D&D 5E Are you ready for 4.5e?

[Dice4Hire]

You may be being a bit snarky, but I agree with that statement. I see Essentials very much as a 4.5ish new "edition" for the most part.

It only is 4.5 if they go on in this style and not the style from Aug 2008 up to Sept 2010.

If they go back tothe more complicated classes, whetehr they support essentials or not, then essentials is a subsystem of 4E, nothing more.

And it is still up in the air about what will happen after essentials. The Heroes of Shadow book will tell us a lot.

but that is a long wait.

 

[RigaMortus2]

3.5 was a slap in the face to those who already bought 3.0 books, but I really did enjoy 3.5 even if I did have to buy new books.

Why do you feel you had to purchase new books?

Just curious...

 

[MrMyth]

Why do you feel you had to purchase new books?

Well, sure, no one was forced to do so - butif one wanted to stay up to date with the most current version of the rules, and be able to use current and forthcoming content, one needed to pick up those books.

That's the big difference between this and Essentials, in my mind. You can never buy an Essentials book and still be using the current rules and be able to incorporate any new books released into your game.

 

[denzoner]

I totally agree.

You may be being a bit snarky, but I agree with that statement. I see Essentials very much as a 4.5ish new "edition" for the most part.

Totally. Having played almost every edition from original BLUE box and AD&D through both 2nd editions, and 3.0 and then 3.5, Essentials D&D is every much the difference from 4.0 that was 3.0 and 3.5, but MORE. The core rules changed more than slightly, the classes changed A LOT. It's very much a REVISED 4.0. WotC denying it is fooling a LOT of people, but it's not fooling me. I'm really upset about the changes. The Rules Compendium is a good book, the slight changes to Skill DCs and corrections I can live with. But the players books, "Heroes..." break everything that I've been comfortable with the past two years.

 

[AngryMojo]

But the players books, "Heroes..." break everything that I've been comfortable with the past two years.

The only thing that's really "changed" though is the two martial classes, and even they didn't change nearly as much as people are thinking. They lost dailies, have compulsory encounters they choose, and different at-will powers. Warpriest and Mage are hardly different from the existing builds. Sure, there are a few new plugs that work slightly differently than previous plugs, but if that's the case why not rail against PhB3? Psionics are a much more radical departure from the basic class design than anything in the Heroes books.

The main reason why I'll disagree with you on the size of the revision is that nothing major inside the game actually changed. When 3.5 came about, the class changes, DR changes, spell changes, feat changes and monster design changes were a big revision because all of them played on each other, changing the way the game played. There's a reason why a Balor looked so different in 3.0 as compared to 3.5. 4e doesn't have that integrated system philosophy, so changes to classes don't really effect the game as a whole. Every class was effected by the 3.0-3.5 changeover. Now, a few builds of a few classes are effected.

 

[MrMyth]

Totally. Having played almost every edition from original BLUE box and AD&D through both 2nd editions, and 3.0 and then 3.5, Essentials D&D is every much the difference from 4.0 that was 3.0 and 3.5, but MORE. The core rules changed more than slightly, the classes changed A LOT. It's very much a REVISED 4.0. WotC denying it is fooling a LOT of people, but it's not fooling me. I'm really upset about the changes. The Rules Compendium is a good book, the slight changes to Skill DCs and corrections I can live with. But the players books, "Heroes..." break everything that I've been comfortable with the past two years.

Well, I can't disagree that the class builds are pretty different from earlier ones, but... I just don't see how this is a revision. They don't replace the existing classes.

I mean... how does this actually affect you? Do you have a DM who is forcing you to use Essentials classes only? Are you a DM who finds them so upsetting that you will be bothered by your players using them?

In short, if you don't buy the "Heroes..." books at all, and don't ever play any of these builds you dislike... how does this actually hurt you in any way?

 

[Jack Colby]

I'm not ready for 4.5E, and even though they have made some good changes in Essentials, I already have 4th Edition rulebooks and am not buying more. I'm not going to stay "current" with 4E... the books I already have will have to be good enough.

I am, however, ready for 5th Edition...

Well, I can't disagree that the class builds are pretty different from earlier ones, but... I just don't see how this is a revision. They don't replace the existing classes.

I mean... how does this actually affect you? Do you have a DM who is forcing you to use Essentials classes only? Are you a DM who finds them so upsetting that you will be bothered by your players using them?

In short, if you don't buy the "Heroes..." books at all, and don't ever play any of these builds you dislike... how does this actually hurt you in any way?

The new ones are flat-out better designed and superior, perhaps? And it makes those who invested in the earlier version of the game feel like we paid to be Beta testers? I'm can only answer for myself, obviously.

 

[MrMyth]

The new ones are flat-out better designed and superior, perhaps? And it makes those who invested in the earlier version of the game feel like we paid to be Beta testers? I'm can only answer for myself, obviously.

Well, I suppose if you genuinely believe the new ones to be better than the old ones, that's a good reason! I don't think there is any particular truth to it, mind you - it sounds like the same sort of concerns that every book has generated. (Invokers will make Wizards obsolete! Runepriests are better than Clerics! Etc).

For myself, other than the slight power-creep to the feats (which does annoy me, just like Expertise did in the first place), I don't any cause for concern, though. I like the elegance of the new class designs, and they seem balanced alongside existing classes, but I certainly don't see any signs that they outshine the earlier builds.

 

[wagenejm]

Isn't HoTFL Essentially 4.5e?

See what I did there?

When I read through the Essentials character builds, it reads to me like taking 4e rules and implanting them on top of 3.x style. Most decisions are made for you depending on the build you choose, broken out level by level. It's more of a step backward than it is any step toward 4.5e.

 

[Istar]

I wouldnt mind "4EE"

4e Errated with all the editing completed.
So the whole table can use and trust a full set of the manuals.