Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Neonchameleon]

What if I want to play a vampire (I don't)

You take the Vampire Multiclass feat currently under playtest.

or one of the new classes from the Feywild book?

Assuming it's like HoS:
New class: The Blackguard. You want the powers, play a Strength-Paladin (which can take almost all of them).
New Class: The Binder. The only Binder powers you can't take as a Warlock are the At Wills.
New Class: The Executioner. The oExecutioner can get almost all of their powers if he wants it.

New build: Death Domain Warpriest. Almost all the powers can be taken by a PHB Cleric. You just get a couple of bonusses for locking yourself in to those powers (even the bad ones).

New builds: Necromancers and Nethermancers. Are builds for the Mage - all powers usable by the Wizard (and the difference is largely cosmetic; if the Mage got Ritual Caster I'd consider it entirely a superior implementation to the Wizard).

Or a Shugenja?

I have no idea. Given all the actuals either fit with old-style classes or are being given options to fit, I'm going to assume there'd be something there. After all there has been so far.

Telling me that I have all the pre-essentials books to pull from is like telling me I can just play an older edition.

Telling you you have all the pre-essentials books and a good half of the post-essentials powers on the other hand...

Having books for beginners is one thing, but like many other players, I want more options in future products.

You are getting them. You are getting almost everything people going for "essentials" classes are getting. Now where's the problem?

 

[MrMyth]

Having done exactly that, I have to say that this is not only not impossible, it is extremely easy.

It's certainly doable, but whether it is trivial or not will tend to be a question of what PCs are at the table. If you have a 3.0 wizard and a 3.5 wizards using dramatically different versions of the same spell, or a even two PCs of the same class which has undergone significant revisions (druid, monk, ranger), you'll run into some difficulties.

On the other hand, you could easily end up with many PCs for whom there are very few differences, and all you need to do is solve a few discrepencies like DR and you are all set and ready to play. But that's only one situation, certainly not all of them.

Anyway, for myself... yeah, they are 100% compatable, as least as I define it. Essentials and pre-Essentials characters operate under the same rules and can be played alongside each other without any house-ruling required. Now, there is a level of incompatability in terms of character options, but that is something being addressed, and doesn't bother me all that much to start with - it's just a limitation on character options, plenty of which already exist. My rogue can't take a ranger animal companion - that doesn't mean Martial Power and the PHB are incompatible.

My upcoming game has a Changeling Executioner, a Revenant Eladrin Sorceress, an Eladrin Swordmage, and a Mul Warpriest of the Death Domain. I can't imagine any issues arising due to them using materials from Heroes of Shadow alongside the PHB alongside the PHB2 alongside Heroes of the Fallen Lands alongside the FR Player's Guide alongside the Dark Sun Campaign Guide. All of it works together just fine.

 

[Jhaelen]

You can't make the argument that the slayer and knight are designed to replace the weaponmaster nor fix problems with the weaponmaster, which is what 3.5 was intended to do. Again, Class Compendium is doing that.

It's arguable if _all_ of the changes made between 3.0 and 3.5 were actually meant to fix problems.

But if you prefer: The existence of the Class Compendium basically proves that WotC is of the opinion that 'classic' 4e and Essentials are not as compatible as they'd like them to be.

But perception does not mean truth. It simply means it appears that way to some people. Perhaps if individuals would stop making statements about how '3.5'-like essentials is, when it clearly is not, people would stop adhering to that myth.

How right you are!
Perhaps if individuals would stop making statements about how essentials is not like 3.5, when it clearly is, people would stop adhering to that myth!

 

[Dannager]

No you can't. A Slayer is not a PHB Fighter. So you can't freely pick powers between them any more than you can freely pick powers between Paladin and Fighter.

That's not true. You can freely pick Fighter powers as long as you are playing a Fighter. Whether that Fighter uses the Weaponmaster or Slayer class features is largely irrelevant. If you would have the option of selecting a power at a given level, and that power has the word Fighter in bold in the upper right corner, you can select any Fighter power of the appropriate level and usage in its place, if you so choose. You are not restricted to using powers from the Essentials books if you are playing an Essentials character.

 

[MrMyth]

But if you prefer: The existence of the Class Compendium basically proves that WotC is of the opinion that 'classic' 4e and Essentials are not as compatible as they'd like them to be.

Well, I suppose the one Class Compendium article on multiclassing is along those lines. And was, pretty much from the start, acknowledged as the one element missing from Essentials.

The rest of the Class Compendium elements? Don't seem to have much to do with Essentials at all. They aren't addressing any incompatability - they are just fixing areas they think merit it. Exactly as they've been doing since the start of the edition.

 

[MrGrenadine]

The main point I'd make is that Essentials classes do not supersede non-essentials classes. A 3.5 Ranger is intended to replace a 3.0 Ranger. I have both the PHB Rogue and an Essentials Thief in the same party. The Scout and Hunter do not supersede the PHB Ranger.

Seems to me that the Warpriest replaces the PHB Strength Cleric.

 

[Redbadge]

Somehow, I missed this thread over the last few days. I just can't help myself from jumping in. I'll just repost something I said from a very similar thread. I make the point that the PHB3 is also an Essentials book, and is just as compatible with earlier material as HotFL and HotFK are.

"What part of essentials doesn't conform to the broader system or use the full rules? Essentials has variant mechanics and additional rules only to the extent that every expansion of the 4e system has.

Let me provide an example from the very designer responsible for the "essentials direction", Mike Mearls. When preparing for the Player's Handbook 3, Mearls and the other designers noticed that the power sources may not be differintiated enough, and thought that this might be something that would be popular with players. Like many people recognize that Heroes of Shadow is just one part of the larger "essentials direction", it is easy to see that Player's Handbook 3 is also an essentials book in all but name.

Like essentials classes, psionic classes move away from the AEDU structure, except instead of giving up dailies (in the case of martial classes), psionic classes give up encounter powers (notwithstanding the monk).

Like essentials sources, which introduced the limited binder and vampire, PHB3 introduced the similarly limited seeker and runepriest.

Like essentials, which expanded the range of complexity for which the player base could choose from, PHB3 provided a wider range of complexity by introducing hybrid classes (which will be and have always intended to be fully compatible with essentials classes).

Like essentials sources, PHB3 provides very little support for ritual casting, and few mentions.

Like essentials sources, the races in PHB3 introduced races with variable ability scores to choose from.

Like essentials, PHB3 saw a bit of power creep with the introduction of a strictly better expertise (as well as superior implements for spell casters).

Like essentials, (some) PHB3 classes gain class features at levels other than 1.

When PHB3 did really well and received a generally positive reaction from the 4e fanbase, Mearls might have said to himself, "Man, if they like this, they'll love what we've got coming up!" If they had released all of essentials in a blue hardback book and called it Player's Handbook 4, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Understandably, WOTC figured the new players they so covet probably wouldn't be picking up something called Player's Handbook 4."

 

[Dannager]

Seems to me that the Warpriest replaces the PHB Strength Cleric.

Didn't I just read recently that they're going to be releasing new options for strength-based Clerics?

So, no, I don't think it does.

 

[Obryn]

But if you prefer: The existence of the Class Compendium basically proves that WotC is of the opinion that 'classic' 4e and Essentials are not as compatible as they'd like them to be.

Have you actually looked at the Class Compendium articles?

Because they have nothing to do with Essentials other than formatting.

Seems to me that the Warpriest replaces the PHB Strength Cleric.

Nope.

In point of fact, WotC's has a new article supporting them on the schedule for later this month.

-O

 

[Colmarr]

Didn't I just read recently that they're going to be releasing new options for strength-based Clerics?

So, no, I don't think it does.

Except that the announcement for that article begins with something along the lines of "you've spoken and we've listened."

Since Divine Power, the strength cleric has been almost completely abandoned. IIRC, something like 4 out of 16 cleric at-wills are strength-based. The Warpriest merely shovelled the last load of dirt on its grave. I have no doubt it was intended to replace the Str-cleric in it's niche of melee cleric.

Fortunately, the rewrite of the Cleric into the Templar seems to have served as a bit of a rallying point for all us masochistic Str-cleric players, and WotC have decided to do something about it. Relying on the article to show that WotC has been supporting the strength cleric, or that the Warpriest wasn't intended to replace it, is a bit rich.

Is the Str-cleric dead? With this new article, who knows. Maybe it's about to rise, zombie-like, from the grave.

Would it have been on WotC's radar if not for the recent outcry? I very much doubt it.

Will the Str cleric see as much future support as the Warpriest? On past form, you'd need to be delusional to think so.