Essentials - calling a spade a spade

[vagabundo]

But they did, and in doing so they opened my eyes. The game post-Essentials will be fundamentally different to the game before it. I personally think most of the changes are good ones and I'm looking forward to seeing how they turn out (and I LIKE that WotC is still working on improving the game), but I think it's disingenuous and/or naive to consider Essentials anything other than a new iteration of the game.

Was the game fundamentally different when PHBIII came out or when any of the splat books did?

Essentials is just a bunch of new classes - they break out of the existing power structure, but they are additive and (hopefully) balanced content - and some errata and new rules. It is fundamentally not going to change my game any more significantly than adding the PHBIII to the mix.

I think this is the litmus test for new editions. The line gets fuzzy with some of the early editions of ADND, but they were intended to replace all the classes even if they were pretty compatible.

Anyway it doesn't really matter what people called it, although using the x.5 nomenclature carries a lot of pre-4e emotional baggage - mostly negative, it is the awesome sauce...

 

[Jor-El]

I think this is all semantics. No way to really tell whether this is .25, .5, .3, .75, etc. until 5E actually comes out, and it doesn't really matter.

It is a revision. Minor or Major? I guess we'll know after its out. A revision isn't a bad thing though. Well, not always. If it improves the game that's all that matters!

I think WoTC painted themselves into a corner by saying "No 4.5". But I understand why they did that after the fallout that went with 3.5.

*shrugs*

What I fear, is that if the Essential line doesn't do what the bean counters want it to do, but if the Board Games do....

 

[MrMyth]

Otherwise known as "the target audience of Essentials."

Not so much, no.

Target number 1: New players, who will find it an easy entrance to the game.
Target number 2: Lapsed players who are largely neutral on 4E, whom classic elements might draw in.
Target number 3: Existing players who will enjoy the new options.

I suppose, after all of that, WotC wouldn't mind if current haters of 4E find that Essentials completely changes their view and start playing because of it - but I highly doubt they are the target audience for it, in any way, shape or form.

 

[catsclaw227]

I have a quick question, which is semi-off topic, but relevant to Essentials (though not what D&D edition it is...)

It is my understanding that the Essentials Red Box is basically a 2-level entry point, and all the rules and game-play information (not tokens, mini-adventure, etc) is being reprinted in the other Essentials books. i.e. the Fighter build in the Red Box is reprinted in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, rules in Red Box is reprinted in the Rules Compendium and DM advice reprinted in the DM Toolkit (or whatever it's called).

Am I wrong? If that's the case, I can buy into Essentials without needing to get the Red Box unless I want it for the tokens and doo-dads, or for handing to a newbie that would benefit from the Build-Your-PC Adventure.

 

[Obryn]

I don't agree that the criteria had been met a year ago.

Okay, then the criteria are met now, before the release of Essentials. Is 4e really 4.5 right now?

Psionics was always "different", even in 3.0. It would have been hidebound obstinateness to consider the introduction of new mechanics for psionics as 4.5

...snipping and coming back to the main point later....

I'm referring to the specific class features that the new essential builds pick up at levels above 1 (such as Quick Swap, Mighty Slayer and Inexorable Slayer that the slayer build acquires at levels 4, 5 and 9 respectively).

That is completely outside the existing design structure for pre-Essentials 4e.

I don't really see why - whether or not it's been different in the past, there was no need for it to be different now. The 4e A/E/D power structure has shown itself to be quite flexible, and certainly sufficient for some psionic classes. They could have even kept the same power structure, and added power points as floating enhancements that you could spend on an encounter or daily basis; it would have worked as well, and it would have stayed closer.

But in addition to that, in the same book, we have (1) Hybrids, which are a massive change to the class structure, given their flexibility; and (2) Skill Powers, which are universal utilities that anyone can take. Both of these are at least as significant as having a Slayer subclass who gets class features at certain levels. Saying one is indicative of an edition jump, while none of the innovations in PHB3 were, is absolutely arbitrary.

And most of them (such as Blade Cascade) were for clear and explicitly identified power reasons. Changing Magic Missile for nostalgia's sake is something entirely different.

But again, if you're using magic missile as a demarcation of "4.5ness," we're in it now. If you want to call Essentials 4.5, IMO you need to show why it's Essentials, as opposed to currently-existing changes and updates, that makes it 4.5.

The game post-Essentials will be fundamentally different to the game before it.

The natural question is, "In what ways?" It's not messing with the class structure - that's been done, with psionics and hybrids about as big a jump as the new builds of martial classes. It's not feats that scale with level - we already have plenty of those. It's not magic missile or infernal wrath - those are here already, too. Monster damage? Been there, done that. Wizard miss effects or floating ability scores? If that's your demarcation, it's weak and arbitrary compared to everything else to-date.

I'm struggling to see how the game, post-Essentials will be fundamentally (your word) different in nature from what we have now.

-O

 

[Obryn]

If that's the case, I can buy into Essentials without needing to get the Red Box unless I want it for the tokens and doo-dads, or for handing to a newbie that would benefit from the Build-Your-PC Adventure.

You absolutely don't need the red box for the other books to work or make sense.

-O

 

[CovertOps]

You are wrong because nobody will know exactly when the 4.5 event occured until after the release of 5E.

So much errata, tweaking, redesigning/correcting is flowing into 4E right now that we honestly won't be able to note the halfway mark until the spinner stops spinning.

I've come to the conclusion that EW was dead on from page one. Assuming your "definition" of 4.5 is the halfway mark of all errata/new features already here and yet to come.

Okay, then the criteria are met now, before the release of Essentials. Is 4e really 4.5 right now?


I don't really see why - whether or not it's been different in the past, there was no need for it to be different now. The 4e A/E/D power structure has shown itself to be quite flexible, and certainly sufficient for some psionic classes. They could have even kept the same power structure, and added power points as floating enhancements that you could spend on an encounter or daily basis; it would have worked as well, and it would have stayed closer.

But in addition to that, in the same book, we have (1) Hybrids, which are a massive change to the class structure, given their flexibility; and (2) Skill Powers, which are universal utilities that anyone can take. Both of these are at least as significant as having a Slayer subclass who gets class features at certain levels. Saying one is indicative of an edition jump, while none of the innovations in PHB3 were, is absolutely arbitrary.


But again, if you're using magic missile as a demarcation of "4.5ness," we're in it now. If you want to call Essentials 4.5, IMO you need to show why it's Essentials, as opposed to currently-existing changes and updates, that makes it 4.5.


The natural question is, "In what ways?" It's not messing with the class structure - that's been done, with psionics and hybrids about as big a jump as the new builds of martial classes. It's not feats that scale with level - we already have plenty of those. It's not magic missile or infernal wrath - those are here already, too. Monster damage? Been there, done that. Wizard miss effects or floating ability scores? If that's your demarcation, it's weak and arbitrary compared to everything else to-date.

I'm struggling to see how the game, post-Essentials will be fundamentally (your word) different in nature from what we have now.

-O

You said pretty much everything I was going to say and I can't even XP ya. But I think the most telling bit is this:

To be honest, if WotC hadn't shouted their new creation from the rooftops, if they had slipped the slayer and knight and warpriest and thief in as individual builds in Martial/Divine Power X, I probably never would have cried 4.X.

But they did, and in doing so they opened my eyes. The game post-Essentials will be fundamentally different to the game before it. I personally think most of the changes are good ones and I'm looking forward to seeing how they turn out (and I LIKE that WotC is still working on improving the game), but I think it's disingenuous and/or naive to consider Essentials anything other than a new iteration of the game.

Basically it's 4.5 because WotC did some advertising saying "look at our new stuff". But because it's marketing what they didn't say is "but it's not really new new - it's just the latest content for our 2 year old product line and if we're really lucky we'll get some of those pathfinder people back with some of the retro 'feel'".

Edit: Lesson for WotC? Don't advertise new products or material....oh wait....

 

[nnms]

The core system of 4E is actually very small. Movement rules, standard, minor, move, free, immediate, opportunity actions, etc.,. HP, Surges, Bloodied, Death and Dying. Skills. It's not a lot of rules.

At Gencon someone from Wizards made a remark about exception based design and magic the gathering. Basically that it has let them produce magic cards that all work with the same basic rules for going on 17 years now. And that they expect to be able to do something similar with Dungeons & Dragons.

I think they're going to develop the core rules to the point that they're happy with them and then release stuff for them based on exception based design. When they need the marketing hype of a "new edition" they'll simply release a new starter type thing and a new product line. Much like they're doing with Essentials.

I think "editions" might be dead.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Having a strong ruleset an then adding options to it is a cool idea. WOTC has shown a good ability to do that in 4E thus far.

 

[pemerton]

I'm referring to the specific class features that the new essential builds pick up at levels above 1 (such as Quick Swap, Mighty Slayer and Inexorable Slayer that the slayer build acquires at levels 4, 5 and 9 respectively).

That is completely outside the existing design structure for pre-Essentials 4e.

Don't PHB2 Barbarians get a new class feature at 5th level (Rage Strike(?))?