[
I think that's 3.0. In 3.5 turn removal powers tend to grant a save every round, but the big thing is the save to not lose even a single turn, something that 4E lacks. However, I agree that they should be used very sparingly. Our 4E game ended in a player revolt. The entire group only agreed to show up again if the game wasn't 4E. (one player was contemplating inviting the DM over and tossing the books into his fireplace) And that's sad, I want to like it, but every time I start thinking I can, I play in a game, and start hating it again.
Uh, what 'edition' of 3.5 were you playing? There were so many 'one chance to save' powers in it that it was often a race between enemy spellcasters to see who could get off that certain spell. In the end we dumped 3E altogether mainly because of this and the lame 'save or die' crap.
Oh and 4 hour combats by about 15th level.
I think that's 3.0. In 3.5 turn removal powers tend to grant a save every round
When I read that post, I was assuming that he was playing a little fast and loose with the meaning of turn removal.
E.g., 3.5 Forcecage technically doesn't remove your turns, but if you can't teleport it's pretty much taken you out of a fight for over a day without a save. 3.5 Blindness doesn't technically remove your turns, but if you're a non-caster without blind-fighting it probably has made you a non-factor permanently (until cure blindness). 3.5 Solid Fog technically doesn't remove your turns, but unless you teleport it forces you to spend several turns only moving before you can take useful actions again, etc.
You're right that stuff like 3.5 Hold Person does give a save each round, but it's one of the least effective ways to neuter someone in 3.5.
Of course, the 3.5 games (and all earlier stuff as well) tended to end by level 13 or so, so I never truly saw many of the nasty turn removal stuff from it.
I think it's pretty well in 3.5 even from the very low levels -- 1st level color spray pretty well wipes anything that doesn't have many HD and doesn't have a good will save, 1st level entangle is immensely fight-wrecking against almost any number of melee combatants, 2nd level blindness is immensely crippling to almost anyone and has a duration of permanent, etc. By 4th level solid fog you're putting a big swath of monsters out of a combat for several rounds without even requiring/allowing a roll of any kind.
But that being said if your players/DM haven't realized how crippling these and many more effects are and how very hard it is to make even your good saves at low levels and the game's fun, more power to you.
(I'm not arguing pro-4E, to be clear -- I generally prefer 3.5E over it.)
Not to put too much of a point to it, but there's a very good reason Pathfinder took a sledgehammer to pre-existing save spells from 3.5. Glitterdust was a level 2 spell that never went out of style, and it caused mass blindness with no saves after the fact.
That means you had a level 2 spell that was still ending combats far after you got it.
Not to put too much of a point to it, but there's a very good reason Pathfinder took a sledgehammer to pre-existing save spells from 3.5. Glitterdust was a level 2 spell that never went out of style, and it caused mass blindness with no saves after the fact.
That means you had a level 2 spell that was still ending combats far after you got it.
Sledgehammer? Glitterdust is still amazing, even with the save every round.
Sledgehammer? Glitterdust is still amazing, even with the save every round.Not to put too much of a point to it, but there's a very good reason Pathfinder took a sledgehammer to pre-existing save spells from 3.5. Glitterdust was a level 2 spell that never went out of style, and it caused mass blindness with no saves after the fact.
That means you had a level 2 spell that was still ending combats far after you got it.
Well, some spells got a bigger sledgehammer then others :p
As Jason pointed out, what made Glitterdust - and makes it - so powerful is the double whammy of blindness and utterly negating invisibility and the chance to hide.
I vastly, vastly prefer 4e's SSSSSoD. Not only does it make combat significantly more tense and exciting, but it allows the actual effect to give you real dread. There's no scare in "Woops the one dice roll said you died." but there is a scare - and the word is definately dread - in watching your character slowly turn to stone and get progressively worse with each turn you fail.
Welcome to the real world, where companies actually need to make money to survive. Obviously 4E is engineered for more sales. Same as pathfinder, 3.5, 3.0 and .... any other edition. Same as Paizo who put half of 3.5 DMG I into the Core Rulebook, so every player has to buy a more expensive book. Same as PF or 3.5 making enough little rule changes that the previous edition stuff is not fully useable anymore, and everyone needs the new rules. Yes it might have been possible to make PF/3.5 fully compatible with 3.5/3.0, but this would mean less people need new books to play, and therefore hurts sales. At least this time, WotC was honest (or desperate?) enough to keep their promise of compatibility, unlike the 3.0->3.5 transition where they didn't.
I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. One great thing about the PFRPG is that you *do* get all of that stuff in the core rulebook, and at a better value dollar for dollar than either the 3.5 PHB and DMG at their original retail prices or the 4th Edition PHB and DMG at their current retail prices - plus it's more or less compatible with 3.5 if you implement only minor changes. I just ran a two-night version of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, and I had no trouble using it with the Pathfinder ruleset, making all necessary changes on the fly at the table.
Now, if you're a player who doesn't need the stuff in the PFRPG that is geared more toward GMs than PCs, then yes, that price tag is steep - but the PFRPG ruleset is also largely available for free online (in multiple locations!), giving a player everything he or she needs to build a character and play in a game. The same can't be said of D&D 4E.
(Oh, and can we drop the "welcome to the real world" tone of commentary, please? This is a forum where we discuss what is good for PLAYERS of RPGs - not what is good for developers and publishers.)
The point I was trying to make is that Mearls & Co. likely had to justify this revamp - which in my opinion was both an excellent innovation and an improvement upon the existing product - with the promise of a marketing strategy that would result in significant sales gains over and above what they would get from continuing to publish just the core rulebooks and the many extensions of those core rules.
So, if I want complete game rules, I have to buy at least two more Essentials products to get what I need - the Monster Vault and the DM's Kit, priced at $29.99 and $39.99 respectively. The problem is that I really only want the stats for items and monsters - not the three cookie cutter 32-page adventures that don't fit with the style and tone of my ongoing campaign. Why not cut out those generic adventures and give me the product I want at a reduced price point, then sell the adventures separately? If they're that good, they'll stand on their own as individual products rather than as a bundled item for which I pay significantly more money.
If I pay retail price for the RC, HotFL, the DMK, and the MV, I have spent $110.00 for what I get for $90.00 from Paizo with the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary - and I can spend even less than that if I choose PDF editions of the books.
Don't misunderstand me - I am enjoying playing Essentials, but that doesn't change the fact that Hasbro is making it abundantly clear that they expect me to cough up beaucoup dollars in order to get the most out of their product line. Paizo's business model, by comparison, is more player-friendly and easier on everyone's wallet, whether they are a GM or a player.
I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. One great thing about the PFRPG is that you *do* get all of that stuff in the core rulebook, and at a better value dollar for dollar than either the 3.5 PHB and DMG at their original retail prices or the 4th Edition PHB and DMG at their current retail prices - plus it's more or less compatible with 3.5 if you implement only minor changes. I just ran a two-night version of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, and I had no trouble using it with the Pathfinder ruleset, making all necessary changes on the fly at the table.
Well, it's more compatible in the sense that as a DM, to run a 3.5 adventure with PF rules, the adjustments are just some simple calculations. However, as a player, running PF and 3.5 together (as in, some players have 3.5 PHB and others PF Core) just doesn't work, as there are lots and lots of small changes in PF, spells are different and so on.. as you well know.
This means that the DM can use all his old materials, but each player needs the new, more expensive book.
Now, if you're a player who doesn't need the stuff in the PFRPG that is geared more toward GMs than PCs, then yes, that price tag is steep - but the PFRPG ruleset is also largely available for free online (in multiple locations!), giving a player everything he or she needs to build a character and play in a game. The same can't be said of D&D 4E.
It's called Character Builder Demo, and while it's only for levels 1-3, it's a good start. Also, PF is only free because they use IP of WotC, which they can do legally thanks to the OGL, but still... :)
But yes, making 3E OGL was a great decision at WotC, and all players should be grateful for it.
(Oh, and can we drop the "welcome to the real world" tone of commentary, please? This is a forum where we discuss what is good for PLAYERS of RPGs - not what is good for developers and publishers.)
I had the feeling it was necessary, because I feel that the notion that what's good for developers and publishers is automatically bad for players is not a good foundation for a serious discussion of the topic. Satisfied customers buy more books. Also, I don't think statements who betray a simplistic business-is-bad ideology should be taken too seriously.
If I pay retail price for the RC, HotFL, the DMK, and the MV, I have spent $110.00 for what I get for $90.00 from Paizo with the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary - and I can spend even less than that if I choose PDF editions of the books.
Or you pay like 7$ or so to get a 1 month subscription to DDI and get all player options from all released books. Or get it (most likely) from your DM as part of one of his 5 updates.
As a DM, yes it's a bit more expensive, but again, there's DDI. Additionally, if you are not a newbie DM, you most likely don't need the DM kit, just either the monster vault or one of the previously released monster manuals.
But I think the DM part of the equation is kind of pointless anyway - all DMs I know spend lots of money on any number of RPG materials, and it's not like the books are so expensive that you actually have to decide to buy one or the other (for PF, 4E and any other system).
Don't misunderstand me - I am enjoying playing Essentials, but that doesn't change the fact that Hasbro is making it abundantly clear that they expect me to cough up beaucoup dollars in order to get the most out of their product line. Paizo's business model, by comparison, is more player-friendly and easier on everyone's wallet, whether they are a GM or a player.
I like both Paizo and WotC, but this is simply not true. There is no way to get all the official pathfinder rules material except for buying all the books; for WotC, there's DDI with a fixed price. There are rules and options in all the companion books, in the chronicles, in the APs...
That said, I don't think either Paizo and WotC are evil in their business practices. If I did, I would not be a customer of theirs anymore. Both companies have different environments and a different context in which they operate in and are doing the best to satisfy their customers while making a profit. And that's a good thing. The competition between the two helps players, so lets hope they will be competing against each other for a long time...
Meh, quoting people on here is too much like writing HTML, and I do that all day for a living, so I'm responding the lazy way:
Re: players needing the Core Rulebook because it's too different from the 3.5 PHB, the differences *are* significant - vast in some cases - but I've run several games for players familiar with 3.5 but not PFRPG, and they were able to build characters entirely from the online Reference Document. None of them had to spend a dime beyond the gas they burned to get to my house or the game store.
Re: the Character Builder Demo, I didn't know this was still being offered for free. I've actually not looked at WotC's online resources at all because deep down, I'm a pen and paper grognard; if I can't keep track of a character on two, or at most three, sheets on my own, I feel like there's a problem with the game system (which is probably why the 4E Powers rub me the wrong way). But I concede your point - 4E is probably more accessible to the average person than Pathfinder is, if only because they are providing tools to simplify creating a character.
Re: the all-business-is-motivated-by-greed attitude - I'm on your side. Really. And competition probably is strengthening both product lines, which does likely benefit us in the long term.
I think many of us who lived in the shadow of the Lorraine Williams era of TSR fear a return to that mindset at modern-day WotC - perhaps irrationally so. We saw a tiny glimpse of this rigid attitude rear its head in the way 4E was originally rolled out, what with the sudden yanking of licenses for IP across the board (thank the powers that be that I backed up all the WotC PDFs I bought from Paizo before the hammer fell!).
The edition wars are mostly over, but the emotions that fueled that resentment are often hard to let go of. I joked to my wife just last week that playing Wednesday night Encounters made me feel like I was cheating on solid, dependable Pathfinder with glitzy, glossy D&D 4E. :)
I think many of us who lived in the shadow of the Lorraine Williams era of TSR fear a return to that mindset at modern-day WotC - perhaps irrationally so.
Yeah, but that era gave us Planescape. I don't care what she did wrong or how she ruined the company in the end, since Planescape makes up for it all.
The edition wars are mostly over, but the emotions that fueled that resentment are often hard to let go of. I joked to my wife just last week that playing Wednesday night Encounters made me feel like I was cheating on solid, dependable Pathfinder with glitzy, glossy D&D 4E. :)
Hahaha.
(If I pay retail price for the RC, HotFL, the DMK, and the MV, I have spent $110.00 for what I get for $90.00 from Paizo with the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary - and I can spend even less than that if I choose PDF editions of the books.
3
You should buy your books from Amazon. The PHB, DMG and MM1 bundled together is only $70 dollars the others average $25 each.
You should buy your books from Amazon. The PHB, DMG and MM1 bundled together is only $70 dollars the others average $25 each.
Yeah, why support your FLGS when you can save a little bit of money...
WAT.
You should buy your books from Amazon. The PHB, DMG and MM1 bundled together is only $70 dollars the others average $25 each.Yeah, why support your FLGS when you can save a little bit of money...
WAT.
To be fair, I did buy the Essentials Rules Compendium and Heroes of the Fallen Lands from Amazon simply because the discount was so steep and I wasn't sure how much use I'd get out of 4E. I usually spend my Pathfinder dollars at the FLGS, though (not to mention the 70 bucks I dropped on the Castle Ravenloft board game). Amazon is a good place to shop if you're unsure as to whether you want to pay full retail value for a game or book, and it's hard to blame consumers for seeking the best bargain they can acquire on a given item, considering today's economy. My wife is a Kindle addict, too, so the big A gets a lot of our spending money these days.
Yeah, why support your FLGS when you can save a little bit of money...WAT.
Of course, that's assuming you have a local game store and that it is, in fact, friendly.
you can save... money...
Damn straight.
You should buy your books from Amazon. The PHB, DMG and MM1 bundled together is only $70 dollars the others average $25 each.Yeah, why support your FLGS when you can save a little bit of money...
WAT.
Just the same way you're supporting your FLGS by ordering your Pathfinder stuff from Paizo?
BTW It's not a little bit of money to me, $40 bucks is food for a week, it's the differance between eating and starving.
Yeah, why support your FLGS when you can save a little bit of money...WAT.
Of course, that's assuming you have a local game store and that it is, in fact, friendly.
Too true. When I lived in Greensboro, NC, the most prominent game store was Cosmic Castles, and the ownership was extremely hostile to gamers (though the other employees were not). I was very thankful when HyperMind opened up in Burlington - that's another great store, for those of you who live in the Piedmont/Triad area of North Carolina.
Another reason I sometimes choose Amazon over a FLGS is that there are some products that I want as close to launch as I can get them, and some stores either manage inventory poorly - especially on special orders that get requested weeks in advance and then aren't ordered because someone forgot to write down the request - or they simply can't get the product at launch.
Having worked in video game retail, I've never understood why the distribution channel for pen & paper gaming products is so spotty. We typically got video games three to seven days ahead of launch and kept them in the stockroom until street date, and it seems like a lot of FLGSs just can't, or won't, get products on their shelves by launch date. And sometimes I just don't want to wait 7-14 days after launch to get my fix. :)
|
The thing is companies are in the buisness of making a quality product and money. Anyone tells you otherwise is being naive to the extreme. One thing I have noticed in the community is that their is a very small minority who want tommorws rpgs now at yesterdays prices. Which quite simply is not going to happen. No company is going to undersell their products because some gamers are unable or unwilling to spend the moeny on them. That would be sucide for any company.
Sure I am not happy that Wotc is releasing the Essential;s line yet I understand why they are doing it. I would the same thing i I was in there place. Bills and employees need to be paid. Companies have expenses that need to be covered and investor want a return for their investment. The gaming community in general needs to drop the sense of entitlement that it has. Just because you spend X amoutn fo dollars in gaming books does not mean your entitled to some sort of special treatment. No other industry seems to share it. It won't happen because business and busines practices are not fair. It sucks but that's how it is.
Having worked in video game retail, I've never understood why the distribution channel for pen & paper gaming products is so spotty. We typically got video games three to seven days ahead of launch and kept them in the stockroom until street date, and it seems like a lot of FLGSs just can't, or won't, get products on their shelves by launch date. And sometimes I just don't want to wait 7-14 days after launch to get my fix. :)
Both books and Gaming publishers/distributors seem to aim for much closer adherence to the street date. I think I once got something the day before but 98% of the time its day of.
I've long argued that the updates WotC is releasing go beyond merely errata to change basic aspects of the game. Apparently, the answer to the rapid obsolescence in their library that this practice has caused is to deny it, then release new books anyway.Gosh, it's like 1986 all over again.
Gosh, it's like 1980 all over again!In this case, they're releasing totally revamped versions of the core classes that exist "alongside" the current versions... we can't discuss with any sort of assurance we're talking about the same class, the common language of the game is destroyed.
If they're going to release a half edition, they should come out and say it. All the current strategy is going to do is create confusion. It's almost like wants to run D&D into the ground.
As those who have actually read the thread, as opposed to those trying (and failing) to be glib, will have noticed: I am neutral, even positive, on the releasee of a revised edition of D&D. It is not the release, but the "stealth" nature of the release, as well as the constant denials, that I find condescending and objectionable.
As for you, snorter: By comparing my statement to those made about a previous EDITION CHANGE, you've made my point for me. The fact that you didn't realize you were doing so is just gravy. Mmmmm...gravy.
As for you, snorter: By comparing my statement to those made about a previous EDITION CHANGE, you've made my point for me. The fact that you didn't realize you were doing so is just gravy. Mmmmm...gravy.Gosh, it's like 1980 all over again!In this case, they're releasing totally revamped versions of the core classes that exist "alongside" the current versions... we can't discuss with any sort of assurance we're talking about the same class, the common language of the game is destroyed.
If they're going to release a half edition, they should come out and say it. All the current strategy is going to do is create confusion. It's almost like wants to run D&D into the ground.
I think you missed the sarcasm in Snorter's post. He's essentially saying that present complaints are just as ridiculous now as they were 30 years ago.
I think you missed the sarcasm in Snorter's post. He's essentially saying that present complaints are just as ridiculous now as they were 30 years ago.
No, I got it. I'm saying it was irrelevant my point (and the point of this thread), which wasn't "is a new edition good/bad??" but "does Essentials constitute a new edition?"
His post misrepresented my point, deliberately or not. At best, it was a careless assumption. At worst, it was a self-aggrandizing cheap shot on his part.
response...
I got it - my bad. I forgot what the point of this thread was when I posted. You were right. He basically, and probably unknowingly, agreed with you by comparing your complaints to previous edition changes.
Check out this book, which, among other things, "features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms."
But...I thought Essentails was 100% compatible with 4E? So why the book? I'm so confused...
...and look forward to the spin. :-)
response...I got it - my bad. I forgot what the point of this thread was when I posted. You were right. He basically, and probably unknowingly, agreed with you by comparing your complaints to previous edition changes.
** spoiler omitted **
No problem...I'm sorry I made such a big deal about it.
Check out this book, which, among other things, "features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms."
But...I thought Essentails was 100% compatible with 4E? So why the book? I'm so confused...
...and look forward to the spin. :-)
I'm confused too, so there is a book which explains that you can interchange between 4e and Essentials, which proves to you they are not compatible?
You got me, I don't have a way to spin this so you would understand.
Check out this book, which, among other things, "features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms."
But...I thought Essentails was 100% compatible with 4E? So why the book? I'm so confused...
...and look forward to the spin. :-)
Essentials characters can stand side by side with non-Essentials characters, but some of the new builds aren't getting the same things at the same levels. For instance, a 1st level knight doesn't have a daily attack power, and non-Essentials fighter might want access to a stance the knight gets. This book probably has the rules to cover mixing and matching.
I'm confused too, so there is a book which explains that you can interchange between 4e and Essentials, which proves to you they are not compatible?
You got me, I don't have a way to spin this so you would understand.
"features rules that allow"
It doesn't get much clearer than that. But enjoy the Kool-aid! :P
Hey now, I think we've done a good job of keeping this thread relatively civil - someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are blindly believing anything WotC says, it means they have examined the evidence and come to a different conclusion than you have. Is that really that hard to accept?
Anyway, I'm not sure what your emphasis there is intended to mean. Essentials characters can already take powers from non-Essentials sources. All this book is going to do, I suspect, is provide ways for swapping elements that don't immediately have clear counterparts - again, similar to how the Hybrid rules in PHB3 allowed you to combine different features from two classes.
Did you feel that the PHB3 counted as 4.5 because of the Hybrid rules? If not, than why is this any different?
I absolutely believe it is possible to draw a difference conclusion based on the same evidence -- for example, I'm entitled to believe my computer is made of watermelons -- but that entitlement doesn't make me any less wrong.
Quite simply, if the the two systems were fully compatible, then by definition a book to allow swapping features would be unnecessary. That it is necessary is telling. In essentials, Wotc has rewritten (among other things) the core classes -- the very bedrock of a class-based game like D&D. The fact that essentials characters can co-exist with their pre-essentials counterparts is no more telling than the fact that a 3.5 ranger could play at the same table as a 3.0 fighter -- 3.0 and 3.5 are still separate editions.
As for your PHB 3 question, the answer is simple: essentials presents a complete ruleset. The PHB 3 does not.
The fact that some people still can't read the writing on the wall defies logic. You're certainly welcome to your opinion -- it simply isn't rational by any measure that has meaning to me.
P.S. I've heard the Strawberry Blast is quite refreshing. ;)
Quite simply, if the the two systems were fully compatible, then by definition a book to allow swapping features would be unnecessary. That it is necessary is telling.
This argument doesn't hold water. There are entire edditions of DnD, nay entire other roleplaying systems, who don't allow the swapping of class features at all.
I'm not sure how much more fully compatible you want it to be really.
Xp and challenge levels compatible? check
combat rules identical? check
classes balanced against one another? check
Some class features cant be taken by other classes, but that been true of all DnD ever regardless of edition.
They have not rewritten the core classes either. They have just offered radically different new builds for the new classes.
And this.... this is yet another reason I just play 3.5, and wish they would atleast have a print on a demand, if not a 'classics' line.
I wish they'd had the intestinal fortitude to call a duck a duck, and just printed 4.5. If they had, I may even have picked it up...I'm a sucker for corebooks.
As it is, the only reasonable response to WotC's breakthtakingingly patronizing "it's not a new edition" mantra is a dizzying mix of disgust and incredulity. Of course, after the PDF and GSL/OGL fiascos, little they do surprises me any more -- so it's mostly disgust. :(
Check out this book, which, among other things, "features rules that allow D&D Essentials characters to select non-D&D Essentials powers, and it grants non-D&D Essentials characters access to class features from Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms."
But...I thought Essentails was 100% compatible with 4E? So why the book? I'm so confused...
...and look forward to the spin. :-)
Wow... really?
That it was even considered a topic for publishing is baffling.
The denial that Essentials isn't a pseudo-4.5 is amazing.
The fact that some people still can't read the writing on the wall defies logic. You're certainly welcome to your opinion -- it simply isn't rational by any measure that has meaning to me.P.S. I've heard the Strawberry Blast is quite refreshing. ;)
OK riddle me this - I take an Essentials Warpriest, I use a feat to Multi-class him with the Avenger to pick up Oath of Enmity from PHB2. What rule set am I playing? Does the answer change one way or another if I just use the online Compendium for the rules or if I actually buy the essentials rule book?
4E at its base is a very simple system, so I can understand that any new component that presents the basic rules in a different fashion may be seen as a new version. But it all comes down to what you consider a new version would constitute. That is where all the arguments begin. If essentials totally replaced previous content, then I would tend to agree it is a new version.
However wizards will not convince me to buy a book that explains the differences, or how to combine different builds, whether we are talking essentials, players handbooks, etc. Because that is 101 material for anyone that has been playing the game for a while. So I can only assume the intent is to form a bridge between the different types of builds presented so far to a new player.
The denial that Essentials isn't a pseudo-4.5 is amazing.
No your insitance that the metaphor that 3.0 is to 3.5 as 4e is to essentials is anything other than totally subjective, ans utimately meaningless (in the face of the fact that I'm not buying essentials yet will be able to continue to buy new DnD suplements from WotC that mesh seemlessly with my games) is amazing.
Seriously draw a a hard non subjective line in the sand for what 4.5 actually means, and why, assuming that your right, i should care if it is, and you might have the start of having a point.
Seriously draw a a hard non subjective line in the sand for what 4.5 actually means, and why, assuming that your right, i should care if it is, and you might have the start of having a point.
I actually agree with you - it is indeed subjective. Part of what makes those hard-fighting denials in this thread so amusing.
In the end, the only denial can be: "Hmmm... well, it's not 4.5 to me based on my own personal definition of '.5'."
OK riddle me this - I take an Essentials Warpriest, I use a feat to Multi-class him with the Avenger to pick up Oath of Enmity from PHB2. What rule set am I playing?
The fact that some people still can't read the writing on the wall defies logic. You're certainly welcome to your opinion -- it simply isn't rational by any measure that has meaning to me.P.S. I've heard the Strawberry Blast is quite refreshing. ;)
Ummm...4.5.
But, as has been pointed out, you can call it whatever you like. Personally, I hereby declare I will only acknowledge books printed with ink made from camel dung as being 4.5. After all, it's totally subjective. How much sense that makes, on the other hand, I'll leave up to you...
Can this thread be locked somehow? It really serves no purpose.
OK riddle me this - I take an Essentials Warpriest, I use a feat to Multi-class him with the Avenger to pick up Oath of Enmity from PHB2. What rule set am I playing?
The fact that some people still can't read the writing on the wall defies logic. You're certainly welcome to your opinion -- it simply isn't rational by any measure that has meaning to me.P.S. I've heard the Strawberry Blast is quite refreshing. ;)
Ummm...4.5.
But, as has been pointed out, you can call it whatever you like. Personally, I hereby declare I will only acknowledge books printed with ink made from camel dung as being 4.5. After all, it's totally subjective. How much sense that makes, on the other hand, I'll leave up to you...
So this suggests that 4.5 does include all of 4.0...they are in effect one and the same game.
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 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.
Can this thread be locked somehow? It really serves no purpose.
...to you. I suggest you may, I don't know...simply not read it?
Well to put my thoughts in perspective versus having a good defintion for a new version of the game, if I considered essentials to be 4.5, then Pathfinder APG would be 4.25. But I don't agree with either, but does it matter? I guess that depends on what game you play.
Shrug.