The Essential Knight

[Herschel]

One major correction needed:

Give people enough information to make a sound judgment, and they'll STILL howl at the moon on the internet.

 

[CovertOps]

Actually, I hadn't seen that cover. Is that the new one? This was the one I was aware of, which has no mention of it being a starter set. If that's the case, then that's much better. But come on, let's be honest here. Essentials is being marketed just as much to the existing player base as to the newbies. They're hoping to sell us a whole new set of books with redone versions of the existing classes.


That is indeed the company line. But it doesn't take much to make it de facto false, even if WotC claims otherwise. If the game continues to evolve along the Essentials line, and the monsters continue to evolve along with them, it becomes increasingly difficult to work in the new stuff with the old material. 3.0 was supposed to be compatible with 3.5 too. And with the players, if Essentials stuff is just plain better, you better believe that it will make the old classes obsolete. How far does the game have to stray before it's basically a new edition, regardless of the company line?


I don't see anything from the release of Dark Sun to April that is a regular 4E product, except for possibly Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium. I don't think we know what that is exactly yet. Maybe Heroes of Shadow? Maybe not. A year might have been an exaggeration, but it might not be. There's a solid 8 months until the next possible non-essentials product. And we're not even certain of that. As was said earlier in the thread, where's Arcane Power 2?


Yeah, that was about Gamma World.

Here's something fun to think about mkill...a friend of mine (who is a 4e DM - I have my own group, but sometimes I can get free of the wife and play in his game) made the assertion last week to me and at his game that the reason for "Essentials" is that WotC made a huge blunder and now they're trying to recoup some massive financial losses. Which of course means that "Essentials" is 4.5. He didn't want to debate it and I simply went on the record as disagreeing with his position.

For those that say "Essentials is 4.5" what I'd really like to know is what exact change (or set of changes) makes it 4.5? For me, in order to claim that we now have 4.5 you'd have to break backwards compatibility. The best way I can describe this is to use Windows (and software because hopefully people on the interwebs will be able to grok it). If you had some great DOS based game that ran fine under Win95 and Win98, but doesn't run under XP then the update to XP from Win98 would be equivalent to the 3.0 -> 3.5 changeover because you can no longer use your software (without making some changes).

Since we obviously can't agree on what constitutes 4.5 then logically we are all using a different standard to determine what exactly 4.5 is. So what say you?

And Terramotus I get exactly what you are saying, but you need to be pointing at the errata as published and saying "this is 4.5" instead of "Essentials". However errata, for me, does not break backwards compatibility so will never amount to a new version. It's akin to software patches and everyone gets those, but doesn't suddenly say that XP isn't XP anymore because of some patch or fix. You might mention that it's XP SP1 for what new features will work with it and such, but the new added features have nothing to do with it still working with stuff it already worked with.

 

[MrMyth]

I think he has a good point. The "rules updates' have gotten out of hand, and it's basically a new edition at this point. I would prefer no errata (unless something is truly, horribley broken) to having to audit your character to see if he's "updated" every two months and digging through the online "updates" to see if basic things like movement, forced movement, skills, etc. still work the same.

We've had one major rule update from the PHB, which is stealth. How many other basic elements have seen significant overhauls? Some slightly modifications here and there, but the core rules in the PHB remain completely intact.

I can understand the worry about too many updates to feats and powers. On the other hand, I prefer playing a balanced game, so I am glad they come out with errata. If you don't want to 'audit' your character (which, in our group, involves the DM taking a few minutes to scan the errata and then mention any changes to the group... once every two months) - then you can honestly feel free to not use it.

If you end up using a power that got updated, chances are either:
1) The power is broken enough the group will realize it is a problem and come up with a fix for it anyway;
2) Someone else is aware of the update for the power, and can tell you how it was changed;
3) It wasn't a big enough issue for your group, and so no one cares if you are still using the original power.

Or are you speaking from personal experience - do you have a character who has had elements changed that has actively caused problems at the table or with your DM? I'm assuming you do play 4E, right?

 

[mkill]

Call it 4.5 or bacon edition or whatever floats your boat. It's just a name, I don't care.

All I want is that people stick to the facts. Don't make baseless claims about rules or product schedules nobody has seen yet except WotC staff. Speculation is fine, but understand the difference between "I assume XY could be so and so" and "it will suck and I already know it".

 

[Abraxas]

For those that say "Essentials is 4.5" what I'd really like to know is what exact change (or set of changes) makes it 4.5? For me, in order to claim that we now have 4.5 you'd have to break backwards compatibility. The best way I can describe this is to use Windows (and software because hopefully people on the interwebs will be able to grok it). If you had some great DOS based game that ran fine under Win95 and Win98, but doesn't run under XP then the update to XP from Win98 would be equivalent to the 3.0 -> 3.5 changeover because you can no longer use your software (without making some changes).

Since we obviously can't agree on what constitutes 4.5 then logically we are all using a different standard to determine what exactly 4.5 is. So what say you?

I believe it is revisions instead of errata that is causing the "this is 4.5E" feeling. If all the rule revisions to date had not been added in small parcels, but instead had been released all at once two years after 4E had been released - would you call that 4.5? It is getting to the point where I would say it's now 4.5. The revisions change the way powers/feats/etc work in the game which changes the way your character plays in the game. Some of these changes may or may not be incompatible with the character concept you had or with the powers/feats/etc that you selected to create that character. And, it seems that the chance a revision will adversely conflict with a particular character increases as more material is released and the designers have more elements to account for

 

[Abraxas]

3) It wasn't a big enough issue for your group, and so no one cares if you are still using the original power.

Just a note - we have players who use the CB and don't actually own most of the books - they no longer have access to the unrevised elements. It does cause a hassle when leveling up their characters or adding equipment if we wanted to keep an earlier version of a rule or item.

I stated before in one of the update threads that most of the rule updates were not implemented because of people like I play the game with. The people I game with are casual gamers and the "problem" rules weren't causing a problem in our game - but the reduction in power of some options - and increase in power of monsters has started to impact our game play. Now this isn't to say every change impacted out play experience - but given our last two sessions something has definitely changed - I am hoping it is the DM getting his legs with the new stuff. If not our group has just been introduced to the grind many others have described.

 

[Remathilis]

So... you're saying that if the majority of people prefer one build that wizards will start supporting that build.

Isn't that what they SHOULD be doing? Shouldn't they be designing for a game people are enjoying?

One hopes so. However, lets say I want to write an article with new fighter powers to submit to Dragon. What am I going to base it off; use the current fighter at-will/encounter/daily system or Essentials "MBA-modifying Stances with no dailies" build?

If you say the PHB one; then the Essentials line is a one-off with no official support going forward beyond what can be interchanged between it and "core".

If you say Essentials one; the PHB fighter becomes obsolete, again barring power-swapping between the two "builds"

If you say write powers for both, you're doubling the chances of something going haywire or someone only using 1/2 of your article.

See?

What is the "de facto goblin minion" though?

I'm honestly confused on what you mean here. You have a book full of monsters to use in your game, how is it invalidated by another book full of monsters?

Same deal: I'm writing a module for Dungeon. Which goblin minion am I going to use; the original one in the MM1 (which has been errata'd and rebuilt to meet MM3 standards) or the new, already-fixed one in the MV?

Granted, both are kinda corner-case, as a DM I can mix in whatever I like (I used 3.0 PrCs and monsters in my 3.5 and Pathfinder games too) but the official line forward can't support two "cores"; either PHB/DMG/MM 1 is still the Core and Essentials is a one-off product never to be expanded upon OR Essentials is the New Core and the PHB/DMG/MM lines slowly fades into the sunset.

 

[Solvarn]

All I want is that people stick to the facts. Don't make baseless claims about rules or product schedules nobody has seen yet except WotC staff. Speculation is fine, but understand the difference between "I assume XY could be so and so" and "it will suck and I already know it".

My concerns about Essentials, based upon my observations of what we are being presented and the current release schedule, is that the game seems to be trending toward a very cookie cutter approach with less specialization or opportunity to mix and match things, which I really like.

Again, I haven't seen the full Essentials pack, so I don't know how well things mesh. I definitely know there is a need for it, because there are times when I just need to throw a PC at someone to play, who either doesn't care about intricacy or is new to the game and just wants to get going.

 

[Scribble]

One hopes so. However, lets say I want to write an article with new fighter powers to submit to Dragon. What am I going to base it off; use the current fighter at-will/encounter/daily system or Essentials "MBA-modifying Stances with no dailies" build?

See?

Umm... no, I don't.

Write what you want to write... WoTC is in a better position to know what people are clammering for, they'll let you know if they want your article.

Again... if the majority of people prefer one thing, and WoTC gives them that thing, then how is this a bad thing?

Same deal: I'm writing a module for Dungeon. Which goblin minion am I going to use; the original one in the MM1 (which has been errata'd and rebuilt to meet MM3 standards) or the new, already-fixed one in the MV?

Granted, both are kinda corner-case, as a DM I can mix in whatever I like (I used 3.0 PrCs and monsters in my 3.5 and Pathfinder games too) but the official line forward can't support two "cores"; either PHB/DMG/MM 1 is still the Core and Essentials is a one-off product never to be expanded upon OR Essentials is the New Core and the PHB/DMG/MM lines slowly fades into the sunset.

Take a look at the compendium. A search for Goblin on the creatures tab brings up 174 entries!

They seem to mess with the stats whenever a monster is needed to make it better suit whatever adventure/environment it's needed in.

There aren't really "official" monsters in 4e, just stats for various versions of an idea.

 

[MrMyth]

Just a note - we have players who use the CB and don't actually own most of the books - they no longer have access to the unrevised elements. It does cause a hassle when leveling up their characters or adding equipment if we wanted to keep an earlier version of a rule or item.

Well, sure - but at the same time, if the group is casual enough that you don't care about the updates, then does it matter if they are done in the CB for you?

Basically... if the issue is that the group doesn't want to bother with the updates because they don't want to deal with figuring out what has changed, the CB doing it for you solves that anyway.

If, instead, the issue is that you actually prefer the old version of the power... well, fair enough. But there is no more reason to expect the CB to carry that than there is to expect it to have a homebrewed power in it. Would it be nice if it could more easily support such things? Absolutely. But if you really want a power different than the current rules, you just need to spend a few minutes writing up the details on your own.

I do certainly sympathize if that is the case, though - I've got plenty of homebrewed items and powers that I wish could more easily fitinto the CB. My point was more that for those who don't want to even bother with the errata, most groups won't really require them to. Either ignore it. Or let it just show up automatically in the CB. Or deal with it when it comes up in play. If a group doesn't find it necessary to track it by hand, they really just don't have to.