, and you may be right, but an old character with that feat isn't suddenly illegal. Likewise, existing classes were not changed; old characters don't suddenly have their total HP change, their class mechanics change, or their skills remodeled.

You keep saying "Essentials rules changes" when talking about new material (which is not changing the existing rules), which is really twisting the issue. Yes, there have been rules changes. Continuously so, ever since the first PHB was released. And a lot of those changes improved the game, either fixing stuff that didn't work as intended, or nerfing stuff that was stronger than intended.

Again: Essentials is an addition. There may be rules changes accompanying it, but there have been rules changes since the beginning of 4E, so they are nothing new. You are of course free to diagree with and ignore the changes they've made, much like you every other rules update before Essentials.

EDIT: Ninja'ed, and by a lance, no less. Where are those mounted combat rules?


----------



## Walking Dad (Nov 23, 2010)

Not arguing that 'plain' 4e and essentials work fine together with the errata, but Pathfinder works fine with 3.5 using a shorter document than the current errata (the conversion document).

Pathfinder is IMHO a rules update to 3.5. but adds also some new material. There I see the similarities to the essential line.

Long live D&D, regardless of edition. I play them all and be happy


----------



## avin (Nov 23, 2010)

Probably late on topic: we won't be using Essentials because we'll stick to CB1.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 23, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).
> 
> P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.




Existing character sheet needs to be re-written.



> 4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.




Future characters have more options.  Past ones _might_ want to re-write but most will ignore this change.



> P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).




Existing character sheet needs to be re-written.



> 4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.




Existing characters are entirely unchanged. There's just a new class out there that's pure Cha.



> P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.




Existing character sheets need to be re-written.



> 4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.




Existing character sheets probably _should_ be re-written. Slightly.

Converting mid-campaign to PF would require a re-write. Adding in Essentials can be done without breaking a sweat (I'm having one of my PCs re-written to Essentials because it will suit the player better. This is not going to affect anything else).


----------



## turnip (Nov 23, 2010)

Everyone in my group has spent money and invested time in the core set...I don't think any of us really want to invest in _another_ core set (which is kinda what Essentials is like). 

I would be interested in taking a look at Essentials, but I can't really justify the cost, and I think that 4e core is malleable enough to cover most of what we want to do.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Nov 23, 2010)

avin said:


> Probably late on topic: we won't be using Essentials because we'll stick to CB1.



This.  Unless some enterprising folks find a way to patch it in, we'll probably go with the stuff in the CB prime as the cutoff point for 4e for a while.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Nov 23, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Not arguing that 'plain' 4e and essentials work fine together with the errata, but Pathfinder works fine with 3.5 using a shorter document than the current errata (the conversion document).
> 
> Pathfinder is IMHO a rules update to 3.5. but adds also some new material. There I see the similarities to the essential line.
> 
> Long live D&D, regardless of edition. I play them all and be happy




I think, as NeonChameleon said that the major difference is EXISTING 4e characters are never invalidated by Essentials. In a VERY small number of cases like Melee Training a rules update that coincided with Essentials being released will have an impact on a character sheet, but no player choice once made has ever been invalidated. None of them has really been substantially changed. Worst case a player MAY want to retrain like with the new and improved Expertise and defense feats, but they don't have to and they won't be missing much if they don't bother. I know for instance none of my players has even noticed the existence of better feats in Essentials. They pretty much purely go by CB anyway and rarely care about updates, so they'll probably play happily to the end of the campaign before they make new characters and start using those new feats.

3.0 -> 3.5 -> PF OTOH all require major rewriting. Some things have been removed in both transitions and other things that have a major impact on the character changed. That isn't even to mention any new stuff that was added. Sure, there is a degree of compatibility in both of those transitions, the core structure of the rules is very similar, but they are each different games. Of course PF never claimed to be 3.5, so that's fine, you start playing it you will expect to redo anything and everything potentially. I'm sure the changes to some characters are very small, maybe no more profound than changes you might want to make to a 4e character with the latest updates, but they can also be MUCH larger. You can sorta kinda continue to use 3.5 stuff that doesn't exist in PF, if you squint a little now and then as well, but by the same token you can ignore rules updates in 4e.

Still seems to me that 4e is a lot smaller scale of changes with a lot more compatibility than either of the 3.x series transitions. I can see why some players in some games might not see them as vastly different kinds of things, but others will. I mean taking a high level fighter from 3.5 to PF is basically a total major rewrite of the character for instance. But if you were playing a lower level wizard you might notice only a few changes in spell text that don't matter to you too much.


----------



## Badwe (Nov 23, 2010)

my players almost immediately took feats from essentials when I made it available.  I also plan on using the monster vault in tandem with MM1-MM3 when i start making my own encounters (i primarily run mods because i'm lazy).  In terms of rules changes, we are picking and choosing, specifically with magic items.  Right now the players have a lot of cash and have been able to make what are now "uncommon" magic items with ease thanks to the party artificer.  Switching to essentials rules would leave them with entirely too much cash on hand and nothing to do with it, and some of the magic item rule changes will muck with the artificer's kit.  Therefore, I'll be waiting about a year (my estimate) when i have a planned level jump (from lvl 18 to 25) and in theory i'll switch to the new item rules then.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 23, 2010)

To expand, I think the biggest change to existing characters with Essentials is that Superior Crossbow Rogues have been slapped round the head hard with the nerf bat as they can no longer sneak attack with their +3/1d10 weapon. But to me that was always an exploit along the lines of the Twin Strike Daggermaster Avenger - the reason Rogues got +2d6 sneak attack rather than the +d6 of other strikers was that their weapons were small and concealable rather than greatbows or dual wielded bastard swords. The second biggest I can think of is the change to Melee Training.

Compared to 3 -> 3.5 or 3.5 -> PF that's nothing.


----------



## Herschel (Nov 23, 2010)

Sort of? I'm personally not "using" the character rules, but I allow them in my game.


----------



## Dragon Sin-Camealot (Nov 26, 2010)

I'm getting in my two cents before I buzz off.  100,000 members could clutter the forum space.

I learned the game has been around for a few decades at this time.  I'm pretty sure fighter has been overplayed.  My first character wasn't an essential.


----------



## Jared Rascher (Nov 27, 2010)

I used to play in a 4E game, and I was actually more excited about the game around the time the PH2 came out than I was when the original came out.  The GM suffered serious burnout when the Power books came out, as he had to keep coming up with ways to actually challenge the party, and the game drifted apart.

I was actually kind of interested in playing in an Essentials only game, but strangely, most people in my area have either sworn off of 4E or are staying with the pre-Essentials line.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 27, 2010)

KnightErrantJR said:


> I was actually kind of interested in playing in an Essentials only game, but strangely, most people in my area have either sworn off of 4E or are staying with the pre-Essentials line.




If you've got a LGS, see if they do Encounters.  It's a great way to try out Essentials with no investment other than a little time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 27, 2010)

Simple question: What new classes/variants exist in the Essentials books, and in which books are they found?

I ask because I see all kinds of new builds mentioned on the boards the past few months, and I can't tell what their sources of origin are...and that directly impacts my shopping decisions.


----------



## samursus (Nov 27, 2010)

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] 

Heroes of the Fallen Lands:
Slayer (Fighter Striker)
Knight (Fighter Defender)
Thief (Rogue)
Mage (Wizard w/ 3 variants; Schools of Magic)
Warpriest (Melee Clerics with 3 Domains [1 is in Dragon])

Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms:
Sentinel (Druid Leader w/ Animal Companion)
Hunter (Ranger Controller)
Scout (Ranger Striker?)
Hexblade (Melee Warlocks; Fey & Infernal Pact [Star Pact is in Dragon])
Cavalier (Paladin; 2 flavours based on "Virtues")


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 27, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Simple question: What new classes/variants exist in the Essentials books, and in which books are they found?
> 
> I ask because I see all kinds of new builds mentioned on the boards the past few months, and I can't tell what their sources of origin are...and that directly impacts my shopping decisions.




*Heroes of the Fallen Lands*
Warpriest (Cleric)
Knight (Fighter)
Slayer (Fighter; Striker)
Thief (Rogue)
Mage (Wizard)

*Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms*
Hexblade (Warlock)
Hunter (Ranger; Controller)
Scout (Ranger)
Cavalier (Paladin)
Sentinel (Druid; Leader)

*Dragon Magazine*
Executioner (Assassin)

Dragon Magazine also has some new options for some of these builds.

And there's speculation that the Bladesinger in the upcoming Neverwinter Campaign Guide will be an Essentials-style version of the Swordmage.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 27, 2010)

Thanks for the info!



> [1 is in Dragon]
> _<snip>_
> [Star Pact is in Dragon]



This pisses me off.


----------



## Aegeri (Nov 28, 2010)

You're not the only one.

There is some irony though, because everyone (including myself) whines that Dragon sucks and isn't publishing worthwhile things. When they do publish something pretty great in it everyone complains that it should have been in a book. 

Truly delicious.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 28, 2010)

I get that.

My issue is sliiiightly different- I just have zero desire for electronic media as a consumer (beyond buying software, of course).  Pretty much every PDF I've won or was gifted, all that "Bonus Web Content!", and downloadable extra songs I'd get for just entering a code at some website are unclaimed.

Ah, well- maybe those other classes will show up in a (physical, professionally printed) Dragon annual of some kind.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 28, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Thanks for the info!
> 
> 
> This pisses me off.




It annoys me too. But that is how WOTC is selling 4E. I would prefer that all the base classes be in books, but they are not gonna be, so I'll just live with it. 

It is odd that 6 months ago, I was using probably 80% of content (no FR or E) but that percentage is dropping fast. It is probably 50% now or a bit less.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Nov 28, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> You're not the only one.
> 
> There is some irony though, because everyone (including myself) whines that Dragon sucks and isn't publishing worthwhile things. When they do publish something pretty great in it everyone complains that it should have been in a book.
> 
> Truly delicious.




I don't. I think the material in Dragon has been for the most part quite high quality. FAR FAR higher quality in the 4e days as far as rules stuff goes than it ever was in any previous time period. It is also FAR cheaper in real terms. Honestly, 95% of the Dragon stuff has proven to be just as usable and well thought out as the stuff in physical book form. Where it hasn't it has been hit with errata just like everything else. The nice part about it being there's no book you have to markup, just D/L a new copy of that issue and you have it all. MOST of that stuff doesn't even make it into the errata documents as they always provide a finalized version of each issue within a month or so.

There's really nothing WotC can do or needs to do about some people's absolute hatred of digital media. You can keep buying lots of the physical stuff and that will encourage them to focus on it as a good revenue stream, or not. Happy customers makes a good business but a good business also goes where the market is. If it is better for most of us to have PDFs and whatnot then that's where it will go and nobody needs to get pissed off about it. You either make do with what you can get or find it somewhere else if WotC can't or won't supply it.

Personally I never found Dragon/Dungeon to be the big draw of DDI anyway. There are certainly times when I have cribbed material from them and some of the articles have been quite interesting on things like GMing issues and world building, but the adventures are pretty forgettable. The class and race stuff is usually fine, but I rarely bother to do more than skim it. The stuff will show in Compendium/CB anyway and that's what I use. I think the stuff I've liked the most were articles on mythology and monsters, items, etc. That stuff I can usually at least mine for ideas.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 28, 2010)

Dragon has some good articles. I'm a big lover of the race stuff -- Abyssal Genasi are kickbutt!

I can imagine that Dungeon will have some good articles once they focus on "DM Stuff In General" and less on a mediocre adventure or two. 

But the DDI is hemorrhaging value regardless. Dungeon and Dragon are nice additions, but probably not something worth a subscription on their own.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 28, 2010)

To me, basic additions to the game should be made available to your _whole_ market, not just to those in "The Platinum Club."

Sure, give your DDI subscribers early access, but there's a bunch of us just waiting to buy the next _book_.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Nov 28, 2010)

I have an honest question:

Why _isn't_ Essentials a replacement for pre-existing D&D4?  Or to put it another way, is it really designed to exist in tandem with "core" D&D4 materials?

Will Wizards continue to print the PHBs, MMs, and DMGs?  Will they continue to publish the Powers books?  Will there be future books in these series, or will they be superseded by their Essentials counterparts?  Do we know these things?

I had assumed that Essentials was a _complete_ overhaul of D&D marketing (and to a lesser extent, design), as the combination of HotFL/FK and three PHBs is redundant and confusing.  I had further assumed that Heroes books would replace PHBs and Powers books going forward, and that MV supplements would be replacing MMs.

To that extent I kind of understand the original poster's point; if one does not like the format or theory of the Essentials books, one is kind of hosed.  It's much like not being fond of the Delve format that was introduced late in D&D3.5.  As far as purchasing new books is concerned, anyone who does not like Essentials is not going to have attractive future options.

Or am I completely missing something?


----------



## Henry (Nov 30, 2010)

My gaming group is currently playing 4E Dark Sun, with nary a word of Essentials in sight, but speaking as someone who has played a couple of Essentials characters, I love them and the way they work, and have no problem with them. The main reason our group doesn't play it is because I and another player intro'ed them to 4E prior to the release of Essentials, and they are so far enjoying what they're being exposed to. For some it's not quite as "crunchy" as they usually prefer, but they're enjoying the story and interactions all the same.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 30, 2010)

DMZ2112 said:


> I have an honest question:
> 
> Why _isn't_ Essentials a replacement for pre-existing D&D4?  Or to put it another way, is it really designed to exist in tandem with "core" D&D4 materials?




It's designed to work in tandem. (But see below)



> Will Wizards continue to print the PHBs, MMs, and DMGs?  Will they continue to publish the Powers books?  Will there be future books in these series, or will they be superseded by their Essentials counterparts?  Do we know these things?




The official word was "as needed," so make of that as you will. 



> I had assumed that Essentials was a _complete_ overhaul of D&D marketing (and to a lesser extent, design), as the combination of HotFL/FK and three PHBs is redundant and confusing.  I had further assumed that Heroes books would replace PHBs and Powers books going forward, and that MV supplements would be replacing MMs.




Sort of- but not really.

The classes and the majority of the rules introduced in the original books will continue forward, as part of the game- they aren't replaced by the essentials stuff.  Essentials stuff just adds to it.

The format IE hardback books, and interior layout of the books is changing it seems, although if this is permanent no one knows. (It seems that way...)

The classes originally intro'd in the first books are also apparently being re-released in the new format (not new rules, just layout) so if you want an all essentials styled look, you can get that book(s.)


I think really it's only confusing if you're trying to look at it as two separate lines. If not, just buy some books and go have fun.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Nov 30, 2010)

DMZ2112 said:


> I have an honest question:
> 
> Why _isn't_ Essentials a replacement for pre-existing D&D4?  Or to put it another way, is it really designed to exist in tandem with "core" D&D4 materials?
> 
> ...




It would appear that the large size hardcover book format which has been pretty much the standard since the late 70's for most D&D rule books is at an end. Some people will like that, some people will hate that. Of course they could reverse course and go back to it but I doubt that will happen right away. They're trying a new physical book format, obviously one that is less expensive. 

As far as the rules go, Essentials simply isn't a replacement. Beyond the fact that some PHB1/2 classes are getting a reprint soon in the new format there is certainly a lot of ground in terms of class design that Essentials simply doesn't touch that 4e 'classic' does. Maybe the new classes will replace the old ones for some groups, maybe not for others. I don't think the old stuff is going to become unplayable any time soon. 

There's a lot of difference too between what is currently on the shelves and what people are currently playing with. I would venture to guess if you go into most games with your old-style bow ranger at any point in the next several years anyone is going to be especially surprised, shocked, or disturbed by that even if it isn't the obvious choice they would make themselves. It will certainly continue to work flawlessly. 

On bookstore shelves? Sure, the new stuff is likely to be the main stuff that is stocked. I doubt that means it is going to get hard to find the existing books. They're still all available as new stock online and I'd be willing to bet it will be at least a couple years before you will have any problem finding a copy of say Martial Power if you want one. It will be of less use to a person playing nothing but Essentials characters, but anyone that needs the 4e classic stuff will manage to get hold of it.


----------



## Istar (Dec 5, 2010)

If you want less time thinking about the game and concentrating on playing it.
Go for it.
Or you dont want or cant cope with the complexity of working out when you should use your dailys.
Then go for it.

But lack of choice doesnt give you much room to create a character.
They do it for you, essentially thats it.


----------



## Raikun (Dec 5, 2010)

Istar said:


> Or you dont want or cant cope with the complexity of working out when you should use your dailys.
> Then go for it.




Slightly inaccurate, since several classes in the Essentials books have dailies etc just like in the regular books.


----------



## ourchair (Dec 5, 2010)

Raikun said:


> Slightly inaccurate, since several classes in the Essentials books have dailies etc just like in the regular books.



Yeah people seem to generalize that there's no 'choice' in Essentials, when it's plain to see that the idea was never about removing the choice.

Instead it's about making the choices available have easily comprehensible differences based on the contexts that a player might have experienced from other media. (i.e. An 'enchanter' and an 'illusionist' are mentally easier to distinguish for some than a 'war wizard' or a 'control wizard')

Furthermore, only the martial classes have abandoned most dailies. The spellcasters still retain the power structures of their predecessors but their functionality is keyed off from their class features more than the number of encounters and dailies they acquire through level advancement.

These aren't changes to the classes that somehow nullify existing classes or replace them. They're additions. They're a choice of how to build things, like choosing between a toppings-heavy thin crust pizza or a cheese-stuffed thick crust pizza. They don't replace one another unless all the pizzerias simultaneously decide to stop supporting one in favor of the other.


----------



## Sunseeker (Dec 5, 2010)

Istar said:


> But lack of choice doesnt give you much room to create a character.
> They do it for you, essentially thats it.




To _build_ a character, and at that, only maybe a rogue or a fighter.  

Character creation is, IMO, still firmly in the hands of players.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 5, 2010)

For the record, we played Friday and Saturday and had a new player, who made an Essentials wizard (our first Essentials pc!). The party has another wizard, who was a level higher than the new guy and had been played organically from 1st (so was prolly a touch better equipped). 

Granted that the pcs fell into a very dangerous encounter (I'm running the first chunk of Tomb of Horrors; they started at approx. level 8, though there is some variance in the party.) The new guy (8th level, yep) died. In all fairness, though, so did the 9th level barbarian- that encounter was TOUGH! 

[sblock]If you're interested, it's the encounter with the five mad wraiths.[/sblock]


----------



## Meek (Dec 6, 2010)

I don't mind the layout of the Essentials classes, though I think it's a waste of space. I had no trouble going to the table in the PHB1 to look at where every single class got its stuff. I can see using it for books for newbies, but I'd hope it doesn't infect every other release. I found stuff like "you get an extra use of Power Strike over and over again" as class features for the martial classes to be rather farcical, so I wouldn't use the EFighter. The new arcane stuff is interesting. The new divine stuff felt kinda boring. I still haven't looked at Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, since the friend from whom I borrowed Fallen Lands isn't buying any more Essentials stuff. But overall Essentials did not really introduce anything I'd want to use except the arcane powers. And it's not like arcane really needed a lot more to make it interesting.


----------



## ourchair (Dec 6, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Granted that the pcs fell into a very dangerous encounter (I'm running the first chunk of Tomb of Horrors; they started at approx. level 8, though there is some variance in the party.) The new guy (8th level, yep) died. In all fairness, though, so did the 9th level barbarian- that encounter was TOUGH!
> 
> [sblock]If you're interested, it's the encounter with the five mad wraiths.[/sblock]



Man, my players circumvented that encounter entirely by accident.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 6, 2010)

I burned out on 4e this summer and have focused most of my attention (and gaming dollar) on boardgames.

So, I have been sort of browsing the news about Essentials, but haven't been following any detailed discussion hardcore.

I am aware its to be tacked on to "Regular 4e" (whatever that is) however I have no idea why its considered a different THING than 4e.  If Essentials is just supposed to be more options but still part of 4e I don't understand the need to brand it differently.  Why not call it 4e: Players Handbook 4, or 4e: Simplified Classes or somesuch.

I am also confused at how many of the discussed rules changes (i.e. Magic Item Rarity) fit in with 4e or Essentials.

So, currently I have no interest in getting Essentials, however I have no interest in the other 4e books either.  If I were to start playing 4e again my inclination is to stick with the downloadable Character Builder and stick with using just the information I have already purchased.

DS


----------



## korjik (Dec 7, 2010)

Personally, I am not interested in Essentials. It may just really be more for D&D, but since I think that D&D needs more options the same way I need more holes in my head, I am not going to bother. Add on top of that the monthly random rules change that has been going on in the CB updates, and I am no longer interested in the CB either.

When they do a proper revision, and start fixing the real problems 4e has, I may come back. Till then, hasta la vista. I will prolly end up playing as much essentials as I did 2e AD&D.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 7, 2010)

Sabathius42 said:


> I am aware its to be tacked on to "Regular 4e" (whatever that is) however I have no idea why its considered a different THING than 4e.  If Essentials is just supposed to be more options but still part of 4e I don't understand the need to brand it differently.  Why not call it 4e: Players Handbook 4, or 4e: Simplified Classes or somesuch.



The thing is, it's both.  It is (1) a self-contained RPG that a group can pick up and play without referencing anything outside of its books, and (2) an add-on for existing 4e games that can be used alongside existing options.  I'm using it as the latter, but I understand there are several groups already using it as the former, as well.



> I am also confused at how many of the discussed rules changes (i.e. Magic Item Rarity) fit in with 4e or Essentials.



Well, most of the rule changes have trickled in over the months preceding its release.

Magic item rarity is one of those things you can easily ignore or incorporate.  As it stands....
(1) A few items are Common; these are listed in one of the various updates.  These can be created by rituals and sell for 20%.
(2) Pretty much every single other item is Uncommon.  It can't be created by rituals, and sells for 50%.
(3) Theoretically there are Rare items, but I haven't seen too much of them.
(4) The magic item daily use limit is no more.

Again, though, this has all been pushed out in the various update documents, but it's far from completely clear.

-O


----------



## ourchair (Dec 7, 2010)

Sabathius42 said:


> If Essentials is just supposed to be more options but still part of 4e I don't understand the need to brand it differently.  Why not call it 4e: Players Handbook 4, or 4e: Simplified Classes or somesuch.



Marketing directive. They probably thought calling it 'essential' as a looser, friendlier way of saying 'must buy' was a better idea than calling it 'Player's Handbook 4' (too sterile!) or 'Simplified Classes' (no one wants the 'light' version).

I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it, just that marketers think there's a reason to brand differentiate everything.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 7, 2010)

ourchair said:


> Marketing directive. They probably thought calling it 'essential' as a looser, friendlier way of saying 'must buy' was a better idea than calling it 'Player's Handbook 4' (too sterile!) or 'Simplified Classes' (no one wants the 'light' version).
> 
> I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it, just that marketers think there's a reason to brand differentiate everything.



I dunno...  I think there's plenty of reason to market them as a semi-distinct game line when you're selling to potential new customers who may have passed on your products before.

It makes it easy for new players and lapsed players to get a starting point, and it marks a pretty easily-described set of options for groups who like to keep their options controlled that way.

-O


----------



## ourchair (Dec 7, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I dunno...  I think there's plenty of reason to market them as a semi-distinct game line when you're selling to potential new customers who may have passed on your products before.
> 
> It makes it easy for new players and lapsed players to get a starting point, and it marks a pretty easily-described set of options for groups who like to keep their options controlled that way.
> 
> -O



I wasn't suggesting that I was against this logic, just that I didn't want to imply that my explanation wasn't to be construed as support. Nor was the line, "marketers think there's a reason to brand differentiate everything." to be taken as snark.

I'm just saying that I don't challenge the idea of rebranding when there're really many many reasons to do so, so I find it surprising when people are taken by surprise when a company doesn't just stick with an existing brand framework (i.e. sequentially numbered Player's Handbooks to introduce new classes, or applying a 'simplified' descriptor as opposed to a new branding).

In short: You're right, but I never suggested anything contrary to what you said.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Dec 7, 2010)

Scribble and Abdul, thanks for your answers to my questions.  

So if I understand correctly, D&DE _is_ replacing D&D4, in that all future publications will be moving into the Essentials/Player's Option/DM's Option/etc. format, but what it _isn't_ doing is making D&D4 _obsolete_, in that D&D4 material republished in D&DE format will not be significantly altered mechanically from its original printing.  Right?


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 7, 2010)

DMZ2112 said:


> Scribble and Abdul, thanks for your answers to my questions.
> 
> So if I understand correctly, D&DE _is_ replacing D&D4, in that all future publications will be moving into the Essentials/Player's Option/DM's Option/etc. format, but what it _isn't_ doing is making D&D4 _obsolete_, in that D&D4 material republished in D&DE format will not be significantly altered mechanically from its original printing.  Right?




Yup.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 7, 2010)

DMZ2112 said:


> Scribble and Abdul, thanks for your answers to my questions.
> 
> So if I understand correctly, D&DE _is_ replacing D&D4, in that all future publications will be moving into the Essentials/Player's Option/DM's Option/etc. format, but what it _isn't_ doing is making D&D4 _obsolete_, in that D&D4 material republished in D&DE format will not be significantly altered mechanically from its original printing.  Right?




Well, it is more complicated than that. Essentials as WotC defines it is 10 SKUs only, ever. This includes the RC, DM's Kit, MV, HotF* (2 books), and a couple other things. Now, it appears that GOING FORWARD they are going to retain the Essentials 6x9 trade paperback format for at least some books. They won't be branded Essentials though, just '4e' (presumably, they could have some NEW branding, but I doubt it). This would include things like the new Heroes of Shadow book. Which game elements (classic 4e or Essentials) they are compatible with (both, classic, or Essentials) we don't really know. Presumably they WILL support Essentials classes, but we don't know for sure.

4e isn't being made obsolete, true. OTOH if you have only PHB1-3 etc and you buy HoS you MAY not get anything much you can use if it only allows Essentials classes to take the presented options. Mechanically everything is all compatible, but there is a bit of a question there as far as what set of books you'll need in order to use it. In essence this isn't really different from needing PHB2 to get much out of Primal Power for example, but since the Essentials stuff overlaps a lot with the PHB1/2 stuff it could be a bit awkward when your PHB1 owning guy wants to use HoS to build a Necromancer and there's no mechanics for that because the HoS mechanics only work with the Essentials Mage. Hopefully this won't be the case, but we'll see.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Dec 7, 2010)

Thanks again, Abdul, I feel like I have a greatly enhanced understanding of the situation now.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> ...because the HoS mechanics only work with the Essentials Mage. Hopefully this won't be the case, but we'll see.




The blurb on Wizards' site for _Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell _states that it will provide rules for non-Essentials classes taking Essentials class features and vice versa, so the impression I'm getting, at least, is that Wizards intends to have this ironed out before HoS hits the shelves.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 7, 2010)

DMZ2112 said:


> The blurb on Wizards' site for _Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell _states that it will provide rules for non-Essentials classes taking Essentials class features and vice versa, so the impression I'm getting, at least, is that Wizards intends to have this ironed out before HoS hits the shelves.




Yeah, CC:HoSS (nice acronym, lol) might straighten it out. Hard to say since it is being released first. They are close enough in time that it could refer to a book not yet released. Or it could provide some generalized rule (hard to think of how, but the devs is smarter 'en me...). I'm pretty interested in seeing HoSS anyway, it sounds useful.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Dec 8, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Magic item rarity is one of those things you can easily ignore or incorporate.




Thats true...however that has always been true of any rule.  Part of the my 4e burning out process has been due to the massive amounts of errata/corrections/adjustments to the original rules because I have a need to make all official changes "official".

I kinda feel like Essentials has been yet another pile of errata/corrections/adjustments to the original 4e rules (i.e. all the races now have completely different character creation stat options) that I am leery of digging into.

I appreciate the explanation, however.  Thanks!

DS


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 8, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> OTOH if you have only PHB1-3 etc and you buy HoS you MAY not get anything much you can use if it only allows Essentials classes to take the presented options.




Well, as they flat-out stated in the HoS preview for the wizard spells that any wizard can take those spells, I don't see this being a problem.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Dec 8, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, CC:HoSS (nice acronym, lol) might straighten it out. Hard to say since it is being released first. They are close enough in time that it could refer to a book not yet released. Or it could provide some generalized rule (hard to think of how, but the devs is smarter 'en me...). I'm pretty interested in seeing HoSS anyway, it sounds useful.




To be completely honest, D&D4/E has been on the outs with me for months, and I think HoSS might be the product that either brings me back into the fold or drives the final nail into the coffin.  Either way, I look forward to seeing what they do with it.

It has a lot of ground to cover if it wants to make up for Fortune Cards.  :\


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 8, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> Well, as they flat-out stated in the HoS preview for the wizard spells that any wizard can take those spells, I don't see this being a problem.




Yes, but we don't know if your PHB1 style Wizard can be a Necromancer or not. That isn't a big deal IF you have HotFL and the new Mage, but it does render the work somewhat less than useful otherwise. Sure you can take the spells and whatever else is in there that isn't class-specific COULD be useful, but you really will want to have at least HotFL to fully utilize it. All assuming no actual rules for PHB style classes it will have whatever powers come with levels, but less than 100% compatibility.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Dec 8, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yeah, CC:HoSS (nice acronym, lol)



Better than HotFK.  Seriously?  Hot F*K?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 8, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Better than HotFK.  Seriously?  Hot F*K?




lol. I had a beautiful response, but I'd better not post it  Oh the temptation! heehee.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 8, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Better than HotFK.  Seriously?  Hot F*K?




I did a search for HotFK online a month ago- not all results were grandma-friendly...

I also pointed out that you probably couldn't get that acronym on a vanity plate.


----------



## Thorvald_Grimbjorn (Dec 10, 2010)

I don't find the builds in the Essentials books particularly interesting, so I didn't buy any of them - although I don't mind using the revised Feats in the errata. The only Essentials book I'll buy is probably "Monster Vault", and that's only because I'm too lazy to update the pre-MM3 monsters all by myself.
The one thing that greatly irks me about the Essentials line is that it seems to have completely supplanted the regular line. I mean, "Arcane Power 2", "Divine Power 2" and "Primal Power 2", for example, are nowhere in sight, and several regular classes and builds still lack adequate support (Melee Weapon Bards, Battle Clerics, Seekers, etc.).


----------



## DMZ2112 (Dec 12, 2010)

Thorvald_Grimbjorn said:


> I mean, "Arcane Power 2", "Divine Power 2" and "Primal Power 2", for example, are nowhere in sight, and several regular classes and builds still lack adequate support (Melee Weapon Bards, Battle Clerics, Seekers, etc.).




I'm sure we'll see analogues for these books interspersed with the new-format reprints of already-extant D&D4 material, much like _Heroes of Shadow_ is following _Heroes of Sword and Spell_.

What they've done here, as I understand it, is reboot the line.  They've got to replace all the content they're taking out of print, and that's going to slow the publication of new material. 

...Good or bad, it's another reason why I just don't understand this move.


----------



## Canor Morum (Dec 12, 2010)

Bought the Rules Compendium. Enjoy using it as a quick table reference. Seems to be taking some wear and tear quickly.

Bought the first Heroes book.  Liked some of the new class builds.  Haven't used any because the offline Character Builder doesn't support them and I'm too lazy to write out powers by hand.

Passed on the DMs Kit.  I already have DMs Guide 1 and 2. Hate tokens and write my own adventures.  Bought a copy for my son though because he is new to the game and doesn't have any minis or maps. I will probably give him the Heroes Books too. Would prefer hardcover Heroes Books with less reprinted information.

Pass on Monster Vault too. Again, tokens and adventures I won't use.  Would like to have the book in a hardcover with the art I've come to expect from a Monster Manual.

Bought the Dungeon Tiles Master Set: Dungeon.  Not bad.  Box is good for storing other tiles.


----------



## Mircoles (Dec 13, 2010)

I Likley won't be buying any of the players books. 

The new Essentials class style builds just don't impress me and seeing as this is the style they're using for Shadow classes, it's a bit frustrating.


----------



## martialclasses (Dec 13, 2010)

I actually like the Essentials line - a lot. I just think it's sad that it's coming out so late and seems to have upset so many diehard fans.

I only picked up 4e at the beginning of last summer but I fell in love and played in three different campaigns, several hours per week. I had a blast. I especially liked the Character Builder software because it let me make characters, and play around with them, quickly and easily. 

I felt somewhat frustrated, though, with a few things:
1- I came in late enough that there were mountains of feats. On top of that, the "expertise feats," (+1 to hit with xxx weapon) were seemingly standard but I didn't know that coming in. 
2- I had this one character design stuck in my head the minute I picked up the PHB 1. I wanted to be a Dwarf Fighter that acted as an awesome, amazing tank/defender. 

Here's the thing - With PHB 1, Dwarves were actually not optimized very nicely for this role, since they got a + to wis instead of to strength. Plus, the fighter was burdened with tons and tons of at-wills and utility powers, etc.

I picked up the Heroes of the Fallen Lands and, after my first reading, it was like an epiphany. THERE was the character I had wanted to play all along. Dwarves finally got the + str to make them viable fighters, plus the addition of plate off the bat, plus the new marking aura and the stances, plus the way hammers work ...

It was like FINALLY this iconic concept, which I wasn't able to really do with PHB1, was available. WHY wasn't this PHB1?!

Needless to say, I'm extremely happy with Essentials and hopes Wizards keeps up with Essentials for at least the next few years.


----------



## mikeloop86 (Dec 13, 2010)

martialclasses said:


> Here's the thing - With PHB 1, Dwarves were actually not optimized very nicely for this role, since they got a + to wis instead of to strength.




Wis is one of the next most important stats for Fighters, applying directly to Combat Superiority (their +Wis Mod to Opportunity attacks from Combat Challenge, and thus their ability to stop people from moving around them) and to their Will Defense. 

You also are ignoring the fact that Dwarves got a +2 to Con as well, which, if one was a Hammer/Axe fighter (ala your Iconic Dwarf), was another important stat, as it applied to weapon rider powers like Giant's Wake, (+Con mod to damage, _twice_) or Crushing Blow. Constitution also, as we all well know, applies directly to HP/Surges, which are important for any Defender Role. It also doesn't hurt that the Dwarf could spend Second Wind as a minor action, essentially gaining a personal Heal/Buff over all the other races.

I'm not saying I'm against the choice available now, between +2 Str or +2 Wis, but someone picking the latter is far from un-optimized. The fact that you get modifiers to two secondary stats allows the player to invest more points into his primary stat (in the Dwarf Fighter's case: Strength), allowing for him to put that 18 there, while safely leaving the other secondary stats in the 12-13 range and letting the racial modifiers pick up the slack.




martialclasses said:


> Plus, the fighter was burdened with tons and tons of at-wills and utility powers, etc.




Fighter got 2 at-will powers, just like everyone else. The Essentials Knight, on the other hand, gets 4 at-will powers at level 1 (Aura, 2 Stances, and an Opportunity Power), so I don't know where you can get off saying the original fighter was burdened by At-wills.  

On the subject of Utility powers, the _burden_ of being able to NEGATE certain attacks, Regenerate in battle, Buff oneself for a round/encounter, or negate an attack that hit and ALLY, is something I'd gladly take over counting how many times a day I get to Power Strike in an encounter.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Dec 13, 2010)

Personally I agree with you mike, and you are dead on with the crunch. PHB1 dwarves, without ANY added materials are beyond doubt the best "stand and take it" fighters. One of my players started with one on day 1 of 4e. The character has been retired now in order to try out other stuff, but at level 10 it was doing striker level damage, had GOOD defenses, huge hit points, and was just all around bad news for monsters. Between DWT, minor action Second Wind, and getting saves against forced movement the thing is almost ridiculous, and the player certainly didn't optimize the character. With the choice of +2 STR it would be just plain scary. One thing to note, Essentials dwarves get +2 WIS and +2 STR or CON, so you can't get both the STR and CON bonus.

OTOH as far as the mechanics go in terms of options, I can see a lot of people wanting to play a slayer or knight. They really do seem to reduce the burden on the player at the table. One can argue the merits but experience is hard to dispute.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 14, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> One thing to note, Essentials dwarves get +2 WIS and +2 STR or CON, so you can't get both the STR and CON bonus.



No...  They have a fixed Constitution bonus, and have to pick Strength or Wisdom.

-O


----------



## martialclasses (Dec 14, 2010)

I guess the real only difference between PHB1 dwarves and Essentials dwarves is the availability of +2 Str, which, in my mind, puts them into the pantheon of great Fighter choices along with Goliath and Half Orc.

Maybe I'm just weird, but it always nagged at the back of my mind to know that I was missing out on accuracy that I could otherwise have had. 

I have two quick clarification questions, though: 
1- Bludgeon Expertise says it adds +1 to the number of squares pushed by bludgeon attacks. Am I correct in believing that this means all attacks get at least 1, even MBAs?
2- Does Master at Arms stack with Bludgeon Expertise, letting you have +2 to accuracy at level 2?

Thanks guys. (Keep in mind that I am still on the newbie-ish side of the spectrum)

Another quick note: I love the idea of the slayer. I can imagine many, many people who opened the PHB1 back in the day and wanted to play fighters but felt frustrated by the fact that their "role" was to defend rather than being a big tough guy who hit stuff with a big sword. You COULD do that, but your "role" was still defending. I like the fact that they've delinked roles from classes and linked them to builds instead. I think that's a great idea. If I'm not mistaken, it also opened up the way for a striker wizard (pyromancer), right?


----------



## Incenjucar (Dec 14, 2010)

While I do like a few of the things I've seen in essentials - I'm a big fan of the new assassin (though, balance issues aside, I also really like the old assassin too), but I really don't like the overall direction that essentials takes some rather important things in a direction I dislike and has made it sound like what I want (true shadow and elemental classes as fleshed out as at least PHB2 stuff) will never be... coupled with their permanent lack of presence in the offline CB, and having no USE for the new builds as either a player or DM, since they don't actually bring anything new concept-wise... there's just no reason for me to spend money on it, and since I am an honorable sort, I've simply ignored it entirely out of both disinterest and some measure of protest.

If and when 4E starts moving back in a direction I like (More PHB2 and Dark Sun, less PHB3 and Essentials), I may reconsider them if they haven't been made largely non-functional by then.

A player in my game wouldn't be stopped from essentials materials, so long as they didn't expect me to abide by any of the new rules.


----------



## Thorvald_Grimbjorn (Dec 14, 2010)

martialclasses said:


> It was like FINALLY this iconic concept, which I wasn't able to really do with PHB1, was available. WHY wasn't this PHB1?!




Not to belabor the point others have made, but both iconic Dwarf Fighter concepts (axe/hammer-and-shield and two-handed axe/hammer) were viable right off the gate with PHB1. With STR 16, CON 16 and WIS 16 (easily doable thanks to his racial modifiers), he was the best "I'm standing right here and you're not budging me" Fighter, at the cost of +1 to attack and damage rolls when compared to other hammer/axe wielders.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 14, 2010)

martialclasses said:


> I guess the real only difference between PHB1 dwarves and Essentials dwarves is the availability of +2 Str, which, in my mind, puts them into the pantheon of great Fighter choices along with Goliath and Half Orc.




The thing is they were already there.  They might not have hit quite as hard as the Goliath (although Dwarven Weapon Talent helped).  But they were quite seriously the toughest race in the game.  They had two stats that helped _any_ fighter.  And the easily underrated gem of the dwarven collection is the ability to use Second Wind as a minor action.  Gain 25% hp back?  And +2 to _all_ defences for a round?  That's powerful enough to be a standard action for most people - but dwarves can effectively do it for free.



> Maybe I'm just weird, but it always nagged at the back of my mind to know that I was missing out on accuracy that I could otherwise have had.




There needs to be some downside for playing a Dwarf.  Toughest race going and with a great weapon selection.



> I have two quick clarification questions, though:
> 1- Bludgeon Expertise says it adds +1 to the number of squares pushed by bludgeon attacks. Am I correct in believing that this means all attacks get at least 1, even MBAs?




I don't believe so.  Of course a Knight using Hammer Hands pushes 2 on a MBA, but I digress.



> 2- Does Master at Arms stack with Bludgeon Expertise, letting you have +2 to accuracy at level 2?




Absolutely not.  Both are feat bonusses.



> Another quick note: I love the idea of the slayer.




Indeed.  I have absolutely no desire to play a Slayer but am glad it's there.



> If I'm not mistaken, it also opened up the way for a striker wizard (pyromancer), right?




The Evoker got there first as a striker wizard...  He's still technically a controller but the relationship is more tenuous.  (That said, you can be an Evoker/Pyromancer for some pretty nasty damage with certain spells).


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 14, 2010)

martialclasses said:


> I guess the real only difference between PHB1 dwarves and Essentials dwarves is the availability of +2 Str, which, in my mind, puts them into the pantheon of great Fighter choices along with Goliath and Half Orc.
> 
> Maybe I'm just weird, but it always nagged at the back of my mind to know that I was missing out on accuracy that I could otherwise have had.




That's the thing about the other racial features the dwarf has: they balance out that loss of accuracy/damage with other factors that make a defender more effective (keeping himself up, stickier with +Wis, can't be moved around or knocked prone easily).



> 1- Bludgeon Expertise says it adds +1 to the number of squares pushed by bludgeon attacks. Am I correct in believing that this means all attacks get at least 1, even MBAs?




No. It explicitly only adds to a push, or else it would tell you that it pushes the target 1 square or increases the distance of a push 1 square.



> 2- Does Master at Arms stack with Bludgeon Expertise, letting you have +2 to accuracy at level 2?




Nope. Both are feat bonuses, and bonuses of the same type don't stack.

And glad to hear you're liking 4th Edition and Essentials. I was hesitant about Essentials myself, as I was worried about going back to the old paradigm of Fighters being lame, but I'm enjoying my slayer immensely.


----------



## martialclasses (Dec 15, 2010)

Hey guys -- Thanks a lot for you straightforward answers. You've really helped me understand.


----------

