# Class Compendium: Heroes of Legend



## Almacov (Oct 7, 2010)

Someone just found this on the WotC forum. (EDIT - Berenmir, in this thread)
Not sure what it is yet, but if that release date is accurate it's surprising we didn't already have info on it.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons-Dragons-Accessory/dp/0786958588/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1286412730&sr=1-2"]Here's the Amazon page.[/ame]

February 2011?







Thought it might make for some interesting speculation.
Let's talk!


----------



## Almacov (Oct 7, 2010)

I like the cover art, but it doesn't give me much insight as to what we're looking at contents-wise.

Are they reworking/rereleasing some of the 4e classes that weren't touched upon in the Essentials line?
Are they creating new builds for classes that were examined in HotFL/HotFK? New schools/domains?
Completely new classes? Something entirely unexpected?

All we can do is wonder so far.

What would you like to see?


----------



## Jools (Oct 8, 2010)

Compendium means "a compilation of a body of knowledge" which suggests to me a collection of material already previously available. Could it be the PHB classes collected together in their most current, errated form? Perhaps this is their way of keeping the PHB material in print. Maybe PHB2 too as that appears to be dragonborn shaman on the cover.


----------



## Almacov (Oct 8, 2010)

Jools said:


> Compendium means "a compilation of a body of knowledge" which suggests to me a collection material already previously available. Could it be the PHB classes collected together in their most current, errated form?




That would be interesting, but it seems like that would make for a fair number of powers printed for the third time. Unless, of course, they simply replaced those that were reprinted in HotFL or HotFK with new content.

It may just be the distinctiveness of calling this "Heroes of Legend", but I'm doubtful that this is a strict compilation of PHB stuff. It's possible, though.

Actually, yes, this does seem very possible. It wasn't announced at GenCon, the cover image doesn't even have any indication who worked on it... a quicky assembled effort to reintroduce old material via the paperback format makes some sense.
In that scenario though, I imagine they'd want to do some shuffling - including class features, feats, or powers from older supplement books, perhaps? (Rules for familiars from Arcane Power make a sensible inclusion, for instance.)

One thing that makes me doubt this though, is that cutting and pasting PHB classes would necessitate reintroducing rituals, and I'm not sure a supplement called Class Compendium: Heroes of Legend is the venue to do that.
It could very well be though.

I'd prefer new content, personally, but having older stuff errata-fied and in paperback might be nice.
I wouldn't mind having an up-to-date source for pact-selecting Warlocks, and the Warlord class (Which has been appreciating in value lately...).


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 8, 2010)

The text says it's a paperback, the image looks like the 6"x9" format that Essentials follows.  I don't know what this tells us, but it's interesting.


----------



## Mengu (Oct 8, 2010)

I'm guessing more builds on a few existing classes. It doesn't say "Essentials" anywhere on it so I'm hoping this is just going back to X Power books, but instead of focusing on a power source which pigeon holes their class selection, they will be able to provide builds for classes they feel they can expand on. I can certainly see a warlock pact here, a cleric domain there, maybe an animalist shaman, just whatever they can work in.

I'm wondering if game stores will be able to treat these soft cover books like quarterly magazines. You stock them for 3 months to a year, then don't worry about it after that.


----------



## denzoner (Oct 8, 2010)

Based on this: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Players-Option-Heroes-Shadow-Supplement/dp/078695745X]Amazon.com: Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow: A 4th Edition D&D Supplement (9780786957453): Wizards RPG Team: Books[/ame] My guess it's going to be a reprint of some of the classes from PH1-3. The cover style replicates the original hardback style, but the small format fits the Essential line of books. While Heroes of Shadow will be the Shadow Powers book some of us have been speculating for a while, with (I'm assuming) all new classes, builds and races for no matter what "entry" point you use to play 4e. 

The reign of the PHB and DMG is dead.


----------



## Minifig (Oct 8, 2010)

Could it be a re-print of the PH1-3 in the new Essential styling.. ?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 8, 2010)

denzoner said:


> The reign of the PHB and DMG is dead.




I've been expecting this since Essentials was announced.
The death of that model is well overdue IMO.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 8, 2010)

There are plenty of PHs in stock in the warehouses. 

My guess would be new builds and such, but who knows? Maybe all new paragon paths and epic destinies? Something for epic pcs?


----------



## fba827 (Oct 8, 2010)

the word 'compendium' makes me think it's also a reprint of previous.
either all the heroes of forgotten lands + heroes of forgotten kingdoms classes.
or some PHB classes/builds given in 'essentials' formatting

of course, this is all speculation at this point.


----------



## Camelot (Oct 8, 2010)

I think it will be a reprinting of the PHB1 classes with their errata.  It will likely contain updated feats as well.  I bet that after "Heroes of Legend" will come "Heroes of the Wilderness" or something, detailing the PHB2 classes, and then "Heroes of Mystery" with PHB3 classes (I just made up those names, they're not real!).


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 8, 2010)

My uninformed guess is that it will contain expansions for existing Essentials builds, and maybe an Essential-ized version of an existing legacy class.

For example, the Red Box has "transmutation" spells for the Mage, like this totally rad daily _that turns the target into a toad_. It is the best spell I've ever seen for D&D, but it didn't make it into Heroes of the F.

Along those lines, we may see a new Warlock pact, some new Cleric domains (only have Sun and Storm so far), etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an Essential-ized Warlord, and maybe some of the other races not yet in 4EE like Goliaths.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 8, 2010)

Reaper Steve said:


> I've been expecting this since Essentials was announced.
> The death of that model is well overdue IMO.



 However I don't think that will work out. PHB/MM/DMG are always the top-sellers in every edition. They tried to reap this level of sales mutliple times by just releasing a PHBx/MMx/DMGx each year and hoping people would buy them like core books instead of buying them like splat books.

That we now see essentials shows that this failed. People recognized them as and bought them like splatbooks rather than core books despite what WotC wrote on the cover.

Same will happen with essentials approach and we'll see an Advanced 4e or 4e Extended or whatever else they'll come up with to generate sales on a core book level at least once as soon the sales level declines enough to have Hasbro's beancounters having a few words with them


----------



## Zaran (Oct 8, 2010)

If this is indeed a reprinting incorporating errata into book form I think that's great.  I also hope some of the issues that core classes have would be dealt with as well.  

And only 4 months away!  Cool.


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 8, 2010)

Perhaps to be followed in another four months by: 

"Classy Expendium: Heroes of Shopping" -- containing lists of intriguing items that PCs might actually buy with their extra gold now that they no longer have the ability to buy Uncommon magic items.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 8, 2010)

When did this appear?

It might not be accurate, as it's not on the wizard's product page, which extends to April.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 8, 2010)

_Something like this was mentioned sometime back in the context of a cover painting that was not used...oh well._

Either this listing is wrong, or this is really coming out of the blue. 

The temptation to join the chorus and say this the errated PHB we may have been waiting for is almost overwhelming...so I will just give in and do so. 

But no "I told you so's" (or zuccinis) until we learn more. Promise.


----------



## fba827 (Oct 8, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> The temptation to join the chorus and say this the errated PHB we may have been waiting for is almost overwhelming...so I will just give in and do so.




Na - until we learn more, there is nothing wrong with simply saying "it's a mystery product with no details confirmed"  

Plus, the fact that it is lacking on the WotC product listing makes it even more mysterious as either an error on Amazon's part, or something out of the blue from WotC.


----------



## ggroy (Oct 8, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> The temptation to join the chorus and say this the errated PHB we may have been waiting for is almost overwhelming...so I will just give in and do so.




If this "Heroes of Legend" book turns out to be an errated PHB people have been waiting for, one could speculate that WotC's warehouse stock of 4E PHB1 books is low or almost sold out at this time (or soon).

From a more cynical viewpoint, one could also speculate the end of Hasbro's fiscal year (ie. end of December) is approaching, and WotC could be remaindering or pulping remaining copies of PHB1 for a tax write off of some sort.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Oct 9, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> However I don't think that will work out. PHB/MM/DMG are always the top-sellers in every edition.




True, but that's because those 3 books are the game.

My point is that it's past time for the info to be reorganized in its presentation. In 1E, the Player's Handbook didn't actually have the rules of the game... that was found in the DMG. But over time and editions, theywisely moved the rules to the PHB. In 4E you can play D&D with just the PHB and MM. But that means that the DMG was struggling to maintain relevance and necessity.

I think WotC finally saw that and figured out how to make the break. The rules of the game stand alone, regardless of classes, hence the RC. The newly released (at premium stores) DM's Kit is not necessary, but WotC has embraced the fact that it's not necessary, which resulted in a product and book that is much more GUIDE than any previous DMG. And I mean Guide in a good way... by focusing on guiding DMs without having to contain the core rules, the product can really improve a DMs skills.

Will we continue to see player books, DM books, and Monster books? Absolutely. But now that the core is self contained in the RC, I think the purpose of the DMG has changed, or rather, it can finally do what it was intended to do.


----------



## Mirtek (Oct 9, 2010)

Reaper Steve said:


> My point is that it's past time for the info to be reorganized in its presentation.



 WotC will glady agree with you, but they already failed once to pull it off. And I actually doubt that this is even possible.

As soon as you have the first books that make the game playable, anything thereafter will be treated as splatbook, no matter whether you write PHB X or Compendium Y on the cover.



Reaper Steve said:


> I think WotC finally saw that and figured out how to make the break. The rules of the game stand alone, regardless of classes, hence the RC.



 Which will make it the top-seller along with the first players book and the first monsters book. The second and third player/monster books will already have a much harder time to reach their predecessors sales levels.



Reaper Steve said:


> it can finally do what it was intended to do.



 What it "should be intended to do", aka be a guide for DMs, or what "WotC intends it to do", aka generate sales numbers only reached by core rules every time the re-release it=


----------



## Scribble (Oct 9, 2010)

Isn't HoL that book that has like how to be a blacksmith and stuff in it?  They announced this at Gencon 

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Oct 9, 2010)

Actually, it's good news.  We are _finally_ getting some support for Beholders as PCs.  The odd title comes from the fact that WotC has taken the extra step of creating a Beholder-ish language, in which the phrase "Class Compendium: Heroes of Legend" translates to "Radially symmetrical lifeforms rule!"


----------



## fba827 (Oct 9, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Isn't HoL that book that has like how to be a blacksmith and stuff in it?  They announced this at Gencon




I _think_ the one you are referring to is _Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier_ (which is scheduled for July-Sep 2011)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Oct 9, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Isn't HoL that book that has like how to be a blacksmith and stuff in it?  They announced this at Gencon




  The title given for that book was _Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier_. It's possible that this is that same book retitled--or the mentioned but not detailed _Hero Builder's Guidebook_--but it could also be something new. 

  Other news from Amazon: The _Shadowfell_ boxed set is set for May, _Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale_ for June (along with a new DT set, _The Witchlight Fens_).


----------



## Scribble (Oct 10, 2010)

Oh right.   Maybe this is the one that is all about making custom classes?  

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 12, 2010)

Ok, I remember...


We have two rumored products:

*Advanced Player's Handbook*. 

*Class Compendium Heroes of Legend*

And two anounced products:

*Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier *

*Hero Builder's Handbook *

Plus, the super-rumored semi-announced at some some point

*Errated PHB I*

I would think there might be some overlap...


----------



## xechnao (Oct 13, 2010)

*From Amazon:*_


Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell_ provides new character options for *Dungeons & Dragons*® Essentials players who are ready to move beyond the two player-oriented *D&D*™ Essentials books, _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_.

This book gathers five classes from the _Player’s Handbook_—the cleric, the fighter, the rogue, the warlord, and the wizard—and presents them in the new *D&D* Essentials class format introduced in _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, with rules updates and errata. It features rules that allow *D&D* Essentials characters to select non-*D&D* Essentials powers, and it grants non-*D&D* Essentials characters access to class features from _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_. In addition, this book presents feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing.      ([ame=http://www.amazon.com/Class-Compendium-Dungeons-Dragons-Accessory/dp/0786958588/]Amazon.com: Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell: A 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons Accessory (4th Edition D&D) (9780786958580): Wizards RPG Team: Books[/ame])


----------



## ggroy (Oct 13, 2010)

Updated product description for this book from amazon.



> _Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell_ provides new character options for *Dungeons & Dragons*® Essentials players who are ready to move beyond the two player-oriented *D&D*™ Essentials books, _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_.
> 
> This book gathers five classes from the _Player’s Handbook_—the cleric, the fighter, the rogue, the warlord, and the wizard—and presents them in the new *D&D* Essentials class format introduced in _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_, with rules updates and errata. It features rules that allow *D&D* Essentials characters to select non-*D&D* Essentials powers, and it grants non-*D&D* Essentials characters access to class features from _Heroes of the Fallen Lands_ and _Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms_. In addition, this book presents feats, rituals, and rules for multiclassing.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 13, 2010)

Now that's cool and unexpected!


----------



## Camelot (Oct 13, 2010)

Sounds like those of us who are only adding Essentials to our current games can skip the Heroes books and just wait for this, and it's inevitable sequels!  This is exactly what I want; Essentials has been striking me as "Eh, sounds cool, but too separated from the rest of the material that I use," and this will be just what I need to integrate the new design into my game.  Thank you Wizards of the Coast!


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 13, 2010)

I like it! A way to incorporate the stuff from the original books that people like (Warlords, rituals, multiclassing, etc.) while using the errata and rules revisions in Essentials.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 13, 2010)

*I TOLD YO*

Ok, I am stopping, not yet. 

So we have a title change? Also, still nothing official from the WotCies.

EDIT: Also looks like the first of a series. EDIT 2: As noted by Camelot. 

Also, just for fun, I confirmed that this is listed on Amazon Canada and UK.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 13, 2010)

Update in the October news on WotC's website.

Looks like the name is Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell, and compiles the updates for the original PhB builds of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Warlord and Wizard, along with feats and explanations of how they interact with Essentials mechanics.  6x9 paperback format, almost like a "Next step in complexity" from HoFL.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 13, 2010)

AngryMojo said:


> Update in the October news on WotC's website.
> 
> Looks like the name is Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell, and compiles the updates for the original PhB builds of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Warlord and Wizard, along with feats and explanations of how they interact with Essentials mechanics.  6x9 paperback format, almost like a "Next step in complexity" from HoFL.




That news article is awesome, simply because it has a picture of a chicken typing at a computer.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 14, 2010)

I've just heard that Wizards will be producing most books in the paperback format from now on - printing them in China and shipping them worldwide.

Cheers!


----------



## Saint&Sinner (Oct 14, 2010)

Scribble said:


> That news article is awesome, simply because it has a picture of a chicken typing at a computer.




That's one angry looking chicken.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Oct 14, 2010)

Sweet. I was really hoping they would come out with a product like this. It makes total sense. Drop out all the obsolescent stuff from the PHB and you end up with a pretty compact book. I'm loving it, warlord goodness and all. Presumably we can expect to see something similar for PHB2 classes at some point as well, maybe even PHB3, though honestly some of those classes could kinda use a bit of a reworking...


----------



## Almacov (Oct 14, 2010)

Excellent.
I'm very happy rituals will be making a comeback, and I really like the new paperback format. ($20-25 pricing makes things like this very viable as gift options. And they're so cute and small...)

I look forward to having this around the gametable. (Along with whatever future class compendium reprints the warlock and bard...)

Oh! There's a question...
I wonder if they'll include the Strength Cleric in this, or just leave it in the past.
I know what I _think_ they'll do, but it will be interesting to see...

I hope this also contains new art. The art direction lately has been great.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, this is intersting, but why those five classes? Cleric is in both Hereos books already, and now in the next book also? That seems a bit much to me.

I am feeling like it is time to stop buying new 4E stuff, really I am. I must admit psionics in PHBIII are looking better, though.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 14, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Well, this is intersting, but why those five classes? Cleric is in both Hereos books already, and now in the next book also? That seems a bit much to me.



  I think it's supposed to be a logical stepping stone from HoLF.  The same four classes, presented in their more complex forms, with a new class thrown in for measure.  I wouldn't be surprised if a month or two after that we see another with the Druid, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock classes, maybe with Barbarian thrown in for good measure.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 14, 2010)

The real question is, is it now 4.5?

I really can't see Wizards doing a reprint of the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual or DMG no matter what they say at this point.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 14, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> The real question is, is it now 4.5?



Considering even with all the updates and errata, there still aren't any major changes to the game, I'd say no.

If the classes they're printing here were essentialized, I'd question it, but this really does seem like just another step for new players.  Considering that WotC has directly stated they were going to alternate years between attracting new players and advancing the game for existing players, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more paperbacks like this in the pipe.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 14, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> The real question is, is it now 4.5?
> 
> I really can't see Wizards doing a reprint of the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual or DMG no matter what they say at this point.




I think we have to say that it's 4.4999999999. Some people will never say it's 4.5 because Scott Rouse said that there would not be one, therefore even if a book came out called "4.5", they would say it doesn't count as 4.5. Some will never say so because you can _technically_ play the state-of-the-art game without buying new books, as long as you download and print the dozens of pages of errata. Some will never say so because 3.5 meant something to them, positive or negative, that 4.4999999999 does not.

I think of it as 4.5 because basically the rules have been re-done and the classes and the design philosophy have all been updated. In 3.0 to 3.5 there were some serious differences but only serious enough for a rules wonk to notice. To me they're practically the same game. OK, so "Keen" and "Improved Critical" no longer stack... that's basically just an erratum to de-brokenify a stupid combo (vorpal scimitar, anyone?). Pretty much, to me anyway, 3.x is 3.x. It's not all identical (thus the ".x"), but it's all the same enough that I don't really like any of it.

But to some folks, "4.5" seems to take on this vast, dreadful meaning that I don't grok. Like something fundamental in the cosmos would have shifted into the darkness but it hasn't therefore it's not 4.5. Whatever... I don't care about it _that much_. I won't insist on calling it 4.5 just because it seems to make some people mad and there doesn't appear to be any reason to do that.

But step back for a moment. It's all new books that replace the old books. No, you don't have to buy the new ones... you've never had to. But it's all new books that replace the old ones. The new books do some things a little bit differently. It's not a new edition, but it is clearly a revision. Hence ".5". Seems simple to me.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 14, 2010)

I think there's a big difference between "going in a different design direction for the moment" and "rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up." The former is Essentials, the latter is this mythical "4.5"

My thoughts? The day we wake up and find a redesigned skill system (more skills and/or skill points) is the day we will finally be looking 4.5 in the face. Anything less than this will produce pure hyperbole, nothing more.

I, for one, am excited to see the Warlord get some essentials love.


----------



## Dalamar (Oct 14, 2010)

I hope they take the time to reasses all the old options they're putting in (looking at you, Brute Strike-that-is-just-plain-worse-than-Lasting Threat).

I also expect that the Fighter Weapon Talent will become the generic version that the Knight and the Slayer have instead of having to choose between one-handed and two-handed weapons.


----------



## Camelot (Oct 14, 2010)

It's not 4.5 until they make it incompatible with all the early material.  Essentials and Core can be used side by side, unlike 3.5 vs. 3.0, so it's still 4th edition.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 14, 2010)

Gradine said:


> I think there's a big difference between "going in a different design direction for the moment" and "rebuilding the whole thing from the ground up." The former is Essentials, the latter is this mythical "4.5"
> 
> My thoughts? The day we wake up and find a redesigned skill system (more skills and/or skill points) is the day we will finally be looking 4.5 in the face. Anything less than this will produce pure hyperbole, nothing more.






Camelot said:


> It's not 4.5 until they make it incompatible with all the early material.  Essentials and Core can be used side by side, unlike 3.5 vs. 3.0, so it's still 4th edition.




Were does this criteria come from? Have you seen the different "editions" of other RPGs? They do an edit, change some art, and add a new skill and its a new edition. 

People mixed and matched material from OD&D, B/X D&D, and AD&D (1st and 2nd) all the time. You could easily use 3.0 with 3.5 material (even if some thought otherwise). 

If you want to play 08 D&D you can. No one is stopping you. But if you want to stay current with the "core" rules, you need to have these new print products and or access to the DDI.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 15, 2010)

Camelot said:


> It's not 4.5 until they make it incompatible with all the early material.  Essentials and Core can be used side by side, unlike 3.5 vs. 3.0, so it's still 4th edition.




If they made it incompatible with all the early material like in your example..."I" would call it 5E.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 15, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> The real question is, is it now 4.5?




For me, the defining characteristic of 3.5 was the publishing of new versions of existing books that current players needed to purchase to retain the current rules of the game. 

That has not happened here. What we have is a book that will serve as a stepping stone for Essentials players into the rest of the game, and a book that existing players _can_ buy if they want what is effectively an updated PHB with errata incorporated and fancy new Essentials formatting/presentation/portability. Some people will want that, and thus buy this. 

Unlike with 3.5, though, many other existing players won't buy this and _don't need to do so_. 

That's the bottom line, for me. I don't need to buy this book. I can buy other books that come after it and they will remain 100% compatible with my existing PHB. I can play my PHB characters alongside Essentials characters without any problems at all. 

Some people claim you could do the same with 3.0 and 3.5. All I can say is... it didn't feel that way for me. 

Hence, for me, this is not 4.5 in any way that actually matters. 



TerraDave said:


> If you want to play 08 D&D you can. No one is stopping you. But if you want to stay current with the "core" rules, you need to have these new print products and or access to the DDI.




No, you don't. All you need, technically, is the free errata online for whatever product you have. 

My PHB _is current _with the "core" rules. There is some errata that changes things... though the vast majority of it is to specific details and not the core rules itself. The new magic item system is really the only thing of note, and that is basically an alternative approach rather than an actual replacement. 

3.0 to 3.5 changed not just the details of classes and races and feats and spells (usually in ways with much larger ramifications on the game), but also core systems like magic items, damage reduction, monster creation, and the skill system. Changes to Bull's Strength, Haste, etc completely altered entire play styles. I don't think I've seen a single change in all of 4E that compares to the changes to those spells. 

My 4E PHB is current in a way that a 3.0 PHB, when 3.5 was released, could never be.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 15, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> For me, the defining characteristic of 3.5 was the publishing of new versions of existing books that current players needed to purchase to retain the current rules of the game.
> 
> That has not happened here. What we have is a book that will serve as a stepping stone for Essentials players into the rest of the game, and a book that existing players _can_ buy if they want what is effectively an updated PHB with errata incorporated and fancy new Essentials formatting/presentation/portability. Some people will want that, and thus buy this.
> 
> ...




Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using?  What treasure placement rules are you using?  How about Magic Items?  

There seem to be alot more differences than people are admitting to.  As an example... take a look at the Arcana skill description in the PHB and then look at it in the RC.  RC has changed the official uses of this skill dramatically and the new applications of this skill are not in the PHB eratta.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 15, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 3.0 to 3.5 changed not just the details of classes and races and feats and spells (usually in ways with much larger ramifications on the game), but also core systems like magic items, damage reduction, monster creation, and the skill system. Changes to Bull's Strength, Haste, etc completely altered entire play styles. I don't think I've seen a single change in all of 4E that compares to the changes to those spells.



And because of the integrated design 3e had, all those changes affected more things than just characters of a given class.  I've used the power attack change as an argument against integrated design for a while now.  One feat is changed, and it completely alters the viability of melee.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using?  What treasure placement rules are you using?  How about Magic Items?




I think the question to ask though when looking at changes and updates is how that update effects the viability of using a current thing in play.

For instance ok, so skill DCs changed- it doesn't cause someone to have to retroactively go back and "fix" their character to meet the new standards.

If you were more effective then anyone else at one skill for example, the same will be true after the switch. You'll still be the same level of more effective. 

Same with treasure placement rules. Switching to the "new" rules mid play doesn't really effect a character already in play. 

Same with the magic items- items didn't gain or loose power, just a keyword.



> There seem to be alot more differences than people are admitting to.




It's not so much differences as effect on the current game. 

When 3e changed to 3.5 a lot of the changes rippled throughout the game causing you to have to really change a lot of things.

Say for example the magic items needed to hit certain monsters...When 3.5 switched to needing types of items to get through DR- it meant a retroactive change to how a character was built and what items they had in order to function in combat.

Part of it is how the system is built as a whole:

3e felt more like it wanted everything to build off of everything else...

AKA a ranger was "the ranger." So when it was changed, and the 3.5 ranger came out, the rest of the game assumed the starting point would be the 3.5 ranger. Anything that was designed for the ranger took that as the starting point, so this meant a lot of things didn't fit right since they werre designed accounting for the 3e version.

4e has its base rules, and then the layered exceptions. Classes for the most part are layered exceptions... There might be multiple types of rangers, so adding a new one won't effect anything about the old one.

The powerrs are an ever further out layer. Changing a single power won't effect every ranger out there, only the one build that happens to choose that power.

There hasn't been a whole lot of big changes to the "base" system, so not a lot of effect has happened to the game as a whole.  Most of it (in the errata) has happened to the "exceptions" which only effect the people using them, so the changes don't really have a huge impact.

I think this is why while in truth they have made a ton of changes and updates through errata and what not, it has less of an effect on the game, then a smaller number of changes in the old system would have.


It's the PiTA factor... IF making a change is a PiTA for the majority of players it would count more towards a .whatever update.

If not, it doesn't. 



> As an example... take a look at the Arcana skill description in the PHB and then look at it in the RC.  RC has changed the official uses of this skill dramatically and the new applications of this skill are not in the PHB eratta.




What am I missing that's such a dramatic change?


----------



## Phaoz (Oct 15, 2010)

AngryMojo said:


> And because of the integrated design 3e had, all those changes affected more things than just characters of a given class.  I've used the power attack change as an argument against integrated design for a while now.  One feat is changed, and it completely alters the viability of melee.




How does having two points of damage for every point of base attact bonus spent when using a two-handed weapon completely alter the viability of melee? I don't see it


----------



## Imaro (Oct 15, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think the question to ask though when looking at changes and updates is how that update effects the viability of using a current thing in play.
> 
> For instance ok, so skill DCs changed- it doesn't cause someone to have to retroactively go back and "fix" their character to meet the new standards.
> 
> ...




I think your argument is flawed, especially since D&D is not a competitive game. It doesn't matter that before the change I was 15% better than Dave in Athletics and after the change I am still 15% better than Dave, because the majority use of skills is against challenges in game not against other PC's. When my effectiveness against an easy/medium/hard challenge in game fluctuates, it creates a different interaction with the play environment, and thus a difference in my character. If I was easily capable of scaling a wall last game and now for some reason it's gotten harder... how is this not a change in gameplay. It's these types of differences that can very easily set the feel (gritty, whimsical, heroic, super-heroish) in a game. So I would argue that, yes, it is a big change.

I also don't see how going from being able to create certain magic items to it now being disallowed is not a major change in the game, as well as for some PC's in classic 4e... or the fact that you can easily end up with way more or way less treasure than before also not a change in gameplay?








Scribble said:


> What am I missing that's such a dramatic change?




Ok, "dramatically" might have been an exaggeration but there are differences. If I use the skill description from classic, I can identify Rituals but can't manipulate the qualities of one's magic, control outside magical phenomenon or use it instead of diplomacy (or to enhance diplomacy) with certain creatures...

While if I use essentials as my reference I can't identify rituals but can do all thew other stuff.

It is inconsitencies like the above that can cause two players with different sources (or even a player and a DM with two different sources) tol have skewed understandings of what exactly they are capable of with the same skill.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 15, 2010)

Phaoz said:


> How does having two points of damage for every point of base attact bonus spent when using a two-handed weapon completely alter the viability of melee? I don't see it




It greatly increases the damage output.  By the time you get to level 10, you've effectively turned a defender into a striker.  Not to mention it became that way with every creature that used a two-handed weapon, making them absurdly dangerous.  Thanks to that little change, it's possible to one-shot unprepared arcane casters at much higher levels than before.

I mostly use it as an example against integrated design.  Your reaction is very typical of someone just reading the feat, but imagine everything that little change affects.  In 3.5, there were two ways to deal damage with melee weapons, either have very high precision-based damage like sneak attack, or dump what you can into power attack and get large fixed bonuses.  There's a reason why Pathfinder changed the feat into it's current form under that system.


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using?




Well, for quite a while I used the pre-errata skill DCs without the +5 DC footnote. More recently, I came up with my own chart that ended up pretty much on par with what WotC is using. My current DM is using the new chart, and was quite pleased that she didn't need to buy Essentials to use it, since it is freely posted on the WotC site. 



Imaro said:


> What treasure placement rules are you using?




Probably the old ones. I might occasionally use the random treasure generator for some campaigns or one-shots. I like having the option of it. But it has almost no effect on the actual game itself. My current DM, again, will certainly continue choosing treasure via parcels and placing it where she feels appropriate.

If someone said that, because we weren't using randomly rolled treasure, we weren't playing current 4th Edition D&D, I'd consider that person insane.



Imaro said:


> How about Magic Items?




I'm likely to use the new rules for most things. Like I said - this is the one legitimate change I really see. But also one posted in the Errata. It also is relatively isolated - it doesn't require any real change to existing characters. It just determines that, going forward, players can use more item powers, and the DM hands out loot in a slightly different dynamic. 



Imaro said:


> I think your argument is flawed, especially since D&D is not a competitive game. It doesn't matter that before the change I was 15% better than Dave in Athletics and after the change I am still 15% better than Dave, because the majority use of skills is against challenges in game not against other PC's. When my effectiveness against an easy/medium/hard challenge in game fluctuates, it creates a different interaction with the play environment, and thus a difference in my character. If I was easily capable of scaling a wall last game and now for some reason it's gotten harder... how is this not a change in gameplay. It's these types of differences that can very easily set the feel (gritty, whimsical, heroic, super-heroish) in a game. So I would argue that, yes, it is a big change.




Well, the primary change was to the higher DCs. So the only difference would be that players who were trivially accomplishing difficult things are now not quite as good at doing so. Only by epic levels had the difference grown to the point where I think a character would feel a truly substantial shift in gameplay. 

I mean, I just don't see it on that substantial a scale. Skill DCs and Skill Challenges are already something that fluctuate wildly in nature from one DM to the next. I don't think this will fundamentally change the game any more than the first Skill DC errata did. 

When 3.5 hit, changes to individual spells altered the _entire dynamic of the adventuring day _for some parties. Other changes to spells and feats and classes could make entire characters fundamentally different from how they played before. 

The change to DR required characters take an entirely new approach to acquiring weaponry. That alone, I suspect, had more impact on purchasing conditions in 3.5 than the entire shift in magic items and treasure options will have on characters going forward in 4E. 

Some groups might experience these huge changes you fear. Some player might quit in anger because he is no longer guaranteed to climb the tallest, spikiest wall in existence. But I'm doubtful that will be common. I think the vast majority of groups will go on playing without much notice of the changes. And those groups that keep playing out of their PHB, and use the old treasure system or the like, will remain just as current and feel just the same as every other group out there.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I think your argument is flawed, especially since D&D is not a competitive game. It doesn't matter that before the change I was 15% better than Dave in Athletics and after the change I am still 15% better than Dave, because the majority use of skills is against challenges in game not against other PC's. When my effectiveness against an easy/medium/hard challenge in game fluctuates, it creates a different interaction with the play environment, and thus a difference in my character.




Guess I didn't word it right...

It's not that you're competing against Dave, that was just the easiest way for me to put it into words.

Let's say you have 3 levels of ability.

Meager
Average
Awesome

You build your character to be awesome.

The game adjusts the DCs.

You are still per the rules in the awesome category, just what that means has changed. There isn't a new category super awesome, and it hasn't moved you into the Average category, so you don't need to rework your character to get back to where you were.

Awesome may have meant succeeding 90% of the time before, and now it means succeeding 70% of the time- but there isn't a category that DOES now succeed 90% of the time. Awesome just now means 70% for everything.



> If I was easily capable of scaling a wall last game and now for some reason it's gotten harder... how is this not a change in gameplay.




Sure- but that's true of everyone. There isn't a way you need to rebuild your guy to match your effectiveness.  If you were great at climbing walls, you're still great at climbing walls.

In other words, if your character has been optimally built to be the best at climbing walls- he still is.




> It's these types of differences that can very easily set the feel (gritty, whimsical, heroic, super-heroish) in a game. So I would argue that, yes, it is a big change.




Sure... But mostly that should be the DM's territory to decide not the games really. Whatever he wants to in the end set the DCs to.

and again- it's not that it's not a change... It's how much of a PITA is it going to be is the easiest way I can say it. If it's going to force a lot of re-working or something, or cuase certain options to no longer be valid.

For instance, if they changed skills to say now there's a climb skill, and a climb walls skill...

THAT would be a change that forces me to switch my guy around. I built him to be able to climb walls, but after the change my climb skill drops way lower then where it was built to be. I COULD optimize to be a wall climber, but through no action of mine, my climb walls skill went to being unoptimized.

Now if I want to be a wall climber I have to re-build my guy to be optimized in wall climbing.

As it stabnds now- I'm still optimized in climb- it's just gotten harder for everyone to climb walls... See what I mean?



> I also don't see how going from being able to create certain magic items to it now being disallowed is not a major change in the game, as well as for some PC's in classic 4e... or the fact that you can easily end up with way more or way less treasure than before also not a change in gameplay?




The power level has not changed in MI, just new keywords, and which ones can be created.

If I have a holy avenger now, it doesn't change my power level compared to if I have a holy avenger not labeled rare.





> Ok, "dramatically" might have been an exaggeration but there are differences. If I use the skill description from classic, I can identify Rituals but can't manipulate the qualities of one's magic, control outside magical phenomenon or use it instead of diplomacy (or to enhance diplomacy) with certain creatures...
> 
> While if I use essentials as my reference I can't identify rituals but can do all thew other stuff.




I don't think adding abilities to a skill description is really an issue.. After all by way of page 42 we were supposed to be doing this anyway... They've just kind of mixed it into the skills, and unlocked/standardized a few things.

I'm also guessing that when rituals show up in Heroes of Legend, the ritual bit will be added to arcana... It's just that with no rituals it would be confusing for those with just these books...



> It is inconsitencies like the above that can cause two players with different sources (or even a player and a DM with two different sources) tol have skewed understandings of what exactly they are capable of with the same skill.




Sure... But specific beats general, new beats old.

In the case of the Arcana skill since it doesn't specifically say you can't do the ritual thing, it stands to reason you can.

In the case of all the skills it seems sort of to be the default the stuff you can do with the skills are just basically suggestions... 

Again none of this is really a change that forces you to rebuild your character to do what you used to be able to do.

Which in the end is why I keep harping on the PiTA factor.


----------



## Phaoz (Oct 15, 2010)

AngryMojo said:


> It greatly increases the damage output.  By the time you get to level 10, you've effectively turned a defender into a striker.  Not to mention it became that way with every creature that used a two-handed weapon, making them absurdly dangerous.  Thanks to that little change, it's possible to one-shot unprepared arcane casters at much higher levels than before.
> 
> I mostly use it as an example against integrated design.  Your reaction is very typical of someone just reading the feat, but imagine everything that little change affects.  In 3.5, there were two ways to deal damage with melee weapons, either have very high precision-based damage like sneak attack, or dump what you can into power attack and get large fixed bonuses.  There's a reason why Pathfinder changed the feat into it's current form under that system.




weird even when playing a greatax welding oger with a 30 strength (yes it was unballenced) i found power atteck nearly useless due to loosing the bab


----------



## nogray (Oct 15, 2010)

*Edition shifts*



			
				Phaoz said:
			
		

> ... when using a two-handed weapon ...



There was another side to the power attack change. Light weapons were excluded from use with power attack. That was a problem for a select assortment of characters.

I once ran in a (3.0) party where the one of the players had an elf fighter wielding a pair of short swords. He had a mediocre strength (about 14) and a pretty high dexterity (20-ish?), so he used weapon finesse. His native short-sword damage was fairly paltry, even including the two-weapon fighting feats, so he used power attack to make up for the lack in damage. He also used (from a friendly spellcaster) empowered, extended cat's grace to further boost his dexterity by 3-7 points for the adventuring day. His melee viability went from pretty good to almost ludicrously bad with the half-edition shift. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> ... being able to create certain magic items to it now being disallowed ...



I think the argument here is one of character investment. It no longer requires a feat for each type of item being created, but rather the purchase of a single ritual among many available. Someone who bought the arcana training and the ritual caster and the ritual itself _just_ to make items may feel cheated, though, so I really do understand that complaint. I just don't see many characters making that sort of investment. It seems more likely that item creation is more of a side-effect of having other rituals already.

As a DM, I would see the request for an uncommon or rare item to be made as an invitation to adventure. Mentioned in the Magic Item Rarity article ( Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Magic Item Rarity) ) is the following bit of verbiage:



			
				WotC Article said:
			
		

> Even those smiths who can make them require exotic, difficult-to-find materials to complete them.



I see no reason to exclude my heavily invested item making character from the category of "those ... who can make the item." Sounds like its player-driven adventure time. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> ... (arcana) skill description ...



The exotic items listed (using as diplomacy, controlling a magic effect) are, to be fair, in the "improvising with arcana" section, not the normal uses of the skill. Also, to my knowledge, the only place rituals come up in Essentials so far is in a sidebar under Arcana, perhaps explaining why identifying rituals is not a common use for the skill.


----------



## AngryMojo (Oct 15, 2010)

Phaoz said:


> weird even when playing a greatax welding oger with a 30 strength (yes it was unballenced) i found power atteck nearly useless due to loosing the bab




I once had the opportunity to play with a group of people who had that mentality.  It was a level 5 game, I played a fighter with a greatsword.  I beat the damage output of the rest of the party combined, thanks to power attack.  They all looked at me like I was crazy for taking it, but made jokes about me vaporizing things when I hit.

And I almost always hit.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 15, 2010)

I think you can keep up just fine using only the free Rules Updates.


Imaro said:


> Ok, so I have a few questions... What Skill DC's are you actually using?  What treasure placement rules are you using?  How about Magic Items?



Actually, I had been house-ruling these things anyway. So, all the MM3 / Essentials updates did was either confirm or replace my house-rules. In the case of magic items, though, I prefer to ignore the changes.


Imaro said:


> There seem to be alot more differences than people are admitting to.  As an example... take a look at the Arcana skill description in the PHB and then look at it in the RC.  RC has changed the official uses of this skill dramatically and the new applications of this skill are not in the PHB eratta.



Yay for hyperbole!


----------



## xechnao (Oct 15, 2010)

The house rule excuse of Jhaelen and MrMyth is not a valid argument in this debate.


----------



## The Choice (Oct 16, 2010)

xechnao said:


> The house rule excuse of Jhaelen and MrMyth is not a valid argument in this debate.




Actually, in Jhaelen's case, it is. He specifically stated that the rules update from Essentials either replaced or confirmed his house rule. Since the rules update is free and part of the core, what you were hinting at (what I believe is sometimes called the "Oberoni Fallacy") doesn't come into play.

And since both have stated that they now use some form of the revised Skills DCs chart (either from an Essentials rulebook or from the rules update document), the only real question is whether or not the treasure placement and magic item rarity scheme can be deemed to be houserules if they are ignored in a post-essentials game.

I don't believe so, as the documents from which those come have not been updated (well, magic item rarity has been introduced in the october update, but that's about it, and that's pretty much an esthetic change for most games).


----------



## Imaro (Oct 16, 2010)

The Choice said:


> Actually, in Jhaelen's case, it is. He specifically stated that the rules update from Essentials either replaced or confirmed his house rule. Since the rules update is free and part of the core, what you were hinting at (what I believe is sometimes called the "Oberoni Fallacy") doesn't come into play.
> 
> And since both have stated that they now use some form of the revised Skills DCs chart (either from an Essentials rulebook or from the *rules update document*), the only real question is whether or not the treasure placement and magic item rarity scheme can be deemed to be houserules if they are ignored in a post-essentials game.
> 
> I don't believe so, as the documents from which those come have not been updated (well, magic item rarity has been introduced in the october update, but that's about it, and that's pretty much an esthetic change for most games).




Emphasis mine...I find this strange as "officially" the skill DC's haven't been updated in the eratta.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine...I find this strange as "officially" the skill DC's haven't been updated in the eratta.




My guess is that this is because they haven't gotten the new books fully into the CB yet.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 16, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> 3.0 to 3.5 changed not just the details of classes and races and feats and spells (usually in ways with much larger ramifications on the game), but also core systems like magic items, damage reduction, monster creation, and the skill system. Changes to Bull's Strength, Haste, etc completely altered entire play styles. I don't think I've seen a single change in all of 4E that compares to the changes to those spells.




I'd consider the change to Magic Missle to be significant.  If I were more familair with Essentials, I could probably point out more dramatic changes.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 16, 2010)

Scribble said:


> My guess is that this is because they haven't gotten the new books fully into the CB yet.




How is this  a justification for not updating the DC's in the eratta document?  Nothing about the new DC's is dependent upon the new books being in the CB... especially since, unless I am recalling incorrectly, they are in the Compendium?


----------



## The Choice (Oct 16, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine...I find this strange as "officially" the skill DC's haven't been updated in the eratta.




Oops ... my mistake! I thought it was included in the october update, but it wasn't. It was just posted on the WotC site. Still, kinda official, I guess.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 16, 2010)

Imaro said:


> How is this  a justification for not updating the DC's in the eratta document?  Nothing about the new DC's is dependent upon the new books being in the CB... especially since, unless I am recalling incorrectly, they are in the Compendium?




Not so much "justification"  as explanation? Ie they do things in "chunks" kind of.  

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## Imaro (Oct 16, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Not so much "justification" as explanation? Ie they do things in "chunks" kind of.
> 
> Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk




Chunks of what?  Like I said, some of the material made it into the updates... some of the material made it into the Compendium and some made it into the CB... Not sure what methodology was used to determine what went where since it's all mixed up.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 16, 2010)

So does anyone believe that WoTC is going to ever reprint the core PHB, DMG, and MM? 

I can't imagine that with their new 'intro' line and the new books covering 'Essential' versions of those classes, that it will happen.

Do other people think it will?


----------



## tuxgeo (Oct 16, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> So does anyone believe that WoTC is going to ever reprint the core PHB, DMG, and MM?
> 
> I can't imagine that with their new 'intro' line and the new books covering 'Essential' versions of those classes, that it will happen.
> 
> Do other people think it will?




Sure - I'll go out on a limb and say that WotC will keep the core PHB, MM, and DMG in print until they announce 5E. 

After all, why lose potential sales? If any potential player sees a roleplaying role model using the PHB, and decides to buy his or her own copy because of that, shouldn't the book remain in print for that potential customer to buy? (Why deliberately lose possible sales?)


----------



## xechnao (Oct 16, 2010)

tuxgeo said:


> Sure - I'll go out on a limb and say that WotC will keep the core PHB, MM, and DMG in print until they announce 5E.
> 
> After all, why lose potential sales? If any potential player sees a roleplaying role model using the PHB, and decides to buy his or her own copy because of that, shouldn't the book remain in print for that potential customer to buy? (Why deliberately lose possible sales?)




Sales come with a cost. If the estimated cost is higher than the estimated sales revenue Wizards will deliberately not pursue to sell.


----------



## Truename (Oct 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> If I use the skill description from classic, I can identify Rituals but can't manipulate the qualities of one's magic, control outside magical phenomenon or use it instead of diplomacy (or to enhance diplomacy) with certain creatures...
> 
> While if I use essentials as my reference I can't identify rituals but can do all thew other stuff.




Huh what? Other than a few small changes, the rules for Arcana in the RC (pp.133-136) are identical to the rules for Arcana in the PHB (pp.181-182).


Arcana Knowledge: Identical.


Monster Knowledge: Identical except for DCs.


Identify Conjuration or Zone: Identical except for DCs.


Identify Ritual / Identify Magical Effect: Combined into a single "Identify Magical Phenomenon" block in the RC. RC also says you understand the effect/ritual's basic purpose and effects, which the PHB doesn't, but this is arguably just a better phrasing of RAI. Otherwise, they're identical except for DCs.


Sense the Presence of Magic: Identical except for DCs and duration (reduced from 1 minute to standard action).
 If you're referring to the "improvising" block, those are _samples_, not rules. Improv is up to your DM and always has been. Personally, I encourage my players to use their skills, including Arcana, for all kinds of cool stuff.



			
				Rules Compendium said:
			
		

> *Improvisation Suggestions:* In addition to providing rules... some skill descriptions include suggestions [which] include sample DCs... Skills are meant to be open-ended, and players and DMs are  are encouraged to use them creatively... the DM sets the DCs [and] has the final say on what a skill's possible uses are.




The only significant change is to the DCs, which I embrace wholeheartedly. The old DCs were too hard, then too easy. The new ones finally get it right, and about time, too.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Chunks of what?  Like I said, some of the material made it into the updates... some of the material made it into the Compendium and some made it into the CB... Not sure what methodology was used to determine what went where since it's all mixed up.




Don't know- as I'm not part of WoTC's team that loads the updates...

All I know if that based on my own life in a corporate environment stuff gets done at what seems like a random pattern, but usually if you are a part of what's going on has some sort of explaination/method.

If you're looking for a reason to be angry though- go for it.



JoeGKushner said:


> So does anyone believe that WoTC is going to ever reprint the core PHB, DMG, and MM?
> 
> I can't imagine that with their new 'intro' line and the new books covering 'Essential' versions of those classes, that it will happen.
> 
> Do other people think it will?




If there is demand for it then sure.

If not- who cares?


----------



## Wardook (Oct 17, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> So does anyone believe that WoTC is going to ever reprint the core PHB, DMG, and MM?
> 
> I can't imagine that with their new 'intro' line and the new books covering 'Essential' versions of those classes, that it will happen.
> 
> Do other people think it will?




I'm fairly sure they won't. Not good economics at this point, but that can change. They will continue to support 4E though, electronically if nothing else.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 17, 2010)

Truename said:


> Huh what? Other than a few small changes, the rules for Arcana in the RC (pp.133-136) are identical to the rules for Arcana in the PHB (pp.181-182).
> 
> 
> Arcana Knowledge: Identical.
> ...




I already listed what the main differences were in how the skill was presented between RC and PHB... small differences? Yes. Still differences that will shape the expectations of players depending upon what source they use as their primary reference. 

Now here's something funny... look at the Arcana skill as presented in RC and then look at it as presented in HotFL... Yeah, the HotFL presentation is missing parts, compared to the RC, as well... which I find odd since it is the player's book and they are the one's who will be using the skills, in most cases, more often than the DM will. Honestly I like essentials, it's gottebn meready to jumpback into 4e once our Gammma World game ties up... but the structure, re-printing of material betweeen them, and the niggling differences between some of these books is a little dissapointing when you start looking closely at them. Not dissapointing enough to stop me from purchasing them... but dissapointing nonetheless.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 17, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Don't know- as I'm not part of WoTC's team that loads the updates...
> 
> All I know if that based on my own life in a corporate environment stuff gets done at what seems like a random pattern, but usually if you are a part of what's going on has some sort of explaination/method.
> 
> If you're looking for a reason to be angry though- go for it.




Who is angry? I don't think I've posted anything that should give you the impression that I am angry or mad about any of this. I am making observations, that's it...unless me choosing not to agree with your opinions and assertions = angry??

I think you're trying to find a way to assert that WotC plannned all of this to happen the way it did... instead of going with the simplest explanation... which is WotC didn't prepare well enough for the roll out of essentials, especially in conjunction with their classic products and electronic tools. As far as working in a corporation, I also work in corporate america, for an IT based company, and more often than not... being ill-prepared and/or mis-planned is what causes things to go awry...YMMV of course.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 17, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Who is angry? I don't think I've posted anything that should give you the impression that I am angry or mad about any of this. I am making observations, that's it...unless me choosing not to agree with your opinions and assertions = angry??




Nope. Word choice- like "justified" is what made me feel you were upset about it.   If you're not- so be it, I misread your tone. 

It just feels like these issues aren't really effecting anyone, and to find them someone has to be searching for something to be an issue.



> I think you're trying to find a way to assert that WotC plannned all of this to happen the way it did...




I wouldn't say planned, nor am I "trying to find" anything.

All I'm doing is pointing out that there's always parts of the explanation people wouldn't know about unless they're part of the inside.



> instead of going with the simplest explanation... which is WotC didn't prepare well enough for the roll out of essentials, especially in conjunction with their classic products and electronic tools.




Or that they didn't want any of this missed deadlines to happen, but didn't really have the budget/manpower to ensure that it didn't, so they figured doing their best to lessen the effects, and deal with whatever happens when it happens would be the better strategy.

Or something looked like it would be easier to do, but turned out to be much harder, or an unanticipated problem cropped up.

We don't really know what the circumstances were.


(And this part is not sparked by any specific comment you made, this is somewhat unrelated.)

Personally I think for some reason gamers tend to jump to the worst case scenario about anything game related... It's never "I would have preferred they went this route..." It's always "This is why this choice is going to destroy the game as we know it..."


----------



## MrMyth (Oct 18, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> I'd consider the change to Magic Missle to be significant. If I were more familair with Essentials, I could probably point out more dramatic changes.




I mean, it's a change, yes. But I don't see it as a significant one. The wizard now has an attack that hits automatically for about half the damage his previous attack did (which probably hit about half the time in the first place.) How huge a difference does this make to the game as a whole? Or, in fact, how big a difference does it even make to the wizard?

Previous spell changes that were significant were things like Bull's Strength - it was a buff with a duration that could be extended to last for hours, and had a variable amount that let it benefit from being Empowered, etc. So you had adventuring parties built around heavy use of it and similar spells, which would expect to have these huge stat buffs up all day long. Then it became a flat bonus with a shorter duration, and those parties had their entire adventuring dynamic change. 

That's the big difference to me. We've had a number of fiddly little changes to specific mechanics, and Magic Missile is certainly one of those (and, honestly, a change I don't think was especially needed.) But the number of changes with far-reaching ramifications for the game as a whole? The number of changes that required characters to fundamentally rethink their approach to the game? 

Those, overall, I really just haven't seen.


----------



## TerraDave (Oct 18, 2010)

No, those books will not be reprinted. Maybe we will get a super deluxe PHB in the future that compiles stuff coming out now, but it will basically be a new book. 

Yes, 4E may harken back to older editions by having a more modular design then 3E. And the 3E "tappestry" approach may have been a real issue. This is very interesting, and possibly deserves its own thread. 

BUT, what gets my goat-headed demon god about all this is that not only is it a new edition, its a freaking new game of D&D. Its completely new D&D, with its own starter set, player and DM books, adventures...with a format that is new to the game. You don't need any of the hardbacks for it. Its all new.

Yes, they have taken a different, arguably better, aproach then 3.5. Yes some games may be impacted less then 3.5 (though I think this will really, really depend...my own game was never that affected by the particular 3.5 changes). Yes, we can have our own adaption strategies.

Buts its a new freaking game!


----------



## Scribble (Oct 18, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> Buts its a new freaking game!




I just don't see- at all (especially now that the books are actually out) how you can say this???

At most this reminds me of when 3.5 introduced Binders and Incarnum, and the Tomb of Battle stuff to the game...

Just new systems added to the current system- All fully compatible.

It's the same game with more options. 

How are you saying this is a new game in any way shape or form?

Seriously- I don't get it!


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I just don't see- at all (especially now that the books are actually out) how you can say this???
> 
> At most this reminds me of when 3.5 introduced Binders and Incarnum, and the Tomb of Battle stuff to the game...
> 
> ...




I don't remember the core books being retro-eratta'd so that Binders and Incarnum worked properly with it... I don't remember a book having to be published so that some subsystems (like multi-classing) would work between 3.5 Core characters and Incarnum character... I think there are definitely differences in the example you gave.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 18, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I don't remember the core books being retro-eratta'd so that Binders and Incarnum worked properly with it... I don't remember a book having to be published so that some subsystems (like multi-classing) would work between 3.5 Core characters and Incarnum character... I think there are definitely differences in the example you gave.




Sure- but minor differences at best.

Multi-classing works differently in the game system then it did in 3.5 this is true pre-essentials as well.

Anytime they add a new class they add a new multi-class option. This is just the multi-class option for this batch of classes.

The more relevant point remains though- nothing about this creates a "new game" unless you consider added options a new game... In which case every splat book ever made has created a new game.


They're adding new options.

They're keeping already existing options.


----------



## Almacov (Oct 19, 2010)

Pardon my ignorance, folks, but...
why does it matter whether it's a new game?

If the material is compatible with the current game and compelling enough to warrant purchase and use, then why not use it?

If too much of the material feels redundant, or isn't palatable to your gaming sensibilities, why would you feel compelled to pay it mind?

Some friends and I still play 3.5 occaisionally and enjoy it just as much as we used to.
When the Book of Nine Swords came out, we sampled a bit of it, decided it wasn't to our liking, and simply didn't use its material in our games.
By contrast, one of the 3.5 DMs had no qualms pilfering some of the 4e cosmology for his campaign.

There has never been and hopefully never will be an enforced, overarching, canonical way of playing D&D.
What is canon in any given game session is defined by a consensus between the participants, with the DM having the final word.

Nothing is going to change the game you love unless you wish it to.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 19, 2010)

> Pardon my ignorance, folks, but...
> why does it matter whether it's a new game?




I love you. Wanna be message-board married?


----------



## Almacov (Oct 19, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I love you. Wanna be message-board married?




I'm sorry, but I'm just not ready for that kind of commitment.


As for the various potentials of class compendiums, I wonder if "grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms" means I could eventually build a druid with both Wildshape and an Animal Companion. =P
I like the idea of playing a whole pack of wolves as one character. 
(Though there's already a way to get four wolves on the table at once with a Hybrid Druid/Beastmaster Ranger, with a summon wolf daily power and a multiclass feat to get a spirit companion. It's horribly suboptimal, of course, but fun. 
Ideally though, I could get an Animal Companion in the mix too...  )


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 19, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> I'd consider the change to Magic Missle to be significant.  If I were more familair with Essentials, I could probably point out more dramatic changes.




I might agree with you if it weren't for the fact that magic missile was almost only taken by niche builds which were abusing it to cause levels of damage that pretty much guaranteed their annihilation by errata.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 19, 2010)

> I like the idea of playing a whole pack of wolves as one character.




Meee tooooo.

I kind of hope someday, instead of getting an extra [w] or whatever, I get _ANOTHER ANIMAL FRIEND_.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 19, 2010)

Almacov said:


> When the Book of Nine Swords came out, we sampled a bit of it, decided it wasn't to our liking, and simply didn't use its material in our games.



Indeed. Now imagine for a second that every new supplement had been based on the awesomeness that was the Book of Nine Swords. _That's_ what we're facing here. Unless you liked what you've seen in the BoNS, the game wouldn't have anything new to offer for you.

Sure, nobody is going to take away the pre-Essentials classes from me, but I sure won't get any new classes in the style I prefer. Everything after Essentials will be Essentialized.


Almacov said:


> Nothing is going to change the game you love unless you wish it to.



The problem is: I _want_ the game that I love to change (in the sense that I'd like it to expand, to provide new options). I don't want the game I love to stagnate. I just don't want it to change in the direction Essentials is taking it.

For example, I like the new concept of themes that was introduced with the Dark Sun setting. That's a change to the game I liked.

I don't like any of the Essentials classes I've seen so far, though (except maybe the Wizard who's close enough to the pre-Essential version that I still recognize it as a 4e class). Why is it so difficult to understand that I am worried I will never see a new class again that I like? Someone once said, Essentials is like D&D 3.9. And that seems to be accurate: It's a step back. A step in the wrong direction (for me).

I would have been happiest if they had just continued to churn out a new PHB every year.


----------



## Tallifer (Oct 19, 2010)

I for one am stuffed full of pre-essentials classes and builds. Never in my lifetime of gaming could I hope to play every class and build from the three Players' handbooks and the Campaign Settings. I do not see why anyone would be "afraid" never to see another new pre-essentials class.

Furthermore, with multi-class feats and hybrid characters, you can build any conceit with the regular classes.

Therefore, I do not see any problem if Essentials classes take away from the potential to create new pre-essentials classes.

Indeed one of the problems pre-essentials, was that many builds and classes started to resemble each other too closely. Strength Clerics, Ardents, Warlords and Runepriests for example: all Leaders smacking enemies to inspire their allies. Hopefully Essentials can breathe some novelty into class design while keeping the same overall game system.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Oct 19, 2010)

Tallifer said:


> Indeed one of the problems pre-essentials, was that many builds and classes started to resemble each other too closely. Strength Clerics, Ardents, Warlords and Runepriests for example: all Leaders smacking enemies to inspire their allies. Hopefully Essentials can breathe some novelty into class design while keeping the same overall game system.




I agree that 4E needs innovation, but why do we need essentials to do it? Essentials might help, but I think it could have been/still could be done with the existing pre-essentials stuff.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 19, 2010)

> I agree that 4E needs innovation, but why do we need essentials to do it? Essentials might help, but I think it could have been/still could be done with the existing pre-essentials stuff.




So that lapsed players who pick up the Red Box out of nostalgia find a connection to their own experiences inside. 

This "grow the hobby" thing is targeted as much at people who stopped playing D&D as it is at people who have never played D&D. And that's what Essentials is trying most to do.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 19, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I agree that 4E needs innovation, but why do we need essentials to do it? Essentials might help, but I think it could have been/still could be done with the existing pre-essentials stuff.




I don't believe that Essentials means nothing will be done with/for pre-essentials stuff. I think it just opens the game up to go in various directions.

From what I took from the various gencon seminars and such I listened to it sounds like they're really trying hard to get the "base" of the game as solid as possible so they can stick with it for a long time. (Like MTG.)

This way they can layer options, and such on top to give players that want them new experiences without rebooting the base each time.


----------



## Almacov (Oct 19, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I would have been happiest if they had just continued to churn out a new PHB every year.




Would you have? They were already starting to experiment heavily with power structure in PHB3 - how are you sure they wouldn't have gone as far in PHB4 as the Hot books did? What was to stop them from deciding to preferentially design feats as heroic tier and scaling? 
They may have even decided to make flavour text more of a priority. 
(Though it would seem a little backwards to do that in a fourth PHB when the first one, which is the point at which prospective buyers would be turned away by the lack of it, was dry as dust.)

Am I in love with the essentials format? Believe it or not, no. I think the flavour text was wasted on the wrong areas in many cases, the tables seem confusing, I wish the Hot books could have featured rituals somehow (though that's being remedied in my eyes with the item which is the topic of this thread), and I don't agree with all their design choices.
That said, I think the game is growing naturally, and following the trends it had already been taking.

I think they needed a core reboot with flavour and affordability as priorities, because too many people turn away repulsed by the solid block of statistics and rules-speak that the initial 4e PHB was. (Not to mention its choppy, uncohesive art direction.)

I want more people to play the game. If that means not everything that comes out will be to my liking... well hell, not everything was before!
I was excited for psionics when it was announced, but looking at the final product, the whole thing sortof fell flat for me. For that matter, there are areas in any of the PHBs (any of the _books_) that disappointed me.

But I digress...

---------------

Just musing here for a moment, what would you like a potential second Class Compendium to cover, folks? 

I'd personally like to see the Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, as well as the Bard, brought back. Having the Druid and Bard reprinted opens the door for more rituals to be included, which could be a good opportunity for some non-PHB rituals to see print again (Thematically appropriate things like "Share Husk", in particular), or for the first time. (There are a number of great, fitting ones from Dragon, like "Explorer's Fire", "Spirit Fetch", and "Hunter's Curse".)


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 20, 2010)

Tallifer said:


> I do not see why anyone would be "afraid" never to see another new pre-essentials class.



Imho, it certainly beats getting a rehash of all classes we already had.


Almacov said:


> I was excited for psionics when it was announced, but looking at the final product, the whole thing sortof fell flat for me. For that matter, there are areas in any of the PHBs (any of the _books_) that disappointed me.



To a certain degree that is true for me, as well. I was a bit underwhelmed by the psionic classes, too (and psionics has always been my favorite part of the game!).
I also disliked the Hybrid rules, way too complicated and clunky - but then I was happy with the regular multi-classing, so I basically ignored Hybrids.

The funny thing is, though, Mr. Mearls mentioned that their attempts to tweak the standard class framework to create psionics and hybrids formed the groundwork for the Essentials classes.

In other words, exactly the things I disliked most in pre-Essentials 4e are the basis of Esentials! Isn't that great?

I was hoping - at least - for another set of nice Shadow classes. I'm not sure what we're going to get instead.
I also don't think all of the interesting archetypes are already covered. 3e had many more base classes than 4e without giving me the impression they were all treading on each others' toes.

For someone sold on certain key features of 4e, like the equal complexity of classes, Essentials is a setback. I don't feel resurrecting slaughtered sacred cows will bring the game forward.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 20, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I don't like any of the Essentials classes I've seen so far, though (except maybe the Wizard who's close enough to the pre-Essential version that I still recognize it as a 4e class). Why is it so difficult to understand that I am worried I will never see a new class again that I like? Someone once said, Essentials is like D&D 3.9. And that seems to be accurate: It's a step back. A step in the wrong direction (for me).



I don't think the Essential Fighter and Rogue will become the only type of new class there is. But then, we might not see any more standard at-will/encounter/daily classes either. Essentials carved out new space in class design. 

I am personally not really a fan of the Essential Martial classes so far. Too simply for my taste. But I am beginning to see how this time, classes without "daily powers" will not be shafted nor OP. 3E and earlier editions failed at that.


----------



## Zaran (Oct 20, 2010)

I reread the entry Amazon.com has.   I doubt there is much in the way of reprinting of older material in this book.  They might print out the errata'd powers but I think this is just going to have a way to make the two kinds of characters share abilities.   I expect a large portion of the book to be dedicated to an eWarlord.  I really wish they would get off this Essentials kick because frankly I'm uninterested in simplified characters.  If I wanted that I would have stayed with older editions.

It's comparible to making Mac's and PCs work together.


----------

