Already I'm seeing attacks based on misinformation that is provably wrong, accusation of WOTC lying to the fan base, and "fan boy" accusation to those that argue against the above.
Thankfully, I have not yet seen the trolling that occurred when 4E was ramping up to launch. Some of the is because of better moderation and the veterans of the last edition war now better recognize when someone it just trying to start a flame war.
However, their is some things that can be dome to tamp this down before it becomes something it shouldn't be.
A compiling of info on Essentials would be helpful and it would also be nice if posters on each side would try to be better than the perceive the other side as being.
Thanks for listening. [/
]Those of us who love the Essentials line will continue to use the Players Handbooks for options.
Those of us who love the PHs will continue to 'plunder' the Esl for options.
Everybody is going to use the Esl Rules Compendium.
Best of friends.
The designers have been doing massive errata updates as they clarify and compile the new Essentials Rules Compendium. So, we know, there is no overhall of the rules.
All the disagreements will be about specific class builds. Some players will like certain class builds, and other players will like other class builds. But players will simply play the one they like. And in that sense, there isnt really anything to disagree about. Dragon magazine will probably provide support by players for players, thus support everyone.
There is tension about 'favoritism', but we can all strive to resolve these as diplomatically as possible, to benefit as many players as possible.
Meanwhile, most concerns involve longterm outcomes, and we all have plenty of time to monitor those.
Its all good.
Everybody is going to use the Esl Rules Compendium.
... Except those of us who, ya know, stick to the actual essentials of Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, and optionally a campaign setting book or two.
I don't even know what this Essentials Rules Compendium is, but I'm not gonna get it, not gonna use it, not gonna care.
Do you mean, you dont use the free errata or the DDI Character Builder and Online Compendium? These are already more-or-less identical to what the Essentials Rules Compendium will be.
Players who only use the PH1, DMG1, and MM1, and nothing else, not even the errata, are so independent from the D&D community, they wont have any concerns about - or even notice - Essentials. So, theyl be happy too.
Do you mean, you dont use the free errata or the DDI Character Builder and Online Compendium?
Pretty much, yeah. I have the books I need and don't like laptops at the table or cross referencing everything with print-outs.
And I'm sorry, I didn't realize that to be a member of this "community" you had to keep up with the Jones. I thought all you had to do was, I dunno, enjoy D&D and enjoy talking with the people here.
Thats good too.Nothing much will change. There will be new options, just like there was when the power books were released.
All things considered, it is a good thing. People who just use the 3 core books can continue to have fun. People who won't use the Essentials products can continue to have fun. People who decide to use the Essentials products can continue to have fun. The only people not having fun will be those not playing D&D (that is how I define having fun in the context of this forum), and the Essentials products will make it easier than ever to get them started.
However, their is some things that can be dome to tamp this down before it becomes something it shouldn't be.
Thanks for listening. [/
unfortunately, we live in a culture that thoroughly enjoys taking sides, and shredding those not on our team.
some people will behave like ****ess over this, and nothing can be done to stop it.
WOTC knows that it can safely ignore such bickering. as we all can.
unfortunately, we live in a culture that thoroughly enjoys taking sides, and shredding those not on our team.
I take issue with this statement, and will prove you wrong by ... well, imagine all sorts of things I could say to prove you wrong, and then imagine I actually did that, 'cause I'm pretty sure I've already blown any chance I may have had to do so.
some people will behave like ****ess over this, and nothing can be done to stop it.
I'm wondering if you there is an extra * in your censor or if there is a new word out there...
I won't be doing the oops we found 3.0 needs to be fixed with 3.5 thing.
My books work fine. It sucks all we got was the PC Generator. Maybe the other tools will arrive in time.
Thing is, I am unsure I need anything else out of them.
As a player the Generator is very handy. It's not without bugs.
As a DM the Generator is great for spitting out insta NPCs
There WILL come a day when 4th edition is old and not any different than 3.5.
And when the PC Generator is no longer updated, I simply won't need to update it any more.
It doesn't mean I will need to discontinue playing 4th any more than my 3.5 biased friends have had to stop playing 3.5. Some of them really don't like 4th and the Essentials won't fly with them either.
If Wizards doesn't make books to sell, they go out of business.
There WILL be a 5.0. Maybe your kids will play it.
The impression I had was that it wasn't so much an alternative version of D&D, but more of a pared-down D&D 'lite' that would allow me (and any others I might drag in!) to being playing D&D and learn the basic mechanics without having to buy and absorb the core books.
I know there are other Essentials products in the pipeline, and I guess these are for those who might wish to continue with the simplified game rather than progressing to the full game. Personally, I think I'd rather move on the core books if I enjoyed what I got with the Starter Set.
In this way, Essentials would act as a kind of tutorial or primer for the full D&D experience.
To WOTC's credit, it appears that this "lite" version will fully integrate with the main game (I was playing back during the AD&D v Red Box debacle of the early 80's where eventually there were two completely incompatible game systems).
If (as the PR states) the two systems can be played independently or fully integrated then I completely fail to see where the drama is.
I'm not that interested myself (there are already 600+ class/race combinations in 4E) but I bless anything that brings new players onboard and keeps the game alive (and WOTC allive for that matter).
I'm also of the impression it is 4E "lite".
Alright, I have a term for people with this feeling, "Basic Dungeons & Dragons". Along time ago you has basic and advanced versions of the game. Essentials my turn out to be basic, but it also has hallmarks of a soft reboot (as opposed to a hard reboot like 3.5).
It's all gonna be on DDI anyway so only the people that use hardcopy books will have the choice not to intigrate the two.
Even then, the essentials classes are additions to the existing ones, not replacements, so even if you use DDI you could choose to simply ignore the essentials stuff. Not sure why you would, but it could be done.
The reason I find this amusing is that I still think in terms of Warhammer rather than D&D when it comes to edition changes. When Warhammer gets a new edition (they're onto 8th edition now), the previous edition's supplement books are often still fully compatible with the new edition, but it's always a new full number for the new edition: there have never been any X.5 editions. The game itself might be on its 8th iteration, but some of the army books have only had three versions because each has been compatible with at least a couple of different editions of the game. There have even been several cases of a single army getting more than one version of the army book within a single edition of the game, just to add to the confusion.
So, in Warhammer terms, D&D Essentials is probably 6th edition, with all your old 5th edition (i.e. 4th edition) stuff being fully compatible. 3.5e was really 4th edition.
My point is, arguing that "Essentials isn't 4.5e because your existing 4th edition stuff is still valid" is silly. Compatibility is not necessarily a valid criterion for deciding whether something is part of a new edition, or even a new 0.5 of an edition.
Essentials isn't 4.5e because WotC haven't chosen to call it that. But they easily could have. And it would have made no difference whatsoever to its compatibility with existing 4th edition material.
My point is, arguing that "Essentials isn't 4.5e because your existing 4th edition stuff is still valid" is silly. Compatibility is not necessarily a valid criterion for deciding whether something is part of a new edition, or even a new 0.5 of an edition.
I disagree. This is all based on context, and in the context of D&D, level of compatability is what determines what constitutes a new edition. D&D isn't Warhammer.
I disagree. This is all based on context, and in the context of D&D, level of compatability is what determines what constitutes a new edition. D&D isn't Warhammer.
So, you're inventing a general rule based on a single data point? Just because one edition change worked one particular way, all subsequent edition changes (of the same game - or at least of games with the same name) have to work the exact same way, otherwise it's not an edition change?
Surely what matters is whether stuff is actually compatible, not what arbitrary numerical labels we apply?
I'm not arguing that this is 4.5e, BTW. I'm arguing that the whole argument is based on slightly shaky logic and a fixation on arbitrary numerical labels. I think calling Essentials 4.5e is silly, but also that the usual argument given for it not being 4.5e is equally silly.
It's all going to be fully compatible with existing 4th edition material. What people choose to call it doesn't matter a damn.
PS: I really need to stop ending my posts with "my point is..." and then only summarizing half of what my point actually is.
So, you're inventing a general rule based on a single data point? Just because one edition change worked one particular way, all subsequent edition changes (of the same game - or at least of games with the same name) have to work the exact same way, otherwise it's not an edition change?
No, I invented a general rule based on what I know from multiple D&D edition changes. That's more than one data point. 4E material is not compatible with 3.5 material. While there were many compatibility issues with 3.5 and 3E, they were still basically compatible, but neither was compatible with material from 2E. I never played any earlier than that, but I assume that the same can be said. With the essentials line, all material is compatible with existing 4E material with no compatibility issues at all. Following precedent, that makes it not a new edition. Granted, there's only one data point for what constitutes a ".5" edition, but we should all know how big of a difference that really is and realize that the essentials don't cause nearly such a difference, so suggesting that essentials is equivalent of ".5" is flawed either way.
Surely what matters is whether stuff is actually compatible, not what arbitrary numerical labels we apply?
I don't at all disagree. I'm just saying that the criteria for a D&D edition and a Warhammer edition are different. I don't think that comparing them is productive because they follow entirely different precedents and contexts. It's just not a valid comparison.
Essentials exists within D&D. Just as there are expansions to D&D, I guess Essentials is a "contraction".
In 1979 AD&D (now aka 1E) was an extension of, and was fully forward compatible, with D&D Basic (at that time).
However D&D "basic" continued to evolve and by 1981 was quite incompatible with 1E. The two games continued to evolve separately through the 80's.
2E came out in the late 80's and was incompatible with 1E or basic.
3E brought the change to d20 from THAC0 and that was really a bigger switch than the 1E-2E change had been. That was a very tumultuous time, although the bankruptcy of TSR made people more philosophical about it (ie. the alternative was having no game at all).
3E to 3.5E was FAR less significant than the 2E-3E change IMHO. But enough game mechanics were altered to obsolete 3.0 game books, and it was about as structurally significant a change as 1E to 2E.
3.5E to 4E is the biggest change the game has EVER undergone - bigger than all the combined changes between 1E and 3.5E. As most will recall from that time - THAT got people upset.
So to the current situation:
As Crimson_Concerto rightly points out, essentials is not really a "change" - the mechanics of 4E remain untouched. I actually can't see the effective difference between Essentials and (say) Dark Sun or Eberron. Sure, some new classes, some new powers, some new races (maybe), but I'm no more obligated to pay heed to Essentials than I am to Eberron or Dark Sun.
Hence this was a longwinded way of saying "no drama here".
My spider senses are telling me alot of the 4E haters are gone.
Well...
I'm still here....
But I don't like D&D in general, not just 4e...
My spider senses are telling me alot of the 4E haters are gone.
Well...
I'm still here....
But I don't like D&D in general, not just 4e...
Which does make me wonder why you are here at all then ?
Just because someone isn't enjoying a toy the same way you are doesn't mean they aren't having fun.
I agree with you but If you dont like D&D in general why visit the D&D boards ? It just seems odd.
Granted, there's only one data point for what constitutes a ".5" edition,
Which is what I thought you were basing your argument on. AFAIK, nobody has claimed Essentials is really 5th edition. The argument (which, as I've said, I find eminently silly and pointless) seems to be whether it's just part of 4th edition or is actually 4.5e by another name. So the only comparison (within D&D) is to the 3.0e to 3.5e change.
I think, if such an argument is going to be based on a single data point (which seems to be how most people are arguing it), then it's not much more of a stretch to also compare to other game systems that have undergone multiple edition changes. At least, it isn't any more silly or less valid than the argument itself already is by default.
so suggesting that essentials is equivalent of ".5" is flawed either way.
I'm not even sure we actually disagree on anything substantive. I suspect we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. The only difference seems to be that I can recognise the inherent silliness of the arguments on both sides.
I'm just saying that the criteria for a D&D edition and a Warhammer edition are different. I don't think that comparing them is productive because they follow entirely different precedents and contexts. It's just not a valid comparison.
But each edition of D&D has been designed by different people - even, in some cases, different companies. So comparing edition changes even within D&D itself doesn't seem especially sensible to me either.
Warning! Amazingly Bad Analogy Ahead!
Basically, I see two people arguing vociferously over whether apples or oranges are better, so I feel compelled to interject that I prefer cheese. Then, when they stop sputtering incoherently and blurt out: "That's not even a fruit!" I get to say (probably quite smugly): "Yeah, and you guys are arguing apples and oranges! Now stop being so silly, get over yourselves and go have some fun, dammit!"
Just because someone isn't enjoying a toy the same way you are doesn't mean they aren't having fun.
I agree with you but If you dont like D&D in general why visit the D&D boards ? It just seems odd.
Just because one doesn't play "D&D" doesn't mean that one plays no RPGs...
Besides, I have friends here.
I feel essentials will be comparable to to the 3.0, 3.5 deal. 3.5 material is compatable with 3.0 material it is just updated, reballanced, changed slightly, or sometimes not changed at all. For instance a 3.5 binder will work just fine in a 3.0 game assuming the DM allows Tome of Magic in their game. If you took a binder and put it into a previous edition (pre 3rd) it would take a lot of work to even make it possible. Essentials character appear to be used in standard 4th and vise versa making it similar to 1st- 2nd ed and 3.0-3.5 ed.
Rules Compendium:
Option 1: PHB1 + 100 page errata
Option 2: New Rulebook with all errata built in.
Heroes of: (2 of these)
Option 1: X Power with new builds, feats, powers, etc.,. for classes of a particular power source
Option 2: Heroes of... with new builds feats, powers, etc., but for classes & races not necessarily from the same power source
DM Kit:
Option 1: DMG(s) + dungeon tiles + miniatures
Option 2: Box set with tiles, monster tokens and a DM guide book
Dungeon Tiles Master Sets (3 of these)
Option 1: Hunt down out of print tiles, get a game map, etc.,.
Option 2: A double sized tile set that stays in print.
Monster Vault:
Option 1: Monster Manual 1, 2 or 3 + Miniatures or home made counters
Option 2: Book of monster stats + a bunch of monster tokens.
Deluxe DM Screen:
Option 1: Current DM Screen + errata
Option 2: DM Screen with the errata built in
Red Box starter:
Option 1: Starter set with pre-gen characters or PHB/DMG/MM
Option 2: Starter with everything you need for $20.
I just don't see what everyone is getting so worked up about. And it's all based on partial spoilers of a few builds of some of the classes from one Essentials product out of ten.
Nerdrage, the need to be right and fear of change make for a powerful combination. Then add in the ability to express this anonymously from behind a screen name.
Sounds like the perfect recipe for internet flame wars.
My spider senses are telling me alot of the 4E haters are gone.
Nah, we're still around, we just don't hate on ya anymore. ;)
Holy Cr*p ! That's a lot of errata for a book that's not even supposed to be out until 09/21...
And what's with the HORRIBLE clashing colors on the new background of the DnD home page ? Yuck.
Looks like they need a new web designer / graphic artist, as well as a new game design team.
DnD has essentially gone to Hell.
Those of us who love the Essentials line will continue to use the Players Handbooks for options.
Those of us who love the PHs will continue to 'plunder' the Esl for options.
Everybody is going to use the Esl Rules Compendium.
Best of friends.
The designers have been doing massive errata updates as they clarify and compile the new Essentials Rules Compendium. So, we know, there is no overhall of the rules.
All the disagreements will be about specific class builds. Some players will like certain class builds, and other players will like other class builds. But players will simply play the one they like. And in that sense, there isnt really anything to disagree about. Dragon magazine will probably provide support by players for players, thus support everyone.
There is tension about 'favoritism', but we can all strive to resolve these as diplomatically as possible, to benefit as many players as possible.
Meanwhile, most concerns involve longterm outcomes, and we all have plenty of time to monitor those.
Its all good.
Everybody is going to use the Esl Rules Compendium.
... Except those of us who, ya know, stick to the actual essentials of Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, and optionally a campaign setting book or two.
I don't even know what this Essentials Rules Compendium is, but I'm not gonna get it, not gonna use it, not gonna care.
Do you mean, you dont use the free errata or the DDI Character Builder and Online Compendium? These are already more-or-less identical to what the Essentials Rules Compendium will be.
Players who only use the PH1, DMG1, and MM1, and nothing else, not even the errata, are so independent from the D&D community, they wont have any concerns about - or even notice - Essentials. So, theyl be happy too.
Do you mean, you dont use the free errata or the DDI Character Builder and Online Compendium?
Pretty much, yeah. I have the books I need and don't like laptops at the table or cross referencing everything with print-outs.
And I'm sorry, I didn't realize that to be a member of this "community" you had to keep up with the Jones. I thought all you had to do was, I dunno, enjoy D&D and enjoy talking with the people here.
Thats good too.Nothing much will change. There will be new options, just like there was when the power books were released.
All things considered, it is a good thing. People who just use the 3 core books can continue to have fun. People who won't use the Essentials products can continue to have fun. People who decide to use the Essentials products can continue to have fun. The only people not having fun will be those not playing D&D (that is how I define having fun in the context of this forum), and the Essentials products will make it easier than ever to get them started.
However, their is some things that can be dome to tamp this down before it becomes something it shouldn't be.
Thanks for listening. [/
unfortunately, we live in a culture that thoroughly enjoys taking sides, and shredding those not on our team.
some people will behave like ****ess over this, and nothing can be done to stop it.
WOTC knows that it can safely ignore such bickering. as we all can.
unfortunately, we live in a culture that thoroughly enjoys taking sides, and shredding those not on our team.
I take issue with this statement, and will prove you wrong by ... well, imagine all sorts of things I could say to prove you wrong, and then imagine I actually did that, 'cause I'm pretty sure I've already blown any chance I may have had to do so.
some people will behave like ****ess over this, and nothing can be done to stop it.
I'm wondering if you there is an extra * in your censor or if there is a new word out there...
I won't be doing the oops we found 3.0 needs to be fixed with 3.5 thing.
My books work fine. It sucks all we got was the PC Generator. Maybe the other tools will arrive in time.
Thing is, I am unsure I need anything else out of them.
As a player the Generator is very handy. It's not without bugs.
As a DM the Generator is great for spitting out insta NPCs
There WILL come a day when 4th edition is old and not any different than 3.5.
And when the PC Generator is no longer updated, I simply won't need to update it any more.
It doesn't mean I will need to discontinue playing 4th any more than my 3.5 biased friends have had to stop playing 3.5. Some of them really don't like 4th and the Essentials won't fly with them either.
If Wizards doesn't make books to sell, they go out of business.
There WILL be a 5.0. Maybe your kids will play it.
The impression I had was that it wasn't so much an alternative version of D&D, but more of a pared-down D&D 'lite' that would allow me (and any others I might drag in!) to being playing D&D and learn the basic mechanics without having to buy and absorb the core books.
I know there are other Essentials products in the pipeline, and I guess these are for those who might wish to continue with the simplified game rather than progressing to the full game. Personally, I think I'd rather move on the core books if I enjoyed what I got with the Starter Set.
In this way, Essentials would act as a kind of tutorial or primer for the full D&D experience.
To WOTC's credit, it appears that this "lite" version will fully integrate with the main game (I was playing back during the AD&D v Red Box debacle of the early 80's where eventually there were two completely incompatible game systems).
If (as the PR states) the two systems can be played independently or fully integrated then I completely fail to see where the drama is.
I'm not that interested myself (there are already 600+ class/race combinations in 4E) but I bless anything that brings new players onboard and keeps the game alive (and WOTC allive for that matter).
I'm also of the impression it is 4E "lite".
Alright, I have a term for people with this feeling, "Basic Dungeons & Dragons". Along time ago you has basic and advanced versions of the game. Essentials my turn out to be basic, but it also has hallmarks of a soft reboot (as opposed to a hard reboot like 3.5).
It's all gonna be on DDI anyway so only the people that use hardcopy books will have the choice not to intigrate the two.
Even then, the essentials classes are additions to the existing ones, not replacements, so even if you use DDI you could choose to simply ignore the essentials stuff. Not sure why you would, but it could be done.
The reason I find this amusing is that I still think in terms of Warhammer rather than D&D when it comes to edition changes. When Warhammer gets a new edition (they're onto 8th edition now), the previous edition's supplement books are often still fully compatible with the new edition, but it's always a new full number for the new edition: there have never been any X.5 editions. The game itself might be on its 8th iteration, but some of the army books have only had three versions because each has been compatible with at least a couple of different editions of the game. There have even been several cases of a single army getting more than one version of the army book within a single edition of the game, just to add to the confusion.
So, in Warhammer terms, D&D Essentials is probably 6th edition, with all your old 5th edition (i.e. 4th edition) stuff being fully compatible. 3.5e was really 4th edition.
My point is, arguing that "Essentials isn't 4.5e because your existing 4th edition stuff is still valid" is silly. Compatibility is not necessarily a valid criterion for deciding whether something is part of a new edition, or even a new 0.5 of an edition.
Essentials isn't 4.5e because WotC haven't chosen to call it that. But they easily could have. And it would have made no difference whatsoever to its compatibility with existing 4th edition material.
My point is, arguing that "Essentials isn't 4.5e because your existing 4th edition stuff is still valid" is silly. Compatibility is not necessarily a valid criterion for deciding whether something is part of a new edition, or even a new 0.5 of an edition.
I disagree. This is all based on context, and in the context of D&D, level of compatability is what determines what constitutes a new edition. D&D isn't Warhammer.
I disagree. This is all based on context, and in the context of D&D, level of compatability is what determines what constitutes a new edition. D&D isn't Warhammer.
So, you're inventing a general rule based on a single data point? Just because one edition change worked one particular way, all subsequent edition changes (of the same game - or at least of games with the same name) have to work the exact same way, otherwise it's not an edition change?
Surely what matters is whether stuff is actually compatible, not what arbitrary numerical labels we apply?
I'm not arguing that this is 4.5e, BTW. I'm arguing that the whole argument is based on slightly shaky logic and a fixation on arbitrary numerical labels. I think calling Essentials 4.5e is silly, but also that the usual argument given for it not being 4.5e is equally silly.
It's all going to be fully compatible with existing 4th edition material. What people choose to call it doesn't matter a damn.
PS: I really need to stop ending my posts with "my point is..." and then only summarizing half of what my point actually is.
So, you're inventing a general rule based on a single data point? Just because one edition change worked one particular way, all subsequent edition changes (of the same game - or at least of games with the same name) have to work the exact same way, otherwise it's not an edition change?
No, I invented a general rule based on what I know from multiple D&D edition changes. That's more than one data point. 4E material is not compatible with 3.5 material. While there were many compatibility issues with 3.5 and 3E, they were still basically compatible, but neither was compatible with material from 2E. I never played any earlier than that, but I assume that the same can be said. With the essentials line, all material is compatible with existing 4E material with no compatibility issues at all. Following precedent, that makes it not a new edition. Granted, there's only one data point for what constitutes a ".5" edition, but we should all know how big of a difference that really is and realize that the essentials don't cause nearly such a difference, so suggesting that essentials is equivalent of ".5" is flawed either way.
Surely what matters is whether stuff is actually compatible, not what arbitrary numerical labels we apply?
I don't at all disagree. I'm just saying that the criteria for a D&D edition and a Warhammer edition are different. I don't think that comparing them is productive because they follow entirely different precedents and contexts. It's just not a valid comparison.
Essentials exists within D&D. Just as there are expansions to D&D, I guess Essentials is a "contraction".
In 1979 AD&D (now aka 1E) was an extension of, and was fully forward compatible, with D&D Basic (at that time).
However D&D "basic" continued to evolve and by 1981 was quite incompatible with 1E. The two games continued to evolve separately through the 80's.
2E came out in the late 80's and was incompatible with 1E or basic.
3E brought the change to d20 from THAC0 and that was really a bigger switch than the 1E-2E change had been. That was a very tumultuous time, although the bankruptcy of TSR made people more philosophical about it (ie. the alternative was having no game at all).
3E to 3.5E was FAR less significant than the 2E-3E change IMHO. But enough game mechanics were altered to obsolete 3.0 game books, and it was about as structurally significant a change as 1E to 2E.
3.5E to 4E is the biggest change the game has EVER undergone - bigger than all the combined changes between 1E and 3.5E. As most will recall from that time - THAT got people upset.
So to the current situation:
As Crimson_Concerto rightly points out, essentials is not really a "change" - the mechanics of 4E remain untouched. I actually can't see the effective difference between Essentials and (say) Dark Sun or Eberron. Sure, some new classes, some new powers, some new races (maybe), but I'm no more obligated to pay heed to Essentials than I am to Eberron or Dark Sun.
Hence this was a longwinded way of saying "no drama here".
My spider senses are telling me alot of the 4E haters are gone.
Well...
I'm still here....
But I don't like D&D in general, not just 4e...
My spider senses are telling me alot of the 4E haters are gone.
Well...
I'm still here....
But I don't like D&D in general, not just 4e...
Which does make me wonder why you are here at all then ?
Just because someone isn't enjoying a toy the same way you are doesn't mean they aren't having fun.
I agree with you but If you dont like D&D in general why visit the D&D boards ? It just seems odd.
Granted, there's only one data point for what constitutes a ".5" edition,
Which is what I thought you were basing your argument on. AFAIK, nobody has claimed Essentials is really 5th edition. The argument (which, as I've said, I find eminently silly and pointless) seems to be whether it's just part of 4th edition or is actually 4.5e by another name. So the only comparison (within D&D) is to the 3.0e to 3.5e change.
I think, if such an argument is going to be based on a single data point (which seems to be how most people are arguing it), then it's not much more of a stretch to also compare to other game systems that have undergone multiple edition changes. At least, it isn't any more silly or less valid than the argument itself already is by default.
so suggesting that essentials is equivalent of ".5" is flawed either way.
I'm not even sure we actually disagree on anything substantive. I suspect we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. The only difference seems to be that I can recognise the inherent silliness of the arguments on both sides.
I'm just saying that the criteria for a D&D edition and a Warhammer edition are different. I don't think that comparing them is productive because they follow entirely different precedents and contexts. It's just not a valid comparison.
But each edition of D&D has been designed by different people - even, in some cases, different companies. So comparing edition changes even within D&D itself doesn't seem especially sensible to me either.
Warning! Amazingly Bad Analogy Ahead!
Basically, I see two people arguing vociferously over whether apples or oranges are better, so I feel compelled to interject that I prefer cheese. Then, when they stop sputtering incoherently and blurt out: "That's not even a fruit!" I get to say (probably quite smugly): "Yeah, and you guys are arguing apples and oranges! Now stop being so silly, get over yourselves and go have some fun, dammit!"
Just because someone isn't enjoying a toy the same way you are doesn't mean they aren't having fun.
I agree with you but If you dont like D&D in general why visit the D&D boards ? It just seems odd.
Just because one doesn't play "D&D" doesn't mean that one plays no RPGs...
Besides, I have friends here.
I feel essentials will be comparable to to the 3.0, 3.5 deal. 3.5 material is compatable with 3.0 material it is just updated, reballanced, changed slightly, or sometimes not changed at all. For instance a 3.5 binder will work just fine in a 3.0 game assuming the DM allows Tome of Magic in their game. If you took a binder and put it into a previous edition (pre 3rd) it would take a lot of work to even make it possible. Essentials character appear to be used in standard 4th and vise versa making it similar to 1st- 2nd ed and 3.0-3.5 ed.
Rules Compendium:
Option 1: PHB1 + 100 page errata
Option 2: New Rulebook with all errata built in.
Heroes of: (2 of these)
Option 1: X Power with new builds, feats, powers, etc.,. for classes of a particular power source
Option 2: Heroes of... with new builds feats, powers, etc., but for classes & races not necessarily from the same power source
DM Kit:
Option 1: DMG(s) + dungeon tiles + miniatures
Option 2: Box set with tiles, monster tokens and a DM guide book
Dungeon Tiles Master Sets (3 of these)
Option 1: Hunt down out of print tiles, get a game map, etc.,.
Option 2: A double sized tile set that stays in print.
Monster Vault:
Option 1: Monster Manual 1, 2 or 3 + Miniatures or home made counters
Option 2: Book of monster stats + a bunch of monster tokens.
Deluxe DM Screen:
Option 1: Current DM Screen + errata
Option 2: DM Screen with the errata built in
Red Box starter:
Option 1: Starter set with pre-gen characters or PHB/DMG/MM
Option 2: Starter with everything you need for $20.
I just don't see what everyone is getting so worked up about. And it's all based on partial spoilers of a few builds of some of the classes from one Essentials product out of ten.
Nerdrage, the need to be right and fear of change make for a powerful combination. Then add in the ability to express this anonymously from behind a screen name.
Sounds like the perfect recipe for internet flame wars.
My spider senses are telling me alot of the 4E haters are gone.
Nah, we're still around, we just don't hate on ya anymore. ;)
Holy Cr*p ! That's a lot of errata for a book that's not even supposed to be out until 09/21...
And what's with the HORRIBLE clashing colors on the new background of the DnD home page ? Yuck.
Looks like they need a new web designer / graphic artist, as well as a new game design team.
DnD has essentially gone to Hell.