D&D 5E What belongs in a $50 PHB?

[The Human Target]

The difference being the rules in 3.5 are different than 3.0.

Not so in Essentials/4e.

 

[delericho]

The difference being the rules in 3.5 are different than 3.0.

Not so in Essentials/4e.

That's only somewhat true. If you compare the 4e core as originally published with the Essentials core as published, then there are significant rules changes. It's just that the ongoing revisions of 4e (via DDI) had meant that much of Essentials was just a gathering-up operation of the changes that had been made to date.

(And note that many of the changes made were indeed revisions, not merely errata - see Magic Missile for a classic example.)

That said, Essentials was crucially different from 3.5e in that it was 100% backwards compatible. In that respect, it was the mid-edition revision "done right". Somewhere along the line, WotC learned a very valuable lesson on that one!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The difference being the rules in 3.5 are different than 3.0.

Not so in Essentials/4e.

This is true, generally. Though the thing that Essentials and 3.5 have in common is that they are relaunches of the brand, and worth looking at as such when discussing what we'd like from the current relaunch and how soon the next one is likely to happen.

 

[The Human Target]

That's only somewhat true. If you compare the 4e core as originally published with the Essentials core as published, then there are significant rules changes. It's just that the ongoing revisions of 4e (via DDI) had meant that much of Essentials was just a gathering-up operation of the changes that had been made to date.

(And note that many of the changes made were indeed revisions, not merely errata - see Magic Missile for a classic example.)

That said, Essentials was crucially different from 3.5e in that it was 100% backwards compatible. In that respect, it was the mid-edition revision "done right". Somewhere along the line, WotC learned a very valuable lesson on that one!

Very true.

The internet being used to errata/update 4e is a big part of the difference.

 

[DMZ2112]

The conception of dragons that you are espousing: that dragons must be spell users who engage in "indirect warfare. Poisoning nearby water sources, spreading disease among the animals, blocking the lair exits with magic (directly or indirectly by causing landslides, etc.)."

Well, for my part, Pemerton, it sounds a lot like the iconic Dungeons & Dragons chromatic dragon, as originally fleshed out in the Dragonlance setting.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, sorry, if you count D&D3.5, you have to count Essentials. The crisis of Essentials was precisely that it was /not/ a complete revision. The rules did not change, but the introduction of new classes constructed in a totally different paradigm while maintaining the expectation of compatibility was at least as disruptive to ongoing campaigns as D&D3.5.

There were a lot of rules changes between 3.0 and 3.5 edition. Movement changed(what happened when you moved on angles), the rules for shooting through cover, damage reduction, skills changed, and countless other rules changed. Not to mention the effect of a number of spells changed. The 3.5e rules were meant to be a complete replacement of the old rules. The new versions of all the classes were meant to replace. One could say that it was just a bunch of errata on the old edition, but there was so much errata that it took 40 pages just to explain all the changes. Even then there were things missing from that list.

There were zero rules changes between 4e and Essentials. So there was 100% compatibility between Essentials and 4e. I added them to my game with 0 disruption. Well, I supposed there was one SMALL disruption. A couple feats in the Essentials books were clearly better than the ones in the previous books and a number of people felt cheated so I let them swap their feats for the new ones and we continued onward. This same thing happened with a couple other splat books, however.

Any dungeon master who ran Encounters at that time will tell you that it dramatically changed the way the game was played and adjudicated, with old players sticking to the PHBs and new players coming in with the Heroes books. Little effort was put into making the new material "speak" to the old material.

I ran Encounters at that time, I didn't see that the game was adjudicated any differently. It played a little different. As is likely when nearly everyone at the table was suddenly playing classes that worked quite a bit differently from the older classes. A lot of people were thrown off by "What? I don't have Dailies? BUT EVERYONE HAS DAILIES!!! What's with all the changes?"

Though the actual game played the same, I rolled initiative the same, we went around in the same order, people decided to use their standard, move, and minor actions in the same way, we rolled for damage the same way, we rolled skills the same way, the monsters they fought were the same, the players used the exact same character sheets.

I think most home groups probably ignored Essentials, and those few who adopted it probably did so completely, putting aside the older PHBs. And it's true that if you completely ignored the Essentials core books, you could continue to use later D&D4 supplements with the original core books, and if you converted /entirely/ to Essentials, you could still use older supplements with the new core books. You couldn't really do that with D&D3.0 and 3.5.

But if you tried to (or had to) mix the two presentations of the system at your table, it was painfully obvious that Essentials was not the same old stuff.

I did mix the two. I originally restricted people to only Essentials classes since I was tired of all the power gaming going on at my table and felt the new classes simplified the game a lot and prevented a lot of abuse. We played like that for a while until a bunch of my more powergaming minded friends started complaining constantly that they felt way too limited and couldn't play the game properly without the choice of every power, feat, and class from every book. I eventually relented and allowed everything.

There were no mechanical issues at all. There was no change in DMing style or anything I needed to do to combine them. I just started allowing everything again. A bunch of players decided to keep their Essentials characters and a large amount of the time they were doing slightly better damage than the non-Essential characters due to their lack of dailies and more powerful class features. However, everything seemed pretty balanced and although the Essentials characters had a different "feel" to them, they certainly weren't playing an entirely different game.

And if a revision does away with the PHB, as Essentials did? What then?

It didn't do away with it, it was just another PHB. If they published a book containing all of the 3.5e rules but instead compiled all the classes from all the splat books and released it, it would still be 3.5e even though it contained all the rules for the game and meant you didn't need the original PHB at all anymore. It would just be weird because now everyone playing would be Spellthieves, Scouts, Marshals, and Crusaders. All of which would have a different feel to the classes in the PHB and might feel like a different game but the rules those characters play under would be exactly the same. If they took a spell, it was exactly the same as the old PHB, if they took a feat it was exactly the same as the old PHB.

Essentials was definitely a step forward for 4e in terms of trying new things out. But it was not a new edition.

 

[Derren]

that dragons must be spell users who engage in "indirect warfare.

I was talking about adventurers doing that and that without access to magic or lots of minions (with all the baggage that comes with them) dragons have no defense against this form of asymmetrical warfare.

 

[RevTurkey]

Okay, I'll give this a shot...

I'd like to see:

The basic rules of the game without modular options. This includes races, classes, combat, spells, exploration...that kind of stuff. I would leave out monsters and magical treasure...they could go in a Monster Manual and Dungeon Masters Guide respectively.

I would like the $50 to be spent on a good binding, printing and paper quality.

I don't want a massive, heavy book.

I want it to contain very little errata and to have been excellently proofread.

I want a book that will last me a very long time like the original Player's Handbooks.

 

[pemerton]

I think most home groups probably ignored Essentials, and those few who adopted it probably did so completely, putting aside the older PHBs.

I don't see any evidence of this on these boards - everyone seems to agree that the Monster Vault is the best of the monster books, for instance, and lots of people seem to use the Rules Compendium for reference at the table. I also see plenty of people mixing Essentials and non-Essentials classes.

What is the evidence that the rest of the 4e world is very different from these boards?

This is true, generally. Though the thing that Essentials and 3.5 have in common is that they are relaunches of the brand

I think this is a very good point. A new edition can be a rules relaunch, or a brand relaunch, or both. It obscures analysis to run the two together.

 

[pemerton]

Poisoning nearby water sources, spreading disease among the animals, blocking the lair exits with magic (directly or indirectly by causing landslides, etc.)."

I was talking about adventurers doing that and that without access to magic or lots of minions (with all the baggage that comes with them) dragons have no defense against this form of asymmetrical warfare.

Huh? Their defence is that they have superlative senses, and when they notice people doing these sorts of things they breathe on them and/or eat them!