It's one thing to do a good old ad hominem in your post, but making fun of others who commit that fallacy *in the very same post* is like, pure gold. Can I call it a Cirno Fallacy ?
Funny, but can't we just get back to basking in the glory that is 4e?
I was exclusively a 4E player for a good solid year. I really liked (and continue to like) many aspects of the game:
* Easy of prep
* Consistency
* Clarity of presentation, and streamlining, of the combat rules
* (A good part of) the art direction
What I don't like are several of the decisions WotC has made (in fact, they eventually led me to drop 4E). Things like:
* Failure to deliver on the Game Table and other tools, and subsequent refusal to release any information.
* Pulling the PDFs
* The GSL fiasco
* The structure/stewardship of RPGA and LFR
* Design overhauls disguised as "errata" (magic missile, anyone?)
Releasing a revision in the guise of a starter set is disingenuous. I'd have no problem with WotC releasing a 4.5 (in fact, I'd like it -- they made enough improvements to warrant it), but the stealth-reboot that is Essentials? WotC doth protest too much, methinks.
And btw, I don't mean to suggest anyone who disagrees with me is a WotC shill. I meant to suggest that repeatedly posting assurances from WotC personnel that Essentials isn't 4.5 is pointless, since such assurances aren't evidence of anything (except, perhaps, the number of people who have made, and continue to make, the comparison).
"at least as significant as 3.5" - and we demonstrably show that this isn't the case,
You've done no such thing. Since "as significant as x" in this discussion's context is subjective, you won't be "demonstrably" showing anything, I'm afraid.
Maybe one needs to repost what Celestial Healer said? Here goes:
You do realize you are all arguing about a metaphor, right?
"Essentials is to 4e as 3.5 is to 3e."
All of these posts are about whether or not that analogy is fitting. Seriously.
There is room for discussion of the merits of the changes introduced, as well as the marketing, etc. But to get this heated over whether it is appropriate to use a particular extended metaphor is sad.
And to the nuts screeching 'shut your mouth' and making fun of spelling, give your heads a shake. Making fun of spelling on the internet, on a messageboard? In 2010? What decade did you crawl out of?
Ah, you're one of the "CMB/CMD ruins compatibility" folks.
Yup. Well, maybe not 'ruins', but this and other changes make the compatibility slogans insincere.
Strange that you didn't give up on WotC with 3.0-->3.5 transition but hey.
Why would I? I like 2E, 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4E, and I'll probably like 4EE too. I also like GURPS, DSA, Fate, Paranoia and others... all of these systems have their share of flaws, and I don't see why these should not be discussed. Same goes for misleading or plain false marketing-speak.
This isn't The Gaming Den with it's decentralized moderation where everyone is grammar/logic police. You got your forums confused.
You might want to use a spell-checker in the future. Please.
No, I didn't, but thanks for implying confusion on my part. Usually I don't mention typos, but that post was just...painful. And it actually weakens his point, especially the slight at the end. I think it's a lack of respect for other posters when people don't even try to keep their posts readable...
It's one thing to do a good old ad hominem in your post, but making fun of others who commit that fallacy *in the very same post* is like, pure gold. Can I call it a Cirno Fallacy ?
Zing!
You're right, though.
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...'
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 that "splitting lines hurting sales for TSR" applied more clearly to the many AD&D 2nd ed settings (FR, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Maztica, Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, etc) and it hit in the late 80s-early 90s. The Basic vs. Advanced is way earlier (late 70s) and definitely did not hurt sales, as those were the "golden years" of TSR. What I was thinking of is how an "introductory" product line took a life of its own.
The previews seem to indicate that Essentials is not only making the game easier for newbies, but also producing a sort of gaming experience which may be more palatable for different gaming styles, not quite, but close to more "classic" D&D (e.g., set abilities per level instead of complex power choices, pre-defined feat trees, etc). In one of the interviews available at EnWorld, Essentials is described in terms of moving away from the "power management" that defines "pure" 4e. That gaming style can have appeal for veteran gamers (me at least). Maybe I am misguided, but it feels improbable that, if that gaming style sells better than expected and proves interesting for non-introductory gamers, Wizards will give up on it as just a closed introductory set of products. Even if Essentials becomes embedded options and builds within future 4e manuals in the next years.
In many ways, Celestial Healer is right. We are essential arguing a meme or label. I think people want to decide one way or another because of their negative experience with 3.5.
Here are the things I think people had challenges with regarding 3.5:
* One felt one had to buy the three main books again to play the "official" and most up-to-date D&D game.
* A 3.0 character had to undergo minor translation to become a 3.5 character
* A 3.0 adventure had minor differences that required some translation to 3.5.
* Some 3.0 game rules were obsolete or incomplete in a 3.5 game.
To me, these problems are not existent to the same extent in 4 Essentials.
* I don't feel I have to buy the Essentials line for the "official" game or to keep up with those who have Essentials. I do think the Rules Compendium is a good idea due to the amount of errata out there. However, they could have released a Rules Compendium regardless of whether it was part of a new "line."
* I don't have to translate my character to Essentials. I may perhaps wish to change my Wizard to an Essentials Wizard, but that's because I want to play the other option, not because I have to in order to get it in line with the 4Essentials game system.
* I won't have to translate adventures from 4e to Essentials or vice versa. I may want to switch out older monster stats for newer ones, but I don't feel I have to.
* You could argue that some rules are incomplete in the original core. I imagine that skill challenges will be given a lot more depth. However, nothing will be made obsolete, i.e. unusable, other than those items already addressed in errata.
For myself, I'll be buying the Rules Compendium and keep my DDI account going. With that, I feel I'll have complete access to everything I need whether the people at the table use the original core or the Essentials books.
People can call Essentials whatever they want, but I don't think it's the same kind of shift as 3.0 to 3.5.
|
It's one thing to do a good old ad hominem in your post, but making fun of others who commit that fallacy *in the very same post* is like, pure gold. Can I call it a Cirno Fallacy ?I mean come on, why not just call them "Wi$ards" or something stupid like that if you're going to go that far.
That's funny, because your level of typing and thought processes shown here implies you'd be perfectly at home at Toys R Us with the other ten year olds.
This is a thing of beauty.
I think that "splitting lines hurting sales for TSR" applied more clearly to the many AD&D 2nd ed settings (FR, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Maztica, Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, etc) and it hit in the late 80s-early 90s. The Basic vs. Advanced is way earlier (late 70s) and definitely did not hurt sales, as those were the "golden years" of TSR. What I was thinking of is how an "introductory" product line took a life of its own.
The previews seem to indicate that Essentials is not only making the game easier for newbies, but also producing a sort of gaming experience which may be more palatable for different gaming styles, not quite, but close to more "classic" D&D (e.g., set abilities per level instead of complex power choices, pre-defined feat trees, etc). In one of the interviews available at EnWorld, Essentials is described in terms of moving away from the "power management" that defines "pure" 4e. That gaming style can have appeal for veteran gamers (me at least). Maybe I am misguided, but it feels improbable that, if that gaming style sells better than expected and proves interesting for non-introductory gamers, Wizards will give up on it as just a closed introductory set of products. Even if Essentials becomes embedded options and builds within future 4e manuals in the next years.
I disagree with the idea that the basic line did not hurt overall sales. I feel that the overall robustness of the D&D brand just disguised the fact that they where hurting their market. In truth TSR went into the different settings business and stayed in it for as long as they did because, initially, it did great and made them lots of dough.
In any case WotC appears to believe that that the mistake was a bad move. One of the first things they did when they acquired the D&D license was announce the cancellation of BECMI D&D - even before they put out 3rd edition they had stopped support of BECMI (and the absolutely excellent one volume book version).
Beyond this there really is no evidence of any split in the line. When Essentials is released the DDI will update with all changes - after this point my cleric will gain a level. When my cleric gains a level I will go to the DDI and print him out at his new level. If my new level involves gaining a new feat I'm told I might notice some changes to the format or presentation of the feats when I'm picking my new one. When I print my character out I might have some changes to the wording of one or more powers or one or more already acquired feats. That will be my transition to Essentials, there won't be a new line, or, if one argues that this is a new line then I'm already on it - I don't actually have to do anything for this to happen.
For myself, I'll be buying the Rules Compendium and keep my DDI account going. With that, I feel I'll have complete access to everything I need whether the people at the table use the original core or the Essentials books.People can call Essentials whatever they want, but I don't think it's the same kind of shift as 3.0 to 3.5.
Yeah, I'm back and forth on this myself. Nothing we have seen so far indicates that any actual rules have changed, in the sense of how cover or conditions work. Thus we already have everything in this text...still all the rules separated from the character building elements does appeal just from an ease of use at the table aspect. I guess I'm going to check out the layout and such - I have a suspicion it'll come down to the index - a really good index that covers every friggen question I might possibly be searching for will probably get me to hand over my cash. Otherwise I can't see the point - I'll just take note of any changes in the Errata.
Thread necro!
We now know that the rules for item dailies powers have changed. We know that the flying rules have changed. Many feats have been made obsolete. Powers have changed. Classes have changed. Racial ability modifiers have changed.
Does that still sound like a beginner's kit, or can we call it a duck yet?
|
Does that still sound like a beginner's kit, or can we call it a duck yet?
Do you really expect anyone to budge from their position?
Item Daily Powers: One legitimate change. A very small one, of course, which doesn't change anything for existing characters - it just means they can use more items going forward.
Whoa - I missed this. Whats the change? Please tell me they dropped the Milestone requirement as that's a friggen awful rule - and my DM is enforcing it because he is a bad man but since he has that fancy DM tag I have to do as he says (I only think the DM should be all mighty and powerful when I'M the DM).
Flying Rules: What are the changes with these?
Some pieces begged for revision*, particularly subsystems that were overcomplicated or simply no fun to play. For example, we have tightened up the rules for flight, and those rules now appear with the other movement rules...
* emphasis mine
in the article here.
Bill goes on to mention the mounted combat rules have also been revised:
...we have tweaked how mounted combat works so that it is easier and more fun to include in an encounter.
To recap, someone playing out of the original corebooks now has:
* The wrong mounted combat rules
* The wrong item use rules
* Incorrect rules for flight
* The wrong stealth rules (previous errata)
* Incorrect skill challenge rules and DCs (previous errata)
* Incorrect powers, including every wizard encounter power
* The wrong racial modifiers for nearly every race
* Feats that are strictly worse than newer feats, and therefore not worth considering (or, by extension, having in a book)
...as well as a bunch of outdated expectations, such as:
* Magic items don't a rarity
* All classes have dailies
* All feats are divided by tier.
Taken as a whole, I truly cannot see how anyone can dispute that this adds up to a game that is no more "compatible" than 3.5 was with 3E. At this point, it just seems like the digging in of heels...
Do you really expect anyone to budge from their position?
Expect? No. Hope? Yes. I always like to believe people will change their beliefs in the face of contrary data. And yes, I'm accustomed to disappointment.*
*irony intended
Do you really expect anyone to budge from their position?
Does that still sound like a beginner's kit, or can we call it a duck yet?
Bugleyman just really likes ducks.
Bugleyman just really likes ducks.
Quack?
|
Bugleyman just really likes ducks.Do you really expect anyone to budge from their position?
Does that still sound like a beginner's kit, or can we call it a duck yet?
I keep telling you, I'm not a duck! Puffin's aren't ducks! I swear! Check Wikipedia!
* Feats that are strictly worse than newer feats, and therefore not worth considering (or, by extension, having in a book)
Do you have any concrete examples of this?
I mean, the tiered vs non-tiered change (or more precisely addition) doesn't really change the feat system at all. Tiered feats are like non-tiered feats that have specific level requirements and happen to be sorted by that level. Are there epic quality feats that can now be acquired at low level?
To recap, someone playing out of the original corebooks now has:
* The wrong mounted combat rules
Do we know how extensive these rules are being changed?
* The wrong item use rules
The change here is exceptionally small - and needed. Not a huge revision.
* Incorrect rules for flight
See: mounted combat quote.
* The wrong stealth rules (previous errata)
Errata doesn't count.
* Incorrect skill challenge rules and DCs (previous errata)
Errata doesn't count.
* Incorrect powers, including every wizard encounter power
I'll give you this one!
* The wrong racial modifiers for nearly every raceNope. They have the right racial modifiers, they just don't have an extra option for them. You're just blatently wrong here.
* Feats that are strictly worse than newer feats, and therefore not worth considering (or, by extension, having in a book)Proof?
...as well as a bunch of outdated expectations, such as:
* Magic items don't a rarity
* All classes have dailies
* All feats are divided by tier.Those aren't outdated expectations, no more then the archer warlord constituted a "4.5" because of the outdated expectation that warlords are all melee, no more then the FR book constituted a "4.5" because of the outdated expectation of not having a swordmage class.
Taken as a whole, I truly cannot see how anyone can dispute that this adds up to a game that is no more "compatible" than 3.5 was with 3E. At this point, it just seems like the digging in of heels...I'll call things a duck when you stop shouting "duck" while pointing at a cow.
Do you have any concrete examples of this?
I mean, the tiered vs non-tiered change (or more precisely addition) doesn't really change the feat system at all. Tiered feats are like non-tiered feats that have specific level requirements and happen to be sorted by that level. Are there epic quality feats that can now be acquired at low level?
Sure. Superior Will is strictly better than Epic Will. Not only is it available sooner, but it gives a saving throw bonus.
It turns out, Essentials is actually a Hadrosaur.
My "digging in your heels" comment was unfair...please consider it retracted.
The game is "compatible" because it doesn't change things for most existing characters. That's the difference.
Unless you fly. Or have a mount. Or have an item with daily powers. ;)
And while it's true we don't know how extensive the changes are, we know the rules are changing. That doesn't seem compatible to me.
I guess we just differ on what constitutes a new edition. If you look at the differences between Hero 5th and Hero 5th revised, they are much smaller than what we have here. Or take Call of Cthulu, which has gone through a number of editions with little actual change.
Terminology aside, Essentials is certainly more than a newbie-friendly way of repackaging the rules. In fact, "Essentials" is a terrible name -- "4E revised" would have side-stepped all this confusion (but admittedly involved much gnashing of teeth, but that's another story).
|
|
It turns out, Essentials is actually a Hadrosaur.
As long as it's not a Torosaur, they're going the way of the dodo. They might end up a defunct species, merged with Triceratops is Jack Horner has any say.
Thread necro!
We now know that the rules for item dailies powers have changed. We know that the flying rules have changed. Many feats have been made obsolete. Powers have changed. Classes have changed. Racial ability modifiers have changed.
Does that still sound like a beginner's kit, or can we call it a duck yet?
Its not a duck - maybe its a squid though.
The article wants to take all the changes that have so far taken place in the game and then lump them together and use Essentials as some kind of a a defining point to say 'here we are at 4.5'.
This makes no sense, sure if we call all the revisions to the rules different versions then we are at some number higher then 4.0.
Maybe it went something like 4.0 with the release of the core books and then we were at 4.13 when the first wave of errata hit. On to 4.26 when the DMG2 and PHB2 hit as they where pretty significant and 4.37 with the release of MM2 as the monster books tend to be pretty impactful. MM3 is probably the single most significant change we have seen in terms of actual impact at the table so we'll call it 4.58 after its release and then Essentials will put us at 4.67.
The articles contention that some how this is the point where we are strictly at 4.5 makes no sense, he has no idea if we are at the halfway point in terms of changes or not. We could be in a new edition in two years...or maybe WotC gets scared that they will loose all those subscription fees when they announce the new edition and hold off on that for some significant time to come, content to just keep taking the subscriptions every month. There is no way to know where we are in the editions cycle and the constant changes makes pinpointing some specific '4.5' point impossible.
Add to this the fact that this in no way feels at all like the change from 3.0 --> 3.5 because of the DDI is how we consume the product and therefore all changes are done for us without us having to do anything except print out our characters when they get to a new level.
Certainly there is nothing annoying involved like being forced to buy a book to keep playing the latest version of the game.
I don't see how X number of changes ever gets us to 4.5 as a comparable experience to the 3.0 --> 3.5 event. I'm expecting and am used too incremental upgrades - this is what it means to pay them a subscription fee and its what happens when I click the 'update' button every month. If we are on some kind of counter to 'number of changes' equal to that which took place in the 3.0 --> 3.5 revision then presumably that occurred last year at some point - they update 4E a great deal after all.
Sure. Superior Will is strictly better than Epic Will. Not only is it available sooner, but it gives a saving throw bonus.
I wish they'd thought of scaling feats from the beginning. The original idea was that you'd swap out for the better ones as you increased tiers with re-training. Having the same accomplished in one feat would have saved room in the first book.
In the end, 4E is a living evolving system. They've been slowly changing and tweaking things for the entire life of its existence. Some people love that (we call them DDI subscribers) others don't (they seem to be the ones that cry 4.5!) If this were a software product, I'd say they're really around 4.3 now.
In all, I'd rather a responsive company that works toward correcting mistakes and continually improving the system. As opposed to say, Rifts, which has barely had any revision and manages to put out broken things in nearly every book. Ok, I just looked at Rifts 20: Canada and I think they did it wrong. It's not nearly as broken as Rifts 8: Japan with it's 12 varieties of Ninja. I mean, Ninjas are good. Juicers are good. Ninja + Juicer = Better Juicer!
For myself, I'll be buying the Rules Compendium and keep my DDI account going. With that, I feel I'll have complete access to everything I need whether the people at the table use the original core or the Essentials books.
+1
In all, I'd rather a responsive company that works toward correcting mistakes and continually improving the system. As opposed to say, Rifts, which has barely had any revision and manages to put out broken things in nearly every book. Ok, I just looked at Rifts 20: Canada and I think they did it wrong. It's not nearly as broken as Rifts 8: Japan with it's 12 varieties of Ninja. I mean, Ninjas are good. Juicers are good. Ninja + Juicer = Better Juicer!
I agree. I just think there are better ways to do it than the way WotC is (imho) pursuing.
For myself, I'll be buying the Rules Compendium and keep my DDI account going. With that, I feel I'll have complete access to everything I need whether the people at the table use the original core or the Essentials books.
+1
(Rules Compendium + DDI) does appear to provide the complete experience -- which is why I think WotC should make the Rules Compendium a free PDF download. If they kept that PDF up to date with errata, it would be relatively easy for folks to print sections and keep their print copies up to date. Since the full rules don't appear in DDI, anything that can be done on that front would be an improvement. As for concerns about lost revenue: Most people would still buy hard copy, and the few that didn't would probably be more than made up for in people who only gave the system a shot because of the free PDF, then went on to subscribe to the DDI.
And no, I don't just "want something for free." If I were playing 4E and cared enough to download the PDF, I'd definitely still buy the hard copy. Hell, I probably will anyway, just on the off chance that I want to play a slot of LFR some time. Plus the small size is very appealing (I love the 6x9 Savage Worlds EE).
In all, I'd rather a responsive company that works toward correcting mistakes and continually improving the system. As opposed to say, Rifts, which has barely had any revision and manages to put out broken things in nearly every book. Ok, I just looked at Rifts 20: Canada and I think they did it wrong. It's not nearly as broken as Rifts 8: Japan with it's 12 varieties of Ninja. I mean, Ninjas are good. Juicers are good. Ninja + Juicer = Better Juicer!I agree. I just think there are better ways to do it than the way WotC is (imho) pursuing.
I agree. WotC has gone out of its way to foster a sense of distrust in a large part of 4e players.
(Rules Compendium + DDI) does appear to provide the complete experience -- which is why I think WotC should make the Rules Compendium a free PDF download.
To be fair, the complete errata file is practically a Rules Compendium already!
I agree. I just think there are better ways to do it than the way WotC is (imho) pursuing.
This whole electronic/dynamic updating rules thing is fairly new. I'm sure they have learned a bunch from the experience. In the future the core rules (for this or another game) might be distributed in some e-reader friendly fashion, so we can be browsing through the up to date rules with our Star Trek reader pads anywhere we go.
And no, I don't just "want something for free." If I were playing 4E and cared enough to download the PDF, I'd definitely still buy the hard copy. Hell, I probably will anyway, just on the off chance that I want to play a slot of LFR some time. Plus the small size is very appealing (I love the 6x9 Savage Worlds EE).
So, wait a second. You don't play 4e? Why do you seem so vehement in calling the Essentials line 4.5? All the 4e players seem ok with the updates, but you don't play 4e and seem to be up in arms about it. I'm sorry if I'm misreading the situation, but if the player base is saying it's not 4.5, why would you continue to attack?
To be fair, the complete errata file is practically a Rules Compendium already!
To me, this isn't a good thing. In fact, I'd rather buy a complete new set of "4.5" core books with the errata included than having to comb through a huge errata file.
But then again, I'm not a fan of the whole DDI thing either. I prefer to be able to play games without having internet access (I don't like computer games that require a Steam connection, for instance, and actively don't buy them).
I do like that WotC is fixing things that are unclear or broken, however. I much prefer them doing that compared to leaving them unclear and broken. But at the same time I would prefer physical products that are correct, as opposed to needing a DDI subscription to use my physical products correctly.
Maybe I'm just behind the times..
To be fair, the complete errata file is practically a Rules Compendium already!
To me, this isn't a good thing. In fact, I'd rather buy a complete new set of "4.5" core books with the errata included than having to comb through a huge errata file.
But then again, I'm not a fan of the whole DDI thing either. I prefer to be able to play games without having internet access (I don't like computer games that require a Steam connection, for instance, and actively don't buy them).
I do like that WotC is fixing things that are unclear or broken, however. I much prefer them doing that compared to leaving them unclear and broken. But at the same time I would prefer physical products that are correct, as opposed to needing a DDI subscription to use my physical products correctly.
Maybe I'm just behind the times..
I was mostly joking. The Rules Compendium is the physical product for you. I was just pointing out that people who really don't want to give WotC more money for rules they already bought can get everything included for free.
Wizards is trying to please as many people as possible, but the electronic stuff moves a lot faster than printing books.
So, wait a second. You don't play 4e? Why do you seem so vehement in calling the Essentials line 4.5? All the 4e players seem ok with the updates, but you don't play 4e and seem to be up in arms about it. I'm sorry if I'm misreading the situation, but if the player base is saying it's not 4.5, why would you continue to attack?
Either Essentials is 4.5 in all but name, or it isn't. And I've laid out some pretty clear reasons I believe it is. I honestly don't see the relevance of whether I'm currently* playing 4E (and how recently must I have played to qualify for "currently?"), nor do I see how refuting what I see as an obvious falsehood is "attacking."
Suffice it to say I pay attention, and have an interest in how WotC handles (or mishandles) D&D. They should have called Essentials what it is (4E revised) instead of issuing a stream of disingenuous denials.
* WotC's incoherent handling of "updates" was a factor (though not a major one) in my decision to drop the system after the first year.
I would prefer physical products that are correct, as opposed to needing a DDI subscription to use my physical products correctly.
To be fair, the complete errata file is practically a Rules Compendium already!
You don't need a DDI subscription to have access to the errata.
Right now the errata for the PHB is 22 pages, the DMG errata is 7 pages, and the MM is 5 pages, all ranging from minor language clarification issues to revamped systems (such as the Stealth skill description). I'm not sure how much of this errata has been corrected in subsequent printings.
If you compare this amount to, say, the Pathfinder Core Rulebook with only 3 pages of errata, then it seems like a substantial amount. When you look over the details, you can see why they made the changes. A lot of it, I believe, is based on feedback from the gaming community.
One thing that seems different with 4e is that Wizards seems more apt to evolve the game and assume people have the DDI, which is easy to update. For example, the change to Magic Missile is dramatic and made almost 2 years after the core books have been out. While this is just a small part of the system as a whole, this change probably wouldn't have been made if they didn't assume people would automatically obtain the change using their Character Builder. While the errata is free, not many people are necessarily going to notice the small changes from month to month, whereas the DDI will make changes to your characters automatically.
One's reaction to this may vary. One may be outraged that they would make changes, albeit in small ways, which requires a DDI subscription or vigilant checking of the errata to notice. Some may feel that their original purchase is becoming more and more obsolete. Others might appreciate that WotC makes changes based on feedback and continues to steer and evolve the game.
I'm more in the latter camp, mainly because I have a DDI subscription, but I can understand the frustrations of the former camp. I also appreciate that they are coming out with a relatively inexpensive Rules Compendium so that I can easily reference those more general rules changes.
Either Essentials is 4.5 in all but name, or it isn't. And I've laid out some pretty clear reasons I believe it is. I honestly don't see the relevance of whether I'm currently* playing 4E (and how recently must I have played to qualify for "currently?"), nor do I see how refuting what I see as an obvious falsehood is "attacking."
Suffice it to say I pay attention, and have an interest in how WotC handles (or mishandles) D&D. They should have called Essentials what it is (4E revised) instead of issuing a stream of disingenuous denials.
* WotC's incoherent handling of "updates" was a factor (though not a major one) in my decision to drop the system after the first year.
Attack wasn't the right word. I probably should have asked why you would care. And your post didn't at all say how recently you had played, it just said "If I were playing.." which I took to mean that you don't.
I have no horse in this race. WotC can call the rules changes that are coming Esentials, 4.5, Revised, or whatever they want. Does it matter? As long as the changes are justified, I say put 'em out. And I have no doubts that more changes will come after Essentials. Maybe they'll call those something else.
I'm following the thread because I'm interested in the changes, whether or not I buy them. I don't know why you are so up in arms about it, though, especially since if you don't play 4e, you don't have to worry about the changes to a rule, power, magic item, or anything else.
I don't know why you are so up in arms about it, though, especially since if you don't play 4e, you don't have to worry about the changes to a rule, power, magic item, or anything else.
Partially because I generally can't let things go. Partly because, even though I don't currently play 4E, I care what happens to D&D. And partly because it bugs me when (imo) falsehoods get repeated over and over until they're taken as truth. Finally, because some on this thread seem to think WotC's statements that "Essentials isn't 4.5" ought to be convincing in spite of the evidence, and seem shocked when they aren't. Huh?
But you're right...the only playing I actually do (for the time being, at least) is a Pathfinder Society slot once in a while, so it doesn't really affect me much. I just want to see D&D continue to be a viable and successful brand. It's been a part of my life for 25 years, and I hope it is around for 25 more.