"Not 4.5" is coming soon. Thoughts?

From what I read until now, it seems the new classes are just alternate versions of existing ones, just like the various Samurai incarnations through the ages in Dragon Magazine.

They are all different takes. As long as the ame system is the same I'll play the one I prefer.

Still, I'd darn liked if they called them on something like Warrior, Priest, Mage and Thief. Red Box = Old Skool. Plus, it's awkward to say to people: "What fighter are you playing? An essential one or a handbook one?". Bleargh!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Still, I'd darn liked if they called them on something like Warrior, Priest, Mage and Thief. Red Box = Old Skool. Plus, it's awkward to say to people: "What fighter are you playing? An essential one or a handbook one?". Bleargh!

Worse than "What bard are you playing -- prescient, cunning, or valor?" I do ask that question when I'm playing with a bard, because it'll affect my tactics a bit.

That said, old-school names would have been cooler.
 


We might never even see an official 5th edition, or if we do, it won't be new books... Just updates to the core 4e rules.

I've been thinking this would be the case for awhile. Eventually they'd probably go back and tweak the PH1 and MM1s to account for the lesson's they've learned, but the framework they have in 4e is solid and much like say, MSDOS, there is going to be a lot of inertia to overcome to significantly change the rules for a 5e.

DDI is a game changer in that aspect.
 

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. :D
That describes me. To be honest, the essentials line as always got me exciting because I new that they were putting in "new builds" to which I equated with "new powers" and I was curious what kind of new powers (or possibly even new class features) they might come-up with in a beginners book.
 

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.

With the caveat that has been, to me, proven time and time again in the message boards: Not everyone enjoys the same play-style/systems. Many people have already expressed dissatisfaction for builds that eliminate dailes. I am not convinced ANY version of a class would satisfy even a majority, consistently across a rules system.

If the new changes WERE that good (made a majority want to switch), however, who can really complain, even if it is 4.5?
 

I've said before that I hold my judgement until the product ships and so far I'll stick to that. Today's announcement rather made me more sceptical. I've been hoping for completely compatible class writeups, but now I'm not sure we'll get that.

To be more precise, I was hoping that Essentials powers and feats could be taken by PHB characters without issues and vice versa. It's a bit hard to say with what we know so far.

As for the "no dailies", this can be done pretty easily:

a) similar to utilities: powers of the same level (5/9) can be either daily or encounter

b) a class ability allows you to pick a level 3 encounter power instead of a level 5 daily (and so on for higher levels) (something I considered as a general houserule)

Either way doesn't really change anything about the system, it just allows you to build a PC with a more steady performance over several encounters, at the cost of nova ability.

I'm fairly certain we won't see anything like power points, as some posters mentioned. That would be against the KISS principle of the Essentials. The Psionic ruled were just mentioned as a general example of classes that break the standard encounter / daily setup.

We'll see.
 



I think my point all along is that they are bending the edition in a new direction, or maybe branching it into new direction(s). Nomenclature will be easier when we know more about what is happening.

But, I will still play Asmodeus' advocate....

Yes, but there's a huge difference: they're not trying to sell you a reprint of the same old stuff.
The reason 3.5 irked a lot of people is that most felt they had to buy the same set of books twice. Once you bought 3.5, your 3.0 books were pretty much useless.

Nobody made you buy the 3.5 books. You bought those books to stay current. Even then, you could pull down a compilation of changes someone made on the interwebs. You bought them because it was easier to just have the books, and hopefully you thought they where better.

With all the erata out there, the easiest way to stay current will be to get the Rules Cyclopedia and keep a DDI subscription. Don't need to, but its probably more convienient.

If your a DM, and want current monster math, you basically do need the Monster Vault, and that is pretty darn close to Monster Manual 4.5. Similarly, the new DM Screen will probably have corrected math, and be a 4.5 screen.

If you are a player...remember, in 3e we didn't have DDI...you may never need to buy a book again. Even with a 4.5 PHB, you wouldn't. And arguably, you already have what is essentially a 4.5 PHB through your DDI subscription. This makes comparisons harder. But if you want to access to the latest thinking on the core classes and races in print form...then again, essentials is the way to go.
 

Remove ads

Top