"Not 4.5" is coming soon. Thoughts?

[Stormonu]

If there's any concern, it will be whether the new options/builds that show up are significantly better than what is already present. For example, if the daily-less fighter build outshines the PHB1 fighter, practically no one will play the old fighter (there will always be diehards, though) and you have effectively "4.5"ed the class in a sort of ninja style ("You can still play it," cries WotC, even though they know almost everyone will want the new version and all new output will be catered toward the new option/build).

On the other hand, if the new options/build are in the same ballpark, but just different, then there's nothing to sweat over, it just becomes repackaging/addition to the system. The only cause for concern is for the completist, who wants everything put out for D&D on their shelves and grumbles about "repurchasing" content.

One thing that always gets me about D&D edition changes is that I haven't seen half the vitrol over other game system shifts (with perhaps the exception of oWoD vs. nWoD) as I have with D&D. On other systems, folks just either seem to ignore the new stuff and play with what they have or quietly buy into the new system, good or bad. I think part of that is how infrequently D&D has changed editions over the years; most game systems I know were in their 2nd to 3rd edition in about the time D&D does a 1/2 edition shift. Folks attached to D&D seem to take edition shifts to heart, as if WotC's coming out their house to kick the door in, confiscate the old books and laugh villianously as they require you to buy new books at gunpoint - then leave your play area trashed (I admit, sometimes I've acted like that were happening to me).

 

[Dice4Hire]

[rant] Can we please stop talking about 4.5!!!!!![/rant]

I am thinking the essentials is going to offer not much to the current player, except a few class and race featrues that might work with the existing rules.

And I am fine with that. It is good to give us something extra, if we buy the books.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmmm, thinking about how you could do a fighter build that lacks dailies. Is it really that hard? What happens if I simply offer you another group of encounter powers? You get 2 encounter powers at level 1, another at level 3, and another at level 5. So this 'e-fighter' would have 4 encounter powers at 5th level. At first it sounds like a nerf, but really is it? In your idealized 5 encounter day your 5th level fighter gets to use a daily twice. Some fighter daily powers are pretty nice, but are you ACTUALLY better off than you would be if you had that many more encounter powers to use EVERY encounter? Think about it, you can use an encounter power 5 times a day, where the PHB1 fighter gets to use a daily once. It really isn't such a bad trade off.

Another thing that I'd point out. Essentials will not refer to this in any way. There are not going to be mechanics for this e-fighter that are referring to some sort of trade-off for not getting daily powers. Any 'bridge' mechanics that ever need to exist to equate the two types of classes will be outside of Essentials because it would simply confuse players of this theoretically more newbie-friendly version of the game. At most the reference would be to differences between the e-fighter and the e-wizard for instance (which may have daily powers and thus the concept may exist).

Were I a 4e designer and wanting to go in this direction I would simply file off the terms "encounter power" and "daily power" (and who knows what happens with utility powers). Just call them all "level X powers". If you are conversant with the existing 4e rules you know that at level 5 4e classes get a daily use power. The Essentials player never need worry their head about this, they'll never need to know what a daily is. Consider the possibility with wizards too, you give them encounter usage level 5 powers that have strong miss effects. Its not QUITE a daily, but again they get to use it 5 times as often, which makes up for a lot.

This is also a fairly high compatibility method. If you start mixing and matching then indeed the 'e-classes' can take daily powers and the 4e classes can take Essentials powers. If its an even trade off in general then it should theoretically stay balanced. The levels that daily powers appear at are no longer explicitly distinct, but most things should still work, aside from all the stuff in existing 4e that depends on trading out a daily power, etc. One or two other minor wrinkles might show up, but it seems like it would work. It may be a pain to run the two types of PCs together in a campaign due to weird differences in resource use patterns and what items are handy for them, but it could work to a great extent, enough so they can all play in the same adventures for instance and use the same settings.

 

[vagabundo]

It has been confirmed in posts by Mearls and Wotc_Trevor (I think?!?) that these are new builds and not new classes or rule updates. I think they were likened to sub-classes because they play differently than other builds - but that is just my speculation.

I'm not sure what 4.5 actually means; I think people are throwing it out there and it means something different to everyone reading it, but this seems very different to the jump from 3.0-3.5 to me. I doubt I'll be buying the new books, not since I have DDI.

I am welcoming the rules compendium though, with all the errata, if it is anything like the 3.x rule compendium.

I hope the internet hullabaloo about 4.5e doesn't stop WotC from experimenting with the rules. I want my Unearthed Arcana dammit (and i'm hopefule with this news and with dark sun bring the inherent bonus rules to the forefront that an unearthed arcana will not be pie in the sky)....

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, what classes would be hurt by not having dailies.

Barbarians for sure, as they NEED rages. Some class features are built around them.
Wizards maybe, as the spellbook is a great way to give them some of their versatility.
But could do this with encounters, too.

I see no others.

Well, ll would be powered down, for sure, but they could still function perfectly well.

 

[ggroy]

Well, what classes would be hurt by not having dailies.

Barbarians for sure, as they NEED rages. Some class features are built around them.
Wizards maybe, as the spellbook is a great way to give them some of their versatility.
But could do this with encounters, too.

As an extreme case with no encounter and no daily powers, a "one trick pony" 4E wizard could be one that only has an at-will magic missile which always hits a target and resembles the 1E AD&D magic missile (ie. an additional magic missile every two levels, which each do d4 + INT mod damage).

 

[Nichwee]

Or the "No Dailies" could just mean we get a new type of Daily that is Daily(Special) and has the Special section say that the ability can be used every encounter not once/day (Like Leaders' Encounter Heals that can be used multiple times) or that it recharges on a short rest (same effect but different wording) or maybe an Effect that the power has that says "This power recharges after a short rest" so that a Daily(Special) expended to do something else, like power the basic Rage Strike or recharge an item, wouldn't come back as the Effect wouldn't be triggered.

This way any PC of the right class can take the power and get an additional 'Encounter' Power in their Daily Slot. It would of course be a weak Daily Power to compensate for it really being a Encounter Power.

So basically, I'm suggesting we try waiting to see what happens, as the breadth of speculation possible makes trying to guestimate a touch pointless.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. I think that the Essentials books really don't have any "new rules" in terms of how the game is played with the classes that exist. However, I think the new classes are different enough from the old to not really be compatible.

I mean, in a way(and I know I'm going to regret saying this) is IS like a 4.5. It's basically reissuing all the classes with different mechanics than before without any compatibility with the old classes. You get a new Fighter, new Rogue, new Cleric, and so on...with the benefit of the wisdom of a couple of years worth of design in the new rules. All without changing the rules themselves, thereby not necessarily invalidating the old version of the class.

However, I'm in agreement with some of the other comments here. I'm thinking the new versions of the class may be better(although not necessarily more powerful). They might keep the same balance, but with the benefit of hindsight, just be more fun to play.

In which case, the default becomes the new classes and the old ones become a bygone, played by almost no one. Especially if they manage enough backwards compatibility to allow the new classes to use the powers from the old ones.

Notice the wording they use in the explanation of the new classes(they are "most like" builds). They are something different that hasn't really been done before. My best guess is essentially an entirely new class with all new class features that doesn't have the ability to swap class features for any of the stock ones(they can't be a battlerage vigor fighter, for instance) that still gets to pick powers from the old classes lists as well as new ones designed only for the new class.

This fits in with their design philosophy. Don't remove classes, feats, or powers that are too weak....simply make new ones that are slightly better and everything works itself out naturally.

 

[Scribble]

So basically, I'm suggesting we try waiting to see what happens, as the breadth of speculation possible makes trying to guestimate a touch pointless.

I think though, in this case most of the speculation seems to be born out of honest excitement, rather then any sort of anger.

Speculating about something you're excited about is fun.

 

[erf_beto]

I am thinking the essentials is going to offer not much to the current player, except a few class and race featrues that might work with the existing rules.

Well, one thing that it offers is a new look at the classic classes, which some of us love more than the newer classes they've come up with. How many more runepriests and seekers do we need to see in PHB4? Revisiting content in new ways is what I think, as an "experienced" 4e player, is the best part of the Essentials line.