D&D 4E No more reprints of the 4E core books?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm curious whether Skills & Powers was literally considered "2.5" back when it was released. I was only playing intermittently at the time, but I don't recall anything like that. I've always been under the impression that "2.5" was applied retroactively to Skills & Powers when 3.5 came out.

No, and neither was UA (or OA, WSG, or DSG) in 1e. In all these cases they were additional rules, just supplements no different from what a Power book is today. Any existing 1e character was 100% identical even if UA was used at your table. There were options that you didn't have as a straight PHB character, ones you MIGHT like to have but nothing changed AT ALL. Obviously there was new stuff that you didn't have if you played with the old stuff.

Considering that the whole concept of 'edition' didn't even exist in the 1e days about all there was was a sense that UA presented a bunch of new stuff that if you used it would crank up the power level of some classes a bit. It was largely stuff that went right into 2e almost unchanged. Actually IME very few people USED UA and if they did it was more of a process of mining it for new stuff. As there was no concept of 'edition' back then there was also no concept of 'official rules' either.

Even with the various 2e PO S&P books there was STILL no concept of 'edition'. In fact I don't think I ever heard the terms 1.5 or 2.5 until maybe 3 months ago. For most players 2e in its entirety was just a largely compatible update of AD&D. In my group we simply started using 2e when it came out, there was barely a perceptible difference in characters. Combat mechanics changed some and a lot of monsters got a big power boost but there was rather little grumbling about 2e from a perspective of it being some big deal or changing the game radically, because it didn't really. Likewise the 2e power up books were just more fodder for those that wanted to use them or mine them for ideas.

The whole concept of official rules utterly did not exist in the community before 3.x. If you went to a con and played in a tournament then maybe in theory there were official rules for that, but 100% of that kind of play was pre-gen characters anyway.

 

[MrMyth]

First off this is neither here nor there as far as my point.

Second... there's much more on the site that supports what I'm saying... as an example here's part of an interview on the WotC site...

WIZARDS: How vital is it for players to use this revised version if they have the 2000 release?
Skip: Frankly, two players could sit down at the game table with different versions of the books and play for hours without knowing they weren't using the same rules.

Andy: I think the revised core rules represent the best version of D&D to date, so I guess anyone who's interested in the best D&D experience available should see these books as "vital" for their game. Obviously, following products will rely on these books as well, so players looking to enjoy such products to their fullest extent will want the revised rulebooks on their shelves.​

Yes, and what does that say?

1) These are "revised core rules".
2) These books are "vital" for their game.
3) "Following products will rely on these books."
4) Players interested in future products will "want the revised rulebokos on their shelves."

Sounds like they are indeed, saying, that current players need to buy the new rules, which are a revision of the old.

Seems completely different from a supplementary series of rules that don't revise anything, aren't vital for existing players to play the game, and aren't required in order to use any future products.

I mean, look at the statements you are quoting. Ones that are completely up front about 3.5 being a rules revision, about these books replacing the old ones, about existing players wanting - or needing - to buy these new replacements.

Do you really not see how completely different a situation this is from the current one, in which none of that is true?

 

[Imaro]

Yes, and what does that say?

1) These are "revised core rules".
2) These books are "vital" for their game.
3) "Following products will rely on these books."
4) Players interested in future products will "want the revised rulebokos on their shelves."

Sounds like they are indeed, saying, that current players need to buy the new rules, which are a revision of the old.

Seems completely different from a supplementary series of rules that don't revise anything, aren't vital for existing players to play the game, and aren't required in order to use any future products.

I mean, look at the statements you are quoting. Ones that are completely up front about 3.5 being a rules revision, about these books replacing the old ones, about existing players wanting - or needing - to buy these new replacements.

Do you really not see how completely different a situation this is from the current one, in which none of that is true?

Yet they claim you can play a 3.0 character alongside a 3.5 character without realizing the difference (compatibility). They also never come out and say you have to buy the new rulebooks or need them in any way... and just like 4.0's eratta, the revisions are free to everyone in the form of the SRD.

As I said earlier, WotC is quite aware that announcing an official .5 edition would go over like a lead balloon right now.

Also to claim the rules in essentials haven't been revised is a little disingenuous at best... regardless of how it was done, they are not the same as the rules in the printed PHB 1 and we won't know to what extent more changes have been made until the essentials books are released.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yet there are some people claiming that because they announced essentials products are compatible with the old 4e stuff... the rules are the same... this is not necessarily true.

Edit: Duh.

Correct. They are not the same, thus compatible vs identical.

(duh deleted due to redundancy issues)

 

[Herschel]

Someone more familiar with the 3->3.5 switch will hopefully jump in and give more information, but were the changes from 3->3.5 large enough that it would be no longer possible to use the 3.0 PHB as the primary reference in designing for 3.5??

My ranger had a real tough time adapting with just the 3.0 PH. So did teh wizard.

 

[Imaro]

Correct. They are not the same, thus compatible vs identical.

(duh deleted due to redundancy issues)

So then you agree with me that there is the possibility that the rules may not be identical in the "essentials" line and that people should stop talking like this is fact as opposed to their own interpretation of what "compatible" means?

 

[DonAdam]

"Is Essentials 4.5?" arguments need to be banned just like edition wars were. They're seriously crowding out discussions of matters of substance.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So then you agree with me that there is the possibility that the rules may not be identical in the "essentials" line and that people should stop talking like this is fact as opposed to their own interpretation of what "compatible" means?

Quite so. I think that WOTC knows what identical means and they would have used the term if it was applicable to the content.

 

[Solvarn]

Wasted Effort

First of all, I am not under the conception that my opinion on this matter is really going to change anything one way or the other.

I've wasted way too much time and effort following this story. More information would have probably made me not even raise an eyebrow.

At the end of the day, if it sucks or I don't like it, I won't buy it. If it's awesome, I will buy it. Vote with your wallet, I guess.

I'm sure the material will be interesting, whether you are into the design philosophy or not. If it's rubbish I'm sure there will be a third party to step in.

These guys are betting the farm here, we all know how temporary jobs are at WotC. Hope it's awesome and I will be impressed.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"Is Essentials 4.5?" arguments need to be banned just like edition wars were. They're seriously crowding out discussions of matters of substance.

Oh sure just ban everything. Perhaps matters of substance mean different things to different people and discussing potential major possible changes to the rules of a game on a messageboard and in a forum designed to discuss that game could be called a matter of substance for some strange reason.