Class Compendium

[WalterKovacs]

What is known about the Heroes of Shadows, or at least what has been said, is that it doesn't have new classes, but has feats, powers, etc ... to give characters a shadow power twist. I'm guessing, based on what was said, it would comparable to Dark Sun, with new builds/powers for existing classes to make them shadow themed. So divine classes using necrotic themes instead of radiant, a necromacy build of wizard, etc ... Now, some of those may be essential builds (although, admitedly, the essential wizard is not VASTLY different from a normal wizard ... comparable to the difference between say a PHB1 fighter and a Martial Power fighter where you give up some class features for others).

Essential has opened up new ways of making characters, like Martial Power gave us the animal companion, they eventually brought back summoning, PHB2 brought the spirit companion, PH3 had psionic power points and full discipline powers. They've constantly made new ways to build classes with each release. The Essential books introduced new ways to build classes. In some cases (the martial), radically different, but in others (wizard) it is simplified mostly in presentation. You still have all the options a normal wizard has in terms of powers, but because they only give you a small number of options within the book, it seems guided. Then again, look at Dark Sun as 'old style' builds for classes, but they present only 1 power per level for those builds (since tons of powers already exist for those classes). In general, introducing EVEN MORE powers for existing classes just means either: reprinting powers, making redundant powers, power creep, useless powers, or making it that every class has similar powers (since they would start giving other classes similar powers).

Heck, look at psionic at-wills and there are a number of copies of arcane powers. The Psion basically got eyebite, eldritch blast, Illusory Ambush/Vicious Mockery, etc ... or at least close approximations [i.e. the effect is the same, if not the range/damage die/type of damage/etc] Limiting to the at-will/encounter/daily/utility concept means you are limiting the kind of things that can be done. Heck, even sticking to that idea, there are other ways to do it. You have the "only one encounter power" which you get multiple times (fighter), but there is still a choice as the weapon type will determine the secondary effect when you use that power. With the assassin they have a variation on daily powers that are very interesting.

Big picture ... with every new book we've seen new ways to build classes. Some things they have definitely abandoned (the V shaped class design of two different attack stats and a single secondary stat), but the Essential wizard isn't radically different from the original wizard, so they haven't abandoned all the original build concepts. The ideas from PHB2 and 3 are the splat books are showing up in Essentials. The rogue's tricks are sort of like the monk's full discipline. The assassin's daily powers are like the artificer's dailies that buff weapons. The druid takes the beastmaster's lead to some extent. It isn't exactly a step back, although they are presented as less complex (i.e. fewer options) during build and play, but within the Essential books there is a range of complexity just like with older books. I'm not sure how it would be safe to assume that after each new book has shown innovations (while keeping what works) that from now on all books will have the exact same types of builds as the current books. That requires looking back at everything that has happened before and assuming that, despite all the evidence, now they are going to do the exact opposite of everything they've done before. Not to mention, based on the previews so far, while some of the ideas introduced to essentials are in the next essential book, the classes are still implementing those ideas in different ways.

 

[vagabundo]

I fail to see how Essentials is not 4.somethingotherthanjust4E. It may not be 4.5 in the same way that 3.5 was 3.5, but it is certainly more than just a series of new supplements for 4E.

TerraDave may have it about right, that Essentials is more akin to a "4.25," although I would nudge that up a bit, especially considering that the differences between 3.5 and 3.0 are usually over-stated, imo (or is Wikipedia horribly wrong?).

Actually, forget it. I'm not going to mince words and try to be diplomatic. Essentials is 4.5. Deal with it.

It doesn't really matter to me what people call it, but it isn't what I would consider 4.5. If anything the MM3 was a bigger change to 4e than the essentials line, would you consider that part of 4.5? What about the phbIII?

Essentials is just a new set of classes in a new book format. Noting about it screams incompatiblity. They have some extra/different rules for use with the 4e game; options not replacements. They are an addition, I don't have to get them.

At the moment the first set of core books are still for sale and still being sent from warehouses. If they ever sell out I'm sure that they will be reprinted or something else will take their place. And I still would not see that as 4.5e.

3.5 burned me by being a pretend upgrade and not fixing any of the issues I had with 3.x.

BTW I have no problem with calling a .5 edition a .5 edition if it fits the bill. But nothing about essentials says that to me.

 

[MrMyth]

I fail to see how Essentials is not 4.somethingotherthanjust4E. It may not be 4.5 in the same way that 3.5 was 3.5, but it is certainly more than just a series of new supplements for 4E.

Sure, I absolutely consider Essentials an evolution of the 4E line (just like PHB2 and PHB3 were, though to a lesser extent.) The thing is, for me, someone calling it 4.5 isn't saying, "This is an advancement of the game", but saying, "This is comparable to the release of 3.5 for 3rd Edition". And that's a very different statement, since that direct a comparison invokes some pretty specific elements. 3.5 was a replacement and revision of the entire line, and incompatible with what came before it. Essentials is explicitly not those things in the ways that really matter.

If you are looking for a name to call it to represent it as an evolution of the game, as something "more than just a series of new supplements", then you already have one: Essentials.

If you are wanting to call it 4.5 as a specific callback to the release of 3.5, then you need to provide some support for that comparison - and, to me, it just isn't there.

 

[Mercurius]

By that logic PHB2 was 4.15 and PHB3 was 4.35 and every expansion book in between would have had a number on it. So if the edition has been constantly increasing this whole time, why is just another number (4.5) such a big deal?

It isn't. That's partially my point in that I didn't think 3.5 was that big of a deal either and that the differences between the two--3.5 to 3E and Essentials to 4E--is significantly less in terms of total change than many are saying it is. Just as I thought the changes from 3E to 3.5 were (and still are) great exaggerated, so too do I think the changes from 4E to Essentials are often understated and, interestingly (but perhaps not surprisingly), by the same people.

Sure, I absolutely consider Essentials an evolution of the 4E line (just like PHB2 and PHB3 were, though to a lesser extent.) The thing is, for me, someone calling it 4.5 isn't saying, "This is an advancement of the game", but saying, "This is comparable to the release of 3.5 for 3rd Edition". And that's a very different statement, since that direct a comparison invokes some pretty specific elements. 3.5 was a replacement and revision of the entire line, and incompatible with what came before it. Essentials is explicitly not those things in the ways that really matter.

I wouldn't say it is the same thing as the release of 3.5 was, but more similar than WotC is saying, and many here are saying. I would even say that most of the differences between Essentials and 3.5 in relation to their predecessors is existence of D&D Insider, and the fact that the errata and micro-changes that we have seen over the last two and a half years have been integrated into DDI, which is in essence the true core rulebook.

And I am not talking about specific elements but a more general picture, a quantity of change, if you will.

 

[vagabundo]

And I am not talking about specific elements but a more general picture, a quantity of change, if you will.

Do you want the game to stay the same? What do you want?

There are only so many classes and additional powers they can pump into the existing class structure. Essentials gives us some new classes using a different class structure. It is something new and it is aimed at attracting new/lapsed gamers, but current 4e gamers can add it to their game without issues.

I'm happy the game is evolving. 3.5 was a complete waste of time for me. It fixed nothing, added confusion to my game and was a waste of money. Essentials is completely different from the 3.5 farce, it is an addition to my game just like the MM3, just like martial power and just like DDI.

Really though, if you don't like essentials don't buy it. Wait until next year and see if there is something you do like.

 

[Mercurius]

Do you want the game to stay the same? What do you want?

Not at all. I'm a big proponent of "game evolution" and tend to take the view that each new edition of D&D has been superior to the edition before it. And I actually like the new elements that Essentials has brought, I just don't like the format, as I have explained in various ways.

I would rather have seen WotC simplify the Essentials line even further and make it a true line for newbies, while coming out with a Player's Handbook 4 that includes the new material for the Heroes books, and then a revised and expanded Player's Handbook with updated and errata-ed material.

There are only so many classes and additional powers they can pump into the existing class structure. Essentials gives us some new classes using a different class structure. It is something new and it is aimed at attracting new/lapsed gamers, but current 4e gamers can add it to their game without issues.

All of which I agree with.

I'm happy the game is evolving. 3.5 was a complete waste of time for me. It fixed nothing, added confusion to my game and was a waste of money. Essentials is completely different from the 3.5 farce, it is an addition to my game just like the MM3, just like martial power and just like DDI.

Here is where we disagree. While Essentials is not the same as 3.5, I don't think it is "completely different," and part of the perceived lessening of difference is because of two factors: seemingly successful marketing and seemingly greater backwards compatibility.

Really though, if you don't like essentials don't buy it. Wait until next year and see if there is something you do like.

As with all WotC books, I'm picking and choosing my purchases with Essentials, although buying less than I usually do. I did buy the Red Box but gave it to my nephew as it had no utility for me and I wanted to get him it anyway; I bought Rules Compendium and like it; the first Heroes book and would have been happy just to wait for the DDI update. I won't get the second Heroes book or the DM's Kit, and am still undecided on Monster Vault and Class Compendium, although am leaning away from both of them. So that leaves me with one Essentials book that is a keeper for me. Regular purchasing will commence again with Heroes of Shadow, Mordenkainen's, Shadowfell, etc.

 

[MrMyth]

I wouldn't say it is the same thing as the release of 3.5 was, but more similar than WotC is saying, and many here are saying. I would even say that most of the differences between Essentials and 3.5 in relation to their predecessors is existence of D&D Insider, and the fact that the errata and micro-changes that we have seen over the last two and a half years have been integrated into DDI, which is in essence the true core rulebook.

And I am not talking about specific elements but a more general picture, a quantity of change, if you will.

I think there is some truth to the errata issue, though I don't think DDI has much impact on it (other than ease of applying that errata.)

But while there has been a sizable amount of change, I think that change is much more limited in scope, and that's the more important element. Tidying up a few powers here and there, clarifying certain rules and mechanics - those just don't have the same impact on the game.

Now, we do have some larger changes. To Stealth, Skill DCs and Magic Items. But there still feels like much less impact on the game. Existing characters don't change. The DM might distribute treasure differently going forward. Some skill challenges might be slightly more fine tuned. Occasionally stealth comes up slightly differently in play.

For me, at least, those do not a rules revision make.