D&D 4E 4e Essentials as a new edition and 4e's longevity

[Mannahnin]

I never saw anyone use a 3.0 PH at a 3.5 table. The changes between those editions were much more extensive than originally billed, and the conversion guide extensive enough that I wouldn't want to try to reference that mid-game.

I'm not saying that it's impossible by any means. Or that the two editions are totally incompatible. DM-side, in particular, I'd feel pretty comfortable, say, updating a 3.0 adventure on the fly to 3.5 if I wanted to and was currently still expert at that rules set.

But IMO it's really substantially different from the 4E/Essentials update, which was literally a few rules updates and some new classes and options for the same game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would expect that the people who used them together continued using the entirety of their PHBs, probably modified with that handy free conversion guide WotC produced - meaning that, yes, they'd have mixed sets of rules used at the same table. The extent to which 3.5e and 3.0e were 'incompatible' is frequently overstated online.

On the other hand there were literally hundreds of niggling changes all over everywhere and the "handy free conversion guide" only scratches the surface. It's not that there were 2e - 3.0 changes or 3.5 - 4e changes. But there were handfuls of grit thrown in the gears everywhere. Most splatbooks and adventures from 3.0 could still be used in 3.5 - but even if you used classes from one PHB in the other you basically had to make a choice whether it was 3.0 with add-ons or 3.5 with 3.0 stuff added.

The extent to which they were the same rather than deliberately nigglingly incompatible is frequently overstated.

 

[Voadam]

But IMO it's really substantially different from the 4E/Essentials update, which was literally a few rules updates and some new classes and options for the same game.

What were the rules updates in essentials? I don't recall those.

The closest I can think of are the sample improvisations for skills in the essentials books and arcana being able to be used to interact and affect magical phenomena.

 

[Mannahnin]

What were the rules updates in essentials? I don't recall those.

The closest I can think of are the sample improvisations for skills in the essentials books and arcana being able to be used to interact and affect magical phenomena.

I also recall changes to how magic items and their rarity worked, for example.

And Neonchameleon mentioned above that "damage reduction and spell resistance and spell immunity also got changed, resulting in pretty much the entire Conjuration school now not caring about either spell resistance or spell immunity."

 

[Argyle King]

What do you see as the rest of the game that was changed?

I had thought the biggest difference between base 4e and essentials was the non AEDU structured classes of essentials.

Monsters seem a continuation of MM3 math and design development. A few new feats were flat out better than base 4e ones.

Skills seem the same with slightly different wording, ability checks seem the same.

The applicable rules seem the same to me.

This seems a different situation from 3.0 to 3.5 with skills and the list of things that provoke attacks of opportunity and how weapon size is handled got changed.

As I said above, the mentality behind why/how things were done and approached changed.

I haven't played 4E in quite a while, so I'm admittedly out of touch with the details.

However, the changing motivation and mindset behind the hows and whys of the game could be seen in how encounters were designed, adventures were written, mechanics were designed, and implied expected playstyles.

A similar thing could be seen in very-late 3.5. While technically the same game, mixing and matching elements produced varying results.

Certainly, a game should be revised and improved as flaws are noticed -as was the case with monster math.

In other cases, change for the sake of change ranged from causing new flaws to just not being necessary.

For example, the ever evolving Skill Challenge Guidelines never quite seemed to work, and a lot of Official advice on how to run Skill Challenged (and the game in general) was bad advice, which somehow got worse as time went on.

I felt that Skill Challenges were a good idea, but it took learning that I should ignore the "official" advice to get the best experience from them. That relates to Essentials in that the revised guidelines and advice went even further in a directing that I felt was bad.

Mechanically, the game was adjusted to better cater to an outlook that became increasingly at odds with what worked best at my table. Essentials was the pinnacle of that conflict.

 

[cbwjm]

Except that 3.5 replaced the prior material. There's a reason people talk about playing 3.5 rather than 3e and don't refer back to the 3.0 PHB.

It sounds like what a .5 edition should have been if it had been other than a shameless cash grab.

That's why I added the whole rest of that sentence which said it should be used with existing content...

 

[Voadam]

I also recall changes to how magic items and their rarity worked, for example.

I had forgotten that rarity became a 4e thing that impacted prices.

And Neonchameleon mentioned above that "damage reduction and spell resistance and spell immunity also got changed, resulting in pretty much the entire Conjuration school now not caring about either spell resistance or spell immunity."

That was for 3.0 to 3.5 I believe.

 

[Undrave]

Heroes of the Feywild is a neutral supplement that spends more time referencing the PHB2 than HoFx. The new barbarian, bard, and druid variants can be used entirely out of HoFx but explicitly reference the PHB2. I don't think there is anything in there that requires either HoFx or one of the PHBs.

Heroes of the Elemental Chaos by contrast is a "both" supplement. There's a monk subclass and the Monk isn't in Essentials - and a Hexblade subclass when the Hexblade is only in Essentials.

That was a dumb strategy IMO. I didn’t like Essentials, why would I spend money on a book that’s half stuff I don’t want to touch?

 

[delericho]

On the other hand there were literally hundreds of niggling changes all over everywhere and the "handy free conversion guide" only scratches the surface. It's not that there were 2e - 3.0 changes or 3.5 - 4e changes. But there were handfuls of grit thrown in the gears everywhere. Most splatbooks and adventures from 3.0 could still be used in 3.5 - but even if you used classes from one PHB in the other you basically had to make a choice whether it was 3.0 with add-ons or 3.5 with 3.0 stuff added.

Or I guess you just had each person use the rules from the PHB they had. There has always been a large constituency of casual gamers who just really don't care about the rules.

The extent to which they were the same rather than deliberately nigglingly incompatible is frequently overstated.

Fair enough.

My larger point, which seems to have become lost in all of this, is that there simply is no universally accepted definition of 'edition', nor agreement of what marks the boundary. Personally, I would tend to agree that 3.5e should be considered a new edition and Essentials should not. But that's my definition - WotC would disagree (stating that neither is a new edition), and the market would likewise mostly disagree (treating both as new editions).

And, to be honest, the argument mostly seems to be a proxy for arguing over which edition is best - was 4e the shortest-lived WotC edition, or the second longest? In which case... I'm sorry, but I just don't care any more. Play what you like; like what you like.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That was a dumb strategy IMO. I didn’t like Essentials, why would I spend money on a book that’s half stuff I don’t want to touch?

Heroes of the Feywild is 100% fine for people who don't like Essentials. And Heroes of the Elemental Chaos is meant to be 80% fine for both people who want Just Essentials and people who want No Essentials. For example the Sorcerer section has its own class. And the Warlock section has an intro (a side), Warlock pact (half a side), a Hexblade pact (a side and a half), and then powers and summons that can be used by either worth about six sides. And the themes and paragon paths are neutral.

In short whichever way you go it has a lot for you and just enough to try and tease you into going the other way if you don't already.