Rule of 3 -- 7/11/11
- Thread starter Dice4Hire
- Start date
Dannager
First Post
Essentials certainly marked a new version of the game. Then again, so did MM3. So did PHB3. So did each successive round of errata and updates. If you're going to call post-Essentials 4e "4.5", it makes sense to at least acknowledge that what you were playing before Essentials was 4.4, and what you were playing before that was 4.3, and so on.
But unfortunately the connotation that many people have when they think of X.5 edition is not the sort of natural version progression you or I recognize it as, but rather the sort of total line reboot that 3.5 was. That's an unfortunate connotation, and the differences between the two types of progression need to be made clear to those who are not familiar enough to know the difference.
Dice4Hire
First Post
There is more than one way to define a .5 edition. 3.5 was one way, and 4.5 is another. Right now, we are in 4.5 as WOTC is not only going forward with essentialized stuff, they are going back and making wholesale changes to essentialize pre-essentials stuff.
We are in 4.5, and saying the only .5 worthy of being called .5 is a 3.5 .5 is just a stick to beat down people who thing 4.5 is here and now.
We are in 4.5, and saying the only .5 worthy of being called .5 is a 3.5 .5 is just a stick to beat down people who thing 4.5 is here and now.
So, combine Question 1 with today's "Legends & Lore" (Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Head of the Class)) and it all fits very nicely.
Basic and Advanced.
Except, they leave the door open for Advanced 1 (AEDU) and Advanced 2 (Psionics style powers) and whatever other types of advanced (Return of Vacian magic?).
Perhaps one problem is that in 2008 (ish) the initial system had to deliver an experience that was already advanced. Would the internet have exploded if they delivered Essentials in the original PHB? I think the "WotC is dumbing down D&D" catchphrase would have been more persistent and it might not have captured as much of the 3e audience.
Fundamentally, as they always stated, they faced the problem of getting new players through the learning curve while still being appealing to the old players. There is also the problem of people who want simple experiences and complex experiences. 2e addressed the issue (perhaps by accident) by starting with Basic and then went to Advanced and then eventually Players Options. I think 3e's philosophy was be everything to everyone... except that if you want a basic experience you have to place classes A, B, and C. Advanced 3e options came from how 3e was meant to reward "system mastery", where picking classes X, Y, and Z OR multi-classing got you a more custom and complex experience. And, of course, 3e didn't get it exactly right, which is why we have 3.5.
My view: I get the design philosophy stated in Answer 1. It is an elegant solution to a complex problem and will potentially solve it well. However, it doesn't appear that this philosophy was in place from the start. It appears that the original PHB provided a base system with self-consistent math and consistent power levels for any character option. This pays dividends as they can hopefully build whatever experience players desire on the new rules chassis. They invested these dividends in the on-ramp/basic experience (Essentials) and hopefully will further invest them in exciting new toys. But was that ever the initial intent of 4e?
Basic and Advanced.
Except, they leave the door open for Advanced 1 (AEDU) and Advanced 2 (Psionics style powers) and whatever other types of advanced (Return of Vacian magic?).
Perhaps one problem is that in 2008 (ish) the initial system had to deliver an experience that was already advanced. Would the internet have exploded if they delivered Essentials in the original PHB? I think the "WotC is dumbing down D&D" catchphrase would have been more persistent and it might not have captured as much of the 3e audience.
Fundamentally, as they always stated, they faced the problem of getting new players through the learning curve while still being appealing to the old players. There is also the problem of people who want simple experiences and complex experiences. 2e addressed the issue (perhaps by accident) by starting with Basic and then went to Advanced and then eventually Players Options. I think 3e's philosophy was be everything to everyone... except that if you want a basic experience you have to place classes A, B, and C. Advanced 3e options came from how 3e was meant to reward "system mastery", where picking classes X, Y, and Z OR multi-classing got you a more custom and complex experience. And, of course, 3e didn't get it exactly right, which is why we have 3.5.
My view: I get the design philosophy stated in Answer 1. It is an elegant solution to a complex problem and will potentially solve it well. However, it doesn't appear that this philosophy was in place from the start. It appears that the original PHB provided a base system with self-consistent math and consistent power levels for any character option. This pays dividends as they can hopefully build whatever experience players desire on the new rules chassis. They invested these dividends in the on-ramp/basic experience (Essentials) and hopefully will further invest them in exciting new toys. But was that ever the initial intent of 4e?
Scribble
First Post
Well, they did indicate from the beginning that they would start by working to keep existing players then move into promoting to new players. But who knows?
I don't really think it matters much- A good idea is a good idea no matter when you think of it.
I would be less happy with a company that isn't willing to change to follow a better trail.
I agree, it is a net positive.
Hey, one of those is my pitch!
It did not get accepted, but I feel like this is a consolation prize.
(Another pitch is similar to an idea that I had, but didn't get into shape for this submission window).
It did not get accepted, but I feel like this is a consolation prize.
(Another pitch is similar to an idea that I had, but didn't get into shape for this submission window).
Gargoyle
Adventurer
Must have not been something they needed at the time, but it had to be a good pitch for them to make it an example. Which one was it?
I pitched Court of Thorns. The feedback I got with the rejection (hey they're providing feedback with rejections now!) was basically that they felt woodland fey had been done enough, and they might be interested in fey of other environments.
Similar Threads
