The situation is no different than when one person has a 3.0 PHB and other has a 3.5 PHB.
Actually it's entirely different than that.
It's more akin to some one playing with character from the 3.5 phb alongside someone with a character from the Bo9S (if they had reprinted the 3.5 combat rules in the Bo9S anyway).
What part of essentials is a compatible supplement with a reprint OF THE SAME DAMN RULES in it seems to elude you?
Frankly i think your just trolling at this point.
Sorry this may have been said.
3.0 --> 3.5, you could not mix and match classes/powers/spells.
4.0 --> Essentials, mix and match as you wish.
That's why I don't see Essentials as a 4.5.
S.
Not according to WotC:
Your 3.0 rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-3.5, and vice versa. The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either; there will be changes...
Hmmm...sound familiar?
Did WoTC continue to support 3.0 after publishing 3.5? Did WoTC tell their customers they could still play 3.0 rules alongside 3.5 or did they want their customers to buy all new books?
You are certainly within your rights to call Essentials whatever you want, but don't post trollish challenges to "fanbois" to spin Essentials for you.
The situation is no different than when one person has a 3.0 PHB and other has a 3.5 PHB.Actually it's entirely different than that.
It's more akin to some one playing with character from the 3.5 phb alongside someone with a character from the Bo9S (if they had reprinted the 3.5 combat rules in the Bo9S anyway).
What part of essentials is a compatible supplement with a reprint OF THE SAME DAMN RULES in it seems to elude you?
Frankly i think your just trolling at this point.
Oh, I don't know...the part about how the rules aren't the same?
See: Classes, races, magic item rarities, flying rules, etc., etc. But yeah, I must be trolling. In which case, stop feeding me. Please?
Is the guy beside me playing a straight up Avenger also playing 4.5 because he is in the same game with me or is he playing 4.0?Is his book printed with camel-dung ink?
Your question is silly, and you know it. The situation is no different than when one person has a 3.0 PHB and other has a 3.5 PHB. Whatever they call the game they're playing, the fact that the books they are holding are different -- and components of different editions.
Look up "edition" in the dictionary, for goodness sake.
Edition can mean many things. If I have International Finance 15th edition its a lightly updated version of International Finance 14th edition.
If that is what you mean then saying 4.5 is misleading while something like 4.63 would be more accurate.
Its not the same thing, to make my multiclassed Warpriest I had to have a PHB2 (or the DDI). When I multiclassed in 3.5 there was no use for a 3.0.
When I pick up Hero's of Shadow is that book 4 or 4.5? Does it matter to this answer if I do or do not use the essentials material?
Did WoTC tell their customers they could still play 3.0 rules alongside 3.5?
As a matter of fact, they did.
The changes to magic items and races have been carried across, or will be carried across as errata to the other books.
???
3.0 --> 3.5, you could not mix and match classes/powers/spells.
Its actually different then that. You could probably mostly mix 3.0 and 3.5 powers though there might well be some significant confusion since elements of the spells often changed, especially spell duration.
Here though there is no difference. In effect there is only one true list and it encompasses all the powers.
The changes to magic items and races have been carried across, or will be carried across as errata to the other books.
Which makes them "not changes" how?
I agree on one count...this is going nowhere. You can keep moving the target all day (after, all, its "subjective"), but the fact remains that essentials:
1. Is different that 4th edition;
2. Contains substantive changes; and
3. Is a complete, stand-alone rules system.
If you choose not to recognize that as a new edition, that's your prerogative.
|
Its actually different then that. You could probably mostly mix 3.0 and 3.5 powers though there might well be some significant confusion since elements of the spells often changed, especially spell duration.
Here though there is no difference. In effect there is only one true list and it encompasses all the powers.
Which is why you chose either the 3.0 version or the 3.5 version, like you do with all errata you do not wholeheartedly support. Which means it is no different from 4E and Essentials.
The changes to magic items and races have been carried across, or will be carried across as errata to the other books.Which makes them "not changes" how?
I agree on one count...this is going nowhere. You can keep moving the target all day (after, all, its "subjective"), but the fact remains that essentials:
1. Is different that 4th edition;
2. Contains substantive changes; and
3. Is a complete, stand-alone rules system.If you choose not to recognize that as a new edition, that's your prerogative.
Just for arguements sake lets say it is 4.5.
If i can nonethless use all the future supplements they have planned in my current game including classes races monsters feats and items with little to no alteration....why should i care that its 4.5?
Just for arguements sake lets say it is 4.5.If i can nonethless use all the future supplements they have planned in my current game including classes races monsters feats and items with little to no alteration....why should i care?
I'm sure I have no idea why you should care.
Personally, I care because I find it insulting to be fed bald-faced lies -- but YMMV. So whether you care or not is entirely up to you -- but then again, I never said otherwise.
Which is why you chose either the 3.0 version or the 3.5 version, like you do with all errata you do not wholeheartedly support. Which means it is no different from 4E and Essentials.Its actually different then that. You could probably mostly mix 3.0 and 3.5 powers though there might well be some significant confusion since elements of the spells often changed, especially spell duration.
Here though there is no difference. In effect there is only one true list and it encompasses all the powers.
I'm not so sure its really like that. Your discussing picking and choosing between different versions of a power. In 4E there is only 1 version and its in use in essentials but also exists even if I don't buy any essentials books. The real master rule set is the online compendium.
|
|
I'm not so sure its really like that. Your discussing picking and choosing between different versions of a power. In 4E there is only 1 version and its in use in essentials but also exists even if I don't buy any essentials books. The real master rule set is the online compendium.
Except there are people who play with the 4E version of some powers and Essentials version of others. Some people don't update their character builder for precisely that reason.
You can say there is only one version, but that is provably false by your own statement of 'even if I don't buy any essentials'. If you don't buy the new books but are still using the power, there is another version besides the Essentials version.
But really I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of saying 'Essentials isn't 4.5 because you couldn't use 3.0 and 3.5 together'.
|
But really I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of saying 'Essentials isn't 4.5 because you couldn't use 3.0 and 3.5 together'.
Quite strong wording there TOZ.
What I was saying was that the differences were far more sweeping 3e --> 3.5e and that my say 3e Ranger would have difficulties integrating into a 3.5e game. From what I have seen 4e/Essentials integration of for example 4e fighter and essentials fighter isn't required just play as usual.
See my point?
Just a thought, but saying the essentials changes nothing is untrue. Now I know the compendium is the rules master of 4e these days, but I know that essentials changed Magic missile completely and this was reflected on the compendium. The ph1 magic missile and essentials one are two different beasts now. YMMV
You can keep moving the target all day (after, all, its "subjective"), but the fact remains that essentials:
1. Is different that 4th edition;
2. Contains substantive changes; and
3. Is a complete, stand-alone rules system.If you choose not to recognize that as a new edition, that's your prerogative.
Once again, subjective. Whether or not the changes are substantive is in the eye of the beholder.
The fact is, the core of 4E is a very modular framework. The chassis everything is built on hasn't really changed much with all the errata.
Core features that I feel are important to what makes 4E different from other editions (3E, etc):
*Defenses based on one of two stats.
*Defenses built like AC.
*Skill choices are made at level 1, no skill points.
*How skill checks are made. (IE, d20 + 1/2 level)
*How attack rolls are determined.
*HP - starting and advancing
*Levels are grouped in tiers.
*Feat and stat bonus progression.
*Powers - At-will, encounter, and daily powers have a fundemental framework.
There are a ton more, but it doesn't really matter. What is clear is that what I see as the fundementals of the system is different from what you see. And that's ok.
As it is, I'm interested in the new Gamma World. It doesn't look to me to be any more of a new edition that say, Dark Sun. We're still in the realm of opinions. I suspect to most people who actually play 4E, essentials isn't a big deal and changes very little for them.
I do think some of the individual books were poor choices. I'll probably pick up a rules compendium, but the class compendium looks kinda dumb since I already have a phb. Red box sounded disappointing, so I'm skipping that. Dark Sun and Gamma World sound awesome, so I say game on!
|
|
Strong words tend to come from strong feelings. Thank you for that clarification, I really should have waited for you to have a chance to respond. Since I never played anything before 3.5, I have to take your word on the changes from 3.0 and the difficulties of integration.
No stress there bro. I have always found your posts to be most reasonable, so I figured I had just worded my post not too well.
3e --> 3.5e was a chance to fix issues* that 3e had. Many found the Ranger not worth playing and things like the Bear's Strength lasted an hour/level so was too good.
Regards,
S.
*: Monte has gone on record to say he disagrees with many of the fixes to "his" 3e game.
|
|
The ph1 magic missile and essentials one are two different beasts now. YMMV
That isn't quite true. Magic Missile in 4e and Essentials is identical, and has been errata to this effect. This is completely different to 3e vs 3.5e where spells changed in 3.5e were not also said to be an errata to be applied to 3e. Many people still play 3e because they do not like 3.5e.
S.
Did WoTC tell their customers they could still play 3.0 rules alongside 3.5?As a matter of fact, they did.
You are going to have to be more specific, where?
|
|
You are going to have to be more specific, where?
He already was.
Not according to WotC:
Your 3.0 rulebooks should work very well with any support product that is post-3.5, and vice versa. The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either; there will be changes...
Hmmm...sound familiar?
I'm not so sure its really like that. Your discussing picking and choosing between different versions of a power. In 4E there is only 1 version and its in use in essentials but also exists even if I don't buy any essentials books. The real master rule set is the online compendium.Except there are people who play with the 4E version of some powers and Essentials version of others. Some people don't update their character builder for precisely that reason.
You can say there is only one version, but that is provably false by your own statement of 'even if I don't buy any essentials'. If you don't buy the new books but are still using the power, there is another version besides the Essentials version.
But really I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of saying 'Essentials isn't 4.5 because you couldn't use 3.0 and 3.5 together'.
If I don't buy the new books I'm still using the current version of the power, unless, as you note I keep an account on the DDI and specifically don't update it...but I suspect thats pretty rare.
The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either; there will be changes...[/i]
Hmmm...sound familiar?
Rather than trying to split hairs about the meaning of the above quote, how about this:
Did WoTC still produce product for 3.0 after 3.5 was out? I don't mean 1 month after, perhaps something was already in the pipeline, but was there anything several months off that still supported 3.0 like 4e has Heroes of Shadow, due in May of 2011?
|
Actually looking at Monte Cook's discussion of 3.5 before it came out and how 3.5 had been planned from before 3rd edition was released really helps make this whole Essentials thing make a lot more sense as to the whole why does it exist. They planned a "reboot" for about when they imagined sales would slump and out it came like it did the last cycle. It worked for them before and isn't the worst business strategy in the world.
Someone might have brought that up before though...
Either way there is too much errata for 4th edition as it stands, when your editing things away from corrections or contradictions to just showing off the fact you don't apparently bother to properly play test your stuff enough. The 123 pages of growing errata is effectively it's own supplement and changes the original 4th edition enough where that alone was 4.5 in the end so publishing it doesn't really make a difference.
|
|
But... it was 'getting away with it', rather than 'system working as intended' such as with compatability between the PHB and Heroes of the Fallen Lands/Forgotten Kingdoms.
I point you back to the WotC quote upthread. 'The older books won't be useless, but they won't be perfectly up to date, either' sounds like 'system working as intended'.
Every 3.5 book?
Are you able to answer the question posed? Heroes of Shadow says it is specifically a 4e supplement, not an Essentials Supplement compatible with 4e.
Show an example of a product that came out after the release of 3.5 that was specifically made for 3.0.
Whatever they call the game they're playing, the fact that the books they are holding are different -- and components of different editions.
Look up "edition" in the dictionary, for goodness sake.
By your definition here, Pathfinder is on its 4th Edition already.
|
|
Are you able to answer the question posed? Heroes of Shadow says it is specifically a 4e supplement, not an Essentials Supplement compatible with 4e.
Show an example of a product that came out after the release of 3.5 that was specifically made for 3.0.
WotC only, I probably won't find anything. Maybe something 3rd party.
Personally, May is a long way off, so we'll have to wait and see on if it actually gets published. Could you explain the point of the question?
By your definition here, Pathfinder is on its 4th Edition already.
I have mixed feelings about that one too. :/
Rather than calling Essentials 4.5, I think a better description would be to call it Basic D&D, and 4e Advanced D&D, just like the 2 version in the early 80's.
Could you explain the point of the question?
The point was to show that WoTC has not stopped making 4e for Essentials, but split the production. Essentials is not 4.5, but a separate line of product.
Actually looking at Monte Cook's discussion of 3.5 before it came out and how 3.5 had been planned from before 3rd edition was released really helps make this whole Essentials thing make a lot more sense as to the whole why does it exist. They planned a "reboot" for about when they imagined sales would slump and out it came like it did the last cycle. It worked for them before and isn't the worst business strategy in the world.
Someone might have brought that up before though...
Either way there is too much errata for 4th edition as it stands, when your editing things away from corrections or contradictions to just showing off the fact you don't apparently bother to properly play test your stuff enough. The 123 pages of growing errata is effectively it's own supplement and changes the original 4th edition enough where that alone was 4.5 in the end so publishing it doesn't really make a difference.
Considering that the 123 pages is mainly fixes to powers for play balance I'm freaken grateful for it.
I mean I agree that what would be better is if WotC managed to playtest this so that we had thousands of options in every style of campaign and yet there was no use for a character optimization forum because no matter how you tried everything was always perfectly balanced.
But thats unrealistic - this is a far better alternative then 3.5s method of pretending that nothing ever needed to be fixed because it was unbalanced. If I have to choose between a 100 pages of errata where WotC consistently comes back and rebalances things to keep everything in something close to the same league and the lackadaisical way they stuck their head in the sand and played pretend in 3.5 I'm going to opt for extensive errata every time.
Could you explain the point of the question?
The point was to show that WoTC has not stopped making 4e for Essentials, but split the production. Essentials is not 4.5, but a separate line of product.
I don't even agree that its a separate product. Its a reprint of the same product with all the errata included, improvements on layout and better (more clear and concise) wording. It includes enough new builds, feats, powers etc. to entice regular 4E players to treat it much like they treat any other supplement such as Martial Power or PHB2 meaning that they have some incentive to pick it up and it even comes with a couple of themes, a 'classic' style of play theme which happens to jive extremely well with their 'newby friendly' theme.
I'm not sure I'll pick it up myself as I'm really only interested in the new builds portion and that pops up on the DDI but I have no doubt that I'll dip into it for feats.
For example, I'll definitely, when I next level my cleric use retraining to pick up the Human power that allows you to add a bonus to most rolls once an encounter as thats an awesome power and my cleric does not need the third at-will you have to trade in to get this power.
Other then that it might have some other good feats for my cleric...though I doubt I know the source. I don't usually bother looking at which book a feat comes from when I choose it because really who cares what book it comes from. When Darksun updates that will be verbotten in our campaign (and I agree with the DM on that call) but aside from using preferences to take Darksun off the legal list, every book is essentially interchangeable in terms of feats and powers and such.
|
|
Considering that the 123 pages is mainly fixes to powers for play balance I'm freaken grateful for it.
Yes, but it stinks of the hypocrisy and just that general bad DM saying, "It's too powerful so you can't use it anymore!" No one wants to play under that guy/girl. There are threads on these boards dedicated to complaining about those types of bad DM's.
How can one say, "This game is amazing and the best, D&D 4th edition forever, so long as you ya know take these hundreds of powers and magic items that are ridiculously broken. Oh and here are more books that are 90% new powers and items, so you know look forward to more huge lists of errata."
I don't even understand why the remaining 4th edition players bother to use that character optimization forum anymore as it becomes increasingly more obviously that it's current purpose for WotC is culling it for more errata rather then hiring people to play test and edit their game properly. :(
Basically the ball game has changed in reference to previous editions, in regards to a widely available and standardized character builder. Thousands of different builds can be tested, so even more than in the past, players will report preferences on powers. If wizards responds and keeps the errata up to date, I don't see any problem. But that is a balancing act they will have to manage for specific users that don't like the changes.
Beyond magic missile, there is no other changes I disliked. There are only two other changes that forced me to update my character. One was related to the initial build for a battle rager fighter. It was broken in regards to the amount of temporary hit points generated. The other was removing lay on hands from the hybrid paladin. I just switched my fighter to a cleric/fighter hybrid and never looked back.
So I guess your milleage will very, but I don't dwell much on how errata was handled in the past.
Yes, but it stinks of the hypocrisy and just that general bad DM saying, "It's too powerful so you can't use it anymore!" No one wants to play under that guy/girl. There are threads on these boards dedicated to complaining about those types of bad DM's.
So WotC does this DM and his players a favour by sucking back the criticism. Now its not me vs. my players or me vs. my DM on what is and what is not to powerful. Its an outside source - they take all the blame and I get a better balanced game. The alternative was a bloody arms race where the DM and the players constantly tried to 'up their game'. By the end of 3rd edition I was spending so much time redoing monsters by re-picking their feats and spells that I, quite literally, had no time left for story. Worse yet long standing players simply found that their 'build' could not compete as the arms race continued. Players where retiring characters and coming back as more powerful versions even when they did not die in the adventure because there character was now so underpowered compared to their comrades.
If WotC deals with the play balance issue I don't have to. I can focus more on the story and in the end that is what I'd rather be doing in terms of game prep.
Maybe more importantly it means that my Cleric in the Scales of War campaign is just awesome even though I started playing him at 1st...and those friggen munchkins I'm sitting beside who build and rebuild characters have so far failed to break the system wide open, which is just fine with me...what was I going to do if they did?
Seriously that path leads to this big blow up where I'm fighting with the other players because some one is involved in 'badwrongfun', especially when I hate constant cake walk fights. If the battles are pushovers and there is no risk then that just blows...I want the DM to push us, make us work as a team, make us plumb the depths of our abilities...just make sure that my longstanding character is not outclassed by some munchkin build.
How can one say, "This game is amazing and the best, D&D 4th edition forever, so long as you ya know take these hundreds of powers and magic items that are ridiculously broken. Oh and here are more books that are 90% new powers and items, so you know look forward to more huge lists of errata."I don't even understand why the remaining 4th edition players bother to use that character optimization forum anymore as it becomes increasingly more obviously that it's current purpose for WotC is culling it for more errata rather then hiring people to play test and edit their game properly. :(
I don't understand why people use the character optimization boards either. I have honestly never once been tempted...but I'm glad they do and I'm exceptionally glad that WotC then uses it to scale back on broken elements of the game. I actually wish they would be even more intrusive. Mathew points out that there are still areas where play balance could be even more effective. I'd like to see more errata not less. I suspect that a lot of the time those optimizers are getting rewarded in any case. I suspect that for many of them, when they break the game with some build, they get some satisfaction from the fact that errata comes out they can point to that and say 'I made WotC do that - I contributed to the game.'
Hiring people to playtest this might catch some stuff (and I think that is part and parcel of what Development is supposed to do) but its just not on the same level as thousands of players pouring over everything and then redlining it. The character optimization threads really are the best playtesting group out there in terms of play balance - I'm glad WotC choose to see this as a resource and utilize it.
|
|
Aren't you worried that with the system that's in place eventually the bar to what is "broken" is going to be lowered to the point where smaller and smaller infractions are going to be entered into the rolls?
Plus one of course must be reminded that Errata from WotC doesn't automatically "fix" a power or item, but rather changes it so the specific thing people complain about is different. I'm sure the cleaver people who are still playing 4th Edition could comb through their errata document and probably come up with rediculious combos with stuff just in there.
Anyway, back to the original point of this thread. D&D Essentials! Totally planned for before 4E was released more then likely, yes? How does that make you feel if that's true?
Anyway, back to the original point of this thread. D&D Essentials! Totally planned for before 4E was released more then likely, yes? How does that make you feel if that's true?
So spitting nails mad I want to throw all my 4e books into a Whisper Chipper and play My Little Pony RPG
Anyway, back to the original point of this thread. D&D Essentials! Totally planned for before 4E was released more then likely, yes? How does that make you feel if that's true?
I'd have to say...
Hmm. I think this is certainly true to some extent - they told us this before 4E even came out. Year 1 of the game would be the main launch of 4E. Year 2 would be focused on expanding the content and trying to draw back in 3rd Edition players who hadn't moved to 4E, via books like PHB2 and MM2. Year 3 would be focused on drawing in new players and lapsed players.
So I think from the beginning they had the idea of something like Essentials in mind - but I don't think its actual form was determined until a year ago. From what I understand, in fact, it had a shorter design process than they usually have for products. I imagine that it was heavily influenced not just by the core idea of 'easy entry point for new players', but also by what they had learned about 4E thus far, and the desire to address certain complaints where they could.
...pretty much this...
...but don't let facts interfere with the hate.
;)
...but don't let facts interfere with the hate.
This needs to be the official catch-phrase of the 4e boards. When anyone trolls, we just paste this into the reply :)
Aren't you worried that with the system that's in place eventually the bar to what is "broken" is going to be lowered to the point where smaller and smaller infractions are going to be entered into the rolls?
While its a theoretical possibility its not currently a worry of mine. As Mathew points out they still seem to allow some stuff that I personally think is slightly overpowered through. The expertise feats (+1 to hit per tier) being the poster child for this concept.
Its also worth pointing out that errata itself is just not much of a hassle. Generally 4E players print out their characters every level after using the DDI to make adjustments for that level and any and all errata is automatically included. So, unless your purposely making your build around some busted combo your barely going to notice.
Plus one of course must be reminded that Errata from WotC doesn't automatically "fix" a power or item, but rather changes it so the specific thing people complain about is different. I'm sure the cleaver people who are still playing 4th Edition could comb through their errata document and probably come up with rediculious combos with stuff just in there.
Sure, but I can't think of an actual example where this has been the case. Should one come up they'll have to errata again.
Anyway, back to the original point of this thread. D&D Essentials! Totally planned for before 4E was released more then likely, yes? How does that make you feel if that's true?
This gets back to why this update is not 4.5. The actual changes to the rules in this update just are not that extensive. The ones that came with Monster Manual III where likely the most significant update so far and the errata for PHBI and DMGI where significantly larger.
Those making the 'this is 4.5' argument generally contend that if you take all the errata up to this point then that qualifies as 4.5 but for 4E players this update is more or less par for the course. Its one more update in a game that has been receiving some significant upgrades roughly every six months from day 1. If that was unacceptable then you got off the bus after the second time they did this.
If, on the other hand, you where OK with the upgrades or, as is the case with myself, actually like the fact that they are constantly trying to improve the game, then your used to this sort of thing.
Did they plan this from the beginning? I suspect they did - I read Monte's article as well and whats happened with 4th sounds a lot like what he was originally told would happen with 3rd. There would eventually be a new rules book with new art, all the errata and rewording to make any confusing concepts more clear. Since none of the new products outdate my existing material I don't really mind at all. Its critical to understand that I don't need to buy any of these books to keep playing the most up to date version of 4E.
In fact I benefit from this since I'll get a lot of the improvements along with my DDI subscription so I'm hopefully getting particularly good value for my $6 bucks a month. There really is no downside that I can see for an actual 4E player. There are some really quite small changes in the game play rules (flying, magic items) which are easily and quickly assimilated and a whole mess of new options when building a character. All this I get with my $6 dollar a month subscription fee...money I'd be giving them even if they did not go all out on giving me new content. Its as if Paizo made their APs 50% larger for six months but kept the subscription price the same...would the subscribers complain about getting all this free content? I doubt it.
...but don't let facts interfere with the hate.This needs to be the official catch-phrase of the 4e boards. When anyone trolls, we just paste this into the reply :)
Or you could just flag it and move on instead of responding with a trollish message.