Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Jhaelen]

[excellent explanation of new game terms]

Thanks. Apparently, the difference between Essentials and classic 4e are even more pronounced than I thought. It doesn't even use the same game terms any more!
How can anyone think that this is _not_ confusing?! This is definitely something that did not happen between 3.0 and 3.5.
Seems like I can really stop buying 4e products, unless I get all the Essentials stuff first.

Aha!
Maybe that's why I get the feeling (almost) everyone's behaving stupid in this thread.

What you're describing there is only one kind of compatibility, and it's not the kind I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is an 'interface incompatibility': It's not about two pieces of software (i.e. class/build/whatever-you-call-it-these-days) running peacefully alongside each other, it's about a piece of software utilizing a function or service provided by a second piece of software.

'Classic' builds are (interface) compatible with each other. Essentials builds (or subclasses...) aren't (interface) compatible with classic builds. They require an adaptor in the form of (how did a previous poster call it?) cross-training feats.

But I guess, I'll follow Matt James' example and bow out of the thread before I get banned (or as we Germans say: Ich trolle mich )

If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.

 

[MrMyth]

So bully for you if both classic and Essentials characters are living in your campaign in perfect harmony--I play in a campaign where both types of characters are used, too, with little difficulty--but the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it. My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.

I think his point, though, wasn't that it hasn't been a problem in his own game. It was that, in this entire thread, I don't think we've seen a single genuine example of confusion - only hypotheticals. No one has actually run into a problem in their games.

That doesn't mean one can't prefer to run without Essentials or Essentials only. I don't see that as any more or less problematic than running without Psionics - it can be a campaign preference, a dislike of the specific mechanics, whatever. As long as the group as a whole is fine with it, its all good.

But that's very different from saying that there is any actual problem running the two together. There just... isn't the incompatability that some folks keep referring to. In actual play, the characters fit just fine alongside each other. In terms of character creation, the only limitation was in the realm of multiclassing, and that is an area that they have been actively addressing.

 

[MrMyth]

Okay, I'll write a bit more slowly, maybe then you understand the difference:

Hexblade is the name of a build for the Warlock class introduced in Heroes of Shadow.
'Sorcerer King Pact' is another build for the Warlock class introduced in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting.

I only have the PHB1, not the HotF*** book.
This means, I can use everything from the 'Sorcerer King Pact' build in my game.
I cannot, however, use everything from the Hexblade build in my game.

I have the PHB1, Martial Power and Psionic Power.

This means I can use everything from the 'Beastmaster Ranger' build in my game.
I cannot, however, use anything from Psionic Power in my game.

What is this if not a compatibility issue?

Look, we keep present similar situations to you. Psionic Power, Swordmages, any number of things. You keep insisting it is different with the Essentials content because the Hexblade is a version of a warlock, and so you for some reason feel it should merge perfectly with every other version of a warlock out there.

Despite the fact that they have kindly given it a distinct title (Hexblade) to seperate it from the standard warlock. And have listed, on Heroes of Shadow, what books it is primarily aimed at supporting.

Your argument, basically, is that they are not allowed to experiment with new builds for existing classes because... why?

I mean, would you really have been happier if they said, "The Thief is not a Rogue at all. It is a completely different class that happens to be thematically similar and features numerous identical class features."

Would that have really improved things? Caused less confusion? I don't think so.

Look... the Beastmaster ranger says, "You can swap these class features in order to get a beast companion." The Hexblade simply does that on a much larger scale - you can swap most of your Warlock features for a different set of them.

Yes, this process - the specifics of playing a Hexblade - is detailed in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and thus Heroes of Shadow is less useful to someone with just the PHB.

So here is another question for you - what is your opinion of Martial Power 2?

I play a ranger. I pick up Martial Power 2, figuring it will support my ranger. And it does so! I have many new powers and feats!

But... I also have 15 feats that require the Beast Mastery class feature. I... don't seem to have that. Those feats are incompatible with my PHB1 ranger. Along with all these beast powers.

And I also have this Arcane Power, to go along with my PHB1. But a bunch of the content is for Sorcerers, Bards, and Swordmages. I've just got a Wizard and Warlock in my PHB1 - why is all this other content incompatible?

You suggest it is ok for these books to support content from a variety of books. You suggest it is ok for Primal Power and Psionic Power to provide no support at all for PHB1. And your reasoning is that no one will get confused, since they will look at Heroes of Shadow and see mention of Warlock stuff, and think it is 100% aimed at the PHB1 Warlock.

Which I think is silly. Again, this is only a hypothetical - do we know of anyone actually being confused in this fashion?

And honestly, if we are talking about a complete newcomer to the game, do we really think the older stuff is any clearer? They pick up the PHB and see the Spiral Tower mage who wields a longsword - maybe they figure he's a swordmage, and are confused by the Swordmage stuff in Arcane Power involving a different book entirely. And aren't Wizards and Sorcerers the same thing?

Maybe this sort of things happens, once in a blue moon. Usually, other players, or the store owner, or the internet, will give enough info for even the complete newcomer to make informed purchases. And in the absence of any other information at all, we've got the Essentials material to provide an easy stepping stone to the game. We've got Heroes of Shadow listing what books it is ideal for.

And in the situation where someone walks into a store, sees a PHB1 and Heroes of Shadow on the shelf with no other D&D content, and a game store owner who knows nothing about the game or what products are sold by WotC, and the player purchases both books and ends up only getting use out of half of Heroes of Shadow... I think that situation will be extremely, extremely rare.

And, in the end, no different than if they walked in and saw the PHB1 and Arcane Power sitting there instead.

 

[Mr. Patient]

Given that I, and several other people in this thread who actually run games, still use all these books all the time, I can't buy that argument at all.

Can I ask what parts of the 08 DMG you are using? I still use large chunks of PH1, but I don't think there's much in the DMG that hasn't been superseded by errata and updates. Except for the fluffy bits and Fallcrest, I think practically everything has been replaced: poison and disease DCs, mounted and flying combat, monster creation, treasure parcels, skill DCs and challenges. There's really nothing left in that book that I could use at a table. If that's not obsolete, I don't know what is.

 

[DracoSuave]

Thanks. Apparently, the difference between Essentials and classic 4e are even more pronounced than I thought. It doesn't even use the same game terms any more!

No, 'build' still means what it does. You just have this thing called a 'class type' which describes something that never existed in the game before.

How can anyone think that this is _not_ confusing?! This is definitely something that did not happen between 3.0 and 3.5.

No, 3.5 didn't introduce new stuff, it replaced old stuff entirely. The hexblade is not a replacement for the warlock. It's a new thing.

So, yeah, it didn't happen.

Seems like I can really stop buying 4e products, unless I get all the Essentials stuff first.

It's no different than getting any suppliment. Psionic classes have similiar issues with PHB1 and 2 stuff. It's not much different.

Aha!
Maybe that's why I get the feeling (almost) everyone's behaving stupid in this thread.

What you're describing there is only one kind of compatibility, and it's not the kind I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is an 'interface incompatibility': It's not about two pieces of software (i.e. class/build/whatever-you-call-it-these-days) running peacefully alongside each other, it's about a piece of software utilizing a function or service provided by a second piece of software.

The thing is, that's always existed between builds too, believe it or not. Let's look at the traits that make up your build from the bottom level to the top.

At the bottom, you have your powers. Higher in hierarchy is what you term a build, or more accurately, your class feature options. Then you have your class type. Above that is your class, then lastly your power source.

Power Source > Class > Class Type > Class Feature Options > Powers.

Now, looking at that hierarchy, let's look at something that exists in classic and essentials, the feats.

Feats often have prerequisites, and are an excellent example of the type of compatibility that you mention, the 'utilizing a function or service in another piece of software'.

Now, many feats have class features are prerequisites. For example, Primal Guardians have access to a feat, Primal Instinct that allows an ally to reroll initiative. Only druids with Primal Guardian can take this feat. No other druid can. Primal Predators can't, Primal Swarms can't. You have a feat that exists that is not 'compatible' with Druid builds outside of that one. How is this different than 'compatibility issues' between class-types?

The irony with this example is that the Sentinel Class-type actually can take this feat, as it has the Primal Guardian class feature.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that if you had a problem with options being limited to certain builds, you probably would have hated having powers with class-feature specific riders like is common in the rogue, or feats that are limited by build, like Inspired Recovery. The simple fact is, this 'non-compatibility by build' is an inherent part of the game since the very first day it was printed. The only difference is the level of granularity of that difference.

Which, by the way, exists between the build level and the class level. That's why the comparison between Swordmage and Hexblade was completely valid... it's the exact same mechanic with a different level of granularity.

So long as feats have restrictions by build or class, this is always going to occur.

The ironic part about THIS is that essentials feats tend to eschew build and class-based restrictions, and are of more general application.

'Classic' builds are (interface) compatible with each other. Essentials builds (or subclasses...) aren't (interface) compatible with classic builds. They require an adaptor in the form of (how did a previous poster call it?) cross-training feats.

Depends on the class type. Mages and wizards play very well together. But this is hardly a new thing. But in reality, they are pretty much new classes. The Blackguard is not the PHB Paladin. It doesn't even try to do the same things. It can take Paladin powers at some levels, take some feats at others, but when it comes down to it, it's pretty much a new class that does its own thing.

Besides, not everything is Hexblade specific. Binder powers that have levels can be taken by warlocks just fine. And there's a collection of warlock powers that can be taken by ANY class type.

Templars (PHB Clerics) for example, can take the level 8 power that ressurects the dead. They'll take it at 10th level as a utility power, but that is perfectly legal.

ANYTHING that has a level can be taken by the basic class at the proper time. ANYTHING. How is that incompatible?

But I guess, I'll follow Matt James' example and bow out of the thread before I get banned (or as we Germans say: Ich trolle mich )

If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.

Why? You've already convinced yourself it's some alien thing when it isn't. I mean, yes, a warlock can't pick up class features the hexblade can... but any power the hexblade can -choose-, the warlock can.

If you conceptualize the class types as new character classes (which they are!) rather than as mere builds (which they are not!) then you'll have no problems accepting them. The fact that they can cross polinate many of their options with previous classes is just gravy. I know quite a few orbizards that wouldn't mind sporting Sleep AND Deep Slumber.

 

[Zaran]

Sigh. I'm gonna do it again:

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

I had a pyromancer Mage in my group for awhile. He fulfilled his role. So no issue there.

Could a regular wizard do the same role just as well? That's arguable since in my opinion the Mage has more advantages.

 

[DracoSuave]

I had a pyromancer Mage in my group for awhile. He fulfilled his role. So no issue there.

Could a regular wizard do the same role just as well? That's arguable since in my opinion the Mage has more advantages.

The Arcanist has its advantages tho, which the Mage does not.

An Enchanter doesn't work the same as an Orbizard and can't leverage the same advantages an Orbizard can, making for a completely different effect, even when using the exact same powers.

That doesn't make them incompatible. It just makes them different.

There's no issue, for example, having a group with an Arcanist, a Templarl, a Thief, and a Slayer. There's no rules adjustment, they all interact with the same game mechanics, and do so better than a 3.5 Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter do. Those classes use completely different rules, to a far greater level of variance than essentials does from classic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks. Apparently, the difference between Essentials and classic 4e are even more pronounced than I thought. It doesn't even use the same game terms any more!

Indeed. It adds new terms such as subclass. Like everything else.

How can anyone think that this is _not_ confusing?! This is definitely something that did not happen between 3.0 and 3.5.

No. But it happened in Martial Power. And PHB 3. And most other splatbooks. That's because 3.5 was a rewrite and HOFK/L are extensions in the same way additional PHBs are.

Seems like I can really stop buying 4e products, unless I get all the Essentials stuff first.

By "All the essentials stuff" you mean two books? HOFL and HOFK? (Oh, and get Monster Vault - it's awesome).

What I'm talking about is an 'interface incompatibility': It's not about two pieces of software (i.e. class/build/whatever-you-call-it-these-days) running peacefully alongside each other, it's about a piece of software utilizing a function or service provided by a second piece of software.

You mean the way Arcane Power uses the PHB2? Yup, been there for a long time. Between HOFK and HOFL there are ten classes (Warpriest, Slayer, Knight, Thief, Mage in HOFL and Cavalier, Scout, Hunter, Sentinel, Hexblade in HOFL). Of these ten classes, eight are new (the Mage is a tweaked Wizard and if they gave Mages Ritual Caster I'd prefer the mage in every way - and the Warpriest is a wis-melee cleric (when previously it wasn't possible) with a few tweaks and bonusses to make up for the limited power selection).

Eight new classes. And because Heroes of Shadow provides support for one of the new classes that didn't previously exist it somehow isn't compatable with the old material?

If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.

A conclusion I find absolutely stunning when no one who has tried mixing essentials and pre-essentials has reported a problem. As this thread has shown, the only problems being reported are by those who are not trying to mix the two.

 

[Ajar]

Given that I, and several other people in this thread who actually run games, still use all these books all the time, I can't buy that argument at all.

The newest player in my campaign is a PH1 paladin with a few Divine Power options, but almost completely PH1.

It sounds like you're arguing, essentially, "Well, I no longer use it, so nobody else does either". But that's demonstrably, factually incorrect.

"The old books still exist" is a bit of a misdirection, IMO. There are plenty of pre-Essentials classes that need more attention -- not errata, but new content. However, now that Essentials is the new norm, pre-Essentials classes aren't likely to get significant new support in a new book. The big ones, sure -- Clerics, Wizards, and Warlocks can take the new HoS powers for those classes, of course. But I sincerely doubt we'll see any support for Seekers or Runepriests outside of Dragon. Or the psionic classes, for that matter.

 

[Jhaelen]

Okay, just one more post then you're rid of me - promised!

After writing my last post I had an epiphany:
I finally understand just what WotC has done - and it makes me feel as if I'm a citizen of Orwell's Oceania. I never quite understood why they changed the names of the PHB1 classes in their Class Compendium; now I do.

Once upon a time before WotC decided to rewrite history to fit their new vision of the game the PHB1 contained classes like the fighter. Then they had this idea to reinvent the fighter in a simplified form to appeal to players who felt 4e classes were too complex. Thus Essentials was born. There was only one problem: The new fighter was so unlike the old one it might as well be an entirely different class!
To solve this problem it wouldn't be sufficient to build a new floor on top of the existing structure, they had to create a new foundation.

What was the fighter class became the weaponmaster class type, and 'fighter' was henceforth known as an abstract class to serve as a container for class types as varied as the weaponmaster, the slayer, or the knight. No longer were classes restricted to belong to a single power source or role.
So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.

I guess, if I go back and edit my first post in this thread to say the opposite of what it originally said, it means I've been right from the very beginning?

It's like me claiming that 6 + 7 = 42. After someone objects I simply redefine '+' to mean 'multiply'. See, I was right!

The thing is: I've obviously fallen for WotCs original claim that it was safe to ignore Essentials. Well it isn't. I no longer feel fit discussing this game that once was 4e. It has been slowly and silently subverted and swallowed whole.

Note that I don't claim and have never claimed that it's causing a problem if 'classic' and Essentials class types (ha!) are played alongside, except you cannot share books.

But it's no longer possible to treat Essentials as something distinct from 4e when discussing the game. 'Classic 4e' has gone the way of the dodo, just like all the other editions before; it has become part of the legacy and would probably better be discussed in the forum bearing that name.

I'll just keep playing the game I know until our group disintegrates or makes the switch to an 'all Essentials' game. And I'll try to avoid posting in a forum about a game I obviously no longer know. So long and thanks for all the fish!