Just how compatible is Essentials?

[Obryn]

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.

The Vestige Pact Warlock fits the 3.5 Binder pretty well. The Heroes of Shadow Binder is mostly just a gimpy Warlock.

There are feats that let classes poach bits from related subclasses. These range from pretty lame (nuke a Fighter Encounter power to get Power Strike) to awesome (trade a Ranger At-Will for something like Clever Shot). There's no specific Multiclass feat for, for instance, Knight or Thief, though honestly the existing multiclass feats fit the bill pretty well, there.

-O

 

[mneme]

Re binder: I think the Binder basically needs three things to be more than "a warlock, but worse".

1. They need a full controller at will. To be fair, one of the Binder builds actually has one of these.

2. They need encounter/daily control options that compete with other controller encounter/daily options, and that are significiantly better than the controller encounter/daily options already available to other warlocks (via build benefits, presumably). I take it this just didn't materialize?

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.

There were very few classes with significant changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly it boiled down to reducing the frontloaded nature of many classes to discourage one-level-dips. I think the ranger was about the only class that changed significantly.

We played 3e using a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 rules for quite a while without significant problems. The most problematic was probably the introduction of weapon sizes.

If you compare Essentials with classic 4e (before the application of all the rules updates) there are probably just as many changes as from 3.0 to 3.5.

The reason why Essentials is 'almost' compatible with classic 4e is the gradual changes introduced by rules updates.

Before Essentials builds were entirely optional and you could mix and match powers in whatever way you wanted. You can't play an Essentials class without using an Essentials build and you cannot freely pick powers from classic builds and Essential builds.

 

[Vael]

I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.

There were very few classes with significant changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly it boiled down to reducing the frontloaded nature of many classes to discourage one-level-dips. I think the ranger was about the only class that changed significantly.

A Document of the changes: D&D v.3.5 Accessory Update Booklet

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.

3.5 changed some underlying mechanics that Essentials did not. Skills were changed. Gone are Innuendo, Read Lips, Scry and Know Direction.

This isn't to say you couldn't try and use both, I remember the last 3.5 campaign I played in, and one player wanted to use a 3.0 prestige class, the Lasher, that, to my knowledge, had not been ported over to 3.5.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds..

Oh no, I went and grabbed the 3.5 book and looked and saw that it wasn't some alternate build, some alternate class in everything but name only, but was actually attempting to completely rewrite the classes. Essentials just presents new subclasses that might as well be new classes, but can use some of the resources of other classes.

The 3.5 Ranger was a complete remake of the ranger, and was meant ENTIRELY to replace the ranger from then on. 3.0 and 3.5 rangers weren't meant to co-exist.

Essentials' ranger subclasses aren't meant to replace the PHB ranger. They're meant to be a different way to ranger, but can co-exist with the old ranger. Same with the warpriest, the mage, the slayer, the cavalier...

That's why they can reprint the old classes. You could make the argument that Class Compendium is 4.5. But not Essentials itself.

Essentials isn't meant to -replace- your PHB. It's meant as a new entry point in the game, and a new design philosophy for future character classes. It's not meant to be an eraser that rubs out old versions of the class.

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.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Yep, and essentially(!) there's nothing that would have kept you from having both a 3.0 ranger and a 3.5 ranger in the same game.

It's true that there were some minor changes to skills, but the conversion document explained which skills were rolled into others, so it wasn't difficult to deal with characters having one or the other skillset.

This isn't to say you couldn't try and use both, I remember the last 3.5 campaign I played in, and one player wanted to use a 3.0 prestige class, the Lasher, that, to my knowledge, had not been ported over to 3.5.

Huh?! Have you been in my campaign?

Even after I had switched everything else to 3.5, I allowed my fighter player to take the lasher prestige class (although I later regretted it, since he turned out to be quite overpowered in the end). I decided on a case-by-case basis what I allowed and what I didn't allow, e.g. when one player wanted to take a feat from the Neverwinter Nights CRPG that didn't exist in the pen & paper rules, I allowed it.

Anyway, my point is: Essentials is just about as compatible with classic 4e as 3.5 was with 3.0, it's just been marketed differently (or to use your words: the 'intention' behind the changes is different).

I've seen comments from players on this forum who stated that they decided to change their games into 'Essentials only' games. I.e. they decided to go against the 'intention' by making the Essentials classes supersede the 'classic' classes.

Likewise there are groups (including mine) who decided not to allow any of the Essential classes. Since every new product release for 4e is going to be 'Essentialized' that's likely to change eventually, but for the moment that's what we (or rather our DMs) decided.

 

[DracoSuave]

Anyway, my point is: Essentials is just about as compatible with classic 4e as 3.5 was with 3.0, it's just been marketed differently (or to use your words: the 'intention' behind the changes is different).

True, except, of course, for the fact that 3.5 is a revised 3rd edition and was meant and intended to absolutely restart and replace previously printed materials.. whereas Essentials is a different starting point that suppliments, but does not replace old classes, nor is it intended to.

I mean, yeah, except for the intent to supercede old classes, they're totally the same. Except for that major GLARING difference of the essentials stuff being entirely new content, rather than replacements for old content.

Hate to say this, but that 'it's new stuff' thing is the big difference between the two. The slayer is not the old fighter updated... it's a new class. The thief isn't the rogue updated... it's a new class. The bard in 3.5 isn't a new class... it's a revision designed to try to fix the bard's problems.

The difference is in class design philosophy allowing for greater variation in classes. That's it. It's a change in future design. It's not 'kinda compatible.' There's no 'conversion document.' If people choose to limit to one or the other, whatever. That's not evidence to the -fact- of essentials being some mythical new edition, it's existance of the perception.

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.

 

[Zaran]

I don't mind the formatting of Essentials and how the classes are set up. But what I don't like is for my power choices to be made for me. Even the most ignorant of players will eventually learn the game enough to be able to make choices in character development. The draw for me with 4e was the fact that I could make a character that was different from next.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.

There were very few classes with significant changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly it boiled down to reducing the frontloaded nature of many classes to discourage one-level-dips. I think the ranger was about the only class that changed significantly.

Bard. And the thing is that the PHB classes haven't changed with Essentials. A Slayer is not a PHB fighter. A Slayer is a Slayer. And is more like an AD&D fighter than he is like a PHB fighter.

Before Essentials builds were entirely optional and you could mix and match powers in whatever way you wanted. You can't play an Essentials class without using an Essentials build and you cannot freely pick powers from classic builds and Essential builds.

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.

I don't mind the formatting of Essentials and how the classes are set up. But what I don't like is for my power choices to be made for me. Even the most ignorant of players will eventually learn the game enough to be able to make choices in character development. The draw for me with 4e was the fact that I could make a character that was different from next.

You still can. Just stay away from new Essentials classes.

What I really don't get is your objection here. There are people who like detailed customisation (as you and I do). And there are people who do not. There are three entire PHBs for people like you and me. Why don't you want people who like playing differently to you to have classes they can get on with? Is it because they have Badwrongfun? Or is it because you think they will force you to play their classes. Or what? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Zaran]

What I really don't get is your objection here. There are people who like detailed customisation (as you and I do). And there are people who do not. There are three entire PHBs for people like you and me. Why don't you want people who like playing differently to you to have classes they can get on with? Is it because they have Badwrongfun? Or is it because you think they will force you to play their classes. Or what? I'm not seeing it.

What if I want to play a vampire (I don't) or one of the new classes from the Feywild book? Or a Shugenja? If these classes are all pre-made little choice cookie cutter builds then I'm not going to be interested.

Telling me that I have all the pre-essentials books to pull from is like telling me I can just play an older edition. Having books for beginners is one thing, but like many other players, I want more options in future products.