Essentials - calling a spade a spade

[CovertOps]

Bah...then my understanding of what happened is way off. I wasn't playing at all during 3.0 and only some at the very end of 3.5. That being the case WTH was everyone bitching about 3.5 for then? It was flippin FREE.

Maybe what I'm thinking of is stuff like M&M which adapted the core rules. Somehow I'm sure someone copied the rules...verbatim...and called them THEIR rules.

 

[vagabundo]

Perhaps it got missed so I'll ask again. Among those that say Essentials = 4.5 which of the following is true:

1. 3.0 is to 3.5 as 4.0 is to essentials so I should get rid of my PHB because it's no longer valid.
2. It's just more errata and features, but my PHB is still valid (for the most part - errata aside)

I'm trying to make sure I'm objecting to the correct premise.

You can keep your PHB and use that with the new books. There are additions, updates and clarifications, but the new classes will work with your PHB and should be self contained.

If, like me, you want a nice portable - up to current - errated rule book then get the Rules Compendium.

 

[Lhorgrim]

You can keep your PHB and use that with the new books. There are additions, updates and clarifications, but the new classes will work with your PHB and should be self contained.

If, like me, you want a nice portable - up to current - errated rule book then get the Rules Compendium.

Ok, my understanding is that my PHB1 is still current (with the associated errata).

So if I want to introduce new players to the game, should I direct them to the Essentials line or the PHB? Or, do we not have enough info on the Compendium yet?

I ask because I want to get a new group started at my FLGS and I plan to use 4E because that is the only RPG the store carries and I want to support them as much as I can.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Before I take issue with you for this I'll ask if your intent was to make it seem like Essentials = 4.5 is a statement of fact by your last sentence. You're right that it was a mistake to say they wouldn't make 4.5, but what we're getting has nothing to do with that. We'd get "the sky is falling" crowd claiming that it's raining sheep at the most ridiculous things no matter what WotC says.

Nope, just a statement that WotC invited the arguement of what is or isn't a new edition.

I've got no vested interest in trashing WotC. I very much enjoy the products they put out. If essentials is a good product, it will get used in our games. Did they make a mistake claiming they'd never produce 4.5, I think so. But I'm not going to hold that against them. They have as much of a right to change their mind as I do.

Personally, I prefer a more classic style of DnD. I think Essentials is offering and being marketed as that. The question, for me, is do I want to mix the 4E chocolate with the Essentials peanut butter. If they enhance each other, I will. If they are at odds with each other, I won't.

 

[Scribble]

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?

I would say you're wrong, and here is why: (I didn't read the entire thread, so this might have been covered.)

One of the biggest reasons is nothing is being "replaced."

When 3.5 rolled out, for instance there was a new version of the Ranger designed to replace the old version. From that point forward any reference to the ranger considered this new class the starting point of ranger, and since it was given a boost in power, the math for the class going forward was based on the new class.

Sure you COULD play the old ranger in 3.5 but the game didn't consider this as default. It assumed you were playing the new 3.5 Ranger.

Contrast this to the Essentials release.

There classes released aren't designed to replace the old classes. They are designed to coexist along side of the already existing builds.

You could play a Knight or a Guardian Fighter side by side without any problems to the system "balance."

It's kind of akin to playing two different fighter builds in the same game.


A lot of it I think has to do with how the system as a whole is built.

The whole exception based thing- There are only a small amount a rules that really connect to each other in ways that will effect everyone playing the game. Most of the other rules are layered on top, and only really effect the game when they get put to use (and even then mostly only effecting the person using them or having them used on him.)

Since the game is built like this, they can layer on whole new concepts without effecting the basic game itself.

Since they felt a lot of people apparently weren't as in to the whole at-will, Encounter, Daily, power idea, they could layer on an entire subset of class builds that didn't follow that design as much, without effecting the classes that DID still use the power scheme.

The game now has another "on ramp" as they said in the podcast. It's not designed to replace the existing materials, just assume the bulk of duty towards introducing new players. (Who can then move into the exiting materials once they really get into the game.)

Ok, my understanding is that my PHB1 is still current (with the associated errata).

So if I want to introduce new players to the game, should I direct them to the Essentials line or the PHB? Or, do we not have enough info on the Compendium yet?

I ask because I want to get a new group started at my FLGS and I plan to use 4E because that is the only RPG the store carries and I want to support them as much as I can.

I would say start with essentials to give them a basic understanding of the concepts of gaming and 4e, and then once they gain experience in it open up the other 4e books.

 

[Kzach]

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.

Two things.

1) Just because you say something is something, doesn't mean it is. Your perception is not more true than anyone else's.

2) Go away.


Mod Edit: How about we all proceed as if Mr. Kzach here won't be posting in the thread any more.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. 3.0 is to 3.5 as 4.0 is to essentials so I should get rid of my PHB because it's no longer valid.

This was -- technically -- not true for 3.5. Yes, the core books were re-released (which is something 4.E is avoiding, probably smartly), but you could easily play a 3.0 character in a 3.5 adventure without significant problems. Similarly, I can probably run my 4.1 PH fighter through the adventure in the new Red Box, if I want.

Which is part of why it's a big marketing gimmick either way.

Which is part of why what you call it matter a lot less than what it actually does for your games.

 

[tyrlaan]

Meh, I'm in the "do we really need to call it anything other than Essentials" camp?

At the end of the day, you'll either buy it or you won't, use it or not, and interpret its intent one way or the other. Labeling it 4.5, Revised, or D&D: The Sandwiching doesn't really matter.

But I suppose if we're not going to argue about whether 3e is better or worse than 4e, 4e is or is not DnD, 4e is or is not WoW, WotC is or is not an evil corporation plotting to take over the world by first impoverishing gamers across the globe ... well then I guess we should argue about something

 

[TerraDave]

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!

You had a free SRD. Not the same, but you had free access to the rules, and they were pretty quick about updating it and expanding it.

EDIT: and of course there is a whole discussion of this upthread.

Also, not only did WotC have the text files (which could actually be quite handy), they kept them up for while into the 4E era. I am guessing they are down now, but I wonder....

 

[Henry]

I'm starting to change my mind to agree with Mercurius, but not in quite the same way.

Is it "more" than 4e? Yes, definitely, and I have to say I disagree with the Bill Slaviczek and Mike Mearls' statements on the WotC web site that "it's not invalidating" the 1st 4E PHB. I reached that conclusion after the Gencon seminars, when they started to explain the breadth of rules and powers that were being slightly tweaked. It's not just "new builds, and wizards get a few power erratas." It's apparently a pretty wide-spread set of tweaks that will probably DOUBLE the amount of errata released up through April of this year or so.

(I'm counting the July Errata as part of "essentials" errata for one very specific reason -- magic missile tells me that essentials was definitely on the radar when that set of errata was released, and the MM3 changes, etc. all feed directly into essentials products.)

Quite frankly, there will be so many rules corrections by the point all of the essentials-influenced changes make it into the updates that I will be completely unable to both use the Character builder away from the table, and only use my books at the table, because I will not be able to trust my recollection of what's changed and what hasn't. (I don't have to remember every change - as long as I can remember if something has changed.)

Now, am I bummed about this? Not really. I AM bummed that the Character builder will not have an option to roll back the errata updates (even if it's not the default, that would have really helped). However, for the most part, we rarely access the books at table these days anyway - as DM, the CB takes care of 95% of that for me. Also, I'm not bummed because I do like almost every change I've seen to date.