Essentials Cleric

[UngainlyTitan]

Could 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 Ranger take powers from the book the other one was printed in, and could they play at the same table?

In other words, did they have this compatibility thing going on that Mearls is talking about?

I no longer have my 3.0 stuff but the real meat of the changes was not the classes but the rules engine that changed. Thus you could play two of the classes in the same game without much problem but you had to decide were you using 3.0 rules or 3.5 rules and that is where the major differences arose.

What I guess I am saying that a 3.0 magic user using 3.0 rules was more powerful than a 3.5 one as the 3.0 had buff spells that lasts 1 hour/level, haste that allows 2 standard action/round (thus two spells/round) that lasted longer than the 3.5 haste so could devote more slots to offense.

Of course that only applies to early 3.5 builds, I'm pretty sure that by late 3.5 you mage a pretty competitive mage.

The real point is that you could not mix and match. 3.0 and 3.5 used the same words to mean different things.

 

[fba827]

So if this is true, I agree with those who call it 4.5 or even 3.9. I mean, its not like they are using Essentials to clarify any rules or "fix" things that are broken. They seem to be adding things just for the sake of doing so. Which is fine. I am all for that. But let's call it what it is, an updated version.

This is basically what they did in 3.5. Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk. How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?

I would not call "adding things for the sake of doing so" an updated version.

They did the same thing as early as Martial Power 1 (which was the first supplement book back in 4e's early days) -- you have a build option for an existing class that takes away some default class features and replaces it with others. (example: see optional fighter builds in MP1; default fighter features are removed and replaced if you chose that optional build). So it is a bit of a stretch to say that adding different build options is enough to call it a new edition since the precedent was established back in the very first Power book.

That's just what the essentials line is doing as well: optional builds that take away some default class abilities and replace them with others (albeit, in the case of the Essential line's optional builds, the features being replaced in are spread out over levels).

They are not changing the progression for base classes (like 3.5 did to 3.0 monk, ranger, etc. that your existing class did change, but for this, if you're playing a cleric, your cleric does not change) nor are they changing rules (like 3.5 changed grapple, DR, etc. from 3.0).

It's all very modular really. If no one in your group uses the build options presented in the Essentials product line, then you won't really see anything different to base game mechanics. Or you can completely mix-and-match from original 4e product lines and the Essentials product line (that's not something you could do between 3.0 and 3.5).

Anyway, just my opinion as a random person on the Internet (which means my opinion is worthless -- but anyone can call it what they want to call it. I just don't think that "adding things for the sake of doing so" (as was said above) is enough of a reason to call it an updated version.

(Though I might call it an updated version for completely different reasons depending on what sorts of errata updates we see at that time, but that's another topic entirely).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Uh, what ? AD&D not complex? You may have felt that way after years of playing gave you a comfortable level of system mastery, but if you allow me to refresh your memory...

- To calculate whether you hit, you have to roll above a number. So far so good. That number gets lower as you level. Counterintuitive, but okay. You substract your opponents AC from that number. Wait, what?
- Magic weapons have a positive bonus, which you substract from your attack stat... Err?
- Magic armor has a positive bonus, that you have to substract from your AC. At least there is a pattern.
Okay, so your attack stat is 4, you wield a +5 sword, your enemy has plate (AC 1) +4, what do you have to roll to hit? So my attack stat is negative, and the enemy's AC is negative, so I add it, which brings my attack stat back into positive, ... Ok I give up.

Now, if you're a Wizard, you don't roll to attack at all, but your enemy has to roll against a number on his sheet.

And of course each class has its own XP progression.

You roll initiative every turn, and it depends on things like which level of spell you cast.

To cast your spells, you have to keep track of ... bat guano.

Forget about using that magic sword you found immediately, the wizard has to take an 8 hour break and burn a 100 gp gem to identify the damn thing. At least he doesn't have to roll a spellcraft check. Uh, that item was cursed? Pointy hat spent 8 hours analyzing the matrix and didn't notice? Let's all rest another 8 hours so the cleric can pray for remove curse.

I'll stop here. AD&D was incredibly complex, but in a "watch out or I'll screw you over" kind of way. And in a "scrap that who cares about material components anyway?" kind of way. And in a "unified mechanics what's that?" kind of way.

3rd and 4th edition simplified and streamlined a lot of that. The core rules of the newer editions are much simpler and more streamlined. What makes 4th edition more complex in play are not the rules itself, but the tactical options you have and the interactions between PCs.

In short, AD&D complexity and 4th edition complexity is very different, and it's not the 4th edition rules that are complex.

Yeah, I disagree. Once you know how to calculate your to-hit nothing really changed in 1e. The fighter would add his static bonuses to the die roll and cross reference it to the attack chart column for his class/level vs a specific AC and if the number you got on your d20+static bonuses was equal or better than the number in the chart you hit. THAC0 got rid of the chart having you subtract the other guys AC and if you rolled your THAC0 (which folded in a level based bonus) you hit. Now, I totally agree this system was clunky, but it was always the same and once you did it 3 times you understood it.

The to-hit calculation in 4e is indeed simpler and less clunky, YAY! However 4e adds action economy mechanics, which means the players need to understand how actions work (vs you just moved and attacked in 1e/2e and anything else you wanted to do was pretty much up to the DM to decide if you could still attack if you did X other thing, the general rule being 'you can do one thing per round plus move'). On top of that you have to understand Free Actions, Opportunity Actions, Immediate Interrupts, and Immediate Reactions, plus Ready and Delay. These actions can and do interact in complex ways. This can easily be seen by going to any forum where people ask 4e questions and see that CONSTANTLY they are confused by these interactions. There have been millions of forum posts all over the net just debating simple things like do you have to declare both targets for Twin Strike before the first attack or not. This is only the tip of the iceberg too. Every type of power brings up more similar types of issues. How do the at-will powers of whirling barbarians actually work? NOBODY KNOWS, this issue has never been resolved!

Sorry, I consider 4e actually at the table to be considerably more complex than AD&D, and that isn't even touching on the whole issue of needing to be organized enough to track multiple effects and conditions for example, something that was VASTLY less important back in AD&D where buffs and debuffs were fairly rare (admittedly it could get messy now and then but that was the exceptional situation).

I agree that AD&D had its own 'fiddly' bits but they were far more peripheral to the central issue of running a combat. The game played well enough if you ignored spell components for instance. You can't avoid the 'fiddly' bits of 4e, they are in your face and have a significant impact on central issues of the game, like what tactics you will use in combat.