D&D Essentials: Ask me anything.

[Psychic Robot]

After discussing it with a friend of mine, I caved and picked up Heroes of the Fallen Lands. We were both tired of Pathfinder's perpetual failures and were both extremely disappointed with WFRP, and we needed something to scratch our fantasy itch. At a price tag of $20, it seemed too good to pass up.

So let's get through the basic stuff. This is 4e, so the stuff you're doing at level 1 is going to be the same stuff you're doing at level 30. Some people like it; others hate it; I'm ambivalent on the issue. And the classes are generally inflexible as all get-out: if you're a knight, you're doing knight things, and that's that. There's not much you're doing as a wizard aside from light nuking and controller things, either, and few character concepts are covered by the rules. This slightly grates on my 3e-inclined self where there was a strong framework for a multitude of concepts and character ideas.

But no matter.

Let us move on to the classes. There are five of them: knight (defender), slayer (striker), thief (striker), wizard (controller), and warpriest (leader).

The knight and slayer work similarly--they have several at-will stances they can shift into that allow them to modify their basic attacks. Two examples are Defend the Line and Hammer Hands. Defend the Line allows you to slow anyone hit by your melee basic attack, and Hammer Hands lets you push an enemy one square and move into the square he just exited. Simple enough, yes? They also get a few utility powers, such as Shield Block, which allows you to reduce damage from an enemy attack against you or an adjacent ally equal to 1d10 + Con modifier (increases to 3d10 + Con overall).

Interestingly enough, slayers make decent archers, and I can't tell if this was or was not intentional. They add their Dex modifier to the damage of their weapon attacks, allowing them to double up their bonus damage on ranged attacks. A few of their stances also allow them to do additional damage on ranged attacks. Again, given 4e's role rigidity, I'm not sure if they did this purposely.

Onto the thief. He's just the rogue. Same sneak attack, and he has an encounter power called Backstab that grants a +3 bonus on attack rolls and +3d6 damage to a target he is sneak attacking. He receives a few thief "tricks," such as Feinting Trick, which allows you to move up to your speed and do additional damage equal to your Charisma modifier to a target that does not grant combat advantage. A lot of the stuff that the thief does is heavily focused on maneuverability, climbing around like a monkey, and avoiding being hit.

The warpriest, to me, was a disappointment. It's a very boring class. It can heal and hit things for various [W]s of damage, but that's about it. There are two builds present, Sun Domain warpriests and Thunder Domain warpriests. The former are based around heals and buffs while the latter are based around beating things to death with lightning hammers.

The mage is an interesting class. It gains access to evocation, illusion, and enchantment spells, and a host of utility powers. Unfortunately, it lacks rituals, which is something I'll be house ruling in immediately. Each does its control thing in its own way--evocation kills minions while illusion and enchantment are focused on action denial. They have plenty of cool spells like Visions of Avarice, which creates a zone of greediness that draws enemies to it. It's a significant step up over the PHB wizard, which was balls and awfulness.

Oh, and you actually prepare spells now, unlike in Core 4e. That makes me happy.

As far as the rest of the system goes...well, the math is still slightly off, but they included feat "fixes" to deal with it. They have that Weapon Expertise feat for every weapon group now (Spear Expertise, Sling Expertise, etc.), and they have Superior [Defense] (Will, Fort, Ref) feats that add a +2/+3/+4 bonus to your respective defense. It's a little grating, but I'm assuming the math is still better than Pathfinder's, so it'll have to do. Aside from that, the skill system still has borderline retarded scaling DCs, though I'm assuming they've dealt with the chances of success on those.

Magic items are ridiculously sparse. I'm not a huge fan of Magic Marts everywhere, but not having a fiery sword in D&D is blasphemy.

Skill Challenges are still relegated to "handwave it," though they implore the DM to refer to the Rules Compendium for more advice.

And that's all for now. Any questions?

[Juton]

I've played a bit of 4e, my biggest complaint is that combat takes so damn long. I think in a 4 hour session we could squeeze out two fights and each fight consisted of using our encounter powers first round then spamming at-wills. Has essentials mitigated this at all?

[Doom]

I hear Arcane is now able to let the wizard cast minor magic, illusions, and such.

Are any of the other skills changed significantly from their 4e counterparts?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Is Mike Mearls about to get fired soon?

[koz]

Is anything out of combat still Magic Tea Party? Did they just completely leave out of combat actions now, and admitted they've made a battle sim? Are powers still retardedly boring?

[sake]

Visions of Avarice already was a 4E Wizard spell. Infact, it was actually nerfed to do even less for Essentials.

[Grek]

How does Superior Defense work? Is it +4 Will, +3 Ref, +2 Fort, or is it a scaling bonus?

[Sashi]

Superior Defense is a scaling bonus +2/4/6 at heroic/paragon/epic

but it also requires 15 wis/con/dex for will/fort/ref, so it's more of a "make an already good NAD stratospheric" more than a "shore up a poor NAD".

[Sarandosil]

How compatible is this with the rest of 4e ?

[malak]

I've played a bit of 4e, my biggest complaint is that combat takes so damn long. I think in a 4 hour session we could squeeze out two fights and each fight consisted of using our encounter powers first round then spamming at-wills. Has essentials mitigated this at all?

Yes. This was already fixed before, with the release of MM3. Monsters got higher damage and less hitpoints. Still, I think they didn't go far enough, but adding a bit more damage and taking away some health of the monsters makes it lethal and quick enough.

How compatible is this with the rest of 4e ?

Post-errata - perfectly compatible.

[cthulhu]

Does it blend?

[CCarter]

Is Mike Mearls about to get fired soon?

Well, its nearly Xmas time at WOTC...

[Psychic Robot]

I've played a bit of 4e, my biggest complaint is that combat takes so damn long. I think in a 4 hour session we could squeeze out two fights and each fight consisted of using our encounter powers first round then spamming at-wills. Has essentials mitigated this at all?

I haven't had the opportunity to play yet, so I can't comment on this.

I hear Arcane is now able to let the wizard cast minor magic, illusions, and such.

This is true.

Are any of the other skills changed significantly from their 4e counterparts?

Is anything out of combat still Magic Tea Party?

No, the skills haven't changed, and yes, most of it is still MTP.

Are powers still retardedly boring?

Define "retardedly boring." I found Core 4e to be so mind-numbing that I couldn't finish reading it, but I find Essentials to be palatable.

How does Superior Defense work? Is it +4 Will, +3 Ref, +2 Fort, or is it a scaling bonus?

Superior Defense is a scaling bonus +2/4/6 at heroic/paragon/epic

Superior [Defense] grants you a +2 bonus to one NAD of your choice. It scales to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.

How compatible is this with the rest of 4e ?

It's like a salad bowl. You can throw everything together, and it'll still taste good, but you can't blend them. 4e fighters are vastly different from Essentials fighters, especially given that they don't have daily powers anymore. So you can have a PHB fighter and an Essentials fighter in the same group and they'll play together, but the 4e fighter class can't multiclass with the Essentials fighter class or take its paragon path. Likewise, the Essentials fighter is mostly stuck on a straight line to level 30 because he can't take any of the material from other splatbooks.

[Sashi]

What are the requirements for Superior [Defense]? Is it true that the stat requirements basically mean they're for driving an already good NAD into the stratosphere, rather than compensating for a poor one?

[koz]

Retardedly boring = I would rather read 3.5 than this.

Is it that?

[CCarter]

What are the requirements for Superior [Defense]? Is it true that the stat requirements basically mean they're for driving an already good NAD into the stratosphere, rather than compensating for a poor one?

Isn't this a given, even without prereqs? As in, you're better off taking the feat if you can (say) drop someone's 18+ needed to hit you to a 20 (i.e. reducing their chance to hit you by two-thirds), than you would be putting up an 8+ roll required to a 10+ roll).

[Sashi]

I see your point, but everyone has 3 NADs. So if you have one that gets hit on a 6+ and another on an 18+, I'd argue it's a better idea to try and make them all strong than try and get one of them off the RNG.

After all, the DM is trying to kick you in the low NAD just like the players are trying to kick Team Monster. And most class' low NAD is also the one associated with the status effect that bones them hardest (though this is getting weird with the statocalypse)

[CCarter]

Hmm. Yep, I hadn't considered that.
I don't think you'll notice going from a 6+ to an 8+ that much even if your soft NAD is targeted all the time, but the comparative benefit at the other end (18+ to 20) does go down alot if the GM can just work around it by targetting other defenses. Superior [defence] may just be not that good, then.

[Sashi]

I guess if your goal was to just get really good NAD's and your primary and secondary stats weren't in the same stat group, you'd just have to put a 14 in your tertiary. Then you could take the first two in Heroic and the third in Paragon.

If you don't care, then you can take improved defenses (math patch. yay.) and have one feat provide a +1/tier bonus to everything.

[Psychic Robot]

What are the requirements for Superior [Defense]? Is it true that the stat requirements basically mean they're for driving an already good NAD into the stratosphere, rather than compensating for a poor one?

Fortitude: Str or Con 15.
Will: Cha or Wis 15.
Reflex: Int or Dex 15.

And yes, it's a terrible design move. Fortunately, there's the Improved Defenses feat, which gives you a +1/+2/+3 feat bonus to all your NADs with no prerequisites.

Retardedly boring = I would rather read 3.5 than this.

Is it that?

It's not interesting, but it is significantly improved over 4e. As I was in a similar situation as you and Essentials isn't putting me to sleep, I would wager that you might like it.

[Princess]

Do they still add Int to AC? Or whatever substitutes for AC.

[Psychic Robot]

Yes. Heaven forbid the wizard have abysmal AC and all.

[TheFlatline]

Yes. Heaven forbid the wizard have abysmal AC and all.

Oh good grief... how does knowing where the sword that is swinging at your head was made somehow make you harder to hit?

[Princess]

TheFlatline, in 3.5 Factotum stacked Int into Init, AC, jumping/swiming, etc.

[TheFlatline]

TheFlatline, in 3.5 Factotum stacked Int into Init, AC, jumping/swiming, etc.

Oh man that makes my head hurt...