D&D 4E Essentials isn't 4.5e, but is 4e as we know it over?

[Scribble]

I'm one of the few which does not use xbox live at all.

Yeah- I didn't say 100%

 

[MrMyth]

Well, yes and no. Look for instance at the AP Wizard builds. They are identical to the PHB1 builds except they introduce a couple new types of Implement Mastery. Its a very minor difference and the new builds are obviously intended to complement niches that the original ones didn't address at all (Summoning and Illusion magic). If you wanted to play a blaster wizard you went to PHB1 and got Wand of Accuracy. If you wanted to play a summoner wizard you went to AP and got Tome of Binding. Beyond that you pumped a different secondary stat. Notice that the AP builds use different secondaries from the PHB1 builds too. They are all clearly distinct but they use exactly the same rules with only the addition of a new option to a single class feature.

Sure, the Wizards builds in Arcane Power are pretty close to the standard Wizard.

What about the Battlerager Fighter? The Beastmaster Ranger? The Archer Warlord?

Some of these guys are trading out significant class features for entirely new ones. Changing armor proficiencies, modes of attack, fighting styles.

Do the Essentials classes go even a step farther from there? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't mean that they are displacing the existing classes in any way, any more than the Archer Warlord replaced the existing Warlord builds.

It presents a new option to existing players. More likely, it presents an easy option for new players - and one that, once they move on from there, they likely start expanding their options via all the built in material. That's the beauty of the design - if it does bring in new players, by keeping the existing material current, they have an entire library completely ready to sell to these new players when they want to expand their options.

 

[vagabundo]

The only smart move would be sell a new version of PHB 1. With all erratas incorporated. This way nothing will fade out of existence.

I'd suggest a PHB - complete and revised - volume. Errata included and the three PHB's.

What a monster!!

 

[Garthanos]

As of December 2009, 74% of adults in the US used the Internet. Sadly, Pew doesn't break down the numbers for D&D players.

In the cases I am talking about well one has access for a while - the machine gets virused and they turn it off for 9 months. Another has a modem connection that is very poor. Another its pretty much there parents machine with them having limited access to that. Its certainly not all adults and statistics can be a little deceiving.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, the Wizards builds in Arcane Power are pretty close to the standard Wizard.

What about the Battlerager Fighter? The Beastmaster Ranger? The Archer Warlord?

Some of these guys are trading out significant class features for entirely new ones. Changing armor proficiencies, modes of attack, fighting styles.

Do the Essentials classes go even a step farther from there? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't mean that they are displacing the existing classes in any way, any more than the Archer Warlord replaced the existing Warlord builds.

It presents a new option to existing players. More likely, it presents an easy option for new players - and one that, once they move on from there, they likely start expanding their options via all the built in material. That's the beauty of the design - if it does bring in new players, by keeping the existing material current, they have an entire library completely ready to sell to these new players when they want to expand their options.

You're still missing my point. The BRV and Tempest fighters opened up new archetypes of character. They are certainly mechanically distinct in class feature from the PHB1 fighters, but the important point is YOU COULDN'T MAKE THAT TYPE OF CHARACTER before MP1 came out.

Now, go look at the PHB1 STR cleric and the Essentials Warpriest. When you make one or the other you're making a character that portrays the same archetype, a priest of a god that wears heavy armor and wades into melee combat, healing and supporting his allies with divine power. Its the SAME TYPE OF CHARACTER. This is the difference between the Power book builds and the Essentials builds.

Essentials is going back over territory ALREADY COVERED BY 4E and making improved versions of what we had already. This IS a significant difference because when you have that overlap then you have to admit that there's less reason to use the old builds. Nobody was deciding not to use a GWT fighter anymore if they wanted that type of character that was THE build and BRV was different. They might not be vastly different and some people might have said "Eh, I think I want to be a Battlerager now instead of a Weapon Talent type fighter." but they don't directly overlap.

Now, when you come right down to it there's some 'competition' between different builds in any game. People choose one or another and the more there are the less any given one will be used. Its just the overlap with Essentials is a lot greater.

And how soon the board forgets. I LIKE the idea of Essentials. I'm not arguing anything against it, calling it '4.5' or any other silliness. Its fine. I just think its a shame that the warlord got left out and with the degree of overlap between the PHB and Essentials books I DO think the PHB1 builds will be ghettoized. People can still play them and they have plenty of support etc etc etc. They're still going to become the sort of red haired stepchild of the system, and if Warlord doesn't get a refresh its not going to see a lot of play anymore over time IMHO.

 

[MrMyth]

Essentials is going back over territory ALREADY COVERED BY 4E and making improved versions of what we had already. This IS a significant difference because when you have that overlap then you have to admit that there's less reason to use the old builds. Nobody was deciding not to use a GWT fighter anymore if they wanted that type of character that was THE build and BRV was different. They might not be vastly different and some people might have said "Eh, I think I want to be a Battlerager now instead of a Weapon Talent type fighter." but they don't directly overlap.

Ok, I get your concerns a bit more. Still, I think the less restrictive existing builds will have plenty of fans, while allowing for plenty of concepts that will be harder to pull off with specialist mages, domain-driven warpriests, etc. Nothing indicates these will outstrip the others, any more than battleragers (who like to swing axes) means you don't have regular fighters swinging axes as well.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Essentials is going back over territory ALREADY COVERED BY 4E and making improved versions of what we had already.

Ok. I get your point but I do not agree that the above is true and we will not know until we see the domains and their associated powers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok, I get your concerns a bit more. Still, I think the less restrictive existing builds will have plenty of fans, while allowing for plenty of concepts that will be harder to pull off with specialist mages, domain-driven warpriests, etc. Nothing indicates these will outstrip the others, any more than battleragers (who like to swing axes) means you don't have regular fighters swinging axes as well.

Yeah, and honestly I don't even have a 'concern' myself when it comes to the new builds. If they work better for someone then its great and I'm all for it. Personally I'm a bit sad that they are ignoring the warlord, but even that isn't really an 'issue' for me since I can perfectly well play them already. You're right too of course, there are going to be certain specialized niche builds where a STR cleric is going to be the ticket due to stat synergy or whatnot, maybe even just because you want a cleric with a 20 STR.

I definitely want to see the new rogue and the new ranger.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually i can also follow your logic too. The slayer and knight could also heavily step on the PHB 1 fighter builds' toes, a one handed defender and a two-handed defender/striker hybrid which are more distinct frome each other than the two PHB 1 fighters (+1 bonus on their choice of weapons and maybe some powers)

Maybe they won´t invalidate the PHB 1 stuff, because of the lack of dailies and because they won´t have a different defender ability than combat challenge/combat superiority. And because this is widely seen as the strongest defender mechanism out there, there may be a lot going for the old fighter.

Right now, D&D 4e is very modular in its nature, MP2 builds are exchanging class abilities quite heavily... i don´t see older material fading out completely (if PHB gets a nice reprint)

Maybe some of the builds in MP2 were better packed in an essential product. I could have seen the archer warlord as an essential martial leader.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Nope. But based on the examples we've seen so far, I can see plenty of flavor reasons to keep playing the old versions in addition to the new ones. I disagree with the assertion that they're meant as replacements.

Then it would seem like the CB software crew disagrees with you.

My CB is up to date, can I build an old wizard with MM the way it was?

Nope.

Electronically the rules move on to whatever dot version is currently in favor. If you want an older flavor then you don't get to use the nifty software toys that you pay for every month to get what you want.

So really it comes down to shut up and use the rules handed down from on high or stop getting a major benefit from software that they charge you for.