D&D 4E 4e/Essentials compatibility?

[DracoSuave]

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.

Retraining never allows you to replace a power that you have no choice but to take.

You cannot retrain Eldritch Blast into Dire Radiance, for example.

In the case of Clerics, they're the result of features 'Domain Features' and 'Domain Encounter Power' and not the result of any normal power progression. They are as untrainable as Spirit Boons' powers are, or Pact At-Wills.

 

[FireLance]

Retraining never allows you to replace a power that you have no choice but to take.

You cannot retrain Eldritch Blast into Dire Radiance, for example.

Good point.

 

[Jhaelen]

What can I say? Experiences vary from person to person.

Sure!

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.

I'm definitely with Shin Okada here.
Converting the 3.0 adventures to 3.5 was _a lot_ of work.

In the beginning I tried to just use the guidelines, but they're hopelessly inadequate. You had rooms that were too small to contain the monsters, CRs that were totally off (by as much as 5!) and particularly the npcs had to be basically recreated from scratch.

In the end I redid every encounter. This was both easier and the results were a lot more satisfying.

By comparison, applying the changes to 4e monsters is a piece of cake. It took me about the same time to adjust _every_ encounter in a 4e module that it took me to adjust _a single_ encounter in a 3.0 module!

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

I hear people say this. I have yet to see evidence.

Wizards? Clerics? About 80% compatible. Major changes to class features make much of the previous non-power support completely worthless and much of the post-e support worthless to 4e classes.

You know, I've got a copy of Psionic Power. My wizard can't use that either. I see this as no issue. And my Monk can't use most of the powers in the previous PHBs...

Every other class that shares a name with a pre-e is more than 90% incompatible. Drastically different features, a completely different(and incompatible) power set than AEDU, role changes and changing even starting HP,HS, skills and profs.

Oh. You mean that Essentials brings new classes to the table? Why is this any more a problem than when PHB 3 brought new classes?

No, they arent just new builds, they ARE new classes. Most of which are at least overpowered,

Um... what evidence for this do you have? Even the Mage is not significantly stronger than the staff or orb wizard. The cleric can't cut it in terms of healing vs a traditional cleric. Scout vs TWF ranger? I suppose if survivability is your measure of power the scout wins on AC. But not on damage. Slayer vs Barbarian? An interesting case - the Barbarian certainly has more utility. Knight vs Fighter? The knight simply can't cut it when teleports become routine. Before then it's close and they have different specialities - the Fighter locks down single targets, the Knight disrupts everyone but isn't as overwhelming against small numbers of foes.

have little or nothing to do with their supposed 'role'(every class is based on extra damage)

Putting Illusionists and Enchanters to one side for a moment, damage is what makes monsters dead. And I fail to see how clerics, druids, and seekers are based on extra damage. Strikers always have been - and all defenders except the swordmage have been. Because ultimately damage is what wins fights.

and are extremely boring in their implementation.

The slayer I'll grant. That's the point. Some people want to Just Hit Things. Although I never want to play a slayer I'm glad such players have something to use. (And knights come close.) Scouts I think are more interesting than classic rangers (not that that says much).

...and all that is before we arrive at the braindead idea that is Item Rarity....

What's wrong with it as a guideline?

 

[Sunseeker]

The slayer I'll grant. That's the point. Some people want to Just Hit Things. Although I never want to play a slayer I'm glad such players have something to use. (And knights come close.) Scouts I think are more interesting than classic rangers (not that that says much).

I do encourage people to try the "all I do is hit things" slayer, because as boring as it looks from a distance, it can be very fun.

 

[Lacan]

The Scout is a decent middle class striker that is not exceptional and has nowhere near the ability of the twin strike ranger. Nowhere.

This is different than my recent experience regarding Essentials Scout. With aspect of the ram, avalanche craghammer, axe off hand and headmans chop. This dude charges without fear of OA, knocks people prone, and hit again for total 30-50 damage per round, at will. At 3rd level.

No other build have seen gets to within 10 damage per round average without using cooldowns in heroic tiers. If you have one, I'd like to see it.

This build changes the world around it, it is that powerful. (I may be missing a few pieces in it's description, ill add it if people want to know)