Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Dannager]

If 'classic' 4e and Essentials are as compatible as so many here claim, why isn't it acknowledged on the new products?!

Because it doesn't need to be. 4e is 4e is 4e. Essentials is a 4e product. It's compatible with 4e products.

The only question worth asking - the only question - is:

If 4e and Essentials are supposedly not compatible, how come they're totally compatible?

We've asked this question any number of times in this thread. The only answer we've received back (other than crickets chirping) has been "Well, okay, maybe they're compatible, but that doesn't mean that you can use all the new options with the old classes," to which we respond, "You mean like every rules supplement ever? Yeah, welcome to D&D."

I swear, if D&D were Tetris, and every supplement were a Tetris piece, the people griping about Essentials compatibility would be throwing fits - not because the Essentials Tetris piece didn't fit right, but because it was colored green.

 

[Dice4Hire]

So your argument really boils down to: If a game store owner tells people that they can't use something, they'll probably be less likely to buy it?

Having a crappy, uninformed game store owner does not strike me as a good way to blame WotC for confusion. Knowing that Essentials is a 4e product, period, is not exactly difficult. You can really ask anyone. Any forum online. Anywhere on WotC's site. Any promotional materials. For someone who makes tabletop RPGs a part of their livelihood, not knowing this is inexcusable, and is certainly not WotC's fault - at every opportunity, they've explain in no uncertain terms that Essentials is 4e.

If, if if.

The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.

that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.

 

[Kzach]

I swear, if D&D were Tetris, and every supplement were a Tetris piece, the people griping about Essentials compatibility would be throwing fits - not because the Essentials Tetris piece didn't fit right, but because it was colored green.

That's because green SUCKS and anyone who uses anything green is an IDIOT!

Especially the Green Lantern, the Green Hornet and the Hulk!

 

[the Jester]

If, if if.

The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.

that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.

People don't have to do that. In fact, even if someone picks it up without any knowledge except that it's for D&D, they will find (as soon as they open the book) that it works just fine alongside the Players Handbooks.

Sigh. I'm gonna do it again:

HAS ANYONE IN THIS THREAD ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE IN-GAME WITH MIXING ESSENTIALS AND 'CLASSIC' 4E?

As of now, the arguments against it seem to boil down to "Gamers are too stupid to figure out that you can use Heroes of Shadow with the Players Handbook" and "I haven't tried it but I heard on the Internet that Essentials is like totally incompatible". We're on page jabillion of this thread, and not one person has had a problem from experience. Come on now- what does that tell you?

 

[Ajar]

So your argument really boils down to: If a game store owner tells people that they can't use something, they'll probably be less likely to buy it?

I'm pretty sure the argument was that the back of the book states that it's for use with HotFL, HotFK, and RC. I'm with Dice4Hire on that one -- if you aren't the sort of D&D player who follows what WotC says online, how would you know that HoS is compatible with PHB1-3?

*

I think the big problem in this thread is that people are using "compatible" to mean two different things. There's compatibility from the DM's perspective and compatibility from the player's perspective. The two are not the same, and conflating them confuses the issue quite a lot.

Essentials and PHB 4E are very compatible from the DM's perspective. It doesn't really matter if some players in your group are playing Essentials classes and others are playing PHB classes.

Essentials and PHB 4E are somewhat compatible from the player's perspective, but not fully. Even the latest multiclass and hybrid rules update doesn't make them fully compatible. It's certainly a big step, but it's clearly factually inaccurate to say that they're "totally compatible" in this context. It doesn't matter if supplements in past editions have broken compatibility with mainline classes, it still isn't accurate to say that Essentials is fully compatible with the PHBs.

*

Part of the reason some people are upset with the direction Essentials took goes back to the statement by WotC in the run-up to the Essentials releases that this would "be the baseline experience for the game going forward." That the Essentials format would be the new format for everything, not just the main Essentials books. So far this has been the case -- the HoS classes are are in the Essentials format, and are mostly either Essentials-style classes or options for Essentials classes.

This holds true across the game's presentation.

Your options at the online CB main screen are New, Custom, and Load. The explanatory text next to the New button informs you that this will only allow you to build Essentials characters. If you want to build a character using anything other than the Essentials line, you're into "Custom" territory. Why not have one New button and have Essentials be an option in that popup alongside Encounters, FR, DS, Eberron, and D&D Home Campaign? ...because Essentials is the "baseline experience for the game going forward."

I've been playing a battlerager Fighter since about the time of PHB2. Now my character sheet says Weaponmaster, because WotC decided that the entire group of pre-Essentials Fighters could reasonably be lumped into a single subclass. Meanwhile, each Essentials Fighter is a subclass unto itself. How does someone building a Custom character in the CB for the first time know that Weaponmaster has an order of magnitude more options than the Slayer or Knight? They don't, because all of that content is stuffed into a single subclass, implying that the Slayer and Knight are each individually on par with the entire set of Fighter content that came before.

Individually, these are annoyances, not huge problems. Taken together, though, they suggest an underlying objective to obscure pre-Essentials content from players. It seems like they would be happy if everyone would just play Essentials. Fortunately, there was enough of an outcry from people who want more support for pre-Essentials classes that Mike Mearls finally told us explicitly in Rule of Three that there would be further support for them... in Dragon. Not on store shelves, not in the same way that PHB2 and 3 gave us a lot of new and interesting options. Support for the AEDU classes is being relegated largely online, with the occasional snippet in a post-Essentials book like the new Cleric powers in HoS. Because Essentials is "the baseline experience for the game going forward."

 

[the Jester]

I think the big problem in this thread is that people are using "compatible" to mean two different things. There's compatibility from the DM's perspective and compatibility from the player's perspective. The two are not the same, and conflating them confuses the issue quite a lot.

Essentials and PHB 4E are very compatible from the DM's perspective. It doesn't really matter if some players in your group are playing Essentials classes and others are playing PHB classes.

Essentials and PHB 4E are somewhat compatible from the player's perspective, but not fully. Even the latest multiclass and hybrid rules update doesn't make them fully compatible. It's certainly a big step, but it's clearly factually inaccurate to say that they're "totally compatible" in this context. It doesn't matter if supplements in past editions have broken compatibility with mainline classes, it still isn't accurate to say that Essentials is fully compatible with the PHBs.

You make a good point; but why is the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happening now? Where was it when Martial Power came out, which introduced a buttload of beastmaster ranger powers that were absolutely useless to anyone in the Players Handbook?

Saying that there isn't 100% transferable compatibility is nothing new. As Merric pointed out, it goes back to the Players Handbook itself. The differences are easier to spot and more notable with the Essentials stuff, sure; but it's the same thing.

Interestingly, I don't recall anyone complaining when the 1e Oriental Adventures came out that it represented an incompatible new half-edition or anything like that. Yet it introduced new classes and spells and systems. Nor do I recall anyone complaining when new classes and spells and systems incompatible with the rest of 2e came out. Nor do I recall it when 3e released new base classes that weren't compatible with the 3e PH in the Complete series. So why now?

If the argument being made by a lot of people (none of whom appear to have actually tried using 4e and 4E, if you will, together) is simply "I can't always use all the Essentials stuff and PH stuff together in the same character," then yes, I'll grant that without any hesitation. But it doesn't seem to be; it smells like the argument generally boils down to "Essentials is 4.5 and now my old books are useless, oh noes!!1!" Which is as false as saying that there is 100% transferability between Essentials and 'classic' 4e. Now in fact, there are a lot of different strands to the overall debate here, and that's not what everyone is arguing- certainly doesn't sound like what you are arguing- but it seems like a common attitude amongst those on the "Incompatible" side of the argument. And the other common element is that none of them have tried it. Or if they have, they aren't offering any of their experiences with it.

 

[Ajar]

You make a good point; but why is the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happening now? Where was it when Martial Power came out, which introduced a buttload of beastmaster ranger powers that were absolutely useless to anyone in the Players Handbook?

Because WotC didn't say that the beastmaster would be "the baseline experience for the game going forward." They didn't marginalize pre-beastmaster Ranger builds in favour of supporting the beastmaster (until community outcry arguably forced them to relent). They didn't shuffle pre-beastmaster builds off to a corner of the CB. They didn't lump all pre-beastmaster builds under a single subclass name. They didn't greatly slow down support for pre-beastmaster builds in published products.

Those are significant differences.

I'll also note that I and many others expressed our concerns as far back as the Essentials previews. And what I said about hybrid and multiclassing with Essentials builds has pretty much happened, if you look at the playtest.

To be fair, though, I think Essentials has been much more successful than I expected. So it appears to have been good business, at the very least, and since I want WotC to keep making D&D, that's good. I also don't dislike Essentials, beyond that developing it takes resources away from builds that interest me more as a player. And I can't deny that some of the Essentials stuff does interest me -- Executioner poisons, a good amount of HoS, and a few other pieces. I'd have no problem with DMing a mixed party or even an all-Essentials party.

So I'm not all doom and gloom. But I don't think it's fair to say that the critics of Essentials don't have reasonable grounds for their concerns, which is what I take from the bold and oversized questions I see on this page.

Interestingly, I don't recall anyone complaining when the 1e Oriental Adventures came out that it represented an incompatible new half-edition or anything like that. Yet it introduced new classes and spells and systems. Nor do I recall anyone complaining when new classes and spells and systems incompatible with the rest of 2e came out. Nor do I recall it when 3e released new base classes that weren't compatible with the 3e PH in the Complete series. So why now?

The online community has reached a critical mass, so people who are of like mind on this issue can talk to one another.

 

[Jhaelen]

Having a crappy, uninformed game store owner does not strike me as a good way to blame WotC for confusion.

That's exactly the kind of reaction I knew would be coming

It's true that many, most or even all FLRPGS owners that I know are either opinionated or clueless (or both) (which is the main reason why so few of them are left ).

The ones that are left only survived because of the ongoing success of trading card games. RPGs are not what allows them to survive. Basically, they only have them in store because they appeal to a similar customer group. Hence, there's little incentive for them to research them on the internet.

Not putting crucial information on the product or even providing misleading information (according to 'internet consensus') on the product is totally, entirely WotCs fault (imho, obviously).

If a software company's trying to sell a video game and the system requirements on the box say this:
- Windows 7
- Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz
- 3 GB RAM

but actually the game would run on a system like this:
- Windows 2000, XP, or Vista
- Pentium 233 or equivalent
- 32 MB RAM

then who's to blame if a shop owner tells a potential customer with the latter hardware that the game (probably?!) won't run on his system? the software company, the shop owner, or the customer?

 

[the Jester]

Because WotC didn't say that the beastmaster would be "the baseline experience for the game going forward."

Fair enough, but I think they have explained a good dozen times the issue that really provoked this: retailers who didn't know what to stock. Then again, there is a long tradition of ignoring what WotC says in favor of doomsday prophecies, so I shouldn't be surprised.

They didn't marginalize pre-beastmaster Ranger builds in favour of supporting the beastmaster (until community outcry arguably forced them to relent).

I don't see this. I see the standard tactic of pushing support for new products, that's all. An Essentials article in Dragon no more means that pre-Essentials builds are marginalized than a beastmaster article meant that the pre-MP ranger builds were- it's just an article to push support for the new release. We have ALWAYS seen this in Dragon magazine, going back to the days of 1e.

They didn't shuffle pre-beastmaster builds off to a corner of the CB. They didn't lump all pre-beastmaster builds under a single subclass name. They didn't greatly slow down support for pre-beastmaster builds in published products.

And I don't think any of those things have happened, with the possible exception of the seeker and runepriest shuffling off.

Just because you can filter Essentials and Classic options doesn't shuffle anything off to anywhere.

I'll also note that I and many others expressed our concerns as far back as the Essentials previews.

But that's just more of the whole thing that all the complaints are: "I haven't tried it, but I'm sure I know what will happen!" There are doom and gloom predictions, and in all fairness the difficulties in multiclassing aren't a big deal- they're being dealt with already via free DDI articles.

But I don't think it's fair to say that the critics of Essentials don't have reasonable grounds for their concerns, which is what I take from the bold and oversized questions I see on this page.

I think a good tactic to address those concerns is for thousands of people to try mixing and matching 4e and 4E and seeing if there are any issues. Guess what! It has already happened!

The reason I've bolded, upsized and colored my challenge is because I haven't seen any sign that anyone with concerns about mixing Essentials with Classic has done a thing to actually try it; or else if they have it assuaged their concerns. If anyone has had issues mixing, I'd love to know what they were so that I could watch out for them. If someone points out anything that I think is a reasonable concern, I'll totally acknowledge it (you're a good case in point, actually- I've acknowledged several points that you've made vis a vis defining compatibility, etc). But most of the naysayers seem to be saying, "Haven't tried it, but I'm sure it won't work" while many of us on the other side of the argument are saying, "But we've been doing it for almost a year!"

It's fine to criticize game elements based on how they look or read or how you think they work, but that rarely tells the whole story. Actually using them does a much better job of testing them out.

The online community has reached a critical mass, so people who are of like mind on this issue can talk to one another.

I assure you that the critical mass existed during the 3e era. There was whinging and gnashing then, but somehow it missed this concern.

In the 2e and 1e days, there were the Dragon Magazine forum and letters pages, there were conventions, there were meetups... I don't buy the "critical mass" argument.

 

[MrMyth]

In my opinion WotCs course of action actively discourages D&D players from continuing to support D&D 4e. Essentials hasn't helped to bring back players to D&D. It has made matters worse than ever by seeding confusion and uncertainty, initiating D&D's path back into obscurity.

I think there have been some issues with the roll-out, but they aren't nearly as severe as you make them out to be. They've mainly been in the advertising department, the issues with the Red Box, and the wishy-washying on the magic item system.

Compatability? Not an issue at all.

To find out that 'Heroes of Shadow' is actually mostly compatible with the original core books you have to either research the issue on the internet or you have to buy it and see for yourself despite what the back cover tells you. And that's just plain bad.

If 'classic' 4e and Essentials are as compatible as so many here claim, why isn't it acknowledged on the new products?! My opinion: It's not acknowledged for the same reason why it wasn't acknowledged after the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 happened: Some of the contained material might be difficult to use and/or require adaptation for someone who only has the old books (and it doesn't matter one bit if that is because it's a new edition or not).

Sorry, but... that's just flat-out wrong.

Look, the two situations are simply not comparable. When you went from 3.0 to 3.5, it was a situation where different versions of the same book contained outright contradictory information. A 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 Ranger had different class features, skill lists, spell names, etc.

The 4E PHB and Essentials material? Have nothing like that. A 4E PHB character undergoes no changes upon the advent of Essentials, whereas a 3.0 character might involve a full rebuild. The most significant changes take place in the back room behind the DM screen, involving treasure distribution and magic item access, and even that is largely depending on the mood of the DM.

Not referencing the PHB on the back cover? Sure, its a bit silly. But the problem, if there is one, is with that lack alone - not with any perceived difficult using the material in this book alongside the material in the PHB. The reason it primarily mentions the Essentials books is because that is what it primarily builds on.

Your hypothetical problem is identical to someone wanting to use Psionic Power along with the PHB. It can't be done - Psionic Power is 99% useless without PHB3. I'd say the ratio with Heroes of Shadow is actually much better than that. Does that mean Psionic Power is a new edition? Heroes of Shadow is a new edition? That either of them is going to confuse and confound newcomers?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Most store owners will know enough to know the difference. If you really have a player running into a situation where no one is aware and they are ending up with a less than ideal set of books... yeah, I agree it is an unfortunate situation, but I also suspect it is rare to the extreme at best. Indeed, at the moment, solely a hypothetical issue rather than a real one.

Wasn't there in the 3e days some sales promotion where you could exchange your old books for the new ones? Something like this would have to happen for 4e, too, to (re)gain acceptance. And of course: The books must, must, must be translated into German again!

I won't argue on the german issue - but I think that's a seperate issue entirely.

Meanwhile, asking for them to give you free stuff or imply that exchanging your books is either needed or wise... sorry, I don't think I agree. That wouldn't help address your hypothetical of a new player trying to figure out what to get, nor is it needed for existing players.

Since, again, all the material remains compatible.