Essentials only content. Will this be the new DDI concept? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Essentials only content. Will this be the new DDI concept?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
kartesh
Sep 22, 2010 7:31:23
Essentials only content. Will this be the new DDI concept?

I would like to discuss in this thread, the issues i have with the new essentials line and especially the way it is and will be supported in DDI exclusive products.

To make this clear from the start, i don't own any essentials materials yet and doubt i will be in the near future, so all my statements are based on what i can tell from the released DDI essentials articles and the class previews.

In those previews Bill Slavicsek stated:

„The Essentials consist of 10 key products that will form the baseline experience for the roleplaying game moving forward.

The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition.

The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual.

The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games.

The Essentials products work with all other Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products, from Player’s Handbook to new products releasing in 2011 and beyond—just like all other D&D products we release. „

It is especially this last sentence that makes me wonder about the way new content is presented in the insider articles.

So Essentials isn't replacing any products published so far and it „works“, therefore is compatible with all the other D&D products? Then why do most of the new insider articles contain content that is mostly essentials only, by either connecting it to the new character design or powers/features only available in the new „system“?

As it is now, the only compatibility i see is upward, so essentials classes can adept content from older classes, but it doesn't work the other way.

As it is now, most products released in the the near future will contain essentials material. This leaves me with only the DDI magazines to get some content to support the main non essentials system. But those late articles i saw so far, leave me with little hope of getting anything that isnt mainly designed for essentials or even worse, only works with essentials.

My opinion so far is: Essentials is fine the way it is, it has plenty of new rules and lots of stuff coming in the near future. There is no real reason to also link 90% of the DDI content to essentials and leave the old system with nothing but some occasionally compatible content.

How do you think about this issue? Do you think DDI should focus more on the main system to compensate the lack of new material? Or are you fine with Essentials adapting all the useful stuff from the old system and getting all the love in the magazines ahead?
#2
asmodeuslore
Sep 22, 2010 7:52:47 I think that what he meant by 'works with' is that you can be running an Essentials Game, and if one of your characters brings in a 'regular' 4e character, he can play right along with the essentials without an issue.

Same for a DM running a regular game, and someone brings an Essentials character in. Both scenarios work seamlessly.
#3
Mock
Sep 22, 2010 7:59:00 I think the jury is still out on the issue of Pre-E support in DDI. Earlier this month there was an article supporting the Battlemind, for instance. Essentials products hit their street date this month, and like Dark Sun, got several articles related to them at around the same time. I think it's too early to tell.

The question is, what happens when the Essentials run ends? If we're seeing material that primarily leverages features and abilities only available to Essentials class builds, with the occasional feat to throw Pre-Essentials classes a bone, then I would be rather disappointed. However, I expect the articles for the next few months to mainly support Essentials class builds, and non-class stuff like races, etc.

Also, remember that the article authors may choose to write stuff that works for the new hotness, which would be Essentials.
#4
aradraugfea
Sep 22, 2010 9:41:14
I think that what he meant by 'works with' is that you can be running an Essentials Game, and if one of your characters brings in a 'regular' 4e character, he can play right along with the essentials without an issue.

Same for a DM running a regular game, and someone brings an Essentials character in. Both scenarios work seamlessly.

See, I'm not so sure about bringing an essentials character into a normal 4e campaign. From the looks of it, the class progression is rather different. I personally disagree with the idea that Essentials is just '4e simplified.' It's a new ruleset, one not too far separated from 4e, but still a new ruleset, if only with the way classes progress. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at Essentials much beyond the preview content, but the preview content made it all look very much like using the basic 4th edition rules to make older edition's characters. Which, you know, that's fine, not my thing, but they're not forcing me to play, at least not yet. I really hope that Essentials ends up as a check box similar to 'inherent bonuses.' Check it, you get access to the Essentials rules. Don't check it, nothing changes. Now, if my impression's wrong and it's really not all that different once you have the full thing to look at, I guess the ability to just check it off in campaign settings would be fine, but I'm really not impressed with the Essential's line from a conceptual standpoint, though I totally understand the business reasoning behind it, even if I think they might be a bit over optimistic if they think, with many of the 'old school' gamers having moved onto Pathfinder, or entirely unrelated games some time ago, releasing an alternate ruleset of 4e will win them back all of those lost players.

Edit: To say nothing of what'll happen when they do successfully win new players, and these players are introduced with this alternate ruleset, and then try and move over to 'core' 4e. If the launch of 4e proves anything, it's that gamers tend not to react well, in general, to change.
#5
frothsof
Sep 22, 2010 9:59:11 i am starting to feel like its going to be 99% essentials in the mags, with a lot of 1st and 2nd level adventures. basically the value is going south for me
#6
cplwaffles
Sep 22, 2010 13:02:18 It's too early to judge. Every time they release something new the magazines are very heavily slanted to that project. The question - that they won't or can't answer right now - is what the balance will look like after the massive launch of Essentials.

What I'm looking forward to is articles that work well with both styles of characters. Feats, paths and options I can apply to my PHB fighter and my slayer.
#7
Dane_McArdy
Sep 22, 2010 14:35:54
I think that what he meant by 'works with' is that you can be running an Essentials Game, and if one of your characters brings in a 'regular' 4e character, he can play right along with the essentials without an issue.

Same for a DM running a regular game, and someone brings an Essentials character in. Both scenarios work seamlessly.

See, I'm not so sure about bringing an essentials character into a normal 4e campaign. From the looks of it, the class progression is rather different. I personally disagree with the idea that Essentials is just '4e simplified.' It's a new ruleset, one not too far separated from 4e, but still a new ruleset, if only with the way classes progress. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at Essentials much beyond the preview content, but the preview content made it all look very much like using the basic 4th edition rules to make older edition's characters. Which, you know, that's fine, not my thing, but they're not forcing me to play, at least not yet. I really hope that Essentials ends up as a check box similar to 'inherent bonuses.' Check it, you get access to the Essentials rules. Don't check it, nothing changes. Now, if my impression's wrong and it's really not all that different once you have the full thing to look at, I guess the ability to just check it off in campaign settings would be fine, but I'm really not impressed with the Essential's line from a conceptual standpoint, though I totally understand the business reasoning behind it, even if I think they might be a bit over optimistic if they think, with many of the 'old school' gamers having moved onto Pathfinder, or entirely unrelated games some time ago, releasing an alternate ruleset of 4e will win them back all of those lost players.

Edit: To say nothing of what'll happen when they do successfully win new players, and these players are introduced with this alternate ruleset, and then try and move over to 'core' 4e. If the launch of 4e proves anything, it's that gamers tend not to react well, in general, to change.

Different doens't mean unequal or unworkable.
#8
frothsof
Sep 22, 2010 14:57:07 staff fighting knights, pyro mage features, a bunch of useless crap. and a retro article on crappy knights through time. one player baby adventures for essential nubs. oh and a genasi article. where is the classic 4e support? how long will it be like this
#9
aradraugfea
Sep 22, 2010 21:44:57

See, I'm not so sure about bringing an essentials character into a normal 4e campaign. From the looks of it, the class progression is rather different. I personally disagree with the idea that Essentials is just '4e simplified.' It's a new ruleset, one not too far separated from 4e, but still a new ruleset, if only with the way classes progress. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at Essentials much beyond the preview content, but the preview content made it all look very much like using the basic 4th edition rules to make older edition's characters. Which, you know, that's fine, not my thing, but they're not forcing me to play, at least not yet. I really hope that Essentials ends up as a check box similar to 'inherent bonuses.' Check it, you get access to the Essentials rules. Don't check it, nothing changes. Now, if my impression's wrong and it's really not all that different once you have the full thing to look at, I guess the ability to just check it off in campaign settings would be fine, but I'm really not impressed with the Essential's line from a conceptual standpoint, though I totally understand the business reasoning behind it, even if I think they might be a bit over optimistic if they think, with many of the 'old school' gamers having moved onto Pathfinder, or entirely unrelated games some time ago, releasing an alternate ruleset of 4e will win them back all of those lost players.

Edit: To say nothing of what'll happen when they do successfully win new players, and these players are introduced with this alternate ruleset, and then try and move over to 'core' 4e. If the launch of 4e proves anything, it's that gamers tend not to react well, in general, to change.

Different doens't mean unequal or unworkable.

Yeah, I mean, it might work out, but, just initial reaction from what they've shown us so far is that balance might swing somewhere weird if one person is going essentials while others aren't, and, frankly, I'd rather avoid having to explain to a new player, the people Essentials is supposed to bring in, why their fighter is progressing entirely differently from the other fighter in the party. The 'sameness' for all that people have bemoaned it, makes it really easy to get new players in, because you have to teach them one system. The classes, which are, in essence, the user interface for the players, are uniform enough in basic progression and mechanics that you can simply teach them the generalities and then let them simply worry about what sort of thing they'd like to do. There's none of the issue from earlier editions with certain classes being more newbie friendly than others, their progression simply being easier to wrap your head around. I play with a lot of people who, before I taught them 4e, had never played any tabletop game. My group is the very people that Essentials is supposedly meant to be helping. If I'd had to teach them Essentials instead of 'base' 4e, I think I'd have had to do more work. Maybe not a LOT more work, but still more work. Which is part of my conceptual problem with the Essentials line, honestly. 4th Edition is already pretty newbie friendly, it was mocked for it a lot in it's early run. Essential's adds a layer of complexity that wasn't there before. The layer might be minor, but it's there. Then there's simply me doubting that the secondary goal of getting old school players back, which I admit, Essentials is designed well to do, is going to play out, with many old school players having, in the years since 4e was released, moved onto Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, or simply entirely unrelated games. Those that haven't decided to simply continue 3.5 games, at least.

I'm not saying Essentials is a bad product. If 4e had been like this from the get go, with more of the 3.5 style progression, I think the edition war would have been shorter and less fiercely fought, but I think it's a little late to hold out much hope for getting those players back, and I challenge the assertion that Essentials is somehow easier on brand new players.

As it'd stands, it's kind of a product I'd only use to bring old 3.5 players that haven't gamed in a while into an easy transition to 'core' 4e. And even then, only if I think they'd be like one player who eventually ended up moving on to Pathfinder, who found certain concepts of 4e anathema.

Just the opinion of one person, but... yeah. Essentials=Optional Checkbox, pls.

On a tangental note, I will be picking up the rules compendium, if only to have all of the core rules in a single book, rather than scattered across 6 books and an errata list.
#10
Warunsun
Sep 23, 2010 18:59:12 I believe I read that upcoming D&D organized events like Encounters are going to be Essential build-only. If that is true then those WotC web articles about how the older builds were still completely viable doesn't ring quite true. Basically, they should have said you can still play the old builds but if you want to be "cool" and actually "play" in current events/Encounters you must use the Essential builds. It is quite a bad move. Almost as bad as not having the character builder ready. I don't blame the programers but the suits in charge should have forseen the need for overtime and temporary help or whatever was needed to have the critical revised Essentials builds ready for the 21st.
#11
The_Jester
Sep 24, 2010 9:22:34 I'm also a little disappointed. I'm glad I got this month's payment back (due to lack of tool updates) because we've seen so many previews and now three (plus) big DDE articles that I will never, ever use in my game.
Yeah, most articles in Dragon I'll never use in my game because I DM and rarely play. And with so many races/classes, the odds of an article being appropriate to my race/class are slim. But there was always a chance it would work and it might inform my decision for my next PC. But I have no interest in picking-up the two player DDE books (buying the combat rules for a third and fourth time respectively) and have no need of a simpler class.

But really, I'm not too worried. DDE is *just* out and they want some support right out of the gate to attract the droves of new Red Box players to DDI. It'll be a couple months and then we might find a balance. Then articles might support both groups of classes.

Still... staff fighting was such a cool idea for an article. And the feats could have been presented to mesh with classes or class features instead of DDE class features, or offer generic bonuses. I feel scammed after being so jazzed by seeing the article on the front page of the site.

I really hope we're not seeing only DDE moving forward with new classes and options. UGH. That would be worse than the Basic/Advanced 1e split. At least then both groups were being served and one was not being ignored.
This possibility really won't help increase full-year renewals.
#12
WolfStar76
Sep 24, 2010 10:51:24
I believe I read that upcoming D&D organized events like Encounters are going to be Essential build-only. If that is true then those WotC web articles about how the older builds were still completely viable doesn't ring quite true. Basically, they should have said you can still play the old builds but if you want to be "cool" and actually "play" in current events/Encounters you must use the Essential builds. It is quite a bad move. Almost as bad as not having the character builder ready. I don't blame the programers but the suits in charge should have forseen the need for overtime and temporary help or whatever was needed to have the critical revised Essentials builds ready for the 21st.

That decision is being made for two reasons:

1) Encounters promotes current product (like last season being Dark Sun).
2) The target audience for Essentials is new (to 4E) players and/or casual players. Essentials has a similar market, so the two are a natural fit for each other.

LFR will be supporting Essentials AND old content (or so the signs seem to indicate). WotC has also mentioned a new program next year, in a vein similar to Encounters, that will allow for all options again.

So, in short, this isn't a decision being made because of the virtues of Essentials, but instead because of the virtues of the Encounters program and who it's meant to target.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kartesh Sep 22, 2010 7:31:23	Essentials only content. Will this be the new DDI concept? I would like to discuss in this thread, the issues i have with the new essentials line and especially the way it is and will be supported in DDI exclusive products. To make this clear from the start, i don't own any essentials materials yet and doubt i will be in the near future, so all my statements are based on what i can tell from the released DDI essentials articles and the class previews. In those previews Bill Slavicsek stated: „The Essentials consist of 10 key products that will form the baseline experience for the roleplaying game moving forward. The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition. The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual. The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games. The Essentials products work with all other Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products, from Player’s Handbook to new products releasing in 2011 and beyond—just like all other D&D products we release. „ It is especially this last sentence that makes me wonder about the way new content is presented in the insider articles. So Essentials isn't replacing any products published so far and it „works“, therefore is compatible with all the other D&D products? Then why do most of the new insider articles contain content that is mostly essentials only, by either connecting it to the new character design or powers/features only available in the new „system“? As it is now, the only compatibility i see is upward, so essentials classes can adept content from older classes, but it doesn't work the other way. As it is now, most products released in the the near future will contain essentials material. This leaves me with only the DDI magazines to get some content to support the main non essentials system. But those late articles i saw so far, leave me with little hope of getting anything that isnt mainly designed for essentials or even worse, only works with essentials. My opinion so far is: Essentials is fine the way it is, it has plenty of new rules and lots of stuff coming in the near future. There is no real reason to also link 90% of the DDI content to essentials and leave the old system with nothing but some occasionally compatible content. How do you think about this issue? Do you think DDI should focus more on the main system to compensate the lack of new material? Or are you fine with Essentials adapting all the useful stuff from the old system and getting all the love in the magazines ahead?
#2 asmodeuslore Sep 22, 2010 7:52:47	I think that what he meant by 'works with' is that you can be running an Essentials Game, and if one of your characters brings in a 'regular' 4e character, he can play right along with the essentials without an issue. Same for a DM running a regular game, and someone brings an Essentials character in. Both scenarios work seamlessly.
#3 Mock Sep 22, 2010 7:59:00	I think the jury is still out on the issue of Pre-E support in DDI. Earlier this month there was an article supporting the Battlemind, for instance. Essentials products hit their street date this month, and like Dark Sun, got several articles related to them at around the same time. I think it's too early to tell. The question is, what happens when the Essentials run ends? If we're seeing material that primarily leverages features and abilities only available to Essentials class builds, with the occasional feat to throw Pre-Essentials classes a bone, then I would be rather disappointed. However, I expect the articles for the next few months to mainly support Essentials class builds, and non-class stuff like races, etc. Also, remember that the article authors may choose to write stuff that works for the new hotness, which would be Essentials.
#4 aradraugfea Sep 22, 2010 9:41:14	I think that what he meant by 'works with' is that you can be running an Essentials Game, and if one of your characters brings in a 'regular' 4e character, he can play right along with the essentials without an issue. Same for a DM running a regular game, and someone brings an Essentials character in. Both scenarios work seamlessly. See, I'm not so sure about bringing an essentials character into a normal 4e campaign. From the looks of it, the class progression is rather different. I personally disagree with the idea that Essentials is just '4e simplified.' It's a new ruleset, one not too far separated from 4e, but still a new ruleset, if only with the way classes progress. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at Essentials much beyond the preview content, but the preview content made it all look very much like using the basic 4th edition rules to make older edition's characters. Which, you know, that's fine, not my thing, but they're not forcing me to play, at least not yet. I really hope that Essentials ends up as a check box similar to 'inherent bonuses.' Check it, you get access to the Essentials rules. Don't check it, nothing changes. Now, if my impression's wrong and it's really not all that different once you have the full thing to look at, I guess the ability to just check it off in campaign settings would be fine, but I'm really not impressed with the Essential's line from a conceptual standpoint, though I totally understand the business reasoning behind it, even if I think they might be a bit over optimistic if they think, with many of the 'old school' gamers having moved onto Pathfinder, or entirely unrelated games some time ago, releasing an alternate ruleset of 4e will win them back all of those lost players. Edit: To say nothing of what'll happen when they do successfully win new players, and these players are introduced with this alternate ruleset, and then try and move over to 'core' 4e. If the launch of 4e proves anything, it's that gamers tend not to react well, in general, to change.
#5 frothsof Sep 22, 2010 9:59:11	i am starting to feel like its going to be 99% essentials in the mags, with a lot of 1st and 2nd level adventures. basically the value is going south for me
#6 cplwaffles Sep 22, 2010 13:02:18	It's too early to judge. Every time they release something new the magazines are very heavily slanted to that project. The question - that they won't or can't answer right now - is what the balance will look like after the massive launch of Essentials. What I'm looking forward to is articles that work well with both styles of characters. Feats, paths and options I can apply to my PHB fighter and my slayer.
#7 Dane_McArdy Sep 22, 2010 14:35:54	I think that what he meant by 'works with' is that you can be running an Essentials Game, and if one of your characters brings in a 'regular' 4e character, he can play right along with the essentials without an issue. Same for a DM running a regular game, and someone brings an Essentials character in. Both scenarios work seamlessly. See, I'm not so sure about bringing an essentials character into a normal 4e campaign. From the looks of it, the class progression is rather different. I personally disagree with the idea that Essentials is just '4e simplified.' It's a new ruleset, one not too far separated from 4e, but still a new ruleset, if only with the way classes progress. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at Essentials much beyond the preview content, but the preview content made it all look very much like using the basic 4th edition rules to make older edition's characters. Which, you know, that's fine, not my thing, but they're not forcing me to play, at least not yet. I really hope that Essentials ends up as a check box similar to 'inherent bonuses.' Check it, you get access to the Essentials rules. Don't check it, nothing changes. Now, if my impression's wrong and it's really not all that different once you have the full thing to look at, I guess the ability to just check it off in campaign settings would be fine, but I'm really not impressed with the Essential's line from a conceptual standpoint, though I totally understand the business reasoning behind it, even if I think they might be a bit over optimistic if they think, with many of the 'old school' gamers having moved onto Pathfinder, or entirely unrelated games some time ago, releasing an alternate ruleset of 4e will win them back all of those lost players. Edit: To say nothing of what'll happen when they do successfully win new players, and these players are introduced with this alternate ruleset, and then try and move over to 'core' 4e. If the launch of 4e proves anything, it's that gamers tend not to react well, in general, to change. Different doens't mean unequal or unworkable.
#8 frothsof Sep 22, 2010 14:57:07	staff fighting knights, pyro mage features, a bunch of useless crap. and a retro article on crappy knights through time. one player baby adventures for essential nubs. oh and a genasi article. where is the classic 4e support? how long will it be like this
#9 aradraugfea Sep 22, 2010 21:44:57	See, I'm not so sure about bringing an essentials character into a normal 4e campaign. From the looks of it, the class progression is rather different. I personally disagree with the idea that Essentials is just '4e simplified.' It's a new ruleset, one not too far separated from 4e, but still a new ruleset, if only with the way classes progress. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at Essentials much beyond the preview content, but the preview content made it all look very much like using the basic 4th edition rules to make older edition's characters. Which, you know, that's fine, not my thing, but they're not forcing me to play, at least not yet. I really hope that Essentials ends up as a check box similar to 'inherent bonuses.' Check it, you get access to the Essentials rules. Don't check it, nothing changes. Now, if my impression's wrong and it's really not all that different once you have the full thing to look at, I guess the ability to just check it off in campaign settings would be fine, but I'm really not impressed with the Essential's line from a conceptual standpoint, though I totally understand the business reasoning behind it, even if I think they might be a bit over optimistic if they think, with many of the 'old school' gamers having moved onto Pathfinder, or entirely unrelated games some time ago, releasing an alternate ruleset of 4e will win them back all of those lost players. Edit: To say nothing of what'll happen when they do successfully win new players, and these players are introduced with this alternate ruleset, and then try and move over to 'core' 4e. If the launch of 4e proves anything, it's that gamers tend not to react well, in general, to change. Different doens't mean unequal or unworkable. Yeah, I mean, it might work out, but, just initial reaction from what they've shown us so far is that balance might swing somewhere weird if one person is going essentials while others aren't, and, frankly, I'd rather avoid having to explain to a new player, the people Essentials is supposed to bring in, why their fighter is progressing entirely differently from the other fighter in the party. The 'sameness' for all that people have bemoaned it, makes it really easy to get new players in, because you have to teach them one system. The classes, which are, in essence, the user interface for the players, are uniform enough in basic progression and mechanics that you can simply teach them the generalities and then let them simply worry about what sort of thing they'd like to do. There's none of the issue from earlier editions with certain classes being more newbie friendly than others, their progression simply being easier to wrap your head around. I play with a lot of people who, before I taught them 4e, had never played any tabletop game. My group is the very people that Essentials is supposedly meant to be helping. If I'd had to teach them Essentials instead of 'base' 4e, I think I'd have had to do more work. Maybe not a LOT more work, but still more work. Which is part of my conceptual problem with the Essentials line, honestly. 4th Edition is already pretty newbie friendly, it was mocked for it a lot in it's early run. Essential's adds a layer of complexity that wasn't there before. The layer might be minor, but it's there. Then there's simply me doubting that the secondary goal of getting old school players back, which I admit, Essentials is designed well to do, is going to play out, with many old school players having, in the years since 4e was released, moved onto Pathfinder, Fantasycraft, or simply entirely unrelated games. Those that haven't decided to simply continue 3.5 games, at least. I'm not saying Essentials is a bad product. If 4e had been like this from the get go, with more of the 3.5 style progression, I think the edition war would have been shorter and less fiercely fought, but I think it's a little late to hold out much hope for getting those players back, and I challenge the assertion that Essentials is somehow easier on brand new players. As it'd stands, it's kind of a product I'd only use to bring old 3.5 players that haven't gamed in a while into an easy transition to 'core' 4e. And even then, only if I think they'd be like one player who eventually ended up moving on to Pathfinder, who found certain concepts of 4e anathema. Just the opinion of one person, but... yeah. Essentials=Optional Checkbox, pls. On a tangental note, I will be picking up the rules compendium, if only to have all of the core rules in a single book, rather than scattered across 6 books and an errata list.
#10 Warunsun Sep 23, 2010 18:59:12	I believe I read that upcoming D&D organized events like Encounters are going to be Essential build-only. If that is true then those WotC web articles about how the older builds were still completely viable doesn't ring quite true. Basically, they should have said you can still play the old builds but if you want to be "cool" and actually "play" in current events/Encounters you must use the Essential builds. It is quite a bad move. Almost as bad as not having the character builder ready. I don't blame the programers but the suits in charge should have forseen the need for overtime and temporary help or whatever was needed to have the critical revised Essentials builds ready for the 21st.
#11 The_Jester Sep 24, 2010 9:22:34	I'm also a little disappointed. I'm glad I got this month's payment back (due to lack of tool updates) because we've seen so many previews and now three (plus) big DDE articles that I will never, ever use in my game. Yeah, most articles in Dragon I'll never use in my game because I DM and rarely play. And with so many races/classes, the odds of an article being appropriate to my race/class are slim. But there was always a chance it would work and it might inform my decision for my next PC. But I have no interest in picking-up the two player DDE books (buying the combat rules for a third and fourth time respectively) and have no need of a simpler class. But really, I'm not too worried. DDE is just out and they want some support right out of the gate to attract the droves of new Red Box players to DDI. It'll be a couple months and then we might find a balance. Then articles might support both groups of classes. Still... staff fighting was such a cool idea for an article. And the feats could have been presented to mesh with classes or class features instead of DDE class features, or offer generic bonuses. I feel scammed after being so jazzed by seeing the article on the front page of the site. I really hope we're not seeing only DDE moving forward with new classes and options. UGH. That would be worse than the Basic/Advanced 1e split. At least then both groups were being served and one was not being ignored. This possibility really won't help increase full-year renewals.
#12 WolfStar76 Sep 24, 2010 10:51:24	I believe I read that upcoming D&D organized events like Encounters are going to be Essential build-only. If that is true then those WotC web articles about how the older builds were still completely viable doesn't ring quite true. Basically, they should have said you can still play the old builds but if you want to be "cool" and actually "play" in current events/Encounters you must use the Essential builds. It is quite a bad move. Almost as bad as not having the character builder ready. I don't blame the programers but the suits in charge should have forseen the need for overtime and temporary help or whatever was needed to have the critical revised Essentials builds ready for the 21st. That decision is being made for two reasons: 1) Encounters promotes current product (like last season being Dark Sun). 2) The target audience for Essentials is new (to 4E) players and/or casual players. Essentials has a similar market, so the two are a natural fit for each other. LFR will be supporting Essentials AND old content (or so the signs seem to indicate). WotC has also mentioned a new program next year, in a vein similar to Encounters, that will allow for all options again. So, in short, this isn't a decision being made because of the virtues of Essentials, but instead because of the virtues of the Encounters program and who it's meant to target.