Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 5597311" data-attributes="member: 1210">You make a good point; but why is the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happening now? Where was it when Martial Power came out, which introduced a buttload of beastmaster ranger powers that were absolutely useless to anyone in the Players Handbook?Saying that there isn't 100% transferable compatibility is nothing new. As Merric pointed out, it goes back to the Players Handbook itself. The differences are easier to spot and more notable with the Essentials stuff, sure; but it's the same thing. Interestingly, I don't recall anyone complaining when the 1e Oriental Adventures came out that it represented an incompatible new half-edition or anything like that. Yet it introduced new classes and spells and systems. Nor do I recall anyone complaining when new classes and spells and systems incompatible with the rest of 2e came out. Nor do I recall it when 3e released new base classes that weren't compatible with the 3e PH in the Complete series. So why now? If the argument being made by a lot of people (none of whom appear to have actually tried using 4e and 4E, if you will, together) is simply &quot;I can't always use all the Essentials stuff and PH stuff together in the same character,&quot; then yes, I'll grant that without any hesitation. But it doesn't seem to be; it smells like the argument generally boils down to &quot;Essentials is 4.5 and now my old books are useless, oh noes!!1!&quot; Which is as false as saying that there is 100% transferability between Essentials and 'classic' 4e. Now in fact, there are a lot of different strands to the overall debate here, and that's not what everyone is arguing- certainly doesn't sound like what you are arguing- but it seems like a common attitude amongst those on the &quot;Incompatible&quot; side of the argument. And the other common element is that none of them have tried it. Or if they have, they aren't offering any of their experiences with it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 5597311, member: 1210"] You make a good point; but why is the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happening now? Where was it when Martial Power came out, which introduced a buttload of beastmaster ranger powers that were absolutely useless to anyone in the Players Handbook? Saying that there isn't 100% transferable compatibility is nothing new. As Merric pointed out, it goes back to the Players Handbook itself. The differences are easier to spot and more notable with the Essentials stuff, sure; but [i]it's the same thing.[/i] Interestingly, I don't recall anyone complaining when the 1e Oriental Adventures came out that it represented an incompatible new half-edition or anything like that. Yet it introduced new classes and spells and systems. Nor do I recall anyone complaining when new classes and spells and systems incompatible with the rest of 2e came out. Nor do I recall it when 3e released new base classes that weren't compatible with the 3e PH in the Complete series. So why now? If the argument being made by a lot of people (none of whom appear to have actually tried using 4e and 4E, if you will, together) is simply "I can't always use all the Essentials stuff and PH stuff together in the same character," then yes, I'll grant that without any hesitation. But it doesn't seem to be; it [I]smells like[/I] the argument generally boils down to "Essentials is 4.5 and now my old books are useless, oh noes!!1!" Which is as false as saying that there is 100% transferability between Essentials and 'classic' 4e. Now in fact, there are a lot of different strands to the overall debate here, and that's not what everyone is arguing- certainly doesn't sound like what you are arguing- but it seems like a common attitude amongst those on the "Incompatible" side of the argument. And the other common element is that [i]none of them have tried it.[/i] Or if they have, they aren't offering any of their experiences with it. [/QUOTE]

Verification