The following excerpts come from Dragon Magazine concerning the up and coming Essentials line:
"As we moved forward with 4th edition, it became increasingly clear that we could produce classes with different rates of class feature and power acquisition without harming the game. The psionics power source in Player’s Handbook 3 pointed the way. In that book, we introduced a system by which psionic characters had access to at-will powers that they could boost using a pool of power points. By spending power points, an attack could deal more damage or gain an additional effect. After each short rest, a psionic character regains power points.
When the first psionic classes hit the pages of Dragon magazine, we were happy with the positive reaction to the system. Players liked that psionics felt different and offered a new type of character to play. Once we saw the reaction, it was clear that players liked having classes that were new, different, and interesting."
Why would you think that having two completely different rule sets for the same class at the same gaming table would be a good idea? That would be like allowing some of your players to play 3.0 characters and some of them to play 3.5 versions of the same class in the same campaign.
"After much discussion, we decided to push forward with class designs that would appeal to both new and existing players. We wanted to introduce greater differences of complexity between classes while also creating options that would interest veterans of the game.
Taking a cue from Player’s Handbook 3, we broke down the basic math of character classes in a similar manner. This time, though, we looked at eliminating daily powers and simplifying encounter powers. That approach would allow us to create a character class that is simpler to use while still offering a compelling array of choices during play."
OK STOP - so now we are going to have some of our wizards casting daily spells, and some of the wizards even though it's the same class casting spells completely different. I hate to tell you, but if its a wizard - it's a wizard (not a sorcerer, not a warlock, not a necromancer). If people choose to play a wizard, then they should be held to the game mechanics for that class.
Having different class features for different builds is one thing, but completely changing game mechanics?
"We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class. After all, plenty of people already play and enjoy the current fighter. Why mess with that?"
So what happens when you guys produce the "new" fighter and it turns out to be either far better than the existing fighter or far worse?
If it's far better, you have just killed off the existing class because why would anyone want to play a fighter the old way if the new way is so much better. The idea of giving choices should not mean that choice B is so far superior to choice A that nobody actually thinks about choosing Choice A. That kind of thinking is poor design.
If it's far worse, then the gamers will simply look at your "Essentials" line as crap and simply blow off all of the entire line.
"If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to."
Wrong! If the essentials line are "alternate versions of the existing classes", then how are you going to keep the two separated. Do the new classes actually "say" that they are from the Essentials builds? What of the character builder - how is it going to know the difference? Are people going to be allowed to pull powers from both the classic and essential books? IF so, how is that going to work?
You claim that the inspiration for all this was psionics and the augmentable powers. Does this mean that all the essential classes then will be able to augment their powers with some kind of point system? If so, you have destroyed psionics. If the party fighter (using the new system) is allowed to augment his nonmagical exploits, how are you going to explain HOW he did it. He's a fighter! Not a wizard, not a sorcerer, not a necromancer, and certainly NOT a psion.
The last time you guys used an alternate rule system was the Player's Options books from 2nd edition. Those were the lovely books that said oh yeah even though its been stated all over 2nd edition that wizards can't wear armor - well now you can just because it's in this option book.
Look, its fine if you want to design different builds but quit jamming all this crap down our throats and then expect us to be excited about it. 4th edition is only 2 years old and already it's looking like another stupid half edition .5 disaster is about to hit us again.
They will be new ways of doing builds like saying "I don't want daily powers can i have something instead?" Not entirely new classes.
Have a chill pill why don't you before you decide THE POINT FIVE IS UPON US!!!
[sarcasm]
Why would you think that having two completely different rule sets for the same class at the same gaming table would be a good idea? That would be like allowing some of your players to play 3.0 characters and some of them to play 3.5 versions of the same class in the same campaign.
Indeed! How dare they make the Battlerager fighter! They don't understand that fighters are supposed to only have the choice between two hand weapons or one hand weapons! They've ruined D&D forever!!!!!1111oneone
OK STOP - so now we are going to have some of our wizards casting daily spells, and some of the wizards even though it's the same class casting spells completely different. I hate to tell you, but if its a wizard - it's a wizard (not a sorcerer, not a warlock, not a necromancer). If people choose to play a wizard, then they should be held to the game mechanics for that class.
Having different class features for different builds is one thing, but completely changing game mechanics?
Indeed! They shouldn't be trying to make interesting new choices! Giving people more options just ruins everyone's fun by adding strategic depth and allowing them to create a character closer to their vision. We all know that doing that is completely unfun!
So what happens when you guys produce the "new" fighter and it turns out to be either far better than the existing fighter or far worse?
If it's far better, you have just killed off the existing class because why would anyone want to play a fighter the old way if the new way is so much better. The idea of giving choices should not mean that choice B is so far superior to choice A that nobody actually thinks about choosing Choice A. That kind of thinking is poor design.
If it's far worse, then the gamers will simply look at your "Essentials" line as crap and simply blow off all of the entire line.
Exactyl! WotC should never make new classes, builds, items, or anything for that matter. If they make something new then no one will ever use the old stuff. If they make something worse then no one will ever play it. We should just have the PHB1 and never allow any new options, because as established above options are evil! Afterall no one ever plays a suboptimal character and there can only be one optimal character and it has to exist in the PHB1 to be fair!
Wrong! If the essentials line are "alternate versions of the existing classes", then how are you going to keep the two separated. Do the new classes actually "say" that they are from the Essentials builds? What of the character builder - how is it going to know the difference? Are people going to be allowed to pull powers from both the classic and essential books? IF so, how is that going to work?
You claim that the inspiration for all this was psionics and the augmentable powers. Does this mean that all the essential classes then will be able to augment their powers with some kind of point system? If so, you have destroyed psionics. If the party fighter (using the new system) is allowed to augment his nonmagical exploits, how are you going to explain HOW he did it. He's a fighter! Not a wizard, not a sorcerer, not a necromancer, and certainly NOT a psion.
The last time you guys used an alternate rule system was the Player's Options books from 2nd edition. Those were the lovely books that said oh yeah even though its been stated all over 2nd edition that wizards can't wear armor - well now you can just because it's in this option book.
Look, its fine if you want to design different builds but quit jamming all this crap down our throats and then expect us to be excited about it. 4th edition is only 2 years old and already it's looking like another stupid half edition .5 disaster is about to hit us again.
...... [/sarcasm] Yeah I got nothing for these paragraphs. They sort of do my job for me and I got to go.
Hybrids that have one psionic class already ask you to choose between power points or a daily attack.
Every option in the Character Builder has a line at the end of its text mentioning what book or magazine issue it's from.
It is within the realm of possibility that characters built by selecting an Essentials class feature will lock out the daily powers of that class. For non-Essentials class features there may be certain Essentials powers that are unavailable if they're deemed incompatible. This isn't different from any other prerequisite-based power.
So... yeah.
I guess they figured that was a point that needed to be clarified, (and they are right)
Also for the OP, it sounds like the changes to Wizards is an erratta that is going to swing back into 4E non-essential. All wizards are getting that, is what I'm reading.
Now I wonder if we are going to see those additional stat bonus options we were buzzing about around here when the PHB3 was coming out...
But this sounds significantly different from just some alternate class features or new powers. These are variant builds that get different kinds of powers and at a different rate. That has some significant hassle potential, particularly for hybrid characters, while simultaneously making crossover use potentially very difficult, if not impossible.
It really does sound like there will be completely different, non-compatible classes sharing the same power source, party role, fluff, and name, and that's very likely to get confusing, imo. I almost would have preferred a hard edition break to that, myself, but we'll see. It's still too soon to get worked up, imo. *shrug*
Note: Not saying it's a bad thing. It's just it seems to be a slightly different game; while not invalidating the current game. Or something. Quite frankly it doesn't even matter to me if this is a technical 4.5, since the game literally keeps getting erratas and re-writes that 1) The warlock is significantly changed from it's first appearance(Like most powers don't even have a line tag for which pact they are (though riders... if powers with those still exist, do); 2) the Tiefling actually got an errata to change it's whole racial power (it got better) 3) these updates are free to anyone with a computer and some spare time.
I thought we talk 4E here?
Ranger is the best striker in the game with just PHB1. The only clas that came close is the barbarian.
This does not count feychargers, arcane slashers, or what else i hope to never see in game.
That said, power is most assuredly going to creep when you keep adding more options. Especially with the limited options in the PHB1, it was inevitable. That said, power creep is not really out of control, or invalidating material (with a few exceptions).
From what I can tell, these are merely new options, like those presented in the ___ Power" books but on a grander scale. They're totally compatable with the already existing system, and vice versa. Think of it like Unearthed Arcana or the PHB2 back in 3.5. They weren't whole new editions; they just introduced interesting alternate options. Some people will like them and want to use them, but some other people won't, and the system will still support that. Looking at it another way, it also seems analogous to the Tome of Battle, and yes, people still played Fighters and Paladins and Monks even after that came out. Again, it's just a mechanically new way to do archetypes that already exist. In this way, even characters of the same archetypes have the opportunity to play completely differently.
I, for one, love having daily powers, so I don't think that I will make this transition very often. For a lot of characters, I just like being able to do something awesome and unexpected that I didn't do for the last couple of combats because I was waiting for the most opportune moment.
1. Classes will now have deliberately different complex levels. For me, that's a turn off. I don't want to tell my new players "go play the simpler class". Complexity levels between classes should be more close, not further apart.
2. New "Essential Classes" seem to supplant older classes/builds. It'll be hard to defend old "PHB warpriest" build against the Essential build ¬¬. At least as it stands today, and with the limited information we have in the preview, it would seem that the new essential warpriest is better than the old options in the PHB all the way. That's power creep. And I don't like it :P.
I don't mind and update to the design tenets - hell, they're doing fundamental revisions to the mechanics since day 1. Better mechanics are always good - but if their intention is to "correct" the older design, this "essential" line should not be "sold separately". It should become "errata".
Of course, I'm not claiming all the new options presented should be given for us for free, but the important changes to the base mechanics (like racial ability bonuses, for example) should be handed out as errata.
And of course, it's too early to judge or confirm anything.
I'll be much more relieved when:
1- This proves -not- to be power creep.
2- Essential line -stops- at the announced 10 products.
3- Fundamental changes to base game mechanics are introduced to standar 4e via update/errata.
4- Future 4e releases remain better compatible with initial releases rather than be better compatible with "essentials" line.
Because that would prove to me this isn't a ".5" gamble or a big mistake for 4e in general.
And again, this is just my opinion. Some are positive with the announced and promised changes. Some are not. None can say yet what the unlaunched Essential line will look like to us two years from now.
"Hence, a Wizard sub-class is not the same as a Wizard, at least not mechanically, because it might not have dailies and get more encounters and said encounters might be vamped up a little. However, in the end, no great injustice is being done, if it looks bad, don't use the subclasses."
"What I don't want them to do, is stop producing subclasses when they've finished the 8 PHB1 classes... Monks, Druids, and Barbarians are all iconic classes, if we're going to see subclass fighters and cleric and especially stuff like warlords, I want to see the eventual release of 'Heroes of the Wild' or something for the Primal classes. I do not, however, want to see this becoming the new trend with 4e. If PHB4 looks more like an essentials book than it does like PHB3, that's when everyone can scream 4.5 at the top of their lungs and throw WotC in the crapper."
"However, I have faith that the essentials line will just float alongside the game we've all been playing and PHB4 will return to our regularly scheduled goodness. We'll see at GenCon, won't we. So, before we all freak out, let's just wait until August and see what they preview."
"Here's hoping my faith in WotC holds out. Don't be discouraged to try something new, Wizards, just don't try to hit the 'backspace' key on the game we've all been playing up til now."
"Don't be discouraged to try something new, Wizards, just don't try to hit the 'backspace' key on the game we've all been playing up til now."
That's just perfect, lol! ^^
I'm on the same boat as you
. I wish to believe in the company - let's hope they won't disappoint! :D"Personally, it sounds like it's a little overcomplex... A little irritating, but not game changing or game breaking. I had a heart stop moment while reading the article (something I don't do over 4e much, WotC has been on the ball; everything that bothers me is really something they can't help), but as I read on I started to get it. The books will release new builds using mechanics which, while compatible with the game and rules we are already playing, are less compatible with the old classes."
"Hence, a Wizard sub-class is not the same as a Wizard, at least not mechanically, because it might not have dailies and get more encounters and said encounters might be vamped up a little. However, in the end, no great injustice is being done, if it looks bad, don't use the subclasses."
"What I don't want them to do, is stop producing subclasses when they've finished the 8 PHB1 classes... Monks, Druids, and Barbarians are all iconic classes, if we're going to see subclass fighters and cleric and especially stuff like warlords, I want to see the eventual release of 'Heroes of the Wild' or something for the Primal classes. I do not, however, want to see this becoming the new trend with 4e. If PHB4 looks more like an essentials book than it does like PHB3, that's when everyone can scream 4.5 at the top of their lungs and throw WotC in the crapper."
"However, I have faith that the essentials line will just float alongside the game we've all been playing and PHB4 will return to our regularly scheduled goodness. We'll see at GenCon, won't we. So, before we all freak out, let's just wait until August and see what they preview."
"Here's hoping my faith in WotC holds out. Don't be discouraged to try something new, Wizards, just don't try to hit the 'backspace' key on the game we've all been playing up til now."
It's not the 8 PH1 classes, though.
It's 7 of them, minus Warlord, plus Druid. We get Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Wizard. 3 Martial, 2 Arcane, 2 Divine, 1 Primal. And future classes will be printed like these, such as the reprint of the Assassin. There's no PH4 – it's Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow, and will only include Asssassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers as far as we know. But according to Bill Slavicsek's comments, all future classes will use the Essentials model of class building.
4- Future 4e releases remain better compatible with initial releases rather than be better compatible with "essentials" line.
"Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that
form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward."
2. New "Essential Classes" seem to supplant older classes/builds. It'll be hard to defend old "PHB warpriest" build against the Essential build ¬¬. At least as it stands today, and with the limited information we have in the preview, it would seem that the new essential warpriest is better than the old options in the PHB all the way. That's power creep. And I don't like it :P.
um I don't want to start a big thing, infact I a major wotc fan and defender am having some doubts myself... but what in that build looks better to you?
So far I see I gain some armor prof (well sheilds anyway) but lose the + wis mod to healing, and my choice of encounter powers and at wills, and rituel caster... then I do get a few powers that we know nothing about...
does that really seam like power creep to you?
Could be
. If I choose to play a "priest that battles his enemies with a melee weapon", +wis to healing powers that use healing surges (that's the new errata, right?) and ritual casting may be secondary to better prof, domain features, "holy cleansing" and "ressurrection"...Its a big "could" though.
As I have said several times (and as you also pointed), we have little information either way. I'm stating the worse things could be. We certainly didn't need a "new cleric build" to do exactly what the battle cleric should be able to do right from the beginning.
If Essential was a side product (as was previously stated), that wouldn't be a problem. Since now it's supposed to be compatible, they shouldn't neither overlap nor substitute old archetypes and mechanics - and even though we may have little information, overlaping between essential "builds" and "regular builds" at least is already occuring.
As I have said - I'm not opposed to errata. I'm opposed to paid errata.
It will be very interesting to see if we'll never see an essentially "essential class" for every class/build/archetype of the previous books...
As I have said - I'm not opposed to errata. I'm opposed to paid errata.
This build is not the same as the old build. They could both exist in the same party, and both players could be happy with what their builds accomplish. It's hard to see how errata can even apply to a build; it's just a recommended path of features and powers. New content might seem to be a better fit for the concept, but that happens with every Power book and magazine issue. Nothing about the old build is invalidated, and players might like the fact that they aren't overspecialized and locked into a particular playstyle.
That a build is officially published shouldn't make it the ur-example of builds with that intention.
And as Makeshiftwings brought to the topic in this or another similar thread, Dragon Magazine and other sourcebooks should maintain the Battle Cleric in mind - if later products doesn't support STR clerics, we will have a good idea what Wizards really intend with the Essentials line.
People being positive about this are assuming these "essential classes" built with overlaping concepts with the old classes are "just like another build". They could be. Or they could not. My concern is that they may prove to be the later.
Find ways to give the classes different levels of complexity. One of the genius strokes of the original Dungeons &Dragons game design was that it allowed players to find their own level of mastery. Playing a wizard presented different challenges and required more rules mastery than playing a fighter. We wanted to preserve and return to that aspect of the Dungeons &Dragons game in the Essentials products.
These two points also loomed large in player feedback. Some players missed the diversity of different character class structures. They felt that the current versions of the classes looked too much alike. Others liked the ability to focus on more complex or simple character classes, depending on their tastes. This was an area where the needs of beginning players and feedback from veterans neatly aligned
I have to call it like I see it:
It looks to me like 4E caused a large divisive split in the players of DnD, and WotC had to do something extreme and reactionary to the division they have caused. Look, there is a lot to like about 4E; but with 4E, DnD has lost a lot of its magic.
I think the essentials line is little more than a last ditch effort to save 4E by bringing in new recruits and/or converting old edition players/hold-outs. I also tend to view the essentials as a cash grab.
I don't like the way the business model is being handled... If I was in charge, heads would roll.
In the end, I will wait and pass judgement after I see 4.5 first hand.
See you at Gen Con...
I have to call it like I see it:
It looks to me like 4E caused a large divisive split in the players of DnD, and WotC had to do something extreme and reactionary to the division they have caused. Look, there is a lot to like about 4E; but with 4E, DnD has lost a lot of its magic.
I think the essentials line is little more than a last ditch effort to save 4E by bringing in new recruits and/or converting old edition players/hold-outs. I also tend to view the essentials as a cash grab.
I don't like the way the business model is being handled... If I was in charge, heads would roll.
In the end, I will wait and pass judgement after I see 4.5 first hand.
See you at Gen Con...
Just like the divisive split 3e caused? Not to mention WotC didn't cause the split, the players did.
Just like the divisive split 3e caused? Not to mention WotC didn't cause the split, the players did.
Yes, but more so.
When I went to conventions in 2000, there were /lots/ of 3.0 games, and a few 2e and even 1e or 0D&D games.
After 3.5 hit, there were still a few 3.0, AD&D and 0D&D games, but it quickly shifted to mostly 3.5...
2 years in, and it's about evenly split between 4e and 'all others' - 3.x/Pathfinder, AD&D, etc...
4e is clearly the plurality, so it's caught on, but the potential revenue gain for converting hold-outs must be very tempting.
Essentials could be how D&D operates in another part of that particular planet. Think of it as a difference between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico.
Just a thought.
At first I was like its pretty cool and probably overall compatible. Then I thought do I really want to be collecting more books? I love roleplaying but I guess I am not the hobiest anymore that I once was. I don't think I will be picking the line up. I will probably move to a system that doesn't change so regularly. Mind you, I still think the changes, or options, are pretty good. I just don't have the money or motivation to pick up the books. Maybe it is just that I don't want to get used to a new system, I don't know.
So is it a new edition? Well kinda, in that it officially sets some new design philosophies, and it represents a new defined entry point for new players. But it isn't a new edition because it doesn't invalidate anything, and doesn't include any rule changes that haven't already been incorporated into previous material via free errata. Current players can skip the essentials altogether, and still use any books or material that comes after.
I really can't see any downside to it. People seem to be screaming about the sky falling for no reason at all.
Incidentally Essentials could be specifically for those people who were burned and wary of buying a new WotC product. If they can throw out a 'new' release without making it a full on new edition, and say "See, we're not going to make that mistake again, we know we screwed up," people might go "OK, I'll play 4e now, it's safe." That's one hold out it targets. Another would be the ones who don't like what was done to sacred cows - having builds that are the traditional classes, as well as powers that model them more closely (magic missile) makes 4e more familiar. Red Box goes for people's nostalgia. Making a more simple and less costly core product distribution is also a great way to bring people in who are holding out due to sticker shock. Just as an analogy for that, the Xbox 360 Arcade sells fairly well due to the low price, even though in the long run you end up buying more for it, if you're uncertain it's a safer starting investment. If a player just needs Rules Compendium ($20) and Heroes of the Fallen Lands ($20), that covers things fairly well, but if they then get the DM kit, they already have half of it with Rules Compendium, so the price sting won't be as severe. If you look at Amazon's prices it's even better. $13 for each. Hard to resist getting the entire line.
Because a Warpriest is just a cleric. If you want a Power Swap feat through MC for a Warpriest, just take a basic Cleric MC feat, and take the power swap feat and choose one of the Warpriest powers instead.
Of course, there are some MC feats that deal with class features, and those may or may not be supported for Essentials.
So i'll respond with a resounding "mabey?"
I think with each new edition there was a split. If I understand it right, AD&D -> 2e saw a significant drop off.
I'm going by my own memory, here, but I believe the AD&D -> AD&D2e transition was fairly smooth. The game really didn't change that much, inititially, and the changes were pretty clearly improvements for the most part. 2e failed on two counts, though: 1) it really was just a clean-up of an old game, at a time when there were many mechanically superior or otherwise more sophisticated/modern games on the market and 2) it collapsed under the sheer volume of suplements released for it as TSR tried to follow the BattleTech/WhiteWolf book-a-month model.
But, you saw relatively few people clinging to 1e in the 90s. Rather, 2e dropped off in popularity over time, as fans were overwhelmed by the high volume and low quality of suplements, and pulled away by more modern games.
OMG, they call the thief a rogue and the magic-user a wizard!
OMG, Color Spray actually makes sense, I can't accept that!
OMG, THACO instead of tables?!?
OMG, Bards are their own class, not nightmare 3-class abominations!
No. It just wasn't different enough to cause a schism. It became increasingly different, but it was more evolutionary - well, more a descent into decadence.
I think the lack of common internet access back in the 90's kept a lot of the 1st ed purist from having a voice. that, and first ed really doesn't hold up well to modern playing. Before 4e came out, we planned on ushering it in by playing some old school dnd, and we immediately discovered how not as much fun as we remembered ADnD was.
Looking back I see AD&D is quite screwed up.
I just downloaded Dark Dungeons, a BECMI retroclone, and there are a number of things that make it just better. The spell lists are more contained, and there's actually a difference in weapon choice - some cause stun, some cause delay, there are a few other effects but you're getting some similar stuff going on that you have nowadays in 4E with various at will powers. The ability score system was also much better, having the range be -3 to +3, rather than the complicated tables in AD&D. It was also close enough to the original, and deliberately designed by people other than Gygax so that everything was internally consistent. A lot of stuff in AD&D 2E doesn't make sense without looking back to 1E, and even there it falls short and I've still relied on looking at BECMI and RC to make sense of some things in 2E.
The way I play AD&D now is a seriously stripped down version, with some rules almost entirely ignored. In all likelihood I'd play BECMI with more of the rules as they are written. There are a few things I actually like about AD&D, like race AND class, rather than just one or the other, and Druids as a separate class rather than a prestige class makes sense, but for the most part it was just unnecessary complexity.
They will be new ways of doing builds like saying "I don't want daily powers can i have something instead?" Not entirely new classes.
Have a chill pill why don't you before you decide THE POINT FIVE IS UPON US!!!
[sarcasm]
Why would you think that having two completely different rule sets for the same class at the same gaming table would be a good idea? That would be like allowing some of your players to play 3.0 characters and some of them to play 3.5 versions of the same class in the same campaign.
Indeed! How dare they make the Battlerager fighter! They don't understand that fighters are supposed to only have the choice between two hand weapons or one hand weapons! They've ruined D&D forever!!!!!1111oneone
OK STOP - so now we are going to have some of our wizards casting daily spells, and some of the wizards even though it's the same class casting spells completely different. I hate to tell you, but if its a wizard - it's a wizard (not a sorcerer, not a warlock, not a necromancer). If people choose to play a wizard, then they should be held to the game mechanics for that class.
Having different class features for different builds is one thing, but completely changing game mechanics?
Indeed! They shouldn't be trying to make interesting new choices! Giving people more options just ruins everyone's fun by adding strategic depth and allowing them to create a character closer to their vision. We all know that doing that is completely unfun!
So what happens when you guys produce the "new" fighter and it turns out to be either far better than the existing fighter or far worse?
If it's far better, you have just killed off the existing class because why would anyone want to play a fighter the old way if the new way is so much better. The idea of giving choices should not mean that choice B is so far superior to choice A that nobody actually thinks about choosing Choice A. That kind of thinking is poor design.
If it's far worse, then the gamers will simply look at your "Essentials" line as crap and simply blow off all of the entire line.
Exactyl! WotC should never make new classes, builds, items, or anything for that matter. If they make something new then no one will ever use the old stuff. If they make something worse then no one will ever play it. We should just have the PHB1 and never allow any new options, because as established above options are evil! Afterall no one ever plays a suboptimal character and there can only be one optimal character and it has to exist in the PHB1 to be fair!
Wrong! If the essentials line are "alternate versions of the existing classes", then how are you going to keep the two separated. Do the new classes actually "say" that they are from the Essentials builds? What of the character builder - how is it going to know the difference? Are people going to be allowed to pull powers from both the classic and essential books? IF so, how is that going to work?
You claim that the inspiration for all this was psionics and the augmentable powers. Does this mean that all the essential classes then will be able to augment their powers with some kind of point system? If so, you have destroyed psionics. If the party fighter (using the new system) is allowed to augment his nonmagical exploits, how are you going to explain HOW he did it. He's a fighter! Not a wizard, not a sorcerer, not a necromancer, and certainly NOT a psion.
The last time you guys used an alternate rule system was the Player's Options books from 2nd edition. Those were the lovely books that said oh yeah even though its been stated all over 2nd edition that wizards can't wear armor - well now you can just because it's in this option book.
Look, its fine if you want to design different builds but quit jamming all this crap down our throats and then expect us to be excited about it. 4th edition is only 2 years old and already it's looking like another stupid half edition .5 disaster is about to hit us again.
...... [/sarcasm] Yeah I got nothing for these paragraphs. They sort of do my job for me and I got to go.
Hybrids that have one psionic class already ask you to choose between power points or a daily attack.
Every option in the Character Builder has a line at the end of its text mentioning what book or magazine issue it's from.
It is within the realm of possibility that characters built by selecting an Essentials class feature will lock out the daily powers of that class. For non-Essentials class features there may be certain Essentials powers that are unavailable if they're deemed incompatible. This isn't different from any other prerequisite-based power.
So... yeah.
I guess they figured that was a point that needed to be clarified, (and they are right)
Also for the OP, it sounds like the changes to Wizards is an erratta that is going to swing back into 4E non-essential. All wizards are getting that, is what I'm reading.
Now I wonder if we are going to see those additional stat bonus options we were buzzing about around here when the PHB3 was coming out...
But this sounds significantly different from just some alternate class features or new powers. These are variant builds that get different kinds of powers and at a different rate. That has some significant hassle potential, particularly for hybrid characters, while simultaneously making crossover use potentially very difficult, if not impossible.
It really does sound like there will be completely different, non-compatible classes sharing the same power source, party role, fluff, and name, and that's very likely to get confusing, imo. I almost would have preferred a hard edition break to that, myself, but we'll see. It's still too soon to get worked up, imo. *shrug*
Note: Not saying it's a bad thing. It's just it seems to be a slightly different game; while not invalidating the current game. Or something. Quite frankly it doesn't even matter to me if this is a technical 4.5, since the game literally keeps getting erratas and re-writes that 1) The warlock is significantly changed from it's first appearance(Like most powers don't even have a line tag for which pact they are (though riders... if powers with those still exist, do); 2) the Tiefling actually got an errata to change it's whole racial power (it got better) 3) these updates are free to anyone with a computer and some spare time.
I thought we talk 4E here?
Ranger is the best striker in the game with just PHB1. The only clas that came close is the barbarian.
This does not count feychargers, arcane slashers, or what else i hope to never see in game.
That said, power is most assuredly going to creep when you keep adding more options. Especially with the limited options in the PHB1, it was inevitable. That said, power creep is not really out of control, or invalidating material (with a few exceptions).
From what I can tell, these are merely new options, like those presented in the ___ Power" books but on a grander scale. They're totally compatable with the already existing system, and vice versa. Think of it like Unearthed Arcana or the PHB2 back in 3.5. They weren't whole new editions; they just introduced interesting alternate options. Some people will like them and want to use them, but some other people won't, and the system will still support that. Looking at it another way, it also seems analogous to the Tome of Battle, and yes, people still played Fighters and Paladins and Monks even after that came out. Again, it's just a mechanically new way to do archetypes that already exist. In this way, even characters of the same archetypes have the opportunity to play completely differently.
I, for one, love having daily powers, so I don't think that I will make this transition very often. For a lot of characters, I just like being able to do something awesome and unexpected that I didn't do for the last couple of combats because I was waiting for the most opportune moment.
1. Classes will now have deliberately different complex levels. For me, that's a turn off. I don't want to tell my new players "go play the simpler class". Complexity levels between classes should be more close, not further apart.
2. New "Essential Classes" seem to supplant older classes/builds. It'll be hard to defend old "PHB warpriest" build against the Essential build ¬¬. At least as it stands today, and with the limited information we have in the preview, it would seem that the new essential warpriest is better than the old options in the PHB all the way. That's power creep. And I don't like it :P.
I don't mind and update to the design tenets - hell, they're doing fundamental revisions to the mechanics since day 1. Better mechanics are always good - but if their intention is to "correct" the older design, this "essential" line should not be "sold separately". It should become "errata".
Of course, I'm not claiming all the new options presented should be given for us for free, but the important changes to the base mechanics (like racial ability bonuses, for example) should be handed out as errata.
And of course, it's too early to judge or confirm anything.
I'll be much more relieved when:
1- This proves -not- to be power creep.
2- Essential line -stops- at the announced 10 products.
3- Fundamental changes to base game mechanics are introduced to standar 4e via update/errata.
4- Future 4e releases remain better compatible with initial releases rather than be better compatible with "essentials" line.
Because that would prove to me this isn't a ".5" gamble or a big mistake for 4e in general.
And again, this is just my opinion. Some are positive with the announced and promised changes. Some are not. None can say yet what the unlaunched Essential line will look like to us two years from now.
"Hence, a Wizard sub-class is not the same as a Wizard, at least not mechanically, because it might not have dailies and get more encounters and said encounters might be vamped up a little. However, in the end, no great injustice is being done, if it looks bad, don't use the subclasses."
"What I don't want them to do, is stop producing subclasses when they've finished the 8 PHB1 classes... Monks, Druids, and Barbarians are all iconic classes, if we're going to see subclass fighters and cleric and especially stuff like warlords, I want to see the eventual release of 'Heroes of the Wild' or something for the Primal classes. I do not, however, want to see this becoming the new trend with 4e. If PHB4 looks more like an essentials book than it does like PHB3, that's when everyone can scream 4.5 at the top of their lungs and throw WotC in the crapper."
"However, I have faith that the essentials line will just float alongside the game we've all been playing and PHB4 will return to our regularly scheduled goodness. We'll see at GenCon, won't we. So, before we all freak out, let's just wait until August and see what they preview."
"Here's hoping my faith in WotC holds out. Don't be discouraged to try something new, Wizards, just don't try to hit the 'backspace' key on the game we've all been playing up til now."
"Don't be discouraged to try something new, Wizards, just don't try to hit the 'backspace' key on the game we've all been playing up til now."
That's just perfect, lol! ^^
I'm on the same boat as you
. I wish to believe in the company - let's hope they won't disappoint! :D"Personally, it sounds like it's a little overcomplex... A little irritating, but not game changing or game breaking. I had a heart stop moment while reading the article (something I don't do over 4e much, WotC has been on the ball; everything that bothers me is really something they can't help), but as I read on I started to get it. The books will release new builds using mechanics which, while compatible with the game and rules we are already playing, are less compatible with the old classes."
"Hence, a Wizard sub-class is not the same as a Wizard, at least not mechanically, because it might not have dailies and get more encounters and said encounters might be vamped up a little. However, in the end, no great injustice is being done, if it looks bad, don't use the subclasses."
"What I don't want them to do, is stop producing subclasses when they've finished the 8 PHB1 classes... Monks, Druids, and Barbarians are all iconic classes, if we're going to see subclass fighters and cleric and especially stuff like warlords, I want to see the eventual release of 'Heroes of the Wild' or something for the Primal classes. I do not, however, want to see this becoming the new trend with 4e. If PHB4 looks more like an essentials book than it does like PHB3, that's when everyone can scream 4.5 at the top of their lungs and throw WotC in the crapper."
"However, I have faith that the essentials line will just float alongside the game we've all been playing and PHB4 will return to our regularly scheduled goodness. We'll see at GenCon, won't we. So, before we all freak out, let's just wait until August and see what they preview."
"Here's hoping my faith in WotC holds out. Don't be discouraged to try something new, Wizards, just don't try to hit the 'backspace' key on the game we've all been playing up til now."
It's not the 8 PH1 classes, though.
It's 7 of them, minus Warlord, plus Druid. We get Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Wizard. 3 Martial, 2 Arcane, 2 Divine, 1 Primal. And future classes will be printed like these, such as the reprint of the Assassin. There's no PH4 – it's Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow, and will only include Asssassins, Hexblades, and Necromancers as far as we know. But according to Bill Slavicsek's comments, all future classes will use the Essentials model of class building.
4- Future 4e releases remain better compatible with initial releases rather than be better compatible with "essentials" line.
"Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that
form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward."
2. New "Essential Classes" seem to supplant older classes/builds. It'll be hard to defend old "PHB warpriest" build against the Essential build ¬¬. At least as it stands today, and with the limited information we have in the preview, it would seem that the new essential warpriest is better than the old options in the PHB all the way. That's power creep. And I don't like it :P.
um I don't want to start a big thing, infact I a major wotc fan and defender am having some doubts myself... but what in that build looks better to you?
So far I see I gain some armor prof (well sheilds anyway) but lose the + wis mod to healing, and my choice of encounter powers and at wills, and rituel caster... then I do get a few powers that we know nothing about...
does that really seam like power creep to you?
Could be
. If I choose to play a "priest that battles his enemies with a melee weapon", +wis to healing powers that use healing surges (that's the new errata, right?) and ritual casting may be secondary to better prof, domain features, "holy cleansing" and "ressurrection"...Its a big "could" though.
As I have said several times (and as you also pointed), we have little information either way. I'm stating the worse things could be. We certainly didn't need a "new cleric build" to do exactly what the battle cleric should be able to do right from the beginning.
If Essential was a side product (as was previously stated), that wouldn't be a problem. Since now it's supposed to be compatible, they shouldn't neither overlap nor substitute old archetypes and mechanics - and even though we may have little information, overlaping between essential "builds" and "regular builds" at least is already occuring.
As I have said - I'm not opposed to errata. I'm opposed to paid errata.
It will be very interesting to see if we'll never see an essentially "essential class" for every class/build/archetype of the previous books...
As I have said - I'm not opposed to errata. I'm opposed to paid errata.
This build is not the same as the old build. They could both exist in the same party, and both players could be happy with what their builds accomplish. It's hard to see how errata can even apply to a build; it's just a recommended path of features and powers. New content might seem to be a better fit for the concept, but that happens with every Power book and magazine issue. Nothing about the old build is invalidated, and players might like the fact that they aren't overspecialized and locked into a particular playstyle.
That a build is officially published shouldn't make it the ur-example of builds with that intention.
And as Makeshiftwings brought to the topic in this or another similar thread, Dragon Magazine and other sourcebooks should maintain the Battle Cleric in mind - if later products doesn't support STR clerics, we will have a good idea what Wizards really intend with the Essentials line.
People being positive about this are assuming these "essential classes" built with overlaping concepts with the old classes are "just like another build". They could be. Or they could not. My concern is that they may prove to be the later.
Find ways to give the classes different levels of complexity. One of the genius strokes of the original Dungeons &Dragons game design was that it allowed players to find their own level of mastery. Playing a wizard presented different challenges and required more rules mastery than playing a fighter. We wanted to preserve and return to that aspect of the Dungeons &Dragons game in the Essentials products.
These two points also loomed large in player feedback. Some players missed the diversity of different character class structures. They felt that the current versions of the classes looked too much alike. Others liked the ability to focus on more complex or simple character classes, depending on their tastes. This was an area where the needs of beginning players and feedback from veterans neatly aligned
I have to call it like I see it:
It looks to me like 4E caused a large divisive split in the players of DnD, and WotC had to do something extreme and reactionary to the division they have caused. Look, there is a lot to like about 4E; but with 4E, DnD has lost a lot of its magic.
I think the essentials line is little more than a last ditch effort to save 4E by bringing in new recruits and/or converting old edition players/hold-outs. I also tend to view the essentials as a cash grab.
I don't like the way the business model is being handled... If I was in charge, heads would roll.
In the end, I will wait and pass judgement after I see 4.5 first hand.
See you at Gen Con...
I have to call it like I see it:
It looks to me like 4E caused a large divisive split in the players of DnD, and WotC had to do something extreme and reactionary to the division they have caused. Look, there is a lot to like about 4E; but with 4E, DnD has lost a lot of its magic.
I think the essentials line is little more than a last ditch effort to save 4E by bringing in new recruits and/or converting old edition players/hold-outs. I also tend to view the essentials as a cash grab.
I don't like the way the business model is being handled... If I was in charge, heads would roll.
In the end, I will wait and pass judgement after I see 4.5 first hand.
See you at Gen Con...
Just like the divisive split 3e caused? Not to mention WotC didn't cause the split, the players did.
Just like the divisive split 3e caused? Not to mention WotC didn't cause the split, the players did.
Yes, but more so.
When I went to conventions in 2000, there were /lots/ of 3.0 games, and a few 2e and even 1e or 0D&D games.
After 3.5 hit, there were still a few 3.0, AD&D and 0D&D games, but it quickly shifted to mostly 3.5...
2 years in, and it's about evenly split between 4e and 'all others' - 3.x/Pathfinder, AD&D, etc...
4e is clearly the plurality, so it's caught on, but the potential revenue gain for converting hold-outs must be very tempting.
Essentials could be how D&D operates in another part of that particular planet. Think of it as a difference between the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico.
Just a thought.
At first I was like its pretty cool and probably overall compatible. Then I thought do I really want to be collecting more books? I love roleplaying but I guess I am not the hobiest anymore that I once was. I don't think I will be picking the line up. I will probably move to a system that doesn't change so regularly. Mind you, I still think the changes, or options, are pretty good. I just don't have the money or motivation to pick up the books. Maybe it is just that I don't want to get used to a new system, I don't know.
So is it a new edition? Well kinda, in that it officially sets some new design philosophies, and it represents a new defined entry point for new players. But it isn't a new edition because it doesn't invalidate anything, and doesn't include any rule changes that haven't already been incorporated into previous material via free errata. Current players can skip the essentials altogether, and still use any books or material that comes after.
I really can't see any downside to it. People seem to be screaming about the sky falling for no reason at all.
Incidentally Essentials could be specifically for those people who were burned and wary of buying a new WotC product. If they can throw out a 'new' release without making it a full on new edition, and say "See, we're not going to make that mistake again, we know we screwed up," people might go "OK, I'll play 4e now, it's safe." That's one hold out it targets. Another would be the ones who don't like what was done to sacred cows - having builds that are the traditional classes, as well as powers that model them more closely (magic missile) makes 4e more familiar. Red Box goes for people's nostalgia. Making a more simple and less costly core product distribution is also a great way to bring people in who are holding out due to sticker shock. Just as an analogy for that, the Xbox 360 Arcade sells fairly well due to the low price, even though in the long run you end up buying more for it, if you're uncertain it's a safer starting investment. If a player just needs Rules Compendium ($20) and Heroes of the Fallen Lands ($20), that covers things fairly well, but if they then get the DM kit, they already have half of it with Rules Compendium, so the price sting won't be as severe. If you look at Amazon's prices it's even better. $13 for each. Hard to resist getting the entire line.
Because a Warpriest is just a cleric. If you want a Power Swap feat through MC for a Warpriest, just take a basic Cleric MC feat, and take the power swap feat and choose one of the Warpriest powers instead.
Of course, there are some MC feats that deal with class features, and those may or may not be supported for Essentials.
So i'll respond with a resounding "mabey?"
I think with each new edition there was a split. If I understand it right, AD&D -> 2e saw a significant drop off.
I'm going by my own memory, here, but I believe the AD&D -> AD&D2e transition was fairly smooth. The game really didn't change that much, inititially, and the changes were pretty clearly improvements for the most part. 2e failed on two counts, though: 1) it really was just a clean-up of an old game, at a time when there were many mechanically superior or otherwise more sophisticated/modern games on the market and 2) it collapsed under the sheer volume of suplements released for it as TSR tried to follow the BattleTech/WhiteWolf book-a-month model.
But, you saw relatively few people clinging to 1e in the 90s. Rather, 2e dropped off in popularity over time, as fans were overwhelmed by the high volume and low quality of suplements, and pulled away by more modern games.
OMG, they call the thief a rogue and the magic-user a wizard!
OMG, Color Spray actually makes sense, I can't accept that!
OMG, THACO instead of tables?!?
OMG, Bards are their own class, not nightmare 3-class abominations!
No. It just wasn't different enough to cause a schism. It became increasingly different, but it was more evolutionary - well, more a descent into decadence.
I think the lack of common internet access back in the 90's kept a lot of the 1st ed purist from having a voice. that, and first ed really doesn't hold up well to modern playing. Before 4e came out, we planned on ushering it in by playing some old school dnd, and we immediately discovered how not as much fun as we remembered ADnD was.
Looking back I see AD&D is quite screwed up.
I just downloaded Dark Dungeons, a BECMI retroclone, and there are a number of things that make it just better. The spell lists are more contained, and there's actually a difference in weapon choice - some cause stun, some cause delay, there are a few other effects but you're getting some similar stuff going on that you have nowadays in 4E with various at will powers. The ability score system was also much better, having the range be -3 to +3, rather than the complicated tables in AD&D. It was also close enough to the original, and deliberately designed by people other than Gygax so that everything was internally consistent. A lot of stuff in AD&D 2E doesn't make sense without looking back to 1E, and even there it falls short and I've still relied on looking at BECMI and RC to make sense of some things in 2E.
The way I play AD&D now is a seriously stripped down version, with some rules almost entirely ignored. In all likelihood I'd play BECMI with more of the rules as they are written. There are a few things I actually like about AD&D, like race AND class, rather than just one or the other, and Druids as a separate class rather than a prestige class makes sense, but for the most part it was just unnecessary complexity.