Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Ajar]

Compatibility at the system level is the only sort of compatibility worth discussing. Conceding that incompatibilities between character options exist means nothing. We conceded that back in 1st Edition.

I don't agree. Perhaps a better way to term it is that I think 4E.E has been a significant step change in incremental character option incompatibility, combined with implicit marginalization of older options... and that I think this is a problem for the game. Not a huge problem, but something that, to me, is worth a bit of feedback to WotC and some posts on a forum.

As I've said, though, part of my concern before the Essentials line released was that this specific problem would hurt the game from a business standpoint -- I thought it would fail to attract new players while not really exciting existing players. But all of the indications I've seen suggest that Essentials has been reasonably commercially successful. So I certainly concede that I was wrong about that part of it, and I'm glad to have been wrong, since I want the game to thrive.

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.

I don't expect that. The fact that I didn't expect that has been one of my concerns about Essentials: that it would take design effort away from the AEDU space (and analogous, e.g. power points) that I'm more interested in. That says nothing about being good or bad for the game, just about what kind of crunch I like to use as a player.

DracoSuave's point about patience is certainly fair. I was very heartened by Mike Mearls' assurances that they're looking at who plays what with an eye toward shoring up undersupported classes, that they'll be supporting both the 4E and 4E.E classes, etc. I'm not sitting around lamenting the demise of my favourite game -- I'm actively playing in three games, and I'm running a one-shot to test out my new campaign setting later this week. None of my characters are Essentials and none of my players built Essentials characters, but I would have been fine with it if they had.

I bought the RC, MV, and HoS; I have an active D&DI sub. So I continue to both play and support the game. All I've done is make a few posts outlining my concerns and send a couple of emails to WotC with my thoughts on their approach, particularly its mechanical aspects. I wouldn't really call that being up in arms or an outcry.

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.

You just ignored all of my points! Pot, kettle, glass houses, etc.

 

[Erudite Frog]

hehe

 

[Matt James]

You just ignored all of my points! Pot, kettle, glass houses, etc.

I like your style. Coming to Gen Con? First round's on me.

 

[Dannager]

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.

You still can. That hasn't changed.

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.

Except for psionics. But those don't count for some reason. I can't begin to guess why.

You can't have it both ways.

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.

So kind of how choosing between a rogue and a cleric would dictate what mechanics are in play, what feats you should take, and what magic items you should choose?

Or does that not count either, for some reason?

Because thematically an Essentials Warpriest is pretty much the same thing as a PHB Str-Cleric, but mechanically, they're miles apart.

Sort of how a strength Cleric and Paladin are pretty much the same thing thematically, but are mechanically miles apart?

Or how any number of other thematically similar character options in 4e are miles apart mechanically?

Or do none of those count either?

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.

Yes, that is what I believe. And I believe it because when I open up the books and read the words that are written in them, that is what they say.

I just simply disagree.

We know. But you have failed to demonstrate a philosophically (for lack of a better term) consistent reason for labeling Essentials in the way that you do while simultaneously not labeling anything that came before it in the same way.

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.

So kind of like how my non-Essentials thunder-and-lightning-themed character should be using this one non-Essentials power that deals thunder and lightning damage except he can't/shouldn't because it [belongs to the wrong class]/[uses the wrong primary stat]/[is embedded in a paragon path or epic destiny I can't take]/[whatever]?

Or do examples of exactly the sort of thing you're talking about from pre-Essentials not count because you say so?

 

[MrGrenadine]

You still can. That hasn't changed.

Except for psionics. But those don't count for some reason. I can't begin to guess why.

You can't have it both ways... (etc)

Psionics can be ignored. I've been doing it for years. On the other hand, Essentials is the new system paradigm, which cannot be ignored as easily.

As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes. I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.

And as for whats written in the books--by all means, thats a great starting point. You can definitely learn the designers' intent that way. But the system is still maturing, and there are and will be some weirdness for a while.

I hear you--you don't see any problems. I look forward to the day when I don't either. Until then, I'll be happily playing in a 4e campaign that mixes classic and Essentials characters.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes. I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.

And yet, here you are, in effect and in intention, talking about mechanical differences between different classes.

The problem is that these two sentances are in practice and in game design contradictory. The former cannot be true while the second is true. It is simply not possible.

 

[the Jester]

Psionics can be ignored. I've been doing it for years. On the other hand, Essentials is the new system paradigm, which cannot be ignored as easily.

So "Psionics can be ignored because I want to, but Essentials can't because I won't do it"?

There are people who play the game just fine without Essentials.

As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes. I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.

Okay, how about the difference between a beastmaster ranger and other 'classic' ranger builds?

Really, saying Dannager's examples don't hold water is only correct if you aren't using the same standards for pre-Essentials stuff as you do for post-Essentials stuff. And that's an awfully disingenuous way to argue about this. But really, that's pretty much all I'm seeing .

Play the way you want, but since EVERY attempt to paint Essentials as somehow incompatible with "classic" 4e seems to be coming from people that haven't tried it, I sure don't find any of them very convincing. Especially because EVERY SINGLE POSTER that has done so has agreed that, yes, it works just fine, thank you.

I guess the 'incompatible' side of this argument has their minds made up; none of them seem open to any anecdotal evidence, evidence from written statements in the Essentials books or the website or the arguments of the people that have tried it. That's okay, but why bother starting a thread like this? Clearly it isn't to actually debate the issue; having neither tried it, nor being willing to try it, nor being open to any kind of evidence, I cannot imagine what would persuade them.

 

[Estlor]

So is that the hangup? That you open the PHB1 and under Fighter you see a set of rules and guidelines to create either a Guardian or a Greatweapon Fighter, and then you open HotFL and under Fighter you see a set of rules and guidelines to create either a Knight or a Slayer Fighter, and because the Knight/Slayer isn't exactly like the Guardian/Greatweapon, the sky has fallen and evil men have come and taken your cookies?

*opens his AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Hanbook*

Let's see... Warrior. Fighter, Ranger, Paladin. All warriors, but completely different. Rogue. Thief and Bard. Both rogues, both completely different.

*loads up the online character builder*

Let's see... Fighter. Knight, Slayer, Weaponmaster. All fighters, but completely different. Cleric. Templar and Warpriest. Both clerics, both completely different.

Curse that Essentials game design paradigm and it's not-rooted-in-D&D-history newness!

EDIT: Just remembered someone mentioned the change to magic missile. That was made as part of the regular semi-annual errata/update schedule. Perhaps it was inspired by the Essentials Mage subclass, but it hit the game well before the preview of the mage was shown.

 

[MrGrenadine]

So "Psionics can be ignored because I want to, but Essentials can't because I won't do it"?

There are people who play the game just fine without Essentials.

Absolutely. But unless you can find me a quote about psionics similar to this Bill Slavicsek quote about Essentials:

"Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward" (from Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Cleric Preview))

then it should be clear how one is more easily ignored than the other.

And just in case all that "haven't tried it" stuff is directed at me, let me repeat again that I play in a 4e campaign that mixes both, and that although I recognize that there are rough edges where 4e and 4e.E interface, I don't think these things are deal breakers.

The responses here are just crazy. I keep saying "there's a little rain shower outside" and what I get back is "stop saying the sky is falling!!!!"

I get it--these aren't big issues. But you won't convince me that there aren't problems. For goodness sake, based on the errata that has appeared since Essentials was introduced alone, you could infer that the designers agree.

 

[MrMyth]

Absolutely. But unless you can find me a quote about psionics similar to this Bill Slavicsek quote about Essentials:

"Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward" (from Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Cleric Preview))

then it should be clear how one is more easily ignored than the other.

What do you mean by "more easily ignored", exactly?

You can play without PHB3 and Psionics, and this likely also means you play without any products that rely on it, such as Psionic Power. And, similarly, you may not get the full effect of other products that reference it, like Dark Sun or some Dragon magazine articles.

You can, similarly, play without Heroes of the Forgottllen Kinglands, and this means you also get limited effect from products that reference it, such as Heroes of Shadow or some Dragon magazine articles.

Your existing game remains completely playable as is, either way. Bill isn't going to crash into your house and mess with your campaign, as I understand it.

Again, what is it that is "harder to ignore"? Heroes of Shadow has more usable content for non-Essentials characters than Psionic Power had for non-PHB3 characters or Primal Power had for non-PHB2 characters.

Maybe all future books will have 0 content for non-Essentials characters, but that again gets into hypotheticals - and the majority of evidence thus far, despite the quote you have provided, seems to indicate that won't be the case.

Look, I know you aren't saying that the sky is falling, and some folks might be treating it as though you are. But I think you are making statements that just don't seem supported, and people are looking for a little more explanation. As it is, you point to Bill's quote as though that answers everything - but for me, the actual releases we've seen, and comparing them to similar releases following previous 4E books, seems far more relevant to the discussion and the comparison of what can and cannot be 'ignored'.