Essentials - calling a spade a spade

[Obryn]

The thing is, if all this stuff was in PHB4 rather than a set of standalone books, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Apart from printing a subset of the rules with the updates incorporated into them, it's little different.

-O

 

[Mercurius]

Agreed.

If what you are saying about Essentials is true, Colmarr, I don't see how it is not 4.5, or at least, as the Angry DM said in the comments field, "4.something."

It all depends upon how we define a ".5" edition and I think your definitions are as good as any. I don't think it needs to completely invalidate previous rulebooks--that would be a new edition altogether.

 

[OnlineDM]

I can't help but notice in reading this thread and thinking about how it compares to the similar threads over the last couple of months...

Has sanity finally reached the Internet?

Sure, there are still some disagreements on this thread about whether Essentials is 4.5 in disguise or not, but it seems that the consensus is that it is what it is, and even if it was 4.5 would we really care? And these are gentle disagreements, not passionate screeds. Shocking!

I'm glad to see that we, the EN World community, are being REASONABLE! Go us!

 

[CovertOps]

Each update and patch is a "new" version just as with software. Past the first printings the first content changes we got made it .X

My point is that we can't call essentials "4.5" because we don't know where in the lifecycle this edition is right now. It is simply 4.X and the current value of X is unknown.

And my point was that no matter how many "service packs" we might get it's still 4.x even 4.0 is 4.x because it's all compatible. When they rewrite from the ground up or stop "programming" the rules to be backwards compatible then we'll be moving on to 5.x starting with 5.0

This is actually a good point and a good place to extend my position. Continuing the software comparison there are two types of compatibility (forward and backward). Some may now be wondering what is the difference, well I'll tell you.

Forward compatibility (Forward compatibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is when you add something and an element of the existing system doesn't work right with it. An example of this would be how they have errated Melee Training. Without the update Melee Training works just fine as it is without any changes, but once you add in the new features it has some unexpected functionality which caused them to add errata for it.

Backwards compatibility (Backward compatibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is when you add a new feature to something and the new feature doesn't work right within the context of the old system. Everything in essentials (that I have seen thus far) is backwards compatible.

Of the two, forward compatibility is much harder to achieve which is why we are seeing a lot of errata to cope with features, that while they work just fine now, no longer work as intended given the new features that are being added (item and feat changes around MBA and Melee Training I'm looking at you). Do you need to play with this errata in your game? Not at all, unless you want to add essentials material to your game.

On errata there are other types of errata that are coming out. There is the change to MM which is completely unnecessary other than the fact that they want to appeal to lapsed 3e players with a power that uses the familiar name and works just like they'd expect it to work. I would hope we don't EVER have any of this type of errata, but we already know this is false.

There is also errata based on balance. As far as I'm concerned they can keep coming out with this as much as is necessary. Less is better in this case, but it keeps me from having to be the bad guy at my table. I can pawn it off on...but the errata says so (even if I think the player took it BECAUSE it was OP).

To sum up....some errata is good and some is bad and the difference is WHY they had to add the errata. MM was what I consider bad errata, and Melee Training I consider a good type of errata to keep expanding the game and adding new options.

 

[Imaro]

Assuming Wizards run true to form, the biggest difference about Essentials is that free update documents will have all the changes to powers & the rules.

That didn't happen with 3.5e. Indeed, due to the nature of the changes, it pretty much couldn't happen.

Cheers!

Wait a minute here... are we playing revisionist history or something. Wasn't there a free SRD for 3.5? Or am I just imagining that?

 

[CovertOps]

If what you are saying about Essentials is true, Colmarr, I don't see how it is not 4.5, or at least, as the Angry DM said in the comments field, "4.something."

It all depends upon how we define a ".5" edition and I think your definitions are as good as any. I don't think it needs to completely invalidate previous rulebooks--that would be a new edition altogether.

Herein lies the rub. 3.5 WAS a whole new edition. It was basically 4.0 BECAUSE it invalidated all that came before it. You had to buy all the "core" rulebooks all over again. Unless that is not the position of those saying essentials is 4.5

So what say you all...am I throwing out my PHB because essentials makes it invalid or is this just new features and errata on top of the existing rules because I've been under the assumption that the comparison is 3.0 -> 3.5 is the same as 4.0 -> essentials.

 

[CovertOps]

Wait a minute here... are we playing revisionist history or something. Wasn't there a free SRD for 3.5? Or am I just imagining that?

I think you're confusing errata with the moronic move WotC made with 3.0/3.5. The reason there was a 3.5 SRD was because of the d20 OGL where someone took the book, typed it up and posted it on the internet for FREE and WotC couldn't do anything about it because of OGL.

 

[MerricB]

Wait a minute here... are we playing revisionist history or something. Wasn't there a free SRD for 3.5? Or am I just imagining that?

Oh, of course. Completely forgot about the SRD.

Mind you, there were elements that *weren't* in the SRD. Certain monsters, for instance. And material from the class books and suchlike that wasn't updated.

Thinking back... didn't they provide updates for a lot of the monsters?

Cheers,
Merric

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've been on a few-month hiatus from all things RPG-related, including playing, reading these boards, and paying attention to the RPG industry in general, so forgive me if all of this has been discussed ad nauseum already. I've just spent the last half hour or so investigating this "D&D Essentials" creature that's arrival is imminent; I had heard of it previously, not long after it was announced earlier in the year, but since then much more information is available. And from what I've gathered in my admittedly brief investigation, an impression has formed and that is: let's call a spade a spade--this is D&D 4.5E, folks.

If I am wrong, how am I wrong? How is this not 4.5? And if it is, how is WotC rationalizing it when they clearly said that there would be no 4.5?

All that said, I'm pre-ordering the box set. From what I can gather it stream-lines 4E and tidies up some of the mess. I'm not opposed to 4.5, but let's just call it what it is: a simplified, streamlined core 4th edition from which everything else is secondary and optional. If I'm right about my impression, this is the modular model I think WotC should have followed from the beginning of 4E.

This whole thing is just the most utterly pointless 'debate' that has ever existed. WHO CARES!!?? You want to call it toe-mah-toe and I want to call it tuh-may-toe is it actually worth characters on a board? This whole ridiculous debate has gone on in 500 different threads and it amounts to ZIP!

 

[the Jester]

Sure, there are still some disagreements on this thread about whether Essentials is 4.5 in disguise or not, but it seems that the consensus is that it is what it is...

Not even close, dude. That's like saying that the consensus is that 4e is better than Pathfinder (or vice-versa).

I agree that it's wonderful that most people are being on-topic and not asshats, though.