So, how many are avoiding Essentials?

[Zaran]

I have bought the DM Kit, the Rules Compendium, and the Monster Kit. I will not buy the character books. Everything I have seen about them besides maybe the Wizard makes me believe that they will quickly become boring. Having daily and encounter powers changes up the action. I admit that some features in eClasses seem interesting but until I can mix them with my cClasses I will not be using them.

I do believe that Essentials is not compatible. When I see an article in Dragon for a Paladin build and CAN'T use it for my cPaladin I have a problem. The fact that Cavaliers get powers at a different time than other Paladins make them use a different set of rules. Sure they still roll a d20 but Mutants and Masterminds rolls a d20 too. Yes, I know that there will be some book created that allows us to switch between the versions. That's what Revised editions do. They give us conversion rules.

 

[Scribble]

Dude... this argument is so last month!

Guys c'mon we only have like 3 hours left to argue about the new character builder ruining everything, why are we wasting time arguing about whether Essentials is 4.5 or not?

 

[Raikun]

I
I do believe that Essentials is not compatible. When I see an article in Dragon for a Paladin build and CAN'T use it for my cPaladin I have a problem.

That doesn't make Essentials "Not compatible"; there's a Soreror article this month that is pretty equally non-usable for my present Sorceror. Being compatible doesn't mean that every build has to have all their features apply to every other build.

Hell, there are Ranger paragon paths in the PHB1 that are only allowed if you play a specific type of Ranger...does that make PHB1 incompatible with itself?

 

[Raikun]

Y
And I'm not saying 'Essentials is 5e!'.

It is more like Diablo 2 plus LoD than Diablo 3.

I agree, except I'd also add that the analogy equally applies to Martial Power, PHB2, PHB3, etc.

They all add to the game in the same way, and can be mixed and matched depending on what you want.

It's all part of the same game, with the same rules.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

I disagree. I think the idea of '4.X' edition is, to state it lamely, 'so last decade'. With the constant stream of updates and errata, the rules are almost in a permanent state of flux, albeit with a rather stable central core. If Essentials is 4.5, then every update from release date until now was some version of 4.XY, with X < 5.

Whether or not you like this constant change, is of course entirely up to you.

...

My sentiments exactly. I'm only saying that a constant stream of updates will change the subject to something else with time. 'Italian' is updated 'Latin', but both are recognized as different languages. Not that this mattered for their users.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Classes that can suddenly fill other roles:
Fighter, Ranger, Druid

Multi power source classes!

Multi role classes!

Different starting proficiencies (cleric vs warpriest)

---

Add all the slow changes they made in preparation of essentials (like many people pointed out they made in 3.5 with sourcebooks like 'Tome of Battle'), like being able to choose between race ability bonuses.

Yes, many things are listed as options, but like many of the new feats, showing a better, more supported option (nerf to the feat that allows to change the ability used for melee basic attacks -> new classes get it as class ability; new expertise feats) is also a slow replacement.
See also the fluff support between standard infernal warlocks and infernal hexblades with their 'iconic' race: The new tiefling can get 'perfect' stats for the essential variant, but not the old 4e.

And I'm fine with it. I'm not fine with people who treat other like being dumb for comparing essentials with a revised edition. It is to similar.

If you were playing a halfing and you changed from 3 to 3.5, your weapon sizes changed. If you were a ranger, your HP changed. Etc.

If you were playing a fighter, unless you build a NEW fighter from the ground up, the fact that another version of the fighter can be a striker doesn't effect you any more than a PHB1 fighter might be envious of the battlerager from Martial Power.

All the things at the start have no impact on existing content. Those are new areas of design space that have opened up. Just like the addition of psionics which go a different direction as far as encounter powers are concerned, Essentials opens up new avenues of design space.

With 3.5 the old classes were themselves changed. With Essentials, the old classes were given new builds. Those new builds are, in some cases, radically different from existing builds. They do not, however, REPLACE the old builds. If you play 4e, with the Essential rules, outside of some powers being errata'd for wizards, and access to some new uility powers and feats ... they old classes are still the same. Ditto with races. Yes, you now have more options with the races, but the original versions are still valid, they just happen to be one way to build a character of that race, not one of many.

The reason people say addition not revision is that 3.5 took the existing content and updated it, making the old version no longer valid. Essentials adds new content, some of it very different, but outside of some powers being errata'd, and the change to sneak attack, etc, the old stuff is still valid. The PHB classes were not replaced by the Essential builds anymore than they were replaced by Martial Power builds.

There are legitimate questions that some people raise, such as whether or not there will be support for pre-Essential stuff going forward. Will the fighter, for example, ever get new encounter and daily powers to support their older builds, or will all new content be tinted by the lens of the Essentials mindset. However, the old content, even if it is not directly supported going forward, is still core to 4e and part of the post-Essentials game system. It hasn't been overwritten by 'fixed' versions of the classes, it has been complimented by more variations of the same class. Now, because of each build having different "parts", some of the old feats and the like are not compatible with the new builds ... then again, there has been build specific feats for a while now, that is nothing new.

The biggest "problem", from my point of view is that many of the Essential classes are not compatible (at the moment) with hybrid or multiclassing. However, it seems that the upcoming book which reprints the original builds for the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord and Wizard will also contain that information.

 

[Raikun]

My sentiments exactly. I'm only saying that a constant stream of updates will change the subject to something else with time. 'Italian' is updated 'Latin', but both are recognized as different languages. Not that this mattered for their users.

That may be the case, but that's an entirely different topic than Essentials, seeing as the rules updates have been happening and would continue to happen whether or not Essentials existed.

 

[Raikun]

The biggest "problem", from my point of view is that many of the Essential classes are not compatible (at the moment) with hybrid or multiclassing. However, it seems that the upcoming book which reprints the original builds for the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlord and Wizard will also contain that information.

For that matter, I've never thought that every class and build should be 100% multiclass-able with everything else. I like the idea of having some classes be different enough with their own set of quirks that make them stand separate from the rest, and options like that have existed in some form ever since the PHB1, so I don't see why there should be outcry over Essentials continuing and expanding that trend.

 

[Jhaelen]

That may be the case, but that's an entirely different topic than Essentials, seeing as the rules updates have been happening and would continue to happen whether or not Essentials existed.

I'd argue, though, that we wouldn't have seen several of the large-scope updates if they didn't have worked on the Essentials product line.

WotC knew they'd get away with such widespread errata because they had 'new' products available that would include them all. People were already starting to complain about the size of the Rules Updates document well before the arrival of Essentials.

Since we now have Essentials they've in effect rebooted the rules and the errata train is ready to move forward again.

If they continued to update the game at the same rate, we'll see the next product update line two years from now. Let's call it 'Ultimate D&D'. And they'll say something like this:

"The new Ultimate product line is fully compatible with 4e and Essentials. It's intended to replace Essentials as the recommended entry point into D&D 4e for new players and incorporate all of the rules updates to date. If you already own 4e or Essentials products you can of course continue to use them but you may still be interested in getting Ultimate D&D because it includes new builds, feats, themes, backgrounds, and a ton of exciting new options for your favorite classes and races."

 

[WalterKovacs]

My sentiments exactly. I'm only saying that a constant stream of updates will change the subject to something else with time. 'Italian' is updated 'Latin', but both are recognized as different languages. Not that this mattered for their users.

True, however it took a long time. It wasn't simply a matter of new words being added to the language, but the loss and replacement of old words/pronunciations/etc. The English language is constantly getting yearly patches with slang words (house rules?) becoming official, but we are yet to declare it English.5 It's obviously barely compatible with Ye Olde Englyshe and the like which predated widespread literacy and the printing press.

I see it like people. If you see them everyday, you won't really notice the slow changes that occur over time. However, if it was say an old friend you run into again at the tenth school reunion, you may be shocked at how different they look.

If you have been playing 4e regularly, Essentials is just another small change to things. If you haven't looked at 4e since day one, it's a radical change ... but since you haven't been looking at 4e, or you've been playing with just the first core books and nothing else ... it seems kind of moot. You were happy ignoring the changes that were going on [either because you weren't playing at all, or didn't feel the need to add to your existing game], why the change of heart? Either you gave up on 4e initialy (in which case, you likely wanted something different, in which case at 4e has changed since then).

Putting a stamp on "it's different now" is sort of a moot point. Every single edition has put out new content over time which adds to the game, and occaisionally, especially with the internet making it easier, issue errata to fix problems. There have been revised editions, ones that basically took a lot of errata and dropped it in a single chunk, making most older content out of date as a result. Because of the internet, 4e has been able to release it's errata over time instead of a single chunk. So, while the 4e may now be a possition where it is as different from where it started as 3 was from 3.5, the comparison is still wrong.

3.5 obsoleted the 3.0 material, and what happened afterwards was a reprinting of most of the old content so that it was compatible with 3.5. With Essentials, while the game around it may have been errata'd to the point of being a new game, Essentials itself has still releasing new content while allowing the old content to continue to exist, not "it can be jury rigged to fit until we issue the official reprint using the updated rules". It may be simply a matter of technology catching up with the goals of 3.5, but it's a lot cheaper to get the errata for free than to have to buy the same book twice to get the rules updates.