D&D 4E Core 4E vs. Essentials

[AbdulAlhazred]

I had a bizarre Minotaur Artificer Ghost of the Past that was a lot of fun. He didn't seem that much more complex in play than other leaders, but I suppose I have a high tolerance...

I found the Artificer's class features to be rather hard to remember. You were basically giving other people buffs that they had to remember to activate sometime during the adventuring day. My experience was, it just never happened. Wasn't a successful design really. There were some other things I just didn't like that much.

Shaman are great, but just fiddly as hell to play. Great class if you're really into chess-like combat! Still hard to play and lots to remember.

 

[Garthanos]

And here is one area that I thought Themes made more sense then granting Feats. Let' take the Ritual Spell caster Feat for example. You can provide a feat that gives it to you or you can have a Character Theme like Acolyte that grants it with a built in story element that makes sense in why you would have it. I guess it is preference. I would rather see a theme then just a feature that can magically come out of nowhere.

Of note... I can make the feat come out of somewhere that is in keeping with my character story... it might be a familial lineage feature like a great aunt who was a witch that I spent years listening to as a kid and whose book of recipes I just uncovered or whatever

 

[Jhaelen]

Shaman are great, but just fiddly as hell to play. Great class if you're really into chess-like combat! Still hard to play and lots to remember.

Yup, Shamans were the clear favorite for one of the players in my group (followed by his pre-4e favorite class, the Rogue).

 

[thanson02]

Character creation could then be a three part process : background, class, destiny

In the background section, you pick your race, your background skills, some ties with locals, etc

In the class section, you pick your class, your feat(s), your powers.

In the destiny section, you pick your "Heroic Destiny" (i.e. Theme). The themes and PP and ED could be tied together in a sort of loose chain where each PP and ED have about 4 or 5 (whatever number feels right) "themes/PP" that are required - so that there is some decision impact, but it's still pretty wide.

This would probably require a great amount of work to fine-tune the selections and perhaps even modify the themes and PPs and EDs to offer true choice to players... But, it's an idea anyhow.

I like that idea. That is a good way to break it down. There are other elements that you can add in with background as well, like having racial themes, so different variants of each species to add additional flavor or a general one like vampire or werewolf.

Across the board though, coming up with the different variations of builds based on these three stages of development would come up with a variety of options, in my opinion.

 

[thanson02]

Well, sure, for ME they were OK. I used them to reasonably good effect, but even then I found my characters began to exceed my level of interest in their complexity in play. This was especially a problem with already-complex classes, like Shaman or Artificer, which have some fairly hard to remember and picky class abilities that need to be kept track of.

Never played a shaman, but I know that the Artificer needed rework. From a concept perspective, there were elements that didn't' make sense. And if you read the flavor text with the powers, there were elements that were assumed that they could have made clearer. This is one class that I am certainly going to redo, add some additional elements like proficiency in a new type of implement called a "construct" and when they summon creatures (all Daily Powers mine you), they are summoned through the construct. Think like a magically charged transformer. I was also thinking of adding a build that focuses more on undead and shadow magic where the artificer can bind the souls of the dead to machines or to ritually prepared flesh.

Stuff I am brain storming..........

 

[thanson02]

Of note... I can make the feat come out of somewhere that is in keeping with my character story... it might be a familial lineage feature like a great aunt who was a witch that I spent years listening to as a kid and whose book of recipes I just uncovered or whatever

True, but that could be a form of acolyte. No one said that it had to be formal training.

 

[Garthanos]

True, but that could be a form of acolyte. No one said that it had to be formal training.

or it can be ritual caster or alchemy or both of those plus a feat that gives the evil eye ... and all based on how the player sees it ... lumping a bunch together can be a negative as it restricts fine tuning to my story.

 

[thanson02]

or it can be ritual caster or alchemy or both of those plus a feat that gives the evil eye ... and all based on how the player sees it ... lumping a bunch together can be a negative as it restricts fine tuning to my story.

Yea, that is a good point.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[thanson02]

Alright, I think I have what I need to start playing around with stuff. I will chat with my cohorts. Thanks everyone for the input.

 

[Fox Lee]

Core all the way.

Essentials material is not worthless, and it has its uses, mostly for people who need a pick up & play option. Using the rules interpretation that allows Essentials characters to choose their level-having powers, our veteran group have even found some of them to be quite playable. But the consistent pattern/progression and versatility of Core classes is much more valuable to me than the heavily-guided, flavour-imposed, distinctly weird Essentials classes.

Even if the Essentials material was mechanically excellent (it's not), I would still like it less because of classes like the Blackguard. To me, these are a betrayal of the core 4e ideal that your character's motivations and identity belong to you. I mean, alignment restrictions rearing their ugly heads again? In my 4e? To me, that is a serious backslide into the needless, creativity-stifling restrictions that made earlier D&D editions so much less fun.

4e is my edition of choice for many reasons, but the foremost will always be that it actively treats the character options as tools. It wants you to build the character that fits your concept, not concept the character that fits your build. Essentials increasingly discards that ideal, so it will always be a second-rate alternative in my eyes.

Disclaimer: You should be able to play the game you want. If Essentials gave you more value than it gave me and mine, I'm happy for you!