D&D 5E Essentials: More like 3.9e than 4.5e (link inside)

[outsider]

I don't think that was one of those design goals they talked about, no.

Actually, it's the one they were most explicit about:

Playing a wizard presented different challenges and required more rules mastery than playing a fighter. We wanted to preserve and return to that aspect of the Dungeons & Dragons game in the Essentials products.

As far as not being "forced" to change goes, that is true on some level. If the existing content is roughly equal complexity to the high end of the new content, I have no problem. This is not a new edition though. I am going to be exposed to this content when I play 4e, like it or not. If it makes existing options inferior, then there's a problem.

Evidentally people that liked the new model of equal system mastery requirements didn't speak up enough, so I'm doing so now. Wizards, if you start limiting mechanical/tactical complexity based on RP character themes, I will cease buying 4e products.

 

[Mistwell]

Rhetoric aside, there's a chance that once all of this is released in final form, most of the people who use 4E will decide the new material doesn't work for their ongoing campaigns. Some might adopt a bit or piece here or there on the order of houseruling their game. Others might use all of it, essentially changing the face of their campaign or even ending it and beginning a new campaign so as to avoid continuity issues they feel might come up.

As far as crunch, it's almost entirely composed of: 1) new classes, and 2) errata that filters through the other books anyway, as usual. How are either of those things that don't work for campaigns or things that change the face of a campaign, any more than any other normal expansion book?

For our part, a member of our regular group will be running ToH4E soon and we'll see how the current system handles that classic. After he has the chance to evaluate the Essentials line of revisions, he'll make the call if it is worth adopted them for the next time he runs a 4E foray for our group.

Why do you call Essentials "revisions". How are new classes "revisions"?

 

[frankthedm]

4e is like a new version of Microsoft Office. It is not something I will run out and "have to get". But if it comes with the machine, I'll use it (ie, if I join a group that uses 4e, I'll gladly play). The new features will be nice and I will probably grumble at the old stuff that worked that they redesigned. But I'll get along.

 

[pawsplay]

By calling it a band-wagon, you are implying something negative.

We had this argument last year. Summary: most people do not take it that way. Be offended if you want.

 

[Aegeri]

We had this argument last year. Summary: most people do not take it that way. Be offended if you want.

Actually I also assume the term band-wagon is negative. Just as an aside.

 

[MortalPlague]

Actually I also assume the term band-wagon is negative. Just as an aside.

Bands are good... wagons are good... How can the two be negative when put together?

Being Canadian, the term band-wagon is usually applied to hockey. People hop on the band-wagon when the team does well, and hop off as soon as they lose a game. And so... band-wagon fans have a negative connotation here.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice4Hire
That is going to be annoying for the DDI people when/if they want to get off the bandwagon.

Why?

Well, if you are DDI, how do you stop the errata? You can pick and choose the books (or so I have heard) but how do you say "I'll assume everything about 4E is perfect as of July 2010 and not want to bother with further changes?

You cannot.

I know it would be chaos to allow that kind of stuff as some powers might have several versions altered in different ways on different dates, but if I were DDI, I would want to be able to say "Enough is enough with all the updates/errata."

 

[Starfox]

Looked at the presentation of the new cleric (warpriest). Even more rigid and pre-defined than 4E classes used to be. For me this is not 3.9, it is 2.5, back to the rigid class system with few options that existed back then.

Not buying it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, if you are DDI, how do you stop the errata? You can pick and choose the books (or so I have heard) but how do you say "I'll assume everything about 4E is perfect as of July 2010 and not want to bother with further changes?

You cannot.

I know it would be chaos to allow that kind of stuff as some powers might have several versions altered in different ways on different dates, but if I were DDI, I would want to be able to say "Enough is enough with all the updates/errata."

Stop subscribing? Would not that do it?

I do admit to being someone who have never been bothered by errata, in 20+ years of gaming. If there was a problem with something in the old days I made a ruling and we moved on and I still do this unless I am aware that there is errata, which I might look up for a specific problem.

Thinking about it some more, keep a certain copy of the CB and Monster builder that you do not update would also work.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Stop subscribing? Would not that do it?

I do admit to being someone who have never been bothered by errata, in 20+ years of gaming. If there was a problem with something in the old days I made a ruling and we moved on and I still do this unless I am aware that there is errata, which I might look up for a specific problem.

Thinking about it some more, keep a certain copy of the CB and Monster builder that you do not update would also work.

Well, I should have mentioned I was assuming someone who wanted more books, but not more errata. I think there area a lot of DDI people like that.

If I got DDI, I would want it to be the same as my physical books so I could use the DDI character builder to speed up my character building, but having large differences would not please me.

Not a bad idea to keep copies out if that is possible.