A re-write would imply the prior class is invalid, which is not the case. For the sake of argument, they could have just called it a different name like witch, or magi, etc.
It seems to me they just added another set of builds. I mean, it feels about as different as a "brutal scoundrel" feels from the original rogue. 4e is very modular, I would say that is probably the system's biggest strength. If you don't want the new builds, don't buy it.
I know that the slow creep of updates makes it feel like it is closer to a new edition, but the reality is it hasn't changed all that much. In a way, it is a testament to Wizards that they've manage to streamline their responses to customer queries. I'm sure there are questions about 3.5 that were never really answered or addressed. Look at the Pathfinder Errata thread to see that no book ever comes out perfect. Would you rather have the old Wizards (or TSR for that matter) that was slow to respond or correct even glaring errors? The internet has changed the way things are done, and the interaction between fan and designer has become more streamlined. Is that really a bad thing?
How many of you 4.5 complainers are actually playing or running a 4E game right now? If you are and you don't want to change things here's a hint: don't!
You may see more wizard variants in the future, along with other classes. That is 4e design - 101. Beyond that, if they add to the game, like an advance guide, and do not make major changes to the core, which a class variant does not qualify, then all is good.
Thanks above for mentioning the new variant wizard in essentials is called a mage. I just dropped the term magi as an example.
As to making the 4E less magic dependent, those options are available immediately in the character builder, but would be simple enough to implement on paper, or by DM decision. But they should make rule options availabe in DDI as a supplement on the web site. Hopefully someone will say it is already available, lol.
And to end, I am glad they are coming out with a rules compendium.
|
I view 4e and Essentials as two products using a system I don't mind. I would not allow the two to coexist in any game I was running but I guess as time goes on the differences thanks to updates will disappear. Essentials to me is a great "stand alone" product that can be refined (errata) to make a near perfect game with time and feedback. 4e however will continue to produce books that force new and interesting errata until 5e comes out to repeat the cycle. If they invest enough time in Essentials it may end up being the last D&D I ever need buy. I honestly think that 4e has been an experiment and 5e will have features in common with 4e but not look much like 4e (as 4e doesn't look like 3e for example).
S.
PS: Like say Ubuntu Linux vs Fedora Linux - stable vs cutting-edge - Essentials vs 4e. This would suit be fine, 4e for the people with ants in there pants and a desire for more individual classes than actual inhabatants and Essential for those who like the world to be the world.
Besides mechanics issues, which will be still somehow conjectural till the box hits the shelves, I think I've notice a bit of a Freudian slip: the present image for Essentials box is just a reprint of Larry Elmore's illustration for the Basic D&D "Red Box" of 1983!
4e has been released in the AD&D Format: accumulative rulesbooks which form a complete, detailed and expanding system, still keeping the "canonical" names... PHB, DMG, MM.
Then, after the AD&D manuals, we got a "introductory game", easier, faster and more friendly to newbies... that was the BXCM series of D&D! Part of TSR's reason for marketing D&D was to give new (and younger) players a good platform to jump into AD&D...
Essentials sounds kinda like Basic, and the admitted strategy is similar. Of course, AD&D and basic D&D were different games (as explained in the Basic Box) and not so compatible (it required a bit of conversion work). WotC will aim at compatibility to avoid self-competence (big error of TSR in the past), but the philosophy is there.
In turn, Basic D&D was quite the hit, it grew and actually it became more complicated, even including the Immortal rules and more detailed options in some aspects than AD&D (like Weapon Mastery from the Master Rules, and the huge number of variant and new class options from the late 80s and early 90s supplements of the Known World.) Essentials can go this way or the other... I can see Wizards taking the option according to sales, if Essentials is a hit as Basic D&D was, probably they will expand the line while the surge lasts. If it does stay like a season or mere introductory product in the eyes of gamers, probably its support won't overshadow the continued development of "hardcore" 4e books.
I find Essentials good news, I won't say it's 4.5 ed (as AD&D 2nd ed was AD&D revised), but the spirit of the product commented by Wizards people and the sneak peeks provided do look a lot like "Basic 4e". I always had a soft spot for the Basic boxes, over the labyrinth of AD&D manuals, maybe Wizards will do the cool trick again.
This Essentials line should be great for the world of gaming. In the 1980s the Red Box was at least partially responsible for swelling the ranks of pen and paper gamers. I've heard countless testimonies of the years that people got started on the Red Box, myself included.
I love everything about the concept except that actual rule set it is based off of.
In turn, Basic D&D was quite the hit, it grew and actually it became more complicated, even including the Immortal rules and more detailed options in some aspects than AD&D (like Weapon Mastery from the Master Rules, and the huge number of variant and new class options from the late 80s and early 90s supplements of the Known World.) Essentials can go this way or the other... I can see Wizards taking the option according to sales, if Essentials is a hit as Basic D&D was, probably they will expand the line while the surge lasts. If it does stay like a season or mere introductory product in the eyes of gamers, probably its support won't overshadow the continued development of "hardcore" 4e books.
I think the idea that it'll form its own sub game to be pretty improbable. Essentially this is because WitC has repeatedly said that they felt that it was TSRs splitting of their product lines that, eventually, hurt them. TSR supported the split because, in the short run, each different product seemed to sell well. Over the long run it hurt the sales of all the products because the customer base fractured. WotC won't allow that to happen because they clearly believe that this was a major mistake on TSRs part and the short term gain in profit is not worth the long term loss. Anything they make for the Essentials line will be able to seamlessly fit into regular 4E - they might go on and on about how good a product it is for new players but you can pretty much bet money that they'll finish every sentence that started with 'great for new players...' with '...and the rest of the D&D audience should drop whatever they are doing and run out and buy this product too because...'
It's not 4.5. Period.
It sounds like 4.5 to me, but that is more due to the vehement denials than anything else. I'd have been much more likely to believe it wasn't the start of an edition change without the denials than with.
Let's not be this sort of "fan", hm?
A few knee-jerk armchair industry analysts decided (based on scant information) that Essentials meant 4.5 despite all the clear evidence to the contrary, and then started spouting that same nonsense online. Others picked up on what they were saying, without doing their own homework, of course. It got to the point where WotC thought it was appropriate to clear the air by explaining exactly what Essentials was and wasn't, which included saying that it wasn't anything like 4.5 at all.
The fact of the matter is that this is exactly what would happen if Essentials really wasn't 4.5 (and, of course, it isn't).
Saying "It sounds like 4.5 to me because they're telling me it isn't 4.5," strikes me as some really lazy thinking. I mean, cool, you don't particularly care for 4e and obviously don't play it. And great, you don't trust WotC. But you've leapt past the point where you are making reasonable observations. The above reaction is, simply put, paranoia - someone tells you something is not the case, and you take their denial as proof. That's not a healthy way to examine the world.
I removed a couple posts to try to keep this thread on an even keel. Reasonable discussion is of course welcome, but lets make sure that it stays reasonable and civil.
Saying "It sounds like 4.5 to me because they're telling me it isn't 4.5," strikes me as some really lazy thinking. I mean, cool, you don't particularly care for 4e and obviously don't play it. And great, you don't trust WotC. But you've leapt past the point where you are making reasonable observations. The above reaction is, simply put, paranoia - someone tells you something is not the case, and you take their denial as proof. That's not a healthy way to examine the world.I don't normally think that way, but past experiences with WotC make them an exception, rather than the rule. I seem to remember the "we aren't working on a new edition" line coming out of them before, only to find out later that they really had been for quite some time. Being unable to learn from the past isn't a healthy way of looking at the world, either.
This still does not really follow. The products coming out in like 3 months they'd be found out to quickly to make lieing about it worth while.
In the original case, and I don't know all the details, but they where asked years from the actual release. Answering yes would have led to two years of anemic sales instead of the one year they actually got after the official announcement.
Note that they've gotten better about answering this type of question as well. Know if you ask them if there will be a 5th edition they'll say 'yes'. Ask them when precisely and you'll get double speak along the lines of 'that remains to be seen'. Which is, of course, how to answer a question without answering it.
This should have been how the original question was answered but it seems no one thought about it and the question came out of left field for the employee in question.
Actually, I was in the room @ D&D experience when WotC is said to have denied there was a new edition in the works, and that isn't how I remember it. They were understandly vague, but they did not lie.
As for 4.5: Essentials may not be 4.5 in name, but it sure looks like a fundamental revision to the most core of classes in a class-based system. Much greater than, say, the class changes between 3.0 and 3.5. So, as I said earlier, if it looks like a duck...
Actually, I was in the room @ D&D experience when WotC is said to have denied there was a new edition in the works, and that isn't how I remember it. They were understandly vague, but they did not lie.
As for 4.5: Essentials may not be 4.5 in name, but it sure looks like a fundamental revision to the most core of classes in a class-based system. Much greater than, say, the class changes between 3.0 and 3.5. So, as I said earlier, if it looks like a duck...
Is Essentials meant to replace the current rule setting?
Does Essentials alter the actual rules themselves?
No and no.
It's not 4.5.
As for 4.5: Essentials may not be 4.5 in name, but it sure looks like a fundamental revision to the most core of classes in a class-based system. Much greater than, say, the class changes between 3.0 and 3.5. So, as I said earlier, if it looks like a duck...
Except when the 3.5 books where added to the product release schedule, they didn't pretend it wasn't a revision. I understand that companies deny everything until a product is announced, but they have been fairly open about what Essentials will contain.
If adding a new build to a core class counts as a +0.5 revision, we must be up to version 7 by now since that's exactly what Martial Power, Arcane Power, and other books have done.
Bugleyman, do you even play 4E? It feels like most of the complaints about Essentials come from people who don't even play. They have decided to dislike everything WotC does and twist things to fit their preconceived notions. If Paizo released a simplified box set as an introduction to Pathfinder (which people have asked for) would you cry "NEW EDITION!" on them?
In more seriousness - the 3.5 PHB was explicitly intended as a replacement for the 3.0 PHB. If you were a current player, and wanted to stay up to date with the rules, and be able to use future products, you need to purchase a new copy of a book you already had.
However, over the years of play, a couple of updates to the core rules have popped up. I believe that this updates will be incorporated into Essentials making them useful for players wanting to understand how such and such feat/power interacts with the stealth rules.
There are also a number of books with content that require you to have access to content from other books in the D&D to be able to get full use out of them. Things like drow and genasi racial feats in the Power book line. While they might not, they might just decide to throw a couple wizard specialization schools into another book with the expectation you have the Essentials book in order to use them.
If I played 3.0 I could certainly grab a 3.5 books and make sense out of 90% of the stuff was in there, similar to how I can grab Arcane Power and be able to make sense of 90% of the stuff in there.
I'm not trying to say that these are the same as the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. However, I believe that there are some similarities.
I still do not imagine that there is going to be people asking, "running 4e or 4e Essentials?" in the same way one would ask "running 3.0 or 3.5?" or "running 3.5 or 4e?" But, I am not really sure if stating "it is/isn't 4.5" makes any sense when it seems, to me, that people seem to have different definitions of what is necessary to make it ".5"
Except when the 3.5 books where added to the product release schedule, they didn't pretend it wasn't a revision. I understand that companies deny everything until a product is announced, but they have been fairly open about what Essentials will contain.
If adding a new build to a core class counts as a +0.5 revision, we must be up to version 7 by now since that's exactly what Martial Power, Arcane Power, and other books have done.
I disagree. There aren't additional builds of wizards, fighters, etc.; they're replacements. They don't build on the existing classes; they're flat-out different. WotC should have simply called the essentials classes something else entirely; as it is, at the very least they've created a situation that works against 4E gamers sharing a common understanding of such basic concepts as "What is a wizard? How does it play?"
Bugleyman, do you even play 4E? It feels like most of the complaints about Essentials come from people who don't even play. They have decided to dislike everything WotC does and twist things to fit their preconceived notions. If Paizo released a simplified box set as an introduction to Pathfinder (which people have asked for) would you cry "NEW EDITION!" on them?
Alas, I don't play much of anything, anymore. That said, I played (and was a strong advocate of) 4E for over a year. One of my biggest beefs with the system itself has become the frequency and scope of updates.* For a while, I tried to keep my PHB up-to-date; eventually, I gave up -- it simply became impractical. For that reason, I think the Rules Compendium is a good idea. Further, I honestly wish WotC *would* release a 4.5 in the traditional 3 hardback format. 4E has changed enough, and WotC has learned enough since launch, that I think a "half" edition is well warranted.
* For the record, I'm not speaking out against fixing things that are broken; I'm speaking out against things like the recent magic missile "errata." Changes like this belong in new editions.
Edit: And you're right...I definitely have a bone to pick with WotC. I still think they "sorta same, sorta not the same" approach they're taking with Essentials is a fool's compromise.
Is Essentials meant to replace the current rule setting?
Does Essentials alter the actual rules themselves?
No and no.
It's not 4.5.
Actually, it's starting to look more and more like the PHB, DMG, and MM will simply be allowed to go out of print, making Essentials the only "point of entry." Note this is yet to be confirmed, but if true, Essentials is a replacement.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not seeing the 4.5 argument either. It definitely looks like a significant reshuffle of the core 4e product line, but the game is set up to allow for two different versions of magic missile. All the Essentials line appears to do is re-use class names and ability names for what could easily be new classes and abilities. Unlike prior editions, which frequently referenced a particular spell or ability (like magic missile), 4e uses keywords to perform that same function. Thus, having two versions of magic missile isn't a big deal, particularly if they are roughly the same power level.
The other major difference is the errata process. If 3.0 haste had been a 4e spell, they would've just errata'd it rather than making an edition change. I suppose a sufficient amount of errata could be deemed to be a new edition, but that's really a separate issue from the Essentials line.
I'm not seeing the 4.5 argument either. It definitely looks like a significant reshuffle of the core 4e product line, but the game is set up to allow for two different versions of magic missile. All the Essentials line appears to do is re-use class names and ability names for what could easily be new classes and abilities. Unlike prior editions, which frequently referenced a particular spell or ability (like magic missile), 4e uses keywords to perform that same function. Thus, having two versions of magic missile isn't a big deal, particularly if they are roughly the same power level.
I think you're right in that it doesn't present a balance or interoperability problem. However, it does represent a clear problem of understanding and shared language. When two people playing the "same" edition will be able look up the "wizard" class (note: I didn't say anything about builds; just the "vanila" wizard), and get two totally different answers, I think that's pretty clearly undesirable when your stated goal is to teach the game to new players. YMMV.
For the record, I don't think I'd feel the way I do if WotC had just called the controller in Essentials the Mage flat out, and made it clearly it's own animal. Then Essentials would have been a clean subset of the rules, rather than over-writing some, but not others.
The other major difference is the errata process. If 3.0 haste had been a 4e spell, they would've just errata'd it rather than making an edition change. I suppose a sufficient amount of errata could be deemed to be a new edition, but that's really a separate issue from the Essentials line.
Agreed, and I think that point is near, but that really isn't my beef with essentials (though I think I let it bleed in there). My beef is that by redefining the core classes, WotC is doing something that has only ever been done in a new edition.
And I don't mean to take a "WotC is evil" stance here; I wish they would make a cleaned-up 4.5, the sooner the better. As I said, I've had negative experiences with WotC that make me hesitant to purchase many of their products, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be sorely tempted to pick up a set of "4.5" corebooks. If I decided to go back to 4E, a clear, corrected, up-to-date set of rule books would worth way more to me than $100!
|
|
With 3.5, you warned you so you knew what you were getting.
I call BS on that one. We only knew the 3.0 to 3.5 switch in retrospect. They billed it then exactly the way they are billing the new material now.
3.0 ==> 3.5
What WOTC said: Everything is compatible, you can keep your existing characters and campaign.
What WOTC delivered: you were pretty much compelled to remake or replace your existing character, which generally disrupted or ended ongoing campaigns.
4.0 ==> Essentials
What WOTC is saying: Everything is compatible, you can keep your existing characters and campaign.
What WOTC will deliver: Hmmmm.
It remains to be seen whether it will be compatable like they said, or are they just BSing until its release. Or something inbetween.
|
|
I still see 4e as an experiment, Essentials to me is a refinement of that experiment. Like it or not many things that started as X in 4e will end as Y in Essentials. The sticking point for me is can I let a 4e character with a differing power description say in a game with "errata'd / Essential" powers? Are they backwards compatible?
S.
With 3.5, you warned you so you knew what you were getting.
I call BS on that one. We only knew the 3.0 to 3.5 switch in retrospect. They billed it then exactly the way they are billing the new material now.
3.0 ==> 3.5
What WOTC said: Everything is compatible, you can keep your existing characters and campaign.What WOTC delivered: you were pretty much compelled to remake or replace your existing character, which generally disrupted or ended ongoing campaigns.
4.0 ==> Essentials
What WOTC is saying: Everything is compatible, you can keep your existing characters and campaign.
What WOTC will deliver: Hmmmm.
It remains to be seen whether it will be compatable like they said, or are they just BSing until its release. Or something inbetween.
Perhaps I remember it incorrectly then. All I can say for sure is that, by the time I cracked open the 3.5 corebooks, the scope of the changes was not a surprise.
I think people are still confused on class builds for 4E, and I have included a brief example below, including some essential line classes for wizard and fighter. So even if you state you play one of the classes, anyone that plays 4E will ask which build.
Fighter - battlerager, great weapon, guardian, tempest, knight
Wizard - Control, Summoner, War, Mage
Ranger - Archer, Beastmaster, Two-Blade
Rogue - Aerialist, Brawny, Cuttthroat, Trickster
As to magic missile, there is only one version, and that is the updated version in essentials. It has already been changed in DDI, and I expect it will have errata as well.
The game already has 'builds' that play quite differently from the original classes. Beastmaster rangers, brutal scoundrel rogues are no more confusing than the mage wizard.
The mage will get to pick from the same selection of powers. Sure, they may have added new ones, but if you bought both the PHB and Essentials you could mix and match from either. I'm not a big 4E fan, but I can see that it's biggest strength is the modularity. There is room for dozens of types of wizard builds. As long as you can cast fireball and magic missile, that seems more or less the same to me.
Sure, all of the errata has changed the game slightly. That's part of the growing pains of a new edition. Even Pathfinder has had 2 sets of errata since it's release 1 year ago, and that was based on an already refined rule set. I think overall Wizards has been quite responsive to their customers and provided a lot more support to existing products than they ever did for 3.X.
The game already has 'builds' that play quite differently from the original classes. Beastmaster rangers, brutal scoundrel rogues are no more confusing than the mage wizard.
The mage will get to pick from the same selection of powers. Sure, they may have added new ones, but if you bought both the PHB and Essentials you could mix and match from either. I'm not a big 4E fan, but I can see that it's biggest strength is the modularity. There is room for dozens of types of wizard builds. As long as you can cast fireball and magic missile, that seems more or less the same to me.
Sure, all of the errata has changed the game slightly. That's part of the growing pains of a new edition. Even Pathfinder has had 2 sets of errata since it's release 1 year ago, and that was based on an already refined rule set. I think overall Wizards has been quite responsive to their customers and provided a lot more support to existing products than they ever did for 3.X.
I don't see redefining a class is equivalent to providing a new build for that class. I would have been fine with the latter. No offense, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. :)
3.0 ==> 3.5
What WOTC said: Everything is compatible, you can keep your existing characters and campaign.What WOTC delivered: you were pretty much compelled to remake or replace your existing character, which generally disrupted or ended ongoing campaigns.
4.0 ==> Essentials
What WOTC is saying: Everything is compatible, you can keep your existing characters and campaign.
What WOTC will deliver: Hmmmm.
They may have hand waved the compatibility of 3.0 to 3.5, but they at least announced it as a revision. They didn't announce a 3.0 intro kit and then surprise us with a 3.5 PHB. Essentials is what it is, but the 4E core books aren't going away (despite unfounded rumors based on unfounded speculation to the contrary.)
You also didn't really need to change all that much. I was in a 3.0 game when it shifted and I don't think I played a fully 3.5 game until about when 4E was announced.
The sticking point for me is can I let a 4e character with a differing power description say in a game with "errata'd / Essential" powers? Are they backwards compatible?
Sideways compatible is probably a more accurate description. Yes, they are. They are exactly the same framework and amount of changes as the alternate classes in Martial/Arcane Power books. A few powers may have some errata, but nothing to really get worked up about. Besides, with the respec rules of 4E if you really like the new Magic Missile you can decide to swap into it with ease.
I mean, it's not like they've redefined what DR means or altered the skill list.
|
|
Perhaps I remember it incorrectly then. All I can say for sure is that, by the time I cracked open the 3.5 corebooks, the scope of the changes was not a surprise.
YOu most certainly are remembering it incorrectly.
From 2003:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rsa/archive
We feel the changes we're making to the D&D RPG are important enough to warrant the "3.5" label, but not nearly significant enough to be a 4th edition. We also want to send the message that this is an upgrade, not a new edition.
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
The changes were enough, well, let me let a friend tell it:
3.5 was *presented* as being just a minor rules update. We were comforted by WOTC's assertion that those of us (like me) who were late 3.0 adopters could go on playing with our 3.0 books.
My thought was that it was pretty much errata incorporation, stuff like that.
So when I got to that game table at GenCon, and literally EVERY spell I cast was majorly changed - to the point that I had to borrow a 3.5 PHB for the rest of the session - I felt snakebitten in the extreme.
Now having said all that, let me add I dont know WHAT essentials will end up being. But then again, until its actually in folks hands, neither do the rest of you that claims it will be fully backwards compatable. But I do know that WotC has walked down this road once with alot of the same words. Time will tell.
But coming in and outright spreading misinformation - that these aren't new builds and that they are replacements for existing classes... that's not cool, and yeah, I'll step up and try and counter such claims every time they are said.
I don't think that's quite fair, Matthew.
Maybe you're right, but at the very least, WotC is still doing a terrible job at making that clear. For example, here are some bits pull from the most recent Ampersand:
Why are they Essentials? They contain the foundational rules of the game, the baseline character classes...
That doesn't say builds...it says classes. There is also no mention in the subsequent write-up of any of the existing fighter stuff, or how it is supplanted by build-specific material.
As a fighter, you make most of your attacks using basic attacks.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that is an accurate assessment of the 4E fighter. Maybe for the Knight build, but in that case, he should have said that.
Throughout the excerpt in the article, the terms "knight" (a build) and "fighter" (a class) are used interchangeably. That might simply be a result of an attempt to simplify, but as it stands now, it appears someone who comes aboard with Essentials would be completely surprised, for example, by the concept of a fighter with dailies!
In short, many of the existing baseline assumptions about the fighter (irrespective of build) no longer seem to hold true in Essentials. To me, that goes beyond a new build. I understand that you feel differently, but saying I'm "outright spreading misinformation" is a bit harsh.
|
|
I do think one big difference is that the 3.5 books were, by their very premise, a revision to the game. They might have been claiming compatibility, but they were also saying: "Hey, gamers, here are new versions of the books you already have. You can play without them, but if you want to have the current version of the rules, and you want to be able to make use of any future products, you need these books on your shelves."
Thats not what they said before the release. Only after. Quite a difference.
That's a very different situation than with Essentials, which isn't focused on existing players at all. I'm sure they will be happy if current players pick it up, but this is being geared for new players, and also have numerous elements clearly aimed at appealing to lapsed players more familiar with classic editions. Towards existing players, the message is, "You guys don't need these. If you want new options and new material, feel free to buy, just like with any supplement! But you don't need any of these books unless you want the new options in them, and future products will continue to be useful for you with or without them."Now, even saying that, they could be lying, I suppose.
But I still see these as very different messages and very different products.
Again, thats what they are saying. We'll see what happens upon release and after gencon.
But they also said that we'd also have a gaming table top at the launch of 4e. Again, what they say and what is may or may not match.
But we'll see.
Sure, all of the errata has changed the game slightly. That's part of the growing pains of a new edition. Even Pathfinder has had 2 sets of errata since it's release 1 year ago, and that was based on an already refined rule set. I think overall Wizards has been quite responsive to their customers and provided a lot more support to existing products than they ever did for 3.X.
I would suggest that the exact goals Pathfinder errata is not equal to the those of the updates for 4th edition and that comparing them like that is like calling Essentials "4.5." An analogy that one thinks is apt and another does not. At least, Pathfinder has not yet added errata similar to the 4e magic missile or tiefling updates and the don't appear to be coming before the horizon.
Whichever Wizard sits down at the table, you'll generally know what they can do. Specific builds and powers might have their own advantages, but the differences between the two aren't breaking any "common understanding" of the game.
Yes, but as far as I know other builds haven't really done things like "the way you use encounter powers is now different" (like it seems to be in the Wizard preview). Up till now, I believe they have been doing smaller things additions and subtractions rather than what I believe I am seeing in the Essential classes.
More than will fit in a quotation.
I'll try to watch the impression I give. I didn't mean to mislead anyone.
On the "say something positive about Essentials" front: I think the Rules Compendium in a 6x9, softcover, $20 form is a terrific idea.
Yes, but as far as I know other builds haven't really done things like "the way you use encounter powers is now different" (like it seems to be in the Wizard preview). Up till now, I believe they have been doing smaller things additions and subtractions rather than what I believe I am seeing in the Essential classes.The Essentials classes definitely go farther than we've seen thus far. And we'll see what exactly is happening with Wizard encounter powers. But I do think we've seen pretty distinct builds that change the rules for a class - the Beastmaster Ranger, the Archer Warlord, things like that.
I haven't seen the Archer Warlord, but as for the Beastmaster Ranger, yes it is a quite a big addition, but I would say that that it messed with the Ranger rules less than the way the Essential Wizard seems to have her spells set up. I might have a better idea of how I feel when I actually see the class rather than a one page preview.
Sure, all of the errata has changed the game slightly. That's part of the growing pains of a new edition. Even Pathfinder has had 2 sets of errata since it's release 1 year ago, and that was based on an already refined rule set. I think overall Wizards has been quite responsive to their customers and provided a lot more support to existing products than they ever did for 3.X.I would suggest that the exact goals Pathfinder errata is not equal to the those of the updates for 4th edition and that comparing them like that is like calling Essentials "4.5." An analogy that one thinks is apt and another does not. At least, Pathfinder has not yet added errata similar to the 4e magic missile or tiefling updates and the don't appear to be coming before the horizon.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in presenting my thinking.
3.0 was a complete rebuilding of the rules of D&D. In 10 years of refining this basic system, the Pathfinder rules are to my mind the best revision of it so far. Even with 10+ years of experience with the 3.0 framework, they still made some mistakes (mostly typos in this case, but still).
4.0 is a major rebuilding of the system again. Yes, there's been a fair amount of updates to it. On the other hand if you remove individual powers from the updates, the actual core structure has been fairly sound.
My point was that even a well developed and revised several times system has errata. So it is no wonder that a completely brand new system had some kinks that needed to be worked out after 2 years of actual play. We're still quite a lot earlier in the 4.0 evolution than 3.0 was when 3.5 needed to be released. I also think the designers at Wizards learned enough from 3.0 that there won't ever be a need for 4.5. The basic framework is solid. They are starting to experiment with the boundaries of the system. Eventually there will be a 5th edition, but it'll be a long way off.
|
|
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.
Mmm..sweet apologists. Apologize more? Daddy likey.
D&D Essentials is an Extreme "PASS" for me. I like my 4e books, as is, and I'm kinda sick of splat bloat.
4e was already a success in bringing in new people into the game and helping to create a fanbase among those who might not have been as interested before. I think Essentials is somewhat a waste of time and money attempting to mine a slowly disappearing pool of "Would be" role players.
Maybe I'm incorrect, but from what I've seen that's what they're doing.
Shan