Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Estlor]

Quick review because I'm late on the scene.

When WotC published 3.5e as an update to 3e, they:

• Changed the rules for weapon sizing
• Changed the rules for monster sizing
• Significantly altered many monster abilities, types, and abilities granted by types
• Completely re-imagined the ranger into a new niche
• Provided minor adjustments to the Barb, Barbarian, and Monk
• Provided minor mechanical adjustments to the half-elf and gnome
• Provided major fluff adjustments to the gnome

When WotC published Essentials as an update to 4e they:

• Consolidated two years of errata into one source
• Changed the presentation for clarity
• Provided minor mechanical adjustment to PHB1 and 2 races (in the form of an either/or stat bonus)
• Provided an either/or racial power option for humans and half-elves
• Changed the rules for magic item daily use
• Changed the rules for magic item availability
• Created a host of brand new types of archetypal builds on the chassis of existing classes.

Is 3e and 3.5e compatible? Yes, except for all monsters larger than medium sized, oversized weapons, rangers, barbarians, bards, monks, half-elves, and gnomes.

Is 4e and Essentials compatible? Yes. No exceptions.

The fact that my Knight can't take Come and Get It without a feat or my Weaponmaster can't get Hold the Line doesn't make the Knight incompatible with "o4e" or the Weaponmaster (Fighter) incompatible with "e4e." It just means there are some class abilities that are unique to the Knight and some class abilities unique to the Weaponmaster. In fact, it's no different than the unique abilities not shared between a Guardian fighter, a Battlerager fighter, a Tempest fighter, and a Brawler fighter.

The Essentials books represent the baseline D&D experience, not because they change or invalidate anything about the AEDU model. They represent it because they exist for (potential) players that just want to be able to say, "I want to wield a big axe and hit things." If you ever get tired of just hitting things, you go to the PHB1 and investigate the options of a Greatweapon Fighter.

In case anyone is wondering, I just checked my bookshelf and my PHB1, 2, and 3 were all still sitting there. Pretty shocking, I know. It's almost like I can choose to play a Fighter or a Knight/Slayer.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Again, trying to claim "Oh, no, we're saying that there are compatibility issues when it comes to player options!" just makes one look ignorant of the fact that player options are designed to be used in a restricted fashion. What you are arguing is no different than someone who argues, "My 10 Strength Rogue can't take Heavy Blade Opportunity! Why didn't WotC make Heavy Blade Opportunity compatible with my character?!"

First of all, try not to get so upset. We hear you, we just don't agree with you.

Second, before Essentials, I could open the CB and create a 20th level character of my choosing, adding feats and magic items that were all 100% compatible with the class mechanics. Of course those options would be narrowed by class/build/weapon/implement/abilities, etc., but I knew that everything was cut from the same cloth, so to speak, (AEDU for instance), and would work.

Now, when creating a character, I have to be cognizant as to whether I'm starting with a classic build, or an Essentials class, because that will dictate what mechanics are in play, and what feats I should take, what magic items I should choose. Because thematically an Essentials Warpriest is pretty much the same thing as a PHB Str-Cleric, but mechanically, they're miles apart.

Now, you may believe that there is nothing new here--options were limited by class/build/weapon/etc. previously, and the limits placed on options for characters because of the addition of Essentials is more of the same.

I just simply disagree.

For instance, when there are magic items that should work with my character thematically, but they shouldn't or can't be used because of issues of mechanics, then that to me is a compatibility issue. Not a huge one--again, I'm not saying anything is broken. But it is what it is.

And--also repeating myself here--as the system matures, I know these rough edges will be smooth as a [insert smooth thing here]. So go ahead and claim that these things don't bother you. But please don't claim they don't exist. Thats just silly.

 

[MerricB]

Where's the support for the PHB3 classes in the Essentials books? There isn't any. WotC's design efforts have been focused on Essentials and on Essentials elements that can also support PHB1 (not 2 or 3) classes.

The most significant additions to my Ardent character (a PHB3 character) have come from Essentials and a Dragon article - namely the Master of Arms feat and the Intent Laid Bare power. The first gives me flexibility with weapons; the second a basic attack I can use (and a fine anti-archer/mage power).

However, the simple fact is that most classes don't get support after the initial release + power book. Expecting Essentials - a product for beginners - to provide more support for the most complicated classes in the game seems particularly optimistic and unrealistic.

 

[MrMyth]

Now, to be clear, I don't think the incompatibilities are deal breakers, that the system is broken, or anything of the sort. But to keep insisting that the two systems mesh perfectly is baffling.

Rather, I think the claim being made is that any incompatabilities, while they may be present, are minor enough elements - and the same sort of thing we've encountered before. Backgrounds in the FRPG. Themes in Dark Sun.

Just like with the magic item change, the DM may need to make one or two decisions at the start of the campaign about how to handle these elements. Do I allow Backgrounds? Themes? Are magic item daily uses tied to milestones?

No one claimed that the Forgotten Realm's Player Guide represented a new edition. So similar claims now... feel a bit hollow.

Honestly, I'm willing to recognize that the game feels different now than it did at launch, largely from the accumulated minor changes and additions. It evolves, sure. One can use or not use any of those additions as they see fit, though, and a tempest fighter alongside a slayer works without a hitch. And that's why, when Jhaelen or others try and indicate this is equivalent to the 3.0 to 3.5 change, it is so jarring. As Estlor points out, the situations are nothing alike, and trying to insist they are only really detracts from whatever genuine commentary or criticism might be offered about the current situation.

 

[Zaran]

I think the biggest issue that I have with Essentials is the fact that all books made since the Rules Compendium are made so books made beforehand are not needed. This means we will not see a Seeker build in the Feywild book. This means the Runepriest will only get love if it's printed in Dragon.

What would I do fix this? If it's WotC's plan to make sure someone whose first dnd book was Heroes of the Fallen Lands doesn't need a book printed beforehand and still want to satisfy people like me, they should continously add old to the new. Reprint the Seeker in Essentials format (i.e. don't just make a new subclass) along with the new songblade or swordsinger. or whatever that new class is that transforms from one role to another. They don't even have to reprint the same powers. As long as it plays fine without the phb3 who cares? This will make new and old players both happy.

I would also make sure that Superior weapons from books like the Adventurer's Vault is still supported. It's a shame that we still do not have feats like Pick Expertise or Tome Expertise because that content is pre-essentials. It's holes like this that cause these threads to burn up the forums.

 

[keterys]

Second, before Essentials, I could open the CB and create a 20th level character of my choosing, adding feats and magic items that were all 100% compatible with the class mechanics. Of course those options would be narrowed by class/build/weapon/implement/abilities, etc., but I knew that everything was cut from the same cloth, so to speak, (AEDU for instance), and would work.

Well... except for all those PH3 Psi characters, who couldn't use any item that recharges encounter powers since they don't have those, and have some odd interactions with anything whatsoever that affects "at-will" attacks.

Just for the more blatant case where that wasn't true.

There's all kinds of "essentials oddities" when you dig a little deeper, too - eldritch strike and power of skill avengers cared far more about basic attacks than many others.

Many classes have special powers unique to themselves, right from the beginning, from cantrips to channel divinities. Wizards with spellbooks. Warlocks not getting a choice for their at-wills. Even from the first pages of 4E, the AEDU chart was overruled by class specific exceptions.

A Dragon article all about variant runestates for Runepriests is hardly useful to someone who hasn't gotten a PH3, any more than a variety of beast feats and powers are useful to someone who didn't get Martial Power a few months after the game came out, so that's also hardly anything new that there's new stuff that works for things from new books that aren't helpful to people who won't get them.

It's fine to say that Essentials products have had less of interest to you, much as I can say the Player's Handbook 3 or Psionic Power had less of interest to me. It's a much tougher case to claim they're incompatible.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

However, this does not prove that the two systems are seamlessly compatible.

But to keep insisting that the two systems mesh perfectly is baffling.

Yeah! Like when they kept saying it was a perfect mesh to play a high-level Figther alongside a high-level Wizard or CoDzilla. What a crock! Oh wait...wrong edition...my bad.

 

[Redbadge]

Disclaimer: I like essentials and believe it is fully compatible.

Someone said that there were no major changes such that class features were completely changed (ala 3.0 ranger to 3.5 ranger). I believe the example for the only major change they could think of was Melee Training.

I just thought of an even bigger one, and I'm surprised it hasn't been used in an argument yet. Magic missile was completely redesigned. Now, it may be that they were going to make this change anyways, but it could certainly be an argument for a concrete rule change from pre-essentials to essentials.

P.S. Forgive me if I provided more fuel.

 

[Matt James]

I did so about four pages ago and the point was conceded. The subclasses are plainly not as interoperable as builds generally are, with certain exceptions (e.g. beastmaster). Multiclass/hybrid options are only now available as a playtest, and a number of Essentials subclasses are entirely excluded.

If you're asking about incompatibility at the table from the DM's perspective, then no. And I don't think anyone has actually asserted that this is a clear and substantial problem for the game. I've stated repeatedly that as a DM I'd have no problem mixing 4E and 4E.E, or running a game for all 4E.E characters, if that's what my players wanted.

Given that, it's pretty rude to repeatedly wave the legitimate concerns expressed in this thread off as "we're being trolled."

Rude or not, points are being deliberately ignored in order to maintain a narrative--one that has repeatedly been debunked. If you consider me calling this out as being rude, so be it. I've been called worse

We are talking about compatibility. It's really a simple subject.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.

In short by doing something that had absolutely no in game effect on any PHB-based fighters they almost miraculously allowed classes that fill what people desire who would otherwise be intimidated by 4e or lost in analysis paralysis. The change made was not substantive to any pre-existing characters; they barely even changed the name. The outcome was that entire new swathes of people had classes to suit them. Damn right this gets a fairytale ending - you don't normally have solutions that neat and that please just about everyone who tries them other than those completely hung up on a detail that makes absolutely no difference in actual play. What's in a name? You even still get to be a fighter. But so do people who think that fighters are something other than you think they are. Is your objection really that other people get toys almost as cool as yours?

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.

Complete nonsense. Classic classes are still being supported - see Heroes of Shadow. New powers for warlocks, for wizards, for Paladins, and for Clerics - all PHB 1 classes. Essentials is just a part of 4e.

So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials? Again, I think we're being trolled. Jhaelen is waiting for the right moment to be like "hah, gotcha!"

Right? Please say yes. Someone.

(or as we Germans say: Ich trolle mich )

Google Translate gives that as "I control". Does anyone speak idiomatic internet German? Because the sound of Ich trolle is suspiciously close.