D&D 4E 4E feats vs Essential Feats. A list?

[Jacob Lewis]

Well, perhaps errata doesn't cover the full text of the Rules Compendium (though I'm pretty certain that all functional changes have been addressed this way), but I was under the impression that every rules element (feats, powers, races...) changed by Heroes of X had been included in an errata document. Do you have any example of an exception to this?

An example? Alright. Let's use Axe Expertise for an example.

Better yet, let's get real specific here. I want to play an Avenger (which is not an Essentials character), and I want to take Axe Expertise (an Essentials feat) as one of my feats.

Axe Expertise is not listed anywhere in the errata, so there's no clear indication that it supersedes, replaces, or works in conjunction with any of the earlier edition feats or options that work similar to it. Naturally, we just make the assumption that it does. It seems logical, and its probably a safe assumption. Most of us might accept that, but its not guaranteed because there is no definitive source to give us an answer.

Let's further examine the scenario with a hypothetical. Let's say I'm the kind of person who decides for himself that I want to also take Weapon Expertise (Axe Group). In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is not a single reference in any Essentials products anywhere to content, materials, or rules that came prior to it. It doesn't mention Player's Handbooks, Dungeon Master's Guides, Monster Manuals, etc. Or I haven't found any, at least. I could reasonably argue that there is nothing to prevent me from doing so, unless the DM flat out decides not to allow it. Granted, it is well within the DMs right to reject the notion (and rightly so), but now we have a difference of opinions on what should and shouldn't be allowed because there is no clear, concise, and definitive answer for all of us. That is the confusion inherent in the Essentials line of products.

Try not to over-analyze the example because that's not the issue. We can discuss every instance of every example to find a reasonable solution for ourselves, obviously. The point is that we shouldn't need to, and that is where the Essentials line has failed for some of us. And for those who challenge that there really isn't any confusion out there, then whey do we keep seeing discussions like this one? The consensus of one's personal group or table does not necessarily reflect the greater community outside their circle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An example? Alright. Let's use Axe Expertise for an example.

Better yet, let's get real specific here. I want to play an Avenger (which is not an Essentials character), and I want to take Axe Expertise (an Essentials feat) as one of my feats.

Axe Expertise is not listed anywhere in the errata, so there's no clear indication that it supersedes, replaces, or works in conjunction with any of the earlier edition feats or options that work similar to it. Naturally, we just make the assumption that it does. It seems logical, and its probably a safe assumption. Most of us might accept that, but its not guaranteed because there is no definitive source to give us an answer.

Let's further examine the scenario with a hypothetical. Let's say I'm the kind of person who decides for himself that I want to also take Weapon Expertise (Axe Group). In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is not a single reference in any Essentials products anywhere to content, materials, or rules that came prior to it. It doesn't mention Player's Handbooks, Dungeon Master's Guides, Monster Manuals, etc. Or I haven't found any, at least. I could reasonably argue that there is nothing to prevent me from doing so, unless the DM flat out decides not to allow it. Granted, it is well within the DMs right to reject the notion (and rightly so), but now we have a difference of opinions on what should and shouldn't be allowed because there is no clear, concise, and definitive answer for all of us. That is the confusion inherent in the Essentials line of products.

Try not to over-analyze the example because that's not the issue. We can discuss every instance of every example to find a reasonable solution for ourselves, obviously. The point is that we shouldn't need to, and that is where the Essentials line has failed for some of us. And for those who challenge that there really isn't any confusion out there, then whey do we keep seeing discussions like this one? The consensus of one's personal group or table does not necessarily reflect the greater community outside their circle.

Well, WotC has said TIME AND TIME AGAIN, that Essentials material is just more 4e material. It isn't functionally any different from any splat book. You don't get confused because Arcane Power added some more options and AP doesn't have to print some block of text that says "You get to use this in addition to what you could use before". So the Essentials feats are official 4e material that is available to anyone that wants to use it. The DM can say "No Essentials!" and that's cool, just like he could say "No Arcane Power" too.

As for feats that are actually direct modifications of existing ones, if they are listed in errata then they are updated, pure and simple. Again the DM can say he's not using that errata, but otherwise the new text is the text. If it doesn't happen to be covered in errata THEN it would be up to the DM and the players to decide if they are using the updated version or not.

The point is all the feats work together from all sources. They all follow the same rules. Some may be better than older ones and maybe a given character would simply be better off with some Essentials feat instead of some older feat. Again this is just like the situation with any splat book or other new material. The DM might allow the player to swap out older stuff or even rebuild totally. It is really up to them. WotC can't make those decisions for you. They don't know your players, table, or play style. Officially they have to retrain. Unofficially most groups allow some level of rebuilding but that is always going to be unofficial. It isn't up to WotC to figure out the issues every game has or to know what is best for you.

I don't see any level of confusion that hasn't existed since Martial Power was released and some people wanted better powers and feats from it instead of PHB1 stuff they already had. It is just a fact of life.

 

[twilsemail]

<Weapon Expertise vs. Axe Expertise>

Do you have an example that actually uses an Element that is in both books? These are both still in the CB and Compendium (last I checked) as they are two separate feats. Complaining that a feat is now outdated is different from showing that they missed an actual update to a feat.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Let's get a few things straight.

Essentials is NOT anything like previous splat books. I don't recall any of the Power books to actually introduce an updated or new version of anything. They were specifically designed as optional additions to the game whereas Essentials has blurred the lines of being an add-on or a revision.

And forgive me if I don't just take WotC's word at it just because they say something repeatedly. In the past, I could count on official errata or FAQs to settle such disputes. There might be something coming at some point, but lately it seems they are content to leave everyone else to deal with it as they move forward with their Essentials-only mentality.

Maybe its just my particular neck of the wood, but people that I've talked to at stores, meets, etc., seem to be largely turned off by the Essentials for one reason or another, and the common theme appears to do with the fact that they just don't want to deal with it. Its not as cut and dry to everybody despite individuals insisting that there's not.

Alright. You win. I'll go downtown right now and let the others know that their confusion has been dispelled. I'll tell them "Essentials is just like Arcane Power". They'll understand that.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Do you have an example that actually uses an Element that is in both books? These are both still in the CB and Compendium (last I checked) as they are two separate feats. Complaining that a feat is now outdated is different from showing that they missed an actual update to a feat.

I thought I just did. Or didn't I? Isn't one supposed to replace the other? At least that is the argument being made, right? It should be obvious to everyone, or so I'm being told time and time again.

 

[twilsemail]

Essentials is NOT anything like previous splat books. I don't recall any of the Power books to actually introduce an updated or new version of anything. They were specifically designed as optional additions to the game whereas Essentials has blurred the lines of being an add-on or a revision.

The other "splat books" aren't designed as optional additions any more than any other book, including Essentials, has been. They're all Core. If you want to huff and say they're not core, have at it. That doesn't make the current model untrue.

And forgive me if I don't just take WotC's word at it just because they say something repeatedly. In the past, I could count on official errata or FAQs to settle such disputes. There might be something coming at some point, but lately it seems they are content to leave everyone else to deal with it as they move forward with their Essentials-only mentality.

E4e and 4e are entirely compatible. There's no reason to say they aren't with the exception of trying to raise a stink. There has been errata integrating E4e and 4e. Anything that wasn't covered specifically was covered by the blanket statement of "use the new stuff if it has the same name."

They've printed non-Essentials material. Check it out. Some of it is pretty spiffy.

Maybe its just my particular neck of the wood, but people that I've talked to at stores, meets, etc., seem to be largely turned off by the Essentials for one reason or another, and the common theme appears to do with the fact that they just don't want to deal with it. Its not as cut and dry to everybody despite individuals insisting that there's not.

It's a truth everywhere that those that are dissatisfied will raise their voices while those that are content with the game will actually go off and play the bloody thing. The people that enjoy the current layout are busy doing just that.

Then again, maybe you've got a higher than average percentage of dissatisfied players in your area. We seem about 60/40 out this way.

I thought I just did. Or didn't I? Isn't one supposed to replace the other? At least that is the argument being made, right? It should be obvious to everyone, or so I'm being told time and time again.

Nope. Weapon Expertise and Axe Expertise have two different names. You’d need to pull out something like “Boffer Expertise” from PHB4 which has conflicting text with “Bofffer Expertise” from Heroes of the Fiery Jungle. Same name overwrites same name. Otherwise you’ve just got options. Same general concept (really good with an axe) does not overwrite same general concept (really good with an axe). I think that's where you're confused.

Edit: Also, I think that, while this whole thing is clear once it's pointed out, this is obviously confusing. I mean there wouldn't be daily posts for the last six months if it weren't confusing. I do think that some people are so determined to be confused that they won't listen to the people pointing out the clarifications.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Today I find myself in an unfamiliar position. I am waiting on a call and indulging in this ongoing debate over something that I didn't really think needed debating in the first place, and find myself being continually put on the defensive. And for what reason? Because I suggested that Essentials is confusing to a lot of people. That's it.

There is no need for sides in this argument, is there? I actually like Essentials; I just don't know if I like it mixed in with my old 4e or if I like it standing on its own. Of course, I really hate the idea of letting go of all my previous material just to make it work, and I think that I am not alone in this.

So what is the argument being made here really about? That its not as confusing as some people say it is? Maybe more than a few people believe that, but its irrelevant to those who have given up on trying to deal with it. Everything that has come out before Essentials has not been so difficult in this regard. Its not even a comparison.

But I didn't come here to whine, or complain, or huff about any of it. I came here to make a point, and the point is that there is a greater degree of confusion when dealing with Essentials than what we've had to deal with in the past with other supplements. That's it. How this devolved into a pointless debate about needing to prove something with an example out of the text is beyond me. The only proof that matters... the one that cannot be refuted... is that there is a significant number of gamers out there who cannot agree on how everything in Essentials is supposed to work with all the other stuff.

And then, this:

Edit: Also, I think that, while this whole thing is clear once it's pointed out, this is obviously confusing. I mean there wouldn't be daily posts for the last six months if it weren't confusing. I do think that some people are so determined to be confused that they won't listen to the people pointing out the clarifications.

You might be right, but I wasn't looking for clarification. Just someone who could point me to the definitive answers that so many might have missed. Fact is, I know it doesn't exist. And that is the greatest point of contention about this whole fiasco. It should never have been an issue, yet it is, and continues to be for many of us. We're not lost; we're just tired of having to deal with it.

And your 40%? They shouldn't be invalidated just because they're not in the majority where you're at.

I'm going to try and leave it at that as I think we've begun to stray from the original topic. Now I wish that phone call would come in already.

BTW, I loved the snark you took out of the original. That actually made me laugh!

 

[SSquirrel]

Axe Expertise is not listed anywhere in the errata, so there's no clear indication that it supersedes, replaces, or works in conjunction with any of the earlier edition feats or options that work similar to it. Naturally, we just make the assumption that it does. It seems logical, and its probably a safe assumption. Most of us might accept that, but its not guaranteed because there is no definitive source to give us an answer.

Like all examples of power creep and or just plain bad/weak feats (Axe expertise vs older versions) it just supplies us with more targets for "system mastery". Wasn't system mastery something that the designers of 3E said they included at the time to help show which gamers understood the system better, but who all eventually said it was a bad idea and bad feats should never have been written?

The old Expertise feats were bad feats that just plugged math holes that WotC had made. The new Expertise feats are clearly better and could easily be described as either power creep or just giving a bonus on top of fixing that math, which means you aren't really being penalized any longer and actually get something for your feat.

I thought that system mastery was something they had mentioned wanting to get away from in 4E. You'd be dumb not to take the newer feats if they are available, just like how some of the splatbooks had significantly better feats. Call it power creep, new additions to the game or revisions, it's all amounting to the same thing in the end.

And no Jacob, I'm not targeting you here, your feat you used was just a good example for me

 

[aurance]

I came here to make a point, and the point is that there is a greater degree of confusion when dealing with Essentials than what we've had to deal with in the past with other supplements. That's it.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with you.

PHBI, PHBII, PHBIII, AP, DP, MP, MP2, etc. had a certain class structure, and material that clearly relied on each other.

Essentials has another type of class structure, many elements that supersede the previous list, as well as verbiage that makes no reference to anything outside of Essentials material.

Yes they're certainly compatible, but to say that Essentials introduced no additional confusion to the game, especially to new players, is patently untrue.

 

[mudlock]

4e is 4e and a feat is a feat. Essentials didn't change any of that.

Yeah, some of the new feats make some of the old feats pretty much a waste of time. So my advice to you is: Don't take feats that are a waste of time. Yeah, it'd be nice if WotC made a list somewhere of the useless feats, but they haven't (and thank you to the EN community members who did!) But that's not "confusion," that's "inconvenience," and a minor one at that, since virtually every player who's going to care or notice is one who already is familiar with PHBI-III, and is therefore pretty much by definition not a new player.

If you are a new player, it might be easier to either only use pre-essentials feats or only use post-essentials feats; your character might not be fully super-ultra-optimized, but they won't be horribly deficient either, I promise.

If you're an old hat running a game for new players (or a mix of old and new players), it might be slightly easier/fairer to make everyone do that. Or the old hats can hand-hold the newbies about the 40 or so out of the 2,000-odd feats in the game that have been superseded. Or not; again, their characters won't be horribly deficient by any stretch. But again, that's not "confusion" that's "minor annoyance."

Acting like you're an old hat while demanding that WotC hold your hand about this seems... I dunno... like you're just concern-trolling against Essentials.