Whimsy Chris's page

Whimsy Chris wrote:

Nude gamers? I'll pass.

Depends on the gamer and one's inclinations ... rawr ...

I'm not saying there has never been a hot gamer, but when think of most of the groups I've been it - I'd rather everyone just keep their clothes on.

Nude gamers? I'll pass.

I think it's more important to count choices rather than steps. Calculating touch AC doesn't take much time. Selecting feats does.

I agree. Some of those "steps" are so simplistic that they are not worth counting. For example, in 4e one calculates skills and then adds ten to Perception and Insight to get the passive numbers for those two skills. This takes all of 2 seconds and nothing at all if you are using the character builder. Yet Mearls counts them as two additional steps.

The things that take the most time and add the most complexity are choices: feats, powers or spells, skills, ability scores, equipment, and so on.

Plus, complexity with creating a 1st level character does not equate to complexity of the entire game system. If Mearls' overall point is that the game is more complex today, he needs to look at the entire system, not just beginning character creation.

I believe that, for better or for worse, the most complex system is 3e. It's also the one that seems to offer the most variety and options. One could make an argument for 4e's options and complexities, especially now, but because the game systems are quite different, it's hard to really make a comparison. They are complex in different ways and offer options in very different ways.

I see Mearls' overall point, but I think he's stretching a little to make his point, which I think weakens what he's trying to say.

True enough. Let's agree to make this a disparage-free thread.

I think what I'm basically saying in my post is that part of gaming's job is to create those nostalgic moments. In other words, I value that nostalgia.

Lately, I've been looking at some of the old school adventures of 1st and 2nd edition. Adventures like Temple of Elemental Evil, Tomb of Horrors, Undermountain, even Dragons of Despair. By modern day standards, these adventures have several flaws, but I remember them fondly. This got me thinking of more modern games I've played and if any of them have captured that feeling of fondness. For me, only Shacked City has recaptured that nostalgic feel, but that could be because I haven't played it in a few years.

I haven't had that fond feeling in a while. It's something I'd like to recapture. However, I have to admit to myself that I'm remembering the good stuff a lot more than the bad stuff: the epic moments, the times we laughed at something silly, and so on, rather than the rules arguments or really boring gaming sessions that went nowhere.

This got me thinking...how much of my gaming tastes are tainted by my one-sided memory of old school D&D? What exactly is that old school appeal and why is it appealing? Were the "good ol' days" as good as I remember them? Do some of us slightly older players play to recapture our youth?

I guess these questions are another way of asking: what makes gaming fun and why do we continue to do it? I would argue that it has little to do with slick game systems or even logical story lines or plausible encounters. It has to do with the social aspect of pretending to be in unlikely situations. Sometimes those situations are absurd, and therefore fun and memorable. Sometimes those situations only happen because of their rarity - like an epic moment that just happened to come together perfectly. In other words, sometimes we have to trudge through those boring sessions and silly encounters and game mechanics to get to those gem moments that become lasting memories.

Your thoughts?

Whimsy Chris wrote:

If WotC wants to recoup, the company has its work cut out for it. I don't know if 5e is the answer, and I'm not sure WotC knows whether 5e is the answer either. My guess is that they are in a phase of gathering as much information as possible before they attempt to strategize a plan. I don't think that recent behaviors indicate a 5e...I don't think they'd be focusing on their online tools so much if that were the case.

As much as I hate to fan edition wars, a company's lead developer does not ask a pointed question like that publicly like that about the basic structure of how the fighter is setup if they aren't already planning something pretty dang big. That combined with the earlier polls definitely makes it clear that they are in the process of developing 4E's replacement, whatever it may be called. It will still probably be a while before we see what the replacement is, but they are definitely planning it.

Perhaps, but it could also indicate another iteration of 4e. The Gamma World game is based on 4e rules. Essentials was a kind of new presentation of 4e. The now delayed or canceled Ravenloft RPG was going to be based on 4e. Perhaps such questions are helping Mearls decide if a new game is needed or just a new way of presenting 4e, like a kind of Basic version of the game or alternatively, new complexities of options. Or maybe they will plan on presenting new RPGs with the 4e skeleton, like Gamma World, but want some indication on how detailed it ought to be.

To me, it feels they are throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall, such as Fortune Cards, online play, and other RPGs, to see what sticks. This may all culminate in another edition of the game, but so far I haven't seen enough to prove it.

I'm an avid 4e player. I enjoy the system. But I think WotC has made several wrong steps as far as presenting 4e, and it shows. I may not have the statistics for sales, but one doesn't cancel several major releases if everything is going well. With the exception of the upcoming new online tools, both the online output (i.e. the "magazines") and the product release schedule feel dismal at best.

I do marketing for a small business. There were often times I'd watch WotC make a product or marketing decision that immediately put my red flags up, but I figured that WotC had information or expertise that I was simply lacking. Perhaps, however, they didn't.

The most telling is that the designers had to so often explain themselves. From their first major overhauls to vast parts of the game system to their recent confusing integration of an "Essentials" product line, they seemed to ignore the most important marketing rule: The simplest message is the most effective. It's not a good sign when you have to explain yourself in more than a few brief explanations. When 4e players such as myself don't understand how Essentials falls into 4e products and several columns are dedicated to explaining it, then it's most likely doomed to fail.

The result seems to be a scattered customer base. That Pathfinder is even considered competition for a brand like D&D would have seemed impossible just a few short years ago, but much indicates that Pathfinder is holding its own against the "world's most popular roleplaying game."

If WotC wants to recoup, the company has its work cut out for it. I don't know if 5e is the answer, and I'm not sure WotC knows whether 5e is the answer either. My guess is that they are in a phase of gathering as much information as possible before they attempt to strategize a plan. I don't think that recent behaviors indicate a 5e...I don't think they'd be focusing on their online tools so much if that were the case. I think it indicates that WoTC is asking themselves "WTF just happened and what do we do now?"

I think Mike's "steps" chart is wonky and somewhat arbritary. Where's the "Calculate weapon speed" for 2e? Why are Perception and Insight calaculations listed as separate from calculating skill totals in 4e since you'd probably do that during the calculate skills step? (To get +2 over 3rd??)

Agreed. Including passive scores as two "steps" in character creations seems a bit silly. I see his overall point, but some of it does seem arbitrary as you say.

I'd love to see a mother-of-all dungeon crawls AP with various factions to work with/against, various quests within the large scope of the crawl, fantastic locations within 30' x 30' rooms, that sort of thing.

+1. Between Carrion Crown and Jade Regent, they're pretty much doing every future AP that I had desired up to this point. It seems like the next one should be a massive dungeon in the old-school style of the Temple of Elemental Evil or Undermountain.

With no magic involved, a 20th level 4E wizard could swim across a river that at 1st level he would drown in.

Yes, sort of, although I do think 4e encourages you to develop the flavor of an encounter regardless of the mechanics involved. So it depends on the DM's style. A DM could rule that as people advance in level they become more and more superhero like. Another DM could rule (although this is a little outside the official rules) that the difficulty of swimming across the river scales based on level (in other words, the DC is higher for that 20th level Wizard than a 1st level Wizard). Alternatively, the DM could rule that a wizard at 20th level can magically walk on water - thus the swim check reflects that idea. In other words, the mechanics are a skeleton that a DM and players can flavor how they desire. Getting across the river could be magic, mundane, or whatever.

An example of this in a game I DMed is when one of the players, a cleric, had an ungodly high Intimidate result. I described the scene as one in which the cleric's own god made an kind of divine visit to put the fear of divine retribution into the target. Thus the target gave up information that he normally wouldn't have under regular circumstances or torture. I believe that 4e encourages the players to think of their powers and skills in this kind of imaginative manner.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

But I also agree with Jeremy that just because someone has achieved a certain level, they shouldn't gain extra ability with jumping over chasms when they are studious, not very athletic wizards.

If this were the case, I don't think that it is successfully emulated by 4th edition's skill system because (unless the Essentials or other products altered this) jumping is something that has a static DC for a set distance and the bonuses gained from leveling allowed every character to have additional ability to leap over chasms.

You are correct here. Thus, a paragon Wizard has the athletic ability of a trained athlete ten levels lower.

Items, according to Essentials, that do scale based on character level are:

Knowledge checks (History, Dungeoneering, Religion, etc)
Balance checks
Diplomacy checks
Insight checks
Several kinds of Perception checks
Streetwise checks

As well, a host of "improvised checks" are given as examples based on Easy, Moderate, and Hard. For example, building a shelter against harsh weather is considered a Moderate DC regardless of level.

Several things depend on the target's abilities. For example, understanding a magic trap, Stealthing past someone's perception, understanding a monster, and so on all depend on the other creature's or item's defenses, DC's, or levels.

I think a lot of it is really an art depending on the DM. For example, I would rule as a DM that basic survival in the wilderness is a given for epic level characters. However, surviving on a particular Astral plane may depend on the DC level. I think no matter what, DCs depend on the DM's common sense and style of play.

Reasoned stuff.

Reasoned stuff.

You both bring up good points in my mind, as I've struggled with these same questions in regards to the skill progression and DC progression.

I have found how this is addressed in the Essentials Rules Compendium to be rather helpful. It notes that some things are static, some things are based on opponent's level or DC roles, and some things depend on character level. I agree with ProfessorCirno that a paragon level group should not be hampered by a wall. But I also agree with Jeremy that just because someone has achieved a certain level, they shouldn't gain extra ability with jumping over chasms when they are studious, not very athletic wizards.

The Essential rules makes it more of an art. You as the DM and adjudicator should set the DC for what makes sense, using both the static and adjusted DC levels given in the rules compendium as guidelines. I like the idea of a static DC for, say, breaking down a door. By 15th level, doors shouldn't really be an issue anymore. By epic level, when a person is fighting exarchs and gods, even a wizard should be able to bend bars open. You can flavor text it to anything - perhaps the wizard is magically amplified to bend those bars. Regardless of how you flavor text it, if you are almost a deity, a common jail cell shouldn't be a problem for you regardless of your class.

At the same time, some things should always be difficult regardless of level. And a DM can always determine what he considers to be "Easy," "Moderate," or "Hard" depending on the characters. For example, influencing a crowd to take certain actions might be "Moderate" at the Heroic level, but "Easy" at the Paragon level.

It is an art, but I think once one gets the hang of it, it works pretty well.

So I received my copy of the Rules Compendium. It was everything I basically expected. It made me start to think again about this idea of whether Essentials is basically 4.5 in disguise.

Well, yes and no. It clearly is an advancement of the game, no doubt about it. There have been so many changes and tweaks to this and that rule over the last couple years that some things are definitely changed (for the better in my opinion). However, these changes are in the details or in addition to previously established rules. For example, the Teleport rules are now described to include forced teleport of targets, rather than just teleporting oneself. This is not really a game changer, but it is a change.

There really is nothing in the book that makes me feel like it's a different game than the one I've been playing over the last couple years. Also, the majority of the book is basically the same information as my past books. I almost wondered it if was worth the purchase, but then I had to remind myself that I did need a more up-to-date rulebook for the table.

I didn't purchase but I did look over Heroes of the Forgotten Land. This book does feel a bit like a different game. Characters receive benefits and powers in a different way now that makes it feel like something different. However, I can see how these characters are still compatible and can be played along side other characters from past books. I don't know how this affects power creep as I have not played the characters or studied them in detail. Nor am I sure how these Essentials characters work with multiclassing or hybriding.

At this point, if someone were to say to me that this is 4.5, I wouldn't necessarily disagree because, if compared to the PHBI and DMGI, there are a good deal of alterations, most of which have already been seen in one form or another. However, I wouldn't necessarily agree either, as I don't think the changes are quite as comprehensive. Regardless, I think they've done a really good job (and you can tell they worked at it) with making the transition to Essentials as painless as possible, without making past books obsolete.

All in all, I think Essentials is a step in the right direction.

A lot of well reasoned stuff.

I think you make some interesting points, but at the same time, I think you are reading a lot into the article. I did manage to read the entire interview and it definitely has a different feel. It seems to be the interviewer who wants to steer the conversation toward disgruntled roleplayers and an attempt to bring back the game to an old school feel. For example, the interviewer brings up the idea of "old school" feel in the first place, saying that Mearls often writes adventures based on classics and that he likes to blog about old schools stuff. The question then was brought up how Mearls' love of old school might influence the Essentials line. This naturally steered Mearls to talk about such things, but I don't think Mearls was specifically talking about old school stuff as a selling point to bring back old gamers.

I do agree that the overall feel of 4e hasn't been one of overwhelming success in the way that 3e seemed to have been. There's no hoopla about it. 4e didn't seem to "revive" the game like 3e did. There have been a lot of personnel changes. However, I'm not sure what we can read into that. Isn't Bill Slavicsek the top guy in charge of roleplaying design and development? He's definitely still around. In truth, we have no idea why Andy Collins was dismissed.

What the Essentials line feels like to me is that the WotC team has learned a lot over the last couple years. They've probably had some mistakes and successes, a lot of feedback from both lovers and haters of 4e, and things that they've come to notice about their own game. The Essentials line seems like an attempt to incorporate that learning and provide entry points. I wish I could find a quote, but I do remember the 4e team saying that they planned in the second year of 4e to put out products to bring in new players. I don't know if they had the Essentials line specifically in mind.

For what it's worth, at Amazon the red box is currently the top selling RPG product. If you dismiss the obvious 4e haters in the various comments and reviews, a lot of the feedback from people who haven't played the game in years or at all is positive. Some have found success using it and bringing in new players. This is all anecdotal, of course, but seems to be some sign of success, at least for this Starter set.

Not to get off topic, but another trend I've noticed for WotC is the decline in DM references (such as Open Graves) and the desire to design complete games and RPGs. These games incorporate the basic 4e system but are complete in themselves. Examples include the board games, Gamma World, and the Ravenloft RPG. Perhaps they feel they have succeeded with their game system, but need to take a step back on supplements. Don't know.

Thanks for being understanding everyone. If I get more settled in my life and decide to start up the game again, I'll try to make sure you all know! Best, Chris

Sorry I haven't posted in a while.

Unfortunately, I don't think I'm going to be able to continue this pbp. I'm having a lot of personal challenges at the moment and I don't think I'll be able to commit to a post every day. While I was sick, I was able to reflect on this and came to this conclusion. I thank you for your patience.

I apologize and realize this is a disappointment for some of you. I hate to leave things hanging like this. If there are any questions that you are curious about concerning this or that in the storyline, feel free to ask me.

For those of you whose pbp this is the first, please do try it again. There are other pbp's that have lasted over a year with some very committed DMs.

Happy gaming everyone, and I apologize again about cutting this campaign short.

The initial comment I replied to was that DDI had set the standard. WoTC's failure to provide the tools they promised is part of what DDI is, like it or not. I consider that some pretty low standards.

Does that mean every time Paizo doesn't get a product out on time, that lessens the worthiness of the product? I mean, they promised the product earlier but didn't deliver, so...

I do think there is a difference between the product itself and business practices. WotC might not have good business practices, but the DDI is stellar compared to any other online RPG tools for tabletops, at least in my mind.

For the amount they charge for DDI, it had better be. That's the issue with non-delivery of what they promised. Over $100 a year for character building software every year and you still have to buy all the game material if you want to use it.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

With $70/year, you get an incredible amount of online content and software: Dungeon, Dragon, the Compendium, the Character Builder, and the Monster Builder. The Compendium and builders have every character option and monster build from every publication, including the magazines and RPGA adventures. You get regular monthly updates that add every rule, option, or build from every publication. Nor do I need to buy "all" the game material to use it. With just the PHB, the DMG, and DDI, I could play the game indefinitely with every option out there. I can also share the DDI with my players, thus giving them every character option out there (or at least every option published by WotC).

It actually is a pretty sweet deal...for me.

Nor have they promised you more than what you're getting with your purchase. The "promise" of online play on a virtual table was part of their early branding campaign, but they've never deceived you into thinking that you were getting the virtual table while you were purchasing your subscription. They've always listed out very clearly what you are paying for.

The main reason this discussion has been more involved is that a more objective claim was made - that the changes were comparable to the transition to 3.5. And that is the argument I've been objecting to, since when I put the two alongside each other, the changes in 3.5 seem far more fundamental, extensive, and far-reaching than all the changes in 4E thus far. Which is why I'll continue to hold that the "4.5" moniker doesn't really fit.

+1. I agree that the type of change seen thus far isn't as significant.

The only change I've seen so far that really makes a considerable changes is how magic items are distributed. Having read the magic item rarity article today, I now agree with bugleyman that this is a more far reaching kind of change than I originally thought. How often one receives certain kinds of magic items and how often they may be used changes fundamentally how magic items work in the game. This makes me wonder how magic items from previous publications fit into this system. This makes me feel I have to tweak previous 4e characters by changing how many and what kind of magic items they have. This kind of change makes me think of 3.5.

Other things, such as minor changes to flying rules or stealth rules, don't really make me think of 3.5.

If they had similar kinds of changes, like the changes made to magic items, in other systems in 4e, then, yes, I would consider this to be a 4.5 and probably be upset. So far, it doesn't feel significant enough, but the magic item changes do make me wary.

While I agree what WotC did manage to deliver should be judged on its own merits, they said they were going to do much more, which they then screwed up. People aren't unreasonable to be disappointed by that.

However, that's more a reflection on the company than the product. When people say that DDI is a failure, I strongly disagree as they've produced the best character and monster building software I've ever seen. These products are a high standard. The fact that they promised so much more really only shows bad business practices. Their marketing and business practices are not a good standard to follow, at least from my perspective. I think the disconnect I have with people who criticize the DDI is that their criticism has more to do with the failure to produce what was promised, rather than the actual product that has been produced. The product is stellar; the inability to fulfill promises is just bad business.

I'm also going to be incognito this weekend. We'll start up again Monday.

Thanks a bunch! Both of you have been very helpful.

Man, I don't play 4E but if *anything* was going to get me to cough up the $$ and convert, it would've been this.

You could always use the fluff inside the book...

Can anyone let me know where would I find information among the adventures or supplements (or even in these forums) regarding pirates of the Inner Sea? I couldn't seem to find anything specific in the Campaign Setting book.

I for one like the feel of actual books in my hand, and don't have the luxury of being near an internet connection or wireless network everywhere I play; the same holds true for a lot of people.

I do understand what you are saying. For someone who has not accessed the internet tools and has relied solely on the printed books, the Essentials line's changes may look significant enough to be considered 4.5. I'm still not sure I agree, but I'll try to stray from that line of argument.

The fact still remains that I don't use the internet when I play - I rely solely on the printed out character sheets and powers (these gathered from the DDI) and the core rulebooks. I don't feel any divergence from any updated powers and what I consider to be the core of the rules system. If they did something like merged opportunity actions and immediate actions into one type of action (which I kind of feel would make for a better system but would contradict so much already published), then I would agree that there is a significant divergence in systems. But power tweaks, such as making magic missile an autohit, doesn't contradict the core of the system in what is already considered an "exceptions based" game.

While I'm not sure I want to continue the debate over whether Essentials is 4.5, my personal experience has been that there are little to no challenges with intermixing the DDI and the original core books.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

I could see how it would be difficult for someone who only has the original core books to play at the same table with someone who uses DDI.

Except that you can't use the DDI alone. For example, I don't believe (and I could be wrong) a person can find a description of the conditions in combat or the various meaning of specific keywords for monsters just using the DDI.

Actually, you can totally get all of that off the online Compendium. A few months back they updated it to include a glossary tab. Now you can search for keywords, actions, conditions, and tons of other core rules items, beyond simply player options and monsters.

Awesome! Thank you for pointing that out. That comes in very handy.

So, to update what I was saying, for the price of a couple rulebooks (around $70) per year, you have access to every rule, option, and monster created in every 4e rulebook. The only thing you're missing is some of the fluff, but in my mind, that's still a great deal.

I guess, for someone new to 4e who wants something more than the Red Box, I would recommend the upcoming Rules Compendium (about $20) for easy reference at the table and a DDI description for the options. You don't really need the core books anymore unless you fancy the pictures.

I must admit that makes me even more unlikely to play 4th ed again any time soon.

I think a lot of people feel the same way. However, you can still get away with just using the core books with the errata. You won't have access to the same number of options, but you'll still be playing the same game.

WotC has said that they want the Essentials line to be as errata free as possible. If they succeed, then you'll never have to worry about whether your Essential books are in line with the DDI. Of course, you may still want the DDI for the hundreds, if not thousands, of extra options available to players.

I was pessimistic about the DDI when 4e first came out. Now I consider it a wonderful tool that has really advanced what a roleplaying game can be and well worth the relatively small price.

I could see how it would be difficult for someone who only has the original core books to play at the same table with someone who uses DDI.

Except that you can't use the DDI alone. For example, I don't believe (and I could be wrong) a person can find a description of the conditions in combat or the various meaning of specific keywords for monsters just using the DDI. I still refer to the core books for general rules references, but DDI for things like powers, magic items, and other character building materials.

So right now, someone essentially still needs the core books, but can use the DDI to get the latest changes to any given character options or other specifics like traps and monsters.

So, what I am getting from those that insist that Essentials is 4.5 is that if I were a new player and wanted to learn D&D, I should pick up 4.5. If I find I really like the system and want to try more advanced rules, I should then buy 4.0?

The way WotC is explaining it is as such (and, of course, you can come to your own conclusions):

A new roleplayer should pick up the Red Box. In that box, it gives you a simplified game that goes up to 3rd level. It tells you what you should purchase next if you want to continue to advance past the Red Box. For a player, you should buy the Rules Compendium and Player's Essentials books. For a DM, you should have the Compendium, DM Kit, Monster's Vault, and some dungeon tiles. After all that, you basically have the same game as those with the core books. (Again, that's the way they're selling it.)

Thus a new roleplayer would do well to use the Essentials line to learn the game. Experienced roleplayers new to 4e could go with either the Essentials line or the original line. Players who already play 4e can pick up whatever Essential books they choose. Either way, whether you have the original line or the new one, you are essentially playing the same game.

Of course, that last sentence has been an area of some contention. They are introducing some rule variants, and some feel they are significant enough to call it 4.5. Some feel they are minor enough that it's basically the same game.

deinol wrote:

To be fair, the complete errata file is practically a Rules Compendium already!

I would prefer physical products that are correct, as opposed to needing a DDI subscription to use my physical products correctly.

You don't need a DDI subscription to have access to the errata.

Right now the errata for the PHB is 22 pages, the DMG errata is 7 pages, and the MM is 5 pages, all ranging from minor language clarification issues to revamped systems (such as the Stealth skill description). I'm not sure how much of this errata has been corrected in subsequent printings.

If you compare this amount to, say, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook with only 3 pages of errata, then it seems like a substantial amount. When you look over the details, you can see why they made the changes. A lot of it, I believe, is based on feedback from the gaming community.

One thing that seems different with 4e is that Wizards seems more apt to evolve the game and assume people have the DDI, which is easy to update. For example, the change to Magic Missile is dramatic and made almost 2 years after the core books have been out. While this is just a small part of the system as a whole, this change probably wouldn't have been made if they didn't assume people would automatically obtain the change using their Character Builder. While the errata is free, not many people are necessarily going to notice the small changes from month to month, whereas the DDI will make changes to your characters automatically.

One's reaction to this may vary. One may be outraged that they would make changes, albeit in small ways, which requires a DDI subscription or vigilant checking of the errata to notice. Some may feel that their original purchase is becoming more and more obsolete. Others might appreciate that WotC makes changes based on feedback and continues to steer and evolve the game.

I'm more in the latter camp, mainly because I have a DDI subscription, but I can understand the frustrations of the former camp. I also appreciate that they are coming out with a relatively inexpensive Rules Compendium so that I can easily reference those more general rules changes.

Now that we finished a couple major combats, I wanted to talk about people's experience so far. For me, I'm enjoying people's characters and the direction of the story, but combat lasted much too long.

The combat with the xivorts took roughly a month. This is long time to side rail the overall storyline to settle what is roughly a couple minutes in the game's time. I also found the numerous combat updates, such as updating the map after every turn, to be very time consuming.

Are there any ideas how we might make combat smoother? Would people be interested in trying out an online virtual tabletop like OpenRPG so we could settle combat in an hour or two?

Any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

Of course, the interviewer didn't ask The Question: "Will the starter books (PHB/DMG) be still in print and sale once the Essentials are out ?".

The interviewer may not have asked, but the issue has been addressed. At Gen Con, Bill Slavicsek explained that the Core books will be reprinted when there is need. Essentials won't be replacing the Core books. Source.

In many ways, Celestial Healer is right. We are essential arguing a meme or label. I think people want to decide one way or another because of their negative experience with 3.5.

Here are the things I think people had challenges with regarding 3.5:

* One felt one had to buy the three main books again to play the "official" and most up-to-date D&D game.
* A 3.0 character had to undergo minor translation to become a 3.5 character
* A 3.0 adventure had minor differences that required some translation to 3.5.
* Some 3.0 game rules were obsolete or incomplete in a 3.5 game.

To me, these problems are not existent to the same extent in 4 Essentials.

* I don't feel I have to buy the Essentials line for the "official" game or to keep up with those who have Essentials. I do think the Rules Compendium is a good idea due to the amount of errata out there. However, they could have released a Rules Compendium regardless of whether it was part of a new "line."
* I don't have to translate my character to Essentials. I may perhaps wish to change my Wizard to an Essentials Wizard, but that's because I want to play the other option, not because I have to in order to get it in line with the 4Essentials game system.
* I won't have to translate adventures from 4e to Essentials or vice versa. I may want to switch out older monster stats for newer ones, but I don't feel I have to.
* You could argue that some rules are incomplete in the original core. I imagine that skill challenges will be given a lot more depth. However, nothing will be made obsolete, i.e. unusable, other than those items already addressed in errata.

For myself, I'll be buying the Rules Compendium and keep my DDI account going. With that, I feel I'll have complete access to everything I need whether the people at the table use the original core or the Essentials books.

People can call Essentials whatever they want, but I don't think it's the same kind of shift as 3.0 to 3.5.

1. Implements changing, to now add proficiency bonuses
2. Magic Items expanding into Common, Uncommon, and Rare
3. Totally new class builds that change or ignore the power system
4. All races now have a variable second attribute bonus
5. Spells changing to have damage on a miss, and some changing to auto-hit with fixed damage.
6. Who knows what else.

A lot of this is already happening. Let's break it down...

1. Implements changing, to now add proficiency bonuses - this is incorrect.

2. Magic Items expanding into Common, Uncommon, and Rare - This changes how magic items are distributed, but doesn't change how magic items work. To me this is more like a house rule that's now being made more official.

3. Totally new class builds that change or ignore the power system - Just like PHB3. The introduction of the power point system for psionics doesn't make obsolete what has come before, just adds a new element for how one gains in power. I'm sensing it's the same thing with Essentials.

4. All races now have a variable second attribute bonus - Just like PHB3. Again, introducing this element doesn't make what came before obsolete.

5. Spells changing to have damage on a miss, and some changing to auto-hit with fixed damage. - Just like Arcane Power and other splat books, this merely adds options. Many spells already function by giving damage on a miss. As far as auto-hit, this has already been introduced via errata for the Wizard's magic missile. It didn't make the Wizard more powerful or make obsolete the core books. There's no evidence that a Essentials Wizard is more powerful than a regular Wizard.

6. Who knows what else. - Exactly. No one knows what else. I'm surprised that some feel like the people who defend Essentials as being not 4.5 are considered to have the burden of proof. I think it's the opposite. Those who think Essentials is 4.5 need to provide the evidence. So far, the evidence as laid out doesn't convince me that Essentials is 4.5. I have a beef with the product line, but it has nothing to do with whether it's a new edition or not as I feel confident that I can play the same game with or without the Essentials line. When Essentials comes out, I could be proven wrong, but for now, solid evidence needs to be provided by those who says it's a new edition. Some may be convinced by the facts so far; I am not.

JMD031 wrote:

What makes me laugh about this whole thing is that WoTC has now broken down the original 4E PHB into two books so now they can make twice the money for the same amount of content. Its a brillent marketing strategy.

Not so much brilliant as a huge impediment to getting new players. Having to buy 5 books (plus dice, plus miniatures, plus power cards, plus map tiles) just to play a game is ridiculous. Yeah, I know the boxed set was a step forward, but splitting the books up yet again is two steps back.

Honestly, if I didn't know anything about D&D today and saw what was needed to play D&D today I'd never start. I'd go play a videogame.

And yes, it does indeed look like 4.5 from my distant perspective.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with a lot of this. I like 4e, it's my game of choice, and I want it to do well. However, I've been skeptical of Essentials because it's confusing, and confusion is never good for marketing. Having to buy 9 items rather than 3? Confusing. The mix of the Core Rulebooks with the new Essentials line? Confusing. It seems confusing as a regular player of the game and it seems like it would confuse new gamers too.

I could be wrong, as I am no expert in the roleplaying market. However, think of all the words that have already gone into explaining the Essentials line on the WotC website and other places. A good marketer can explain his or her product in one sentence. Coming out with a simple beginner's "red box" to attract new players is one thing. Coming out with 9 new items that intermixes confusingly with past products just doesn't seem like business smarts to me.

I do, however, still disagree that Essentials is 4.5. Everything is fully compatible. Unlike 3.5 and 3.0, the essential rules (i.e. combat rules and what constitutes a character) are exactly the same. This or that feat or magic item being organized differently or monster stats being tweaked doesn't make for a new edition of the game in my mind. If they added a new action or changed up conditions in combat, then I would feel that the game changed in some essential way. However, whether a magic item is common or rare doesn't really change the game, just how magic items are distributed.

I have to admit that this set of previews is disappointing to me. They seem to be focusing a lot on undead campaigns (Shadowfell box set, Ravenloft RPG), which is fine, but I already feel I have an undead book for 4e and don't feel any need for special focus in that area (I would have preferred a feywild sourcebook). Also, I appreciated WotC's previous stance of not coming out with new sourcebooks for each setting, but they seem to be breaking from that with Neverwinter. Lastly, they don't seem to be coming out with a Campaign setting (unless you count the Ravenloft RPG), which has been something I've always looked forward to.

As far as the Essentials and Player's Options line - it appears that they are making improvements to the game and presentation, which is good. However, I already have the game and I'll only be picking these items up for the latest updates to the rules (for example, the Rules Compendium is something I feel is needed). But it doesn't necessarily excite me.

I liked the way WotC was putting out books - a new book for each planar realm, a PHB#, DMG#, MM#, a campaign setting with 3 supporting books and that's it, a book that emphasised a type of creature (dragons, demons, undead, etc.) - but they seem to be breaking from this release format. Of course, WotC needs to make money and probably is changing gears a little to meet demand. Most of the people on Enworld seem excited about these previews. Am I alone in feeling underwhelmed?

While I'm no marketing expert, it is my field and I would say that these kind of awards definitely have an impact on sales, for the products themselves and future products.

For the specific product, it could turn event existing fans to a specific item. For example, I bet they see a big boost in sales for Classic Horrors Revisited, a product many fans may have overlooked.

However, awards aren't just about sales, but branding - Paizo is becoming known for quality products and as the best alternative to WotC. This has long term benefit.

I assume the title should say "2011."

A double !! on the Ustalav book.

Hmmm, I'll probably only buy a few items from the Essentials line:

1. Starter Set - Probably not unless I'm somehow feeling nostalgic
2. Rules Compendium - Yes! We need an updated rulebook to include all the errata and random little rule expansions from here and there.
3. Heroes of the Fallen Land - Probably not; I'll just use the Character Builder
4. Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom - Same.
5. Dungeon Master's Kit - Not sure; probably need to see it; at almost $40 it's quite a hefty price for info that I may already have in my other books.
6. Monster Vault - Maybe; I might just use the Monster Builder unless the book happens to have a lot of great fluff, art work, a good amount of tokens, etc.
7. Dungeon Tiles: The Dungeon - Probably; I'm a big fine of dungeon tiles; the more the merrier!
8. Dungeon Tiles: The City - Prob'ly
9. Dungeon Tiles: The Wilderness - Same

So, probably only 1 book and three sets of dungeon tiles.

Looking at their spring catalog, nothing else really excites me except the Heroes of Shadow book. Maybe the Deluxe DM Screen. I hope further out looks more exciting.

Sorry about yesterday. I'll be posting soon today.

Is there a compiliation of where the various modules, APs, and supplements take place?

Specifically, I'm looking for a list of supplements and modules that take place in Andoran. Also, is there a map of Almas, capital of Andoran, that exists?

Thanks ahead of time to anyone that can help.

Sorry I haven't posted this weekend yet. I'll be posting tonight when I have a free moment.

I use Rosey's combat rule of 24 hours, then a GMed action. It works well in her games, and so far in my own Underdark one.

Do you do it with 24 hours since the absentee's last post or 24 hours since the last combat move?

Hmmm...I'm getting a little concerned about the speed of play, particularly in the encounter with the xivorts. Since Saturday, we haven't gotten through the first round yet. I get that there was a holiday, but it hasn't really sped up since then.

Ideally, if everyone posts once a day, then we could get through a round each day. However, if one person doesn't post, it can slow us all down. I'm thinking that if one hasn't posted within 24 hours, I'm going to NPC your action to help move things along. I'll make an exception for weekends since it seems it's a little more challenging. I believe that will help.

I know people in our game are involved with other pbps - how have you or your DM's handled slowed down play?

If interest is waning or if you think you can't commit to one post a day, please let me know if you would like to drop the game. I won't be offended or angry, I promise. ;)

Remember, my email is whimsychris (a) gmail if you want to send me a message.

...which would be a replacement of the original line with the essentials line in everything but name.

If these future supplements can be used for both the essentials line and the original line, what makes it an essentials line? The fact that its a new format?

They have gone on record that the Essentials line will only be the nine products (2 general rules, 2 players books, 2 DM books, and 3 tile sets.) These will always be available and in print. Everything else is a supplement. For example, they plan on releasing another book for players called, "Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow," that presents 3 unpublished classes (Assassin, Hexblade, and Necromancer) - this is not part of the essentials line and can be used with the original books or the Essential books.

I think what we will see after Essentials is released is a change in format as to how they release their books. The following is all conjecture, but I doubt we'll see books like MM4 or PHB4 in the future, but mostly smaller supplements like Nentir Vale and Player's Option and so on.

Except, if you read the post, it kinda is 4.5, especially if you play a wizard.

I mostly disagree because nothing in the Essentials line makes previous items obsolete. You can play either a fighter of the old line or a fighter of the Essentials line. In other words, someone with the Essentials books and someone with the original 4e books can still play at the same game table - the rules are essential the same even if the options provided to players are somewhat different.

I'm not saying that I totally disagree though. It does seem a bit odd that one can have the same class with different mechanics. If someone says he is playing a "Wizard," I would have to ask, "A old type Wizard or an Essentials Wizard?" However, I don't think that makes it essentially a new game.

Hey, I'm just here while I still definitely have wifi access to give you explicit permission to run around using Astral Seal on everything possible when my turn comes up, since that will probably be the most useful at this point. Also, this is where I regret playing a low-damage cleric. I work best with more people to buff, and I only have one little sorcerer to buff.

Actually, since the battle is going in a bad way, I may use anything I can to help out the sorceror. Hope that's okay. If not, we'll figure it out when you get back.

Thanks!

I feel I'm to blame for this. I didn't set policies for people with extended absence from the boards. I think the future policy should be that people who are gone for a long time should either have a place their character goes or they are NPC'd until we reach a place we can put their character aside until the player returns. Because I didn't set this beforehand, I don't feel comfortable NPC'ing Lamander in the meantime. I apologize Ostran, especially since it's in the middle of a fight, but it shouldn't affect the overall storyline too much.

Hmmm. We haven't really discussed what to do when someone can't be there for an extended period. Because I haven't asked Davi about it, I don't really feel comfortable NPC'ing his character. We may have to put that part of the storyline (the battle with Bandatiq) on pause for the moment while the encounter with the xivorts takes place.

Any thoughts?