And I quote: "First off, we've designed the outside of this starter set with nostalgia in mind. Specifically, we made it look just like the “Red Box” from the early 1980s, including using the classic cover art by Larry Elmore and the original D&D logo." Ok, now here's the interesting part, it continues: "Inside, however, it uses the newest version of the game."
Usually, when they write an article they use, by-and-large, the term '4th edition mechanics' or something close to that; but not this time. Any thoughts?
With the amount of correction tape and hand-written updates as my books have, it certainly feels like as many changes as v3 to v3.5. Maybe not, but that's how it feels.
And I'm guessing this Essentials line is going to have all the updates, so yeah - it might as well be 4.5.
I'm okay with it, though - I like that they update often to make the game the best they can. It'd be less messy with PDF books that we could download and have updated PDFs for. But oh well.
WotC choosing not to call the current ruleset v4.5 is just a semantics thing.
If you are a veteran 4E player, then Essentials is just a couple of splat-books and a new Monster Manual. The inclusion of already existing errata does not make it a point-five edition.
At least, that's how I'm reading it.
As far as I can tell, the major difference - apart from incorporating all of the errata and clarifications to date - will be the format in which it's presented. Obviously this is a move away from the PHB/DMG/MM format we're used to, but in addition to that I expect that some of the confusing aspects of the 4E PHB will be addressed, such as its annoying habit of not explaining a reference until long after it has appeared. (Consider how many people post and ask what [W] means because it appears early in the book and isn't actually explained until much later - that's probably going to be corrected in Essentials.)
It seems like the text you are referencing is just contrasting the old, orginal box art and appearance with the newest version of the game, which is 4e.
At least, that's how I'm reading it.
Exactly. They were saying that while the box may look like old-school Basic D&D, the rules inside are 4th Edition.
As far as I can tell, the major difference - apart from incorporating all of the errata and clarifications to date - will be the format in which it's presented. Obviously this is a move away from the PHB/DMG/MM format we're used to, but in addition to that I expect that some of the confusing aspects of the 4E PHB will be addressed, such as its annoying habit of not explaining a reference until long after it has appeared. (Consider how many people post and ask what [W] means because it appears early in the book and isn't actually explained until much later - that's probably going to be corrected in Essentials.)
I agree...the Essentials line is just 4e, with the current updates, promoted and presented differently. I am very excited about the whole line.
Eh, a new version hardly means that you have to jump up .5 in version numbers. I'd say that Essentials is the 4.1 patch if even that high.
This sort of thing always seems like a misnomer to me. 3.5e was in no way halfway patched towards 4e, and was almost entirely different. The idea that patches bring the item in question closer to the next "edition" originates from patches to improve quality in steps. But editions aren't versions, they're different games. There's no promise that Essentials, allegedly version 4.5, is halfway to what 5e will look like.
It's more like what we started with was 4e, version 1.0. What we'll have with the Essentials books is 4e, version 2.0. Right now, we're at 4e, version 1.7 or so. We're mostly there, I assume. Especially with the updates to Acrobatics, Athletics, ect., out of the way. Although Tuesday's errata could enlighten us to a whole new world of changes that make it seem more like version 1.4.
I think we should start the count at version 0 being the first release.
I wouldv said, were currently at v0.5, but v0.7 seems like a decent estimate.
Shorthand notation?
4e007
Maybe some day someone will take the time to analyze and rate each update 3.0 received until 3.5 plus the updates between 3.0 and 3.5 and compare them to a similar analysis of the 4e updates.
I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome would be that we already have a similar amount of changes between 4e release and 4e today as between 3e and 3.5, with the only difference being that this time WotC chose not to call it .5e and not to sell an updated set of core rule books.
Maybe some day someone will take the time to analyze and rate each update 3.0 received until 3.5 plus the updates between 3.0 and 3.5 and compare them to a similar analysis of the 4e updates.
I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome would be that we already have a similar amount of changes between 4e release and 4e today as between 3e and 3.5, with the only difference being that this time WotC chose not to call it .5e and not to sell an updated set of core rule books.
Exactly. Some in this thread just aren't comprehending.
PHB2 = 4.1
PHB3 = 4.2
So probably 4.3.
But as other's have said, it's been more of a continuous upgrade. And 90% of the people approve of 90% of the updates. Witht he main complaint not being the updates themselves, but just the number of them.
I would also like to point out that the devs implied that they where going to be more concise in the future, with tighter wording on things as they want to avoid errata's for the essentials line. (and from what i've seen, this is true).
4e is certainly going to surpass a 10th update phase, so what would the notation be?
4.9 .. 4.10 .. 4.11 ..
Basically chapter 4, verse 11?
Essentials are completely optional, the game you play with or without them is still the same, you merely lack the new builds and feats in the essentials books. This can be said for any other Power Book or PHB.
Scroll down to Heroes of Shadow. If you read the selling points you will notice it has been dubbed a Players' Option accessory and is part of an expanded line linked to Essentials. The PO is suppose to take the players to the "next level" of the game. Why? I thought that's when the more advanced rules of PHB1-3,DMG1-2, MM1-3 come in. Evidently, not. So, the next level after Essentials is called Players' Option. That's interesting.
WOTC will never admit they are pulling a .5 job because it will go over like a lead balloon.
Why is WOTC spending good money on a watered down version of the 4e rules to bring in a younger crowd? I bet Rob Heinsoo would have loved to have kept his job with this cash they're pushing into Essentials. Besides, I thought one of the big selling points of 4e was it's simple enough for old gamer and young gamer alike?
I'm having a blast with 4e. I haven't been this happy with D&D since my 1e days back in the 80's. However, you don't have be Hamlet to know something is fishy in Denmark.
> PHB1-3,DMG1-2, MM1-3 come in. Evidently, not.
No, because Heroes of Shadow is equivalent to Arcane/Martial/Divine/Primal/Psionic Power.
> Why? I thought that's when the more advanced rules of > PHB1-3,DMG1-2, MM1-3 come in. Evidently, not. No, because Heroes of Shadow is equivalent to Arcane/Martial/Divine/Primal/Psionic Power.
I think you're a little bit wrong there.
It's not similar to the X Power books, but instead maybe the new format for classes. Heroes of Shadows seems to bring in whole new classes, which I find good.
I personally think they're taking a step away from further PHB's and instead will rely on more specific books. That's the way it looks.
Anyways, calling the Essentials a 4.5 is like calling the 3.5E starter box set D&D 5.7 - totally bogus, that is.
I completely agree. This is perhaps a new format WOTC will preview at a later date seeing as HOS doesn't hit shelves until April of next year.
I don't think it's 4.5 either. But, it's not going to be the 4e we are use to. I have a feeling the Essentials will streamline 4e using the errata and maybe a new rule or two might slip in there.
IMO, all the rules will be put in the rules compendium, player classes in the "Hero's of" stuff, and DM stuff it's book, instead of having the rules spread out between the PHB and the DMG.
We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class.
DUN.
DUN.
DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
Well the plot thickens!We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class.
DUN.
DUN.
DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
Mind = blown
Well the plot thickens!We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class.
DUN.
DUN.
DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
Did you miss the part where they mention that some classes will no longer have daily powers? This is pretty nuts.
I didn't miss that at all, but what got to me immediately was that they are not just new builds on existing classes they are entire variant classes from the ground up. A class that has no daily powers is a scary and interesting idea. Hopefully it won't have worked out as poorly as psionics did, which is why I use the term "scary" there.
It might be more like Book of 9 Swords from 3.5. All at-will or encounter abilities and different classes had different ways to refresh those encounter abilities.
Edit: I expect them to fix psionics in the errata tomorrow. I doubt we'll be spamming level 1 at-wills with augment 2s throughout epic tier.
Bingo.
Ever wonder why we don't know if a PHB4 and a DMG4 are coming out?
I was so surprised (but not really why they didn't even come out with a DMG3, since the first one was dedicated to Heroic and just plain getting started, DMG2 was for Paragon, I assumed a DMG3 was going to be for Epic tiered play...instead they came out with the Essentials line. Kinda depressing to be honest.
And true they aren't calling it 4.5, but even the packaging looks different and has a different feeel to it...I mean look at the modules now they are going back to the classic way of doing them. One thing I loved about 4e was the new style of the adventures...it just makes me sad that's all. Why can't they just leave well enough alone?
Eh, a new version hardly means that you have to jump up .5 in version numbers. I'd say that Essentials is the 4.1 patch if even that high. It will be making some changes to the rules(most of which are already covered in the Errata), but we shouldn't be getting the complete overhaul of several classes and game systems like we saw in 3.5. Heck most of the material we are getting in the Essentials line will actually be new and not reprints from what I understand.
But if you look very carefully to what they wrote in this article: "Commencing Countdown!", the classes have been designed in a way we can still use them but somehow will be different. They classes are designed for the Essential line but are compatible (basically) with 4e core classes aside from Wizrds. So, in a sense it is a 4.5 ya?
4e v1.7?
I think we should start the count at version 0 being the first release.
I wouldv said, were currently at v0.5, but v0.7 seems like a decent estimate.
Shorthand notation?
4e007
4e007? LOL *Brittsh accent* "Hello there, I'm Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons"
www.randomhouse.biz/international/PDFs/w...
Scroll down to Heroes of Shadow. If you read the selling points you will notice it has been dubbed a Players' Option accessory and is part of an expanded line linked to Essentials. The PO is suppose to take the players to the "next level" of the game. Why? I thought that's when the more advanced rules of PHB1-3,DMG1-2, MM1-3 come in. Evidently, not. So, the next level after Essentials is called Players' Option. That's interesting.
WOTC will never admit they are pulling a .5 job because it will go over like a lead balloon.
Why is WOTC spending good money on a watered down version of the 4e rules to bring in a younger crowd? I bet Rob Heinsoo would have loved to have kept his job with this cash they're pushing into Essentials. Besides, I thought one of the big selling points of 4e was it's simple enough for old gamer and young gamer alike?
I'm having a blast with 4e. I haven't been this happy with D&D since my 1e days back in the 80's. However, you don't have be Hamlet to know something is fishy in Denmark.
This is exactly how I feel. I think everyone is being to analytical on this thread, though I do appreciate all the input; it's what I was looking forwhen I posted this. However, the above quote really emphasises the true grit-hard fact, that they did a twist-round-about and are covering it all up with fancy and politically correct verbiage so as not to stir the 'hornets nest' of gamers that would be up in arms about vs4.5 after only 2 1/2 yrs. of 4e's release.
4e was just fine with the way it was done at the beginning, from the core mechanics to the packaging of the minis.
I loved 4e just the way it is and have a grand ol time just like I did back in the 70's and 80's with 1e!
Well the plot thickens!We decided to embrace something similar to the old sub-class concept from bygone editions. The classes presented in Essentials are different takes on existing classes, ones that share a similar place in the Dungeons & Dragons world but that use different mechanics. By embracing this approach, we could produce a “new” fighter with new mechanics without having to change the existing fighter class.
DUN.
DUN.
DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
Did you miss the part where they mention that some classes will no longer have daily powers? This is pretty nuts.
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Points finger! SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Aaaaaand psionic classes dont have encounter powers.
This is exactly how I feel. I think everyone is being to analytical on this thread, though I do appreciate all the input; it's what I was looking forwhen I posted this. However, the above quote really emphasises the true grit-hard fact, that they did a twist-round-about and are covering it all up with fancy and politically correct verbiage so as not to stir the 'hornets nest' of gamers that would be up in arms about vs4.5 after only 2 1/2 yrs. of 4e's release.
4e was just fine with the way it was done at the beginning, from the core mechanics to the packaging of the minis.
I loved 4e just the way it is and have a grand ol time just like I did back in the 70's and 80's with 1e!
Or maybe they were so specific with their language to avoid people trying to using the meaningless "4.5" buzz term to try and gank them like they did duringing the Edition Wars, and try to smear their attempts to expand the game as a money grab or a design failure. You know. Kind of like what is happening now.
From what we know the Essentials line, it will not change the usability of current material, it will not change the way the game works on any fundamental level. Most people still get their daily powers. All of your old books are still good. At best it just makes a few new ways to play old classes based on improved design philosophy. You know. Like the Power books. Which we've been getting for two years.
Calm down. This is not 4.5. You're all being silly.
At best this is a great new way to work on the game. At worst? Something to be swept under the rug and continue on with all of the toys you have and will get in the future.
4e was just fine with the way it was done at the beginning, from the core mechanics to the packaging of the minis.
I loved 4e just the way it is and have a grand ol time just like I did back in the 70's and 80's with 1e!
This is something worth pointing out - the Essentials doesn't change anything that you like about 4e.
I don't want to say too much, since we have more preview articles coming out, but if you decide you don't like anything in the Essentials you'll still have plenty of new books, interesting options, and so forth to look forward to.
To pull the key sentences from the article:
"If you’re already playing a Dungeons & Dragons game, there’s one very important thing to remember—the Essentials products matter only as much as you want them to. We very carefully designed the new classes and added more options to the races in such a way that existing characters remain unchanged."
It was critically important throughout the design process to make sure that the above statement was true.
I don't want to say too much, since we have more preview articles coming out, but if you decide you don't like anything in the Essentials you'll still have plenty of new books, interesting options, and so forth to look forward to.
I wish I could believe that. Past experience says otherwise.
I don't want to say too much, since we have more preview articles coming out, but if you decide you don't like anything in the Essentials you'll still have plenty of new books, interesting options, and so forth to look forward to.
I would love it if we could get a confirmation that hardcover "fluff" books like Draconomicon, a feywild book and similar are still going to exist post-essentials. Because that's what I'm most worried about entirely disappearing from the schedule, as these (Draconomicon, Open Grave, Underdark, Plane Above etc) have been the best books released in 4E thus far.
I think a lot of gamers will be happier if we can see that some of those books, like a DMG3 are coming out after essentials before people will calm down about essentials changing the direction 4E is taking.
I am glad to see though that essentials isn't replacing anything and is just adding new options. Hopefully some of those new class designs will work out well. I am still a bit skeptical overall though but I am interested enough that I'll give it a good chance.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
From what Mike Mearls is telling us, I see the following situation:
- The 4e game I'm running right now will not change.
- My teenage nephew now has an entry level ruleset.
- After learning the essentials game, the same nephew should be able to transition into my standard 4e game without having to learn a whole new game, and in fact could import his character wholesale and it will still work.
- New 4e books are in the works using the standard 4e rules (with errata of course)
WoTC needs to grab this bull by the horns and get ahead of the version 4.5 chatter before it spreads like an infection. I think the best way to do this is to announce some of their 2011 product line so we can see what they're planning for the future of 4e.
Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
These couple of lines are the most important words to come out of WoTC since they announced the Essentials line.
They should put this on a banner on main website.
So what? From now on, everytime I'm creating a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Ranger/Druid/Warlock/Paladin I have to specify whether I'm going to use 'class A' or 'class B'? That's simplifying? Oh, I don't know... I want to be excited about this line, but the only thing this article made me feel was skeptical...
For those only with essentials, it is simply class B
That said, uness even the powers are incompatible between "sub classes" I dont see why it isnt just slightly more complex than the alternate 'spec' system.
Honestly I like daily powers, but I'll give this a look.
Or maybe they were so specific with their language to avoid people trying to using the meaningless "4.5" buzz term to try and gank them like they did duringing the Edition Wars, and try to smear their attempts to expand the game as a money grab or a design failure. You know. Kind of like what is happening now.
From what we know the Essentials line, it will not change the usability of current material, it will not change the way the game works on any fundamental level. Most people still get their daily powers. All of your old books are still good. At best it just makes a few new ways to play old classes based on improved design philosophy. You know. Like the Power books. Which we've been getting for two years.
Calm down. This is not 4.5. You're all being silly.
At best this is a great new way to work on the game. At worst? Something to be swept under the rug and continue on with all of the toys you have and will get in the future.
*Calmed down* Agreed!
I think both the preview information and Mike Mearls have made it clear that they are not trying to create something that takes the place of the existing content. However, it is interesting to note that Mike wrote "We very carefully designed the new classes." This along with the article today discussing the elimination of daily powers and the introduction of a different path for power progression raises the question of whether there will really be fighter type A and B with little compatibility or crossover between the two. Obviously we already have different builds within the classes that can have either minor or profound effects on which class powers you can select. In cases like the original cleric where the effects of build are profound in terms of which powers you will select, effectively creating two separate classes, the general response has been negative. In contrast, I think the response has been more positive to builds that tweak a class concept but don't limit power selection too much, and the response has also been positive to increased options for multiclassing like hybrid builds. I hope in addition to trying to make sure the "new classes" would not necessitate a change in the way we play our current classes, that WoTC also made sure that the content for the "new classes" would work well with existing classes. For instance I want to find our sooner rather than later whether a new ranger build/class with its associated content in the essentials line will only be useful to me if I roll up a new ranger, or whether I can take advantage of exciting new options with my existing ranger.
We're in a bit of a weird space, since we don't really talk about the next year's releases until GenCon. However, I can say that since wrapping up Essentials design we've been busy working on 2011 releases. Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
Thanks for the heads up, man. I'm really looking forward to what you and your team have in store for us and am very excited to see these previews. I trust that you guys are going to fully integrate everything pre-essentials, essentials and post-essentials into a truly awesome game with a breadth of options for everyone, including the older guys who are stuantchly against change (and really, NO ONE wants to see another edition war).
WOTC will never admit they are pulling a .5 job because it will go over like a lead balloon.
you mean like:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg
WOTC will never admit they are pulling a .5 job because it will go over like a lead balloon.
you mean like:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg
Actually I hope it's more like this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=owmrpWyTdxQ
As for sub classes, they will likely appear amongst the class list.
We're in a bit of a weird space, since we don't really talk about the next year's releases until GenCon. However, I can say that since wrapping up Essentials design we've been busy working on 2011 releases. Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
I too appreciate the fact that Mike M. stopped by this post to help us all (present company included) understand the direction they are going.
Now that I look at it, coupled with what Mike said, it does seem to be a bit more split into two versions of 4e. 4eA what we are all used too since 2008 and 4eB, amore simplified version to draw in newer players, yet where the two are (and probably not seamlessly) compatible. I too am interested in purchasing the new line to see what it's all about; I have already pre-ordered all that can be pre-ordered, thru the end of this year and the beginning of next. I want to be excited about it but now just settling for curious.
All in all, thanks Mike.
Ok, now here's the interesting part, it continues: "Inside, however, it uses the newest version of the game."
Usually, when they write an article they use, by-and-large, the term '4th edition mechanics' or something close to that; but not this time. Any thoughts?
Maybe they read my mind?
I started using this language myself simply put because the game is D&D ... ummm not 4th edition. When there is a newer edition I will use the edition number for my current favorite D&D till then its just D&D. I think officially calling it anything else is wrong.
If adding stuff makes old stuff entirely obselete, than it's just the same as eliminating the older mechanics. If my PHB noob comes to a D&D table with his cleric and the advice the people gives him "too bad, you should have bought Essentials. Your war priest is "underoptimal" at best", then something went wrong.
"Who said anything about it being obsolete? If I sit down to a D&D table, and someone tells me my character is sub-optimal, and mocks me, I would leave with some choice words about them, their game, and their mothers. Of course, I DM, and if I see that guy at my table, I find his lowest defense score, and come up with a reason every monster at the table targets him."
"In fact, I have an optimizer at my table... I told him, actively, over and over, that I was trying to kill his character. He laughed and said, 'Yeah, I totally douched that dragon, I deserve that...' (Paraphrased, of course). I dropped his ass in one turn and it was a pretty good fight. He lived, I had no reason that the creature would coup de grace him with other threats in the room."
"I had another optimizer that was a dick... At the time, the player I mentioned above was helping me DM, and killed this player's character. After some discussion, he got up from the table and left. I don't talk to him anymore, that was a good day. I am selective about who plays in my game, if one of my players mocked someone's character (and it wasn't in jest), that player will leave my game if I have to make the game SO uncomfortable for that player, they just want to leave. I will get everyone at the table in on it, too, just so they can get some enjoyment out of that dick's presence."
"The moral of this story: Don't abide dicks in your game."
I would also like to point that the new options should never be "100%" more appealing than the old. In the worse case, that would be called power creep. Using the cleric again, if Cleric PHB is complete sucker nest to Cleric Essential and the're both meant to represente the sempre archetype - then something is wrong.
"Right. Back to the topic at hand..."
With all the new builds that came with the Power books, even though the new powers are always thouroughly welcomed, you don't feel your "archer ranger is now a complete sucker next to the marauder ranger". They're different builds, meant for different things, different archetypes.
Runepriest caused such a stirr exactly because even though they had a different fluff/archetype, they were a better "melee based divine leader" than the STR cleric. I do not agree with those complaints...
"Um... To quote so many forum goers: 'This.' I know, that's not where you stopped, but that last part pretty much covers it... The essentials Warpriest doesn't strike me as BETTER than the Strength Warpriest, it's just, other (as opposed to 'better', if you didn't get that)."
"I don't have anything else to add, and you know why... Two reasons: One, it's really not worth discussing, I wish I could contain my need to interject into forum discussions; and Two, and this one is very important... THE ESSENTIALS LINE IS NOT OUT YET. Go back, read it again, wait... Do it again... Once more... Is it stuck in your head yet? One more time for good measure. Okay good, now stop criticizing and pretending to 'review' material that doesn't exist, yet."
"Speculation is one thing: 'Looks like Wizards might not have dailies in this subclass build.' That's fine, that's speculation based on what we've read so far. However, 'This cleric is so much better than the old cleric, that why would anyone even want to play the PHB Cleric, now we have a 30 dollar obsolete piece of crap...' Is not speculation, it's baseless criticism."
They have said this is already published rules with some new content. Why are people still calling it 4.5. This is not 3 or 3.5. It is the rules we have been using for sometime now. I hope I never hear that the essential line is 4.5 again.
Well I hope you're willing to admit you were wrong. Because I've certainly NOT been using the rules outlined in today's Ampersand.
From what we know the Essentials line, it will not change the usability of current material
Correction. From what we've been told. Currently we know very little.
you'll still have plenty of new books, interesting options, and so forth to look forward to.
We were also told the Essentials would just be repackaging the current errata, offering some new builds and making the rules simpler. Instead we get more complex classes and completely new classes (not simply new mechanics like backgrounds, skill powers or domains). We were also told that classes would only ever appear inside PHB books. Then we got the Assassin. Now we're getting Shadow Power next year. We were told we'd be getting Debut content in D&D Insider for upcoming releases. Now we're not.
I'm adopting a "I'll believe it when I see it" viewpoint at this stage. Because regardless of WotC says, they have demonstrated they can and will change their mind and plans. So yes, it may be planned for 4th ed to get continued support with Arcane Power 2 featuring PHB1 and PHB2 style builds. But it could be nixed in place of Arcane Heroes featuring 4.5e styled classes.
I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
Really? I've had a friend try to get back into 4th ed, and based on all the latest errata (I don't typically keep abreast of it myself given I play only in home campaigns now) his PHB is useful for very little outside of rituals and mundane items.
4e, amore simplified version to draw in newer players
What I like about 4th ed and dislike about 3.5e is the simplicity. 4th ed is simple. The latest incarnation of the cleric for Essentials is more complex. Much closer to a 3.5e class than a 4th ed one. That is why I call it 4.5e. But a label is only a label and holds no more power then you're willing to give it.
If adding stuff makes old stuff entirely obselete, than it's just the same as eliminating the older mechanics. If my PHB noob comes to a D&D table with his cleric and the advice the people gives him "too bad, you should have bought Essentials. Your war priest is "underoptimal" at best", then something went wrong.
I've had very little patience for the optimisers. And the little patience I did have is quickly disappearing. I'll come to a table with a character and I'll use whichever mechanics I like and the DM allows. I don't care if you don't like it. I don't make optimal mechanical constructs. I might characters that I enjoy playing. If you can't handle that, then we can't play at the same table.
As such, concerns about being underoptimal is not an issue I can relate to.
I'm not concerned by this development. I'm mildly interested in it and other people's reactions. I'm thinking this may perk things up for 3.5e die-hards out there. But then again given 4th ed only lasted 2 years before the next major revision, they may simply chose to stick with Pathfinder (which they also moan and complain about, but then again they complain about everything). But I'll continue to use the books I enjoy and ignore the rest. Like I've been doing since day 1. My library after all does include 5 3.5e books despite absolutely disliking the entire edition.
Because regardless of WotC says, they have demonstrated they can and will change their mind and plans.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? If they had a complete inability to change their minds, I would be very fearful for the game's future.
But it could be nixed in place of Arcane Heroes featuring 4.5e styled classes.
There is NO 4.5e styled classes.
Really? I've had a friend try to get back into 4th ed, and based on all the latest errata (I don't typically keep abreast of it myself given I play only in home campaigns now) his PHB is useful for very little outside of rituals and mundane items.
Please, let me play a violin for you.
Aside from the somewhat hilarous idea of "getting back into 4th ed" (from a 2 month break? Stuff's been out 2 years), it may help your argument if you didn't overblow the issues so much. The PHB1 is fundamentally still completely valid for all the actual content - classes, items, rituals - and the only stuff that was errataed was, surprisingly, the rules.
Incidentally, I pray that one day WotC will split the 50ish pages of actual rules into a single, stand-alone primer and publish it yearly with updates.
For what it's worth, a Player's Handbook cleric can take all of the encounter, daily, and utility powers included with the warpriest. (I'm not 100% sure about the at-wills.) So, while the essentials introduces a new type of cleric, it also presents quite a few new powers that your existing cleric can select.
On top of that, any new cleric powers we publish are open to both classes.
I hope that restores your faith!
I guess it's not clerics that will have the alternative to dailies, probably just the fighters.
And for those who are worried, seriously this is just an additional book like "arcane powers" except it's "player's handbook powers + multi-race handbook + rules with errata reprint + an adventure for levels 1-3". It's nothing they haven't already done, it's just rearranged and in a different package with an emphasis on the easier to use stuff (burning hands instead of glamor blade).
I greatly prefer all the classes to have a similar range of complication, so that players can happily choose what they want to play, rather then feel herded into particular classes based on their experience level. So I find comments that 'some classes will be simpler and others more complex' somewhat worrisome.
I do like the idea of the return of class features, but also fear that the existance of builds with class features and powers will negate the usefullness of builds with just powers, which to me does pose some risk of supplanting the PHB class equivalents.
Is this a new edition? Well, maybe. Would 3.5 still have been a new edition if they released the new rulebooks, and said you can feel free to play the 3.0 monk in your games, the 3.5 monk is just a variant?
I don't know. Some of the essentials blurbs are interesting. I like the idea of more integrated fluff grounding. But I don't know.
Very ambivilent.
So I find comments that 'some classes will be simpler and others more complex' somewhat worrisome.
I don't think it will be easier classes. Just easier options, visions of arvice vs fireball for example. One is complex and show's up on the Q&A board on occasion, the other is very self explanitory.
If essentials can be used with pre-essentials products, that's really great! That means DMs don't have to learn a new system in order to allow essential players in their existing groups. How this will effect players, I don't know.
As for the community, we have members of the hobby who look forward to the essentials line because they might offer those fans something core 4e doesn't. We have members who look forward to the essentials line because they might offer new options for their existing game, to be used with core 4e. This is all glazing on the donut. Nothing wrong with any of it.
What I think some members of the hobby are worried about, myself included, is what effect the essentials line with have on those of us who don't really have any interest in using essentials. How will essentials effect pre-essentials products? How will essentials effect future "non essentials" products? How will essentials effect the character builder and monster builder when used with pre-essentials content?
Those are the questions on my mind and I bet I'm not alone. I'm not worried about if or how the essentials line will offer a new way to play the game. That's great, as I said. I'm worried about how the essentials line will effect how I play the game now, if I choose to continue using the monster builder, character builder, D&D magazines and future products.
I'm also worried about what this means for future products. Will the essentials line influence everything in 2011, 2012 and on? Or will I be able to purchase the "blank" and use it with no problems if I do not use the essentials line?
What about this new hero book coming out next year dealing with the shadow power source, offering a new spin on the assassin. Will the pre-essentials line crowd get our shadow power source? Or will SP be an essentials product? What about MM4, draconomicon 3, primal power 2, the races books, the DMG3, the shadowfell and feywild books, and other power source books like AP2 or psionic power?
Will I need to purchase the essentials line to continue using future products or can I, as I plan to do, ignore the essentials line completely and continue to play 4th edition dungeons and dragons as I always have using future products with no homebrewed adjustments needed?
Thank you very much for any replies to this post and sorry that it's so large, but essentials brings up a lot of questions. Many of which are not in this post. I appreciate any replies, especially from any Wotc staff who might be able to offer insight or answers.
I'm not sure if I like the new power gain process they are alluding to.
One of the things I liked about 3, and then really liked in 4 was that everyone had a similar progression. You could hit a level, and everyone at the table knew, "okay, gain an encounter, bump this up, and we're leveled."
Definately looks like an attempt to look at the old heads and say, "no look, we're still the dnd you remember!"
Old system Wizards being more complex was a pain in the backside. What you gained was more page flipping, because more spells meant more rules and more ballance issues, and more stuff a DM had to keep in mind when writing an adventure.
Still, as long as everything updates nicely in the Insider, and as long as my current books don't magically turn to dust, I'm not overly dreading what is Essentially 4.5. I liked 3.5 just fine, and was happy to convert then.
Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward.
This sentence reads like 4e is going clean slate while still preserving compatibility with older 4e books. Sort of like 2e was compatible with 1e.
How will essentials effect the character builder and monster builder when used with pre-essentials content?
How are the builders affected by Power books, Dragon, Dungeon, setting books and MM3?
What I like about 4th ed and dislike about 3.5e is the simplicity. 4th ed is simple. The latest incarnation of the cleric for Essentials is more complex. Much closer to a 3.5e class than a 4th ed one. That is why I call it 4.5e. But a label is only a label and holds no more power then you're willing to give it.
If it's closer to a 3.5 class than a 4e class, shouldn't it be called 3.75?
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 have a significantly different experience 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.
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th edition
All the new products such as Demonomicon & Rules Compendium say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition
I noticed at Amazon the original 4E books say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th edition
All the new products such as Demonomicon & Rules Compendium say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition
Nice. Let the nerdrage commence!
What I think some members of the hobby are worried about, myself included, is what effect the essentials line with have on those of us who don't really have any interest in using essentials. How will essentials effect pre-essentials products? How will essentials effect future "non essentials" products? How will essentials effect the character builder and monster builder when used with pre-essentials content?
Bill Slavicsek just clarified that pre-Essential products will not be change besides design shifts they were planning on regardless – such as wizard errata to have mis-effects or races getting versatile ability score modifiers. As for future non-Essential products, they seem to be written along the lines of essentials.
Those are the questions on my mind and I bet I'm not alone. I'm not worried about if or how the essentials line will offer a new way to play the game. That's great, as I said. I'm worried about how the essentials line will effect how I play the game now, if I choose to continue using the monster builder, character builder, D&D magazines and future products.
I'm also worried about what this means for future products. Will the essentials line influence everything in 2011, 2012 and on? Or will I be able to purchase the "blank" and use it with no problems if I do not use the essentials line?
What about this new hero book coming out next year dealing with the shadow power source, offering a new spin on the assassin. Will the pre-essentials line crowd get our shadow power source? Or will SP be an essentials product? What about MM4, draconomicon 3, primal power 2, the races books, the DMG3, the shadowfell and feywild books, and other power source books like AP2 or psionic power?
Will I need to purchase the essentials line to continue using future products or can I, as I plan to do, ignore the essentials line completely and continue to play 4th edition dungeons and dragons as I always have using future products with no homebrewed adjustments needed?
Thank you very much for any replies to this post and sorry that it's so large, but essentials brings up a lot of questions. Many of which are not in this post. I appreciate any replies, especially from any Wotc staff who might be able to offer insight or answers.
As an elaboration, Mike Mearls said in one of these threads that all versions of the same class will be compatable with each other. So a non-Essentials cleric can steal powers from an Essentials cleric, and both can use powers from Divine Power or possible sequels to said book. You won't need to buy Essentials to use Divine Power 2; however, it will probably include new features for the Essentials cleric. So you'll be able to loot the book easily for your Cleric; it'll just be made to serve both your Cleric and the Essentials Cleric as well. And both can take advantage of it.
As for knowing the rules for Essentials; I highly doubt that they'd require you to buy the Red Box, HotFL, and/or HotFK to know how to play the Essentials-type Assassin that'll be in PO:HoS. However, if I read Bill Slavicsek's comments correctly, the Player's Option series of books that'll replace PH4 and onwards, for example, will be using the Essentials model, but will have the Essentials rules built in.
And now, on to my own comments:
From what the Essentials Cleric appears, it is basically a slightly simpler version of the Cleric. You make a Domain build choice, and that defines which encounter power you get when it says "Domain Power," rather than choosing from a host of new encounters. Also, you trade some of your powers out for features at higher levels. If everything is playtested well, it could possibly be balanced with the Player's Handbook-type classes. However, the fear is that such a deviation, like the deviation with Psionics, could break the game and make some classes better than others and not everyone equal.
I noticed at Amazon the original 4E books say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th edition
All the new products such as Demonomicon & Rules Compendium say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition
Actually, it says:
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition edition (September 21, 2010)
Also, someone pointed out the Red Box says:
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; Brdgm edition (September 7, 2010)
A few more Essential products say the same. Some products just have WotC, no mention of an edition. Makes me question it.
Seems you're right.
So, the "edition edition" means WotC gave Amazon their editors?
Smite undead is also pretty clearly inferior to the current turn undead, unless Im missing something.
As for it obsoleting the strength cleric? Possibly, but that was already an unloved kitten already.
Perhaps they would have been better off showing showing a class that doesnt have 'glaring' weakspots, like the rogue.
Today's Cleric article is . . . troubling. Specifically, the "more complex or simple classes" worry me. I don't like "simpler" classes, but I don't have to play them, so that's fine. One of the best parts of 4e, in my opinion, is that there is a balance struck between simple and complex. I don't have to just roll 3 dice on my turn, because everybody knows my fighter will do nothing but attack, but I also don't have to pore through five different books just to put together my potential list of preparable spells, like the 1-3.5 cleric class. (Yes, I know "have" is a bit excessive. I don't have to know about every single thing that my character is capable of, but it helps, and I have kicked myself more than once when I looked through Complete Divine to see that I could have prepared the perfect spell for had I known about it.) The furthest extreme of simple, to me, is "boring," and the furthest for complex on the same scale is "overwhelming." Do I have any evidence that either of these things is about to happen? No, no I do not, but I would like to express my opinion before it is to late, the books are already printed, and I'm being berated for complaining about something that's already happened. Basically, I am just saying to Wizards that I like the balance that is being struck right now, and will be most dissappointed if I end up in a situation where all future content will be either too simple or too complex, and I'm playing a Tiefling Fighter for variety. Please, retain a middle ground in every class for players like me.
Different people have different levels of "boring" and "overwhelming". Many new players will be "overwhelmed" enough by just figuring out what healing surges are, how to roleplay, and which dice is the d12 vs the d10.
So yes, i expect many "boring (for of the forum goes)" powers, like burning hands, but like you said, you don't need to use new powers and can stick with the "overwhelming" ones being a hybrid runepriest|battlemind PMC cleric for astral seal.
Granted, I have zero info to back up this outrageous statement. Right now, fighters can dish it out, take it, and spread some control. I'm wondering if the loss of dailies for fighters will trim their damage some.
On the other hand, I'm hoping hoping hoping that there is a pronouced difference between the Slayer and the Sword and Board Knight. From what 4e Classic (ka-ching!) was showing me, there was little reason to take a two-hander over a one-hand and shield, especially after the AV came out.
How will essentials effect the character builder and monster builder when used with pre-essentials content?
How are the builders affected by Power books, Dragon, Dungeon, setting books and MM3?What I like about 4th ed and dislike about 3.5e is the simplicity. 4th ed is simple. The latest incarnation of the cleric for Essentials is more complex. Much closer to a 3.5e class than a 4th ed one. That is why I call it 4.5e. But a label is only a label and holds no more power then you're willing to give it.
If it's closer to a 3.5 class than a 4e class, shouldn't it be called 3.75?
Nope, that's Pathfinder!
I noticed at Amazon the original 4E books say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th edition
All the new products such as Demonomicon & Rules Compendium say...
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition
Actually, it says:
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; 4th Revised edition edition (September 21, 2010)
Also, someone pointed out the Red Box says:
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast; Brdgm edition (September 7, 2010)
A few more Essential products say the same. Some products just have WotC, no mention of an edition. Makes me question it.
These all say 4th Revised Edition, under publisher at Amazon.
Rules Compendium
Heroes of the Fallen Lands
Dark Sun Campaign Setting
Dark Sun Creature Catalog
Marauders of the Dune Sea
Demonomicon
Tomb of Horrors
Vor Rukoth: An Ancient Ruins Adventure Site
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms does not say Revised.
These say boardgame edition (because they come with tiles or counters)...
Red Box
Monster Vault
Dungeon Masters Kit
These say boardgame edition (because they come with tiles or counters)...
Red Box
Monster Vault
Dungeon Masters Kit
What about the Ravenloft game? Are we sure this isn't some sort of 4.5E-ssentials combat variant?
What about the Ravenloft game? Are we sure this isn't some sort of 4.5E-ssentials combat variant?
I'm betting against it based on the Wraith we saw. It was in the July Previews.
These say boardgame edition (because they come with tiles or counters)...
Red Box
Monster Vault
Dungeon Masters Kit
What about the Ravenloft game? Are we sure this isn't some sort of 4.5E-ssentials combat variant?
I did not list the boardgames because obviously they are categorized as boardgames.
Just showing that for some reason all the new products say Revised. Looks like a 4.5 to me as well!
What about the Ravenloft game? Are we sure this isn't some sort of 4.5E-ssentials combat variant?
I'm betting against it based on the Wraith we saw. It was in the July Previews.
Tough crowd. Tap, tap, tap...is this thing on?
From the cleric preview they gave us, I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's simply an alternative way to build a cleric.Will it be different? definitely. Is it going to be better than the classic 4e cleric? I don't think so, not based on what they've said. WoTC has put so much effort into keeping the game balanced that I just can't see them releasing a product that throws out all of their previous hard work.
Here's where I think the danger will come in. One thing I've discovered about 4e is that the key to game balance is not in the powers themselves, but in how they're supported over time. Feats, paragon paths, and epic destinys can throw game mechanics out of balance very easily. Look at all the fuss over Wizard's Fury, a single feat that has consumed thousands of postings on these forums. If the Essentials builds recieve the bulk of new feats from now on, the danger is that these new feats will render the classic builds obsolete.
Once again, I'm going to say that I have faith in WoTC to work hard to keep everything balanced. I'm greatly looking forward to the new books to see what they've cooked up.
I'm also very curious to see how the monster builder (ie - adventure tools) is modified to handle the new monster stat blocks. Will all the old monsters be retconned into the new system? Or will they leave them alone and simply display all new monsters (and customs) in the new format? There's been no mention of this (I call it the DDi black hole) and as a DM it's of critical importance to me.
What I like about 4th ed and dislike about 3.5e is the simplicity. 4th ed is simple. The latest incarnation of the cleric for Essentials is more complex. Much closer to a 3.5e class than a 4th ed one. That is why I call it 4.5e. But a label is only a label and holds no more power then you're willing to give it.
If it's closer to a 3.5 class than a 4e class, shouldn't it be called 3.75?
I think it's still more like 4th. So I'm sticking with 3.875.
What I think some members of the hobby are worried about, myself included, is what effect the essentials line with have on those of us who don't really have any interest in using essentials. How will essentials effect pre-essentials products? How will essentials effect future "non essentials" products?
As for future non-Essential products, they seem to be written along the lines of essentials.
[...]
However, if I read Bill Slavicsek's comments correctly, the Player's Option series of books that'll replace PH4 and onwards, for example, will be using the Essentials model, but will have the Essentials rules built in.
I think that about sums up the things that are irking me the most.
I don't like that all future books are going to be "essentials" - not that I hate it, but I find it dubious that a new direction of design that we know very little about is going to affect all future books, for good-or-for-ill. If I don't like the "essentials" design, it seems like there will be no escape from it. My line for buying books is something like "I like (and would use) 50%+ of the content in this book, and am indifferent (though not excited) about 10%+ more of it." - support for "essentials" design, if I wind up not liking it, is likely to make books just... not worth it to me.
Perhaps I'm an odd one, but I wand my books - especially books likely to get a lot of use (books with races / classes) - to be hardcover. If Player's Options really are replacing the PH line, I'll be... unhappy. I'll still be hoping for a hardcover set of the races / classes - give me my PH4, even if it is a compilation of other softcover books... Even then though, new classes are likely to have the "essentials" design - again, if I don't like it, I'm stuck with it.
I was really hoping that Essentials would remain mostly self-contained - 10 books, no more. That doesn't appear to be the case anymore. I am disgruntled by that.
A Sneak Pique
Based on the (incomplete) disclosures by the designers, it is clear. Essentials are the new 'core'. These books will be the venue to publish a deep change in the 4e design philosophy. From now on, all future D&D 4e products will adopt the changes that the Essentials signal.
On the one hand, this is a 'revision' of D&D 4e. Thus players who use the slogan '4.5' seem to be correct. On the other hand, the 'new version' sotospeak maintains back-compatability. Thus, previous 4e content can coexist while moving into the new 4e gaming environment.
While these changes are deep, involving the very structure of class design, they are limited in scope. The main goal of these changes is to make D&D friendlier for new players. Therefore, the designers chose to make certain classes simpler to play. The game will officially recommend the simplest class for newbies. Conducively, this design decision happened to resemble D&D 1e. This opened the door to design each class with a unique Character Advancement table. Each class has its own level of complexity and resource management system with regard to Dailies versus Encounters, and so on. How far each class will deviate from the standard Character Advancement table remains to be seen, and depends on class by class cases.
The designers hope, the new design philosophy for classes will interest old-school D&D 3e gamers who are nostalgic about 1e. To some degree, D&D 3e likewise created the structure of each class indepent of the other classes.
Below are some relevant quotes. They confirm, Essentials signals a change in the philosophy of class design that all future classes in 4e will adopt from now on.
Slavicsek: 'The Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward. These 10 key products are designed to be a great place to start your Dungeons & Dragons game experience, as well as being a set of core reference tools for everyone playing the game.'
'The player character classes were designed after reviewing two years of [4e] game play.'
'A secondary goal: Find ways to give the classes different levels of complexity. The original [1e] Dungeons & Dragons game design allowed players to find their own level of mastery. Playing a wizard required more rules mastery than playing a fighter. We wanted to return to that aspect of the Dungeons & Dragons game. [Some players] liked more complex or simple character classes.'
'We made a number of changes in our approach to class design. At the same time, we placed compatibility as our number one goal. This arrangement forced us to add new design to the game without replacing existing classes. Introducing new variations of existing character classes was the best way to meet that goal.'
'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 [for all 4e books from now on]. However, we maintain compatibility with material that came before [this change]. The Essentials products allow us to roll out new approaches within the scope of the current game, [to] not force you to buy new books and abandon your old ones.'
The main point is: the Essentials is 'the future' of D&D 4e. It charts a 'new direction' that all future 4e publications will adopt 'from here on out'.
Essentials is a deep structural change in the design philosophy of classes. However, the designers were 'forced' to maintain the compatability of the old 4e classes within the new gaming system.
No doubt, future class developments will keep an eye on the standard Character Advancement table in PH1. I hope looking at it is enough, while they intentionally deviate from it. I hope the new differences from class to class are truly comparable to each other, and can sustain the balance of the overall 4e gaming system. I hope this new philosophy for class design doesnt reintroduce the old imbalances between the classes, which already caused the gaming design of each version of D&D to crash. 4e fixed the problem by means of the standard Character Advancement table.
The imbalances between the classes has plagued D&D since its inception, and continually causes the gaming system as a whole to unravel. Hopefully, we will never see imbalanced classes again.
It all depends on how well they are able to balance the Character Advancement while deviated from the Standard Advancement. It'll be even harder to make new, balanced classes, because there isn't a standard system anymore. But it can open up to new options as well. 4e is criticised for being too stuck in a single format. This will free it, but it is a perilous freedom.
Whether they manage to balance the classes or not is what will make or break this design shift.
May Pelor have mercy on us all.
As for future non-Essential products, they seem to be written along the lines of essentials.
And exactly what does that mean? That future products won't have daily powers or anything not found in the essentials? Basically what I'm reading, is there will no longer be any "non-essential" products and the whole 10 product block is not true, as it will be a permanent change.
if I read Bill Slavicsek's comments correctly, the Player's Option series of books that'll replace PH4 and onwards, for example, will be using the Essentials model, but will have the Essentials rules built in.
So, it seems the essentials line will become the new standard for 4th edition and not just an alternative.
As for future non-Essential products, they seem to be written along the lines of essentials.
And exactly what does that mean? That future products won't have daily powers or anything not found in the essentials? Basically what I'm reading, is there will no longer be any "non-essential" products and the whole 10 product block is not true, as it will be a permanent change.
That'd be pretty weird if they didn't have daily powers since the Warpriest advancement table includes daily powers.
As for future non-Essential products, they seem to be written along the lines of essentials.
And exactly what does that mean? That future products won't have daily powers or anything not found in the essentials? Basically what I'm reading, is there will no longer be any "non-essential" products and the whole 10 product block is not true, as it will be a permanent change.
if I read Bill Slavicsek's comments correctly, the Player's Option series of books that'll replace PH4 and onwards, for example, will be using the Essentials model, but will have the Essentials rules built in.
So, it seems the essentials line will become the new standard for 4th edition and not just an alternative.
Well, Mike Mearls claimed last night, as a consolation, that you'll be able to use things like Divine Power 2 for both the Warpriest and the PH1 Cleric. I don't know exactly what this means: it means you can pillage, but the question is to what extent. Obviously, there's no Essentials version of Invoker, Avenger, or Runepriest, so that book will include normal increased options for those. But the question is what it'll do for Clerics and Paladins.
When it comes to books like Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow, it's more clear: the new classes – Assassin, Hexblade, and Necromancer – will be made the same way Essentials classes were made. It's not Essentials anymore for later products, it's D&D 4th Revised Edition (check out Amazon). This means that Assassin, as it appears in Dragon, will have an Essentials-esque version of it in PO:HoS. But the other classes, which are brand new, will be not have standard equivalents. Also, since despite saying that this is the new standard for going forward, they still keep toting the 10 Products ONLY for Essentials, beyond those 8 classes, it seems other classes that currently exist won't get equivalent versions, because that would be breaking the 10 Products rule. Interestingly enough, most of these 8 classes are some of the worst offenders in D&D – Cleric, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock (two from each Heroes book) are V-classes. Also, Wizard and Druid have known discrepencies; Fighter was always attacked for having Daily Powers, and Rogues similarly. So there we have it: Not only are the the 8 most iconic Character Classes from the shift of late 3.5e to 4e, they're also the 8 classes that could use reform more than any other classes.
This opened the door to design each class with a unique Character Advancement table. Each class has its own level of complexity and resource management system with regard to Dailies versus Encounters, and so on. How far each class will deviate from the standard Character Advancement table remains to be seen, and depends on class by class cases.
The universal advancement system is great, everyone levels up equally, every gets the same number of powers, feats, attribute points and so on. The idea of my rogue leveling much faster than the wizard, yet again, does not sit well with me and if there is a way I can opt to throw this new method of advancement in the garbage, I will. I see no reason to abandon the original advancement method. It works. Maybe essenstials will blow my mind and the new method will be better. I do love4e after all. So I will give it a chance, but I'm not happy that a product I find more than good enough is being changed.
The designers hope, the new design philosophy for classes will interest old-school D&D 3e gamers who are nostalgic about 1e. To some degree, D&D 3e likewise created the structure of each class indepent of the other classes.
There is a serious problem with this. First, if someone hates 4e, they won't stop hating it because it suddenly went from (to use their language) "a crappy table top war game that plays like WoW and has no roleplay whatsoever" To"a crappy table top war game that plays like WoW and tries to be 1e"(/end use of their language) Second, I doubt it's going to reel in that many older edition users. Especially those who played 3e and went to pathfinder. (although some pathfinder players will probably like it) And third, by changing what existing 4e fans enjoy, wotc is going to lose some customers. I don't know how many people will ragequit and damn wotc, never buying another wotc product again, But I'm sure it will happen. I won't be among those who do, but it's an unavoidable consequence of changing what "old money" found successful in order to get "new money".
They confirm, Essentials signals a change in the philosophy of class design that all future classes in 4e will adopt from now on.
And here's hoping it won't be a disaster.
Slavicsek: 'The Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward. These 10 key products are designed to be a great place to start your Dungeons & Dragons game experience, as well as being a set of core reference tools for everyone playing the game.'
The we WILL have to buy the essentials. If those are "Key" products then they're important to the changes being made, hence, highly suggested purchases.
We wanted to return to that aspect of the Dungeons & Dragons game. [Some players] liked more complex or simple character classes.'
(knee jerk reaction) I don't want to play 1e, I want to play 4e. Hence why I'm not playing 1e. The level of complexity and simplicity in 4e is an issue how exactly?
'We made a number of changes in our approach to class design. At the same time, we placed compatibility as our number one goal. This arrangement forced us to add new design to the game without replacing existing classes. Introducing new variations of existing character classes was the best way to meet that goal.'
I'v got to see this in action. I think we need some free example PDFs, like a public playtest document with examples on how this will work. Seriously.
'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 [for all 4e books from now on]. However, we maintain compatibility with material that came before [this change]. The Essentials products allow us to roll out new approaches within the scope of the current game, [to] not force you to buy new books and abandon your old ones.'
Ok, so if I can take any and all existing material and use it in every single future product with NO problems, I'll be happy and have no problems what so ever, unless future products no longer offer new options for pre-essentials content. (which I believe won't be the case according to some folks)
No doubt, future class developments will keep an eye on the standard Character Advancement table in PH1. I hope looking at it is enough, while they intentionally deviate from it.
Using the new advancement table should be optional and not required. That way you can choose which way you want to go as a player.
I hope this new philosophy for class design doesnt reintroduce the old imbalances between the classes, which already caused the gaming design of each version of D&D to crash. 4e fixed the problem by means of the standard Character Advancement table.
This is where I get lost. IMO wotccreate a winner. Now they want to mess with that because they hope new people will abandon their beloved editions to join 4e? They hope to finally win over a portion of the haters? They'll get "new-to-D&D" customers over time, more and more. But targeting people that hate your product or has no use for it and probably never will, while possibly pushing your loyal customer base away, is a gamble I wouldn't take. Then again, I don't know what Wotc knows.
The imbalances between the classes has plagued D&D since its inception, and continually causes the gaming system as a whole to unravel. Hopefully, we will never see imbalanced classes again.
That's only one possible issue and one I hope we won't have to deal with. The errata section of this site might commit suicide if that happens.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a 4e fan and I really like the system the way it is, which is why I'm not as accepting of these coming changes as some folks are. I'll wait and see what happens, but I might complain now and then when something initially sounds plain wrong.
Also, I said it and need to collect my winnings from when 4e first came out. Inevitable Revision Ahoy!
When it comes to books like Player's Options: Heroes of Shadow, it's more clear: the new classes – Assassin, Hexblade, and Necromancer – will be made the same way Essentials classes were made. It's not Essentials anymore for later products, it's D&D 4th Revised Edition (check out Amazon). This means that Assassin, as it appears in Dragon, will have an Essentials-esque version of it in PO:HoS.
Perhaps we can finally see an archetypal Necromancer that has funky raise undead abilities. This whole design shift looks like 3.5 design philosophy with 4e's streamlined-ness.
The Essentials line is the new core. Thus if Essentials doesnt include a Psionic class, the Psionic power source would become non-core.
Diplomatically, this oversight could come across as a fresh rejection of the sector of the gaming community that maintains the Psionic tradition. The Psionic power source has been part of the D&D system since its earliest days of 'D&D 0e' - before there even was a 1e.
Several official campaign settings require the Psionic power source. These include the core setting whose interaction with the Farrealms often occurs only at the level conscious existence, where perceived reality unravels Psionically. Dark Sun and Gamma World require Psionic. Likewise, there is popular interest in a 21st century campaign setting where Psionic is appropriate.
The problem with the Psionic power point system in 4e is, this unique Character Advancement Table eliminates the Encounter powers, which are to some degree 'spontaneous', and imposes the Daily powers, which continue the Vancian spellcasting system of daily spell memorization. In 3e, the goal of the Psionic power point system was guarantee spontenaity and to eliminate the Vancian daily powers. However, the 4e Psionic power point system reintroduced the Vancian Daily powers, thus seems to contradict the need of the Psionic community for spontaneous powers.
Regarding the Psionic power source, it is a fundamental component of the D&D tradition, the current 4e power point system doesnt achieve the necessary spontenaity, and the current Essentials version of 4e creates the appearance of rejecting Psionic even tho official campaign settings are known to require it.
Also, since despite saying that this is the new standard for going forward, they still keep toting the 10 Products ONLY for Essentials, beyond those 8 classes, it seems other classes that currently exist won't get equivalent versions, because that would be breaking the 10 Products rule.
What "10 Products rule"? Do you think that there are only going to be 10 because WOTC says there will only be 10? That would imply that they consistently do what they say, which I don't think is accurate.
Even if there are only 10 products called "Essentials", Essentials is the new core. That is what everything going forward will be based upon.
Is "Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow" even an "Essentials" book? Probably you'll see a bunch of various options out there that expand 4-Essentials. These widgets will be added in discrete chunks so it is easy to opt into or out of them (i.e. "No Shadow in this game" or "Shadow PCs allowed in this game"). It's all in one convenient book that you either "Cancel or Allow".
"Speculation is one thing: 'Looks like Wizards might not have dailies in this subclass build.' That's fine, that's speculation based on what we've read so far. However, 'This cleric is so much better than the old cleric, that why would anyone even want to play the PHB Cleric, now we have a 30 dollar obsolete piece of crap...' Is not speculation, it's baseless criticism."
I know you said that your post was a response to the entire thread, but I must point out that I'm not making "baseless criticism".
In all my posts I always mantain the "skeptical until release tone".Quote by JohnLynch
I've had very little patience for the optimisers. And the little patience I did have is quickly disappearing. I'll come to a table with a character and I'll use whichever mechanics I like and the DM allows. I don't care if you don't like it. I don't make optimal mechanical constructs. I might characters that I enjoy playing. If you can't handle that, then we can't play at the same table.
And though I quote you John, the following comments goes for both you and Ryuka.
I too don't care for people crying "optimizing ftw".
The thing is, even though we have little info to state things precisely, we do know that the essential cleric is not a build similar to the devoted cleric build, the ruffian build for rogue, the summoner build for wizards, etc. It's a build for the same archetype - and though we have our share of overlapping builds in previous products (ardent palading and avenging paladin seem pretty much the same to me), nothing such as this new product.
To better explain my position with the new cleric:
Suppose player A wants to enter the game. He wants to play 4e - after reading a little, he picks the core books.
Suppose player B wants to enter the game. He wants to play 4e - after reading a little, he decides to pick the Essential line because they seem easier to learn.
Both of them come to the same game. Both of them want to the play the "interesting warpriest build" of their respective books. -If- one of these builds (be it the PHB or the Essential) is a better mechanical option than the other, one of them will be playing a character with "inferior mechanics" just because he chose the wrong book.
And that's bad.
I know each one is a different character. But the above is a question of balance - so much praised in 4e and difficult to find in 3e. I could play a Monk in 3e because it was a interesting character, but I would be stuck with a mechanical inferior class just because it wasn't balanced against all the other.
Of course I bring a character to the game, not a bunch of mechanical combos. But why should a new player have an inferior character mechanically just because of his choice of books???
Again, let me reiterate. None can say anything with "100% precision". What we're all doing is stating our fears and hopes, in light of the information available. At this point in time, there's no way to acuratelly guess -every single aspect- about the essential line.
------
Quote by Haldrik
The Essentials line is the new core.
And reading your info on Bills comments, if the above is true, one of my "points against Essentials" is touched :P.
I should point new players to the Essential books, not the "core books" then? That isn't good. As you've said, this is pretty much a 4.5 - even though it aims to maitain backward compability.
When word of this "revised edition" reaches brazilian market in mass, the game will suffer a lot here in my country :P. Devir, the company translating the books only translated the core books last year - if a new set of "core books" appear, there will be a lot of grief in brazilian customers :P.
People have bought their PHBs last year - and already their book is "secondary" to the Essential books being released...
At least, if you're right about Bill's comments, I'll be happy if some of the "fundamental" changes get to appear in the update process - like the racial stats modifiers
.------
However, as I've tried to state several times. Everything now is just rumor. The Essential line must roll out - and so all the "regular launches" and "updates/erratas" to see what direction this new line brings to the game.
We're in a bit of a weird space, since we don't really talk about the next year's releases until GenCon. However, I can say that since wrapping up Essentials design we've been busy working on 2011 releases. Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
essentials cleric preview:
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.
I have trouble reconciling these two statements.
anyway, like:
+ better integration of fluff into mechanics
+ smaller paperbacks = easier to use at the table, & much less expensive
dislike:
- different levels of complexity between classes*
That's about it for me. The rest I can take or leave, either way. The last is a bit of a sticking point, though. I don't want to return to the days where fighters aren't complex enough to keep veteran players' attention and wizards are too complicated for new players to grasp. Players should be able to pick a class based on what they want to play, and not feel coralled into one based on their level of experience.
Otherwise, I like the idea of shaking up the mechanics a bit more between classes, so individual classes feel a bit more unique. I also like the idea of gaining additional class features, not just powers, as you level, for the same reason.
I especially like the mention of better fluff grounding for the mechanics.
The paperback I can forgive if it makes the books affordable in this harsh economy. That said, they could make the books a dollar each, and I wouldn't buy them if the errata keeps up at the same pace. I already have books full of paste it notes and scribbles upon scribbles. I'm not going to buy the rules compendium if it ends up looking like my Players Handbook six months later. Heck, the recent Tiefling book didn't even hit the builder before getting significant errata. Why should I pay money for that?
So the entire essentials line remains on probation with me, just like all 4e books for the past year or so. If a book can go more then three months without errata, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I'm sticking to my current Scrapbook-looking PHB and self-correcting DDI subscription.
With the exception of Heroes of Shadow, of course. I needs me some necromancer.
The Essentials line is the new core. Thus if Essentials doesnt include a Psionic class, the Psionic power source would become non-core.
Diplomatically, this oversight could come across as a fresh rejection of the sector of the gaming community that maintains the Psionic tradition. The Psionic power source has been part of the D&D system since its earliest days of 'D&D 0e' - before there even was a 1e.
Several official campaign settings require the Psionic power source. These include the core setting whose interaction with the Farrealms often occurs only at the level conscious existence, where perceived reality unravels Psionically. Dark Sun and Gamma World require Psionic. Likewise, there is popular interest in a 21st century campaign setting where Psionic is appropriate.
The problem with the Psionic power point system in 4e is, this unique Character Advancement Table eliminates the Encounter powers, which are to some degree 'spontaneous', and imposes the Daily powers, which continue the Vancian spellcasting system of daily spell memorization. In 3e, the goal of the Psionic power point system was guarantee spontenaity and to eliminate the Vancian daily powers. However, the 4e Psionic power point system reintroduced the Vancian Daily powers, thus seems to contradict the need of the Psionic community for spontaneous powers.
Regarding the Psionic power source, it is a fundamental component of the D&D tradition, the current 4e power point system doesnt achieve the necessary spontenaity, and the current Essentials version of 4e creates the appearance of rejecting Psionic even tho official campaign settings are known to require it.
WRONG!!!
EVERYTHING, from the beginning of 2008's 4E launch, is CORE. There are 8 classes that have been re-done in a new style, but without rejecting the old classes. Other classes, old versions, and new versions will all be supported in the future.
They've said it a number of times, only 10 products are Essentials. They're not "re-doing" anything else, besides those 8 classes and 10 races, though they are updating all 27-odd races to the PH3 format.
I would really like it if you didn't start making things up like above and being a fearmonger, Haldrik. I agree with you on many levels of many topics, and there are places where I adamantly disagree. But this is a case where you're making proclamations that aren't based in anything WotC have said.
Both of them come to the same game. Both of them want to the play the "interesting warpriest build" of their respective books. -If- one of these builds (be it the PHB or the Essential) is a better mechanical option than the other, one of them will be playing a character with "inferior mechanics" just because he chose the wrong book.
Worst if the PHB player doesn't use errata.
Anyway I think a majority of 4e players aren't worried with this direction due to them having DDI so it will just update automatically. For the pure by the book non-DDI players, well, even if you don't care about Essentials, will all the future products making it a point of reference, sooner or later you have to "switch".
I am interested to see if the Knight/Slayer makes the sword-board and two-handed weapon fighter obsolete.
I agree, the universal advancement system is great. The possibility classes become unequal is alarming. At least, designers will have the standard Character Advancement table in the PH1 as a standard of comparison, if no longer a standard format.
'Maybe essenstials will blow my mind and the new method will be better. I do love 4e after all. So I will give it a chance.'
Same here.
'There is a serious problem with [appealing to the gamers who dont prefer 4e]. I doubt it's going to reel in that many older edition users. (Although some Pathfinder players will probably like it.) By changing what existing 4e fans enjoy, wotc is going to lose some customers. (Knee jerk reaction) I don't want to play 1e, I want to play 4e. Hence why I'm not playing 1e. Don't get me wrong. I'm a 4e fan, and I really like the system the way it is, which is why I'm not as accepting of these coming changes.'
It seems some of the most committed D&D 4e players in these forums are anxious about Essentials. It is wise for the designers to ensure the preferences of their current customer base.
'[Those of us who already bought the core 4e books], we WILL have to buy the essentials. If those are "Key" products then they're important to the changes being made, hence, highly suggested purchases.'
Digital 4e players can probably make do with the Compendium and Character Builder to adapt to the Essentials gaming system. However, hardcover 4e players must buy the new books. Still, their old books remain useful.
'['We made a number of changes in our approach to class design. At the same time, compatibility'] I'v got to see this in action. I think we need some free example PDFs, like a public playtest document with examples on how this will work. Seriously.'
The gaming community - the current customer base - needs to participate in the decision making process for what changes take place. The designers appear to have made significant changes to the game without consulting players. Essentials may be heading for the printers now, while the gaming community is just starting to find out the changes in play. The needs of the gaming community and the needs of the marketing strategy to maintain 'mystery', seem to be in conflict.
We'll see the Wizard's advancement table next week, but I can 99% assure you that classes will level up at the same rate. That would be the stupidest movie ever, to change the rates, since it through most of the 4e assumptions out of wack, such as encounters, rewards, party balance.
However, hardcover 4e players must buy the new books.
Either show me the gun WotC will hold to people's heads, or stop stating speculation as though it were fact, please.
WotC clearly announced which power sources and which classes the Essentials line will support. Just now, WotC revealed the Essential lines are the new core. From here on out, everything will be 'Players Options', not 'Players Essentials'.
The classes in the old 4e books are now obsolete, and the new Essentials classes outmode them. That is why, Slavicsek notes, the designers created the new versions of the classes. These are the new classes, which implement the new design philosophy, and replace the old classes.
However, the back-compatability means the old classes will continue to remain 'options' in the new Essentials environment.
The Psionic power source appears to have become, like the Shadow power source, 'non-essential'.
'EVERYTHING, from the beginning of 2008's 4E launch, is CORE.'
If your saying the Psionic power source is 'core'. I agree it should be so. Not an 'option', but an 'essential' part of the D&D tradition.
However, hardcover 4e players must buy the new books.
Either show me the gun WotC will hold to people's heads, or stop stating speculation as though it were fact, please.
Mike Mearls specifically said you WON'T need to buy Essentials to use future products. Haldrik should check his sources.
And Bill Slavicsek never ONCE said they were obsolete; rather, he said that you could play them side by side, and they'd be equally playable. THey're both CORE, and both will be supported by 4th Revised. Stop Making Things Up.
Mike Mearl means, Essentials is back-compatable. Therefore PH classes remain usable. However, he doesnt mean WotC will continue to support the PH classes. The Essentials classes replace them. The Essentials classes embody the new 'revised' 4e design philosophy, the PH classes dont.
PH1, PH2, PH3, seem to be 'Vista'. Essentials seems to be 'Windows 7'. Vista products remain compatable with Windows 7, but Microsoft no longer supports Vista.
I have trouble reconciling these two statements.
Easy enough. They've got a new paradigm for class design, one that allows for different rates of power acquisition between classes and the introduction of new class features as a character levels. This is a 'new direction in class design' going forward.
However, the core rules of the game: how skills work, how weapons work, initiative, saving throws, dying, combat rounds, conditions, bloodied values, healing surge, damage stacking, what the party roles mean, and so on, the 'game rules', are still the same rules in the PHB (plus released eratta, of course).
That said, I'm also skeptical, since the rules compendium sounds a lot more conveneint for rules reference (smaller, lighter, already includes current eratta, doesn't include any superfluous, non-core-game-rule material like race, class, and magic item write ups).
'[Those of us who already bought the core 4e books], we WILL have to buy the essentials. If those are "Key" products then they're important to the changes being made, hence, highly suggested purchases.'
Digital 4e players can probably make do with the Compendium and Character Builder to adapt to the Essentials gaming system. However, hardcover 4e players must buy the new books. Still, their old books remain useful.
Only if they want to play the class builds in those books, just like you only had to buy PHBIII if you wanted to play one of the races or classes in that. The core game rules are the same as those found in the PHBI, provided you print off and use the errata provided free on wizards' web site. Yeah, applying the errata is annoying, but it's doable without buying any extra books. I'm sure any changes to core races will be incorporated into future errata, and they keep saying that the new class builds and options don't displace the existing ones, except in ways that, again, will be provided free of charge (if not free of hassle) via errata - such as the revised wizard encounter power entries, and the (annoyingly) revised magic missile that we've already seen.
I'm not saying it's a great way to do things, and I'm not saying I necessarily like it, but if you want to skip the essentials books and still use the necromancer in Heroes of Shadow, there's no reason at the moment to think that you'd have any problems doing just that, aside from the already existing hassle of applying freely available errata to the core books.
Marandahir: 'Mike Mearls specifically said you WON'T need to buy Essentials to use future products.'
Mike Mearl means, Essentials is back-compatable. Therefore PH classes remain usable. However, he doesnt mean WotC will continue to support the PH classes. The Essentials classes replace them. The Essentials classes embody the new 'revised' 4e design philosophy, the PH classes dont.
PH1, PH2, PH3, seem to be 'Vista'. Essentials seems to be 'Windows 7'. Vista products remain compatable with Windows 7, but Microsoft no longer supports Vista.
Yes, this is how I see it. It's all about backward compatibility. We can still use out old corebooks for the new stuff that's coming out after Essentials, but from a new player's perspective, WOTC is supporting Essentials instead.
First, after what we've seen, I do think this is basically 4.5, and no amount of marketing speak saying "No, really, it's not, really!" is going to change that. If you create a new main core book for the game with a reboot of all the original races and classes that follows a new design paradigm that will be followed in every book thereafter, you've created a revision, no matter how much you try and say it's not really a revision.
As for the content we've seen so far, I'm kind of unsure. Even though I sort of expected this to be 4.5, I'm still a little surprised that it is, so I was unprepared for how much they're changing everything. Having class features while leveling again is nice, and having the new stat choice on the original races will be nice. Having more build choices that affect the classes throughout the whole leveling process and "kits" may be cool. But I think all of this is making the game more complex, not making it simpler. It's kind of hard to swallow "We made the new cleric simpler and streamlined" and then get shown that it's exactly the same as the old cleric except they added a bunch of stuff to it in exchange for Healer's Lore.
Maybe Cleric is one that they decided to keep the same; it sounds like they added a bunch of new stuff to the Wizard to make him more complicated, and their strong implication is that they removed a bunch of stuff from the Fighter to make him "the class for new players". I'm hoping they didn't remove too much, because I really liked having the Fighter be a complex class with lots of options, rather than a guy who just says "I attack it" every round of combat. I'm guessing they removed the Fighter's daily powers and instead gave him Combat Feats like in 3e... hence the new feat column in the class advancement table.
The big question is what 2011 is going to look like... will it be all new material, or is it going to be the "Essential" updates to PHB2/3 races and other existing material. It seems highly likely they're release new "Essential" versions of the other races and classes, even if they aren't labeled "Essential", and just appear in some new series of books about "expanded options". We'll see. So much to speculate rampantly about!
The designers would be commiting marketing suicide if the Essentials were vastly different from the core premise of 4e. A few minute changes to the core rules might be considered a new edition to some but it's a philosophical argument splitting hairs.
I'm starting to think Essentials will be to 4e what 2e was to 1e. In other words the changes are minor and a 1e character could be played using 2e rules with little of no change. We did it all the time in the early 90's.
Thats exactly how I see it! Back then you can use 1e PHB with 2e MM and adventures, vice versa. They wanted to flip the AC to ascending in 2e, but didn't so to maintain backward compatibility.
Well, we can expect the Warlord to be Essentialized in later books. Basically reprinting the classes all over, except they call it "new builds". I think we know a .5 edition when we see one.
I too think that the PHB1 is simpler with choose atwill/enc/daily for all classes, so when you play any class, you know you have to pick the same amount of powers. Making complexity of classes vary (fighter to wizard) is just trying to appease the old players but at the same time, they want to cater to the newbies as well.
Is creating a level 1 PHB Cleric really that difficult compared to an Essential Warpriest?
A Sneak Pique
Based on the (incomplete) disclosures by the designers, it is clear. Essentials are the new 'core'. These books will be the venue to publish a deep change in the 4e design philosophy. From now on, all future D&D 4e products will adopt the changes that the Essentials signal.
On the one hand, this is a 'revision' of D&D 4e. Thus players who use the slogan '4.5' seem to be correct. On the other hand, the 'new version' sotospeak maintains back-compatability. Thus, previous 4e content can coexist while moving into the new 4e gaming environment.
While these changes are deep, involving the very structure of class design, they are limited in scope. The main goal of these changes is to make D&D friendlier for new players. Therefore, the designers chose to make certain classes simpler to play. The game will officially recommend the simplest class for newbies. Conducively, this design decision happened to resemble D&D 1e. This opened the door to design each class with a unique Character Advancement table. Each class has its own level of complexity and resource management system with regard to Dailies versus Encounters, and so on. How far each class will deviate from the standard Character Advancement table remains to be seen, and depends on class by class cases.
The designers hope, the new design philosophy for classes will interest old-school D&D 3e gamers who are nostalgic about 1e. To some degree, D&D 3e likewise created the structure of each class indepent of the other classes.
Below are some relevant quotes. They confirm, Essentials signals a change in the philosophy of class design that all future classes in 4e will adopt from now on.
Slavicsek: 'The Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward. These 10 key products are designed to be a great place to start your Dungeons & Dragons game experience, as well as being a set of core reference tools for everyone playing the game.'
'The player character classes were designed after reviewing two years of [4e] game play.'
'A secondary goal: Find ways to give the classes different levels of complexity. The original [1e] Dungeons & Dragons game design allowed players to find their own level of mastery. Playing a wizard required more rules mastery than playing a fighter. We wanted to return to that aspect of the Dungeons & Dragons game. [Some players] liked more complex or simple character classes.'
'We made a number of changes in our approach to class design. At the same time, we placed compatibility as our number one goal. This arrangement forced us to add new design to the game without replacing existing classes. Introducing new variations of existing character classes was the best way to meet that goal.'
'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 [for all 4e books from now on]. However, we maintain compatibility with material that came before [this change]. The Essentials products allow us to roll out new approaches within the scope of the current game, [to] not force you to buy new books and abandon your old ones.'
The main point is: the Essentials is 'the future' of D&D 4e. It charts a 'new direction' that all future 4e publications will adopt 'from here on out'.
Essentials is a deep structural change in the design philosophy of classes. However, the designers were 'forced' to maintain the compatability of the old 4e classes within the new gaming system.
No doubt, future class developments will keep an eye on the standard Character Advancement table in PH1. I hope looking at it is enough, while they intentionally deviate from it. I hope the new differences from class to class are truly comparable to each other, and can sustain the balance of the overall 4e gaming system. I hope this new philosophy for class design doesnt reintroduce the old imbalances between the classes, which already caused the gaming design of each version of D&D to crash. 4e fixed the problem by means of the standard Character Advancement table.
The imbalances between the classes has plagued D&D since its inception, and continually causes the gaming system as a whole to unravel. Hopefully, we will never see imbalanced classes again.
I agree completely.
I'm starting to think Essentials will be to 4e what 2e was to 1e. In other words the changes are minor and a 1e character could be played using 2e rules with little of no change. We did it all the time in the early 90's.
Honestly, if that is the case that Essentials to 4e is what 2e was to 1e, then doesn't that make Essentials basically 5e then? In either case when any of you look at it the bottom lin is that it is definitely a different version/edition or whatever you want to call it. All they did was give us a new version/edition and called it something else so as not to cause such a stir...oops too late.
I agree, we should all just calm down a bit (present company included) and just wait and see. That way one side or the other of this argument can say SEE HA! IN YOUR FACE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT PERSON(S)!
Seriously, let's just wait and see.
To me it seems as an excuse to reproduce all the 4e class content, do a new cleric, a new druid, a new avenger, rebuild paragon paths, monsters, powers, etc.
In the end, if you use the older versions of the classes, you aren't as powerful as a character who uses the revised versions. And as you cannot use all the material that is produced from Essentials on with your older versions of the classes, you will have to switch or stay with the old.
I'm starting to think Essentials will be to 4e what 2e was to 1e. In other words the changes are minor and a 1e character could be played using 2e rules with little of no change. We did it all the time in the early 90's.
Honestly, if that is the case that Essentials to 4e is what 2e was to 1e, then doesn't that make Essentials basically 5e then? In either case when any of you look at it the bottom lin is that it is definitely a different version/edition or whatever you want to call it. All they did was give us a new version/edition and called it something else so as not to cause such a stir...oops too late.
I agree, we should all just calm down a bit (present company included) and just wait and see. That way one side or the other of this argument can say SEE HA! IN YOUR FACE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT PERSON(S)!
Seriously, let's just wait and see.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Oh, you mean like when we were told the changes with 3.5 were gonna be MINOR...and then....
! I remember those backlash threads. Some were CRUEL! I'm starting to think Essentials will be to 4e what 2e was to 1e. In other words the changes are minor and a 1e character could be played using 2e rules with little of no change. We did it all the time in the early 90's.
Honestly, if that is the case that Essentials to 4e is what 2e was to 1e, then doesn't that make Essentials basically 5e then? In either case when any of you look at it the bottom lin is that it is definitely a different version/edition or whatever you want to call it. All they did was give us a new version/edition and called it something else so as not to cause such a stir...oops too late.
I agree, we should all just calm down a bit (present company included) and just wait and see. That way one side or the other of this argument can say SEE HA! IN YOUR FACE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT PERSON(S)!
Seriously, let's just wait and see.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Oh, you mean like when we were told the changes with 3.5 were gonna be MINOR...and then....! I remember those backlash threads. Some were CRUEL!
Sometimes gloating that you predicted something bad was going to happen is the only thing that makes you sane when that something bad happens. ;)
I'm not very thrilled by what I read in today's article on Essentials. It comes with the same feeling that 3.5 had when it was announced. Back then, they said how compatible it would be with 3.0, but in the end we threw away your old books and bought new ones. The biggest problem I see is the decision to make Essentials the new design philosophy and not - as it seemed to be - a different approach for new players into the game. Yes, it will be a better system. They learned a lot from feedback over the last 2 years. But that won't be an excuse for producing books we have to buy to stay up-to-date with D&D.
To me it seems as an excuse to reproduce all the 4e class content, do a new cleric, a new druid, a new avenger, rebuild paragon paths, monsters, powers, etc.
In the end, if you use the older versions of the classes, you aren't as powerful as a character who uses the revised versions. And as you cannot use all the material that is produced from Essentials on with your older versions of the classes, you will have to switch or stay with the old.
Agreed!
I'm starting to think Essentials will be to 4e what 2e was to 1e. In other words the changes are minor and a 1e character could be played using 2e rules with little of no change. We did it all the time in the early 90's.
Honestly, if that is the case that Essentials to 4e is what 2e was to 1e, then doesn't that make Essentials basically 5e then? In either case when any of you look at it the bottom lin is that it is definitely a different version/edition or whatever you want to call it. All they did was give us a new version/edition and called it something else so as not to cause such a stir...oops too late.
I agree, we should all just calm down a bit (present company included) and just wait and see. That way one side or the other of this argument can say SEE HA! IN YOUR FACE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT PERSON(S)!
Seriously, let's just wait and see.
(Bold emphasis mine)
Oh, you mean like when we were told the changes with 3.5 were gonna be MINOR...and then....! I remember those backlash threads. Some were CRUEL!
Sometimes gloating that you predicted something bad was going to happen is the only thing that makes you sane when that something bad happens. ;)
LMAO! TOO Funny! But yes gloating is a great wat to keep one senility in tact. But yes also, that some can be overly cruel. That's why I just simply say IN YOUR FACE when I'm correct...which it not too often; just ask my 2nd wife!
First, after what we've seen, I do think this is basically 4.5, and no amount of marketing speak saying "No, really, it's not, really!" is going to change that. If you create a new main core book for the game with a reboot of all the original races and classes that follows a new design paradigm that will be followed in every book thereafter, you've created a revision, no matter how much you try and say it's not really a revision.
"reboot" implies that I wouldn't be able to, say, bring my tempest fighter to an LFR game, or use it at a table using the current rules without significant house ruling, and that does not seem to be the case.
'4.5' implies that, like going from 3.0 to 3.5, everyone would have to buy replacement versions of books they already own to be using the current rules, and that other previous books would be unplayable without significant house ruleing. Or that we would have to buy new books to get the core rules in order to use future products. That, again, doesn't seem to be the case.
You only have to get the essentials books if you want to use the essentials class variants (and even then, you likely don't really need to get the books if you subscribe to DDI for the compendium and builder). Essentials uses the same core rules as the PHBI - provided you make use of the freely available errata. If you want to skip the class variants in the essentials books, but still want to incorporate the necromancer class from Heroes of Shadow into your game, it looks like you'll be able to do so without any trouble or house rules (apart from the hassle of printing out and using the free errata). You won't need 'Heroes of the Fallen Lands' to use 'Heroes of Shadow' in your game, and you won't need the 'rules compendium' if you already have the 'Player's Handbook', though it sounds like it might be sufficiently more convenient as a table reference (due to being smaller and lighter) that it might be worth considering for current players anyway. I'd say something about having errata already in it, but I have no reason to think the unreasonable tide of errata will slow once the essentials books come out, so the Rules Compendium will likely be as full of scribblings and sticky notes as my PHB before too long.
Oh, sure, the 'Heroes of Shadow' classes will be structured more like the 'Heroes of the Fallen Lands' classes then like the PHB classes, but from what little I could tell from the cleric preview, the differences are largely cosmetic (similar if not identical rate of power acquisition, plus class features that the core cleric already got via ritual casting), and we've already seen 4e classes that stray much father from the PHB norm in the psionic classes.
So does essentials represent a significant change in design philosophy for classes? Yes. Does it represent a significant change in the product plan for 4e? Yes. Does it represent significant changes to the core rules (and by this I mean changes to things like damage reduction, vulnerability, initiative, action types, stats effects, how skills work, how saving throws work, and so on)? No. Does it invalidate any previous material? No more so then any new release does (one can already argue that the runepriest was a better version of the PHB's battle cleric). Does it require you to buy any books for any reason other then wanting to play new options introduced in them? No.
So is it a new edition? Er, kind of. But not at all in the same way that 3.5 was.
TL,DR: existing players don't need to buy the essentials books unless they want to play the class variants introduced in them. Otherwise, the rules are the same, so long as you use the errata. Essentials books do not seem to be required in order to play future 'players option' releases.
"reboot" implies that I wouldn't be able to, say, bring my tempest fighter to an LFR game, or use it at a table using the current rules without significant house ruling, and that does not seem to be the case.
That's not necessarily what I mean by "reboot". It's a revision, or a reboot, but you're right that unlike 3.5e, they're at least trying to make it backwards compatible. However, I have some real doubts as to just how much the backwards compatibility matters. I do think they're going to release new "Essential-ized" versions of all the other races and classes, and even though technically these aren't "replacing" the old versions, they're still going to be the only versions that get any direct support, and future books will assume you're using the new versions after a few months. For example new racial feats from now on are probably going to assume you're using the version of the race that has the customizable secondary stat, rather than the version with the fixed stats. Future cleric powers will probably all be Wisdom based since the "new" Warpriest uses Wis/Con instead of Str/Cha like the original. Sure, your old Str cleric Warpriest is still "supported" and you can play him alongside ann Essential Warpriest, but the Essential Warpriest will be getting all the shiny new feats and powers from now on.
TL,DR: existing players don't need to buy the essentials books unless they want to play the class variants introduced in them. Otherwise, the rules are the same, so long as you use the errata. Essentials books do not seem to be required in order to play future 'players option' releases.
I don't think they'll be required but I think they'll be strongly preferred. Like, the next Divine Options book will have a whole bunch of new domain abilities for Warpriests and the Essential Cleric that the old one can't use, and a bunch of powers that are usable by any cleric but that all have "kickers" tied to the Essentials versions. They'll probably all be Wis primary Con secondary, meaning most old clerics also won't be able to use ability kickers. The Prestige classes will be tied to the new Essential style and domains. So technically your old Cleric can maybe get some use out of it, but not nearly as much use as a revised one.
Of course I could just be paranoid, but if I was an RPG marketing team, that's how I'd do it. Their goal is to make us feel like we have to buy the book without making us feel like we HAVE to buy the book. If that makes sense.
Makeshiftwings: 'Future cleric powers will probably all be Wisdom based, since the "new" Warpriest uses Wis/Con instead of Str/Cha like the original.'
In Roma.
Thanks
That's not necessarily what I mean by "reboot". It's a revision, or a reboot, but you're right that unlike 3.5e, they're at least trying to make it backwards compatible. However, I have some real doubts as to just how much the backwards compatibility matters. I do think they're going to release new "Essential-ized" versions of all the other races and classes, and even though technically these aren't "replacing" the old versions, they're still going to be the only versions that get any direct support, and future books will assume you're using the new versions after a few months.
I'm not sure how much that matters. Other then the V to A classes, anyway.
For example new racial feats from now on are probably going to assume you're using the version of the race that has the customizable secondary stat, rather than the version with the fixed stats. Future cleric powers will probably all be Wisdom based since the "new" Warpriest uses Wis/Con instead of Str/Cha like the original. Sure, your old Str cleric Warpriest is still "supported" and you can play him alongside ann Essential Warpriest, but the Essential Warpriest will be getting all the shiny new feats and powers from now on.
I'd be surprised if the customizable secondary stat doesn't get errata'd into the PHB in the first update after the essentials books come out, so I'm going to wait at least that long before worrying about the races.
Non-build-specific class feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and powers will all translate just as well onto the old versions as the new.Lack of support for the atrophied limb of the old 'V' shape classes is a concern, though. We'll see how wizards handles it.
I'm not sure we're going to get 'essentialized' versions of all the old classes. Maybe, but I'm far from convinced that we'll see an essentialized warlock, artificer, or warden.
I don't think they'll be required but I think they'll be strongly preferred. Like, the next Divine Options book will have a whole bunch of new domain abilities for Warpriests and the Essential Cleric that the old one can't use, and a bunch of powers that are usable by any cleric but that all have "kickers" tied to the Essentials versions.
We'll see, I guess. I wouldn't worry about that too much until there's actually a new divine supplement announced, though. I sincerely doubt that a new divine splat could be released that would somehow fail to include any treats for the PHBI divine classes. Maybe not as much as there'd otherwise be, but that's always the case when new classes and builds come out. The PHBI builds already have a lot of build specific support, the essentials classes (along with the seeker and the runepriest) simply need more splat support anyway.
They'll probably all be Wis primary Con secondary, meaning most old clerics also won't be able to use ability kickers. The Prestige classes will be tied to the new Essential style and domains.
What, out of spite? The newer stuff would be sure to get more splat support from a new supplement, but that's only fair since they don't have any splat support from the first divine supplement, and I have a hard time believing that Wizards would go out of their way to produce a book with no support for the original classes simply to spite their player base, especially when they're trying so hard to keep up the fully compatible same game mantra.
Of course I could just be paranoid, but if I was an RPG marketing team, that's how I'd do it. Their goal is to make us feel like we have to buy the book without making us feel like we HAVE to buy the book. If that makes sense.
Cutting all support for the PHBI material doesn't encourage people who would otherwise would have passed on Essentials to pick it up, it just encourages them to pass on future splats as well, while alienating the player base. The way they use a splat book to sell a skeptical player on essentials is to include a few good / fun options for the older material to draw you into the purchase, and then once you own the book you get to see all the other fun options for the essentials build, leading you to want that book even even if before you had passed over it.
So yeah, you can expect small but meaningful support for the original versions of the classes going forward. Not a ton of build specific stuff, but enough that you might actually consider getting the books for it. And you couldn't expect a ton of build specific support for PHBI builds in future divine splats, anyway, since those builds already have a bunch of splat support, and newer stuff (not just the essentials versions, but the seeker and runepriest as well) obviously has more need of splat support.
So yeah, future support for PHBI classes is something I really don't think you have to worry too much about, with the possible exception of the atrophied arms of the V classes - which I agree is a potential issue and something worth watching for.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
No, its simply a statement. I'm passing very little to no judgment on WotC for the Essentials Line. However it does mean anything they say about their plans in the future shouldn't be treated as gospel but instead skepticism until the product is actually in our hands.
Aside from the somewhat hilarous idea of "getting back into 4th ed" (from a 2 month break? Stuff's been out 2 years)
Who said 2 month break? I certainly didn't in the part you quote (and I don't mention the word month in my post at all).
The PHB1 is fundamentally still completely valid for all the actual content - classes, items, rituals - and the only stuff that was errataed was, surprisingly, the rules.
So you're saying the powers in PHB1 are valid because they haven't been errataed? All the content you cite can and has been errata'd. This is because the content you cited are part of the rules of 4th ed.
If it's closer to a 3.5 class than a 4e class, shouldn't it be called 3.75?
A label's merely a label. You can call it whatever you like (many call Pathfinder 3.75). Personally speaking had the Essentials line been released under the name 4th ed and PHB1-2 released later I'd still be calling PHB1-2 4.5e. This is due to the differences being much larger then simply presenting a new build. However in that scenario PHB1-2 would have been a simplifcation of Essentials.
Bill Slavicsek just clarified that pre-Essential products will not be change besides design shifts they were planning on regardless – such as wizard errata to have mis-effects or races getting versatile ability score modifiers.
So does this mean all the new race versions will be available in Errata?
If everything is playtested well, it could possibly be balanced with the Player's Handbook-type classes.
Very little of what WotC produces gives me confidence it will be playtested well. Look at all the errata they produce.
Obviously, there's no Essentials version of Invoker, Avenger, or Runepriest, so that book will include normal increased options for those. But the question is what it'll do for Clerics and Paladins.
It could also mean the power books of old will no longer exist. Instead each new power book will have different subclasses as demonstrated in the Essentials line. Their contention that 4th ed classes can take 4.5e powers (except possibly at-wills) will mean that Divine Power 2 will still technically support both editions while actually giving very few options tailored specifically for 4th ed characters. Hypthoetically speaking that is.
Both of them come to the same game. Both of them want to the play the "interesting warpriest build" of their respective books. -If- one of these builds (be it the PHB or the Essential) is a better mechanical option than the other, one of them will be playing a character with "inferior mechanics" just because he chose the wrong book.
And that's bad.
That I can understand. And I do address this scenario in my original post. We'll simply have to wait and see whether or not Essentials is more powerful then 4th ed.
That said, I'm also skeptical, since the rules compendium sounds a lot more conveneint for rules reference (smaller, lighter, already includes current eratta, doesn't include any superfluous, non-core-game-rule material like race, class, and magic item write ups).
Buying anything with the hope it won't get errata'd is foolish.
"reboot" implies that I wouldn't be able to, say, bring my tempest fighter to an LFR game
I care little about what you can or can't do in LFR. I imagine most 4th ed players don't care either.
A reasonable point.
Makeshiftwings: 'Future cleric powers will probably all be Wisdom based, since the "new" Warpriest uses Wis/Con instead of Str/Cha like the original.'
Now that's a good point. And it does demonstrate the issue with the conceit of all clerics getting equal support.
Oh, I agree. I just mean, that if I needed to reference game rules, and I had a small, light book of game rules with three pages of errata and a bigger, heavier book with eight pages of errata and a bunch of extra info I'm not looking for, I'd go with the former.
As such, it seems odd to me for a designer to suggest he'd use the PHB as a primary rules reference when he had access to the newer rules compendium.
I care little about what you can or can't do in LFR. I imagine most 4th ed players don't care either.
Reboot implies that the previous version is thrown out, or is unusable. The point is the PHB I classes still work perfectly fine under the current rules, because the core game rules haven't changed at all. Not like the 'reboot' from 3.0 to 3.5, where a lot of little game rules were changed, making it annoying to try and use any 3.0 material in a 3.5 game.
The V/A class thing is a potential issue, but it was already a problem, so this is nothing new to essentials. All new builds introduced for cleric were already going to be wisdom based, and I expect the same couple of bones and nothing more thrown to strength clerics in future divine splats that I would have expected if essentials never existed.
Of course I could just be paranoid, but if I was an RPG marketing team, that's how I'd do it. Their goal is to make us feel like we have to buy the book without making us feel like we HAVE to buy the book. If that makes sense.
I bet that's it.
: Hey design team, we need to make a new revision to everything.
: Sure. you're the boss, marketing team. How should we approach it?: We want consumers to feel like they have to buy the products without making them feel like they HAVE to buy the products.: That's our goal?: That's our goal. We understand how it can be confusing since we previously tried to get consumers to feel like they HAVE to buy the products without making them feel like they have to buy the products. Thus the PDF sales issues, etc.: No, no prob. That makes sense.`Even by itself, Wis-Con communicates solid flavor. Wis: spiritual intuition. Con: relentless perseverence in the face of pain.
`This Wis-Con Warbuild now contrasts the (probable) Str-Cha Paladin. In previous editions, the blurriness between the flavor of the Cleric with the flavor of the Paladin sat less well with me. I feel this time, Wis-Con versus Str-Cha will help distinguish these two character concepts.
`Relatedly, the Ampersand article establishes the Warpriest concept as a gish, 'occupying the middle ground between the wizard and the fighter'. Here the Wis-style intuitive mage and the Con-style tough warrior, serve a gish concept well.
`Perhaps there are no more V-build classes. I expect both builds to prioritize Wisdom, but to make their auxillary ability significant. If this is the case, some players will like the development.
`The Wis-Con Dwarf race will make exemplary Warpriests. This affinity backs up some of the racial flavor according to the D&D tradition.
I like the Wis-Con flavor for the Warpriest and dont mind the implications.
A feature of the Warpriest that makes me hesitate is Smite Undead. For example, I cant see how a spiritual tradition that centers around the ideal power of the Storm .. specializes in the destruction of undead. I prefer Smite Undead to be part of the Domain selection. For example, a Sun-oriented spirituality makes sense to destroy undead - vampires, sunlight, and all that. However, for other domains, I like to see alternative Channel Divinity features.
Healing, however, makes sense. Regardless of the spiritual tradition, these are 'war' priests after all. By necessity they must be able to heal from the battles that the leap into. I feel, Healing Word and Resurrection work well here.
I have concerns about 'baking' the flavor into the mechanics. Limiting flavor choices seems to compromise the design goal of 'Player Choice'. Does customization and personalization work well? The Warpriest seems difficult to reflavor. I am curious about hybriding.
Overall, the new Warpriest build seems to be a high quality class. D&D players differ famously in their playing styles. Hopefully, Essentials can accommodate as many playing styles as possible. Differences in personal taste aside, we can count on the Essentials line to offer high quality classes.
Malisteen: 'Maybe, but I'm far from convinced that we'll see an essentialized warlock, artificer, or warden.'
Warlock is one of the classes in the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms. So, we will see a new Essentials Warlock design to replace the old Warlock.
I expect Dragon magazine to continue to support the old PH classes.
That said, I don't expect any other classes to get the Essentials treatment if they've been printed already besides the caveat of the Assassin.
That said, I don't expect any other classes to get the Essentials treatment if they've been printed already besides the caveat of the Assassin.
Are you kidding? They are obviously going to redo all of the classes and races via the Player's Option line.
Why wouldn't they? It's saleable content that they've basically already developed. Just a nip here and a tuck there, and voila, instant product.
A reasonable point.
Makeshiftwings: 'Future cleric powers will probably all be Wisdom based, since the "new" Warpriest uses Wis/Con instead of Str/Cha like the original.'
Makeshiftwings hit the nail in the head.
If Essential line was to be a "side product mean't for new players" and "entirely optional for existing players" and "a line consisting of 10 products", they shouldn't get further support in splatbooks or electronic content.
I've certainly not paid one year of subscription to get "new mechanics and rules for our entirely optional side product" each month.
New books and articles for D&D 4 should assume players own D&D 4 core books, not Essentials.
If Divine Power 2 - a book mean't to support D&D 4 characters wastes space supporting the "entirely optional line" or worse, exclusively support the "entirely optional line", we'll be certainly into "revised edition" territory ¬¬.
Of course, unless they update all previous material on-line...
That said, I don't expect any other classes to get the Essentials treatment if they've been printed already besides the caveat of the Assassin.
Are you kidding? They are obviously going to redo all of the classes and races via the Player's Option line.
Why wouldn't they? It's saleable content that they've basically already developed. Just a nip here and a tuck there, and voila, instant product.
Because it's saleable content nobody will buy.
Because it's content that's basically errata.
Because WotC aren't THAT evil.
Because we're not STUPID enough to pay for that.
Surely, Players Options will eventually offer new builds for every class.
How can it be any other way?
The Essentials design philosophy is the new way to build classes. As the current plan goes, all future classes will develop this way.
Before Essentials, WotC would publish a new build for a class via PHs or the Power books. For example, the 'Storm Sorcerer' build came out in the Arcane Power book.
But now, how will WotC publish new builds? Apparently thru the Players Options line. As such, when WotC publishes a new kind of Sorcerer build, it will be in the form of a 'subclass' build in a Players Options: Heroes of Arcane, or whatever the title will be.
Eventually, WotC will have Essential-esque class builds for most of the current classes. Some of these new builds will be a different option for the class, some will overlap with earlier builds, some will reinvent an earlier build. Designers can cherry pick which current classes they want to work on.
Surely, Players Options will eventually offer new builds for every class.
How can it be any other way?
The only Player's Option book we know about introduces a new (to those without DDI) power source, it does not retread material already published in books.
No matter what the book title will be, the result seems inevitable. Eventually, there will be Essential-esque builds for more-or-less all of the current classes.
I wouldn't have minded if this all would have happened in 2 or 3 years from now on, but hey, 4e was released 2 years ago...
This means that the PHB and the rest will go out of print, and that newbies will only know this 'version' of 4th edition. If the red box sales plan works to get more people playing the game, then they will need to cater new products for them (as their percentage of players goes up).
I predict that newer products supporting Arcane, Divine etc power sources will provide 'essential' versions of classes like Bards, Sorcerers etc, but will have plenty of usable bits for the PHB classes.
Not quite sure what product they use to update PHB2 etc player races to the new standard though.
But give it 2-3 years and they'll evolve all the PHB stuff out of the game. It's a better plan than the way 3.5 was handled anyway.
Shot in the dark perhaps, but if WotC are looking at retro edition, does that favour Grayhawk as the next setting?
WotC
: we're gonna publish a new set of books full of new class options, they don't make your old stuff outdated, everything will stack backward compatible, you're not forced to buy said books but they're full of cool stuff and options and new thingies and we will keep supporting them because, you know, we want you to buy them!Disgrunted fan
: such travesty! So you're telling me you're pushing out a new book with new builds for classes and a new approach to things and you expect to build all future stuff with support for that??WotC
: we sort of feel like this new kind of content works better, and leaves us more room for improvements and new things, so yes, while all the old stuff will work too, we do prefer to work on the new format...Disgrunted fan
: bollocks! So what you're saying is that I'm forced to buy the new books because they add core elements to the game! And that you will keep pushing out content in an organic form, building up on every step you took, instead of splitting your resources on two entirely different sets of rules and classes! I'm disgusted!WotC
: we're just trying to make money here, and publishing something you may want...Disgrunted fan
: bollocks! The entire idea of the Essential line is that I shouldn't want it! Nobody should buy it! If you want to make it a success, you need to make it completely irrelevant to the game!WotC
: wait a second, so you're telling us we should publish something that we're sure you DON'T want?Disgrunted fan
: exactly! I've already spent money on your stuff! So the new stuff that comes out should be all completely optional and possibly having no element of interest over the past stuff! STOP TRYING TO SELL ME YOUR STUFF AND START PUBLISHING THINGS I WON'T FEEL I NEED!... cause guys, that's the entire point here. We are guaranteed that our old manuals will be compatible (if they 180° on that, it will be chaos). They're definitely expanding the core, but expecting them to publish material that doesn't contain superior gameplay options is more than foolish, it's suicidal.
Will we see more 'essentialized' builds of previous classes in future player's option books? Probably. Will we see a systematic release of such builds for each and every class? Probably not. Will we still see future support for PHBI builds? Certainly. It's just good business sense. Including such support is how they get you to get over your nerd rage and buy future splats, and maybe then relax enough to go back and buy the essentials books after all. Will we see a lot of such support? Of course not, those builds already have a ton of splat support, and newer builds and classes would have needed and received more support even if essentials had never existed. Will future classes look more like the classes in essentials then the PHB? Well sure. But we already new we were going to see greater deviation from the PHB in class design moving forward. That's not a surprise or a problem.
Yeller, are you speculating WotC will continue to publish PH4, PH5, and Arcane 3, 4, etc. using the new Essential-esque design philosophy?
No matter what the book title will be, the result seems inevitable. Eventually, there will be Essential-esque builds for more-or-less all of the current classes.
I'm pointing out that there is no evidence that "Essenstializing" old classes is the purpose of Player's Option.
If I were to speculate, I would say it's not a "sure thing" that we'll get "Essenstialized" versions of all the classes as some posters are assuming.. If the two player Essentials books tanked, it would be a pretty bad idea to try to sell us more classes that we already had.
Since we're appreciating satire, let me sum up the argument for you:
WotC : we're gonna publish a new set of books full of new class options, they don't make your old stuff outdated, everything will stack backward compatible, you're not forced to buy said books but they're full of cool stuff and options and new thingies and we will keep supporting them because, you know, we want you to buy them!
Disgrunted fan : such travesty! So you're telling me you're pushing out a new book with new builds for classes and a new approach to things and you expect to build all future stuff with support for that??
WotC : we sort of feel like this new kind of content works better, and leaves us more room for improvements and new things, so yes, while all the old stuff will work too, we do prefer to work on the new format...
Disgrunted fan : bollocks! So what you're saying is that I'm forced to buy the new books because they add core elements to the game! And that you will keep pushing out content in an organic form, building up on every step you took, instead of splitting your resources on two entirely different sets of rules and classes! I'm disgusted!
WotC : we're just trying to make money here, and publishing something you may want...
Disgrunted fan : bollocks! The entire idea of the Essential line is that I shouldn't want it! Nobody should buy it! If you want to make it a success, you need to make it completely irrelevant to the game!
WotC : wait a second, so you're telling us we should publish something that we're sure you DON'T want?
Disgrunted fan : exactly! I've already spent money on your stuff! So the new stuff that comes out should be all completely optional and possibly having no element of interest over the past stuff! STOP TRYING TO SELL ME YOUR STUFF AND START PUBLISHING THINGS I WON'T FEEL I NEED!
... cause guys, that's the entire point here. We are guaranteed that our old manuals will be compatible (if they 180° on that, it will be chaos). They're definitely expanding the core, but expecting them to publish material that doesn't contain superior gameplay options is more than foolish, it's suicidal.
"Actually, the argument here, while premature is more like:"
WotC: 'Here's some books to help new players into the game.'
Fans: 'Okay, whatever, will they have new builds?'
WotC: 'Yup.'
Fans: 'Cool, whatever, they might be worth looking at...'
WotC: 'Oh, by the way, did we forget to mention that they also might change the entire way we've been building up the game? All the promises you were so happy with at the beginning of 4e, we might go ahead an ditch those. We'll stick some of the serious material into softcover books.'
Fans: 'Wait... What? Did you maybe think you should ask us what we think?'
"Now, of course, as I said, this is premature. If GenCon comes around, and they tell us there won't be a PHB4, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2, and the crappy softcover Essentials books will be replacing them (instead of just being extra material alongside), then I'm on the 'Screw Wizards' bandwagon."
"In this circumstance, seems like everyone, pro- and anti-WotC lovers, are in the same boat. If they change the entire way the game has been designed all along, I agree, that is the most idiotic path they can take."
"I don't think that's what they're doing, and honestly, I think Wizards needs to step forward and stop trying to placate us with vague comments. This is obviously a concern, and no one is buying into the 'It's not 4.5' thing, because all we're being shown is how everything is getting screwed with, and not what might be staying the same."
"There's nothing wrong with the next PHB changing class design a little, and the essentials books adding special build options. I mean, PHB3 and psionics were a little tentatively received, but still accepted. However, changing the things that make 4E lovers, love 4E, instead of just adding something to help those who didn't like 4E ease back into it, is a BAD idea."
"Seriously, I've backed WotCs decisions so far, and I'm not standing against them here. However, if they pull this crap, I hope everyone just drops the game, plays with what they have. I will consider leaving a game which is a HUGE part of my life (at the very least not buying any more new material)."
Anyone looking forward to Player's Option: Heroes of Primal?
I'm not laughing because I think you just stumbled into that alternate reality known as The Truth.
I've read on several threads that core 4e books will no longer be in print after Essentials is released. Someone please give me the skinny on this.
Much later, after the errata starts to stabilize, it does seem like a good idea to come out with 'deluxe' hardcover alternatives.
Because it's saleable content nobody will buy.
Because it's content that's basically errata.
Because WotC aren't THAT evil.
Because we're not STUPID enough to pay for that.
I seriously doubt all of that. Of COURSE all the existing players are going to buy Essentials even though they hate the idea, just like everyone bought 3.5e even though they were mad about it. There may be a bunch of people who have DDI subscriptions who won't buy it because they'll get it for "free", but those people aren't buying physical books very often anyway.
Everyone did re-purchase all of the stuff that was re-published in 3.5 format from 3e format. 3.5e was actually pretty successful financially; it may have made a lot of people angry and resentful, but as long as they're still forking over their cash, I don't think WotC cares all that much.
World of Warcraft has raked in billions and billions of dollars, despite the fact that it seems like everyone everywhere, whether they play or not, complains about it endlessly. Unfortunately what people like and what they actually spend their money on seem to have little to do with each other sometimes.
I'm going to be making up my own mind when I see newer material. What other fans say, or what the official word is matters little to me. The official word changes as does the official standard. So it is not reliable. Other fans are also not reliable as they tend to suggest something as fact, and then are later proven wrong with the release of a product.
So, thank you to Wotc for this awesome game, I really do love it, but my continued support of your newer material will be completely dependant on how it works with what I own now. (7/10/10) It also depends on how much support future products offer the material I own at this point.
While I would be disappointed if pre-revision material was no longer supported, I'm ok with ending my days as a wotc consumer. I'v got a solid 4e collection and when darksun releases, I'll be very happy. With eberron and darksun, I'v got all the official settings I'd ever need to run 4e for the rest of my life. With the three existing PHBs, I'v got the perfect foundation to create new player options myself. Thanks to the dungeon master books, I'v also got the perfect foundation to create anything I'd ever want to use.
So, while I hope I'll find newer material useful enough to buy, I don't need any new products. It might actually be a good thing, since I'd be able to spend my 4e D&D money on one of my other hobbies.
Also, for the record, I played my usual friday night game last night and we had a blast. Thanks again.
I and others prioritize customization. So we fear 'cookie-cutter' characters. Other players seek to like them because they help them focus on a character concept. If WotC experiments to find ways to optimize each of our needs as much as possible, that benefits all players.
Right now we seem to be in a bit of a 'conservative backlash'. 4e made bold strides forward. If this retroism of Essentials can regroup some of the players that got left behind along the way, thats great too. It is still 4e. And the demands of the players who continue to play current classes will continue to influence future design decisions. In the future the pendulum will swing back the other way, in a different way.
After reading the sneak peaks and the most recent posts here I am beginning to believe that the essentails line is more like 4.5 than not and I don't care what any wizards employee says. If the new options or PHB's are not 100% compatable with the now Core rules I will not be buying any other wizards products ever, as this is nothing more than a money grab due to lower than expected sales. While 4th is not perfect it is a really good system which I will continue to play as I have most of the books. I do not need any new ones to continue enjoying the game that I love. To wizards I hope you are not that stupid to mess with something that is not broken, if you are you have lost a very loyal customer.
I am sure it will be compatible. What I am interested to see is that will there be a heavy shift in preference towards the Essential classes rather than the PHB classes. They are after all "shiny" and new.
Replace Obama with WotC, socialist with money-grab and communism with 4.5, and this is just like watching Glenn Beck.
Hah, you know, that's crossed my mind a few times too. People are afraid of change.
hilarious.I admit, I like the key abilities of the new Wisdom-Constitution Warpriest better than the old Strength-Charisma Warpriest (Battle Cleric).
`Even by itself, Wis-Con communicates solid flavor. Wis: spiritual intuition. Con: relentless perseverence in the face of pain.
`This Wis-Con Warbuild now contrasts the (probable) Str-Cha Paladin. In previous editions, the blurriness between the flavor of the Cleric with the flavor of the Paladin sat less well with me. I feel this time, Wis-Con versus Str-Cha will help distinguish these two character concepts.
`Relatedly, the Ampersand article establishes the Warpriest concept as a gish, 'occupying the middle ground between the wizard and the fighter'. Here the Wis-style intuitive mage and the Con-style tough warrior, serve a gish concept well.
`Perhaps there are no more V-build classes. I expect both builds to prioritize Wisdom, but to make their auxillary ability significant. If this is the case, some players will like the development.
`The Wis-Con Dwarf race will make exemplary Warpriests. This affinity backs up some of the racial flavor according to the D&D tradition.
I like the Wis-Con flavor for the Warpriest and dont mind the implications.
A feature of the Warpriest that makes me hesitate is Smite Undead. For example, I cant see how a spiritual tradition that centers around the ideal power of the Storm .. specializes in the destruction of undead. I prefer Smite Undead to be part of the Domain selection. For example, a Sun-oriented spirituality makes sense to destroy undead - vampires, sunlight, and all that. However, for other domains, I like to see alternative Channel Divinity features.
Healing, however, makes sense. Regardless of the spiritual tradition, these are 'war' priests after all. By necessity they must be able to heal from the battles that the leap into. I feel, Healing Word and Resurrection work well here.
I have concerns about 'baking' the flavor into the mechanics. Limiting flavor choices seems to compromise the design goal of 'Player Choice'. Does customization and personalization work well? The Warpriest seems difficult to reflavor. I am curious about hybriding.
Overall, the new Warpriest build seems to be a high quality class. D&D players differ famously in their playing styles. Hopefully, Essentials can accommodate as many playing styles as possible. Differences in personal taste aside, we can count on the Essentials line to offer high quality classes.
when i saw wis-con, i did my happy dance. so much better. and finally, a solid dwarf cleric build. now, i await the nonMAD str-cha paladin build.
i agree with you about smite undead. although the ampersand piece says "most deities view undead creatures as abominations that must be destroyed", it seems to me that a more unifying power would be something like smite elemental creature--you know, dawn war and all of that stuff.
Replace Obama with WotC, socialist with money-grab and communism with 4.5, and this is just like watching Glenn Beck.
Hah, you know, that's crossed my mind a few times too. People are afraid of change.
Hang on a minute, that's not all mutually exclusive. I regcognize that it's a money-grab. But last time I checked, WotC was a company. And companies try to make money. Since WotC makes its D&D money by selling books, putting out new books is a good idea. And the only way
people will buy new books is if they have new stuff.
Since it's too soon for WotC to put out a new edition of D&D (although I'm sure people would buy it), this is the alternative. To be honest, is this really any different than Rock Band or Guitar Hero? Something else to buy that offers new features, but keeps the core experience the same and works with the stuff you already have.
D&D 4.5E: Meet the New Boss; Same as the Old Boss
Do people really expect not to have to spend money to support the growth and survival of the hobby? I hope not. It's starting to sound like people feel owed something (continued support of their hobby) for free.
Huh. The more I think about it, the more I realize how right you are.
In previous editions, the opposing forces were the Plane of Positive Energy (of healing) versus the Plane of Negative Energy (of undead). These energies somehow (illogically but with a handwave) corresponded to the Celestial planes (where Clerics got their healing from) versus the Infernal planes (of devils and demons). So, Clerics wielded positive energy to smote negative undead.
However, in 4e, the opposing forces are the Astral Sea versus the Elemental Chaos. Spirit versus matter.
(The Shadowfell and Feywild are kinda doing their own thing.)
So, if there is anything most of the Immortals in the Astral Sea can agree on (including the diabolical Immortals), its to fight Primordeals in the Elemental Chaos. Maybe also to fight the Demons in the Abyss within the Elemental Chaos.
For most Immortals, the undead are irrelevant.
For most Immortals, exorcising demons and elementals makes more sense. Otherwise, it totally depends on domains.
The 10 essentials products are the only ones ongoing that will always be in print.
This means that the PHB and the rest will go out of print, and that newbies will only know this 'version' of 4th edition. If the red box sales plan works to get more people playing the game, then they will need to cater new products for them (as their percentage of players goes up).
I predict that newer products supporting Arcane, Divine etc power sources will provide 'essential' versions of classes like Bards, Sorcerers etc, but will have plenty of usable bits for the PHB classes.
Not quite sure what product they use to update PHB2 etc player races to the new standard though.
But give it 2-3 years and they'll evolve all the PHB stuff out of the game. It's a better plan than the way 3.5 was handled anyway.
Shot in the dark perhaps, but if WotC are looking at retro edition, does that favour Grayhawk as the next setting?
I really think that was insightful on your part! I think that is their agenda, to see how it goes and if the percentage of new players goes up, transition into the esstials-esque there-by "easing" into a 4.5 edition.
They remember , like you said, how 3 to 3.5 was received but by doing it this way causes less waves and ripples in the RPG water and still increases *fingers crossed* sales, which is the main goal for ANY company.
As far as Greyhawk, maybe oooooooooor Dragonlance?????
Since we're appreciating satire, let me sum up the argument for you:
WotC : we're gonna publish a new set of books full of new class options, they don't make your old stuff outdated, everything will stack backward compatible, you're not forced to buy said books but they're full of cool stuff and options and new thingies and we will keep supporting them because, you know, we want you to buy them!
Disgrunted fan : such travesty! So you're telling me you're pushing out a new book with new builds for classes and a new approach to things and you expect to build all future stuff with support for that??
WotC : we sort of feel like this new kind of content works better, and leaves us more room for improvements and new things, so yes, while all the old stuff will work too, we do prefer to work on the new format...
Disgrunted fan : bollocks! So what you're saying is that I'm forced to buy the new books because they add core elements to the game! And that you will keep pushing out content in an organic form, building up on every step you took, instead of splitting your resources on two entirely different sets of rules and classes! I'm disgusted!
WotC : we're just trying to make money here, and publishing something you may want...
Disgrunted fan : bollocks! The entire idea of the Essential line is that I shouldn't want it! Nobody should buy it! If you want to make it a success, you need to make it completely irrelevant to the game!
WotC : wait a second, so you're telling us we should publish something that we're sure you DON'T want?
Disgrunted fan : exactly! I've already spent money on your stuff! So the new stuff that comes out should be all completely optional and possibly having no element of interest over the past stuff! STOP TRYING TO SELL ME YOUR STUFF AND START PUBLISHING THINGS I WON'T FEEL I NEED!
... cause guys, that's the entire point here. We are guaranteed that our old manuals will be compatible (if they 180° on that, it will be chaos). They're definitely expanding the core, but expecting them to publish material that doesn't contain superior gameplay options is more than foolish, it's suicidal.
"Actually, the argument here, while premature is more like:"
WotC: 'Here's some books to help new players into the game.'
Fans: 'Okay, whatever, will they have new builds?'
WotC: 'Yup.'
Fans: 'Cool, whatever, they might be worth looking at...'
WotC: 'Oh, by the way, did we forget to mention that they also might change the entire way we've been building up the game? All the promises you were so happy with at the beginning of 4e, we might go ahead an ditch those. We'll stick some of the serious material into softcover books.'
Fans: 'Wait... What? Did you maybe think you should ask us what we think?'
"Now, of course, as I said, this is premature. If GenCon comes around, and they tell us there won't be a PHB4, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2, and the crappy softcover Essentials books will be replacing them (instead of just being extra material alongside), then I'm on the 'Screw Wizards' bandwagon."
"In this circumstance, seems like everyone, pro- and anti-WotC lovers, are in the same boat. If they change the entire way the game has been designed all along, I agree, that is the most idiotic path they can take."
"I don't think that's what they're doing, and honestly, I think Wizards needs to step forward and stop trying to placate us with vague comments. This is obviously a concern, and no one is buying into the 'It's not 4.5' thing, because all we're being shown is how everything is getting screwed with, and not what might be staying the same."
"There's nothing wrong with the next PHB changing class design a little, and the essentials books adding special build options. I mean, PHB3 and psionics were a little tentatively received, but still accepted. However, changing the things that make 4E lovers, love 4E, instead of just adding something to help those who didn't like 4E ease back into it, is a BAD idea."
"Seriously, I've backed WotCs decisions so far, and I'm not standing against them here. However, if they pull this crap, I hope everyone just drops the game, plays with what they have. I will consider leaving a game which is a HUGE part of my life (at the very least not buying any more new material)."
DING DING DING! WE HAVE OUR WINNERS FOLKS! STEP RIGHT UP AND CLAIM YOUR PRIZE...THE CHANCE TO PURCHASE AN ENTIRE SELECTION OF DND ESSENTIALS PRODUCTS!!!!!
Just for the record, I like softcover books. They are cheaper. Also, they are smaller, lighter, much more convenient to reference at the gaming table, and I feel less guilty when I drop my pizza on them.
Much later, after the errata starts to stabilize, it does seem like a good idea to come out with 'deluxe' hardcover alternatives.
For once, my friend, I kinda disagree with you...I mean I agree on the less guilt b/c of pizza & $$$ thing, but I've always enjoyed (no matter how tedious it is to travel with) the hard-cover books. Also, I mean I really liked the aesthetics of the modules too, so different and so cool. But alas, then came HS1 &2.
I just think that WoTC is going about this who thing all wrong, really I think they over analyzed their feedback from players and made a desperate decision to keep old players and draw in new ones. It saddens me to No End.
After reading the sneak peaks and the most recent posts here I am beginning to believe that the essentails line is more like 4.5 than not and I don't care what any wizards employee says. If the new options or PHB's are not 100% compatable with the now Core rules I will not be buying any other wizards products ever, as this is nothing more than a money grab due to lower than expected sales. While 4th is not perfect it is a really good system which I will continue to play as I have most of the books. I do not need any new ones to continue enjoying the game that I love. To wizards I hope you are not that stupid to mess with something that is not broken, if you are you have lost a very loyal customer.
I just think that WoTC is going about this who thing all wrong, really I think they over analyzed their feedback from players and made a desperate decision to keep old players and draw in new ones. It saddens me to No End.
What are you talking about? I mean seriously. What in the world are you talking about? You're acting like the Essentials are a product that is being put out for existing players of 4E. This entire product line is something designed for new and lapsed players to have a clear and easy way to start playing the game and obtain all of the essential things that help facilitate play, like dice, tiles, tokens and maps.
Nothing from the game we play now is being changed or abandoned. The new sub-classes were designed the way they are specifically to make sure that this didn't happen. And if you don't like any of the new sub-classes, you can still play any of the 25 classes already out there. No one is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do.
It's like someone else said on here, you sound like someone getting upset about McDonald's introducing a dollar menu, saying, "Great, now I can't get a Big Mac. And even if I can, if they come out with new sauces you'll only be able to put them on dollar burgers."
This outrage doesn't make sense. There's a whole lot of willful ignorance, baseless paranoia and plain old trolling going around the boards right now.
We all know 4e is an evolving openended system. I love that. If that means things occasionally develop that make me nervous, thats fine with me. Thats how the system will survive. Its normal and healthy.
I and others prioritize customization. So we fear 'cookie-cutter' characters. Other players seek to like them because they help them focus on a character concept. If WotC experiments to find ways to optimize each of our needs as much as possible, that benefits all players.
Right now we seem to be in a bit of a 'conservative backlash'. 4e made bold strides forward. If this retroism of Essentials can regroup some of the players that got left behind along the way, thats great too. It is still 4e. And the demands of the players who continue to play current classes will continue to influence future design decisions. In the future the pendulum will swing back the other way, in a different way.
I wish I could agree
. I really do . With all the "this is just fear of change". Perhaps it is. Perhaps it isn't.I'm never worried about new options being introduced to the game. I'm not worried about 4e evolving to better design directions (again, with the exception of "variable complexity in classes" thing). I'm worried about having my old books thrown away in face of better designed (core) books.
Because if I need to "dust" my collection of books every couple of years because of the improved design, why the hell should I keep buying books?
That's the message I'm getting from Essentials - your books are trifle things that will be dusted every couple of years because every couple of years we will have better grasp of the system and take it into to "better designed" direction.
Or worse - if Essentials proves to be unpopular, Wizards decides not to change or evolve their game any further in order to not infuriate their customer base :P. I really can't decide what would be worse...
The thing is - I was planning to buy PHB 3, MM 3 and DMG 3 after they all launched. I don't know if I should anymore
. As I have said, I'm not opposed to my PHB being errata'd to oblivion, but why should I buy a book if the rules in it get no further support in the future? Specially when the company says "we are supporting/developing 4e".All I want to know is - after Essentials, will my old books still be supported? Will they still be decent mechanical options? Or will they be like the "ugly duck" compared to the rest of the D&D 4 library yet to be released?
Of course all this "pessimism" is fear of what is not yet known. But it is also born out of information - of personal experience with the company in the past. Pessimism and fear born out of perceiving the very much similar trends of thought this new product carries with a "revised edition".
It is not baseless, it is not ignorant, it is not trolling. It is genuine concern for one's own sake.
I'm concerned the money I have given to this company may have been just a bad idea. There's less info than what I would like to be safe. There's more evidence to make me worried.
I could be holding this concerns for my own. But much as everyone on this forums posts theirs personal beliefs, points of view and arguments, I'm posting my concerns about the new line. If anything, to see if they at least get aknowledged by the company...
In the end, if the "optmists" prove right and Essential is indeed nothing but a side product, I'll be more than happy to be wrong to have had so much concern. If the "pessimists" prove correct, at least we will have been voicing our opinion against this move before it even started.
I don't want a "4.5". I hope Essential does not become exactly like one.
I'm posting my concerns about the new line. If anything, to see if they at least get aknowledged by the company...
Why would they aknowledge concerns that they have already aknowledged? They have already said that your old books won't be useless, that your old classes won't be changed, that the new classes won't be better than the old ones, that you can use the new powers and feats with your old classes, that future supplements will still have material for the old classes and that they specifically designed the new classes with all of the above as the number one concern and goal of design.
And you can either believe them or not. But if you don't believe them, then don't say that you want them to aknowledge your concerns. They already did and you just called them liars.
Havok: 'I agree with you about smite undead. although the ampersand piece says "most deities view undead creatures as abominations that must be destroyed", it seems to me that a more unifying power would be something like smite elemental creature--you know, dawn war and all of that stuff.'
Huh. The more I think about it, the more I realize how right you are.
In previous editions, the opposing forces were the Plane of Positive Energy (of healing) versus the Plane of Negative Energy (of undead). These energies somehow (illogically but with a handwave) corresponded to the Celestial planes (where Clerics got their healing from) versus the Infernal planes (of devils and demons). So, Clerics wielded positive energy to smote negative undead.
However, in 4e, the opposing forces are the Astral Sea versus the Elemental Chaos. Spirit versus matter.
(The Shadowfell and Feywild are kinda doing their own thing.)
So, if there is anything most of the Immortals in the Astral Sea can agree on (including the diabolical Immortals), its to fight Primordeals in the Elemental Chaos. Maybe also to fight the Demons in the Abyss within the Elemental Chaos.
For most Immortals, the undead are irrelevant.
For most Immortals, exorcising demons and elementals makes more sense. Otherwise, it totally depends on domains.
thanks
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... . You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
gee. all i said was "thanks."
I'm posting my concerns about the new line. If anything, to see if they at least get aknowledged by the company...
Why would they aknowledge concerns that they have already aknowledged? They have already said that your old books won't be useless, that your old classes won't be changed, that the new classes won't be better than the old ones, that you can use the new powers and feats with your old classes, that future supplements will still have material for the old classes and that they specifically designed the new classes with all of the above as the number one concern and goal of design.
And you can either believe them or not. But if you don't believe them, then don't say that you want them to aknowledge your concerns. They already did and you just called them liars.
"No, they placated us with very little information... That isn't good enough. Given my personality, I know a lot about when I am being placated to avoid an extreme reaction and when I am actually being comforted by the truth. Right now, regardless of whether or not things are going to change drastically, we're being placated."
"I don't care if the PHB will still be viable with the essentials rules, you know why? THEY DON'T MAKE THAT CALL. In my games, the PHB will always be viable until I decide it isn't, not WotC. Anything that makes the old rules less viable, is as good as garbage in my games. If WotC doesn't see that, than I hope they are in for some financial hurt."
"The problem is, much of the fanbase is not going to come on the forums or make informed purchasing decisions. That means WotC can advertise whatever bullcrap they want and will get people buying material which may simply be a let down in the future, but the money's already spent."
"Once again, this isn't hate on Wizards, as I don't know if they're actually going to do that. This is social and economic hate your seeing, because people choose to allow companies to pull crap like this by not choosing to be intelligent about their buying practices. The other issue is, companies that provide a product that people cannot readily or easily create themselves, can make changes to a product and then laugh while everyone is forced to purchase said product or go without, even if they don't like the changes."
"If what they are telling me is that, 'You can keep playing the old game, and add in our new stuff', that was true either way. They didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, because that is my call anyway. I could play 3.0 and 3.5 combined, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a system change. What I want to know is... Will we keep seeing hardcover books that look like the PHB 1, 2, and 3? Will we still have Power books?"
"If not, then I'm done. They had an agreement on the way that things were running, and it worked. If they decide that they don't care to tell us what direction their going and work with us to make it go that way smoothly, then screw them. They can play their own system and I'll finish out the storylines I have planned with the books we have and play World of Darkness, or Shadowrun, or build my own system."
"I have been loyal to Wizards for about a decade and defended 4th edition avidly. If they are going to pull this kind of crap as a reward for that loyalty, and to try to bring in new players whom they can treat that way in another 5 to 10 years, then I don't have to be a part of it."
"So, Wizards, prove us wrong, the Essentials may be great books, and I'm happy to let them work alongside the system we already have. However, alongside is where I want them, don't screw with the game we've already been playing."
I'm posting my concerns about the new line. If anything, to see if they at least get aknowledged by the company...
Why would they aknowledge concerns that they have already aknowledged? They have already said that your old books won't be useless, that your old classes won't be changed, that the new classes won't be better than the old ones, that you can use the new powers and feats with your old classes, that future supplements will still have material for the old classes and that they specifically designed the new classes with all of the above as the number one concern and goal of design.
And you can either believe them or not. But if you don't believe them, then don't say that you want them to aknowledge your concerns. They already did and you just called them liars.
Once again, you seem to misunderstand me my friend...
Please, do point to me for clear official info about the points bellow, it will make me much more relieved:
that the new classes won't be better than the old ones
that future supplements will still have material for the old classes
Besides, the "backward compatibility" of Essentials does not preclude them to be a revision. And I don't think a revision "a la 3.5" would be nice - simple as that.
I know Wizards is doing its best to say me this isn't the case. And of course, I haven't got enough information to believe them.
I could believe in their stated goals if previously they managed to get them right as well. Historically, this is not the case for Wizards. Henceforth, the doubts. I'm not even calling them liars - I just don't trust them enough to be able to accomplish every goal they state they intend.
I have full confidence in the competence of their designers though. And even they will certainly acknowledge that it is difficult for new content to maintain the same level of design expertise of previous content - the tendency is for new content to be better designed. And since the new mechanics are conceptually overlapping with the old ones, even if they manage for both builds to be well balanced in mechanical terms, one will invariably be better designed than the other, probably rendering the inferior design obsolete or at least, undesired.
Please, do point to me for clear official info about the points bellow, it will make me much more relieved:
that the new classes won't be better than the old ones
that future supplements will still have material for the old classes
By better, I think the new classes will be better "designed" rather than better in terms of "power level".
If a newbie bought all 10 Essentials, is he expected to buy Arcane Power 2, Primal Power 2? Or Player Option: Heroes of Primal? Also the power books for old classes assume the use of the Character Advancement chart, will it work for the Essentials, especially now we have Domain abilities? WOTC is much better supporting the Essential classes while the old classes can still use the new powers that were meant for the Essential classes.
"No, they placated us with very little information... That isn't good enough. Given my personality, I know a lot about when I am being placated to avoid an extreme reaction and when I am actually being comforted by the truth. Right now, regardless of whether or not things are going to change drastically, we're being placated."
No, they didn't placate you. They just didn't give you as much information as you feel entitled to. They have given out more information about a product that is two months away than most companies do. You feel like they owe you some kind of explanation or assurance that this new starter set isn't going to change your game. They have already said it isn't, even when they don't owe you this. That apparently isn't enough for you, even when you know that's all they can do. And your claims of loyalty mean nothing when you threaten to abandon the game because a new starter set that isn't even aimed at you has some new classes in it.
"No, they placated us with very little information... That isn't good enough. Given my personality, I know a lot about when I am being placated to avoid an extreme reaction and when I am actually being comforted by the truth. Right now, regardless of whether or not things are going to change drastically, we're being placated."
No, they didn't placate you. They just didn't give you as much information as you feel entitled to. They have given out more information about a product that is two months away than most companies do. You feel like they owe you some kind of explanation or assurance that this new starter set isn't going to change your game. They have already said it isn't, even when they don't owe you this. That apparently isn't enough for you, even when you know that's all they can do. And your claims of loyalty mean nothing when you threaten to abandon the game because a new starter set that isn't even aimed at you has some new classes in it.
Really, come on. If WoTC was to come out with a supplement on character tact, it should be one that you should seriously consider purchasing. Why so high-minded? You come out of no-where and beat down on everyone's feelings and opinions.
Who, are, you?
Everyone here, including yourself, is entitled to share their concerns, feelings, opinions, etc. But for you to come in on your flying carpet of RPG piousness and shoot down, very bluntly, everyone elses comment if it irritates you inthe slightest way, is just rude and unnecessary. I have no idea how old you are, nor do I care, but whatever your age, respect is one thing you should learn or have learned.
When I started this thread I did so with the hopes that people would come with open-mindedness and to be able to freely express their feelings, such as I, on what they think about the up-comming Essentials line. And for you to come in here and thumb your nose at everyone is just not nice at all. I might have gotten out of line and retaliated by stooping to your level of insults and for that I am very sorry, my appologies. I think though, this is where you sign off and move onto another thread.
Really, come on. If WoTC was to come out with a supplement on character tact, it should be one that you should seriously consider purchasing. Why so high-minded? You come out of no-where and beat down on everyone's feelings and opinions.
There's a difference between being high-minded and pointing out blatant and brazen ignorance. I didn't come out of nowhere as you put it (what does that even mean?), and I'm not trying to beat down anything except for this crazy, paranoid fever dream some people are having all of the sudden.
Who, are, you?
What does this matter? I'm another faceless person on the internet you'll never meet. You ask this question with some kind of superiority like you think you have more D&D street-cred than I do.
Everyone here, including yourself, is entitled to share their concerns, feelings, opinions, etc. But for you to come in on your flying carpet of RPG piousness and shoot down, very bluntly, everyone elses comment if it irritates you inthe slightest way, is just rude and unnecessary. I have no idea how old you are, nor do I care, but whatever your age, respect is one thing you should learn or have learned.
You mean everyone except me and everyone else who disagrees with you and who are obviously younger than and less mature than you. When someone says, "But what if all the old classes are made useless?" that is okay. But when I say, "They said right here in this article that the number one priority was to make sure that the old classes would not be made useless," that somehow isn't okay.
When I started this thread I did so with the hopes that people would come with open-mindedness and to be able to freely express their feelings, such as I, on what they think about the up-comming Essentials line. And for you to come in here and thumb your nose at everyone is just not nice at all. I might have gotten out of line and retaliated by stooping to your level of insults and for that I am very sorry, my appologies. I think though, this is where you sign off and move onto another thread.
Why does open-mindedness only apply to rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories and not to the official information that has been released? If it seems like I'm thumbing my nose or being mean it's because you and others seem completely oblivious to everything except your own made-up conjectures.
And I thank you for telling me where I can and can't post. You don't own this thread just because you started it. I'll post where I want if you don't mind.
Of course I'm concerned. But, from what we've seen, it's not too different. And furthermore, they've assured a number of times that this won't affect your game regardless.
Please, by all means, be concerned. Question what WotC is doing. But do it in an intelligent way that isn't like Gollum with his hands over his ears, saying "Not listening! Not listening!"
I'm not directing all these comments directly at you, but at the movement in general that seems to be calling WotC out as lying or using Jedi Truths to try to ease our fears.
The truth is, we don't know anything besides what WotC tells us at this point, so why invalidate the few facts we have? It's better to believe what we're told about a product we know next to nothing about than to only selectively believe what WotC is saying.
It'll save you a lot of stress.
Actually, I have to agree with Loonmaxx. There's a difference with expressing concern for a product that will change the direction and nature of a game and disbelieving or ignoring every assurance WotC gives.
Of course I'm concerned. But, from what we've seen, it's not too different. And furthermore, they've assured a number of times that this won't affect your game regardless.
Please, by all means, be concerned. Question what WotC is doing. But do it in an intelligent way that isn't like Gollum with his hands over his ears, saying "Not listening! Not listening!"
I'm not directing all these comments directly at you, but at the movement in general that seems to be calling WotC out as lying or using Jedi Truths to try to ease our fears.
The truth is, we don't know anything besides what WotC tells us at this point, so why invalidate the few facts we have? It's better to believe what we're told about a product we know next to nothing about than to only selectively believe what WotC is saying.
It'll save you a lot of stress.
Exactly. I'm not telling anyone not to question things they hear and read. I'm as skeptical as anyone. Hell, I'm an atheist living in one of the most religious states in the country. I don't believe in ghosts or Area 51 or ESP or holistic medicine either. But I didn't arrive at those opinions by ignoring evidence; I did so by examining the evidence. There is a clear and present difference between skepticism and cynicism.
Actually, I have to agree with Loonmaxx. There's a difference with expressing concern for a product that will change the direction and nature of a game and disbelieving or ignoring every assurance WotC gives.
Of course I'm concerned. But, from what we've seen, it's not too different. And furthermore, they've assured a number of times that this won't affect your game regardless.
Please, by all means, be concerned. Question what WotC is doing. But do it in an intelligent way that isn't like Gollum with his hands over his ears, saying "Not listening! Not listening!"
I'm not directing all these comments directly at you, but at the movement in general that seems to be calling WotC out as lying or using Jedi Truths to try to ease our fears.
The truth is, we don't know anything besides what WotC tells us at this point, so why invalidate the few facts we have? It's better to believe what we're told about a product we know next to nothing about than to only selectively believe what WotC is saying.
It'll save you a lot of stress.
Exactly. I'm not telling anyone not to question things they hear and read. I'm as skeptical as anyone. Hell, I'm an atheist living in one of the most religious states in the country. I don't believe in ghosts or Area 51 or ESP or holistic medicine either. But I didn't arrive at those opinions by ignoring evidence; I did so by examining the evidence. There is a clear and present difference between skepticism and cynicism.
Funny thing, I never said anythingabout "owning" this thread. I must say I do pity those who have to play DnD with you, you seem like the "rules Lawyer" type that steals allthe fun out of the game.
And I 've read your other comments on other threads and your answers always seem to beat down other people views or opinions there as well.
But I'm no longer going to waste my time picking apart every group of sentences, like you have, and respond to everything with some sort of psycho-babel. It's clear what kind of person you are and I will thank the mighty heavens every day, that you are a faceless person that I will never meet.
And you are right, I have no right to tell where or where you can't post. So go ahead continue, or not, your choice. Good bye sir/madam. *bows gracefully and walks away*
The funny thing is that you keep insulting me while insinuating that I'm being insulting. That's what people who have no argument do. If you want to try and refute any points I've made rather than just call me names, I'd love to hear it.
I may believe along the lines of Loonmaxx, but neither of you are doing any help to douse these flames.
By the way, anybody notice the new Rogue kit mentioned in the D&D Novels page? Thief, it seems, is the/one of the Rogue kits. Also, Lich might be a Wizard kit, though it's just as likely the image was only referring to an antagonist, so it wasn't going by the kit names alongside the Warpriest and the Slayer and the Thief.
Please continue this conversation in a polite fashion that stays within the guidelines of the Wizards Online Code of Conduct. Debates can very constructive and fun if they are conducted with posts that are not personal in nature.
Thanks!
Also, Lich might be a Wizard kit, though it's just as likely the image was only referring to an antagonist, so it wasn't going by the kit names alongside the Warpriest and the Slayer and the Thief.
Yeah, the Lich pictured is the same guy on the cover of the Nentir Vale Gazetteer; Magroth the Mad. He is definitely an antagonist, since he's working for Orcus.
"No, they placated us with very little information... That isn't good enough. Given my personality, I know a lot about when I am being placated to avoid an extreme reaction and when I am actually being comforted by the truth. Right now, regardless of whether or not things are going to change drastically, we're being placated."
No, they didn't placate you. They just didn't give you as much information as you feel entitled to. They have given out more information about a product that is two months away than most companies do. You feel like they owe you some kind of explanation or assurance that this new starter set isn't going to change your game. They have already said it isn't, even when they don't owe you this. That apparently isn't enough for you, even when you know that's all they can do. And your claims of loyalty mean nothing when you threaten to abandon the game because a new starter set that isn't even aimed at you has some new classes in it.
"That's a bunch of crap. First of all, just because other idiots do it, doesn't mean Wizards has to; but you're right about one thing, I'm not 'entitled' to any information. I never said I was... Only you said I did. However, not informing an ongoing consumer base (in other words, people who have a reasonable expectation of purchasing products which continue to support a previous product) about a change which may alter the way they play the game, and cause them to wish not to play the game (making certain purchased materials a waste of funds), is STUPID."
"So yes, you're right, some companies are STUPID. However, I don't think Wizards is one of them, so far, they've only withheld information because they have seen idiotic reactions from the consumer base (at least, as far as I can tell)."
"However, if I purchase an item, with reasonable expectation that future products will support it, and those products differ greatly from what I was promised, the company has failed me, the consumer. They, however, are not forced to return the money I spent on a product, from which I exptected to get more use. Caveat emptor, for me, but, the company still suffers as I take my money elsewhere because of their deceptive practices."
"Once again, I don't think Wizards is like this. I keep repeating that, because obviously many of you aren't getting that. My arguments are against a STUPID practice, that Wizards COULD be partaking in, which I expect they are not, but this discussion revolves around. I am backing Wizards NOT to do this very STUPID thing, but I am making it clear to them that I think that it is STUPID because if no one says anything, they have no reason to know that they are causing trepidation in their consumer base."
"Also, I did I say I am going to abandon the game. I said, I would if they chose to abandon the format which they promised us they would use at the beginning of the edition."
"I have already said, the only thing we can hope to do is wait until GenCon and see what they say there. However, they would do well to stop withholding information when there is a clear doubt about their intentions. They keep saying this is not 4.5, which means they are hearing that we are concerned that it is... However, they aren't actually quelling those concerns, as the consumer base doesn't CARE if they don't call it 4.5, if it changes the game enough to be 4.5."
"So, YES, they are placating us. They aren't telling us anything more than, 'Don't worry, it'll be alright, this isn't 4.5.' Which is BULL. Not that I believe it is 4.5, It's bull because I don't care if they say it isn't. I want them to tell me WHY it isn't 4.5, and backwards compatibility, just isn't good enough. The PS2 is backwards compatible, but I still know it's not a PSX, and this is not like improving hardware."
Really, come on. If WoTC was to come out with a supplement on character tact, it should be one that you should seriously consider purchasing. Why so high-minded? You come out of no-where and beat down on everyone's feelings and opinions.
There's a difference between being high-minded and pointing out blatant and brazen ignorance. I didn't come out of nowhere as you put it (what does that even mean?), and I'm not trying to beat down anything except for this crazy, paranoid fever dream some people are having all of the sudden.Actually, I have to agree with Loonmaxx. There's a difference with expressing concern for a product that will change the direction and nature of a game and disbelieving or ignoring every assurance WotC gives.
Of course I'm concerned. But, from what we've seen, it's not too different. And furthermore, they've assured a number of times that this won't affect your game regardless.
Please, by all means, be concerned. Question what WotC is doing. But do it in an intelligent way that isn't like Gollum with his hands over his ears, saying "Not listening! Not listening!"
I'm not directing all these comments directly at you, but at the movement in general that seems to be calling WotC out as lying or using Jedi Truths to try to ease our fears.
The truth is, we don't know anything besides what WotC tells us at this point, so why invalidate the few facts we have? It's better to believe what we're told about a product we know next to nothing about than to only selectively believe what WotC is saying.
It'll save you a lot of stress.
"I'm not stressed, I promise you that... Go back to every place in my posts where I say, 'But I don't think Wizards is doing that...' I think I said it like 5 times every post... I mean that."
"My argument, once again, is that if they are, they are being stupid. If they even think about it, they should quickly run away from that train of thought."
"The problem is, they keep 'assuring' us, but they won't tell us why we should be assured. Here's the thing about that... If I tell you, 'That room isn't a trap, I swear.' Then I walk away with a wrench in my hand and won't tell you what the wrench is for, what the hell are you going to think?"Really, come on. If WoTC was to come out with a supplement on character tact, it should be one that you should seriously consider purchasing. Why so high-minded? You come out of no-where and beat down on everyone's feelings and opinions.
There's a difference between being high-minded and pointing out blatant and brazen ignorance. I didn't come out of nowhere as you put it (what does that even mean?), and I'm not trying to beat down anything except for this crazy, paranoid fever dream some people are having all of the sudden.Who, are, you?
What does this matter? I'm another faceless person on the internet you'll never meet. You ask this question with some kind of superiority like you think you have more D&D street-cred than I do.Everyone here, including yourself, is entitled to share their concerns, feelings, opinions, etc. But for you to come in on your flying carpet of RPG piousness and shoot down, very bluntly, everyone elses comment if it irritates you inthe slightest way, is just rude and unnecessary. I have no idea how old you are, nor do I care, but whatever your age, respect is one thing you should learn or have learned.
You mean everyone except me and everyone else who disagrees with you and who are obviously younger than and less mature than you. When someone says, "But what if all the old classes are made useless?" that is okay. But when I say, "They said right here in this article that the number one priority was to make sure that the old classes would not be made useless," that somehow isn't okay.When I started this thread I did so with the hopes that people would come with open-mindedness and to be able to freely express their feelings, such as I, on what they think about the up-comming Essentials line. And for you to come in here and thumb your nose at everyone is just not nice at all. I might have gotten out of line and retaliated by stooping to your level of insults and for that I am very sorry, my appologies. I think though, this is where you sign off and move onto another thread.
Why does open-mindedness only apply to rumor-mongering and conspiracy theories and not to the official information that has been released? If it seems like I'm thumbing my nose or being mean it's because you and others seem completely oblivious to everything except your own made-up conjectures.
And I thank you for telling me where I can and can't post. You don't own this thread just because you started it. I'll post where I want if you don't mind.
"I love arguments like this, where I am kinda being defended and attacked and I don't care for either side's arguments."
"Okay first, I am not attacking your right to post here, and you are failing at open-mindedness. I haven't shot down any of your arguments, you've shot down mine by pretending one phrase blankets all of my concerns. Yet, when a bunch of people tell you IT DOESN'T, you come back and use the same baseless arguments."
"Of course, great thing about stupidity, you can keep pretending you know what I am thinking and implying and pretend that I am denying your rights, because how could I stop you. Clearly, you are not impeded by intelligent argument, so how does one hold off the invincible charge of your resolve?"
"Luckily, I have Resist All Giving a Crap; unfortunately, I have a vulnerability in my need to make my opinions known, because if I don't, how can I expect ignorant people (not you, any ignorant people) to learn? A lot people misconstrue that as caring, and it is, to a degree, but don't misunderstand. It has to do with caring about the human condition and my world view, not with the petty arguments at hand."
I've read on several threads that core 4e books will no longer be in print after Essentials is released. Someone please give me the skinny on this.
Its mere fan speculation and should be treated as such until you see a reliably source saying otherwise.
Yeah, that's right. The person beating the 4.5e drum is defending WotC in the same thread. As I've said I do not judge WotC for this move, I'm simply calling it as I see it. That said, I still think PHB1 will be in print for some time to come (at least 1-2 more years) and will think so until I see a cite saying otherwise. Largely due to the fact it bears the name "Player's Handbook" which seems to be considered fairly iconic.
"Once again, I don't think Wizards is like this. I keep repeating that, because obviously many of you aren't getting that. My arguments are against a STUPID practice, that Wizards COULD be partaking in, which I expect they are not, but this discussion revolves around. I am backing Wizards NOT to do this very STUPID thing, but I am making it clear to them that I think that it is STUPID because if no one says anything, they have no reason to know that they are causing trepidation in their consumer base."
"Also, I did I say I am going to abandon the game. I said, I would if they chose to abandon the format which they promised us they would use at the beginning of the edition."
You make way too many assumptions.
I was a D&D fan for 20 years. I wasn't planning to buy the D&D essentials; I care nothing for them because they sounded like something irrelevant to my game (I already had the core books, who needs a simplified reprint?).
The fact that Essentials are looking up to be an "Expanded Core Rulebook" system have made them interesting in my eyes. I don't think (or rather, I know) that Essentials are 4.5e, but the same reasons that make you scream at conspiracy or that make you think this is a new edition of the game are the reasons that make the Essentials interesting to me, who incidentally own every 4e book published so far (adventures aside).
So stop acting like you're the ultimate authority on what's stupid and what isn't, because I'm not a gullible or uninformed customer and all the recent news that made you claim the sky may be falling had me excited over the Essentials.
By the way, anybody notice the new Rogue kit mentioned in the D&D Novels page? Thief, it seems, is the/one of the Rogue kits. Also, Lich might be a Wizard kit, though it's just as likely the image was only referring to an antagonist, so it wasn't going by the kit names alongside the Warpriest and the Slayer and the Thief.
link please
------
Well, since we do not have any new information besides what was showed so far, we might as well wait for the next Ampersand article where they'll preview .
Here's hoping they add a line or two in that article about ongoing support for PHB 1 characters and builds and future print availability of the three core books. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. ;)
Perhaps with the next preview we "pessimists" may become a tad bit relieved
.Although fearing for the worst, I'm always hoping for the best! ^^
Quoted from http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/20100709
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.
Based on this statement, it isn't far of a stretch to assume that all future new classes will be in this format. I really don't care much since I'm not very inclined to purchase these books yet (I have to see more previews or just read them in a store after they come out), but it does seem like a significant change to say the least. But considering all the updates that have already come out for this edition, this change is smaller in nature compared to sheer magnitude of things that have changed already.
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.
This is hardly new, they "changed direction" right after PHB1 by not publishing any more V classes. The new classes just seem like they'll gain features as they level up. Which also isn't new, since Rogues/Warlocks/Rangers already had increased Striker damage, and clerics had increasing range on their healing word/turn undead, and Wizards got extra rituals since PHB1. They're just expanding the idea and putting it in a level up chart. The new clerics get resurect at lvl 8, (same level as the Raise Dead ritual).
"Once again, I don't think Wizards is like this. I keep repeating that, because obviously many of you aren't getting that. My arguments are against a STUPID practice, that Wizards COULD be partaking in, which I expect they are not, but this discussion revolves around. I am backing Wizards NOT to do this very STUPID thing, but I am making it clear to them that I think that it is STUPID because if no one says anything, they have no reason to know that they are causing trepidation in their consumer base."
"Also, I did I say I am going to abandon the game. I said, I would if they chose to abandon the format which they promised us they would use at the beginning of the edition."
You make way too many assumptions.
I was a D&D fan for 20 years. I wasn't planning to buy the D&D essentials; I care nothing for them because they sounded like something irrelevant to my game (I already had the core books, who needs a simplified reprint?).
The fact that Essentials are looking up to be an "Expanded Core Rulebook" system have made them interesting in my eyes. I don't think (or rather, I know) that Essentials are 4.5e, but the same reasons that make you scream at conspiracy or that make you think this is a new edition of the game are the reasons that make the Essentials interesting to me, who incidentally own every 4e book published so far (adventures aside).
So stop acting like you're the ultimate authority on what's stupid and what isn't, because I'm not a gullible or uninformed customer and all the recent news that made you claim the sky may be falling had me excited over the Essentials.
"Be excited. Either way, not informing your fanbase of a huge change is still stupid. It's still a little stupid not to make it known they aren't screwing up the game, but much less so."
"Just because you are excited over it, doesn't make it less stupid. Not to mention, the things you say are making you excited, do not preclude them telling the rest of us that they aren't going to screw things up. If you are excited for them to change the game, then you probably weren't that big a fan of it in the first place."
"However, most of the people who have posted, even in defense of WotC (also, remember, I am not currently anti-WotC, as I KEEP reminding everyone in my posts), have said they are nervous. Why would they be nervous? Maybe because they agree that sweeping changes like those implied are considered a BAD thing?"
"Also, stop brushing off these arguments as speculation. You want people to stop speculating, go to a different section of the forums! This is the Future Releases thread, and speculation is just what people do... Half the threads in this forums are filled with speculation about products. Why would these even exist if not?"
"Pretty much all the threads pointing to info we already have about Future Products are stickied, or are just used to base speculation. Otherwise, the rest of the threads in the forums are generally people trying to convince WotC to make some book or another."
"I'm not attacking people who are informing people that certain things are speculative (such as JohnLynch above), but it's not a deterrent for these arguments, as the arguments stating that the changes aren't happening, are ALSO speculative."
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.
This is hardly new, they "changed direction" right after PHB1 by not publishing any more V classes. The new classes just seem like they'll gain features as they level up. Which also isn't new, since Rogues/Warlocks/Rangers already had increased Striker damage, and clerics had increasing range on their healing word/turn undead, and Wizards got extra rituals since PHB1. They're just expanding the idea and putting it in a level up chart. The new clerics get resurect at lvl 8, (same level as the Raise Dead ritual).
"Note, this is not what I am worried about. Changing to classes that have new mechanics and stuff, that's fine. What I am concerned about is seeing non-PHB styled books, and especially seeing softcovers replace hardcovers. I don't want Player's Option books, I want Divine Power 2 and Shadow Power. Even if that's semantics, I want them to show me they'll keep using the format we were promised."
"I stuck with 4e because for once, I saw an RP system with some organization. Where future releases show me that they recognize the existence of past releases (EVERY relevant past release), and expand on them. Not to mention, there is NO reason they shouldn't be able to continue producing SOME essentials books, while releasing the main books just as they always have been."
"If the Essentials, actually become Essential (for the books in the future), that's when I'm out."
Yes, but if we want to be literal about it, then it must be pointed out that he said "a" direction and not "the" direction. Also, the direction being referred to amounts to nothing more than removing a previously institued design restriction that was arbitrary and limiting in nature. They are opening up class design to allow for things that couldn't be done before, but in a way that doesn't step on or invalidate everything they've done up to this point. The fact that this design decision coincided with the Essentials doesn't really mean anything. In fact, I believe that this wouldn't be anywhere near as big an issue if the release dates of Heroes of Shadow and Essentials had been reversed.
Saric:
Yes, but if we want to be literal about it, then it must be pointed out that he said "a" direction and not "the" direction. Also, the direction being referred to amounts to nothing more than removing a previously institued design restriction that was arbitrary and limiting in nature. They are opening up class design to allow for things that couldn't be done before, but in a way that doesn't step on or invalidate everything they've done up to this point. The fact that this design decision coincided with the Essentials doesn't really mean anything. In fact, I believe that this wouldn't be anywhere near as big an issue if the release dates of Heroes of Shadow and Essentials had been reversed.
"Huh, a direction... That is an interesting catch. Not a lot more comforting, as it's mostly semantics, but semantics are part of what I'm worried about."
Actually to those that argue that Essentials isn't 4.5, what exactly are your fears? Since anyone can label Essentials as anything. The old books won't be useless, so there is nothing to worry about. Is calling it 4.5 derogatory? Or are you fearing that Essential is the new core foundation and everything after that is a supplement to Essentials instead of the old book?
"Upgraders" should probably call it 4.3. "Doomsayers" can call it 4.5
Actually to those that argue that Essentials isn't 4.5, what exactly are your fears? Since anyone can label Essentials as anything. The old books won't be useless, so there is nothing to worry about. Is calling it 4.5 derogatory? Or are you fearing that Essential is the new core foundation and everything after that is a supplement to Essentials instead of the old book?
"Upgraders" should probably call it 4.3. "Doomsayers" can call it 4.5
Thing is, as long as future books are compatible with our old books, I don't see a any reason to panic. I can nickname Essentials as 4.5 all I want as well.
Actually to those that argue that Essentials isn't 4.5, what exactly are your fears? Since anyone can label Essentials as anything. The old books won't be useless, so there is nothing to worry about. Is calling it 4.5 derogatory? Or are you fearing that Essential is the new core foundation and everything after that is a supplement to Essentials instead of the old book?
As most people are using the term "4.5" as a derogatory term, I just don't like the idea of Essentials being labeled as such. I don't think it is a bad term in and of itself. But at the same time, I wouldn't wear a shirt with a swastika on it just because it used to be a symbol for good luck.
People liken 4.5 to 3.5, which was a reboot of the 3E rules that required you to buy all new books and throw your old ones away. Labeling Essentials 4.5 Edition is misleading because making your old books obsolete is the main image that the whole "point-five" terminology evokes, and the number one design goal of Essentials was to make sure that that very thing would not happen.
So, I am against using 4.5 because the term "point-five" has a vile stigma attached to it in the RPG community that sadly has the power to influence people's opinions and purchasing decisions without them even knowing anything about the product. And I would rather this game grow and thrive and not lose current or potential players due to misleading labels and the spread of false rumors.
So, I am against using 4.5 because the term "point-five" has a vile stigma attached to it in the RPG community that sadly has the power to influence people's opinions and purchasing decisions without them even knowing anything about the product. And I would rather this game grow and thrive and not lose current or potential players due to misleading labels and the spread of false rumors.
Fair enough..
So, I am against using 4.5 because the term "point-five" has a vile stigma attached to it in the RPG community that sadly has the power to influence people's opinions and purchasing decisions without them even knowing anything about the product. And I would rather this game grow and thrive and not lose current or potential players due to misleading labels and the spread of false rumors.
Fair enough..
That's why i suggest 4.3 No stigma.
Also
PHB 1 = 4.0
PHB 2 = 4.1
PHB 3 = 4.2
Essentials = 4.3
Though the changes form phb2-3 wasn't that big.
Your alot more persuasive when your being civil.
LOL, Loonmaxx.
Your alot more persuasive when your being civil.
It's the forum factor. Keeping up with several threads, dealing with multiple people, and having to wait for responses coupled with the internet's anonymity and inability to project a poster's demeanor via tone of voice and body language makes it way too easy for responses to be taken the wrong way and for polite conversations to turn into uncivil arguments.
But I'm trying.
I like softcover books. They are cheaper. Also, they are smaller, lighter, much more convenient to reference at the gaming table, and I feel less guilty when I drop my pizza on them.
Lower prices are better for those "impulse buys"... but are they actually cheaper?
Two of the Essentials books (Forgotten Kingdoms, and Fallen Lands) are 19.95 each. Total of ~$40, together. One PH1 [at original price] is 34.95. So ~$35 for the same amount of content.
That said, I'm eager to see the Essential books, to find out how much content they actually have. With the rules all in the Rule Compendium, I think they should have enough space to each hold more that just 1/2 of a PH1.
Much later, after the errata starts to stabilize, it does seem like a good idea to come out with 'deluxe' hardcover alternatives.
Would be nice, yes.
But other classes, such as the Fighter, have multiple kits. I imagine the Slayer and the Knight will both have multiple power-build progressions within them as well.
So while if we add them together, we get slightly more than a PH1 – 8 classes and 10 races versus 8 classes and 8 races – we may actually be getting more than that, due to multiple builds within multiple kits.
Think of it this way: right now the Warpriest kit for the Cleric has two builds: Sun Domain and Storm Domain. Each plays out differently, the same way builds play out differently. While they're both Melee Clerics, they have different focuses.
But other classes, such as the Fighter, have multiple kits. I imagine the Slayer and the Knight will both have multiple power-build progressions within them as well.
So while if we add them together, we get slightly more than a PH1 – 8 classes and 10 races versus 8 classes and 8 races – we may actually be getting more than that, due to multiple builds within multiple kits.
If we compare it to something like a Power book, it looks more favorable. Primal Power was 30 bucks, had 4 classes and 2 builds each. It had no races, but probaly makes up for that space with some new rituals and fluff. So, one "Heroes of..." book looks like it will have about the same amount of content as a Power book for $10 cheaper.
Actually to those that argue that Essentials isn't 4.5, what exactly are your fears? Since anyone can label Essentials as anything. The old books won't be useless, so there is nothing to worry about. Is calling it 4.5 derogatory?
I don't think its derogatory in and of itself. However, when its called 4.5 there is often (not always, but often) a nerd-ragey tone in the post as a whole and/or a healthy dose of a "HA HA, IN YOUR FACE YOU SUCKERS WHO BOUGHT $E!!!!" attitude. I've stayed out of the "Essentials=4.5" arguments but I have to admit that I find the atttitudes that usually accompany the sentiment to be irritating and I can understand some people getting defensive.
Or are you fearing that Essential is the new core foundation and everything after that is a supplement to Essentials instead of the old book?
Though I am taking a wait-and-see approach to Essentials (not saying it IS 4.5, not saying its not either), that's my biggest worry about it.
Actually to those that argue that Essentials isn't 4.5, what exactly are your fears? Since anyone can label Essentials as anything. The old books won't be useless, so there is nothing to worry about. Is calling it 4.5 derogatory? Or are you fearing that Essential is the new core foundation and everything after that is a supplement to Essentials instead of the old book?
"Upgraders" should probably call it 4.3. "Doomsayers" can call it 4.5
Thing is, as long as future books are compatible with our old books, I don't see a any reason to panic. I can nickname Essentials as 4.5 all I want as well.
I feel like I need to point out though... our old books aren't compatible with the game now. Not only is there a ton of errata, but the core math behind everything has changed quite a bit, to the point where a ton more should be errata'd to stay in line with the current math but won't be because the errata would be even more ridiculously huge. That's yet another reason I think WotC is planning on letting them slide out of print. The original core three house all the "bad" decisions that WotC believes it has made - all the MM monsters have their hit points and defenses way too high and their damage way too low; the PHB classes have V and W classes which WotC now hates, the DC's on pretty much everything are way too high. The DMG's chapter on skill challenges is the complete opposite of their current outlook on skill challenges. I think they have plenty of reasons to want those books to fade away and have everyone buy the new revised ones.
Take dailies, for instance. Some new classes may not have dailies. Presumably, some may have more dailies and fewer encounter powers. Think back to the 'fighter sux' threads of 3.x, we'll be in for some of that, as differences in resource management issues across classes lead to more delicate balancing acts for the DM.
Power inflation will continue. Older material won't so much be invalidated as outmoded.
The nature of systems like D&D leads to that sort of thing though - power inflation and game balance degrading the more suplements you put out. It doesn't matter whether there's a formal shift in design philosphy behind it or not. You add enough to a game like D&D, you ruin it. Each edition has not only been different, but it's also added new material more quickly. Though, 4e hasn't been as bad as 3e in that regard if you count third-party 3e material... You have to sell books, but each new suplement presents new points of failure for the system.
Actually to those that argue that Essentials isn't 4.5, what exactly are your fears? Since anyone can label Essentials as anything. The old books won't be useless, so there is nothing to worry about. Is calling it 4.5 derogatory? Or are you fearing that Essential is the new core foundation and everything after that is a supplement to Essentials instead of the old book?
"Upgraders" should probably call it 4.3. "Doomsayers" can call it 4.5
Thing is, as long as future books are compatible with our old books, I don't see a any reason to panic. I can nickname Essentials as 4.5 all I want as well.
I feel like I need to point out though... our old books aren't compatible with the game now. Not only is there a ton of errata, but the core math behind everything has changed quite a bit, to the point where a ton more should be errata'd to stay in line with the current math but won't be because the errata would be even more ridiculously huge. That's yet another reason I think WotC is planning on letting them slide out of print. The original core three house all the "bad" decisions that WotC believes it has made - all the MM monsters have their hit points and defenses way too high and their damage way too low; the PHB classes have V and W classes which WotC now hates, the DC's on pretty much everything are way too high. The DMG's chapter on skill challenges is the complete opposite of their current outlook on skill challenges. I think they have plenty of reasons to want those books to fade away and have everyone buy the new revised ones.
Imagine they absorb weapon expertise feat into the core system for Essentials...
It sounds like a 4.5, sure. When 3.5 hit, they also tried to make it sound like you wouldn't /really/ have to trash your still relatively new 3.0 books. The new class design philosophy doesn't inspire much confidence, either. 4e paid a steep price for class balance. The 'old' classes are going to keep paying that price and keep being relatively balanced. The 'new' classes aren't. Some of them will suck, some will be overpowered relative to the old 'more structured' classes.
Take dailies, for instance. Some new classes may not have dailies. Presumably, some may have more dailies and fewer encounter powers. Think back to the 'fighter sux' threads of 3.x, we'll be in for some of that, as differences in resource management issues across classes lead to more delicate balancing acts for the DM.
Power inflation will continue. Older material won't so much be invalidated as outmoded.
The nature of systems like D&D leads to that sort of thing though - power inflation and game balance degrading the more suplements you put out. It doesn't matter whether there's a formal shift in design philosphy behind it or not. You add enough to a game like D&D, you ruin it. Each edition has not only been different, but it's also added new material more quickly. Though, 4e hasn't been as bad as 3e in that regard if you count third-party 3e material... You have to sell books, but each new suplement presents new points of failure for the system.
I have to disagree.
On one hand you are depicting a business model that doesn't work - if adding material ruins the game, how is WotC supposed to survive between editions? Sure they could move to a model where the core rulebook set is not updated or expanded because, as you say, adding content wildly leads to power creeps and more importantly to perfecting the system (thus leading to having old content being less attractive). But would the game stay the same quality wise? Non-core rulebooks certainly sell less than what a PHBX would.
Besides, let's say WotC is right. The new class format is better than the old one (while still being compatible with it - incidentally, I think the idea of bringing back class features is exceedingly superflous, as the power system already allowed and did that with an incredibly high degree of flexibility: instead of having the "once a day you can XXX" features you could pick "class features" among dozens of encounters and daily powers). If the new format is better, should we hope for WotC to stick to an inferior system in order to avoid making the inferior content look bad?
It's a complex issue. You will have gamers preferring to have a self-sufficient system that lasts, for better or worse, unchanged for a few years, and gamers who prefer a "living" system that isn't afraid of changing when needed. Personally I would have an hard time picking a side.
So, I am against using 4.5 because the term "point-five" has a vile stigma attached to it in the RPG community that sadly has the power to influence people's opinions and purchasing decisions without them even knowing anything about the product. And I would rather this game grow and thrive and not lose current or potential players due to misleading labels and the spread of false rumors.
Fair enough..
I like this explaination. Rather than say, "its not 4.5" it says, "Let's not call it that, because it may paint the wrong picture for some and hurt the thing that we all likely have in common."
So I'll drop the 4.5 ;)
LOL, Loonmaxx.
Your alot more persuasive when your being civil.
Lower prices are better for those "impulse buys"... but are they actually cheaper?
Two of the Essentials books (Forgotten Kingdoms, and Fallen Lands) are 19.95 each. Total of ~$40, together. One PH1 [at original price] is 34.95. So ~$35 for the same amount of content.
And not to mention the fact that they mentioned they are going to be "digest size".
I don't know about you but when I hear that, I think of Readers Digest which is a small soft covered pocket book. However, considering how the Adv. HS1 and 2, as well as the sites and Races booklets have manifested themselves, I think that's what they're referring too; in which case, doesn't still make them not worth the money over all like the nicely put-together hard cover books?
I'm not sure if it's been stated if the Essential "Heroes of..." books will be "full-sized" or 6"x9" but the current image proportions match "full-sized." According to the product catalog, they are each 352 pages long while Amazon has them listed as 368 pages.
Amazon and the Product Catalog both list all of them as paperbacks.
Unfortunately, I can't find a source at the moment, but I believe it's been stated that the Rules Compendium will be 320 pages long with dimensions of 6"x9" and the image of the cover does match the proportions.
I'm not sure if it's been stated if the Essential "Heroes of..." books will be "full-sized" or 6"x9" but the current image proportions match "full-sized." According to the product catalog, they are each 352 pages long while Amazon has them listed as 368 pages.
Amazon and the Product Catalog both list all of them as paperbacks.
I can't find where I read it just yet, but when I do I will post it.
Another thing I wat to add to this thread is this. In this link inthe opening comments they state: "10 products that form the foundation of the Dungeons & Dragonsroleplaying game moving forward." An then under the heading: "Specifically, we made it look just like the “Red Box” from the early 1980s, including using the classic cover art by Larry Elmore and the original D&D logo. Inside, however, it uses the newest version of the game."
Can someone please tell me what the difference is between a 'version' and 'edition'? To me the terms seem interchangeable in this regard.
And coupled with the above statement, it would seem like a 4.5 or more like 4.3 as some call it. Wheather a person calls it a .3 or .5 doesn't that pretty much mean the same thing?
Granted, it may not be a .5 as was 3 to 3.5 but nonetheless it's still a new version/edition. The only thing is that WoTC isnt' officially calling it a .5 like they did in 3.5 b/c it didn't set well before and decided to just call it Essentials; and THIS time make the original books somewhat compatible.
Either way you look at it, it's a newer version/edition, bottom line. Just look at the character classes opposed to the way they originally were released in 2008 and with them moving "forward" from THAT point on in August, doesn't it seem like it's a newer version/edition but compatible with 2008's books so as not to take to much away from us 4e (2008) lovers?
That's just the way I see it. IF it is or isn't, we will see but I am just skeptical.
Unfortunately, I can't find a source at the moment, but I believe it's been stated that the Rules Compendium will be 320 pages long with dimensions of 6"x9" and the image of the cover does match the proportions.
I'm not sure if it's been stated if the Essential "Heroes of..." books will be "full-sized" or 6"x9" but the current image proportions match "full-sized." According to the product catalog, they are each 352 pages long while Amazon has them listed as 368 pages.
Amazon and the Product Catalog both list all of them as paperbacks.
Ok found it. but I think I see it now only refers to Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.
The Essentials Player Character Classes
Now let me tell you about the heart of the Essentials—the player character classes. The player character classes presented in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms were designed after reviewing two years of game play. Feedback from players contributed the most in shaping the design, but we also had to keep in mind that the classes needed to be accessible to new players and players returning to the game since the launch of the newest edition of the rules. As luck would have it, there were a number of areas where a design that could bring new players up to speed also matched the feedback for change we heard from a lot of established players.
So let’s talk about what we were able to jam into these digest-sized paperback game books.
Another thing I wat to add to this thread is this. In this link inthe opening comments they state: "10 products that form the foundation of the Dungeons & Dragonsroleplaying game moving forward." An then under the heading: "Specifically, we made it look just like the “Red Box” from the early 1980s, including using the classic cover art by Larry Elmore and the original D&D logo. Inside, however, it uses the newest version of the game."
Can someone please tell me what the difference is between a 'version' and 'edition'? To me the terms seem interchangeable in this regard.
And coupled with the above statement, it would seem like a 4.5 or more like 4.3 as some call it. Wheather a person calls it a .3 or .5 doesn't that pretty much mean the same thing?
Let me break this down for you:
Specifically, we made it look just like the “Red Box” from the early 1980s, including using the classic cover art by Larry Elmore and the original D&D logo. Inside, however, it uses the newest version of the game
This is where you misunderstood. You seem to have taken "uses the newest version of the game" to mean "the newest version of the Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition game". If you read the previous sentance, rather than isolating the part you helpfully bolded, italicized, and underlined, it is quite clear that he is saying that although the box is being done up to look like the 1980's "Red Box", it will not contain the rules that were in the original "Red Box", and will instead use the newest version of the game, which is Fourth Edition.
You're reading alot into this comment, things that just aren't there, and I daresay it's because that's what you're trying to hear. It is quite clear that he means that it won't use the Original D&D rules from the 1980's "Red Box". He's not saying it'll be using the new version that they made like a month ago and will totally be 4.5. You either grossly misinterpreted what he said, or you purposfully miquoted this comment.
This is where you misunderstood. You seem to have taken "uses the newest version of the game" to mean "the newest version of the Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition game". If you read the previous sentance, rather than isolating the part you helpfully bolded, italicized, and underlined, it is quite clear that he is saying that although the box is being done up to look like the 1980's "Red Box", it will not contain the rules that were in the original "Red Box", and will instead use the newest version of the game, which is Fourth Edition.
You're reading alot into this comment, things that just aren't there, and I daresay it's because that's what you're trying to hear. It is quite clear that he means that it won't use the Original D&D rules from the 1980's "Red Box". He's not saying it'll be using the new version that they made like a month ago and will totally be 4.5. You either grossly misinterpreted what he said, or you purposfully miquoted this comment.
First of all why would I do it purposefully? 1. That's not even nice for anyone to do, and 2. that makes no sense what purpose would it serve? Why so accusitional?
But, I understand where you said "that's where I was reading into it and misunderstood", no need to be unkind though, good lord. I guess if I was to read it with the way you say it, it does make sense, that's all that had to be said.
Besides, I only B I U so as to have it stand out to emphasise what I read, the way I read it.
You did helped me to understand it better. So...... thank you?
Your quote is right Evrything does (seem) to make you angry.
First of all why would I do it purposefully? 1. That's not even nice for anyone to do, and 2. that makes no sense what purpose would it serve? Why so accusitional?
Your quote is right Evrything does (seem) to make you angry.
I wasn't being accusational, nor was I being angry. If you felt offended by my post then sorry, but I was just stating a fact. You were either misinterpreting it by accident or on purpose. Either way you were misinterpreting it and that's all I was getting at. It's impossible to interpret motives on internet forums.
You did helped me to understand it better. So...... thank you?
I'm glad I helped you understand. I really just think that everyone is getting way ahead of themselves here, and projecting fears onto every little peice of information that comes out as a result. Everything the devs say about Essentials is getting analized and picked apart and being sifted through endlessly to try to find some hidden motive or dark omen, and when you become that fearful of something, you'll usually find it in the details, even if it's purely imagined. I think everyone should just take what's said at face value for now and not try to do deep interpretation of what we hear, because getting paranoid just leads to more misunderstanding.
They need to realize this is D&D not Magic: The Gathering, and releasing a set every few months will aliewnate their client base not add to it
Ugh, if they re-release ANOTHER set of books THIS early after launching 4th ed, Im probably going to either ignore it, or go Pathfinder lol
They need to realize this is D&D not Magic: The Gathering, and releasing a set every few months will aliewnate their client base not add to it
Both games are made by same company so I would guess their sales model would be the same. Since MTG style sales model is the most successful, might as well emulate.
Ugh, if they re-release ANOTHER set of books THIS early after launching 4th ed, Im probably going to either ignore it, or go Pathfinder lol
They need to realize this is D&D not Magic: The Gathering, and releasing a set every few months will aliewnate their client base not add to it
You don't actually need to buy the new books. It's not like MtG in that to play in the new tourny's you need the new age cards.
Ugh, if they re-release ANOTHER set of books THIS early after launching 4th ed, Im probably going to either ignore it, or go Pathfinder lol
They need to realize this is D&D not Magic: The Gathering, and releasing a set every few months will aliewnate their client base not add to it
You don't actually need to buy the new books. It's not like MtG in that to play in the new tourny's you need the new age cards.
Bolded the part where I basically said that to help out in clarification
Also, I havent bought cards since Time Spiral, ancd I can play the game just fine (thats like 6 or 7 sets back) so this sittuation might be closer in relation to each other than you think
Both games are made by same company so I would guess their sales model would be the same. Since MTG style sales model is the most successful, might as well emulate.
However, if they were to truely emulate it, every time they released a new set in Magic, they would have to reprint the entire game. IF that WAS that game's business model, Im betting it wouldnt be as successful
However, if they were to truely emulate it, every time they released a new set in Magic, they would have to reprint the entire game. IF that WAS that game's business model, Im betting it wouldnt be as successful
In this case reprint powers. The core 4e is already built save some maths problems. The class builds and powers than define these builds are like cards in a deck, so they only have to cycle through that.
On one hand you are depicting a business model that doesn't work - if adding material ruins the game, how is WotC supposed to survive between editions?
Why should this time be any different? D&D started out being owned by a TSR run by Gygax. Gygax was ousted. TSR failed and was bought by WotC. WotC failed and was bought by Hasbro.
OK, it's not strictly the tendency of list-based systems to collapse under their own weight that caused that - there were political issues, an ill-advised foray into mainstream publishing, and big legal battles over oddly concieved patents going on, too. But, it's never been a wildly successful business model.
The closest thing to a successful model in the industry was selling settings instead of systems, publishing a book every month in a sort of slow-motion soap opera. Battletech was very successful that way, and White Wolf milked the World of Darkness pretty well. Even they had to roll revs every once in a while to clean up their system, though.
Oh, and I supose I should re-hash my list- vs effect- based theory of RPGs, just to make sure you all know what I'm babbling about.
A list-based system is one like D&D had always been. Each thing - character, race, monster, skill, spell, weapon, magic item, etc, etc - you introduce to the game has it's own mechanics to model it. Those mechanics can be kept similar (like, say, mostly using d20 rolls to resolve). They can reference keywords and broader mechanics, but still override general rules in specific cases (like MtG and 4e). But, ultimately, anything you add to the game adds to it's mechanics, potentially creates new synergies and exploits, and increases the complexity of the game making it harder to run/play/master.
An effects-based system is one like Hero. A finite set of mechanics are used to model anything and everything. The rule set expands little, if at all, as new source material is added.
Of course, it's not strictly an either-or thing. Hero is very effects-based, D&D 1e was /very/ list-based. 4e, with it's openess to 're-fluffing' and keywords mechanics is a good deal more effects based than D&D every has been before. If you want to add something new, you can re-use a lot of core mechanics to do so. It's still ultimately list-based, because specific beats general, so every exception - explicit or implied - constitutes a new mechanic and expands the system 'list.'
So I had some hopes that 4e would hold out a little longer than 3.0 did.
TSR failed and was bought by WotC. WotC failed and was bought by Hasbro.
TSR went bankrupt and was bought by WotC. WotC was purchased by Hasbro because it was a hugely profitable company. There's a bit of a difference there.
TSR failed and was bought by WotC. WotC failed and was bought by Hasbro.
TSR went bankrupt and was bought by WotC. WotC was purchased by Hasbro because it was a hugely profitable company. There's a bit of a difference there.
Not quite the version I heard. WotC had a few desireable propperties - like, at the time, the Pokemon CCG - but it was in financial trouble after a lot of expensive litigation. But, hey, could've just been a rumor.
I don't think there's ever been a hugely profitable RPG. They're really pretty marginal niche businesses. CCGs are a different story.
Not quite the version I heard. WotC had a few desireable propperties - like, at the time, the Pokemon CCG - but it was in financial trouble after a lot of expensive litigation. But, hey, could've just been a rumor.
I don't think there's ever been a hugely profitable RPG. They're really pretty marginal niche businesses. CCGs are a different story.
Eh. I don't think he ever meant D&D to be hugely profitable. Probably more along the lines of Pokemon and M:tG. Which were and likely still are (at least magic) profitable with certainty.
This.
I still feel like it's a constant threat, though, and the occassionally desperate attempts to boost the profitability of the line - 3.5, DDI, Essentials - reinforce that.
Tony, I appreciate your analysis of list-based v effect-based. D&D mechanics need to be systematic, robust, and reflavorable.
Re DDI, I think WotC saw WoW (which is a runaway success), and said, we can do that!
Re Essentials, I think it has much to do with enthusiastic designers who saw a chance to make some tweaks.
4th ed makes me think WOTC saw WoW and went "If we combine that in a D&D setting, it will be a money printing machine O.o"
It's amazing how things go around and come around.
For example, you're playing a cleric from the PHB. Can you, at 4th lvl, take the Holy Cleasing feature from the Warpriest kit?
If yes, cool! Game on!
If no, then how do we consider this compatible?
I can get behind taking past experience and using it to come up with better game designs. But if you say something will be compatible and it turns out not to be true...what does that say us as fans and cosumers of D&D products.
I know that we only have a small amount of information to draw impressions from. I am not saying anything final about Essentials, just merely giving my impressions/concern/praise at this moment right now. My position could change when more information is revealed.
Looking at the "PHB becoming obsolete" thing. When I look at the Red Box, Rule Compendium, and the two Heroes books, I see that they cover some of the material found in the PHB. That is what the book descriptions lead me to think. I don't believe that they will make the PHB obsolete but can you see how some folks could come to that conclusion?
Ok here is my "thing" if you will. I don't care if essentials is 4.5 or not...I could care less. I have no issue spending money on materials if I think that they are useful. My concern is whether or not Essentials is truly compatible with the PHB.
For example, you're playing a cleric from the PHB. Can you, at 4th lvl, take the Holy Cleasing feature from the Warpriest kit?
If yes, cool! Game on!
If no, then how do we consider this compatible?
The answer to this appears to be no, but if you were to ask about the level 5 Warpriest subclass powers, than th answer should be yes. It is just like how a PHB1 fighter can't take the Battlerager class feature without doing a complete rebuild. It is a class feature which means it is something that you basically select at creation and not at later levels.
The answer to this appears to be no, but if you were to ask about the level 5 Warpriest subclass powers, than th answer should be yes. It is just like how a PHB1 fighter can't take the Battlerager class feature without doing a complete rebuild. It is a class feature which means it is something that you basically select at creation and not at later levels.
Very true. In that case cool! Game On!
I was always going to buy the Rules Compendium anyways. Looks like I will have to fit in the rest of Essentials into my gaming budget.
The real question now is if the Essential classes' at-wills will be level 1 or feature powers. If they're level 1 like the past, then powers like Kolinnor's Hammer can be used effectively as a substitute at-will for the Warpriest, or Twin Strike could be substituted for the Essential Ranger later in HotFK. If they're not-leveled, then they're like Combat Agility or Lay on Hands: even though they're at-will powers learned at creation, they're tied specifically to the build using them, and can't be substituted.
As fighters, the slayer and the knight can both take feats, powers, and abilities that require the fighter character class. However, they also have class features and unique powers that other fighters cannot take. The rules for sorting this out are simple. If a class gives you a power that has a level in its stat block, you can swap that power for one of the same type (at-will, encounter, daily, or utility) and the same or lower level. If the power doesn’t have a level, you can’t swap it for a different power.
A knight can select fighter feats and utility powers from any source, and the same is true for all of the other classes.
Both taken from the Cleric preview article. Seems the compatibility depends on the powers with levels.
As fighters, the slayer and the knight can both take feats, powers, and abilities that require the fighter character class. However, they also have class features and unique powers that other fighters cannot take. The rules for sorting this out are simple. If a class gives you a power that has a level in its stat block, you can swap that power for one of the same type (at-will, encounter, daily, or utility) and the same or lower level. If the power doesn’t have a level, you can’t swap it for a different power.
Then I don't consider that "fully" compatible. But then again that is my position on the subject. Either way the game is compatible enough for me to get behind the Essentials product line. I can't wait to get my hands on them in September. Though I will add that it would be cool to see "essentials" style sub classes for the remaining classes in all of the Player's Handbooks. It would be interesting to see what the developers would come up with.
As fighters, the slayer and the knight can both take feats, powers, and abilities that require the fighter character class. However, they also have class features and unique powers that other fighters cannot take. The rules for sorting this out are simple. If a class gives you a power that has a level in its stat block, you can swap that power for one of the same type (at-will, encounter, daily, or utility) and the same or lower level. If the power doesn’t have a level, you can’t swap it for a different power.
Then I don't consider that "fully" compatible. But then again that is my position on the subject. Either way the game is compatible enough for me to get behind the Essentials product line. I can't wait to get my hands on them in September. Though I will add that it would be cool to see "essentials" style sub classes for the remaining classes in all of the Player's Handbooks. It would be interesting to see what the developers would come up with.
Well, it's the same as Combat Agility. You can't swap out Combat Agility for Cleave, can you?
Both are At-Wills that you get at level 1, but one is obviously tied to a build, and the other is a choosable at-will.
Welcome to another special, free-to-all edition of my regular column. I’ll be here each week throughout July and August to bring you up to speed on the new Essentials products and to tell you about other exciting things relating to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. Before we dive into it, I wanted to address some misconceptions we’ve been noticing on the boards since I started releasing information.Not a New Edition
No matter how I write the words or how many times I say it, confusion abounds. Must just be the nature of the internet, I guess. Well, here I go again …
I humbly acknowledge what is said and appologize to any and all on this board that I upset or otherwise offended. *bows head* those of you in the defense of it not being 4.5e
Straight from Bill Slavicsek on the WoTC site:Welcome to another special, free-to-all edition of my regular column. I’ll be here each week throughout July and August to bring you up to speed on the new Essentials products and to tell you about other exciting things relating to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. Before we dive into it, I wanted to address some misconceptions we’ve been noticing on the boards since I started releasing information.Not a New Edition
No matter how I write the words or how many times I say it, confusion abounds. Must just be the nature of the internet, I guess. Well, here I go again …
I humbly acknowledge what is said and appologize to any and all on this board that I upset or otherwise offended. *bows head* those of you in the defense of it not being 4.5e
It take a big man to admit that he was in error (presuming wrongness). Kudos to you.
Socksie, it was a great thread. This was one of the few intelligent and civil threads where people could discuss their concerns.
Tony, I appreciate your analysis of list-based v effect-based. D&D mechanics need to be systematic, robust, and reflavorable.
We'll see if we get more or less of that going forward...
Re DDI, I think WotC saw WoW (which is a runaway success), and said, we can do that!
My gut feeling at the time was that they pitched it to Hasbro that way. "See WoW? See WoW wow stockholders with big cash stream? We can do that, please don't throw away the D&D property, oh dark corporate masters!" ;) Of course, it didn't deliver, but it kept D&D in print for 2 more years.
Next up on the "Honestly Don Hasbro, we can get your money, please don't break are legs" play list is Essentials.
I don't see how they're pulling it off, I just hope they can keep it up. It'd be a shame to see Hasbro just sit on the property, while having WotC "focus on their core competencies in the CCG space." And, just because I've been waiting for this particular shoe to drop for 13 years doesn't mean it'll never hit the floor. ;)
Re Essentials, I think it has much to do with enthusiastic designers who saw a chance to make some tweaks.
Having seen the 'warpriest' and 'mage,' now, I'm starting to get an impression that there's a bit of a re-wind going on with Essentials. Domains are back. Clerics are all-Wisdom again. Resurection isn't a ritual burried in an apendix. Schools are back. Mages prep more of their spells. Magic Missle is unerring, again. It doesn't seem like too much of a mechanical/system regression (thankfully), but I'm starting to get the impression that Essentials is aimed more at bringing back old players (maybe really old players, who didn't like 3e either) than bringing in genuinely new ones. Thankfully, there's no important difference from the business side: both are sales. I'll be really impressed if I see more new faces playing Essentials at the next con, or more old faces playing Essentials instead of 3.x or Pathfinder.
To me it's pretty simple: if these books end up 'replacing' the original core (as the flagship product, the only thing mainstream stores should carry if they have limited selection, if the original core goes out of print, etc.), I'm calling it 4.5.
I agree wholeheartedly with Slavicsek that this isn't a 5th edition though :-)
Thankfully.
But we will see what the Fighter looks, who likely deviates the most. Then wel have a better sense of any 'units of exchange' with the Standard Advancement.
'Clerics are all-Wisdom again.'
Yes its old flavor - Wisdom - but its new mechanics - this Wis applies to melee weapon attacks, perceptively spotting a vulnerability in the enemies defenses. The mechanics still has elegance.
But, I like it a lot! If the thief is as interesting as the mage the Essentials looks very promising.
I wonder if the essentials version of the spellbook will replace the PHB version for other wizards via errata? Probably.
Looks like wizard spells no longer vanish from the wizard's spellbook as he increases in level.
True but how they gain new spells is a mystery. They also can't prepare 2 lvl 1 spells, but they get enounter powers.
I wonder if the essentials version of the spellbook will replace the PHB version for other wizards via errata? Probably.
I don't think so, seems like they would of errated it before they released the preview (like magic missile), but it's possible.
Within the Classic Wizard kit are four builds, all founded on the core advancement table, cantrips, ritual casting, the old spellbook, and non-Vancian mechanics. Within the Mage kit are currently three builds (the three magic schools), cantrips, a new uniqe advancement table, and this new spellbook that basically revives Vancian magic for the Wizard.
I think they're separate; I believe for the same reason, Classic Clerics won't get Ressurection and the like as new class features. They're different features for different kits – but note that neither kits previewed had ritual casting. It seems that's delegated to feat status now.
I'm interested in how the Fighter kits are going to play out. The Warpriest kit had 2 builds – Storm and Sun Domains. The Mage kit had 3 builds – Enchantment, Evocation, and Illusion Schools. There are TWO Fighter kits in Essentials: the Slayer and the Knight. In the past, the difference between these sorts of fighters were merely build differences, and you could overlap with powers if you really wanted to. But each of these kits should have their own builds within them, with different play styles for the kit. So I'm interested in seeing how they're going to play out.
They're different features for different kits – but note that neither kits previewed had ritual casting. It seems that's delegated to feat status now.
IMO that's what the features give you. Illusion, Evocation, or Enchantment rituals. I really expect enchantment to gain "Dis/Enchant magic item", and Illusion to gain "Hallucinator Item/Creature", a little less sure about evocation, but probably "pyrotecnics". It fit's quite nicely.
They're different features for different kits – but note that neither kits previewed had ritual casting. It seems that's delegated to feat status now.
IMO that's what the features give you. Illusion, Evocation, or Enchantment rituals. I really expect enchantment to gain "Dis/Enchant magic item", and Illusion to gain "Hallucinator Item/Creature", a little less sure about evocation, but probably "pyrotecnics". It fit's quite nicely.
Wrong type of Enchant. Seriously, WotC needs to stop overlaping with terminology. We've got it happening twice with the Mage:
Enchanter Mage implies the use of charms, not the enchanting of magic items.
Evoker Mage implies the use of blasts and bursts and generally big booms – powerful, destructive spells, not the use of primal magic.
Evocation never even made SENSE for Wizards, since it's a term of worship – you evoke spirits, you don't evoke fireballs. Unless you want to summon or conjure a fireball from wherever they make their society in the Elemental Chaos…
WotC had finally used the term RIGHT when they called Primal powers evocations. It's the correct usage. And now they've gone with tradition, because Essentials is all about evoking 2nd and 3.5th editions and bringing in the old fans / fans who switched to Pathfinder.
IMO "thief" will get a bonus to detect traps. One of the big complaints about current rogues is that their no good at spotting traps.
I'd like this too. However it may not happen -- one of the other big skill "problems" is that clerics aren't that got at the religion skill, and they don't seem to have fixed that in Essentials. Still, I'd love to see them fix that.
Evocation never even made SENSE for Wizards, since it's a term of worship – you evoke spirits, you don't evoke fireballs. Unless you want to summon or conjure a fireball from wherever they make their society in the Elemental Chaos…
WotC had finally used the term RIGHT when they called Primal powers evocations. It's the correct usage. And now they've gone with tradition, because Essentials is all about evoking 2nd and 3.5th editions and bringing in the old fans / fans who switched to Pathfinder.
I don't really think the evocation overlap is that big of a deal. I mean evocation is a term for dealing with spirits, but only when it is. The word evocation just means "to bring forth". The term makes sense as a name for primal powers and as a school of magic. But what really makes the overlap not matter is that you only use evocation for primal characters when talking about a game element, while evocation is and has been an actual in-character term used in the campaign settings of D&D as the name of one of the schools of magic.
And I actually do picture my wizard's fireballs as being conjured from the Elemental Chaos.
Another confusion might be the difference between evokers and invokers. So you have arcane controllers who use the evocation school of magic, primal everyone who evoke primal spirits, and divine controllers who invoke the powers of their gods.
Eh, whatever.
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! ^^
Sure, the warpriest has two domains to pick from, and each domain picks two at-wills from an assumed pool of four. But what's to say that there isn't another build with two more domains, and that each pairing of domain/build will have one at-will that overlaps with one of the other build/domain pairs? For instance, build 1 domain 1 would have at-will 1 and at-will 2, build 1 domain 2 would have at-will 1 and at-will 3, while build 2 domain 1 would have at-will 2 and at-will 3, and build 2 domain 2 would have at-will 3 and at-will 4. There would be some overlap, but both builds would most likely use wisdom, and each build would have one at-will power unique to it.
That's a lot of conjecture, but the setup is necessary to support my build hypothesis. Which is:
What if for each class, there is one build designed more for lapsed players from previous editions and one build designed for the younger generations of today who have yet to discover D&D? The builds we are seeing in the previews, with their domains, schools and post-July magic missile class features, certainly evoke a feeling of nostalgia for those of us who have been playing for many editions. And the thief would certainly fall into that category as well. The other builds we know about are the two fighter builds: knight and slayer.
The slayer is really what gave me this idea. The knight to me says medieval-fantasy, 1st Edition fighter type, but the slayer sounds like a class someone brought up on Halo/WoW/Left for Dead would want to be. Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying older gamers are fuddy-duddies who keep trying to call people from an i-pod or that people who play video games are punks who don't have an attention span long enough to read the summary of a short story about getting off my lawn. I am aware of the overlap, as I am both an avid player of current-generation video games and someone who has played straight through four editions of D&D. But the extremes are there, and satisfying the needs of both in a way that does not change anything for the middle is something that I think could be done with 4E.
WotC already has those of us who currently play 4E hooked. But it seems apparent from these previews that 4E's general-beats-specific rule-set has enough design space to at least allow fans of 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition to all sit at the same table and feel like they are playing a game that feels like D&D to them. And if the designers were to fully embrace such a concept, it could be an amazing thing for the game. If you have classes and options that appeal to the old, middle and new-school under the roof of one edition, then you could just stop calling it Xth Edition and call it Dungeons and Dragons.
Then, you put out DMG3 and include a section on styles of play with ideas and rules for playing gridless and using random tables for encounters and treasure. Then, in the same chapter, you give something to the MMO/X-Box crowd in the form of an achievement-like reward mechanic or even detailed PVP rules with maps to use as battlegrounds and arenas. DMG2 already gave us a lot of great mechanics and ideas for focusing on story, rewarding XP for role-playing and running low magic games. Added with these further additions, you could allow groups to craft campaigns that fully embraced whatever concept of D&D or gaming in general it is that makes them love playing. And best of all, every one of these additions and ideas could be completely ignored by those who don't want to use them.
If we incorporated all of these concepts into one framework of options, we could have a D&D that will, 1) appeal to current players, lapsed players and fans of previous editions, 2) seem inviting and exciting to the younger generations on which the future of the game depends, and most importantly, 3) allow all of those people to sit at the same table and play Dungeons and Dragons without worrying or complaining about which edition is superior or feeling like their version of D&D was forsaken or destroyed.
* * * * *
I know I took that a little too far into pipe-dream territory, but it just seems like something that would at least be worth trying. It is certainly something that is possible to do within the 4E rule set. And if the designers are thinking along these same lines, then I can't wait to see what the future holds for D&D.
* * * * *
This post was brought to you by insomnia, wishful thinking and a grant from the Can't We All Just Get Along Foundation.
I think a complication with mix-n-match Warpriest Domains is that the powers may have keywords that say which domain they are in. Sun Domain powers may state that they are "Domain: Sun" or "Sun" powers or something. This means that a new Fire Domain that later tries to co-opt a Sun Domain power will need a power errata'ed, or a lot of foresight will be needed when the powers are first made. It's not that WotC couldn't errata the power [cough], but I don't see them deliberately making design decisions that will require them to do so. Also, chumps would complain about how the new Domains "aren't fully supported" and have "only half the new powers" of the original domains. [Shrug] I admit that my points are idle speculation.
I do think some alternate nuts & bolts stuff would be nice in a nostalgia suppliment, although I have no idea if there will even be a DMG3. A hex-based grid alternative which handles monster sizes well? Yum.
I concur that WotC designed the initial Essentials builds/subclasses/kits/whatever to be retro. At least the Mage & Warpriest seem to indicate that the Thief and Knight will also be this way. Of course, as noted, this doesn't mean that there won't be Illusionist, Heretic Burner, Hamburgler, and the revealed Slayer builds as well.
I think a complication with mix-n-match Warpriest Domains is that the powers may have keywords that say which domain they are in. Sun Domain powers may state that they are "Domain: Sun" or "Sun" powers or something. This means that a new Fire Domain that later tries to co-opt a Sun Domain power will need a power errata'ed, or a lot of foresight will be needed when the powers are first made. It's not that WotC couldn't errata the power [cough], but I don't see them deliberately making design decisions that will require them to do so. Also, chumps would complain about how the new Domains "aren't fully supported" and have "only half the new powers" of the original domains. [Shrug] I admit that my points are idle speculation.
I do think some alternate nuts & bolts stuff would be nice in a nostalgia suppliment, although I have no idea if there will even be a DMG3. A hex-based grid alternative which handles monster sizes well? Yum.
I have a feeling for the cases of Domains they're going to stick with the ones released in Divine Power, only. The two released are both in DP, and there's no reason to change the 4E lore on that now.
I wonder if cleric str powers will be errated to Wis? It's the only way I can see to keep them used and useful.
No -- Doing that would violate the "rule 1 = compatibility" statement because it would adversely affect existing cleric player characters who decided to favor strength over wisdom.
I wonder if cleric str powers will be errated to Wis? It's the only way I can see to keep them used and useful.
No -- Doing that would violate the "rule 1 = compatibility" statement because it would adversely affect existing cleric player characters who decided to favor strength over wisdom.
true, but i wish they would do it anyway.
Evocation never even made SENSE for Wizards, since it's a term of worship – you evoke spirits, you don't evoke fireballs. Unless you want to summon or conjure a fireball from wherever they make their society in the Elemental Chaos…
You're thinking of Invocation. Invoke means to call /upon/. You can invoke the name of a deity, spirit or whatever for aid, for justification of an action, for permission, for whorship, or whatever.
Evoke means to call forth or bring into being. You can evoke an emotional response from an audience, for instance. You can magically evoke a ball of fire - you call it forth with a spoken spell. It's just a ball of fire, though, you don't whorship it, and it doesn't have a choice about showing up nor any option to evade or defy your control. It's just a ball of fire. The magical meaning of evocation is very similar to conjuration, though D&D makes a fine distinction.
Evocation never even made SENSE for Wizards, since it's a term of worship – you evoke spirits, you don't evoke fireballs. Unless you want to summon or conjure a fireball from wherever they make their society in the Elemental Chaos…
You're thinking of Invocation. Invoke means to call /upon/. You can invoke the name of a deity, spirit or whatever for aid, for justification of an action, for permission, for whorship, or whatever.
Evoke means to call forth or bring into being. You can evoke an emotional response from an audience, for instance. You can magically evoke a ball of fire - you call it forth with a spoken spell. It's just a ball of fire, though, you don't whorship it, and it doesn't have a choice about showing up nor any option to evade or defy your control. It's just a ball of fire. The magical meaning of evocation is very similar to conjuration, though D&D makes a fine distinction.
The line between Evocation and Invocation is actually pretty small. Invocation is praying to a deity, hoping that they will answer your call. Evocation is performing a ritual summoning of a being, that may or may not be in your control. The line between Evocation and Conjuration is such: you never "evoke" matter or energy; you "evoke" an entity, whether god, spirit, demon, or some other supernatural agent.
Evocation of the Earth, from The Rite of Spring, is a good example of such – a primal evocation of the spirits of nature to prepare for the ritual sacrifice.
Conjuration was initially a similar concept to Evocation; however, it long ago gained the layman's definition of doing magic tricks by "conjuring" up spells and illusions. ONLY in D&D has "Evoke" ever overlapped in that manner.
Essentially, Conjuration may be used in Evocation, but Evocation should not be used as a synonym for all usages of Conjuration. And D&D goes a step further with this, by making Evocation and Conjuration different schools, essentially pulling Evocation away from anything it had to do with the summoning and binding of great spirits and supernatural entities.