It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:44 am

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Essentials product line finished?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:40 pm 

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:54 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
profligate wrote:
Yeah. HoS coming out in a largely E4E format killed any hope of my picking it up, regardless of any C4E useable content. I'm at a point in my frustration with WotC/Hasbro that I'd actually like to see D&D die entirely under their command and the brand be sold to a real RPG company.

I can't possibly disagree more with you on this. Not that I love all things Hasbro but I do like 4th Edition and I really think that when you listen too/ or read what Mearls, Perkins and Co. Are trying to do than I argue that we couldn't be in better hands.

Sure essentials is a confusing direction change and heroes of shadow appears to be split down the middle of essentials and core serving neither very well. But on it's own core is good but was riddled with errata problems. Essentials is a great line of products on there own.

If your not watching the Totally Rad Show, you are missing out big time.

 Post subject: Re: Essentials product line finished?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:36 pm 

Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:54 pm
Posts: 183
Emily Dickinson wrote:
I think the main challenge for 4e at this point (as it has been since well before Essentials) is that selling new material is always more difficult once enough material for a very full campaign has already been released. No matter what happens with the game, I think they will have to look at other parts of the brand besides the RPG for their profits in 2011 and 2012. I don't hope for much beyond Heroes of Shadow sized supplements increasingly few and far between.

This is true. The Paizo model seems to be working well, though... and I thought we were going to see more of that. Things like Player's Handbook Races: Dragonborn, Vor Rukoth, & Hammerfast. All of those were really good, and it seems like they could have done more with that kind of thing. I've heard that the Players Handbook Races line didn't go over too well.

I'm thinking the product line does well (especially for an RPG), but it's still not good enough for Hasbro (sales-wise). To me, that's a concern, and it could be what's creating the whole confusing mess.

 Post subject: Re: Essentials product line finished?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:39 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:49 am
Posts: 1292
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Emily, I agree with your opinion on renaming Cleric to Templar in response to the Essentials line. I just feel that Warpriest and such sub-classes' should never have existed in the first place.

I fail to see what differentiates a Warpriest from a Battle Cleric other than armor proficiency, wisdom vs strength to hit, and the domains - all things that could have been added as rule variants or errata for the Battle cleric.

the same of the Wizard (Arcanist) and the Mage, the Knight/Slayer/Weaponmaster etc.

the changing of names helps segment their mess into manageable portions, but it does little to address the fact that they made the mess in the first place.

On the whole, I've basically sworn off of martial-Essentials style classes. I enjoy the AEDU style for my play style and i've found that players in a mixed campaign (and the materials do mix well) often feel left out or non-influential in combats where game changing Daily powers are used or 'needed'.

Lawful Good is Lawful Great!

 Post subject: Re: Essentials product line finished?
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:41 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:41 am
Posts: 1334
With respect to Clerics and Wizards, it's a fair point, and it does seem more like Clerics were given an Essentials version instead of some new "Templar" builds just because all the cool classes were doing it. All of the other classes, though, are very significant departures from their c4e namesakes - there is no way to make the Slayer into another Class Build of Fighters along the same lines as a Brawler or Tempest Fighter.

Whether you like the new classes or not, I think Mearls et al. deserve credit for introducing something to 4e that expands the range of possibilities and continues the 4e virtues of intuitive character creation and seperation of classes through mechanics instead of just fluff. Daily Powers are dramatic, certainly, but a Slayer really is equal to any of the c4e Martial Strikers if the players pay attention to the long haul. I certainly agree that if everyone in the group wants to have Dailies, they should all play (sub-)classes that use Dailies.

The mermaids in the basement
Came out to look at me,

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
D&D 4th edition product