D&D 4E 4e/Essentials compatibility?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I suppose it would hinge on whether storm hammer is "a power designated as a feature" even though it is specifically listed as a "Cleric Attack 1" and not a "Cleric Feature" (unlike, say divine fortune).

The nut of the question. DS is basing his statement on the idea that since you aren't ACTUALLY given a choice of powers with Warpriest that you don't have the option to pick a power from a different source. Likewise the retraining rules don't allow swapping a class feature (this was true in the PHB version of the rules as well though it had little impact). However when you read the text of the rule it also talks about powers with a level and DS's interpretation definitely has not been accepted by say the charops board people etc, nor has CS issued an FAQ entry clarifying it. He makes a good argument, but it is still a bit of an open question.

As for people claiming that E-classes aren't balanced against earlier classes, they simply haven't PLAYED them together or they wouldn't claim this. Every single report I've read of people playing them side-by-side has stated the balance between old and new is pretty much dead on. Nobody is really certain that an Epic Slayer is going to be exactly as strong as an Epic GW Fighter for instance, but they are well balanced in heroic tier and there's nothing to suggest that will change appreciably later.

The basic upshot is that if you are playing a Martial e-class or Warpriest that MCing may not be as useful as normal and Essentials features don't show up as Hybrid options. Other than that and possibly some issues with Themes (which are still officially DS only anyhow) you have NO compatibility issues.

This is vastly different than 3.0 to 3.5 where virtually all the fundamental combat rules of the game itself changed and classes themselves were rewritten in fundamentally incompatible ways. If you squinted hard you could RUN a 3.0 character in 3.5, they ARE similar games, but you couldn't for instance MC between the two AT ALL and your 3.0 character would have abilities that no longer existed in 3.5 or worked in a very different way and vice versa. 3.0 and 3.5 are 'compatible' the way 1e and Basic are compatible, they're close enough you can 'wing it'. 4e and Essentials are FAR FAR more compatible than that and anyone saying differently obviously hasn't read HotFK or HotFL.

 

[Aegeri]

No, they arent just new builds, they ARE new classes. Most of which are at least overpowered, have little or nothing to do with their supposed 'role'(every class is based on extra damage) and are extremely boring in their implementation.

Most of them are overpowered? What version of these classes are you using? The Slayer - even optimized - is merely competent at epic levels especially. The Thief is excellent and a really strong performer every round, but still won't get anywhere near a well optimized rogue or a ranger (but is still really strong). The Knight is worthless at epic tier as a defender (defender aura sucks horrifically at epic), cannot deal with many monsters powers like a fighter/warden etc can and sheer ability to beat him senseless. The mage and warpriest are basically a wizard/cleric that dresses up funny - about as good as their original classes (Warpriest is basically a non crap strength cleric, performs better but overpowered? Don't make me laugh).

The Scout is a decent middle class striker that is not exceptional and has nowhere near the ability of the twin strike ranger. Nowhere. The Sentinel is the first and only true "Jack of all trades" class, but he's exceptional at nothing. Not good enough to be a primary anything, but a useful fellow in a party with a dedicated striker/leader/controller. The Hunter is a decent but unexceptional controller. The Hexblade has one solid build and it's not even from the book, it's the feyblade because it has radiant damage (infinitely optimizable). The Cavalier is just not that impressive.

I mean they are different and have their weaknesses in being mostly linear railroad tracks, but describing them as overpowered is frankly laughable. If you think they are overpowered you must have kittens when you see a decently built ranger or barbarian. Everything I've read from the people at CharOp is that they are unexceptional and very hard to optimize because they are so one track. I have yet to read a single post on CharOp that thinks any essentials build is overpowered. Can you show me an overpowered Essentials build? I am genuinely curious.

 

[TerraDave]

For the op, I will just say that essentials feats seem to be accross the board good, and in some cases have pre essentials equivelents that are just not as good. Players looking for every little edge will probalby want to retrain some feats (and yes, this is of course true with any product with lots of feats).

DMs needed a lot of works to use 3.0e adventures in 3.5e rules. I have actually DMed most of the first Adventure Path of 3.0e and know the amount of works a DM to convert them into 3.5e. That was huge. Also, almost all the players did must re-make their 3.0e PCs when the play group start to use 3.5e rules.

By that mean Essentials are definitely not the different version of D&D from　4.0e. You can still grab H1-E3 adventure modules and play with PCs created only by Essentials.

From my own experience...3E had all sort of issues in terms of encounter building, but the "conversion" needed was, still in my own experience, generally minimal.

On the other hand, there are monsters in early 4E adventures that you want to convert, either by tweaking damage and some other things, or by replacing with a newer version. I am not saying its hard, but it makes for better play.

 

[Argyle King]

For the op, I will just say that essentials feats seem to be accross the board good, and in some cases have pre essentials equivelents that are just not as good. Players looking for every little edge will probalby want to retrain some feats (and yes, this is of course true with any product with lots of feats).



From my own experience...3E had all sort of issues in terms of encounter building, but the "conversion" needed was, still in my own experience, generally minimal.

On the other hand, there are monsters in early 4E adventures that you want to convert, either by tweaking damage and some other things, or by replacing with a newer version. I am not saying its hard, but it makes for better play.

3.0e/3.5e change were far much serious. Spaces of creatures changed. While 3.0e combat rule was not using squares by default (though many were using grids), 3.5e combat rule was based on squares. There are many spells, feats, classes and such which were eliminated and dramatically changed when 3.5e was released.

DMs needed a lot of works to use 3.0e adventures in 3.5e rules. I have actually DMed most of the first Adventure Path of 3.0e and know the amount of works a DM to convert them into 3.5e. That was huge. Also, almost all the players did must re-make their 3.0e PCs when the play group start to use 3.5e rules.

By that mean Essentials are definitely not the different version of D&D from　4.0e. You can still grab H1-E3 adventure modules and play with PCs created only by Essentials. Essentials PCs and Pre-Essentials PC can adventure in the same party without any trouble. You don't need to re-make your PC even if your party start to use Essentials line (though, some update may affect on some of the PCs, but that degree of rule change happened several times even before Essentials).

In over all, Essentials line books are no different from other new supplements for 4e.

The spaces of creatures wasn't hard to figure out; it only even mattered if you used (and liked) the idea that every creature was a perfect cube shape. I'd put the difficultly of figuring out creature shapes below figuring out how the damage values of 4E creatures should change and figuring out skill challenge DCs which seem right.

People find different things to be harder/easier. Personally, I find updating 3.0 to 3.5 a little easier because the things you need to change stick out more and are easier to see. IME, when going from 4E to 4EE, it's harder to notice certain things at a glance because they do appear so similar; sometimes you don't even realize something is creating a problem until several levels later.

To be clear, I do feel 4E is an improvement on D&D. However, with all of the changes made (in both mechanics and design ideals) over the past few years, it's not always clear how well things will mix together.

 

[the Jester]

This is Flatly Untrue, tho the marketing department loves that people keep claiming this.

Actually, your statement here is the one that is untrue. People keep claiming Essentials is compatible because they have found it to be true in-game.

Saying that Essentials stuff is incompatible with the rest of 4e is a lot like saying, "Hey, Players Handbook 2 is incompatible with the rest of 4e, no class in there uses an orb as an implement!1!!1!!"

 

[Shin Okada]

From my own experience...3E had all sort of issues in terms of encounter building, but the "conversion" needed was, still in my own experience, generally minimal.

On the other hand, there are monsters in early 4E adventures that you want to convert, either by tweaking damage and some other things, or by replacing with a newer version. I am not saying its hard, but it makes for better play.

Do you really know how different monsters such as demons and devils in 3.0e and 3.5e were? They are completely different. Comparing to those differences, the changes made in monster vault is MINIMAL.

No, replacing monsters in 3.0e into the 3.5e equivalent didn't work well in many cases. First, while 4.0e is a case-specific design, 3.0e and 3.5e were not. So, while you can jut use the "older" version of a certain monster in earlier 4.0e adventures and their stats works just fine by the rule, many of the 3.0e monster didn't work at all when you try to use it in 3.5e rule. Because many of the monsters' abilities are referring to spells in the core rules. And there were a lot of revisions on spells. Also, there were lot of other rule changes such as how damage reduction works. Most of the "tactics" or key elements mentioned in 3.0e encounters in published adventure modules just didn't work when you play it in 3.5e.

And, have you ever actually tried to use a 3.0e dungeon adventure full of large standing monsters into 3.5e? In 3.0e, for example, large standing monster's space was 1 square. In 3.5e that was 2x2, as it is now. So, if you use a 3.0e adventure module in 3.5e, you must re-write the dungeon maps or you will find monsters just didn't physically fit in a room, often.

 

[Shin Okada]

People find different things to be harder/easier. Personally, I find updating 3.0 to 3.5 a little easier because the things you need to change stick out more and are easier to see. IME, when going from 4E to 4EE, it's harder to notice certain things at a glance because they do appear so similar; sometimes you don't even realize something is creating a problem until several levels later.

To be clear, I do feel 4E is an improvement on D&D. However, with all of the changes made (in both mechanics and design ideals) over the past few years, it's not always clear how well things will mix together.

No, I definitely say updating 3.0e into 3.5e was never easier. A lot of things and rules were completely different and there was no equivalents in two editions. And monster design in those two versions were far much different, comparing to the differences between 4e MM1 monsters and newer monsters.

Well, I am actually playing KotSF right now, a revised free online version, but still a much older module comparing to the current one. It is just working fine without any modifications. Many of the encounters are still giving good challenge to PCs. There is no need to re-write maps or change tactics of monsters.

I am also playing Dungeon Delves (a very early supplement published for 4e, right?) and having no trouble using it as it is.

Yeah, not just Essentials but in newer supplements and adventure modules, they made a lot of improvements. But you don't need to change most of the encounters in earlier adventure modules at all as it works just fine within current 4e rules. And actually, while some of the older monsters were weaker than the current ones by stats, encounters themselves are giving challenges to PCs with the combination of monster stats, terrain design, traps, tactics and such. So from time to time, if you replace the monster with newer version or change the monster damage output as per new formula, many of the encounters become just too deadly.

 

[Argyle King]

No, I definitely say updating 3.0e into 3.5e was never easier. A lot of things and rules were completely different and there was no equivalents in two editions. And monster design in those two versions were far much different, comparing to the differences between 4e MM1 monsters and newer monsters.

Well, I am actually playing KotSF right now, a revised free online version, but still a much older module comparing to the current one. It is just working fine without any modifications. Many of the encounters are still giving good challenge to PCs. There is no need to re-write maps or change tactics of monsters.

I am also playing Dungeon Delves (a very early supplement published for 4e, right?) and having no trouble using it as it is.

Yeah, not just Essentials but in newer supplements and adventure modules, they made a lot of improvements. But you don't need to change most of the encounters in earlier adventure modules at all as it works just fine within current 4e rules. And actually, while some of the older monsters were weaker than the current ones by stats, encounters themselves are giving challenges to PCs with the combination of monster stats, terrain design, traps, tactics and such. So from time to time, if you replace the monster with newer version or change the monster damage output as per new formula, many of the encounters become just too deadly.

What can I say? Experiences vary from person to person. In my experiences, the older 4E encounters were already too easy in many cases; with the players having access to newer materials, the older monsters became even easier. Easier to the point where some GMs I played with didn't even bother having the party play out the rest of the encounter and just declared that the monster had given up or died.

I am perfectly aware of the rule changes from 3.0 to 3.5, and I still say they were less extreme than many people seem to say. Certain feats were renamed or had their effects changed, and, indeed, this did often mean that the CR of a creature from a 3.0 suppliment needed adjusted, but the adjustment was fairly easy* to make by looking at the guidelines given in the 3.5 DMG and MM1.

*in my opinion

I also feel that the 4E to 4E.E adjustments are easy to make. However, the reason why I say they are more difficult is because (again, in my opinion) they are harder to see. Because of how tightly the system is balanced, even a small change often has a great effect, and one change can impact how four or five different other things down the line work. Often, this impact isn't noticed until you go through an encounter where it is noticed.

Likewise, I also feel there is some amount of added difficulty because (yet again, in my opinion) there have been more adjustments than simply going from 4E to 4E.E. Each round of books has changed something; this is true even with the essentials line. There are changes already from the D&D boxed set to the current essential materials. On one hand, I am glad that WoTC is dedicated to evolving the game and ensuring the experience constantly becomes better. However, on the other hand, it is my opinion that the further you get in time from the current edition, the more pronounced the differences are between products. There is also that small cynical part of my brain which is starting to associate what's going on with D&D right now with the marketing strategy employed by Magic... but that's a different topic.

At any rate, my point is that, in my mind, I view the differences between 4E and 4E.E in a similar manner as how I viewed 3.0 and 3.5; it is possible to still mix things, but adjustments often need to be made. The amount of adjustment varies with each product.

 

[DracoSuave]

The nut of the question. DS is basing his statement on the idea that since you aren't ACTUALLY given a choice of powers with Warpriest that you don't have the option to pick a power from a different source. Likewise the retraining rules don't allow swapping a class feature (this was true in the PHB version of the rules as well though it had little impact). However when you read the text of the rule it also talks about powers with a level and DS's interpretation definitely has not been accepted by say the charops board people etc, nor has CS issued an FAQ entry clarifying it. He makes a good argument, but it is still a bit of an open question.

1) Char Ops will interpret anything designed to make optimization better. In this case, they're explicitly cheating.

2) The rule's pretty clear: It explicitly says 'when you choose a power' which is something that you simply don't get to do with encounter powers with the Warpriest. As I said... you can no more choose a cleric power than you can choose a sun warpriest power if you are a storm warpriest. Your choices are as much made for you as the at-wills are for a warlock.

As for whether it's the result of a feature:

The title of the ability to take your domain powers at level 1 is called 'Domain Features.' Moreover: At level 3, this is what happens:

'Benefit: You gain an encounter attack power associated with your domain. (storm, p 109, or sun, p 115).'

Notice it does not give you a choice. And, if it did give a choice, the encounter power -must be- associated with your domain. This is a specific case that would override the general rule saying you can take any power.

As there is only one power associated with your domain at levels 3, 7, 13, 17, 23, and 27, there's no cogent argument that the 'choose any power' rule would hold sway. You're not choosing a power, and the rule is therefore not satisfied, and you're specifically required to take the power associated with your domain, so even if it were, the specific case would override it.

On top of that, you're not even allowed to decide which powers you can swap. Your level 13 power MUST replace your level 1. You cannot decide to have it replace your level 3.

I don't understand how the argument that you -can- take powers outside your domain powers exists--it's a ruling based not on Rules as Written, but Rules as Ignored.

 

[FireLance]

I don't understand how the argument that you -can- take powers outside your domain powers exists--it's a ruling based not on Rules as Written, but Rules as Ignored.

My question wasn't about choosing another power when you gain the domain power, though - it was about using the retraining rules to replace a domain power with another power of the same frequency and level, and from the same class.