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

[billd91]

It probably won't be much different than the hardcore 1E AD&D people, who have banned 1E Unearthed Arcana from their games. Or for that matter, the hardcore 2E AD&D groups which banned the Player's Options books.

You didn't have to be hardcore to not use some of the Player's Options books. They made for a substantially modified game, easily as big a shift as going from 2e to 3e but without the fanfare and support of a full new edition.

 

[ggroy]

Who knows what 5e will bring?

- No daily powers. (ie. Only at-will and encounter powers).
- A generic world universe cleansed of all canon. (ie. "Abyssal Plague" took care of everything).

 

[the Jester]

If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Fourth edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

Cite?

If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Third edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

Cite?

If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Second edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

Cite?

I don't think they actually said most of those things, but you go ahead and keep calling them liars. Also, if Essentials = 4.5, why didn't the Power books = 4.5?

I guess basically what I am saying is that if you think the sky is falling, that's fine, but at least look up to check before you start screaming in a panic.

 

[the Jester]

You didn't have to be hardcore to not use some of the Player's Options books. They made for a substantially modified game, easily as big a shift as going from 2e to 3e but without the fanfare and support of a full new edition.

Or anything approaching balance or quality (at least, in Skill & Powers).

 

[Obryn]

That's too bad, if true. Of course, I used 3.5 stuff with 3e "without even a burp".......As did/do many people I know.

Sure! And I did at first, too. But by the time pretty much every item from 3.0 was re-released in 3.5 with the same names and new mechanics, it became untenable for my group.

Like I said, for me it will all depend on how much replacement there is, as opposed to supplement.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the reason many non-4e players are reacting so strongly is because they really don't understand 4e design. It continues to be expansion-based design in the tradition of Cosmic Encounters and Magic: there is a fairly trim set of rules, and each class is a nicely bundled set of rules and options that expands on that core set. Adding another bundle of rules doesn't change the underlying rules any more than adding a new keyword fundamentally changes Magic.

Depending upon how you view "a fairly trim set of rules, and each class is a nicely bundled set of rules and options that expands on that core set", I would argue that this is the model that all D&D editions have used: "This is the core. Here are some expansions".

One doesn't have to grok 4e to understand this. One merely has to have some experience with D&D in any of its forms.

You didn't have to be hardcore to not use some of the Player's Options books. They made for a substantially modified game, easily as big a shift as going from 2e to 3e but without the fanfare and support of a full new edition.

This, however, is the issue IMHO. A lot of people now view the Player's Option books as a kind of 2.5.

The difference between an edition, or a "half-edition", and an expansion of a current edition, seems to be whether or not classes or basic concepts are rewritten. Player's Option was touted as an expansion that could be used alongside your current rules. It gave optional new forms of classes, rather than replace the existing forms. Yet, hindsight is now 20/20 -- it was to 2e what 3.5 was to 3e.

Likewise, you could certainly use elements of 3.5 with 3.0 "without even a burp". That was easy to do. For instance, you could run 3.0, but use the 3.5 ranger. I did this, and know many others who did the same.

Heck, you can use 1e materials with 2e without too much problem. Hardly a burp, if that. Indeed, the 2e expanded class books reprinted the classes from 1e. I certainly ran Basic and Expert modules in 1e "without even a burp". How, then, does 1e or 2e qualify as a new edition?

No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design. The cool thing about such a prediction is that, given enough time, there is a fair chance of either finding out that I am right, or that I am wrong. And I am fine with waiting until then.

YMMV.



RC

 

[lrsach01]

That laughter you hear is the 3.5 community.

Admin here. No edition warring. We really don't care whether you love 3e, 4e or OD&D (Hi, Diaglo!), but trying to start an argument isn't something we particularly want to put up with. Don't do it. ~ PCat

 

[Mallus]

No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design.

When you put it that way... cool! I really liked what Bo9S brought to 3.5e.

 

[Thanlis]

No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design. The cool thing about such a prediction is that, given enough time, there is a fair chance of either finding out that I am right, or that I am wrong. And I am fine with waiting until then.

But that's a very different question. If you're saying that you think some of the ideas in Essentials might wind up being part of 5.0, I'll agree with you. Doesn't make it any less compatible with 4.0. And, again, that's a huge difference between this and the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition, which wound up with new official classes that replaced -- not supplemented -- the old ones.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, (. . .)

3.0E was introduced in August of 2000 and ToB: TBoNS in August of 2006. 4E was introduced in June of 2008. I don't think this quite compares in regard to the timing. Obviously, whether this is spun as options or revisions or both, and no matter what it is called, it is coming just past the two year point of the new edition. We'll see what the RPGA uses and therefore what is required of RPGA DMs to run games, to have some idea of whether this is optional or core or transitional material. Whether or not non-RPGA gamers adopt the material will probably signal how fast a full-fledged new edition comes. We'll also have some idea based on what WotC does with the DDI in regard to the new material.