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

[Raven Crowking]

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

Well, as I have said in the past (and will no doubt say in the future), I like some things WotC did with 4e. Dwarves as small giants, for example, was.....Well, I had posted the same to EN World previously, so you know I liked the idea. Likewise, Faerie as its own plane.

So I have some hopes of a 5e that I will actually enjoy playing/running. Anything that points to a new edition sooner rather than later is music to my ears.

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.

And yet, Player's Option was touted the same way.

And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.

And yet, for many people, 3.5 supplemented -- not replaced -- 3e.

See where I'm going with this?



RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This thread is an endless fountain of comedy, or at least an endless fountain of people reading their own prejudices into things.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.

And yet, for many people, 3.5 supplemented -- not replaced -- 3e.

See where I'm going with this?



RC

I think you'll find both of those attitudes rather rare, overall. I'd also say that it happened more in reverse. In both cases, adopters of the new edition generally were far more likely to abandon the old edition, while people who stuck with the previous edition were more likely to adopt new rules.

 

[Thanlis]

And yet, Player's Option was touted the same way.

And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.

And yet, for many people, 3.5 supplemented -- not replaced -- 3e.

See where I'm going with this?

No. 3.5 class writeups were explicitly designed to replace 3e classes. Essentials class writeups are explicitly designed to live alongside the existing classes. Regardless of unsupported claims regarding how many people used 3.5 as a supplement, the intent on WotC's part was very different.

 

[Chronosome]

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.

At my table, we generally see Bo9S as "edition sabotage" -- its presented options were "too good to walk away from", and they instantly outdated similar options that came before it. Sure, a 3.5 fighter and a Bo9S whatever-blade could stand side-by-side and the rules supported them, but one was clearly a better choice. To me and the bulk of my group, anyway.

What that option-trump meant was that once 4e came knocking on our door, we dug the simplicity and refreshing change-of-pace it offered because our 3.5 game was clearly out-of-whack. If it weren't for Bo9S, I don't think 4e would have been as appealing.

With that said, I too am willing to wait and see...but my true issue is that I am simply sick of changing editions. I really, really like 4e. Everything I've experienced of it, anyway (I haven't touched psionics yet). I'd rather there be heaps of free errata to help spackle what seems to be only a few holes, than another instance where I have to dig out my wallet and reset my imagination in the name of arbitrary RPG "progress". I mean, it's just a game. The point is to imagine and create cool stories, to have fun with a system that supports it. I think 4e is that; I think it won at "fun and functional".

I truly think that 4e is the pinnacle of D&D design --
I hope Essentials doesn't mar that by nudging us toward an unnecessary fifth edition.

Whew... That's all. I didn't think a ramble was pending, but mmm coffee.

 

[DarthMouth]

Internet IS evil.

Wizz guys made a BIG MISTAKE to announce somethng like that, without clear exemples to avoid stupid rumors...

a exemple is better than a thousand promisses.. is like a picture-book to dumb people.

and yet.. until something is out. 4ed is on check. I guess Psionic Power book will be the first to fell that mess...

 

[Scribble]

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.

I think what people mean when they talk about the trim set of rules, is that 4e seems to have two sets of "rules."

There are the base rules which hardly ever seem to be changed or added to all that often. Things like Combat and Skills...

The second set is things like classes.

The second set acts upon the first set in different ways.

IE a fighter can modify the base rules in different ways then a psionicist can.

If you're using neither a psionicist or a fighter, you don't need to worry about how those classes effect the game. It won't come up.

I say as long as they're not heavily modifying the base rules (by for instance saying even the OLD classes will no longer have daily attacks) then they're not really messing with the "edition" so much.

 

[Umbran]

Wizz guys made a BIG MISTAKE to announce somethng like that, without clear exemples to avoid stupid rumors...

Rumors and speculation will overwhelm data, no matter what data they provide - up to and including the actual game materials themselves.

 

[DaveMage]

I don't know if this qualifes as 4.5 or not (comparing this to the change from 3.0 to 3.5), but it *is* a relaunch of sorts after only 2 years.

Keeping that pattern, I wonder what 2012 will bring to re-energize the game yet again...

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Not quite.

The thing that made 3.5 so obnoxious was that it involved tons of small changes to existing rules. You'd have a spell that worked one way in 3.0, and a different way in 3.5, but there was nothing to call attention to the fact, which meant those spells became landmines waiting to blow up the unwary spellcaster as soon as somebody happened to glance in the book.

If the PHB1 remains, as Mearls said, his primary rules reference, then we can assume this is not happening with D&D Essentials.

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.

I agree, as long as the Bo9S analogy is not taken too far--it's far too early to actually end the edition. But I do think D&D Essentials will be a major indicator of what the designers will be aiming for with 5E, when the time does come.