PDA

View Full Version : 4.4 preview: the Thief



Kurald Galain
2010-07-30, 05:06 AM
And today, we get the next preview for the upcoming 4.4 release, the rogue. The new rogue build is called the thief. Like the knight, he does not get any attack powers, whether at-will, encounter, or daily. Instead, he relies on basic attacks, and gets a number of powers that improve these. And of course he gets utility powers, and a bunch of unspecified class features like cunning escape. Sneak attack and skills are unchanged.

Where the knight has stances activated by a minor action, the thief has bonus effects activated by a move action, that do things like "move your speed and gain combat advantage". Well, actually this seems to play out pretty much like using at-will attack powers; instead of using a normal move and a special attack, you use a special move that boosts your normal attack.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/20100730

Overall it appears to be not all that different from the existing rogue, but it's somewhat easier to build, requires less bookkeeping in play, and it avoids the "it's not magic, honestly!" issue of powers like Blinding Barrage. This probably makes the class more appealing to new players.

Also, WOTC keeps reassuring us in capital letters that this is really not a new edition and that this surely will not replace the PHB. At the same time, they state that whereas the PHB used to be the starting point for new players, in the future the 4.4 book will the starting point. Whether this is or is not considered a "replacement" is left as an exercise to the reader. However, that WOTC keeps repeating this indicates that a substantial amount of people do feel that this is a new version, and of course we have that unsubstantiated rumor that no further PHBs will be printed, and the notion that the rules compendium will contain all the PHB/DMG rules plus errata.

Enjoy!

Zen Master
2010-07-30, 05:36 AM
If I were to make a list of companies that I find it easy to like - and other companies that I find it easy not to like - WoTC wouldn't be as high on the 'easy to not like' list as Microsoft ... but they are working hard to climb that list.

I always find that wierd. Why do people, who want my money, try so hard to make me dislike them?

At any rate this is a pointless rant, as I don't play 4e. On the other hand, it sounds like 4.4 is somewhat of an improvement.

Vitruviansquid
2010-07-30, 05:45 AM
While I really liked the system with at-wills, encounters, and dailies, I can understand why some people will prefer the simpler feel of the thief.

... I'm not sure what there is to hate about this development. >_>

Matthew
2010-07-30, 06:07 AM
Nice to see a "thief" class; I appreciate the reduction in book-keeping.

Zen Master
2010-07-30, 06:13 AM
... I'm not sure what there is to hate about this development. >_>

I have no quarrel with improving stuff that needs improving.

To me, this is what WoTC does: They make a near-perfect RPG (this is 3.5). Then they destroy their own product by publishing a mountain of stuff the game does not need - instead of publishing stuff that it does need, and that will not destroy it.

Then they publish a new game. One that is abysmally bad - for which they publish an updated edition (that will likely be ok-ish), for which they are likely to publish a mountain of stuff that isn't needed, and that will likely break it.

It's important to note that I consider all 'Complete' books and the like utterly pointless. What I need is settings, monsters, fluff of all sorts. I need another prestige class like I need my spleen removed with a jackhammer.

All, of course, quite personal views.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-30, 07:21 AM
When did it start being called 4.4? :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2010-07-30, 07:22 AM
Its an unofficial nickname- a bit like calling Pathfinder 3.75.

ShaggyMarco
2010-07-30, 07:26 AM
Really, I think it'd be more accurate to call it Edition 4b.

There's 4a, which we've been playing all along--now there's an alternate version of the same game that works together with what we've already been doing: version 4b.

Blackfang108
2010-07-30, 07:58 AM
To me, this is what WoTC does: They make a near-perfect RPG (this is 3.5).

???

Freaking minimum sizes

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 09:05 AM
When did it start being called 4.4? :smallconfused:
Kurald's nomenclature. A brave attempt to avoid Teh Warz :smalltongue:

I'm calling myself "cautiously optimistic;" despite the conflicting wording of their press releases, I'm taking this one at face value - 4.4 is 4'E, an alternate system for those who find 4E too difficult. Between the constant patching and cutthroat pursuit of broken mechanics I'm still happy with 4E as a product and I would rather not see this excellent effort thrown to the wayside in the interest of getting people to buy a new set of books.

...still would like a "Revised" printing of Core I at least with all the errata inclued. I'd buy that.

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-30, 09:08 AM
Its an unofficial nickname- a bit like calling Pathfinder 3.75.

Obviously. :smallannoyed:

I asked when people started using that phrase, since I've never seen it before.

hamishspence
2010-07-30, 09:10 AM
Not sure when- maybe when Kurald found out about Essentials.

I have, however, seen "3.9" as a description of Essentials, over on EN World.

Prodan
2010-07-30, 09:13 AM
Wow. They made 4.5 sooner than I expected.

Human Paragon 3
2010-07-30, 09:13 AM
Killiean, your answer:


Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 09:14 AM
I'm calling myself "cautiously optimistic;" despite the conflicting wording of their press releases, I'm taking this one at face value

What conflicting wording are you referring to? I haven't neccessarily read every press release, but they seem rather consistent from what I have seen.


Wow. They made 4.5 sooner than I expected.

*facepalm*

KillianHawkeye
2010-07-30, 09:17 AM
Killiean, your answer:


Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.



Aha, thanks for clearing it up! :smallbiggrin:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 09:20 AM
What conflicting wording are you referring to? I haven't neccessarily read every press release, but they seem rather consistent from what I have seen.
Well... even though they keep saying Essentials is just an add-on to 4E, reading through the Ampersand articles really makes it sound like Essentials is a replacement for 4E.

Kurald likely has the links on-tap

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 09:23 AM
Well... even though they keep saying Essentials is just an add-on to 4E, reading through the Ampersand articles really makes it sound like Essentials is a replacement for 4E.



Because the Ampersand articles go over new builds with less bookeeping they sound like they're replacing the older ones?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 09:29 AM
Because the Ampersand articles go over new builds with less bookeeping they sound like they're replacing the older ones?
Damnation, are you going to make me dig up a link :smallannoyed:

From 7/16/2010 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/20100716)

The spin we’re putting on them is what makes these new products “Essentials.” We’re delegating these 10 products as “must-have” products for every retail outlet that carries the Dungeons & Dragons game. They form the foundation of the game moving forward and are designed to be the perfect way for new people to get into the game—thanks to the format, the price, and the approach to the class builds.
Emphasis mine.

It's ambigious whether they mean "Essentials represent what our new 4E stuff is going to look like" or "Essentials is the new incarnation of D&D."

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 09:36 AM
Emphasis mine.

It's ambigious whether they mean "Essentials represent what our new 4E stuff is going to look like" or "Essentials is the new incarnation of D&D."

When read in context of the wording with the rest of the quote, it seems clear to me they mean "these cover the basic things for you to get into the game, and we'll keep them constant to make it easier to find for new players who are doing so".

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 09:46 AM
When read in context of the wording with the rest of the quote, it seems clear to me they mean "these cover the basic things for you to get into the game, and we'll keep them constant to make it easier to find for new players who are doing so".
Yes, because the very sentence beforehand says "we're not replacing 4E!" Yet their language strikes me as unnecessarially ambigious; that, along with Kurald's other points causes me to be concerned.

Still, I am - as I said - "cautiously optimistic" that WotC is playing us straight.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-30, 09:49 AM
Because the Ampersand articles go over new builds with less bookeeping they sound like they're replacing the older ones?
Because some people feel that the way WOTC is promoting these upcoming products is pretty much identical to how they were promoting 3.5 before it came out, several years ago.

But that's not really the point. WOTC is trying to expand their market, getting new people into RPGs, by making the game more accessible. Assuming they succeed, there will be a new generation of gamers for whom 4.4 is the default, and who are not automatically aware that e.g. a fighter build with daily powers exists, and some of which will ask for "4.4 only" games in the same sense that some 3E players want "core only".

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. People who have the older books can continue to use them, in the same sense that people still play 3E, 2E and even 1E when they want to. And people who already play 4.0 can simply use 4.4 as another splatbook to pick good powers and feats from; it's not that hard for WOTC to print a few that are competitive with the current set.

Whether 4.4 players will pick up e.g. Divine Power as a splatbook is ultimately not all that relevant for WOTC, considering the majority of their profit comes from the PHB and the Foo Powers are a niche market.

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 10:14 AM
Yes, because the very sentence beforehand says "we're not replacing 4E!" Yet their language strikes me as unnecessarially ambigious; that, along with Kurald's other points causes me to be concerned.

No, because the very sentence before says that these are books that all D&D carrying retailers should have and because the sentence after says they're meant as a easy entry point, so no matter where new players are you could say "Pick up the esstianals books at your local D&D retailer to get started". This is why there is little ambiguity in the statement for me, but of course, different people have different opinions. As for Kurald's other points, well, he neglects to mention that it's also said they're not going to be re-printing the PHB because they have plenty of stock already, and personally, I think the Rules Compendium had better have the rules updates and errata (at least general game rules related errata).


Because some people feel that the way WOTC is promoting these upcoming products is pretty much identical to how they were promoting 3.5 before it came out, several years ago.

They said 3.5 was going to be fully compatible with 3.0 and you would be able to use both the 3.5 and 3.0 versions of X together at the same table?


But that's not really the point. WOTC is trying to expand their market, getting new people into RPGs, by making the game more accessible. Assuming they succeed, there will be a new generation of gamers for whom 4.4 is the default, and who are not automatically aware that e.g. a fighter build with daily powers exists, and some of which will ask for "4.4 only" games in the same sense that some 3E players want "core only".

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. People who have the older books can continue to use them, in the same sense that people still play 3E, 2E and even 1E when they want to. And people who already play 4.0 can simply use 4.4 as another splatbook to pick good powers and feats from; it's not that hard for WOTC to print a few that are competitive with the current set.

Whether 4.4 players will pick up e.g. Divine Power as a splatbook is ultimately not all that relevant for WOTC, considering the majority of their profit comes from the PHB and the Foo Powers are a niche market.

Of course, and some will want to play with just the Essentials + PHB's, or Essentials + PHB's + AV's, or whatever other combination of books they have. I fail to see the relavance of this statement. Also fail to see why we should distiguish between players who just pick up Esstiantials (who you call "4.4 Players"), when we don't already do that for 4e players who just pick up the the PHB I, DMG I, and MM I. They'll all be 4e players, just the number of books they use change.

Prodan
2010-07-30, 10:17 AM
They said 3.5 was going to be fully compatible with 3.0 and you would be able to use both the 3.5 and 3.0 versions of X together at the same table?


They did say that 3.0 material that was not updated to 3.5 could still be used, didn't they?

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 10:22 AM
They did say that 3.0 material that was not updated to 3.5 could still be used, didn't they?

Except that means that the 3.5 material was replacing the 3.0 material, whereas the materials from the Essential's books you can use just fine along with material from any other 4e book, just like you can use a fighter build from the PHB I along with a fighter build from MP2.

BlckDv
2010-07-30, 10:40 AM
Reverent-One:

Would you acknowledge that "At level one you pick a couple powers you can use as much as you want, one you can use once a fight, and one you generally save for big trouble, you'll get more of the per fight and big power attacks as you level" is a different introduction and expectation than "Pick your class, then you will pick some powers based on your class and will gain other powers as you level"

I think the second (Essentials) statement is more in line with older D&D editions, but it is different from the expectations that were initially built up in 4E of universal mechanics and streamlined systems.

Please note that I have already gone on record as feeling that if Essentials is considered 4.4, then PHB III should as well, as Essentials does no more to "break" the 4.0 frame than the Psionic Power Points already have done, I'm waiting to see the actual published Essentials line before I pass my final judgment, but I can clearly see where the 4.4 "vibe" is being picked up, where your posts make it sound like you cannot see why Kurald feels there is a quantifiable change.

Nu
2010-07-30, 10:46 AM
To actually discuss the Thief instead of bickering about the design in general, edition wars, and fan-nicknames for the Essentials line...


Sneak attack and skills are unchanged.

I believe this is incorrect. Sneak attack now reads "once per turn" rather than once per round.

That changes a lot, and drastically increases the thief's (rogue's if this change is for all rogues) potential damage output.

Hyozo
2010-07-30, 10:46 AM
They make a near-perfect RPG (this is 3.5).

:confused: I can understand not liking 4e, but that... No... just no.

To be honest I don't think anything approaching a perfect RPG could ever exist, largely because of how large and broken up the fanbase is, but if it did exist, I don't think it would look anything like 3.5.

On topic, I haven't really been paying much attention to the essentials arguments, but this looks interesting. As long as this is an alternative to the rogue instead of a replacement I am completely in favor of more options being available.


I believe this is incorrect. Sneak attack now reads "once per turn" rather than once per round.

That changes a lot, and drastically increases the thief's (rogue's if this change is for all rogues) potential damage output.

Or it's a wording oversight which, if not corrected by the time the book comes out, is certain to be pounced on in the first errata.

Prodan
2010-07-30, 10:50 AM
To be honest I don't think anything approaching a perfect RPG could ever exist, largely because of how large and broken up the fanbase is, but if it did exist, I don't think it would look anything like 3.5.

Paranoia. To think otherwise is treason, citizen.

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 10:51 AM
Reverent-One:

Would you acknowledge that "At level one you pick a couple powers you can use as much as you want, one you can use once a fight, and one you generally save for big trouble, you'll get more of the per fight and big power attacks as you level" is a different introduction and expectation than "Pick your class, then you will pick some powers based on your class and will gain other powers as you level"

I think the second (Essentials) statement is more in line with older D&D editions, but it is different from the expectations that were initially built up in 4E of universal mechanics and streamlined systems.

Please note that I have already gone on record as feeling that if Essentials is considered 4.4, then PHB III should as well, as Essentials does no more to "break" the 4.0 frame than the Psionic Power Points already have done, I'm waiting to see the actual published Essentials line before I pass my final judgment, but I can clearly see where the 4.4 "vibe" is being picked up, where your posts make it sound like you cannot see why Kurald feels there is a quantifiable change.

Oh, of course the first and second statements are different, that's never been my issue. My issue has been with what you talk about in your last paragraph. If you're going to increment the 4e name becuase of changes in the rules for the Essential's line, why weren't you doing so earlier? I'd go back further than PHB III even, while that book had some of the largest "breaks", they've been changing things up, albiet in some cases more minor ways, in pretty much every book since the first 3 and in the errata. As such, why is the essential's line different from most any other book in the 4e lineup?

Kurald Galain
2010-07-30, 10:54 AM
I believe this is incorrect. Sneak attack now reads "once per turn" rather than once per round.
Ah, well spotted. This would significantly improve rogue performance, assuming it's not an oversight. Ironically, it doesn't really help a rogue in a 4.4-only game, since it lacks the main classes that grant extra attacks to their allies (i.e. warlord, bard, and shaman). Well, it still helps on OAs, of course.

It is very likely that either the PHB rogue or the 4.4 rogue will be errata'ed to match the other, to avoid having two similar-but-different sneak attack features.

BlckDv
2010-07-30, 11:07 AM
Oh, of course the first and second statements are different, that's never been my issue. My issue has been with what you talk about in your last paragraph. If you're going to increment the 4e name becuase of changes in the rules for the Essential's line, why weren't you doing so earlier? I'd go back further than PHB III even, while that book had some of the largest "breaks", they've been changing things up, albiet in some cases more minor ways, in pretty much every book since the first 3 and in the errata. As such, why is the essential's line different from most any other book in the 4e lineup?

Cool, thanks for the clarification on your stand/issues. I can understand a position that 4e has been in a state of change since release, and so lacks a stable position from which one can confidently state "after X, it was not the same". More like the roll of a hill than the sharp face of a cliff.

My personal guess is that WoTC's choice to add the extra tag of "Essentials" to a sub-line of 4e makes it an easy place to grab onto as marking the change, even if you felt the changes before Essentials arrived.

What I am curious to see is if the Essentials line, with it's class dimorphism, succeeds at being easier for new players to pick up and makes the game more inviting.

My personal fear is record keeping, and right now it is just that, a fear. Essentials may prove to not require me to keep track of any more data than I already do, which will make me generally accepting of it, while it may require me to keep new notes about what each of my players can do, which would make me ill disposed to it.

Nu
2010-07-30, 11:07 AM
Assuming it's an intentional change, I think it would be rather thematically appropriate for the warlord to function especially well in conjunction with the other martial classes (since it's looking like they're all going to have the same basic attack-based power system). Though certain items and feats that improve basic attacks may need to be looked at to ensure they don't become must-haves.

On the other hand, I am concerned that it may be too much to give the rogue that much potential damage. Further, while I can see how the simple class design is probably the goal (the thief moves up to things and stabs them, nothing fancy so far), I wonder if it will become "boring" as a basic attack spammer.

I suppose there's always the option to go with the classic PHB rogue though if one would be bored by the Essentials rogue.

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 11:15 AM
My personal guess is that WoTC's choice to add the extra tag of "Essentials" to a sub-line of 4e makes it an easy place to grab onto as marking the change, even if you felt the changes before Essentials arrived.

Yep, my guess too. Which is really the headbanging part because then they're not saying it's different for any real rules reason, but because they added a subtitle, which was meant to make the books easy for newbies to find rather than telling them to find PHB IV, DMG III, ect. :smallannoyed:

Kurald Galain
2010-07-30, 11:28 AM
I suppose there's always the option to go with the classic PHB rogue though if one would be bored by the Essentials rogue.
Actually, what bothers me is the at-will power of "move a bunch, and you automatically gain combat advantage". If you can always and automatically gain combat advantage, then what's the point of that condition?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 11:34 AM
Actually, what bothers me is the at-will power of "move a bunch, and you automatically gain combat advantage". If you can always and automatically gain combat advantage, then what's the point of that condition?
Well, not everyone gains CA like that - just Thieves.

Still, I don't like removing the basic concept of Rogue combat - finding the flank.

Nu
2010-07-30, 11:43 AM
Actually, what bothers me is the at-will power of "move a bunch, and you automatically gain combat advantage". If you can always and automatically gain combat advantage, then what's the point of that condition?

So far it still seems to be semi-conditional (Ambush Trick only works on isolated enemies). I am guessing it is to make up for the lack of the conditions the thief can impose as opposed to the rogue.

One of the perks I have found when playing a rogue is if I'm constantly tacking on effects like "dazed" and "blinded" on enemies, I can move around freely without worrying about OAs and I wouldn't be able to do that with this new purely damage-focused build (also, no Artful Dodger). The thief doesn't have powers like that (at least not yet). Also, conditions like blind and daze give combat advantage. Ambush Trick can help compensate for that in many situations. It is more reliable in not requiring a hit and being at-will, but less inconvenient for the target due to the lack of action denial or penalties.

I'm a bit unclear if "moving at your speed" means you can shift 1 square or move 0 squares, though. My rules mastery is lacking...

In any case, I can agree that there is some concern over Ambush Trick taking the skill requirement out of using tactical positioning and teamwork to properly utilize sneak attack.

tbarrie
2010-07-30, 11:51 AM
Well, not everyone gains CA like that - just Thieves.

Still, I don't like removing the basic concept of Rogue combat - finding the flank.

Note that none of the previewed at wills allow you to just gain combat advantage without any restrictions.

Picking off solitary opponents is probably easier than gaining flanking, but it strikes me as thematically appropriate.

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 11:53 AM
While the use of ambush trick pretty much guarantees that the thief will have combat advatage whenever they attack, they is still encouragement to get flanking, either so you can use Tumbling trick and deal more damage, or (to a more minor extent) so you can use feinting trick in case they provoke an AoO or you're granted another basic attack. So STR based Thieves at least have good reason to flank, and CHA based ones have at least a little reason to. And Nu has a point, most Rogue builds have plenty of powers to get CA without flanking, which the Thief build may be lacking.

Zaydos
2010-07-30, 11:56 AM
Ok, I've finally hesitantly made the change to 4e mostly because my players are used to it and I enjoy it, it just isn't D&D to me which is I will admit an irrational stance (having started with the Red box and noticed that after having really gotten in to 3.X that AD&D doesn't feel like D&D to me anymore). I enjoy 4e, just like I enjoy GURPS okay, more than I enjoy GURPS. It's a simple system.
And this... I don't like it. Not because it's a change, I've made changes I can handle changes. I like learning new systems. What I don't like about it is that when I first started enjoying 4e (my second try) it was playing a rogue and I enjoyed weaving the bloody tapestry of CA with my dagger using a mix of different abilities and the strategic element of encounter powers and dailies. I don't want all my abilities to be At-Wills, it removes too much of the strategy for me and reduces the game to "I attack".
Now I'm sure the game will have something even then, or if not RPing is still there and the main purpose of the game (although I will note that I've seen a definite shift towards the numbers game in 3.X and 4e; I actually blame this on them having more intricate combat systems than AD&D), but I like strategy, I like character creation. I don't particularly like spamming At-Wills.
That said I've been playing since elementary school and I know the rules and have some level of system mastery (albeit a low one). For a new player this looks good and it looks worth looking at. I just hope they don't stop making non-essential books as that would be a shame (and I like options). I still wish they'd called 4e anything but 4e and continued printing 3.X books.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-30, 12:41 PM
From page 4 of either the 3.5 Player's Handbook or Dungeon Master's Guide:

This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.

The Essentials are NOT a new game or a new edition.
The Essentials are NOT replacing the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, or Monster Manual.
The Essentials are providing a better framework and starting point for new players while also providing new options for existing players to add to their games.
Draw your own conclusions. :smallwink:

ZeltArruin
2010-07-30, 12:54 PM
All this complaining about "spamming at-wills" is odd to me. Every edition before 4th had nothing but "at-wills" for warriors(rangers, paladins, fighters) and thieves to do, barring some once an encounter business, so why do people find it so painful in 4th? When I play rogues in 4th, I generally spam my at-will or use a power that grants me CA so I can continue to spam my at-will, as it generally does the same amount of damage.

Caphi
2010-07-30, 01:16 PM
All this complaining about "spamming at-wills" is odd to me. Every edition before 4th had nothing but "at-wills" for warriors(rangers, paladins, fighters) and thieves to do, barring some once an encounter business, so why do people find it so painful in 4th? When I play rogues in 4th, I generally spam my at-will or use a power that grants me CA so I can continue to spam my at-will, as it generally does the same amount of damage.

If I may try to illuminate...

Point one: I believe Zaydos is contrasting 4.4 to 4.0, not 4.x to 3.x. So that should be most of the question answered.

Point two: Ignoring point one for the remainder of this post, guys who complain about that sort of thing are probably the ones that played casters or initiators (or psions, or binders, or...) and not fighters and barbarians in 3.x, for this exact reason. (I am one of them.)

Point three: D&D4, HP bloat. Combats often have a tail end where everyone is just sort of pounding the enemy until it runs out of its last HP.

Hzurr
2010-07-30, 02:35 PM
A few things:

First off, I recommend all the "4.4" people take a look at the thread over on RPG.net (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=528610), where people like Mike Mearls and Rob (These are some of the big-shot developers at WotC) discuss the class. They help make it very clear that Essentials is not 4.4 or a new edition of any kind. Seriously. They also explain some of the ideas that went behind the design.


Also, Caphi, some of the HP Bloat issues you mention has been taken care of in the later Monster Manuals and the Monster builder guidelines.

Demonix
2010-07-30, 02:41 PM
Paranoia. To think otherwise is treason, citizen.

Of course it is citizen! The Computer is your friend! May I lick your boots?

Zaydos
2010-07-30, 02:55 PM
I was specifically contrasting 4.4 and 4e; the fact that 4e isn't just spamming at-wills is the reason I like it in comparison to 3.X and earlier. I will also admit I don't play fighters or barbarians in 3.X that often (I have before) except as monsters and as a player prefer warblades and casters. And yes in my experience battles in 4e are longer than in 3.X (I haven't played AD&D in around 10 years so I don't remember how long the battles were and I was young then and perfectly fine with 'I attack' as my option every round) which does contribute to it. I can stand every round being "I attack" when we're taking out the battle in 2 to 3 rounds; in 4e I'll use all my encounter powers most every encounter and still end up using at-wills a few times (and the DM used low hp monsters at that). Like I admitted this would be good for beginners (and on that note casual players as well) but it doesn't seem like it's for me.

Then again the stated purpose behind this seems to be to make the game simpler for beginners so as long as they continue to make books which actually use the more complicated character types I'm happy.

Zen Master
2010-07-30, 03:30 PM
:confused: I can understand not liking 4e, but that... No... just no.

To be honest I don't think anything approaching a perfect RPG could ever exist, largely because of how large and broken up the fanbase is, but if it did exist, I don't think it would look anything like 3.5.

I really think 3.5 is that good. It's a near-perfect system - until you add people. And Complete books. And other stuff.

Anyways um ... this is slightly complex. I believe the foundation is perfect. Um, as in the fabric of the game has the potential to be sewn into a perfect game. Of course, they miss the mark somewhat - class imbalance and such. But ... class imbalance could have been avoided, if they'd tried harder.

Does that make any sense?

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 03:32 PM
Holy cow, looking at the discussion thread for this on ENworld, Mike Mearls had this to say when asked about the whole "thieves getting sneak attack every turn, instead of every round":


I believe it is an change for the sneak attack mechanic used by all rogues, rather than just a change for the thief.

Then says that such a change will definately not be happening for Quarry and Curse damage.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 03:36 PM
I really think 3.5 is that good. It's a near-perfect system - until you add people. And Complete books. And other stuff.

Anyways um ... this is slightly complex. I believe the foundation is perfect. Um, as in the fabric of the game has the potential to be sewn into a perfect game. Of course, they miss the mark somewhat - class imbalance and such. But ... class imbalance could have been avoided, if they'd tried harder.

Does that make any sense?
...you need to play more and different games.

Seriously. You can say a lot about 3.5 but "near perfect" is not one of them. Unless you have a highly eccentric game profile (i.e. what you want out of a game) you should be able to identify some one aspect of 3.5 that could have been done much better.

I mean Diplomacy alone... :smalleek:

N.B. this is not a criticism of your particular play style, just a note that there are other systems out there that do at least part of whatever you probably like about 3.5 much better. It's great that you like 3.5 so much but it kind of sounds like you have a very narrow perspective of what a RPG can do.

BlckDv
2010-07-30, 03:50 PM
A few things:

First off, I recommend all the "4.4" people take a look at the thread over on RPG.net (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=528610), where people like Mike Mearls and Rob (These are some of the big-shot developers at WotC) discuss the class. They help make it very clear that Essentials is not 4.4 or a new edition of any kind. Seriously. They also explain some of the ideas that went behind the design.


Also, Caphi, some of the HP Bloat issues you mention has been taken care of in the later Monster Manuals and the Monster builder guidelines.

As a general rule; citing that those who are agents of an authority (in this case WoTC) making statements that the story that the authority wishes people to accept is the truth and other views are simply misunderstandings is not very persuasive. There is a reason people seldom turn to official spokespeople for the most accurate news about a government or company.

Other than at the purely semantic level... yes WoTC does own the trademark and continues to label things "4E" not "4.4"... this is a debate about if the game has changed in a significant enough way that a player staring from PHB I and a player starting from Essentials would have similar confusions talking about their characters as a bard player from 3.0 and one from 3.5 would. IF this is yes, then I submit that we should trace the question backwards to find where 4E "branched" into 4.0 and 4.x if we hope to have any meaningful discussions about if and how these changes have impacted the game, and if it has made the game better/worse/simpler/more rewarding, etc.

It is all well and good that Essentials does not make older options illegal, but it is disingenuous to claim that it does not incorporate changes (note I did not say begin or create) to the game that are distinct from the play style that PHB I created. You can debate the name to use endlessly, but I happen to like 4.4, as it clearly expresses that this is viewed as being less of a change than 3.0 to 3.5, while avoiding the implied 3.9 insult that it is a step backwards.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-07-30, 04:23 PM
All right, let's get the simple stuff out of the way, although I'm sure that (as is the nature of 'net debate) it'll get ignored. This isn't 4.4, this is 4b or 4'. (The last one, for those who aren't math geeks, is "four prime", an alternate version of the original) They're taking a completely new direction for classes, and giving us alternate versions, a bit more in line with an old-school style. But still on roughly the same power level. Characters from 4' and characters from 4th can and will coexist. You could even have a Rogue and a Rogue' on the battlefield at the same time. You don't have to switch.

Personally, I love it. If you don't, then you don't have to use it. It's like barring the Tome of Battle in 3.5 if you feel it's broken. Even more justifiable, in fact, since all of the Essentials classes will have their own "regular" counterparts.

Anyhow. Now that I've finished with that.

I really like what I see. The fighter is getting established as relying on minor actions to trigger stances. The rogue is getting established as relying on movement to trigger actions. Both of these key into what makes the class unique and special. They add a flavor to it.

This addresses one of the complaints that's been leveled at 4th Edition, namely that so many of the power sources and classes feel the same. To a point, I feel that there's justification in this. It's not entirely true, but neither are all of the classes incredibly different.

This changes all of that. Now, each class is having a very clear "schtick", and it's working with it. Wizards is introducing classes who have unique "class feature" progressions as they level up. But they're using the easy-to-read style of 4th Edition.

So. I like what I see here. Good ol' heroic adventure.

Blazen
2010-07-30, 04:33 PM
Im personally approaching this with a grain of salt. While I felt that 4e didn't really need a change, I am always interested in new ways to play. With that out of the way, I do have to wonder how multiclassing, and hybrids will be handled this time around.

Zen Master
2010-07-30, 04:35 PM
...you need to play more and different games.

Seriously. You can say a lot about 3.5 but "near perfect" is not one of them. Unless you have a highly eccentric game profile (i.e. what you want out of a game) you should be able to identify some one aspect of 3.5 that could have been done much better.

I mean Diplomacy alone... :smalleek:

N.B. this is not a criticism of your particular play style, just a note that there are other systems out there that do at least part of whatever you probably like about 3.5 much better. It's great that you like 3.5 so much but it kind of sounds like you have a very narrow perspective of what a RPG can do.

Hm - I failed to make my point. I'll try again.

Take the very foundations - how the game operates. Levels, d20, AC, weapon damage, all those things. Those things work - and to my mind, for the goal they try to achieve, they work perfectly.

Now, there's a lot more to the game than the foundations. Vancian spellcasting always hurt my brains, there's diplomacy as you say, class balance, monks - now, those things could work, and very well, but don't.

So ... theoretically, the game is perfect - in practice, it isn't.

Kylarra
2010-07-30, 04:46 PM
To paraphrase, what you like is the D20 system, as in, roll D20 add (or subtract) modifiers and compare to target number. If success, stuff happens. That and arbitrary levels to increase arbitrary stats. The actual implementation is lacking, so what you should rightly say is that you think the D20 base system is near perfect, but 3.5 was poorly implemented.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 04:53 PM
Hm - I failed to make my point. I'll try again.

Take the very foundations - how the game operates. Levels, d20, AC, weapon damage, all those things. Those things work - and to my mind, for the goal they try to achieve, they work perfectly.

Now, there's a lot more to the game than the foundations. Vancian spellcasting always hurt my brains, there's diplomacy as you say, class balance, monks - now, those things could work, and very well, but don't.

So ... theoretically, the game is perfect - in practice, it isn't.
I do not think "theoretically" means what you think you mean :smallconfused:
While you may think that levels, HP and d20's are the platonic ideals for an RPG that does not make a game "theoretically" perfect. At the very least, you must consider the actual rules - such as how DCs are calculated, XP awards are determined, etc. - if you want to make the argument that a given game is of a given theoretic quality. This is simply not the case for 3.5.

I mean, look at Rich's articles (http://www.giantitp.com/Gaming.html) on Diplomacy and Knowledge checks. The methods used by WotC for calculating DCs for skill checks is busted - they don't work. There is no "practice" here; no unscrupulous players warping the system; not even any ambigious RAW.
That said, even if you are very happy with the basic D&D paradigm, it makes little sense to call a system "perfect" when the concepts you identify as being idea are common across several iterations of the same game - particularly when you have objections to various 3.5 specific implementations of those basic concepts!

Plus, I cannot see how you can consider any pre-4E version of D&D "perfect" if you object to Vancian Casting; it's a major part of the system no matter how you slice it!

...um, the moral of the story is to be careful with the words you choose to use. Using improper words to describe a belief causes your audience to become very confused ideed. Or me, at least :smallsmile:

Zen Master
2010-07-30, 05:35 PM
To paraphrase, what you like is the D20 system, as in, roll D20 add (or subtract) modifiers and compare to target number. If success, stuff happens. That and arbitrary levels to increase arbitrary stats. The actual implementation is lacking, so what you should rightly say is that you think the D20 base system is near perfect, but 3.5 was poorly implemented.

Exactly. Far better phrased than I could have done. It is - so to speak - perfect for what it tries to achieve: A fantasy roleplaying game with only a passing nod towards realism.

If it wanted to be a realistic combat simulator, it would be something very different indeed. But it doesn't.


I do not think "theoretically" means what you think you mean :smallconfused:

That's funny. I'm pretty certain I know exactly what theoretical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theoretical)means.


That said, even if you are very happy with the basic D&D paradigm, it makes little sense to call a system "perfect" when the concepts you identify as being idea are common across several iterations of the same game - particularly when you have objections to various 3.5 specific implementations of those basic concepts!

Plus, I cannot see how you can consider any pre-4E version of D&D "perfect" if you object to Vancian Casting; it's a major part of the system no matter how you slice it!

...um, the moral of the story is to be careful with the words you choose to use. Using improper words to describe a belief causes your audience to become very confused ideed. Or me, at least :smallsmile:

Kylarra explained very nicely what I consider to be the foundations. The rest is additions - the practical application of the foundation. This is where human shortcomings mess up what is a system perfectly suited to model pretty much anything within it's scope.

Vancian is not a major part of the system - as shown by psionics, for instance. Within the basic d20 framework any number of magic systems are possible, but they've chosen vancian, which I dislike. Vancian isn't what makes or breaks 3.5 tho.

BobTheDog
2010-07-30, 06:12 PM
*stuff*

You know, by your explanation of why 3.5 is "near-perfect", it makes absolutely no sense to claim that they ruined it with 4e. If anything, you should consider them equally "near-perfect". They do run on the same core system, after all (roll a d20, add mods, compare to target number, "levels" make stuff stronger).

Anyway, let me get back to "wait mode". :D

Kurald Galain
2010-07-30, 06:22 PM
All this complaining about "spamming at-wills" is odd to me. Every edition before 4th had nothing but "at-wills" for warriors(rangers, paladins, fighters) and thieves to do, barring some once an encounter business, so why do people find it so painful in 4th?
It was an explicit design feature and sales point for 4E that fighters and rogues don't have to do the same thing every round any more.


They help make it very clear that Essentials is not 4.4 or a new edition of any kind.
No, they make it clear that it's not 4.5. And since pretty much nobody in this thread is calling it 4.5, that's pretty moot. 4.4 contains twice as much 4 as 4.0 does, which should be considered a good thing.


this is 4b or 4'. (The last one, for those who aren't math geeks, is "four prime", an alternate version of the original)
The correct answer is 4π + ei ^ 2, of course. The mathematical proof is trivial.

And question for Acromos - can you name us some different non-D&D RPGs you have played? I'm curious how large your reference pool is.

Reverent-One
2010-07-30, 06:24 PM
All right, let's get the simple stuff out of the way, although I'm sure that (as is the nature of 'net debate) it'll get ignored. This isn't 4.4, this is 4b or 4'. (The last one, for those who aren't math geeks, is "four prime", an alternate version of the original) They're taking a completely new direction for classes, and giving us alternate versions, a bit more in line with an old-school style. But still on roughly the same power level. Characters from 4' and characters from 4th can and will coexist. You could even have a Rogue and a Rogue' on the battlefield at the same time. You don't have to switch.

Personally, I love it. If you don't, then you don't have to use it. It's like barring the Tome of Battle in 3.5 if you feel it's broken. Even more justifiable, in fact, since all of the Essentials classes will have their own "regular" counterparts.

Anyhow. Now that I've finished with that.

I really like what I see. The fighter is getting established as relying on minor actions to trigger stances. The rogue is getting established as relying on movement to trigger actions. Both of these key into what makes the class unique and special. They add a flavor to it.

This addresses one of the complaints that's been leveled at 4th Edition, namely that so many of the power sources and classes feel the same. To a point, I feel that there's justification in this. It's not entirely true, but neither are all of the classes incredibly different.

This changes all of that. Now, each class is having a very clear "schtick", and it's working with it. Wizards is introducing classes who have unique "class feature" progressions as they level up. But they're using the easy-to-read style of 4th Edition.

So. I like what I see here. Good ol' heroic adventure.

Well said. Though I'd say this isn't even 4b or 4', just more of 4e. How many totally different mechanical subsystems did 3.5 have between normal magic, psionics, and ToB (and whatever others I may be missing)? And yet no one says one is 3.55, another is 3.6, ect. But WoTC starts playing around a little with the At-will/encounter/Daily power system, and it suddenly needs to be separated from the rest of the edition?



No, they make it clear that it's not 4.5. And since pretty much nobody in this thread is calling it 4.5, that's pretty moot. 4.4 contains twice as much 4 as 4.0 does, which should be considered a good thing.

Why do you feel so strongly that it needs to be separated from the rest of 4e at all?


Im personally approaching this with a grain of salt. While I felt that 4e didn't really need a change, I am always interested in new ways to play. With that out of the way, I do have to wonder how multiclassing, and hybrids will be handled this time around.

So far there's been no talk about new methods of multiclassing or hybirdizing in the Essentials line. I really doubt we'd see hybrids in the Essentials line, as it's meant to be the basics and easy to pick up.

Lord Raziere
2010-07-30, 06:33 PM
hmmmmmm.....

from the previews, it just seems that what they've done is just made simpler alternatives that are more 3.5-esque than anything else.

hmmmmmmmm......not sure how I feel, either its taking a step back, or its
taking a step forward, I don't know which, this change just seems confusing in my opinion, I can see why people are being so divided over it.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-30, 06:37 PM
Well, not everyone gains CA like that - just Thieves.
True. The reason why I find 4.0 rangers boring and 4.0 rogues fun is that the latter have to work to get their bonus; it's the added challenge of getting CA. If this challenge becomes too easy, I'm no longer interested in the class. Of course, that's just my opinion. I think there's definitely room in the design space for a class that does the same thing every turn; it's just not a class I will be playing.

nyjastul69
2010-07-30, 06:41 PM
I do not think "theoretically" means what you think you mean :smallconfused:
While you may think that levels, HP and d20's are the platonic ideals for an RPG that does not make a game "theoretically" perfect. At the very least, you must consider the actual rules - such as how DCs are calculated, XP awards are determined, etc. - if you want to make the argument that a given game is of a given theoretic quality. This is simply not the case for 3.5.

I mean, look at Rich's articles (http://www.giantitp.com/Gaming.html) on Diplomacy and Knowledge checks. The methods used by WotC for calculating DCs for skill checks is busted - they don't work. There is no "practice" here; no unscrupulous players warping the system; not even any ambigious RAW.
That said, even if you are very happy with the basic D&D paradigm, it makes little sense to call a system "perfect" when the concepts you identify as being idea are common across several iterations of the same game - particularly when you have objections to various 3.5 specific implementations of those basic concepts!

Plus, I cannot see how you can consider any pre-4E version of D&D "perfect" if you object to Vancian Casting; it's a major part of the system no matter how you slice it!

...um, the moral of the story is to be careful with the words you choose to use. Using improper words to describe a belief causes your audience to become very confused ideed. Or me, at least :smallsmile:


Are you claiming 4e is s perfect system?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-07-30, 06:53 PM
Are you claiming 4e is s perfect system?
No, merely that 4E is the only version of D&D without Vancian Casting. Therefore, if you object to Vancian Casting it makes no sense to consider a version of D&D with Vancian Casting to be "perfect." I'd also add that claiming that Vancian Casting isn't a core concept of D&D shows a selective interpretation of history at the best - but I've made what point there was to make.

I wouldn't claim any RPG is "perfect" because I have no idea how to define such a concept. D&D4 is very good at what it does, but it's rather silly to call an evolving system "perfect" IMHO.

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-30, 06:58 PM
Well, I will wait patiently for the Essentials product line to come out. I will probably buy it for the feeling of nostalgia the red box brings out. Hopefully, it won't be a waste of money for a sense of nostalgia.


Off topic:

Alright everyone "near perfect" is an arbitrary evaluation of a system. Since nothing can ever be truly "perfect", it stands to reason that this term will mean different things to different people.

Ask yourself this question: "If you constantly half the distance from one side of the room to the other, how many iterations will it take to cross the room?"

"Near perfect" could simply be 1 to 1 million iterations, since you will never actually cross the room.

Gametime
2010-07-30, 07:26 PM
Alright everyone "near perfect" is an arbitrary evaluation of a system. Since nothing can ever be truly "perfect", it stands to reason that this term will mean different things to different people.


Of course something can be perfect. Perfection is well within the bounds of possibility. Perhaps what you mean to say is that any discussion on what makes a system "perfect" is pointless, since the exact definition of the word and the criteria for meeting that designation are not agreed upon to within well-known limits. Still, subjective isn't the same thing as impossible.

Anyway.

Speaking as someone who hasn't played 4e more than a little (because my group prefers 3.5) but has been somewhere between excited and curious about the edition since its release, I have to say this looks pretty cool to me. Wizards seems to be trying to do two things: making each class use powers in a slightly different and very focused way, and making the use of powers more smoothly integrate into the basic action paradigm of "move, attack."

That seems like an attempt to appeal to new players and, possibly, old players who don't like 4e's setup. I'm hoping that maybe my group will want to try out these "Essentials" classes, and we can find a place in 4e that's a little more familiar to them.

I can't understand why anyone would be actively upset about this release, unless a) they believe the Essentials line will come with errata that drastically changes the main product; b) they believe the Essentials line will be expanded to the exclusion of other 4e books; or c) they believe this is only the first step in WotC's diabolic plan to secretly change everything they've already printed for 4th edition and force people to buy new books all over again.

A seems unlikely (although the apparent change to sneak attack could be relevant, it's hardly game-breaking; time will tell if other alterations released in the Essentials product has far-reaching applications). B seems even more unlikely, if anything, since the very nature of this offshoot appears to be simplicity. C is a possibility, of course, but Wizards of the Coast would never do that. Go back to your edition war, citizen.

FMArthur
2010-07-30, 07:41 PM
I would be prepared to be beaten and robbed when passing a WotC PR representative on the street. This thing won't exist to me until I see it; no use trying to interpret their intentions one way or the other right now. :smalltongue:

nyjastul69
2010-07-30, 08:02 PM
No, merely that 4E is the only version of D&D without Vancian Casting. Therefore, if you object to Vancian Casting it makes no sense to consider a version of D&D with Vancian Casting to be "perfect." I'd also add that claiming that Vancian Casting isn't a core concept of D&D shows a selective interpretation of history at the best - but I've made what point there was to make.

I wouldn't claim any RPG is "perfect" because I have no idea how to define such a concept. D&D4 is very good at what it does, but it's rather silly to call an evolving system "perfect" IMHO.

I misinterpreted your statement. I read an implication that wasn't actually there. Sorry 'bout that. I agree there are no perfect systems. At least I haven't met one yet. Perfectly suited for what one wants a system to accomplish, yes, perfection overall, not possible.

That's why I feel all iterations of D&D are the best and the worst, at the same time. They all handle thing both well and poorly. It simply depends on what one is looking for the system to do.

Evard
2010-07-30, 08:13 PM
To me, this is what WoTC does: They make a near-perfect RPG (this is 3.5).

:smallbiggrin: oh how i laughed

Zeta Kai
2010-07-30, 10:01 PM
Oroboros eats her tail ever faster.

Zen Master
2010-07-31, 01:39 AM
You know, by your explanation of why 3.5 is "near-perfect", it makes absolutely no sense to claim that they ruined it with 4e. If anything, you should consider them equally "near-perfect". They do run on the same core system, after all (roll a d20, add mods, compare to target number, "levels" make stuff stronger).

Anyway, let me get back to "wait mode". :D

That's an entirely valid point. The foundations of 4e are the same - but what they did with it is far worse than what they did with that same foundation in 3e.

3.x is decent, especially at the levels I usually play - it gets far more silly as higher spell levels become available to casters. 4.x is insufferable.

HMS Invincible
2010-07-31, 03:50 AM
When is Essentials coming out? I wanna know if my party is gonna end up jumping to the newer classes.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-31, 04:10 AM
I can't understand why anyone would be actively upset about this release, unless a) they believe the Essentials line will come with errata that drastically changes the main product; b) they believe the Essentials line will be expanded to the exclusion of other 4e books; or c) they believe this is only the first step in WotC's diabolic plan
Just for the record? (a) is actually happening, as evidenced in the most recent set of errata, although it depends on your definition of "drastical"; and (b) is also actually happening, in that the 4.0 "foo power" and "vault" lines are being discontinued, and 4.0 books are likely to go out of print.

Also, of course, there's a lot of Internet Backdraft, Unpleasable Fanbase, and They Changed It Now It Sucks going on, for which I refer you to the tvtropes site :smallcool:

Hzurr
2010-07-31, 11:05 AM
When is Essentials coming out? I wanna know if my party is gonna end up jumping to the newer classes.

They come out on November 16th. And again, it's just new builds for existing classes. Just like Martial power gave a new build for Rangers; so that we could have puppy rangers in addition to Bow-rangers and TWF Rangers.



3.x is decent, especially at the levels I usually play - it gets far more silly as higher spell levels become available to casters. 4.x is insufferable.

...because 4E stays more consistent and balanced all the way through from 1-30? Lvl 20 3.5 was stupid, I'll give you that. Lvl 20 4E just feels like your characters are the more powerful versions of what you had at level 10, and the monsters you're fighting are bigger and badder.

Reverent-One
2010-07-31, 12:14 PM
(a) is actually happening, as evidenced in the most recent set of errata, although it depends on your definition of "drastical"

The errata exists independent of the Essential's line, and would still be here anyway. The Essentials line itself has not yet been shown to have really any effect on the existing books.


(b) is also actually happening, in that the 4.0 "foo power" and "vault" lines are being discontinued,

Citation needed.


and 4.0 books are likely to go out of print.

Not only are you calling an internet rumor likely, but you're exaggerating said rumor. That's not misleading at all.

Zen Master
2010-07-31, 02:44 PM
...because 4E stays more consistent and balanced all the way through from 1-30? Lvl 20 3.5 was stupid, I'll give you that. Lvl 20 4E just feels like your characters are the more powerful versions of what you had at level 10, and the monsters you're fighting are bigger and badder.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. 4e is horrible. It reeks to the heavens. I've tried it, 2 months of play, I'll never play it again. I'm not saying it doesn't work tho - just that no single element of how it operates in actual play achieves anything other than annoyance for me.

I had high hopes for it tho. But it seems they felt that to make something that works in a robotic, mechanical sort of way, they had to remove everything that made it enjoyable and fun.

Of course you must feel differently about that. I'm just saying it's certainly not the game for me =)

Reluctance
2010-07-31, 04:31 PM
The errata exists independent of the Essential's line, and would still be here anyway. The Essentials line itself has not yet been shown to have really any effect on the existing books.

Essentials comes on the heels of some experimental design in PHB3, and both the pace and style of much of the errata implies a shift in design philosophy. The release of the essentials line simply marks a breakpoint for both the company and the fanbase to separate the old school of thought from the new. Even if the essentials line is entirely self contained, we'll almost certainly be seeing essentials philosophy in new books from here on out.

And when you ignore the baggage that 3.5 gave to incrementing, most of what this comes down to is "This is a change. Most people are curious, some are wary, some are skeptical". The exact nomenclature is just a convenient shorthand for discussion.

Mando Knight
2010-07-31, 06:19 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. 4e is horrible. It reeks to the heavens. I've tried it, 2 months of play, I'll never play it again. I'm not saying it doesn't work tho - just that no single element of how it operates in actual play achieves anything other than annoyance for me.

Can we please stay off the edition wars topic? People have gotten banned for that, and claiming 4e is horrible is the same as saying sauerkraut or tea is horrible. It might not be to your taste, but your mileage definitely varies.

Reverent-One
2010-07-31, 08:26 PM
Essentials comes on the heels of some experimental design in PHB3, and both the pace and style of much of the errata implies a shift in design philosophy. The release of the essentials line simply marks a breakpoint for both the company and the fanbase to separate the old school of thought from the new. Even if the essentials line is entirely self contained, we'll almost certainly be seeing essentials philosophy in new books from here on out.

They've been experimenting from the beginning, certainly PHB III was the most obvious, but they've been changing things around in pretty much every major book after the first three. And let me ask you, what is the "Essential's philosophy"? The only thing that's unique about the Essential titles so far is the simplified class design, do you think they're going to keep making mechanically simple classes with the kit based approach as we've seen so far in the previews for the Essentials? That wouldn't make sense at that is the entire point of the Essential's line, and after the 10 products in the Essential's line, it's over.


And when you ignore the baggage that 3.5 gave to incrementing, most of what this comes down to is "This is a change. Most people are curious, some are wary, some are skeptical". The exact nomenclature is just a convenient shorthand for discussion.

And there is no point to the incrementing, the only time such distinguishments have been made in the past are with similar, yet not totally compatible systems, ie 3.0-3.5-Pathfinder(3.75). Again, 3.5 had how many totally different mechanical subsystems, and everyone calls them all 3.5. The incrementing seeks to add some sort of separation between things that are meant to be together. It serves no purpose and makes little sense, especially just tacking on when there's a new subtitle on a few books as opposed to actually tracking changes in the rules.

arguskos
2010-07-31, 08:33 PM
Oroboros eats her tail ever faster.
Thought Oroboros was male, for some reason. :smallconfused:

Gametime
2010-07-31, 10:34 PM
Just for the record? (a) is actually happening, as evidenced in the most recent set of errata, although it depends on your definition of "drastical"; and (b) is also actually happening, in that the 4.0 "foo power" and "vault" lines are being discontinued, and 4.0 books are likely to go out of print.

To be honest, I'm a little perplexed even by anger at (b), since there are still all those "old" 4e books right there that you can still use. I can see disappointment at not getting any new material, but... I dunno. The errata issue is much more pressing, if it's occurring both because of the Essentials line and to an unprecedented extent. I'm not sure if either of those things are true, but then, I haven't done much (read: any) research into it.


Also, of course, there's a lot of Internet Backdraft, Unpleasable Fanbase, and They Changed It Now It Sucks going on, for which I refer you to the tvtropes site :smallcool:

At least you didn't link to it. I hear that site will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).

Mua ha ha ha ha!

Kurald Galain
2010-08-01, 02:56 AM
The errata issue is much more pressing, if it's occurring both because of the Essentials line and to an unprecedented extent.
If you believe that people are exaggerating, then you are probably right. That said, the recent errata to magic missile was unprecedented, and was rather obviously done for the sake of 4.4. I'm not going to argue about whether this change is a big deal or not; to me it isn't, but it's started a few flame wars already.



At least you didn't link to it. I hear that site will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).
Just wait until the next edition of TV Tropes comes out!

Zen Master
2010-08-01, 09:59 AM
Can we please stay off the edition wars topic? People have gotten banned for that, and claiming 4e is horrible is the same as saying sauerkraut or tea is horrible. It might not be to your taste, but your mileage definitely varies.

I think if you read my post again, you'll find that I specifically state that it's a matter of taste, and that it's not the game for me. If that's not enough, you may read my sig. If that's still not enough: I'm not telling anyone what to like - I'm saying what I like. Lots of people enjoy 4e - I just happen to consider it the worst game I've ever encountered.

Gametime
2010-08-01, 10:46 AM
If you believe that people are exaggerating, then you are probably right. That said, the recent errata to magic missile was unprecedented, and was rather obviously done for the sake of 4.4. I'm not going to argue about whether this change is a big deal or not; to me it isn't, but it's started a few flame wars already.



Indeed. Like I said, I'm preposterously uninformed on the subject, and my commentary is somewhat unhelpful since, as someone who doesn't currently play 4e, I have only the smallest of stakes in its future.

I certainly don't want to discredit the legitimate concerns of gamers who enjoy and are worried about 4e. The problem is that any change to any game - and any change to a Wizards product, in particular - is met with such a wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Internet that it becomes extremely difficult to separate the reasonable concerns from the whining.

Following the Magic and World of Warcraft communities has probably made me too jaded to appreciate any consumer-based complaints on gaming. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2010-08-06, 06:46 AM
And for another newsflash, here's the 4.4 fighter again. This time there's another build, so we have the knight fighter and the slayer fighter.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/20100806

Again, the build focuses on utility power stances, and only uses basic attacks. Out of the box, it gains +1 to hit (+3 when charging) and adds his dex modifier to weapon damage. They get an alternative stance that does power attack (-2 to hit, +4 to damage), which sounds cool but will usually reduce your average damage-per-round.

Notably, unlike the knight, the slayer does not have any kind of "defender aura" or "marking" mechanic; it is purely a striker. Also, it would seem that this build, as well as the 4.4 thief build, will usually outdamage their equivalent in the original Player's Handbook.

(edit) In other news,

WOTC has denied the rumor that PHB1 will go out of print.
The 4.4 monster manual will contain different versions of iconic monsters in the 4.0 monster manual, e.g. goblins and trolls, that apparently adhere to the changed power levels from MM3.
Also, 4.4 will reprint several iconic powers, e.g. magic missile and lightning bolt, from the PHB with changes to account for the changed power levels. WOTC states that neither of the former two points is considered a "replacement"; the 4.4 books are intended to coexist with 4.0 books, while containing updated parts of the latter.
4.4 will not contain a lot of new feats.
And finally, there will be new rules to codify skill challenges.

Akal Saris
2010-08-06, 07:51 AM
Not a replacement my ass.

Oslecamo
2010-08-06, 07:56 AM
The 4.4 monster manual will contain different versions of iconic monsters in the 4.0 monster manual, e.g. goblins and trolls, that apparently adhere to the changed power levels from MM3.
Also, 4.4 will reprint several iconic powers, e.g. magic missile and lightning bolt, from the PHB with changes to account for the changed power levels. WOTC states that neither of the former two points is considered a "replacement"; the 4.4 books are intended to coexist with 4.0 books, while containing updated parts of the latter.
...
And finally, there will be new rules to codify skill challenges.


Uff, I was thinking for a moment that they would chance the playing field and change the basic rules themselves but luckily it was clearly just rumors!:smalltongue:

Kylarra
2010-08-06, 08:13 AM
Indeed, it's not like they haven't been updating powers, although more nerf than boost, and refining rules via errata all along.

Oslecamo
2010-08-06, 08:15 AM
Indeed, it's not like they haven't been updating powers, although more nerf than boost, and refining rules via errata all along.

Exactly. How many errata and updates do we really need untill we can admit we're on a completely new version? Because if I picked a 1st print 4e books it surely wouldn't be compatible with essentials.

Kylarra
2010-08-06, 08:18 AM
Exactly. How many errata and updates do we really need untill we can admit we're on a completely new version? Because if I picked a 1st print 4e books it surely wouldn't be compatible with essentials.Frankly, I prefer the constant support via errata as compared to 3.X. In sum, it does represent a less drastic shift, as of so far, than 3.0->3.5, imo, but YMMV.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-06, 08:36 AM
Exactly. How many errata and updates do we really need untill we can admit we're on a completely new version?
Well, if this were software, then each published update should increment the minor version number, so we would be at 4.7 or so.

If we don't count errata to individual powers, feats, or items, the rules have been fundamentally altered for following things:

Keywords and damage types
Weapon-as-implement and vice versa
Conjurations
Zones
Skills interacting with movement
Stealth
Perception
Free action usage
Untyped bonuses
Dominate and petrified
Vertical movement
Aid another
Charge
Concealment and fog effects
Fly, hover, and crashing
Mounts
Skill challenges
Default effects for unusual actions
Monster creation


Aside from that, there have been systematic changes to pretty much any power, feat, or item that lets you

Recover daily powers.
Heal people without surges.
Use an ability modifier as attack bonus or penalty.
Penalize saving throws.
Make extra attacks.
Improve all attacks from your base class using an option from multiclassing.
And anything involving the tiefling's infernal wrath.


So it is fair to say that the using the PHB1 and DMG1 as printed will not reflect the game as it is presently presented by WOTC.

Oslecamo
2010-08-06, 08:47 AM
So it is fair to say that the using the PHB1 and DMG1 as printed will not reflect the game as it is presently presented by WOTC.

My point. The only diference between this 4.4/4.7 and 3.5 it's that this time they started throwing the changes right away. Sure they threw just a few at a time, but when you add them all togheter then you simply can't deny the game has drastically changed in the whole picture.

Nu
2010-08-06, 08:50 AM
I, personally, am happy that classic monsters will be getting an update to bring them up to MM3 levels. I've been trying to do it myself of course in the 4E game I'm currently running, but in the future it'd be nice to see how WotC does it.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-07, 11:29 AM
In Other News...


While the PHB1 is not going out of print, it is not going to be reprinted any more in the foreseeable future. It will be printed again "when the time is right". This pretty much explains where the rumor came from.
Magic items will be grouped into commons, uncommons, and rares. Only common items can be created by player characters, and most existing items qualify as uncommons.
The races from PHB1 and 2 will be updated to give the player a choice of which ability score to boost, like the PHB3 races do.
New products announced at Gen Con confirm that no Foo Power or Adventurer's Vault books are in the works, nor is PHB4. It is unclear whether the Races handbooks are to continue, stores apparently had problems with the dragonborn and tiefling handbooks.
No new campaign world is planned for 2011, but books will be printed about the Forgotten Realms and the Shadowfell. The latter includes Ravenloft, insanity rules, and a "despair deck".
There will likely at some point be a hero builder's handbook, a DMG3, a video game, a book with non-combat options like blacksmithing, and a book on skill challenges. Also, at least two D&D-related boardgames are in the works.

Reverent-One
2010-08-08, 12:04 PM
New products announced at Gen Con confirm that no Foo Power or Adventurer's Vault books are in the works, nor is PHB4. It is unclear whether the Races handbooks are to continue, stores apparently had problems with the dragonborn and tiefling handbooks.


Clarifying this point. There will be a new equipment book, it's just called Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, not Adventurer's Vault X, with more story behind the items. Also, there is a new Player's Handbook coming out, it's just called Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier instead of PHB IV, which will "Introduces themes for core D&D. New options, feats. Non-combat options like Blacksmith".

Also, the Ravenloft game (which is NOT part of the Shadowfell boxed set, as far as I know) is apparently both a standalone game and the campaign setting for the year. They'll also now be random treasure tables as an alternative to the treasure parcel system.

Boci
2010-08-08, 12:07 PM
I am sure this has been asked but I cannot find it: will the theif be out of place in an otherwise 4.0 party?

Reverent-One
2010-08-08, 12:20 PM
I am sure this has been asked but I cannot find it: will the theif be out of place in an otherwise 4.0 party?

No, no more than a Rogue using Ruthless Ruffian from Marital Power would be. The Thief is simply a more mechanically simple build of the Rogue class for newer players.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-08, 12:38 PM
I am sure this has been asked but I cannot find it: will the theif be out of place in an otherwise 4.0 party?
The main differences are that the thief has a different power structure, no dailies, and does somewhat more damage than a 4.0 rogue.

This is exactly as out of place as a psion would be (who uses power points rather than encounter attacks) - which is to say it's perfectly fine in most parties, but I'm sure it'll bug the heck out of some people.

It strikes me as easy to add 4.4 characters to a 4.0 party; I'm not yet convinced that the opposite is also true. The keyword for 4.4 appears to be simplicity, so bringing in a character with feats, powers and items from half a dozen 4.0 splatbooks may feel "wrong" to some DMs.

Mando Knight
2010-08-08, 12:40 PM
Magic items will be grouped into commons, uncommons, and rares. Only common items can be created by player characters, and most existing items qualify as uncommons.

They will be identified by a circle, diamond, or star imprinted on the bottom of the item. Each booster set of items will have one rare and a random number of commons and uncommons. The rare item may or may not be visible in the pack. Occasionally, you will find an item with a star inside a circle. This is a "very rare" item, and costs even more when purchased outside the random booster pack than the "rare" item will.

Reverent-One
2010-08-08, 12:42 PM
It strikes me as easy to add 4.4 characters to a 4.0 party; I'm not yet convinced that the opposite is also true. The keyword for 4.4 appears to be simplicity, so bringing in a character with feats, powers and items from half a dozen 4.0 splatbooks may feel "wrong" to some DMs.

Eh, same could be said for psionic characters, players using more monsterous races, ect and so on. Besides, it's not like all the Essentials builds can't be customized, so a DM isn't going to avoid that by banning all pre-Essentials builds.

Side note on the bolded part: Appears to be? It is in fact the explicitly stated purpose of the Essentials line to be simple and easy to pick up. Where have you been?

Kurald Galain
2010-08-08, 12:45 PM
They will be identified by a circle, diamond, or star imprinted on the bottom of the item. Each booster set of items will have one rare and a random number of commons and uncommons. The rare item may or may not be visible in the pack. Occasionally, you will find an item with a star inside a circle. This is a "very rare" item, and costs even more when purchased outside the random booster pack than the "rare" item will.

Win :smallbiggrin:

Next thing you know this will also apply to powers, of course. And the best thing is that Rich predicted this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html) years ago...