Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Colmarr]

How compatible is Essentials with Legacy 4e? Very compatible. As others have suggested, there's little problem with combining the two in the same game, and I'm looking forward to my new campaign which at the moment features at least 2 Essentials PCs.

Is Essentials just an option for 4e? I think it's disingenuous to suggest it is. Essentials at this point in time strikes me as the favoured path forward in terms of design, but it's a losing argument to try to empirically demonstrate why because of the living nature of 4e. The line between what is and isn't Essentials is too blurred.*

If I had to stick my neck out and nominate something, I'd point to the errataing of Legacy content to make way for Essentials (eg. Melee Training and wizard encounter powers), magic item rarity and its tie-in to randomised treasure distribution.

I assume there's also been a lack of martial daily (and possibly even encounter) powers since Essentials was released, but I don't follow Dungeon/Dragon that closely and could be entirely wrong there.**

*Yes that line is bolded on purpose, to make it clear that I'm not going to get into long debates about this.
**No doubt Aegeri will turn up to prove me wrong

 

[Dumnbunny]

I have problems with Essentials, and I really wish Wizard's hadn't gone down this path. However, compatibility isn't one of those problems. I've seen multiple groups with a mix of Essentials and Classic classes with no compatibility issues.

New Players: I would absolutely not mention PHB1 to a new player as a good introduction to the game. Once they'd learned the game with Heroes of the F---, I'd point them at the FREE erratad versions of te original classes, and toward PHBs 1 and 2, the setting Players' Guides, Martial/Arcane/Divine/Etc Power if they were interested in different types of characters.

I've seen mixed results with this approach. My teen daughter was invited to the ongoing 4e campaign a friend of her's was running, and I was asked to help her build a character. Since she was an RPG newbie as well as a 4e newbie, and the campaign was at level 6, I figured I'd go along with the theory that Essentials is best for newbies and built her a slayer.

That character didn't last one session. She was very dissatisfied with the characters in-combat options. As a contrast, she mentioned the options the Classic class characters had and wanted something like that. So her DM took some time out of the session to build her a quickie barbarian, sending her home with the character for me to fully hammer out with her.

 

[DracoSuave]

Nogray, in your experience, how well does it work out when one character mixes Essentials elements with the old elements? For example, let's say a Thief decided to take the daggermaster PP.

That shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Bear in mind, many of the bonuses a thief gets in paragon come from its specific paragon path, and you won't get them if you become a daggermaster. That'll mean a little less damage per attack, but you'll have some attack powers to make up for it.

 

[aurance]

Compatible. Same rules set.

However Essentials is NOT just like Martial Power. There is, for better or for worse, a significantly different design philosophy at work with Essentials.

And I definitely see this as more confusing for new players. We've had the PHB, DMG, MM trifecta scheme for decades. Most other RPGs follow something similar or a single book + expansion scheme. The HoFL + RC + MV + DMTC is messy, but understandably so, because Essentials is in the awkward place of trying to be self-contained AND a resource for existing 4e.

 

[DracoSuave]

I hate to say it...

but having four core books is just as messy as having three. The PHB + DMG + MM is just as messy as HoF_, RC, MV, and DMTC for new players.

 

[Argyle King]

For me, the number of books didn't bother me. I'm not a big fan of the new layout though. It could be that I'm more familiar with the old layout, but I always feel as though it takes me longer to find what I want/need in the Heroes_ books.

 

[S'mon]

The only (minor) problem I've noticed is Rituals; for Essentials PCs they "don't exist" unless you go to the PHB and pick up the Ritual Caster feat, but for PHB PCs they can be an important aspect of the character. Whether rituals exist, are available etc definitely affects the tenor of a campaign. Without them, PCs are more limited in what they can do.

 

[Destil]

New Players: I would absolutely not mention PHB1 to a new player as a good introduction to the game. Once they'd learned the game with Heroes of the F---, I'd point them at the FREE erratad versions of te original classes, and toward PHBs 1 and 2, the setting Players' Guides, Martial/Arcane/Divine/Etc Power if they were interested in different types of characters.

Except, you know, essentials isn't simpler. Some classes are simpler. But the mage is more complex than anything in PHB1 structurally (spell book encounters), though the PHB1 fighter is a bit more complex in play (due to their two interrupt mechanics).

 

[S'mon]

Except, you know, essentials isn't simpler. Some classes are simpler. But the mage is more complex than anything in PHB1 structurally (spell book encounters), though the PHB1 fighter is a bit more complex in play (due to their two interrupt mechanics).

I find the hand-holding presentation & layout in the HoT books to be vastly easier to use than the PHB. You can make a HoT PC without electronic support, very hard for me with the PHB. And my Thief seems a lot simpler to run than the PHB Rogue.

 

[MrGrenadine]

I am seeing arguments about Pre-Essentials and Essentials with regards to the two being compatible. I see people getting all defensive and say yes the two are very much compatible but I'm thinking different.

Yes I see Pre-E slowly becoming more and more compatible with Essentials, but this seems to be because Pre-E is slowly being turned into the direction moving forward. We have tried having both games going on at the same time but to no avail because sometimes there are problems with trying to make everything fit.

Although you can definitely play a game with both E and pre-E characters, I agree that its not a seamless fit. In some ways, there's terrific synergy--a pre-E Warlord giving a Slayer additional MBAs? Love that. But other features aren't melding so well, which can be chalked up to the size of the ruleset--its like a cruise ship, which takes a long time to turn, as opposed to a speedboat (rules lite) which can turn on a dime. In any case, it will take time to get everything in line, and there definitely seems to be an effort to shift pre-E features to be more compatible with Essentials as part of that effort.

I also find it difficult when I explain the game to new comers on just where you are supposed to start. To be perfectly honest I just tell them to pick up the three small books and start there. I get really tired of having to jump back and forth when I am explaining the game. Wizards has the game in such a state of disarray that I wish they would just start all over and bring us another edition.

This, I think is the biggest problem with the system right now. Again, its simply growing pains, but I look forward to the day when obsolete feats and other little glitches are stripped out, leaving us with an elegant, clear system with an obvious and manageable entry point for newcomers.