Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Dannager]

If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.

The fact that you can come to this "conclusion" after page upon page of dozens of people telling you the exact opposite thing from what you concluded means that you did not come here with the intention of listening to what others had to say. You entered this discussion with a conclusion masked as curiosity - disingenuous, to say the least.

Take a step back, read the thread, and then make up your mind. But don't for a second pretend that you can get away with laying the responsibility for your choice on this discussion. The least of what this discussion has demonstrated is that it is the uniform opinion of everyone who has mixed Essentials and non-Essentials characters in a game that there is absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.

I mean, this is some "There are no Americans in Baghdad"-level stuff, right here.

EDIT: Jhaelen, in reference to your above post, this is sad behavior on your part. Even you can't actually believe that the things you are saying are accurate, appropriate, or approaching valid.

 

[Herschel]

And I'll try to avoid posting in a forum about a game I obviously no longer know. So long and thanks for all the fish!

I have only one reply to this:

Dibs on his stapler!!!!!!

 

[Matt James]

So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials? Again, I think we're being trolled. Jhaelen is waiting for the right moment to be like "hah, gotcha!"

Right? Please say yes. Someone.

 

[DracoSuave]

Buhwhah?

Would you have prefered if they just made new classes with some new abilities and some same abilities, and absolutely no connection at all to the old classes, including no ability to use already established powers and feats, and have nothing but essentials feat support, while adding nothing to existing classes?

Because THAT is the situation you describe, where the new Essentials stuff has no 'cross-compatability'. That's what that situation is.

Is it because you don't like the deviation from requiring Daily/Encounter/At-Will/Utility basic structure? That's a valid concern.

Is it because you think there's no support for older classes? Because that is incorrect, there is. A perfect example is in the Blackguard class. They have an at-will attack power that is Strength based, and deals bonus damage based on adjacent enemies. It is a Paladin Attack 1 power. Are you aware that this power is now an option for the classic Paladin? That the blackguard class added a bunch of options for Paladins that want to do damage, like the Ardent? That's support for classic classes. That every single Warpriest power can be taken by a Cleric/Templar? That's support for classic classes. That there's a smattering of new utility powers for the Fighter/Weaponmaster that fit perfectly with its own strategy? That's support for classic classes. That there's a LOT of new at-will, encounter, and daily powers for the Wizard that is absolutely 100% usable (read: awesome) in the hands of the classic wizard? That's support for classic classes.

These aren't opinions. Those are solid facts. You have your reasons for disliking them, and the facts are diametricly opposed to it.

Now you're claiming that because the classic classes' class types are given names so it's easier than saying 'classic mage' 'classic fighter' etc, that therefore 4th edition is broken forever?

I mean... does adding 'weaponmaster' (a very appropriate name) after fighter on your character sheet will change the fact that you have Cleave, Tide of Iron, mark with each attack, have great OAs, and in every meaningful way are exactly the same as you were before the update was printed? (Come and Get It was gonna get nerfed anyways)

You're being demonstrably irrational about this. You asked if it was compatible, people who've tried both have said it is. Then you said 'but it's not cross-compatible' and it's been proven that it is. Now you're complaining about class-type names being applied to classic classes?

Chicken Little had a better world perspective.

PS:

Jhaelen, you've been one of the most vocal and analytical proponents of 4th edition since the very beginning. I have a lot of respect for you, so I'm going to try a different tack.

Remember back in the beginning when people were trying to grok 4th edition, and the best advice we could give was 'Don't just try to read it and grok it... play with it. Once you play it, it all clicks and you realize the game's depth and fun.'

That advice applies to Essentials class types. Don't just sit there and scoff them. Play them in a mixed game, give them the old college try. You'll find everything works nice and smoothly. You can play the classic class you love and your buddy can play the essentials class, and I guarantee that there's going to be no problems. You can grab an essentials feat, he can grab a classic feat, no problem.

Just... try it. It's really not that bad. The new classes are very cohesive, and they're solid performers. I prefer the classic power structure myself so I wouldn't play a slayer or thief... but the blackguard was very fun, and VERY new. It plays better than it seems on paper.

 

[MrMyth]

Once upon a time before WotC decided to rewrite history to fit their new vision of the game the PHB1 contained classes like the fighter.

...

So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.

Sigh. It's not 'rewriting history'. It's adding new features. If you don't touch Essentials, no one is going to show up at your game and yell at you for not calling your PHB fighter a "weaponmaster".

Previous, there was a fighter class, and it had several builds. Now, there are some variant builds that are a bit more distinct, and they have relabelled certain builds to try and keep them clearer. They may or may not have been successful in this, but at no point have they tried to pretend that they are revising the history of the edition in any way.

The thing is: I've obviously fallen for WotCs original claim that it was safe to ignore Essentials. Well it isn't. I no longer feel fit discussing this game that once was 4e. It has been slowly and silently subverted and swallowed whole.

WotC's claim was that you can go ahead and keep playing your 4E game without Essentials. And you can, just like you could do so with the PHB2, PHB3, Dark Sun, etc.

What they did not claim was, "It is safe to ignore Essentials and still be fully informed when commenting on it in discussion threads." That seems to be the heart of your objection here, and that is all sorts of silly. Of course you aren't going to be able to have an informed discussion about Essentials material if you aren't familiar with it.

Does that really have a negative impact on your actual home game?

That's what folks have repeatedly asked you about - have you any genuine examples of difficulties caused, in your game, by Essentials. And that is a very different thing from being able to participate in a discussion about the game.

As it is, there are plenty of threads that you can indeed still join in discussion in. And, yes, there will be others where you have less to contribute - just like, when PHB3 and Psionic Power were the most recent products, players without them would have little to offer in those threads.

But it's no longer possible to treat Essentials as something distinct from 4e when discussing the game. 'Classic 4e' has gone the way of the dodo, just like all the other editions before; it has become part of the legacy and would probably better be discussed in the forum bearing that name.

Again - the only distinctions cropping up are ones you are making. Yes, you can treat Essentials as something different, just like you could have done so with PHB3. It doesn't change the fact that if discussing 4E as a whole, it - unsurprisingly - includes all content released for 4E.

You can still discuss your 'classic 4E', however you might define it. Others can discuss their 'core only' games with just the PHB, MM, and DMG. And others will have their 'Essentials only' campaigns as well. All of these are valid options - but trying to pretend that one is a more legitimate form than another, or that WotC has a responsibility to isolate them and treat them as different experiences, rather than supporting the game as a whole, is simply an unreasonable expectation.

 

[mneme]

EDIT: Jhaelen, in reference to your above post, this is sad behavior on your part. Even you can't actually believe that the things you are saying are accurate, appropriate, or approaching valid.

I don't know; he's wrong, but he's also right.

The fact is, if you play with full eratta (and you should; it's a better game--though note that they're redoing the cleric eratta this month), there's nothing preventing you from using PH1 classes in a modern, post-essentials game, nor allowing Essentials characters and options in a game based on pre-essentials books.

However, in terms of how wizards is presenting the game (and the structural model they're using to define the classes), Jhaelen is quite right. This is very -much- a "we have always been at war with Eurasia" redefinition, where the facts on the ground remain more or less identical, but the underlying structures have changed in some subtle ways.

In a software redesign analogy, the existing interfaces are still there, and still do more or less exactly what they did before (barring some interface updates that are about the same same scope as previous interface and internals updates). But they've also published some newer underlying interfaces, which you can ignore if you like (your old programs, using the old published interfaces will still work), but they're still there and are still going to be referenced in new materials. So you can't ignore the new books and hope that they'll be a minor aberrition--that materials after their release will then go back to referring to the old materials. YOu -can- use them to add to your existing campaign and existing characters; as above; old programs still work, and they're even producing some new objects implementing compatable interfaces.

But the guts of the program has changed, and some (a lot) of new material is going to be written with the new interfaces in mind; certainly you're going to need to learn enough of it to know what you don't know.

 

[MrGrenadine]

So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials? Again, I think we're being trolled. Jhaelen is waiting for the right moment to be like "hah, gotcha!"

Right? Please say yes. Someone.

I think it was stated very clearly upthread that classic 4e and E characters can be used together, because the incompatibilities and rough spots are specific, not systemic.

However, this does not prove that the two systems are seamlessly compatible.

The places where the two systems don't quite mesh are seen in character creation, usage of magic items, multi-class options, and other places. And to see where WotC thinks the meshing needed to be improved, just glance at the errata list.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the incompatibilities are deal breakers, that the system is broken, or anything of the sort. But to keep insisting that the two systems mesh perfectly is baffling.

 

[Ajar]

So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials?

I did so about four pages ago and the point was conceded. The subclasses are plainly not as interoperable as builds generally are, with certain exceptions (e.g. beastmaster). Multiclass/hybrid options are only now available as a playtest, and a number of Essentials subclasses are entirely excluded.

If you're asking about incompatibility at the table from the DM's perspective, then no. And I don't think anyone has actually asserted that this is a clear and substantial problem for the game. I've stated repeatedly that as a DM I'd have no problem mixing 4E and 4E.E, or running a game for all 4E.E characters, if that's what my players wanted.

Given that, it's pretty rude to repeatedly wave the legitimate concerns expressed in this thread off as "we're being trolled."

Jhaelen's post is a melodramatic, but he's on point about language and changing definitions. This kind of stuff isn't just semantic quibbles, it informs how people think about things and it provides a little bit of insight into WotC's thought process. Mixing subclasses and classes in the Character Builder class selection list is confusing, and it also obscures the fact that the Weaponmaster has an order of magnitude more options and a very different design structure than the Knight and Slayer that are listed on equal footing.

Would you have prefered if they just made new classes with some new abilities and some same abilities, and absolutely no connection at all to the old classes, including no ability to use already established powers and feats, and have nothing but essentials feat support, while adding nothing to existing classes?

No, I would have preferred not to have subclasses, and instead have the Essentials classes treated as builds, maintaining the same overall class list that we had before. This would require some CB and Compendium interface tweaks, but since I find the solution they decided to implement fairly crufty (how many flavours of Warlock are there now? 15?) anyway, I don't see that as a problem. Today, there's nothing in the CB that tells you what specifically differentiates a Weaponmaster from a Slayer or Knight until you try to build one and discover the huge number of options.

My way, when you open the CB, you'd have one option for Essentials-only called "Simple Character" or something similar -- it would NOT be the default "New Character" option that it is today. When clicking this option, you'd get the Essentials class list: Fighter, Ranger, Warlock, etc. When you pick Fighter, you then get to choose between Knight and Slayer, and so on.

Then there would be a "New Character" button that would take you to the full class list, with both 4E and 4E.E options available once you chose a class.

I don't think this method would have required the Essentials books to be very different from what they actually are, and it would have had two side benefits: clearer understanding of what actually constitutes a class when choosing one in the CB, and not implicitly marginalizing non-Essentials classes.

Is it because you think there's no support for older classes? Because that is incorrect, there is. A perfect example is in the Blackguard class. They have an at-will attack power that is Strength based, and deals bonus damage based on adjacent enemies. It is a Paladin Attack 1 power. Are you aware that this power is now an option for the classic Paladin? That the blackguard class added a bunch of options for Paladins that want to do damage, like the Ardent? That's support for classic classes. That every single Warpriest power can be taken by a Cleric/Templar? That's support for classic classes. That there's a smattering of new utility powers for the Fighter/Weaponmaster that fit perfectly with its own strategy? That's support for classic classes. That there's a LOT of new at-will, encounter, and daily powers for the Wizard that is absolutely 100% usable (read: awesome) in the hands of the classic wizard? That's support for classic classes.

Where's the support for the PHB3 classes in the Essentials books? There isn't any. WotC's design efforts have been focused on Essentials and on Essentials elements that can also support PHB1 (not 2 or 3) classes.

That's one of the problems with Essentials: it provides additional support for the most-supported classes in the game. I'm not saying that those classes shouldn't get any more support, but aside from Psionic Power, PHB3 has more or less withered on the vine.

Again, a lot of my apprehensions about Essentials pre-release have been allayed, but it isn't fair to assert that there are no grounds for concern or discomfort, and that any statements to that effect are trolling.

 

[DracoSuave]

Just to point out... Druids have a class type now.

That's one of the problems with Essentials: it provides additional support for the most-supported classes in the game. I'm not saying that those classes shouldn't get any more support, but aside from Psionic Power, PHB3 has more or less withered on the vine.

Given that there's 25 classes in the game before HoFL came out, and each only carries four classes, it's mathematically impossible to cover every class in the short amount of books essentials has put out. I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to happen this soon.

While I do agree that runepriests, seekers, and hybrids need some more attention, that's not the fault of essentials really. Unless they came out with a Divine Power 2 and Primal Power 2, it wasn't likely to happen under the old system either.

The thing is... those classes are iconic, and the first essentials book needed to cover the basic four, fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard. You can't really have an introduction to the game without -that- starting line. It's THE traditional starting party. You have to start somewhere!

Then for their next book, it's druid, paladin, hexblade, ranger. Fighters that have a little bit of magic behind them. All of them are physical attackers, but each of them supplements their assault with some voodoo of one kind or another.

Heroes of Shadow is introducing another power source, and I think they decided to go 'What make great masters of darkness for characters?' It's a void the game has been missing, but it's also one that just doesn't lend itself to the primal or psionic power sources. As well, a new class!

Again, a lot of my apprehensions about Essentials pre-release have been allayed, but it isn't fair to assert that there are no grounds for concern or discomfort, and that any statements to that effect are trolling.

I suggest to not worry about it so much. A lot of essentials stuff really is new. There wasn't a class that filled the same niche as a blackguard, a sentinel, a hexblade, the vampire, or the binder before.

Not to mention, they are going back and updating the old classes, starting from the oldest and working forward. They're gonna do the PHB2 and PHB3 stuff eventually. Just have to be patient.

I'd expect some more primal stuff in the elemental book. A sorcerer class type is practically guaranteed. Give it time to come out.

 

[Dannager]

I did so about four pages ago and the point was conceded. The subclasses are plainly not as interoperable as builds generally are, with certain exceptions (e.g. beastmaster). Multiclass/hybrid options are only now available as a playtest, and a number of Essentials subclasses are entirely excluded.

If you're asking about incompatibility at the table from the DM's perspective, then no. And I don't think anyone has actually asserted that this is a clear and substantial problem for the game. I've stated repeatedly that as a DM I'd have no problem mixing 4E and 4E.E, or running a game for all 4E.E characters, if that's what my players wanted.

Compatibility from the DM's standpoint is the only kind worth discussing - and even then, you don't really mean compatibility from the DM's standpoint. What you mean is that all the options operate in the same system. Which is what compatibility is. We're not saying that all Essentials options are usable with all non-Essentials options. That's a stupid argument to make, for the same reason that saying "All PHB3 options are usable with all Martial Power options!" is a stupid argument to make.

Again, what you're referring to as compatibility from a player's standpoint is nothing new. Every book has those issues, and people don't get up in arms about every book over it.

Is Essentials compatible with all other 4e material? Yes.

Again, trying to claim "Oh, no, we're saying that there are compatibility issues when it comes to player options!" just makes one look ignorant of the fact that player options are designed to be used in a restricted fashion. What you are arguing is no different than someone who argues, "My 10 Strength Rogue can't take Heavy Blade Opportunity! Why didn't WotC make Heavy Blade Opportunity compatible with my character?!"

Compatibility at the system level is the only sort of compatibility worth discussing. Conceding that incompatibilities between character options exist means nothing. We conceded that back in 1st Edition.