Just how compatible is Essentials?

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

Forgive me [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], I stand humbly corrected. I saw the XP awarded earlier and thought I saw a post conferring this, blast my tiny monitor at work!

You are a paragon of logic and truth, as always good sir.

 

[Argyle King]

Having done exactly that, I have to say that this is not only not impossible, it is extremely easy.


RC

I agree, and I also have done so.

The only book which I felt needed a lot of work to convert was MM2.

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.

For me, it's actually the opposite. As I said previously, there's something about the layout of the books which doesn't work well for me. I always feel like it takes me forever to get to the information I need/want.

I've never used the Character Builder, so I can't comment on that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just wondering, but when will criticisms of 4e stop being referred to as "whining" or "gnashing of teeth" or whatever?

When 6e comes.

Forgive me [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], I stand humbly corrected. I saw the XP awarded earlier and thought I saw a post conferring this, blast my tiny monitor at work!

I fully agree with the OP that Essentials is to 4e what 3.5 was to 3e.

The argument that this is not so because they are compatable, where 3e/3.5 are not, is a non-starter, because it is supremely easy to use 3e and 3.5 materials together.

Heck, in my home game, I use 1e, 3e, and 4e materials without problem.

Whether or not this should be a problem is another matter; I would say that 4e needed the revision. Although I'd much rather see WotC get its house in order first, I begin to suspect that 5e will be announced within the next 18 months.


RC

 

[Osgood]

Compatible? Yes. A good idea to mix? Not really.

Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters. While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins. At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.

I think the two systems appeal to different types of players. My group prefer the class 4E approach, other groups undoubtedly prefer the other route. Unfortunately for WotC this means the fan base is once again split.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

Ah, thank you for clarifying that.

I agree that we are seeing the amount of experimentation and system reworking comparable to the final days of 3.5. Essentials reminds me to a degree of the Book of Nine Swords and other splat books that attempted to reinterpret the abilities of the system.

As always, play what works at your table. If a group decides Essentials are too abrasive to include in their game, then they should be excluded.

And, so as not to derail the thread [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], but can you PM me what materials you are using from previous editions in conjunction with 4e? Or are you referring to the RCFG (which I have perused and enjoy)?

 

[Argyle King]

When 6e comes.



I fully agree with the OP that Essentials is to 4e what 3.5 was to 3e.

The argument that this is not so because they are compatable, where 3e/3.5 are not, is a non-starter, because it is supremely easy to use 3e and 3.5 materials together.

Heck, in my home game, I use 1e, 3e, and 4e materials without problem.

Whether or not this should be a problem is another matter; I would say that 4e needed the revision. Although I'd much rather see WotC get its house in order first, I begin to suspect that 5e will be announced within the next 18 months.


RC

Because of the 3.0/3.5 compatibility complaint I've gotten when I've made similar comments, I have started to sometimes instead refer to Essentials as the 4E Pathfinder.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to accept that there was less change between 3.5 & Pathfinder.

 

[Herschel]

Back on topic, saying new players should just pick up an HoF* as a starting point is all well and good, but I would be amazed if any potential player, looking at a wall of 4e books at their local comic or game shop, would know to do that. Its just not clear.

Actually, it is. If you're a new RPG player without an existing group guiding your choice then the choice is clearly the Red Box.

 

[Herschel]

Compatible? Yes. A good idea to mix? Not really.

Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters. While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins. At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.

I think the two systems appeal to different types of players. My group prefer the class 4E approach, other groups undoubtedly prefer the other route. Unfortunately for WotC this means the fan base is once again split.

I'd say it's the opposite. Essentials allows both types to play together more easily.

 

[Argyle King]

Actually, it is. If you're a new RPG player without an existing group guiding your choice then the choice is clearly the Red Box.

I agree with that in theory.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As always, play what works at your table.

As obvious as this advice should be, it is always worth repeating!

what materials you are using from previous editions in conjunction with 4e? Or are you referring to the RCFG (which I have perused and enjoy)?

RCFG, baby! But, if I can convert a 4e module to RCFG, it makes sense that anyone could do the same with 3e, or vice versa. Of course, it is easier to mix & match if you are working from a broad-based balance as a root game. For example, it is easier to mix & match in lower-level 3e than in higher-level games, because the balance is far broader.

(I find that, I believe largely due to the Delve Format, I cannot easily convert 4e modules on the fly, but I routinely do so with 1e, 2e, 3e, and Pathfinder modules.)


RC