Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Matt James]

What are people seeing that's different systematically? They are compatible products. I often have one or two players using builds from essentials and three to four using classic (so-to-speak). I have not seen a new, foreign mechanic, or something that makes meshing them difficult.

Don't read this reply as being defensive. I'm honestly trying to figure it out as several people have said it, albeit without examples.

 

[OnlineDM]

I find them just as compatible as anything from any splat books, and they've meshed just fine at my tables.

The simplified classes from Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms (which, to be clear, is a subset of those classes - they're not all simple) are not going to be everyone's cup of tea (I've had at least one player try one of those classes and then abandon it for a different class), but I have no problem with their existence. They work just fine at the table with other classes.

 

[nogray]

Nogray, in your experience, how well does it work out when one character mixes Essentials elements with the old elements? For example, let's say a Thief decided to take the daggermaster PP.

In that specific example, not too well. Others may have mentioned it in the meanwhile, but the Thief gains relatively little benefit from Daggermaster, as the biggest benefit from that PP (the expanded crit range on the dagger) applies to only Rogue and Daggermaster powers. The MBA that the Thief uses is not one of those.

In other cases, they mesh better. Of the PHB1, MP, and MP2 rogue PPs, I found only Red Cloak (the PP works okay, but the prerequisite feat, not so much) and Strongarm Enforcer (lacking a way to get the Rattling keyword on most of their attacks -- which might be correctable by feats) that seem to have conflicts between their mechanics and that of the Thief subclass.

It really seems to be no different than mixing different builds together, though. Just watch for the interactions of the abilities, like you would for anything else.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The comparison between essentials and 3.5 is unfair. 3.5 changed fundamental aspects of the system which would make it impossible for a table to contain players using both 3rd and 3.5:

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


RC

 

[Zaran]

I think the issue is that Essentials is designed to be playable without needing Core rulebooks. The designers wanted it be more like older editions with less power choices, more static modifiers and abilities gained over time. And while these new designs are balanced with the old, they are not easily interchangable (According to WotC, an Arcanist needs to spend 3 feats to master a school in place of their Implment Mastery).

My idea of compatibility would be able to share class features and this can't be done for the most part. So I would say "Comparable" instead.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So compatible that I would hazard a guess that if WotC hadn't labelled the books "Essentials" and instead released the very same material in PH4, there would be a lot less gnashing of internet teeth. The gnashing wouldn't be non-existent, someone will always dislike a new class. But speculation aside, the main points people seem to bring up are akin to the Thief and the Daggermaster. HOW DARE THEY MAKE IT SO THAT ALL OPTIONS AREN'T OPTIMAL FOR YOUR CHARACTER CHOICE! Luckily your Thief will excel at different times, like when the Bard is in the party...

 

[Herschel]

They are completely compatible. There's a couple of questions one should ask when deciding which route to go:

1. Do you enjoy the deeper tactical intricacies of the combat side of the game?

2. Would you rather fiddle and tinker with your character's powers and abilities rather than more of a just grab-n-go character?

If the answer is no, the Essentials is the better coice, if it's yes, go original classes.

 

[the Jester]

I don't know this for a fact, but I'll assert it anyway: all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about mixing "classic" and Essentials material pretty much comes from people who haven't actually tried it.

I cannot imagine someone that has tried it actually having an issue with it, though I could be wrong.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My idea of compatibility would be able to share class features and this can't be done for the most part. So I would say "Comparable" instead.

Apparently the PHB and PHB 2 aren't compatable. Who knew?

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

Perhaps I missed it up thread, but is there an instance where Raven Crowking explains why he believes there to be such incompatibility other than some feats and options becoming obsolete? I am playing in a mostly essentials game currently, but there are two players who are pre-essentials and we are experiencing not the slightest speed bumps.

And this is an experienced table clocking in thousands of hours of 4e. Perhaps we are less on the power-game end of the spectrum though. As Jester and others have said, the methods which the players use to deal damage or move around the battlefield is somewhat irrelevant out of the context of the game. I do not personally think they are unbalanced, simply a different interpretation or branch of the core trunk of the 4e system tree.