Also note that WotC has stated that they will still produce more options for the pre-E style classes, but it is likely to be less than essentials style classes will get. Demand can push this either way, so you might want to write a polite letter to WotC asking for support of the style you like.
I have tried mixing Essentials with 4th edition and it does not work.
In what way does it not work?
You are the first poster I've seen who has stated this who wasn't a hater before Essentials was even released. Essentials is 4e, 4e is Essentials.
As for the original question, make sure you don't miss the forest for the trees. Just because something is presented in the same format as Essentials with a bit of fiction describing what you get at each level doesn't mean it's not the same as a pre-Essentials version of the same thing. Check the Paragon Path preview for an example of this. The PP contains the exact same things all other PPs do but it looks different because they added flavour before each ability.
Essentials born to be an easy way to D&D 4th with a fixed quantity of books, material, simple rules, etc and nothing more. Then, if players desire to get deeper in Core Rules, they just buy the books and play the advanced scenarios. If Wizards begins expand Essentials this way, then Essentials is no longer Essentials, is more like a second rpg system in competition with 4th ed. Unfortunately we lose good materials, for example that I couldn't play a decent vampire im my 4th ed campaign.
I thought about two unofficial ways to make HoS classes work in my 4th games: Use them like a sub-classes of the regular classes and use fan made material to add powers.
Exemple, treating Vampire as a sub-class or a condition aquired by the character along the adventure, add the features and powers to the starting class, so any class and any role might benefic from the abilities vampirism gives.
Other option I consider is using fan made or house rules materials that expands the Essentials class to the 4th ed rules, like new powers to be choosen as levels advance.
So I guess my question is that when you ran a mixed game did you ever try running similar characters and do the math to see if they were equal? Also did your player have any problems with the fact that they got no choice in what encounter abilities if any they got? I wonder this because during the short time I ran a mixed game we seemed to see both as problems the Essential version seem more powerful than the none Essential and the Essential play keep complaining about not being able to choose his powers. Also like another responder said Essentials was support to be a easer version of D&D to bring new players not 4.5 edition.
So I guess my question is that when you ran a mixed game did you ever try running similar characters and do the math to see if they were equal?
Plenty of people have, and yes they as equal. Probably even more so then when compairing other classes, since they have less options to "optimize" or "screw up".
Also did your player have any problems with the fact that they got no choice in what encounter abilities if any they got?
This is a pretty common complaint about essentials. Weather it's a problem depends on the person playing it. Though according to the recent poll a fair majority want choices (15% like simple, though the poll has a scewed audiance, so i guess 20%).
Also like another responder said Essentials was support to be a easer version of D&D to bring new players not 4.5 edition.
New players are the target audiance. That's why they make the choice of what you get for you. So you don't need to sort though 10 powers.
So I guess my question is that when you ran a mixed game did you ever try running similar characters and do the math to see if they were equal? Also did your player have any problems with the fact that they got no choice in what encounter abilities if any they got? I wonder this because during the short time I ran a mixed game we seemed to see both as problems the Essential version seem more powerful than the none Essential and the Essential play keep complaining about not being able to choose his powers. Also like another responder said Essentials was support to be a easer version of D&D to bring new players not 4.5 edition.
How did the essentials versions seem more powerful? They're easier to optimize, but definitely not more powerful.
Yes, they get less options, but some people like it that way. It isn't for everyone, which can be said about every release. Personally, I hate the essentials martial classes, but love the Mage. They're all fine, but it's all about preference.
If your players are complaining about not being able to choose their powers, tell them to play a different class. Playing a Slayer and complaining about that is like playing a phb1 fighter and complaining that you don't have any healing powers. Play what is fun for you.
1st the Fact that they are more
limiting is one of the best reason to keep the essentials for the beginning game.
2nd any combo the
make a character all powerful is breaking the game by definition.
3rd This is listed
as a 4ed book not an Essentials book and all of you have pointed that the
Essential characters are not 4ed characters.
As someone who has come from D&D the 0ed
all the way to forth edition it seems to me that D&D should keep the old stile
character builds because it is suppose to be the Advance game Essentials is the
beginning game if they wanted to do another Essential book than do an Essential
book I run 4ed I have no problem with this.
None of you have told me why I should buy a book that is not a 4ed book
in contact. I have been enjoying running
and playing 4ed more than I ever did playing 3.5ed now Wizards is telling me I
have to move to a beginning format of the game because they do not want to keep
there word. We were told that Essentials
would be a limited number of books they we would go back to 4ed. We were told that we would get a new world
every year for the first 5 and a new player’s book with a new power
source. That was a 4ed player’s book not
an Essential book. The most interesting
thing I found in the Essential line is the book type I would support a change
to the trade paperback format. And I
would love to see a 4ed Wright up of some of the Essential classes as builds. I am trying to keep an open mind but I have
build character after character with the builder and I am not happy with the
Essential character they take min/maxing to a new level because of they limited
build and are mostly cookie cutter. Some
convince me that I am wrong.
Also new player’s the Essentials target
market Wizards needs to keep it core with 4ed.
If the poles were in favor of more choices of 4ed as it was than if
Wizards does not want to louse its market it should be targeting it core base. The Essentials players will over time fold
into that market and want what the core want 4ed. We are bake to the days of AD&D and Basic
set only the current company is not support the Advance Game.
I think it is funny that I keep being told there is no difference between o4ed and Essentials While they point them out. Now look at the poll it shows that the majority of existing players want customization in the character creating and the pulling of the last Essentials book suggests that the line was not doing well. So why alienate a large chuck of your audience? I for one want more in a player book that a few feat and a couple of powers I want more classes and more build for o4ed classes.
Internet polls need to be taken with a grain of salt. Only a small fraction of players of any game frequent the company website. The only people who check in religiously are the more rabid fans. Polling us, and only us, will give them a skewed result. They wanted to know how to get brand new and lapsed players into D&D. Is it a surprise that their market research and outreach took someplace other than here?
There might be another reason that the Heroes of Spell and Sword book was cancelled and is now being released as Insider content. The book was going to be mostly reprinted material, updated for errata. Not 40% reprinted with 60% new content like Monster Vault, Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. Except for new fluff, maybe a few new Feats and the rules for swapping Class Features for Powers (probably 10 pages, at most), the rest of the book would have been a rehash of the first Player's Handbook.
The feedback that quite a few of us gave when we realized this was that a book that was 80% reprint or more would not be worth our money, and that we would simply let our DDI accounts pick up the new rules (since we already have the errata, and would be getting a free update document with the release of the book if it introduced new errata).
Seems to me that publishing the book under such circumstances would be less than wise. At the very least it should have caused them to reevaluate the book for later release, or scrap it entirely if they could not make it a worthwhile purchase for all of us who already own the PHB. Looks like they went for the latter option.
And 96% care about balance. That was kind of a shocker. Definitely not the impression given by some of the complaints leveled against 4e.
In today's Rule of Three, it covers this questionIt looks like all of the content for Heroes of Shadow will conform with the "Essentials" model. Is that true?"Essentials model" could mean a couple of different things. For purposes of this answer, we’re going to assume it refers to two things:
- The format of presentation, with framing text and descriptions included outside of a power’s stat block.
- The introduction of classes that lack daily powers or that use a single encounter power repeatedly.
The new text format helps readability and in guiding players through character creation and in leveling. It has no bearing on the mechanics. To the second point, the answer is that we support both models.
Heroes of Shadow introduces new builds for classes introduced in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. However, the majority of the at-will, encounter, and daily powers they use are also open to warlocks, clerics, paladins, and wizards created using Player’s Handbook.
The idea is similar to the summoner build from Arcane Power. This approach allows us to create a flavorful, new type of character while also creating powers that existing characters of the appropriate class can use. The only difference here is that in addition to the new powers, we’ve also included new feature options for the Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms classes. In the case of the necromancer, we took this path because it made more sense to treat necromancy as a school rather than try to map a specific implement type to it, via the Arcane Implement Mastery class feature from Player’s Handbook.
In addition, Heroes of Shadow includes epic destinies, paragon paths, magic items, and feats that any character can use.
There is a problem here. Those books in the bolded part didn't introduce new classes!!!
Heroes of Shadow introduces new builds for classes introduced in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
There is a problem here. Those books in the bolded part didn't introduce new classes!!!
Well, it introduced them to players who had never seen a 4e PH - the new and returning-from-AD&D players who were the target audience of Essentials.
No?
It's when you listen to what you don't want to hear that you might learn something.
(For example, I didn't want to hear that almost 1:6 respondents would love the idea of a less complex option, but there it was. Of course, the choice was less complex but still balanced and somehow not overshadowed... so that almost 1:6 is actually asking for something that's pretty hard to deliver... some of them may even realize it's only going to happen in a hypothetical like that question. Still, the demand exists, it would be a good idea to try to fill it - without negatively impacting the 86% who don't feel that way, of course.)
(For example, I didn't want to hear that almost 1:6 respondents would love the idea of a less complex option, but there it was. Of course, the choice was less complex but still balanced and somehow not overshadowed... so that almost 1:6 is actually asking for something that's pretty hard to deliver... some of them may even realize it's only going to happen in a hypothetical like that question.
The number of people that dont get - versatility is a form of power is high because our society values specialization so highly