# 4e: big change in essentials: no more daily powers!



## ppaladin123 (Jul 6, 2010)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Commencing Countdown!)

Not sure if this is behind the d&di wall but I think everyone (regardless of edition preference) will be interested in this.

Here is a bullet point summary:

*Developers say that experience with system has made it, "clear that we could produce classes with different rates of class  feature and power acquisition without harming the game."

*Clear that players like, "having classes that were new, different, and  interesting."

*Inspired by experiment with power points and removing encounter powers in PH3

*Essentials: "introduce(s) greater differences of complexity between classes while also  creating options that (will) interest veterans of the game."

*Developers have eliminated daily powers in Essentials version of some classes and simplified many encounter mechanics.

*Essentials classes are "sub-classes" of existing classes reminiscent of those in previous editions. New classes have different mechanics from existing classes.

*Using Essentials version of class will be optional. Original builds will continue to work the same. No changes to pre-existing class builds except one: wizards' encounter-level spells now have a miss effect.

*Essentials races will have "more options."


So this looks pretty big. They apparently heard people complaining about the lack of difference between classes and are going to be producing classes with a variety of mechanics, some simple and some more complex. It looks like some classes will have versions that have no dailies. This might make some of the martial classes more like the Book of 9 Swords classes.

Originally we thought these would simply be new builds for the classes that work with existing mechanics (like the tempest fighter or the vestige warlock). Instead it looks like whole new class FORMS are going to be introduced.

I expect we'll see the dual primary stat classes (paladin and warlock, for example) given single primary-stat builds with very different mechanics. Depending on what is introduce this could could lead to the de facto death of the "original" versions of some class, as people switch en masse to the new implementation. It wouldn't just be a new option; it would be a fix. For other classes, it might just be an interesting chocie to make at character creation.

As a side note, there are previews for the essentials classes coming up each Friday in July. One of the previews is for the, "Knight," which I assume is a sub-class of the Fighter.

Thoughts?


----------



## Stormonu (Jul 6, 2010)

Retracted after reading article closer



> This point bears repeating—Aside from rules updates and changes to one category of wizard spells, the character you are playing today does not change in any major way. It was crucial to us that someone playing a dwarf fighter today didn’t need to rebuild that character once the Essentials products were released.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 6, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> Hmm.  Interesting developments, if true.  With these changes will the old rules be phased out with replacement books that use the new rules?




Before this becomes some internet meme it's worth emphasizing heavily _this is not what is happening_.

Copied from the article and pretty relevant to this:



> We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class. After all, plenty of people already play and enjoy the current fighter.  Why mess with that?




So these are not "Phasing out" the old rules, they are a different interpretation of those rules. Possibly with a bend to being a bit simpler for new players perhaps? I'm not entirely sure.

Either way, we are getting previews of some of the new essentials classes in Dragon this month. We'll be able to have a look at what they mean then.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 6, 2010)

I noted in my original post that the sub-classes will be optional and that the original class mechanics for the classes presented are still usable.

I'm guessing that players of some of the clunkier classes (warlock, cleric, paladin) will jump at the chance to convert over to a more effective sub-class. For them, this will be a fix.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2010)

Looking at this to what it brings to the game now, it only appears to be a positive development. A box with all your tokens and all your grids and all your rules? New and interesting class mechanics?

Yes, please! 

With everything they say, I keep thinking that the _Essentials_ line should have been what 4e was in the first place. 

It also sounds a lot like a 4.5e, in a lot of ways (new fighters! additive changes!) but not in others (they don't want you to have to re-make your character). 

I'm excited, though. They've got a good chance to mend some of the issues that 4e has faced so far with this line. It's still vague, but I'm liking what I'm hearing, and I look forward to seeing a fighter who plays like a fighter, without the straightjacket of the Vancian powers system.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 6, 2010)

So, am I the only one that liked uniform mechanics such every class having the at-will/encounter/daily system?

Because I really didn't like power points, and I hated that they shoehorned them back in.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 6, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> So, am I the only one that liked uniform mechanics such every class having the at-will/encounter/daily system?
> 
> Because I really didn't like power points, and I hated that they shoehorned them back in.



I liked it too, I wasn't clamoring for changes to at-will/encounter/daily system. But power points don't bother me either.


----------



## samursus (Jul 6, 2010)

This looks like big changes to me... and even though I think 4e is a great system as is, I am kinda impressed that they are willing to make changes now (how many 4.5's will we be able to see now) AND still make sure the original forms work.  This sounds to me like a good-ole-fashioned AD&D/BECMI dichotomy!  I like the concept... colour me optimistic.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jul 6, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> So, am I the only one that liked uniform mechanics such every class having the at-will/encounter/daily system?
> 
> Because I really didn't like power points, and I hated that they shoehorned them back in.




No, you're not. Yet to me it became clear early on that the way classes are constructed, with a big part of the rules folded into the Powers, would lead to mechanical variations.

Seems like 3.5e's jungle of prestige classes is replaced by a similar jungle of classes, class variations, sub-classes, and what not.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2010)

Yeah this is big, a step away from homogeneity. Which is good, hopefully this will give a more traditional DnD class difference feel.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Before this becomes some internet meme it's worth emphasizing heavily _this is not what is happening_.




Heh - it's funny how they say it, and then repeat it, and then finish with an example of how it's not that.  It's almost like they've gotten used to the idea of people completely misreporting stuff on the intrawebs!


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 6, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Heh - it's funny how they say it, and then repeat it, and then finish with an example of how it's not that.  It's almost like they've gotten used to the idea of people completely misreporting stuff on the intrawebs!




Yeah, what they're doing is still pretty different though and pretty confusing as well. Emphasizing that they are not making older material irrelevant is very important.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 6, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> So, am I the only one that liked uniform mechanics such every class having the at-will/encounter/daily system?




I'm not a fan of the uniformity.  I like classes to feel - and work - completely differently.  But it's just a taste thing.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 6, 2010)

I don't mind them mixing up mechanics now and I actually think it's a good idea. So long as they have learned the mistakes they made when they created the psionic classes we might be in for some neat new ideas.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 6, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> *Developers have eliminated daily powers in Essentials version of some classes and simplified many encounter mechanics.




Dang. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be 4.5.

I get that they're really, stridently insisting that this isn't the case. But changing the rules for PHB classes was arguably the most significant "this isn't compatible" change from 3.0 to 3.5. Even if there were plenty of people who kept playing their 3.0 rangers under the new ruleset.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I'm not a fan of the uniformity.  I like classes to feel - and work - completely differently.  But it's just a taste thing.




It may be a taste thing but it was also the DnD way, especially with the plethora of classes with 3rd. Until the 4E anyway.

Obviously it used to be not just classes that operated differently, everything used to. Which became more uniform over time ending in 4.0E, which is a logical progression I guess. But a lot of us think they went to far and it seems they think so too. So we have essentials which (although aim at beginers in one way also aim at more old school in another) increase complexity/optons in classes. Will we see Advanced 4E offering even more? A Wizard subclass that only uses dailies? A Fighter that only uses at wills? That would be great IMO, making 4E offer a full spectrum of class options.


Doubt it though.


----------



## mearls (Jul 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Dang. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be 4.5.




"If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2010)

mearls said:


> "If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."




Make it your sig, there is going to be a lot of this on the net LOL

It is more like 4E+ or Advanced 4E from that article.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 6, 2010)

mearls said:


> "If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."





Mr. Mearls,

I assume you are pretty much happy with the way races and classes are set up in the PHB III. Will the classes and races in PHBI&II not covered in these products (e.g. the deva, the warlord, the barbarian) also get the "essentials," treatment at some point though? It's great that there will be kits/sub-classes available for some classes (especially paladins and warlocks who need alternate class features badly!) but players of the other classes might feel left out in the cold.

On other question: Going forward, will Dragon support both essentials and original versions of classes in articles or are the original versions basically considered complete at this point?


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Dang. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be 4.5.
> 
> I get that they're really, stridently insisting that this isn't the case. But changing the rules for PHB classes was arguably the most significant "this isn't compatible" change from 3.0 to 3.5. Even if there were plenty of people who kept playing their 3.0 rangers under the new ruleset.




It isn't, because this in no way makes the PHB classes obsolete in any respect or manner at all. A fighter built using the PHB is still as functional in the rules as the essentials fighter. Mike Mearls wrote this over on the official forums:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> This is something worth pointing out - the Essentials doesn't change  anything that you like about 4e.
> 
> I don't want to say too much,  since we have more preview articles coming out, but if you decide you  don't like anything in the Essentials you'll still have plenty of new  books, interesting options, and so forth to look forward to.
> 
> ...




Also they made it very clear in the essentials article that it was fully compatible with what has come before.

Edit: He has beaten me to the punch! _You win this time Mr. Mearls, but I will get you next time and your little dog too!_


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jul 6, 2010)

On a related note, I was wondering why you made the decision to make the cleric the only leader represented in the books. Part of the idea of 4e (I thought) was to get away from the idea that there was only one healer (cleric) class and that somebody had to play it. I would have thought the warlord would be included to give another non-magical option for the "leader" role.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2010)

Aaargh damn XP system, another good point PP


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 6, 2010)

One of the other classes may have become a leader while we weren't looking.

Scandalous.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 6, 2010)

How will the powers for the new classes interact with the old? Will the "New" Fighter be able to take "Classic" fighter exploits and vice versa?

Cheers!


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jul 6, 2010)

mearls said:


> "If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."




Upon further investigation I found several additional quotes at WotC's website to back-up what Mearls is saying here:

"Your core rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-Essentials, and vice versa."

"Q: Will existing characters be easily and instantly portable to Essentials rules?
A: Easily, yes. Instantly -- depends on what you want to do. [They] can be run right out of the original books with few or no changes necessary."

I stand corrected. This is clearly nothing like the move from 3.0 to 3.5.

*Mod Edit*:  In case anyone missed it, the linked quotes supposedly "backing up" what mearls says are from 2003, and are not about the Essentials line.

Please don't misrepresent prior quotes from WotC (or anyone else), even for satirical purposes. 
~Umbran


----------



## King Nate (Jul 6, 2010)

mearls said:


> "If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."




If it only matters as much as I want them to, then why is it called Essentials? That name makes me think the products are absolutely necessary, meaning they matter a lot.


----------



## Aegeri (Jul 6, 2010)

King Nate said:


> If it only matters as much as I want them to, then why is it called Essentials? That name makes me think the products are absolutely necessary, meaning they matter a lot.




They are, for new players and that's what they are being aimed at. It's supposed to be a "This is essential for playing DnD if you've not played before". The intention is to bring in new players.

What remains to be seen, though I'm a bit more optimistic than I was, as to what they do _after_ essentials.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 6, 2010)

King Nate said:


> If it only matters as much as I want them to, then why is it called Essentials? That name makes me think the products are absolutely necessary, meaning they matter a lot.



One word: marketing.  (And it looks like it's working. )


----------



## Runestar (Jul 6, 2010)

I suppose it would be too much to expect an all-daily-powers class some time in the future?


----------



## FireLance (Jul 6, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> One of the other classes may have become a leader while we weren't looking.



Well, the paladin effectively has leader as a secondary role. A new druid build could be a secondary role leader as well.


----------



## bouncyhead (Jul 6, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> They are, for new players and that's what they are being aimed at. It's supposed to be a "This is essential for playing DnD if you've not played before". The intention is to bring in new players.
> 
> What remains to be seen, though I'm a bit more optimistic than I was, as to what they do _after_ essentials.




Won't this new generation of players see the Essentials classes as the new base? I assume the strategy is to gently push these new players towards all the riches of 'old' (can't believe I just said that) 4E, but is it not likely that these players would like to see more differentiation in class mechanics if that's what they've been given a taste for? 'Old' 4E classes might look a little, well, _samey_...


----------



## Windjammer (Jul 6, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Upon further investigation I found several additional quotes at WotC's website to back-up what Mearls is saying here:
> 
> "Your core rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-Essentials, and vice versa."
> 
> ...




Oh yeah, totally.



> Q: Will there be a rebate program for previous owners who buy the new books?
> A: Not to my knowledge. Your 3.0 rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-3.5, and vice versa. The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either; there will be changes. ....​
> *02/18/03 - How Easy Will it be to Update Characters*
> Q: Will existing characters be easily and instantly portable to 3.5 rules?
> ...



I'm sorry if I ruined your joke, but taking the second thing from the 3.0/3.5 Q'n'A and to suggest Mearls said it a propos 4.0/4.Essentials seemed rather confusing.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> So these are not "Phasing out" the old rules, they are a different interpretation of those rules. Possibly with a bend to being a bit simpler for new players perhaps? I'm not entirely sure.
> 
> Either way, we are getting previews of some of the new essentials classes in Dragon this month. We'll be able to have a look at what they mean then.




"Phasing out" would probably be more appropriate for a new edition (ie. 5E D&D), than a sub-edition like 4E Essentials.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Aegeri said:


> Emphasizing that they are not making older material irrelevant is very important.




A "preventative measure" at minimizing nerd rage, from the start.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> A "preventative measure" at minimizing nerd rage, from the start.




Reminds me of how WoTC at the initial 4E announcement stressed that it was less of a change than any previous edition changes...


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 6, 2010)

Yey, I'm chuffed they are attempting to change around some of the power structures for 4e. I'm very interested in what they come up with.

4e, 4.5e: bleah; whatever...

This is the best news in ages...


----------



## Windjammer (Jul 6, 2010)

As always, we’re looking at press releases touting the changes as good for everyone round. No relativization – whether you’re a total newb or a veteran player, you gonna love Essentials! What a load of overstatement. 

For my money, we're simply looking at a revamped 4.0 geared to a different audience. 4.0 was in part about appeasing extant 3.5 palyers. 4.0 originally didn’t contain daily powers until playtesters wanted them back in because leaving them out wouldn't have "felt like D&D", so the designers followed suit and put them back in (read this in _Races& Classes_). 

That was in 2008, with 3.5 still going strong. Today we see WotC releasing a new, half, or quarter, or whatever sub-edition to a different audience which partly gets rid of daily powers, just as originally intended - to appeal to new players and partly those fed up on some 4Eisms. 

But make no mistake. This is no longer about appeasing 3.5 players, it's about appeasing extant 4.0 players. Which is why this is so frustratingly schizophrenic to everyone involved (designers and customers) – you want to sell the new framework to people who’d love improvements but are unsure about the delivered format. Half-editions or quarter-editions have never sat well with customers because of their price-tag. 

Good luck everyone.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> As always, we’re looking at press releases touting the changes as good for everyone round. No relativization – whether you’re a total newb or a veteran player, you gonna love Essentials! What a load of overstatement.
> 
> For my money, we're simply looking at a revamped 4.0 geared to a different audience. 4.0 was in part about appeasing extant 3.5 palyers. 4.0 originally didn’t contain daily powers until playtesters wanted them back in because leaving them out wouldn't have "felt like D&D", so the designers followed suit and put them back in (read this in _Races& Classes_).
> 
> ...




Fast forward to 2010, the hardcore 3.5E crowds are most likely either:

- still playing 3.5E
- defected to Pathfinder
- tried 4E but didn't like it, and went back to 3.5E or Pathfinder
- moved on to something else completely.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 6, 2010)

As someone who does not like 4E primarily because of the PC class trucure and mechanics, I am actually interested in seeing what they did here and very cautiously hopeful they "fixed" it (from my perspective, of course). But it better be good, because I have since invested in Pathfinder and getting me to switch is going to take something awesome.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Wonder if they will make the wizard's "dispel magic" into an at-will or encounter power.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> So, am I the only one that liked uniform mechanics such every class having the at-will/encounter/daily system?
> 
> Because I really didn't like power points, and I hated that they shoehorned them back in.



Power points would have been okay, had they kept the prices the same throughout tiers, and just stopped giving you more after level 10.

They'd be slightly more flexible encounter powers.

As is, the end result seems to be "stick with heroic powers always"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

4.5 is here it seems. The biggest question I have is about the software. Will the CB be able to support making characters for both versions and will new material/updates continue to be added for both versions?


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

Interesting...

I know it's tempting to call it a 4.5, but if they say it all works together-

The emphasis seems to be on them this time around to make sure it all works together in the CB.  



Runestar said:


> I suppose it would be too much to expect an all-daily-powers class some time in the future?




Do something DUDE!!!!


- Meh... I did something earlier today. I'll do something tomorrow.


YOU ARE THE LAZIEST ADVENTURER EVER! (Oh god the goblins are eating my spleen!)


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 6, 2010)

While above I commented that I agreed this sounded like 4E, after some reflection I think it sounds more like "Book of Nine Swords." The Bo9S effectively replaced the fighter, monk, and paladin classes; but it didn't make anything else obsolete, and you didn't have to use the Bo9S classes if you really liked the old ones.


----------



## Shazman (Jul 6, 2010)

So as many of us suspected the Essentials line is 4.5, but it will not be called 4.5 becasue Wotc said there will be no 4.5.  WotC can call it whatever they want, but if you are messing with the power system of the classes, which is what the whole game is designed around, coupled with the hundred of rules updates since 4E's release, you are getting into new edition territory.  If it looks like 4.5 and sounds like 4.5, it's 4.5.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jul 6, 2010)

Why not call it 4EE?

Or 4E2?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Wonder how many of these crunch changes is related to the "Abyssal Plague" RSE.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

Shazman said:


> So as many of us suspected the Essentials line is 4.5, but it will not be called 4.5 becasue Wotc said there will be no 4.5.  WotC can call it whatever they want, but if you are messing with the power system of the classes, which is what the whole game is designed around, coupled with the hundred of rules updates since 4E's release, you are getting into new edition territory.  If it looks like 4.5 and sounds like 4.5, it's 4.5.




But if it actually DOES work fine with the existing products?


----------



## Shazman (Jul 6, 2010)

Then it is 4.5 with a lot of backward compatability (in theory), but it's still 4.5.  We'll see how this plays out.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Then is is 4.5 with a lot of backward compatability (in theory), but it's still 4.5.  We'll see how this plays out.




Nah.  It's really 4.25  

PHB1 = 4.0
PHB2 = 4.1
PHB3 = 4.2
Essentials = 4.25


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Then is is 4.5 with a lot of backward compatability (in theory), but it's still 4.5.  We'll see how this plays out.




I guess you can call it whatever you want really...

I mean if it all works together, and they end up just being another "class option" you can choose from who cares?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 6, 2010)

very interesting


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jul 6, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I'm not a fan of the uniformity.  I like classes to feel - and work - completely differently.  But it's just a taste thing.



You taste your classes? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Scribble said:


> Do something DUDE!!!!
> 
> 
> - Meh... I did something earlier today. I'll do something tomorrow.
> ...



Is Scribble talking to himself here? In any event, this thread needs more of this sort of random talk.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I mean if it all works together, and they end up just being another "class option" you can choose from who cares?




I can't wait to see the preview classes. If all the new sub-classes are _better _than the originals then it really won't matter if they are available or supported because no one will care. 

There is little need to try and force a change that's much easier to get people to leap towards.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 6, 2010)

Since we already knew the Essentials line would have new "builds" for existing classes, it seems that *some* classes will have non-daily-power builds. So you could build a:

- Sword-n-board Fighter
- Greatweapon Fighter
- Battlerager Fighter
- Tempest Fighter
- Essential (or Whatever) Fighter.

Me, I'm curious to see what the Whatever Fighter can do!


----------



## Klaus (Jul 6, 2010)

Runestar said:


> I suppose it would be too much to expect an all-daily-powers class some time in the future?



Wow, that would be almost... what's the word?... Vancian!


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I can't wait to see the preview classes. If all the new sub-classes are _better _than the originals then it really won't matter if they are available or supported because no one will care.
> 
> There is little need to try and force a change that's much easier to get people to leap towards.



Why assume that WotC wants to obsolete their old books?

WotC wants to make sure they sell as many books as possible. Making the old ones obsolete would be counterproductive to that goal.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I can't wait to see the preview classes. If all the new sub-classes are _better _than the originals then it really won't matter if they are available or supported because no one will care.
> 
> There is little need to try and force a change that's much easier to get people to leap towards.




If something like this happens, wonder if it will produce a new "grognard" class of 4E players + DMs who ban any and all 4E Essentials content from their games.  

(ie.  4E core grognards).


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> I can't wait to see the preview classes. If all the new sub-classes are _better _than the originals then it really won't matter if they are available or supported because no one will care.
> 
> There is little need to try and force a change that's much easier to get people to leap towards.




Not sure anything needs to be be "forced" but yeah... If it's just another class option, if it's cool, then I think people will want to play with them. (Just like they do now when a new class is added.)



ggroy said:


> If something like this happens, wonder if it will produce a new "grognard" class of 4E players + DMs who ban any and all 4E Essentials content from their games.
> 
> (ie.  4E core grognards).




Back in MY day boy we didn't have any of this nonsense you have now... We had to wait a WHOLE extended rest to re-use our powers.  Made the game way more fun. Had to learn how to play better... by doin stuff like resting!

Those were the days I tells yah... Ahhh 3 months ago...


----------



## korjik (Jul 6, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Heh - it's funny how they say it, and then repeat it, and then finish with an example of how it's not that. It's almost like they've gotten used to the idea of people completely misreporting stuff on the intrawebs!




Yeah, just like when they repeatedly said they werent working on 4th edition.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

korjik said:


> Yeah, just like when they repeatedly said they werent working on 4th edition.




*** A UFO landing on the front law of the white house.  ***

I repeat, space aliens do not exist!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Why assume that WotC wants to obsolete their old books?
> 
> WotC wants to make sure they sell as many books as possible. Making the old ones obsolete would be counterproductive to that goal.




But they won't _be _obsolete. They will be perfectly useable just  like a lot of other things. The new stuff might be better in every way but nothing keeps those old classes from functioning just like they always did. Who cares if other players can do things with encounter powers that you can do with dailies. That just makes you more special. 

I gotta say that playtesting is a major concern. If the decision to make these changes was made after getting feedback from PHB 3 then how much playtest could this new system have gotten? This all seems somewhat rushed IMHO.


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> But they won't _be _obsolete. They will be perfectly useable just  like a lot of other things. The new stuff might be better in every way but nothing keeps those old classes from functioning just like they always did. Who cares if other players can do things with encounter powers that you can do with dailies. That just makes you more special.



Again: why would they want to stop people buying the old books?

If they make the essentials classes clearly superior to the old books people will buy one or the other.

If they make them reasonably balanced, people will buy both.

The only way they'll end up being overpowered is incompetence, not malice.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Again: why would they want to stop people buying the old books?
> 
> If they make the essentials classes clearly superior to the old books people will buy one or the other.
> 
> ...




At this point in time, wonder how many copies of the older 4E books are still kicking around in WotC's warehouses.

For that matter, there is the possibility they have no intentions of doing any additional print runs of the older 4E books.  They could just let them go out of print over the next year or so.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Again: why would they want to stop people buying the old books?
> 
> If they make the essentials classes clearly superior to the old books people will buy one or the other.
> 
> ...




I'm hoping/guessing it will be kinda similar to when they added Hybrid classes to the system. 

The original multi-class system is still in effect, and people still use it. Hybrid just opened up another set of options to select from when creating a character.

So- with the essentials classes you might have a Dwarven Fighter with Dailies and a Dwarven fighter without Dailies fighting side by side in an adventuring party, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

I wonder if you'll be able to hybrid an essentials class with a non essentials class...


----------



## Kingreaper (Jul 6, 2010)

@ggroy if the Essentials is significantly OP, which do you think will happen more often:

A) a group playing normal 4e goes "ooh, uber-overpowered, let's buy that and throw all our old books away"
or
B) a group playing normal 4e goes "ooh, uber-overpowered? *meh* the game works as is, why break it?"

Maybe it's just the people I play with, but I can't imagine any of them going for option A.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> Again: why would they want to stop people buying the old books?
> 
> If they make the essentials classes clearly superior to the old books people will buy one or the other.
> 
> ...




I never said it was some evil plan. It is simply what happens. The excitement of new ideas and the rush to release them into production can result in more power creep than the most carefully constructed scheme could. Think about it. How long has it been since PHB 3? How much post design playtesting including integration with recently released existing product could there be time for before essentials release?


----------



## bagger245 (Jul 6, 2010)

AD&D 2nd ed + Player Option was never called 2.5, but a lot of us call it so anyway. By the way, was there a significant difference between the Star Wars d20 and the Star Wars Revised edition (not the SAGA edition) ?


----------



## Njall (Jul 6, 2010)

korjik said:


> Yeah, just like when they repeatedly said they werent working on 4th edition.




 yes, just like that... 

Anyway, it looks like the Essentials line is exactly what BECMI was: a game that uses the same jargon and mechanics as the main line, with some slight variations (while still being far more compatible with 4e than BECMI was with 1e and 2e).
If adding new mechanics to the system means that we have a new half edition, then we've had a whole lot of "half editions" in the 3.5 era: ToM, MoI, ToB, UA, the first books that introduced class sub levels and so on...


----------



## mudbunny (Jul 6, 2010)

This seems like an opportune time to note the latest response by Mike Mearls on the WotC forums about this:



> We're in a bit of a weird space, since we don't really talk about the next year's releases until GenCon. However, I can say that since wrapping up Essentials design we've been busy working on 2011 releases. Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.


----------



## korjik (Jul 6, 2010)

mearls said:


> "If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."




If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Fourth edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the 3.5 edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Third edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Second edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.

ect....

So how exactly does this say anything about essentials being a ball-less 4.5?


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Kingreaper said:


> @ggroy if the Essentials is significantly OP, which do you think will happen more often:
> 
> A) a group playing normal 4e goes "ooh, uber-overpowered, let's buy that and throw all our old books away"
> or
> B) a group playing normal 4e goes "ooh, uber-overpowered? *meh* the game works as is, why break it?"




I can see powergamer types going for A.

For the players in my previous 4E games, they would most likely go for B.  If the 4E Essentials titles turn out to be significantly overpowered, I can also see the B types banning some of the Essentials stuff from their games.


----------



## Danzauker (Jul 6, 2010)

I like they are experimenting with new class paradigms other than the usual at-will/encounter/daily, just like I'm happy with they did with psionic classes.

True, they were not perfect, but I can just not play them if I don't like them and keep using the ones I like.

What feels strange to me is to have an "alternate fighter". If they just gave the class a new name, say Warrior or wathever, in order to avoid incongruences, I would have no problems. Still, I see why on a marketing perpective WotC doesn't want to promote a new "Essential D&D line" without including the four "essential" classes of fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue.

Funny that lots of people complain that they are giving people what many complained not having from the beginning: a fighter without dailies. 

What matters most in my eyes anyway is that if I go play with my PHB fighter with a player which only owns the essential books, both our characters can play together. From what they boast, it seems it's so. We'll see if they keep their promise.


----------



## Shazman (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> But they won't _be _obsolete. They will be perfectly useable just  like a lot of other things. The new stuff might be better in every way but nothing keeps those old classes from functioning just like they always did. Who cares if other players can do things with encounter powers that you can do with dailies. That just makes you more special.
> 
> I gotta say that playtesting is a major concern. If the decision to make these changes was made after getting feedback from PHB 3 then how much playtest could this new system have gotten? This all seems somewhat rushed IMHO.




Playtesting? This is WotC. They just release stuff, let people on char-op boards find broken combos and then nerf the offending material into sub-par options several months later with a "rules update".  At least it seems like that's how they do it.  I have yet to see much evidence of playtesting as a means of QA in 4E to date.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 6, 2010)

Yet another thread that reminds me why I love the internet. Please keep speculating, everyone!


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Yet another thread that reminds me why I love the internet. Please keep speculating, everyone!




It replaces the Magic 8-Ball.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2010)

Ack.  Well, I'll still wait and see, but this is a much bigger switch than I had anticipated...

My main concern is that, as far as I remember, the Essentials line is supposed to be "evergreen" - that is, it will stay in production for the life of the edition.  My impression was that it would eventually replace the traditional PHB/DMG/MM model.

I'm not sure if this news somewhat deflates that expectation, or reinforces it.

EDIT: As for calling it "4.5" - well, it'll largely depend on what we're looking at once the books are released.  Honestly, I've been in favor of getting a "4.5" for a year or so now, after seeing how much better later releases have been than the original PHB and MM.   The designers didn't really hit their stride, I think, until the rule-set was released to the public and they could see what a huge group does with the rules, as opposed to internal testing and a relatively small group of playtesters.  Compatibility will be my big question, followed closely by obsolescence - that is, will the new "builds" out-compete the old ones?  It will also depend on the future release schedule - will we see any new Daily powers for those classes who are losing theirs?

-O


----------



## TerraDave (Jul 6, 2010)

As someone who was--speculating--that essentials was 4.x for sometime, I am not here to say I told you so, or at least not just that. 

The errata and the later books already had us creeping to 4.5...compared to another RPG, core book D&D and DDI D&D would already be considered different editions. And yes, editions of a game can be compatible with each other. Just look at TSRs D&D.  

I welcome these changes. I welcome everything said so far about essentials. Don't feel so warm and fuzzy about outdated books in 2 years, or the confusion they may cause.


----------



## Shemeska (Jul 6, 2010)

This reminds me of when it was stated (by Rouse?) that there would be no 4.5, only 4e.

Interesting times. Interesting times.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

I wonder how many happy and satisfied 4E fans are grumbling about Essentials?


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jul 6, 2010)

$%##%^@#!!!  Finally, I thought, a set of books I don't have to buy.  I mean, it's aimed at beginners, right?  Nothing new for us, just a smaller version of D&D to entice non-gamers into trying it....

But noooo, they are gonna get my money after all.  New builds, new options...those evil bastards!


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wonder how many happy and satisfied 4E fans are grumbling about Essentials?




A new generation of 4E core "grognards".


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2010)

Really people? How is a new book of options for the game a call for 4.5? How is this any different than any book that has released since the core 3? Just because of the new power structure? Really? Then someone should tell the Pathfinder fans to stop nicknaming their game 3.75 because there were a whole bunch of books released during 3.5 that introduced new mechanics. I guess Pathfinder should actually be dubbed 3.99995 or somesuch.

What this sounds like to me is the second phase of marketing. I seem to remember that 4E was targetted at disenchanted 3.5 players and new blood. The next phase was to try to get players of older editions back into the game. The terminology they use, like Sub-Classes, makes me beleive that D&D essentials isn't truly aimed just at new players, but previous-edition veterans as well.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2010)

Color me... interested.

I _like_ the idea of an evolving design, from both a creative, and let's be honest, business perspective --WotC _does_ need to keep move product/hold on to subscriptions.

However, I also liked the original class design/power structure. Sure, they _read_ alike, but _played_ different. Homogeneity was never a problem for my group. 

Well, at the very least least, we'll have some new toys to play around with/evaluate. Looks like I'll be keeping my subscription...


----------



## Zaran (Jul 6, 2010)

I have to wonder how they are going to support the new design of no dailies.  I haven't seen any mention of any essentials product that takes a class beyond 3rd level.  I would think that many people who pick up the red box will peg at 3rd level quickly.  So does that mean they will have to switch to having dailies?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> A new generation of 4E core "grognards".




Nah, we'll just call them "Non-Essentials" ...oops...


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I have to wonder how they are going to support the new design of no dailies.  I haven't seen any mention of any essentials product that takes a class beyond 3rd level.  I would think that many people who pick up the red box will peg at 3rd level quickly.  So does that mean they will have to switch to having dailies?




The Rules Compendium for Essentials contains rules for levels 1-30, and though not specifically stated I can't see why the two Players books wouldn't do the same.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wonder how many happy and satisfied 4E fans are grumbling about Essentials?




It probably won't be much different than the hardcore 1E AD&D people, who have banned 1E Unearthed Arcana from their games.  Or for that matter, the hardcore 2E AD&D groups which banned the Player's Options books.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> This reminds me of when it was stated (by Rouse?) that there would be no 4.5, only 4e.
> 
> Interesting times. Interesting times.




Yeah. Kind of wonder if he chose to leave once he found out that there would actually be a 4.5. 

I was honestly expecting a major change of some type. It was hard to believe that a whole new product line would be released just as a gateway for new players. There was no way this thing was hitting the shelves without including something for the core market of existing players. 

As it stands now, the product includes a great entry point for newbies _and _an irresistable lure for existing players with all the new material. Both markets hooked with a single product line.


----------



## Shazman (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Yeah. Kind of wonder if he chose to leave once he found out that there would actually be a 4.5.
> 
> This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I read one of his blogs, and he didn't choose to leave.  He left the same way most people leave WotC.  He was laid off.  He was a victim of the "every six month" layoff cycle (at least that's what it seems like) which has been in place at WotC at least since 4E was released.  I fully expect to see a number of people laid off from WotC in mid-late November or early December.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Or for that matter, the hardcore 2E AD&D groups which banned the Player's Options books.



Woot! I guess this means, I'm retroactively, officially hardcore, now! 

Considering Essentials is supposed to be 'evergreen', maybe they'll even find a new German partner who'll provide translated versions. Currently, D&D is officially dead, with Pathfinder replacing it in the German rpg landscape.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wonder how many happy and satisfied 4E fans are grumbling about Essentials?



I've seen a few, but not many.   It looks more like a lot of I-told-you-so's and "hmmmm..."s and "4.5omfg!"s from folks who aren't fans of 4e, anyways.

I think a whole lot of folks who actually play 4e know two things:
(1) *We could, honestly, probably use a 4.5*, to clear up some otherwise-insoluble issues with the first core book release.  Later releases - from PHB2 and on - have been much higher-quality.
(2) *Wizards can't make me buy new books*.  They can barely even _encourage_ me to do so, if the book is mostly crunch.  I have DDI, and don't need it.

As a 4e fan, I won't know whether or not to grumble until I can see a PHB Fighter and an Essentials Fighter side-by-side, and neither one is particularly better than the other.  I also won't know whether or not to grumble until I see how the future releases look.

If it's exactly what the article says it is, I think making it so some class builds play differently than others could be downright brilliant and - actually - long over-due.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

ppaladin123 said:


> Thoughts?




I'd call this 4.5.


RC


-


----------



## Kitesh (Jul 6, 2010)

As a new-ish player, I don't get the hand-wringing. As far as I can tell (my close reading skills having lapsed somewhat since Lit 101), the gist of the announcement is "Here's some new stuff- we pinky-swear it doesn't change any of the current stuff."

Now, there will always be people who hate the current stuff and were irrationally hoping the new stuff would herald a return to the old stuff. But what I don't understand is the seemingly large number of people (at least among people I follow here and on Twitter) who like the current stuff and yet are still "worried about Essentials." Worried about what? Worried that WotC is lying through their teeth and has a secret plan to totally sabotage the current stuff? Seems unlikely. Worried that Essentials won't be a magic silver bullet that has every 13-18 year old in the world playing D&D three times a week as an introduction to a lifetime of RPG goodness? Well, that hope seems irrational too.

From my usual standpoint of "hey, how does this affect ME", it looks likes it provides even more options for building the kind of game and character I want. I have a hard time getting worried about that.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I've seen a few, but not many.   It looks more like a lot of I-told-you-so's and "hmmmm..."s and "4.5omfg!"s from folks who aren't fans of 4e, anyways.




Well, that was what I was sarcastically insinuating. The usual suspects puffing smoke again...



Obryn said:


> I think a whole lot of folks who actually play 4e know two things:
> (1) *We could, honestly, probably use a 4.5*, to clear up some otherwise-insoluble issues with the first core book release.  Later releases - from PHB2 and on - have been much higher-quality.
> (2) *Wizards can't make me buy new books*.  They can barely even _encourage_ me to do so, if the book is mostly crunch.  I have DDI, and don't need it.




As for 1, errata and supplements(hello shiny Paladin candy) have taken care of most of the issues on the players side(Warlocks being lackluster outside of hardcore powergaming being an exception). I'm sure a lot of people would get some use out of a PHB with some of the "fixes" from Martial/Arcane/Divine/ect power books and errata. The real glaring thing a 4.5 book could deliver would be a Monster Manual 1 of the same quality as the second two.

As for 2, I don't think anything WotC does is going to make a big difference to those people.



Obryn said:


> As a 4e fan, I won't know whether or not to grumble until I can see a PHB Fighter and an Essentials Fighter side-by-side, and neither one is particularly better than the other.  I also won't know whether or not to grumble until I see how the future releases look.
> 
> If it's exactly what the article says it is, I think making it so some class builds play differently than others could be downright brilliant and - actually - long over-due.
> 
> -O




Psionics with power points didn't break anything, so I'm not that worried. With splatbooks, Dragon articles and new mechanics they've done a consistently good job at balance during 4E. If anything, I'd expect them to err on the underpowered side of imbalance.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

Kitesh said:


> As a new-ish player, I don't get the hand-wringing. As far as I can tell (my close reading skills having lapsed somewhat since Lit 101), the gist of the announcement is "Here's some new stuff- we pinky-swear it doesn't change any of the current stuff."
> 
> Now, there will always be people who hate the current stuff and were irrationally hoping the new stuff would herald a return to the old stuff. But what I don't understand is the seemingly large number of people (at least among people I follow here and on Twitter) who like the current stuff and yet are still "worried about Essentials." Worried about what? Worried that WotC is lying through their teeth and has a secret plan to totally sabotage the current stuff? Seems unlikely. Worried that Essentials won't be a magic silver bullet that has every 13-18 year old in the world playing D&D three times a week as an introduction to a lifetime of RPG goodness? Well, that hope seems irrational too.
> 
> From my usual standpoint of "hey, how does this affect ME", it looks likes it provides even more options for building the kind of game and character I want. I have a hard time getting worried about that.




Most of the people "worrying" in this thread aren't people who "like the current stuff".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> (2) *Wizards can't make me buy new books*. They can barely even _encourage_ me to do so, if the book is mostly crunch. I have DDI, and don't need it.
> 
> -O




Maybe you could help me find something in the compendium? 2 of my players created some replacement characters for the campaign. One has a familiar and the other is a ranger with a beast companion. Where online are the actual general rules for these things? The creatures are in the CB but the rules for using them are where in the compendium? Maybe my search skills stink.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Maybe you could help me find something in the compendium? 2 of my players created some replacement characters for the campaign. One has a familiar and the other is a ranger with a beast companion. Where online are the actual general rules for these things? The creatures are in the CB but the rules for using them are where in the compendium? Maybe my search skills stink.



OK, but you have to follow my instructions closely...  WAIT!  THEY'RE NOT THERE!  OMG!  This means that familiars and beast companions are 4.5!  It happened so much sooner than I thought it would!

My point stands.  Unless there's a brand new and intricate rule subsystem, the Character Builder and Compendium will handle it just fine.

-O


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Maybe you could help me find something in the compendium? 2 of my players created some replacement characters for the campaign. One has a familiar and the other is a ranger with a beast companion. Where online are the actual general rules for these things? The creatures are in the CB but the rules for using them are where in the compendium? Maybe my search skills stink.




To answer this honestly, the compendium really doesn't seem to answer these. There is a bad description of the beast companion rules in the Ranger class entry. It has some things missing from it and isn't entirely clear. The base familiar rules I can't seem to find, and my compendium-fu is pretty strong. The Familiar rules I'd advise finding the Dragon article that spawned them, which isn't difficult. For the Ranger, I think the only solutions are physically reading Martial Power or getting somebody on a forum you can trust to explain it to you.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 6, 2010)

My own thoughts is that, with the exception  nature of 4e rules it should be possible to create lots of variant classes with out much if any power creep.

Though I do not see how a daily only class could work and be balanced at the same time.
In that, I think it would be possible to create a class with at wills only and some resource to spend to create encounter and daily like powers the daily only class would have only one or two dailies that corresponded to the normal dailies and the rest would be quite poor so the class would not be worth taking or they would be better and the class would be overpowered.

What seems to me to be possible in the current structure are:
Classes as they are; with at wills, enounter and daily powers
Classes with augmentable at will powers, to encounter and to daily levels.
Classes with at wills and encounters with an option to augment some encounters in to dailies.
Classes with at wills and encounters with a recharge mechanism for encounter powers.
I suppose that at wills, augment at wills to encounter and daillies only could be managed.


----------



## Stoat (Jul 6, 2010)

I'm pretty sure you can find the rules for ranger animal companions in the Character Builder.  I remember looking for them, finding them either in the CB or the Compendium, thinking that what was online had to be incomplete, looking at the full rules in Martial Power and realizing there was nothing in the book that wasn't online.  

On topic: I'm cautiously optimistic about Essentials.  I'd like an update to the rules that incorporates the errata.  I'd like to see MM1 monsters beefed up to MM3 standards (although I don't think that's what we'll get).  I'm curious to see how WotC tries to balance classes with no dailies.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> To answer this honestly, the compendium really doesn't seem to answer these. There is a bad description of the beast companion rules in the Ranger class entry. It has some things missing from it and isn't entirely clear. The base familiar rules I can't seem to find, and my compendium-fu is pretty strong. The Familiar rules I'd advise finding the Dragon article that spawned them, which isn't difficult. For the Ranger, I think the only solutions are physically reading Martial Power or getting somebody on a forum you can trust to explain it to you.




Heh. That was kind of my point. I got martial power and arcane power in order to have the full rules. The DDI gave us just enough crunch to put on the character sheet without any substantial structure to back it up short of physical product. So much for the DDI providing all the crunch theory.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> OK, but you have to follow my instructions closely...  WAIT!  THEY'RE NOT THERE!  OMG!  This means that familiars and beast companions are 4.5!  It happened so much sooner than I thought it would!




EDIT:  I am editting this post because I see that you made a lot of the points I was intending to make, and thought that you were opposed to.

Saying "This seems like 4.5" =/= "OMG!" or "I told you so."

I am actually looking forward to 5e, when and if it should come about.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't suppose you believe it possible for a person to say "This seems like 4.5" without believing that the person is also freaking out and going "OMG!"




I don't think saying that is unreasonable... But saying "See I told you Essentials was 4.5!!! WoTC lied" is...  Especially with what little we know.



> The changes certainly seem as great as those between 3.0 and 3.5, regardless of whether or not WotC wants to call it 4.5.  And, if the result is a superior product, why would anyone be unhappy to see 4.5 anyway?
> 
> Methinks thou doth protest too much.




We only know of one... and we don't even really know if it's a "change" or just another option... Seems like they're leaning in the "another option" direction to me... Which is why I say it so far to me seems similar to the hybrid rules.




RC

-[/QUOTE]


----------



## bagger245 (Jul 6, 2010)

So can we expect daily powers/spells to be completely gone in 5e and become a spell point-ish system?


----------



## Zaran (Jul 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> OK, but you have to follow my instructions closely... WAIT! THEY'RE NOT THERE! OMG! This means that familiars and beast companions are 4.5! It happened so much sooner than I thought it would!
> 
> My point stands. Unless there's a brand new and intricate rule subsystem, the Character Builder and Compendium will handle it just fine.
> 
> -O




I hope you are right.  I have to wonder if they will hold off on adding the Essentials to the online stuff just to get us to buy them.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't suppose you believe it possible for a person to say "This seems like 4.5" without believing that the person is also freaking out and going "OMG!"



You... don't really read entire posts, do you?  (edit: Nope, but you're man enough to fess up and edit down the road, so thanks for that.)

As I said - in bold-face no less - I think 4e could use a 4.5.  But, I don't think this sounds like it, so far.  Most of the folks who want to call it 4.5 aren't looking at the available evidence in anything approaching a rational fashion - given that it's based on a very short and vague article.  So there's a whole lotta "gotcha!" to it, and a whole lot of trying to rub WotC's face in Rouse's quote.

For example, you said,


> The changes certainly seem as great as those between 3.0 and 3.5, regardless of whether or not WotC wants to call it 4.5.



Simply put, I don't know where you're getting it from the actual article.  I'd agree if, for example, PHB Fighters are no longer valid and supported choices, we're looking at an edition-like step.  But, if this offers comparable stuff to the existing stuff, and can coexist alongside it without even a burp, it's no more an edition step than any other new PHB or Power book release.  It'd be somewhere around the addition of Hybrids and Skill Powers from PHB3.

So no, I don't think you can call this 4.5 *yet* unless you're freaking out and/or being disingenuous.

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

bagger245 said:


> So can we expect daily powers/spells to be completely gone in 5e and become a spell point-ish system?




Who knows what 5e will bring?


----


Who knows what 5e will bring
In a world few orcs survive?
All I know is the name's the same --
it sells -- they'll keep it alive.



RC

--


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> You... don't really read entire posts, do you?  (edit: Nope, but you're man enough to fess up, so thanks for that.)




You're welcome; thanks for the edit.



> As I said - in bold-face no less - I think 4e could use a 4.5.  But, I don't think this sounds like it, so far.




That's too bad, if true.  Of course, I used 3.5 stuff with 3e "without even a burp".......As did/do many people I know. 


RC


----------



## Thanlis (Jul 6, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Simply put, I don't know where you're getting it from the actual article.  I'd agree if, for example, PHB Fighters are no longer valid and supported choices, we're looking at an edition-like step.  But, if this offers comparable stuff to the existing stuff, and can coexist alongside it without even a burp, it's no more an edition step than any other new PHB or Power book release.  It'd be somewhere around the addition of Hybrids and Skill Powers from PHB3.




Exactly. If adding new mechanics is 4.5, then psionic classes were already 4.5, and I don't think they were. 

I think the reason many non-4e players are reacting so strongly is because they really don't understand 4e design. It continues to be expansion-based design in the tradition of Cosmic Encounters and Magic: there is a fairly trim set of rules, and each class is a nicely bundled set of rules and options that expands on that core set. Adding another bundle of rules doesn't change the underlying rules any more than adding a new keyword fundamentally changes Magic.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> It probably won't be much different than the hardcore 1E AD&D people, who have banned 1E Unearthed Arcana from their games.  Or for that matter, the hardcore 2E AD&D groups which banned the Player's Options books.




You didn't have to be hardcore to not use some of the Player's Options books. They made for a substantially modified game, easily as big a shift as going from 2e to 3e but without the fanfare and support of a full new edition.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Who knows what 5e will bring?




- No daily powers.  (ie. Only at-will and encounter powers).
- A generic world universe cleansed of all canon.  (ie.  "Abyssal Plague" took care of everything).


----------



## the Jester (Jul 6, 2010)

korjik said:


> If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Fourth edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.




Cite?



korjik said:


> If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Third edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.




Cite?



korjik said:


> If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Second edition products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged.




Cite?

I don't think they actually said most of those things, but you go ahead and keep calling them liars. Also, if Essentials = 4.5, why didn't the Power books = 4.5?

I guess basically what I am saying is that if you think the sky is falling, that's fine, but at least look up to check before you start screaming in a panic.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 6, 2010)

billd91 said:


> You didn't have to be hardcore to not use some of the Player's Options books. They made for a substantially modified game, easily as big a shift as going from 2e to 3e but without the fanfare and support of a full new edition.




Or anything approaching balance or quality (at least, in Skill & Powers).


----------



## Obryn (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> That's too bad, if true.  Of course, I used 3.5 stuff with 3e "without even a burp".......As did/do many people I know.



Sure!  And I did at first, too.  But by the time pretty much every item from 3.0 was re-released in 3.5 with the same names and new mechanics, it became untenable for my group.

Like I said, for me it will all depend on how much _replacement_ there is, as opposed to _supplement._

-O


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Thanlis said:


> I think the reason many non-4e players are reacting so strongly is because they really don't understand 4e design. It continues to be expansion-based design in the tradition of Cosmic Encounters and Magic: there is a fairly trim set of rules, and each class is a nicely bundled set of rules and options that expands on that core set. Adding another bundle of rules doesn't change the underlying rules any more than adding a new keyword fundamentally changes Magic.




Depending upon how you view "a fairly trim set of rules, and each class is a nicely bundled set of rules and options that expands on that core set", I would argue that this is the model that *all* D&D editions have used:  "This is the core.  Here are some expansions".

One doesn't have to grok 4e to understand this.  One merely has to have some experience with D&D in any of its forms.



billd91 said:


> You didn't have to be hardcore to not use some of the Player's Options books. They made for a substantially modified game, easily as big a shift as going from 2e to 3e but without the fanfare and support of a full new edition.




This, however, is the issue IMHO.  A lot of people now view the Player's Option books as a kind of 2.5.

The difference between an edition, or a "half-edition", and an expansion of a current edition, seems to be whether or not classes or basic concepts are rewritten.  Player's Option was touted as an expansion that could be used alongside your current rules.  It gave optional new forms of classes, rather than replace the existing forms.  Yet, hindsight is now 20/20 -- it was to 2e what 3.5 was to 3e.

Likewise, you could certainly use elements of 3.5 with 3.0 "without even a burp".  That was easy to do.  For instance, you could run 3.0, but use the 3.5 ranger.  I did this, and know many others who did the same.

Heck, you can use 1e materials with 2e without too much problem.  Hardly a burp, if that.  Indeed, the 2e expanded class books _*reprinted the classes from 1e*_.  I certainly ran Basic and Expert modules in 1e "without even a burp".  How, then, does 1e or 2e qualify as a new edition?

No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design.  The cool thing about such a prediction is that, given enough time, there is a fair chance of either finding out that I am right, or that I am wrong.  And I am fine with waiting until then.

YMMV.



RC


----------



## lrsach01 (Jul 6, 2010)

That laughter you hear is the 3.5 community. 

*Admin here. No edition warring. We really don't care whether you love 3e, 4e or OD&D (Hi, Diaglo!), but trying to start an argument isn't something we particularly want to put up with. Don't do it. ~ PCat*


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design.



When you put it that way... cool! I really liked what Bo9S brought to 3.5e.


----------



## Thanlis (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design.  The cool thing about such a prediction is that, given enough time, there is a fair chance of either finding out that I am right, or that I am wrong.  And I am fine with waiting until then.




But that's a very different question. If you're saying that you think some of the ideas in Essentials might wind up being part of 5.0, I'll agree with you. Doesn't make it any less compatible with 4.0. And, again, that's a huge difference between this and the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition, which wound up with new official classes that replaced -- not supplemented -- the old ones.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, (. . .)






3.0E was introduced in August of 2000 and ToB: TBoNS in August of 2006.  4E was introduced in June of 2008.  I don't think this quite compares in regard to the timing.  Obviously, whether this is spun as options or revisions or both, and no matter what it is called, it is coming just past the two year point of the new edition.  We'll see what the RPGA uses and therefore what is required of RPGA DMs to run games, to have some idea of whether this is optional or core or transitional material.  Whether or not non-RPGA gamers adopt the material will probably signal how fast a full-fledged new edition comes.  We'll also have some idea based on what WotC does with the DDI in regard to the new material.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Mallus said:


> When you put it that way... cool! I really liked what Bo9S brought to 3.5e.




Well, as I have said in the past (and will no doubt say in the future), I like some things WotC did with 4e.  Dwarves as small giants, for example, was.....Well, I had posted the same to EN World previously, so you know I liked the idea.  Likewise, Faerie as its own plane.

So I have some hopes of a 5e that I will actually enjoy playing/running.  Anything that points to a new edition sooner rather than later is music to my ears.



Thanlis said:


> But that's a very different question. If you're saying that you think some of the ideas in Essentials might wind up being part of 5.0, I'll agree with you. Doesn't make it any less compatible with 4.0. And, again, that's a huge difference between this and the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition, which wound up with new official classes that replaced -- not supplemented -- the old ones.




And yet, Player's Option was touted the same way.

And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.

And yet, for many people, 3.5 supplemented -- not replaced -- 3e.

See where I'm going with this?



RC


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

This thread is an endless fountain of comedy, or at least an endless fountain of people reading their own prejudices into things.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.
> 
> And yet, for many people, 3.5 supplemented -- not replaced -- 3e.
> 
> ...




I think you'll find both of those attitudes rather rare, overall. I'd also say that it happened more in reverse. In both cases, adopters of the new edition generally were far more likely to abandon the old edition, while people who stuck with the previous edition were more likely to adopt new rules.


----------



## Thanlis (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And yet, Player's Option was touted the same way.
> 
> And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.
> 
> ...




No. 3.5 class writeups were explicitly designed to replace 3e classes. Essentials class writeups are explicitly designed to live alongside the existing classes. Regardless of unsupported claims regarding how many people used 3.5 as a supplement, the intent on WotC's part was very different.


----------



## Chronosome (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design.  The cool thing about such a prediction is that, given enough time, there is a fair chance of either finding out that I am right, or that I am wrong.  And I am fine with waiting until then.




At my table, we generally see Bo9S as "edition sabotage" -- its presented options were "too good to walk away from", and they instantly outdated similar options that came before it. Sure, a 3.5 fighter and a Bo9S whatever-blade could stand side-by-side and the _rules_ supported them, but one was clearly a better choice. To me and the  bulk of my group, anyway.

What that option-trump meant was that once 4e came knocking on our door, we dug the simplicity and refreshing change-of-pace it offered because our 3.5 game was clearly out-of-whack. If it weren't for Bo9S, I don't think 4e would have been as appealing. 

With that said, I too am willing to wait and see...but my true issue is that I am simply sick of changing editions. I really, really like 4e. Everything I've experienced of it, anyway (I haven't touched psionics yet). I'd rather there be heaps of free errata to help spackle what seems to be only a few holes, than another instance where I have to dig out my wallet and reset my imagination in the name of arbitrary RPG "progress". I mean, it's just a game. The point is to imagine and create cool stories, to have fun with a system that supports it. I think 4e is that; I think it won at "fun and functional".

I truly think that 4e is the pinnacle of D&D design --
I hope Essentials doesn't mar that by nudging us toward an unnecessary fifth edition.

Whew... That's all. I didn't think a ramble was pending, but mmm coffee.


----------



## DarthMouth (Jul 6, 2010)

Internet IS evil.

Wizz guys made a BIG MISTAKE to announce somethng like that, without clear exemples to avoid stupid rumors...

a exemple is better than a thousand promisses.. is like a picture-book to dumb people.

and yet.. until something is out. 4ed is on check. I guess Psionic Power book will be the first to fell that mess...


----------



## Scribble (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Depending upon how you view "a fairly trim set of rules, and each class is a nicely bundled set of rules and options that expands on that core set", I would argue that this is the model that *all* D&D editions have used:  "This is the core.  Here are some expansions".
> 
> One doesn't have to grok 4e to understand this.  One merely has to have some experience with D&D in any of its forms.




I think what people mean when they talk about the trim set of rules, is that 4e seems to have two sets of "rules."

There are the base rules which hardly ever seem to be changed or added to all that often.  Things like Combat and Skills...

The second set is things like classes. 

The second set acts upon the first set in different ways.

IE a fighter can modify the base rules in different ways then a psionicist can.

If you're using neither a psionicist or a fighter, you don't need to worry about how those classes effect the game. It won't come up.

I say as long as they're not heavily modifying the base rules (by for instance saying even the OLD classes will no longer have daily attacks) then they're not really messing with the "edition" so much.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2010)

DarthMouth said:


> Wizz guys made a BIG MISTAKE to announce somethng like that, without clear exemples to avoid stupid rumors...




Rumors and speculation will overwhelm data, no matter what data they provide - up to and including the actual game materials themselves.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 6, 2010)

I don't know if this qualifes as 4.5 or not (comparing this to the change from 3.0 to 3.5), but it *is* a relaunch of sorts after only 2 years.

Keeping that pattern, I wonder what 2012 will bring to re-energize the game yet again...


----------



## Dausuul (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The difference between an edition, or a "half-edition", and an expansion of a current edition, seems to be whether or not classes or basic concepts are rewritten.  Player's Option was touted as an expansion that could be used alongside your current rules.  It gave optional new forms of classes, rather than replace the existing forms.  Yet, hindsight is now 20/20 -- it was to 2e what 3.5 was to 3e.




Not quite.

The thing that made 3.5 so obnoxious was that it involved tons of small changes to existing rules. You'd have a spell that worked one way in 3.0, and a different way in 3.5, but there was nothing to call attention to the fact, which meant those spells became landmines waiting to blow up the unwary spellcaster as soon as somebody happened to glance in the book.

If the PHB1 remains, as Mearls said, his primary rules reference, then we can assume this is not happening with D&D Essentials.



Raven Crowking said:


> No, I think we have reached a "Book of Nine Swords" moment, and hindsight will later be clear enough when 5e comes that what the Essentials line represents in the earliest foray in 5e design.




I agree, as long as the Bo9S analogy is not taken too far--it's far too early to actually end the edition. But I do think D&D Essentials will be a major indicator of what the designers will be aiming for with 5E, when the time does come.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> A "preventative measure" at minimizing nerd rage, from the start.




Impossible.  Nerdrage (one word) is self-sustaining and can grow on the most barren of ground.  It takes literally nothing to set it off too.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 6, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I agree, as long as the Bo9S analogy is not taken too far--it's far too early to actually end the edition. But I do think D&D Essentials will be a major indicator of what the designers will be aiming for with 5E, when the time does come.




I don't really have a horse in this race, but wouldn't the success of the essentials line and its adoption by not only the mythical newcomers to the hobby but also the hardcore supports (meaning buyers) determine whether this new line/direction has any impact on future editions? i mean, it's all well and good for WotC to say that this is the "foundation" for 4E going forward, but if it flops it sure won't be.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And yet, for many people, 2e supplemented -- not replaced -- 1e.
> 
> And yet, for many people, 3.5 supplemented -- not replaced -- 3e.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?




Really?  I haven't met anyone who considered 2E anything but a replacement for 1E, online or in real life.  the 3.0-3.5 I can definitely see though - the changes were numerous but small and many things like Prestige Classes and feats could be used from either set easily.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 6, 2010)

Zaran said:


> I have to wonder how they are going to support the new design of no dailies.  I haven't seen any mention of any essentials product that takes a class beyond 3rd level.  I would think that many people who pick up the red box will peg at 3rd level quickly.  So does that mean they will have to switch to having dailies?



Not sure if this was answered, but ONLY the Red Box is limited to a .. well limited number of levels. The other books cover the whole 1-30 range.



lrsach01 said:


> That laughter you hear is the 3.5 community.



When attempting to be funny, you should account for slow and/or tired people. Why should the 3.5 community be laughing?



DarthMouth said:


> Internet IS evil.
> 
> Wizz guys made a BIG MISTAKE to announce somethng like that, without clear exemples to avoid stupid rumors...
> 
> ...



Previews are coming before Psionic Power is released. Besides, why would PP feel anything? I think you should re-read what Essentials are about.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> This thread is an endless fountain of comedy, or at least an endless fountain of people reading their own prejudices into things.




Welcome to the InterWeb.



thecasualoblivion said:


> I think you'll find both of those attitudes rather rare, overall.




You might have found them so; I did not.



Thanlis said:


> No. 3.5 class writeups were explicitly designed to replace 3e classes. Essentials class writeups are explicitly designed to live alongside the existing classes.




Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

The Player's Option class writeups were explicitly designed to live alongside the existing classes.  In fact, you could recreate the existing classes using the Player's Option materials.

And yet, still, considered by many to be 2.5.



DaveMage said:


> I don't know if this qualifes as 4.5 or not (comparing this to the change from 3.0 to 3.5), but it *is* a relaunch of sorts after only 2 years.




Yup.



Dausuul said:


> I agree, as long as the Bo9S analogy is not taken too far--it's far too early to actually end the edition. But I do think D&D Essentials will be a major indicator of what the designers will be aiming for with 5E, when the time does come.




Whether or not it is too early depends entirely on one's point of view.  Myself, I look forward to discussing 5e with the 4e grognards.  I also look forward to how 5e will "fix" some "problems" of 4e, and how some people who claim those problems don't exist _*now*_ will be saying that they are obvious and everyone knew about them after 5e is here.

Or, as I said above, "Welcome to the InterWeb."  



Also, as Reynard points out, this is a foray at least in part to determine how well certain ideas sell.  If you like those ideas, now is the time to vote with your wallet.  Buy often, and buy lots.

Or not, if you would rather D&D not be taken down this particular road.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Jul 6, 2010)

Holy Bovine said:


> Really?  I haven't met anyone who considered 2E anything but a replacement for 1E, online or in real life.  the 3.0-3.5 I can definitely see though - the changes were numerous but small and many things like Prestige Classes and feats could be used from either set easily.




For at least one campaign, we played with 1e rules but with the 2e non-weapon proficiencies. The rules were highly compatible.

I believe I've seen more people who did things like that than people who supplemented 3.0 with 3.5. Once you had the 3.5 PH in hand, it was just easier to switch to it completely. That said, I have known some people who played with their 3.0 books but took 3.5 stuff like the ranger and bard from the SRD online.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I wonder how many happy and satisfied 4E fans are grumbling about Essentials?




Do 4e fans who went from "I can skip Essentials, it doesn't seem interesting" to "Whoa, this sounds awesome, I gotta buy this!" count?
Because then I'm grumbling.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jul 6, 2010)

My initial reactions:

 - Wizards is doing this at least in part to appease the segment of the D&D market that truly hates the notion of Fighters with daily powers
 - No matter what their intentions, they are going to infuriate a large segment of their player base anyway.
 - I expect there will be at least a few flame wars from people who abandoned 4e saying this proves all their claims about WoTC being evil / stupid / wrong having arguments with people who accept that the essentials line is not going to entirely abandon the preexisting material.
 - I suspect that these changes will not make existing PHB1 classes obsolete in the same way that the iPhone 4 won't make the iPhone 3 obsolete;  While not like going from PS2 to PS3, it is still intended as an improvement.

I will elaborate on that last point.  I think that Wizards means it when they say that this is not meant to be a "4.5 edition".  The blowback on 3.5 added to the release of 4th edition caused them enough headaches that they do not want that problem.  However, I do think that they really want to appease the segment of the D&D market that wants more differentiation in class mechanics (they make a point of saying that directly in the press release).

Also consider that Wizards now has a great deal more data about how the game is used in play, and what works, and what does not work.  It is certain that the designers have a number of ideas on how they might improve things.  Finally, consider what happens if Wizards comes out with an entirely new Martial Defender class that is very similar to a fighter, but is called something else.  You then end up with mass accusations of power creep.

Coming out with a new product while moving to make sure the existing customers are reassured that they are not being taken for a ride is probably the best option from where they sit.  We will see how this plays out.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 6, 2010)

Personally, I can't see how you can call it a new edition if the rules stay the same and the new classes we get via the Essentials are compatible with those rules. But hey, that's just me, I guess.

The whole debate about the Essentials line seems to have degenerated into whether it is a "4.5" or simply more options. I find that incredibly sad, especially since most of those yelling "new edition, ha ha" are people who do not care for, nor play 4e. 

Instead, we should be talking about what kind of changes can be expected. What are we hoping for? Personally, I would love to see a 4e-fied old school caster, meaning one with only dailies (well, I wouldn't mind if he had some at-wills too), or a fighter with only at-wills. 

I am also quite curious about how they will expand on the races. This was something that was in the original plans, but it seemed to fade out at some point and be limited to racial feats and a few racial paragon paths - both of which I like, but it was not the "your race will make a huge difference" mantra we heard during the last days of 3.5. 

Cheers


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Have you considered that, rather than "New edition, ha ha" this might be a rather hopeful "New edition, woo hoo!"?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 6, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Personally, I can't see how you can call it a new edition if the rules stay the same and the new classes we get via the Essentials are compatible with those rules. But hey, that's just me, I guess.
> 
> The whole debate about the Essentials line seems to have degenerated into whether it is a "4.5" or simply more options. I find that incredibly sad, especially since most of those yelling "new edition, ha ha" are people who do not care for, nor play 4e.




It looks like an intermediate edition to me. A living playtest for concepts that look like candidates for the next full edition change. I can't wait for the previews. My concern as DM will be: will my players all want to switch characters and try the new stuff right away? Will the new options be largely superior to the old even though they both remain technically functional? 

So here I am yelling "new edition ha ha" while experiencing legitimate concerns about the new material.


----------



## Luinnar (Jul 6, 2010)

At least they are not reprinting half the old stuff ("essentials") with some new stuff thrown in.


----------



## WotC_Trevor (Jul 6, 2010)

Hey guys. So before I get into this I want to point out that most of what I'm about to say, Mike or others here have already said, but I figured I'd come in and offer my clarifying points.

One of the first ideas behind Essentials was to change D&D in a way that was easier for new players to get at. This covers the marketing, repackaging, and simplifying some stuff that a lot of people here have touched on.

So this evolved into pulling out the rules and putting them in their own book, giving a small slice of 1-2 levels in the Starter Set/Red Box, a DM Kit with tokens and such, and a couple class/race books for players. With that basic idea, we also needed to make sure that we had something awesome to offer current players. And that's where the old classes/new builds thing comes into play.

And seriously, new builds is what I would liken the crunchy bits in the Essentials players books to. You've got the basic PH1 Fighter, you've got the battlerager, and then you'll have the Essentials fighter build. You have the Bow/Two weapon ranger, you have the beast ranger, and you have the Essentials ranger. The rules for playing the game don't change (beyond adding the rules updates into the compendium), and a party could easily have an Essentials build rogue right along side a Brawny Rogue from PH1 - that is, assuming the party wanted two melee strikers.

So there's my take on Essentials, and hopefully that mesh's with what you already know about it because... well... I'm really saying the same things that have already been said. As to rumors and speculation, this is the interwebz so I definitely expect to see people spinning up ideas of what they think Essentials is and isn't, but we'll be giving out more information as we get closer to the Essentials release. Next time will be a bit on the Compendium (as Mike pointed out) and  once that's up we'll have more about the next tidbit.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 6, 2010)

Side issue (and one I am much more interested in): will Core or Essentials be the base for Gamma World?


----------



## WotC_Trevor (Jul 6, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Side issue (and one I am much more interested in): will Core or Essentials be the base for Gamma World?




The essentials products don't change the rules of D&D (again, beyond adding the updates into the rules compendium), so both, or either would be a correct response.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Rumors and speculation will overwhelm data, no matter what data they provide - up to and including the actual game materials themselves.



I would give xp for this, if I could, and it wasn't so depressing. 

That said.... people need to come into the modern age.  This whole notion of 4.0 vs 4.5 is clearly antiquated.  4e was introduced with modular design, and it being moved forward by modular design.  There is not, and never will be, a need for an actual 4.5.  They will continue to iterate, where once they would renovate (i.e. 3.0 -> 3.5).

Honestly, this thread reads like the World of WarCraft forums, with the people who would be most affronted by that notion being the obvious points of comparison.  We've got advanced Chicken Little Syndrome, "It's a slap in the face"-itis, and "ZOMG-money-grab!!!" plastered all over the place.

The irony is delicious.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

Canis said:


> I would give xp for this, if I could, and it wasn't so depressing.
> 
> That said.... people need to come into the modern age.  This whole notion of 4.0 vs 4.5 is clearly antiquated.  4e was introduced with modular design, and it being moved forward by modular design.  There is not, and never will be, a need for an actual 4.5.  They will continue to iterate, where once they would renovate (i.e. 3.0 -> 3.5).
> 
> ...




Its even more ironic when most of the Chicken Littles are non-4E players who are invested in the sky falling on 4E.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Canis said:


> That said.... people need to come into the modern age.  This whole notion of 4.0 vs 4.5 is clearly antiquated.  4e was introduced with modular design, and it being moved forward by modular design.





Again, this is not an artefact of the "modern age" -- this was true for every edition of D&D that ever has been, and will probably be true for any that ever shall be.  There was not a need for an actual 3.5.  As with 4.0, WotC could have simply continued to compile errata and make it available as changes to the SRD.

The idea that 4e is somehow different.....well, the irony (as the man said) is delicious.


RC

-


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its even more ironic when most of the Chicken Littles are non-4E players who are invested in the sky falling on 4E.



Ah, yes.  Double-backflip irony with a full twist.

None of them have stuck the landing yet, though.


----------



## Herschel (Jul 6, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Yet another thread that reminds me why I love the internet. Please keep speculating, everyone!





And why I ignore the general forum fairly often. It's like reading the comments sections on Yahoo! stories.  Instead of my party/team/etc. vs. your party/tem/etc. it's my edition vs. your edition.


----------



## dreadgazebo (Jul 6, 2010)

As with any game, updates can come as liberally as they want as long as they are in efforts to further balance, improve, and make the game more interesting. I wholly support these updates in a theoretical sense. However, unlike the video game world where an update is a mere patch file away, this is a bit different.

Yes the character builder can be updated via DDI (which I am a subscriber) but what about all the errata from the rule books, skills, and other more "rulebook referenced" things that we may not want to fire up the char builder (or be able to) at the game table?

With this digital age we're in, with the popularity of DDI and web based gaming aids, why not give us a digital copy of the book. A legit one. I'll admit pirating the 4e sourcebooks got me into the game, but I've purchased them all now. It would be great to see a DDI accessible web based set of books that would 'live update' if you will when these sort of things happen. 

It may be bad from a money making point of view, but it would be great for the rest of us. We all know WoTC's cash cow is Magic anyways, so would we really be denting their pocket books? I'd really just like to be able to look at a rulebook that's updated already if I choose to not buy the essentials line of products is all.



All that being said I'm pumped about these updates, especially the old school Magic Missle.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 6, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, this is not an artefact of the "modern age" -- this was true for every edition of D&D that ever has been, and will probably be true for any that ever shall be.  There was not a need for an actual 3.5.  As with 4.0, WotC could have simply continued to compile errata and make it available as changes to the SRD.
> 
> The idea that 4e is somehow different.....well, the irony (as the man said) is delicious.
> 
> ...



The difference is largely semantic, but 4e was upfront about it.

"Here's PHB1.  PHB2 and so on will introduce modular core stuff later."

Wizards changed their language for how they referred to the updating process.  That is the meaningful (IMO), and un-ironic difference.  The rest is window dressing.

EDIT:
Also, I do think 3.0 to 3.5 was an actual renovation far larger than most of the other modular changes in both 3.x and other editions, but that's really neither here nor there at the moment, and you've established that you felt rather differently, so there's not much point in getting into dueling anecdotes about it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 6, 2010)

dreadgazebo said:


> As with any game, updates can come as liberally as they want as long as they are in efforts to further balance, improve, and make the game more interesting. I wholly support these updates in a theoretical sense. However, unlike the video game world where an update is a mere patch file away, this is a bit different.
> 
> Yes the character builder can be updated via DDI (which I am a subscriber) but what about all the errata from the rule books, skills, and other more "rulebook referenced" things that we may not want to fire up the char builder (or be able to) at the game table?
> 
> ...




You really don't need PDF sourcebooks when you have the Compendium. Compendium gets all the errata and is generally better for reference anyway.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Its even more ironic when most of the Chicken Littles are non-4E players who are invested in the sky falling on 4E.




Would this sad attempt to be insulting be tolerated by the moderators were it to be directed at 4e fans?  

In any event, Chicken Little was distressed because he believed the sky was falling (i.e., a disaster was in the offing).  The people you are talking about seem more exciting that perhaps _*something good *_might be in the offing because they hope it might represent a change _*away from *_what is currently being offered by WotC.

Your attempt at insult is rather like trying to call someone a "Chicken Little" because he hoped something WotC did might be an indication that the 4e module line was going to improve.  It reflects less on the person you attempt to insult than it does upon yourself.


RC


----------



## dreadgazebo (Jul 6, 2010)

thecasualoblivion said:


> You really don't need PDF sourcebooks  when you have the Compendium. Compendium gets all the errata and is  generally better for reference anyway.




This is true yes, but I still really like something about flipping throug the pages of a book whether it's physical or not. Odd I know.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 6, 2010)

billd91 said:


> For at least one campaign, we played with 1e rules but with the 2e non-weapon proficiencies. The rules were highly compatible.
> 
> I believe I've seen more people who did things like that than people who supplemented 3.0 with 3.5. Once you had the 3.5 PH in hand, it was just easier to switch to it completely. That said, I have known some people who played with their 3.0 books but took 3.5 stuff like the ranger and bard from the SRD online.




Can I be Anecdote Man, too? 

The campaigns I ran used a combination of 3.0 & 3.5. The ranger was a house-ruled 3.0 ranger, though I had said anyone who wanted to could use the 3.5e ranger. The spells were mostly 3.0 (with harm/haste/heal as the major exceptions) -- i.e., _bull's strength_ lasted for 1 hour/level, _fly_ was 10 min/level, _cone of cold_ was a 60 degree cone whose length varied by caster level, etc. We just used the version of a spell/class/whatever that we preferred.

Another group I gamed with said "no" to 3.5 entirely, and stuck with 3e. Though if there was something entirely new in a 3.5e book, you might be able to use it, with the GM's permission.

A third group was 3.5e only; but I only started with them last year, after 4e was out, so I have no idea what they did right when 3.5e came out.


----------



## Greg K (Jul 6, 2010)

WotC_Trevor said:


> And seriously, new builds is what I would liken the crunchy bits in the Essentials players books to. You've got the basic PH1 Fighter, you've got the battlerager, and then you'll have the Essentials fighter build. You have the Bow/Two weapon ranger, you have the beast ranger, and you have the Essentials ranger.




Regarding new builds, I'd prefer dedicated class books like the 2e Complete Handbooks or Green Ronin's 3e Master Class books which examine a given class and its various archetypes from history and fantasy. Then again, I found the 2e Complete books a good idea whose only short comings were often the kits which suffered from the patchwork nature of the 2e system.  4e provides a better base from which to work in my opinon (as did 3e).


----------



## Balthaczar (Jul 6, 2010)

This part of Mike Mearls introduction to Essentials
The only real changes rest in wizard encounter spells (they have miss effects now), and those changes are almost entirely additive in nature. Your burning hands spell is the same spell as before, except now it deals half damage on a miss.

In 3e.5 that is a reflex save for half, how does it play in 4e? I have not played in a long time and would consider if they gave us optional rules that made it feel more like 3e.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jul 6, 2010)

billd91 said:


> For at least one campaign, we played with 1e rules but with the 2e non-weapon proficiencies.




AKA the 1E Wilderness and Dungeoneers' Survival Guide rules.



Raven Crowking said:


> Would this sad attempt to be insulting be tolerated by the moderators were it to be directed at 4e fans?




He may not be referring directly to you. You've explained your position quite nicely. Unlike:



			
				Chicken Little said:
			
		

> "Hear that? That's the sound of the 3.5 community laughing."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2010)

Canis said:


> The difference is largely semantic, but 4e was upfront about it.




TSR was very upfront about the various class and race options.  The idea of adding modular "stuff" was considered to be an innovation....a "modern age"....compared to 1e, if you will.

3e was also intentionally modular.  It was a stated goal of the OGL to provide a core set of rules to which modular elements could be attached by both WotC and 3pp, thus providing a sort of _lingua franca_ ruleset to which any number of games could be attached.

While 2e, 3e, and 3.5e didn't call their rules additions "PHB2", the naming convention is the only appreciable difference.

I doubt we'll see an actual "4.5" by that name.  I think (I hope) WotC is too market-savvy to go down that road.  But I have little doubt that, with hindsight, we will be able to look back and see the "4.5 moment".

We could do so with 1e (the Survival Guides, UA).  We could do so with 2e (Player's Option, DM's Option).  We could do so with 3e (WotC was kind enough to call it what it was, 3.5).  Dollars to doughnuts says we'll be able to do the same with 4e.  And with 5e.  And with 6e, should the brand identity not be so diluted by that point that there is no 6e.

AFAICT, there is no rational reason to expect otherwise.

In any event, time will tell.  It always does.



RC


-


----------



## Greg K (Jul 6, 2010)

RC,
Such posts are typical thecasualoblivion. It is easier to ignore him.



Raven Crowking said:


> Would this sad attempt to be insulting be tolerated by the moderators were it to be directed at 4e fans?
> 
> In any event, Chicken Little was distressed because he believed the sky was falling (i.e., a disaster was in the offing).  The people you are talking about seem more exciting that perhaps _*something good *_might be in the offing because they hope it might represent a change _*away from *_what is currently being offered by WotC.
> 
> ...


----------



## dreadgazebo (Jul 6, 2010)

Balthaczar said:


> In 3e.5 that is a reflex save for half, how does it play in 4e? I have not played in a long time and would consider if they gave us optional rules that made it feel more like 3e.




In 4e the mechanic is built into the attack roll. FORT/REF/WILL are static defense values now, it's essentially the same but just makes for less die rolling. For example, something that would have been "Reflex Save for X" is now included in the attack roll like (before todays changes) Magic Missle is +X vs Targets Reflex save. So in short the mechanic now would be if your attack misses it would still deal half damage.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 6, 2010)

You know, that's about enough of that.  We've had more than enough edition warring.  This is thoroughly non-constructive.


----------



## Rel (Jul 6, 2010)

Yeah thread closed but I have a couple comments to make about some of the late unpleasantness...



thecasualoblivion said:


> Its even more ironic when most of the Chicken Littles are non-4E players who are invested in the sky falling on 4E.




This is exactly the sort of snippy little dickish comment that helps keep the edition wars alive.  The posts made by those who you are name calling speak for themselves.  If you think they are rude and inflammatory then locate the Report Bad Post button and use it.  Or put them on ignore so that you aren't bothered by them.



Raven Crowking said:


> Would this sad attempt to be insulting be tolerated by the moderators were it to be directed at 4e fans?




And you can shove your little condescending rhetorical questions that try to impugn the motives of the moderator staff.  YOU also decided that rather than report a bad post that you were going to fight it out in the thread.  How do you know that any of us were "tolerating" anything?  What a full 30 minutes had passed since somebody made an objectionable comment and we weren't right on top of it?  OH NOES!!  MODERATOR FAVORITISM!


----------

