Class Compendium Official Announcement

[WalterKovacs]

When 4e first came out, the goal was to start over as, from a business perspective, 3.5 was getting harder and harder to sell to new people. A new edition means reselling the core products, which is where most of the money is made, and lowering the barier to entry while also creating opportunity for creativity (nothing like a blank canvas).

From the beginning, they knew the initial market would be existing players, and former players, people that already had experience with the product, etc. What then occured was a few years of "extended playtesting" that mostly catered to those that bought in at the start of 4e. They learned from initial mistakes, fixing things like the stealth rules, V based class design, limited racial stat modifiers, skill challenges, monster design, attack/defense scaling, etc ... with most of the kinks worked out, now was a good time to try to expand the player base again. In order to do so, a new "core" set of books were developed. The Essential lines are cheaper (per book) and while useful to existing players, are also accessible to new players. The targets here are those that initially rejected 4e (by offering them classes that more closely resemble older editions) and to completely new players (by offering, much like with the initial PHB, a simplified menu of options to reduce the overwhelming sense of option overload).

Essentials does have aspects of a new edition/half edition reboot in that it attempts to address the overwhelming ammount of options that have accumulated by offering class builds that ignore many of those options. Unlike most splat books, which it is for the most part, it includes all the rules for building the characters, and most of the relevant rules for playing it, while normally the book has a "you need the PHB to play this game, this book is not enough" type ad on it.

However, unlike actualy edition jumps/half editions, it isn't just a case of "we fixed the rules, now we are going to reprint everything to reflect those changes". They've been changing the rules all along, put the updates into whichever books were coming out at the time, and in the character builder, etc. So, many players were playing with the rules changes as they came along. Instead of it being one big chunk, it was rolled out over time.

Now, they COULD have reprinted all the old books with the new updates and forced people to either rebuy what they already own (and make new players have to buy several books to get the 'full rules') or they could put all the rules stuff into one book (the rules compendium) and then just put class stuff into other books, which can be built around themes so that players know what they are buying. If you want the rules, book X. You want to know about one of these five classes, book Y. And, the class compendium book seems to be a big part of this. While it is the class 'part' of reprinting the PHB (Which with the errata and updates would make it part of the 4.5 PHB basically) it also contains the rules on how to combine elements of the Essential builds with the old builds and how to multiclass with essential builds, etc ... basically making the Essentials not just a parallel option that works next to non-Essential characters against 4e monsters, but that are able fully integrate with mixing and matching elements.

 

[Scribble]

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?

No- it's about what the math behind the game actually says, and how the changes effect the game as a whole.

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)

It's not so much the "differences" themselves as opposed to the PiTA factor of those differences.

The 4e "engine" is designed to be able to take lots of little changes/updates/modifications without having an effect that ripples throughout the rest of the system.

Change a power, and chances are only one guy at the table will be effected by that change, and the change will go no further then the power itself.

3e was built in a way where all the math was interconnected, and each subsystem was linked to the next.

If you changed one system, it effected the next which effected the next, and so on. (Why games like Iron Heroes worked out... Someone else ultimately did all the work needed to house rule a grim and gritty setting.)


So they can make a bunch of changes in 4e without forcing me to pretty much rebuild everything in my game when they do.


Now add to that fact that most of the "changes" that came about with Essentials aren't "reworks" of the rules- They're additions.

For instance the fact that the demi-humans now have another stat they can choose from. Nothing about this addition changes my character that was built without that additional choice. It doesn't force me to rebuild the character, it doesn't, make him less effective at what he was built to do. It simply gives me an additional option should I at some future point build another character with that race.

Same is true with the new class builds.

Even the new monster stats. While they are "sort of" a re-build, this goes back to the way 4e is built. It's not built with the idea that say the Goblin in MM1 is THE GOBLIN. It's built on the idea that the goblin in MM1 is a type of goblin. (In truth I don't think I've ever seen a monster build used twice!)

None of the changes to the game even effect the effectiveness of the mm1 monsters. The new monsters might be more effective sure- but the old ones are just as effective as they ever were (ie nothing has retroactively caused them to be less useful then they were from the beginning.)


All this is why I do not in anyway shape or form see the addition of Essentials as a 4.5

It's the PiTA factor. I'm buying Essentials because I think it's a neat addition to my existing game, not because (like 3.5) it's less of a PiTA then trying to convert all my existing stuff to the new system.

 

[Imaro]

No- it's about what the math behind the game actually says, and how the changes effect the game as a whole.

You mean things like the math behind monsters, skill DC's, etc.?

It's not so much the "differences" themselves as opposed to the PiTA factor of those differences.

Let me just state this sounds totally subjective... instead of you looking at the actual changes that have been implemented and judging them objectively... you've set up a PiTA test that only you know and decide the criteria of. It's sorta like me saying that casters overshadowing melee fighters in 3.5 wasn't a problem... because it didn't cause problems for me... when there very much is objective evidence to support that after a certain level the options spellcasters have is much greater than non-spellcasters.

The 4e "engine" is designed to be able to take lots of little changes/updates/modifications without having an effect that ripples throughout the rest of the system.

And yet changes to major, overarching systems... such as skill challenges and DC's have been implemented...

Change a power, and chances are only one guy at the table will be effected by that change, and the change will go no further then the power itself.

Same could be said for feats, class abilities... even classes themselves in 3.5. How does the Ranger class being changed affect anyone except a player who is currently playing a Ranger?

3e was built in a way where all the math was interconnected, and each subsystem was linked to the next.

If you changed one system, it effected the next which effected the next, and so on. (Why games like Iron Heroes worked out... Someone else ultimately did all the work needed to house rule a grim and gritty setting.)

Sort of like the new magic item rules?

So they can make a bunch of changes in 4e without forcing me to pretty much rebuild everything in my game when they do.

Some would say the same thing about the change from 3.0 to 3.5...

Now add to that fact that most of the "changes" that came about with Essentials aren't "reworks" of the rules- They're additions.

I don't know if I would necessarily agree with this, it all depends on what changes you are talking about. Changing skill DC"s wasn't an addition, changes to the magic items rules wasn't an addition... unless in the same way having a 3.0 and 3.5 Ranger was an addition.

For instance the fact that the demi-humans now have another stat they can choose from. Nothing about this addition changes my character that was built without that additional choice. It doesn't force me to rebuild the character, it doesn't, make him less effective at what he was built to do. It simply gives me an additional option should I at some future point build another character with that race

Same is true with the new class builds.

Even the new monster stats. While they are "sort of" a re-build, this goes back to the way 4e is built. It's not built with the idea that say the Goblin in MM1 is THE GOBLIN. It's built on the idea that the goblin in MM1 is a type of goblin. (In truth I don't think I've ever seen a monster build used twice!)

None of the changes to the game even effect the effectiveness of the mm1 monsters. The new monsters might be more effective sure- but the old ones are just as effective as they ever were (ie nothing has retroactively caused them to be less useful then they were from the beginning.)

This logic, IMO, is so flawed I don't know where to begin. I mean it can be applied to any change from 3.0 to 3.5 as easily as you have applied it to 4e. Honestly I think it boils down to the fact that you like 4e better and thus subjectively you find it easier to dismiss the changes as insignificant, whereas with 3.0 and 3.5 it is the opposite. I'd love for you to compare what you feel are the major changes between 3.0 and 3.5 vs. 4e classic and 4e essentials... in an objective manner.

All this is why I do not in anyway shape or form see the addition of Essentials as a 4.5

It's the PiTA factor. I'm buying Essentials because I think it's a neat addition to my existing game, not because (like 3.5) it's less of a PiTA then trying to convert all my existing stuff to the new system.

Again, it seems a subjective measurement, and this is from someone who is buying Essentials as well... but as an alternative to 4e classic not as supplements.

 

[Mercurius]

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!

True. However, again, I think you (and others) are under-stating the changes that we're seeing with Essentials, to a similar degree that the changes to 3.5 have been over-stated. In my opinion the difference in response is the real interesting thing - that people aren't nearly as upset as they were with 3.5 (I'm not saying they should be, mind you, but that the difference in the mechanical changes between the two sub-editions is a lot closer than the difference in reaction would make it seem).

Why is this? I'm not entirely sure, but it may be that the "Red Box Gamble" paid off and WotC was able to package Essentials in such a way, and make sure that any compatibility issues were relatively minor, that 4E players haven't minded so much. And it also seems that there is a small, but significant, number of pre-4E players that are willing to give Essentials a shot again (it still remains to be seen how many lapsed players will be netted).

When 4e first came out, the goal was to start over as, from a business perspective, 3.5 was getting harder and harder to sell to new people. A new edition means reselling the core products, which is where most of the money is made, and lowering the barier to entry while also creating opportunity for creativity (nothing like a blank canvas).

You just described Essentials as well. One of the things that happens with any edition is that there is an accumulation of product--in the case of 4E, something like 35 hardcover books--and it makes it more and more daunting for a newbie to enter. So the purpose behind Essentials was, as Bill Slaviscek pointed out, to create an "on-ramp at 1st street" rather than the more advanced 4E core rulebook one at "10th street."

The other aspect, though, is that Essentials is just different enough, with enough new formatting, rules, errata, builds etc, that a lot of old players are buying it to.

From the beginning, they knew the initial market would be existing players, and former players, people that already had experience with the product, etc. What then occured was a few years of "extended playtesting" that mostly catered to those that bought in at the start of 4e. They learned from initial mistakes, fixing things like the stealth rules, V based class design, limited racial stat modifiers, skill challenges, monster design, attack/defense scaling, etc ... with most of the kinks worked out, now was a good time to try to expand the player base again. In order to do so, a new "core" set of books were developed. The Essential lines are cheaper (per book) and while useful to existing players, are also accessible to new players. The targets here are those that initially rejected 4e (by offering them classes that more closely resemble older editions) and to completely new players (by offering, much like with the initial PHB, a simplified menu of options to reduce the overwhelming sense of option overload).

The cheapness of Essentials is largely a smoke and mirrors thing, imo. Here we have the starting packages for both games, with the Essentials equivalent of the 4E core, with both list price and Amazon price in parentheses:

4E - Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual - $105 (currently $66, was as low as $55 when it first came out).
Essentials - Rules Compendium, DM's Kit, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Heroes of the Forbidden Kingdoms, Monster Vault - $135 ($87).

One could argue that you don't need both Heroes books, but in order to have all the classes and races in the PHB, you do (I'm not sure if one absolutely needs the RC if one has the first Heroes book, but I think so).

So to put it another way, the cost of entry is actually more with Essentials, at least if you want the whole package. One could also say that it is less if a player just wants to play a Knight - all they have to do is buy HotFL; or that all a DM has to do is buy the DM's Kit, Monster Vault, and Rules Compendium for $80 (or $53), which is a bit less than the core 4E books. But you still get less overall.

Essentials does have aspects of a new edition/half edition reboot in that it attempts to address the overwhelming ammount of options that have accumulated by offering class builds that ignore many of those options. Unlike most splat books, which it is for the most part, it includes all the rules for building the characters, and most of the relevant rules for playing it, while normally the book has a "you need the PHB to play this game, this book is not enough" type ad on it.

However, unlike actualy edition jumps/half editions, it isn't just a case of "we fixed the rules, now we are going to reprint everything to reflect those changes". They've been changing the rules all along, put the updates into whichever books were coming out at the time, and in the character builder, etc. So, many players were playing with the rules changes as they came along. Instead of it being one big chunk, it was rolled out over time.

Right, so the difference is D&D Insider. Without D&D Insider, Essentials would be little different than 3.5. I think this is key.

Now, they COULD have reprinted all the old books with the new updates and forced people to either rebuy what they already own (and make new players have to buy several books to get the 'full rules') or they could put all the rules stuff into one book (the rules compendium) and then just put class stuff into other books, which can be built around themes so that players know what they are buying. If you want the rules, book X. You want to know about one of these five classes, book Y. And, the class compendium book seems to be a big part of this. While it is the class 'part' of reprinting the PHB (Which with the errata and updates would make it part of the 4.5 PHB basically) it also contains the rules on how to combine elements of the Essential builds with the old builds and how to multiclass with essential builds, etc ... basically making the Essentials not just a parallel option that works next to non-Essential characters against 4e monsters, but that are able fully integrate with mixing and matching elements.

Yes, and I can see the logic behind the approach they have taken, although I still would like to see a revised version of at least the Player's Handbook - probably without uncommon and rare magic items, but maybe a few added classes, races, builds and the inclusion of themes. Why? Because I greatly prefer it. I like the Rules Compendium as a handy table reference, but I dislike the Heroes books, or at least like them much less than the old Hardcover Tome approach.

Maybe the best of both worlds? Meaning, both? Even with all the Heroes books coming out and the Class Compendium, I think a revised PHB would sell well, especially if it was beefed up with additional classes (druid and bard?) and races (gnomes!).

No- it's about what the math behind the game actually says, and how the changes effect the game as a whole.

I think Imaro has taken up this line of discussion quite well, especially his bringing in the subjective element of "PitA."

I do think you bring up a good point about the "pick-up-sticks" nature of 3.5 vs. the more modular design of 4E. If anything it may point out that WotC learned from its design mistakes of 3.x and crafted a better system with 4E!

 

[Scribble]

You mean things like the math behind monsters, skill DC's, etc.?

Sort of- if you read the rest though (and maybe think about what I'm saying) you see where it differs. It's in how it effects the system as a whole, and how much of the system it forces me to rebuild, or invalidates because of the change.

In each of these cases, it doesn't retroactively invalidate anything.

The math behind the monsters improves monsters going forward, it doesn't change how effective the old monsters are going forward. They stay as effective as they ever were.

The change to DCs is similar. If you were built to be good at climbing, and the DCs change, nothing about that change invalidates your being the best at climbing walls.

You are still the best you can be at climbing walls, nothing about that has changed.

This is contrary to changes from 3e to 3.5. With many of those changes the 'reworks caused things about your character to be retroactively replaced, or invalidated by the system going forward. Even certain classes were replaced.

Let me just state this sounds totally subjective... instead of you looking at the actual changes that have been implemented and judging them objectively... you've set up a PiTA test that only you know and decide the criteria of. It's sorta like me saying that casters overshadowing melee fighters in 3.5 wasn't a problem... because it didn't cause problems for me... when there very much is objective evidence to support that after a certain level the options spellcasters have is much greater than non-spellcasters.

It's a catch phraze I'm using that tries to sum up objective differences pointed out above.

It's not subjective. It's that the system is designed to handle changes without effecting other parts of the system. As a result 10 changes can/will have less of an effect to the system as a whole then 1 change in the old system.

And yet changes to major, overarching systems... such as skill challenges and DC's have been implemented...

How they're used- and see above for the DCs.

Same could be said for feats, class abilities... even classes themselves in 3.5. How does the Ranger class being changed affect anyone except a player who is currently playing a Ranger?

Because the system as a whole takes only 1 ranger class into account as the ranger class, and builds off of it. (See below.)

Sort of like the new magic item rules?

In what way?

Magic items got a new keyword. The math behind them wasn't changed.

Some would say the same thing about the change from 3.0 to 3.5...

Sure- if you didn't care about the math and the balance, you can say whatever you want.

The fact is that changes to 3e rippled throughout the system. It's a statement made by not just myself, but many over the years including the designers of the game!

I don't know if I would necessarily agree with this, it all depends on what changes you are talking about. Changing skill DC"s wasn't an addition, changes to the magic items rules wasn't an addition... unless in the same way having a 3.0 and 3.5 Ranger was an addition.

I've said in the past there are a few areas of the game that have changed over the last 2 years that are what I would put in the category of 4.5

There have only been a small number of these changes, and in each case, I still say it's important to look at how it effects currently running games.

In the case of the skill DCs, as pointed out above, nothing about this change causes an optimally build PCs to have to be rebuilt to be optimal again. The PC stays built optimally.

In truth I think the changes to stealth had more effect then the DCs.

And this is my point again which I feel people are missing- it's not the quantity of the changes. It's the effect they have on the system as a whole.

It seems like people are pointing out changes just to say it changed, rather then actually looking at the effect they have on the game as a whole.

This logic, IMO, is so flawed I don't know where to begin. I mean it can be applied to any change from 3.0 to 3.5 as easily as you have applied it to 4e. Honestly I think it boils down to the fact that you like 4e better and thus subjectively you find it easier to dismiss the changes as insignificant, whereas with 3.0 and 3.5 it is the opposite. I'd love for you to compare what you feel are the major changes between 3.0 and 3.5 vs. 4e classic and 4e essentials... in an objective manner.

Look back on everything I've said. In short it's mainly in how the system is built. 3e was built in a way where each system was linked to the other- this is not imagination, or anything subjective. The designers themselves have said this.

4e is built with each system being for the most part independent of the next. Changes to one, don't effect changes to the other.

Now- this is not true in all cases, there are some

Here's an example:

When the monsters changed from having generic magic resistance numbers to having specific types of resistances this effected previously made characters.

No longer was a fighter that was optimally made, an optimally made fighter. It wasn't just a matter of everyone in the game simply hit less often. There were ways to make that fighter optimal again, but it required re-building the fighter under the new system rules.

In 4e changes to the monsters don't invalidate an optimally built character. that character is still optimally built.

Even the fact that the system considered elements the "starting point" for lack of a better word had an effect.

What I mean is: In the case of the ranger, the "ranger" was considered THE Ranger class by the system. Anything going forward built for the ranger, took THAT class into consideration.

Same is true of the monsters. A Goblin was the base form for goblin. To modify you added to that base form.

This is not true of the 4e classes. 4e classes and monsters and such are considered by the system itself to be 1 type of that whole.

One build of goblin exists independently of another. One build of a class exists independently of another.

Even the fact that the 3e system was built with the 4e core classes in mind had an effect. Swapping them out for something different often had huge effects on the game.

I liked 3e- and I still do. This is not a statement to say 3e wasn't as good. It's simply saying 4e is open to more change to the system them 3e was, and as a result there isn't a neeed for a 4.5 vrs 4.0.

 

[Imaro]

@ Scribble: Not going to quote everything you posted but the gist of your argument seems to be... the changes... don't change anything that I can percieve in the game, which again is a purely subjectivve claim no matter how you try and spin it.

If my character was beating hard difficulties at a certain rate and suddenly I notice he isn't beating them at the same rate... or vice versa, then I think that is definitely a change SOME players and DM's will notice. I know you won't but that is in no way an objective measure of the change.

With magic Items... people have already noticed in the CB they can no longer buy certain items which they could before...certain characters cannot craft items they could previously, and so on... apparently those new keywords had a trickle down effect.


Do you know by the new rules of categorization on powers in the RC... a druid can't technically change back to human from beastform? This isn't the only trickle down effect this change has caused either...


...and so on, again I feel you are ignoring the trickle down effects some of these changes are creating.

 

[Scribble]

@ Scribble: Not going to quote everything you posted but the gist of your argument seems to be... the changes... don't change anything that I can percieve in the game, which again is a purely subjectivve claim no matter how you try and spin it.

If my character was beating hard difficulties at a certain rate and suddenly I notice he isn't beating them at the same rate... or vice versa, then I think that is definitely a change SOME players and DM's will notice. I know you won't but that is in no way an objective measure of the change.

I must be failing to make my point clear.

It's not about whether or not you notice that it is now harder for you to beat a DC. Of course you will.

If you have three levels of ability

Poor
Average
Great

And you've built your character to be "Great-" The new DCs don't move you to the average category. You are still built to be great- it's just harder overall for everyone to beat DCs. You're still "great" at it though.

Many of the changes from 3e-3.5 DID move you from Great to Average. In order to return to great at whatever it was, you had to re-build.

That's the difference. That's what I'm talking about. It's not a subjective I like or dislike the DCs more or less now.

With magic Items... people have already noticed in the CB they can no longer buy certain items which they could before...certain characters cannot craft items they could previously, and so on... apparently those new keywords had a trickle down effect.

And again- while it effectively moves certain items fully into control of the DM- none of this causes you to have to rebuild your character to be as effective as you once were. The items didn't undergo a math change with the still buyable items dropping in power level.

You don't have to get rid of items you already own that are rare and uncommon. You won't be overpowered if you still own them

Do you know by the new rules of categorization on powers in the RC... a druid can't technically change back to human from beastform? This isn't the only trickle down effect this change has caused either...

Haven't seen it- but I'm also not going to argue that there won't be ANY issues. Just like there are always issues when they add new splats and game elements. The designers are human and sometimes mess up.

The larger point though is the system is better designed to handle changes overall.

...and so on, again I feel you are ignoring the trickle down effects some of these changes are creating.

I think I'm just not getting across to you what I mean, or we're talking about two separate ideas.

My point overall isn't there are no changes with Essentials.

These are probably the two biggest

3.5 made changes to the "base" elements of the system
(The idea of what a "Goblin" or a "Fighter" was changed.)

Because the system was built in a sort of "Chain" this caused other effects
The need to re-build a character to be what it once was- new elements no longer working with your old elements.

Old elements were not considered by the game to be part of the game anymore, adding to even more needing to be adjusted.



4e is built so that changes to one area have little to no effect (for the most part) on others.

Adding new classes to the "fighter" category (or any other) doesn't replace the old class styles. The system considers them both valid.

 

[Imaro]

I must be failing to make my point clear.

It's not about whether or not you notice that it is now harder for you to beat a DC. Of course you will.

If you have three levels of ability

Poor
Average
Great

And you've built your character to be "Great-" The new DCs don't move you to the average category. You are still built to be great- it's just harder overall for everyone to beat DCs. You're still "great" at it though.

Many of the changes from 3e-3.5 DID move you from Great to Average. In order to return to great at whatever it was, you had to re-build.

That's the difference. That's what I'm talking about. It's not a subjective I like or dislike the DCs more or less now.




And again- while it effectively moves certain items fully into control of the DM- none of this causes you to have to rebuild your character to be as effective as you once were. The items didn't undergo a math change with the still buyable items dropping in power level.

You don't have to get rid of items you already own that are rare and uncommon. You won't be overpowered if you still own them




Haven't seen it- but I'm also not going to argue that there won't be ANY issues. Just like there are always issues when they add new splats and game elements. The designers are human and sometimes mess up.

The larger point though is the system is better designed to handle changes overall.




I think I'm just not getting across to you what I mean, or we're talking about two separate ideas.

My point overall isn't there are no changes with Essentials.

These are probably the two biggest

3.5 made changes to the "base" elements of the system
(The idea of what a "Goblin" or a "Fighter" was changed.)

Because the system was built in a sort of "Chain" this caused other effects
The need to re-build a character to be what it once was- new elements no longer working with your old elements.

Old elements were not considered by the game to be part of the game anymore, adding to even more needing to be adjusted.



4e is built so that changes to one area have little to no effect (for the most part) on others.

Adding new classes to the "fighter" category (or any other) doesn't replace the old class styles. The system considers them both valid.

Maybe I am not getting your point... it seems you've gone from "Changes in the basic math of the game" to... "Changes that are a PiTA for Scribble's game." to... "Changes that affect other things through the game."to... "Changes that cause a character to have to change." to... well I hope you get my point. The funny thing is that the changes to 4e have done all these things with the possible exception of being a PiTA for you.

Did you know that somewhere around 30% of the monsters in Monster Vault are redone monsters (the actual monster not a new version) from MM1 with the new math in Monster Vault...I guess I could still use the old ones... just like I could still use the 3.0 monsters as well.

Did you know that if I built a character who was any type of enchanter he most certainly needs to be reconsidered since he can no longer do what he could before... he is in fact less optimal than before.

Did you know that the basic math behind the game has changed in various areas... and it will affect gameplay and characters.

Did you realize powers, which affect builds have changed and may have easily made a character less optimal than he was before.

I'm just not seeing the distinction you are trying to make here.

 

[MrMyth]

Did you know that if I built a character who was any type of enchanter he most certainly needs to be reconsidered since he can no longer do what he could before... he is in fact less optimal than before.

This isn't true. How can your previous enchanter no longer "do what he could before?" At best you are talking about having another build work better for what you already wanted to do, and that is true with the release of every book in the game.

"Oh, man, my really angry dude is represented better by the Barbarian in PHB2 than the Fighter in PHB1. The game has been changed forever!"

No, sorry - having new options, ones that don't overwrite your existing options in any way, does not mean any existing characters are rendered obsolete.

Did you know that the basic math behind the game has changed in various areas... and it will affect gameplay and characters.

How will it affect characters? My existing character sheet remains identical. (Unlike with 3.5 when I might have had all sorts of changes, including entire skill vanishing out from under me.)

Some monsters and skill challenges may be more difficult. How much does this change the actual gameplay? It likely just means the DM won't need to boost the challenges by making them higher level in the first place. The players will feel... relatively little difference, overall. Even if they do, though... how much does it actually change how the game works?

None at all, really. No need to have shorter adventuring days due to shorter buffs. No need for them to obsessively collect different materials of weapons to be able to overcome all sorts of new Damage Reduction types.

Did you realize powers, which affect builds have changed and may have easily made a character less optimal than he was before.

Quite a few powers and feats have received errata in 4E. Very few in ways that fundamentally alter builds, and usually when that is the case, it is preventing an outright broken combination.

And, to be even more clear - it rarely breaks any core concepts, just the abuse of this. You still can have your Fey Warlock enjoy damaging enemies while he teleports about - he just can't do so abusively.

Whereas with 3.5... you might have become unable to even qualify for feats/prestige classes/etc due to various changes. You might have become unable to wield weapons you had used for years. You might have character-defining abilities spells change fundamentally.

I knew a player whose character concept tied into having multiple animal companions - he was a gnome who had befriended a den of snakes, and they followed him around and swarmed over his enemies. 3.5 arrives, and you get one animal companion, period - no option for a host of snakes. Better yet, I think he had been a Cleric of the Animal Domain - and with 3.5, lost access to animal companions completely.

Name a single change 4E has had, amongst all the errata, all the releases, all of Essentials, that could alter a character in similar fashion.

 

[Scribble]

Maybe I am not getting your point... it seems you've gone from "Changes in the basic math of the game" to... "Changes that are a PiTA for Scribble's game." to... "Changes that affect other things through the game."to... "Changes that cause a character to have to change." to... well I hope you get my point. The funny thing is that the changes to 4e have done all these things with the possible exception of being a PiTA for you.

I think I get the point you're trying to make- but I think it's still predicated on missing mine.

The changes from 3e to 3.5e caused more retroactive changing and replacement to already existing characters then the addition of Essentials to the game. This is mainly due to how the game is built, and partially due to the types of changes being made. <<<This is the point.

Everything else is an attempt to explain said point.

Did you know that somewhere around 30% of the monsters in Monster Vault are redone monsters (the actual monster not a new version) from MM1 with the new math in Monster Vault...I guess I could still use the old ones... just like I could still use the 3.0 monsters as well.

I haven't actually seen the Monster Vault. Where are you getting this number? Are you sure it's not same monster, different name?

IE Centaur Face Smasher instead of Centaur WhateverwasintheMM2

In addition the changes to monsters are also similar to the skill DCs in how they effect the game.

Did you know that if I built a character who was any type of enchanter he most certainly needs to be reconsidered since he can no longer do what he could before... he is in fact less optimal than before.

How so?

Did you know that the basic math behind the game has changed in various areas... and it will affect gameplay and characters.

None of it causing needed rebuilds.

Did you realize powers, which affect builds have changed and may have easily made a character less optimal than he was before.

Since the changes were done to correct abuses (or what was felt to be abusive) the character is not being made less optimal, just less abusive.

I'm just not seeing the distinction you are trying to make here.

Maybe it's a lost cause.