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

[The Little Raven]

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

An update to an existing power is entirely different than new builds for an existing class. The first is explicitly meant to replace its predecessor, while the latter is meant to exist alongside it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'd almost guarantee the slayer is designed to use 2-handed weapons and steps right on the niche of the 2h FWT fighter, and that the knight is a sword-and-board style one handed fighter, maybe with plate proficiency thrown in to really emphasize his defensive ability.

They COULD well have a different mark/punishment system. I suspect it will be pretty close to the standard fighter one, but a LOT of people found the distinction between CC and CS confusing. It demands you understand OA vs II and different bonuses apply to each type of attack, plus you have the one major common violation of 'shifting never provokes' (sort of). I think they'll want it to be as close to the current mechanism as possible but avoiding the messiness (somehow, don't ask me how).

So it could be that one or the other will be preferable depending on exactly what you want to do. It could turn out that building the nice glaive controller builds doesn't work with slayer and you want FWT fighter for that, or whatever.

The more I think about it the more I hope they do reprint PHB. I might not buy another one but there's a lot of good stuff in there that I hope stays in print.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

Wow, that's remarkably irrelevant.

I'm not talking about something that has been officially changed via errata. I'm talking about new builds/options. The Essentials mage isn't a "fixed" version of any prior wizard build. It's a new build. Just like the builds from Arcane Power are new builds. And hey, what do you know? The old builds were still around after AP came out.

 

[pemerton]

But I kind of get the feeling the majority of D&D players these days will have DDI.

I seem to be the only 4e GM on these boards who doesn't . . .

 

[Jack99]

3 out of 4 households I purchase/will make D&D purchases for (2 are coming up ... yup around xmas time), do not have nice reliable internet access.
I see it as being problematic.

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.

We are talking about corner cases here. Just because you know someone who doesn't have internet access, doesn't mean it is a widespread issue. In fact, would you really have WotC make such decisions based on perhaps less than 2% of their customers?

As an anecdotal counterpoint, I do not know anyone below the age of 70 that doesn't have internet access at their home. Hell, I am not sure I can even find anyone who doesn't have wireless.

I seem to be the only 4e GM on these boards who doesn't . . .

Nah, Dice4Hire doesn't either

 

[Garthanos]

We are talking about corner cases here. Just because you know someone who doesn't have internet access, doesn't mean it is a widespread issue. In fact, would you really have WotC make such decisions based on perhaps less than 2% of their customers?

The quoted numbers were 30% of adults without, the cases I mentioned would have been technically in the 70% who the survey would say had access, but... I assume that a portion of the desired customers would be children (who may not have access even if their parents do and a portion could have very slow internet access and for whom the digital projects just wont work.)

And if we are talking about "not yet customers" the numbers could exceed the current customers completely.

Not sure where you got 2%
The book market for the game is far and away not gone.

 

[Jack99]

The quoted numbers were 30% of adults without, the cases I mentioned would have been technically in the 70% who the survey would say had access, but... I assume that a portion of the desired customers would be children (who may not have access even if their parents do and a portion could have very slow internet access and for whom the digital projects just wont work.)

And if we are talking about "not yet customers" the numbers could exceed the current customers completely.

Not sure where you got 2%
The book market for the game is far and away not gone.

First of all, I never said the book market for D&D was gone. I myself own all 4e books, despite the increased digital and online presence of the game.

As for the 2% mentioned, it is just my belief that people engaging in D&D are much more likely to have internet than your "average" American - but that's just an assumption, I know.

I must admit I do not know intimately the details of how well internet is integrated into the US, and probably therefore have a tendency to look at how things are in my own country. For all I know, we could be years ahead of you guys, which certainly would make your points more valid.

 

[Garthanos]

I must admit I do not know intimately the details of how well internet is integrated into the US, and probably therefore have a tendency to look at how things are in my own country. For all I know, we could be years ahead of you guys, which certainly would make your points more valid.

Potentially you are years ahead ... the problem was/has been we have this huge legacy infrastructure that has been taking lots of money to replace. The more you have ... the more expensive he upgrade.

 

[ExploderWizard]

An update to an existing power is entirely different than new builds for an existing class. The first is explicitly meant to replace its predecessor, while the latter is meant to exist alongside it.

Wow, that's remarkably irrelevant.

I'm not talking about something that has been officially changed via errata. I'm talking about new builds/options. The Essentials mage isn't a "fixed" version of any prior wizard build. It's a new build. Just like the builds from Arcane Power are new builds. And hey, what do you know? The old builds were still around after AP came out.

Update?

Officially changed via errata?

Endeavor to perservere?

 

[Scribble]

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.

Why would you continue to pay for something that is no longer useful to you?