D&D 4E 4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity

pemerton said:

I don't really understand the point of classifying certain classes/build as Martial + Primal (Berserker Barbarian, Essentials Ranger) or Martial + Arcane (Skald Bard). Power Source isn't a very significant mechanical tag. And the flavour it conveys in these contexts is confused: why is a STR Paladin or Cleric not Martial + Divine; why is a Warden or regular Barbarian not Martial + Primal; etc?

Click to expand...

Well it does come with allowing certain feats if you are also martial, or allowing certain paragon paths etc. So sure mechanically it is not a big bonus, but it is a bonus nevertheless. (I would even argue that it makes sense that you can only use powers for which you have the power source, but that might be me).


I really like the Martial + primal in the berserker barbarian, because there you have the clear switch. Martial is highly trained everything under control, and then switching to primal where you kinda lose control over yourself (less defense, no more protection) to gain power (more damage) for it.


Cleric and paladins are still fighting for their gods and use their powers, even if they use strength. I see no problem here. Dedicated training with faith. (Although having for the paladin martial as secondary source could also fit).


The essential ranger fits for me as well, since he is a martial which learned to use some powers of nature to improve.
I agree that it is not 100% consistent, but for me personally it fits.

AbdulAlhazred said:

That's true, it is an AEDU class, but what was the point? It was just "hey, I want to make a different wizard." I will say, the Necromancer could have been built as a standard Wizard build instead, but the mere fact of the existence of Mage meant someone had to choose! I mean, its not that I think the Mage inherently worse than the Wizard, they're pretty much 6 of one half-dozen of the other, but why break things? If you ARE going to create some additional subclasses, why not be more careful to make them fully interoperate with the existing ones? Some things just don't make sense about Essentials, this is one of them IMHO.

The whole 'lets pretend Rituals don't exist', blah.

Click to expand...

I think the Mage subclass system (which is based on spell school) just makes more sense/is more flavourfull than the original wizard subclass which depends on your implement and as that it makes also more sense to have the necromancer (which is kinda a spell school) using this subclass system.

My problem with the Mage is that it is not simpler, its rather more complex than the wizard (minus ritual casting), while still being almost the same. So overall for the essentials product I think it was a really weak design. It does not make the wizard simpler to play, and there is also else not a real reason for it to exist since it plays the same as the wizard.


Also on second thought, the base class still has too much power, which made it hard to give more power to the subclass. The "Second subclass" features, as well as the magic missile (and the spellbook) should have been taken away and more subclass specific powers being granted to make them stand more out from each other, that would have been more interesting. All in all the Mage was just "too safe" and thus a bit boring, but I think a lot of people still liked the mage especially newcommers to essentials.


I think it is just a "Wizard fix", which is ok, but could have been a lot more interesting /experimental which is a shame, but as a Wizard fix it works well (especially for necromancer).

Tigris said:

Well it does come with allowing certain feats if you are also martial, or allowing certain paragon paths etc. So sure mechanically it is not a big bonus, but it is a bonus nevertheless. (I would even argue that it makes sense that you can only use powers for which you have the power source, but that might be me).


I really like the Martial + primal in the berserker barbarian, because there you have the clear switch. Martial is highly trained everything under control, and then switching to primal where you kinda lose control over yourself (less defense, no more protection) to gain power (more damage) for it.


Cleric and paladins are still fighting for their gods and use their powers, even if they use strength. I see no problem here. Dedicated training with faith. (Although having for the paladin martial as secondary source could also fit).


The essential ranger fits for me as well, since he is a martial which learned to use some powers of nature to improve.
I agree that it is not 100% consistent, but for me personally it fits.



I think the Mage subclass system (which is based on spell school) just makes more sense/is more flavourfull than the original wizard subclass which depends on your implement and as that it makes also more sense to have the necromancer (which is kinda a spell school) using this subclass system.

My problem with the Mage is that it is not simpler, its rather more complex than the wizard (minus ritual casting), while still being almost the same. So overall for the essentials product I think it was a really weak design. It does not make the wizard simpler to play, and there is also else not a real reason for it to exist since it plays the same as the wizard.


Also on second thought, the base class still has too much power, which made it hard to give more power to the subclass. The "Second subclass" features, as well as the magic missile (and the spellbook) should have been taken away and more subclass specific powers being granted to make them stand more out from each other, that would have been more interesting. All in all the Mage was just "too safe" and thus a bit boring, but I think a lot of people still liked the mage especially newcommers to essentials.


I think it is just a "Wizard fix", which is ok, but could have been a lot more interesting /experimental which is a shame, but as a Wizard fix it works well (especially for necromancer).

Click to expand...

The berserker is my second-favorite incarnation of the barbarian as a class in D&D, just losing out to 1e (hey, I LIKE the 1e barbarian). I, too, see it as under tight control in Defender/Martial phase, then eventually gos, “Screw it, you die now”, rages, and turns into a Primal Striker.

deganawida said:

The berserker is my second-favorite incarnation of the barbarian as a class in D&D, just losing out to 1e (hey, I LIKE the 1e barbarian). I, too, see it as under tight control in Defender/Martial phase, then eventually gos, “Screw it, you die now”, rages, and turns into a Primal Striker.

Click to expand...

I really like this implementation of the barbarian as well. The rage has a purpose, its not just a buff you start in the beginning of combat anyway if you can, its a choice and will change how you play. Its a bit of a shame 4E was over soon after that book, because for me it felt that they were now more keen on experimenting a bit with class structures and had enough experience to make it work (at least the good authors/designers). (Also some people who disregard all essentials really are missing out on some great designs like this.)


I also think the "defender aura" (except for the name) fits really well for a barbarian. If you are near them, they are dangerous, dont ignore them / attack their friends or they hit you.

The class could have used a bit more martial powers (to choose from), but I think it works REALLY REALLY well with the old barbarian powers, especially the daily rage powers.

Tigris said:

I think the Mage subclass system (which is based on spell school) just makes more sense/is more flavourfull than the original wizard subclass which depends on your implement

Click to expand...

I think the opposite, actually. Magic schools are there because they are a relic of old D&D, but they've always been an arbitrary set of classifications, and many spells fit poorly in the categories they're placed in. They just returned in Essentials because the old fans were crying, and make no real sense in the context of how the 4e wizard really worked.

At least with implements, you know what your wizard should be specializing (wands are specialized in damaga, orbs in controlling, staffs in defense, etc.)

Tigris said:

I think the Mage subclass system (which is based on spell school) just makes more sense/is more flavourfull than the original wizard subclass which depends on your implement and as that it makes also more sense to have the necromancer (which is kinda a spell school) using this subclass system.

Click to expand...

I find it entirely arbitrary. It is just a repetition of a completely arbitrary system that EGG came up with in the 1970s which eschews all the existing theories of magic and traditions of magic, and doesn't even have internal consistency. But we have to go with it because otherwise the grogs will show up with the torches and pitchforks? I mean, the implied system that might lie behind the whole implement thing seems no less potentially interesting or consistent.

In terms of the Necromancer, eh, why not have simply had a type of implement which was especially effective for Necromancy and a specialization that went with it? I mean, I would agree with you that the implement mastery class feature space was poorly used, that the masteries were weak sauce, etc. It worked though and a follow on set of material could have done things like link PPs to specific 'flavors' of Arcane magic and associated them with the implements, etc. There was a LOT of potential there, but no, Mike just did the most uncreative thing possible....

Tigris said:

My problem with the Mage is that it is not simpler, its rather more complex than the wizard (minus ritual casting), while still being almost the same. So overall for the essentials product I think it was a really weak design. It does not make the wizard simpler to play, and there is also else not a real reason for it to exist since it plays the same as the wizard.

Click to expand...

Right, my point exactly! It is in no way shape or form an improvement! Even if you think the beefed up versions of encounter spells are better, you didn't need a new subclass for that. All we got was a bunch of rules incompatibility. I mean, it isn't a huge amount really, but it is definitely there. If you didn't buy HotFL then HoS Necromancer stuff is useless to you OOTB for basically no good reason.

Zeromaru X said:

I think the opposite, actually. Magic schools are there because they are a relic of old D&D, but they've always been an arbitrary set of classifications, and many spells fit poorly in the categories they're placed in. They just returned in Essentials because the old fans were crying, and make no real sense in the context of how the 4e wizard really worked.

At least with implements, you know what your wizard should be specializing (wands are specialized in damaga, orbs in controlling, staffs in defense, etc.)

Click to expand...

This is true. Magic schools are there, because people are used to magic schools, thats why for me it makes also more sense. Its not only D&D who does this a lot of games (computer games, magic the gathering with the colour pie, and other card and digital games as well) use the schools, thats why people (including me) are used to it.


Also from a research/science point of view it makes sense that you can divide spells into categories, and that when you specialize in one categorie you are better with these kind of spells. (Similar to the elementalist sorcerer who specializes in an element).


Of course the problem that not all spells might fit well into the category is there. Making it more consistent would make it feel better).


This might just be me personally but I dont find it interesting that a wizards specializes in a spell focus. It is not like a weapon where he hit with it, he just uses it as power source kinda, so the form of it makes for me not really a difference. I would guess a wizard just uses the most magical item no matter which form it has. Especially since the "bonus" you get from the implement most of the time looks arbitrary. (Only staff makes sense for me)


And when you look at the "Orb of deception" which is linked to a school, that makes for me even less sense. Why does it have to be an orb for the illusion spell?


I DO think that the specific abilities (linked with the implements) are interesting, for me it just dont make sense that they have to be linked to the form of the spell focus. (Also the Wand for me just stands out. Even for a controll spell getting an acuracy boost is better than redirecting to another creature).

Neonchameleon said:

I have never heard them praised. They are fine - in the sense that they exist; I've never seen anyone interested in playing one because they are extruded D&D product, just a new version of the wizard that doesn't add anything to the game by the presence.

Click to expand...

I think Witch is slightly superior to the other Wizard classes if the goal is to play a fun, generalist Wizard. You get probably the best E1, you lose a cantrip, ritual casting(which is marginal — scrolls are expensive in theory until they're not) and a usually marginal class feature, you gain a feat, a skill, and a couple of skill bonuses in exchange. Wizards are one of the feat hungriest classes in the game. The Sha'ir I think is basically an inferior Witch because the writer doesn't really understand how familiars typically function in combat. Seeker is also generally a lot of fun in play once you realize you need to make a ton of ranged attacks quickly.

I use the Essentials material together with the previous 4th Edition. I believe it adds two aspects that was missing previously. Backward compatibility for some classes making update from 3.5 Edition finally possible (for my party mainly druid and ranger). Introduction of class choices for players not interested in character optimization like in previous editions - just let me roll attack and damage!

Myrhdraak said:

I use the Essentials material together with the previous 4th Edition. I believe it adds two aspects that was missing previously. Backward compatibility for some classes making update from 3.5 Edition finally possible (for my party mainly druid and ranger). Introduction of class choices for players not interested in character optimization like in previous editions - just let me roll attack and damage!

Click to expand...

I fully agree and I never saw any reason to not add it just to normal 4E it was always meant to be compatible, it just had a confusing marketing and people were overreacting over it.


And as I said before having simple classes does broaden the game and can help some people. And its not like the ranger did much more than just roll and attack, just with more bookkeeping and more attack rolls...

Tigris said:

And as I said before having simple classes does broaden the game and can help some people. And its not like the ranger did much more than just roll and attack, just with more bookkeeping and more attack rolls...

Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting re: "simple classes" that their primary audience isn't new players or less optimization-capable players, despite that always being what people claimed at the time. It's existing/experienced players who don't want to think about it too much (new players don't know enough to know whether that's them or not - and it's usually not), don't want to make too many choices when leveling up, and so on. I saw this very vividly when introducing people to 4E, some of whom had never played RPGs before, at least one of whom had never even really played RPG-style videogames before (FIFA was pretty much his limit, videogame-wise). He came straight in playing a Dragonborn Swordmage, and had absolutely no problems with that or the rules - we'd actually tried to convince him to use one of the simplified Essentials classes (it was out by them) - but he didn't vibe with them, and soon as he heard about Swordmage, he was like - THAT ONE! (He was pretty keen fantasy book reader despite not playing fantasy games, note). And this pattern held, and holds in 5E - new players never want to play the Champion Fighter or the like - they're always looking at stuff like Spore Druid. But experienced players who just want to chill and don't really want to have to be fully brain-on do like simplified classes - and to be fair, 4E's aren't that simple - they're just less choice-heavy.

As for Essentials being a "different edition". It flatly isn't. If Shannon Applecline thinks that, he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's just different classes with a slightly different for the same game. It's not even that different of an approach.