• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Rule of 3 3/21

Neverfate

First Post
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 03/21/2011)

The new rule of 3 is up.

"Essentials" is tackled again. Twice.

The 3rd question is about monster race write ups. Are they good or bad for the game? (Rule of 3 is asking us questions now).

Overall, despite the Essentials re-tread (you already have your thoughts on it) the one issue I had with this Rule of 3 was the survey at the bottom. What do you like most: Exploring, RP, Problem Solving or Tactical Combat. Erm... I really like exploring AND tactical combats. My brain is torn in two.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dice4Hire

First Post
The only thing I have to say about the first two questions is: WOTC, please please with sugar on top of it, write an article or two about meshing Essentials and traditional into one character. Include multiclassing and power choice, please.

About kobolds, I do not see the need for such a thing, but I know a lot of people do. It sounds like a DDI article to me.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
If the Humanoids Handbook and Savage Species sold well, I'd say release a 4E version. If not, still a perfect thing for Dragon to do. Maybe even give everyone a big list to vote on to determine priority. All anyone really needs is the stats, skill bonuses, racial power, and for it to be in the CB.
 

Mummolus

First Post
I'm of the opinion that player options are almost always a good thing - the more choice a player has in creating a character, the more they can personalize it and make it their own.

The obvious counterargument is that too much choice can be daunting to new players, as is the case with some of the low-tier feats. For races though that's less of an issue - the choice to play a kobold, orc, gnoll, bugbear, goblin, whatever is already built into the character builder, so why not provide it some support in terms of racial articles? As it is, they just sit there taunting people who want to play an effective character which also happens to be a monster race.

I'd oppose adding new races on the whole, in favor of expanding existing ones. Not everybody wants to be a dragonborn, despite appearances to the contrary.
 

Kirnon_Bhale

Explorer
I am surprised at the gripe about tackling essentials again. They are obviously still getting numerous questions regarding it and they are also trying to assuage the fears of people who didn't by into essentials to try and encourage them to purchase future products.

I personally felt that it was a more substantive "Rule of Three" than has been up previously. I clicked on the thread and was surprised by the negative tone.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
I like answer one and how they still try to imply that essentials and the old format are both supported equally. But the truest sentence:

However, the majority of the at-will, encounter, and daily powers they use are also open to warlocks, clerics, paladins, and wizards created using Player’s Handbook.
BBM

So, the essential-like classes get full support, but most of the powers are back-ward compatible?
If this is the case just say so!

Not:
To the second point, the answer is that we support both models.
Back-ward compatibility is not the same as new support.


I really like the Essentials format and classes. BTW. :)
 

renau1g

First Post
I'm of the opinion that player options are almost always a good thing - the more choice a player has in creating a character, the more they can personalize it and make it their own.

I'd oppose adding new races on the whole, in favor of expanding existing ones. Not everybody wants to be a dragonborn, despite appearances to the contrary.

I like more options, but I don't need another Gnoll. After a really great DDI article enabling them as a player race, nothing. They didn't even make it to the racial flex stats write-up. I don't need them to write-up bugbears (my favourite race) to remove oversized weapons if that's the only time I'll see anything for them. I'd rather expand unsupported races/classes.
 

renau1g

First Post
I like answer one and how they still try to imply that essentials and the old format are both supported equally. But the truest sentence:


BBM

So, the essential-like classes get full support, but most of the powers are back-ward compatible?
If this is the case just say so!

Not:
Back-ward compatibility is not the same as new support.


I really like the Essentials format and classes. BTW. :)

For the Necromancer if they made up another implement (like ghoul flesh book or something) for a new Arcane Implement Mastery you could then have people say "OMG they're not supporting Essentials". With most powers working for both the only thing was the build choice between mage school or Mastery. I'd much rather have another school than another Mastery that they need to come up with a whole whack of new items to support also.
 

WalterKovacs

First Post
I like answer one and how they still try to imply that essentials and the old format are both supported equally. But the truest sentence:


BBM

So, the essential-like classes get full support, but most of the powers are back-ward compatible?
If this is the case just say so!

There is a new hexblade build.

The hexblade has a x/encounter ability they get at level 1, and an at-will power, and a level 7 encounter power, none of which can be taken by normal warlocks [the level 7 could be, but requires the pact weapon you wouldn't have access to.] So not all of the at-wills and encounters are reverse compatible.

And in terms of "support" ... I don't since how a necromancer supports the mage. If you have a mage built, you have to build a new one to make a necromancer. That's not support, that's a new option. However, something that the character in question can retrain next level, or take at the next level ... that's support. So, they don't include new builds that would require someone to have a PHB to build completely (like the stuff in Martial Power, for example). Or they may actually include all the rules they need (i.e. hit point progression, skills, etc) in the book, with the only stuff from older books being extra options (i.e. more dailies, utilities, feats, races).

If they created, for example, a new implement mastery ... all the powers would be reverse compatible, but no existing wizards would be supported by the implement mastery (although, unlike other class features, they can at least get that with a paragon feat). A new class build for the wizard is as useful for an existing wizard character as it is for an existing ranger character. The most important support is the stuff that can be used by most character builds, not the options that can only be chosen at character creation. The have made the most important stuff compatible with existing characters ... they just haven't made new builds for entirely new characters that require people to purchase older books that are either not still in stores, or if are, are outdated by lots of errata.

So yes, even if they won't say it, you don't need to own a PHB to build these new classes, but if you have a class from PHB, you can use the stuff in this book.

EDIT:

There is a legitimate complaint to be made for some old builds not getting support, namely there are probably not going to be any powers useful for charisma based paladins (aside from utilities since charisma is a secondary stat), for constitution based warlocks (again, aside from utilities since con is a secondary stat), and strength based clerics. Those old dual attack stat classes won't get support in these books, reverse compatible or otherwise.
 
Last edited:

the-golem

Explorer
I am surprised at the gripe about tackling essentials again. They are obviously still getting numerous questions regarding it and they are also trying to assuage the fears of people who didn't by into essentials to try and encourage them to purchase future products.

I personally felt that it was a more substantive "Rule of Three" than has been up previously. I clicked on the thread and was surprised by the negative tone.

This.

I recall when the first HoS preview was out, there was a rather extensive thread on whether or not HoS was for "Essentials" or "old-style" or what-have-you. Sure, while it's technically true that they "tackled Essentials twice," the first question more truthfully tackles the big deal about HoS, which as it turns out, supports both Essentials and "original"

Also:
To the second point, the answer is that we support both models.

Nowhere in this statement does this imply that they provide options for the "old" model that won't work for the "new" model. Nor does it imply that "new" doesn't work with "old". In fact, exactly one line later, the staff gives an explicit example, which merely clarifies the previous statement.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top