The fact that the Essentials books don't invalidate anything that came before them, and are completely optional buys instead of having to replace the initial PHB makes this obvious. The Essentials are optional books with variant builds and variant class features ... just like the 3e Unearthed Arcana and parts of the PH2.
It's new options that may appeal to you if you don't like the features of the class as currently presented. Some of them do significantly change the way the class operates (remember the Shapeshift druid?), some less so, but either way you don't have to use the new mechanics. You don't even have to buy the book.
So, sorry to our many and various forum Chicken Littles, but you'll have to try again some other time.
For example, Amazon.com gives the Essentials book, 'Heroes of the Fallen Lands: An Essential Dungeons & Dragons Supplement', the following entry...
'Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition edition (September 21, 2010)'
So, if WotC tells Amazon to call it the '4th edition', 'revised', who is anyone to say it isnt a revised edition?
The bottom line is, this isnt 3e. And this certainly isnt 3.5.
It's a revision – and they're revising other classes as well, with errata. 4th Revised doesn't mean all classes are being changed to a new format: in fact, the Essentials Cleric barely deviates from the standard format. Everything can be played alongside each other, as long as they are balanced with the standard progression. I have faith that WotC will follow up with what they're saying here: the old stuff will be supported as they support new stuff as well.
Nothing really's changing, just the way we're presenting it and some major errata.
Obviously, WotC is aware of a significant change.
Perhaps, they havent told us about all of the changes yet?
I think there are aspects of the game, the designers would like to tweak, and the Essentials line is the place to do it. For example, switching the Battle Cleric from Str-Cha to Wis-Con. A good decision, mind you.
Remember, the Essentials line really did start out as a Beginners Guide. But then they included stuff that the expert players who 'plunder options' would buy, for marketing reasons. But then Essentials also became an opportunity for the designers to improve some of the earlier stuff.
It seems, most of the tweaking only concerns class builds. Because wev seen enormous amounts of errata as they put the Essentials Rules Compendium together. So, we know, there are no significant overhauls of the rules themselves. Just tinkering with classes.
Which is fine by me.
(And if there are any changes to the overall rules - Im looking at you 1-hour workday - that would be fine with me too!)
I had an epiphany. People have been comparing the Essentials books to the 3rd Revised Edition (colloquially 3.5), but that doesn't stand up to any kind of real scrutiny. Not that it's stopping people from screaming that the sky is falling, but I digress.
The fact that the Essentials books don't invalidate anything that came before them, and are completely optional buys instead of having to replace the initial PHB makes this obvious. The Essentials are optional books with variant builds and variant class features ... just like the 3e Unearthed Arcana and parts of the PH2.
It's new options that may appeal to you if you don't like the features of the class as currently presented. Some of them do significantly change the way the class operates (remember the Shapeshift druid?), some less so, but either way you don't have to use the new mechanics. You don't even have to buy the book.
So, sorry to our many and various forum Chicken Littles, but you'll have to try again some other time.
No, sorry, I disagree completely. First, sure, the books are "optional", just like every other 4e book, or every book on earth. No one forces you to read or use anything, except maybe the Bible if you're a kid in Catholic school. Damn those nuns... sorry... flashbacks.
Anyway, Essentials are "the new entry point for the game", the PHB 1 is "going out of print", Essentials is "a redesign that will be used in all products from now on". That's way, WAY different than Unearthed Arcana. UA was a bunch of random variant rules that were self-contained and never received any real support afterwards, and which were considered "Variant" always, not official, not allowed in RPGA, etc. Essentials is the new core, the new official, what RPGA will be based on, and will be receiving all ongoing support from now on, while the old classes will not be receiving any direct intentional support; only support they'll be able to get tangentially by virtue of having the same class name as the new revised classes. If you're a Str Cleric or a Con Infernalock, you're not going to see much new material that's particularly useful to you.
These are builds from PH1. They got supported in their first Power book supplements. That's mostly it for them. PH1 Martial builds didn't get much support at all in Martial Power 2. That's because they had already gotten extra powers for those builds in MP1 alongside new builds. 2 books. Maybe a couple articles (or many, if you're as popular as the Warlock). That's it.
Support marches on. The Shielding Cleric needs support in Divine Power 2, but I'm sure it'll be sharing support space with the Warpriest and maybe even a new kit to go alongside Warpriest (if not, new Domains and powers to go with them for the Warpriest).
Frankly, I'm more worried about support for the Vestige Warlock, since it uses Con and was released in Arcane Power, and thus still needs future additional powers for the build in Arcane Power 2. With the switch from V to A for classes that Essentials seems to be doing (cannot be certain, of course, but it's likely a part of it), the Vestige Warlock may be left in the dust.
Well, if the phb1 does go out of print, then that is saying something. Just think about it.
That's it. It includes the errata, and it might be layed out differently (like saying what |W| means in the attack section).
Anyway, Essentials are "the new entry point for the game", the PHB 1 is "going out of print", Essentials is "a redesign that will be used in all products from now on".
PHB1 is NOT going out of print, no where did they EVER say that. Remember WoTC is a company, and there's no reason to not sell books it already produced. If anything, PHB1 might get a reprint with the errata (called "revised edition"). I know the "delux edition" had some errata.
And "new entry point" just means that your supposed to buy Essentials -> PHBx -> X Powers.
"redesign" means no V classes, no multi-attacks, increased monster damage, perhaps a few classes that have built in experise bonuses, and several other things they've already done.
If you're a Str Cleric or a Con Infernalock, you're not going to see much new material that's particularly useful to you.
Nope, but that has nothing to do with essentials. They've pretty much abandoned V classes since PHB2.
They could say: EVERY WARLOCK POWER KEYS OFF CHARISMA NOW.
Or EVERY CLERIC POWER KEYS OFF WISDOM NOW.
Or EVERY RANGER POWER KEYS OFF DEXTERITY NOW.
Would that make people happy?
You know what they could do for errata?
They could say: EVERY WARLOCK POWER KEYS OFF CHARISMA NOW.
Or EVERY CLERIC POWER KEYS OFF WISDOM NOW.
Or EVERY RANGER POWER KEYS OFF DEXTERITY NOW.
Would that make people happy?
Not really. Seems one step closer to actual cookie cutter classes. I'v always liked how differen builds use different stats.
You know what they could do for errata?
They could say: EVERY WARLOCK POWER KEYS OFF CHARISMA NOW.
Or EVERY CLERIC POWER KEYS OFF WISDOM NOW.
Or EVERY RANGER POWER KEYS OFF DEXTERITY NOW.
Would that make people happy?
How about adding the following features to the V-shaped PHB1 classes:
Cleric: You can use Strength for the attack and damage roll of any melee weapon cleric attack power.
Paladin: You can use Strength for the attack and damage roll of any melee weapon paladin attack power.
Ranger: You can use Strength for the attack and damage roll of any melee weapon ranger attack power.
Warlock: This one might actually take more thought.
The idea that you can bash someone and your Wisdom guides it or your Charisma guides it is important to the versatility of the game, and it makes more sense. Besides, a Cleric's divine wisdom can be guiding their strikes, while a Ranger's dexterity could guide it to hit a more precise strike on a foe.
Splotch: 'Do we know for sure that Wizards will move away from V-shaped PHB1 classes?'
We can only hope!
Nah; we've been trying to avoid saying MELEE WEAPON = STRENGTH for a while now.
The idea that you can bash someone and your Wisdom guides it or your Charisma guides it is important to the versatility of the game, and it makes more sense. Besides, a Cleric's divine wisdom can be guiding their strikes, while a Ranger's dexterity could guide it to hit a more precise strike on a foe.
I understand where you're coming from, but just fixing it by saying a cleric can use Wisdom for any cleric attack takes away from builds that want to take advantage of feats that have Str as a prerequisite or those who wish to hybrid with a Str class while still being able to choose from the new warpriest powers. This would be even worse for a paladin who would have to restrict his power choices significantly if he wanted to add Str to his divine challenge damage.
And think about the ranger who will have to give up heavy blade mastery and heavy blade opportunity if he wishes to take new powers. Just allowing them to use Dex with all ranger powers will only allow them to take new options at the cost of having to lose previous options.
Marketing and business necessities are driving Essentials and they do have a resemblance to 3.5 and even a 2e book, but only in intent and not execution. Really, Essentials are closer to the reprints Monte Cook discussed when reviewing 3.5
Here's the thing, the Core books sell the best. It's a great boost to the line and drives future sales. They sell better than the other books over time but still have the initial sales spike. So it makes sense to re-release the books to get another spike.
2nd Edition did this with straight reprints. This book versus this book. They changed the interior art and made a few corrections. But, with only minor changes it was easier to find second hand copies for much, much cheaper than the reprint and there was no reason for people with a book to buy a new copy.
3rd Edition decided to go the more drastic route and do a heavy revision. This, of course, led to great sales but hit the industry hard and has caused a nasty feeling that lasts to this day.
So, 4e is doing something new. A new Core book designed to attract and be accessible for new players yet with new content to draw-in current players.
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow claims to be for more advanced players who want to move past the options just in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
In addition, names like Adventurer's Vault are being replaced with Mordenkainen's Majestic Emporium. And it doesn't even talk about the AV books, but talks about moving beyond core items like flaming sword or bag of holding.
We can assume that products in the future assume that you're working with Essentials as your base, but won't overlap with old options save for the 8 Essentials classes with their 8 Classic forms, and probably the Assassin as well.
However, if you look at the 2011 Product Catalog, everything refers to Essentials.
Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow claims to be for more advanced players who want to move past the options just in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
In addition, names like Adventurer's Vault are being replaced with Mordenkainen's Majestic Emporium. And it doesn't even talk about the AV books, but talks about moving beyond core items like flaming sword or bag of holding.
We can assume that products in the future assume that you're working with Essentials as your base, but won't overlap with old options save for the 8 Essentials classes with their 8 Classic forms, and probably the Assassin as well.
Yup, all new books. So no Arcane Power 2 or any of the other dozen books they could have released to keep 4e going, and instead similar but different books based on DDE as the starting point. Maybe an arcane or primal books that gives other side classes the DDE treatment.
It's like 3.5, only your old books are still good and you can just pick-up the accessories for new content.
In many ways it's the best of both systems. They update the rules and classes and game to produce better classes and content but you can still play your old classes and use your old books.
But consider Essentials a partial re-release, only it doesn't *replace* the errata'd PH1+2 classes featured in it either. Since we're jumping on the Essentials wagon for the rest of this year, and throwing Gamma World (who else nearly forgot about that in all this chaos?), it's not surprising that the beginning of 2011 is still focused on supporting the new line of classes, while using formats using the Essentials model?
We probably won't get back to a revised 'business-as-usual' until late 2011, if not 2012.
That's a good thing. We don't want to rush the edition. WotC have claimed that the Elemental Power Source is not untenable. That's good. However, since they lost the Ki Power Source as it was, they lost a whole year of focus products to do. We've jumped straight to Shadow, and 2012 will be Elemental, if all the signs fit. But after that, what new book will be released in the place of a Player's Option or Player's Handbook? WotC also needs time to decide where the world will evolve after they reach the point they initially concieved.
We're already almost run out of initially-announced Dragon types. MM4 and Draconomicon 4, if we ever get to either, should have the Scourge Dragons. But we still need to see Draconomicon 3, since we only got 3 Catastrophic Dragons in the MM3, and even one of the MM1-name-dropped ones didn't appear. Looks to me like they're slowing the release down on that side. But eventually, we'll have published all the Scourge Dragons. Does that mean new Dragon types will come later? Gem Dragons, as some fans are clamouring for, or are those as untenable as claimed by others?
I have a lot of questions, and I don't think there are readily available answers. That's fine – WotC is more open about its future direction than most companies, and sometimes that can lead to mistakes or changing their minds, but most importantly, it means that if they're giving us all the information we're getting now, it means a lot. They're -withholding- information, but far less than most companies would; I wouldn't look at it that way, but rather as a gift.
Does anybody seriously go to a house party with delicious food, and then demand why the hosts didn't give you presents as well?
colloquially 3.5
"Colloquially"? I'm not sure that's quite right - I mean, the 3.5 was printed on the cover, and used by WotC itself. I'd say it was rather "official", as it were.
The Essentials are optional books with variant builds and variant class features ... just like the 3e Unearthed Arcana and parts of the PH2.
Pardon my memory, but I don't remember either UA or PH2 "charting a new direction in class design." If you instead said "Complete Arcane" (with the Warlock, and "always available" arcane powers), or '[Tome of Battle] The Book of Nine Swords' (with all of the "martial 'powers'" classes), you'd be more correct, to my memory. Though those really didn't "chart a new deriection in class design" during 3.5's lifetime (again, as far as I can remember) - they merely paved the way for 4th edition's design.
So, sorry to our many and various forum Chicken Littles, but you'll have to try again some other time.
[rant]I am getting really, really tired of the various "names" chucked around for people not interested in these changes. I'm honestly quite impressed that the "chicken littles" or "doom and gloomers" or "teeth gnashers" haven't stooped to the same level - but really, that's all that's keeping a lot of these threads to becoming old school "edition(not-a-new-edition!) wars".
Some of us feel that it's more akin to an "edition change" at this point, because of the degree of changes that have happened to date (errata), combined with the release of essentials and the "not changes" going forward. Some of us, too, don't really mean it as a derogatory term - after all, 3.5 was (as far as I remember with my games) a vast change for the better. There's usually no insult to folks who are looking forward to essentials in it's use - the problem keeps arising because folks don't say "well that's your opinion", but "your opinion is wrong."
For what it's worth, I don't understand why people are insisting the game isn't being / hasn't been changed from it's initial version [in a way supplements just haven't done]. I don't understand what kind of personal stake folks seem to have in the game not changing, that the suggestion of change seems to automatically offend them.[/Rant Edit: thought this desevered a 'Rant' tag, in retrospect]
Probably more off-topic than the read of my post 
Looking back at your post, I'm curious to know what 3.0 options were "invalidated" by 3.5's changes? Specific spells? Additional new options? Changing (and generally improving or adding) of feats? A few skill choices?
It's been a long time since I played 3.0, so I can't really recall the differences off-hand.
It's been a long time since I played 3.0, so I can't really recall the differences off-hand.
Looking back at your post, I'm curious to know what 3.0 options were "invalidated" by 3.5's changes? Specific spells? Additional new options? Changing (and generally improving or adding) of feats? A few skill choices?
Check out this. For example, the Barbarian changed a ton. Some skills were removed. Etc.