Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Neonchameleon]

No offence guys but this is seriously showcasing your ignorance on the subject. The Character Builder has an option, "Show All", in every Essentials build which allows you to pick any power from the list for that class. A Fighter, therefore, is still a Fighter, no matter what it's otherwise called. In essence, all the Essential's classes are, are different builds within the same class. They're more 'sub-classes' than classes unto themselves.

With all due respect you're taking a statement and making it much more general than it is. A fighter can take Slayer utility powers and vice versa. They can not take Slayer stances and Slayers can't take fighter At Wills (unless human) or Dailies (and isn't Martial Cross-Training playtest?) In short you can take a few of the same options (feats, utility powers) but not a significant chunk of the character defining ones.

The person I was replying to was claiming that they were incompatable and that that was terrible. There are two answers to this, both legitimate:

• They have some compatability
• Why is it terrible anyway?

The philosophical question as to why it's terrible is the one that confuses me - it's important rather than minutae, so I chose to ask that.

 

[Matt James]

Why is this still being debated? Why does it matter? Why am I not wearing any pants?

All questions that are really not important. The number one question should be: Do you enjoy getting together with your buds and play D&D?

For what it's worth, my players mix and match content. There's really not a different at all.

 

[mneme]

Matt: I wouldn't go that far, in that there's nothing wrong with debating mechanical and marketting things that affect your gaming.

But yes. Who cares? People remember the wave of outrage that accompanied D&D 3.5; people have pointed out that it wasn't that bad (for them).

All well and good, but what exactly does it mean to say that 4EE is "4.5"? What bad thing (or good thing) are you actually saying about the game that causes you to feel that the distinction is important?

So far, points I've seen that I can remember quickly are:

Essentials includes rule/power changes (bogus. Rules change has been continuous and Essentials didn't have much more than any other version).

Essentials End-of-lifes prior mechanics (proven false, with a new ritual appearing in HoS and recent eratta to the PH1 classes) and classes.

Essentials classes [the martial ones] are incompatable at the table with prior classes (nobody takes this one seriously)

Essentials classes aren't fully construction compatable with prior classes (sure, but ma nishtana halila hazeh... sorry, why is this day different from any other day? Essentials classes are -more- compatable with existing classes than entirely new classes, while being less compatable than symetrical new builds for existing classes. So, basically, it's a name change)

I don't like Essentials martial classes; they're too simple (so don't play them.)

The essentials item change was badly handled and unsupported (yup. Hopefully they'll fix it some day)

Essentials includes feats more powerful than existing tax feats (yep. But then, they've been uppping the power of tax feats gradually over time, presumably because they realized they got the math wrong and were experimenting to find better ways of doing it. Not convinced they're done yet, either)

We've have been better off with a new edition, because all the old crap options are still out there and cluttering up the system (Maybe. OTOH, just flagging things as obsalescent and giving an option to masq these out in the builder would fix these, though not the need for tax feats)

Some people run "essentials only" games where classic characters aren't allowed (people use all sorts of crazy house rules)

 

[Argyle King]

So wait, is the assumption "Any changes to the format, design or execution of rules used in the PH is a new edition!"?

nay

 

[Kzach]

With all due respect you're taking a statement and making it much more general than it is. A fighter can take Slayer utility powers and vice versa. They can not take Slayer stances and Slayers can't take fighter At Wills (unless human) or Dailies (and isn't Martial Cross-Training playtest?) In short you can take a few of the same options (feats, utility powers) but not a significant chunk of the character defining ones.

Are you seriously trying to claim that a classes basic abilities should be hot-swappable? By that logic I should be able to swap the battlerager's temporary hit point gain for the defending fighter's +1 to hit bonus with one-handed weapons. Hell, why restrict it at class boundaries since builds mean nothing? Let's swap everything willy-damn-nilly! Build a class however you want! I'm all for that.

 

[SabreCat]

Are you seriously trying to claim that a classes basic abilities should be hot-swappable? By that logic I should be able to swap the battlerager's temporary hit point gain for the defending fighter's +1 to hit bonus with one-handed weapons. Hell, why restrict it at class boundaries since builds mean nothing? Let's swap everything willy-damn-nilly! Build a class however you want! I'm all for that.

That would be a fun hack! It wouldn't resemble D&D very much, because it would end up being something more like a point-buy than a class system. And no doubt the optimized-unoptimized spectrum would blow even wider open due to fewer guardrails on things. But I'm picturing a dude smacking somebody with his Hexblade lightsaber benefiting from One-Handed Weapon Talent and kicking in Orb of Imposition on a save-ends bleed effect, plus lapping up a healing surge from a Vampire blood-drinking feature. Fun! And without so much as a single feat spent!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What is the entire point of subclasses anyway? Why couldn't the Slayer and the Knight just have been Fighter builds?

To the post above: Those are fighter class features, not powers.

 

[Dannager]

What is the entire point of subclasses anyway? Why couldn't the Slayer and the Knight just have been Fighter builds?

To the post above: Those are fighter class features, not powers.

The Slayer and Knight are Fighters with a different array of class features that lock in certain choices over the course of their progression.

But to answer your question: they could have been just "builds" in the sense that the battlerager Fighter is a build, but what's wrong with them being something else? Nothing.

Also, ForeverSlayer, people have asked probably ten times now in this thread for you to provide specific examples of how having Essentials characters and non-Essentials characters in the same game has resulted in problems trying to "make everything fit". Do you have any such examples?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The Slayer and Knight are Fighters with a different array of class features that lock in certain choices over the course of their progression.

But to answer your question: they could have been just "builds" in the sense that the battlerager Fighter is a build, but what's wrong with them being something else? Nothing.

Also, ForeverSlayer, people have asked probably ten times now in this thread for you to provide specific examples of how having Essentials characters and non-Essentials characters in the same game has resulted in problems trying to "make everything fit". Do you have any such examples?

I already have. I would suggest you go back and read the thread.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Changes Coming in Essentials)

Here is a link to the article about the changes.