Class Compendium Official Announcement

[UngeheuerLich]

Which was true of 3e and 3.5e too. The vast majority of the changes were in the category of what would now be called update, the actual mechanical changes were few and far between.

You could play monsters with a 3.5 DR with 3.0 characters under 3.0 DR rules and vice versa and you wouldn't have any technical problems. Sure, there might be balance reason due to the different philosophies (the 3.0 guys wondering why one would bother to assign such a low DR with such an obscure material that their +1 weapon beats anyway, while the 3.5 guys would curse whoever assigned such a high "all or nothing DR" with such an obscure material) behind, but no technical barriers.

You could play a 3.0 ranger beside a 3.5 ranger (although one would wonder why someone would want to be the 3.0 ranger ins this case), there was no game system barriers preventing it. Or take a 3.0 PrC unchanged for your 3.5e character, also no technical barrier just a balance issue due to the different philosophy (e.g 3.5e disliking the 17-20 thread range the 3.0 PrC just granted you). The only thing which you basically needed to change to make classes compatible would be a couple of skill names.

... and a lot of feats and spells and a lot of little things you only notice in direct comparison...

 

[Mirtek]

... and a lot of feats and spells and a lot of little things you only notice in direct comparison...

But these are errata or what 4e would call rules update.

 

[Goonalan]

I'm a little confused by the 4.5 thing, I DM a group of players who (4 out of 5) have never played any D&D (or any RPG) previously to our present game.

We're porting over (I guess), slowly-ish to Essentials, although the only thing that seems to have changed for us is a few of the Powers, like Magic Missile, admittedly while I've got all the new Essentials books/supplements I haven't got round to reading them yet (time is hard to come-by).

I/We play WOTC/Goodman Games scenarios mostly (basically all bought modules).

As far as I can tell the difference between 4e and 4e Essentials, i.e. the things I have to convert and/or do differently is... nada, nothing.

If we decide to roll up new PCs then some of them are going to get a new flavour, is that it?

Am I missing something here?

My biggest gripe is with the change with Monsters (updates DMG2 & MM3), I'm dying for an update to something that tells me what the new official line is for all the bad guys- I want an updated Monster Compendium thing.

Sorry to appear ignorant, I'd like the CB with Dark Sun so we can build characters there but as for Essentials...

What changes are we talking about here to the actual game mechanics that necessitate people choosing an edition (4e Core, 4.5e or 4e Essentials; whatever you want to call it)?

Goonalan

 

[ourchair]

The PHB is dead.

There is no such thing as Essentialized filler as 'Essentialized' is the new format.

Essentialized is the "Ultimatizing" of D&D.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[TerraDave]

A big problem wotc faces however is the internet crowd that spreads rumors. No matter what they do, the sky is falling.

Well, if thats a problem, its certainly not a new one. The end has been nigh for RPGs for a long time.

And besides, what happens when the rumors turn out to be true?

 

[TerraDave]

This is not anything like the same thing. I am part of that group that would like to see the PHB replrinted, in hardcover, with not only erratta, but also improvements to the classes to bring them up to PHBII and III levels.

Not that I ever expect it. Eratta, maybe.

I'll be waiting for your apology

I think Mercurius kindly took care of this (I am pretty sure I have xped him lately, or would give more).

I ment no longer print the PHB I, and replace it with other stuff. (and it was that suggestion that at one point drew such hostility...to me...I guess the denial is fading).

 

[Jack99]

My biggest gripe is with the change with Monsters (updates DMG2 & MM3), I'm dying for an update to something that tells me what the new official line is for all the bad guys- I want an updated Monster Compendium thing.

Ask and we shall tell!

(if we can, of course)

 

[Obryn]

Which was true of 3e and 3.5e too. The vast majority of the changes were in the category of what would now be called update, the actual mechanical changes were few and far between.

I disagree. The mechanical changes were far-reaching and vast. The math behind every monster was changed up, every spell was changed, and almost every class was re-done. Re-done, mind you - not just a new option presented.

What's more, the default assumption was never that you'd mix & match. The fact that every class and prestige class was reprinted (again, reprinted, not just new options) in 3.5 speaks to this. Simply put, if you were running a 3.5 game, incorporating 3.0 classes and prestige classes was a house-rule rather than the expected assumption.

You could play monsters with a 3.5 DR with 3.0 characters under 3.0 DR rules and vice versa and you wouldn't have any technical problems. Sure, there might be balance reason due to the different philosophies (the 3.0 guys wondering why one would bother to assign such a low DR with such an obscure material that their +1 weapon beats anyway, while the 3.5 guys would curse whoever assigned such a high "all or nothing DR" with such an obscure material) behind, but no technical barriers.

...and by this argument, you could also use 2e monsters. Sure, they'd hit weirdly and do strange damage, but there's still hit dice and attacks, no? Again, just because something is possible doesn't make it a particularly good idea.

You could play a 3.0 ranger beside a 3.5 ranger (although one would wonder why someone would want to be the 3.0 ranger ins this case), there was no game system barriers preventing it. Or take a 3.0 PrC unchanged for your 3.5e character, also no technical barrier just a balance issue due to the different philosophy (e.g 3.5e disliking the 17-20 thread range the 3.0 PrC just granted you). The only thing which you basically needed to change to make classes compatible would be a couple of skill names.

Like I mentioned above, there's a big difference between a game's default assumptions, and what one can do provided they use enough house-rules.

-O

 

[Mercurius]

So basically if WotC had said "We're coming out with 3.5, which changes a lot of things, but you can mix-and-match 3.0 and 3.5 all you want" that would have made a difference?

As I've said elsewhere, the differences between 3E and 3.5 are waaaay overstated, and the differences between 4E and Essentials are being a bit understated (by many). To be honest, I don't see a huge difference. I miss hardcovers but I'm not offended and I like WotC trying to improve their game. But I also understand that it is primarily about getting new people in the game, with the added benefit of trying to get old players to buy a new round of products.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it is actually the other way around.

 

[Obryn]

So basically if WotC had said "We're coming out with 3.5, which changes a lot of things, but you can mix-and-match 3.0 and 3.5 all you want" that would have made a difference?

Not just said - but made it clear that was the intent. A complete & total repackage and reprint, with nearly 100% overlap and overwrite, is a lot different than what we've seen so far with Essentials.

We're still pretty clueless as to what this new Compendium book will look like or do, but I'm sure we'll see more of the same arguments!

-O