D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
4e-Essentials (4.5e): different editions of the same game
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
I realize it can be done, but why would you do it is the bigger question. It seems to me this is a really odd thing to be discussing.
Because some people would appreciate the option, and it's not hurting the people who don't care to have the option available.

To be clear, it's not an option I would likely ever use myself, but it's clearly something some people would like to have. And like I said, it would cost the company almost nothing to do. If Schwalb Entertainment (a one-man operation) can do it, I'm certain Hasbro can figure it out.
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
I was a big fan of 4E, and I distinctly remember there being a ton of confusion about this at the time. In hindsight, yeah, it was a bunch of fully compatible options to expand the base game (similar to Bo9S), but at the time, I put off buying them for months because I couldn't figure out if they were a new .5 edition that would require work to integrate at my table. Sadly, they're similar to Bo9S in another way, in that they were one of my favorite sets to come out for their respective editions, but I got into them too late to ever really use them.
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip
1D&D hasn't exactly been greeted enthusiastically either.
Really? More people have downloaded the playtest documents in the first few months than in the entire D&D Next playtest. The surveys are getting something like 40 THOUSAND responses.

Or, to put it in more perspective:


In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting! 🧙‍♂️🎉

Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons! 💥🐉

I'm not really sure how much more enthusiastic we could actually be.
 

dave2008

Legend
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
I get what your saying, but I am trying to re-center what we call "edition." So through the life of 4e through errata and onto essentials there were significant revisions. They tweaked the math* on the player side and DM site throughout its run and completely revised how classes might be represented. This is why I went with 4.5e, though it could be 4.2 or 4.8 or whatever. The important part is the 4. Original 4e and essentials are both D&D 4.something. They are the same game; however, they represent changes. There were also many changes to 4e between the original 4e and essentials. These changes would also be considered "editions" of 4e for the purposes of my point.

*I will note the changes in the math to 4e over its run are more than what is currently being proposed for 5e (1D&D)
 

I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
Yes. You are totally correct. But people like to slab a lable on something they don't like to show their disdain. Facts come second if at all.

I agree, that essentials was just a compilation of the latest rules upgrades and alternate classes (with different names even so there is no confusion) and a different structure.

The problem was just, that there was no audience left, as it solidly stroke a middle ground between AEDU and classical or 5e class structure. And since it showed that players were mostly either pro or contra, you and I seemed to be the only people who loved essentials...

I still believe, if essentials came before classic 4e, we would have seen a lot less edition warring, as essentials catches the feel of classical D&D way better (at the cost of some balance*).

*allthough in practical play balance was still top notch (executioner, I look at you).
 


Oofta

Legend
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.

It took a entirely different approach to many of the classes. But trying to define these things (or correcting others) will never have a real answer. Was Skills and Powers D&D 2.25? 2.5? Essentials was along the same lines. Just a supplement? Who cares. The point is that 1E through all of 2E was basically the same game, modified. When 3.0 was released it a pretty dramatic departure in mechanics, style, and structure; 3.5 was an incremental change.

The only real difference I see is that Essentials and the aforementioned S&P is that Essentials could be used as it's own standalone game that didn't require the existing 4E material to play. It was likely more akin to what they would have released for 4E if it hadn't been pushed out the door before the dev team felt it was ready.
 

Retreater

Legend
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
I mean it wasn't just the new class options. They revised Skill Challenges, altered the monster math, etc. The game changed a bit between 4e's initial offerings, and pretty quickly.
And yes, you could still use later day 4e products with the first books, but "something" felt off.
 


And since it showed that players were mostly either pro or contra, you and I seemed to be the only people who loved essentials...

I still believe, if essentials came before classic 4e, we would have seen a lot less edition warring, as essentials catches the feel of classical D&D way better (at the cost of some balance*).

*allthough in practical play balance was still top notch (executioner, I look at you).
Hey, I liked Essentials! It solved a lot of problems that I had with 4th edition (in play, not in theory; theory was pretty sound). I actually ran a little bit of it for my then-7 year old.
 

mamba

Hero
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.
didn’t they provide new cleric/fighter/… classes in the essentials, thereby theoretically replacing the 4e ones (unless you let them exist side by side).

So essentials should be as much a departure from 4e as 1DD is from 5e, wherever you land on this

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
pretty sure I have seen that argument made
 

Dungeons & Dragons is a mathematical construct with a veneer of flavor. 2014 and 2024 are using the same framework, and the options are interoperable. Other than those mathematical compatibilities, there isn't anything else to even be compatible or not.
the math base is the same for 24 years... take d20 add the mod from a stat (take stat subtract ten and divide by 2) then add any proficiency you have (in 3e it was different skill ranks or base attack, in 4e it was 1/2 level or 1/2 level +2, in 5e it's the prof bonus) then maybe a magical bonus... roll high is better vs a DC

1e and 2e also had the same core math... but it was more case by case (roll low for stat/skill roll high for attack and save, roll low on a d10 for initiative and roll low on d% for some class skills)
 

Imaro

Legend
Would they even keep the pre-errata copies? I would imagine the old data files are just deleted, but I guess they could be archived. I still don't know that it would be "nice" if they offered them for sale. Seems more like a hassle if I want to by a 4e book and have to figure our which errata version I want to get.
The real questions is what percentage of their market would even care about this... I don't think it's significant enough to even justify the storage costs (and yes I realize they would be minimal).
 

Heck if I know: Michas hasn't made it clear what backwards compatibility even could be other than math.
if I can look at two copies of the same class and not need to change anything to make them work togather... so some minor tweeks would be one thing, but my go to example (and something I HAVE to play pre 2024) a mtn dwarf bard with a 2014 background needs to do as much to remake the character as someone has to do if they showed up with NO character... I guess the stats can stay the same, but your class is completely different (different way of casting, different spells you can even know, and different way your main class feature works) your race no longer gives you stat mods... and the NEW stat mods from background are not able to be made into the races +2 str +2 con. You get a feat you now need to pick, and you lost your background feature. If you picked your background FOR that feature (not unheard of) you might just pick a new one entirely.

I will raise that, if I have my 2014 PHB and get hit with a condition I can't use the book to look it up... there is no slow condition and exhaustion is completely different.
 


the sales suggest that they are far from alone
no it doesn't...

5e grew in a huge boom when D&D got brought back into the zeitgeist of popular culture... there is no reason to believe that exact same boom would not have happened if the rules of 2e, 3e, or 4e were in place when the pop culture thing happened.
 


1e -2e: Different editions of the same game
3e: New game
3e-3.5: Different editions of the same game
4e: New game
4e-Essentials (4.5e): different editions of the same game
5e: New game
5e-1D&D (5.5e): different editions of the same game
the only one of these I disagree with is essentials... but lets go with it and say that is true (for the sake of your argument) that makes 1D&D 5.5, and by D&D standard a new edition (weather you like how the word was used up till now or not)
 

I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a new edition. It's not a half edition. It's more options for 4e. It is literally, actually the same game in every possible sense, not an edition. Offering new, slightly different options that do not replace anything is not a half-edition. Not even close.

If Essentials was "4.5e," then the Book of Nine Swords was 3.5.5e.
could not say it better... in offical sanction Adventures at cons you could play a phb1 fighter and the guy next to you play an essentials fighter and it didn't involve any work... nothing was replaced
 

Imaro

Legend
no it doesn't...

5e grew in a huge boom when D&D got brought back into the zeitgeist of popular culture... there is no reason to believe that exact same boom would not have happened if the rules of 2e, 3e, or 4e were in place when the pop culture thing happened.
I always find this argument weird... it's been booming since 2014... that's almost 10years without slowing down and in fact steadily picking up. To claim it's only a result of a zeitgeist of popular culture seems to be simplifying to a point that doesn't line up with reality. IMO 5e has allowed the creation of a true D&D zeitgeist vs the 80's nostalgia zeitgeist that allowed it to gain a foothold but in no way accounts for it's continued success.
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top