4e: big change in essentials: no more daily powers!

[dreadgazebo]

As with any game, updates can come as liberally as they want as long as they are in efforts to further balance, improve, and make the game more interesting. I wholly support these updates in a theoretical sense. However, unlike the video game world where an update is a mere patch file away, this is a bit different.

Yes the character builder can be updated via DDI (which I am a subscriber) but what about all the errata from the rule books, skills, and other more "rulebook referenced" things that we may not want to fire up the char builder (or be able to) at the game table?

With this digital age we're in, with the popularity of DDI and web based gaming aids, why not give us a digital copy of the book. A legit one. I'll admit pirating the 4e sourcebooks got me into the game, but I've purchased them all now. It would be great to see a DDI accessible web based set of books that would 'live update' if you will when these sort of things happen.

It may be bad from a money making point of view, but it would be great for the rest of us. We all know WoTC's cash cow is Magic anyways, so would we really be denting their pocket books? I'd really just like to be able to look at a rulebook that's updated already if I choose to not buy the essentials line of products is all.



All that being said I'm pumped about these updates, especially the old school Magic Missle.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Again, this is not an artefact of the "modern age" -- this was true for every edition of D&D that ever has been, and will probably be true for any that ever shall be. There was not a need for an actual 3.5. As with 4.0, WotC could have simply continued to compile errata and make it available as changes to the SRD.

The idea that 4e is somehow different.....well, the irony (as the man said) is delicious.


RC

-

The difference is largely semantic, but 4e was upfront about it.

"Here's PHB1. PHB2 and so on will introduce modular core stuff later."

Wizards changed their language for how they referred to the updating process. That is the meaningful (IMO), and un-ironic difference. The rest is window dressing.

EDIT:
Also, I do think 3.0 to 3.5 was an actual renovation far larger than most of the other modular changes in both 3.x and other editions, but that's really neither here nor there at the moment, and you've established that you felt rather differently, so there's not much point in getting into dueling anecdotes about it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

As with any game, updates can come as liberally as they want as long as they are in efforts to further balance, improve, and make the game more interesting. I wholly support these updates in a theoretical sense. However, unlike the video game world where an update is a mere patch file away, this is a bit different.

Yes the character builder can be updated via DDI (which I am a subscriber) but what about all the errata from the rule books, skills, and other more "rulebook referenced" things that we may not want to fire up the char builder (or be able to) at the game table?

With this digital age we're in, with the popularity of DDI and web based gaming aids, why not give us a digital copy of the book. A legit one. I'll admit pirating the 4e sourcebooks got me into the game, but I've purchased them all now. It would be great to see a DDI accessible web based set of books that would 'live update' if you will when these sort of things happen.

It may be bad from a money making point of view, but it would be great for the rest of us. We all know WoTC's cash cow is Magic anyways, so would we really be denting their pocket books? I'd really just like to be able to look at a rulebook that's updated already if I choose to not buy the essentials line of products is all.



All that being said I'm pumped about these updates, especially the old school Magic Missle.

You really don't need PDF sourcebooks when you have the Compendium. Compendium gets all the errata and is generally better for reference anyway.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Its even more ironic when most of the Chicken Littles are non-4E players who are invested in the sky falling on 4E.

Would this sad attempt to be insulting be tolerated by the moderators were it to be directed at 4e fans?

In any event, Chicken Little was distressed because he believed the sky was falling (i.e., a disaster was in the offing). The people you are talking about seem more exciting that perhaps something good might be in the offing because they hope it might represent a change away from what is currently being offered by WotC.

Your attempt at insult is rather like trying to call someone a "Chicken Little" because he hoped something WotC did might be an indication that the 4e module line was going to improve. It reflects less on the person you attempt to insult than it does upon yourself.


RC

 

[dreadgazebo]

You really don't need PDF sourcebooks when you have the Compendium. Compendium gets all the errata and is generally better for reference anyway.

This is true yes, but I still really like something about flipping throug the pages of a book whether it's physical or not. Odd I know.

 

[coyote6]

For at least one campaign, we played with 1e rules but with the 2e non-weapon proficiencies. The rules were highly compatible.

I believe I've seen more people who did things like that than people who supplemented 3.0 with 3.5. Once you had the 3.5 PH in hand, it was just easier to switch to it completely. That said, I have known some people who played with their 3.0 books but took 3.5 stuff like the ranger and bard from the SRD online.

Can I be Anecdote Man, too?

The campaigns I ran used a combination of 3.0 & 3.5. The ranger was a house-ruled 3.0 ranger, though I had said anyone who wanted to could use the 3.5e ranger. The spells were mostly 3.0 (with harm/haste/heal as the major exceptions) -- i.e., bull's strength lasted for 1 hour/level, fly was 10 min/level, cone of cold was a 60 degree cone whose length varied by caster level, etc. We just used the version of a spell/class/whatever that we preferred.

Another group I gamed with said "no" to 3.5 entirely, and stuck with 3e. Though if there was something entirely new in a 3.5e book, you might be able to use it, with the GM's permission.

A third group was 3.5e only; but I only started with them last year, after 4e was out, so I have no idea what they did right when 3.5e came out.

 

[Greg K]

And seriously, new builds is what I would liken the crunchy bits in the Essentials players books to. You've got the basic PH1 Fighter, you've got the battlerager, and then you'll have the Essentials fighter build. You have the Bow/Two weapon ranger, you have the beast ranger, and you have the Essentials ranger.

Regarding new builds, I'd prefer dedicated class books like the 2e Complete Handbooks or Green Ronin's 3e Master Class books which examine a given class and its various archetypes from history and fantasy. Then again, I found the 2e Complete books a good idea whose only short comings were often the kits which suffered from the patchwork nature of the 2e system. 4e provides a better base from which to work in my opinon (as did 3e).

 

[Balthaczar]

This part of Mike Mearls introduction to Essentials
The only real changes rest in wizard encounter spells (they have miss effects now), and those changes are almost entirely additive in nature. Your burning hands spell is the same spell as before, except now it deals half damage on a miss.

In 3e.5 that is a reflex save for half, how does it play in 4e? I have not played in a long time and would consider if they gave us optional rules that made it feel more like 3e.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

For at least one campaign, we played with 1e rules but with the 2e non-weapon proficiencies.

AKA the 1E Wilderness and Dungeoneers' Survival Guide rules.

Would this sad attempt to be insulting be tolerated by the moderators were it to be directed at 4e fans?

He may not be referring directly to you. You've explained your position quite nicely. Unlike:

"Hear that? That's the sound of the 3.5 community laughing."

 

[Raven Crowking]

The difference is largely semantic, but 4e was upfront about it.

TSR was very upfront about the various class and race options. The idea of adding modular "stuff" was considered to be an innovation....a "modern age"....compared to 1e, if you will.

3e was also intentionally modular. It was a stated goal of the OGL to provide a core set of rules to which modular elements could be attached by both WotC and 3pp, thus providing a sort of lingua franca ruleset to which any number of games could be attached.

While 2e, 3e, and 3.5e didn't call their rules additions "PHB2", the naming convention is the only appreciable difference.

I doubt we'll see an actual "4.5" by that name. I think (I hope) WotC is too market-savvy to go down that road. But I have little doubt that, with hindsight, we will be able to look back and see the "4.5 moment".

We could do so with 1e (the Survival Guides, UA). We could do so with 2e (Player's Option, DM's Option). We could do so with 3e (WotC was kind enough to call it what it was, 3.5). Dollars to doughnuts says we'll be able to do the same with 4e. And with 5e. And with 6e, should the brand identity not be so diluted by that point that there is no 6e.

AFAICT, there is no rational reason to expect otherwise.

In any event, time will tell. It always does.



RC


-