As much trepidation as I had when I heard about this new "Red Box" thing (actually, I thought they were going to make an even *simpler* version of D&D when it's the rules complexity that I enjoy so much about the pastime), to my surprise I find myself liking what I'm hearing.
After all the feedback, errata and lessons-learned by the development team, it's clear that the PHB1's classes are outdated and somewhat out-of-line with the design philosophy. Not to mention, people have been complaining (me included) about how wonky the wizard is since mid-2008.
I'll be glad to see updates of the classic classes that bring them in-line with the current philosophy.
No put the flamethrower down aaag
I was wrong. It's a complete revision that will be implemented in all books forthright. But don't worry! You can still use your PH1,2,3 and other books in compatability with it. It's just that future books won't use the old format.
…
…
I look forward to this as well, but what I don't look forward to is the impending increase in "OMG! IT'S 4.5!" threads.
+1
Maybe now would be a good time to take a vacation from the boards.... Now until maybe January 2012?
I'm actually not as disappointed as I sound or act. I'm going to give it a chance, but I am upset that they're doing this method for ALL NEW CLASSES going forward.
I just they will at least use their erratas to update old material to the new design standards then. And of course, your old PHB 1 will probably be as accurate to 4e as PHB 3rd edition was compared to PHB 3.5 ¬¬.
If this indeed proves to be "4.5 in disguise", it will be too big a offender to keep buying Wizards material.
Even though some of the changes are interesting (like today's "domain centric" warpriest), it'll be very disheartning to "retire" the old books in favor of "essentials erratas"...
That is too late, my friend. By then, the world will be over. You'll have escaped the 4.5E threads, but you'll have missed out on the rest of 4E boards FOREVER.
Over? I thought we had until December 2012 before the world ended.
There really is something appealing in the idea of going away until Gen Con offers more information about 2011, though.
I look forward to this as well, but what I don't look forward to is the impending increase in "OMG! IT'S 4.5!" threads. The way I understand it, this is more like Unearthed Arcana class variants.
Not even close. UA was "here are optional/additional rules" Essentials is being described by the guys writing it as, "the game moving forward after two years of lessons learned."
I don't mind that its 4.5, and I don't mind that they are not calling it 4.5, but don't get mad at other people for hearing something quack and calling it a duck.
The 4.5 argument here is based the realization that there has been a fundamental shift in design philosophy that alters how the game will be approached. You have to admit that a parallel method of character creation and advancement is fairly bold, even if it's integrated into the current mechanics.
I'm not trying to say that this new approach is inherently bad (in fact, part of me wants to put my 4e books out to ebay pasture and start fresh with the Red Box). I'm just saying that someone starting with Essentials is going to be playing a significantly different game than someone who started with the PHB.
If, like me, you've noticed how 4e has grown steadily more complex, today doesn't come as too much of a shock. "4.5" isn't a bad word; I'm just accepting it for what it is. And I'm looking forward to creating some new characters when "4.5e-ssentials" comes out.
Thing is, why are poeple caught up if others are calling it 4.5? 2nd ed had their Player Option books and people call it 2.5 and Pathfinder is called 3.75, so what's wrong with labeling the Essentials 4.5?
I'd say it's the fallout from 3.5. If people call it 4.5, people are going to think they need to buy new books to replace their old books. That's going to cue the nerdrage (up to an even higher level than it already is, it seems) and is something they've repeatedly said doesn't need to be done.
Let's face it—no version of D&D has been completely perfect. There can always be room for improvement, so why not try to shake things up a bit? And if people don't like it, if they prefer 4e for its insert arguably superior quality here, then they're free to ignore the Essentials line. There are still people who swear by the Super NES, or have Windows 2000 on their computers. It's a free country.
So I propose a new camp: "It's 4.5! Hooray!"
In many ways, while we focus on the former because of our financial and emotional investment in the current systems, the latter may be a greater concern as deviations from the common design of level progressions and powers across classes has plenty of potential to lead to class imbalance.
And it will lead to a new edition to restart the whole thing as how 3.5 was bloated at the end. The whole fighter =easy, wizard =hard is already a sign.
Another thing, say WOTC gave us progressive "updates" back in 3.0 for DR, Harm, Haste, Hold Person and Polymorph. Then reprinted the books with new Bard and Ranger builds, but not calling it 3.5. Wonder how it would affect fans perspective on Essentials today.
They are going to put the Essentials material into the character builder when it comes out right?
They better.
Anyway, as for my opinion on the matter, I think it's cool what they're doing. Maybe it's not 4.5, but at least it's 4.25 edition. I'm looking forward to the essentials classes, but there have been a few things that are making me irritated.
For one, I'm REALLY hoping that there's an implement-based Cleric build in that book, because this whole Melee Weapon craze is really starting to piss me off. Seriously, first Swordmages get almost no implement powers in epic, then we have the fiasco with the Runepriest and 3/4 of the psionic classes being (as of the Monk in Psionic Power) melee weapon users, and no we have the REAL Strength Cleric 2.0 coming out in Essentials. Honestly, ENOUGH with the melee weapons.
I know you guys have this phobia about going back to the "healbot" of previous editions, but seriously, you don't have to have EVERY SINGLE leader be a heavily armored frontline fighter (except the Shaman, but still, 80% of its attacks are "melee spirit", so it's PET is a melee beatstick instead).
Anyway, my only other concern is that these options are going to essentially make the previous versions obsolete. I mean, yeah, you COULD play a normal Guardian Fighter, but why would you do so when you miss out on all these cool class features (for the love of God, what if they get bonus feats again)! So, I'm worried that what this will eventually lead to is players playing essentials classes, and just using the previous "edition" books to poach powers and feats.
Anyway, my only other concern is that these options are going to essentially make the previous versions obsolete. I mean, yeah, you COULD play a normal Guardian Fighter, but why would you do so when you miss out on all these cool class features (for the love of God, what if they get bonus feats again)! So, I'm worried that what this will eventually lead to is players playing essentials classes, and just using the previous "edition" books to poach powers and feats.
Well considering the Essentials are the new core, I would imagine the old books becoming supplements to it ala MMII in 3.5 But then it all depends how good the new Essential classes are. Will the Knight be better than a sword and board fighter? I am not sure how good the Warpriest is compared to the Battle Cleric already..
Anyway, my only other concern is that these options are going to essentially make the previous versions obsolete. I mean, yeah, you COULD play a normal Guardian Fighter, but why would you do so when you miss out on all these cool class features (for the love of God, what if they get bonus feats again)! So, I'm worried that what this will eventually lead to is players playing essentials classes, and just using the previous "edition" books to poach powers and feats.
Well considering the Essentials are the new core, I would imagine the old books becoming supplements to it ala MMII in 3.5 But then it all depends how good the new Essential classes are. Will the Knight be better than a sword and board fighter? I am not sure how good the Warpriest is compared to the Battle Cleric already..
Are you sure the "Essentials are the new core?" I thought the PHB1, DMG1, and MM1 continue to be the core books until a new edition are released. (Not trying to start a war - just trying to understand.)
So you could just get Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow, accept that classes in it don't use the Standard Advancement Table from the PH1, but still use all the info from PH1+errata to run characters from it.
Or you could buy Essentials and PO:HoS, and forgo getting a PH1.
Thing is, why are poeple caught up if others are calling it 4.5? 2nd ed had their Player Option books and people call it 2.5 and Pathfinder is called 3.75, so what's wrong with labeling the Essentials 4.5? Based on the article preview, all designs are based on the Essentials design anyway, so basically Essentials replace the core as foundation of the game. The only consolation is that our old 4e books are compatible.
A lot of it is because when 4e was starting, one of the first questions everyone asked was "So when is 4.5 coming out?" People were mad that WotC re-released new versions of almost all of the 3e books as 3.5e and changed enough that people felt they had to re-buy all the old stuff that they had already bought. So WotC bent over backwards to promise they wouldn't do it again, that there were no plans for 4.5e, and there would never be a 4.5e.
Now Essentials comes along and it is most definitely a 4.5e in disguise, and WotC has purposefully been really sneaky about it, as if they knew people would be angry about them breaking their promise and that if they just put off telling everyone it was a revision until it was too late, that maybe no one would notice. When Essentials was first introduced they said it was just a noob-friendly intro to 4e, with a choose your own adventure style book to pick your class, and then two books that gave new players some more powers. It was said to be totally separate and optional, and that it wouldn't affect anything, and it was just there for noobs who wanted a friendlier rule book. Now as it's getting closer, we find out it's really nothing like that at all... it's actually a complete revision of all the original races and classes, with a whole new advancement system, and a new design philosophy that will be the way everything is done from now on. That's a revision, no matter how much they say it isn't.
I think people would be less angry if they had just admitted it was a revision from the beginning, but I guess they wanted to hide it until they had no choice, because otherwise people might have put off buying 4e books until after the revision since there's a really high chance that anything we already own is going to be re-released in a new "Essential" version. It was what made people mad about 3.5e, that they basically "had to" stop using their old books and buy the reprints of all their old stuff to play the game the "right" way.
Now of course, no one's forcing anyone to do anything, but it's still a strong push to try and make us all feel like we need to re-buy everything. They're calling the books "Essential" - someone in marketing is patting themselves on the back for coming up with that. It sounds like WotC's trying to play both sides and it feels dishonest. On the one hand, they're releasing a revision and calling it "the new core" and "the basis of everything from here on out" and "a change in philosophy that fixes all the mistakes of the older books".... and then on the other hand they're saying "Oh no it's totally not anything important, it's just some random books for new players, nothing to worry about, definitely not 4.5e" and then back to "BUT YOU NEED IT! It's the new center of everything and from now on everyone will be using it!" ..."But really no it's not a revision, all your old books are perfectly fine." "EXCEPT THEY SUCK and thank god we released these new awesome fixes for your old books that are full of mistakes and oh my god the game is so much better you NEED these books they are ESSENTIAL" "But really guys, your old books are fine, you don't need to buy these at all....."
When Essentials was first introduced they said it was just a noob-friendly intro to 4e, with a choose your own adventure style book to pick your class, and then two books that gave new players some more powers. It was said to be totally separate and optional, and that it wouldn't affect anything, and it was just there for noobs who wanted a friendlier rule book. Now as it's getting closer, we find out it's really nothing like that at all... it's actually a complete revision of all the original races and classes, with a whole new advancement system, and a new design philosophy that will be the way everything is done from now on. That's a revision, no matter how much they say it isn't.
If everything else will change based on Essentials, than this is a revision - even though we can use our old books for SOME part of the game.
Makeshiftwings also point to another interesting point:
there's a really high chance that anything we already own is going to be re-released in a new "Essential" version
If this is true, it is just another reason not to buy the old books.
Will the PHB 2 and 3 classes algo gain "essential versions" for all their builds? What about the new classes - will the Necromancer have daily powers?
------
The thing is, with the big exception for "intended variable complexity" in class gameplay, I'm not opposed to the design changes. Eliminating "dailies" (if I remember correct, essential classes have no dailies, right?) also eliminates still existing "nova effect". Hell, I'm not even opposed to errating the first books to oblivion :P.
The problem is, if this proves to be indeed a revision, it hurts any trust I can put on Wizards. They are renowmed for not living up to their promises (D&D Game Table anyone?) - if they "hit backspace in 4e" and start "essential 4e", they will have done exactly what they said they wouldn't.
As I have said - if they wished to radically change their design parameters, they could have errated the books any way they want - to the point of rendering the physical product useless. But at least that would have been given to me for free. I don't want to pay for what is "essentially" revision to my old material. As makeshiftwings points out, its no matter if the "new edition" is compatible with my old material - the point is that this will be a new edition.
But then again, we haven't see essentials yet. We have no knowledge of future classes/books. Let's hope "Essential" doesn't become a 4.5 compatible with all my "old" 4.0...
Now of course, no one's forcing anyone to do anything, but it's still a strong push to try and make us all feel like we need to re-buy everything. They're calling the books "Essential" - someone in marketing is patting themselves on the back for coming up with that. It sounds like WotC's trying to play both sides and it feels dishonest. On the one hand, they're releasing a revision and calling it "the new core" and "the basis of everything from here on out" and "a change in philosophy that fixes all the mistakes of the older books".... and then on the other hand they're saying "Oh no it's totally not anything important, it's just some random books for new players, nothing to worry about, definitely not 4.5e" and then back to "BUT YOU NEED IT! It's the new center of everything and from now on everyone will be using it!" ..."But really no it's not a revision, all your old books are perfectly fine." "EXCEPT THEY SUCK and thank god we released these new awesome fixes for your old books that are full of mistakes and oh my god the game is so much better you NEED these books they are ESSENTIAL" "But really guys, your old books are fine, you don't need to buy these at all....."
This is what causes confusion to most people. WOTC did say at first it was a starter set with character creation rules and now it's all back and forth. Clearly from what we have read now, it is not meant only for newbies, but for EVERYONE. Basically like how the old core was for newbies anyway.
Mearls and gang have stated repeatedly that the whole thing is optional, only because our old books is compatible am I right? But anyway we all know their main goal is to get us to buy it anyway, so 4.5 or not, the intention is the same.
The thing is, with the big exception for "intended variable complexity" in class gameplay, I'm not opposed to the design changes. Eliminating "dailies" (if I remember correct, essential classes have no dailies, right?) also eliminates still existing "nova effect". Hell, I'm not even opposed to errating the first books to oblivion :P.
If you take the time to read the Warpriest advancement chart, you will see that it gets daily powers at levels 1, 5, and 9.
I'm actually not as disappointed as I sound or act. I'm going to give it a chance, but I am upset that they're doing this method for ALL NEW CLASSES going forward.
Were you similarly angry to hear that the MM3 stat block and design theories would be the method for ALL NEW MONSTERS (panic, it's in caps!) going forward?
Because that's what this is. Some design theory adaptations based on a couple years of experience and feedback, along with a largely cosmetic shift in presentation.
I mean, PHBIII already showed that WotC was willing to deviate from the usual advancement pattern, and to be honest the Psion looks like a much bigger deviation then the previewed cleric.
The thing is, with the big exception for "intended variable complexity" in class gameplay, I'm not opposed to the design changes. Eliminating "dailies" (if I remember correct, essential classes have no dailies, right?) also eliminates still existing "nova effect". Hell, I'm not even opposed to errating the first books to oblivion :P.
If you take the time to read the Warpriest advancement chart, you will see that it gets daily powers at levels 1, 5, and 9.
Yes, I think they mean they only removed the Daily powers for some classes, probably the Fighter. They talk about how they changed it so that the classes advance differently and don't all use the same power gain template, and then they talk about making a mysterious class "much simpler to use like it used to be" or such, which is undoubtedly the fighter. I'm guessing Wizards gain extra powers as a revised "option" to use instead of the current Spellbook system, and Fighters have the "option" of giving up their daily powers in exchange for using their new advancement table, which probably gives them a bunch of bonus feats like in 3e.
Were you similarly angry to hear that the MM3 stat block and design theories would be the method for ALL NEW MONSTERS (panic, it's in caps!) going forward?
Because that's what this is. Some design theory adaptations based on a couple years of experience and feedback, along with a largely cosmetic shift in presentation.
I mean, PHBIII already showed that WotC was willing to deviate from the usual advancement pattern, and to be honest the Psion looks like a much bigger deviation then the previewed cleric.
I can't speak for Mathrandir, but for me, the difference is that the Monster Manual 3 was always known to be as a new Monster Manual, and they talked about the new stat block and design changes pretty openly from the beginning, and explained what it was all about. Essentials, instead, is basically a "stealth" revision... they basically pretended this whole time that it was just a highly optional intro book for people new to RPG's, when it turns out to actually be a rewrite of all the core races and classes and the new foundation for everything in the future. It's like they knew people would be mad when we found out it was 4.5, so they decided to hide it until now, which seems pretty obnoxious to me.
I see no reason to think original PHB builds won't get the same amount of specific support we already could expect (small but not meaningless) in the future, and PHBIII (and, the playtest of the Psion a year earlier) already told us to expect future class products to show much more significant deviation from the core progression.
I share worries about some of the things they've said about essentials (I don't like the idea of some classes deliberately being aimed at newer or more experienced players, I'm not sure what's going to happen to the dangling limbs of V shaped classes, I'm not sure I like the idea of class variants with different level progressions existing simultaneously within the same system), but I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth and general nerd rage going around at the moment is a touch excessive.
Were you similarly angry to hear that the MM3 stat block and design theories would be the method for ALL NEW MONSTERS (panic, it's in caps!) going forward?
Because that's what this is. Some design theory adaptations based on a couple years of experience and feedback, along with a largely cosmetic shift in presentation.
I mean, PHBIII already showed that WotC was willing to deviate from the usual advancement pattern, and to be honest the Psion looks like a much bigger deviation then the previewed cleric.
I can't speak for Mathrandir, but for me, the difference is that the Monster Manual 3 was always known to be as a new Monster Manual, and they talked about the new stat block and design changes pretty openly from the beginning, and explained what it was all about. Essentials, instead, is basically a "stealth" revision... they basically pretended this whole time that it was just a highly optional intro book for people new to RPG's, when it turns out to actually be a rewrite of all the core races and classes and the new foundation for everything in the future. It's like they knew people would be mad when we found out it was 4.5, so they decided to hide it until now, which seems pretty obnoxious to me.
Mathrandir… that's a new one. Almost sounds like some sort of Grey Pilgrim.
That said, I feel similarly annoyed by the stealth and wishywashyness of WotC on the issue, going back and forth. I truly believed that this would be a small coin in the bucket by the wayside, and that I'd pick up Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms for the fluff in them (sounded like the first is more on the inheritors of Nerath, and the second on the inheritors of Arkhosia and Bael Turath). But boy, was I fooled. So, yeah, I'm upset about that. I was batcrazy last night.
At the same time, after analysing the Warpriest nearly all day, and discussing Essentials and "4.5E" alongside, I feel that it's not a huge shift, and that the PP-subsystem was a bigger design shift. I think V-classes will be left in the dust – I'm pretty sure now that Warlocks are going to go Charisma-based, Paladins will go Strength-based, and Rangers will go Dexterity-based. Druids and Wizards needed help too: especially Predator Druids and War Wizards. What it seems to be is a revision of the classes that needed the most help, or were critised the most, like the Fighter, Ranger and Rogue for having Dailies (at least Warlords are tacticians and would reasonably not be able to perform difficult tactics more than once a day).
Maybe it could work. It just… needs to balance everything well. And everyone needs At-wills. If they get rid of at-wills for ANY CLASS, the system falls apart. You can't have someone doing nothing on their turn because they don't have a power to use.
.Still, I'm negatively touched by the "deliberately different" approach to power usage just for "difference's sake"
. Malisteen, I can agree with you in most points - if the new classes prove not to be power creep and just different options, then I'll be a happy costumer
. If they add the fundamental changes to the errata, I'll be even more gratified.However, there's no certainty that this will be the case. And as you have also stated "I don't like the idea of some classes deliberately being aimed at newer or more experienced players" - and this we have clearly stated in the article. Even with no intention some classes are easier to learn than others - I see no need to widen that gap.
The thing is, I don't necessarily need to stay in my corner and not express my feelings of fear and doubt about this new design direction. I can come here and share it with fellow posters and, hopefully, Wizards designers. And perhaps I may find some measure of relief if either provides me with outstanding evidence this "essential" line is not a 4.5.
So far, it hasn't happened... The doubt remains. Wizards could have "squashed" it by now.
They could come and say:
"Even though we'll be using feedback learned in the essentials line, that doesn't mean future releases will be better compatible to the essentials than to the errata'd core books. We will be implementing most of this changes in the update process anyway - you won't have to pay for the better designed options and corrections we are now providing. Besides, the new essential classes will not be "power-creep" - they're perfectly balanced with the old classes. Your player won't be "hosed" for playing the PHB battle cleric instead of the new essential warpriest. And yes, stating that we are creating classes to be deliberately more or less complex than others was just a joke! :D"
I would then proceed to a sound sleep. That'll probably not be the case until after Gen Con at least ¬¬.
And please, do take the above "annoucement suggestion" humorously
. Though I won't oppose if they're willing to do it! :Dbut I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth and general nerd rage going around at the moment is a touch excessive.
Citation Needed. I'm being serious: can you link to actual "nerd rage"? I'm not seeing it.
Skepticism, yes. But you shouldn't conflate skepticism and nerd rage. Unless I just haven't read the thread that it's happening in, which is entirely possible.
Not even close. UA was "here are optional/additional rules"
That depends on what part of UA you're talking about. I'm talking about many the class variants presented. The totem barbarian, the battle sorcerer, the various specialist wizard variants. If you don't like my comparison to such variant classes, then what if I were to compare to Tome of Battle instead? That was certainly 3.5 moving forward, adding new mechanical options to character concepts that were already covered. But the Crusader did not make the Paladin obsolete, the Sword-Sage did not make the Monk obsolete, and the Warblade did not make the Barbarian or Fighter obsolete. These classes all coexisted in the system.
I don't mind that its 4.5, and I don't mind that they are not calling it 4.5, but don't get mad at other people for hearing something quack and calling it a duck.
I don't get mad. I'm just not hearing the quack. All that I'm seeing is a class variant. This Warpriest Cleric variant could have just as easily been introduced in Divine Power 2. I don't think that the Warpriest in any more 4.5 than the Brawling Fighter or the Shadowy Rogue or the Whirling Barbarian.
Furthermore, that they plan on building future classes with such a system isn't any more 4.5 to me than the fact that the PHB2 started the trends of all classes having only a single primary ability score with a player's class feature selection determining secondary ability score. The game evolves at it goes on. That's no mystery. It's normal. Therefore, I still don't hear the quack.
If you want to think of it as 4.5, then I'm not going to stop you, but I'm not wrong for not thinking of it as 4.5.
Not even close. UA was "here are optional/additional rules"
That depends on what part of UA you're talking about. I'm talking about many the class variants presented. The totem barbarian, the battle sorcerer, the various specialist wizard variants. If you don't like my comparison to such variant classes, then what if I were to compare to Tome of Battle instead? That was certainly 3.5 moving forward, adding new mechanical options to character concepts that were already covered. But the Crusader did not make the Paladin obsolete, the Sword-Sage did not make the Monk obsolete, and the Warblade did not make the Barbarian or Fighter obsolete. These classes all coexisted in the system.I don't mind that its 4.5, and I don't mind that they are not calling it 4.5, but don't get mad at other people for hearing something quack and calling it a duck.
I don't get mad. I'm just not hearing the quack. All that I'm seeing is a class variant. This Warpriest Cleric variant could have just as easily been introduced in Divine Power 2. I don't think that the Warpriest in any more 4.5 than the Brawling Fighter or the Shadowy Rogue or the Whirling Barbarian.
Furthermore, that they plan on building future classes with such a system isn't any more 4.5 to me than the fact that the PHB2 started the trends of all classes having only a single primary ability score with a player's class feature selection determining secondary ability score. The game evolves at it goes on. That's no mystery. It's normal. Therefore, I still don't hear the quack.
If you want to think of it as 4.5, then I'm not going to stop you, but I'm not wrong for not thinking of it as 4.5.
Best post I've seen since the announcement. Never thought I'd say that about somethin Crimson said.
I'm pissed that they played it down and gave us mixed messages, but after analysis, they're not all that different.
But from what it seems, other classes will be more different, like the Essentials Fighter kits.
but I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth and general nerd rage going around at the moment is a touch excessive.
Citation Needed. I'm being serious: can you link to actual "nerd rage"? I'm not seeing it.
Skepticism, yes. But you shouldn't conflate skepticism and nerd rage. Unless I just haven't read the thread that it's happening in, which is entirely possible.
1000% yes. In fact, I'd argue that there has been more nerd rage backlash than actual nerd rage.
I've tried my best today to promote the "4.5 isn't a bad word" argument. And I like to think I've done a pretty good job. It's new, it's unique, it's more options. I think sometimes we get so caught up in min/maxing that we forget that D&D is about having fun. People come in all shapes, sizes, and skill sets, and now clerics will too. I don't have a problem with that.
D&D is and should be a living, breathing, evolving game. That means things are going to change over time. We might not agree with some of the changes, but whatever. It's a game. And I'd rather have this new iteration than see 4E get stale.
D&D 4.5E: If Peeing Your Pants Is Cool, Consider Me Miles Davis
Battles: 'D&D is and should be a living, breathing, evolving game.'
Exactly. And it really is evolution. No individual can really know where our collective game is heading. Thats kinda cool in itself.
Citation Needed. I'm being serious: can you link to actual "nerd rage"? I'm not seeing it.
Legitimate skepticism and nerd rage aren't mutually exculsive, and both frequently appear in the same post. Take, for example, this post by NightShade1, which has some fair skepticism, but also rages out over completely made up problems like all the essentials usuing power points, which they don't, and thus ruining psionics (buh?), working himself up to this little gem:
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.
all bold, and some profanity, and calling something a disaster after working yourself up over largely made up problems when your actual list of worries wasn't sufficient for the desired rant length? sounds like nerd rage to me, even if there were a few legitimate points thrown in.
And most of what people seem to be upset about is the cancelation of any future splat material for pre-essentials builds, and I see no reason to think that would be the case what-so-ever. Oh, sure, there'll be less new support for old builds that already have a ton of splat support then for new classes and builds that don't have any, but that was already the way things worked, essentials or no.
Points about questioning the accusation of ducks based on phantom quacking are also well made. The defining feature of D&D 3.5, and the reason people are upset about it, was that 3.5 invalidated all past books with core rule changes and required players who wanted to stay current to buy essentially the same books over again. Essentials invalidates no previous books because there are no core rule changes and existing players only need to buy these books if they feel like playing the individual builds presented in them. So maybe you heard the baby make a sound that you thought was similar to a quack, but the baby still doesn't have feathers, or a bill, or webbed feet, or any of the defining features of a duck.
The defining feature of D&D 3.5, and the reason people are upset about it, was that 3.5 invalidated all past books with core rule changes and required players who wanted to stay current to buy essentially the same books over again.
That is not the reason all people are upset with 3.5 and the concept of a 4.5.
I didn't like 3.5 because I like a solid rules framework for a game and then a long time before any revisions to how it works. Use the intervening time for things like the Demonomicon and Open Grave.
I switched to 4th edition after researching it and listening to WotC explaining their design goal (one of which was classes are same level of complication). And I like 4th Ed.
There are some concerns in my group about the "this is our design basis going forward" because we liked the design basis WotC started with, i.e. why we came on onboard with 4th Ed.
As long as in the future there are classes like for example, a necromancer, that mirror the CORE design, then we will be happy, because Essentials will be great for options. However, if all classes from now on are Essential style, then we lose "some" of what we switched for. And in our opinion, just like Tome of Battle, it would be a 4.5 from that point on. (We know we can keep playing with what we have)
In other words, a duck.
I didn't like 3.5 because I like a solid rules framework for a game and then a long time before any revisions to how it works. Use the intervening time for things like the Demonomicon and Open Grave.
Then I can't imagine you've been happy with 4e, as it's been in a constant state of revision since it was first released, with frequent errata and changes in design philosophy, such as changes to skill targets and stealth, the abandoment of V classes in PHBII, and the introduction of alternate level advancement charts in PHBIII, or the changes to design philosophy for minions and solos in MMII, or the changes to monster damage and stat block format in MMIII.
Every single major release for 4th edition has included a notable shift in design philosophy based on the experience of the designers and feedback from players, and all of these design philosophy shifts have gone on to be incorporated into future design decisions.
The only new shifts we get in essentials are:
- classes can gain features after first level (yay)
- individual builds can gain different power advancement rates (meh)
- classes can be deliberately designed to be more or less complex (booh)
None of that is all that major, though. Bow ranger was already a ton less comples then runepriest, so even the last bit doesn't produce new results, it's more just a statement that they don't think the existing results on that front were a problem.
Now, I don't like the different levels of complexity comment either, nor am I terribly happy with my experienced players who can get bored playing an archer ranger, or that my new players might like the fluff of the rune priest but get frustrated with the mechancis.
But the idea that this is a new edition because class design philosophy has evolved slightly since the introduction of 4e, when it's been evolving slightly with every new product we've seen, doesn't quite hold water with me. It's about on the same level as claiming it's a new edition because they changed the monster stat blocks and HP/Damage progressions in MM3 and intend to follow that paradigm going forward. The changes to class design, from what we've seen so far, seem if anything less radical then the changes to monster design which everyone seemed happy to embrace, and more to the point seem less likely to invalidate older classes then the new monster paradigms are to invalidate older monsters.
Not even close. UA was "here are optional/additional rules"
That depends on what part of UA you're talking about.
If I'm remembering correctly, 3.5's UA was a book full of optional rules, (aren't they all though?) that did not directly impact the future of DnD. It borrowed the action points idea that ebberon was using, but I don't recall future supplements building off of that book. Granted, I wasn't buying every splat to splatter a bookshelf, so maybe some did catch on main stream.
Essentials are chaining the future of the game.
Now your tome of battle example might be more on target, (don't know, didn't really examine it) though I've also heard some say that the tome of battle was partly the blueprint for 4e, so again, I'm seeing the evolution in editions.
I've seen a few posters compare Essentials to the change from 1st ed to 2nd ed, which may be an even more accurate comparison, which would really make this DnD 5.
Cause really, a new edition in an rpg doesn't have to be super drastic in what they have altered, to be the new edition, and following the Computer patch naming convention, you don't have to patch every rule to have a new 4.something version either.
Straying a bit off topic, I think that some of the irritation I've been reading from posters is that they might have felt Essentials was supposed to be more of a Basic DnD (its in a box, right?) where as 4e was ADnD.
If you want to think of it as 4.5, then I'm not going to stop you, but I'm not wrong for not thinking of it as 4.5.
I suppose the safest bet is to call it DnD Essentials.
Citation Needed. I'm being serious: can you link to actual "nerd rage"? I'm not seeing it.
Legitimate skepticism and nerd rage aren't mutually exculsive, and both frequently appear in the same post. Take, for example, this post by NightShade1, which has some fair skepticism, but also rages out over completely made up problems like all the essentials usuing power points, which they don't, and thus ruining psionics (buh?), working himself up to this little gem: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.
all bold, and some profanity, and calling something a disaster after working yourself up over largely made up problems when your actual list of worries wasn't sufficient for the desired rant length? sounds like nerd rage to me, even if there were a few legitimate points thrown in.
And most of what people seem to be upset about is the cancelation of any future splat material for pre-essentials builds, and I see no reason to think that would be the case what-so-ever. Oh, sure, there'll be less new support for old builds that already have a ton of splat support then for new classes and builds that don't have any, but that was already the way things worked, essentials or no.
Points about questioning the accusation of ducks based on phantom quacking are also well made. The defining feature of D&D 3.5, and the reason people are upset about it, was that 3.5 invalidated all past books with core rule changes and required players who wanted to stay current to buy essentially the same books over again. Essentials invalidates no previous books because there are no core rule changes and existing players only need to buy these books if they feel like playing the individual builds presented in them. So maybe you heard the baby make a sound that you thought was similar to a quack, but the baby still doesn't have feathers, or a bill, or webbed feet, or any of the defining features of a duck.
OK. Fair enough. I don't want you to think I'm moving the goalposts: I would call the selection you quoted "churlish". Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm not sure something counts as "rage" (nerd or otherwise) until I hear how someone needs to get fired, go out of business, or be physically or psychologically tortured. But maybe we have different, um, "standards", of what constitutes rage.
I agree that E4.e (or whatever) is not like 3.5 in that, when 3.5 came along, you had to buy all new hardcovers if you wanted to use the new stuff that WOTC would be producing from then on. In this case, WOTC has given away the rules updates for free, which is far superior to the $90 Surcharge model of 3.5. If you want to ignore Essentials, you can still play with the modules and probably even the Player's Option books that WOTC will be publishing from here on out. I'm guessing most people will want to at least buy the Compendium, though.
On the other hand, I can see why people want to call it 4.5. At least, I can see why they don't want to call it 4.0. Basically, as has been stated by WOTC, Essentials is the new design philosophy and will form the foundation of D&D products moving forward. So if you want to be current with the new way of doing things, and (I surmise) want to use new products to their fullest, then you'll buy the Essentials line.
I think most players of 4E will end up buying the Essentials line, and most if not all current races and classes will eventually get the Essentials treatment. If it is reasonable to call it 4.5, then I don't think it's a villainous move in the way that 3.5 was... at least with 4.5E / E4.e / 4.whatever, it is possible to be a holdout and not buy the Essentials line and you can still use new product and still be playing mostly the same game (as long as you use the Errata).
So I'd say that it's a 4.5 duck, just not a Duck of Death the way 3.5 was.
I feel those are further refinements of 4e philosophy. For example, the abandonment of V classes helps ensure the equality among the classes. The changes to Stealth prevented wonky results during actual gameplay.
Fairness to every player is one of the highest priorities of 4e.
'.. or the changes to design philosophy for minions and solos in MMII, or the changes to monster damage and stat block format in MMIII.'
Again, these are refinements of 4e philosophy. From the beginning, designers intented monsters to be as simple as possible with mechanics only existing to the extent they made the combat encounter vivid. The solos are an excellent implementation of that goal. The new monster stat block format is awesome, because it makes choosing actions even easier. I hope the Character Builder adopts this format as an option for the power cards. I also hope the Character Builder can use a full 'monster stat' as a way to build an epitome of the character that can fit on one card, for convenient reference for typical actions that the character does most of the time.
'.. and the introduction of alternate level advancement charts in PHBIII.'
The power points were a change in design philosophy. I would have preferred the Psionic classes use the standard advancement table. The status of Psionic as core has persistently remained in doubt because its fringe mechanics discouraged most players from using it. Now in 4e, it was so important to 'normalize' Psionic. The designers should have made sure its mechanics are standard. The 4e mechanics of Atwill and Encounter work even better than the 3e power points, any way. For now, Essentials is the new normal. It is vital to secure Psionic within Essentials.
Then they arent really deviating from the Character Advancement Table, theyr merely making substitutions. All of which we can analyze to ensure the equality between the classes and the wellbeing of the overall gaming system.
While Im not a fan of Psionic power points in 4e (I loved them 3e but 4e is better), you can see, the designers did use formal equivalencies, with so-many power points equating one encounter power. (There is a hiccup when entering Paragon being overly cautious because of potential points from the Path.) So the designers were strictly attentive the standard Advancement Table to ensure balance.
In sum, if designers reveal the formulas that they use to substitute powers and features in the Advancement Table, then really, they are using the Table.
Core rules: exactly the same, no changes what so ever. Changes to races: expected since the release of PHBIII, and probably going to be errata'd into the PHBI anyway. New classes? New class builds that vary from the originals far more then expected. Foundation of everything in the future - what does that even mean?
Well first, in 4e, the classes really make up the bulk of the rules and take up most space in all books. So saying "Oh they're just changing all the classes" seems dodgy... the classes are 90% of the material. The "core rules" are mostly "Roll d20 and add your skill" and then the combat rules, which have been errata'd a million times anyway. So I would definitely count a redesign and reboot of all classes as a revision, even if the "Roll d20 and add a modifier" core stays the same. And what I was saying was that WotC never told us this was coming, and that's the part that bothers me. They pretended that this was just a side optional book but now it's clear that it's "the new core".
And "foundation of everything in the future" is me misquoting "The Future - We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out." combined with them saying that "These books will remain in print" and "This is the new official entry point to D&D" (clearly something is going out of print.... like the no-longer-true entry points PHB, DMG, and MM?)
I see no reason to think original PHB builds won't get the same amount of specific support we already could expect (small but not meaningless) in the future, and PHBIII (and, the playtest of the Psion a year earlier) already told us to expect future class products to show much more significant deviation from the core progression.
Yeah, I expected future new classes to be different. I didn't expect that they would redo all the old classes and change their basic foundations. But I definitely did not expect "small but not meaningless" support for the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue... they got tons of support in Dragon and several Power books. I don't see why you would have thought they'd stop supporting those. Now though, it seems pretty clear that much of the old classes will be unsupported with the new changes to primary class stats, the killing of the V classes, etc. We'll have to wait and see, but I honestly expect that we'll never see another Strength cleric power again, and that all future books will act like Con Infernalocks never existed.
I share worries about some of the things they've said about essentials (I don't like the idea of some classes deliberately being aimed at newer or more experienced players, I'm not sure what's going to happen to the dangling limbs of V shaped classes, I'm not sure I like the idea of class variants with different level progressions existing simultaneously within the same system), but I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth and general nerd rage going around at the moment is a touch excessive.
I don't think I'm wailing or gnashing, just speculating and expressing my contempt for trying to "sneak" this revision in. I won't be jumping off a cliff, and I'll probably even be using the revised stuff, but I still think it's pretty crappy and childish that they felt the need to be so sneaky about the whole thing.
The only new shifts we get in essentials are:
- classes can gain features after first level (yay)
- individual builds can gain different power advancement rates (meh)
- classes can be deliberately designed to be more or less complex (booh)
Yes to all three. Don't get me wrong, I love 4e, but one of 3.5's selling points for me was the different characters and subsystems. I played an Incarnate and loved shifting my essentia and changing soulmelds, I played a Druid and loved preparing spells. I never got to play a Martial Adept or a Psion and kinda regret it.
So while I did applaud the uniformity of 4e's class system, PH3 proved there's room for different systems, and I'm looking forward to introducing classes of differing complexities. It's a sign of the ruleset maturing and of the designers willingness to expand 4e.
Well first, in 4e, the classes really make up the bulk of the rules and take up most space in all books. So saying "Oh they're just changing all the classes" seems dodgy... the classes are 90% of the material. The "core rules" are mostly "Roll d20 and add your skill" and then the combat rules, which have been errata'd a million times anyway. So I would definitely count a redesign and reboot of all classes as a revision, even if the "Roll d20 and add a modifier" core stays the same. And what I was saying was that WotC never told us this was coming, and that's the part that bothers me. They pretended that this was just a side optional book but now it's clear that it's "the new core".
'Cept they're not rebooting the classes. They're introducing new builds - like we expected - the new builds just varry more then we had been prepared for. Non-build specific material - class feats, paths, generic powers - will all be just as usable for the older builds as they are for the new essential builds.
And "foundation of everything in the future" is me misquoting "The Future - We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out." combined with them saying that "These books will remain in print" and "This is the new official entry point to D&D" (clearly something is going out of print.... like the no-longer-true entry points PHB, DMG, and MM?)
The economy is in the **** all over the place. It costs money to keep books in print. There's a lot of books out. I'm not going to blame Wizards for adjusting to the realities of the market today.
Yeah, I expected future new classes to be different. I didn't expect that they would redo all the old classes and change their basic foundations. But I definitely did not expect "small but not meaningless" support for the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue... they got tons of support in Dragon and several Power books. I don't see why you would have thought they'd stop supporting those. Now though, it seems pretty clear that much of the old classes will be unsupported with the new changes to primary class stats, the killing of the V classes, etc. We'll have to wait and see, but I honestly expect that we'll never see another Strength cleric power again, and that all future books will act like Con Infernalocks never existed.
Not for the PHBI classes, for the builds specifically in them. How many 'tactical warlord' feats and powers did we get in Martial Power 2? That's right, not many. A few. A small number of not-insignificant options. That's about what could have been expected for the PHBI cleric builds in Divine Power 2 (should we ever see it), even if essentials had never been printed. Non-build specific powers, feats, paths, and other material released for the fighter, cleric, and so on can still be used by the original class builds. So yeah, I see no reason to think future splat material won't give us exactly the same amount of options for builds specific to the PHBI regardless of essentials.
I don't think I'm wailing or gnashing, just speculating and expressing my contempt for trying to "sneak" this revision in. I won't be jumping off a cliff, and I'll probably even be using the revised stuff, but I still think it's pretty crappy and childish that they felt the need to be so sneaky about the whole thing.
Sneak what. If they called it a new revised edition, the internet would go off the handle with fury over a bunch of assumptions based on how 3.5 worked that have nothing to do with how essentials is working.
Seriously, all we got is exactly what they told us we were getting, only with new builds that varry more then we were expecting. Oh, no? The sky is falling?
Yeah, I'm not getting what's causing all the consternation about a revised set of books. Enough fixes were made to the original volumes that they're woefully out of date, almost made irrelevant. Makes sense to make updated versions, and fix the classes that were busted from the inception in one way or another. Warlock (weak!), wizard (what is this thing?), paladin (crap!)...
Anyhow, what were the options on the table? I guess WOTC could have done zero errata and had a stinking log of an edition to last for 8 years, or try to fix it, which they have done a great job of. And now, new players need to enter the hobby without the burden of addenduming 2 years of errata into their outdated core sets from inception.
Do folks really expect not to fork out any more dough for D&D support? If you're out of cash, simply don't buy it; don't expect WOTC to stop needing money to maintain the production of better versions of the game. If anything, they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. I'm getting this feeling that opponents either feel insulted that they're not getting the benefit of additional support for their hobby for free, or that they didn't want the game to continue evolving so that their current favorite rules exploits would continue to work. Either is pretty unrealistic.
First, let's agree a lot of the material in the old PHB seems "outdated", specially in light of new errata. Ok.
Then, Wizards feel the need to revise those books. After all, their mechanics are woefully out of sync of today's design experience.
They got three options:
1- Release unprecedent ammount of errata, rendering the core PHB nearly useless.
2- Release a new set of core books and clearly state they are revisions to the original rules and should substitute those old books.
3- Release a new set of books intended as errata to the old ones and state they are a "optional line".
Option 1 doesn't give them a penny. Besides, people would be angry that their core books are useless. And newbies would get to wade through tons of errata.
Option 2 gives them more money (hooorray!), but is marketing suicide. Having caught tremendous negative backslash for 3.5 and promising never to do anything similar again, it would completely destroy (or further damage) one of the things most sensible companies should have in high priority - brand recognition.
Option 3 in the other end gives them money (hooorray!) and will probably upset less people than 2, specially if you state clearly that old stuff remains compatible (even though they have not yet said it'll be supported).
You think option 1 is unrealistic - perhaps, but that at least is a tad bit more sincere towards the costumer. Option 2 is clearly damaging to them and 3 would be the best for the company (though certainly not for you, costumer)
IMHO, the best course of action would be 1 + 2. The core books get reprinted with new material, but all of it is also offered for free as errata. Its better to buy the "new cores", but at least old customers don't need to buy, since all the errata would be avaible for free as well. And of course, it would still damage somewhat the company image.
I won't get in the debate "errata should be paid" at all. We could argue that after selling you a product and detecting it's flaws later, they shouldn't charge you for the fix. That's just only one way of seeing things. I certainly don't expect Wizards not to try to gain money, since it is, after all, a capitalist company, but I do expect to be treated well as customer. We could argue more about this, but I don't think good insight would come out of it...
------
All this also ignores another interesting point to observe.
Supposing this Essential line represents a big revision (and even though some don't want to call it 4.5, it certainly is a big revision to the game direction) in face of what was learned about the game's design, two years from now, we'll face a similar question.
Two years from now, new flaws will become apparent. New fundamental erros due to the intrinsic game mechanics adopted will be encountered. Game design will evolve faster than the game itself. And when all this adds up, the designers will be faced with the same question they were faced before doing essentials - do we invest in this fundamentally flawed design or try to radically improve on it?
It is the logical and ineroxable way of things. Two years from now, better design perception will be able to detect more problems. Let's not even take into account "target demographic", since the public may change and what was previously "ok" may become "unnacceptable" in an even shorter timeframe...
The thing is, new fundamental flaws in the design will pop up in progressively greater numbers. What do they intend to do? Revise everything after two years? Create 5e? We reached a point that the question is - in what pace should we update our products? In what pace does our consumer base follow?
Technically, they really have enough design expertise to release a new set of improved rules each couple of years.
I have no doubt Essentials will be better designed than current rules (with the big exception perhaps for the "variable complexity in class design" goal). In theory, any new mechanic for the system should always be a significant improvement, since the newer the mechanic, the greater the experience the designer may have had previously with the system.
Does that mean they should opt to "backspace" all your books because they'll always be able to come up with better designed ruleset than what you already own? I don't know... It's a tough debate...
I think you may be missing the point.
This is the definition of irony.
First, let's agree a lot of the material in the old PHB seems "outdated", specially in light of new errata. Ok.
Then, Wizards feel the need to revise those books. After all, their mechanics are woefully out of sync of today's design experience.
They got three options:
By this point in your post, you have already missed the point. This is where you, like many others before you, start making baseless assumptions and accusations that only fit in with the reality that you have crafted for yourself inside your head.
First off, Essentials isn't a revision. The fact that the errata is incorporated into it means nothing. The errata is something completely separate from Essentials that has been ongoing since 4E started. Of course they're going to include it in future books. This does not, however, make those new books Secret 4.5 Edition.
Second, you are stating quite matter-of-factly that the whole reason for the existence of Essentials is because Wizards felt they needed to revise the 4E books. Where did you get that info? Do you work at Wizards? If not, then you are just making stuff up so that it fits with what you want to believe. Why could it not be possible that the reason for Essentials is to provide a clear and easy way for new and lapsed players to learn the game and obtain the essential material needed to help facilitate game-play, like dice, tiles, tokens and maps? You know, like has been said over and over and over.
Why could it not be possible that the reason for Essentials is to provide a clear and easy way for new and lapsed players to learn the game and obtain the essential material needed to help facilitate game-play, like dice, tiles, tokens and maps? You know, like has been said over and over and over.
This CAN'T be the case, as then the discussions I'm dumping my speculations into are NOT about me. It's about new players. Where are the hypothetical new players on these boards, eh? Answer me that, Wizards!
If Wizards DID want to do this, wouldn't it be better to have everything the same but include a leaflet of errata in the Essentials packaging to show new players how committed WotC is to quality? It would certainly be sincere.
'Cept they're not rebooting the classes. They're introducing new builds - like we expected - the new builds just varry more then we had been prepared for. Non-build specific material - class feats, paths, generic powers - will all be just as usable for the older builds as they are for the new essential builds.
I get the feeling that they could completely obliterate everything remotely resembling the old classes and replace everything completely and you would still say "So what, they're not rebooting the classes. They said we can use the old ones." It doesn't really matter if they say you can still use the old ones. I don't really need their permission to do that. The thing that makes it a reboot is that they're republishing all of the old classes with new, mostly incompatible versions (The new Warpriest can't take any of the old Warpriest's powers and vice versa, because one is Wis/Con and the other is Str/Cha). Yeah you have permission to use your old Warpriest if you feel you need it, but the new Warpriest is the new official one, and the only one that will be receiving any support from now on. That's a reboot.
The economy is in the **** all over the place. It costs money to keep books in print. There's a lot of books out. I'm not going to blame Wizards for adjusting to the realities of the market today.
Sure, obviously releasing a revised edition is a good way for them to make money, and I understand they want to make money. If I was on their marketing team I'd probably be pushing 4.5 as hard as I could. That doesn't really get them off the hook for promising there wouldn't be a 4.5 and then sneaking it in later. Honestly it would have been better if they'd just not make any promises at all. The whole "Assassin will never be in a printed book" was a stupid promise too, and one that they were clearly going to break at some point... they would have been better off not making stupid promises like that, or at least being up front when they change their minds and say "Yes we know we said we wouldn't do this, but now we are" rather than trying to dance around the issue and pretend they're not doing exactly what they said they wouldn't. A company's interaction with its customers is important.
Not for the PHBI classes, for the builds specifically in them. How many 'tactical warlord' feats and powers did we get in Martial Power 2? That's right, not many. A few. A small number of not-insignificant options. That's about what could have been expected for the PHBI cleric builds in Divine Power 2 (should we ever see it), even if essentials had never been printed.
I completely disagree. The "PHBI cleric builds" are the same basic builds that have been here the entire time. The Divine Power builds are just slight modifications, they're still Str/Cha and Wis/Cha, and the difference in the PHB1 builds and the DP builds are negligible... everyone was still either a "Wis Cleric" or a "Str Cleric". Now there is no more Str Cleric, instead the new "core" melee cleric is Wis/Con, which is completely incompatible with Str/Cha. The Str/Cha cleric is going to be put out of print, and the Wis/Con is going to be the focus from now on. Str powers will be gone completely, as will riders based on Cha; that's quite different than all other Cleric support we've seen so far.
Non-build specific powers, feats, paths, and other material released for the fighter, cleric, and so on can still be used by the original class builds. So yeah, I see no reason to think future splat material won't give us exactly the same amount of options for builds specific to the PHBI regardless of essentials.
Except now the new classes are incompatible with the old in a few ways. The new core fighter doesn't have daily powers (if we can read their implications) so there will probably not be any more fighter daily powers published. That's definitely different than what MP3 would have looked like if there wasn't a reboot of the fighter. All the new core classes have a "subclass" tag like Knight or Slayer, with a bunch of feats and powers that require that subclass, when previously, options could only have a prerequisite like "Fighter". This new system means WotC can (and will) make a bunch of things that have "Knight" and "Slayer" as a prerequisite, effectively cutting out the 4.0 Fighter. Sure they will still make a few things that just say "Fighter", but one could say the entire point of adding the Sublass tag and prerequisite is to make new things that are off-limits to the old versions.
Sneak what. If they called it a new revised edition, the internet would go off the handle with fury over a bunch of assumptions based on how 3.5 worked that have nothing to do with how essentials is working.
Seriously, all we got is exactly what they told us we were getting, only with new builds that varry more then we were expecting. Oh, no? The sky is falling?
They are not giving us what they told us they would give us at all. Yes, you're right the boards would be mad if they said it would be revised, and that's exactly why they're not saying it directly. But saying "This is the new core entry point to the game, the old one will be going out of print, and this reflects our new design that will be used for everything from now on going forward" is pretty much the same thing as saying "This is a revision". And they never originally implied any of that, they had always just said it was an optional book for new players that probably wouldn't interest existing players that much, and that it was a completely separate product line that just included simplified step-by-step instructions to make it easier for noobs. It's now clear it's nothing at all like that; it's a complete redesign of the base races and classes and is the most important and required core material that's been published yet for any existing players that want to keep up with the current game.
And I'm not saying the sky is falling... just pretending like everyone who disagrees with you is overreacting is a stupid internet trick. It's a revision, and I don't really like how they've released it, but I'm not raging about it, and niether are most people here who are calling it like they see it.
Vin: 'IMHO, the best course of action would be 1 + 2. The core books get reprinted with new material, but all of it is also offered for free as errata. Its better to buy the "new cores", but at least old customers don't need to buy, since all the errata would be avaible for free as well. And of course, it would still damage somewhat the company image.'
As far as I can tell, WotC may have chosen an optimal course: a supplimental Essentials line. WotC benefits by selling Essentials products, while safeguarding customer relations as much as possible, because investments in current products will continue to yield benefits.
Also, by not burning their bridges to their current products, WotC hedges their bet. The design philosophy of Essentials means success depends on a class by class case. The players themselves will choose which classes become popular and which become niche. Sometimes, the new class will become more popular than the old class (as I suspect the new Warpriest will). However, sometimes a new class wont enjoy mass appeal, and the old class will remain popular. Perhaps in the case of the Fighter, old and new builds will continue to coexist because the customization of the old Fighter will continue to appeal to certain players while the stylization of the new Knight and Slayer will appeal to certain other players. Because all of these classes remain in play, WotC has the chance to step back and observe the results of each class experiment, and can eventually formulate even more optimal designs in the future to benefit all players even moreso.
In a way, this is the most amount of gain for the least amount of loss.
Non-build specific powers, feats, paths, and other material released for the fighter, cleric, and so on can still be used by the original class builds. So yeah, I see no reason to think future splat material won't give us exactly the same amount of options for builds specific to the PHBI regardless of essentials.
Except now the new classes are incompatible with the old in a few ways. The new core fighter doesn't have daily powers (if we can read their implications) so there will probably not be any more fighter daily powers published. That's definitely different than what MP3 would have looked like if there wasn't a reboot of the fighter. All the new core classes have a "subclass" tag like Knight or Slayer, with a bunch of feats and powers that require that subclass, when previously, options could only have a prerequisite like "Fighter". This new system means WotC can (and will) make a bunch of things that have "Knight" and "Slayer" as a prerequisite, effectively cutting out the 4.0 Fighter. Sure they will still make a few things that just say "Fighter", but one could say the entire point of adding the Sublass tag and prerequisite is to make new things that are off-limits to the old versions.
This is one of the ways I think people are trying to find things they can blow out of proportion. Yes, I believe there will be feats and PPs that will have "Knight" or "Slayer" as a prerequisite, but I don't see it as being that different than when Martial Power introduced Beastmaster Rangers and it contained a bunch of feats with Beast Mastery as a prerequisite to support the build.
Knight-only and Slayer-only powers? I'm pretty certain those will be called class features.
I will agree with you that the disappearance of new fighter dailies could be a concern if they no longer have dailies as implied.
One other concern I can see (don't think you mentioned, but is related overall) is that the reason they haven't been errating the weak feats and powers is that they plan to publish new feats and powers which are closer to the balance they want to effectively replace them. (They don't need a .5 edition to do that, but if they wait for .5 to do it, they'll just be increasing rage, and rightly so.)
Friendflyfish (what an hilarious screen name! ^^), I think you may be missing the point.
First, let's agree a lot of the material in the old PHB seems "outdated", specially in light of new errata. Ok.
Then, Wizards feel the need to revise those books. After all, their mechanics are woefully out of sync of today's design experience.
Okay, stipulated.
They got three options:
1- Release unprecedent ammount of errata, rendering the core PHB nearly useless.
That's already done. I don't think that's in contention by anybody's book. The point in debate is whether it's a good idea to SELL more books that correctly reflect the state of the game as of late 2010 rather than mid 2008.
2- Release a new set of core books and clearly state they are revisions to the original rules and should substitute those old books.
I'm not sure they HAVE to do this; there's no reason why you can't continue to play your old, suboptimal builds. As for corrected basic rules, that's what DDI is for. I'm thinking that this sort of argument is devolving into an argument between folks who think that the Core set 2008 needs to be some sort of frozen "snapshot" of the rules, immutable, for the length of the edition, vs. those who think the game is now living and evolving, and constantly changing to reflect a superior playing condition.
WOTC seems to favor the latter, as do I. Complainers seem to favor the former. Considering we live in a digital age, I see no reason why the game shouldn't evolve- and why they shouldn't sell books of the evolved game.
Again, if you don't want to pay for it, simply don't fork over the cash- that's no reason why WOTC shouldn't sell books of the improved game.
3- Release a new set of books intended as errata to the old ones and state they are a "optional line".
Here's what they're doing, yes.
Option 1 doesn't give them a penny. Besides, people would be angry that their core books are useless. And newbies would get to wade through tons of errata.
People don't really have a right to be angry that their core books are "useless". That's the point of a self-updating game environment. The new game is better than the old game. If this sort of thing is what people actually think, than simply stop paying for support of the hobby and play with your old books!
Option 2 gives them more money (hooorray!), but is marketing suicide. Having caught tremendous negative backslash for 3.5 and promising never to do anything similar again, it would completely destroy (or further damage) one of the things most sensible companies should have in high priority - brand recognition.
I'm not sure it would be marketing suicide. I'd buy the updates and probably everybody else would as well. People in the hobby seem to be cheap. The alternative is that Hasbro can publish the edition, fire everybody, and then let the hobby rot. Nobody wants that.
Option 3 in the other end gives them money (hooorray!) and will probably upset less people than 2, specially if you state clearly that old stuff remains compatible (even though they have not yet said it'll be supported).
You think option 1 is unrealistic - perhaps, but that at least is a tad bit more sincere towards the costumer. Option 2 is clearly damaging to them and 3 would be the best for the company (though certainly not for you, costumer)
I obviously disagree with your final point here. It's GREAT for the consumer. WOTC continues to refine the game, so long as we pay for that refinement. That's great for your game, because it gets better, and it's good for the hobby, because it continues to have a reason to keep the designers employed to produce more for your hobby.
This argument is schizophrenic. "I want D&D!" "But I don't want to pay for a better D&D, my D&D needs to be perfect right now!"
WOTC: "Well, fine, if you don't want to pay for it, we won't make any more since you're happy with what you have."
Player's response: "We want new D&D!"
WOTC: "What? You said you didn't. We tried that and you complained. We fired the design team."
I won't get in the debate "errata should be paid" at all. We could argue that after selling you a product and detecting it's flaws later, they shouldn't charge you for the fix.
On the contrary. People are employed to improve your game. You should be paying for it unless you want, as I said earlier, a stinking log of an edition lasting 8 long, busted years.
As far as I can tell, WotC may have chosen an optimal course: a supplimental Essentials line. WotC benefits by selling Essentials products, while safeguarding customer relations as much as possible, because investments in current products will continue to yield benefits.
I agree completely!
They may yet choose a "balanced" path towards their needs and that of their costumers. There is still errata to be released - and they could very well incorporate most of the fundamental changes to the old core books.As I have said several times, we cannot judge Essentials as of this moment. For good or ill. But we really can speculate and point our concerns and different views on the subject
.------
Quotes by Loonmaxx
By this point in your post, you have already missed the point. This is where you, like many others before you, start making baseless assumptions and accusations that only fit in with the reality that you have crafted for yourself inside your head.
Perhaps. My assumptions though certainly aren't baseless, and I'm not accusing anyone of anything: I'm sharing my view and concern for what may be a problem in the game I play. You can either accept mos texts can produce different conclusions or continue to say to yourself (and others) that only your opinions is a valid conclusion and everything else is "baseless arguments"...
First off, Essentials isn't a revision.
So they say. Amazon page products disagree though - most of the new releases for 4th edition state "Revised 4th edition". Of course, we could say that this is hardly any real evidence (Amazon could be wrong, as it sometimes is proven to be with future releases). However, if someone says this is a revision, perhaps they do have some grounds to think that - after all, it says right in the product info - "REVISED edition"...
The fact that the errata is incorporated into it means nothing.
Agreed. Thankfully, if you cared to read my observations, I never point the errata included in the Essential as a reson for "this is a revision"...
Of course they're going to include it in future books. This does not, however, make those new books Secret 4.5 Edition.
Of course they're going to include it in future books! It's the sensible thing to do after all! And again, I never said Essentials are a 4.5 because they incorporate errata :P. Perhaps you should read my posts carefully before stating my own opinions.
Second, you are stating quite matter-of-factly that the whole reason for the existence of Essentials is because Wizards felt they needed to revise the 4E books.
Partially agreed, Wizards feeling that they need to revise the 4e is just my assumption, not any info derived from insider knowledge of the company. However, I do not state tha the whole reason for the Essentials to exist is to revise the 4e core books.
The thing is, Essentials do coincide with a new approach to the fundamental design tenets of 4th edition. "We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out." Besides, new material overlap with what we already have - if they said the new Warpriest was a revision of the Battle Cleric, none would disagree.
So, even though Essentials may cater to other goals, perhaps they're justing as well taking advantage of their launch to revise the core books.
Why could it not be possible that the reason for Essentials is to provide a clear and easy way for new and lapsed players to learn the game and obtain the essential material needed to help facilitate game-play, like dice, tiles, tokens and maps? You know, like has been said over and over and over.
Well, for one thing. If they were -just- what you said, there would be no need for the new product to change the way the core rules work. Can't you explain to new players how the cleric is intended to work? Can't you make character creation process simpler by just going through it carefully and providing insight about the rules?
Even more, if this was just a material to "ease bringing new players to the game" as was previously stated, there would be no need to create new rules - save for writing perhaps what they intend to include in the errata.
Why go to the trouble of creating new rules, thereby spending resources, if this is "just a way to ease new players into the game".
Months ago we thought Essentials would be either:
1- An easier to read series of books with the usual classes + errata.
2- An incompatible side system created to be self contained and end in its 10 products planned.
Now it is:
3- A new system compatible with your old books that'll represent the direction Wizards takes for the game from now on, with character classes of overlapping concepts to the old ones created with better designed mechanics.
Can you see the fundamental difference?
------
Loonmaxx, I would like to point out to you the widespread use of "perhaps", "maybe", etc in my above statements. I'm not accusing anyone - just stating my views, pretty much like you.
Differently from you however, I do not think people that are being "optmist" about these products are being "baseless" in their arguments. And though I do recognize that some pessimists may be just "doomsaying", the very fact that I'm presenting arguments - that you have yet to adress directly rather than state they're "baseless" - would seem to exclude me from that group and add me to the ones that are presenting real evidence that could be taken as signs of "revised" edition.
Mind again - SIGNS. Not proof.
Essentials may prove not be a revision - and I'll be glad if this is so. There are enough signs however to make some people worried about a "4.5". You may disagree of course, but if you intended to quell their fears, at least present sensible arguments instead of taxing theirs as "baseless".
Looking forward for a good debate with you Loonmaxx, if this is what you intend.
Again, I'm not arguing here to "prove this a 4.5" nor would I be glad if my fears prove correct. I'm arguing that "there are enough signals to be afraid of a possible 4.5".
Quotes by Friendlyfish
That's already done. I don't think that's in contention by anybody's book. The point in debate is whether it's a good idea to SELL more books that correctly reflect the state of the game as of late 2010 rather than mid 2008.
Point taken
. Even though I don't consider my PHB nearly useless . Not yet anyway .I'm thinking that this sort of argument is devolving into an argument between folks who think that the Core set 2008 needs to be some sort of frozen "snapshot" of the rules, immutable, for the length of the edition, vs. those who think the game is now living and evolving, and constantly changing to reflect a superior playing condition.
WOTC seems to favor the latter, as do I.
Believe me, so do I!
My only condition is that, should the older mechanics be replaced, they do so for free. For example, I already paid for the cleric. If they want to improve and evolve it -great-! If they choose to improve by adding new options that don't invalidate my old ones, then I agree its fair to pay for that new work. If they improve it by releasing a new set of mechanics mean't to cover and replace the same thing, I don't think that should be sold.It's a thin line, I'll agree. Paladins received a much needed boost in Divine Power. I've no qualms against paying for that book. However, if they found out "my god, paladin marking is not working -at all- and causing problems all over the board!" and decide to rework that mechanic, that should be errata. If they choose to "create" a new paladin that didn't have the problematic mechanic (and thus avoiding creating what should be, essentially, errata), I would consider that to be "fowl play", for lack of a better term (I'm no native enligh speaker, english can be hard!)
.People don't really have a right to be angry that their core books are "useless". That's the point of a self-updating game environment. The new game is better than the old game. If this sort of thing is what people actually think, than simply stop paying for support of the hobby and play with your old books!
Believe me, if the Essential lines proves to be a revision like 3.5, I'll do just that
. I'll probably just maintain my Insider account and stop buying books.The point is: why loose a customer? If people stop buying 4e books, the D&D game as a whole will suffer. I'm considering stop buying books if essentials prove to be a revision. Others may intend to do the same.
And then the company may state "4th edition is not making as much money as it should, people just don't buy books anymore. We will stop supporting X, Y or Z rpg lines". But why does that happen? Essentials could be a catalyst for that. This makes me worried!
I'm not sure it would be marketing suicide. I'd buy the updates and probably everybody else would as well. People in the hobby seem to be cheap. The alternative is that Hasbro can publish the edition, fire everybody, and then let the hobby rot. Nobody wants that.
I don't know, I'm one of the few brazilians that actually -buys- stuff. Our market is pretty different from the american market. It's very rare to find a group here where each players owns a PHB. Most of the times, just one person will buy the book and share it with its group.
Americans may have the money to buy a "4.5 revision" after just 2 years. Most of the brazilian market wouldn't though. Don't ge me wrong, I'm not saying that Wizards shouldn't revise their game because "brazilians won't buy it", I'm just stating that this move could actually hurt their sales here in my country - whatever that number may be
.I obviously disagree with your final point here. It's GREAT for the consumer. WOTC continues to refine the game, so long as we pay for that refinement. That's great for your game, because it gets better, and it's good for the hobby, because it continues to have a reason to keep the designers employed to produce more for your hobby.
I understand your point
, though I do not think that's my perspective.It is more like:
WotC: We're lauching this new edition, epic improvement, buy it! We will support it for the foreseeable future! ^^
Consumer: Hooorray! It's really nice! Keep improving!
WotC: Hey - we think that material we just sold you is subpar. We are providing you with improved stuff for the same thing! Buy it! We will not be supporting your subpar books though! ;)
Consumer: But, why? oO
Again, I think everybody is willing to pay for improved material (that I have no doubt Essentials will be). My concern is that this new material is meant to cover exactly what I already have, but with better mechanics.
As a consumer (or should it be costumer? What would be the correct english?), I would rather support a RPG company that does not provide me with alternate, improved mechanics for the same archetypes that render my old ones undesirable or innapropriate in too short a timeframe.
Of course, I'm not against revising old stuff if it's done free or else, or if its a new edition launch after learned with an older edition. From time to time, there'll be of course need to change or revise the mechanics. I just don't think revising them after two years and charging you for it is good for RPG business - at least is not good for me, personally, as a consumer
. I don't have money to keep up with revisions in this cycle. Of course, that's not their problem. But they do lose my continued support as a consumer if I'm not able to keep up with them, as there are other companies that may revise their products in a more synchronized way with my economical reality.
On the contrary. People are employed to improve your game. You should be paying for it unless you want, as I said earlier, a stinking log of an edition lasting 8 long, busted years.
I certainly don't
. But I do think those improvements should not render the material I bought "undesired" or "subpar", or that becomes a reason not to buy their material in a more constant basis.------
Let me also point out the insider logo below my screen name. If the stuff in Essentials revises the entire library of current books and they choose to support it like they do current 4e, I'll probably receive them in my Insider account via Compendium, CB, AT, etc up to the next year of my subscription. I will be very little "directly damaged" by those changes.
I will however stop buying books, since those loose support pretty quickly.
Of course, my fish friend, Essentials may just prove to be just another splat - and then I'll have no problems to invest my money on the books. If my "old mechanics" loose support however in favor of "new and better designed mechanics", I see little reason to buy books that may reach the same point after another two years.
Tangentially to this discussion, this is also why I think that, in the current marketing schedule of Wizards, 5e should become a eletronic product. Easier to update, easier to implement radical mechanical changes. I would most certainly buy it
.In the end, all this debate can be summarized in:
"Stated Essential changes. Do you like it or not?"
"Yes, because..." or "No, because..."
I'm saying no, and those above are my because
. But I do want to say yes ^^.I'm not listening!
Yeah, I'm done here. I'm not here to debate a brick wall.
It would be like if I have quoted this:
I'm not here to debate or discuss anything! My view is the only one sensible and the only one valid. Everyone who contradicts me is wrong and has no sensible argumentation whatsoever!
Seems misleading, doesn't it?
------
But well, if you do no wish to argue sensibly and think everyone else is just being a "brick wall" (because you haven't been able to come with good arguments), more power to you...
Should you ever want to truly discuss something and analyze other points of view, I'll be here for the debate...
------
At least the fish is a friendly debater! ^^
Come on Loonmaxx. Since the phrase you quoted is never written in my post, wouldn't it be wrong for you to post it as if I had done it?
It would be like if I have quoted this:I'm not here to debate or discuss anything! My view is the only one sensible and the only one valid. Everyone who contradicts me is wrong and has no sensible argumentation whatsoever!
Seems misleading, doesn't it?
------
But well, if you do no wish to argue sensibly and think everyone else is just being a "brick wall" (because you haven't been able to come with good arguments), more power to you...
Should you ever want to truly discuss something and analyze other points of view, I'll be here for the debate...
------
At least the fish is a friendly debater! ^^
You say I haven't come up with any good arguments. I say all of my arguments have been ignored. That's why it feels like debating a brick wall. If you claim the earth is flat, then I show you a picture of the earth from space, and you say, "Fake! Photoshop!" then I have no reason to continue the discussion.
You say I haven't come up with any good arguments. I say all of my arguments have been ignored. That's why it feels like debating a brick wall. If you claim the earth is flat, then I show you a picture of the earth from space, and you say, "Fake! Photoshop!" then I have no reason to continue the discussion.
Mmmmm. Understood. The later example does bring certain discussions I had in my art and philosophy classes at school, but I get the intended message
------
So, if you wish to debate or get your arguments heard, let's try again! :D
Instead of posting saying that I'm a "baseless unbeliever/troll/whatever", do post a sum of your arguments in your next post. I'll try my best to acknowledge them!
You may also find that, since I'm proposing arguments to my position, most of the times already criticizing some points of the other side of the debate, you may wish to read my previous posts and comment upon each argument - not unlike Friendlyfish
.I know all this this will take some effort on your part - but know that I'm willing to do as much effort or more to have a civilized and decent debate with you, Loonmaxx. It doesn't need to feel like we're debating to a wall
.The Str/Cha cleric is going to be put out of print, and the Wis/Con is going to be the focus from now on. Str powers will be gone completely, as will riders based on Cha; that's quite different than all other Cleric support we've seen so far.... The new core fighter doesn't have daily powers (if we can read their implications) so there will probably not be any more fighter daily powers published.
While the PHBI may rotate out of print, that hardly is the same as saying that there won't ever be any more Str/Cha cleric powers printed. Likewise, just because the essentials fighter doesn't have daily powers doesn't mean that there won't be any more fighter dailies printed.
I don't expect a lot of support for these things, but don't expect none either, and I didn't expect a lot of support for Str clerics anyway, since they were already the odd limb out on a V shaped class.
If we don't see any support for those things in future splat material for those classes, but until then I'm not going to get worked up about it. Using essentials design as the 'foundation moving forward' or whatever sounded to me like a statement purely about how they intended to go about designing new classes, not a statement that they were cancelling future support for PHBI versions of these classes.
Loonmaxx has said the same thing, and yet this point is ALWAYS ignored. I can't blame him for feeling like he's talking to a brick wall.
You can speculate all you want about it being a new edition, but when the only thing changing is the way the new builds are being made and the old builds are getting the same amount of support they'd get whether or not the new ones were done this way, it comes off a little bit absurd.
I think people should note that Str-Clerics really wouldn't be getting much support any longer anyways, because they already appeared in two books.
The fact that Str-Cleric received support in two books does not mean they shouldn't get further support, don't you think?
. Specially in favor of what was stated to be a side product to the normal 4e line. Besides, I pay dragon magazine for its support to the core line. If Essentials (that again, were said months ago to be a side product) becomes its focus, then I'm losing my money, am I not?If suddenly, Wizards stopped supporting the 4e books in Dragon magazine and started to focus solely or primarily in their new board games (a side product), would you feel "hurt"? Or would you be compeled to buy the board games as the "new direction" to 4e?
It isn't that much different than the "str-cleric support" thing
.Alas, all this is speculation. We do not know if Wizards has plans to stop supporting the old classes/builds. It is, however, one information they haven't been clear as of today
.Loonmaxx has said the same thing and yet this point is ALWAYS ignored. I can't blame him for feeling like he's talking to a brick wall.
Did he? In this thread? Then I do own him an apology, for I do not remember him to make this point at all. It may have escaped my reading of the topic! Or perhaps I did not find it in the myriad of "offenses" to my position?
Even so, this one point hardly debases all my other points, doesn't it? Specially in light of the counter-argument above :P.
You can speculate all you want about it being a new edition, but when the only thing changing is the way the new builds are being made and the old builds are getting the same amount of support they'd get whether or not the new ones were done this way, it comes off a little bit absurd.
Now it's you who's been making some speculation of your own, huh?
------
In the end my friend, none of us will be able to reach a "conclusion", because there's no right or wrong here - as you yourself have noted, there's only speculation. In both sides.
The thing is, you and Loonmaxx have as much right to speculate positively about these changes as I have to speculate negatively. And since I'm not labeling you as trolls or calling your arguments baseless with no grounds whatsoever, I kind of expect the same courtesy
.You have provided one argument about a facet of this entire debate (and even that one argumente is being currently contested by me at least
). There are others, many others .We can share our perspectives - but not necessarily to change each others minds as some may think but to improve all of us
. Debate should bring better understanding of different perspectivas - not define who's right or who's wrong .If you lay out your main points of concern in a concise manner, then I will do my best to rebut. I've gotten to the point where doing this over and over with several different people has left me quite burnt out. I will give it another shot, however, if we can do this in a civil manner in which each other's points are not ignored. I have a feeling that at some point we will just have to agree to disagree, but that will at least be better than we've done so far.
The ball is in your court.
I think at this point my perspective on my Player's handbook 1 is that once Essentials come out, at least some of the basic racial mechanics descriptions will probably be useless because there will be enough change to them that I would be better off referring to the Essentials book, the online compendium or the character builder. I have no basis for this, but it seems like a possibility. On the other hand, the racial mechanics information takes up almost no space in the book and of course all the racial fluff will still apply. Furthermore, if there were anything most likely to appear in the free errata updates it would be changes to racial ability bonuses or other basic changes in races.
When it comes to the class mechanics, they seem less likely to become completely useless, but some like str cleric will likely become suboptimal. There will still be interesting opportunities to use the existing class mechanics to build something you particularly want for your character, such as a multiclass fighter, str cleric. Once again, any fluff may still be of value, although I don't find class fluff as interesting as racial fluff for imagining the default D&D world. The new class options will be something you have to pay for by buying the Essentials book and some of them like Warpriest could be seen as a fix to something broken (like str cleric), while others may provide useful alternative builds without invalidating an existing build.
The Powers within each of the PHB1 entries will vary in their usefullness going forward on a power-by-power basis. Some are already mostly useless because they are just not good choices relative to the alternatives. Some are not useful as written because they have been changed, but those changes are freely available through errata. Others like str based cleric powers will likely become less useful because fewer str clerics will be played. I think these same basic arguments apply to feats as well. However, in this case I don't think you are paying for a fixed power or feat when you buy essentials. Updated powers and feats will be available as free errata and Essentials will give you new powers and feats, some of which may only be useful with the new builds, but others of which Mearls has told us will be useful with existing builds.
Finally, most of the rest of the rules in the PHB will vary in their usefullness based on the extent to which they have not changed and how easy it is for you to cross-reference between the book and the errata. For my part, I think I will probably invest in the rules compendium so I don't have to make those cross-references and mark-ups and I probably won't refer back to my PHB1 for those general playing rules again. However, I can't accuse Wizards of making me pay for those because they are providing all of those kinds of changes as errata.
Of course all of this only focuses on the most recent essentials releases and many of us have been projecting out to predict the obsolesence of our current books based on future releases beyond essentials. I have little doubt that fewer and fewer sections of PHB1 and other core books will be of use to me going forward. In some cases it will be because free errata will not be as convenient to me as buying a nice clean new book and in other cases it will be because Wizards has "fixed" a class with a new version of a class and packaged it in a new book along with some new options. I guess I'm willing to accept that as the cost of progress in the game provided I actually like the new options and "fixes" they are giving me. That is the part that is really hard to judge right now. I'm less concerned about being asked to pay for this mix of new and revised content than I am about whether I am going to like the end-result in terms of overall balance, playability, flexibility of character design and good old-fashioned fun. So far I don't have enough information to judge those aspects.
I appreciate the courtesy, and I'm prefectly willing to reciprocate. Though, if we are going to start fresh and have a discussion about this, it is you who will have to start it. Since my position is that Essentials is what it says it is, and you are the one making claims it could be something else, then the burden of proof lies squarely on you.
If you lay out your main points of concern in a concise manner, then I will do my best to rebut. I've gotten to the point where doing this over and over with several different people has left me quite burnt out. I will give it another shot, however, if we can do this in a civil manner in which each other's points are not ignored. I have a feeling that at some point we will just have to agree to disagree, but that will at least be better than we've done so far.
The ball is in your court.
Nice!
I'll post later when I have more time ok? I'll try to be thorough in my main points!
Until later!
I appreciate the courtesy, and I'm prefectly willing to reciprocate. Though, if we are going to start fresh and have a discussion about this, it is you who will have to start it. Since my position is that Essentials is what it says it is, and you are the one making claims it could be something else, then the burden of proof lies squarely on you.
If you lay out your main points of concern in a concise manner, then I will do my best to rebut. I've gotten to the point where doing this over and over with several different people has left me quite burnt out. I will give it another shot, however, if we can do this in a civil manner in which each other's points are not ignored. I have a feeling that at some point we will just have to agree to disagree, but that will at least be better than we've done so far.
The ball is in your court.
Nice!
I'll post later when I have more time ok? I'll try to be thorough in my main points!
Until later!
Sounds good.
Again, however, you didn't listen to me: builds weren't going to get more support in future books anways. We saw this with Martial Power 2. Str-Cleric already has gotten the limit of support that it was going to get anway, outside of Dragon articles.
Whether it should or not isn't the question: it's whether it would or not. The edition marches on, and new builds are introduced in new products which need to catch up with the support for old builds. Str-Clerics aren't competing with Wis-Clerics for support; Battle Clerics are competing with Devoted Clerics, Shielding Clerics, and Warpriests for support. And Battle Clerics have already gotten 2 books including powers for them. As have Devoted Clerics. For Divine Power 2, both Shielding Clerics and Warpriests need more support.
I really don't see the problem here.
I think people should note that Str-Clerics really wouldn't be getting much support any longer anyways, because they already appeared in two books.
Loonmaxx has said the same thing, and yet this point is ALWAYS ignored. I can't blame him for feeling like he's talking to a brick wall.
You can speculate all you want about it being a new edition, but when the only thing changing is the way the new builds are being made and the old builds are getting the same amount of support they'd get whether or not the new ones were done this way, it comes off a little bit absurd.
I don't think that's true at all. Str clerics were the melee clerics. They got support, and would continue to get support, since melee cleric is a staple of D&D and Str was the only real melee cleric build. I feel like if the Essentials article had Str as the new cleric stats for all clerics, everyone would be saying "Yeah but Wis clerics weren't going to get any more support anyway." How could you think they WOULDN'T keep writing things for clerics? They're a central part of D&D. Of course they would have kept writing powers for Str/Cha clerics if they hadn't decided to overwrite them with a new revised Wis/Con version. Why would you think they'd only support laser clerics? And if/when we find out that the new laser cleric uses Wis/Int or something, is it going to be "obvious" that they weren't going to write any new info for Wis/Cha clerics anyway?
And they would obviously continue to write Fighter daily powers if they didn't decide to overwrite the Fighter, and they'd continue to make Str Ranger powers if they didn't decide to make Rangers dex only, etc.
.First Loonmaxx, allow me a side-debate with another friend here
.------
Again, however, you didn't listen to me: builds weren't going to get more support in future books anways. We saw this with Martial Power 2. Str-Cleric already has gotten the limit of support that it was going to get anway, outside of Dragon articles.
Oh no sir, I did listen to you mr. Marandahir
. As I have said, the bolded part pertains to your assumptions - as much valid as my own. I can't say what would happen in future books, nor could you . Of course we may make educated guesses, but as Makeshiftwings points outs, we have also sensible information to point in the other direction.------
Well, then right back to you Mr. Loonmaxx.
First, I would like to really thank you for the opportunity to debate things in a civil way! I know a lot of people deride debates, specially in the internet, stating that they're little more than "useless bickering". They can be that - but when I get to have a good debate with good debaters, I feel it's a victory over that deridement. If anything, good internet debates may provide it's debaters with a much needed skill in these days: tolerance of different views.
Then, back to our topic
I think that some things must be made clear first: as many other debates/discussions, this is one that has no "right" or "wrong" side, nor "winners" nor "losers". The point of our debate is the launch of a future product (the Essentials) we know very little, and cannot acertain with 100% accuracy in any of its facets - until that product is launched, it pertains exclusively to the future, and as such, cannot be accurately predicted or judged.
What we can do is speculate about its nature and its impact to the game. And one thing that must be really clear is that both "positive" or "negative" speculations are valid. That does not mean one of these sides will be "right" or "wrong". I must also agree that generally, "negative" speculation about a product may happen exclusively in grounds of fear, paranoia, trolling or bashing. That does not mean though that every negative speculation must be labeled as such. I also aknowledge that may be very hard to filter the "argumented" negative speculation from the "baseless" one, given each person's personal views on the matter.
That is the subject of our debate - the Essentials launch and its impact and meaning to 4e. No "rights" or "wrongs", just people with different views of what these products may mean.
------
After making the above clear (or so I hope :D), let me talk a little abouy myself.
Evidently, my perspective on this matter is personal. It is based on my knowledge of the company, my experience with the company, and my perceptions of the recent events. And all this will vary wildly from person to person.
I understand the above personal elements (knowledge, experience and perception) will be a fundamental factor in a person's position in this debate. Even though my own view is logic in my own perception, I can accept others as logical and valid since the above elements will differ and point that person towards another conclusion.
Since in this particular debate we're talking speculatively, there's even less grounds to determine a "right" or "wrong" view than, let's say for example, a scientific debate.
Also important to note is that my opinion weighs as much as any other one participating here in thid debate. I do not feel more "entitled", more "right", more "accurate" than other posters here. I know only that my opinion is my personal view on this subject - and may help others better understand theirs and another's perpectives if shared (like every other opinion in this debate).
Another important point - though I'll point changes that I do or do not like, that doesn't mean Wizards should cater to my wishes. Of course I would be pretty happy if that happened, but what I'm saying that I'm not entitled to it - as everyone here on the boards
. My personal tastes cannot and should not dictate the direction Wizards will take with their products. Changes in the game should happen motivated by our collective opinions - of course, that's utopic and impossible - but if it was possible, it would be the best solution
.------
Once again, I hope the paragraphs above helps part of my message to get across
.My position here in this particular debate, is born also out of the community. If hundreds of poster were "doomsaying" the Essentials as ".5 revision", I would most certainly be in the camp of the "not that fast" persons who would foster a more "balanced" vision of the new product. After all, we shouldn't let doomsayers "bomb away" and possibly mislead potential and happy players just because they were afraid or intented on spreading paranoia or bashing... However, since most people I read so far seem to be positive with those changes and my personal view is one more "negative towards those changes", I chose to share my views and points.
Just like I would caution "a flood of naysayers", I would caution a flood of "believers" towards a single path. As I have stated, none can yet judge essentials. I'm in the "skeptical until I see it" much like a lot of people in both sides of this debate.
And of course, the above is not my only reason for posting here. As I have said before, I also hope for Wizards to acknowledge my need for other informations that would make me feel more secure about the release of the Essential line. I know most of the information release may feel just ok for those in the "Pro-essential" crowd, but the current info does little to placate my personal concerns.
------
That being said, let's state my position clearly and let me list some of the points I find more relevant in both sides of the debate so far:
I defend that the Essentials line may prove to be a ".5" style revision for D&D 4.
Allow me to adress some implied factor with the above phrase.
may prove - Is not "is". I'm not saying essential "is", because as I said, none can say what it "is" since it's yet unlaunched. That also does not mean that I'll try fo find a way for the essential to be "labeled" a .5 after it's launch. I'm saying that using my knowledge/experience/perception, I think Essentials may become such a thing.
a ".5" style revision - I purposely use the the word "style". I use it because Essentials will never be a a revision in exactly the same way as 3.5 was. Even if they were the same in every other aspect, at least one would remain: 3.5 was declared as a revision to the edition. Essentials was not. Therefore, I cannot say in any sensible way that Essentials will be -exactly- like the 3.5 revision. There also more differences pointed - 3.5 was actually "incompatible" with old material - you'd run into problems should you try to mix both. Essentials was stated as having backwards compability as it higher goal - and I do believe Wizards would be able to reach that goal.
I also understand that 4e has been "revised" in many ways as of today - most people would point to the errata and to the current guidelines of design (like A shaped classes). But that's different from the revision I wish to imply here - for one thing at least, a ".5 style revision" is sold, not given for free. A ".5 style revision" should make old stuff seem "out of place". For example, the paladin received a tremendous and needed boost in Divine Power - but these new options do not make a paladin created with solely the PHB seem "out of place", at least IMHO.
------
What lead me to the above conclusion? As I said earlier, a sum of personal knowledge/experience/perception, as valid as others in the debate.
I'll try to sum them up.
Knowledge & Experience
Wizard is known to be able not to reach their goals. I'm not saying they're liars (at least, I don't want to believe that), but they do are composed of fallible (<< is that an english word? :P) people. They make mistakes. Also, as a company, it is important not to admit many of those mistakes - that wouldn't be a Wizards characteristc, but any sensible capitalist company's.
I have experienced Wizards not being able to reach their goals. The above information is not on the exclusive domain of knowledge - I have experienced first hand, several times. Their goal was to have a Virtual Table Top operating at the books launch. They didn't reach it. Their goal was to have their Star Wars Dawn of Defiance campaign completely released in 10 months, it took them perhaps a year longer to be able to do so. They said they were going to adapt some of the later 3.5 books to the new edition - that come out nearly a year after 4e launched (and to some people at least, it wasn't a very interesting adaptation). For all that, I have experienced Wizards fail to deliver many things.
Therefore, just because they state their goals, does not mean they'll be able to accomplish them. Even though their previews state some very conforting phrases to their current costumers, I'm not able to fully "receive" all of them. Some of their statements are purposely vague of course - and is that open space that makes me uneasy.
Let me add however that the above does not means I only had negative experiences with Wizards. Quite the contrary, specially in later years, they have been reaching out to their public more and more. I like that. A lot. I love their products and they're definitively one of the best (if not the best) RPG companies I know of. I also have the utmost respect and admiration for their designers, specially for Rodney Thompson for his work in Star Wars and his presence in those boards. But I also know that in the end they're fallible and will, sometimes, make mistakes. Specially in the camp of "living up to promises"
.Perception
Of course, some phrases, and bits of informations makes me think this could be a ".5 style revision."
Amazon products are stating new products as pertaining to 4th Edition Revised - Not proof of anything, of course, but a bad sign.
Essential changes were advertised as "a product meant for new players to enter the game, with all the errata included". That leads me to think Essentials would be just a repackaging of old material better worded and accessible to the new gamer. Now I find it contains new material that overlaps with concepts we already have and will redefine the way the designers think about the game. The later sounds to me like a revision. The former does not. Essentials didn't need to contain new material if their only intended purpose was to be a new way for players into the game. And we current 4e players certainly don't need more mechanics to represent the same archetypes, even though they may be better than what we have.
And that's pretty much it
. Even though Wizards may not be calling it a revision, it sounds like a revision to me. For the speculative matter, I think that's my only material.That of course leads to my concerns and other points of the debate (like the need or not of those classes, the nature of the changes, etc).
------
My concerns and other points of the debate
Generally, people here in this debate will debate the "perception", in some way or another. Basically, one side tries to state why theirs or their "opponent's" perception is flawed or why theirs is better.
I want to say that no perception is "better" than anyone else, but yes, we may find difficult to navigate each other's perceptions. As we try to understand each other, we may find impossible to agree with someone's point of view. Be mindful though that not being able to agree does not means necessarily one cannot see how a person reached that conclusion
.My main concerns with what was presented up to this point about the Essentials:
-New class builds are meant for the same archetypes. Cleric will have Warpriest and probably a more "magic" cleric a la laser cleric. Fighter will have "slayer" (probably a two-handed build) and a "knight" (shield and sword) build. As I have said, even if they manage to get the new classes balanced towards their non-essentials counterparts, for mere point of the essentials being better design, they would be the preferred ones - thus rendering the old ones "obsolete" or "undesired". This can be mitigated for me if new previews show builds that do not overlap with what we currently have. I would even be a surprise if that is the case.
-No clear official word on further support to old builds/classes. I have a str-cleric in my table. If Essentials are optional, he should not feel like he's using a subpar build compared to available options. If anything, he should continue to receive support just like every other class up to the moment.
If the new class make the old ones become "subpar", "undesired" or "obsolete" and then further support for those old classes/builds are dropped, then I'll have problems. For Essentials to be truly a part from the 4e line, it should not make old stuff be dropped, or become subpar, undesired or obsolete. When a new feat makes an older one irrelevant, most people say this is power creep or at least, undesired. I'm taking the same line with the Essentials.
------
That does not means though I don't see the other side of the debate. I can certainly understand the people that believe this to be just another splat. The line between "errata/new option/power creep/revision" seems to thin indeed
.For example, should all those changes in the cleric preview had been errata, though it would render my PHB useless for my brother (the cleric I mentioned), I would not consider it to be a revision in ".5 style"
.Should it had been presented in a "splat book" in the current line (a Divine Power 2, for example), I would have had the same problem as I have with the Essential Cleric. I would still not consider it to be a revision in ".5 style"
.I don't have a problem with the Runepriest though - for even though he is of the same mechanic realm as the "battle cleric" (a STR/CHA divine melee leader), he has unique fluff
.Since Essentials is probably (it's my assumption based on what I have seen) doing with the rest of the old PHB classes (with some exceptions) exactly what they're doing to the battle cleric, I'm concerned about it and would call it a ".5 style revision" because it "charters a new direction" from now on and makes old stuff "undesired"/"subpar"/"obsolete".
So - even the way these mechanics get implemented in the game would alter my perception and influence the way I label the rules! :P
------
Conclusions
So, you see Loonmaxx, it's not a matter of being "right" or "wrong". Based on my perception of the annouced changes, my knowledge of the history of the company, my experience with the company, I fear the Essentials may be a ".5 style revision". I can see though how other people may think differently.
Like most of the "pro-essentials", I also want to see the game evolve and take the best of game design to further its success. However, I wish Wizards manage to do it while maintaining the books I buy on par with what come after them. I wish they truly add - not charge me for the reworking of old mechanics.
If by improving 4e they mean for me to buy an "improved version" of the same thing I already own, they could do this forever. Each year, Wizards could release the same classes released in PHB 1 with improved mechanics - they certainly have the design expertise to do so. Each year, we'd have a PHB with the same classes - but with better mechanics to represent them.
Of course Wizards would never do such a thing, but would that be an improvement to 4e design to you? Repeating the same archetypes over and over with progressively better designed mechanics? I do not mean this as a "tricky question" or "baiting", but I think it may help you see my point of view - even though you may not share it or agree with it. While "optimists" see Essentials as an addition, I see something along the lines "repetition of archetypes with better design" and charging me for it :P.
In the end, I'm hoping for everything you believe Essentials will be - and addition to my game.
Thank you Loonmaxx for your chance towards a good debate
.That is the subject of our debate - the Essentials launch and its impact and meaning to 4e. No "rights" or "wrongs", just people with different views of what these products may mean.
I believe I haven't made my position on this subject as clear as I should have. The sudden formality of agreeing to a debate has caused that realization to sink in. My opinion is not that there is no possible way that Essentials could be anything other than what it is claimed to be by those who designed it, but that there is no logical reason to assume, at this point, that it isn't. In other words, I fully agree that the possibility exists of a giraffe sitting on top of my house at this very moment, but I recognize that the possibility is low enough that I have no reason to act is if it were true.
The point of my participation in all of these Essentials threads to begin with was to try and make people understand that there is no reason to panic about the situation at hand. There may very well be a reason to panic in the future, but again, the possibility of that outcome is logically low enough based on what we currently know that it can and should be safely ignored.
Evidently, my perspective on this matter is personal. It is based on my knowledge of the company, my experience with the company, and my perceptions of the recent events.
Everyone's perspective is personal. It's quite alright.
Since in this particular debate we're talking speculatively, there's even less grounds to determine a "right" or "wrong" view than, let's say for example, a scientific debate.
Science observes evidence to predict results. So, this could be a little scientific. I believe this debate could be very well helped out by science in the form of the Occam's razor concept which tells us that the theory with the least new assumptions is usually the correct one.
After all, we shouldn't let doomsayers "bomb away" and possibly mislead potential and happy players just because they were afraid or intented on spreading paranoia or bashing.
This is the entire reason I am even involved in these threads.
Just like I would caution "a flood of naysayers", I would caution a flood of "believers" towards a single path. As I have stated, none can yet judge essentials. I'm in the "skeptical until I see it" much like a lot of people in both sides of this debate.
That's fine. My main point of contention lies not with the skeptical, but with the cynical. I am skeptical of everything, but not to the point of disbelieving everything. I'm not accusing you of that here; just making a point.
And of course, the above is not my only reason for posting here. As I have said before, I also hope for Wizards to acknowledge my need for other informations that would make me feel more secure about the release of the Essential line. I know most of the information release may feel just ok for those in the "Pro-essential" crowd, but the current info does little to placate my personal concerns.
This is a big part of my opinion on the subject. You say you need more information. You know that this was just the first preview and that many more are coming. Wizards has already pre-acknowledged your need for more information by scheduling a series of articles that will run for the next two months and be full of information and previews.
The amount of inside information you are wanting about a product that is months away from release is not justified.
I defend that the Essentials line may prove to be a ".5" style revision for D&D 4.
What lead me to the above conclusion?
Knowledge & Experience
Wizard is known to be able not to reach their goals. I'm not saying they're liars (at least, I don't want to believe that), but they do are composed of fallible people. They make mistakes. Also, as a company, it is important not to admit many of those mistakes - that wouldn't be a Wizards characteristic, but any sensible capitalist company's.
Of course they make mistakes. I know that a factory worker at Coca Cola could accidentally spill the Ebola virus into a can of Coke and I could end up drinking it, but I haven't stopped drinking Coke. That's hyperbole, but it still applies.
I have experienced Wizards not being able to reach their goals. The above information is not on the exclusive domain of knowledge - I have experienced first hand, several times. Their goal was to have a Virtual Table Top operating at the books launch. They didn't reach it. Their goal was to have their Star Wars Dawn of Defiance campaign completely released in 10 months, it took them perhaps a year longer to be able to do so. They said they were going to adapt some of the later 3.5 books to the new edition - that come out nearly a year after 4e launched (and to some people at least, it wasn't a very interesting adaptation). For all that, I have experienced Wizards fail to deliver many things.
Therefore, just because they state their goals, does not mean they'll be able to accomplish them. Even though their previews state some very comforting phrases to their current costumers, I'm not able to fully "receive" all of them. Some of their statements are purposely vague of course - and is that open space that makes me uneasy.
All of these examples are about promises made for the future. Essentials is already done, in the box and ready to ship to stores. I don't see how this applies here. There is a difference between bad foresight and lies. To claim Essentials is something different than what it says at this point would be more like calling the designers liars than saying they aren't capable of carrying out promises.
Perception
Amazon products are stating new products as pertaining to 4th Edition Revised - Not proof of anything, of course, but a bad sign.
Amazon also lists Dark Sun the same way, but nothing we've seen from or heard about Dark Sun has led to anyone thinking it might be a 4.5 revised edition. Amazon is not a good source for speculation as they often mess things up. They aren't incompetent; they just deal with billions of different products.
Essential changes were advertised as "a product meant for new players to enter the game, with all the errata included". That leads me to think Essentials would be just a repackaging of old material better worded and accessible to the new gamer. Now I find it contains new material that overlaps with concepts we already have and will redefine the way the designers think about the game.
No, they said it is a new direction they intend to use for class design. And that direction is "differing levels of complexity", not "replace everything old with something new". The overlap doesn't matter when you take the product as what it is: a starter set. If this were PHB4, then you would be right to worry.
The later sounds to me like a revision. The former does not. Essentials didn't need to contain new material if their only intended purpose was to be a new way for players into the game. And we current 4e players certainly don't need more mechanics to represent the same archetypes, even though they may be better than what we have.
Well, you can't make classes that use the same rules as 4E without producing powers, feats, etc. that will be considered new material. They could say, "You can't use any Essentials feats or powers with existing classes," but that would be a horrible move. If veteran 4E gamers can get something to the effect of a couple of [Source] Power splat books out of this, then it's a win/win situation.
My main concerns with what was presented up to this point about the Essentials:
-New class builds are meant for the same archetypes. Cleric will have Warpriest and probably a more "magic" cleric a la laser cleric. Fighter will have "slayer" (probably a two-handed build) and a "knight" (shield and sword) build. As I have said, even if they manage to get the new classes balanced towards their non-essentials counterparts, for mere point of the essentials being better design, they would be the preferred ones - thus rendering the old ones "obsolete" or "undesired". This can be mitigated for me if new previews show builds that do not overlap with what we currently have. I would even be a surprise if that is the case.
You equate different design here with better design. The idea is to have differing complexity levels and to make character choices easier on players. So, a new player can save time by just choosing their domain and have it fill in the at-will and encounter powers for them, or, if they feel more comfortable or after they have played for a while, they can pick one of the more complex classes.
The idea seems to be less "here's something different because the old version was broken," and more "here's a different take on something for people who might need it".
-No clear official word on further support to old builds/classes. I have a str-cleric in my table. If Essentials are optional, he should not feel like he's using a subpar build compared to available options. If anything, he should continue to receive support just like every other class up to the moment.
Think about this logically. If Wizards puts out a starter set with new classes for new players, then after that whole line has been released and they go back to publishing their regular line, what kind of sense would it make to, from that point on, only give support to classes made specifically for the introductory boxed set version of the game that is supposed to be a small product line?
We have to take into account that this is a starter product for new players. Veteran players are worrying way too much about what this product means to them.
If the new class make the old ones become "subpar", "undesired" or "obsolete" and then further support for those old classes/builds are dropped, then I'll have problems.
This is really just a reiteration of your previous two points, so I will let my rebuttal from those stand.
Conclusions
If by improving 4e they mean for me to buy an "improved version" of the same thing I already own, they could do this forever.
Nothing has been said that could be seen as implying that they mean for you to buy an "improved version", or even for you to buy Essentials. In fact, it has been plainly stated by both Mike and Bill that you can completely ignore Essentials if you already play the game.
While "optimists" see Essentials as an addition, I see something along the lines "repetition of archetypes with better design" and charging me for it :P.
I covered the different vs. better design argument above, but I'll reply to this statement to say you are only being charged for it if you choose to buy it. And no one is making you. They are even telling you that you don't have to.
----------------------------
I think I covered all of your points. Forgive me for chopping your post up so much, but I had to cut it down to your "essential" arguments (forgive the pun) to be able to reply properly without losing my train of thought between subjects. If I missed anything that you feel was important, let me know and I will get to it next time. Thanks for your time.
It may be good marketing practice to talk that way, but it's just talk. The truth is that D&D can't give up all its hoary sacred cows and morph into a good, modern RPG, because there are plenty of good modern RPGs out there, and D&D would just be one among many. It has to cling at least some of the quirks and failings that make it recognizeably D&D. 4e took some bold steps away from some of the worst mechanics in the game (like balancing classes across levels instead of at each level, and giving different classes wildly different resource-management strategies), but to hold onto the D&D feel, it backpeddled away from 3.x's 'modular' aproach towards class/level (which was a step towards a true 'build' system which had been perfected by other games in the 80s) and went back to a very limiting class system. Essentials seems to continue that, with the sample cleric build being even more channelized, more like a 2e sub-class.
There's some more at least symantic back-peddling to 2e. Sub-classes are one. The 'Player's Option' moniker is another. Maybe we'll see 2e's stronger focus on developing settings as properties and publishing novelizations, too?
Quotes by Loonmaxx
My opinion is not that there is no possible way that Essentials could be anything other than what it is claimed to be by those who designed it, but that there is no logical reason to assume, at this point, that it isn't. In other words, I fully agree that the possibility exists of a giraffe sitting on top of my house at this very moment, but I recognize that the possibility is low enough that I have no reason to act is if it were true.
I understand you only used the hyperbole for your point to be better understood and does not necessarily mean those are the odds in our case, but, of course, seeing as I'm worried about Essentials, I disagree with the possibility being to infinitesimal.
I think the odds essentials could be a revision is high enough I could worry . And of course, that same probability may not be agreed upon by everyone else or even, may not trigger the same worrieness .
Science observes evidence to predict results. So, this could be a little scientific. I believe this debate could be very well helped out by science in the form of the Occam's razor concept which tells us that the theory with the least new assumptions is usually the correct one.
Of course, but science speculation can be tested, proved or at least, it should always be the intent to do so . Of course science does also speculate, but most of the times, that leads to experiments to confirm, corroborate or deny an hypothesis. In our case, we cannot make any experiments to test our speculations.
That's fine. My main point of contention lies not with the skeptical, but with the cynical. I am skeptical of everything, but not to the point of disbelieving everything. I'm not accusing you of that here; just making a point.
Understood .
This is a big part of my opinion on the subject. You say you need more information. You know that this was just the first preview and that many more are coming. Wizards has already pre-acknowledged your need for more information by scheduling a series of articles that will run for the next two months and be full of information and previews.
The amount of inside information you are wanting about a product that is months away from release is not justified.
Perhaps. I understand more previews are coming and those may help solve any concerns people might been having with the Essentials lines, but it wouldn't have hurt if they had chose to add a few lines about future support of old material. A parenthesis with "(and by the way, we have full intention to provide new powers to the battle cleric in the PHB as well!)" or some similar phrase would do wonders to appease the veterans worried about game balance and future support .
All of these examples are about promises made for the future. Essentials is already done, in the box and ready to ship to stores. I don't see how this applies here. There is a difference between bad foresight and lies. To claim Essentials is something different than what it says at this point would be more like calling the designers liars than saying they aren't capable of carrying out promises.
Of course, I disagree with the bolded phrase . It's more like "you're stating these new classes will be balanced - that remains to be seen".
Amazon also lists Dark Sun the same way, but nothing we've seen from or heard about Dark Sun has led to anyone thinking it might be a 4.5 revised edition. Amazon is not a good source for speculation as they often mess things up. They aren't incompetent; they just deal with billions of different products.
I know! As I've said, I also take that as a grain of salt. A new costumer not used to visit Wizards or these boards might feel these new products aren't meant for his game system if they are stated as "4th Edition Revised". If anything, Wizards should at least contact Amazon to say that mistake may be hurting their sales .
No, they said it is a new direction they intend to use for class design. And that direction is "differing levels of complexity", not "replace everything old with something new". The overlap doesn't matter when you take the product as what it is: a starter set. If this were PHB4, then you would be right to worry.
If they weren't compatible, I could agree . Since they are, those new builds may enter the "core system", that overlap becomes more problematic. Not game breaking per se, but undesired at least, and broken at worst.
Well, you can't make classes that use the same rules as 4E without producing powers, feats, etc. that will be considered new material.
I don't think I understand. They could simply rewrite the old classes adding errata to them (and that was the idea I had about Essentials in the first place). Since those books are meant to introduce new players to 4e, there was no need for them to bring new material - they just needed, after all, to introduce players to the game . Of course, I agree with you that would make the book nearly useless to current players .
They could say, "You can't use any Essentials feats or powers with existing classes," but that would be a horrible move. If veteran 4E gamers can get something to the effect of a couple of [Source] Power splat books out of this, then it's a win/win situation.
I agree that having these "introdutory books" appeal to veteran gamers is an excellent idea. And if Essentials brought only new options for the old classes, I would agree this was a win/win situation. But since they provide mechanics that may prove to be preferred over the old ones (as they overlap in concept), I'm more concerned.
The idea seems to be less "here's something different because the old version was broken," and more "here's a different take on something for people who might need it".
I agree yours is a valid view . I'll adress this in my final thoughts in this post.
Think about this logically. If Wizards puts out a starter set with new classes for new players, then after that whole line has been released and they go back to publishing their regular line, what kind of sense would it make to, from that point on, only give support to classes made specifically for the introductory boxed set version of the game that is supposed to be a small product line?
I agree that would make no sense at all, unless they really intend this to be a revision to their game :P. That intention is what concerns me. But I do agree that this concern has more base in fear and lack of information than in evidence suggesting Wizards will stop support of the old books.
In fact, it has been plainly stated by both Mike and Bill that you can completely ignore Essentials if you already play the game.
I know, that's where my concern about the possibility of unbalance between mechanics designed to cover "essentially" the same concepts come in .
I covered the different vs. better design argument above, but I'll reply to this statement to say you are only being charged for it if you choose to buy it. And no one is making you. They are even telling you that you don't have to.
Of course I'm not being charged for something I don't want to buy . Evidently I'm not being forced to buy books I don't want . The thing implied in that phrase is more along the lines that I would rather continue buying books because they are producing things I want than stop buying books because I feel my older ones are being devalued or won't be supported .
If Essentials significantly alter the way 4e is played or functions, it might as well be necessary to buy them to make full use of future books released for this edition.
It is similar (but not identical) if back in 3.X, I faced the 3.5 "schism". If I had the entire 3.0 library up the point, I would not be tempted to "rebuy" the core books - but after that point, only 3.5 mechanics were supported. Any future supplement, even if it interested me, would reference the 3.5 books and mechanics, not 3.0. That alone was enough "pressure" to buy the new cores if I wished to make full use of new books and continue to support 3rd edition. The people that played 3.0 were essentially "left behind" by the changes implemented to the game.
Of course, I'm not saying this will be the case with Essentials (if anything, they'll be backwards compatible!), but depending on the future plans of Wizards, I may find myself in a similar position to that hypothetical one I posted above.
I think I covered all of your points. Forgive me for chopping your post up so much, but I had to cut it down to your "essential" arguments (forgive the pun) to be able to reply properly without losing my train of thought between subjects. If I missed anything that you feel was important, let me know and I will get to it next time. Thanks for your time.
Not in the slightest, your replies were more than enough to cover my points and present your perspective .
I found our little debate to be very helpful Loonmaxx, at least for me . You seem to have been able to understand my points: even though you may not agree with them, you see where they come from. I too have better knowledge of your perspective, and that, along with the other debates I had around these boards, proved very helpful to for a better understanding of this new launch.
Basically, what you think that is statistically unlikely to happen has, for me, high enough probability to make me worried: Essentials as a revision to the mechanics.
However, I found out, as time passed and the "surprise" of the Cleric preview weared off, I'm really worrying too much about these new products. Of course, in my eyes, they're a dangerous path to tread, but in the long run, I'm worried about the future, and that remains as inscrutable as ever. There's little info to adequately support any side of this debate - the odds of Essentials be a good or bad thing to the game, as of now, appears to me to be nearly even.
In the end, I may fear a sorrowful future, or hope for a better tomorrow. I've been doing the former. But I really prefer the later .
My points are already made, my worries have already been published, any "neutral" party entering to this grounds and hoping for better understanding in the subject has more than enough material to analyze and make his own decision. I've contributed enough with my "warnings". It's time to go back to "lurker mode"! ^^
I would like to thank you once again Loonmaxx for the good discussion . Best of gaming to you pal! :D
I haven't been keeping up with the discussion here, but I just read the new Essential article about the Wiz
.And man, I'm much more relieved after those two initial paragraphs! ^^
Even though not personally to my liking, the new Wizards seems interesting as well
. I always liked the old schools of magic, so I'm a bit content to see them return in a way or another! .Well, good gaming to you all folk! ^^
I think people should note that Str-Clerics really wouldn't be getting much support any longer anyways, because they already appeared in two books.
Loonmaxx has said the same thing, and yet this point is ALWAYS ignored. I can't blame him for feeling like he's talking to a brick wall.
You can speculate all you want about it being a new edition, but when the only thing changing is the way the new builds are being made and the old builds are getting the same amount of support they'd get whether or not the new ones were done this way, it comes off a little bit absurd.
I don't think that's true at all. Str clerics were the melee clerics. They got support, and would continue to get support, since melee cleric is a staple of D&D and Str was the only real melee cleric build. I feel like if the Essentials article had Str as the new cleric stats for all clerics, everyone would be saying "Yeah but Wis clerics weren't going to get any more support anyway." How could you think they WOULDN'T keep writing things for clerics? They're a central part of D&D. Of course they would have kept writing powers for Str/Cha clerics if they hadn't decided to overwrite them with a new revised Wis/Con version. Why would you think they'd only support laser clerics? And if/when we find out that the new laser cleric uses Wis/Int or something, is it going to be "obvious" that they weren't going to write any new info for Wis/Cha clerics anyway?
And they would obviously continue to write Fighter daily powers if they didn't decide to overwrite the Fighter, and they'd continue to make Str Ranger powers if they didn't decide to make Rangers dex only, etc.
Except that for the fact that they've been doing that consistantly with all builds. What you're confusing is that Str-Cleric should be competing with Wis-Clerics, when it's really Battle Clerics versus Devoted Clerics, Shielding Clerics, and various Warpriests. Battle Clerics have no less support than Devoted Clerics do. People don't complain about Devoted Clerics not having enough support because they can mooch off of Shielding Cleric powers if they want to, because of same key ability scores. So the lack of Battle Cleric support is only superficial: it's not a lack of support, it's as if you were trying to make twice as much to compete with new builds that don't use it. The only way Battle Clerics would "catch up" at this point would be to give a new Str-Cleric build that could steal Battle Cleric powers and Battle Clerics could still its powers. But WotC didn't do that, and it's likely that they're not going to release any more builds for the Classic Cleric kit; instead, opting to release more Domain builds for the Warpriest Cleric kit and maybe even another, unknown Cleric kit. Shielding Cleric, on the other hand, needs another book supporting it desperately, and should have powers devoted to the build in Divine Power 2, whenever that is released.
What occured to me just recently was how this is going to effect the character builder. I mean with "new" classes, race changes maybe, etc hows that going to translate to the CB? Because honestly in my opinion it'll just be a space waster to have Cleric, then Cleric Essentials listed. I know, for me it just seems like it'll be clutter. Maybe if they you can choose to build an Essentials character...but they say all the Essentials stuff mixes with normals so that probably wont happen. Eh, whatever I guess just wait and see but the thought had made me curious.
What occured to me just recently was how this is going to effect the character builder. I mean with "new" classes, race changes maybe, etc hows that going to translate to the CB? Because honestly in my opinion it'll just be a space waster to have Cleric, then Cleric Essentials listed.
Most likely, the essentials builds will just be listed as alternate class builds like the ones that already exist in the builder since that is fundamentally what they are. You'll be able to choose "Tempest Fighter", "Great Weapon Fighter" or "Knight", for example, when you choose your class build. It won't really change anything any more than a Power book adding new builds.
And yeah Stormbringer same as any material you can deselect the various books or specific things from books like races, feats, items, etc. Same would go for Essentials.
Well for me I could care less about Essentials, I mean Wizards keeps saying its not a replacement, which is fine, but then it seems rather pointless in doing a pseudo-D&D along side the actual 4.0 then. But whatever, no skin off my back.
.
How is Essentials all that different from playing with PHB1, Martial Power and Martial Power 2 vs PHB1, PHB2 and PHB3? It's the same rules, different classes and different builds.
I am hoping that the essentials line material can be shut off so if you don't want to use it then it does not effect you. If it is done that way I could care a less about what they do with essentials.
Everything is like that in the CB. Go to the manage tab, then campaign settings. You can check off any books you don't want to use.
"Essentials isn't 4.5, but it is compatible with 4.0."
First, the name: "Essentials" is clearly being deemed "essential" just in the use of the word. Why isn't it called "Ignore This" or "Random Options that are Completely Unnecessary?" Core is beginning to sound like D&D 4E basic rules where "ESSENTIALS" ooooh, well, that's just essential if you really want to have fun.
Second, it is differentiated from "core" in the beginning to try to ease it into the market and avoid resentment from customers but will instead replace core in the end after they have been pacified by time and just give up the fight and buy into the Essentials switchover. It can still be called 4E as they phase out the old core material as if it never even happened.
Third, why stress that it is "compatible" with 4.0 if it is still 4.0, wouldn't that be a given? To point out its compatibility shows it is a new edition. Unearthed Arcana with its new options didn't say "AD&D compatible" nor did it need to because it just was. 3.0 and 3.5 were "compatible" also, well, sort of, okay not really as we saw 3.0 completely phased out in favor of 3.5.
Fourth, just look at history to see the truth. Don't listen to my opinion, nor to anyone from WotC, just observe and it all speaks for itself. A mere label doesn't make it so. I'm not going to judge the book by its cover, I'm going to judge it by the marketing move into what it really is. Will you?
Fifth, I had a thread locked when discussing this and said pretty much what others who see what is really happening are saying. Then I spot this thread. Why isn't it locked? Because the title toots the 4.5 horn?
I'm curious, is there somewhere I can go to see what some of these new classes and rewrites look like? People speak as if they've seen them first hand, and I'm really curious to see these new techniques and then base my opinion off of that. If anyone can let me know if there are example builds out there or some sort of preview, I'd be most appreciative.
Cleric: www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
Wizard: www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
It is all clever marketing where the customers are being played as they have in the past and we will all be suckered again and we will ask for more by emptying our wallets.
"Essentials isn't 4.5, but it is compatible with 4.0."
First, the name: "Essentials" is clearly being deemed "essential" just in the use of the word. Why isn't it called "Ignore This" or "Random Options that are Completely Unnecessary?" Core is beginning to sound like D&D 4E basic rules where "ESSENTIALS" ooooh, well, that's just essential if you really want to have fun.
That's one way of looking at it, but it fails Occam's Razor. The other way of looking at it is what they say - if someone's new and overwhelmed with where to start, that's the starting point. Simple enough really.
Second, it is differentiated from "core" in the beginning to try to ease it into the market and avoid resentment from customers but will instead replace core in the end after they have been pacified by time and just give up the fight and buy into the Essentials switchover. It can still be called 4E as they phase out the old core material as if it never even happened.
They can do that, but more likely is they'll re-release core products with updated errata and call it PHB1 Revised and MM1 Revised, while other products like PHB3 and MM3 that are already up to date and set the standard by which PHB1 and MM1 get revised to will stay the same.
Basic D&D wasn't strictly compatible with Advanced D&D. You could certainly mix and match as much as you could with AD&D and Palladium Fantasy, but they weren't compatible, they were two different systems. Given they're promoting it as a Red Box, it makes sense to clarify that it's just an introduction, and that there won't be BD&D covering 1-3, ED&D covering 4-14, and so on as a completely different line.
To point out its compatibility shows it is a new edition. Unearthed Arcana with its new options didn't say "AD&D compatible" nor did it need to because it just was. 3.0 and 3.5 were "compatible" also, well, sort of, okay not really as we saw 3.0 completely phased out in favor of 3.5.
You're right, 3e -> 3.5 was a reason to be suspicious, but there is a difference here, particularly given that 4e has already been erratad enough to amount for the difference between 3e and 3.5, why officially release a new edition and create more backlash when you can errata instead and have people rely on DDI as a subscription model?
Fourth, just look at history to see the truth. Don't listen to my opinion, nor to anyone from WotC, just observe and it all speaks for itself. A mere label doesn't make it so. I'm not going to judge the book by its cover, I'm going to judge it by the marketing move into what it really is. Will you?
There's history, but there's also smart business sense in not pissing off your customers. They won't want to do it twice in a row, especially given there's a perfectly viable option of doing it differently.
The impression I'm starting to get - from what's been said, what's been left unsaid, and from the previews - is that Essentials is trying to be all things to all people.
To people who like 4e, it's just more lovely 4e for you, honest. It's not 4.5, it's not replacing anything, it's all 'compatible.'
To people who didn't like 4e, it's a rollback to some of the feel of earlier editions. Clerics who just need WIS, even in melee. Class features you get as you level up. Schools of Magic. Magic Missles that auto hit. Just like the good ol' days! (Could Pun-Pun and CoDzilla be far away?)
For new players intimidated by the sheer volume of D&D material, it's an easy entry point to the system.
For 'advanced' players it's 'essential' new (more powerful) builds, new materials, and collected errata.
And, for the Hasbro suits, it's a 'new edition' that will spike sales. Honest.
Well, the rules are different and updated from PHB1, so it's like 3e to 3.5 in that aspect, but since the rules have already been erratad and updated, PHB1 is still valid with the errata, so it's still the same edition.
Yeah. I think one thing some people in the "4.5" camp are overlooking is the fact that even if the Essentials were never planned or released, we will still have the exact same set of core, errata'd rules.
Third, why stress that it is "compatible" with 4.0 if it is still 4.0, wouldn't that be a given? To point out its compatibility shows it is a new edition. Unearthed Arcana with its new options didn't say "AD&D compatible" nor did it need to because it just was. 3.0 and 3.5 were "compatible" also, well, sort of, okay not really as we saw 3.0 completely phased out in favor of 3.5.
My friend if this was a Master Card commercial it would be "Priceless".
QFT!!!!!
Third, why stress that it is "compatible" with 4.0 if it is still 4.0, wouldn't that be a given? To point out its compatibility shows it is a new edition. Unearthed Arcana with its new options didn't say "AD&D compatible" nor did it need to because it just was. 3.0 and 3.5 were "compatible" also, well, sort of, okay not really as we saw 3.0 completely phased out in favor of 3.5.
My friend if this was a Master Card commercial it would be "Priceless".
QFT!!!!!
And this is exactly why they are constantly stressing that it's compatible with 4e - a bunch of chicken littles running around whining about how it'll change everything so it's obviously a new edition.
Chicken Little: Holy cow! A new edition! All my old books will be rendered useless!
Wizards: No, it isn't a new edition. Same rules, see?
Chicken Little: OMG, look how he said it isn't a new edition! THATPROVESTHATITIS! Waugh!
Wizards: hey, check it out, essentials.
Chicken Little: Holy cow! A new edition! All my old books will be rendered useless!
Wizards: No, it isn't a new edition. Same rules, see?
Chicken Little: OMG, look how he said it isn't a new edition! THATPROVESTHATITIS! Waugh!
You should add them coming to the forums to specifically say "dudes, it's NOT a new edition!" and people answering "You're paid to say that!" and then them saying "I still use the PHB1 as a primary source" and people going "Sorry, but that doesn't really fit my paranoid fantasy, so I'll just assume you're lying".
It is all clever marketing where the customers are being played as they have in the past and we will all be suckered again and we will ask for more by emptying our wallets.
Which is the essence of commerce. WotC wants us to buy books. Exactly why are you surprised?
First, the name: "Essentials" is clearly being deemed "essential" just in the use of the word. Why isn't it called "Ignore This" or "Random Options that are Completely Unnecessary?" Core is beginning to sound like D&D 4E basic rules where "ESSENTIALS" ooooh, well, that's just essential if you really want to have fun.
Yeah, they should have labeled them "The D&D Superfluous". I can already see the sales skyrocket.
Are you even listening to yourself?
Second, it is differentiated from "core" in the beginning to try to ease it into the market and avoid resentment from customers but will instead replace core in the end after they have been pacified by time and just give up the fight and buy into the Essentials switchover. It can still be called 4E as they phase out the old core material as if it never even happened.
Now here you need to understand the business model.
I have a personal opinion on 3.5 (I loved 3.5 because money isn't a problem for me and it did make the game better, so I couldn't care less about dishing out 500 more €), but let's say 3.5 was bad because it made a lot of stuff obsolete.
Essentials, even if they become new core books, will not. Everything is still compatible. If the Essential model works, WotC could simply keep fine tuning the rules with bi-annual "core rulebook" releases while every single previously released 4.0 book is still valid.
Third, why stress that it is "compatible" with 4.0 if it is still 4.0, wouldn't that be a given? To point out its compatibility shows it is a new edition. Unearthed Arcana with its new options didn't say "AD&D compatible" nor did it need to because it just was. 3.0 and 3.5 were "compatible" also, well, sort of, okay not really as we saw 3.0 completely phased out in favor of 3.5.
Because of the kind of panic people like you like to spread?
WotC didn't promote compatibility so much before people started to scream "NEW EDITION!!!" on forums.
Fourth, just look at history to see the truth. Don't listen to my opinion, nor to anyone from WotC, just observe and it all speaks for itself. A mere label doesn't make it so. I'm not going to judge the book by its cover, I'm going to judge it by the marketing move into what it really is. Will you?
What "history"? 3.5?
If you judge Essentials by what they really are, how can you even possibly begin to think they're similar to 3.5?
Fifth, I had a thread locked when discussing this and said pretty much what others who see what is really happening are saying. Then I spot this thread. Why isn't it locked? Because the title toots the 4.5 horn?
If the tone of the thread was similar to this post, it was probably closed for trolling and flamebaiting.
Of the classes they said would be in the essentials series, I could see Witch being a subclass of Wizard, Warlock or Druid.
Well, to be fair, a male is also called a 'witch', especiall when understood as a member of a society of witches.
Migo: 'Are people that dense that they need a specific Sorceress class for female characters?'
Well, to be fair, a male is also called a 'witch', especiall when understood as a member of a society of witches.
Only in modern days when talking about Wicca, which would hardly be used for the D&D concept (since that's basically just a Shaman class, and we steer clear of real world religions, even if they are created rather recently).
Though it it true that the etymology of Witch comes through Anglo-Saxon wicca (masculine form), wicce (feminine), and wiccian (verb form), the history of usage is a gender issues topic, and while some men were persecuted as witches, it is far more commonly the women who were (as in, more than 90%). Witch is almost unanimously used to refer to a female spellcaster or hag or some sort of variant on that these days, so I highly doubt it would arise as its own class or kit or build due to the gender-based ties the term has.
So yeah, in theory, you could use it. In practice, not so much. It's like using the term niggardly. Doesn't have anything to do with racial connotations, but because of similarities in pronunciation, you'd probably avoid it to to implied meanings.
Yeah, in medieval times as well as modern, as you note. The medieval name for a male was a 'wicca' [wit:∫a], just like a male today is called a 'witch'.
Conversely, the name 'warlock' connotes a male, but in a gender-equal gaming system like D&D, it is appropriate to refer to a female character as a 'warlock' as well.
Yeah, in medieval times as well as modern, as you note. The medieval name for a male was a 'wicca' [wit:∫a], just like a male today is called a 'witch'.
Conversely, the name 'warlock' connotes a male, but in a gender-equal gaming system like D&D, it is appropriate to refer to a female character as a 'warlock' as well.
That's where you're wrong, though. Warlock denotes a sorcerer currently, while we can have sorceresses too. But the etymology of Warlock is not male whatsoever, and just means "Oathbreaker" – actually, the exact OPPOSITE of what a D&D Warlock does (Oathmakers).
But it does denote a liar or deceiver, both things that Warlocks may very well do.
Only in wizard media like Harry Potter does Warlock become the male equivalent of Witch, and an alternative to Wizard.
D&D will almost certainly steer clear away from ANYTHING related to WICCA, due to complaints from both Wicca-practitioners (who would freak out about it not being correct practices and a charicature of their faith), and Anti-Wicca groups (who would use it as another weapon of D&D = Satan Worship).
It's just not smart marketing to make "Witch" a class/kit/theme/build that has ANYTHING to do with Wicca.
;) Nor is the etymology of Witch female whatsoever.
With various people wanting there to be a "Witch" as a type of character, if there's a "Witch" in the essentials series, what do you think it will be a subclass of?
Could be arcane or primal, depending on which aspect of the word you go with - the old cackling satanist hag or the modern PC perky wiccan, respectively.
As an arcane sub-class, wizard or warlock would both be apropriate starting points.
As a primal sub-class, Druid or Shaman.
I think the witch would lean towards the controller role, and they'll steer clear of wicca as a real-world religion, so: Wizard.
As an aside, the Witch is one of the most almost-official classes in D&D. It appeared as an 'unofficial NPC Class' in The Dragon for both 0D&D and AD&D. It was a Kit in 2e. It was an example of a custom class in 3e (or was tht 2e, also?). Anyway, it's been trotted out more than a few times.
The monsters collectively known as Hags are also very evocative of the old mainstream perception of the witch.
Well, to be fair, a male is also called a 'witch', especiall when understood as a member of a society of witches.
Not according to the dictionary. Both dictionary.com's definition(based on the Random House Dictionary) and the American Heritage definition have male witch as one of the first definitions of warlock.
Not according to the dictionary. Both dictionary.com's definition(based on the Random House Dictionary) and the American Heritage definition have male witch as one of the first definitions of warlock.
Yeah, it's a PC thing. You haven't really arrived as a religion, movement, affinity group or whatever, unless you can force people to change the meaning of at least one word so as not to offend you.
The neo-pagans chose 'warlock.'
Well, to be fair, a male is also called a 'witch', especiall when understood as a member of a society of witches.
Not according to the dictionary. Both dictionary.com's definition(based on the Random House Dictionary) and the American Heritage definition have male witch as one of the first definitions of warlock.
Ranadiel,
`Why did you look up the word 'warlock', when I was talking about the word 'witch'?
`Did you miss where I said the name 'warlock' means 'male'?
`It was Marandahir who argued 'warlock' didnt mean 'male'.
`A male witch is indeed called a 'witch'.
Random House Dictionary: ‘witch 1. a person, now esp. a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic.’
The word 'witch' is often used to refer to a female who practices satanic magic, but properly the word means any 'person' who practices magic, including a male, including beneficent healing magic.
Ranadiel,
`Why you looked up the word 'warlock', when I was talking about the word 'witch'?
`Did you miss where I said the name 'warlock' means 'male'?
`It was Marandahir argued 'warlock' didnt mean 'male'.
`A male witch is indeed called a 'witch'.
My bad, I'm grumpy today because I have two finals today so I wasn't as careful as normal. My apologies for quoting the wrong person.
Its all good.
Ran, every success on your finals!
The basic argument is: make the witch class like the witches from MacBeth. A pretty common image, really. The reader of Wyrds, as it is. Someone whose bond to the Shadowfell has left them gifted with a Sight for how people die. It's disturbing to most. But as witch sees how you die, so too does he or she see all that leads up to that death. In a sense, they see your fate. Wyrd, in... Gaelic, I think it was? Point is, that's a niche that wizard, warlock, shaman, and others don't fill. We're missing a devoted oracle class, and the witch is an archetype with a decent association with knowing fate, with enough room to throw in some non-oracular hexes without redefining the image, like you would have to for a Seer or Oracle class. Speaking of hexes, there's another (though weak) argument for shadow source: witches are traditionally associated with hexes, and shadow classes cast hexes. Hardly an important point, but it works.
But as people have noted in the Shadow thread, it's unlikely to contain classes other than assassin, hexblade, and necromancer. All of which are confirmed.
One final note, I personally don't think Wiccans have legitimate grounds to be upset if we did have a witch class. Now, I'm not Wiccan, so I can't really speak for them. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about here. But my cousin is Wiccan. And what do you call a Wiccan? A Wiccan. Sometimes neo-pagan. The point? I've never heard anybody who knew what they were talking about label a Wiccan a witch. Draws too much on the negative history and is really an insult. Which I guess could be bad in its own way. But really, what's the big deal? The only difference between the witch and druid classes is that the druid religion doesn't survive to this day. Or does it? If I've been informed correctly, the Wiccan faith revives ideas from one or more extinct religions, including the druidic one. If that information is correct, than Wiccan = druid, not witch. Really, as far as I'm concerned, the Wiccan faith drawing from older mythologies shouldn't prevent us from drawing on those same mythologies. I mean, did all of Judaism go into a riot over "invoker = Moses" arguments? Did Christianity throw a fit over clerics? Did Wiccans get angry over druids actually using the inspiration for their faith and twisting it into a game? Really, it's just a game. But I suppose that's not good enough for a business. Even if 90% of reasonable people agreed with me, the 10% that don't, plus all the unreasonable people, could cause quite a headache. And just because I don't think they have legitimate cause to doesn't mean they won't. Of course, legitimate cause also depends on how a witch class is implemented. A more evil class (like the infernal pact warlock) would have grounds to be an insult. But anyone who'd use a prospective witch class to judge real world Wiccans doesn't have an opinion worth listening to. Unfortunately, that wouldn't stop them.
In summary: I think it's stupid that concerns about a witch class promoting negative stereotypes would stop the class. Unfortunately, that concern actually has realistic grounds. So I guess it is a legitimate concern after all. And that irks me. Because it means we're walking on eggshells to avoid upsetting some people and giving fuel to some other idiots' fires (where the former are mainly upset by the latter). I think that's stupid. It's societal norm, and I can't change that overnight, but I think people shouldn't be held back by that. Grah, I need to go rant somewhere now. Preferably off-forum. Posting when mad is generally a bad idea.
If you make it a gender-neutral, not-so-ugly, hocus-pocus-in-the-pot class, then you start delving into stereotypes of Wiccans.
I honestly don't see how it could ever be a Shadow class – there's not enough Shadowfell Death and Darkness flavour for the stereotypical witch or the neo-pagan witch to be alongside the Hexblade, the Necromancer, and the Assassin.
I could see it as Primal or Arcane… except then you end up with one or the other stereotype: one that's offensive to Wiccans, the other that's undesirable by players. This is the conundrum.
I'm just gonna sit back and watch on this, change is unpredictable.
but really I just think all the people calling it "4.5" silly. not wrong or bad, just silly, being absurd. sure they are right in that its a new direction, but adding all these silly labels and things on it is just....absurd, silly, not really worth getting worked up about.
Okay. But who wants to play as a Hag monster? The Hag is basically the traditional stereotypical witch.
If you make it a gender-neutral, not-so-ugly, hocus-pocus-in-the-pot class, then you start delving into stereotypes of Wiccans.
I honestly don't see how it could ever be a Shadow class – there's not enough Shadowfell Death and Darkness flavour for the stereotypical witch or the neo-pagan witch to be alongside the Hexblade, the Necromancer, and the Assassin.
I could see it as Primal or Arcane… except then you end up with one or the other stereotype: one that's offensive to Wiccans, the other that's undesirable by players. This is the conundrum.
I never said play as a Hag monster. I think that's oversimplifying the concept and attaching some assumptions about what a witch has to look like. I've seen it pop up in games I've played in, plus a Dragonlance novel. Was it Raistlin? Idk - I haven't read the book in ages, and I didn't even know Dragonlance was D&D when I got it. Point is, it's a character that's been scarred by some magical trial so that he sees people old and dying rather than as they really are. So Raistlin (if I recall correctly) would be a witch rather than a wizard. Or maybe some multiclass/hybrid combo. That's how witches would work: they're so close to death, they see across to the other side of the veil. And why would people want to play one? Same reason as the warlock or any shadow class: they're creepy, even when they're heroes. I mean, just look at Heroes of Shadow: it's being advertised as a way to play darker characters. One of many reasons for thinking it belongs in the shadow source. Maybe it would be clearer if I gave examples of what a witch class would do:
- see an enemy's old age and infirmity, take the strand of their lifeline, and fold it in upon itself so that their life overlaps with their old age. Attacks for necrotic damage that then make it grant combat advantage or gain vulnerability.
- read the fate of your allies or enemies, using immediate interrupts to affect attacks and saving throws.
- know that your allies' fates lay elsewhere, and rejuvenate them from the drink.
- generally be a Fateweaver. I don't see that being undesirable for PCs, and I don't see that being offensive.
- give cryptic commands and hints to your allies about their fate.
Sorry, got to go. Be back with more.
And I'm back. So, the cryptic commands and hints make it a little warlord-esque without the lead-from-the-front mentality and more of a manipulative feel. For those who don't want to feel manipulative, the witch maintains the air of mystery because he or she is limited to not reveal too much about the future. Common staple is that it's bad to know everything that's coming. Work that into the fluff: that some sanction prevents witches from being too direct in their revelations or revealing too much. Or have the option of making it a possessed oracle approach: the insights come in flashes which the witch can't control (or maybe only partly). The witch can also eat a little bit of the necromancer-as-leader option. Not the undead army aspect, but the making allies death-like and resilient aspect. Combined with the manipulation of enemies' fates aspect, this class feels strongly of the shadow source, feels strongly like the iconic witch, and it doesn't in any way parody (or even reference) the Wicca faith. This is more like the Fates or the Wyrd Sisters or the like.
Okay. But who wants to play as a Hag monster? The Hag is basically the traditional stereotypical witch.
If you make it a gender-neutral, not-so-ugly, hocus-pocus-in-the-pot class, then you start delving into stereotypes of Wiccans.
I honestly don't see how it could ever be a Shadow class – there's not enough Shadowfell Death and Darkness flavour for the stereotypical witch or the neo-pagan witch to be alongside the Hexblade, the Necromancer, and the Assassin.
I could see it as Primal or Arcane… except then you end up with one or the other stereotype: one that's offensive to Wiccans, the other that's undesirable by players. This is the conundrum.
I never said play as a Hag monster. I think that's oversimplifying the concept and attaching some assumptions about what a witch has to look like. I've seen it pop up in games I've played in, plus a Dragonlance novel. Was it Raistlin? Idk - I haven't read the book in ages, and I didn't even know Dragonlance was D&D when I got it. Point is, it's a character that's been scarred by some magical trial so that he sees people old and dying rather than as they really are. So Raistlin (if I recall correctly) would be a witch rather than a wizard. Or maybe some multiclass/hybrid combo. That's how witches would work: they're so close to death, they see across to the other side of the veil. And why would people want to play one? Same reason as the warlock or any shadow class: they're creepy, even when they're heroes. I mean, just look at Heroes of Shadow: it's being advertised as a way to play darker characters. One of many reasons for thinking it belongs in the shadow source. Maybe it would be clearer if I gave examples of what a witch class would do:
- see an enemy's old age and infirmity, take the strand of their lifeline, and fold it in upon itself so that their life overlaps with their old age. Attacks for necrotic damage that then make it grant combat advantage or gain vulnerability.
- read the fate of your allies or enemies, using immediate interrupts to affect attacks and saving throws.
- know that your allies' fates lay elsewhere, and rejuvenate them from the drink.
- generally be a Fateweaver. I don't see that being undesirable for PCs, and I don't see that being offensive.
- give cryptic commands and hints to your allies about their fate.
Sorry, got to go. Be back with more.
And I'm back. So, the cryptic commands and hints make it a little warlord-esque without the lead-from-the-front mentality and more of a manipulative feel. For those who don't want to feel manipulative, the witch maintains the air of mystery because he or she is limited to not reveal too much about the future. Common staple is that it's bad to know everything that's coming. Work that into the fluff: that some sanction prevents witches from being too direct in their revelations or revealing too much. Or have the option of making it a possessed oracle approach: the insights come in flashes which the witch can't control (or maybe only partly). The witch can also eat a little bit of the necromancer-as-leader option. Not the undead army aspect, but the making allies death-like and resilient aspect. Combined with the manipulation of enemies' fates aspect, this class feels strongly of the shadow source, feels strongly like the iconic witch, and it doesn't in any way parody (or even reference) the Wicca faith. This is more like the Fates or the Wyrd Sisters or the like.
This is a really cool class concept, one that could very well suit Shadow, but it doesn't seem very "Witchy" to me. I'd rather it bear a different name, actually.
Omni: 'This is more like the Fates or the Wyrd Sisters or the like.'
Actually, this reminds me of one of the creepier aspects of Norse tradition: 'grave sitting'. The concept is common enough. A person goes to the grave site of an ancestor, and sleeps there all night and receives a message from the ancestor via a dream. There are variations of the theme. Its intimacy with anti-life is taboo for other traditions. Grave sitting is literally 'necromancy', divination via the dead.
Technically grave sitting is distinct from either seiðr (psychic attacks, equivalent to Psionic telepathic enchantment and illusion effects) or spá (psychic prophesy and 'second sight' that can discern truth and also foresee the future). So, probably one wouldnt use the term 'witch', which for Scandinavian contexts usually refers to seiðr. Terms like 'medium', 'spiritist', and even 'ghostwhisperer', may be worth looking at.
The famous Norse poem Voluspá depicts the gods going to the grave site of an ancient 'seer' (volva) who was especially gifted with 'prophesy' (spá). They disturbed her 'rest', raised her ghost, and asked her to prophesy about the 'fate' of the gods and of the cosmos. This description shows it isnt the necromancy itself that can glimpse the future, but the discussion with certain individuals among the dead who happen to be psychic.
QFT
Omni, your class concept that focuses on the moment a person dies, what about calling it something like?
Deathseer
The name is vivid, disturbing, and descriptive.
Thanks Halrik. Good to have something out there. Deathseer, however, brings all the focus to that moment of death, while my "witch" has extended that talent to see the broader weave of fate that leads up to that moment. Which I guess is an added layer of creepy: some people might just have a natural affinity for seeing that moment of death. A "witch" has taken that talent and trained in it, extending it beyond its normal limits.
And an idea for a possible mechanic just occurred to me. I'm not sure whether it could be balanced or not. But it works with the idea of the shadow source being more selfish, so straight-up healing is rather uncommon. Take a page from the artificer, and let the leader healing come in a couple of forms:
- Mend the Weave. Standard healing surge + bonus with level. Let's make that bonus bit temp hp.
- Reweave Fate. The target spends a healing surge but does not regain hit points. Instead, it regains the use of a spent encounter power, but it must use this power before the end of its next turn. At higher levels, Reweave Fate also gives a bonus to the damage.
As an even more out-there alternative, Mend the Weave wouldn't heal, but only grant temp hp. A third (perhaps separate?) class feature would specialize in dying foes, and this one actually heals. I think that fits the flavor very well - witches are close to death, and their healing is most effective at staving off death. Before then, they're just tricking fate. It'll do in a pinch, but it stretches the nature of their magic. Most of the time (unless there's a battlerager around), I don't think you'll care a lot whether healing is temp hp or regular. Well, except once combat ends. Or when you're dying. Which is why witches can give true healing to allies at 0 hp or below. The only trick is to figure out the surge cost. Maybe none? Since you'll still want to spend surges out of battle. So I think (I hope) that this is a different approach that doesn't actually make its performance as a leader any better or worse. Just different.
But I'd prolly call it Medium, Seer, Soothsayer, Channeller, etc.
Witch has too much othe baggage in my mind, like being focused on alchemy, doing charms and being all-around more arcane or primal in flavour.
We're all arguing about what it should be. This is how Gladiator became a theme, because they couldn't decide if it was a Fighter build, a Martial Controller, or something else. In the end, the thematic strength of it could be added to a number of different characters in different classes.
Now, I'm not Wiccan, so I can't really speak for them. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about here. But my cousin is Wiccan. And what do you call a Wiccan? A Wiccan. Sometimes neo-pagan. The point? I've never heard anybody who knew what they were talking about label a Wiccan a witch. Draws too much on the negative history and is really an insult.
I think the idea is that the negativity of that history (which some neo-pagans dramatically call 'the burning times') shouldn't be born by the witches, who were, afterall victims (if they were any real witches involved, at all). So, they tried to re-habilitate the word. I've been around a lot of neo-pagans (for some reason they were pretty active around here in the 90s, and there were more than a few who gamed), and they generally either prefered 'witch' or prefered 'wiccan,' but still didn't want 'witch' to be see as a prejorative. Then there were the ones who were Druids...
Now, I'm not Wiccan, so I can't really speak for them. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about here. But my cousin is Wiccan. And what do you call a Wiccan? A Wiccan. Sometimes neo-pagan. The point? I've never heard anybody who knew what they were talking about label a Wiccan a witch. Draws too much on the negative history and is really an insult.
I think the idea is that the negativity of that history (which some neo-pagans dramatically call 'the burning times') shouldn't be born by the witches, who were, afterall victims (if they were any real witches involved, at all). So, they tried to re-habilitate the word. I've been around a lot of neo-pagans (for some reason they were pretty active around here in the 90s, and there were more than a few who gamed), and they generally either prefered 'witch' or prefered 'wiccan,' but still didn't want 'witch' to be see as a prejorative. Then there were the ones who were Druids...
Ok, thanks for the info. I still don't see a witch class being prejorative to Wiccans, but I guess I can't really get in their shoes enough to make an informed decision. Especially on a matter that's more emotion than logic.
Now we may end up seeing cool things like:
- A PP using Monk
- A Full Discipline using Battlemind, at the very least a non Con based one would be welcome
- An Implement using Ardent
- A Tome and Robe using Archivist type Cleric or Runepriest
- A Dex based Dualist fighter
- A Melee Warlock, Shaman and/or Sorcerer
- A Ranged Avenger
- A Shapechanging Swordmage
I wish this type stuff started happening sooner so that things like Runepriest would've had a better venue to be represented in.