D&D 4E Essentials isn't 4.5e, but is 4e as we know it over?

[UngainlyTitan]

Ok...I'm not being snarky...but your first paragraph..um, isn't that he exact same thing from the Powers book?

Didn't the powers book introduce new class features/builds for all the classes of that power source?

Am I looking at Martial Power 3/Arcane Power 2 here?

No, the power books give you extra options in the class features you can take. Tomes for wizards for instance, however, the way you build the class is the same and the say way as all classes. Pick class, pick optional class features, pick powers, pick feats.
Essentials in the preview wizard gives you class features at level 1,4 (apprentice mage), 5,8(Expert Mage), 10 (master mage) or in the case of the cleric encounter and daily powers seems to be set by the choosen Domain.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It is a set of replacement builds for existing 4e builds that are definitely intended to displace the old ones going forward for new players. You can play old and new side-by-side and if you enjoy old more than new or want options that the new stuff doesn't support anymore, then you can turn to the old stuff, but if you just sit down to make a new character for a new campaign there generally isn't going to be a strong reason to go back to PHB1/etc builds if an Essentials build exists.

I disagree, vehemently. Precisely because they're different but not automatically better, it means there's still plenty of reason to go back to PHB builds. They do things differently, they get different class features; and sometimes, the old build is still going to do more of what a player wants, or be more to a player's tastes, than the new builds.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Still hoping for the anouncement of reprinted core books with erratas in it.

It would just be the right moment to have a new print run. *presses thumbs*

@Abdul: nothing indicates that any build is better, just because it is a more modern approach... it is more like the difference between a 3.x barbarian and a 3.0 ranger, one gets all class feats at the beginning, the other over the course of its career. What is better? Depends on the level you are playing at.
And usually in 4e you get enuogh good things by taking paragon paths and epic destinies to make front loading less of a problem.

 

[Scribble]

The thing is in 3.5 the "core" rules didn't really change either. The backbone of the system was still there, sure they changed a few things and added some.

It's like taking a standard Chevy S-10 pick up, adding a lift kit, big off-road tires, a roll cage, lights on top, a new paint job etc.. It is essentially still an S-10 pick up underneath.

While true, they didn't change "a lot" they changed in ways that I'd say made a somewhat significant change in game-play.

For example take a look at Monte Cook's article about how damage reduction was changed: Changes!!!

So as opposed to simply adding a roll cage, they went and changed the holes I use to attach them to the truck from round to square... So now the roll cage I bought from the old model won't fit the new model unless I bash the round pegs into a square shape.

From what I gather the essentials line is more like what you're indicating... Everything is the same, they've just repainted the thing, and added a few new accessories.

How they attach to the car is still exactly the same, so if you have the old model, you can add all the new features without any extra effort.

Hopefully this proves true... I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I disagree, vehemently. Precisely because they're different but not automatically better, it means there's still plenty of reason to go back to PHB builds. They do things differently, they get different class features; and sometimes, the old build is still going to do more of what a player wants, or be more to a player's tastes, than the new builds.

Oh, I don't think there's any reason to believe that the new builds are going to be universally appealing to everyone over the old ones. We know all of them will remain perfectly playable, but honestly, they ARE designed to be replacements, not just complements to the other existing builds. Of course people will play both. That doesn't mean new doesn't appeal more to players than old in general or that the new builds won't work better for average players, I think they will. In fact to think otherwise would be to assume that Mike and Co. failed utterly in what they're trying to do.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I disagree, vehemently. Precisely because they're different but not automatically better, it means there's still plenty of reason to go back to PHB builds. They do things differently, they get different class features; and sometimes, the old build is still going to do more of what a player wants, or be more to a player's tastes, than the new builds.

I take it (hope) that this from personal experience?

 

[Garthanos]

Oh, I don't think there's any reason to believe that the new builds are going to be universally appealing to everyone over the old ones. We know all of them will remain perfectly playable, but honestly, they ARE designed to be replacements, not just complements to the other existing builds. Of course people will play both. That doesn't mean new doesn't appeal more to players than old in general or that the new builds won't work better for average players, I think they will. In fact to think otherwise would be to assume that Mike and Co. failed utterly in what they're trying to do.

I sincerely think that if they fail to capture the flavor and function of the classes in phb I would be very very suprised.

It is part of my argument that Warlords without unexpected and here to for unannounced essentials treatment will be a legacy class that fades from the game.

Shrug

 

[Garthanos]

I have already read on the Leaders forum over on WOTC where someone referred wryly to doing "Cleric Duty"

 

[Mouseferatu]

I take it (hope) that this from personal experience?

Nope. But based on the examples we've seen so far, I can see plenty of flavor reasons to keep playing the old versions in addition to the new ones. I disagree with the assertion that they're meant as replacements.

 

[Garthanos]

I see it as a question of whether the phb 1 - is marketably attractive... which goes beyond whether the class builds are very subtly different or distinct.

I see this essentials newbie looking at that book with un patched core rules, the same races they already have rules on how to play with, and very subtly different builds and comparing that to other books like ones with new races and brawling fighters and summoner wizards ie ... very boldly different class builds.

I see phb as plummeting almost immediately to the least likely purchase and for the most part least useful purchase for somebody who has this shiney new essentials rules.