So, how many are avoiding Essentials?

[ourchair]

Yes it isn't more different than Pathfinder from D&D 3.5...

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.

But regardless, Pathfinder isn't much different from 3.5 and IS different from 3.5.

For one thing, because of the class-based design of 3.5, where the base operational mechanics differ between one another, (as opposed to the 'unified assumptions, multiple exceptions' design of 4th edition... Pathfinder's changes actually implement a lot of differences. Simply put, Pathfinder effects a great number of changes in such a manner that it IS more different from 3.5 than Essentials is from 4th Edition.

However, in terms of design philosophy and play assumptions, the proportion by which the game is simulationist or gamist, and the various subsystems itr maintains, Pathfinder is 3.5 in spirit.

 

[Walking Dad]

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.
...

Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).

P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.
4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.

P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).
4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.

P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.
4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.

...

 

[FireLance]

Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).

Frankly, I'm not familiar with the Pathfinder system, but in all the examples below, Essentials wouldn't change anything about an existing character.

P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.
4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.

If you created your dwarf fighter in "classic" 4E, you would have got bonuses to Constitution and Wisdom. If you create an Essentials dwarf fighter, you might want to give him a bonus to Strength instead of Wisdom, but a dwarf fighter with bonuses to Constitution and Wisdom is still a "legal" character.

P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).
4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.

Technically, the Essentials Hexblade is a new Charisma-primary build for the warlock, but not all warlocks are Charisma-based because the "classic" 4E warlock builds still exist. If you are currently playing a "classic" 4E warlock, nothing about the Hexblade requires you to make changes to your character, although if you wanted to, you could choose one or more of the new warlock powers introduced in Essentials (those that are not Hexblade-specific, of course). This is the kind of thing that happens all the time in supplements.

P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.
4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.

Again, this is the kind of thing that happens ... okay, maybe not all the time, but occasionally in supplements. You get a new spell, feat, power or whatever that works better than something similar that has come out before. At least 4E has retraining rules that allow you to replace the old game element with the new one.

Now, it could be argued that Essentials prompted certain revisions such as the change to Melee Training. However, because such changes are also presented as errata, an Essentials game and a "classic" 4E game with the latest errata are effectively running on the same game system.

 

[Lord Ernie]

Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).

P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.
4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.

P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).
4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.

P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.
4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.

...

Except your second and third points are, again, addtions. They didn't change the old Warlock, they just made a new variant that uses Cha as primary statistic; likewise, they didn't remove the old expertise feats, they made new ones that are indeed a lot better - you may say that is in effect replacing them, and you may be right, but an old character with that feat isn't suddenly illegal. Likewise, existing classes were not changed; old characters don't suddenly have their total HP change, their class mechanics change, or their skills remodeled.

You keep saying "Essentials rules changes" when talking about new material (which is not changing the existing rules), which is really twisting the issue. Yes, there have been rules changes. Continuously so, ever since the first PHB was released. And a lot of those changes improved the game, either fixing stuff that didn't work as intended, or nerfing stuff that was stronger than intended.

Again: Essentials is an addition. There may be rules changes accompanying it, but there have been rules changes since the beginning of 4E, so they are nothing new. You are of course free to diagree with and ignore the changes they've made, much like you every other rules update before Essentials.

EDIT: Ninja'ed, and by a lance, no less. Where are those mounted combat rules?

 

[Walking Dad]

Not arguing that 'plain' 4e and essentials work fine together with the errata, but Pathfinder works fine with 3.5 using a shorter document than the current errata (the conversion document).

Pathfinder is IMHO a rules update to 3.5. but adds also some new material. There I see the similarities to the essential line.

Long live D&D, regardless of edition. I play them all and be happy

 

[avin]

Probably late on topic: we won't be using Essentials because we'll stick to CB1.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not really sarcastic, but I think the essential changes are more than you think (epically if you compare just the printed versions).

P vs 3.5: One more ability bonus.

Existing character sheet needs to be re-written.

4 vs Ess: One choose-able ability bonus.

Future characters have more options. Past ones might want to re-write but most will ignore this change.

P vs 3.5: Paladins change casting ability (Wis to Cha).

Existing character sheet needs to be re-written.

4 vs Ess: Warlocks are now all Cha based.

Existing characters are entirely unchanged. There's just a new class out there that's pure Cha.

P vs 3.5: Revised Power-Attack and similar feats.

Existing character sheets need to be re-written.

4 vs Ess: Gives additional Expertise feats that make older ones obsolete.

Existing character sheets probably should be re-written. Slightly.

Converting mid-campaign to PF would require a re-write. Adding in Essentials can be done without breaking a sweat (I'm having one of my PCs re-written to Essentials because it will suit the player better. This is not going to affect anything else).

 

[turnip]

Everyone in my group has spent money and invested time in the core set...I don't think any of us really want to invest in another core set (which is kinda what Essentials is like).

I would be interested in taking a look at Essentials, but I can't really justify the cost, and I think that 4e core is malleable enough to cover most of what we want to do.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Probably late on topic: we won't be using Essentials because we'll stick to CB1.

This. Unless some enterprising folks find a way to patch it in, we'll probably go with the stuff in the CB prime as the cutoff point for 4e for a while.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not arguing that 'plain' 4e and essentials work fine together with the errata, but Pathfinder works fine with 3.5 using a shorter document than the current errata (the conversion document).

Pathfinder is IMHO a rules update to 3.5. but adds also some new material. There I see the similarities to the essential line.

Long live D&D, regardless of edition. I play them all and be happy

I think, as NeonChameleon said that the major difference is EXISTING 4e characters are never invalidated by Essentials. In a VERY small number of cases like Melee Training a rules update that coincided with Essentials being released will have an impact on a character sheet, but no player choice once made has ever been invalidated. None of them has really been substantially changed. Worst case a player MAY want to retrain like with the new and improved Expertise and defense feats, but they don't have to and they won't be missing much if they don't bother. I know for instance none of my players has even noticed the existence of better feats in Essentials. They pretty much purely go by CB anyway and rarely care about updates, so they'll probably play happily to the end of the campaign before they make new characters and start using those new feats.

3.0 -> 3.5 -> PF OTOH all require major rewriting. Some things have been removed in both transitions and other things that have a major impact on the character changed. That isn't even to mention any new stuff that was added. Sure, there is a degree of compatibility in both of those transitions, the core structure of the rules is very similar, but they are each different games. Of course PF never claimed to be 3.5, so that's fine, you start playing it you will expect to redo anything and everything potentially. I'm sure the changes to some characters are very small, maybe no more profound than changes you might want to make to a 4e character with the latest updates, but they can also be MUCH larger. You can sorta kinda continue to use 3.5 stuff that doesn't exist in PF, if you squint a little now and then as well, but by the same token you can ignore rules updates in 4e.

Still seems to me that 4e is a lot smaller scale of changes with a lot more compatibility than either of the 3.x series transitions. I can see why some players in some games might not see them as vastly different kinds of things, but others will. I mean taking a high level fighter from 3.5 to PF is basically a total major rewrite of the character for instance. But if you were playing a lower level wizard you might notice only a few changes in spell text that don't matter to you too much.