Reposted from EN World.
For your consumption.
-Mark
PS: Vote for me in the upcoming ENnies Judge election!
Except, if you read the post, it kinda is 4.5, especially if you play a wizard.
I've long argued that the updates WotC is releasing go beyond merely errata to change basic aspects of the game. Apparently, the answer to the rapid obsolescence in their library that this practice has caused is to deny it, then release new books anyway.
In this case, they're releasing totally revamped versions of the core classes that exist "alongside" the current versions. Of course, all they need to do is make them slightly better than the existing versions (and if they aren't doing that anyway, why bother in the first place?), and then the old versions die off on their own, leading to exactly the same result. Heck, if the old versions don't die off, matters are actually worse, because if we can't discuss a "4E fighter" with any sort of assurance we're talking about the same class, the common language of the game is destroyed.
Yeah, yeah, I don't have to buy it, no one's coming to my house with a gun to take my books, etc., etc., etc. Strawmen. If they're going to release a half edition, they should come out and say it. All the current strategy is going to do is create confusion. It's almost like WotC wants to run D&D into the ground. :(
|
Except, if you read the post, it kinda is 4.5, especially if you play a wizard.
I waffle on whether this seems more like a dot-5 update to the rule set, OR if this is a way of WotC getting on the Old School Renaissance (OSR) band-wagon (a simplified game, defined party roles, boxed sets containing "everything you need to play," etc.).
Either way, it's an interesting update. I don't know how well Essentials will play at the same table with the "full version." I guess their trying to avoid the "basic" and "advanced" dichotomy.
I waffle on whether this seems more like a dot-5 update to the rule set, OR if this is a way of WotC getting on the Old School Renaissance (OSR) band-wagon (a simplified game, defined party roles, boxed sets containing "everything you need to play," etc.).
Either way, it's an interesting update. I don't know how well Essentials will play at the same table with the "full version." I guess their trying to avoid the "basic" and "advanced" dichotomy.
I suspect they'll play together just fine; at least as well as a 3.0 ranger would have co-existed with a 3.5 ranger. Of course, those two classes were clearly identified as being from different editions. On the other hand, the D&D essentials situation is simply going to sow confusion.
WotC should bite the bullet by officially releasing a 4.5, and keeping the PH/DMG/MM trinity authoritative. It's crazy to not to have a single, easily identified, consistent set of core rules in print. A situation in which there are multiple answers (of varying correctness!) to the question "where are the rules?" simply can't end well, and is just going to hasten the release of a fifth edition (or worse, put the game into a coma).
Where did I miss the news that Morrus is the new spokesperson of WotC ? :)
No kidding.
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.
I'm a bit curious about how the essential lines will interact with the DDI. For instance when you go to build a wizard with new versions of the character builder will you have the option of building and essential wizard vrs a regular wizard? Will you be able to mix essentials powers wit h regular powers? This could lead to balance issues, especially if they are getting rid of wizard daileys and presumably making the encounter powers more powerful.
I do think that Wizards is being true to their claimed intentions with the product line. It makes sense to have an easier way to introduce new players/dms to the game. For instance, I was running a lunch time dnd game for a group of grade 5 students. They really liked it, and I bought a copy of the phb for them that they were sharing around. However, they are moving on to middle school next year and want to keep playing. They've gotten used to using minis, battlemats and the like since I have a good collection of both. However, they were feeling daunted about getting started on their own with out all these extras. I gave them some tips on alternatives to minis and the like, but I think that essential line would be great for them because it would give them an affordable way to get started. It's also nice for parents who want to buy it as a gift for a kid. It would be frustrating as a young player who was new to the game to get the phb as a gift and realize you need a bunch of other stuff to actually play the game. The whole nostalgia of the red box seems designed to get older players to pick it up as well, but it really seems intended for younger newbie players (but still have value for veteran players). I hope that some of my gaming kids from last year get a chance to pick it up in the fall, so they can get a game going on their own.
The part of the essentials line I'm most excited about is the monster kit that has the tokens. It would be great to see some really well done tokens with plastic stands produced on high thick card stock (like the warhammer ones). I know that companies like Fiery dragon make tokens, but the art on them isn't stunning and the card stock isn't that thick, nor do they come with stands. Some affordable alternatives to minis that give dms all the monsters they need for regular game play would be most welcome IMO.
Where did I miss the news that Morrus is the new spokesperson of WotC ? :)
Since about 2008.
AFAIC, his post is a load of horseshit - just because you don't put a ".5" beside the title, doesn't avoid that being the final outcome. What they're burbling about could easily be applied to 3.0 <-> 3.5.
The part of the essentials line I'm most excited about is the monster kit that has the tokens. It would be great to see some really well done tokens with plastic stands produced on high thick card stock (like the warhammer ones). I know that companies like Fiery dragon make tokens, but the art on them isn't stunning and the card stock isn't that thick, nor do they come with stands. Some affordable alternatives to minis that give dms all the monsters they need for regular game play would be most welcome IMO.
I mostly agree; I just think the tokens should have been a completely separate product. Have a MM1 token set, MM2 token set, etc. Redefining core monsters that have already appeared in the MM1? Not so much.
I really don't get this view that trying to bring in new players = "WotC running D&D into the ground."
Me either. It's a good thing I never made that argument, isn't it?
The argument that I did make was that, whatever WotC's intentions, this is a bad strategy. Unless, of course, their intention was to muddy the waters, in which case they're doing quite well, thank you.
New player: "Hi, guys! I'm playing a fighter. What do you guys think?"
Existing player: "No idea; that doesn't look anything like the fighter class in my PHB. Take a look."
New player: "I have this other book. The fighter in here is different, see?"
Existing player: "We use the corebooks."
New player: "Corebooks? What are those? These aren't the same thing?"
Existing player: "Nope. The classes have the same names, but they're different. That makes the game easier on new players."
New player: "..."
As if RPGs weren't newbie-unfriendly enough already.
In 3.5, large swaths of rules were changed - the entire system was altered.
In Essentials, a few things on wizards were changed.
It's not really comparable.
Edit: If variant classes make for an entire new edition, then 3.x had a new edition every time a book came out.
In 3.5, large swaths of rules were changed - the entire system was altered.
In Essentials, a few things on wizards were changed.
It's not really comparable.
Two people have similiar-looking books, both of which say D&D 4th edition, that contain different information. But you're right about one thing, though: They aren't comparable.
With 3.5, you warned you so you knew what you were getting.
Edit: Variant classes were clearly labelled as such. That's not the same thing as redesigning core classes.
Look, for those like Arnwyn who claim this is identical to 3.0 -> 3.5, my question is this: What was the goal of the changes made with 3.5?
"Identical"? WTF are you talking about? I didn't saythat this change is "identical" to 3.5... and I certainly didn't imply it, either.
Be careful of looking like an apologist.
The argument that I did make was that, whatever WotC's intentions, this is a bad strategy. Unless, of course, their intention was to muddy the waters, in which case they're doing quite well, thank you.I definitely understand this concern, but... I question whether this scenario will actually play out like that, or how often. Maybe I'm just being optimistic. But I suspect even if the confusion occasionally crops up, most gamers will be aware of the differences or able to figure it out.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will be a big problem. But even then, is it worth it? If the Essentials line succeeds at its goal, and does make it easy for new players to get into the game and get started on their own, won't that make up for occasional bits of confusion?
Here's the lines I really take issue with: "All the current strategy is going to do is create confusion. It's almost like WotC wants to run D&D into the ground."
Maybe you are exaggerating for effect. But you are basically there are no benefits at all of creating a simplified but compatible version of the game, or that reaching out to new players comes across as WotC actively trying to undermine the game. And... yeah, I disagree with that.
Are there elements of this that can cause confusion? Yeah, absolutely. But I really don't think they will cause the line to fall to pieces. I think they'll occasionally cause a minute or two of confusion, likely followed by laughter once the gamers realize the cause, and then will have almost no effect on the game.
You may well be right. Personally, I wish they'd gone with a strong intro set with the same core classes in the PH. Instead, it feels like they're trying to appeal to both newbies and existing gamers, but in so doing creating another set of problems (the oft-mentioned pseudo "4.5"); like they're trying to make a single product serve multiple roles. But, as many folks on these boards can (and no doubt will) attest, I've been wrong before. :)
In 3.5, large swaths of rules were changed - the entire system was altered.
In Essentials, a few things on wizards were changed.
It's not really comparable.
Two people have similiar-looking books, both of which say D&D 4th edition, that contain different information. But you're right about one thing, though: They aren't comparable.
With 3.5, you warned you so you knew what you were getting.
Edit: Variant classes were clearly labelled as such. That's not the same thing as redesigning core classes.
Oh my god one of my books says Pathfinder, and the other says Advanced Player's Guide, they look alike, and one has a different bard.
PATHFINDER.5 D8
Nothing is being heavily redesigned. They've stated that you can use the new alternate - or, if you will, "variant" - classes with the current ones.
The only reason people think you wouldn't is because someone is claiming this is 4.5 with nothing to back it up. This is circular argument to the max. Someone said this is 4.5, and people here are agreeing, because someone here said 4.5, and people agree with him.
|
I would like to think I'm not that stupid, but, I fail to see how simplifying a system already touted as simple involves modifying core classes in a way that makes them effectively a variant to the "real" core classes is not going to be a source of confusion.
From what I gather they are going for Old School Red Box vs AD&D - but back then there was a really good reason for the Basic Set, that was AD&D was horribly written and could induce coma's in the under 10's. How is 4e not accessible now? How is 4e failing to attract new players, which one must assume it is for them to need to produce the Essentials line?
A much smarter idea (in my opinion) would have been have the Essentials line in a Red Box as is BUT supply only the "core" races (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling) and classes (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard) as written in the PHB's (with latest errata).
I can't halp but agree with those that imply WotC seems to be having a marketing "flail around" rather than a "cunning plan" at the moment.
Time will tell,
S.
(EDIT) PS: Like this :) - still why do they need to be "variants"?
Heroes of the Fallen Lands: Create and Play Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, and Wizards. This essential player book and its companion volume feature the essential elements of the game from a player’s point of view. This volume contains these classes—Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard—and these races—dwarf, eladrin, elf, halfling, and human.
Oh my god one of my books says Pathfinder, and the other says Advanced Player's Guide, they look alike, and one has a different bard.PATHFINDER.5 D8
Nothing is being heavily redesigned. They've stated that you can use the new alternate - or, if you will, "variant" - classes with the current ones.
The only reason people think you wouldn't is because someone is claiming this is 4.5 with nothing to back it up. This is circular argument to the max. Someone said this is 4.5, and people here are agreeing, because someone here said 4.5, and people agree with him.
Hyperbole much?
The "nothing" with which the point is being back up is quite simple: WotC is redesigning core classes without changing the edition. Which is something that, for reasons obvious to some, isn't something that is typically done.
BTW, circular argument != echo chamber: Try again. Or is festering, white-hot nerd-rage all you've got? See, I can do hyperbole, too. :)
...I fail to see how...modifying core classes in a way that makes them effectively a variant to the "real" core classes is not going to be a source of confusion.
This.
Apparently I'm slow, too. Maybe Stefan and I should start a club?
<SNIP>Or they could have actually made it a 4.5, and had it overwrite old material. Which would have had fans out for blood, for sure.</SNIP>
Oh, no doubt. I would personally have preferred it, but I'm sure there would have been screams of bloody murder...
Are these 2 seperate Lines? Will they still be releasing products that supports 4e and releasing products that supports essentials? or is 4e turning into essentials and all products then on is for essentials?
Unclear at this point. I believe the plan is to keep the lines distinct, but the Essentials products seem to be designed to appeal to players of the current 4E line. It's very "have your cake and eat it, too" on WotC's part, which is, I think, the problem.
I will be curious to see if the proposed changes to classes in the essentials line become preferred and how that will affect other established classes for 4E. Based on that, there may be a "4.5" release of updated books, and expect a revolt from established players that have already invested heavily. On the other hand, if the changes are only minor, then they may be able to co-exist. The true test will be the next set of classes they plan to release in 2011.
Existing player: "Nope. The classes have the same names, but they're different. That makes the game easier on new players."
New player: "..."
That pretty much sums up my view on this topic.
Yeah, I really don't see what the big deal is. They already have plenty of variants for the base classes.
P1: "I'm playing a rogue."
P2: "That doesn't look like the rogue from my PHB."
P1: "I'm a Brutal Scoundrel build from Martial Power."
I'm sure "Essential Wizard" will be just as easy to tell people as "Brutal Rogue". It's not like they are trying to make people stop using their PHB. They're just trying (we'll see how well they do) to make a gateway to the game the way the old Red Box used to be in the Basic/ADD days. And those were completely different rule sets, not mostly the same rule sets.
Yeah, I really don't see what the big deal is. They already have plenty of variants for the base classes.
P1: "I'm playing a rogue."
P2: "That doesn't look like the rogue from my PHB."
P1: "I'm a Brutal Scoundrel build from Martial Power."I'm sure "Essential Wizard" will be just as easy to tell people as "Brutal Rogue". It's not like they are trying to make people stop using their PHB. They're just trying (we'll see how well they do) to make a gateway to the game the way the old Red Box used to be in the Basic/ADD days. And those were completely different rule sets, not mostly the same rule sets.
Are the two words as easy to say? Of course. Is the meaning conveyed equivalent? No, because we're not just talking about builds. We're talking about a redesign ("redesign existing classes and races..."). Builds add on to what came before. Redesign replaces (and invalidates) it. It's a do-over, little more than two years after the system was released.
That you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference (right in your argument that the difference is easy to understand) has just overloaded by irony sensors. ;)
I don't think this is a bad thing, it's just being handled a bit clumsily. I think we can all agree on that.
|
|
So this essentials line may be a "closed system"? Meaning some stuff comes out and then no more? If so then I am interested as a DM. One thing as a DM a hate is the ever increasing number of Races/Classes. Gone are days of a Dwarf, a Human, and an Elf walking into a bar as standard. We now have a Squirrel, a Fishman, and Small Intelligent Piece of Lint (SIPL to his friends). As a DM I have real issues crafting a campaign world when nearly everything on the planet is "core" and both sentient and a PC possible race! (crazed rant, sorry).
Essenitals seems, from what I have read above, to be the big reset button I was looking for as a DM. Now I don't have to look like a DM-dictator by saying that Sentient Catfood Can race does not fit in my campaign world and not have players quote "EVERYTHING is core". I can say "if it's not ESSENTIAL" it's not in" :)
I am assuming that the two Player Essential's will be the only ones or will there be more?
Cheers,
S.
Are the two words as easy to say? Of course. Is the meaning conveyed equivalent? No, because we're not just talking about builds. We're talking about a redesign ("redesign existing classes and races..."). Builds add on to what came before. Redesign replaces (and invalidates) it. It's a do-over, little more than two years after the system was released.
Actually, that's not quite the case. As Mike explains in his article, there's nothing to invalidate existing characters. It's not a redesign, it's an expansion.
Think of it like this: One of the new warlord builds in Martial Power 2 was the archer warlord. He uses bows, doesn't get the same armor proficiencies, fights from ranged instead of melee, etc. He doesn't use a lot of the same powers as other warlords, he doesn't even use the same weapons, and he plays very, very differently. But the essential nature of the class is the same, no matter what build you have.
The same goes for the new sub-classes in Essentials. Just as an archer warlord and a tactical warlord can sit down at the same table, use many of the same mechanical bits (but not all!), etc. so too can the characters built with the Essentials books sit side-by-side with the classes that already exist in the game. The PH1 Fighter doesn't cease to exist post-Essentials, no more than it ceased to exist when the battlerager and tempest fighters came out in Martial Power. The presentation is a bit different, and the mechanics push the envelope more, but they're still all a part of the same game.
I really hope people will give the Essentials books a good look, especially people from these boards who may have written off 4E before. I think there's a lot of great, classic D&D in there that maybe they didn't see the first time around.
And don't forget, in 2Q 2011, the "Unavoidables" line will come out, bridging the gap between an Essentials campaign and a regular 4E one, with all new rules!
/satire
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.
|
|
How different will the rules be? How many new subsets of rules that are not compatible with the old rules will we have. Will wizard type one set 1 use different mechanics than wizards classic? Different mechanics for core classes sounds more like a change than an upgrade. It might be a positive change because the product sounds intriguing, but not knowing how many differences there are in gameplay mechanics makes it hard to argue. How will the sets interact with living realms play? Thanks for helping with my questions.
Actually, that's not quite the case. As Mike explains in his article, there's nothing to invalidate existing characters. It's not a redesign, it's an expansion.
Except the quotation directly calls it a redesign. If they don't want to give the impression it's a redesign, then perhaps they shouldn't call it one.
Think of it like this: One of the new warlord builds in Martial Power 2 was the archer warlord. He uses bows, doesn't get the same armor proficiencies, fights from ranged instead of melee, etc. He doesn't use a lot of the same powers as other warlords, he doesn't even use the same weapons, and he plays very, very differently. But the essential nature of the class is the same, no matter what build you have.The same goes for the new sub-classes in Essentials. Just as an archer warlord and a tactical warlord can sit down at the same table, use many of the same mechanical bits (but not all!), etc. so too can the characters built with the Essentials books sit side-by-side with the classes that already exist in the game. The PH1 Fighter doesn't cease to exist post-Essentials, no more than it ceased to exist when the battlerager and tempest fighters came out in Martial Power. The presentation is a bit different, and the mechanics push the envelope more, but they're still all a part of the same game.
I really hope people will give the Essentials books a good look, especially people from these boards who may have written off 4E before. I think there's a lot of great, classic D&D in there that maybe they didn't see the first time around.
I was pretty heavily invested in 4E: WotC "wrote it off" for me, through a series of short-sighted customer unfriendly decisions (GSL fiasco, pulling of PDFs, Eternal "beta" of the Monster builder, no sign of the rest of the DDI tools, etc., etc., etc.).
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.
...which would be a replacement of the original line with the essentials line in everything but name.
Are the two words as easy to say? Of course. Is the meaning conveyed equivalent? No, because we're not just talking about builds. We're talking about a redesign ("redesign existing classes and races..."). Builds add on to what came before. Redesign replaces (and invalidates) it. It's a do-over, little more than two years after the system was released.
That you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference (right in your argument that the difference is easy to understand) has just overloaded by irony sensors. ;)
I do understand the difference. Since you can bring and play classes from both lines at the same table means they are just that, different variants/builds. I'm betting the Advanced Player's Guide for Pathfinder will bring more variation to Pathfinder than Essentials will bring to D&D.
I'm betting the racial "redesigns" will be nothing more than: "You can select one of these three racial powers." Until we know more details or see some excerpts, people are really getting more worked up than is needed.
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.
I doubt this is true. They'll only stop printing monster manuals when they stop selling well. It's like printing money for them, and what keeps the entire D&D line going.
Except the quotation directly calls it a redesign. If they don't want to give the impression it's a redesign, then [b]perhaps they shouldn't call it one.
I'm sorry, I must not be aware of what you're referencing. Can you tell me where the phrase redesign is used? It may be something we want to correct, to keep from giving an erroneous impression.
There are some people in this thread who need to take a deep breath.
|
|
There are some people in this thread who need to take a deep breath.
I hope this happens. I would hate to see this thread locked. It's interesting to get some more information. In some ways I see the "Essentials Line" as perhaps what I had hoped 4e would be from the onset.
Strangely looking forward to it,
Stefan.