Class Compendium: Heroes of Legend

JoeGKushner said:

The real question is, is it now 4.5?

Click to expand...

For me, the defining characteristic of 3.5 was the publishing of new versions of existing books that current players needed to purchase to retain the current rules of the game.

That has not happened here. What we have is a book that will serve as a stepping stone for Essentials players into the rest of the game, and a book that existing players can buy if they want what is effectively an updated PHB with errata incorporated and fancy new Essentials formatting/presentation/portability. Some people will want that, and thus buy this.

Unlike with 3.5, though, many other existing players won't buy this and don't need to do so.

That's the bottom line, for me. I don't need to buy this book. I can buy other books that come after it and they will remain 100% compatible with my existing PHB. I can play my PHB characters alongside Essentials characters without any problems at all.

Some people claim you could do the same with 3.0 and 3.5. All I can say is... it didn't feel that way for me.

Hence, for me, this is not 4.5 in any way that actually matters.

TerraDave said:

If you want to play 08 D&D you can. No one is stopping you. But if you want to stay current with the "core" rules, you need to have these new print products and or access to the DDI.

Click to expand...

No, you don't. All you need, technically, is the free errata online for whatever product you have.

My PHB is current with the "core" rules. There is some errata that changes things... though the vast majority of it is to specific details and not the core rules itself. The new magic item system is really the only thing of note, and that is basically an alternative approach rather than an actual replacement.

3.0 to 3.5 changed not just the details of classes and races and feats and spells (usually in ways with much larger ramifications on the game), but also core systems like magic items, damage reduction, monster creation, and the skill system. Changes to Bull's Strength, Haste, etc completely altered entire play styles. I don't think I've seen a single change in all of 4E that compares to the changes to those spells.

My 4E PHB is current in a way that a 3.0 PHB, when 3.5 was released, could never be.

MrMyth said:

For me, the defining characteristic of 3.5 was the publishing of new versions of existing books that current players needed to purchase to retain the current rules of the game.

That has not happened here. What we have is a book that will serve as a stepping stone for Essentials players into the rest of the game, and a book that existing players can buy if they want what is effectively an updated PHB with errata incorporated and fancy new Essentials formatting/presentation/portability. Some people will want that, and thus buy this.

Unlike with 3.5, though, many other existing players won't buy this and don't need to do so.

That's the bottom line, for me. I don't need to buy this book. I can buy other books that come after it and they will remain 100% compatible with my existing PHB. I can play my PHB characters alongside Essentials characters without any problems at all.

Some people claim you could do the same with 3.0 and 3.5. All I can say is... it didn't feel that way for me.

Hence, for me, this is not 4.5 in any way that actually matters.



No, you don't. All you need, technically, is the free errata online for whatever product you have.

My PHB is current with the "core" rules. There is some errata that changes things... though the vast majority of it is to specific details and not the core rules itself. The new magic item system is really the only thing of note, and that is basically an alternative approach rather than an actual replacement.

3.0 to 3.5 changed not just the details of classes and races and feats and spells (usually in ways with much larger ramifications on the game), but also core systems like magic items, damage reduction, monster creation, and the skill system. Changes to Bull's Strength, Haste, etc completely altered entire play styles. I don't think I've seen a single change in all of 4E that compares to the changes to those spells.

My 4E PHB is current in a way that a 3.0 PHB, when 3.5 was released, could never be.

Click to expand...

Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using? What treasure placement rules are you using? How about Magic Items?

There seem to be alot more differences than people are admitting to. As an example... take a look at the Arcana skill description in the PHB and then look at it in the RC. RC has changed the official uses of this skill dramatically and the new applications of this skill are not in the PHB eratta.

MrMyth said:

3.0 to 3.5 changed not just the details of classes and races and feats and spells (usually in ways with much larger ramifications on the game), but also core systems like magic items, damage reduction, monster creation, and the skill system. Changes to Bull's Strength, Haste, etc completely altered entire play styles. I don't think I've seen a single change in all of 4E that compares to the changes to those spells.

Click to expand...

And because of the integrated design 3e had, all those changes affected more things than just characters of a given class. I've used the power attack change as an argument against integrated design for a while now. One feat is changed, and it completely alters the viability of melee.

Imaro said:

Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using? What treasure placement rules are you using? How about Magic Items?

Click to expand...

I think the question to ask though when looking at changes and updates is how that update effects the viability of using a current thing in play.

For instance ok, so skill DCs changed- it doesn't cause someone to have to retroactively go back and "fix" their character to meet the new standards.

If you were more effective then anyone else at one skill for example, the same will be true after the switch. You'll still be the same level of more effective.

Same with treasure placement rules. Switching to the "new" rules mid play doesn't really effect a character already in play.

Same with the magic items- items didn't gain or loose power, just a keyword.

There seem to be alot more differences than people are admitting to.

Click to expand...

It's not so much differences as effect on the current game.

When 3e changed to 3.5 a lot of the changes rippled throughout the game causing you to have to really change a lot of things.

Say for example the magic items needed to hit certain monsters...When 3.5 switched to needing types of items to get through DR- it meant a retroactive change to how a character was built and what items they had in order to function in combat.

Part of it is how the system is built as a whole:

3e felt more like it wanted everything to build off of everything else...

AKA a ranger was "the ranger." So when it was changed, and the 3.5 ranger came out, the rest of the game assumed the starting point would be the 3.5 ranger. Anything that was designed for the ranger took that as the starting point, so this meant a lot of things didn't fit right since they werre designed accounting for the 3e version.

4e has its base rules, and then the layered exceptions. Classes for the most part are layered exceptions... There might be multiple types of rangers, so adding a new one won't effect anything about the old one.

The powerrs are an ever further out layer. Changing a single power won't effect every ranger out there, only the one build that happens to choose that power.

There hasn't been a whole lot of big changes to the "base" system, so not a lot of effect has happened to the game as a whole. Most of it (in the errata) has happened to the "exceptions" which only effect the people using them, so the changes don't really have a huge impact.

I think this is why while in truth they have made a ton of changes and updates through errata and what not, it has less of an effect on the game, then a smaller number of changes in the old system would have.


It's the PiTA factor... IF making a change is a PiTA for the majority of players it would count more towards a .whatever update.

If not, it doesn't.

As an example... take a look at the Arcana skill description in the PHB and then look at it in the RC. RC has changed the official uses of this skill dramatically and the new applications of this skill are not in the PHB eratta.

Click to expand...

What am I missing that's such a dramatic change?

AngryMojo said:

And because of the integrated design 3e had, all those changes affected more things than just characters of a given class. I've used the power attack change as an argument against integrated design for a while now. One feat is changed, and it completely alters the viability of melee.

Click to expand...

How does having two points of damage for every point of base attact bonus spent when using a two-handed weapon completely alter the viability of melee? I don't see it

Scribble said:

I think the question to ask though when looking at changes and updates is how that update effects the viability of using a current thing in play.

For instance ok, so skill DCs changed- it doesn't cause someone to have to retroactively go back and "fix" their character to meet the new standards.

If you were more effective then anyone else at one skill for example, the same will be true after the switch. You'll still be the same level of more effective.

Same with treasure placement rules. Switching to the "new" rules mid play doesn't really effect a character already in play.

Same with the magic items- items didn't gain or loose power, just a keyword.

Click to expand...

I think your argument is flawed, especially since D&D is not a competitive game. It doesn't matter that before the change I was 15% better than Dave in Athletics and after the change I am still 15% better than Dave, because the majority use of skills is against challenges in game not against other PC's. When my effectiveness against an easy/medium/hard challenge in game fluctuates, it creates a different interaction with the play environment, and thus a difference in my character. If I was easily capable of scaling a wall last game and now for some reason it's gotten harder... how is this not a change in gameplay. It's these types of differences that can very easily set the feel (gritty, whimsical, heroic, super-heroish) in a game. So I would argue that, yes, it is a big change.

I also don't see how going from being able to create certain magic items to it now being disallowed is not a major change in the game, as well as for some PC's in classic 4e... or the fact that you can easily end up with way more or way less treasure than before also not a change in gameplay?

Scribble said:

What am I missing that's such a dramatic change?

Click to expand...

Ok, "dramatically" might have been an exaggeration but there are differences. If I use the skill description from classic, I can identify Rituals but can't manipulate the qualities of one's magic, control outside magical phenomenon or use it instead of diplomacy (or to enhance diplomacy) with certain creatures...

While if I use essentials as my reference I can't identify rituals but can do all thew other stuff.

It is inconsitencies like the above that can cause two players with different sources (or even a player and a DM with two different sources) tol have skewed understandings of what exactly they are capable of with the same skill.

Phaoz said:

How does having two points of damage for every point of base attact bonus spent when using a two-handed weapon completely alter the viability of melee? I don't see it

Click to expand...

It greatly increases the damage output. By the time you get to level 10, you've effectively turned a defender into a striker. Not to mention it became that way with every creature that used a two-handed weapon, making them absurdly dangerous. Thanks to that little change, it's possible to one-shot unprepared arcane casters at much higher levels than before.

I mostly use it as an example against integrated design. Your reaction is very typical of someone just reading the feat, but imagine everything that little change affects. In 3.5, there were two ways to deal damage with melee weapons, either have very high precision-based damage like sneak attack, or dump what you can into power attack and get large fixed bonuses. There's a reason why Pathfinder changed the feat into it's current form under that system.

Imaro said:

Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using?

Click to expand...

Well, for quite a while I used the pre-errata skill DCs without the +5 DC footnote. More recently, I came up with my own chart that ended up pretty much on par with what WotC is using. My current DM is using the new chart, and was quite pleased that she didn't need to buy Essentials to use it, since it is freely posted on the WotC site.

Imaro said:

What treasure placement rules are you using?

Click to expand...

Probably the old ones. I might occasionally use the random treasure generator for some campaigns or one-shots. I like having the option of it. But it has almost no effect on the actual game itself. My current DM, again, will certainly continue choosing treasure via parcels and placing it where she feels appropriate.

If someone said that, because we weren't using randomly rolled treasure, we weren't playing current 4th Edition D&D, I'd consider that person insane.

Imaro said:

How about Magic Items?

Click to expand...

I'm likely to use the new rules for most things. Like I said - this is the one legitimate change I really see. But also one posted in the Errata. It also is relatively isolated - it doesn't require any real change to existing characters. It just determines that, going forward, players can use more item powers, and the DM hands out loot in a slightly different dynamic.

Imaro said:

I think your argument is flawed, especially since D&D is not a competitive game. It doesn't matter that before the change I was 15% better than Dave in Athletics and after the change I am still 15% better than Dave, because the majority use of skills is against challenges in game not against other PC's. When my effectiveness against an easy/medium/hard challenge in game fluctuates, it creates a different interaction with the play environment, and thus a difference in my character. If I was easily capable of scaling a wall last game and now for some reason it's gotten harder... how is this not a change in gameplay. It's these types of differences that can very easily set the feel (gritty, whimsical, heroic, super-heroish) in a game. So I would argue that, yes, it is a big change.

Click to expand...

Well, the primary change was to the higher DCs. So the only difference would be that players who were trivially accomplishing difficult things are now not quite as good at doing so. Only by epic levels had the difference grown to the point where I think a character would feel a truly substantial shift in gameplay.

I mean, I just don't see it on that substantial a scale. Skill DCs and Skill Challenges are already something that fluctuate wildly in nature from one DM to the next. I don't think this will fundamentally change the game any more than the first Skill DC errata did.

When 3.5 hit, changes to individual spells altered the entire dynamic of the adventuring day for some parties. Other changes to spells and feats and classes could make entire characters fundamentally different from how they played before.

The change to DR required characters take an entirely new approach to acquiring weaponry. That alone, I suspect, had more impact on purchasing conditions in 3.5 than the entire shift in magic items and treasure options will have on characters going forward in 4E.

Some groups might experience these huge changes you fear. Some player might quit in anger because he is no longer guaranteed to climb the tallest, spikiest wall in existence. But I'm doubtful that will be common. I think the vast majority of groups will go on playing without much notice of the changes. And those groups that keep playing out of their PHB, and use the old treasure system or the like, will remain just as current and feel just the same as every other group out there.

Imaro said:

I think your argument is flawed, especially since D&D is not a competitive game. It doesn't matter that before the change I was 15% better than Dave in Athletics and after the change I am still 15% better than Dave, because the majority use of skills is against challenges in game not against other PC's. When my effectiveness against an easy/medium/hard challenge in game fluctuates, it creates a different interaction with the play environment, and thus a difference in my character.

Click to expand...

Guess I didn't word it right...

It's not that you're competing against Dave, that was just the easiest way for me to put it into words.

Let's say you have 3 levels of ability.

Meager
Average
Awesome

You build your character to be awesome.

The game adjusts the DCs.

You are still per the rules in the awesome category, just what that means has changed. There isn't a new category super awesome, and it hasn't moved you into the Average category, so you don't need to rework your character to get back to where you were.

Awesome may have meant succeeding 90% of the time before, and now it means succeeding 70% of the time- but there isn't a category that DOES now succeed 90% of the time. Awesome just now means 70% for everything.

If I was easily capable of scaling a wall last game and now for some reason it's gotten harder... how is this not a change in gameplay.

Click to expand...

Sure- but that's true of everyone. There isn't a way you need to rebuild your guy to match your effectiveness. If you were great at climbing walls, you're still great at climbing walls.

In other words, if your character has been optimally built to be the best at climbing walls- he still is.

It's these types of differences that can very easily set the feel (gritty, whimsical, heroic, super-heroish) in a game. So I would argue that, yes, it is a big change.

Click to expand...

Sure... But mostly that should be the DM's territory to decide not the games really. Whatever he wants to in the end set the DCs to.

and again- it's not that it's not a change... It's how much of a PITA is it going to be is the easiest way I can say it. If it's going to force a lot of re-working or something, or cuase certain options to no longer be valid.

For instance, if they changed skills to say now there's a climb skill, and a climb walls skill...

THAT would be a change that forces me to switch my guy around. I built him to be able to climb walls, but after the change my climb skill drops way lower then where it was built to be. I COULD optimize to be a wall climber, but through no action of mine, my climb walls skill went to being unoptimized.

Now if I want to be a wall climber I have to re-build my guy to be optimized in wall climbing.

As it stabnds now- I'm still optimized in climb- it's just gotten harder for everyone to climb walls... See what I mean?

I also don't see how going from being able to create certain magic items to it now being disallowed is not a major change in the game, as well as for some PC's in classic 4e... or the fact that you can easily end up with way more or way less treasure than before also not a change in gameplay?

Click to expand...

The power level has not changed in MI, just new keywords, and which ones can be created.

If I have a holy avenger now, it doesn't change my power level compared to if I have a holy avenger not labeled rare.

Ok, "dramatically" might have been an exaggeration but there are differences. If I use the skill description from classic, I can identify Rituals but can't manipulate the qualities of one's magic, control outside magical phenomenon or use it instead of diplomacy (or to enhance diplomacy) with certain creatures...

While if I use essentials as my reference I can't identify rituals but can do all thew other stuff.

Click to expand...

I don't think adding abilities to a skill description is really an issue.. After all by way of page 42 we were supposed to be doing this anyway... They've just kind of mixed it into the skills, and unlocked/standardized a few things.

I'm also guessing that when rituals show up in Heroes of Legend, the ritual bit will be added to arcana... It's just that with no rituals it would be confusing for those with just these books...

It is inconsitencies like the above that can cause two players with different sources (or even a player and a DM with two different sources) tol have skewed understandings of what exactly they are capable of with the same skill.

Click to expand...

Sure... But specific beats general, new beats old.

In the case of the Arcana skill since it doesn't specifically say you can't do the ritual thing, it stands to reason you can.

In the case of all the skills it seems sort of to be the default the stuff you can do with the skills are just basically suggestions...

Again none of this is really a change that forces you to rebuild your character to do what you used to be able to do.

Which in the end is why I keep harping on the PiTA factor.

AngryMojo said:

It greatly increases the damage output. By the time you get to level 10, you've effectively turned a defender into a striker. Not to mention it became that way with every creature that used a two-handed weapon, making them absurdly dangerous. Thanks to that little change, it's possible to one-shot unprepared arcane casters at much higher levels than before.

I mostly use it as an example against integrated design. Your reaction is very typical of someone just reading the feat, but imagine everything that little change affects. In 3.5, there were two ways to deal damage with melee weapons, either have very high precision-based damage like sneak attack, or dump what you can into power attack and get large fixed bonuses. There's a reason why Pathfinder changed the feat into it's current form under that system.

Click to expand...

weird even when playing a greatax welding oger with a 30 strength (yes it was unballenced) i found power atteck nearly useless due to loosing the bab