D&D 4E Essentials isn't 4.5e, but is 4e as we know it over?

[UngainlyTitan]

The thing is in 3.5 the "core" rules didn't really change either. The backbone of the system was still there, sure they changed a few things and added some.

It's like taking a standard Chevy S-10 pick up, adding a lift kit, big off-road tires, a roll cage, lights on top, a new paint job etc.. It is essentially still an S-10 pick up underneath.

The problen with 3.5 is they re-issued the books so it quacked like a different game and once you had the 3.5 books you no longer refered to the old ones and they compounded this by re-issuing all the splat books as well.

That is where you chevy analogy breaks down. If you were replacing the gearbox of the modified Chevy you still be buying the same parts as a standard model but with 3.5 they may have been the same parts but they came in different packaging and with different model numbers.

 

[SteveC]

My answer to this question is "I hope so." Not because I'm unhappy with the current rules or anything, but rather because moving from essentials to the "classic" 4E rules would be highly confusing due to the errata that isn't reflected in the classic books at the moment.

My wish would be that the current PHB would be updated with the current errata plus anything we see in the essentials rules, or simply discontinued.

A player who starts with essentials and then hears about the warlord (one class that isn't getting the essential treatment as far as I know) and buys a PHB will likely be extremely confused (especially if they're a new player). With DDI there is no reason they need to buy a PHB, but I expect many would do so.

Let's keep only one edition of the rules in print... at least that's my suggestion.

--Steve

 

[M.L. Martin]

The thing is in 3.5 the "core" rules didn't really change either. The backbone of the system was still there, sure they changed a few things and added some.

I think the problem with 3.5 was:
1. Characters and monsters often had to be rebuilt to be rules-legal;
2. The differences were scattered through the books without any real clear indications, aside from some warnings in DRAGON Magazine articles.

The Essentials won't require any rebuilding (aside from tweaking your wizard's encounter powers) and the new material is being localized in a set of books that you can buy, but that future materials won't assume you have to have (although you can use them as a starting point instead of the PH/DMG/MM).

I have my qualms about 4E, but I have to give it credit for a design that really has modularized the game. Now let's see if they're willing to use that to push the boundaries a bit.

 

[Stormonu]

Incidentally, when 3.5 came out, my initial desire was to keep my 3.0 books and just download the list of changes WotC posted on their site. However, very quickly I realized that with all the minor tweaks that had been made, it was just easier for me to buy new books that already incorporated the changes. Somewhere along the line, I ditched/sold my 3.0 PHB/DMG/MM and only have the 3.5 versions.

I think between the RC and Essentials line, we'll see something similar. At some point, the PHBI, in its current printing, will cease production and we'll see some sort of revised PHBI incorporating all the errata so far as well as any changes introduced with the essentials line (Why would you want to introduce new people to the game for them to go to the "advanced" books with outdated/wrong rules anyway? It's like asking people to try Win7 with programs written for Win2K)

Also, while everyone has been talking mostly about possible changes to the PCs, I think something has slipped in the back door that folks are not paying much attention to.

The Essentials line will use the MM3 changes to monsters. That means that the goblins, kobolds and whatnot that show up in the essential set will likely have a significant change to them - their lore/fluff and damage they do will be considerably different from the MMI (or II). I think this is enough to inspire a "revised" version of the MMI. And if you're going to update one, might as well do them all...

 

[BrokeAndDrive]

Random question for everyone: should everything in 4e from now on be called ED&D?

 

[ggroy]

Incidentally, when 3.5 came out, my initial desire was to keep my 3.0 books and just download the list of changes WotC posted on their site. However, very quickly I realized that with all the minor tweaks that had been made, it was just easier for me to buy new books that already incorporated the changes. Somewhere along the line, I ditched/sold my 3.0 PHB/DMG/MM and only have the 3.5 versions.

Most of my 3E/3.5E games technically were more like 3E games with stuff taken from the 3.5E SRD (ie. 3.5E ranger). We didn't really play much higher than level 10, and didn't get around to using many game breaking 3E spells.

By the time any of us got around to buying the 3.5E core books in early-mid 2007, 4E D&D was announced shortly thereafter. Our 3.5E campaign at the time ended around level 5, when 4E was first released. We ended up dropping the 3.5E game, and played the 4E "Keep on the Shadowfell" module over the summer of 2008.

 

[AllisterH]

I've been following this discussion for some time...but I'm kinda confused...

How are essential classes any different than the builds from the various Powers book?

I'm not seeing anything so far in the previews as radically different as either the assassin much less the psion.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I've been following this discussion for some time...but I'm kinda confused...

How are essential classes any different than the builds from the various Powers book?

I'm not seeing anything so far in the previews as radically different as either the assassin much less the psion.

Put like that (IMHO) they are not but they are different builds of exisitng classes and they change the class features of existing classes.
So some people see power creep, other see classes that are less complex to build, others see a new edition and others are not to pushed one way or the other.

 

[AllisterH]

Put like that (IMHO) they are not but they are different builds of exisitng classes and they change the class features of existing classes.
So some people see power creep, other see classes that are less complex to build, others see a new edition and others are not to pushed one way or the other.

Ok...I'm not being snarky...but your first paragraph..um, isn't that he exact same thing from the Powers book?

Didn't the powers book introduce new class features/builds for all the classes of that power source?

Am I looking at Martial Power 3/Arcane Power 2 here?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok...I'm not being snarky...but your first paragraph..um, isn't that he exact same thing from the Powers book?

Didn't the powers book introduce new class features/builds for all the classes of that power source?

Am I looking at Martial Power 3/Arcane Power 2 here?

Well, yes and no. Look for instance at the AP Wizard builds. They are identical to the PHB1 builds except they introduce a couple new types of Implement Mastery. Its a very minor difference and the new builds are obviously intended to complement niches that the original ones didn't address at all (Summoning and Illusion magic). If you wanted to play a blaster wizard you went to PHB1 and got Wand of Accuracy. If you wanted to play a summoner wizard you went to AP and got Tome of Binding. Beyond that you pumped a different secondary stat. Notice that the AP builds use different secondaries from the PHB1 builds too. They are all clearly distinct but they use exactly the same rules with only the addition of a new option to a single class feature.

Now look at the Essentials Mage. It has different class features entirely. It has no Ritual Caster, a different Spell Book, no Implement Mastery, a School, gets MM as a class feature, and has other class features that don't exist for PHB1/AP wizards. It really is a considerably deeper difference. Most critically though it exists squarely in the space occupied by the existing wizard builds. Its not a new set of builds that extend wizards into new areas of specialization. The new Enchanter Mage is a direct drop in alternative to the old Illusionist Wizard build. It says "here's a better way to do this old thing", not "here's something new you can do that you couldn't do before".

Considering compatibility and all I think its fair to make the comparison with power book builds, but Essentials really IS different. Its not "just another splat book with a new format". It is a set of replacement builds for existing 4e builds that are definitely intended to displace the old ones going forward for new players. You can play old and new side-by-side and if you enjoy old more than new or want options that the new stuff doesn't support anymore, then you can turn to the old stuff, but if you just sit down to make a new character for a new campaign there generally isn't going to be a strong reason to go back to PHB1/etc builds if an Essentials build exists. It won't be more powerful (probably) but it will run better and be easier for new players to use.