Just how compatible is Essentials?

[MrMyth]

If, if if.

The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.

that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.

Again, just to be clear - I assume you had the same objection to Psionic Power, yes, since it relies upon PHB3 to be of use?

 

[MrGrenadine]

...HAS ANYONE IN THIS THREAD ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE IN-GAME WITH MIXING ESSENTIALS AND 'CLASSIC' 4E?

As of now, the arguments against it seem to boil down to "Gamers are too stupid to figure out that you can use Heroes of Shadow with the Players Handbook" and "I haven't tried it but I heard on the Internet that Essentials is like totally incompatible". We're on page jabillion of this thread, and not one person has had a problem from experience. Come on now- what does that tell you?

The problems might not necessarily show up in your game, because the places where 4e and 4e.E fail to mesh aren't so much systemic as specific, and depend upon combinations of campaign, characters, builds, feats, magic items and synergies between characters.

So bully for you if both classic and Essentials characters are living in your campaign in perfect harmony--I play in a campaign where both types of characters are used, too, with little difficulty--but the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it. My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.

Also, as someone may have mentioned upthread, the problems wouldn't necessarily appear in a campaign, because DMs can merely hand-wave any issues away. In fact, the incompatibilities and inconsistencies between 4e and 4e.E are more often revealed prior to that, in the character creation faze. Errata is slowing getting everything in line, but if you want to see where 4e and 4e.E aren't working well together, just watch the errata.

 

[Matt James]

I've never run into anyone who plays 4e that has had any issues of confusion when it comes to essentials and non-essentials products. Most of them log into the CB and just build a character, unaware of those products being "different". They log on, choose options, and move along.

I'm not accepting some of the responses here, only because I don't see it at all. This issue only seems to exist on the interwebs >_>

 

[Pentius]

The problems might not necessarily show up in your game, because the places where 4e and 4e.E fail to mesh aren't so much systemic as specific, and depend upon combinations of campaign, characters, builds, feats, magic items and synergies between characters.

So bully for you if both classic and Essentials characters are living in your campaign in perfect harmony--I play in a campaign where both types of characters are used, too, with little difficulty--but the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it. My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.

Also, as someone may have mentioned upthread, the problems wouldn't necessarily appear in a campaign, because DMs can merely hand-wave any issues away. In fact, the incompatibilities and inconsistencies between 4e and 4e.E are more often revealed prior to that, in the character creation faze. Errata is slowing getting everything in line, but if you want to see where 4e and 4e.E aren't working well together, just watch the errata.

Having DMs who choose not to mix essentials with older material is hardly a telling blow against the compatibility, though. Many DMs like to allow everything, but there are plenty that will happily restrict any number of materials, for any number or reasons, valid or not. In my day, I've seen DMs who won't allow one power source or another, because it 'doesn't fit the setting'. I've seen several place a blanket ban on Dragon magazine, for fear that it would 'break the game'. I've also seen DMs just ban any book they don't personally own.

A Dm who chooses to restrict materials at his table is the same as any other person with an opinion, the only difference is that he has control over what does or does not see play.

 

[Obryn]

the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it.

There doesn't need to be a compatibility issue for people to have preferences one way or the other. Simply liking or not-liking it is enough; running an E-only game has a different feel than a PHB1-only game, and in turn a different feel from a Kitchen Sink game.

My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.

I can honestly say that I haven't. I can't even imagine what sorts of adjustments I'd need to make. That's why folks are looking for concrete examples.

Also, as someone may have mentioned upthread, the problems wouldn't necessarily appear in a campaign, because DMs can merely hand-wave any issues away. In fact, the incompatibilities and inconsistencies between 4e and 4e.E are more often revealed prior to that, in the character creation faze. Errata is slowing getting everything in line, but if you want to see where 4e and 4e.E aren't working well together, just watch the errata.

Usually, errata is made for one main reason: Something new interacts with something old in an unexpected way that makes it overpowered or underpowered. So, for example, a change was made to saving throws as of PHB2 in order to make sure the Warden couldn't be penalized for making a start-of-turn saving throw. A change was made to the various ingredients of the Feycharger because they interacted in an unexpectedly overpowered way. Melee Training fits in with this general theme that's been around since the dawn of 4e.

If you want to consider that "Essentials incompatibility," that's your prerogative, I suppose, but changing old stuff to accommodate for new is neither unprecedented nor unexpected in 4e. The Heroes Of... books are no exceptions here. (In fact, I think it's remarkable that Melee Training was the only really broken bit deserving of a nerf.) Maybe I should start talking about "PHB2 incompatibility" now.

-O

 

[mneme]

Re not mentioning the PHB, DMG, and MM...that's pretty obvious.

PHB, DMG, and MM are no longer the core books of the system, as of Essentials. They -said- they wouldn't be the core books of the system, and they aren't. 90% + of the info in them is still totally pertintent, of course, but what Wizards did is what we in software development-land called a refactoring.

Prior to the Essentials material, the PHB classes were core; all other material was built on them and required PHB for a full gaming experience.

Post-essentials, post online Class Compendium, the Essentials material is core, the Compendium material builds upon it and extends it; the new books also build on it and are compatable with the Compendium materials.

So new materials don't mention the obsolete books, despite being technically compatible with them. Of course they don't mention obsolete books! They're obsolete! The -content- in the obsolete books is still valid, naturally, and still fits into the structure, but the Essentials material has been placed under it in the logical structure of the game.

So new players can be happy -- they can buy new, somewhat simpler materials that haven't been significantly eratted, and pull in more interesting, complicated options as their comfort allows.

Existing players can be happy -- all the classes and options they liked before are still in the game, and new options are still being printed for them. They're just not the core of the game any more; they're compatible with Essentials, and therefore compatable with new materials, rather than new materials being -directly- compatible with them.

And cranky players can be cranky; sorry, but since Wizards had a reason to release a new set of core rules (because they'd learned some things from the 4e release, and because, frankly, the game had undergone enough changes that it really needed a new rules document), they decided to also release a new structure, and since they're in the business of selling books (I hear), they decided to make that the entry point rather than the books that aren't in print any more. So it goes--but the game's still the same!

 

[the Jester]

So new materials don't mention the obsolete books, despite being technically compatible with them. Of course they don't mention obsolete books! They're obsolete! The -content- in the obsolete books is still valid, naturally, and still fits into the structure, but the Essentials material has been placed under it in the logical structure of the game.

What exactly do you think obsolete means?

Would you characterize Martial Power as obsolete under this definition? What about Monster Manual 3?

 

[Colmarr]

So, for example, a change was made to saving throws as of PHB2 in order to make sure the Warden couldn't be penalized for making a start-of-turn saving throw... Melee Training fits in with this general theme that's been around since the dawn of 4e.

Not to quarrel with your 'theme' argument (which I note and agree with), but I don't recall the warden even being mentioned in the discussions at the time about the changes to out-of-turn saving throws.

IIRC, the concern was actually that it could be a very bad idea for leaders to grant saving throws to their allies, which is obviously counter-intuitive.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Actually _I_ don't consider 3.0 and 3.5 to be different editions. The version numbers already indicate this: 3.5 is an update on 3.0.

I'd even argue that 1e and 2e were so similar to each other they might as well be called a single edition. Just like we played with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 sources in my 3e campaign, we played with a mix of 1e and 2e sources in my 2e campaign.

QFT. My middle school DM used the AD&D 1E monster manual for 2E and we had a blast! He couldn't afford the shiny new product so he got the MM from a garage sale for a dollar. Before I moved another friend bought a 3.0 PHB we got to use for like 4 games. I'd never make him shell for a 3.5 PHB if we played again.

I'm looking at the 3.5 changes and they address things like how many skill points a class gets. Those balance of power issues are petty compared to the overall power difference between the wizard and barbarian at level 1. The skill point allotment can easily be overshadowed by a lucky or unlucky roll for ability scores. It concerns issues like how damage reduction works - I don't know if any of my DMs in high school even understood damage reduction.

I guess in the old AD&D days when the rules were more convoluted we just ignored them and made up stuff. I live in a college town where most players are casual, don't obsess over small rules changes and can't afford minor updates to books. I would argue such details don't really enhance gameplay.

So I mix 4e, essentials, and even the new Gamma World (GW only if it feels right...). Hell, in a super-goofy game I'd have a wizard PC team up with a radioactive hawkoid PC. I mix 3e, 3.5, and PF (I'd give the 3rd characters a bump if playing with Pathfinder pcs). I mix 1e, 2e, BECMI and Castles and Crusades and LOVE it (although this is a bit harder, particularly on the player end). I may run the 3.0 Freeport modules in C&C and just bring the monsters down to whatever feels right. I'd even be willing to run a 3.0 module in 4E. I sort of feel that "winging it" might be less trouble than downloading a conversion.

So in conclusion:
- Small tweaks or updates in rules don't make or break a game. Paying too much attention to rules does. Players should be opening the books as little as possible anyway. If there is a balance issue or flaw houserule it.
- This is an expensive hobby and most folks I know don't have a lot of extra cash. If they invest in gaming supplies I want them to get as much milage out of their investment as possible.

 

[mneme]

What exactly do you think obsolete means?

Would you characterize Martial Power as obsolete under this definition? What about Monster Manual 3?

A quick google lookup produces this definition, which fits what I'm using very well:

Adjective: No longer produced or used; out of date.

That describes much of PH1 (and MM1, and much of DMG) to a T. They aren't produced, and they are out of date (and have been or are intended to be replaced; in PH1's case by a combination of Class Compendium and Rules Compendium).

They are still used, but for character creation at 1st level, there's no need to; RC + CC does a much better job (at least once CC is complete) due to incorporating the latest updates.

(a big missing piece, of course, is the items and ritual section of PH1, which are only obseleted by the online rules).

Martial Power is obsalescent. It's no longer produced, but it's still available, and its contents are irreplacable (except via DDI). I'd expect that Wizards will want to produce the content in an Essentials-forward form at some point just to have a coherent product line and system, just like they did Class Compendium. Whether they can afford to, is, naturally, another question.