Just how compatible is Essentials?

[DracoSuave]

3.5 was a complete rewrite of the game, with the same classes and spells etc as 3.0, replacing them.

Essentials is a change in design philosophy for classes, with new subclasses, none of which replace the old classes.

Yeah, totally the same thing.

 

[the Jester]

I'm still waiting for someone that has actually mixed them to explain the problems they've had, other than Osgood's "my players chose poorly in making characters" complaint- which could happen just as easily with a player making a fighter and then discovering that he'd really rather play a more damage-oriented barbarian (or slayer!).

Unless I'm mistaken, everyone else that has mixed and matched seems to have a fine time with it.

So, yes, wailing and gnashing of teeth and whinging. I'll stop characterizing it that way when it appears that the people doing the wailing and gnashing and whinging have actually tried what they are complaining about instead of just complaining about it online.

If you have actually tried it, I don't consider you to be wailing, gnashing and whinging. You have room to talk about it. In fact, please do: explain any problems that you've actually had in play.

I have seen none at all, and from the posts in this thread, that seems to be the common experience of almost everyone who has, if you'll pardon the expression, done the research.

 

[Kzach]

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

I'm not sure if I should be sad or happy that I can do this. I spend an inordinate amount of time making up characters so I generally have a fairly good grasp on what powers and builds are decent and can, for the most part, remember them... well... at least at 1st-level I can. Once a character starts getting past about 5th I couldn't create one of those at the table without any books.

 

[Argyle King]

3.5 was a complete rewrite of the game, with the same classes and spells etc as 3.0, replacing them.

Essentials is a change in design philosophy for classes, with new subclasses, none of which replace the old classes.

Yeah, totally the same thing.

There are 3rd Edition books which were never fully updated. Most of them can still be used in a 3.5 game with only minor adjustments.

IMO, Monster Manual 2 was/is probably the hardest to update. A lot of changes to the game which at first glance had a pretty powerful impact (for good or for ill) on the CRs of 3.0 creatures.

I'm not sure if I should be sad or happy that I can do this. I spend an inordinate amount of time making up characters so I generally have a fairly good grasp on what powers and builds are decent and can, for the most part, remember them... well... at least at 1st-level I can. Once a character starts getting past about 5th I couldn't create one of those at the table without any books.

At higher levels, I usually use the DMG1 to help me out. I can't remember the page number off the top of my head, but there's a page which shows how many of each power (encounter, utility, etc) a character of a given level should have. The same chart also notes what level each of those powers should be.

What I usually do is just write the level numbers (or 'PP' for paragon path) beside (to the left of) the corresponding power spaces on the back of my character sheet. Then I just go through and pick powers of those levels; fill in the blanks. If there's one I'm not 100% sure on, I usually put some sort of mark next to it to remind me to come back and look at it again later once my character sheet is finished.

 

[Obryn]

There are 3rd Edition books which were never fully updated. Most of them can still be used in a 3.5 game with only minor adjustments.

There were some, but only a handful. Yeah, MM2 is one of them. Manual of the Planes is another (though the 3.5 players' version of it trod much of the same ground.) Apart from MM2, most of the books that weren't re-released were either niche products (Ghostwalk) or mostly flavor text (Living Greyhawk Gazeteer). The lion's share, including all popular books, were re-released, though, including all player-centric books (either in the Complete series or stuff like the Expanded Psionics Handbook).

One of the main differences I see is that I'd never, ever consider the 3.5 PHB a "supplement" for the 3.0 PHB. They were not designed to be used at the same table with one another, and there's zero value added from doing so. Ditto, two books like Sword and Fist vs. Complete Warrior. On the other hand, Essentials was designed both as a supplement and as a new starting point for beginners; I think adding the HotFx books to my PHB is pretty awesome.

WotC was very, very clear that 3.5 was a new edition. I tend to take the publisher's word for this sort of thing because it's the only metric that really makes sense across the entire RPG hobby. The player base was extremely clear about the divide, too - the edition change was one of the main driving forces behind the collapse of 3e's third party publisher market.

-O

 

[Obryn]

I'm not sure if I should be sad or happy that I can do this. I spend an inordinate amount of time making up characters so I generally have a fairly good grasp on what powers and builds are decent and can, for the most part, remember them... well... at least at 1st-level I can. Once a character starts getting past about 5th I couldn't create one of those at the table without any books.

It's honestly not bad at all if you limit your sourcebooks to, say, the PHB and the X Power book for your class.

Much like in 3e, once you add in Dragon content, the work required expands dramatically if you're not using good databases (like 4e's Character Builder, or 3.5's HeroForge).

-O

 

[malraux]

I'm still waiting for someone that has actually mixed them to explain the problems they've had, other than Osgood's "my players chose poorly in making characters" complaint- which could happen just as easily with a player making a fighter and then discovering that he'd really rather play a more damage-oriented barbarian (or slayer!).

Unless I'm mistaken, everyone else that has mixed and matched seems to have a fine time with it.

My only experience with DMing a mixed group was that there wasn't much problem mixing the two. Now, my campaign ended right after that, so I didn't see multiple levels, but what I saw was pretty much everything worked. There were a few comments that the martial essentials were a lot less complex and might end up being boring, but that's a player's choice, not a class problem.

 

[Argyle King]

There were some, but only a handful. Yeah, MM2 is one of them. Manual of the Planes is another (though the 3.5 players' version of it trod much of the same ground.) Apart from MM2, most of the books that weren't re-released were either niche products (Ghostwalk) or mostly flavor text (Living Greyhawk Gazeteer). The lion's share, including all popular books, were re-released, though, including all player-centric books (either in the Complete series or stuff like the Expanded Psionics Handbook).

One of the main differences I see is that I'd never, ever consider the 3.5 PHB a "supplement" for the 3.0 PHB. They were not designed to be used at the same table with one another, and there's zero value added from doing so. Ditto, two books like Sword and Fist vs. Complete Warrior. On the other hand, Essentials was designed both as a supplement and as a new starting point for beginners; I think adding the HotFx books to my PHB is pretty awesome.

WotC was very, very clear that 3.5 was a new edition. I tend to take the publisher's word for this sort of thing because it's the only metric that really makes sense across the entire RPG hobby. The player base was extremely clear about the divide, too - the edition change was one of the main driving forces behind the collapse of 3e's third party publisher market.

-O

I would never argue that Essentials and 3.5 were intended for the same thing. Neither would I argue that 3.5 was not a new edition.

However, to some extent, I can see the comparison between the new direction of Essentials and 3.5. I just think the change is less drastic and less noticeable with Essentials because it's been a gradual change from PHB1 to PHB 2 to PHB 3 to Essentials rather than a sudden shift, and the old stuff has been gradually been given errata to keep things working. If there were someone who had only the first 3 books and then picked up one of the Essentials books without knowing about anything in between, I imagine the change would be more noticeable.

Admittedly, I am far less experienced with Essentials than I ever was with 3.0 or 3.5, but I think there arise some similar problems. One of those similar problems being that -while mostly compatible- there are a few edge cases in which the combination of elements works a little differently than I imagine (I can only assume) they were originally meant to.

Examples which come to mind include some of the leader powers which grant basic attacks. A Bard using Increase The Tempo to grant his Essentials buddy 4 basic attacks as a free action tends to be a little stronger than it otherwise would be. I wouldn't say it's broken; just that it changes the power level of the ability IMO.

As someone who loves to multiclass (in many cases Paragon MCing,) there are a few Essentials classes which I'm unsure how to MC with. I'm of the understanding there is playtesting going on in regards to this right now. I'm somewhat anxious to see the end result.

I wouldn't say any of those are huge issues. Most can probably be figured out with a little thought and some DM fiat. However, those are things I notice.

 

[Obryn]

Examples which come to mind include some of the leader powers which grant basic attacks. A Bard using Increase The Tempo to grant his Essentials buddy 4 basic attacks as a free action tends to be a little stronger than it otherwise would be. I wouldn't say it's broken; just that it changes the power level of the ability IMO.

It does become more useful, true. But it's still within the scale of reasonableness. Something like Commander's Strike is useless if you have no characters with melee MBAs. It's useful if you have a Fighter or Paladin. It's awesome with a Slayer.

As someone who loves to multiclass (in many cases Paragon MCing,) there are a few Essentials classes which I'm unsure how to MC with. I'm of the understanding there is playtesting going on in regards to this right now. I'm somewhat anxious to see the end result.

Yeah, a collection of Hybrids and Multiclass feats was recently released. It's pretty great, honestly, and has some of the most interesting crunch that's been released in months. There's a few classes missing - notably the Basic-Attacking guys, who will probably never hybrid well - but everything else is out there. Hybrid Sentinels are arguably too strong, and Hybrid Binders ... well, best not to talk about Binders at all, really. They're sadly the worst class in 4e. Hybrid-ing them may make them a tad more viable.

-O

 

[Argyle King]

It's sad to hear that 4E Binders are considered to be so poor. Binder was one of my favorite alternative 3E classes.


Do the 'basic attack guys' have multiclass feats? I could live without the hybrid options for them if need be.