Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

"D&D Essentials ... It's Not 4.5!" - Reposted from EN World


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

201 to 250 of 516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

deinol wrote:
If Paizo released a simplified box set as an introduction to Pathfinder (which people have asked for) would you cry "NEW EDITION!" on them?

Paizo/Pathfinder is actually a good comparision. 4EE / Essentials will be far more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder is to 3.5.


Stefan Hill wrote:

I'm looking 110% forward to the Essentials line, in our 4e game the "real" 4e books will be shelved. I only hope;

(a) The Essentials line is checked, checked, and re-checked during the printing. There is NO excuse that these books shouldn't be "near" perfect and that errata should be "almost" not required after it's release.

(b) The DDI Character Gen (and other tools) allow the selection of "Essentials Only".

If WotC put the extra effort in to the Essentials line to make them the must have item for 4e players (even if you still use ALL 4e books) then I'll be a happy wee chap. Honestly if they did all the above successfully I wouldn't care if they called it "Essentials" or "4.5e" as long as they hold true to the "this is it" mentality of the Essentials line.

S.

I am with you Stefan, but I will always expect errata, although the pace of changes will be a topic for years to come (including how many and types of changes constitutes a new version). Already the rules compendium should be a must have, and since I am book light, I will probably take a peak at the monster manual. Continuing updates as usual in DDI seals the deal, as the glue that binds it all together. And looking into the future with gamma world, and potentially more expansion into moderm themes, would be icing on the cake.

They just need a serious re-focus in organized play, but that may be asking for too much.


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

From today's preview:

Bill Slavicsek wrote:


* The Essentials consist of 10 key products that will form the baseline experience for the roleplaying game moving forward.
* The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition.
* The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual.
* The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games.
* The Essentials products work with all other Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game products, from Player’s Handbook to new products releasing in 2011 and beyond—just like all other D&D products we release

If you are already playing 4e, Essentials isn't going to affect your game in any way unless you choose to use the new optional builds provided. If you are looking to start playing, it might be a good option to start with, but the Core rules are sticking around if you want to start there instead. If you are playing some other game instead of 4E, Essentials will affect you even less.

Everyone satisfied now?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pardon the thread necro, but with these release of this article, I'm completely satisfied, as "if you are already playing 4e, Essentials isn't going to affect your game in any way unless you choose to use the new optional builds provided" is now demonstrably false.

Feat have switched tiers, work differently (e.g. Melee Training), implements are totally reworked, racial bonuses are redone, etc., etc. These are significant, fundamental, and far-reaching changes, no matter what Bill (or anyone else) says.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Uh am I reading that article wrong or does it seem you can now do the dashing swordsman from Order of the stick? they say that Melee training allows you to add any ability to it.


the two reasons why i came back to forth over the last few weeks were two things. One was dark sun. Athas has always had a special place in my heart. I love it, so heck I had to buy it. This led me to the essential line and as I read the little changes I am excited about it. It present DnD4e in a way i seem to like, simpler and it trys to fix one of my issues with all classes being a little different. I am very happy with it.

As long as I can use Dark Sun with it I am happy


bugleyman wrote:

Pardon the thread necro, but with these release of this article, I'm completely satisfied, as "if you are already playing 4e, Essentials isn't going to affect your game in any way unless you choose to use the new optional builds provided" is now demonstrably false.

Feat have switched tiers, work differently (e.g. Melee Training), implements are totally reworked, racial bonuses are redone, etc., etc. These are significant, fundamental, and far-reaching changes, no matter what Bill (or anyone else) says.

Ehh, yes and no. The changes are a little farther reaching that it originally sounded, but also not anywhere near "significant and fundamental".

We've got 1 feat receiving (pretty slight) errata. Racial bonuses gaining expanded options - which was going to happen with or without Essentials, and does not affect existing characters.

And seriously, 'implements have been completely reworked'?? They work exactly the same, except that when you multiclass, you can use implements of either class freely. Its something that has been a long time coming, to help out a couple corner-case builds, but hardly a fundamental change to the system.

We don't have feats switching tiers, it sounds like we have a new thing:
1) A slight reorganizing of the way feats are arranged within Essentials itself; and
2) Some feats coming out that are slightly stronger than older ones.

It's the last that I'm actually bothered by, and it will really depend on how many feats fall into that category. If it is half a dozen... not a big deal. Several times that, though, and that gets annoying.

Of course, even with all of that, basically none of this will affect your existing game outside of providing more options.

Your dwarven cleric/wizard with melee training, lightning reflexes and seize the moment?

Still completely legal. Your racial bonuses remain legit. You lose 2-3 damage on OAs and other basics. Lightning Reflexes remains a valid choice. Seize the Moment remains a valid choice. The fact that other versions of them existed at the Heroic tier doesn't change anything for you as you exist now - it just opens out options going forward.

Now, I could still be wrong here, since they do mention powers getting reprinted - but that sounds like not actual changes to powers, but just reprinting those that needed the text cleaned up or other clarifications.

Wizard Encounter powers will be getting some changes. Melee Training has a very minor change. For existing characters, those are the only ones that will actually require them to pay attention. Everything else? Just more options - exactly as was said from the start.


It's not really 4.5 unless I can pwnzors more easily.


bugleyman wrote:

Pardon the thread necro, but with these release of this article, I'm completely satisfied, as "if you are already playing 4e, Essentials isn't going to affect your game in any way unless you choose to use the new optional builds provided" is now demonstrably false.

Feat have switched tiers, work differently (e.g. Melee Training), implements are totally reworked, racial bonuses are redone, etc., etc. These are significant, fundamental, and far-reaching changes, no matter what Bill (or anyone else) says.

I'm still not seeing it - or at least I'm not seeing it any more then what we have come to expect from the Errata. Rationalizing the feat list and the implements is a change on par with the changes done to Skill Challenges when DMG2 came out. The fact that races will now work with some other classes strikes me as less of a change then even this and nothing that has been mentioned is in anyway near as impactful as the damage re-evaluation that took place with the release of MMIII. If one wants to see a change in the rules that effects the game that was it, far more then any of the tiding up thats so far been mentioned regarding the essentials line.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I'm still not seeing it - or at least I'm not seeing it any more then what we have come to expect from the Errata. Rationalizing the feat list and the implements is a change on par with the changes done to Skill Challenges when DMG2 came out. The fact that races will now work with some other classes strikes me as less of a change then even this and nothing that has been mentioned is in anyway near as impactful as the damage re-evaluation that took place with the release of MMIII. If one wants to see a change in the rules that effects the game that was it, far more then any of the tiding up thats so far been mentioned regarding the essentials line.

That's fine; you're entitled to your opinion.

In my opinion, reasonable analysis leads to the conclusion that, taken collectively, these changes are at least as significant as the 3.0->3.5 changes.

In any event, I don't understand why so many people expect WotC's claims of "it's not 4.5" to be taken as evidence of anything.


bugleyman wrote:


In my opinion, reasonable analysis leads to the conclusion that, taken collectively, these changes are at least as significant as the 3.0->3.5 changes.

In any event, I don't understand why so many people expect WotC's claims of "it's not 4.5" to be taken as evidence of anything.

Except that of these changes, only a handful will make any difference to existing characters, and only to a few very specific characters.

In 3.0 -> 3.5, every bard, ranger, monk had to deal with outright changes to class features, proficiencies, etc. Most spell-users had large swaths of their spell list changed. Items worked differently. Core elements of the rules, like Damage Reduction, worked differently.

With Essentials...

1) People with Melee Training lose 2-4 damage on basic attacks.
2) Wizards have some additional effects they deal with certain Encounter powers on a miss.

Those... aren't significant changes. Not for existing characters.

Sure, we will have new feats to take, new class builds available. We've got new options - an existing character might no longer need to use a second implement (though it still works for them). They have more options with racial bonuses.

What I actually see this as comparable to, from 3rd Edition? The Player's Handbook 2. The one that had all sorts of class and race variants, where you could trade out certain abilities for new ones? And it did change/clarify a few existing rules like Polymorph, but didn't change the game on the same scale as 3.5?

That's what we are seeing here. Some changes, yes. Not many, and few that effect existing characters. That's the big difference.

If you like your characters as they are, they continue to work exactly the same. That's what they promised, that's what prevents people from being 'required' to buy the new books to stay current, and that still seems like it will be the case.


bugleyman wrote:


That's fine; you're entitled to your opinion.

In my opinion, reasonable analysis leads to the conclusion that, taken collectively, these changes are at least as significant as the 3.0->3.5 changes.

In any event, I don't understand why so many people expect WotC's claims of "it's not 4.5" to be taken as evidence of anything.

3.5 was significant to a large degree because I had to go out and buy new books and all my old supplements stopped working so I had this space in time when I had to do kludges to make the classes function, and then I got to buy all my supplements over again and it was all a big deal and a hassle.

Here I suppose you might manage to tally everything up and find that in actual physical changes there are more of them then in 3.0->3.5 but even if you did I don't think it would matter and that essentially comes down to the delivery method.

In the end I care or don't care based on something along the lines of seamlessness. They can do a huge changes as long as I...

...spend no money
...expend no effort
...make no adjustments to my game

The reality is that, because of the form we receive this content in its actually possible that they made changes comparable to the 3.0->3.5 changes and still meet my no impact on me in any way shape or form criteria.

now I'm a gracious person and I'm going to give them some leeway. Lets say that they can disrupt my game 2 or 3 times as long as they keep their disruptions to under 60 seconds. I think that this is more then fair - I'll let this whole thing slide so long as I don't have to spend more then 3 minutes assimilating the rule changes.

Again however the delivery method makes it possible that this can be done. I mean if its a change to one of my powers I'll spend 30 seconds reading it and then thats that. Change the feat list and my reaction is 'ohh - pretty colours' and then its on to click...click...click...search for good feat...search for good feat...search for good feat.

This is really the profound change in the way we partake of the media at this point. The reality is they can change just about every feat on the list and its not something that really impacts how I interface with the system...how I play the game if you will, since, when it comes to picking feats, I'm clicking on them searching for a good one under either paradigm - my behavior has not changed in other words and its likely that my newbs won't even realize that there has been change when they go to pick their next feat...unless Wizards actually manages to successfully organize the mess that is the feat list to make it easier to use. Then they'll notice, but, in a computerized interface like this, a situation where the interface has been made easier to use does not bother anyone.

Hence I think this is their design challenge. They can have a huge mind blowing revolution in game design as long as I don't notice anything different when I play.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
In my opinion, reasonable analysis leads to the conclusion that, taken collectively, these changes are at least as significant as the 3.0->3.5 changes.

I have to agree that this definitely looks like 4.5 from where I sit and this is just based on a summary by the designer. I'm certain that looking at the actual rulebook will end any confusion on the part of those who doubt the significance and pervasiveness of these changes.

I have a lot of the early 4.0 materials, but haven't bought anything in about a year. My money has been going to Paizo in the meantime. A lot of my friends and people I used to play with say that 4e doesn't feel like D&D, it's more of miniatures game or card game, because the whole "Role-Playing" aspect was lost. I certainly don't see the Essentials rules bringing any of them back.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.

Also, did anyone else notice that you can make one of 4 different types of elves. Four of them. Elves, Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow. Seriously, that is just way too many fairies.

The good news is that those of you who already purchased the original 4E books are not missing out on much and therefore won't feel obligated to purchase them. Unless you have terrible OCD and must have every book that WoTC puts out.


JMD031 wrote:
Also, did anyone else notice that you can make one of 4 different types of elves. Four of them. Elves, Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow. Seriously, that is just way too many fairies.

You do realize this is more than a 50% reduction in the number of elves available from previous edition, right?

High Elves (the basic kind, also non-existent in 4E)

Grey Elves (the 4E eladrin)

Wild Elves (the 4E elf)

Half Elves

Aquatic Elves

Dark Elves

Half Aquatic Elves

Avariel (Winged elves???)

Half Dark Elves

Star Elves (The Cha bonus elves!)

Green Elves (kind of like wild elves but stronger and less friendly)

Now that is too many to keep track of without a spreadsheet.


sieylianna wrote:


I have to agree that this definitely looks like 4.5 from where I sit and this is just based on a summary by the designer. I'm certain that looking at the actual rulebook will end any confusion on the part of those who doubt the significance and pervasiveness of these changes.

I have a lot of the early 4.0 materials, but haven't bought anything in about a year. My money has been going to Paizo in the meantime.

Essentials is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder is to 3.5. So if you are looking to minimize compatibility problems, that would be the way to go. ;)

sieylianna wrote:


A lot of my friends and people I used to play with say that 4e doesn't feel like D&D, it's more of miniatures game or card game, because the whole "Role-Playing" aspect was lost. I certainly don't see the Essentials rules bringing any of them back.

Why? The role-playing aspect in both systems is the same - it's as much as you want do. D&D rule systems have always been very focused on combat, and the removal of skill ranks actually improved the RP aspect of the skill system.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Re: The thread title.

I find it helps to close one's eyes and repeat this mantra three times while tapping one's heels together...


*walks through thread*


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
JMD031 wrote:
Also, did anyone else notice that you can make one of 4 different types of elves. Four of them. Elves, Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow. Seriously, that is just way too many fairies.

You do realize this is more than a 50% reduction in the number of elves available from previous edition, right?

High Elves (the basic kind, also non-existent in 4E)

Grey Elves (the 4E eladrin)

Wild Elves (the 4E elf)

Half Elves

Aquatic Elves

Dark Elves

Half Aquatic Elves

Avariel (Winged elves???)

Half Dark Elves

Star Elves (The Cha bonus elves!)

Green Elves (kind of like wild elves but stronger and less friendly)

Now that is too many to keep track of without a spreadsheet.

Sure, but most of them were not in the PHB or equivalents. Many of them were in campaign and other fluff books. This is the first time that there are 4 versions of elves in a base book.


Malaclypse wrote:
Why? The role-playing aspect in both systems is the same - it's as much as you want do. D&D rule systems have always been very focused on combat, and the removal of skill ranks actually improved the RP aspect of the skill system.

The skill challenge rules often end up making the roleplay seem more like an exercise in dice rolling. It takes a very good and experienced GM to hide this fact from the players. The best GM from my circle of friends (a guy who has run dozens of systems well) was unable to do it.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:
Why? The role-playing aspect in both systems is the same - it's as much as you want do. D&D rule systems have always been very focused on combat, and the removal of skill ranks actually improved the RP aspect of the skill system.
The skill challenge rules often end up making the roleplay seem more like an exercise in dice rolling. It takes a very good and experienced GM to hide this fact from the players. The best GM from my circle of friends (a guy who has run dozens of systems well) was unable to do it.

Doing this well is more about practice with this mechanic then experience with running most other systems. There may also be some elements of 'unlearning' involved as the person that runs these things best in my circle of gamers is actually the guy that has the least amount of experience as a game master and I have a bit of a hunch that his lack of experience may be a contributing factor to his success in this element of the game.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Doing this well is more about practice with this mechanic then experience with running most other systems. There may also be some elements of 'unlearning' involved as the person that runs these things best in my circle of gamers is actually the guy that has the least amount of experience as a game master and I have a bit of a hunch that his lack of experience may be a contributing factor to his success in this element of the game.

Interesting take. However, it is too late to get anyone in my gaming group to give 4E a second (well, third) chance. The other person who tried running it had an oversized party and refused to think "more" rather than "bigger" when designing encounters. The result was that it took at least 8 game sessions before my character was missed by an attack which didn't target AC, no matter the source. After too many times of being told to roll to see if I can act the next turn, and this turn you can't no matter what I lost any willingness to play the system, at least under that GM. Now the huge number of books (and the fact that I don't have plentiful overtime like I used to) keeps me from thinking of plunging back in. Most other players from that experience want to use their 4E books for winter heating.


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.


Krypter wrote:
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.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:


Essentials is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder is to 3.5. So if you are looking to minimize compatibility problems, that would be the way to go. ;)

Do you have any hard evidence to support this statement? It would seem to me that in order to make this statement, you must have access to the actual Essentials line of products. Otherwise, you're just speculating.

If you do have a preview copy of the Essential products, can you share some of the high points? If you do not have a preview copy, can you provide any other evidence (other than the anecdotal evidence provided via word of mouth) you may have to support your claim?

Thanks!


Larry Lichman wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:


Essentials is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder is to 3.5. So if you are looking to minimize compatibility problems, that would be the way to go. ;)

Do you have any hard evidence to support this statement? It would seem to me that in order to make this statement, you must have access to the actual Essentials line of products. Otherwise, you're just speculating.

If you do have a preview copy of the Essential products, can you share some of the high points? If you do not have a preview copy, can you provide any other evidence (other than the anecdotal evidence provided via word of mouth) you may have to support your claim?

Thanks!

If you would have read the thread, you would have seen the links to the ampersand previews. Basically, it boils down to this: All the attacks and defenses are the same for 4EE (Essentials) as for 4E. This means you can take a monster from the Monster Manual 1 or 3 or whatever and fight it using an Essentials character. If you take a monster from a 3.5 book and what to fight it using a Pathfinder Character, you would have to recompute stats - there is no CMB/CMD in 3.5.

Therefore, 4EE is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder to 3.5. QED :)


Semantics. 4.5, 4.25, whatever.

There do seem to be some major rules changes though. That doesn't mean things aren't compatible, but they sure are going to be different than what they were before.

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.

Sure, you can sit down at a table and play a fighter from PH1 and a fighter from Essentials. But how long before the new "options" in Essentials so overshadow those of PH1 and PH2, that the latter two become obsolete, or so sub-optimal that no one uses them anymore?

If I'm a player running a Wizard from PH1, and I see another guy running a Wizard from Essentials, and he's doing alot more than I can, and doing it better, how am I not going to feel that my character is broken, or behind the curve?

They can call it whatever they want, and we can argue for eternity over whether this is a .5 or not, but the truth is, it is a significant revision.


drkfathr1 wrote:
1. Implements changing, to now add proficiency bonuses

This isn't correct. No proficiency bonuses are added to Implements. The only thing that has changed is that if you are able to use an Implement, you can use it with all of your classes.

Previously, if you were a Wizard, you could use a Wand to cast your wizard spells. If you multiclassed to Cleric, you needed a Holy Symbol to cast cleric spells. Now, if you multiclass to Cleric, you can still use your Wand to cast Cleric spells.

As for the rest... the changes to magic items, races, and classes don't have any effect on existing characters, just present new options going forward.

The only things that will change for existing characters are Wizard Encounter Powers.

All the previews indicate the new builds are balanced alongside the old ones. I don't see any indication that the Mage will leave the Wizard in the dust. I could be wrong, these fears could be justified, I suppose time will tell - but all the evidence thus far does not seem to support that. There is no more reason to fear the 'Mage' will outclass that 'Wand Wizard' than there was to assume the 'Tome Wizard' from Arcane Power would do so.


drkfathr1 wrote:


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.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:


Essentials is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder is to 3.5. So if you are looking to minimize compatibility problems, that would be the way to go. ;)

Do you have any hard evidence to support this statement? It would seem to me that in order to make this statement, you must have access to the actual Essentials line of products. Otherwise, you're just speculating.

If you do have a preview copy of the Essential products, can you share some of the high points? If you do not have a preview copy, can you provide any other evidence (other than the anecdotal evidence provided via word of mouth) you may have to support your claim?

Thanks!

If you would have read the thread, you would have seen the links to the ampersand previews. Basically, it boils down to this: All the attacks and defenses are the same for 4EE (Essentials) as for 4E. This means you can take a monster from the Monster Manual 1 or 3 or whatever and fight it using an Essentials character. If you take a monster from a 3.5 book and what to fight it using a Pathfinder Character, you would have to recompute stats - there is no CMB/CMD in 3.5.

Therefore, 4EE is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder to 3.5. QED :)

Your argument is incomplete, as you are basing your statement on partial information. The entire ruleset for Essentials is not available, so there may be some minor recalculations from 4E to Essentials (and vice versa) just as there are from 3.5E to Pathfinder.

You may be right, but I will reserve my judgment regarding compatibility comparisons until I can see the full ruleset for Essentials.


Larry Lichman wrote:


Your argument is incomplete, as you are basing your statement on partial information. The entire ruleset for Essentials is not available, so there may be some minor recalculations from 4E to Essentials (and vice versa) just as there are from 3.5E to Pathfinder.

WotC had preliminary red boxes at GenCon, and played a game with Essentials and 4E Chars together. Also, they stated explicitely that it is perfectly compatible. Despite any conspiracy theories you might harbor, up to now there is no evidence that WotC act like Paizo with respect to compatibility.

Also, builds from 4E as well as 4EE will coexist in DDI, so...yeah.


I wonder how many people crying out that this is 4.5 actually played 4e in the first place?

I play 4e. Guess what? This isn't 4.5. Trying to make jokes about "WELL HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE WIZARDS" or "If you believe this title start tapping your heels together. BUT HEY IT'S TOTALLY YOUR OPINION!" are meaningless.

Offer some actual facts that haven't been proven wrong or shut your mouth.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I wonder how many people crying out that this is 4.5 actually played 4e in the first place?

I play 4e. Guess what? This isn't 4.5. Trying to make jokes about "WELL HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE WIZARDS" or "If you believe this title start tapping your heels together. BUT HEY IT'S TOTALLY YOUR OPINION!" are meaningless.

Offer some actual facts that haven't been proven wrong or shut your mouth.

Hey, let's try and keeps things reasonable. And let's be fair - I'm pretty sure Bugleyman, who has been the primary speaker on behalf of the argument that Essentials is 4.5, is a player of 4E.

That said, I do think it rather uncool of him that when he claims certain changes as proof that changes are occuring "at least as significant as 3.5" - and we demonstrably show that this isn't the case, and only 1 or 2 actual changes will affect existing characters... his response is to imply that we are standing around blindly chanting a mantra from WotC, rather than accept we might be analyzing things logically and arriving at an independant conclusion.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:


Your argument is incomplete, as you are basing your statement on partial information. The entire ruleset for Essentials is not available, so there may be some minor recalculations from 4E to Essentials (and vice versa) just as there are from 3.5E to Pathfinder.

WotC had preliminary red boxes at GenCon, and played a game with Essentials and 4E Chars together. Also, they stated explicitely that it is perfectly compatible. Despite any conspiracy theories you might harbor, up to now there is no evidence that WotC act like Paizo with respect to compatibility.

Also, builds from 4E as well as 4EE will coexist in DDI, so...yeah.

DUDE! You got to play the red box before release? How does the package look? Did the PC classes play any differently than you were used to (i.e., did the flavor change)? Any brand new game mechanics?

THIS is the kind of stuff I'm interested in learning about...actual play test rather than speculation!

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Larry Lichman wrote:


Do you have any hard evidence to support this statement?

The fact that all 4E powers are going to be errata'ed to the Essential powers?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:

Despite any conspiracy theories you might harbor, up to now there is no evidence that WotC act like Paizo with respect to compatibility.

Huh, am I missing something ? Did Paizo produce a ruleset and then released a ruleset they promised to be identical but it wasn't ?


Gorbacz wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:

Despite any conspiracy theories you might harbor, up to now there is no evidence that WotC act like Paizo with respect to compatibility.

Huh, am I missing something ? Did Paizo produce a ruleset and then released a ruleset they promised to be identical but it wasn't ?

Compatible to version 3.5 of the oldest role-playing system does not imply that monster stats have to be recomputed.

But to be fair, it's probably better to compare WotC to WotC, their track record is also far from clean, especially with respect to the 3.0 to 3.5 transition ;)


yay, another set of D&D books my wife will ask if I want, I'll reply no, and then have to explain all lover again why when i say i'm playing D&D i'm playign Pathfidner and that the new D&D is garbage and If I want a game simpel enough for a 10 5 eyar old, i'd go to toys r us.


MundinIronHand wrote:
yay, another set of D&D books my wife will ask if I want, I'll reply no, and then have to explain all lover again why when i say i'm playing D&D i'm playign Pathfidner and that the new D&D is garbage and If I want a game simpel enough for a 10 5 eyar old, i'd go to toys r us.

You might want to use a spell-checker in the future. Please.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:


Do you have any hard evidence to support this statement?
The fact that all 4E powers are going to be errata'ed to the Essential powers?

Huh? Nothing along these lines is happening.

One category of wizard spells (which is one class out of 20 or so) will have some portion updated with errata.

A handful of other powers will be cleaned up in the process.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that all 4E powers are being updated or errata'd - the vast majority of existing content will remain exactly the same.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Malaclypse wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Malaclypse wrote:

Despite any conspiracy theories you might harbor, up to now there is no evidence that WotC act like Paizo with respect to compatibility.

Huh, am I missing something ? Did Paizo produce a ruleset and then released a ruleset they promised to be identical but it wasn't ?

Compatible to version 3.5 of the oldest role-playing system does not imply that monster stats have to be recomputed.

But to be fair, it's probably better to compare WotC to WotC, their track record is also far from clean, especially with respect to the 3.0 to 3.5 transition ;)

Ah, you're one of the "CMB/CMD ruins compatibility" folks. Strange that you didn't give up on WotC with 3.0-->3.5 transition but hey.

Malaclypse wrote:


You might want to use a spell-checker in the future. Please.

This isn't The Gaming Den with it's decentralized moderation where everyone is grammar/logic police. You got your forums confused.


Malaclypse wrote:

If you would have read the thread, you would have seen the links to the ampersand previews. Basically, it boils down to this: All the attacks and defenses are the same for 4EE (Essentials) as for 4E. This means you can take a monster from the Monster Manual 1 or 3 or whatever and fight it using an Essentials character. If you take a monster from a 3.5 book and what to fight it using a Pathfinder Character, you would have to recompute stats - there is no CMB/CMD in 3.5.

Therefore, 4EE is more compatible to 4E than Pathfinder to 3.5. QED :)

Most of the Pathfinder combats I have run with 3.5 monsters didn't including me being forced to recompute anything. On the other hand, I have still seen a lot of people posting suggesting quick and dirty "conversions" to MM1 and MM2 monsters to alter their hit points/damage/defenses to adjust the monster design to match the more current releases. I believe that your proof, while the result may be correct, is not as clear cut as you seem to indicate.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
That said, I do think it rather uncool of him that when he claims certain changes as proof that changes are occuring "at least as significant as 3.5" - and we demonstrably show that this isn't the case, and only 1 or 2 actual changes will affect existing characters... his response is to imply that we are standing around blindly chanting a mantra from WotC, rather than accept we might be analyzing things logically and arriving at an independant conclusion.

To be fair though, a number of the responses directed at people with his opinion, not your own, cast the exact same judgement on them. That is, implying that they are just blindly chanting an anti-WotC mantra that they heard from someone else, rather than accept that they might be analyzing things logically and arriving at their own independent conclusion.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I wonder how many people crying out that this is 4.5 actually played 4e in the first place?

I play 4e. Guess what? This isn't 4.5. Trying to make jokes about "WELL HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE WIZARDS" or "If you believe this title start tapping your heels together. BUT HEY IT'S TOTALLY YOUR OPINION!" are meaningless.

Offer some actual facts that haven't been proven wrong or shut your mouth.

Wow, there's some reasonable, and mature discussion. It's a game dude, calm down.

Guess what? I play 4E too.

I like how everyone wants to pick apart the list of "changes" I posted, but no one seems to want to discuss the implications of builds varying to the degree that the PH1 classes and races are going to be obsolete.

Oh, and hey, guess what else? We can all have our own opinions, and should have the right to post them without people getting their panties in a wad.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Krypter wrote:
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.

Actually it is a good market strategy, if you are in the money making business. People have to purchase multiple books for the same material which gives them more money for the same amount of material. Now, whether or not will work is a different story.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MundinIronHand wrote:
yay, another set of D&D books my wife will ask if I want, I'll reply no, and then have to explain all lover again why when i say i'm playing D&D i'm playign Pathfidner and that the new D&D is garbage and If I want a game simpel enough for a 10 5 eyar old, i'd go to toys r us.

I don't know why you gotta do it. Were you bored and figured you'd just stop by the 4e section and say the game a lot of people here enjoy is garbage, just to kill time or something? Thanks for adding to the discussion. Now I know to just throw out my 4e books because 4e is "simpel enough for a 10 5 eyar old."

Thanks.


A couple points from a perspective from someone who doesn't play 4th edition, but still keets an eye on 4th edition's progress, especially in regards to how its updated/distributed:

1. Everything I've read (including official material from WOTC) makes me believe that if it isn't 4.5 its at least 4.25 or some other 4.x. Making that many changes to that many core systems means that the game has been changed at a fundamental level, even if it the new material is entirely compatible with the old material.

2. Does it really matter with the the way 4th edition is distributed? With 3.0 to 3.5 all of the additions came at once, and were only available in a entirely separate book. The way the WOTC has distributed 4th edition electronically through the DDI and constant minor changes in all their books following the original ones, does it really matter whether they are technically on 4.0, 4.5, or some other 4.x? Most people won't even have to buy the new books if they have DDI; they will probably get all the updated material and new options as part of the updates that keep DDI current.

Ultimately, I think both sides of the argument are partially right in this debate. All the changes I've read about constitute real, albeit sometimes subtle, changes to the game; at the same time, those who say it doesn't really matter are also correct since the change in distribution models from 3rd to 4th edition has rendered a lot of the problems and complaints with the 3.0->3.5 transition moot. The interesting thing will be to see if WOTC's gamble in their particular choice of distribution models this time around pays off or not.


drkfathr1 wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

I wonder how many people crying out that this is 4.5 actually played 4e in the first place?

I play 4e. Guess what? This isn't 4.5. Trying to make jokes about "WELL HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE WIZARDS" or "If you believe this title start tapping your heels together. BUT HEY IT'S TOTALLY YOUR OPINION!" are meaningless.

Offer some actual facts that haven't been proven wrong or shut your mouth.

Wow, there's some reasonable, and mature discussion. It's a game dude, calm down.

Guess what? I play 4E too.

I like how everyone wants to pick apart the list of "changes" I posted, but no one seems to want to discuss the implications of builds varying to the degree that the PH1 classes and races are going to be obsolete.

Oh, and hey, guess what else? We can all have our own opinions, and should have the right to post them without people getting their panties in a wad.

I don't see how anything is going obsolete, other then some wizard powers. The new classes are new classes. In 3.5, the new ranger REPLACED the old one. The thief does not replace the rogue.

My problem isn't with opinions, it's when the "facts" the person claims as it being 4.5 consist of "lol sheeple." I mean come on, why not just call them "Wi$ards" or something stupid like that if you're going to go that far.

MundinIronHand wrote:
yay, another set of D&D books my wife will ask if I want, I'll reply no, and then have to explain all lover again why when i say i'm playing D&D i'm playign Pathfidner and that the new D&D is garbage and If I want a game simpel enough for a 10 5 eyar old, i'd go to toys r us.

That's funny, because your level of typing and thought processes shown here implies you'd be perfectly at home at Toys R Us with the other ten year olds.

Silver Crusade

You do realize you are all arguing about a metaphor, right?

"Essentials is to 4e as 3.5 is to 3e."

All of these posts are about whether or not that analogy is fitting. Seriously.

There is room for discussion of the merits of the changes introduced, as well as the marketing, etc. But to get this heated over whether it is appropriate to use a particular extended metaphor is sad.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:

I mean come on, why not just call them "Wi$ards" or something stupid like that if you're going to go that far.

That's funny, because your level of typing and thought processes shown here implies you'd be perfectly at home at Toys R Us with the other ten year olds.

It's one thing to do a good old ad hominem in your post, but making fun of others who commit that fallacy *in the very same post* is like, pure gold. Can I call it a Cirno Fallacy ?

201 to 250 of 516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / "D&D Essentials ... It's Not 4.5!" - Reposted from EN World All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.