However, I ask then how you change the rules so radically and NOT call it a new edition?
If by simply saying something is not something else, that does not make it so nor lessen the anger and frustration we feel.
Here is just one example:
Magic Item Usage
Before we bring this discussion to a close, it’s worth mentioning that the limits on using daily magic item powers are no longer part of the game. They existed to prevent the characters from stockpiling items that were far below their level but still had useful, daily powers. Under this scheme, such items are uncommon. Stockpiling a number of them is impossible without house rules or a Dungeon Master who willingly awards multiple copies of such items as treasure. With our new rarity scheme in place, we no longer need such rules.
This change is something the community has been voicing for for months, something that doesn't require any change to existing magic item design, and simply requires an errata on an existing rule.
Welcome to Erratas, I'd say.
If by simply saying something is not something else, that does not make it so nor lessen the anger and frustration we feel.
You are royal familiy member, hah? No? Then speak for yourself. This is system seems like it is taken right from homerules I planned for my next campaign. So by all means - bring it on! And 4.5? Don't be silly.
Throughout many different posts made by the staff of Wizards of the Coast, they have assured us that this is NOT D&D 4.5.
However, I ask then how you change the rules so radically and NOT call it a new edition?
As I have said before:
Changes become a new edition when the issued eratta cannot be applied to the existing books to make them 100% compatible with the most current rules of the game.
Once this condition is met (if it ever is again), you will have to purchase new core books; and that makes it a new edition.
Anything up to that point is just eratta. Even if they release new printings of the books that have the eratta worked into them, these books are a convenience for players and are not mandatory; thus they do not constitute a new edition.
Anyways, for me, i can't wait for 4.6, when people can start complaining about how their changing essentials.
Maybe you misread the blurb as meaning "all daily magic item powers are becoming at-will powers"? Thats the only way I can reconcile your reaction to this as rational.
My opinion: in order for 4e to become 4.5e, there must be a change in the base mechanics that applies to all of 4e, not a change one part of 4e. In other words, if the errata takes up 25% or more (again my opinion), then you have a .5e. Right now, the errata is standing at 3% of all printed material. It may be true that what is coming out in Essentials will drive the errata percentage up by a point or two, but it will not be enough to call it .5 edition.
4E has it's own great taste, and it's like WoTC is coming out with a 3.5 variant taste, which would be cool and all but that's all they are going to be producing for the next several months and I find what I've seen to be absolutely revolting.
A step backwards WotC.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck it is almost definitely a duck. And essentials quacks like a new edition, looks like a new edition, and feels like a new edition. If we are going back to playing with 3.5 design conceits like "Fighter is boring and can only use melee attack all day long!" and "Clerics are healbots only omg!", why play 4E instead of Pathfinder or 3.5 edition? Pathfinder/3.5 does 3.5 better than 4E does.
4E has it's own great taste, and it's like WoTC is coming out with a 3.5 variant taste, which would be cool and all but that's all they are going to be producing for the next several months and I find what I've seen to be absolutely revolting.
A step backwards WotC.
I'm not picking on you Khyber or anything, but for god sakes will people stop with the "duck" crap!!
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck then it could be a guy in a duck costume.
I'm not picking on you Khyber or anything, but for god sakes will people stop with the "duck" crap!!
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck then it could be a guy in a duck costume.
It could be Elton John!
And many ducks are shot by hunters because they think something that sounds like a duck must be a duck.Also, Khyber, you sound like you're trying to talk about 3.5 by repeating things you've overheard and remembered incorrectly. Clerics destroyed everything in 3.5E. Heal-bots? They were Death-bots.
I'm not picking on you Khyber or anything, but for god sakes will people stop with the "duck" crap!!
If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck then it could be a guy in a duck costume.
Yeah, but the presence of duck crap is the clincher.
If we are going back to playing with 3.5/2E design conceits like "Fighter is boring and can only use melee attack all day long!" and "Clerics are healbots only omg!", why play 4E instead of Pathfinder or 3.5 edition? Pathfinder/3.5 does 3.5 better than 4E does.
Are you going to them? 'Cause D&D Essentials are not.
What if I go to the pond every once in a while and gather duck crap in jars to fool people with later? It's a viable tactic that can't be ignored.
Right now, the errata is standing at 3% of all printed material. It may be true that what is coming out in Essentials will drive the errata percentage up by a point or two, but it will not be enough to call it .5 edition.
3% of rules elements(feats, powers, items, etc). As I recall the person who came up with the 3% figure did not include the rules themselves because there is really no way to measure the percentage there. Incidently expect the errata percentage to balloon in the rules update following the Essentials release.
However, I ask then how you change the rules so radically and NOT call it a new edition?
Here is just one example: "...it’s worth mentioning that the limits on using daily magic item powers are no longer part of the game."
To be fair, this is not indicative of a new ed of the game, so much as it is a return to a much ealier ed.
Players have been able to make/buy cheap low level/cost items of any kind in large numbers since 3.0 introduced magic-item creation feats.
You have to go back to AD&D to find an aproach to magic items that allowed you to make/buy only a few items (potions & scrolls, mostly), but have to find - or quest for strange components to make - most others.
Let's do an analogy:
Essentials is like grade school history and the full 4e is like high school history. Basically, Essentials is there to point the way to 4e. In other words, Essentials is like a dumbed down version of 4e. At least that was my understanding on how it was supposed to work.
Now, some of the design changes made for Essentials will be going forward into 4e, but I don't think 100% of the changes will.
Remember, a lot of errata came from player and playtester feedback, and the Essentials line is incorporating that feedback before it hits the mainline 4e products. For those who do not like the changes, either you did not provide any feedback on what you did or did not like, or if you did provide feedback, there was a lot more feedback of the opposing view. Now you complain about it on these threads as if the designers actually read them (maybe some of them do, I don't know). It's best to provide feedback through customer service. At least that way, your feedback will be forwarded. Just don't expect a personal reply thanking you.
Off-topic: boycotts are fine and dandy, but for every person that boycotts WotC, 5 new people will be buying their products. End result? The boycott is a failure in that it did not make a difference in WotC's profits. Sometimes boycotts do the exact opposite of what the boycotter wants to do. "Look everybody! I'm boycotting WotC for this and that!" New person, "Let's find out for ourselves." Other new person, "Ok." Sometime later, "Hey, this product isn't half bad. Let's buy it and play. That boycotter doesn't know what he's talking about." Other person, "Don't be that way. It's his opinion. How about we invite him to the next game to show him that this product is not all that bad." . . .
Now it's a duck thread.
Thanks for the arrows... the bark on the left side of the tree is wider by a factor of 2 or so hmmm the graphic artist wonders probably a coincidence.