Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Just wondering, but when will criticisms of 4e stop being referred to as "whining" or "gnashing of teeth" or whatever?

As someone who used "gnashing of teeth" upthread, what would you like me to call it when thread after thread after thread appears about the incompatability of Essentials products? "Gnashing of teeth" is defined as showing anger. If the people starting these multitudes of threads are not angry then I would welcome a better term to use. At any rate, I did not think that gnashing of teeth had the negative connotation that whining does, so I apologize if my colorful term for "anger" upset anyone.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Now when I say having trouble being compatible I don't mean from all aspects. Technically, 3.0 and 3.5 could be played together but I wouldn't exactly call them compatible.

Pre-E and Essentials are a lot like 3.0 and 3.5. Sure your 3.0 Ranger could play in the same party perfectly, but he isn't going to have the amount of options that the 3.5 Ranger has.

Changes had to be made to Pre-E material in order for it play nice with Essentials material. Melee Training anyone? There is actually an article about the changes that were made in order for the two to mesh together a bit better and as soon as I find it I will post it.

We had a Pre-E fighter that was looking at some of the Knight's stances and the Slayer's stances and since they were technically "fighters" he thought he could take them, but I told him he could not.

What I have been seeing of a good many powers is that, yes they can be taken by certain classes but the effects that it has for that class makes it not worth taking and is better suited for the class that it was made for.

Take Power Strike for instance. Sure a Pre-E Fighter can use it, but he would be better off taking a Pre-E Fighter Encounter Power because Power Strike is for Melee Basic Attacks.

 

[Dannager]

I fully agree with the OP that Essentials is to 4e what 3.5 was to 3e.

The argument that this is not so because they are compatable, where 3e/3.5 are not, is a non-starter, because it is supremely easy to use 3e and 3.5 materials together.

There is a difference between two things being compatible with one another, and two things being very easy to convert between one another. Essentials is a set of 4e supplements. There is no way to argue against this. They use the 4e rules, and present new options for characters playing in 4e games.

3.5 is not a set of 3.0 supplements. 3.5 does not use the 3.0 rules, and instead of presenting new options for characters playing in 3.0 games, it reprints the 3.0 options in order to make them compatible with the new 3.5 rules.

 

[Dannager]

Compatible? Yes. A good idea to mix? Not really.

Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters. While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins. At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.

This is a problem with your players deciding to play characters that do not suit them well.

This is no different than if one of those players was playing a PHB Fighter and became jealous of the flexibility of a PHB 3 Psion.

The fact that your players have chosen to play characters that do not suit them well has absolutely zero reflection on whether or not Essentials and non-Essentials characters ought to be played in the same game. As many, many people have pointed out in this thread, there are no mechanical issues that arise when the two different sorts of characters are in the same game.

 

[MerricB]

Compatible? Yes. A good idea to mix? Not really.

Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters. While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins. At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.

They should change characters immediately, but you should understand that the reason that they don't like their characters is because they chose poorly - characters that didn't suit their play style - rather than it being a flaw with Essentials.

We have the converse in our group: one player was playing a PHB Rogue, and absolutely hating the mechanical complexity of it. She's far more of a roleplayer and when it comes to combat, rolling dice and adding up damage is about as far as she wants to go. When Essentials came out, we converted her character over to the HotFL Thief, and she has been extremely happy and effective ever since.

This is in a group that also consists of an Kalashtar Ardent, a Dragonborn Sorcerer, a Deva Avenger and a Warforged Barbarian. The rest of the group tends to the higher complexity classes and chose accordingly.

(It's a hilarious group - 4 strikers and 1 leader - our opponents go down quickly, and so do we!)

In AD&D, there was a world of difference in complexity between the fighter and the magic-user. One of my chief complaints with 4E was that there wasn't really an "easy" option for players, especially with regards to the fighter. With Essentials, we have that option.

 

[shamsael]

Except, you know, essentials isn't simpler. Some classes are simpler. But the mage is more complex than anything in PHB1 structurally (spell book encounters), though the PHB1 fighter is a bit more complex in play (due to their two interrupt mechanics).

It's not about Essentials being simpler, it's about PHB1 containing rules that have since been heavily erratad.

 

[Argyle King]

It's not about Essentials being simpler, it's about PHB1 containing rules that have since been heavily erratad.

I think I can buy into that idea.

I've started to realize that -as someone who has neither DDi nor owns any Essential books of my own- I am unsure if I still know how to play 4E. I do play with a group every weekend, and I do fine there where we're all on the same page when it comes to the rules. However, I don't believe I would be able to sit down at a table with a group using the new rules and have a good idea of how things were supposed to work. Even on here, when I participate in conversations about 4E, I find more and more that I no longer know the game.

As for being simple or being an 'easy' option, I disagree. I felt that 4E was already pretty simple and easy; I'm not convinced that the layout of Essentials conveys game information better - even if I were to accept that the classes are simpler. I believe I would have had a harder time getting into 4th Edition with Essentials* than I did with the first three books. Different people learn differently; I accept that, but I'm of the impression that I'm not the only person who feels the Essentials layout leaves a little to be desired.

Now days, when I tell people I can make a character by hand, they look at me as though I must have some kind of super power.


*While I own none of the Essential products, I do have access to them via friends.

 

[Kzach]

I've played in several different groups now with using the Character Builder as the be all and end all of rules and it has worked out just fine. Anyone who says they're not incompatible is creating problems where there simply are none.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Actually, it is. If you're a new RPG player without an existing group guiding your choice then the choice is clearly the Red Box.

Great point! The problem for me is that I think the Red Box is such poor quality that I'd never recommend it to a new player. YMMV.

 

[Saracenus]

I think I can buy into that idea.

I've started to realize that -as someone who has neither DDi nor owns any Essential books of my own- I am unsure if I still know how to play 4E. I do play with a group every weekend, and I do fine there where we're all on the same page when it comes to the rules. However, I don't believe I would be able to sit down at a table with a group using the new rules and have a good idea of how things were supposed to work. Even on here, when I participate in conversations about 4E, I find more and more that I no longer know the game.

Actually, the core rules of the game that your powers, feats and race/class abilities modify haven't changed all that much. If you want a concise set of rules I highly recommend the rules compendium (RC). While the RC has the Essentials brand it really is useful for any 4e player and DM.

Where playing only from the printed books from 4e first wave gets really wonky is the errata to the powers, feats and race/class abilities of PH1 and PH2 (plus all the splat books).

If you are going to only use printed material then the free errata updates can bring your PCs up to date (if that is what you want, plenty of folks have ignored errata through out all editions).

As for being simple or being an 'easy' option, I disagree. I felt that 4E was already pretty simple and easy; I'm not convinced that the layout of Essentials conveys game information better - even if I were to accept that the classes are simpler. I believe I would have had a harder time getting into 4th Edition with Essentials* than I did with the first three books. Different people learn differently; I accept that, but I'm of the impression that I'm not the only person who feels the Essentials layout leaves a little to be desired.

Now days, when I tell people I can make a character by hand, they look at me as though I must have some kind of super power.

*While I own none of the Essential products, I do have access to them via friends.

I will say this is really a point of entry issue. When I finally converted over to 4e from 3.5 I had a really hard time groking the way things were laid out (I remember asking WTF [W] meant until I got half way through the PHB). I adjusted and then it was fine.

Essentials is much easier to grok for a new player or one coming from an earlier edition. It marches straight through the process of making a character. It took me a while to get used to the info being rearranged again.

I will tell you this, I would rather hand create an essentials PC than try and make a PH1-3 PC with full access to online and splat book material. I get paralyzed by all the choices. I would only build those PCs using the CB.

NOTE: If you can create a PC by hand with full options available for first wave 4e, then yes you have a superpower (Psionic).

My two coppers,