1. Wizards of the coast has repeatedly tried to convince us that this is NOT a new edition.
2. Wizards of the coast has repeatedly tried to promise that the essentials line is COMPLETELY compatible.
The problem with the "essentials" line is that they are so radically changing the core classes that nobody would want to play the non essential versions.
Here's an example - the mage. The essentials version of the wizard class is called the mage. The mage will specialize into 3 categories - the evoker, the illusionist, and the summoner. In the essentials line, mage spells will do half damage on a miss, where as non essential characters will still just miss. So given the choice between a wizard casting burning hands (where a miss does no damage) and a mage casting the same exact spell (where a miss does half damage), why on earth would people choose to play the wizard anymore?
If you give people a "choice" but the first "choice" is so blatently horrific compared to the second, it leads to everyone choosing the 2nd option and nobody choosing the first - thus creating a linear path instead of allowing people to have a fair choice.
Here's another example - the list of powers. Because the powers in the essentials line will be like the powers we have now, in that the powers you gain at each level really only give one or two good ones and the rest are situational crap at best - you are again creating a linear path in which people playing a particular class will follow a cookie cutter build - much like they do in World of Warcraft. In that game if you want to go on the "good" parts of the game, your mages will all have the almost exact build, gems, enchants, and choices of spells in their rotations.
In other words Mage A = Mage B = Mage C and so on.
This game USED to be about a group of friends getting together to work as a team to fight off some horrific evil. Now, someone seems to simply have gone over to Blizzard entertainment and stolen their entire design for WoW.
The final problem I want to express my opinion on is how many more erratas are you guys going to release? Seriously - do you even HAVE a research and development department - or do you guys just steal ideas from other companies like people who copy builds from the WoW armory and then wonder why you can't make the characters work?
I can understand typos - meh it happens. But when you compile over 80+ pages of errata - that's not a matter of simply fixing a few boo boos. That is simply poor design. Perhaps you should give D&D back to the people who don't have a philosophy of volume = profit.
Here's an idea - scrap 4th edition. Start with Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard for classes. Human, dwarf, elf and halfling could be the races. Leave it at that for a while and see where it goes.
All wizard encounter spells will have miss effects. Is this what you mean? It seems this will affect all wizards.
I'm patting you on the head.
1. Wizards of the coast has repeatedly tried to convince us that this is NOT a new edition.
2. Wizards of the coast has repeatedly tried to promise that the essentials line is COMPLETELY compatible.
How is it not compatible? Are you saying that I will be unable to play my Swordmage beside a Slayer Fighter or Mage Wizard (I know it sounds funny, but Mage is nothing more than an alternate Wizard build, and not a new class)?
The problem with the "essentials" line is that they are so radically changing the core classes that nobody would want to play the non essential versions.
Really? I can think of quite few Rogue players who would like to hold on to Powers like Deft Strike, Knockout and Stunning Strike; and quite a few Fighters who would hold on to powers like Tide of Iron, Come and Get It and Shift the Battlefield. Laser Clerics get nothing from the Warpriest build.
Here's an example - the mage. The essentials version of the wizard class is called the mage. The mage will specialize into 3 categories - the evoker, the illusionist, and the summoner. In the essentials line, mage spells will do half damage on a miss, where as non essential characters will still just miss. So given the choice between a wizard casting burning hands (where a miss does no damage) and a mage casting the same exact spell (where a miss does half damage), why on earth would people choose to play the wizard anymore?
The Mage Wizard specialties are Evoker, Illusionist, and Enchanter (not Summoner). With Essentials, all reprinted Encounter Attack Spells will be receiving errata to do something on a miss. This includes spells that are already being used by Wizards right now. And, believe it or not, Orb Wizards, Staff Wizards, Wand Wizards and Tome Wizards will be able to select any of the new spells, too. The Encounter Attack Spells doing something on a miss is not a Mage build feature, it is a change to design philosphy that affects all Wizards going forward. I don't know about you, but when my Staff Wizard casts Burning Hands after the release of Essentials, I'll be doing half damage on a miss. You won't, because you will refuse to accept the errata on this spell because it has been tainted by Essentials. More win for me, but I'll be sure to set aside some time to play a little (very little) violin on your behalf.
If you give people a "choice" but the first "choice" is so blatently horrific compared to the second, it leads to everyone choosing the 2nd option and nobody choosing the first - thus creating a linear path instead of allowing people to have a fair choice.
Here's another example - the list of powers. Because the powers in the essentials line will be like the powers we have now, in that the powers you gain at each level really only give one or two good ones and the rest are situational crap at best - you are again creating a linear path in which people playing a particular class will follow a cookie cutter build - much like they do in World of Warcraft. In that game if you want to go on the "good" parts of the game, your mages will all have the almost exact build, gems, enchants, and choices of spells in their rotations.
In other words Mage A = Mage B = Mage C and so on.
This would have been a valid argument when the PHB1 came out and 4E was brand new. Now? I just don't see it. I have seen some truly unique and innovative builds that fall far outside the cookie cutter builds you claim are ruining the game.
This game USED to be about a group of friends getting together to work as a team to fight off some horrific evil. Now, someone seems to simply have gone over to Blizzard entertainment and stolen their entire design for WoW.
If you and your friends aren;t working together as a team to fight horrific evil, how is this WotC's fault? If players around your table are ripping builds verbatim out of the Char Op forum, whose fault is that? The same thing has happened throughout D&D's history, and is nothing new for 4E, and certainly not new for Essentials (if anything, by giving radically different options via class builds, they may be breaking up the cookie cutter conundrum).
The final problem I want to express my opinion on is how many more erratas are you guys going to release? Seriously - do you even HAVE a research and development department - or do you guys just steal ideas from other companies like people who copy builds from the WoW armory and then wonder why you can't make the characters work?
I can understand typos - meh it happens. But when you compile over 80+ pages of errata - that's not a matter of simply fixing a few boo boos. That is simply poor design. Perhaps you should give D&D back to the people who don't have a philosophy of volume = profit.
They will produce as much errata as necessary to keep the game balanced. And that 80+ pages is over three years, and over 17 "Core releases" (Core, in my opinion, being: PHB1, PHB2, PHB3, FRPG, EPG, MM1, MM2, MM3, AV1, AV2, DMG1, DMG2, MP1, MP2, AP, DP, PrP. What qualifies all these books as "Core" is that they have sigificantly more "crunch" than "fluff") When you add in the fact that one item being changed in Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons takes a whole page (and a lot of white space) on its own and that some of the text making up that page count is explanation of why the errata came about, the errata turns into a lot less than your bile would indicate.
It has been proven already that less than 3% of the rules of this game have received errata.
Here's an idea - scrap 4th edition. Start with Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard for classes. Human, dwarf, elf and halfling could be the races. Leave it at that for a while and see where it goes.
Here's an idea. You play with the material that you like, and I'll play with the material that I like. I'll have more options because I'm willing to give the new stuff a try. I'll probably have more fun, too, but that's probably because I don't have knee jerk reactions to change, either.
The problem with D&D 4.5 is that it doesnt exist.
And that's not really a problem, is it? :D
This game USED to be about a group of friends getting together to work as a team to fight off some horrific evil. Now, someone seems to simply have gone over to Blizzard entertainment and stolen their entire design for WoW.
Essentials moves D&D 4e closer to WoW? This statement is bizarre. D&D 4e essentials is moving the system closer to 2nd and 3rd edition, which many old schoolers think is the "true" D&D experience (not me however). If anything, a lot of 4e supports think that Essentials is a sort of Knee jerk reaction to 4e being labelled a copy of WoW. So to say that essentials brings the system closer to Blizzard/WoW makes no sense at all.
And with regards to the whole group of friends fighting evil thing, I'm 100% certain that the release of Essentials will not change the fact that my D&D group will be teaming up every Wednesday night to smite evil. I don't see any situation in which Essentials ends that.
The problem with D&D 4.5 is that it doesnt exist.
And that's what unleashes the rampant Fox Mulderism on these boards.
How is it not compatible? Are you saying that I will be unable to play my Swordmage beside a Slayer Fighter or Mage Wizard (I know it sounds funny, but Mage is nothing more than an alternate Wizard build, and not a new class)?
No, but when you print your Swordmage out to go play with those Essentials guys, you may find he's a little different. Like, his MBA damage went down because Melee Training would have been problematic applied to a Slayer or something.
The compatibility is being achieved by changing 4e to be compatible with Essentials. Thus the frequent charges of it being a sort of '4.5' - though, really, would '3.5' have been so bad if you could have just downloaded some updates and had your 3.0 rules automagically transform to 3.5? It was the re-buying core books thing that really had people up in arms, and that's not happening this time.
No, but when you print your Swordmage out to go play with those Essentials guys, you may find he's a little different. Like, his MBA damage went down because Melee Training would have been problematic applied to a Slayer or something.
Bad example, since Swordmages still have Intelligent Blademaster, which is better and not getting nerfed.
Also, as someone on ENWorld put it, Essentials is not 4.5e because in 4e you round down.
Also x2, this thread will be locked soon. Because they all get locked sooner or later.
Swordmages still have Intelligent Blademaster, which is better and not getting nerfed.
Ooh, I got suckered right into that one...
How is it not compatible? Are you saying that I will be unable to play my Swordmage beside a Slayer Fighter or Mage Wizard (I know it sounds funny, but Mage is nothing more than an alternate Wizard build, and not a new class)?
No, but when you print your Swordmage out to go play with those Essentials guys, you may find he's a little different. Like, his MBA damage went down because Melee Training would have been problematic applied to a Slayer or something.The compatibility is being achieved by changing 4e to be compatible with Essentials. Thus the frequent charges of it being a sort of '4.5' - though, really, would '3.5' have been so bad if you could have just downloaded some updates and had your 3.0 rules automagically transform to 3.5? It was the re-buying core books thing that really had people up in arms, and that's not happening this time.
I think you're giving a simple example excessive importance. If, in order to introduce the power point system for the PHB3, a PHB1 talent had to be *slightly* nerfed, nobody would have made such a fuss.
This is the same situation; if instead of "Essentials" the book was called "PHB4: Heroes for Dummies" and offered a new set of builds based on MBAs for melee classes, and it came with a nerf to Martial Training, we wouldn't even be discussing it.
Now because of this one example (or the Magic Missile change) we're arguing over how the entirety of 4e is being retrofitted to be compatible with... the new magic missile and losing 3 damage at level 30 on MBAs. Sure, Essentials will probably mean more changes, but are these changes so traumatic that they warrant such concern?
Bad example, since Swordmages still have Intelligent Blademaster, which is better and not getting nerfed.
You mean we don't know it is getting nerfed. My money is still on Intellegent Blademaster getting hit with the nerf bat as well.
No, but when you print your Swordmage out to go play with those Essentials guys, you may find he's a little different. Like, his MBA damage went down by 2 points because Melee Training would have been problematic applied to a Slayer or something.
Bold text added by me.
Bad example, since Swordmages still have Intelligent Blademaster, which is better and not getting nerfed.
You mean we don't know it is getting nerfed. My money is still on Intellegent Blademaster getting hit with the nerf bat as well.
I would put more than just metaphorical money on it not getting nerfed. I would put my daughter's college fund on it if Vegas were taking bets. There is no reason at all to think Intelligent Blademaster will get hit.
Bad example, since Swordmages still have Intelligent Blademaster, which is better and not getting nerfed.
You mean we don't know it is getting nerfed. My money is still on Intellegent Blademaster getting hit with the nerf bat as well.
The "problem" being fixed was never other classes being as good at Melee Basic Attacks as the Fighter. They have plainly said that when they began considering changing Melee Training, they also began designing new, class specific feats (like Intelligent Blademaster) for other classes that rely heavily on Melee Basic Attacks to function.
The problem that the Melee Training "nerf" addresses is a problem brought on by the Essenitals builds themselves. With Melee Training as is, the Knight and Slayer builds can both use Strength (a Fighter's Primary ability) as a dump stat in favor of Constitution for the cost of one Feat. Now, if those builds want the HP boost that comes with that choice, they need to sacrifice some of their damage to do so.
The Melee Training nerf was not needed before because no build could simply ignore their class' Primary stat and still be just as effective before.
The "problem" being fixed was never other classes being as good at Melee Basic Attacks as the Fighter. They have plainly said that when they began considering changing Melee Training, they also began designing new, class specific feats (like Intelligent Blademaster) for other classes that rely heavily on Melee Basic Attacks to function.
The problem that the Melee Training "nerf" addresses is a problem brought on by the Essenitals builds themselves. With Melee Training as is, the Knight and Slayer builds can both use Strength (a Fighter's Primary ability) as a dump stat in favor of Constitution for the cost of one Feat. Now, if those builds want the HP boost that comes with that choice, they need to sacrifice some of their damage to do so.
The Melee Training nerf was not needed before because no build could simply ignore their class' Primary stat and still be just as effective before.
They said options not feats, and as memory serves they did not specify what existing options, if any, these new options would resemble. I think it is much more liklely that we'll see more powers that count as basic attacks rather than seeing feats that ever do melee training ever again.
And they could have altered the Knight and Slayer to make them play nice with melee training.
Who would intentionally make 85% of a game they have worked on for years obsolete?
What would be the point?
And why would WotC do that!?
Who would intentionally make 85% of a game they have worked on for years obsolete?
What would be the point?
BECAUSE WOT$ IS AN EVIL CORPERATION OWNED BY HA$BRO AND THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT MONEY NOT THE HEART OF THE GAME LIKE TSR DID THE GAME USED TO BE FOR FANS NOW ITS FOR $ THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL THE GAME AND ANY TRUE FAN WOULD KNOW THAT!!!11!!
AND THEY NERFED MOOLAH TRAINING RATHER THAN MELEE TRAINING
KNIGHT? MORE LIKE... NOT!!
AMITIRITE
[answer: no]
And why would WotC do that!?
Who would intentionally make 85% of a game they have worked on for years obsolete?
What would be the point?
Which comment was this directed at?
And those books aren't optional splat books. If you want to know what is the latest incarnation of the game, you need to by the Essential line.
That's absolute nonsense. The Essentials line is completely optional. If you want to know what the "latest incarnation of the rules" is, you look at the FREE erreta.
The Melee Training nerf was not needed before because no build could simply ignore their class' Primary stat and still be just as effective before.
Well the no-attack-rolls Warlord (Sometimes known as the lazylord, or my preference the commandlord) could ignore STR, and almost by definition does, though I suppose the effectiveness of that still rather narrow build is debatable. Either way, that build doesn't break Melee Training, unless allies with the feat count.
Anyway, this part of my post can be mostly ignored, just being snarky by pointing out a technically incorrect statement.
They said options not feats, and as memory serves they did not specify what existing options, if any, these new options would resemble. I think it is much more liklely that we'll see more powers that count as basic attacks rather than seeing feats that ever do melee training ever again.
I hope so. I much prefer At-Wills that can be used as a basic attack instead of needing to spend a feat. If I'm not charging, OAing, being ordered about by a Warlord the feat doesn't do much. A basic at-will, on the other hand, can provide useful benefits all the time while also giving me a better basic attack than even the non errated Melee Training ever did.
My gal and I played many years in Greyhawk and loved it..then 4th came and we seen alot of people leave D&D cause of it (As did we for a while). 4th was just so dumbed down. After a few years we got back into 4th D&D (RPGA of course) and it still seems to have lost a little of its soul (best metephor I could come up with). Even with excellent DM's it just lacks (never got that feeling from 2nd to 3rd ed).
So essentials is comming out. IF (big IF) it changes so much of the basics of 4th..then really we will call it 4.5 plain and simple. Our concern is how the RPGA will roll with this or not.
I guess they don't want it becoming too obvious how broken and incompatible 4th ed and Essentials. Organised Play makes it pretty apparent when something's broken. So if Essential classes are simply more powerful then 4th ed classes, Organised Play would make it obvious very quickly. A good move is to disallow 4th ed (even the horribly errata'd version they're transforming it into) to be played alongside Essentials.
Essentials will probably mean more changes, but are these changes so traumatic that they warrant such concern?
Concerned? Whose concerned? I'm talking about a hobby which I enjoy playing and talking about. I'm discussing how the future changes will impact on the hobby which I enjoy.
I'm not concerned, I'm somewhat relieved. I'll get to save quite a bit of money by not buying quite so many D&D books. Although I'm disappointed that there won't be anymore D&D books for me to get (unless monsters are still compatible).
They feel (true or not doesn't matter) that they buy stuff that will be obsolete when the next errata comes.
Its true of course. Same thing happened to the 3rd ed fans. Then the 3.5e fans. Now its happening to the 4th ed fans. The difference is, WotC is saying it isn't happening, while their actions clearly demonstrate it IS happening.
Read the Essentials review done by Gabe over at Penny Arcade.
www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/23/ (It's the second post on the blog.)
Essentials adds more options that are designed to fit seemlessly with 4e while at the same time providing a system that is easier to teach people who haven't played or who want to get back into a hobby they've been away from for a long time. The new class builds aren't superior builds, they are simpler builds, lacking in versatility for the sake of making play easier.
All of the options fit into 4e. Basically think of this as redbox DnD basic, and think of 4e as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, only this time they fit in with each other so my wife who has never played can comfortably play with my friend who's played for ten years.
Why do options + better gateway for roleplaying = bad?
I have seen nothing to suggest that this in any way changes 4e beyond a few eratta, which come out every so often anyway based on consumer feedback. These are also good things, because it means the game can evolve based on our feedback. THAT is never bad.
Beyond magic missile, melee focus, and few other minor (VERY minor) things makes this some kind of a cataclysmic change to the edition? How does producing DnD Basic (essentially) make this a new direction? This isn't a new direction, it's simply a seperate line of products. The DnD Advanced (4e) stuff will be coming out again soon.
This is a knee-jerk reaction from a knee-jerk community and frankly I am astounded by the assumptions.
They're not even trying to keep anything but the barest illusion of compatibility. Their latest organised play is Essentials ONLY. Too bad if you really really really wanted to play a shaman, you're stuck playing Essentials.
Just like the current season has used pre-gen Dark Sun characters. They use Encounters to promote whatever the new hot product is. It's Dark Sun now, it will soon be Essentials, and the season after that will probably be some Shadowfell/Ravenloft thing.
So keep on the borderlands wil be essentials only? That sucks I had a monk all ready to try for the first time. So based on the classes we know about, the only strikers are the fighter build, and the rogue build? The two MBA only classes?
Damn, I guess that means I'm going to be stuck with the healbot again.
Or you could, GASP, actually give the new Fighter or Rogue a try. Maybe, just maybe, you might find that just because they are simplified and streamlined does not mean that they are boring to play. Fun is what you make of it, and 9 times out of 10 someone is only bored if they choose not to find the fun in what's available to them.
Damn, I guess that means I'm going to be stuck with the healbot again.
That's a fairly ignorant statement. The fact that clerics and other leaders in 4E are specifically not heal-bots is a huge part of their appeal. Heal-bot is a term for a character in a game that just stands there and spams nothing but healing spells. Clerics and other leaders work nothing like that (unless you go out of your way to make them work that way). That's why they are called 'leaders' instead of 'healers'.
Every scrape of anything said by ANYONE related in any way to D&D is being twisted to "prove" that Essentials, a series of splatbooks and other gaming material, is an entire new edition. When you have to jump through this many logical hoops to try to convince people of something like this, it's time to take a step back and look at what's happening.
*I actually thought it was Essentials and anything concidered "current", which probably means anything that comes out after Essentials.
Or you could, GASP, actually give the new Fighter or Rogue a try. Maybe, just maybe, you might find that just because they are simplified and streamlined does not mean that they are boring to play. Fun is what you make of it, and 9 times out of 10 someone is only bored if they choose not to find the fun in what's available to them.
I don't know. I've seen the character cards for the Red Box Gameday. The MBA-based characters look pretty boring.
They're using Encounters to showcase new materials, which they should, but I think there's also a worry that someone using MBAs every turn is going to see the versatility of a 4E character and start to prefer the old stuff to Essentials.
(Coming to an RPGA table near you...)
Fighter 1: I charge and use Threatening Rush, dealing damage and marking everyone around me.
Fighter 2: I make a Melee Basic Attack. I do a couple extra damage.
Fighter 1: I make an opportunity attack with Grappling Strike, grabbing the enemy and stopping his movement.
Player 2: I . . . make a Melee Basic Attack. Hey, where did you get all those neat powers?
Let me finish the quote: The problem with D&D 4.5 is that there is no such version.
It's ok to voice your opinion, but it's not ok to shove it down somebody's throat.
I am in the right thread for this, yeah?
So keep on the borderlands wil be essentials only? That sucks I had a monk all ready to try for the first time. So based on the classes we know about, the only strikers are the fighter build, and the rogue build? The two MBA only classes?
Damn, I guess that means I'm going to be stuck with the healbot again.
Have you seen the Essentials Mage? Even if the pregen is an 'Evoker,' it'd be worth trying out.
And the Slayer and Theif can't easily avoid doing a lot of damage, so they can't be too bad at their roles. They're deadly (dull).
At least back in the day you could Disarm or Trip an opponent with your MBA.
Irony is sweet.
Fortunately you can do even more interesting things with MBAs now. Like tripping or cleaving or plenty of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head right now.
Yes irony is sweet.
So far it feels like just as big, if not a bigger change than going from 3.0 to 3.5. So essentials could essentially be what? DnD 4.75?
I was just about signed up to dm for the next encounters season... I might not now and I certainly won't be playing in it.
So far it feels like just as big, if not a bigger change than going from 3.0 to 3.5. So essentials could essentially be what? DnD 4.75?
More like PHB4.
At least back in the day you could Disarm or Trip an opponent with your MBA.
Irony is sweet.
Fortunately you can do even more interesting things with MBAs now. Like tripping or cleaving or plenty of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head right now.
Yes irony is sweet.
The Game Day pregen rogue has an at-will 'trick' that lets him knock an enemy prone with his MBA.
PH rogue want to knock someone prone? Level 3 encounter, 1[W]+DEX, just like an MBA.
This isn't a new direction, it's simply a seperate line of products. The DnD Advanced (4e) stuff will be coming out again soon.
They've said that it's a new direction. The things they've talked about in upcoming releases fits with the Essentials direction, not the "traditional" 4e direction. Listen to the latest podcast. They've got an Essentials Assassin scheduled for October in Dragon/DDI. There aren't going to be new abilities for Fighters in Heroes of Shadow, just Feats. The Bladesinger in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide is an Essentials build.
So, to me, it's looking like "traditional" 4e builds will just be left with what they can get out of new material designed for the Essentials builds, which means more material for Clerics and Wizards - who still have an ability to pick Encounter and Daily Powers - while the Martial classes just get new Feats and Utility Powers. I don't think I'm alone in believing that the Essentials direction isn't a separate line of products, it's what's going to keep coming. It's the D&D 2011 Core Set.
I'm cynical enough to think that they'll do another "Core Set" (new Heroes of ... and another Monster Vault box) next year or the year after in order to recycle more existing "traditional" builds into Essentials-style builds. 
At this point, though, there's not much about whether or not it's a new direction that hasn't already been said. The only thing to do at this point is wait and see.
At least back in the day you could Disarm or Trip an opponent with your MBA.
Irony is sweet.
Fortunately you can do even more interesting things with MBAs now. Like tripping or cleaving or plenty of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head right now.
Yes irony is sweet.
This.
The new Essentials Fighter/Rogue don't just make MBAs, they make MBAs augmented by at-will stances/tricks and are functionally equal in potency (in some cases better) than the current batch of martial at-will attack powers.
I have preordered Monster Vault, very happy seeing that classic monsters will be revisited/errated but, come on guys, this is 4.5 in disguise... I can't believe that any serious player/DM will believe in Wizards "not 4.5" propaganda... ;)
Avin! So good to see you. Haven't seem much of you over at ddm spoilers. I, too, am glad to see the monster vault released. The mm1 needs an overhaul- since the change with the lowering of stats/hp and damage increase. I disagree with the 4.5 though ;)
I agree with you Alien its a new direction we may never see anything new for the classes and builds we already have especally for martials. Its sad really as I like playing martial toons but I may switch to another power source if this direction continues past 2011. Wizards should also remember what got them this far with 4th and also continue support for those products as well as this new line.
Honestly, i'd rather not see anything else for the fighter. They have plenty of stuff, as do most of the PHB1 classes (Str cleric being the notable exception); PHB2 stuff still needs some support, but not a huge amount; PHB3 just picked up a bunch with Psionic Power and Darksun. so it's not that bad either (seeker could definatly use more). Eventually a class get's full.
So yea, i'd rather see new classes, and a new direction, then more stuff with classes already bursting at the seams with options. While i'm not intrested in any of the MBA boost classes (though a warlock one could be interesting), i'm glad they tried something new. It gives me hope for intresting future classes.
I have preordered Monster Vault, very happy seeing that classic monsters will be revisited/errated but, come on guys, this is 4.5 in disguise... I can't believe that any serious player/DM will believe in Wizards "not 4.5" propaganda... ;)
Avin! So good to see you. Haven't seem much of you over at ddm spoilers. I, too, am glad to see the monster vault released. The mm1 needs an overhaul- since the change with the lowering of stats/hp and damage increase. I disagree with the 4.5 though ;)
Will see no much difference between what was made from MM3E to MM3.5, I think.
It's 4.5 in disguise :P
According to WotC, they will be going back to producing 4e books after the Essentials line is done. The way I read this, this means that the Essentials line is not a true .5 edition, but a "learner's permit" (if you will) edition, a side edition or a parallel edition. They simplified how the classes were built while keeping the ability to integrate the new simplified classes into the full 4e. They did the same with the powers. Both are backward and forward compatable with 4e.
3.5e was an upgrade to 3.0e. Essentials is not an upgrade of 4e. Therefore, it is not a .5 edition.
Honestly, i'd rather not see anything else for the fighter. They have plenty of stuff, as do most of the PHB1 classes (Str cleric being the notable exception); PHB2 stuff still needs some support, but not a huge amount; PHB3 just picked up a bunch with Psionic Power and Darksun. so it's not that bad either (seeker could definatly use more). Eventually a class get's full.
I don't think they need to do a Martial Power 3, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do recall references to there being additional powers for Clerics in Heroes of Shadow, so I think it would have been nice to see some powers for all of the PH 1 classes included...
At least back in the day you could Disarm or Trip an opponent with your MBA.
Irony is sweet.
Fortunately you can do even more interesting things with MBAs now. Like tripping or cleaving or plenty of other things that I can't remember off the top of my head right now.
Yes irony is sweet.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!
The pain of humiliation... /lick wounds
They change the definition of the word "basic" don't they.
This is about the same feeling. I'm not sure what is going to be non-errata and errata, and what is going to be the "mainstream" play style (i.e. essentials will seem to quietly replace all of phb 1-3 with "essential" style classes).
. . .
I dunno. This change is too much at once.
Given that all of us share your ignorance on what the end result will be, there is no telling if it will be "too much" change until it's actually in our hands.
Now, can any of you tell me what that means?
There are various styles used amongst the Essentials class builds. You can't point to the Fighter builds and say "Every class will work like that!", and you can't point at the Wizard build and say "Every class will work like that!". The Fighter builds are not like the Wizard or Cleric builds, and the Thief build is likewise different than the others. Even the Wizard and Cleric builds are different. There seems to be no real similarity between the builds other than them all being under the Essentials banner.
So what does it mean? Does it mean anything?
It's been my opinion for some time now that Essentials is being used as an easy target, a recognizable face, that people can bash as the doom of 4E. They see things changing with the game, and they desperatly clutch for something to blame for things they don't understand.
The quote that keeps being bandied about:
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.
is usually used as some diffinitive proof that there is one all-encompassing "Essentials model" that will be used for absolutly everything in the future. But what is it? It can't be a model based on Essentials class builds, because there are a variety of them. There is no one "Essentials class template". So what can it possibly mean?
My opinion is that the "new direction" is nothing more than them not limiting themselves to any standardized system like they used to. The classes in the first PHB were all very similar, with no true "sub systems" within them. They had differences, yes, but nothing like, for example, the Monk's Full Discipline system, or like the Druid's Wild Shape system, or even like the Power Point system. These types of "sub systems" break the old mold set by the PHB1 classes, while still being within the framework of 4E.
The Essentials builds all have their own little quirks that make exceptions to the standard 4E model. None of them seem to be game shattering, and none of them make them incompatable with 4E. Why should we scold the devs for trying something a bit new? It's not like they are bringing back ThAC0 or Vancian casting. They are simply differentiating classes more. Even if they hadn't made the Essentials class builds, they would have EVENTUALLY given us more out-there concepts as time goes on. We already started to see that prior to Essentials. That's why it seems like Essentials is being falsly targeted. It isn't some catalyst that has caused the devs to try new things, it's simply a group of products that display the kinds of new ideas they want to try out but were afraid to before.
The cart is being put before the horse, with the Essentials products being tagged by those opposed to it as something that created the "new direction". That doesn't seem to make sense. Where did they get the idea to try out these new things if the idea for the"new direction" didn't exist before Essentials? It seems, IMO, that the truth is the opposite, that the "new direction" the devs wanted to explore were used in the making of the Essentials products.
Something I keep hearing over and over again by the "It's a new version!" people is that every class from now on will be "Essentialized".
Now, can any of you tell me what that means?
There are various styles used amongst the Essentials class builds. You can't point to the Fighter builds and say "Every class will work like that!", and you can't point at the Wizard build and say "Every class will work like that!". The Fighter builds are not like the Wizard or Cleric builds, and the Thief build is likewise different than the others. Even the Wizard and Cleric builds are different. There seems to be no real similarity between the builds other than them all being under the Essentials banner.
So what does it mean? Does it mean anything?
While it's all still very vague and incomplete, the way the pieces seem to be falling together - to my perceptions, at the moment - indicate several preasures on the design team: A mandate to get old players back on board at any cost. A need to move more units, even if it's at a lower margin. A corresponding urgency to produce content quickly. Fewer FTEs to do it with.
So, my guess would be that each source will be more mechanically distinct, in ways that are more consistent with what the game was like in the past and that new class designs will be simpler in the sense of easier to bang out to a deadline. Thus, 'Essentialized' will mean Martial Classes based on basic-attack spamming; divine classes with predefined choices but otherwise much like they are now; arcane classes being more complex and abuseable, with less attention to balancing powers and more to capturing their past 'feel'; it guess to continue the analogy, Primal classes would have to be inconsistently supported with a lame, heavy-handed environmentalist stereotype, and psionics wierd and wildly overpowered.... hopefully they won't take the whole retro thing that far. ;)
Essentialized will also mean a hefty does of power inflation to enhance their apeal. Builds that don't get the essentials treatment will thus be 'left behind.'
But, we have so little to go on, and so much inference and speculation... :shrug:
When themes are introduced into the core, they won't be Dark Sun themes--because Dark Sun is a part of 4E. Or are we going to say the future of 4E will be characters with Player's Handbook 3 races, Essentials classes and Dark Sun themes fighting Monster Manual 3 monsters and participating in Dungeon Master's Guide 2 skill challenges? Do we really need those distinctions? No, it's all 4E.
Themes are optional. Essentials items aren't. Because that is how all items will be produced. I don't recall DMG2 actually changing the mechanics of skill challenges. Simply providing DMs with more advice.
MM3 monsters you actually have a point. And its actually why I have a thread about such monsters in the DM's Advice subforum.
Something I keep hearing over and over again by the "It's a new version!" people is that every class from now on will be "Essentialized".
Now, can any of you tell me what that means?
Up to now all of the classes have operated in largely the same way. I know how to level up a fighter, so I know how to level up a rogue and I know how to level up a shaman. PHB3 introduced the idea of subsystems for specific classes, but kept to a specific mechanic for all but 1 of the psionic classes (the last class used the traditional way of levelling up).
Essentials removes this entirely. As you rightly pointed out, Fighters are different to Clerics who are different to Thieves. There is no similarity between the builds whatsoever. They're all different. And that is the crux of the problem. I like 4th ed's simplified and uniform nature. I dislike 3.5e's "all classes are different" and Essentials has reintroduced that to D&D.
I enjoy playing 4th ed fighters. I had the opportunity on Saturday to see a Pathfinder fighter. I couldn't think of a character more boring to play. Even Battleminds (who I found quite disatisfying as I felt like all I was doing was a melee basic attack with a minor effect tacked on) are more interesting then the 3.5e fighter. Essentials has reintroduced the 3.5e fighter back into D&D.
This isn't me saying "Essentials sucks." This is me saying "I do not like Essentials." The difference is, I acknowledge that its merely my opinion. If everyone else loves Essentials, that's awesome. I'm disappointed with Essentials as I rather enjoy 4th ed and I'm sad to see it end. But its only a game so I'll cope.
No, direction is not singular. A direction means more than one direction.
No, that would be DIRECTIONS- plural. Do you know what plural means?
Do you know the difference between these two words??
direction
directions.
and really does feel like something of a half edition
Maybe, but as Garza sort of pointed out, 4e has been changing incrementally with each new release. So maybe Essentials is 4.5, but we were already playing 4.2 or 4.3.
Though personally, if I were to try to innumerate it, then would probably say that PH2+MM2+DMG2 ushered in 4.1; PH3+MM3 ushered in 4.2; and that essentials is 4.4 at most and more likely just 4.3.
Or, as I prefer to refer to everything noted above & Essentials as------4.0 or 4th edition.
Here is an interesting idea is any of the errata we have gotten in the last 6 months been done just for essentials without us having any knowledge of it. I have a feeling that some of the errata might have been done for essentials compatablility but I could be wrong.
People have argued Magic Missile wasn't changed due to Essentials. It was simply decided independently that this Wizard At-Will should be changed to better reflect a 3.5e version of Magic Missile. Its also a coincidence that while this was happening, other people in WotC were independently deciding to create class builds and many other mechanics that resembled 3.5e much closer.
Its all one giant coincidence.
I don't recall DMG2 actually changing the mechanics of skill challenges. Simply providing DMs with more advice.
DMG2 completely replaced the skill check DC table with new numbers and changed all skill challenge complexity levels to require X successes before 3 failures.
This isn't me saying "Essentials sucks." This is me saying "I do not like Essentials." The difference is, I acknowledge that its merely my opinion. If everyone else loves Essentials, that's awesome. I'm disappointed with Essentials as I rather enjoy 4th ed and I'm sad to see it end. But its only a game so I'll cope.
How is it ending? Even if we assume the most paranoid stance possible and say that every martial build made from now on will follow the modified basic attack route, that still doesn't invalidate everything we already have. The previews have told us that the Essentials martial classes were designed specifically for the Essentials books to appeal to new and lapsed players. There's no reason to assume that they won't go back to at-will/encounter/daily martial builds when new ones are made.
The main feature of Essentials class design is that there is now a clear way to give a particular build of a class a high level feature that is exclusive to that build. But that doesn't mean that after Essentials the designers will use that design advantage for the purpose of making characters that are easier to build and play for people new to the game. They might use it the same way they did for the barbarian's rage strike back in PHB2.
DMG2 completely replaced the skill check DC table with new numbers and changed all skill challenge complexity levels to require X successes before 3 failures.
Well now you could say they errata'd it before DMG2, but you can of course say the same thing about Essentials. That said, I do believe skill challenges were errata'd due to a necessity (and rather early on in the lifespan of 4th ed) independent of DMG2. I believe they simply reprinted it in DMG2 as a chance to make us pay for errata yet again (they did the same thing in PHB2). But that of course is merely a belief I have.
How is it ending? Even if we assume the most paranoid stance possible and say that every martial build made from now on will follow the modified basic attack route, that still doesn't invalidate everything we already have.
Just as people can still play 3.5e, I can of course continue playing 4th ed (and I will). However WotC support for 4th ed has ended.
Something I keep hearing over and over again by the "It's a new version!" people is that every class from now on will be "Essentialized".
Now, can any of you tell me what that means?
Up to now all of the classes have operated in largely the same way. I know how to level up a fighter, so I know how to level up a rogue and I know how to level up a shaman. PHB3 introduced the idea of subsystems for specific classes, but kept to a specific mechanic for all but 1 of the psionic classes (the last class used the traditional way of levelling up).
Essentials removes this entirely. As you rightly pointed out, Fighters are different to Clerics who are different to Thieves. There is no similarity between the builds whatsoever. They're all different. And that is the crux of the problem. I like 4th ed's simplified and uniform nature. I dislike 3.5e's "all classes are different" and Essentials has reintroduced that to D&D.
This is the first time i've seen someone's rationally state their dislike of essentials. Have a
for mantaining civility and sanity.That said, i disagree. And while none of the essentials classes look paticularly apealing (too simple for me) I'm looking forward to haveing more variety in class stucture. It's easy for me to imagine a warlock with a "build your own blast" style, or perhaps a controller with a "select a status effect" power, both of which could be fun. Not to mention a necromancer who summons hordes of zombies, or perhaps a class that posseses monsters, or many other things that would just not be possible to balance under the current power system.
I realise lot's of people are worried about balance as well, and while i don't expect everything to come out perfect, WoTC seems dedicated to fixing (errata) any issue that comes up. I'm sure essentials will get some when Hero's of Shadows comes out.
How is it ending? Even if we assume the most paranoid stance possible and say that every martial build made from now on will follow the modified basic attack route, that still doesn't invalidate everything we already have.
Just as people can still play 3.5e, I can of course continue playing 4th ed (and I will). However WotC support for 4th ed has ended.
Well, have fun grinding that axe. I'll keep playing 4E as well; though, you won't call it that.
No, direction is not singular. A direction means more than one direction.
No, that would be DIRECTIONS- plural. Do you know what plural means? Do you know the difference between these two words?? direction directions.
Two things that I should note.
- You can't simply look at whether direction is plural or singular. You need to look at the context "a direction" has a very different meaning than "the direction." The first (a direction) is not exclusive. It indicates that the direction being mentioned is not the only one available which may be chosen. The second (the direction) indicates that the direction is the only one that is possible.
- Whereas deconstructing sentences in such a manner is required and part of the job in some forms of technical writing (Patent Applications, for example, have *very* specific rules on how things must be used to avoid introducing ambiguity) attempts to do the same on writing that does not have the same exacting rules and requirements results not in a clarification of what is meant, but rather an increase in the confusion over what is meant.
No, direction is not singular. A direction means more than one direction.
No, that would be DIRECTIONS- plural. Do you know what plural means? Do you know the difference between these two words?? direction directions.
A direction means one direction of many. Multiple. Do you know what that word means?
No, direction is not singular. A direction means more than one direction.
No, that would be DIRECTIONS- plural. Do you know what plural means? Do you know the difference between these two words?? direction directions.
A direction means one direction of many. Multiple. Do you know what that word means?
As I mentioned above, a detailed technical/grammatical examination of a statement that has been written for a general audience with no attempt to follow technical writing/grammar leads to madness and confusion.
shrug
DMG2 completely replaced the skill check DC table with new numbers and changed all skill challenge complexity levels to require X successes before 3 failures.
Well now you could say they errata'd it before DMG2, but you can of course say the same thing about Essentials. That said, I do believe skill challenges were errata'd due to a necessity (and rather early on in the lifespan of 4th ed) independent of DMG2. I believe they simply reprinted it in DMG2 as a chance to make us pay for errata yet again (they did the same thing in PHB2). But that of course is merely a belief I have.
The Skill Challenge DCs, Level, and Complexity rules were updated/errata'd in July '08, a whopping 2 months after the DMG was released:
Version 2 (7/08):
Page 42 Actions the Rules Don’t Cover [Revision/Deletion]
Page 42 Difficulty Class and Damage By Level [Revision/Deletion]
Page 49–50 Example Diseases [Revision]
Page 61 Skill Check Difficulty Class [Revision]
Page 72–73 Step 2: Level and Complexity [Revision/Deletion]
Page 73 Step 3: Skills [Revision]
Page 74 Running a Skill Challenge [Deletion]
Page 75 Group Skill Checks [Addition]
Page 75 Reward Clever Ideas [Revision]
Page 76 The Negotiation [Revision]
Page 76–77 Example in Play [Deletion]
Page 78 Urban Chase [Revision]
Page 79 The Interrogation [Revision]
Page 80 Discovering Secret Lore [Revision]
Page 81 The “Get a Clue” Check [Revision]
Page 88 Doomspore [Revision]
Page 188 Warlord NPC [Revision]
DMG2 completely replaced the skill check DC table with new numbers and changed all skill challenge complexity levels to require X successes before 3 failures.
Well now you could say they errata'd it before DMG2, but you can of course say the same thing about Essentials. That said, I do believe skill challenges were errata'd due to a necessity (and rather early on in the lifespan of 4th ed) independent of DMG2. I believe they simply reprinted it in DMG2 as a chance to make us pay for errata yet again (they did the same thing in PHB2). But that of course is merely a belief I have.
The Skill Challenge DCs, Level, and Complexity rules were updated/errata'd in July '08, a whopping 2 months after the DMG was released:
And yet that hasn't stopped people from saying that the errata to free action attacks was from Essentials, which isn't even out yet. This just goes to show that some people will never be pleased. If they release it as errata first, they're making us pay for errata; if they print it in a book first, it's a new edition.
This just goes to show that some people will never be pleased. If they release it as errata first, they're making us pay for errata; if they print it in a book first, it's a new edition.
That's pretty much the gist of it from my point of view as well.
This just goes to show that some people will never be pleased. If they release it as errata first, they're making us pay for errata; if they print it in a book first, it's a new edition.
That's pretty much the gist of it from my point of view as well.
what about "print it right in the first place"?
those weren't typos, but rules balance principles.
Easier said than done. I doubt most people whining on these forums could do any better.
that's why they're on these forum instead of on their own games'.
(that is: why they pay others to develop and test the games they play.)
But expecting them not to revert to a failed system after only two years is not.
New class direction
+
New magic rarity system
+
minor erratta
=
Failed system?
Am I missing something? This isn't like 3.0 to 3.5 where everything was invalidated. 4e and Essentials work together. None of the classes are invalidated.
I am so confused by this argument. It literally hurts my head.
Am I missing something?
I doubt it. You're probably just taking some things WotC said at face value, while others are taking previews WotC has released at face vaule...