# Just how compatible is Essentials?



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 15, 2011)

I am seeing arguments about Pre-Essentials and Essentials with regards to the two being compatible.  I see people getting all defensive and say yes the two are very much compatible but I'm thinking different.  

Yes I see Pre-E slowly becoming more and more compatible with Essentials, but this seems to be because Pre-E is slowly being turned into the direction moving forward.  We have tried having both games going on at the same time but to no avail because sometimes there are problems with trying to make everything fit.  

I also hear a good many people saying that Essentials is just an option to the game and I really cry BS on this.  It would be the same as saying that 3.5 was just an option for 3rd edition and we all know that would have been a lie.  For Essentials to be "just an option", the designers sure are changing everything that came before to fit with this new "option". 

I also find it difficult when I explain the game to new comers on just where you are supposed to start.  To be perfectly honest I just tell them to pick up the three small books and start there.  I get really tired of having to jump back and forth when I am explaining the game.  Wizards has the game in such a state of disarray that I wish they would just start all over and bring us another edition.


----------



## shamsael (Jun 15, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I am seeing arguments about Pre-Essentials and Essentials with regards to the two being compatible.  I see people getting all defensive and say yes the two are very much compatible but I'm thinking different.
> 
> Yes I see Pre-E slowly becoming more and more compatible with Essentials, but this seems to be because Pre-E is slowly being turned into the direction moving forward.  We have tried having both games going on at the same time but to no avail because sometimes there are problems with trying to make everything fit.
> 
> ...




I have to disagree completely, though I'm sure you knew in posting that this is a polarizing topic.

Compatibility: very few changes to the system were actually brought on by essentials.  Almost everything new with the system came from errata in the months leading up to it.  As far as characters, I prefer, even as a DM, to think of characters as black boxes.  What goes on inside the box, that is what resources they manage or howmtheir powers work, is irrelevant as lomg as the output, how fast the character moves, the damage it puts out and the effects it applies on other characters, is on par with other characters.  I feel that essentials satisfies this.

Optional: While our first true post-essentials suppliment, Heroes of Shadow was heavily weighted on essentials style content over classic content, there is still a bunch of new powers for the wizard, cleric and paladin.  The comparison between essentials and 3.5 is unfair.  3.5 changed fundamental aspects of the system which would make it impossible for a table to contain players using both 3rd and 3.5: size and facing was altered to remove non-square monsters, feats were drastically changed, classes were altered to shift the levels at which powers were gained, damage reduction was reworked...

Essentials did not fundamentally change any rules that would invalidate PHB (errata had been doing that for years).  Feats were not changed, rather feats were added.  Classes presented in essentials are no more or less powerful than classic classes, and changes made offered truely alternative interpretations without obsoleting, invalidating or branding too powerful or weak those that came before.  The only true change I can think of is the upgrade to sneak attack.

New Players: I would absolutely not mention PHB1 to a new player as a good introduction to the game.  Once they'd learned the game with Heroes of the F---, I'd point them at the FREE erratad versions of te original classes, and toward PHBs 2 and 3, the setting Players' Guides, Martial/Arcane/Divine/Etc Power if they were interested in different types of characters.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 15, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I am seeing arguments about Pre-Essentials and Essentials with regards to the two being compatible.  I see people getting all defensive and say yes the two are very much compatible but I'm thinking different.




In this case, those people are right. All 4e material printed to date - including Essentials - is compatible with all other 4e material. It's all the same system.



> Yes I see Pre-E slowly becoming more and more compatible with Essentials, but this seems to be because Pre-E is slowly being turned into the direction moving forward.  We have tried having both games going on at the same time but to no avail because sometimes there are problems with trying to make everything fit.



Could you illustrate some of these problems? Maybe provide examples? I run a game right now featuring an Essentials Cleric, Essentials Wizard, non-Essentials Paladin, non-Essentials Assassin, and non-Essentials Swordmage. I have never run into a single issue.

So examples from you would help us pinpoint where the problem lies.



> I also hear a good many people saying that Essentials is just an option to the game and I really cry BS on this.



You shouldn't. Essentials is just an extra set of options for the game, in the same way that you might open up the Player's Handbook 3 and find an extra set of options for the game.

Crying BS on it is BS.



> It would be the same as saying that 3.5 was just an option for 3rd edition and we all know that would have been a lie.



It would not be like this at all. 3.5 was a clear restarting of the product, and it was clear up front that things would have to see some conversion in order to work properly. This is not the case with Essentials. The printing of Essentials did not in any way affect the playability of any older characters sitting at the same table with an Essentials character. All the old options were still valid, and while some eventually received updates, classes, feats, powers, paths, destinies, races and so forth have been receiving updates since 4e came out; calling it a new edition _now_ just seems silly.

The reality is that 4e is the first truly living edition of D&D, wherein the developers can make whatever changes need to be made to the game in a fairly seamless manner, thanks to the level of digital tools integration 4e has.

To call Essentials analogous to 3.5 is to speak from ignorance.



> For Essentials to be "just an option", the designers sure are changing everything that came before to fit with this new "option".



Not really. They changed a handful of things, and the rest was a simple reformatting of some older classes to have a similar layout to the Essentials classes. This was for ease of navigating the rules, and visual consistency, not for the sake of substantially changing existing classes. Again, the sorts of changes we have seen made to older classes post-Essentials are not any different from the sorts of changes we have seen made to those same classes _pre-_Essentials.



> I also find it difficult when I explain the game to new comers on just where you are supposed to start.



Open up Heroes of the Fallen Lands of Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and start there. Easy.



> To be perfectly honest I just tell them to pick up the three small books and start there.



Just have them start with one: whichever of the two I listed above contains classes that appeal to them.



> I get really tired of having to jump back and forth when I am explaining the game.  Wizards has the game in such a state of disarray that I wish they would just start all over and bring us another edition.



This is silly. Why are you jumping back and forth? Could you provide concrete examples of how you are being forced to jump back and forth during your explanation that could not be solved by simply sticking to teaching from one book or the other? Again, specific examples would help us pinpoint where your problem is.

I get the feeling from the tone of your post, however, that you're posting because you've really already made your mind up, despite the fact that you have some pretty clear misunderstandings about where the Essentials line fits in the 4e framework. Is this not the case? Because, if it's not, there will be plenty of people happy to help. If that _is_ the case, though, I think people will be reluctant to waste time trying to batter through an iron-clad opinion disguised as a genuine question.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 15, 2011)

our group has both preessentials and essentials stuff played in the same game. it's all the same game to us and that's how we treat it and we have no reason to view it as something different. no one notices a difference.

at least that's been my table experience through actual playtime with it ever since essentials books were released and how it continues to be for our group.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 15, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I also hear a good many people saying that Essentials is just an option to the game and I really cry BS on this.




It _is_ just an option to the game. Trust me. I've got both Essentials and non-Essentials pcs in my campaign, and it doesn't hurt a thing. 



ForeverSlayer said:


> It would be the same as saying that 3.5 was just an option for 3rd edition and we all know that would have been a lie.




No, it's the same as saying "Martial Power is just an option for the game."



ForeverSlayer said:


> For Essentials to be "just an option", the designers sure are changing everything that came before to fit with this new "option".




Are you referring to the errata process? The same process that has been in place since the game's release? Or the fine-tuning of some of the monster math, which has also been ongoing since release? Or perhaps the release of new and better feats?

Do you object to all of these things? I can understand that, even if I don't agree with it, but think that they have improved the game vastly since its first couple of years.

I do wish they'd clean up the overabundance of now underpowered feats.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I also find it difficult when I explain the game to new comers on just where you are supposed to start.  To be perfectly honest I just tell them to pick up the three small books and start there.  I get really tired of having to jump back and forth when I am explaining the game.




Did Martial Power make you feel this way too? If so, why? If not, why are the 'three little books' affecting you so differently?

EDIT: Have you actually played in or dmed a game with both E-classes and their non-E brethren? I think you will find that they function differently but are about equally effective.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jun 15, 2011)

I, like everyone else who has responded, am playing in a game with mix and encountering no difficulties what-so-ever.

I really wonder at the OP's motives for posting in the first place.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 15, 2011)

BobTheNob said:


> I, like everyone else who has responded, am playing in a game with mix and encountering no difficulties what-so-ever.
> 
> I really wonder at the OP's motives for posting in the first place.




Ditto. Curious to know. I run games with a mix. I design content as well.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 15, 2011)

Compatible?  Yes

You probably would not notice much difference between characters.

Though, sometimes, when one individual character is made up of some 4E parts and some 4E.E parts, there can be some rules which seem to interact a little differently than I imagine they were intended.  

I haven't seen anything mind blowing yet, but I've noticed a few combos which seem to be a little better than they probably should be.  One example would be some of the 4E.E classes and the Bard utility power _Increase The Tempo_.  Granting an Essentials character 4 basic attacks tends to make the power a little better than it was before.


----------



## nogray (Jun 15, 2011)

*Pretty compatible*

Play-wise, very compatible. I play in a couple games and DM in another, and so far, we have the following:

(TLDR version of the s-blocks below: Through playtests and actual play experience, the Essentials classes intermix well with the classic 4e ones quite well. The play experiences differ (some more than others), and sometimes the essentials ones seem better, but often classic options are missed when the essentials versions are there instead.)

[sblock="FR Game (just made it to level 11):"]
Classic 4e Wizard
Classic 4e Cleric (almost completely unaffected by recent errata)
Hybrid OAssassin|Warlock (looking at revising to Executioner Assassin, now that it is available as a hybrid)
Classic 4e Swordmage
Essential 4e Slayer (brought in to replace an Avenger)

The report from that game is that the Slayer is an upgrade for the Avenger in encounters not involving a lot of difficult positioning and where the Avenger wouldn't use a daily, but in certain situations, we wish we had the Avenger back. (Those Pursuit Avengers get some nice movement abilities, and while their dailies aren't as encounter-changing as the Wizard's can be, they do tend to provide an encounter-long buff of some sort. The Slayer, though, seems to hit harder and just about as accurately.)

The wizard player had a version of the character as a Mage that was tried, but ultimately discarded. That Staff of Defense and (Improved) Tome of Readiness is too nice. When the Wizard was tried as a Mage, it was Pyromancy and Evocation, so more on the damage, but less on the control.[/sblock]

[sblock="Home Brew 'Weird Wars' version of the Civil War (only level 3):"]
Hybrid Artificer|Warlord
--Classic 4e Bard (died early, replaced by above)
Hybrid Rogue|Sorcerer
Hybrid Warlock|Swordmage
--Classic 4e Monk (died alongside the Bard, replaced by above hybrid)
Classic 4e Battlemind
Essential 4e Hunter Ranger (formerly represented by a Seeker)

The play from that game suggests that the Hunter Ranger made a more entertaining controller than the Seeker was, and the concept was either about the same or a slightly better fit. When compared (in my head) to a Wizard, though, neither really measures up as a controller. In this case, the Hunter version does better than the Seeker, but not so much better as to be any kind of an imbalance. The Hunter ranger is a different controller than the Seeker or the Wizard, but then again, the Seeker is pretty different from the Wizard and the Druid, too; they are each different in how they are controllers.

I play the Warlock|Swordmage, and I did builds of him as an Essential Hexblade (and might revisit that with the new Hybrid stuff recently released), and there was really very little difference in many aspects of the versions. I chose the hybrid one so I could tinker more during character advancement, but in game, it seems like there would have been very little difference.[/sblock]

[sblock="Home Brew Classic Fantasy (Just made it to Level 13):"]
This one is an odd example. I DM, and there are no Essentials characters (a Wilden Druid, a Tiefling Paladin, an Eladrin Rogue, a Tiefling Warlock, and a Dragonborn Warlord), but the Eladrin's player tinkered with making the rogue a Thief (dropped the idea because he really likes the Daggermaster PP) and the Paladin has toyed with remaking herself as a Cavalier (she likes her Charisma at-wills and the Hell's Keeper too much to switch, though). The thing that makes it a relevant example is my playtesting of encounters. I tend to use a set of Essential characters in my tests. Here's how I map it.

Druid -- He's a ranged controller and pretty damage-focused, so I use that pyromancer build I mentioned above. In the actual game, I see a lot more proning and dazing, but slightly less damage, than in the playtest.

Paladin -- It's my wife's character, and I helped her build it, so that's what I use. 

Rogue -- I use a thief as a stand-in. I think the Daggermaster crits more (though luck prevented a lot of that in the last two or three sessions), but the thief has more consistent damage. It's not by a lot, though. Both are damnably accurate and hit really hard.

Warlock -- I use a Dex-only elf slayer (archery specialized, and I use Power Strike on the bow, even though that's technically against the rules). The damage is a bit less in the game than in my playtests, but the conditions that the Warlock inflicts are sometimes brutal. The player often hit a melee brute with Grasp of the Iron Tower and took it out of the fight (nearly so, anyway) for a round. The other area of difference is when the character gets into melee. The Slayer can switch weapons and hang in there. The Warlock can do a little of that (SK as the two-fold pact allows Hand of Blight), but that player usually gets out of melee -- assisted with Warlock's Wrath -- as quickly as possible.

Warlord -- I use a Warpriest. The Essentials leader pulls off a similar melee presence, but with less interesting leader-y tricks. The Effect lines on the Warpriest's powers do help a bit in making up that slack, though. Really, the leader plays worse in my playtests. Then again, comparing anything to a Warlord in the leader department can be futile, or so I hear.

So of those five characters, I tend to replace four with Essentials-based builds. Granted, the Mage and Warpriest aren't terribly different from Classic 4e builds (having the AEDU structure), but all of the playtests allow me to make predictions pretty well as to the party's performance in actual play. There are some obvious differences, but encounter power levels relative to the parties tends to be similar in the Essentials-based playtests and in the Classic-only actual table experience.[/sblock]

At the risk of sounding defensive (and definitely ninja'd by earlier posters), I've experienced no difficulties meshing characters that are built with mostly Essentials and those built with mostly Classic stuff into the same party. In fact, I don't see it as a situation of having two games, but of one game with a variety of possible character-building options. For rules material, the Rules Compendium is my personal go-to reference. For character building, we use all the options available. For treasure distribution, each DM does their own thing, and none of us use either the parcel system or the rarity system.

It is my experience that Classic 4e characters run fabulously alongside their essentials brethren. There are some differences, to be sure. The Essential defender aura is simpler to run (and, as Aegeri is fond of pointing out, simpler to avoid or nullify) than the marks of a Classic 4e defender, but it does a similar job. What's more, aside from errata that changed powers (which happened a lot before Essentials, too), characters made under Classic 4e remain legal and able to pull of most if not all the same tricks when run next to an otherwise-Essentials party. (The playtest with my wife's paladin and her actual play experiences being so similar is my anecdotal evidence, here.)

I don't think it is just the Essentials release that has prompted the changes to some of the old rules. Wizards of the Coast has been updating the rules since the PHB1 was released (stealth, anyone? or how about the worst-offending Ranger powers?). In some cases, it's about time they got to the issues that are just now being addressed. (Clerics out-controlling Wizards for one; that annoyed me.)

As to telling new players where to start, it's easy for me. It's been a while since I did it (and last time, it was actually a Mutants and Masterminds 2e game), but my philosophy is to start them with a character that matches their preferences. I don't tell people what books to buy; I just help them make a character that can do the sort of thing they want to do in the game. Get them a character sheet that explains their capabilities. If they then want to buy books, I tell them which ones figured prominently in the design of their character. If I had to cold-introduce someone to D&D, I'd recommend a newcomer to gaming start with _one_ of the HotF* books and an experienced gamer start with _one_ of the PHB# set (unless they were interested in a specific concept better represented by an Essentials build, like the Hexblade -- then they get the relevant book). Both would benefit from the Rules Compendium, too, for a general overview of all the fiddly bits of playing.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 15, 2011)

Nogray, in your experience, how well does it work out when one character mixes Essentials elements with the old elements?  For example, let's say a Thief decided to take the daggermaster PP.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 15, 2011)

How compatible is Essentials with Legacy 4e? Very compatible. As others have suggested, there's little problem with combining the two in the same game, and I'm looking forward to my new campaign which at the moment features at least 2 Essentials PCs.

Is Essentials just an option for 4e? I think it's disingenuous to suggest it is. Essentials at this point in time strikes me as the favoured path forward in terms of design, but it's a losing argument to try to empirically demonstrate why because of the living nature of 4e. *The line between what is and isn't Essentials is too blurred.**

If I had to stick my neck out and nominate something, I'd point to the errataing of Legacy content to make way for Essentials (eg. Melee Training and wizard encounter powers), magic item rarity and its tie-in to randomised treasure distribution. 

I assume there's also been a lack of martial daily (and possibly even encounter) powers since Essentials was released, but I don't follow Dungeon/Dragon that closely and could be entirely wrong there.**

*Yes that line is bolded on purpose, to make it clear that I'm not going to get into long debates about this.
**No doubt Aegeri will turn up to prove me wrong


----------



## Dumnbunny (Jun 15, 2011)

I have problems with Essentials, and I really wish Wizard's hadn't gone down this path. However, compatibility isn't one of those problems. I've seen multiple groups with a mix of Essentials and Classic classes with no compatibility issues.



shamsael said:


> New Players: I would absolutely not mention PHB1 to a new player as a good introduction to the game.  Once they'd learned the game with Heroes of the F---, I'd point them at the FREE erratad versions of te original classes, and toward PHBs 1 and 2, the setting Players' Guides, Martial/Arcane/Divine/Etc Power if they were interested in different types of characters.



I've seen mixed results with this approach. My teen daughter was invited to the ongoing 4e campaign a friend of her's was running, and I was asked to help her build a character. Since she was an RPG newbie as well as a 4e newbie, and the campaign was at level 6, I figured I'd go along with the theory that Essentials is best for newbies and built her a slayer.

That character didn't last one session. She was very dissatisfied with the characters in-combat options. As a contrast, she mentioned the options the Classic class characters had and wanted something like that. So her DM took some time out of the session to build her a quickie barbarian, sending her home with the character for me to fully hammer out with her.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 15, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Nogray, in your experience, how well does it work out when one character mixes Essentials elements with the old elements?  For example, let's say a Thief decided to take the daggermaster PP.




That shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Bear in mind, many of the bonuses a thief gets in paragon come from its specific paragon path, and you won't get them if you become a daggermaster.  That'll mean a little less damage per attack, but you'll have some attack powers to make up for it.


----------



## aurance (Jun 15, 2011)

Compatible. Same rules set.

However Essentials is NOT just like Martial Power. There is, for better or for worse, a significantly different design philosophy at work with Essentials.

And I definitely see this as more confusing for new players. We've had the PHB, DMG, MM trifecta scheme for decades. Most other RPGs follow something similar or a single book + expansion scheme. The HoFL + RC + MV + DMTC is messy, but understandably so, because Essentials is in the awkward place of trying to be self-contained AND a resource for existing 4e.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 15, 2011)

I hate to say it...

but having four core books is just as messy as having three.  The PHB + DMG + MM is just as messy as HoF_, RC, MV, and DMTC for new players.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 15, 2011)

For me, the number of books didn't bother me.  I'm not a big fan of the new layout though.  It could be that I'm more familiar with the old layout, but I always feel as though it takes me longer to find what I want/need in the Heroes_ books.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2011)

The only (minor) problem I've noticed is Rituals; for Essentials PCs they "don't exist" unless you go to the PHB and pick up the Ritual Caster feat, but for PHB PCs they can be an important aspect of the character.  Whether rituals exist, are available etc definitely affects the tenor of a campaign.  Without them, PCs are more limited in what they can do.


----------



## Destil (Jun 15, 2011)

shamsael said:


> New Players: I would absolutely not mention PHB1 to a new player as a good introduction to the game.  Once they'd learned the game with Heroes of the F---, I'd point them at the FREE erratad versions of te original classes, and toward PHBs 1 and 2, the setting Players' Guides, Martial/Arcane/Divine/Etc Power if they were interested in different types of characters.




Except, you know, essentials isn't simpler. Some _classes _are simpler. But the mage is more complex than anything in PHB1 structurally (spell book encounters), though the PHB1 fighter is a bit more complex in play (due to their two interrupt mechanics).


----------



## S'mon (Jun 15, 2011)

Destil said:


> Except, you know, essentials isn't simpler. Some _classes _are simpler. But the mage is more complex than anything in PHB1 structurally (spell book encounters), though the PHB1 fighter is a bit more complex in play (due to their two interrupt mechanics).




I find the hand-holding presentation & layout in the HoT books to be vastly easier to use than the PHB.  You can make a HoT PC without electronic support, very hard for me with the PHB.  And my Thief seems a lot simpler to run than the PHB Rogue.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 15, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I am seeing arguments about Pre-Essentials and Essentials with regards to the two being compatible.  I see people getting all defensive and say yes the two are very much compatible but I'm thinking different.
> 
> Yes I see Pre-E slowly becoming more and more compatible with Essentials, but this seems to be because Pre-E is slowly being turned into the direction moving forward.  We have tried having both games going on at the same time but to no avail because sometimes there are problems with trying to make everything fit.




Although you can definitely play a game with both E and pre-E characters, I agree that its not a seamless fit.  In some ways, there's terrific synergy--a pre-E Warlord giving a Slayer additional MBAs?  Love that.  But other  features aren't melding so well, which can be chalked up to the size of the ruleset--its like a cruise ship, which takes a long time to turn, as opposed to a speedboat (rules lite) which can turn on a dime.  In any case, it will take time to get everything in line, and there definitely seems to be an effort to shift pre-E features to be more compatible with Essentials as part of that effort.



ForeverSlayer said:


> I also find it difficult when I explain the game to new comers on just where you are supposed to start.  To be perfectly honest I just tell them to pick up the three small books and start there.  I get really tired of having to jump back and forth when I am explaining the game.  Wizards has the game in such a state of disarray that I wish they would just start all over and bring us another edition.




This, I think is the biggest problem with the system right now.  Again, its simply growing pains, but I look forward to the day when obsolete feats and other little glitches are stripped out, leaving us with an elegant, clear system with an obvious and manageable entry point for newcomers.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 15, 2011)

What are people seeing that's different systematically? They are compatible products. I often have one or two players using builds from essentials and three to four using classic (so-to-speak). I have not seen a new, foreign mechanic, or something that makes meshing them difficult.

Don't read this reply as being defensive. I'm honestly trying to figure it out as several people have said it, albeit without examples.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jun 15, 2011)

I find them just as compatible as anything from any splat books, and they've meshed just fine at my tables.

The simplified classes from Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms (which, to be clear, is a subset of those classes - they're not all simple) are not going to be everyone's cup of tea (I've had at least one player try one of those classes and then abandon it for a different class), but I have no problem with their existence. They work just fine at the table with other classes.


----------



## nogray (Jun 15, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Nogray, in your experience, how well does it work out when one character mixes Essentials elements with the old elements?  For example, let's say a Thief decided to take the daggermaster PP.




In that specific example, not too well. Others may have mentioned it in the meanwhile, but the Thief gains relatively little benefit from Daggermaster, as the biggest benefit from that PP (the expanded crit range on the dagger) applies to only Rogue and Daggermaster powers. The MBA that the Thief uses is not one of those.

In other cases, they mesh better. Of the PHB1, MP, and MP2 rogue PPs, I found only Red Cloak (the PP works okay, but the prerequisite feat, not so much) and Strongarm Enforcer (lacking a way to get the Rattling keyword on most of their attacks -- which might be correctable by feats) that seem to have conflicts between their mechanics and that of the Thief subclass.

It really seems to be no different than mixing different builds together, though. Just watch for the interactions of the abilities, like you would for anything else.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2011)

shamsael said:


> The comparison between essentials and 3.5 is unfair.  3.5 changed fundamental aspects of the system which would make it impossible for a table to contain players using both 3rd and 3.5:





Having done exactly that, I have to say that this is not only _*not*_ impossible, it is _*extremely*_ easy.  


RC


----------



## Zaran (Jun 15, 2011)

I think the issue is that Essentials is designed to be playable without needing Core rulebooks.  The designers wanted it be more like older editions with less power choices, more static modifiers and abilities gained over time.  And while these new designs are balanced with the old, they are not easily interchangable (According to WotC, an Arcanist needs to spend 3 feats to master a school in place of their Implment Mastery).

My idea of compatibility would be able to share class features and this can't be done for the most part.  So I would say "Comparable" instead.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 15, 2011)

So compatible that I would hazard a guess that if WotC hadn't labelled the books "Essentials" and instead released the very same material in PH4, there would be a lot less gnashing of internet teeth. The gnashing wouldn't be non-existent, someone will always dislike a new class. But speculation aside, the main points people seem to bring up are akin to the Thief and the Daggermaster. HOW DARE THEY MAKE IT SO THAT ALL OPTIONS AREN'T OPTIMAL FOR YOUR CHARACTER CHOICE! Luckily your Thief will excel at different times, like when the Bard is in the party...


----------



## Herschel (Jun 15, 2011)

They are completely compatible. There's a couple of questions one should ask when deciding which route to go:

1. Do you enjoy the deeper tactical intricacies of the combat side of the game? 

2. Would you rather fiddle and tinker with your character's powers and abilities rather than more of a just grab-n-go character? 

If the answer is no, the Essentials is the better coice, if it's yes, go original classes.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't know this for a fact, but I'll assert it anyway: all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about mixing "classic" and Essentials material pretty much comes from people who haven't actually tried it.

I cannot imagine someone that has tried it actually having an issue with it, though I could be wrong.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 15, 2011)

Zaran said:


> My idea of compatibility would be able to share class features and this can't be done for the most part. So I would say "Comparable" instead.




Apparently the PHB and PHB 2 aren't compatable.  Who knew?


----------



## [OMENRPG]Ben (Jun 15, 2011)

Perhaps I missed it up thread, but is there an instance where Raven Crowking explains why he believes there to be such incompatibility other than some feats and options becoming obsolete? I am playing in a mostly essentials game currently, but there are two players who are pre-essentials and we are experiencing not the slightest speed bumps.

And this is an experienced table clocking in thousands of hours of 4e. Perhaps we are less on the power-game end of the spectrum though. As Jester and others have said, the methods which the players use to deal damage or move around the battlefield is somewhat irrelevant out of the context of the game. I do not personally think they are unbalanced, simply a different interpretation or branch of the core trunk of the 4e system tree.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2011)

[OMENRPG]Ben said:


> Perhaps I missed it up thread, but is there an instance where Raven Crowking explains why he believes there to be such incompatibility other than some feats and options becoming obsolete?




Perhaps I missed it up thread, but is there an instance where Raven Crowking says believes there to be incompatibility?  AFAICT, all Raven Crowking did was say that it wasn't impossible to use 3.5 and 3.0 materials at the same table.

But, maybe you can point out the post I missed?


RC


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 15, 2011)

Since I haven’t done this in a while, I will rehash.

*There is also a DM: *from a _DMs_ point of view, two and a half of the three 08 books are outdated and have been replaced. Sure, the DMG has some evergreen material, just like past DMGs (I still use my 1E one and sometimes looks at the others) and you can update MMI numbers by hand or even on the fly. But I know many of you reading this and saying “compatible, compatible” are DMs, and using the MV (or compendium) and RC as your main references. Your three core books may have dust on them. You not even know where you last put them. You may wonder if they have any resale value, or hope they do. 

*The play side is kinda a mess:* Yes, we all use DDI/CB and play with mostly updated PHB material, with all sorts of other stuff in, including essentials stuff. Fine. We pay up to stay current. Or we did until the CB pissed us off. But I don’t think it is non-trivial to tell an experienced RPGer who wants to play 4E what to buy. What if they don’t want to subscribe to DDI, or find it overwhelming? What if they want to try the warlord or the fighter with lots o’ powers? Non-trivial. And HoS? Seriously? It had some great ideas, and some good mechanics here and there…but still…it should speak for itself. One reason the way it is is to work with the different kinds of 4E. Ok, one more, themes without attack powers. Total wasted opportunity. 

*Essentials are not updates:* I really don’t care. Go ahead, beat that drum. Ride that bandwagon. Updates accelerated massively leading into essentials. By design and the WotC’s own admissions, this was not a coincidence. Essentials material is, by its nature more updated. And what about the Weaponmaster? What is that exactly besides an update to make things more essentially? 

*Falling sky:* ya, ya, ya. Yes, I use recent 4E products and older 4E products and my hair has not suddenly caught on fire. But there are many legitimate issues that go beyond whether a slayer, a bard, and a "templar" can all work in the same party together.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 15, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> *There is also a DM: *from a _DMs_ point of view, two and a half of the three 08 books are outdated and have been replaced. Sure, the DMG has some evergreen material, just like past DMGs (I still use my 1E one and sometimes looks at the others) and you can update MMI numbers by hand or even on the fly. But I know many of you reading this and saying “compatible, compatible” are DMs, and using the MV (or compendium) and RC as your main references. Your three core books may have dust on them. You not even know where you last put them. You may wonder if they have any resale value, or hope they do.




Honestly, when I DM my main rules reference is _the DM Screen_.  I can't remember the last time I cracked open the Rules Compendium at the table when I was DMing (the closest I can think of is cracking open the RC _after the session and with someone else DMing)_ - and the reason it's the rulebook when I DM is because it's the smallest and lightest thing with all the rules and I don't DM at my flat.

There is precisely one outdated book (MM1, replaced by Monster Vault - I still get use out of the MM2).  And the MM3 with the new math is not part of Essentials.  Where possible I wasn't using the MM1 long before Essentials came out; MM2 and 3 are just better books.



> Ok, one more, themes without attack powers. Total wasted opportunity.




Total improvement IMO.  Much easier to balance, and much more focussed on what themes should be.  Your class determines how you act when the chips are down, your themes are far more out of combat based.  And more out of combat options are good.


----------



## OnlineDM (Jun 15, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> But I don’t think it is non-trivial to tell an experienced RPGer who wants to play 4E what to buy. What if they don’t want to subscribe to DDI, or find it overwhelming? What if they want to try the warlord or the fighter with lots o’ powers? Non-trivial.




Simple. Start with Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms. You want the Warlord or Fighter from PHB1? Go here and here (they're free).

Want more options but don't want to subscribe to DDI? Buy PHB1, 2, 3, Martial Power 1, 2, Arcane Power 1, 2, Primal Power, Psionic Power, etc.

Baby steps. Start with the basics (Heroes of Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms) and expand from there if the player is interested. If they're *really* interested, skip straight to DDI and don't bother with the *Power books, Forgotten Realms Player Guide, maybe not even the PHBs depending on what exactly they want.

I don't think this is any harder now than it was before Heroes of the Fallen Lands was printed; the on-ramp book has changed, but there's still an on-ramp book.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 15, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Apparently the PHB and PHB 2 aren't compatable. Who knew?




The PHB 2 doesn't have 2 new classes called fighter.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 15, 2011)

But it sure had two new healers, for those stuck in old school thought process.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 15, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> *There is also a DM: *from a _DMs_ point of view, two and a half of the three 08 books are outdated and have been replaced. Sure, the DMG has some evergreen material, just like past DMGs (I still use my 1E one and sometimes looks at the others) and you can update MMI numbers by hand or even on the fly. But I know many of you reading this and saying “compatible, compatible” are DMs, and using the MV (or compendium) and RC as your main references.




Nice assertions, and possibly true for some, but I suspect those aren't the guys saying "compatible, compatible." 

AS one of the guys saying, "compatible, compatible," I have to say instead, Nonsense! I use the PH1 as much as ever; in fact, our newest player is playing a race and class from PH1 (dragonborn paladin). I use the MM less than I used to- but that's because there are more options available! I still use it plenty, and I can fix the math in my head with a quick "+1/2 level to damage" and a check of how the average damage/round looks. 



TerraDave said:


> *The play side is kinda a mess:* Yes, we all use DDI/CB and play with mostly updated PHB material, with all sorts of other stuff in, including essentials stuff. Fine. We pay up to stay current. Or we did until the CB pissed us off. But I don’t think it is non-trivial to tell an experienced RPGer who wants to play 4E what to buy. What if they don’t want to subscribe to DDI, or find it overwhelming? What if they want to try the warlord or the fighter with lots o’ powers? Non-trivial.




It's just as trivial as asking, "What if he wants to play a beastmaster ranger?" There's no need to freak out or cry, "Which book does he buy? OH NOES!!"



TerraDave said:


> Ok, one more, themes without attack powers. Total wasted opportunity.




For those of us that really dislike power creep, themes aren't an issue because we don't use them. I know they are great and all- and I would use them if they'd been in since day one- and I know I'm not typical; but themes that give more attack powers are not even open for discussion at my table.



TerraDave said:


> Updates accelerated massively leading into essentials. By design and the WotC’s own admissions, this was not a coincidence. Essentials material is, by its nature more updated. And what about the Weaponmaster? What is that exactly besides an update to make things more essentially?




So what? Don't use the updates if you don't like them. Download them off the WotC site for free if you do. It's just the errata and update cycle that has always been there. How many different versions of polymorph were in 3e? 

As far as making the weaponmaster more 'essentially'- how so? It didn't lose its power structure or features, it didn't gain a reliance on basic attacks, it didn't become a striker, all that happened was that a few powers that were busted got fixed. _It's the same as the errata and update cycle that has always been there._ My old 1e Unearthed Arcana is full of handwritten notes incorporating the errata from Dragon into it. Same thing, different edition.



TerraDave said:


> *Falling sky:* ya, ya, ya. Yes, I use recent 4E products and older 4E products and my hair has not suddenly caught on fire. But there are many legitimate issues that go beyond whether a slayer, a bard, and a "templar" can all work in the same party together.




Are you talking about business model issues or gameplay issues? I'll grant that the business model issues are there- but I think this thread is focused on gameplay issues, and with one exception (the utter lack of support for the new rarity magic item system) I don't see any at all. And again, this is from running a game that has included an Essentials mage alongside a PH1/AP tome wizard.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 15, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> *There is also a DM: *from a _DMs_ point of view, two and a half of the three 08 books are outdated and have been replaced.




I am a DM, and that is not my view.



> Sure, the DMG has some evergreen material, just like past DMGs (I still use my 1E one and sometimes looks at the others) and you can update MMI numbers by hand or even on the fly. But I know many of you reading this and saying “compatible, compatible” are DMs, and using the MV (or compendium) and RC as your main references.




No. I own those books, and I own the original PHB, MM, DMG, but I have used the Compendium and DM's screen for these things from the moment they were available. The only parts of the DMG I really used, even early on, are some of the parts that are still valid today: treasure parcels (yes, an alternate system exists but isn't yet fully-supported) and advice.



> Your three core books may have dust on them.




My core books have been gathering dust since I subscribed to DDI.



> *The play side is kinda a mess:* Yes, we all use DDI/CB and play with mostly updated PHB material, with all sorts of other stuff in, including essentials stuff. Fine. We pay up to stay current. Or we did until the CB pissed us off. But I don’t think it is non-trivial to tell an experienced RPGer who wants to play 4E what to buy.




Tell them to buy an HoF_ book.



> What if they don’t want to subscribe to DDI, or find it overwhelming?




They probably _won't_, but if they do, that HoF_ book you told them to buy will get them through just fine.



> What if they want to try the warlord or the fighter with lots o’ powers? Non-trivial.




If they want to build a character with a lot of powers to pick from, have them use DDI. If they want to build a character with easy choices to make, have them just use that HoF_ book.



> And HoS? Seriously? It had some great ideas, and some good mechanics here and there…but still…it should speak for itself.




In what way? It's a fine book.



> One reason the way it is is to work with the different kinds of 4E.




No, it's the way it is so that it works with a bunch of different types of characters. There's only one "kind" of 4e: 4e. Heroes of Shadow is a perfect example that proves that Essentials is simply a set of options within 4e.



> Ok, one more, themes without attack powers. Total wasted opportunity.




This has _nothing_ to do with the discussion we're having and _everything_ to do with a personal opinion on how they ought to have handled a mechanic.



> *Essentials are not updates:* I really don’t care.




No one has said Essentials is not about updates. But that's not unique to Essentials. The game was updated before Essentials (and to no lesser degree) and the game will continue to be updated after Essentials. This is the nature of a living game.

What is happening is that people are seeing a bunch of new books that look different and instead of stepping back and examining things with a critical eye, they're suddenly noticing that the game has had updates. If new books are coming out that reflect these updates, _it must be a new edition_! Or so their thought process goes.



> *Falling sky:* ya, ya, ya. Yes, I use recent 4E products and older 4E products and my hair has not suddenly caught on fire. But there are many legitimate issues that go beyond whether a slayer, a bard, and a "templar" can all work in the same party together.




I don't see many. This is just a lot of people whining about how much they believe the game to have changed, when in reality they could sit down and start playing with a mix of every type of character possible and the game would play pretty much exactly the same, _even from the DM's perspective_.

And for crying out loud, people, *use DDI*.


----------



## Badwe (Jun 15, 2011)

Just in case there is still some doubt on the compatability, I thought I would pile on that I have both original 4th and Essentials in my home campaign and have had zero problems with regard to compatibility.

It may be fair to say the starting point isn't as graceful as wotc originally intended, but in terms of ongoing groups there should be no problems.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 15, 2011)

Just wondering, but when will criticisms of 4e stop being referred to as "whining" or "gnashing of teeth" or whatever?

Because this would be a much more interested thread if people didn't come off as so emotionally invested in squashing any dissent in their own beliefs and opinions.



Back on topic, saying new players should just pick up an HoF* as a starting point is all well and good, but I would be amazed if any potential player, looking at a wall of 4e books at their local comic or game shop, would know to do that.  Its just not clear.

And as for compatibility, yes, there are terrific synergies between some Pre-E and E features, but there are also combinations of classes/races/PPs/powers, etc that just don't work, and even DDi doesn't help navigate the hundreds of thousands of possible combinations.  So while I'm sure some home games are working with both types of players, its been my experience is that it takes some effort to make sure it works--and for what its worth, this was not always the case in D&D.  Again, as the ruleset matures, this will be less of an issue, and I look forward to that more elegant version.


----------



## [OMENRPG]Ben (Jun 15, 2011)

Forgive me [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], I stand humbly corrected. I saw the XP awarded earlier and thought I saw a post conferring this, blast my tiny monitor at work! 

You are a paragon of logic and truth, as always good sir.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 15, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Having done exactly that, I have to say that this is not only _*not*_ impossible, it is _*extremely*_ easy.
> 
> 
> RC




I agree, and I also have done so.

The only book which I felt needed a lot of work to convert was MM2.



S'mon said:


> I find the hand-holding presentation & layout in the HoT books to be vastly easier to use than the PHB.  You can make a HoT PC without electronic support, very hard for me with the PHB.  And my Thief seems a lot simpler to run than the PHB Rogue.





For me, it's actually the opposite.  As I said previously, there's something about the layout of the books which doesn't work well for me.  I always feel like it takes me forever to get to the information I need/want.  

I've never used the Character Builder, so I can't comment on that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Just wondering, but when will criticisms of 4e stop being referred to as "whining" or "gnashing of teeth" or whatever?




When 6e comes.



[OMENRPG]Ben said:


> Forgive me [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], I stand humbly corrected. I saw the XP awarded earlier and thought I saw a post conferring this, blast my tiny monitor at work!




I fully agree with the OP that Essentials is to 4e what 3.5 was to 3e.

The argument that this is not so because they are compatable, where 3e/3.5 are not, is a non-starter, because it is supremely easy to use 3e and 3.5 materials together.

Heck, in my home game, I use 1e, 3e, and 4e materials without problem.

Whether or not this should be a problem is another matter; I would say that 4e needed the revision.  Although I'd much rather see WotC get its house in order first, I begin to suspect that 5e will be announced within the next 18 months.


RC


----------



## Osgood (Jun 15, 2011)

Compatible?  Yes.  A good idea to mix?  Not really.

Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters.  While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins.  At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.

I think the two systems appeal to different types of players.  My group prefer the class 4E approach, other groups undoubtedly prefer the other route.  Unfortunately for WotC this means the fan base is once again split.


----------



## [OMENRPG]Ben (Jun 15, 2011)

Ah, thank you for clarifying that. 

I agree that we are seeing the amount of experimentation and system reworking comparable to the final days of 3.5. Essentials reminds me to a degree of the Book of Nine Swords and other splat books that attempted to reinterpret the abilities of the system. 

As always, play what works at your table. If a group decides Essentials are too abrasive to include in their game, then they should be excluded. 

And, so as not to derail the thread [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION], but can you PM me what materials you are using from previous editions in conjunction with 4e? Or are you referring to the RCFG (which I have perused and enjoy)?


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 15, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> When 6e comes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Because of the 3.0/3.5 compatibility complaint I've gotten when I've made similar comments, I have started to sometimes instead refer to Essentials as the 4E Pathfinder.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to accept that there was less change between 3.5 & Pathfinder.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 15, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Back on topic, saying new players should just pick up an HoF* as a starting point is all well and good, but I would be amazed if any potential player, looking at a wall of 4e books at their local comic or game shop, would know to do that. Its just not clear.




Actually, it is. If you're a new RPG player without an existing group guiding your choice then the choice is clearly the Red Box.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 15, 2011)

Osgood said:


> Compatible? Yes. A good idea to mix? Not really.
> 
> Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters. While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins. At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.
> 
> I think the two systems appeal to different types of players. My group prefer the class 4E approach, other groups undoubtedly prefer the other route. Unfortunately for WotC this means the fan base is once again split.




I'd say it's the opposite. Essentials allows both types to play together more easily.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 15, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Actually, it is. If you're a new RPG player without an existing group guiding your choice then the choice is clearly the Red Box.




I agree with that in theory.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2011)

[OMENRPG]Ben said:


> As always, play what works at your table.




As obvious as this advice should be, it is always worth repeating!



> what materials you are using from previous editions in conjunction with 4e? Or are you referring to the RCFG (which I have perused and enjoy)?




RCFG, baby!  But, if I can convert a 4e module to RCFG, it makes sense that anyone could do the same with 3e, or vice versa.  Of course, it is easier to mix & match if you are working from a broad-based balance as a root game.  For example, it is easier to mix & match in lower-level 3e than in higher-level games, because the balance is far broader.

(I find that, I believe largely due to the Delve Format, I cannot easily convert 4e modules on the fly, but I routinely do so with 1e, 2e, 3e, and Pathfinder modules.)


RC


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 15, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Just wondering, but when will criticisms of 4e stop being referred to as "whining" or "gnashing of teeth" or whatever?




As someone who used "gnashing of teeth" upthread, what would you like me to call it when thread after thread after thread appears about the incompatability of Essentials products? "Gnashing of teeth" is defined as showing anger. If the people starting these multitudes of threads are not angry then I would welcome a better term to use. At any rate, I did not think that gnashing of teeth had the negative connotation that whining does, so I apologize if my colorful term for "anger" upset anyone.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 15, 2011)

Now when I say having trouble being compatible I don't mean from all aspects.  Technically, 3.0 and 3.5 could be played together but I wouldn't exactly call them compatible. 

Pre-E and Essentials are a lot like 3.0 and 3.5.  Sure your 3.0 Ranger could play in the same party perfectly, but he isn't going to have the amount of options that the 3.5 Ranger has.  

Changes had to be made to Pre-E material in order for it play nice with Essentials material.  Melee Training anyone?  There is actually an article about the changes that were made in order for the two to mesh together a bit better and as soon as I find it I will post it.

We had a Pre-E fighter that was looking at some of the Knight's stances and the Slayer's stances and since they were technically "fighters" he thought he could take them, but I told him he could not. 

What I have been seeing of a good many powers is that, yes they can be taken by certain classes but the effects that it has for that class makes it not worth taking and is better suited for the class that it was made for.  

Take Power Strike for instance.  Sure a Pre-E Fighter can use it, but he would be better off taking a Pre-E Fighter Encounter Power because Power Strike is for Melee Basic Attacks.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 15, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I fully agree with the OP that Essentials is to 4e what 3.5 was to 3e.
> 
> The argument that this is not so because they are compatable, where 3e/3.5 are not, is a non-starter, because it is supremely easy to use 3e and 3.5 materials together.




There is a difference between two things being compatible with one another, and two things being very easy to convert between one another. Essentials is a set of 4e supplements. There is no way to argue against this. They use the 4e rules, and present new options for characters playing in 4e games.

3.5 is _not_ a set of 3.0 supplements. 3.5 does _not_ use the 3.0 rules, and instead of presenting new options for characters playing in 3.0 games, it reprints the 3.0 options in order to make them compatible with the new 3.5 rules.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 15, 2011)

Osgood said:


> Compatible?  Yes.  A good idea to mix?  Not really.
> 
> Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters.  While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins.  At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.




This is a problem with your players deciding to play characters that do not suit them well.

This is *no different* than if one of those players was playing a PHB Fighter and became jealous of the flexibility of a PHB 3 Psion.

The fact that your players have chosen to play characters that do not suit them well has *absolutely zero* reflection on whether or not Essentials and non-Essentials characters ought to be played in the same game. As many, many people have pointed out in this thread, there are no mechanical issues that arise when the two different sorts of characters are in the same game.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 16, 2011)

Osgood said:


> Compatible?  Yes.  A good idea to mix?  Not really.
> 
> Our group has recently added 2 essentials characters into groups of classic 4E characters.  While the game never grinds to a halt or has problems in play, both essentials players dislike their characters and look longingly at their more complex cousins.  At this point I think it's just a matter of time before both characters get dropped.




They should change characters immediately, but you should understand that the reason that they don't like their characters is because they chose poorly - characters that didn't suit their play style - rather than it being a flaw with Essentials.

We have the converse in our group: one player was playing a PHB Rogue, and absolutely hating the mechanical complexity of it. She's far more of a roleplayer and when it comes to combat, rolling dice and adding up damage is about as far as she wants to go. When Essentials came out, we converted her character over to the HotFL Thief, and she has been extremely happy and effective ever since.

This is in a group that also consists of an Kalashtar Ardent, a Dragonborn Sorcerer, a Deva Avenger and a Warforged Barbarian. The rest of the group tends to the higher complexity classes _and chose accordingly_.

(It's a hilarious group - 4 strikers and 1 leader - our opponents go down quickly, and so do we!)

In AD&D, there was a world of difference in complexity between the fighter and the magic-user. One of my chief complaints with 4E was that there wasn't really an "easy" option for players, especially with regards to the fighter. With Essentials, we have that option.


----------



## shamsael (Jun 16, 2011)

Destil said:


> Except, you know, essentials isn't simpler. Some _classes _are simpler. But the mage is more complex than anything in PHB1 structurally (spell book encounters), though the PHB1 fighter is a bit more complex in play (due to their two interrupt mechanics).




It's not about Essentials being simpler, it's about PHB1 containing rules that have since been heavily erratad.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 16, 2011)

shamsael said:


> It's not about Essentials being simpler, it's about PHB1 containing rules that have since been heavily erratad.





I think I can buy into that idea.  

I've started to realize that -as someone who has neither DDi nor owns any Essential books of my own- I am unsure if I still know how to play 4E.  I do play with a group every weekend, and I do fine there where we're all on the same page when it comes to the rules.  However, I don't believe I would be able to sit down at a table with a group using the new rules and have a good idea of how things were supposed to work.  Even on here, when I participate in conversations about 4E, I find more and more that I no longer know the game.

As for being simple or being an 'easy' option, I disagree.  I felt that 4E was already pretty simple and easy; I'm not convinced that the layout of Essentials conveys game information better - even if I were to accept that the classes are simpler.  I believe I would have had a harder time getting into 4th Edition with Essentials* than I did with the first three books.  Different people learn differently; I accept that, but I'm of the impression that I'm not the only person who feels the Essentials layout leaves a little to be desired.  

Now days, when I tell people I can make a character by hand, they look at me as though I must have some kind of super power.


*While I own none of the Essential products, I do have access to them via friends.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 16, 2011)

I've played in several different groups now with using the Character Builder as the be all and end all of rules and it has worked out just fine. Anyone who says they're not incompatible is creating problems where there simply are none.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 16, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Actually, it is. If you're a new RPG player without an existing group guiding your choice then the choice is clearly the Red Box.




Great point!  The problem for me is that I think the Red Box is such poor quality that I'd never recommend it to a new player.  YMMV.


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 16, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I think I can buy into that idea.
> 
> I've started to realize that -as someone who has neither DDi nor owns any Essential books of my own- I am unsure if I still know how to play 4E.  I do play with a group every weekend, and I do fine there where we're all on the same page when it comes to the rules.  However, I don't believe I would be able to sit down at a table with a group using the new rules and have a good idea of how things were supposed to work.  Even on here, when I participate in conversations about 4E, I find more and more that I no longer know the game.




Actually, the core rules of the game that your powers, feats and race/class abilities modify haven't changed all that much. If you want a concise set of rules I highly recommend the rules compendium (RC). While the RC has the Essentials brand it really is useful for any 4e player and DM.

Where playing only from the printed books from 4e first wave gets really wonky is the errata to the powers, feats and race/class abilities of PH1 and PH2 (plus all the splat books).

If you are going to only use printed material then the free errata updates can bring your PCs up to date (if that is what you want, plenty of folks have ignored errata through out all editions).



Johnny3D3D said:


> As for being simple or being an 'easy' option, I disagree.  I felt that 4E was already pretty simple and easy; I'm not convinced that the layout of Essentials conveys game information better - even if I were to accept that the classes are simpler.  I believe I would have had a harder time getting into 4th Edition with Essentials* than I did with the first three books.  Different people learn differently; I accept that, but I'm of the impression that I'm not the only person who feels the Essentials layout leaves a little to be desired.
> 
> Now days, when I tell people I can make a character by hand, they look at me as though I must have some kind of super power.
> 
> *While I own none of the Essential products, I do have access to them via friends.




I will say this is really a point of entry issue. When I finally converted over to 4e from 3.5 I had a really hard time groking the way things were laid out (I remember asking WTF [W] meant until I got half way through the PHB). I adjusted and then it was fine.

Essentials is much easier to grok for a new player or one coming from an earlier edition. It marches straight through the process of making a character. It took me a while to get used to the info being rearranged again.

I will tell you this, I would rather hand create an essentials PC than try and make a PH1-3 PC with full access to online and splat book material. I get paralyzed by all the choices. I would only build those PCs using the CB.

NOTE: If you can create a PC by hand with full options available for first wave 4e, then yes you have a superpower (Psionic).

My two coppers,


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 16, 2011)

3.5 was a complete rewrite of the game, with the same classes and spells etc as 3.0, replacing them.

Essentials is a change in design philosophy for classes, with new subclasses, none of which replace the old classes.

Yeah, totally the same thing.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 16, 2011)

I'm still waiting for someone that has actually mixed them to explain the problems they've had, other than Osgood's "my players chose poorly in making characters" complaint- which could happen just as easily with a player making a fighter and then discovering that he'd really rather play a more damage-oriented barbarian (or slayer!).

Unless I'm mistaken, everyone else that has mixed and matched seems to have a fine time with it.

So, yes, wailing and gnashing of teeth and whinging. I'll stop characterizing it that way when it appears that the people doing the wailing and gnashing and whinging _have actually tried what they are complaining about_ instead of just complaining about it online.

If you have actually tried it, I don't consider you to be wailing, gnashing and whinging. You have room to talk about it. In fact, please do: explain any problems that you've actually had in play. 

I have seen none at all, and from the posts in this thread, that seems to be the common experience of almost everyone who has, if you'll pardon the expression, done the research.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 16, 2011)

Saracenus said:


> NOTE: If you can create a PC by hand with full options available for first wave 4e, then yes you have a superpower (Psionic).




I'm not sure if I should be sad or happy that I can do this. I spend an inordinate amount of time making up characters so I generally have a fairly good grasp on what powers and builds are decent and can, for the most part, remember them... well... at least at 1st-level I can. Once a character starts getting past about 5th I couldn't create one of those at the table without any books.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> 3.5 was a complete rewrite of the game, with the same classes and spells etc as 3.0, replacing them.
> 
> Essentials is a change in design philosophy for classes, with new subclasses, none of which replace the old classes.
> 
> Yeah, totally the same thing.




There are 3rd Edition books which were never fully updated.  Most of them can still be used in a 3.5 game with only minor adjustments.

IMO, Monster Manual 2 was/is probably the hardest to update.  A lot of changes to the game which at first glance had a pretty powerful impact (for good or for ill) on the CRs of 3.0 creatures.



Kzach said:


> I'm not sure if I should be sad or happy that I can do this. I spend an inordinate amount of time making up characters so I generally have a fairly good grasp on what powers and builds are decent and can, for the most part, remember them... well... at least at 1st-level I can. Once a character starts getting past about 5th I couldn't create one of those at the table without any books.





At higher levels, I usually use the DMG1 to help me out.  I can't remember the page number off the top of my head, but there's a page which shows how many of each power (encounter, utility, etc) a character of a given level should have.  The same chart also notes what level each of those powers should be.

What I usually do is just write the level numbers (or 'PP' for paragon path) beside (to the left of) the corresponding power spaces on the back of my character sheet.  Then I just go through and pick powers of those levels; fill in the blanks.  If there's one I'm not 100% sure on, I usually put some sort of mark next to it to remind me to come back and look at it again later once my character sheet is finished.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> There are 3rd Edition books which were never fully updated.  Most of them can still be used in a 3.5 game with only minor adjustments.



There were some, but only a handful.  Yeah, MM2 is one of them.  Manual of the Planes is another (though the 3.5 players' version of it trod much of the same ground.)  Apart from MM2, most of the books that weren't re-released were either niche products (Ghostwalk) or mostly flavor text (Living Greyhawk Gazeteer).  The lion's share, including all popular books, were re-released, though, including all player-centric books (either in the Complete series or stuff like the Expanded Psionics Handbook).

One of the main differences I see is that I'd never, ever consider the 3.5 PHB a "supplement" for the 3.0 PHB.  They were not designed to be used at the same table with one another, and there's zero value added from doing so.  Ditto, two books like Sword and Fist vs. Complete Warrior.  On the other hand, Essentials was designed both as a supplement and as a new starting point for beginners; I think adding the HotFx books to my PHB is pretty awesome.

WotC was very, very clear that 3.5 was a new edition.  I tend to take the publisher's word for this sort of thing because it's the only metric that really makes sense across the entire RPG hobby.  The player base was extremely clear about the divide, too - the edition change was one of the main driving forces behind the collapse of 3e's third party publisher market.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'm not sure if I should be sad or happy that I can do this. I spend an inordinate amount of time making up characters so I generally have a fairly good grasp on what powers and builds are decent and can, for the most part, remember them... well... at least at 1st-level I can. Once a character starts getting past about 5th I couldn't create one of those at the table without any books.



It's honestly not bad at all if you limit your sourcebooks to, say, the PHB and the X Power book for your class.

Much like in 3e, once you add in Dragon content, the work required expands dramatically if you're not using good databases (like 4e's Character Builder, or 3.5's HeroForge).

-O


----------



## malraux (Jun 16, 2011)

the Jester said:


> I'm still waiting for someone that has actually mixed them to explain the problems they've had, other than Osgood's "my players chose poorly in making characters" complaint- which could happen just as easily with a player making a fighter and then discovering that he'd really rather play a more damage-oriented barbarian (or slayer!).
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, everyone else that has mixed and matched seems to have a fine time with it.




My only experience with DMing a mixed group was that there wasn't much problem mixing the two.  Now, my campaign ended right after that, so I didn't see multiple levels, but what I saw was pretty much everything worked.  There were a few comments that the martial essentials were a lot less complex and might end up being boring, but that's a player's choice, not a class problem.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 16, 2011)

Obryn said:


> There were some, but only a handful.  Yeah, MM2 is one of them.  Manual of the Planes is another (though the 3.5 players' version of it trod much of the same ground.)  Apart from MM2, most of the books that weren't re-released were either niche products (Ghostwalk) or mostly flavor text (Living Greyhawk Gazeteer).  The lion's share, including all popular books, were re-released, though, including all player-centric books (either in the Complete series or stuff like the Expanded Psionics Handbook).
> 
> One of the main differences I see is that I'd never, ever consider the 3.5 PHB a "supplement" for the 3.0 PHB.  They were not designed to be used at the same table with one another, and there's zero value added from doing so.  Ditto, two books like Sword and Fist vs. Complete Warrior.  On the other hand, Essentials was designed both as a supplement and as a new starting point for beginners; I think adding the HotFx books to my PHB is pretty awesome.
> 
> ...





I would never argue that Essentials and 3.5 were intended for the same thing.  Neither would I argue that 3.5 was not a new edition.

However, to some extent, I can see the comparison between the new direction of Essentials and 3.5.  I just think the change is less drastic and less noticeable with Essentials because it's been a gradual change from PHB1 to PHB 2 to PHB 3 to Essentials rather than a sudden shift, and the old stuff has been gradually been given errata to keep things working.  If there were someone who had only the first 3 books and then picked up one of the Essentials books without knowing about anything in between, I imagine the change would be more noticeable.

Admittedly, I am far less experienced with Essentials than I ever was with 3.0 or 3.5, but I think there arise some similar problems.  One of those similar problems being that -while mostly compatible- there are a few edge cases in which the combination of elements works a little differently than I imagine (I can only assume) they were originally meant to.  

Examples which come to mind include some of the leader powers which grant basic attacks.  A Bard using Increase The Tempo to grant his Essentials buddy 4 basic attacks as a free action tends to be a little stronger than it otherwise would be.  I wouldn't say it's broken; just that it changes the power level of the ability IMO.

As someone who loves to multiclass (in many cases Paragon MCing,) there are a few Essentials classes which I'm unsure how to MC with.  I'm of the understanding there is playtesting going on in regards to this right now.  I'm somewhat anxious to see the end result.  

I wouldn't say any of those are huge issues.  Most can probably be figured out with a little thought and some DM fiat.  However, those are things I notice.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Examples which come to mind include some of the leader powers which grant basic attacks.  A Bard using Increase The Tempo to grant his Essentials buddy 4 basic attacks as a free action tends to be a little stronger than it otherwise would be.  I wouldn't say it's broken; just that it changes the power level of the ability IMO.



It does become more useful, true.  But it's still within the scale of reasonableness.  Something like Commander's Strike is useless if you have no characters with melee MBAs.  It's useful if you have a Fighter or Paladin.  It's awesome with a Slayer.



> As someone who loves to multiclass (in many cases Paragon MCing,) there are a few Essentials classes which I'm unsure how to MC with.  I'm of the understanding there is playtesting going on in regards to this right now.  I'm somewhat anxious to see the end result.



Yeah, a collection of Hybrids and Multiclass feats was recently released.  It's pretty great, honestly, and has some of the most interesting crunch that's been released in months.  There's a few classes missing - notably the Basic-Attacking guys, who will probably never hybrid well - but everything else is out there.  Hybrid Sentinels are arguably too strong, and Hybrid Binders ... well, best not to talk about Binders at all, really.  They're sadly the worst class in 4e.  Hybrid-ing them may make them a tad more viable.

-O


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 16, 2011)

It's sad to hear that 4E Binders are considered to be so poor.  Binder was one of my favorite alternative 3E classes.


Do the 'basic attack guys' have multiclass feats?  I could live without the hybrid options for them if need be.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> It's sad to hear that 4E Binders are considered to be so poor.  Binder was one of my favorite alternative 3E classes.
> 
> Do the 'basic attack guys' have multiclass feats?  I could live without the hybrid options for them if need be.



The Vestige Pact Warlock fits the 3.5 Binder pretty well.  The Heroes of Shadow Binder is mostly just a gimpy Warlock.

There are feats that let classes poach bits from related subclasses.  These range from pretty lame (nuke a Fighter Encounter power to get Power Strike) to awesome (trade a Ranger At-Will for something like Clever Shot).  There's no specific Multiclass feat for, for instance, Knight or Thief, though honestly the existing multiclass feats fit the bill pretty well, there.

-O


----------



## mneme (Jun 16, 2011)

Re binder: I think the Binder basically needs three things to be more than "a warlock, but worse".

1. They need a full controller at will.  To be fair, one of the Binder builds actually has one of these.

2. They need encounter/daily control options that compete with other controller encounter/daily options, and that are significiantly better than the controller encounter/daily options already available to other warlocks (via build benefits, presumably).  I take it this just didn't materialize?


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> 3.5 was a complete rewrite of the game, with the same classes and spells etc as 3.0, replacing them.
> 
> Essentials is a change in design philosophy for classes, with new subclasses, none of which replace the old classes.



I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.

There were very few classes with significant changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly it boiled down to reducing the frontloaded nature of many classes to discourage one-level-dips. I think the ranger was about the only class that changed significantly.

We played 3e using a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 rules for quite a while without significant problems. The most problematic was probably the introduction of weapon sizes.

If you compare Essentials with classic 4e (before the application of all the rules updates) there are probably just as many changes as from 3.0 to 3.5.

The reason why Essentials is 'almost' compatible with classic 4e is the gradual changes introduced by rules updates. 

Before Essentials builds were entirely optional and you could mix and match powers in whatever way you wanted. You can't play an Essentials class without using an Essentials build and you cannot freely pick powers from classic builds and Essential builds.


----------



## Vael (Jun 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.
> 
> There were very few classes with significant changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly it boiled down to reducing the frontloaded nature of many classes to discourage one-level-dips. I think the ranger was about the only class that changed significantly.




A Document of the changes: D&D v.3.5 Accessory Update Booklet

The main point I'd make is that Essentials classes do not supersede non-essentials classes. A 3.5 Ranger is intended to replace a 3.0 Ranger. I have both the PHB Rogue and an Essentials Thief in the same party. The Scout and Hunter do not supersede the PHB Ranger.

3.5 changed some underlying mechanics that Essentials did not. Skills were changed. Gone are Innuendo, Read Lips, Scry and Know Direction.

This isn't to say you couldn't try and use both, I remember the last 3.5 campaign I played in, and one player wanted to use a 3.0 prestige class, the Lasher, that, to my knowledge, had not been ported over to 3.5.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds..




Oh no, I went and grabbed the 3.5 book and looked and saw that it wasn't some alternate build, some alternate class in everything but name only, but was actually attempting to completely rewrite the classes.  Essentials just presents new subclasses that might as well be new classes, but can use some of the resources of other classes.

The 3.5 Ranger was a complete remake of the ranger, and was meant ENTIRELY to replace the ranger from then on.  3.0 and 3.5 rangers weren't meant to co-exist.

Essentials' ranger subclasses aren't meant to replace the PHB ranger.  They're meant to be a different way to ranger, but can co-exist with the old ranger.  Same with the warpriest, the mage, the slayer, the cavalier...

That's why they can reprint the old classes.  You could make the argument that Class Compendium is 4.5.  But not Essentials itself.  

Essentials isn't meant to -replace- your PHB.  It's meant as a new entry point in the game, and a new design philosophy for future character classes.  It's not meant to be an eraser that rubs out old versions of the class.

You can't make the argument that the slayer and knight are designed to replace the weaponmaster nor fix problems with the weaponmaster, which is what 3.5 was intended to do.  Again, Class Compendium is doing that.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2011)

Vael said:


> The main point I'd make is that Essentials classes do not supersede non-essentials classes. A 3.5 Ranger is intended to replace a 3.0 Ranger. I have both the PHB Rogue and an Essentials Thief in the same party.



Yep, and essentially(!) there's nothing that would have kept you from having both a 3.0 ranger and a 3.5 ranger in the same game.

It's true that there were some minor changes to skills, but the conversion document explained which skills were rolled into others, so it wasn't difficult to deal with characters having one or the other skillset.



> This isn't to say you couldn't try and use both, I remember the last 3.5 campaign I played in, and one player wanted to use a 3.0 prestige class, the Lasher, that, to my knowledge, had not been ported over to 3.5.



Huh?! Have you been in my campaign?  

Even after I had switched everything else to 3.5, I allowed my fighter player to take the lasher prestige class (although I later regretted it, since he turned out to be quite overpowered in the end). I decided on a case-by-case basis what I allowed and what I didn't allow, e.g. when one player wanted to take a feat from the Neverwinter Nights CRPG that didn't exist in the pen & paper rules, I allowed it.

Anyway, my point is: Essentials is just about as compatible with classic 4e as 3.5 was with 3.0, it's just been marketed differently (or to use your words: the 'intention' behind the changes is different).

I've seen comments from players on this forum who stated that they decided to change their games into 'Essentials only' games. I.e. they decided to go against the 'intention' by making the Essentials classes supersede the 'classic' classes.

Likewise there are groups (including mine) who decided not to allow any of the Essential classes. Since every new product release for 4e is going to be 'Essentialized' that's likely to change eventually, but for the moment that's what we (or rather our DMs) decided.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Anyway, my point is: Essentials is just about as compatible with classic 4e as 3.5 was with 3.0, it's just been marketed differently (or to use your words: the 'intention' behind the changes is different).




True, except, of course, for the fact that 3.5 is a revised 3rd edition and was meant and intended to absolutely restart and replace previously printed materials.. whereas Essentials is a different starting point that suppliments, but does not replace old classes, nor is it intended to.

I mean, yeah, except for the intent to supercede old classes, they're totally the same.  Except for that major GLARING difference of the essentials stuff being entirely new content, rather than replacements for old content.

Hate to say this, but that 'it's new stuff' thing is the big difference between the two.  The slayer is not the old fighter updated... it's a new class.  The thief isn't the rogue updated... it's a new class.  The bard in 3.5 isn't a new class... it's a revision designed to try to fix the bard's problems.

The difference is in class design philosophy allowing for greater variation in classes.  That's it.  It's a change in future design.  It's not 'kinda compatible.'  There's no 'conversion document.'  If people choose to limit to one or the other, whatever.  That's not evidence to the -fact- of essentials being some mythical new edition, it's existance of the *perception.* 

But perception does not mean truth.  It simply means it appears that way to some people.  Perhaps if individuals would stop making statements about how '3.5'-like essentials is, when it clearly is not, people would stop adhering to that *myth*.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 16, 2011)

I don't mind the formatting of Essentials and how the classes are set up.  But what I don't like is for my power choices to be made for me.  Even the most ignorant of players will eventually learn the game enough to be able to make choices in character development.  The draw for me with 4e was the fact that I could make a character that was different from next.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.
> 
> There were very few classes with significant changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Mostly it boiled down to reducing the frontloaded nature of many classes to discourage one-level-dips. I think the ranger was about the only class that changed significantly.




Bard.  And the thing is that the PHB classes _haven't_ changed with Essentials.  A Slayer is not a PHB fighter.  A Slayer is a Slayer.  And is more like an AD&D fighter than he is like a PHB fighter.



> Before Essentials builds were entirely optional and you could mix and match powers in whatever way you wanted. You can't play an Essentials class without using an Essentials build and you cannot freely pick powers from classic builds and Essential builds.




No you can't.  A Slayer is not a PHB Fighter.  So you can't freely pick powers between them any more than you can freely pick powers between Paladin and Fighter.



Zaran said:


> I don't mind the formatting of Essentials and how the classes are set up. But what I don't like is for my power choices to be made for me. Even the most ignorant of players will eventually learn the game enough to be able to make choices in character development. The draw for me with 4e was the fact that I could make a character that was different from next.




You still can.  Just stay away from new Essentials classes.  

What I really don't get is your objection here.  There are people who like detailed customisation (as you and I do).  And there are people who do not.  There are three entire PHBs for people like you and me.  Why don't you want people who like playing differently to you to have classes they can get on with?  Is it because they have Badwrongfun?  Or is it because you think they will force you to play their classes.  Or what?  I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 16, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> What I really don't get is your objection here. There are people who like detailed customisation (as you and I do). And there are people who do not. There are three entire PHBs for people like you and me. Why don't you want people who like playing differently to you to have classes they can get on with? Is it because they have Badwrongfun? Or is it because you think they will force you to play their classes. Or what? I'm not seeing it.




What if I want to play a vampire (I don't) or one of the new classes from the Feywild book? Or a Shugenja?  If these classes are all pre-made little choice cookie cutter builds then I'm not going to be interested.  

Telling me that I have all the pre-essentials books to pull from is like telling me I can just play an older edition.  Having books for beginners is one thing, but like many other players, I want more options in future products.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 16, 2011)

Zaran said:


> What if I want to play a vampire (I don't)




You take the Vampire Multiclass feat currently under playtest.



> or one of the new classes from the Feywild book?




Assuming it's like HoS:
New class: The Blackguard.  You want the powers, play a Strength-Paladin (which can take almost all of them).
New Class: The Binder.  The only Binder powers you can't take as a Warlock are the At Wills.
New Class: The Executioner.  The oExecutioner can get almost all of their powers if he wants it.

New build: Death Domain Warpriest.  Almost all the powers can be taken by a PHB Cleric.  You just get a couple of bonusses for locking yourself in to those powers (even the bad ones).

New builds: Necromancers and Nethermancers.  Are builds for the Mage - all powers usable by the Wizard (and the difference is largely cosmetic; if the Mage got Ritual Caster I'd consider it entirely a superior implementation to the Wizard).



> Or a Shugenja?




I have no idea.  Given all the actuals either fit with old-style classes or are being given options to fit, I'm going to assume there'd be something there.  After all there has been so far.



> Telling me that I have all the pre-essentials books to pull from is like telling me I can just play an older edition.




Telling you you have all the pre-essentials books and a good half of the post-essentials powers on the other hand...



> Having books for beginners is one thing, but like many other players, I want more options in future products.




*You are getting them.*  You are getting almost everything people going for "essentials" classes are getting.  Now where's the problem?


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Having done exactly that, I have to say that this is not only _*not*_ impossible, it is _*extremely*_ easy.




It's certainly doable, but whether it is trivial or not will tend to be a question of what PCs are at the table. If you have a 3.0 wizard and a 3.5 wizards using dramatically different versions of the same spell, or a even two PCs of the same class which has undergone significant revisions (druid, monk, ranger), you'll run into some difficulties.

On the other hand, you could easily end up with many PCs for whom there are very few differences, and all you need to do is solve a few discrepencies like DR and you are all set and ready to play. But that's only one situation, certainly not all of them.

Anyway, for myself... yeah, they are 100% compatable, as least as I define it. Essentials and pre-Essentials characters operate under the same rules and can be played alongside each other without any house-ruling required. Now, there is a level of incompatability in terms of character options, but that is something being addressed, and doesn't bother me all that much to start with - it's just a limitation on character options, plenty of which already exist. My rogue can't take a ranger animal companion - that doesn't mean Martial Power and the PHB are incompatible. 

My upcoming game has a Changeling Executioner, a Revenant Eladrin Sorceress, an Eladrin Swordmage, and a Mul Warpriest of the Death Domain. I can't imagine any issues arising due to them using materials from Heroes of Shadow alongside the PHB alongside the PHB2 alongside Heroes of the Fallen Lands alongside the FR Player's Guide alongside the Dark Sun Campaign Guide. All of it works together just fine.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> You can't make the argument that the slayer and knight are designed to replace the weaponmaster nor fix problems with the weaponmaster, which is what 3.5 was intended to do.  Again, Class Compendium is doing that.



It's arguable if _all_ of the changes made between 3.0 and 3.5 were actually meant to fix problems.

But if you prefer: The existence of the Class Compendium basically proves that WotC is of the opinion that 'classic' 4e and Essentials are not as compatible as they'd like them to be.


> But perception does not mean truth. It simply means it appears that way to some people. Perhaps if individuals would stop making statements about how '3.5'-like essentials is, when it clearly is not, people would stop adhering to that myth.



How right you are!
Perhaps if individuals would stop making statements about how essentials is not like 3.5, when it clearly is, people would stop adhering to that myth!


----------



## Dannager (Jun 16, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> No you can't.  A Slayer is not a PHB Fighter.  So you can't freely pick powers between them any more than you can freely pick powers between Paladin and Fighter.




That's not true. You can freely pick Fighter powers as long as you are playing a Fighter. Whether that Fighter uses the Weaponmaster or Slayer class features is largely irrelevant. If you would have the option of selecting a power at a given level, and that power has the word Fighter in bold in the upper right corner, you can select _any_ Fighter power of the appropriate level and usage in its place, if you so choose. You are not restricted to using powers from the Essentials books if you are playing an Essentials character.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> But if you prefer: The existence of the Class Compendium basically proves that WotC is of the opinion that 'classic' 4e and Essentials are not as compatible as they'd like them to be.




Well, I suppose the one Class Compendium article on multiclassing is along those lines. And was, pretty much from the start, acknowledged as the one element missing from Essentials. 

The rest of the Class Compendium elements? Don't seem to have much to do with Essentials at all. They aren't addressing any incompatability - they are just fixing areas they think merit it. Exactly as they've been doing since the start of the edition.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 16, 2011)

Vael said:


> The main point I'd make is that Essentials classes do not supersede non-essentials classes. A 3.5 Ranger is intended to replace a 3.0 Ranger. I have both the PHB Rogue and an Essentials Thief in the same party. The Scout and Hunter do not supersede the PHB Ranger.




Seems to me that the Warpriest replaces the PHB Strength Cleric.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 16, 2011)

Somehow, I missed this thread over the last few days. I just can't help myself from jumping in. I'll just repost something I said from a very similar thread. I make the point that the PHB3 is _also_ an Essentials book, and is just as compatible with earlier material as HotFL and HotFK are.

"What part of essentials doesn't conform to the broader system or use the  full rules? Essentials has variant mechanics and additional rules only  to the extent that every expansion of the 4e system has.

Let me provide an example from the very designer responsible for the  "essentials direction", Mike Mearls. When preparing for the Player's  Handbook 3, Mearls and the other designers noticed that the power  sources may not be differintiated enough, and thought that this might be  something that would be popular with players. Like many people recognize  that Heroes of Shadow is just one part of the larger "essentials  direction", it is easy to see that Player's Handbook 3 is also an  essentials book in all but name.

Like essentials classes, psionic classes move away from the AEDU  structure, except instead of giving up dailies (in the case of martial  classes), psionic classes give up encounter powers (notwithstanding the  monk).

Like essentials sources, which introduced the limited binder and  vampire, PHB3 introduced the similarly limited seeker and runepriest.

Like essentials, which expanded the range of complexity for which the  player base could choose from, PHB3 provided a wider range of complexity  by introducing hybrid classes (which will be and have always intended  to be fully compatible with essentials classes).

Like essentials sources, PHB3 provides very little support for ritual casting, and few mentions.

Like essentials sources, the races in PHB3 introduced races with  variable ability scores to choose from.

Like essentials, PHB3 saw a bit of power creep with the introduction of a  strictly better expertise (as well as superior implements for spell  casters).

Like essentials, (some) PHB3 classes gain class features at levels other than 1.

When PHB3 did really well and received a generally positive reaction from the 4e  fanbase, Mearls might have said to himself, "Man, if they like this,  they'll love what we've got coming up!" If they had released all of  essentials in  a blue hardback book and called it Player's Handbook 4,  we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Understandably, WOTC figured the new players they so covet probably wouldn't be picking up something called Player's Handbook _4_."


----------



## Dannager (Jun 16, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Seems to me that the Warpriest replaces the PHB Strength Cleric.




Didn't I just read recently that they're going to be releasing new options for strength-based Clerics?

So, no, I don't think it does.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 16, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> But if you prefer: The existence of the Class Compendium basically proves that WotC is of the opinion that 'classic' 4e and Essentials are not as compatible as they'd like them to be.



Have you actually _looked _at the Class Compendium articles?

Because they have nothing to do with Essentials other than formatting.



MrGrenadine said:


> Seems to me that the Warpriest replaces the PHB Strength Cleric.



Nope.

In point of fact, WotC's has a new article supporting them on the schedule for later this month.

-O


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 16, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Didn't I just read recently that they're going to be releasing new options for strength-based Clerics?
> 
> So, no, I don't think it does.




Except that the announcement for that article begins with something along the lines of "you've spoken and we've listened."

Since Divine Power, the strength cleric has been almost completely abandoned. IIRC, something like 4 out of 16 cleric at-wills are strength-based. The Warpriest merely shovelled the last load of dirt on its grave. I have no doubt it was intended to replace the Str-cleric in it's niche of melee cleric.

Fortunately, the rewrite of the Cleric into the Templar seems to have served as a bit of a rallying point for all us masochistic Str-cleric players, and WotC have decided to do something about it. Relying on the article to show that WotC has been supporting the strength cleric, or that the Warpriest wasn't intended to replace it, is a bit rich.

Is the Str-cleric dead? With this new article, who knows. Maybe it's about to rise, zombie-like, from the grave.

Would it have been on WotC's radar if not for the recent outcry? I very much doubt it. 

Will the Str cleric see as much future support as the Warpriest? On past form, you'd need to be delusional to think so.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 17, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I think your memory is deceiving you. 3.5 classes had more in common with 3.0 classes than Essentials builds have in common with 'classic' builds.




Really? I just played a Mage last night and someone commented off-hand that it was an Essentials class. I replied, "Oh, I didn't realise."



Neonchameleon said:


> No you can't.  A Slayer is not a PHB Fighter.  So you can't freely pick powers between them any more than you can freely pick powers between Paladin and Fighter.





Jhaelen said:


> Before Essentials builds were entirely optional and you could mix and match powers in whatever way you wanted. You can't play an Essentials class without using an Essentials build and you cannot freely pick powers from classic builds and Essential builds.



No offence guys but this is seriously showcasing your ignorance on the subject. The Character Builder has an option, "Show All", in every Essentials build which allows you to pick any power from the list for that class. A Fighter, therefore, is still a Fighter, no matter what it's otherwise called. In essence, all the Essential's classes are, are different builds within the same class. They're more 'sub-classes' than classes unto themselves.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 17, 2011)

As I said in a previous post, I think the best way to compare Essentials to 3.5 would be to do the following:

First, compare and contrast 3.0's core books with 3.5's core books.

Second, compare and contrast the first round of 4E books (PHB1, MM1, DMG1) with Essentials -without using anything between the two to bridge the gap.

I feel that is a more fair comparison because I feel the shift from 4E to 4E.E is something which has been done gradually with each new round of books.  It was a more gradual change.  



As I also said in a previous post, I am in no way defending 3.5.  It was a new edition; it was meant to replace 3.0.  However; even though Essentials was not designed to serve the same purpose, I do believe that going from PHB1 to Essentials without any knowledge of anything between would be a somewhat significant shift for someone to make.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 17, 2011)

Johnny3D3D said:


> As I also said in a previous post, I am in no way defending 3.5.  It was a new edition; it was meant to replace 3.0.  However; even though Essentials was not designed to serve the same purpose, I do believe that going from PHB1 to Essentials without any knowledge of anything between would be a somewhat significant shift for someone to make.




Sort of like the shift going from PHB1 to PHB3, I'd imagine.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 17, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Sort of like the shift going from PHB1 to PHB3, I'd imagine.





Sort of, but the shift from PHB1 to PHB3 -IMO- would be less extreme.  Even though some of the psionic classes broke from the traditional mold, they were still presented in the same basic way with the same general 4E layout.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 17, 2011)

So wait, is the assumption "Any changes to the format, design or execution of rules used in the PH is a new edition!"? 

Because that seems like an awfully broad way to describe edition changes.

By that thinking:

-The release of 1e DMG was a new edition (it significantly altered a lot of stuff from the PH, including instituting "die at -10" and lots of spell changes).
-The release of 1e Unearthed Arcana was a new edition (new ways to generate ability scores, new types of classes that RAISED YOUR STATS!!, revising the paladin to a cavalier subclass).
-The release of 1e Oriental Adventures was another one (honor).
-The Survival Guides were another (still officially 1e though!) (nonweapon proficiencies come to the west).
-Then the 2e PH was ACTUALLY 6e!
-Then the Complete Guides to... were 7e.
-Then the Skills & Powers book was 8e...
-Then Spells & Magic came along and gave us 9e...
-Then the 3e PH came out, which must have actually been 10e...
-Then 3e Oriental Adventures, which was 11e...
-Then the 3.5 PH, which (apparently) was 12e...
-Then the "Complete X" books changed a bunch of stuff up, so that must have been 13e...
-Tome of Magic: 14e?
-The Book of Nine Swords: 15e?
-Then the 4e PH, which is 16e...
-Followed by the 4e PH3 (PH2 stuck to the formulae pretty closely) was 17e...
-...the Red Box for 4e, which is 18e...
-Heroes of the XXX XXX must then be 19e.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 17, 2011)

Kzach said:


> No offence guys but this is seriously showcasing your ignorance on the subject. The Character Builder has an option, "Show All", in every Essentials build which allows you to pick any power from the list for that class. A Fighter, therefore, is still a Fighter, no matter what it's otherwise called. In essence, all the Essential's classes are, are different builds within the same class. They're more 'sub-classes' than classes unto themselves.



No offence Kzach but you need to work on your reading comprehension.
THe PHB1 fighter introduced two builds which were entirely optional, since all they did was suggest what class features to pick and which powers and feats synergized well.

You could totally ignore the builds. Now tell me how to create an Essentials fighter without using either the slayer or the knight build.

Similarly, how can my poor slayer pick any of the neat Encounter powers available to PHB1 fighters?
Or is there a way to replace Essentials class features? If so, I freely admit my ignorance. Note, that I don't have the HotF*** books. I'm basically working from what I learned on this forum and what I've seen in the Heroes of Shadow book.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 17, 2011)

the Jester said:


> So wait, is the assumption "Any changes to the format, design or execution of rules used in the PH is a new edition!"?



Actually _I_ don't consider 3.0 and 3.5 to be different editions. The version numbers already indicate this: 3.5 is an update on 3.0.

I'd even argue that 1e and 2e were so similar to each other they might as well be called a single edition. Just like we played with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 sources in my 3e campaign, we played with a mix of 1e and 2e sources in my 2e campaign.
As you already mentioned even things that are usually attributed to 2e had already been introduced to 1e in various supplements, e.g. non-weapon proficiencies.

Other rpg systems remain almost unchanged despite having gone through several editions, e.g. Call of Cthulhu.

Anyway, this discussion wasn't about editions, it was about compatibility. I don't care if anyone considers Essentials a new edition or not. I'm just saying the amount of changes is comparable to the changes between previous 'rulesets'. Hence, Essentials is about as compatible with classic 4e as 3.5 was with 3.0.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 17, 2011)

Essentials basically combines two things into one.

It provides a new format that is supposed to be easier for new players to understand, along with new ideas that expand the scope of possible characters.

As a whole all classes are designed to be mathematically equivalent to the original classes, so that side by side in a game they should be doing "roughly" the same, and using them together won't cause any issues.

Some classes follow closer to the older class design, and have an easier time using stuff already available (ie the mage.)

Others are a departure from the original design, and offer a new play experience and more options at the table, but sacrifice the ability to choose from a lot of the already developed powers.

Either style functions perfectly well next to each other.

In my experience it only serves to offer classes for various play styles.

If you want to call it a new edition be my guest I guess... But it seems kind of odd to me. By intention the two are designed to be used together, so it seems like you're creating an artificial new edition, but only in the same way someone who says Only PHB2 classes and races is...


----------



## the Jester (Jun 17, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Similarly, how can my poor slayer pick any of the neat Encounter powers available to PHB1 fighters?
> Or is there a way to replace Essentials class features? If so, I freely admit my ignorance. Note, that I don't have the HotF*** books. I'm basically working from what I learned on this forum and what I've seen in the Heroes of Shadow book.




Yeah, that's the problem... you're taking the word of other people who haven't tried the mix-n-match either. 

In fact, you _can_ swap classic and E-class stuff, even features in many cases, given the right feats. Yes, the subclasses are farther from the PH versions than the PH versions are from each other; that is intentional. But that doesn't mean that they make a new edition. That's like saying that it's a new edition each time a new class is released.

Again, I ask:

*Has anyone mixed "Classic" and "Essentials" stuff in their game and had any problems with it, or are all the objections based on "But I heard that..." and "It looks to me like..."?*

So far- unless I have missed it- I have asked this two or three times _and not one poster_ has raised their hand and said "That's me!"


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 17, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Similarly, how can my poor slayer pick any of the neat Encounter powers available to PHB1 fighters?




You take the feat _Martial Cross-Training_, giving up one use of _Power Strike_ in exchange for an encounter attack power of your level or lower.

The interchangeability may leave a bit to be desired and may not have been present when the Essentials material first came out. But they have been addressing it, and even without it, the various builds can certainly be played alongside one another without the inconsistencies one could easily run into when trying to run 3.0 characters alongside 3.5 characters.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 17, 2011)

Kzach said:


> No offence guys but this is seriously showcasing your ignorance on the subject. The Character Builder has an option, "Show All", in every Essentials build which allows you to pick any power from the list for that class. A Fighter, therefore, is still a Fighter, no matter what it's otherwise called. In essence, all the Essential's classes are, are different builds within the same class. They're more 'sub-classes' than classes unto themselves.




With all due respect you're taking a statement and making it much more general than it is.  A fighter can take Slayer utility powers and vice versa.  They can not take Slayer stances and Slayers can't take fighter At Wills (unless human) or Dailies (and isn't Martial Cross-Training playtest?)  In short you can take a few of the same options (feats, utility powers) but not a significant chunk of the character defining ones.

The person I was replying to was claiming that they were incompatable and that that was terrible.  There are two answers to this, both legitimate:


They have some compatability
Why is it terrible anyway?
The philosophical question as to why it's terrible is the one that confuses me - it's important rather than minutae, so I chose to ask that.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 17, 2011)

Why is this still being debated? Why does it matter? Why am I not wearing any pants?

All questions that are really not important. The number one question should be: Do you enjoy getting together with your buds and play D&D?

For what it's worth, my players mix and match content. There's really not a different at all.


----------



## mneme (Jun 17, 2011)

Matt: I wouldn't go that far, in that there's nothing wrong with debating mechanical and marketting things that affect your gaming.

But yes.  Who cares?  People remember the wave of outrage that accompanied D&D 3.5; people have pointed out that it wasn't that bad (for them).

All well and good, but what exactly does it mean to say that 4EE is "4.5"?  What bad thing (or good thing) are you actually saying about the game that causes you to feel that the distinction is important?

So far, points I've seen that I can remember quickly are:

Essentials includes rule/power changes (bogus.  Rules change has been continuous and Essentials didn't have much more than any other version).

Essentials End-of-lifes prior mechanics (proven false, with a new ritual appearing in HoS and recent eratta to the PH1 classes) and classes.

Essentials classes [the martial ones] are incompatable at the table with prior classes (nobody takes this one seriously)

Essentials classes aren't fully construction compatable with prior classes (sure, but ma nishtana halila hazeh... sorry, why is this day different from any other day?  Essentials classes are -more- compatable with existing classes than entirely new classes, while being less compatable than symetrical new builds for existing classes.  So, basically, it's a name change)

I don't like Essentials martial classes; they're too simple (so don't play them.)

The essentials item change was badly handled and unsupported (yup.  Hopefully they'll fix it some day)

Essentials includes feats more powerful than existing tax feats (yep.  But then, they've been uppping the power of tax feats gradually over  time, presumably because they realized they got the math wrong and were experimenting to find better ways of doing it.  Not convinced they're done yet, either)

We've have been better off with a new edition, because all the old crap options are still out there and cluttering up the system (Maybe.  OTOH, just flagging things as obsalescent and giving an option to masq these out in the builder would fix these, though not the need for tax feats)

Some people run "essentials only" games where classic characters aren't allowed  (people use all sorts of crazy house rules)


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 17, 2011)

the Jester said:


> So wait, is the assumption "Any changes to the format, design or execution of rules used in the PH is a new edition!"?




nay


----------



## Kzach (Jun 17, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> With all due respect you're taking a statement and making it much more general than it is.  A fighter can take Slayer utility powers and vice versa.  They can not take Slayer stances and Slayers can't take fighter At Wills (unless human) or Dailies (and isn't Martial Cross-Training playtest?)  In short you can take a few of the same options (feats, utility powers) but not a significant chunk of the character defining ones.




Are you seriously trying to claim that a classes basic abilities should be hot-swappable? By that logic I should be able to swap the battlerager's temporary hit point gain for the defending fighter's +1 to hit bonus with one-handed weapons. Hell, why restrict it at class boundaries since builds mean nothing? Let's swap everything willy-damn-nilly! Build a class however you want! I'm all for that.


----------



## SabreCat (Jun 17, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Are you seriously trying to claim that a classes basic abilities should be hot-swappable? By that logic I should be able to swap the battlerager's temporary hit point gain for the defending fighter's +1 to hit bonus with one-handed weapons. Hell, why restrict it at class boundaries since builds mean nothing? Let's swap everything willy-damn-nilly! Build a class however you want! I'm all for that.



That would be a fun hack! It wouldn't resemble D&D very much, because it would end up being something more like a point-buy than a class system. And no doubt the optimized-unoptimized spectrum would blow even wider open due to fewer guardrails on things. But I'm picturing a dude smacking somebody with his Hexblade lightsaber benefiting from One-Handed Weapon Talent and kicking in Orb of Imposition on a save-ends bleed effect, plus lapping up a healing surge from a Vampire blood-drinking feature. Fun! And without so much as a single feat spent!


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 17, 2011)

What is the entire point of subclasses anyway?  Why couldn't the Slayer and the Knight just have been Fighter builds?  

To the post above: Those are fighter class features, not powers.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 17, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> What is the entire point of subclasses anyway?  Why couldn't the Slayer and the Knight just have been Fighter builds?
> 
> To the post above: Those are fighter class features, not powers.




The Slayer and Knight are Fighters with a different array of class features that lock in certain choices over the course of their progression.

But to answer your question: they could have been just "builds" in the sense that the battlerager Fighter is a build, but what's wrong with them being something else? Nothing.

Also, ForeverSlayer, people have asked probably ten times now in this thread for you to provide specific examples of how having Essentials characters and non-Essentials characters in the same game has resulted in problems trying to "make everything fit". Do you have any such examples?


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 17, 2011)

Dannager said:


> The Slayer and Knight are Fighters with a different array of class features that lock in certain choices over the course of their progression.
> 
> But to answer your question: they could have been just "builds" in the sense that the battlerager Fighter is a build, but what's wrong with them being something else? Nothing.
> 
> Also, ForeverSlayer, people have asked probably ten times now in this thread for you to provide specific examples of how having Essentials characters and non-Essentials characters in the same game has resulted in problems trying to "make everything fit". Do you have any such examples?




I already have. I would suggest you go back and read the thread.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 17, 2011)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Changes Coming in Essentials)

Here is a link to the article about the changes.


----------



## wolfattack (Jun 18, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> It would be the same as saying that  3.5 was just an option for 3rd edition and we all know that would have  been a lie.  For Essentials to be "just an option", the designers sure  are changing everything that came before to fit with this new "option".




Sorry,but you can't compare D&D 3.5 with 4th edition. 3.5 is far  better than 4th,and you have the feeling that you are playing a genuine  D&D game with 3.5,not what seems to be just a copy of WoW with the  D&D logo.i like the 4th game,but Wizards has just failed with this  edition.Essentials its the prove of that.they are trying to correct  things,but its too late.lets wait the next edition.

ps: guys,don't throw rocks on me for this,but its what i think of the current version of D&D.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 18, 2011)

wolfattack said:


> Sorry,but you can't compare D&D 3.5 with 4th edition. 3.5 is far  better than 4th,and you have the feeling that you are playing a genuine  D&D game with 3.5,not what seems to be just a copy of WoW with the  D&D logo.i like the 4th game,but Wizards has just failed with this  edition.Essentials its the prove of that.they are trying to correct  things,but its too late.lets wait the next edition.
> 
> ps: guys,don't throw rocks on me for this,but its what i think of the current version of D&D.




Once you de-lurk, you are fair game.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> I already have. I would suggest you go back and read the thread.




I just did. I found only one post.



ForeverSlayer said:


> Now when I say having trouble being compatible I don't mean from all aspects.  Technically, 3.0 and 3.5 could be played together but I wouldn't exactly call them compatible.
> 
> Pre-E and Essentials are a lot like 3.0 and 3.5.  Sure your 3.0 Ranger could play in the same party perfectly, but he isn't going to have the amount of options that the 3.5 Ranger has.
> 
> Changes had to be made to Pre-E material in order for it play nice with Essentials material.  Melee Training anyone?  There is actually an article about the changes that were made in order for the two to mesh together a bit better and as soon as I find it I will post it.




This is the link you posted:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Changes Coming in Essentials)

In fact, the article you posted actually just lists the rules revisions that are found in Heroes of the Fallen Lands. Very few of them really are to "play nice with Essentials"; rather they're part of a regular update process of powers. Melee Training is one of the very, very few updates that we know was changed because it didn't play well with D&D Essentials. (The explanation is actually here: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Powers, Implements, Feats ...))

Removing the ability of Prestidigitation to move things? That's an update that distinguishes the power from Mage Hand, and should have there from the beginning - Essentials just provided a good opportunity to update it. 



> We had a Pre-E fighter that was looking at some of the Knight's stances and the Slayer's stances and since they were technically "fighters" he thought he could take them, but I told him he could not.
> 
> What I have been seeing of a good many powers is that, yes they can be taken by certain classes but the effects that it has for that class makes it not worth taking and is better suited for the class that it was made for.
> 
> Take Power Strike for instance.  Sure a Pre-E Fighter can use it, but he would be better off taking a Pre-E Fighter Encounter Power because Power Strike is for Melee Basic Attacks.




I suggest you don't look at your Player's Handbook, because there's a class called the Cleric in there which has Strength-based powers and Wisdom-based powers. A wisdom-based cleric is better off not taking strength-based powers. Astonishingly, this predates D&D Essentials, and has been around since the beginning of D&D 4E.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 18, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Are you seriously trying to claim that a classes basic abilities should be hot-swappable? By that logic I should be able to swap the battlerager's temporary hit point gain for the defending fighter's +1 to hit bonus with one-handed weapons. Hell, why restrict it at class boundaries since builds mean nothing? Let's swap everything willy-damn-nilly! Build a class however you want! I'm all for that.




No I am not.  I believe ForeverSlayer _is_ and I am chosing to ask him a fundamental question about why not being able to take encounter and daily attack powers from the classic fighter is bad rather than arguing minutae with him.  As far as I can tell he has yet to come up with an answer.  I _know_ the differences and as I have said can see them from my perspective.  But for trying to understand where _he_ is coming from it is better to accept his frame of reference rather than yours.  Which means when there are multiple ways to understand and phrase things while I am trying to understand the answer I want I will pick the one closest to him.

The most important part of communication is not speaking but listening and trying to understand.  And a good way to do that is accept as many of the premises as possible of the viewpoint you disagree with.  (Oh, and please don't come back with a pedantic point like the Martial Cross Training feat.  It's ultimately irrelevant.)

[MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], the reason the Slayer and Knight couldn't be just builds is that they wanted to give classes to the people who want (in combat) to just say "I hit him."  And to not look through their encounter and daily powers.  You like first customising minutely and then having a lot of options at the tabletop.  So do I.  There are people who break straight into Analysis Paralysis from having too many options when given a 4e character.  If we were to give them a classic style build, that wouldn't solve the analysis paralysis, especially if they wanted to roleplay and weren't that interested in combat in the first place.  What is wrong with people who don't want lots of powers to first pick and then pick from having classes to suit them in 4e?

Also, Foreverslayer, would you care to point out where _at the tabletop_ you have problems mixing Essentials and Classic classes.  Your entire objections I've noticed revolve around you wanting to pick options off what are ultimately other classes although they share utility powers and feats.  And these objections appear to be entirely theoretical.

Finally [MENTION=6670510]wolfattack[/MENTION], there wasn't an edition war until you showed up here.  Reported.


----------



## ForeverSlayer (Jun 18, 2011)

MerricB said:


> I just did. I found only one post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What exactly does the above have to do with the topic at hand?  Don't take the time because I will go ahead and fill you in, nothing.  The discussion is Pre-E and Essentials, not one build of the Pre-E cleric and another build of the same class.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2011)

wolfattack said:


> ps: guys,don't throw rocks on me for this,but its what i think of the current version of D&D.





Well, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in a forum _DEDICATED to 4e_, which is filled with fans of the game.  Dropping that load of crud on them is rude - like spitting in their bowl of ice cream.  You don't have to like their game, but you should respect them for at least sharing the same general hobby - and you treat them like this?  

EN World has tons of space where you can talk positively about things you like.  Why on Earth are you wasting your time saying bad things about a game you don't like?  Go build something useful, instead of tearing other people's fun down!


----------



## mneme (Jun 18, 2011)

ForeverSlayer said:


> What exactly does the above have to do with the topic at hand?  Don't take the time because I will go ahead and fill you in, nothing.  The discussion is Pre-E and Essentials, not one build of the Pre-E cleric and another build of the same class.




Wow, what a jerk.  Hmm.  Maybe your should read your posts before posting them?

But since you seem to have missed the point, your claim regarding, say, the Knight and the Weaponmaster is that options one can take, the other cannot -- and that even options that are good for one build are pointless for the other (for instance, feats that require you to have a target marked are going to be pointless to the Knight).  Clearly, you have claimed, this indicates an edition shift, with a new class that is functionally incompatable with the old version of the class.

Except, of course, that PH1 had classes that were functionally incompatible with themselves.  The Strength Cleric and the Wisdom Cleric share a small set of powers that are useful to both versions of the class, and a very large set of options that were only useful to one type of cleric.  It can hardly be honestly stated that  the idea of having multiple versions of a class, each bearing different options, is a novel idea of Essentials; the emphasis may be different, but it's hardly a deep philisohpical change, nor an example of "incompatability."

For that matter, the first class having fewer options than other classes also appears in PH1.  I'll leave its identity as an exercise for the reader, though.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 18, 2011)

wolfattack said:


> Sorry,but you can't compare D&D 3.5 with 4th edition. 3.5 is far  better than 4th,and you have the feeling that you are playing a genuine  D&D game with 3.5,not what seems to be just a copy of WoW with the  D&D logo.i like the 4th game,but Wizards has just failed with this  edition.Essentials its the prove of that.they are trying to correct  things,but its too late.lets wait the next edition.
> 
> ps: guys,don't throw rocks on me for this,but its what i think of the current version of D&D.




What is this I don't even.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 19, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Why is this still being debated? Why does it matter? Why am I not wearing any pants?
> 
> All questions that are really not important. The number one question should be: Do you enjoy getting together with your buds and play D&D?
> 
> For what it's worth, my players mix and match content. There's really not a different at all.



Here's why it matters:
Let's imagine one of the few D&D players left in Germany visits her favorite FLRPGS and notices a new supplement like, say 'Heroes of Shadow'. Having ignored the ten new introductory Essentials product, since she already has all of the 'classic' core books (and in German to boot), she's happy to see something that is apparently not an Essentials product.

However, when looking at the back cover she notices something that worries her:


> For use with these Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products:
> Heroes of the Fallen Lands
> Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
> Rules Compendium



So, is it an Essentials product after all? Apparently so.
Since there's no mention about the book being useable without the listed Essentials books she asks the shop owner who tells her, that yes, the old books are no longer compatible and she will have to get the Essentials books to get any use out of 'Heroes of Shadow'.

Disappointed she puts the book back in the rack. Looking for something else to buy she notices something called Pathfinder. Curious she picks up one book and, wo and behold, it's German and it's apparently something like the successor of D&D.

*That's* the reality of where D&D 4e is today (in Germany).

In my opinion WotCs course of action actively discourages D&D players from continuing to support D&D 4e. Essentials hasn't helped to bring back players to D&D. It has made matters worse than ever by seeding confusion and uncertainty, initiating D&D's path back into obscurity.

To find out that 'Heroes of Shadow' is actually _mostly_ compatible with the original core books you have to either research the issue on the internet or you have to buy it and see for yourself despite what the back cover tells you. And that's just plain bad.

If 'classic' 4e and Essentials are as compatible as so many here claim, why isn't it acknowledged on the new products?! My opinion: It's not acknowledged for the same reason why it wasn't acknowledged after the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 happened: Some of the contained material might be difficult to use and/or require adaptation for someone who only has the old books (and it doesn't matter one bit if that is because it's a new edition or not).

Wasn't there in the 3e days some sales promotion where you could exchange your old books for the new ones? Something like this would have to happen for 4e, too, to (re)gain acceptance. And of course: The books must, must, must be translated into German again!


----------



## Dannager (Jun 19, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Since there's no mention about the book being useable without the listed Essentials books she asks the shop owner who tells her, that yes, the old books are no longer compatible and she will have to get the Essentials books to get any use out of 'Heroes of Shadow'.




So your argument really boils down to: If a game store owner tells people that they can't use something, they'll probably be less likely to buy it?

Having a crappy, uninformed game store owner does not strike me as a good way to blame WotC for confusion. Knowing that Essentials is a 4e product, _*period*_, is not exactly difficult. You can really ask anyone. Any forum online. Anywhere on WotC's site. Any promotional materials. For someone who makes tabletop RPGs a part of their _livelihood_, not knowing this is inexcusable, and is _certainly_ not WotC's fault - at *every* opportunity, they've explain in *no uncertain terms* that Essentials is 4e.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 19, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> If 'classic' 4e and Essentials are as compatible as so many here claim, why isn't it acknowledged on the new products?!




Because it doesn't need to be. 4e is 4e is 4e. Essentials is a 4e product. It's compatible with 4e products.

The only question worth asking - the *only* question - is:

*If 4e and Essentials are supposedly not compatible, how come they're totally compatible?*

We've asked this question any number of times in this thread. The only answer we've received back (other than crickets chirping) has been "Well, okay, maybe they're _compatible_, but that doesn't mean that you can use all the new options with the old classes," to which we respond, "You mean like every rules supplement ever? Yeah, *welcome to D&D*."

I swear, if D&D were Tetris, and every supplement were a Tetris piece, the people griping about Essentials compatibility would be throwing fits - not because the Essentials Tetris piece didn't fit right, but *because it was colored green*.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jun 19, 2011)

Dannager said:


> So your argument really boils down to: If a game store owner tells people that they can't use something, they'll probably be less likely to buy it?
> 
> Having a crappy, uninformed game store owner does not strike me as a good way to blame WotC for confusion. Knowing that Essentials is a 4e product, _*period*_, is not exactly difficult. You can really ask anyone. Any forum online. Anywhere on WotC's site. Any promotional materials. For someone who makes tabletop RPGs a part of their _livelihood_, not knowing this is inexcusable, and is _certainly_ not WotC's fault - at *every* opportunity, they've explain in *no uncertain terms* that Essentials is 4e.




If, if if.

The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.

that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 19, 2011)

Dannager said:


> I swear, if D&D were Tetris, and every supplement were a Tetris piece, the people griping about Essentials compatibility would be throwing fits - not because the Essentials Tetris piece didn't fit right, but *because it was colored green*.




That's because green SUCKS and anyone who uses anything green is an IDIOT!

Especially the Green Lantern, the Green Hornet and the Hulk!


----------



## the Jester (Jun 19, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If, if if.
> 
> The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.
> 
> that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.




People don't have to do that. In fact, even if someone picks it up without any knowledge except that it's for D&D, they will find (as soon as they open the book) that it works just fine alongside the Players Handbooks.

Sigh. I'm gonna do it again:

*HAS ANYONE IN THIS THREAD ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE IN-GAME WITH MIXING ESSENTIALS AND 'CLASSIC' 4E?*

As of now, the arguments against it seem to boil down to "Gamers are too stupid to figure out that you can use Heroes of Shadow with the Players Handbook" and "I haven't tried it but I heard on the Internet that Essentials is like totally incompatible". We're on page jabillion of this thread, and _not one person_ has had a problem from experience. Come on now- what does that tell you?


----------



## Ajar (Jun 19, 2011)

Dannager said:


> So your argument really boils down to: If a game  store owner tells people that they can't use something, they'll  probably be less likely to buy it?




I'm pretty sure the argument was that the _back of the book_ states  that it's for use with HotFL, HotFK, and RC. I'm with Dice4Hire on that one -- if you aren't the sort of  D&D player who follows what WotC says online, how would you know  that HoS is compatible with PHB1-3? 

*

I think the big problem in this thread is that people are using "compatible" to mean two different things. There's compatibility from the DM's perspective and compatibility from the player's perspective. The two are _not_ the same, and conflating them confuses the issue quite a lot.

Essentials and PHB 4E are very compatible from the DM's perspective. It doesn't really matter if some players in your group are playing Essentials classes and others are playing PHB classes. 

Essentials and PHB 4E are somewhat compatible from the player's perspective, but not fully. Even the latest multiclass and hybrid rules update doesn't make them fully compatible. It's certainly a big step, but it's clearly factually inaccurate to say that they're "totally compatible" in this context. It doesn't matter if supplements in past editions have broken compatibility with mainline classes, it still isn't accurate to say that Essentials is fully compatible with the PHBs. 

*

Part of the reason some people are upset with the direction Essentials took goes back to the statement by WotC in the run-up to the Essentials releases that this would "be the baseline experience for the game going forward." That the Essentials format would be the new format for everything, not just the main Essentials books. So far this has been the case -- the HoS classes are are in the Essentials format, and are mostly either Essentials-style classes or options for Essentials classes. 

This holds true across the game's presentation. 

Your options at the online CB main screen are New, Custom, and Load. The explanatory text next to the New button informs you that this will only allow you to build Essentials characters. If you want to build a character using anything other than the Essentials line, you're into "Custom" territory. Why not have one New button and have Essentials be an option in that popup alongside Encounters, FR, DS, Eberron, and D&D Home Campaign? ...because Essentials is the "baseline experience for the game going forward." 

I've been playing a battlerager Fighter since about the time of PHB2. Now my character sheet says Weaponmaster, because WotC decided that the entire group of pre-Essentials Fighters could reasonably be lumped into a single subclass. Meanwhile, each Essentials Fighter is a subclass unto itself. How does someone building a Custom character in the CB for the first time know that Weaponmaster has an order of magnitude more options than the Slayer or Knight? They don't, because all of that content is stuffed into a single subclass, implying that the Slayer and Knight are each individually on par with the entire set of Fighter content that came before. 

Individually, these are annoyances, not huge problems. Taken together, though, they suggest an underlying objective to obscure pre-Essentials content from players. It seems like they would be happy if everyone would just play Essentials. Fortunately, there was enough of an outcry from people who want more support for pre-Essentials classes that Mike Mearls finally told us explicitly in Rule of Three that there would be further support for them... in _Dragon_. Not on store shelves, not in the same way that PHB2 and 3 gave us a lot of new and interesting options. Support for the AEDU classes is being relegated largely online, with the occasional snippet in a post-Essentials book like the new Cleric powers in HoS. Because Essentials is "the baseline experience for the game going forward."


----------



## the Jester (Jun 19, 2011)

Ajar said:


> I think the big problem in this thread is that people are using "compatible" to mean two different things. There's compatibility from the DM's perspective and compatibility from the player's perspective. The two are _not_ the same, and conflating them confuses the issue quite a lot.
> 
> Essentials and PHB 4E are very compatible from the DM's perspective. It doesn't really matter if some players in your group are playing Essentials classes and others are playing PHB classes.
> 
> Essentials and PHB 4E are somewhat compatible from the player's perspective, but not fully. Even the latest multiclass and hybrid rules update doesn't make them fully compatible. It's certainly a big step, but it's clearly factually inaccurate to say that they're "totally compatible" in this context. It doesn't matter if supplements in past editions have broken compatibility with mainline classes, it still isn't accurate to say that Essentials is fully compatible with the PHBs.




You make a good point; but why is the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happening now? Where was it when Martial Power came out, which introduced a buttload of beastmaster ranger powers that were absolutely useless to anyone in the Players Handbook?

Saying that there isn't 100% transferable compatibility is nothing new. As Merric pointed out, it goes back to the Players Handbook itself. The differences are easier to spot and more notable with the Essentials stuff, sure; but _it's the same thing._ 

Interestingly, I don't recall anyone complaining when the 1e Oriental Adventures came out that it represented an incompatible new half-edition or anything like that. Yet it introduced new classes and spells and systems. Nor do I recall anyone complaining when new classes and spells and systems incompatible with the rest of 2e came out. Nor do I recall it when 3e released new base classes that weren't compatible with the 3e PH in the Complete series. So why now? 

If the argument being made by a lot of people (none of whom appear to have actually tried using 4e and 4E, if you will, together) is simply "I can't always use all the Essentials stuff and PH stuff together in the same character," then yes, I'll grant that without any hesitation. But it doesn't seem to be; it _smells like_ the argument generally boils down to "Essentials is 4.5 and now my old books are useless, oh noes!!1!" Which is as false as saying that there is 100% transferability between Essentials and 'classic' 4e. Now in fact, there are a lot of different strands to the overall debate here, and that's not what everyone is arguing- certainly doesn't sound like what you are arguing- but it seems like a common attitude amongst those on the "Incompatible" side of the argument. And the other common element is that _none of them have tried it._ Or if they have, they aren't offering any of their experiences with it.


----------



## Ajar (Jun 19, 2011)

the Jester said:


> You make a good point; but why is the wailing and gnashing of teeth only happening now? Where was it when Martial Power came out, which introduced a buttload of beastmaster ranger powers that were absolutely useless to anyone in the Players Handbook?



Because WotC didn't say that the beastmaster would be "the baseline experience for the game going forward." They didn't marginalize pre-beastmaster Ranger builds in favour of supporting the beastmaster (until community outcry arguably forced them to relent). They didn't shuffle pre-beastmaster builds off to a corner of the CB. They didn't lump all pre-beastmaster builds under a single subclass name. They didn't greatly slow down support for pre-beastmaster builds in published products. 

Those are significant differences. 

I'll also note that I and many others expressed our concerns as far back as the Essentials previews. And what I said about hybrid and multiclassing with Essentials builds has pretty much happened, if you look at the playtest. 

To be fair, though, I think Essentials has been much more successful than I expected. So it appears to have been good business, at the very least, and since I want WotC to keep making D&D, that's good. I also don't _dis_like Essentials, beyond that developing it takes resources away from builds that interest me more as a player. And I can't deny that some of the Essentials stuff does interest me -- Executioner poisons, a good amount of HoS, and a few other pieces. I'd have no problem with DMing a mixed party or even an all-Essentials party. 

So I'm not all doom and gloom. But I don't think it's fair to say that the critics of Essentials don't have reasonable grounds for their concerns, which is what I take from the bold and oversized questions I see on this page. 



> Interestingly, I don't recall anyone complaining when the 1e Oriental Adventures came out that it represented an incompatible new half-edition or anything like that. Yet it introduced new classes and spells and systems. Nor do I recall anyone complaining when new classes and spells and systems incompatible with the rest of 2e came out. Nor do I recall it when 3e released new base classes that weren't compatible with the 3e PH in the Complete series. So why now?



The online community has reached a critical mass, so people who are of like mind on this issue can talk to one another.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 19, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Having a crappy, uninformed game store owner does not strike me as a good way to blame WotC for confusion.



That's exactly the kind of reaction I knew would be coming 

It's true that many, most or even all FLRPGS owners that I know are either opinionated or clueless (or both) (which is the main reason why so few of them are left ).

The ones that are left only survived because of the ongoing success of trading card games. RPGs are not what allows them to survive. Basically, they only have them in store because they appeal to a similar customer group. Hence, there's little incentive for them to research them on the internet.

Not putting crucial information on the product or even providing misleading information (according to 'internet consensus') on the product is totally, entirely WotCs fault (imho, obviously).

If a software company's trying to sell a video game and the system requirements on the box say this:
- Windows 7
- Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz
- 3 GB RAM

but actually the game would run on a system like this:
- Windows 2000, XP, or Vista
- Pentium 233 or equivalent 
- 32 MB RAM 

then who's to blame if a shop owner tells a potential customer with the latter hardware that the game (probably?!) won't run on his system? the software company, the shop owner, or the customer?


----------



## the Jester (Jun 19, 2011)

Ajar said:


> Because WotC didn't say that the beastmaster would be "the baseline experience for the game going forward."




Fair enough, but I think they have explained a good dozen times the issue that really provoked this: retailers who didn't know what to stock. Then again, there is a long tradition of ignoring what WotC says in favor of doomsday prophecies, so I shouldn't be surprised.



Ajar said:


> They didn't marginalize pre-beastmaster Ranger builds in favour of supporting the beastmaster (until community outcry arguably forced them to relent).




I don't see this. I see the standard tactic of pushing support for new products, that's all. An Essentials article in Dragon no more means that pre-Essentials builds are marginalized than a beastmaster article meant that the pre-MP ranger builds were- it's just an article to push support for the new release. _We have ALWAYS seen this in Dragon magazine, going back to the days of 1e._



Ajar said:


> They didn't shuffle pre-beastmaster builds off to a corner of the CB. They didn't lump all pre-beastmaster builds under a single subclass name. They didn't greatly slow down support for pre-beastmaster builds in published products.




And I don't think any of those things have happened, with the possible exception of the seeker and runepriest shuffling off.

Just because you can filter Essentials and Classic options doesn't shuffle anything off to anywhere.



Ajar said:


> I'll also note that I and many others expressed our concerns as far back as the Essentials previews.




But that's just more of the whole thing that all the complaints are: "I haven't tried it, but I'm sure I know what will happen!" There are doom and gloom predictions, and in all fairness the difficulties in multiclassing aren't a big deal- they're being dealt with already via free DDI articles. 




Ajar said:


> But I don't think it's fair to say that the critics of Essentials don't have reasonable grounds for their concerns, which is what I take from the bold and oversized questions I see on this page.




I think a good tactic to address those concerns is for thousands of people to try mixing and matching 4e and 4E and seeing if there are any issues. Guess what! It has already happened!

The reason I've bolded, upsized and colored my challenge is because I haven't seen any sign that anyone with concerns about mixing Essentials with Classic has done a thing to _actually try it_; or else if they have it assuaged their concerns. If anyone has had issues mixing, I'd love to know what they were so that I could watch out for them. If someone points out anything that I think is a reasonable concern, I'll totally acknowledge it (you're a good case in point, actually- I've acknowledged several points that you've made vis a vis defining compatibility, etc). But most of the naysayers seem to be saying, "Haven't tried it, but I'm sure it won't work" while many of us on the other side of the argument are saying, "But we've been doing it for almost a year!" 

It's fine to criticize game elements based on how they look or read or how you think they work, but that rarely tells the whole story. Actually using them does a much better job of testing them out. 



Ajar said:


> The online community has reached a critical mass, so people who are of like mind on this issue can talk to one another.




I assure you that the critical mass existed during the 3e era. There was whinging and gnashing then, but somehow it missed this concern.

In the 2e and 1e days, there were the Dragon Magazine forum and letters pages, there were conventions, there were meetups... I don't buy the "critical mass" argument.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> In my opinion WotCs course of action actively discourages D&D players from continuing to support D&D 4e. Essentials hasn't helped to bring back players to D&D. It has made matters worse than ever by seeding confusion and uncertainty, initiating D&D's path back into obscurity.




I think there have been some issues with the roll-out, but they aren't nearly as severe as you make them out to be. They've mainly been in the advertising department, the issues with the Red Box, and the wishy-washying on the magic item system.

Compatability? Not an issue at all. 



Jhaelen said:


> To find out that 'Heroes of Shadow' is actually _mostly_ compatible with the original core books you have to either research the issue on the internet or you have to buy it and see for yourself despite what the back cover tells you. And that's just plain bad.
> 
> If 'classic' 4e and Essentials are as compatible as so many here claim, why isn't it acknowledged on the new products?! My opinion: It's not acknowledged for the same reason why it wasn't acknowledged after the switch from 3.0 to 3.5 happened: Some of the contained material might be difficult to use and/or require adaptation for someone who only has the old books (and it doesn't matter one bit if that is because it's a new edition or not).




Sorry, but... that's just flat-out wrong. 

Look, the two situations are simply not comparable. When you went from 3.0 to 3.5, it was a situation where different versions of the same book contained outright contradictory information. A 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 Ranger had different class features, skill lists, spell names, etc. 

The 4E PHB and Essentials material? Have nothing like that. A 4E PHB character undergoes no changes upon the advent of Essentials, whereas a 3.0 character might involve a full rebuild. The most significant changes take place in the back room behind the DM screen, involving treasure distribution and magic item access, and even that is largely depending on the mood of the DM. 

Not referencing the PHB on the back cover? Sure, its a bit silly. But the problem, if there is one, is with that lack alone - not with any perceived difficult using the material in this book alongside the material in the PHB. The reason it primarily mentions the Essentials books is because that is what it primarily builds on. 

Your hypothetical problem is _identical_ to someone wanting to use Psionic Power along with the PHB. It can't be done - Psionic Power is 99% useless without PHB3. I'd say the ratio with Heroes of Shadow is actually much better than that. Does that mean Psionic Power is a new edition? Heroes of Shadow is a new edition? That either of them is going to confuse and confound newcomers?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Most store owners will know enough to know the difference. If you really have a player running into a situation where no one is aware and they are ending up with a less than ideal set of books... yeah, I agree it is an unfortunate situation, but I also suspect it is rare to the extreme at best. Indeed, at the moment, solely a hypothetical issue rather than a real one. 



Jhaelen said:


> Wasn't there in the 3e days some sales promotion where you could exchange your old books for the new ones? Something like this would have to happen for 4e, too, to (re)gain acceptance. And of course: The books must, must, must be translated into German again!




I won't argue on the german issue - but I think that's a seperate issue entirely. 

Meanwhile, asking for them to give you free stuff or imply that exchanging your books is either needed or wise... sorry, I don't think I agree. That wouldn't help address your hypothetical of a new player trying to figure out what to get, nor is it needed for existing players. 

Since, again, all the material remains compatible.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If, if if.
> 
> The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.
> 
> that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.




Again, just to be clear - I assume you had the same objection to Psionic Power, yes, since it relies upon PHB3 to be of use?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 20, 2011)

the Jester said:


> ...HAS ANYONE IN THIS THREAD ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE IN-GAME WITH MIXING ESSENTIALS AND 'CLASSIC' 4E?
> 
> As of now, the arguments against it seem to boil down to "Gamers are too stupid to figure out that you can use Heroes of Shadow with the Players Handbook" and "I haven't tried it but I heard on the Internet that Essentials is like totally incompatible". We're on page jabillion of this thread, and _not one person_ has had a problem from experience. Come on now- what does that tell you?




The problems might not necessarily show up in your game, because the places where 4e and 4e.E fail to mesh aren't so much systemic as specific, and depend upon combinations of campaign, characters, builds, feats, magic items and synergies between characters.  

So bully for you if both classic and Essentials characters are living in your campaign in perfect harmony--I play in a campaign where both types of characters are used, too, with little difficulty--but the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it.  My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.

Also, as someone may have mentioned upthread, the problems wouldn't necessarily appear in a campaign, because DMs can merely hand-wave any issues away.  In fact, the incompatibilities and inconsistencies between 4e and 4e.E are more often revealed prior to that, in the character creation faze.  Errata is slowing getting everything in line, but if you want to see where 4e and 4e.E aren't working well together, just watch the errata.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 20, 2011)

I've never run into anyone who plays 4e that has had any issues of confusion when it comes to essentials and non-essentials products. Most of them log into the CB and just build a character, unaware of those products being "different". They log on, choose options, and move along.

I'm not accepting some of the responses here, only because I don't see it at all. This issue only seems to exist on the interwebs >_>


----------



## Pentius (Jun 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> The problems might not necessarily show up in your game, because the places where 4e and 4e.E fail to mesh aren't so much systemic as specific, and depend upon combinations of campaign, characters, builds, feats, magic items and synergies between characters.
> 
> So bully for you if both classic and Essentials characters are living in your campaign in perfect harmony--I play in a campaign where both types of characters are used, too, with little difficulty--but the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it.  My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.
> 
> Also, as someone may have mentioned upthread, the problems wouldn't necessarily appear in a campaign, because DMs can merely hand-wave any issues away.  In fact, the incompatibilities and inconsistencies between 4e and 4e.E are more often revealed prior to that, in the character creation faze.  Errata is slowing getting everything in line, but if you want to see where 4e and 4e.E aren't working well together, just watch the errata.




Having DMs who choose not to mix essentials with older material is hardly a telling blow against the compatibility, though.  Many DMs like to allow everything, but there are plenty that will happily restrict any number of materials, for any number or reasons, valid or not.  In my day, I've seen DMs who won't allow one power source or another, because it 'doesn't fit the setting'. I've seen several place a blanket ban on Dragon magazine, for fear that it would 'break the game'.  I've also seen DMs just ban any book they don't personally own.  

A Dm who chooses to restrict materials at his table is the same as any other person with an opinion, the only difference is that he has control over what does or does not see play.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it.



There doesn't need to be a compatibility issue for people to have preferences one way or the other.  Simply liking or not-liking it is enough; running an E-only game has a different feel than a PHB1-only game, and in turn a different feel from a Kitchen Sink game.



> My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.



I can honestly say that I haven't.  I can't even imagine what sorts of adjustments I'd need to make.  That's why folks are looking for concrete examples.



> Also, as someone may have mentioned upthread, the problems wouldn't necessarily appear in a campaign, because DMs can merely hand-wave any issues away.  In fact, the incompatibilities and inconsistencies between 4e and 4e.E are more often revealed prior to that, in the character creation faze.  Errata is slowing getting everything in line, but if you want to see where 4e and 4e.E aren't working well together, just watch the errata.



Usually, errata is made for one main reason: Something new interacts with something old in an unexpected way that makes it overpowered or underpowered.  So, for example, a change was made to saving throws as of PHB2 in order to make sure the Warden couldn't be penalized for making a start-of-turn saving throw.  A change was made to the various ingredients of the Feycharger because they interacted in an unexpectedly overpowered way.  Melee Training fits in with this general theme that's been around since the dawn of 4e.

If you want to consider that "Essentials incompatibility," that's your prerogative, I suppose, but changing old stuff to accommodate for new is neither unprecedented nor unexpected in 4e.  The Heroes Of... books are no exceptions here.  (In fact, I think it's remarkable that Melee Training was the only really broken bit deserving of a nerf.)  Maybe I should start talking about "PHB2 incompatibility" now. 

-O


----------



## mneme (Jun 20, 2011)

Re not mentioning the PHB, DMG, and MM...that's pretty obvious.

PHB, DMG, and MM are no longer the core books of the system, as of Essentials.  They -said- they wouldn't be the core books of the system, and they aren't.  90% + of the info in them is still totally pertintent, of course, but what Wizards did is what we in software development-land called a refactoring.

Prior to the Essentials material, the PHB classes were core; all other material was built on them and required PHB for a full gaming experience.

Post-essentials, post online Class Compendium, the Essentials material is core, the Compendium material builds upon it and extends it; the new books also build on it and are compatable with the Compendium materials.

So new materials don't mention the obsolete books, despite being technically compatible with them.  Of course they don't mention obsolete books!  They're obsolete!  The -content- in the obsolete books is still valid, naturally, and still fits into the structure, but the Essentials material has been placed under it in the logical structure of the game.

So new players can be happy -- they can buy new, somewhat simpler materials that haven't been significantly eratted, and pull in more interesting, complicated options as their comfort allows.

Existing players can be happy -- all the classes and options they liked before are still in the game, and new options are still being printed for them.  They're just not the core of the game any more; they're compatible with Essentials, and therefore compatable with new materials, rather than new materials being -directly- compatible with them.

And cranky players can be cranky; sorry, but since Wizards had a reason to release a new set of core rules (because they'd learned some things from the 4e release, and because, frankly, the game had undergone enough changes that it really needed a new rules document), they decided to also release a new structure, and since they're in the business of selling books (I hear), they decided to make that the entry point rather than the books that aren't in print any more.  So it goes--but the game's still the same!


----------



## the Jester (Jun 20, 2011)

mneme said:


> So new materials don't mention the obsolete books, despite being technically compatible with them.  Of course they don't mention obsolete books!  They're obsolete!  The -content- in the obsolete books is still valid, naturally, and still fits into the structure, but the Essentials material has been placed under it in the logical structure of the game.




What exactly do you think obsolete means?

Would you characterize Martial Power as obsolete under this definition? What about Monster Manual 3?


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 20, 2011)

Obryn said:


> So, for example, a change was made to saving throws as of PHB2 in order to make sure the Warden couldn't be penalized for making a start-of-turn saving throw... Melee Training fits in with this general theme that's been around since the dawn of 4e.




Not to quarrel with your 'theme' argument (which I note and agree with), but I don't recall the warden even being mentioned in the discussions at the time about the changes to out-of-turn saving throws.

IIRC, the concern was actually that it could be a very bad idea for leaders to grant saving throws to their allies, which is obviously counter-intuitive.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Actually _I_ don't consider 3.0 and 3.5 to be different editions. The version numbers already indicate this: 3.5 is an update on 3.0.
> 
> I'd even argue that 1e and 2e were so similar to each other they might as well be called a single edition. Just like we played with a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 sources in my 3e campaign, we played with a mix of 1e and 2e sources in my 2e campaign.




QFT. My middle school DM used the AD&D 1E monster manual for 2E and we had a blast! He couldn't afford the shiny new product so he got the MM from a garage sale for a dollar. Before I moved another friend bought a 3.0 PHB we got to use for like 4 games. I'd never make him shell for a 3.5 PHB if we played again.

I'm looking at the 3.5 changes and they address things like how many skill points a class gets. Those balance of power issues are petty compared to the overall power difference between the wizard and barbarian at level 1. The skill point allotment can easily be overshadowed by a lucky or unlucky roll for ability scores. It concerns issues like how damage reduction works - I don't know if any of my DMs in high school even understood damage reduction.

I guess in the old AD&D days when the rules were more convoluted we just ignored them and made up stuff. I live in a college town where most players are casual, don't obsess over small rules changes and can't afford minor updates to books. I would argue such details don't really enhance gameplay.

So I mix 4e, essentials, and even the new Gamma World (GW only if it feels right...). Hell, in a super-goofy game I'd have a wizard PC team up with a radioactive hawkoid PC. I mix 3e, 3.5, and PF (I'd give the 3rd characters a bump if playing with Pathfinder pcs). I mix 1e, 2e, BECMI and Castles and Crusades and LOVE it (although this is a bit harder, particularly on the player end). I may run the 3.0 Freeport modules in C&C and just bring the monsters down to whatever feels right. I'd even be willing to run a 3.0 module in 4E. I sort of feel that "winging it" might be less trouble than downloading a conversion.

So in conclusion:
- Small tweaks or updates in rules don't make or break a game. Paying too much attention to rules does. Players should be opening the books as little as possible anyway. If there is a balance issue or flaw houserule it.
- This is an expensive hobby and most folks I know don't have a lot of extra cash. If they invest in gaming supplies I want them to get as much milage out of their investment as possible.


----------



## mneme (Jun 20, 2011)

the Jester said:


> What exactly do you think obsolete means?
> 
> Would you characterize Martial Power as obsolete under this definition? What about Monster Manual 3?




A quick google lookup produces this definition, which fits what I'm using very well:

Adjective: No longer produced or used; out of date. 

That describes much of PH1 (and MM1, and much of DMG) to a T.  They aren't produced, and they are out of date (and have been or are intended to be replaced; in PH1's case by a combination of Class Compendium and Rules Compendium).

They are still used, but for character creation at 1st level, there's no need to; RC + CC does a much better job (at least once CC is complete) due to incorporating the latest updates.

(a big missing piece, of course, is the items and ritual section of PH1, which are only obseleted by the online rules).

Martial Power is obsalescent.  It's no longer produced, but it's still available, and its contents are irreplacable (except via DDI).  I'd expect that Wizards will want to produce the content in an Essentials-forward form at some point just to have a coherent product line and system, just like they did Class Compendium.  Whether they can afford to, is, naturally, another question.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2011)

Matt James said:


> I'm not accepting some of the responses here, only because I don't see it at all. This issue only seems to exist on the interwebs >_>



"I don't have that problem, therefore there is no problem." Interesting!

Regarding the psionic power comparison: There are no psionic builds of non-psionic classes. So, there's no compatibility issue.

Heroes of Shadow includes a new Warlock (Hexblade) build. It's incompatible with the PHB1 Warlock. So that _is_ a compatibility issue.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> If, if if.
> 
> The book itself says you need Essentials products to use it. Why should someone have to go to the store owner, or a website, or a forum to find out it can be sued with any 4E book.
> 
> that is just wrong. Blaming the store owner is ridiculous.




Because listing every Fourth edition D&D product ever made on the back of, say, Heroes of Shadow is stupid?

Picture if it said, as well as listing every essentials core product, PHB 1, PHB 2, PHB 3, Monster Manual, and the DMG 1 AND DMG 2.

Seriously.  I went online to see if I could find an image of an essentials back cover so I could use GIMP to show you how utterly retarded that would look.

Some questions should just answer themselves.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Heroes of Shadow includes a new Warlock (Hexblade) build. It's incompatible with the PHB1 Warlock. So that _is_ a compatibility issue.




My warlock can't take a swordmage build either so Forgotten Realms must be incompatible with PHB1.

Oh wait, that's stupid.

Altho you're absolutely right, the Heroes of Shadow book does have a section of Warlock powers, and the original warlock can't take those so...

...oh wait they can?  All the dailies can be taken?!

Well then.  I suppose Heroes of Shadow IS compatible.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> My warlock can't take a swordmage build either so Forgotten Realms must be incompatible with PHB1.



Okay, I'll write a bit more slowly, maybe then you understand the difference:

Hexblade is the name of a build for the Warlock class introduced in Heroes of Shadow. 
'Sorcerer King Pact' is another build for the Warlock class introduced in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting.

I only have the PHB1, not the HotF*** book. 
This means, I can use everything from the 'Sorcerer King Pact' build in my game.
I cannot, however, use everything from the Hexblade build in my game. 

When reading the Hexblade stuff in HoS I kept wondering how it's supposed to work, obviously I'm missing some important information.

What is this if not a compatibility issue?

Swordmage is a different class than Warlock, not a different build of the same class. 
I would not expect to be able to make full use of everything from a different class.
To use things from a different class usually requires multi-classing or playing a hybrid.

Neither should be required to use things from a different build of the same class.

Do you understand the difference between a build and a class or should I elaborate? I realize you're new to the game and might have trouble with these terms


----------



## Ajar (Jun 20, 2011)

This thread has moved on from my posts, but I wanted to make a quick note -- the psionic power point classes still follow the encounter power structure. Power points are directly analogous to (and are balanced against) encounter powers. 

That's actually the route I would have preferred to see WotC go, but I freely admit that I underestimated the number of people who would like the Essentials simplicity and style enough to invest in it.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 20, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Not to quarrel with your 'theme' argument (which I note and agree with), but I don't recall the warden even being mentioned in the discussions at the time about the changes to out-of-turn saving throws.
> 
> IIRC, the concern was actually that it could be a very bad idea for leaders to grant saving throws to their allies, which is obviously counter-intuitive.



It wasn't mentioned because the change to saving throws was one of the earliest pieces of "stealth errata" (in this case, more like surprise errata).  It appeared in the PHB2 first, in the same book as the Warden, rather than online, and you wouldn't have known it if you didn't read the part at the end about saving throws.  (It was in the same section as the literal Stealth errata, which ironically was not "stealth errata" at all.)

-O


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Okay, I'll write a bit more slowly, maybe then you understand the difference:
> 
> Hexblade is the name of a build for the Warlock class introduced in Heroes of Shadow.
> 'Sorcerer King Pact' is another build for the Warlock class introduced in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting.
> ...





Let me put this simply for you.  Hexblade is a _subclass_ of Warlock.  Hexblade is not a warlock - for most purposes it is a _different_ class.  That is why it is called a _Hexblade_ and not a _Warlock_.  It merely shares feats and utility and daily powers with the Warlock class in the PHB.  If you think of it as a different class with some cross-compatability then your _entire_ objection here vanishes like a puff of hot air.



> Do you understand the difference between a build and a class or should I elaborate? I realize you're new to the game and might have trouble with these terms




Do you understand the difference between a build and a subclass or should I elaborate?  I understand you're behind on the game and might have trouble with these terms 

Yes, you were missing information.  That isn't a compatability issue.  That's a you missing information and not knowing what a Hexblade is issue.  Which means apparently you don't have access to either HOFK or the Character Builder and DDI.  Next you'll be saying that Martial Power 2 has problems because it has powers that only work if your ranger has an animal companion, but you don't know how a ranger can have one because you don't own Martial Power 1.


----------



## Vael (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> When reading the Hexblade stuff in HoS I kept wondering how it's supposed to work, obviously I'm missing some important information.
> 
> What is this if not a compatibility issue?




Well, imagine instead you had a Warlock power in Heroes of Shadow that referenced Sorcerer-King Pact, any reference to "Fell Might" is also meaningless without the Dark Sun book. Is that a compatibility issue?

Plus, Essentials builds are more like new subclasses than builds, they're quite different than their parent class, but there is some limited interchangeability. So the Swordmage analogy still works, you're just being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## malraux (Jun 20, 2011)

mneme said:


> A quick google lookup produces this definition, which fits what I'm using very well:
> 
> Adjective: No longer produced or used; out of date.
> 
> ...




I'd suggest that deprecated fits better than obsolete.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Hexblade is a _subclass_ of Warlock.  Hexblade is not a warlock - for most purposes it is a _different_ class.



Okay, got it:
A subclass is what you call a build that happens to be incompatible with other builds.

Whew, thanks for clearing _that_ up!


----------



## Scribble (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Okay, got it:
> A subclass is what you call a build that happens to be incompatible with other builds.
> 
> Whew, thanks for clearing _that_ up!




Once we get to the point where we're arguing about whether the inclusion of subclasses makes something incompatible... I think it's time to step back and take a breather.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Okay, I'll write a bit more slowly, maybe then you understand the difference:




Saying it slowly will not make you correct, in the same way yelling at someone whose language you don't understand won't make you speak their language.



> Hexblade is the name of a build for the Warlock class introduced in Heroes of Shadow.
> 'Sorcerer King Pact' is another build for the Warlock class introduced in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting.




Wrong, and wrong.

Hexblade is a *class type* under the warlock class, with two *builds* in the first book, Fey (accurate) and Infernal (hard-hitting)

The Sorcerer-King pact is a *build* for the primary warlock class-type (as of yet unnamed)

Both class types have some features and powers that cannot cross-pollenate, and some that do.  This doesn't make them incompatible. 



> I only have the PHB1, not the HotF*** book.
> This means, I can use everything from the 'Sorcerer King Pact' build in my game.
> I cannot, however, use everything from the Hexblade build in my game.




You can't use anything from the Swordmage, Sorcerer, or Bard in Arcane Power either.  It's the exact same problem.

Moreover, you CAN use stuff from the Hexblade class type.



> When reading the Hexblade stuff in HoS I kept wondering how it's supposed to work, obviously I'm missing some important information.




You make a +3/1d10 or +2/1d12 one-handed weapon, and you run into people, and you do massive damage with attacks that can benefit from your implement and your weapon feats simultaneously.



> What is this if not a compatibility issue?




Because it's a reading comprehension issue. Compatibility issues arise when things cannot work along side each other.  A base warlock and a hexblade can be in the same party together, fighting the same monsters.  They're going to be as different as a Swordmage and a Sorcerer in playstyle, however.  

That's not incompatibility.  That's how class types work.  They're pretty much new classes, but they can take some powers or feats or options older classes can.  



> Swordmage is a different class than Warlock, not a different build of the same class.




Hexblade is a different *class type*.  That's the game term for it.  It's a subclass, not a build.  It's like the difference between a 2E Fighter and a 2E paladin, which were subclasses of the Warrior class.



> I would not expect to be able to make full use of everything from a different class.




Then you're halfway to understanding how class types work in the game.



> To use things from a different class usually requires multi-classing or playing a hybrid.




Class types have less barriers between types for the same class, but barriers exist, just as they do for different classes within the same power source.  Some things are the same, some things are not.



> Neither should be required to use things from a different build of the same class.




And we're not talking about different builds.  We are talking about different *class types*.  The problem is a comprehension issue.  You're not using the right terminology, so obviously it's not conceptualizing properly.



> Do you understand the difference between a build and a class or should I elaborate? I realize you're new to the game and might have trouble with these terms




*Class types*.  It's a game term.  You might not be familiar with it, after all it involves books you might not own.  But it's a new concept and one that I think you need to understand to help you get past these issues you have.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 20, 2011)

This thread is starting to show personal attacks. I'll bow out before I get banned again for using the word _turd_ to describe anyone 

I can't see how anyone who has played with an amalgamation of both essentials and non-essentials classes can say they are incompatible. We are being trolled.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 20, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Except that the announcement for that article begins with something along the lines of "you've spoken and we've listened."
> 
> Fortunately, the rewrite of the Cleric into the Templar seems to have served as a bit of a rallying point for all us masochistic Str-cleric players, and WotC have decided to do something about it.
> 
> Would it have been on WotC's radar if not for the recent outcry? I very much doubt it.




How DARE they listen to us! How can one company be so villified to the point that they are criticized for not responding to fans and then criticized again when they do?

Life is about fighting for what you want. Did you really expect WotC to deliver what you wanted if you just sat back and waited for it?


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 20, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How DARE they listen to us! How can one company be so villified to the point that they are criticized for not responding to fans and then criticized again when they do?
> 
> Life is about fighting for what you want. Did you really expect WotC to deliver what you wanted if you just sat back and waited for it?




The poster to whom I responded suggested that Warpriest didn't replace the Str-cleric.

I addressed the (in retrospect, slightly different) question of whether it was _intended_ to. I provided my reasons in significant detail. I assume from the fact that you take issue with none of my post other than the first sentence that there's nothing constructive here for us to discuss. 



Obryn said:


> It appeared in the PHB2 first, in the same book as the Warden, rather than online, and you wouldn't have known it if you didn't read the part at the end about saving throws.




I'm not sure I agree that publication source coincidence can be used to support supposed cause and effect, but I can see why you think so. As I agree with the general thrust of your post, I'm happy to leave it at that.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> The poster to whom I responded suggested that Warpriest didn't replace the Str-cleric.
> 
> I addressed the (in retrospect, slightly different) question of whether it was _intended_ to. I provided my reasons in significant detail. I assume from the fact that you take issue with none of my post other than the first sentence that there's nothing constructive here for us to discuss.




I don't believe it has intended to replace the Strength priest, nor has it effectively done so.

Sun domain is an obvious healing-based domain.  Storm is more of a DPR+defensive buffs domain.  Str-cleric is an offensive buffer.  

Leaders are defined more by what they buff than their attack type, and I just don't see a build based on a temporary hp at-will power being an intended replacement for a build based on a attack-buff at-will.  The two are as different as a Bravura warlord is from a Inspiring warlord.  Sure... they both use charisma and are melee but... not the same thing.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 20, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> I don't believe it has intended to replace the Strength priest, nor has it effectively done so.




I never said it replaced it mechanically 

My point was (and I can't be bothered to go back and check my exact wording) that it was intended to replace the Str-cleric in its niche as the melee 'half' of the cleric class.

IIRC, WotC designers have publicly acknowledged that V-shaped classes were a mistake, so I personally believe that the basic premise that the Warpriest was intended to replace the Str-cleric is pretty self-evident.

I respect everyone's right to believe otherwise, and hopefully we'll see plenty of love for the Str-cleric in the future. The irony is that the campaign in which I play one has just wrapped up.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 20, 2011)

mneme said:


> A quick google lookup produces this definition, which fits what I'm using very well:
> 
> Adjective: No longer produced or used; out of date.
> 
> That describes much of PH1 (and MM1, and much of DMG) to a T.




Given that I, and several other people in this thread who actually run games, still use all these books all the time, I can't buy that argument _at all._

The newest player in my campaign is a PH1 paladin with a few Divine Power options, but almost completely PH1. 

It sounds like you're arguing, essentially, "Well, I no longer use it, so nobody else does either". But that's demonstrably, factually incorrect.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> "I don't have that problem, therefore there is no problem." Interesting!




More like, "Nobody who has actually tried it has that problem, therefore there is no problem."


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> I never said it replaced it mechanically
> 
> My point was (and I can't be bothered to go back and check my exact wording) that it was intended to replace the Str-cleric in its niche as the melee 'half' of the cleric class.




That definition is pretty simplistic tho.  Leaders are not defined by attack-types.



> IIRC, WotC designers have publicly acknowledged that V-shaped classes were a mistake, so I personally believe that the basic premise that the Warpriest was intended to replace the Str-cleric is pretty self-evident.




Except it doesn't DO what the templar does.

The irony is that the Str-cleric is a legacy thing.  There've always been armored clerics that hit the front lines and beat things to death, and yes... they were based on Strength.  Clerics were the best melee class in 3.x for a reason.

The Warpriest's only commonality with the Str-Templar is the word 'Melee' on the powers.  The Death Domain doesn't even resemble one at all.

Thing is... Domains are a good idea, and they wanted to make a leader based around them.  So they did.  By the time essentials rolled around, the idea of a wisdom meleer wasn't some unusual thing like in the PHB1 days.  The technology and acceptance of it made the warpriest possible.

But a replacement for a Strength Cleric?  When one of the domains gives attack bonuses like candy, then I can see an argument there.



> I respect everyone's right to believe otherwise, and hopefully we'll see plenty of love for the Str-cleric in the future. The irony is that the campaign in which I play one has just wrapped up.




I do hope so as well.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> [excellent explanation of new game terms]



Thanks. Apparently, the difference between Essentials and classic 4e are even more pronounced than I thought. It doesn't even use the same game terms any more!
How can anyone think that this is _not_ confusing?! This is definitely something that did not happen between 3.0 and 3.5.
Seems like I can really stop buying 4e products, unless I get all the Essentials stuff first.


			
				DracoSuave;5597980Because it's a reading comprehension issue. Compatibility issues arise when things cannot work along side each other.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Aha!
> Maybe that's why I get the feeling (almost) everyone's behaving stupid in this thread.
> 
> What you're describing there is only one kind of compatibility, and it's not the kind I'm talking about.
> ...


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> So bully for you if both classic and Essentials characters are living in your campaign in perfect harmony--I play in a campaign where both types of characters are used, too, with little difficulty--but the fact that some ENWorld DM's have chosen to run all Essentials or all 4e campaigns, as well as the opinions of several posters in this thread, should be all you need to understand that your experience isn't necessarily universal without someone having to take to time to write a report about it. My feeling is that anyone combining the two is going to have to make at least some small adjustments to make everything work together, (magic items, for instance), and one player's small adjustment is going to be another's pain in the ass.




I think his point, though, wasn't that it hasn't been a problem in his own game. It was that, in this entire thread, I don't think we've seen a single genuine example of confusion - only hypotheticals. _No one _has actually run into a problem in their games. 

That doesn't mean one can't prefer to run without Essentials or Essentials only. I don't see that as any more or less problematic than running without Psionics - it can be a campaign preference, a dislike of the specific mechanics, whatever. As long as the group as a whole is fine with it, its all good. 

But that's very different from saying that there is any actual problem running the two together. There just... isn't the incompatability that some folks keep referring to. In actual play, the characters fit just fine alongside each other. In terms of character creation, the only limitation was in the realm of multiclassing, and that is an area that they have been actively addressing.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Okay, I'll write a bit more slowly, maybe then you understand the difference:
> 
> Hexblade is the name of a build for the Warlock class introduced in Heroes of Shadow.
> 'Sorcerer King Pact' is another build for the Warlock class introduced in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting.
> ...




I have the PHB1, Martial Power and Psionic Power. 

This means I can use everything from the 'Beastmaster Ranger' build in my game. 
I cannot, however, use _anything _from Psionic Power in my game. 

What is this if not a compatibility issue?

Look, we keep present similar situations to you. Psionic Power, Swordmages, any number of things. You keep insisting it is different with the Essentials content because the Hexblade is a version of a warlock, and so you for some reason feel it should merge perfectly with every other version of a warlock out there. 

Despite the fact that they have kindly given it a distinct title (Hexblade) to seperate it from the standard warlock. And have listed, on Heroes of Shadow, what books it is primarily aimed at supporting. 

Your argument, basically, is that they are not allowed to experiment with new builds for existing classes because... why? 

I mean, would you really have been happier if they said, "The Thief is not a Rogue at all. It is a completely different class that happens to be thematically similar and features numerous identical class features." 

Would that have really improved things? Caused _less _confusion? I don't think so.

Look... the Beastmaster ranger says, "You can swap these class features in order to get a beast companion." The Hexblade simply does that on a much larger scale - you can swap most of your Warlock features for a different set of them. 

Yes, this process - the specifics of playing a Hexblade - is detailed in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and thus Heroes of Shadow is less useful to someone with just the PHB. 

So here is another question for you - what is your opinion of Martial Power 2? 

I play a ranger. I pick up Martial Power 2, figuring it will support my ranger. And it does so! I have many new powers and feats! 

But... I also have 15 feats that require the Beast Mastery class feature. I... don't seem to have that. Those feats are incompatible with my PHB1 ranger. Along with all these beast powers. 

And I also have this Arcane Power, to go along with my PHB1. But a bunch of the content is for Sorcerers, Bards, and Swordmages. I've just got a Wizard and Warlock in my PHB1 - why is all this other content incompatible?

You suggest it is ok for these books to support content from a variety of books. You suggest it is ok for Primal Power and Psionic Power to provide no support at _all _for PHB1. And your reasoning is that no one will get confused, since they will look at Heroes of Shadow and see mention of Warlock stuff, and think it is 100% aimed at the PHB1 Warlock. 

Which I think is silly. Again, this is only a hypothetical - do we know of anyone actually being confused in this fashion? 

And honestly, if we are talking about a complete newcomer to the game, do we really think the older stuff is any clearer? They pick up the PHB and see the Spiral Tower mage who wields a longsword - maybe they figure he's a swordmage, and are confused by the Swordmage stuff in Arcane Power involving a different book entirely. And aren't Wizards and Sorcerers the same thing?

Maybe this sort of things happens, once in a blue moon. Usually, other players, or the store owner, or the internet, will give enough info for even the complete newcomer to make informed purchases. And in the absence of any other information at all, we've got the Essentials material to provide an easy stepping stone to the game. We've got Heroes of Shadow listing what books it is _ideal _for. 

And in the situation where someone walks into a store, sees a PHB1 and Heroes of Shadow on the shelf with no other D&D content, and a game store owner who knows nothing about the game or what products are sold by WotC, and the player purchases both books and ends up only getting use out of half of Heroes of Shadow... I think that situation will be extremely, extremely rare. 

And, in the end, no different than if they walked in and saw the PHB1 and Arcane Power sitting there instead.


----------



## Mr. Patient (Jun 20, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Given that I, and several other people in this thread who actually run games, still use all these books all the time, I can't buy that argument _at all._




Can I ask what parts of the 08 DMG you are using?  I still use large chunks of PH1, but I don't think there's much in the DMG that hasn't been superseded by errata and updates.  Except for the fluffy bits and Fallcrest, I think practically everything has been replaced: poison and disease DCs, mounted and flying combat, monster creation, treasure parcels, skill DCs and challenges.  There's really nothing left in that book that I could use at a table.  If that's not obsolete, I don't know what is.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Thanks. Apparently, the difference between Essentials and classic 4e are even more pronounced than I thought. It doesn't even use the same game terms any more!




No, 'build' still means what it does.  You just have this thing called a 'class type' which describes something that never existed in the game before. 



> How can anyone think that this is _not_ confusing?! This is definitely something that did not happen between 3.0 and 3.5.




No, 3.5 didn't introduce new stuff, it replaced old stuff entirely.  The hexblade is not a replacement for the warlock.  It's a new thing.

So, yeah, it didn't happen.



> Seems like I can really stop buying 4e products, unless I get all the Essentials stuff first.




It's no different than getting any suppliment.  Psionic classes have similiar issues with PHB1 and 2 stuff. It's not much different.



> Aha!
> Maybe that's why I get the feeling (almost) everyone's behaving stupid in this thread.
> 
> What you're describing there is only one kind of compatibility, and it's not the kind I'm talking about.
> ...




The thing is, that's always existed between builds too, believe it or not.  Let's look at the traits that make up your build from the bottom level to the top.

At the bottom, you have your powers.  Higher in hierarchy is what you term a build, or more accurately, your class feature options.  Then you have your class type.  Above that is your class, then lastly your power source.

Power Source > Class > Class Type > Class Feature Options > Powers.

Now, looking at that hierarchy, let's look at something that exists in classic and essentials, the feats.

Feats often have prerequisites, and are an *excellent* example of the type of compatibility that you mention, the 'utilizing a function or service in another piece of software'.  

Now, many feats have class features are prerequisites.  For example, Primal Guardians have access to a feat, Primal Instinct that allows an ally to reroll initiative.  Only druids with Primal Guardian can take this feat.  No other druid can.  Primal Predators can't, Primal Swarms can't.  You have a feat that exists that is not 'compatible' with Druid builds outside of that one.  How is this different than 'compatibility issues' between class-types?

The irony with this example is that the Sentinel Class-type actually can take this feat, as it has the Primal Guardian class feature.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that if you had a problem with options being limited to certain builds, you probably would have hated having powers with class-feature specific riders like is common in the rogue, or feats that are limited by build, like Inspired Recovery.  The simple fact is, this 'non-compatibility by build' is an inherent part of the game since the very first day it was printed.  The only difference is the level of granularity of that difference.

Which, by the way, exists between the build level and the class level.  That's why the comparison between Swordmage and Hexblade was completely valid... it's the exact same mechanic with a different level of granularity.  

So long as feats have restrictions by build or class, this is always going to occur.

The ironic part about THIS is that essentials feats tend to eschew build and class-based restrictions, and are of more general application.



> 'Classic' builds are (interface) compatible with each other. Essentials builds (or subclasses...) aren't (interface) compatible with classic builds. They require an adaptor in the form of (how did a previous poster call it?) cross-training feats.




Depends on the class type.  Mages and wizards play very well together.  But this is hardly a new thing.  But in reality, they are pretty much new classes.  The Blackguard is not the PHB Paladin.  It doesn't even try to do the same things.  It can take Paladin powers at some levels, take some feats at others, but when it comes down to it, it's pretty much a new class that does its own thing.  

Besides, not everything is Hexblade specific.  Binder powers that have levels can be taken by warlocks just fine.  And there's a collection of warlock powers that can be taken by ANY class type.  

Templars (PHB Clerics) for example, can take the level 8 power that ressurects the dead.  They'll take it at 10th level as a utility power, but that is perfectly legal. 

ANYTHING that has a level can be taken by the basic class at the proper time.  ANYTHING.  How is that incompatible?



> But I guess, I'll follow Matt James' example and bow out of the thread before I get banned (or as we Germans say: Ich trolle mich )
> 
> If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.




Why?  You've already convinced yourself it's some alien thing when it isn't.  I mean, yes, a warlock can't pick up class features the hexblade can... but any power the hexblade can -choose-, the warlock can.  

If you conceptualize the class types as new character classes (which they are!) rather than as mere builds (which they are not!) then you'll have no problems accepting them.  The fact that they can cross polinate many of their options with previous classes is just gravy.  I know quite a few orbizards that wouldn't mind sporting Sleep AND Deep Slumber.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 20, 2011)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Sigh. I'm gonna do it again:
> 
> HAS ANYONE IN THIS THREAD ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE IN-GAME WITH MIXING ESSENTIALS AND 'CLASSIC' 4E?




I had a pyromancer Mage in my group for awhile. He fulfilled his role.  So no issue there.  

Could a regular wizard do the same role just as well? That's arguable since in my opinion the Mage has more advantages.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Zaran said:


> I had a pyromancer Mage in my group for awhile. He fulfilled his role.  So no issue there.
> 
> Could a regular wizard do the same role just as well? That's arguable since in my opinion the Mage has more advantages.




The Arcanist has its advantages tho, which the Mage does not.

An Enchanter doesn't work the same as an Orbizard and can't leverage the same advantages an Orbizard can, making for a completely different effect, even when using the exact same powers.

That doesn't make them incompatible.  It just makes them different.

There's no issue, for example, having a group with an Arcanist, a Templarl, a Thief, and a Slayer.  There's no rules adjustment, they all interact with the same game mechanics, and do so better than a 3.5 Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter do.  Those classes use completely different rules, to a far greater level of variance than essentials does from classic.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Thanks. Apparently, the difference between Essentials and classic 4e are even more pronounced than I thought. It doesn't even use the same game terms any more!




Indeed.  It adds new terms such as subclass.  Like everything else.



> How can anyone think that this is _not_ confusing?! This is definitely something that did not happen between 3.0 and 3.5.




No.  But it happened in Martial Power.  And PHB 3.  And most other splatbooks.  That's because 3.5 was a rewrite and HOFK/L are extensions in the same way additional PHBs are.



> Seems like I can really stop buying 4e products, unless I get all the Essentials stuff first.




By "All the essentials stuff" you mean two books?  HOFL and HOFK?  (Oh, and get Monster Vault - it's awesome).



> What I'm talking about is an 'interface incompatibility': It's not about two pieces of software (i.e. class/build/whatever-you-call-it-these-days) running peacefully alongside each other, it's about a piece of software utilizing a function or service provided by a second piece of software.




You mean the way Arcane Power uses the PHB2?  Yup, been there for a long time.  Between HOFK and HOFL there are ten classes (Warpriest, Slayer, Knight, Thief, Mage in HOFL and Cavalier, Scout, Hunter, Sentinel, Hexblade in HOFL).  Of these ten classes, _eight_ are new (the Mage is a tweaked Wizard and if they gave Mages Ritual Caster I'd prefer the mage in every way - and the Warpriest is a wis-melee cleric (when previously it wasn't possible) with a few tweaks and bonusses to make up for the limited power selection).

Eight new classes.  And because Heroes of Shadow provides support for _one_ of the new classes that didn't previously exist it somehow isn't compatable with the old material?



> If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.




A conclusion I find absolutely _stunning_ when *no one who has tried mixing essentials and pre-essentials has reported a problem.*  As this thread has shown, the only problems being reported are by those who are not trying to mix the two.


----------



## Ajar (Jun 20, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Given that I, and several other people in this thread who actually run games, still use all these books all the time, I can't buy that argument _at all._
> 
> The newest player in my campaign is a PH1 paladin with a few Divine Power options, but almost completely PH1.
> 
> It sounds like you're arguing, essentially, "Well, I no longer use it, so nobody else does either". But that's demonstrably, factually incorrect.



"The old books still exist" is a bit of a misdirection, IMO. There are plenty of pre-Essentials classes that need more attention -- not errata, but new content. However, now that Essentials is the new norm, pre-Essentials classes aren't likely to get significant new support in a new book. The big ones, sure -- Clerics, Wizards, and Warlocks can take the new  HoS powers for those classes, of course. But I sincerely doubt we'll see  any support for Seekers or Runepriests outside of Dragon. Or the psionic classes, for that matter.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2011)

Okay, just one more post then you're rid of me - promised! 

After writing my last post I had an epiphany:
I finally understand just what WotC has done - and it makes me feel as if I'm a citizen of Orwell's Oceania. I never quite understood why they changed the names of the PHB1 classes in their Class Compendium; now I do.

Once upon a time before WotC decided to rewrite history to fit their new vision of the game the PHB1 contained classes like the fighter. Then they had this idea to reinvent the fighter in a simplified form to appeal to players who felt 4e classes were too complex. Thus Essentials was born. There was only one problem: The new fighter was so unlike the old one it might as well be an entirely different class!
To solve this problem it wouldn't be sufficient to build a new floor on top of the existing structure, they had to create a new foundation.

What was the fighter class became the weaponmaster class type, and 'fighter' was henceforth known as an abstract class to serve as a container for class types as varied as the weaponmaster, the slayer, or the knight. No longer were classes restricted to belong to a single power source or role.
So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.

I guess, if I go back and edit my first post in this thread to say the opposite of what it originally said, it means I've been right from the very beginning?

It's like me claiming that 6 + 7 = 42. After someone objects I simply redefine '+' to mean 'multiply'. See, I was right!

The thing is: I've obviously fallen for WotCs original claim that it was safe to ignore Essentials. Well it isn't. I no longer feel fit discussing this game that once was 4e. It has been slowly and silently subverted and swallowed whole.

Note that I don't claim and have never claimed that it's causing a problem if 'classic' and Essentials class types (ha!) are played alongside, except you cannot share books.

But it's no longer possible to treat Essentials as something distinct from 4e when discussing the game. 'Classic 4e' has gone the way of the dodo, just like all the other editions before; it has become part of the legacy and would probably better be discussed in the forum bearing that name.

I'll just keep playing the game I know until our group disintegrates or makes the switch to an 'all Essentials' game. And I'll try to avoid posting in a forum about a game I obviously no longer know. So long and thanks for all the fish!


----------



## Dannager (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> If anything, this discussion has shown me that it really would be an even worse idea to introduce Essentials material into our game than I'd have thought.




The fact that you can come to this "conclusion" after page upon page of dozens of people telling you _the exact opposite thing_ from what you concluded means that you did not come here with the intention of listening to what others had to say. You entered this discussion with a conclusion masked as curiosity - disingenuous, to say the least.

Take a step back, *read the thread*, and then make up your mind. But don't for a second pretend that you can get away with laying the responsibility for your choice on this discussion. The *least* of what this discussion has demonstrated is that *it is the uniform opinion of everyone who has mixed Essentials and non-Essentials characters in a game that there is absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.*

I mean, this is some "There are no Americans in Baghdad"-level stuff, right here.

EDIT: Jhaelen, in reference to your above post, this is _sad_ behavior on your part. Even you can't actually believe that the things you are saying are accurate, appropriate, or approaching valid.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> And I'll try to avoid posting in a forum about a game I obviously no longer know. So long and thanks for all the fish!




I have only one reply to this:

Dibs on his stapler!!!!!!


----------



## Matt James (Jun 20, 2011)

So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials? Again, I think we're being trolled. Jhaelen is waiting for the right moment to be like "hah, gotcha!"

Right? Please say yes. Someone.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Buhwhah?

Would you have prefered if they just made new classes with some new abilities and some same abilities, and absolutely no connection at all to the old classes, including no ability to use already established powers and feats, and have nothing but essentials feat support, while adding nothing to existing classes?

Because THAT is the situation you describe, where the new Essentials stuff has no 'cross-compatability'.  That's what that situation is.  

Is it because you don't like the deviation from requiring Daily/Encounter/At-Will/Utility basic structure?  That's a valid concern.  

Is it because you think there's no support for older classes?  Because that is incorrect, there is.  A perfect example is in the Blackguard class.  They have an at-will attack power that is Strength based, and deals bonus damage based on adjacent enemies.  It is a Paladin Attack 1 power.  Are you aware that this power is now an option for the classic Paladin?  That the blackguard class added a bunch of options for Paladins that want to do damage, like the Ardent?  That's support for classic classes.  That every single Warpriest power can be taken by a Cleric/Templar?  That's support for classic classes.  That there's a smattering of new utility powers for the Fighter/Weaponmaster that fit perfectly with its own strategy?  That's support for classic classes.  That there's a LOT of new at-will, encounter, and daily powers for the Wizard that is absolutely 100% usable (read: awesome) in the hands of the classic wizard?  That's support for classic classes.

These aren't opinions.  Those are solid facts.  You have your reasons for disliking them, and *the facts are diametricly opposed to it.*

Now you're claiming that because the classic classes' class types are given names so it's easier than saying 'classic mage' 'classic fighter' etc, that therefore 4th edition is broken forever?

I mean... does adding 'weaponmaster' (a very appropriate name) after fighter on your character sheet will change the fact that you have Cleave, Tide of Iron, mark with each attack, have great OAs, and in every meaningful way are exactly the same as you were before the update was printed?  (Come and Get It was gonna get nerfed anyways)

You're being demonstrably irrational about this.  You asked if it was compatible, people who've tried both have said it is.  Then you said 'but it's not cross-compatible' and it's been proven that it is.  Now you're complaining about class-type names being applied to classic classes?

Chicken Little had a better world perspective.

PS:

Jhaelen, you've been one of the most vocal and analytical proponents of 4th edition since the very beginning.  I have a lot of respect for you, so I'm going to try a different tack.

Remember back in the beginning when people were trying to grok 4th edition, and the best advice we could give was 'Don't just try to read it and grok it... play with it.  Once you play it, it all clicks and you realize the game's depth and fun.'

That advice applies to Essentials class types.  Don't just sit there and scoff them.  Play them in a mixed game, give them the old college try.  You'll find everything works nice and smoothly.  You can play the classic class you love and your buddy can play the essentials class, and I guarantee that there's going to be no problems.  You can grab an essentials feat, he can grab a classic feat, no problem.

Just... *try* it.  It's really not that bad.  The new classes are very cohesive, and they're solid performers.  I prefer the classic power structure myself so I wouldn't play a slayer or thief... but the blackguard was very fun, and VERY new.  It plays better than it seems on paper.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Once upon a time before WotC decided to rewrite history to fit their new vision of the game the PHB1 contained classes like the fighter.
> 
> ...
> 
> So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.




Sigh. It's not 'rewriting history'. It's adding new features. If you don't touch Essentials, no one is going to show up at your game and yell at you for not calling your PHB fighter a "weaponmaster". 

Previous, there was a fighter class, and it had several builds. Now, there are some variant builds that are a bit more distinct, and they have relabelled certain builds to try and keep them clearer. They may or may not have been successful in this, but at no point have they tried to pretend that they are revising the history of the edition in any way. 



Jhaelen said:


> The thing is: I've obviously fallen for WotCs original claim that it was safe to ignore Essentials. Well it isn't. I no longer feel fit discussing this game that once was 4e. It has been slowly and silently subverted and swallowed whole.




WotC's claim was that you can go ahead and keep playing your 4E game without Essentials. And you can, just like you could do so with the PHB2, PHB3, Dark Sun, etc. 

What they did not claim was, "It is safe to ignore Essentials and still be fully informed when commenting on it in discussion threads." That seems to be the heart of your objection here, and that is all sorts of silly. Of course you aren't going to be able to have an informed discussion about Essentials material if you aren't familiar with it. 

Does that really have a negative impact on your actual home game? 

That's what folks have repeatedly asked you about - have you any genuine examples of difficulties caused, in your game, by Essentials. And that is a very different thing from being able to participate in a discussion about the game. 

As it is, there are plenty of threads that you can indeed still join in discussion in. And, yes, there will be others where you have less to contribute - just like, when PHB3 and Psionic Power were the most recent products, players without them would have little to offer in those threads. 



Jhaelen said:


> But it's no longer possible to treat Essentials as something distinct from 4e when discussing the game. 'Classic 4e' has gone the way of the dodo, just like all the other editions before; it has become part of the legacy and would probably better be discussed in the forum bearing that name.




Again - the only distinctions cropping up are ones you are making. Yes, you can treat Essentials as something different, just like you could have done so with PHB3. It doesn't change the fact that if discussing 4E as a whole, it - unsurprisingly - includes all content released for 4E. 

You can still discuss your 'classic 4E', however you might define it. Others can discuss their 'core only' games with just the PHB, MM, and DMG. And others will have their 'Essentials only' campaigns as well. All of these are valid options - but trying to pretend that one is a more legitimate form than another, or that WotC has a responsibility to isolate them and treat them as different experiences, rather than supporting the game as a whole, is simply an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## mneme (Jun 20, 2011)

Dannager said:


> EDIT: Jhaelen, in reference to your above post, this is _sad_ behavior on your part. Even you can't actually believe that the things you are saying are accurate, appropriate, or approaching valid.




I don't know; he's wrong, but he's also right.

The fact is, if you play with full eratta (and you should; it's a better game--though note that they're redoing the cleric eratta this month), there's nothing preventing you from using PH1 classes in a modern, post-essentials game, nor allowing Essentials characters and options in a game based on pre-essentials books.

However, in terms of how wizards is presenting the game (and the structural model they're using to define the classes), Jhaelen is quite right.  This is very -much- a "we have always been at war with Eurasia" redefinition, where the facts on the ground remain more or less identical, but the underlying structures have changed in some subtle ways.

In a software redesign analogy, the existing interfaces are still there, and still do more or less exactly what they did before (barring some interface updates that are about the same same scope as previous interface and internals updates).   But they've also published some newer underlying interfaces, which you can ignore if you like (your old programs, using the old published interfaces will still work), but they're still there and are still going to be referenced in new materials.  So you can't ignore the new books and hope that they'll be a minor aberrition--that materials after their release will then go back to referring to the old materials.  YOu -can- use them to add to your existing campaign and existing characters; as above; old programs still work, and they're even producing some new objects implementing compatable interfaces.

But the guts of the program has changed, and some (a lot) of new material is going to be written with the new interfaces in mind; certainly you're going to need to learn enough of it to know what you don't know.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 20, 2011)

Matt James said:


> So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials? Again, I think we're being trolled. Jhaelen is waiting for the right moment to be like "hah, gotcha!"
> 
> Right? Please say yes. Someone.




I think it was stated very clearly upthread that classic 4e and E characters can be used together, because the incompatibilities and rough spots are specific, not systemic.

However, this does not prove that the two systems are seamlessly compatible.

The places where the two systems don't quite mesh are seen in character creation, usage of magic items, multi-class options, and other places.  And to see where WotC thinks the meshing needed to be improved, just glance at the errata list.

Now, to be clear, I don't think the incompatibilities are deal breakers, that the system is broken, or anything of the sort.   But to keep insisting that the two systems mesh perfectly is baffling.


----------



## Ajar (Jun 20, 2011)

Matt James said:


> So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably  provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials?



I did so about four pages ago and the point was conceded. The subclasses  are plainly not as interoperable as builds generally are, with certain  exceptions (e.g. beastmaster). Multiclass/hybrid options are only now  available as a playtest, and a number of Essentials subclasses are  entirely excluded.

If you're asking about incompatibility _at the table_ from the DM's  perspective, then no. And I don't think anyone has actually asserted  that this is a clear and substantial problem for the game. I've stated repeatedly that as a DM I'd have no problem mixing 4E and 4E.E, or running a game for all 4E.E characters, if that's what my players wanted. 

Given that, it's pretty rude to repeatedly wave the legitimate concerns expressed in this thread off as "we're being trolled."

Jhaelen's post is a melodramatic, but he's on point about language and  changing definitions. This kind of stuff isn't just semantic quibbles, it informs how people think about things and it provides a little bit of insight into WotC's thought process. Mixing subclasses and classes in the Character  Builder class selection list is confusing, and it also obscures the fact  that the Weaponmaster has an order of magnitude more options and a very  different design structure than the Knight and Slayer that are listed  on equal footing. 



DracoSuave said:


> Would you have prefered if they just made new classes with some new abilities and some same abilities, and absolutely no connection at all to the old classes, including no ability to use already established powers and feats, and have nothing but essentials feat support, while adding nothing to existing classes?



No, I would have preferred not to have subclasses, and instead have the Essentials classes treated as builds, maintaining the same overall class list that we had before. This would require some CB and Compendium interface tweaks, but since I find the solution they decided to implement fairly crufty (how many flavours of Warlock are there now? 15?) anyway, I don't see that as a problem. Today, there's nothing in the CB that tells you what specifically differentiates a Weaponmaster from a Slayer or Knight until you try to build one and discover the huge number of options. 

My way, when you open the CB, you'd have one option for Essentials-only called "Simple Character" or something similar -- it would NOT be the default "New Character" option that it is today. When clicking this option, you'd get the Essentials class list: Fighter, Ranger, Warlock, etc. When you pick Fighter, you then get to choose between Knight and Slayer, and so on. 

Then there would be a "New Character" button that would take you to the full class list, with both 4E and 4E.E options available once you chose a class. 

I don't think this method would have required the Essentials books to be very different from what they actually are, and it would have had two side benefits: clearer understanding of what actually constitutes a class when choosing one in the CB, and not implicitly marginalizing non-Essentials classes. 



DracoSuave said:


> Is it because you think there's no support for older classes?  Because that is incorrect, there is.  A perfect example is in the Blackguard class.  They have an at-will attack power that is Strength based, and deals bonus damage based on adjacent enemies.  It is a Paladin Attack 1 power.  Are you aware that this power is now an option for the classic Paladin?  That the blackguard class added a bunch of options for Paladins that want to do damage, like the Ardent?  That's support for classic classes.  That every single Warpriest power can be taken by a Cleric/Templar?  That's support for classic classes.  That there's a smattering of new utility powers for the Fighter/Weaponmaster that fit perfectly with its own strategy?  That's support for classic classes.  That there's a LOT of new at-will, encounter, and daily powers for the Wizard that is absolutely 100% usable (read: awesome) in the hands of the classic wizard?  That's support for classic classes.



Where's the support for the PHB3 classes in the Essentials books? There isn't any. WotC's design efforts have been focused on Essentials and on Essentials elements that can also support PHB1 (not 2 or 3) classes. 

That's one of the problems with Essentials: it provides additional support for the most-supported classes in the game. I'm not saying that those classes shouldn't get any more support, but aside from Psionic Power, PHB3 has more or less withered on the vine. 

Again, a lot of my apprehensions about Essentials pre-release have been allayed, but it isn't fair to assert that there are no grounds for concern or discomfort, and that any statements to that effect are trolling.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 20, 2011)

Just to point out... Druids have a class type now.



Ajar said:


> That's one of the problems with Essentials: it provides additional support for the most-supported classes in the game. I'm not saying that those classes shouldn't get any more support, but aside from Psionic Power, PHB3 has more or less withered on the vine.




Given that there's 25 classes in the game before HoFL came out, and each only carries four classes, it's mathematically impossible to cover every class in the short amount of books essentials has put out.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to happen this soon.

While I do agree that runepriests, seekers, and hybrids need some more attention, that's not the fault of essentials really.  Unless they came out with a Divine Power 2 and Primal Power 2, it wasn't likely to happen under the old system either.

The thing is... those classes are iconic, and the first essentials book needed to cover the basic four, fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard.  You can't really have an introduction to the game without -that- starting line.  It's THE traditional starting party.  You have to start somewhere!

Then for their next book, it's druid, paladin, hexblade, ranger.  Fighters that have a little bit of magic behind them.  All of them are physical attackers, but each of them supplements their assault with some voodoo of one kind or another.  

Heroes of Shadow is introducing another power source, and I think they decided to go 'What make great masters of darkness for characters?'  It's a void the game has been missing, but it's also one that just doesn't lend itself to the primal or psionic power sources.  As well, a new class!



> Again, a lot of my apprehensions about Essentials pre-release have been allayed, but it isn't fair to assert that there are no grounds for concern or discomfort, and that any statements to that effect are trolling.




I suggest to not worry about it so much.  A lot of essentials stuff really is new.  There wasn't a class that filled the same niche as a blackguard, a sentinel, a hexblade, the vampire, or the binder before.  

Not to mention, they are going back and updating the old classes, starting from the oldest and working forward.  They're gonna do the PHB2 and PHB3 stuff eventually.  Just have to be patient.

I'd expect some more primal stuff in the elemental book.  A sorcerer class type is practically guaranteed.  Give it time to come out.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 20, 2011)

Ajar said:


> I did so about four pages ago and the point was conceded. The subclasses  are plainly not as interoperable as builds generally are, with certain  exceptions (e.g. beastmaster). Multiclass/hybrid options are only now  available as a playtest, and a number of Essentials subclasses are  entirely excluded.
> 
> If you're asking about incompatibility _at the table_ from the DM's  perspective, then no. And I don't think anyone has actually asserted  that this is a clear and substantial problem for the game. I've stated repeatedly that as a DM I'd have no problem mixing 4E and 4E.E, or running a game for all 4E.E characters, if that's what my players wanted.




Compatibility from the DM's standpoint is the only kind worth discussing - and even then, you don't _really_ mean compatibility from the DM's standpoint. What you _mean_ is that all the options operate in the same system. Which is what compatibility is. We're not saying that all Essentials options are usable with all non-Essentials options. That's a stupid argument to make, for the same reason that saying "All PHB3 options are usable with all Martial Power options!" is a stupid argument to make.

Again, what you're referring to as compatibility from a player's standpoint *is nothing new*. Every book has those issues, and *people don't get up in arms about every book over it*.

Is Essentials compatible with all other 4e material? *Yes.*

Again, trying to claim "Oh, no, we're saying that there are compatibility issues when it comes to player options!" just makes one look ignorant of the fact that *player options are designed to be used in a restricted fashion*. What you are arguing is *no different* than someone who argues, "My 10 Strength Rogue can't take Heavy Blade Opportunity! Why didn't WotC make Heavy Blade Opportunity compatible with my character?!"

Compatibility at the system level is the only sort of compatibility worth discussing. Conceding that incompatibilities between character options exist _*means nothing*_. We conceded that *back in 1st Edition*.


----------



## Estlor (Jun 20, 2011)

Quick review because I'm late on the scene.

When WotC published 3.5e as an update to 3e, they:


Changed the rules for weapon sizing
Changed the rules for monster sizing
Significantly altered many monster abilities, types, and abilities granted by types
Completely re-imagined the ranger into a new niche
Provided minor adjustments to the Barb, Barbarian, and Monk
Provided minor mechanical adjustments to the half-elf and gnome
Provided major fluff adjustments to the gnome
When WotC published Essentials as an update to 4e they:


Consolidated two years of errata into one source
Changed the presentation for clarity
Provided minor mechanical adjustment to PHB1 and 2 races (in the form of an either/or stat bonus)
Provided an either/or racial power option for humans and half-elves
Changed the rules for magic item daily use
Changed the rules for magic item availability
Created a host of brand new types of archetypal builds on the chassis of existing classes.
Is 3e and 3.5e compatible?  Yes, except for all monsters larger than medium sized, oversized weapons, rangers, barbarians, bards, monks, half-elves, and gnomes.

Is 4e and Essentials compatible?  Yes.  No exceptions.

The fact that my Knight can't take Come and Get It without a feat or my Weaponmaster can't get Hold the Line doesn't make the Knight incompatible with "o4e" or the Weaponmaster (Fighter) incompatible with "e4e."  It just means there are some class abilities that are unique to the Knight and some class abilities unique to the Weaponmaster.  In fact, it's no different than the unique abilities not shared between a Guardian fighter, a Battlerager fighter, a Tempest fighter, and a Brawler fighter.

The Essentials books represent the baseline D&D experience, not because they change or invalidate anything about the AEDU model.  They represent it because they exist for (potential) players that just want to be able to say, "I want to wield a big axe and hit things."  If you ever get tired of just hitting things, you go to the PHB1 and investigate the options of a Greatweapon Fighter.

In case anyone is wondering, I just checked my bookshelf and my PHB1, 2, and 3 were all still sitting there.  Pretty shocking, I know.  It's almost like I can choose to play a Fighter *or* a Knight/Slayer.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 20, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Again, trying to claim "Oh, no, we're saying that there are compatibility issues when it comes to player options!" just makes one look ignorant of the fact that *player options are designed to be used in a restricted fashion*. What you are arguing is *no different* than someone who argues, "My 10 Strength Rogue can't take Heavy Blade Opportunity! Why didn't WotC make Heavy Blade Opportunity compatible with my character?!"




First of all, try not to get so upset.  We hear you, we just don't agree with you.

Second, before Essentials, I could open the CB and create a 20th level character of my choosing, adding feats and magic items that were all 100% compatible with the class mechanics.  Of course those options would be narrowed by class/build/weapon/implement/abilities, etc., but I knew that everything was cut from the same cloth, so to speak, (AEDU for instance), and would work.

Now, when creating a character, I have to be cognizant as to whether I'm starting with a classic build, or an Essentials class, because that will dictate what mechanics are in play, and what feats I should take, what magic items I should choose.  Because thematically an Essentials Warpriest is pretty much the same thing as a PHB Str-Cleric, but mechanically, they're miles apart.

Now, you may believe that there is nothing new here--options were limited by class/build/weapon/etc. previously, and the limits placed on options for characters because of the addition of Essentials is more of the same.

I just simply disagree.  

For instance, when there are magic items that should work with my character thematically, but they shouldn't or can't be used because of issues of mechanics, then that to me is a compatibility issue.  Not a huge one--again, I'm not saying anything is broken.  But it is what it is.

And--also repeating myself here--as the system matures, I know these rough edges will be smooth as a [insert smooth thing here].  So go ahead and claim that these things don't bother you.  But please don't claim they don't exist.  Thats just silly.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 20, 2011)

Ajar said:


> Where's the support for the PHB3 classes in the Essentials books? There isn't any. WotC's design efforts have been focused on Essentials and on Essentials elements that can also support PHB1 (not 2 or 3) classes.




The most significant additions to my Ardent character (a PHB3 character) have come from Essentials and a Dragon article - namely the Master of Arms feat and the Intent Laid Bare power. The first gives me flexibility with weapons; the second a basic attack I can use (and a fine anti-archer/mage power).

However, the simple fact is that most classes don't get support after the initial release + power book. Expecting Essentials - a product for beginners - to provide more support for the most complicated classes in the game seems particularly optimistic and unrealistic.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Now, to be clear, I don't think the incompatibilities are deal breakers, that the system is broken, or anything of the sort. But to keep insisting that the two systems mesh perfectly is baffling.




Rather, I think the claim being made is that any incompatabilities, while they may be present, are minor enough elements - and the same sort of thing we've encountered before. Backgrounds in the FRPG. Themes in Dark Sun. 

Just like with the magic item change, the DM may need to make one or two decisions at the start of the campaign about how to handle these elements. Do I allow Backgrounds? Themes? Are magic item daily uses tied to milestones? 

No one claimed that the Forgotten Realm's Player Guide represented a new edition. So similar claims now... feel a bit hollow.

Honestly, I'm willing to recognize that the game feels different now than it did at launch, largely from the accumulated minor changes and additions. It evolves, sure. One can use or not use any of those additions as they see fit, though, and a tempest fighter alongside a slayer works without a hitch. And that's why, when Jhaelen or others try and indicate this is equivalent to the 3.0 to 3.5 change, it is so jarring. As Estlor points out, the situations are nothing alike, and trying to insist they are only really detracts from whatever genuine commentary or criticism might be offered about the current situation.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 20, 2011)

I think the biggest issue that I have with Essentials is the fact that all books made since the Rules Compendium are made so books made beforehand are not needed.  This means we will not see a Seeker build in the Feywild book.  This means the Runepriest will only get love if it's printed in Dragon.    

What would I do fix this?   If it's WotC's plan to make sure someone whose first dnd book was Heroes of the Fallen Lands doesn't need a book printed beforehand and still want to satisfy people like me, they should continously add old to the new.  Reprint the Seeker in Essentials format (i.e. don't just make a new subclass) along with the new songblade or swordsinger. or whatever that new class is that transforms from one role to another.  They don't even have to reprint the same powers.  As long as it plays fine without the phb3 who cares?  This will make new and old players both happy.

I would also make sure that Superior weapons from books like the Adventurer's Vault is still supported.  It's a shame that we still do not have feats like Pick Expertise or Tome Expertise because that content is pre-essentials.  It's holes like this that cause these threads to burn up the forums.


----------



## keterys (Jun 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Second, before Essentials, I could open the CB and create a 20th level character of my choosing, adding feats and magic items that were all 100% compatible with the class mechanics.  Of course those options would be narrowed by class/build/weapon/implement/abilities, etc., but I knew that everything was cut from the same cloth, so to speak, (AEDU for instance), and would work.



Well... except for all those PH3 Psi characters, who couldn't use any item that recharges encounter powers since they don't have those, and have some odd interactions with anything whatsoever that affects "at-will" attacks.

Just for the more blatant case where that wasn't true. 

There's all kinds of "essentials oddities" when you dig a little deeper, too - eldritch strike and power of skill avengers cared far more about basic attacks than many others.

Many classes have special powers unique to themselves, right from the beginning, from cantrips to channel divinities. Wizards with spellbooks. Warlocks not getting a choice for their at-wills. Even from the first pages of 4E, the AEDU chart was overruled by class specific exceptions.

A Dragon article all about variant runestates for Runepriests is hardly useful to someone who hasn't gotten a PH3, any more than a variety of beast feats and powers are useful to someone who didn't get Martial Power a few months after the game came out, so that's also hardly anything new that there's new stuff that works for things from new books that aren't helpful to people who won't get them.

It's fine to say that Essentials products have had less of interest to you, much as I can say the Player's Handbook 3 or Psionic Power had less of interest to me. It's a much tougher case to claim they're incompatible.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 20, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> However, this does not prove that the two systems are seamlessly compatible.
> 
> But to keep insisting that the two systems mesh perfectly is baffling.




Yeah! Like when they kept saying it was a perfect mesh to play a high-level Figther alongside a high-level Wizard or CoDzilla. What a crock! Oh wait...wrong edition...my bad.


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 20, 2011)

Disclaimer: I like essentials and believe it is fully compatible.

Someone said that there were no major changes such that class features were completely changed (ala 3.0 ranger to 3.5 ranger). I believe the example for the only major change they could think of was Melee Training.

I just thought of an even bigger one, and I'm surprised it hasn't been used in an argument yet. Magic missile was completely redesigned. Now, it may be that they were going to make this change anyways, but it could certainly be an argument for a concrete rule change from pre-essentials to essentials.

P.S. Forgive me if I provided more fuel.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 20, 2011)

Ajar said:


> I did so about four pages ago and the point was conceded. The subclasses  are plainly not as interoperable as builds generally are, with certain  exceptions (e.g. beastmaster). Multiclass/hybrid options are only now  available as a playtest, and a number of Essentials subclasses are  entirely excluded.
> 
> If you're asking about incompatibility _at the table_ from the DM's  perspective, then no. And I don't think anyone has actually asserted  that this is a clear and substantial problem for the game. I've stated repeatedly that as a DM I'd have no problem mixing 4E and 4E.E, or running a game for all 4E.E characters, if that's what my players wanted.
> 
> Given that, it's pretty rude to repeatedly wave the legitimate concerns expressed in this thread off as "we're being trolled."




Rude or not, points are being deliberately ignored in order to maintain a narrative--one that has repeatedly been debunked. If you consider me calling this out as being rude, so be it. I've been called worse 

We are talking about compatibility. It's really a simple subject.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 20, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> So by redefining the PHB1 as a book of class types all compatibility problems were miraculously solved. And everyone lived happily everafter. The End.




In short by doing something that had _absolutely no in game effect on any PHB-based fighters_ they almost miraculously allowed classes that fill what people desire who would otherwise be intimidated by 4e or lost in analysis paralysis.  The change made was not substantive to any pre-existing characters; they barely even changed the name.  The outcome was that entire new swathes of people had classes to suit them.  Damn right this gets a fairytale ending - you don't normally have solutions that neat and that please just about everyone who tries them other than those completely hung up on a detail that makes absolutely no difference in actual play.  What's in a name?  You even still get to be a fighter.  But so do people who think that fighters are something other than you think they are.  Is your objection _really_ that other people get toys almost as cool as yours? 



> But it's no longer possible to treat Essentials as something distinct from 4e when discussing the game. 'Classic 4e' has gone the way of the dodo, just like all the other editions before; it has become part of the legacy and would probably better be discussed in the forum bearing that name.




Complete nonsense.  Classic classes are still being supported - see Heroes of Shadow.  New powers for warlocks, for wizards, for Paladins, and for Clerics - all PHB 1 classes.  Essentials is just a part of 4e.



Matt James said:


> So, 12 pages in. Has anyone demonstrably provided evidence that essentials is not compatible with non-essentials? Again, I think we're being trolled. Jhaelen is waiting for the right moment to be like "hah, gotcha!"
> 
> Right? Please say yes. Someone.






Jhaelen said:


> (or as we Germans say: Ich trolle mich )




Google Translate gives that as "I control".  Does anyone speak idiomatic internet German?  Because the sound of Ich trolle is suspiciously close.


----------



## Ajar (Jun 20, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Compatibility at the system level is the only  sort of compatibility worth discussing. Conceding that incompatibilities  between character options exist _*means nothing*_. We conceded that *back in 1st Edition*.



I don't agree. Perhaps a better way to term it is that I think 4E.E has  been a significant step change in incremental character option incompatibility,  combined with implicit marginalization of older options... and that I  think this is a problem for the game. Not a huge problem, but something  that, to me, is worth a bit of feedback to WotC and some posts on a forum. 

As I've said, though, part of my concern before the Essentials line released was that this specific problem would hurt the game from a business standpoint -- I thought it would fail to attract new players while not really exciting existing players. But all of the indications I've seen suggest that Essentials has been reasonably commercially successful. So I certainly concede that I was wrong about that part of it, and I'm glad to have been wrong, since I want the game to thrive. 



MerricB said:


> However, the simple fact is that most classes   don't get support after the initial release + power book. Expecting   Essentials - a product for beginners - to provide more support for the   most complicated classes in the game seems particularly optimistic and   unrealistic.



 I don't expect that. The fact that I _didn't_ expect that has been   one of my concerns about Essentials: that it would take design effort   away from the AEDU space (and analogous, e.g. power points) that I'm   more interested in. That says nothing about being good or bad for the   game, just about what kind of crunch I like to use as a player. 

 DracoSuave's point about patience is  certainly fair. I was very  heartened by Mike Mearls' assurances that  they're looking at who plays  what with an eye toward shoring up  undersupported classes, that they'll  be supporting both the 4E and 4E.E  classes, etc. I'm not sitting  around lamenting the demise of my  favourite game -- I'm actively  playing in three games, and I'm running a  one-shot to test out my new  campaign setting later this week. None of  my characters are Essentials  and none of my players built Essentials  characters, but I would have  been fine with it if they had. 

 I bought the RC, MV, and HoS; I have an active D&DI sub. So I  continue to both play and support the game. All I've done is make a few  posts outlining my concerns and send a couple of emails to WotC with my  thoughts on their approach, particularly its mechanical aspects. I  wouldn't really call that being up in arms or an outcry.



Matt James said:


> Rude or not, points are being deliberately ignored in order to maintain a narrative--one that has repeatedly been debunked. If you consider me calling this out as being rude, so be it. I've been called worse
> 
> We are talking about compatibility. It's really a simple subject.



You just ignored all of my points!  Pot, kettle, glass houses, etc.


----------



## Erudite Frog (Jun 21, 2011)

hehe


----------



## Matt James (Jun 21, 2011)

Ajar said:


> You just ignored all of my points!  Pot, kettle, glass houses, etc.




I like your style. Coming to Gen Con? First round's on me.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Second, before Essentials, I could open the CB and create a 20th level character of my choosing, adding feats and magic items that were all 100% compatible with the class mechanics.




You still can. That hasn't changed.



> Of course those options would be narrowed by class/build/weapon/implement/abilities, etc., but I knew that everything was cut from the same cloth, so to speak, (AEDU for instance), and would work.




Except for psionics. But those don't count for some reason. I can't begin to guess why.

You can't have it both ways.



> Now, when creating a character, I have to be cognizant as to whether I'm starting with a classic build, or an Essentials class, because that will dictate what mechanics are in play, and what feats I should take, what magic items I should choose.




So kind of how choosing between a rogue and a cleric would dictate what mechanics are in play, what feats you should take, and what magic items you should choose?

Or does that not count either, for some reason?



> Because thematically an Essentials Warpriest is pretty much the same thing as a PHB Str-Cleric, but mechanically, they're miles apart.




Sort of how a strength Cleric and Paladin are pretty much the same thing thematically, but are mechanically miles apart?

Or how any number of other thematically similar character options in 4e are miles apart mechanically?

Or do _none of those_ count either?



> Now, you may believe that there is nothing new here--options were limited by class/build/weapon/etc. previously, and the limits placed on options for characters because of the addition of Essentials is more of the same.




Yes, that is what I believe. And I believe it because when I open up the books and read the words that are written in them, *that is what they say*.



> I just simply disagree.




We know. But you have failed to demonstrate a philosophically (for lack of a better term) consistent reason for labeling Essentials in the way that you do while simultaneously *not* labeling anything that came before it in the same way.



> For instance, when there are magic items that should work with my character thematically, but they shouldn't or can't be used because of issues of mechanics, then that to me is a compatibility issue.




So kind of like how my non-Essentials thunder-and-lightning-themed character should be using this one non-Essentials power that deals thunder and lightning damage except he can't/shouldn't because it [belongs to the wrong class]/[uses the wrong primary stat]/[is embedded in a paragon path or epic destiny I can't take]/[whatever]?

Or do examples of exactly the sort of thing you're talking about from pre-Essentials not count because you say so?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 21, 2011)

Dannager said:


> You still can. That hasn't changed.
> 
> Except for psionics. But those don't count for some reason. I can't begin to guess why.
> 
> You can't have it both ways... (etc)




Psionics can be ignored.  I've been doing it for years.  On the other hand, Essentials is the new system paradigm, which cannot be ignored as easily.

As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes.  I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.

And as for whats written in the books--by all means, thats a great starting point.  You can definitely learn the designers' intent that way.  But the system is still maturing, and there are and will be some weirdness for a while.

I hear you--you don't see any problems.  I look forward to the day when I don't either.  Until then, I'll be happily playing in a 4e campaign that mixes classic and Essentials characters.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes.  I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.




And yet, here you are, in effect and in intention, talking about mechanical differences between different classes.

The problem is that these two sentances are in practice and in game design contradictory.  The former cannot be true while the second is true.  It is simply not possible.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Psionics can be ignored.  I've been doing it for years.  On the other hand, Essentials is the new system paradigm, which cannot be ignored as easily.




So "Psionics can be ignored because I want to, but Essentials can't because I won't do it"?

There are people who play the game just fine without Essentials.



MrGrenadine said:


> As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes.  I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.




Okay, how about the difference between a beastmaster ranger and other 'classic' ranger builds?

Really, saying Dannager's examples don't hold water is only correct if you aren't using the same standards for pre-Essentials stuff as you do for post-Essentials stuff. And that's an awfully disingenuous way to argue about this. But really, that's pretty much all I'm seeing .

Play the way you want, but since EVERY attempt to paint Essentials as somehow incompatible with "classic" 4e seems to be coming from people that haven't tried it, I sure don't find any of them very convincing. Especially because EVERY SINGLE POSTER that has done so has agreed that, yes, it works just fine, thank you.

I guess the 'incompatible' side of this argument has their minds made up; none of them seem open to any anecdotal evidence, evidence from written statements in the Essentials books or the website or the arguments of the people that have tried it. That's okay, but why bother starting a thread like this? Clearly it isn't to actually debate the issue; having neither tried it, nor being willing to try it, nor being open to any kind of evidence, I cannot imagine what would persuade them.


----------



## Estlor (Jun 21, 2011)

So is that the hangup?  That you open the PHB1 and under Fighter you see a set of rules and guidelines to create either a Guardian or a Greatweapon Fighter, and then you open HotFL and under Fighter you see a set of rules and guidelines to create either a Knight or a Slayer Fighter, and because the Knight/Slayer isn't exactly like the Guardian/Greatweapon, the sky has fallen and evil men have come and taken your cookies?

*opens his AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Hanbook*

Let's see... Warrior.  Fighter, Ranger, Paladin.  All warriors, but completely different.  Rogue.  Thief and Bard.  Both rogues, both completely different.

*loads up the online character builder*

Let's see... Fighter.  Knight, Slayer, Weaponmaster.  All fighters, but completely different.  Cleric.  Templar and Warpriest.  Both clerics, both completely different.

Curse that Essentials game design paradigm and it's not-rooted-in-D&D-history newness!

*EDIT:* Just remembered someone mentioned the change to magic missile.  That was made as part of the regular semi-annual errata/update schedule.  Perhaps it was inspired by the Essentials Mage subclass, but it hit the game well before the preview of the mage was shown.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 21, 2011)

the Jester said:


> So "Psionics can be ignored because I want to, but Essentials can't because I won't do it"?
> 
> There are people who play the game just fine without Essentials.




Absolutely.  But unless you can find me a quote about psionics similar to this Bill Slavicsek quote about Essentials:  

"Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward" (from Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Cleric Preview))

then it should be clear how one is _more easily_ ignored than the other.

And just in case all that "haven't tried it" stuff is directed at me, let me repeat again that I play in a 4e campaign that mixes both, and that although I recognize that there are rough edges where 4e and 4e.E interface, I don't think these things are deal breakers.

The responses here are just crazy.  I keep saying "there's a little rain shower outside" and what I get back is "stop saying the sky is falling!!!!"

I get it--these aren't big issues.  But you won't convince me that there aren't problems.  For goodness sake, based on the errata that has appeared since Essentials was introduced alone, you could infer that the designers agree.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Absolutely. But unless you can find me a quote about psionics similar to this Bill Slavicsek quote about Essentials:
> 
> "Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward" (from Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Cleric Preview))
> 
> then it should be clear how one is _more easily_ ignored than the other.




What do you mean by "more easily ignored", exactly?

You can play without PHB3 and Psionics, and this likely also means you play without any products that rely on it, such as Psionic Power. And, similarly, you may not get the full effect of other products that reference it, like Dark Sun or some Dragon magazine articles. 

You can, similarly, play without Heroes of the Forgottllen Kinglands, and this means you also get limited effect from products that reference it, such as Heroes of Shadow or some Dragon magazine articles. 

Your existing game remains completely playable as is, either way. Bill isn't going to crash into your house and mess with your campaign, as I understand it. 

Again, what is it that is "harder to ignore"? Heroes of Shadow has _more _usable content for non-Essentials characters than Psionic Power had for non-PHB3 characters or Primal Power had for non-PHB2 characters. 

Maybe all future books will have 0 content for non-Essentials characters, but that again gets into hypotheticals - and the majority of evidence thus far, despite the quote you have provided, seems to indicate that won't be the case. 

Look, I know you aren't saying that the sky is falling, and some folks might be treating it as though you are. But I think you are making statements that just don't seem supported, and people are looking for a little more explanation. As it is, you point to Bill's quote as though that answers everything - but for me, the actual releases we've seen, and comparing them to similar releases following previous 4E books, seems far more relevant to the discussion and the comparison of what can and cannot be 'ignored'.


----------



## Pentius (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Absolutely.  But unless you can find me a quote about psionics similar to this Bill Slavicsek quote about Essentials:
> 
> "Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward" (from Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Cleric Preview))
> 
> ...




As someone who has largely just observed this thread, it looks to me as if we have gone from an early "The sky is falling!" - "The sky is not falling!" conversation and into a more "Hey, it's raining a little.  This kinda sucks." - "Yeah, that happens a lot around here.  Didn't you used to have an umbrella?" conversation.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Psionics can be ignored.  I've been doing it for years.  On the other hand, Essentials is the new system paradigm, which cannot be ignored as easily.




Step 1: Ignore them.

Not that you need to or ought to. It's kind of silly to ignore the entirety of Essentials.



> As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic differences between different classes.  I'm talking about mechanical differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.




Like the ones between the two-handed weapon Fighter and the battlerager Fighter? Or the differences between the infernal Warlock and dark Warlock? Or how about the archery Ranger and the beastmaster Ranger?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 21, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Absolutely.  But unless you can find me a quote about psionics similar to this Bill Slavicsek quote about Essentials:
> 
> "Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward" (from Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Cleric Preview))
> 
> then it should be clear how one is _more easily_ ignored than the other.




I think you guys are being a bit unfair to MrG. If I understand him correctly, Essentials is harder to ignore than psionics because statements WotC made infer that the game will heavily lean towards the design scope of Essentials, whereas there was no comment that design would continue to follow the route of psionics.

We only have one book in hand to tell where the design focus is leading. So I could see why MrG and others could be slightly worried that WotC will continue to produce material that does not appeal to their tastes. I don't agree with the need to worry, but I can understand where you're coming from MrG.

Edit: Although I don't consider this worry to attribute towards any sort of incompatability issue.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 21, 2011)

You know, I've mostly stayed out of this thread after my original comments, not even to defend my assertions that I made earlier, because I mostly don't care to argue with people on the Internet.  But having checked in on this thread, finding it still going, I've seen a couple of responses that are, first, a ridiculous strawman:



Estlor said:


> So is that the hangup?  That you open the PHB1 and under Fighter you see a set of rules and guidelines to create either a Guardian or a Greatweapon Fighter, and then you open HotFL and under Fighter you see a set of rules and guidelines to create either a Knight or a Slayer Fighter, and because the Knight/Slayer isn't exactly like the Guardian/Greatweapon, the sky has fallen and evil men have come and taken your cookies?




And second, a baldly arrogant assertion of opinion as fact:



DracoSuave said:


> And yet, here you are, in effect and in intention, talking about mechanical differences between different classes.
> 
> The problem is that these two sentances are in practice and in game design contradictory.  The former cannot be true while the second is true.  It is simply not possible.




... that I find it difficult to believe that either of you are discussing the issue with anything resembling good intentions.  However, for the sake of politeness I'll assume you're not just arguing cynically and make the point simply, so that you all can understand it, why some (many?) people have such a problem with Essentials.

I don't presume to speak for others, but I'll try to echo the points as best I can.

Essentials uses an entirely different design philosophy from O4E.  This point should not be under debate, and in and of itself is by no means a bad thing.  The designers stated it, and it's patently obvious from looking at how the classes are built.  All the O4E classes are built one way, all of Essentials another.  This isn't the same as the difference between 2E Rangers having spells while Fighters don't.  For those of you who are unable to or refuse to understand this...  well, I guess I don't really have anything to talk about with you.

The problems problems people have with this are...

*1)* The difference is great enough to cause a cognitive dissonance that bug some people while playing.  Some people can get past it, others can't, especially if they really liked O4E.

*2)* The design choices for Essentials are either not superior, or even inferior, according to some, and all of the design effort put into the new class features, new, interesting classes, or updates to them such as Vampire, Binder, Hexblade, Assassin, and other things would have been better put into O4E classes.

*3)* Some find Essentials boring.  For me, this is my biggest hangup.  Conceptually, I love the martial classes.  In practice, most anything but the Wizard or classes in some way "power heavy" have been boring to play in all editions of D&D.  Sure, you can work outside the rules and find ways to have fun in non-supported ways, but the core combat mechanic doesn't even need human intervention.  For example, as a Fighter, especially in early levels, I can simply place a sign on my chair stating, "I attack the closest enemy," and go watch a movie and the tactical ability of the party won't be significantly diminished.  There are very few actual choices to be made in combat.  3E is slightly better, but not by much.

04E changed that.  Now Fighters were interesting to play.  All of them were.  Leaders, a concept it introduced, were no longer just healbots (or in 3.5E, better fighters than the Fighter instead).  Essentials went a long way towards changing it back to the bad old days.

*4)* Wizards has been trying to blur the lines and marginalize O4E, making it hard to just "not play with Essentials".  I'm stuck with their character builder if I want any new content at all.  Where's the Wizard or Cleric?  Oh, they don't even get to keep their names, they're the Arcanist and Templar, just a single weird option out of many for Wizard and Cleric.  And if you didn't know about the name change you have to look at all of them to find that out.  My first reaction was, "WTF did the Wizard go?"  Also, all of the different builds of the O4E classes are shuffled underneath them, while the Essentials classes (which were originally supposed to be just alternative builds) are each given their own listing.  Fantastic.

Is this feat or power buffed/nerfed to make the Essentials classes look better, disturbing the balance of the old classes?  I don't know.  I have to pull up the Compendium to even know the source, and either follow the forums or analyze every change myself.  Unless I want to go completely offline, or potentially use illegal methods to acquire the old character builder, it's hard to just "not use it".

*5)* If you buy into Essentials as a new edition (which honestly, I think you're fooling yourself if you don't, especially given the new Class Compendium matierial), then O4E had an incredibly short period of time that it was active, breaking the implied promise of how long the material you purchase will be "current" and easily usable with new people you meet.

*6)* The release of Essentials was mishandled, with contradictory information being given out by even the same individuals (particularly Slavicsek) about what it meant for the future of D&D, either through incompetence or a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion in such a way as to have their cake and eat it too.  It's not 100% logical, but some people don't want any part of it because of this. 

I think that about does it.  Now can we please stop pretending that disliking Essentials either violates some clear, fundamental aspect of logic, that people who dislike it are literally too stupid to figure out how to play with their old books, or that people who dislike Essentials are literally too stupid and hidebound to accept anything at all that's new?

Thanks.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 21, 2011)

Guys, Monopoly is not really the game you've been playing. Milton Bradley says its the same, but really there have been some stealth updates over the years. We should really start segregating the games. I propose Monopoly 1.0 and Monopoly 1.5. If you could help out and mark your posts accordingly, I would appreciate it. Here is a CLEAR listing how how the game is different. I won't accept any of you saying its the same game when it CLEARLY IS NOT!

Monopoly History - Rules 1933-1935


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 21, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Guys, Monopoly is not really the game you've been playing. Milton Bradley says its the same, but really there have been some stealth updates over the years. We should really start segregating the games. I propose Monopoly 1.0 and Monopoly 1.5. If you could help out and mark your posts accordingly, I would appreciate it. Here is a CLEAR listing how how the game is different. I won't accept any of you saying its the same game when it CLEARLY IS NOT!
> 
> Monopoly History - Rules 1933-1935



If you're old enough to have played under the 1933 rules, and enough members of the group of people you discuss Monopoly with are as well, that's fine.

However, in this case, you're just ridiculing people for having an opinion and being passionate about a game, and for caring, on both sides, about rules changes that are relatively new.  If you're not that passionate, that's fine.  If you have something to add to the discussion, that's fine.  But being surprised to find people caring about D&D rules on an 4E discussion board is silly.  This is just snark.  And it doesn't help.

EDIT: I'm glad you thought it was pithy enough to tweet, though.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 21, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> If you're old enough to have played under the 1933 rules, and enough members of the group of people you discuss Monopoly with are as well, that's fine.
> 
> However, in this case, you're just ridiculing people for having an opinion and being passionate about a game, and for caring, on both sides, about rules changes that are relatively new.  If you're not that passionate, that's fine.  If you have something to add to the discussion, that's fine.  But being surprised to find people caring about D&D rules on an 4E discussion board is silly.  This is just snark.  And it doesn't help.
> 
> EDIT: I'm glad you thought it was pithy enough to tweet, though.




Want me to provide examples of other games? 

You call me being snark? This entire debate is predicated off the idea that essentials is not compatible with core D&D 4e. What is the entire problem here? No one has reasoned that out for me yet. What are we trying to improve (and prove) here? What value is being gained when the same arguments, which have little to do with compatibility, are being recycled every couple of pages? 

Don't hide behind some facade of wanting to improve the game. I can cherry pick any number posts in this thread and demonstrate otherwise.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 22, 2011)

The irony about Monopoly is that I have never once seen or heard of anyone ever playing it by the rules.


----------



## Matt James (Jun 22, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> The irony about Monopoly is that I have never once seen or heard of anyone ever playing it by the rules.




Can't give you XP, but your point is oddly true. After reading the actual rules of the game, many adaptations and home rules have been introduced. It's weird how people just acclimated towards what is fun, regardless of RAW. It's like it didn't matter and people did what they needed to do to keep the fun going.

hmmm....


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> However, in this case, you're just ridiculing people for having an opinion and being passionate about a game, and for caring, on both sides, about rules changes that are relatively new.  If you're not that passionate, that's fine.




Uhhhhhhhhh...

You do know who you're replying to, yeah?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 22, 2011)

OK.  I think you've basically recapped most everything I've read, and I'm not going to get into quote war territory.  So...



Terramotus said:


> Essentials uses an entirely different design philosophy from O4E.  This point should not be under debate, and in and of itself is by no means a bad thing.  The designers stated it, and it's patently obvious from looking at how the classes are built.  All the O4E classes are built one way, all of Essentials another.  This isn't the same as the difference between 2E Rangers having spells while Fighters don't.  For those of you who are unable to or refuse to understand this...  well, I guess I don't really have anything to talk about with you.



I think it's more fair to say that Essentials expanded the kinds of classes we have in 4e.  It didn't replace the AEDU structure, it kept AEDU and stretched it outwards.  The only consistent new thing in Essentials classes is that they get class features at some levels.  Many, but not all, classes have restricted choices at some levels.  Some have no Daily attack powers.  A normal AEDU class fits just as well into the new philosophy as any of the other classes.

On to your list...

1. I kinda think this sounds like a personal problem.  When you bring in cognitive dissonance, you're going in a weird direction.  I don't think in play that you can tell the difference between a Hexblade or Blackguard and a normal AEDU class, though.  Slayers and Knights play a bit differently, for sure, but those are hardly all of Essentials.

2. I personally think they are a great new addition.  I like having a spectrum of class complexity for new players.  You disagree; that's fine.

3. This is one of those parts again where I'm going to say, "Then don't play one" and you're going to say, "You don't understand."  We can skip that part.   You're right - I _don't _understand.  Can you explain it?  I mean, when you say, "Essentials changed it," I just don't get it; it didn't change the PHB Fighter _at all._  It added a Knight and a Slayer, which are other options.

4. I'm in agreement that the nomenclature is silly, but I'm content just to call it silly and leave it.  But I think it's completely reasonable for a Build to be "hidden" under the Weaponmaster or what have you - that's where builds belong.  Subclasses and classes are a level above it.

5. You think I'm fooling myself for thinking it's not an edition.  Is it okay for me to think you're fooling yourself for thinking it is?  This isn't any more productive than the stuff you're protesting.

6. If there's one thing I know about the 4e WotC team it's that they're often bad at public relations.  Thank goodness the past few months have been better.  Essentials was released during a low point where information was confusing and often absent.  So yeah, they mishandled the launch.  At the same time, they said "It's a new starting point and an expansion."  That's exactly what we got.  It's not their fault we didn't believe them. 



> I think that about does it.  Now can we please stop pretending that disliking Essentials either violates some clear, fundamental aspect of logic, that people who dislike it are literally too stupid to figure out how to play with their old books, or that people who dislike Essentials are literally too stupid and hidebound to accept anything at all that's new?



I don't think that disliking or disallowing classes is stupid.  Different tastes.

I also don't think it's insane to be dissatisfied with how you see the future of the game, but I think it's too early to predict.  We've had all of one player-centric book released since HotFK, which was mostly a collection of powers, races, feats, and some (new-style) classes.  We've had plenty of Dragon content, though, and it's either been mostly geared to increasing multiclassing and switching class features between subclasses, giving content useful to all sorts of classes, or helping out PHB-style classes.  There hasn't been any E-only Dragon content this year that I can remember.  It looks like WotC is going to continue to support all of it, which is great by me.

I do take issue with calling Essentials incompatible, an "obviously" new edition, or that it's somehow invalidated everything before it.  Those are just ... not really honest.  It's edition-war-style nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

-O


----------



## MerricB (Jun 22, 2011)

DracoSuave said:


> The irony about Monopoly is that I have never once seen or heard of anyone ever playing it by the rules.




I've done it. We had a, erm, five or six player game played entirely by the rules (no money on Free Parking, etc.) This was a few years ago when I was getting into knowing a lot more about boardgames, and I wanted to see how it went when actually played by the rules.

I might actually drag it out again this weekend for my regular boardgame day and see what happens...

Cheers!


----------



## Redbadge (Jun 22, 2011)

MerricB said:


> I've done it. We had a, erm, five or six player game played entirely by the rules (no money on Free Parking, etc.) This was a few years ago when I was getting into knowing a lot more about boardgames, and I wanted to see how it went when actually played by the rules.
> 
> I might actually drag it out again this weekend for my regular boardgame day and see what happens...
> 
> Cheers!




I once had another player try to convince me that auctions were a house rule. When I opened the rule book and pointed to the large section on specifically that, he seemed baffled, and said that it was never in the original/the earlier editions he played. Then I was baffled because I knew he was wrong; I mean, that's like 90% of the gameplay/strategy right there.

Now when I play Monopoly, we play on the computer (hot seat) and we occasionaly play with all the default rules. Although I think many of the houserules available in the computer game (immunities, larger options for trades and bargains, a few others, but certainly not free parking) add to its strategic value.

Sorry for the derail.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 22, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you guys are being a bit unfair to MrG. If I understand him correctly, Essentials is harder to ignore than psionics because statements WotC made infer that the game will heavily lean towards the design scope of Essentials, whereas there was no comment that design would continue to follow the route of psionics.
> 
> We only have one book in hand to tell where the design focus is leading. So I could see why MrG and others could be slightly worried that WotC will continue to produce material that does not appeal to their tastes. I don't agree with the need to worry, but I can understand where you're coming from MrG.



Yes, but what does this mean, exactly?

So far, the only real effect I've seen is that WotC is pointing to the Essentials line as a starting point for new players (see: the back cover of Heroes of Shadow) as opposed to the PH. 

In terms of adventures, they should be playable by a party of entirely Essentials PCs, entirely pre-Essentials PCs, or a party that has a mix of both.

Now, there might be some cause for concern in terms of new options for released classes. New specializations for mages and domains for warpriests do add to the options for pre-Essentials wizards and clerics, but there may less support in terms of new encounter and daily attack powers for pre-Essentials fighters since the slayer and knight do not have such abilities. However, whether you see that as an actual problem depends on how important new options are to your continued enjoyment of the game.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> I think that about does it. Now can we please stop pretending that disliking Essentials either violates some clear, fundamental aspect of logic, that people who dislike it are literally too stupid to figure out how to play with their old books, or that people who dislike Essentials are literally too stupid and hidebound to accept anything at all that's new?




The only way anyone is "too stupid" is where they claim Essentials classes are incompatible, because they're not. They work just fine in tandem and can even share feats (and powers in numerous circumstances) while fulfilling their roles. Heck, I don't like Essentials classes and don't play them and I'm tired of all the goodies tossed at the PH1 classes and races instead of fleshing out what was already released (Seeker, Runepriest, etc.) but I sure don't have delusions of incompatibility.


----------



## Terramotus (Jun 22, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Uhhhhhhhhh...
> 
> You do know who you're replying to, yeah?



Not a clue.  Don't really care, either.  I stand by what I wrote.



Obryn said:


> 3. This is one of those parts again where I'm going to say, "Then don't play one" and you're going to say, "You don't understand."  We can skip that part.   You're right - I _don't _understand.  Can you explain it?  I mean, when you say, "Essentials changed it," I just don't get it; it didn't change the PHB Fighter _at all._  It added a Knight and a Slayer, which are other options.
> 
> ---snip---
> 
> ...



Man, I'm done with raging about Essentials.  I don't care for the material, but it no longer gives me the rage.  The thing about point number 3 that means I can't ignore the content is that because of it, I don't get to buy new D&D products, because they're not making stuff I'm interested in.  For pretty much the first time.  I've been waiting for a 4E Elemental power source since the two preview books.  Am I going to get it?  I'm guessing not in a way that I would want it.  The other points kind of tie into making it difficult to ignore too.

To me, "new edition" isn't an insult.  I've been on board for every new edition since I started playing 2E as a kid (including "2.5", the player's option stuff).  But whatever.  I pay less and less attention to what's going on with WotC these days anyway.  Considering how much of a diehard I've been and the ridiculous amounts of money I've spent, that's probably not a great thing for them.  They've got serious problems with PR and fracturing their fanbase.  But again, whatever.

Mostly, I came here looking for legit information about Essentials changes and compatibility, since I'm starting a new 4E game that's going to be using the online character builder.  I had heard about the (senseless?) nerf to the Melee Training feat to balance Essentials classes, and the lackluster benefits added to soften the "feat tax" effect of the math fix feats, and was wondering if there were any other gotchas that I would need to be aware of, not just in the sense of the new rules being broken with old rules, but changing the feel in a negative way as well.  I'm incredibly wary of the new Class Compendium changes as well.

Instead, I found a lot of posts denigrating anyone who dared to dislike Essentials, implying that there's something seriously wrong with someone who doesn't like Essentials.  That pissed me off.  I posted.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> Not a clue.  Don't really care, either.  I stand by what I wrote.




Matt James is one of the authors of the newest Monster Vault. It just struck me as a little comical that you accused a guy with his name on the cover of an official 4e rules book of not being passionate about the 4e rules.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 22, 2011)

I just realised that nobody has yet brought up the most important matter in regards to this thread's question.

Therefore I just ask for your extra time and your... kiss.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> Instead, I found a lot of posts denigrating anyone who dared to dislike Essentials, implying that there's something seriously wrong with someone who doesn't like Essentials.  That pissed me off.  I posted.



I'm not condoning people who denigrate others, but have you considered that they might have felt attacked by posts such as the following which seem to suggest that their favored game elements or playstyles are boring or bad?



Terramotus said:


> Some find Essentials boring.  For me, this is my biggest hangup.  Conceptually, I love the martial classes.  In practice, most anything but the Wizard or classes in some way "power heavy" have been boring to play in all editions of D&D.  Sure, you can work outside the rules and find ways to have fun in non-supported ways, but the core combat mechanic doesn't even need human intervention.  For example, as a Fighter, especially in early levels, I can simply place a sign on my chair stating, "I attack the closest enemy," and go watch a movie and the tactical ability of the party won't be significantly diminished.  There are very few actual choices to be made in combat.  3E is slightly better, but not by much.
> 
> 04E changed that.  Now Fighters were interesting to play.  All of them were.  Leaders, a concept it introduced, were no longer just healbots (or in 3.5E, better fighters than the Fighter instead).  Essentials went a long way towards changing it back to the bad old days.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 22, 2011)

Dannager said:


> Matt James is one of the authors of the newest Monster Vault. It just struck me as a little comical that you accused a guy with his name on the cover of an official 4e rules book of not being passionate about the 4e rules.



Passionate, yes. And probably also extra-careful when posting opinions about 4e on a public forum like this. 

Most employers don't appreciate it if their employees (or freelancers) are overly critical about their company's products. It's actually an excellent way to get fired (or in the case of the freelancer no longer being assigned any work).

You won't catch anyone working for WotC (or hoping to (continue) work for WotC) being overly negative about what they're doing (unless they're stupid). So, I'd wager even if Matt thought Essentials was crap and utterly incompatible with 'classic' 4e (which, I should stress, I do not actually believe!), he probably wouldn't say so (at least not in these words ), unless he planned to work in a completely different line of business.

It's only okay to freely share your criticism after the game has moved on, i.e. once WotC have published '4e Ultimate' which is replacing the obviously flawed '4e Essentials', you're free to tell everyone how much better '4e Ultimate' is, and how you always felt that '4e Essentials' was a step in the wrong direction...

It's happened before: Just look at the initial marketing campaign for 4e (i.e. the preview articles).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> *1)* The difference is great enough to cause a cognitive dissonance that bug some people while playing. Some people can get past it, others can't, especially if they really liked O4E.




That claim alone is enough to tell me you appear to not be reading the thread.  A repeatedly made and never accepted challenge has been to find people who have had problems mixing essentials and non-essentials *in actual play.*  There have been plenty of people claiming that because the classes are different they are incompatable, but _all_ the tabletop experience posted has said it's fine.  So either you are the first person to be bugged by it _while playing_ (are you?  This would be interesting.  And new.)  Or you are making things up about the thread.



> *3)* Some find Essentials boring. For me, this is my biggest hangup. Conceptually, I love the martial classes. In practice, most anything but the Wizard or classes in some way "power heavy" have been boring to play in all editions of D&D. Sure, you can work outside the rules and find ways to have fun in non-supported ways, but the core combat mechanic doesn't even need human intervention. For example, as a Fighter, especially in early levels, I can simply place a sign on my chair stating, "I attack the closest enemy," and go watch a movie and the tactical ability of the party won't be significantly diminished. There are very few actual choices to be made in combat. 3E is slightly better, but not by much.




We've been through this on this thread.  Several times.  I'm not going to ever want to play a Slayer.  And neither are you.  But there are people that _like_ simple classes with restricted tactical and character options.  And who get overwhelmed with analysis paralysis with complex characters and lots of tactical options.  Others would rather autopilot the combats and star the rest of the time - or just be given something to do while hanging out with friends and don't want it to take up too much of their attention.  I'm going to repeat the spirit of a challenge I made earlier in this thread.  *Why is it important to your fun that these people do not get classes to suit them?*



DracoSuave said:


> The irony about Monopoly is that I have never once seen or heard of anyone ever playing it by the rules.




Believe it or not my family did.  With my father checking the rulebook every game.  But I can't think of another case.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 22, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Believe it or not my family did.  With my father checking the rulebook every game.  But I can't think of another case.




Now I can say I have heard of someone who played it by the rules.  Most people play with 500$ free parking windfalls.

I played in one (and this was an awesome variant) where players could actually combine their assets into corporations.  Losing players with strategic properties would get merger offers... it was just a very interesting (and cutthroat) way to play.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 22, 2011)

What's weird is now people seem to be saying that if they dislike Essentials others in this thread are telling them they're wrong? Maybe I missed it (the thread is huge) but I'm not seeing that- anywhere...

Someone disagreeing with your stance that it's incompatible and a new edition is not the same as them telling you you have to like the new options.


----------



## MrMyth (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> I think that about does it. Now can we please stop pretending that disliking Essentials either violates some clear, fundamental aspect of logic, that people who dislike it are literally too stupid to figure out how to play with their old books, or that people who dislike Essentials are literally too stupid and hidebound to accept anything at all that's new?




Yeah, I'm pretty sure that isn't what anyone was saying... at all. 

It is perfectly fine to dislike Essentials. The objections most folks have are to portraying it as something it is not. 

Honestly, of your complaints, I totally get 1-3 (even though I don't have the same issues myself). Issue 6... yeah, I think they were unclear in some areas, though I do think some folks love to take things out of context or read more into things that is actually there. 

Issue number 4 is one of those things I'm less convinced about - yes, WotC renaming the original classes the way they did was an odd decision and badly executed. Saying that means they are trying to make it hard to "just not play with Essentials", though? That's what I'm going to really object to. Yeah, it makes it a little harder to use the CB, and I do find fault in WotC for that. But that's got nothing to do, honestly, with Essentials being forced on anyone. 

If you have an issue with errata, that's fair. I like it myself, but not everyone will. But, again, the issue here is pretending it is something new. It's not. 

Number 5 is where I really am starting to disagree. We're fooling ourselves if we don't think Essentials is a new edition? Come on! We've shown, repeatedly, how by those same standards, PHB2, PHB3, FRPG, Arcane Power, etc, all would count as new editions. No new edition has taken place. Pointing to the class compendium articles as proof only really undermines your point - they have almost nothing to do with Essentials. They are simply a handful of - generally minor - fixes and updates for the PHB classes. Again, you can object to errata itself if you dislike it. But, again, it isn't anything new - they've been making those same sorts of fixes since 4E started. 

Again - feel free to dislike Essentials. Feel free to not use it. But insisting that it is being forced on you, or that it is a new edition... that I will disagree with. Not because I think you are stupid or hidebound or any other insulting reason - but because the vast majority of evidence convinces me otherwise. 

Folks get so caught up in trying to compare this to 3.5 or call it a new edition that, I think, it actuall undermines their arguments significantly. Neither of those things are true. From my perspective, honestly, not even close to it. What 4E has done, with ongoing errata and updates, is something entirely new. 

That doesn't mean it is immune to criticism. But folks should be criticizing it on its own merits, rather than just trying to latch on to some comparison that they think will stir up sentiment on their behalf. "Essentials is 4.5!" is a pithy soundbite, sure - but, like many such things, is effective only in its rhetoric rather than its accuracy. 

And that's the sort of thing I've been objecting to.


----------



## Estlor (Jun 22, 2011)

Terramotus said:


> You know, I've mostly stayed out of this thread after my original comments, not even to defend my assertions that I made earlier, because I mostly don't care to argue with people on the Internet.  But having checked in on this thread, finding it still going, I've seen a couple of responses that are, first, a ridiculous strawman:




My "strawman" was in response to McGrendaline's comment:



> As for your other examples, they don't hold water, as far as I'm  concerned, because I'm not talking about mechanical and thematic  differences between different classes.  I'm talking about mechanical  differences between fighters and E fighters, clerics and E clerics, etc.




Like I said, differences in guidelines between Guardian and Greatweapon versus Knight and Slayer.  See Warrior, Fighter or Paladin or Ranger, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition Player's Handbook.  I know that's not everyone's issue with Essentials.

I guess I just don't get the issue here.  Where once there was one class design - AEDU - there is now three.  All are enriched by the experience.

I mean, weren't people _*complaining*_ about every class looking/feeling/playing exactly the same a little over a year ago?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 22, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> It is perfectly fine to dislike Essentials. The objections most folks have are to portraying it as something it is not.




Hear hear.

My suggestion is that if you object because it feels like it's incompatible, then *try it out, and see for yourself.*  It works better than it looks.

If you're objecting cause you don't like a particular class, if you're a player, don't play that class.  If you're a DM, don't play with that class.  

If it's every class... don't play them.

But don't reject them just because someone claims they aren't compatible, and makes points that aren't really important to the day to day playing of a character.  Some of the essentials classes are really good and enjoyable!

Try everything on its own merits, is all I'm saying.  And if you find you don't like it, don't play it, no one's going to hate you.

Except Billy.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 22, 2011)

I think we can all agree that it's great to have a slightly less complicated set of classes for new players. The problem only arises when this is the only thing that is being developed. This means core made characters only get supported if they share simular builds with their essentials counterparts. If they dont then support is reduced to hope of a dragon article. I think this is the reason why people get so up in arms over essentials and to them it makes the two ideals incompatible.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 23, 2011)

Estlor said:


> I mean, weren't people _*complaining*_ about every class looking/feeling/playing exactly the same a little over a year ago?




Yes!  I was one of them.  And, again, _to be clear_, I _like_ the essentials classes, in part for that reason.


----------



## Saracenus (Jun 23, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Passionate, yes. And probably also extra-careful when posting opinions about 4e on a public forum like this.
> 
> Most employers don't appreciate it if their employees (or freelancers) are overly critical about their company's products. It's actually an excellent way to get fired (or in the case of the freelancer no longer being assigned any work).
> 
> ...




Um, SRM, he of "Save My Game Column" on DDI and Designer from Paizo has said many a positive and harsh things about 4e in his blog:
NeoGrognard

Granted folks are probably not going to get vitriolic about it, but then again they don't have to, they can talk to folks in the biz and be heard. Also being professional is not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 23, 2011)

Zaran said:


> I think we can all agree that it's great to have a slightly less complicated set of classes for new players. The problem only arises when this is the only thing that is being developed.   This means core made characters only get supported if they share simular builds with their essentials counterparts. If they dont then support is reduce to hope of a dragon article. I think this is the reason why people get so up in arms over essentials and to them it makes the two ideals incompatible.




It's a good thing then that simple classes are not the only ones being developed.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Jun 23, 2011)

FireLance said:


> Yes, but what does this mean, exactly?
> 
> So far, the only real effect I've seen is that WotC is pointing to the Essentials line as a starting point for new players (see: the back cover of Heroes of Shadow) as opposed to the PH.




I'm not of the opinion that Essentials is "bad" or incompatible, but I think what people like MrG are hinging on is that WotC quote of Essentials being the new direction of design going forward. If you interpret this comment as "the only direction of design going forward" then I could see one's dislike. I would surely be disappointed if I believed that Essentials-style simple classes were going to be the sole focus going forward. I don't believe they will be, but I can be no more certain than MrG.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 23, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm not of the opinion that Essentials is "bad" or incompatible, but I think what people like MrG are hinging on is that WotC quote of Essentials being the new direction of design going forward. If you interpret this comment as "the only direction of design going forward" then I could see one's dislike. I would surely be disappointed if I believed that Essentials-style simple classes were going to be the sole focus going forward. I don't believe they will be, but I can be no more certain than MrG.




Well- for one thing, not all of the Essentials classes are "simple," so it seems kind of like a needless worry doesn't it?

Also if you listen to some of the other comments they've made in things like interviews and podcasts, they've expanded on it... The real meaning being that with Essentials they realized they had a larger scope of class design possibilities, not that they planned to limit themselves in another direction.


----------

