GMforPowergamers
Legend
you know back in 1998 I meet people who said "we only play AD&D 3e" and they were talking about skills and powers and spells and magic and combat and tactics books. I would guess we are up to 6th edtion by now to them...
Essentials - calling a spade a spade
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
you know back in 1998 I meet people who said "we only play AD&D 3e" and they were talking about skills and powers and spells and magic and combat and tactics books. I would guess we are up to 6th edtion by now to them...
How you feel about Essentials being 4.5 depends on how you feel about errata. To use a software analogy:
Is Windows XP (Service Pack 3) still Windows XP?
D&D 4e is being continually patched like software and every little errata is like 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.0.3, but no matter how many patches you add on the new IS STILL COMPATIBLE with the old. Did we get new options? Yes. Did we get new feats? Yes. Did we get new class builds? Yes. At what point do you consider those new options or "patches" to be a "new version"?
To me it's a fine distinction, but people keep pointing at "Essentials" and screaming "it's 4.5 waaaaa!", when in reality we've been getting much smaller doses a little bit at a time for two years now, but no one complained (much) about the errata saying..."it's 4.1 (4.2 etc.)!!!!". So to me it's disingenuous to suddenly claim that "Essentials" is 4.5 if you weren't saying that each errata was 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 etc.
You can't have your cake AND eat it too.
fuzzlewump
Explorer
It's not 4.5 because the essentials design philosophy coexists with the PHB design philosophy. That is, a fighter having at-wills mostly can sit next to the fighter with dailies at the table by the rules. The old fighter isn't "updated" to the new philosophy at all.
It's a new line of books with new classes and monsters and junk. The rules changes over the course of two years, on the other hand, you can possibly consider 4.5 at the end of it. Just because essentials is printing these changes doesn't mean they embody 4.5... the evolution that began way before essentials is the real embodiment of "4.5."
Anyway, if you want to know an answer Mercurius, you should read the essentials previews on wizards.com. There you will find their arguments as to how this is not a new edition.
It's a new line of books with new classes and monsters and junk. The rules changes over the course of two years, on the other hand, you can possibly consider 4.5 at the end of it. Just because essentials is printing these changes doesn't mean they embody 4.5... the evolution that began way before essentials is the real embodiment of "4.5."
Anyway, if you want to know an answer Mercurius, you should read the essentials previews on wizards.com. There you will find their arguments as to how this is not a new edition.
Festivus
First Post
I don't understand the importance of a version label. Is there a purpose to it? Does it matter?
If my 4E PHB is still functional after Essentials comes out, and it's fully compatible with that product, I can't see how it's different than something like PHB2 or PHB3. If on the other hand, a majority of the core rules are changing and I would never reference my PHB again... I would call that a new edition and *then* I would cry foul (this is not looking like a repeat of the 3.5 thing to me... where I basically have three totally useless books in my garage I can't even give away).
If my 4E PHB is still functional after Essentials comes out, and it's fully compatible with that product, I can't see how it's different than something like PHB2 or PHB3. If on the other hand, a majority of the core rules are changing and I would never reference my PHB again... I would call that a new edition and *then* I would cry foul (this is not looking like a repeat of the 3.5 thing to me... where I basically have three totally useless books in my garage I can't even give away).
If the state of the game post-Essentials is different enough from first printing of the PH then to be called 4.5, then we are already in 4.5. The Update PDF is full of enough changes already.
With regards to the OP:
3.5 deserves distinction because it essentially meant tossing any old 3rd edition books into a box. Everything was reprinted. Essentials does not do that. Existing books will still be what new players will need to use to create the builds that we are already using.
Power creep is already here, balancing has been done on an ongoing basis. So we are going to get some boosts to old races and some feats and powers that make the old stuff still viable, hardly seems like making the old stuff incompatible.
For me, its not 4.5 by these questions:
1) What's new? Answer: new classes (albeit sharing names and such with old classes), new feats, new powers. Its not that different from PHB2 or Martial Power.
2) what old material has been changed? Not much. Errata has been included, Wizards got some love. DC's maybe got refigured here and there. Not remotely enough for a '.5' in my book.
3) What hasn't changed? How you play the game! You still get a standard, move, minor. Status effects, power usuage, skills, skill checks, attributes, defenseses, weapons, alignment, charging rules, no change. The rules haven't changed. Classes, feats, powers etc. aren't rules. You can mod classes, powers,feats until your hair falls out, but if the rules stay the same its still 4e.
4) How does old play with new? It should all work. Also, power balance is promised not to have changed. Old is just as powerful as new. Old works with new on all levels. New will merge with old soon enough, and they will be indistinguishable.
If any thing denotes edition change its the errata, and even with all the errata, i feel safe saying we've barely hit 4.07e. That's not worth worrying about.
Thats my take on it. 3.5 hit those four questions very differently in my mind, so calling essentials 4.5 doesn't make sense.
1) What's new? Answer: new classes (albeit sharing names and such with old classes), new feats, new powers. Its not that different from PHB2 or Martial Power.
2) what old material has been changed? Not much. Errata has been included, Wizards got some love. DC's maybe got refigured here and there. Not remotely enough for a '.5' in my book.
3) What hasn't changed? How you play the game! You still get a standard, move, minor. Status effects, power usuage, skills, skill checks, attributes, defenseses, weapons, alignment, charging rules, no change. The rules haven't changed. Classes, feats, powers etc. aren't rules. You can mod classes, powers,feats until your hair falls out, but if the rules stay the same its still 4e.
4) How does old play with new? It should all work. Also, power balance is promised not to have changed. Old is just as powerful as new. Old works with new on all levels. New will merge with old soon enough, and they will be indistinguishable.
If any thing denotes edition change its the errata, and even with all the errata, i feel safe saying we've barely hit 4.07e. That's not worth worrying about.
Thats my take on it. 3.5 hit those four questions very differently in my mind, so calling essentials 4.5 doesn't make sense.
Alaxk Knight of Galt
First Post
The elephant in the room is that WotC said they would not produce 4.5.
WotC screwed up in ever saying that. For one thing, it cast 3.5 in a bad light by implying it was a mistake to produce it. It also put them in a position where any radical change to the design of the game called into question whether or not that change marked a broken promise by the company.
WotC, inadvertantly, set up the arguement on what Essentials is.
WotC screwed up in ever saying that. For one thing, it cast 3.5 in a bad light by implying it was a mistake to produce it. It also put them in a position where any radical change to the design of the game called into question whether or not that change marked a broken promise by the company.
WotC, inadvertantly, set up the arguement on what Essentials is.
the Jester
Legend
If Essentials is 4.5, then so is Martial Power.
Wait... if Martial Power is 4.5, then Essentials must be 4.75.
But what about all the other books in between?
Well, okay, we've had a good dozen books since then... I guess Essentials must be 6.3e or maybe 12.2e.
Or just maybe new options aren't a new edition.
Wait... if Martial Power is 4.5, then Essentials must be 4.75.
But what about all the other books in between?
Well, okay, we've had a good dozen books since then... I guess Essentials must be 6.3e or maybe 12.2e.
Or just maybe new options aren't a new edition.
Klaus
First Post
After the release of Essentials, if WotC continues to support non-Essentials classes, you will see it is not 4.5E.
When 3.5E was released, everything prior to that point had to be reworked. That's why we had several PrClasses from Sword & Fist, Masters of the Wild, etc, remade in Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, etc.
When 3.5E was released, everything prior to that point had to be reworked. That's why we had several PrClasses from Sword & Fist, Masters of the Wild, etc, remade in Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, etc.
LuckyAdrastus
First Post
Essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials, essentials.
Ugh. Previous "grouse about 4e" topics have included "MM3 sux because volcanic dragons don't have fire resistance," "where are the necromancers," "oh noes, minions die if they stubbed their toe!," "it's unfair that humanoid NPCs have powers PCs can't get," "give me different stats for a katana [that are better than other swords]," "errata is the suxxors," "how come a 30th level fighter [who can punch out a god] can pick a heroic tier lock?," and on, and on, and on.
So, after this essentials stuff calms down and 4e continues onwards, what will be the next complaint? I'm guessing something about assassin's being DDi only (or not being DDi only), since Heroes of Shadow is coming down the line.
Ugh. Previous "grouse about 4e" topics have included "MM3 sux because volcanic dragons don't have fire resistance," "where are the necromancers," "oh noes, minions die if they stubbed their toe!," "it's unfair that humanoid NPCs have powers PCs can't get," "give me different stats for a katana [that are better than other swords]," "errata is the suxxors," "how come a 30th level fighter [who can punch out a god] can pick a heroic tier lock?," and on, and on, and on.
So, after this essentials stuff calms down and 4e continues onwards, what will be the next complaint? I'm guessing something about assassin's being DDi only (or not being DDi only), since Heroes of Shadow is coming down the line.
Similar Threads
