Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9769816" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It literally actually wasn't though.Because you can, without changing anything, no house-rules, no conversion documents, absolutely nothing changed, play "original" 4e characters and Essentials-only characters at the same table. As long as you don't cross a class with itself, you can even hybridize an Essentials-formatted class with an "original"-formatted class without issues. Literally not one thing changed mechanically, except for having more options.That's simply not true of going from 1e to 2e, and as far as I can tell, not even 2e+PO.It's not a matter of anyone picking on anything. It's a matter of people just straight-up falsely saying that Essentials is in any way anything more than SCAG was for 5e. In the modern lingo, alternative subclass options for existing classes. That's literally all Essentials did. The new monster math predated it (it first appeared in MM3, prior to MV, indeed three months prior to the first Essentials book.) Themes predated it. Essentials literally did not remove nor alter a single existing mechanic of 4e. That isn't true of 1e->2e, which most folks agree is the single smallest edition jump the game has ever had, as far as I'm aware; I was unable to read when 2e came out so I couldn't really have known either way personally.It would be like listing (using WotC's absolutely ridiculous year-based nomenclature because they're afraid to admit that 5.5e is, y'know, a revision):D&D 5e (2014)D&D 5e (2014) + SCAG/XGED&D 5e (2014) + SCAG/XGE + Tasha'sD&D 5e (2024)</blockquote>

Verification