There won't be a 4.5 because WotC doesn't need a 4.5

[Siberys]

Personally, I don't get why people are crying foul over the errata; I distinctly recall people berating WotC for NOT errata-ing books during 3.x. I mean, the only thing I can recall being errated was Polymorph, TBH.

I actually appreciate that the designers are willing to put enough time into the game to fix stuff, because I know they aren't perfect, and that they'll miss some stuff. That's just how things are. Heaven knows that I've gone back through my own designs weeks or months later and noticed all sorts of errors that I hadn't seen or even considered before.

 

[BASHMAN]

It is not the question if it is 4.5 or not. It is the question if martial power and all those books you bought are still viable. It is not important if PHB 1 and Heroes of... are interchangeable and make parts of the others obsolete. It´s the question if MM2 or 3 or martial power is useful with both books.

So, i guess i can exchange onster books easily and they work perfecly fine with both basic sets. Martial power is not working that well withh essentials only. But with PHB 1 and Martial power, you can easily fill your game with an old style fighter, and it works perfectly.

So in the end, the difference is the backwards compatibility of the matereial you bought. After essentials you can still use everything that you are used to, without noticing the change. Once we get reprinted books, both "half-editions" will be the same.

Can An Essentials dwarf take the feat that gives him proficiency and +2 Damage w/ all hammers & axes (even superior ones) AND get the Essentials dwarven STR bonus? Cause that'd be sweet - but my instincts tell me that they shall beat upon it with the Nerf bat, and there shall be much dwarven lamenting and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Personally, I don't get why people are crying foul over the errata; I distinctly recall people berating WotC for NOT errata-ing books during 3.x. I mean, the only thing I can recall being errated was Polymorph, TBH.

I actually appreciate that the designers are willing to put enough time into the game to fix stuff, because I know they aren't perfect, and that they'll miss some stuff. That's just how things are. Heaven knows that I've gone back through my own designs weeks or months later and noticed all sorts of errors that I hadn't seen or even considered before.

It's just proof that no matter what the D&D masters do, it's never going to be the right thing. I distinctly remember all the complaining about lack of errata, because I was one of the ones doing it. I guess it's the other side of the fence now complaining that there's too much.

I appreciate improving the game, but also the level of errata is just too much. A lot like the sheer tonnage of round to round conditions, abilities, and conditional class/race abilities to keep in mind at all times.

sorry...

I was responding as if you said: "I can´t DISagree with this more"... Its interesting how you EXPECT someone disagreeing with you...

Do we disagree a lot? Or did you mean in general?

Can An Essentials dwarf take the feat that gives him proficiency and +2 Damage w/ all hammers & axes (even superior ones) AND get the Essentials dwarven STR bonus? Cause that'd be sweet - but my instincts tell me that they shall beat upon it with the Nerf bat, and there shall be much dwarven lamenting and gnashing of teeth.

Dwarves will never see nerfing while Mike Mearls is alive. You can bet on that. I mean Battlemind has been out for months and we haven't heard a word about it while dwarves with that feat and 20 con have been using it to hit people as hard as any str goliath.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes rumbling... all over the internet...

there would also been rumbling if there was no change to DWT... so is this a reason not to try and balance the game as much as possible?

IF you want a rather balanced game, updating is necesseary. I don´t say ADnD was not balanced. It was better than 3.5 in some regards. But if something became unfun, you just houseruled.

@ Old Grumphey: I meant in general.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally, I don't get why people are crying foul over the errata; I distinctly recall people berating WotC for NOT errata-ing books during 3.x. I mean, the only thing I can recall being errated was Polymorph, TBH.

I don't think the outcry is really over errata as such. Errata is "oops, that was broken, let me fix that for you." It's helpful (unless you like broken), it makes the game better, or at least, makes it better-balanced.

There's been some errata lately that isn't errata. It's just change for the sake of change. "Oops, that power was OK, let's make it a little hinky. There, that's worse."

????

People are understandibly perplexed - and less-understandably irrate - about it.



What's really going on? Who knows - we can speculate. It could be to make the game apeal more to returning players who haven't gamed this century. It could be caving to the anti-4e whining that we heard so much of earlier. It could be in response to the recession (lower price points!). It could be because they need to streamline the design process because they're more short-handed than usual. It could be a last desperate bid to increase sales before Hasbro sends them all packing.

 

[Jhaelen]

There's been some errata lately that isn't errata. It's just change for the sake of change.

You may not have noticed that it's called 'Rules Updates' these days. There's a reason they no longer call it errata.

They're also not changing things 'for the sake of change'. If they're changing things it's out of one or more of the following reasons:
- they believe the new version to better represent their intent
- they believe the new version to be better balanced
- the new version is meant to integrate better with their Essentials product line

Naturally, you can disagree about how successfully they addressed these goals with their changes, but there's definitely always a reason for the changes.

 

[Derren]

WotC did already change quite a lot of the original rules (Hiding, how skill challenges work, how monsters are build, etc.) and introduced feats and items to fix other shortcomings.

Someone who plays with the core rules only plays a very different game than the people who play with all the splatbooks and not only because of the additional content. So there was already a 4.X. How much X is is up to debate.

 

[Edwin_Su]

One thing wil prove to me essentials is a 4.5

if when essentials is coorperated in the character builder chosing the old options like the current version of magic missel becomes unavailable.

this would be a great sign that wizards indeed considers the 4.0 core books obsolete and replaced with 4.0 essentials, instead of them working side by side

 

[Mapache]

One thing wil prove to me essentials is a 4.5

if when essentials is coorperated in the character builder chosing the old options like the current version of magic missel becomes unavailable.

this would be a great sign that wizards indeed considers the 4.0 core books obsolete and replaced with 4.0 essentials, instead of them working side by side

And by "current version" of Magic Missile, you mean the auto-hit version that it was changed to in the July Rules Update and accompanying Character Builder update, well before anyone outside of WotC knew anything at all about the details of Essentials class builds, right?

 

[Phaezen]

One thing wil prove to me essentials is a 4.5

if when essentials is coorperated in the character builder chosing the old options like the current version of magic missel becomes unavailable.

this would be a great sign that wizards indeed considers the 4.0 core books obsolete and replaced with 4.0 essentials, instead of them working side by side

Then again it doesn't provide any other of the updated powers or feats in their pre update/errata form, so by this logic it is already 4.5