Essentials - calling a spade a spade

[Imaro]

I think you're confusing errata with the moronic move WotC made with 3.0/3.5. The reason there was a 3.5 SRD was because of the d20 OGL where someone took the book, typed it up and posted it on the internet for FREE and WotC couldn't do anything about it because of OGL.

I don't think that's what really happened... but, Ok.

 

[The Little Raven]

Was this directed at me? If so, I don't get it--how was I being rude, obnoxious, or edition-warring?

No, it was directed at those who still engage in edition-warring and particularly like to do it in errata/Essentials threads.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There is also errata based on balance. As far as I'm concerned they can keep coming out with this as much as is necessary. Less is better in this case, but it keeps me from having to be the bad guy at my table. I can pawn it off on...but the errata says so (even if I think the player took it BECAUSE it was OP).

To sum up....some errata is good and some is bad and the difference is WHY they had to add the errata. MM was what I consider bad errata, and Melee Training I consider a good type of errata to keep expanding the game and adding new options.

Then there are those of us who enjoy a simpler, stable game with rules that don't keep growing like an out of control weed to run a steady campaign with.

 

[Jack Colby]

So when does errata stop being errata (fixes to the original game) and start being new ideas and changes they came up with at a later date (new edition material)? By using "updates" they can really do anything they want and claim it is the same edition.

Technically they are right. Effectively, the changes are not fixes, and can be considered new edition type material. It's not 4.5 unless they call it that, but will the overall changes make it effectively the same thing?

Will I be able to see a strong difference in play between a game started with 4E on day one and a game started post Essentials, say, a year from now? I think that's what the main thing to consider is.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I gotta say, 3.5 was the dumbest name they could have come-up with. I remember when they announced it in Dragon, everyone was like "3.5? Really?"

What was wrong with 3e Revised?

As you may know, 3E Revised was how they originally announced it. However, if memory serves me correctly, Internet chatter kept referring to it as 3.5. Eventually, WotC adopted that as the official name.

I believe most of the references to it as '3.5' in those early days may have come from this site.

That's right, folks. The "3.5" label, to the best of my knowledge, is our fault.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What to call it...

It.

Doesn't.

Matter.

All that matters is this: "Is it going to improve my game?"

If yes, then praise it and play with it. Discuss what you love -- that will tell other fans what it does right.

If no, then disavow it and forbid it. Discuss what you hate -- that will tell other fans what it does wrong.

For the record, this is also the answer to every edition war ever.

Your welcome.

 

[YRUSirius]

Well, D&D Essentials is a new "half edition" insofar that it will be the new basis for D&D going forward. They explained this in their preview articles in great length.

-YRUSirius

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Well, D&D Essentials is a new "half edition" insofar that it will be the new basis for D&D going forward. They explained this in their preview articles in great length.

So you quote them in this but you don't quote the part in most of the same articles where they go to great length to explain that it is not a new edition and is compatible. How thorough of you.

 

[Nyronus]

It.

Doesn't.

Matter.

All that matters is this: "Is it going to improve my game?"

If yes, then praise it and play with it. Discuss what you love -- that will tell other fans what it does right.

If no, then disavow it and forbid it. Discuss what you hate -- that will tell other fans what it does wrong.

For the record, this is also the answer to every edition war ever.

Your welcome.

A very well done insightful post.

The problem isn't the quality of the products. People don't care. People only really care about grinding their axes and proving that WotC are evil lying hypocritical bastards out to ruin the game forever. This is why people on the WotC forums have called Mearls a liar to his face and shriek that the sky is falling at the slightest provocation.

Its not about fun or the quality of the game, it is all about vindicating the paranoid nerd rage fantasies various camps have built up since the end of second edition.

 

[YRUSirius]

So you quote them in this but you don't quote the part in most of the same articles where they go to great length to explain that it is not a new edition and is compatible. How thorough of you.

Well, just because it's compatible does not mean that it isn't supposed to be the new basis for the game going forward, non? That's all I'm saying.

(Btw, it isn't a new edition. )

-YRUSirius