PDA

View Full Version : 4.5 D&d?



Person_Man
2011-01-07, 12:36 PM
Editions of Dungeons and Dragons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

1974:White box edition
1977: 1st edition
1989: 2nd edition
2000: 3rd edition
2003: 3.5 edition
2008: 4th edition
2010: 4th edition "Essentials"
2016: 5th edition (projected)


It's been about 2 and 1/2 years since 4E was released. So I'm guessing that D&D is soon going to undergo some changes (again). I'm here to plead ignorance and say that although I've played core 4E and enjoy it, I've never really invested in it, and spend most of my gaming time on 3.5/Pathfinder/Iron Kingdoms/Warmachine/SWSE/homebrew.

I've long since given up on WotC "politics" and have no freaking clue what how 4E has developed, and what will come out in the future.

So, can people who follow this fill me in? Have there been any major structural changes to 4E? Is D&D essentials D&D 4.5? Has WotC made any noises about their next edition yet?

Anonomuss
2011-01-07, 12:45 PM
There have been no major structural changes to 4e.

Essentials (4e.e) is more a change in focus for the game. As I see it the base structure is intact, and rather than trying to adapt all the flavourful aspects of a chararacter as powers, Essentials tries to adapt them as class features, which are no longer front loaded.

But everything else is still pretty much the same, albeit a greater reliance upon basic attacks.

I'm fairly certain that there's been no noise regarding a new edition. But I'm not a DnD Insider at the moment. I think that wizards are a bit away from making a new edition yet. Essentials is their attempt at expanding the audience for DnD. I imagine when that's no longer viable as an ongoing strategy, a new edition might be considered. At the moment they're consolidating a lot of what they've developed.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 12:50 PM
Unlike 3.X, WotC decided to "patch" 4E through the course of its life. Thanks to Dungeons & Dragons Insider ("DDI") and the Character Builder ("CB") this has been pretty smooth overall.

If you want to be pedantic, you could probably divide it up like this:
4.0 = Everything published to date (no Errata)

Classic CB 4E = Everything published & uploaded to the downloadable CB ("Classic CB") (full Errata)

Cloud CB 4E = Everything published & uploaded to the online CB ("Cloud CB") to date (full Errata)

DDE = Dungeons & Dragons Essentials, current as uploaded on the Cloud CB
In this sense, DDE is most like D&D4.5 in that it was advertised as being backwards compatible with D&D4 but, in fact, isn't really. DDE just works differently than D&D4 to date; it's built on different core assumptions.

EDIT: I would like to disagree with my distinguished colleague in the above post - D&D4 underwent profound structural changes, pretty much from the get go.

Two core mechanics - Stealth and Skill Challenges - were completely re-written just months after release. Additionally the structure of "default DCs" and damage ("DMG 42") has been revised several times.

Reverent-One
2011-01-07, 01:22 PM
In this sense, DDE is most like D&D4.5 in that it was advertised as being backwards compatible with D&D4 but, in fact, isn't really. DDE just works differently than D&D4 to date; it's built on different core assumptions.

Why does that make it like D&D 4.5? 3.5 had how many different mechanical sub systems in it that all fall under the 3.5 label?

Pink
2011-01-07, 01:23 PM
I second Person_man's interest in this subject. I really haven't followed 4e much at all after the 2nd PHB, and now-a-days I'm hearing things like playing with the original core rulebook is no longer playing 4e as intended and I get a little confused. If I were to jump into 4e, where would I need to look to see what are the correct rules? Are the old books going to be set aside in favor of material published under essentials?

hamishspence
2011-01-07, 01:26 PM
Some skills were merged, some abolished entirely, some types of monster abolished entirely, DR revised, and so on, in 3.5.

In Essentials, there's one or two things that seem to fit.

Changing some epic and paragon feats to tierless feats that can be taken at any level, for example.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 01:34 PM
Why does that make it like D&D 4.5? 3.5 had how many different mechanical sub systems in it that all fall under the 3.5 label?
It was more about the "feel."

Remember when 3.5 was advertised? It wasn't really a "new system;" just an update on the rules you knew and loved? And then you looked at 3.5, and noticed that a lot of the changes meant that using 3.0 books in an otherwise 3.5 game really didn't work so well. And then they re-released everything they had done for 3.0?

DDE feels a lot like that. But YMMV :smallsmile:

gourdcaptain
2011-01-07, 01:39 PM
I'm of the opinion that there's a massive philosophical shift between 4e classic and essentials. While the two interact... fairly well it'as a bit jarring. I'm not really a fan of essentials (at all), because I don't think 4e is the proper framework to build those classes on (and I'm a fan of original 4e design as an alternative to other editions once in a while).

Reverent-One
2011-01-07, 01:43 PM
Remember when 3.5 was advertised?

No. I started with 3.5. :P


It wasn't really a "new system;" just an update on the rules you knew and loved? And then you looked at 3.5, and noticed that a lot of the changes meant that using 3.0 books in an otherwise 3.5 game really didn't work so well. And then they re-released everything they had done for 3.0?

I just don't see why using pre-essentials books in an otherwise Essentials book game wouldn't work. Sure a lot of class stuff from the two sets of books can't be combined into a single character, but I've seen no reason why they can't be used at the same table. Heck, a Warlord gets along even better with the Essentials martial builds then he does with the ones from the PHB I.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-07, 01:55 PM
5th edition coming out in 2016 (assuming we don't all die when 2012 comes) is believable.

However, Essentials has too few evolutionary changes to be considered a new half-edition, compared to 3.5 and 3.0. There needs to be more meat to it than just retro-nostalgia-classes like the thief, the mage or the slayer.

Although if we go by the numbers of errata, and if almost every month had an errata that constitues at least a 0.1, then we'd probably be around 4.6 or so...

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 01:55 PM
I just don't see why using pre-essentials books in an otherwise Essentials book game wouldn't work. Sure a lot of class stuff from the two sets of books can't be combined into a single character, but I've seen no reason why they can't be used at the same table. Heck, a Warlord gets along even better with the Essentials martial builds then he does with the ones from the PHB I.
Yeah... but everything in Essentials ("DDE") is just better mechanically than its D&D4 counterpart. This is because DDE is supposed to be a less subtle game, so there are fewer situational effects and more blunt bonuses. Compare the Tierless 4E "Defensive Feats" (e.g. Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will) with their DDE version, for example.

In this sense it's like 3.5 in reverse: due to patching, 3.5 was less abusable than the 3.0 material it replaced (e.g. Haste) which meant 3.5 was a "step down" in mechanical power from a Theoretical Optimization (T.O.) perspective. DDE, conversely, is a step up power-wise to compensate for the loss of nuance in Character Building.

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-07, 01:57 PM
Yeah, I've pretty much been won over by Kurald's take on the D&D essentials line, name-wise.
It really is D&D 4.4

It's nice that it's so fully backwards compatable, but just because I can play Xbox games on my Xbox 360 doesn't change the fact that they are different generations of console gaming.

I think 2016 for D&D 5e is a little bit off, however. I'm not entirely sure that Essentials is really doing quite so well as it was intended to do, I can't see it lasting a year longer than 3.5 did.

Gralamin
2011-01-07, 01:59 PM
No. I started with 3.5. :P



I just don't see why using pre-essentials books in an otherwise Essentials book game wouldn't work. Sure a lot of class stuff from the two sets of books can't be combined into a single character, but I've seen no reason why they can't be used at the same table. Heck, a Warlord gets along even better with the Essentials martial builds then he does with the ones from the PHB I.

Currently the issue with combining Essentials and Non-Essentials content is it can lead to situations where no benefit is gained - For example using a Human with the extra at-will feature with an essentials class does nothing for most essentials characters. But the Extra at-will feature is still an appropriate choice for all pre-essentials characters, and is still in the cloud character builder as an option.

If you carefully avoid these cases though, they should integrate fine.

incandescent
2011-01-07, 02:03 PM
The essentials stuff is fun it it's own way even though it is structurally different from the previous classes. I'm currently playing a thief in a party of two thieves, a ranger, a sorcerer, and a warlord and everybody seems to have their own tricks to bring to the table. The 'normal' classes get their daily/encounter bursts and can pack more of an oomph when needed, while the thieves get more of a consistent, sustained boom from their basic attacks and awesomely powerful at-will movement abilities.

The thing i like the most about the new design is that there's less clutter on the character sheet right away. I always hated starting high level games or even getting part way into paragon and having to wade through scores of powers to find one that fits my concept or that can be reflavored (and i always thought it was odd to want to be something like an 'acid mage' when there were so few acid powers and other niche cases like that). Also, you start to feel less like a collection of powers and more like a member of your race. Racial encounter powers and abilities seem more like actual powers in comparison to "basic attack" and "once per encounter class feature". Also, any sort of magic item seems to have more value since their powers don't get pushed aside by your class encounters/dailies.

just my opinion on the 4e/4.5e thing.

Reverent-One
2011-01-07, 02:11 PM
Yeah... but everything in Essentials ("DDE") is just better mechanically than its D&D4 counterpart. This is because DDE is supposed to be a less subtle game, so there are fewer situational effects and more blunt bonuses. Compare the Tierless 4E "Defensive Feats" (e.g. Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will) with their DDE version, for example.


You mean Improved Defenses? Which trades off a +1 defense boost in order to boost all three NADS at once? Yes, it's better if you're concerned with all 3 NADs, rather than just boosting say, your lowest, but even then, that's a minor boost in power. Besides, it's not like there haven't been new powers/feats/ect in the 4e books prior to the essentials that we just better than others already existing.


In this sense it's like 3.5 in reverse: due to patching, 3.5 was less abusable than the 3.0 material it replaced (e.g. Haste) which meant 3.5 was a "step down" in mechanical power from a Theoretical Optimization (T.O.) perspective. DDE, conversely, is a step up power-wise to compensate for the loss of nuance in Character Building.

This is also important. A thief build rogue can use the rogue tricks from Heroes of X books, while any other rogue build has access to many more powers.


Currently the issue with combining Essentials and Non-Essentials content is it can lead to situations where no benefit is gained - For example using a Human with the extra at-will feature with an essentials class does nothing for most essentials characters. But the Extra at-will feature is still an appropriate choice for all pre-essentials characters, and is still in the cloud character builder as an option.


That specific example isn't even an issue, as the Human can now take an actual racial power rather than an extra-at will.

Cirrhosis
2011-01-07, 02:12 PM
TLDR version: essentials is more of an expansion to 4e than a rewrite like 3.5 was to 3rd ed. new options were added, but nothing has been removed.

saying that the essentials line in comparison to earlier 4th edition material is like the shift between 3.0 and 3.5 is a little disingenuous.

the scope of the revisions in the essentials line is more about flavor and feel than it is about rewriting the core mechanics of the system. that's not to say that the structure of how powers and abilities are acquired by the essentials versions of the classes isn't in some cases very different, but if they had been simply labeled as new classes instead of, for example, the slayer fighter (essentials) being as much a fighter as a great weapon fighter (PHB1), then i really don't think it would have raised the fuss that it has.

granted, the two or three versions of the fighter currently presented in 4E aren't 100% cross compatible in their power choices, but the fact is that all classes must make a permanent choice of basic class features at level one and remain locked into those for the durration of the character's life. choosing one type of fighter or warlock or cleric over another isn't significantly different from choosing one type of warden or shaman or ardent, none of which have gotten the essentials treatment to date, over another.

the big difference between the 3/3.5 schism and the 4e/essentials expansion is that classes in 4e don't need to be rewritten to correct minor issues like class features that give benefits to skills that don't exist any more, for instance.

here's the thing; essentials is more like a stand-alone expansion than an edition shift. if you don't want to use essentials, you don't have to. if you want to use the essentials stuff without the previous material, you can. if you want to use both, there are no mechanical conflicts that needs to be accounted for.

edit: put the wall of text behind a spoiler

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-01-07, 02:22 PM
Agreed that it's not 4.5, or even 4.4...I actually like "4e.e", which was used above. Because if anything, it's not so much an advancement of 4th Edition as it is a parallel development of 4th Edition. They shake up some core assumptions, but keep the power level the same. Everyone operates on the same skills, uses the same stats (attack, four defenses, etc.), can use the same magic items, and can take the same feats. Oh, and they fight the same monsters. It's a bit tricky to swap around powers between the 4e and 4e.e classes, but it's doable.

Point is, it's just a cousin that plays nicely with "vanilla" 4e.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 02:22 PM
You mean Improved Defenses? Which trades off a +1 defense boost in order to boost all three NADS at once? Yes, it's better if you're concerned with all 3 NADs, rather than just boosting say, your lowest, but even then, that's a minor boost in power. Besides, it's not like there haven't been new powers/feats/ect in the 4e books prior to the essentials that we just better than others already existing.
No no, I mean this:

Lightning Reflexes (D&D4): +2 to Reflex

Superior Reflexes (DDE): +2 to Reflexes, CA against all enemies for your first turn in Combat

Admittedly, Superior Reflexes requires INT or DEX of 15 but I'm thinking that's not the hardest prereq to make :smalltongue:

EDIT: It is true that D&D4 has done this sort of thing in the past, but even then it was usually to fix bad powers which - for some reason - they didn't want to patch through Errata.

Reverent-One
2011-01-07, 02:28 PM
No no, I mean this:

Lightning Reflexes (D&D4): +2 to Reflex
Superior Reflexes (DDE): +2 to Reflexes, CA against all enemies for your first turn in Combat

Admittedly, Superior Reflexes requires INT or DEX of 15 but I'm thinking that's not the hardest prereq to make :smalltongue:

I finally found those...AFTER I made my post to you. *facepalm*

As for the prereq, you're right that it's not hard to make if one of those stats is your primary or secondary stat, if neither are though it's notably harder. And honestly, what the Essentials books do with the "static bonus" feats (both the defensive ones and the expertise feats) are what WoTC should have done with them in the first place, giving them each a little bonus that fits the defense/weapon/implement. It's an improvement they might as well have called an Errata on the old feats.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-01-07, 02:36 PM
I finally found those...AFTER I made my post to you. *facepalm*

As for the prereq, you're right that it's not hard to make if one of those stats is your primary or secondary stat, if neither are though it's notably harder. And honestly, what the Essentials books do with the "static bonus" feats (both the defensive ones and the expertise feats) are what WoTC should have done with them in the first place, giving them each a little bonus that fits the defense/weapon/implement. It's an improvement they might as well have called an Errata on the old feats.
Though as a side note, isn't it still nice for a character, like a fighter, to be able to pick up the feat without the high prereq? It's more like a more-specific upgrade.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 02:38 PM
And honestly, what the Essentials books do with the "static bonus" feats (both the defensive ones and the expertise feats) are what WoTC should have done with them in the first place, giving them each a little bonus that fits the defense/weapon/implement. It's an improvement they might as well have called an Errata on the old feats.
Eh, I had a friend who pointed out to me that some people don't like paying attention to all those riders and so forth - they just want to roll a die, and add up the numbers to see if they hit. He said this in response to my initial resistance to the Expertise Feats since they were so mechanically powerful that it seems like you'd always want to take them.

The truth is that some people - like myself - value the flexibility of situational feats (and the ability to do "cool stuff") over pure mechanical victory. My characters usually end up taking Expertise at some point - but often it can be quite late (i.e. high Heroic) because I've been taking things like Multiclassing instead.

So I now appreciate WotC's descision in that area. Of course, being the kind of Player I am, I'm never going to play an Essentials game for that reason :smalltongue:

EDIT: Considering INT / DEX is useful for so many different classes, I can't really take that prereq seriously. Plus, anyone who takes a 14 DEX is going to be eligible for Superior Reflexes at LV 11 - where it scales just like Lightning Reflexes.

Person_Man
2011-01-07, 02:45 PM
Hmm, interesting discussion. But I'm a bit confused.

I own a metric ton of 3.Xish stuff. If a stranger walked into one of my gaming groups with nothing but the core 3.0 handbook and wanted to play, they could, and they could probably do so as any class (though I would suggest a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Cleric). But as the game went on I'd have to tweak things in my game one way or another to accommodate them, such as certain spells, Skills, Feats, etc.

On the flip side, the only 4E thing that I physically own is the Player's Handbook. If I walked into a 4E group that was keeping up on most of the splat books and D&D Essentials and whatnot, could I play using nothing but my PHB? (By the way, this is something I want to do, if anyone's in the Virginia/DC/Maryland area).

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 02:55 PM
On the flip side, the only 4E thing that I physically own is the Player's Handbook. If I walked into a 4E group that was keeping up on most of the splat books and D&D Essentials and whatnot, could I play using nothing but my PHB? (By the way, this is something I want to do, if anyone's in the Virginia/DC/Maryland area).
Nope, but if you have $10 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Subscription.aspx) you can buy access to DDI and have the equivalent of all the books and all the Errata :smalltongue:

Heck, your group might be willing to go in with you on a shared account. Split 4 ways, you can get a year for $20 per person :smallbiggrin:

It's much easier to "keep up" with D&D4 than it was in 3.X. The Character Builder integrates all of the splatbooks (and Errata!) into a useful digital tool that makes searching for stuff and building characters easy. Then it auto-formats it onto a document you can print out and bring to the game - with most of the rules for your powers right there!

Reverent-One
2011-01-07, 03:02 PM
Eh, I had a friend who pointed out to me that some people don't like paying attention to all those riders and so forth - they just want to roll a die, and add up the numbers to see if they hit. He said this in response to my initial resistance to the Expertise Feats since they were so mechanically powerful that it seems like you'd always want to take them.

The truth is that some people - like myself - value the flexibility of situational feats (and the ability to do "cool stuff") over pure mechanical victory. My characters usually end up taking Expertise at some point - but often it can be quite late (i.e. high Heroic) because I've been taking things like Multiclassing instead.

I'm with you on that, and that's actually why I like the newer defense/expertise feats better. They're not just a straight +X to stat, but you get a benefit that fits with the idea of the feat. It makes it work for both those who just care about the mechanically optimum choice and for those who find a pure stat boosting feat boring.


Nope, but if you have $10 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Subscription.aspx) you can buy access to DDI and have the equivalent of all the books and all the Errata :smalltongue:

Or you could pay nothing at get any relevant errata online for free. So in answer to person_man's question, Yes, you can, at least as well as you can walk up to a group using just the PHB and errata.

tcrudisi
2011-01-07, 03:12 PM
On the flip side, the only 4E thing that I physically own is the Player's Handbook. If I walked into a 4E group that was keeping up on most of the splat books and D&D Essentials and whatnot, could I play using nothing but my PHB? (By the way, this is something I want to do, if anyone's in the Virginia/DC/Maryland area).

Yes, you could. Some powers have been errata'ed, but that's available for free online. In fact, they give out the errata by both book and with a total compilation, so you can just download the PHB errata. As long as you know about your powers that have been errata'ed, that is all you will need. And it's not as if there's a ton of errata for the PHB.

You can do just fine using only the PHB. Will you be optimized compared to others who have all the books? No. But you are only using one book. Could you create an optimized character using only the 3.5 PHB when compared to someone who has all the books? No. (In both instances, you can optimize within the restraints but you won't be as powerful as someone who has access to all the books.)

JonestheSpy
2011-01-07, 03:51 PM
Two core mechanics - Stealth and Skill Challenges - were completely re-written just months after release. Additionally the structure of "default DCs" and damage ("DMG 42") has been revised several times.


Man, sounds like someone rushed the playtesting stage of devlpoment, don't it?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-07, 03:54 PM
Man, sounds like someone rushed the playtesting stage of devlpoment, don't it?
Sure, but unlike 3.X Diplomacy they actually fixed it :smallamused:

grimbold
2011-01-07, 04:16 PM
wait 5th edition is predicted for 2016?
oh boy!

Yakk
2011-01-07, 05:55 PM
The changes to Paragon/Robust defences (effectively replaced with improved defences) was a matter of "the math tax feat still wasn't good enough to patch the hole".

The changes to the expertise feats was "they where boring and flavorless, but required. Let's add a bit of flavor" as far as I can tell. (note that these are also a case of rendering old feats obsolete).

The new Iron Will replacements replaced feats that where boring, flavourless and sub-par mechanically with ones that are not.

That's almost the complete list of feats replaced or rendered obsolete in all of essentials?

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-07, 10:36 PM
Hmm, interesting discussion. But I'm a bit confused.

I own a metric ton of 3.Xish stuff. If a stranger walked into one of my gaming groups with nothing but the core 3.0 handbook and wanted to play, they could, and they could probably do so as any class (though I would suggest a Wizard, Sorcerer, or Cleric). But as the game went on I'd have to tweak things in my game one way or another to accommodate them, such as certain spells, Skills, Feats, etc.

On the flip side, the only 4E thing that I physically own is the Player's Handbook. If I walked into a 4E group that was keeping up on most of the splat books and D&D Essentials and whatnot, could I play using nothing but my PHB? (By the way, this is something I want to do, if anyone's in the Virginia/DC/Maryland area).

I'd say the experience would be comparable. There's been a lot of errata since the PHB was released, including most recently a few fundamental shifts in the basic design concepts, arguably. Any PHB1 character would be functional and workable without too much effort should you walk in to an 'up to date' game at this stage.

But you can bet that eventually someone will offer to run it through their copy of the Character builder, if just to iron out any errata related issues.

Essentially, though, I'd say with a decent group, you could arguably play easily enough without the PHB. If you have it, then you will have a better idea of the basics of the system, but you shouldn't be needing to check it regularly anyway. If you do roll up a sheet by hand, I'd thoroughly recommend aping the builder sheets and drawing up your powers in full, if possible.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-09, 11:01 AM
I note two things. First, that people tend to overstate the differences between 3.0 and 3.5; in fact, the latter was marketed as a backwards compatible update, and it's really not difficult to mix 3.0 and 3.5 material in the same campaign. For that matter, 2E is pretty well compatible with 1E as a whole. So the point is that "it is backwards compatible" is not a difference between HOFK and 3.5: it is a similarity between the two.

Second, people tend to understate the differences between 4.0 as it was first printed, and the rules as they are now. If we don't count errata to individual powers, feats, or items, the rules have been fundamentally altered for the 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
Racial abilities and powers
Long-duration buff spells
"charm" powers with no defined mechanical effect
Feats having race or tier prerequisites
Magical item distribution


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.

Blackfang108
2011-01-09, 11:56 AM
The thing is, KG, the vast majority of those changes occurred well before Essentials was released, and well before the 4e.e design philosophy was recognizable as such.

The Stealth errata and Skill Challenges, for example, was released before the PHB II.

I feel that that list is somewhat disingenuous as it includes changes that were not part of the 4e.e shift.

And how did untyped bonuses change? (Seriously, I've got to be missing something here.)
Edit: spelling

Edit2:
Looking over the Zones and Conjurations errata, neither of those are a fundamental alteration, they're both minor tweaks. Or is there different errata that isn't on Wizard's website?

Also, Perception has a one word change in the description, regarding a change in one particular usage of the skill, the basic usage is not altered. I'd hardly call that a fundamental change.

And again, the majority of that list was changed over the lifetime of 4e, and had little to do with the 4e.e product line.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-09, 12:14 PM
The thing is, KG, the vast majority of those changes occurred well before Essentials was released,
Yes, but that's not a new thing. The rules and philosophies also gradually changed between the first release of 2.0 and the advent of Skills & Powers, or between the first print of 3.0 and the release of 3.5. The notion of semi-regular errata documents posted to the Web isn't new to 4E (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a), either. If this were a software product, those would likely be called 4.0.3, 3.1.8, and so on (or possibly have cool names like Blinking Beholder or Funky Flumph).

I think it's not easy to find a fundamental difference between HOFL/HOFK on the one hand, and 3.5 on the other. The commonly seen ones are based on misconceptions, such as the compatibility issue (as OH points out, 4.4 is less backwards compatible than WOTC claims, and at the same time 3.5 is more backwards compatible than some people remember; this is clearly not a black-and-white difference).

Mind you, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, either. Many people on the forum would say that 3.5 was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and it has a solid claim to being the most popular RPG ever. Therefore I quite fail to see how pointing out similarities between HOFL and 3.5 could in any way be an insult to HOFL or WOTC.

Ranielle
2011-01-09, 12:17 PM
I go with 4.4 cause Kurald's awesome.

Blackfang108
2011-01-09, 12:20 PM
Yes, but that's not a new thing.

But you weren't clear on that in your list. the way your list was written, it looked like you were saying that ALL of those changes were due to 4e.e, when the vast majority of them were made well before. And some of those that you menti9oned as "fundemental changes" were only "clarity errata" (which do not change the actual crunch) or minor tweaks

(Also, again, I can't find the untyped bonus rules change. seriously, I want to know, what is it?)

Edit: wait, I think I did.

That was errata? Hm. Never noticed. My group just assumed that. Strange.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-09, 12:27 PM
But you weren't clear on that in your list.
I'm sorry for being unclear, but that post explictly lists "the differences between 4.0 as it was first printed, and the rules as they are now", and that list intentionally avoided mentioning any synonym for HOFK or 4.4.


And some of those that you menti9oned as "fundemental changes" were only "clarity errata" (which do not change the actual crunch) or minor tweaks
I don't think anything on that list is clarity errata. Of course, YMMV on what exactly constitutes a "fundamental change". In my opinion, for instance, perception changed from not being feasible in combat (since it cost a standard action) to something players use all the time in combat (as a minor action). I call that pretty fundamental. Since the writeup for that action is pretty short in the first place (and most of it is stating the obvious, like "success: you see something"), one word can be pretty important.


(Also, again, I can't find the untyped bonus rules change. seriously, I want to know, what is it?)
Untyped bonuses from the same game element used to stack, and now they don't. Again, I find that what does or doesn't stack is a fundament of how bonuses work, and indeed this markedly affects in-game usage of powers that grant such bonuses.


I go with 4.4 cause Kurald's awesome.
Virtual hug for Ranielle :smallsmile:

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-09, 12:35 PM
Just to say, as the server apparently ate my post, that I think I approve of Kurald's semi-suggestion of applying Software-style generation naming to the situation. Would end up with something like Edition . Major Landmark (PHB's etc) . Errata
So we'd be on something like D&D 4.4.1 at the moment. I'm pretty sure there's been at least 1 errata since Essentials launch, even if it was just to correct spelling mistakes or to spell out something they didn't fit in the rules compendium.

Pentachoron
2011-01-09, 02:46 PM
wait 5th edition is predicted for 2016?
oh boy!

No, it's just the op's projection. See people, this is how rumors get started.

Reverent-One
2011-01-09, 06:41 PM
I note two things. First, that people tend to overstate the differences between 3.0 and 3.5; in fact, the latter was marketed as a backwards compatible update, and it's really not difficult to mix 3.0 and 3.5 material in the same campaign. For that matter, 2E is pretty well compatible with 1E as a whole. So the point is that "it is backwards compatible" is not a difference between HOFK and 3.5: it is a similarity between the two.


Except that 3.5 material completely replaced the related 3e material, as opposed to working alongside it.

Though as for the list of things that have changed since 4e came out, if anyone wants to start incrementing the edition number based on all of that, I've always said I wouldn't disagree with that mentality. That said, using the terms 4.4, 4.5, or whatever solely for the Essentials line is overreacting to a book subtitle.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-09, 06:51 PM
How many erratas were there for 4th edition?

MeeposFire
2011-01-09, 11:37 PM
How many erratas were there for 4th edition?

Technically none as they are called updates:smalltongue: (though most people call it errata anyway).

Now in terms of updates 4e has been updated many times as it is continuous. Every few months they update the update document for all sorts of things ranging from changing the way stealth works to just adding the weapon keyword to a power that was obviously supposed to have it.

They have taken a continuous approach to updates so you do not need an official revised .5 edition. This has benefits and drawbacks such as your books being left in the dust and never finding a new version that is official (like 3.5).

Essentials is closer to the later splat books for 3.5 as it adds new systems to the game but did not fundamentally change the whole game system.

You can make a case for the constant updates putting it at a revised edition but not essentials (outside of the Rules Compendium).

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 03:20 AM
How many erratas were there for 4th edition?
On average, about one every two months. However, there's also extra errata that didn't follow that cycle, such as the 4.4 Upgrade Document, and some stealth errata (i.e. things that are different in later rulebooks but not documented as such in the update document). There used to be a revision log in the document, but it has been cut from more recent versions.



Now in terms of updates 4e has been updated many times as it is continuous. Every few months they update the update document for all sorts of things
That's pretty similar to how the 3E updates (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) used to work, though.

Cadian 9th
2011-01-10, 03:33 AM
Unlike 3.X, WotC decided to "patch" 4E through the course of its life. Thanks to Dungeons & Dragons Insider ("DDI") and the Character Builder ("CB") this has been pretty smooth overall.
*snip*

Two core mechanics - Stealth and Skill Challenges - were completely re-written just months after release. Additionally the structure of "default DCs" and damage ("DMG 42") has been revised several times.


Some skills were merged, some abolished entirely, some types of monster abolished entirely, DR revised, and so on, in 3.5.

In Essentials, there's one or two things that seem to fit.

Changing some epic and paragon feats to tierless feats that can be taken at any level, for example.

I'm off to get this errata. I own the 4e PHB, and initially enjoyed it until I found the 3.5 PHB - that was when I stopped with 4e. But this errata sounds like it's opened up a lot of options and added a bit more variety to what you can do. For once, I am optimistic about a 4e character.


Sure, but unlike 3.X Diplomacy they actually fixed it :smallamused:

My Binder Marshal bound to Naberius with a crown of diplomacy +10 begs to differ. I now can neutralize enemies, no save, without fail as a standard action, at any range where the target can hear me. :smallwink:

I would really like to see some 3.5. stuff from WotC, to be honest. But for now, I'm off to see this errata and updates to see if 4e is worth a second look.

MeeposFire
2011-01-10, 03:43 AM
On average, about one every two months. However, there's also extra errata that didn't follow that cycle, such as the 4.4 Upgrade Document, and some stealth errata (i.e. things that are different in later rulebooks but not documented as such in the update document). There used to be a revision log in the document, but it has been cut from more recent versions.


That's pretty similar to how the 3E updates (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) used to work, though.

Sort of, though back then they would update the book once for glaring errors and then let it sit for a long time with no changes. Hence why they would write errata in future books like the PHB2. In 4e something could be changed now and then it might be changed again later if it is found to be a problem again. That is not to say all the changes have been good. I despise the new free action attack rule. I understand what they are trying to prevent but this was like taking a sledge hammer to a job requiring a small mallet. Especially when combined with the new update saying all powers are either utilities or attacks which means the scout ranger cannot use their encounter attack power with their striker feature as they are both free actions.:smallannoyed:

Person_Man
2011-01-10, 10:05 AM
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.


Can you explain these? One of the things I like the most about 4E is that there was a strict "action economy" (everyone gets the same limited number of attacks/actions every round, and they generally resolve quickly) and balanced resource conservation (daily powers and healing surges run out, but encounter and at-will powers don't). Did they change this fundamentally, and if so how?

Also, I apparently need to pay attention to a 4E discussion more then once every 6 months...

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-10, 10:12 AM
My Binder Marshal bound to Naberius with a crown of diplomacy +10 begs to differ. I now can neutralize enemies, no save, without fail as a standard action, at any range where the target can hear me. :smallwink:
There are Binder Marhsals in 4th Edition? :smallconfused:

...my point is that those sort of shenanigans likely weren't how 3.X intended to handle the Diplomacy skill - or at the very least, it looks like a broken mechanic. Yet WotC never published a fix that made Diplomacy work "properly;" in 4E these sorts of exploits were eventually addressed by Errata that made the game, as a whole, work better.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 10:15 AM
Can you explain these?
As you say, 4E has a strict action economy. It also works on Exception Based Design; in other words, it has numerous powers, feats, or items that explicitly change this action economy. Predictably, these are very strong and tend towards being overpowered. So basically, WOTC nuked or nerfed most of them. On the one hand, that's a good thing for game balance. On the other hand, it's a clear discovery of the problems with EBD.

For example, using the first few books with no errata, it's possible to end up with a character that gets half a dozen extra attacks on a crit, each of which spawns more extra attacks on a crit, and have a crit range of 18-20. It took WOTC awhile to figure out that printing one power/feat/item that gives a free attack on a crit is fine, but that printing five of them (that all stack) leads to ridiculous results.

For some reason, the one thing they haven't figured out yet is how to write good stacking rules. Pretty much all of the balance issues with 4E boil down to a problem with the stacking rules.

Yakk
2011-01-10, 11:10 AM
Can you explain these? One of the things I like the most about 4E is that there was a strict "action economy" (everyone gets the same limited number of attacks/actions every round, and they generally resolve quickly) and balanced resource conservation (daily powers and healing surges run out, but encounter and at-will powers don't). Did they change this fundamentally, and if so how?

Also, I apparently need to pay attention to a 4E discussion more then once every 6 months...
# Make extra attacks.
-- The rules for free actions where changed. Now you are only allow to make one free action attack per round. The issue was that one of the ways to have your damage diverge in paragon/epic was to stack a bunch of triggered free attack actions that have a chance to go off when you make an attack, then make lots of attacks, and boost your static damage modifier.

As an example, boost your crit range to 18-20, get double-rolls on each attack, and pick up the barbarian "hurricane of blades" attack power (for 4 attacks in a standard action).

Add in a paragon path feature that grants a free attack on a crit, a feat that grants a free attack on a crit, and an item that grants a free attack on a crit. And suppose you get a 4th source...

Now, each attack has a 27.75% chance of critting. Each crit grants 4 attacks. So each attack grants an average of 1.11 attacks.

Your average number of attacks now diverge to an average of infinite attacks per round.

The odds that this cascade triggers off the initial 4 attacks is 72.8%. It can fizzle out, but...

Even before this level of abuse, it generates balance-dominating amounts of damage. So they changed it so you get at most 1 free attack per turn.

# Recover daily powers.
They changed some epic destinies and the like so that they don't allow for easy daily power recovery.

# Heal people without surges.
Powers that are usable on a non-daily basis that heal without surges where systematically removed, especially ones that don't require an attack roll (as in 4e, for an attack based power's riders to go off, you need to have attacked a hostile worthy opponent).

As an example, the swordmage unicorn's touch encounter utility power that heals (con mod) damage as a minor action. The cheese was to spam it out of combat.

---

Note that they want to write good stacking rules that don't burden people who aren't abusing them with issues.

I suspect doing away with immediate actions would be a good first step. Then add in per-round usage (as opposed to at-will), and possibly add in "boost" type actions for which you can use only one per trigger.

Then a free attack feat would grant a power like:
Critical Rend + Per-Round, Boost
Trigger: You score a critical hit with your main weapon
Effect: Make a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon

This (A) only allows one free attack off of the trigger (the critical hit), (B) doesn't let you cascade itself more than once per round.

Note that this isn't stacking per say. But it sort of is.

Person_Man
2011-01-10, 11:47 AM
Oh, ok. So they changed the rules to more strongly enforce action economy and balanced resources. That's a good thing, given the design philosophy of the game.

I was under the impression that there was a lot of codex creep (which is common in all games, including 3.X D&D), and that characters using more recent material laugh at enemies from the first Monster Manual. Is that not the case?

Also, in my ideal 5E game design, there would be no passive, always on bonuses or abilities except for a single "Stance" mechanic, and no Free Actions. Everything else would take either an Immediate, Move, Standard, or Full Round Action. That way you could get away from the constant clutter of stacking modifiers and abusing unintended consequences, and focus on strategy and teamwork (which 4E generally does better then 3.5, although they often do it at the expense of making things interesting).

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-10, 11:59 AM
I was under the impression that there was a lot of codex creep (which is common in all games, including 3.X D&D), and that characters using more recent material laugh at enemies from the first Monster Manual. Is that not the case?
Eh. I think it's more that they fixed Monster design in later MMs than a matter of Codex Creep. MM1 Monsters just turn out to not work as well in their intended roles as Monsters built around the revised guidelines used in MM3 monsters. This is particularly true for Solos, BTW.

Personally, I just use the Monster Builder to generate monsters with appropriate numerical stats - and then custom design powers to make Encounters work the way I want them to. It's a bit of extra work, but Monster Builder is a pretty slick program.


Also, in my ideal 5E game design, there would be no passive, always on bonuses or abilities except for a single "Stance" mechanic. Everything else would take either an Immediate, Move, Standard, or Full Round Action. That way you could get away from the constant clutter of stacking modifiers and abusing unintended consequences, and focus on strategy and teamwork (which 4E generally does better then 3.5, although they often do it at the expense of making things interesting).
So... Essentials? :smalltongue:

Yakk
2011-01-10, 12:00 PM
Higher level MM1 monsters where not dangerous enough to PHB1 players.

If you built characters who where weak enough to be endangered by the recommended budget of higher level MM1 monsters, fights took forever.

If you built more optimal characters, higher level MM1 monsters where pushovers.

They revamped how monsters are built. Solo monsters lost their 25% HP bump at paragon and their +2 to all defences (on average), and got significant offensive boosts (especially when bloodied to generate a different combat pace than the normal one). Solos gained ways to deal with "action denial" as the game matured. Elites gained these changes to a lesser extent.

Monsters in general had their damage output increased in the MM3/MV era, with the advised damage expressions in DMG1 replaced with higher ones in errata (and the essentials books). In my opinion, it still isn't high enough -- but it is better.

(In theory, you can work out how long a fight "should" take by looking at the damage output of a level X monster, and modeling the per-encounter healing & action denial resources of a level X player. The fight should be long enough that the player is at least somewhat threatened. So higher monster damage output implies faster fights. At epic, the implied fight length is still too long. At launch, the implied fight length was ridiculous.)

... or, in short, at launch a half-optimal high level 4e character laughed at the damage output of high level 4e monsters.

Low level monsters have not been changed nearly as much. There was a slight bump up in offense, and down in defence. Some roles that didn't work as well as they hoped where tweaked (Brute accuracy was boosted, damage tweaked, Soldier damage output was relatively moderated compared to other roles, etc).

Oh, and quite possibly the nastiest level 1 monster in the game is from MM1:
Fire Beetle (http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/monster.aspx?id=206)!

(The "more scary than Fire Beetle" level 1 monsters in MM1 where errata'd down. Throw 5 Fire Beetles at a party of 5 in a tight spot, and you could easily TPK the party before they act...)

DeltaEmil
2011-01-10, 12:08 PM
If there were erratas almost every two months, and each errata is worth a 0.1, then considering that D&D 4th edition has been running for two years now, we'd be at D&D 5.2. Let's use Kurald Galain's idea that essential is worth 0.4, then we're already playing D&D 5.6.

Ha. WotC has played the wools over our eyes. Sneaky guys.

Person_Man
2011-01-10, 12:21 PM
So... Essentials? :smalltongue:

Maybe. But that assumes that the Powers are actually fun and interesting, and each character gets enough of them that they don't use the same powers in the same order every combat. Otherwise it's only good for a few games before you get bored. It also assumes I could find someone to play an Essentials game. Right now my friends and the gaming community in general is very splintered, and there's no Essentials group in my area that I'm aware of.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 12:22 PM
I was under the impression that there was a lot of codex creep (which is common in all games, including 3.X D&D), and that characters using more recent material laugh at enemies from the first Monster Manual. Is that not the case?
Well, it's a combination of things, but power creep is definitely one of them. For example, PHB2 introduced the "expertise" feats which boil down to giving epic-level characters a +3 to hit. And after that, epic monsters became to easy. Gee, who would have seen that one coming? :smallbiggrin:


Maybe. But that assumes that the Powers are actually fun and interesting, and each character gets enough of them that they don't use the same powers in the same order every combat.
Whoo, something tells me you're not going to like HOFK, then. The new builds of the fighter and rogue primarily rely on using a melee basic attack every single round of every single combat. They don't have daily powers, and their single encounter power is something like "add +X damage to an attack you just hit with" that you can use multiple times per encounter at higher levels.

Jaidu
2011-01-10, 12:25 PM
Oh, and quite possibly the nastiest level 1 monster in the game is from MM1:
Fire Beetle (http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/monster.aspx?id=206)!

(The "more scary than Fire Beetle" level 1 monsters in MM1 where errata'd down. Throw 5 Fire Beetles at a party of 5 in a tight spot, and you could easily TPK the party before they act...)

Move on to level 2 and you have pre-errata Needlefang Drake Swarms. I've seen them tear up parties without burst/blast characters very quickly.

As for Essentials, I've seen quite a few groups with mixed Essentials and Non-Essentials classes, and players who optimize well will optimize either one, but players who optimize poorly are almost always better off with Essentials characters.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 12:34 PM
Whoo, something tells me you're not going to like HOFK, then. The new builds of the fighter and rogue primarily rely on using a melee basic attack every single round of every single combat. They don't have daily powers, and their single encounter power is something like "add +X damage to an attack you just hit with" that you can use multiple times per encounter at higher levels.

However, their powers modify their basic attacks to be much like normal at-will powers, and they get more of these at-will stances/tricks then a non-essentials fighter or rogue gets at-will powers.

Person_Man
2011-01-10, 01:36 PM
Whoo, something tells me you're not going to like HOFK, then. The new builds of the fighter and rogue primarily rely on using a melee basic attack every single round of every single combat. They don't have daily powers, and their single encounter power is something like "add +X damage to an attack you just hit with" that you can use multiple times per encounter at higher levels.

That's odd. The single most boring aspect of 3.X was that most non-full caster melee and skill monkey builds spent 90% of their time in combat doing the exact same thing over and over again. This was later remedied by the introduction of the Psychic Warrior, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Incarnate, Totemist, Binder, Factotum, etc. I was hoping that in the transition from 4.4E -> 5E WotC would take the structure of 4E and basically just double the number of Powers everyone got, do more to differentiate them and make them interesting, and remove passive Feats (+X to Whatever). But this seems like a big step in the opposite direction.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 01:42 PM
That's odd. The single most boring aspect of 3.X was that most non-full caster melee and skill monkey builds spent 90% of their time in combat doing the exact same thing over and over again. This was later remedied by the introduction of the Psychic Warrior, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Incarnate, Totemist, Binder, Factotum, etc. I was hoping that in the transition from 4.4E -> 5E WotC would take the structure of 4E and basically just double the number of Powers everyone got, do more to differentiate them and make them interesting, and remove passive Feats (+X to Whatever). But this seems like a big step in the opposite direction.

Like I said, those classes aren't just making basic attacks, they're making basic attacks with varying effects, which make them similar to powers from other classes, added on based on their stances (for fighters) or tricks (for rogues). Both stances and tricks are at-will, and while I forget the exact number of each those builds get, they do get a number of them, with more and more choices as they level up.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-10, 01:49 PM
The often-mentioned page 42 in the Dungeon Master's Guide-book can alternatively help to spice up combat routine, if you want to do more than basic attacks. Appearently, some groups only use that page to do attacks and forego using that what is written on their character sheet, although I think that needs a lot of stuff on the terrain and a lot of imagination to run this fluidly. But if it works, it works...

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 01:50 PM
That's odd. The single most boring aspect of 3.X was that most non-full caster melee and skill monkey builds spent 90% of their time in combat doing the exact same thing over and over again.
Yes. But it turns out that some players like this, in part because it requires less rules mastery to play that way. So WOTC is now hoping to gain that audience as customers. Likewise, the feats printed in 4.4 are markedly simpler than those in the various PHBs.

I mean, the only reason why higher level characters in 4E lose their lower level powers is because they get too many options in combat otherwise, and this would be harder to balance, and also slow down gameplay too much.

MeeposFire
2011-01-10, 04:08 PM
Small nitpick the new free action rule is 1 free action attack per turn-not round. They are very different. You get only one immediate action per round-you get one opportunity action per turn.

And I hate the implementation of this rule. Could have been done so much better.

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-10, 04:10 PM
If there were erratas almost every two months, and each errata is worth a 0.1, then considering that D&D 4th edition has been running for two years now, we'd be at D&D 5.2. Let's use Kurald Galain's idea that essential is worth 0.4, then we're already playing D&D 5.6.

Ha. WotC has played the wools over our eyes. Sneaky guys.

Not if you're doing it software style. It isn't just a scale of 1-10.
4.3.13 would be perfectly valid. 4.4.402 also valid. It would only hit 4.5 when the (essentials handbook 2) or next major revision/addition was released, and only hit 5.0 when they released the legitimate and admitted next edition.

That's the theory, anyway. Might be interesting to work out what number it would legitimately be, by now. Perhaps too much like work, though.

DeltaEmil
2011-01-10, 04:15 PM
In that case, is there an official way to number the current D&D-edition by Wizards of the Coast? Are we now playing D&D 4.3.13, 4.4.402, or 5.6, considering that these numbers are so far arbitrarily decided?

Although if it were D&D 5.6, that would be smirkingly funny. :smallcool:

Sipex
2011-01-10, 04:24 PM
Since this isn't software, no, there isn't. Wizards kind of labels it how they wish.

Following normal software rules though we'd be on something crazy like 4.18.???

4 is the version.
18 is each release after. This includes enhancements (new books) and bug fixes (erratas).
??? would be the number of drafts wizards had to make of the 18th release.

MeeposFire
2011-01-10, 04:26 PM
No there is no way. 3.5 was called that because WotC called it that. If you wanted to actually track the revisions as they came in 3.5 you would not come to that number (though I have no idea what it would be). When it comes to this stuff the company just decides to call it whatever they want.

The biggest part of this confusion is that after WotC took over edition changes are clear. 2e-3e and 3e-4e are very clear. 1e-2e is about as different as 3e-3.5 which was a revision not an edition change. So how do you compute this seeing this?

DeltaEmil
2011-01-10, 04:31 PM
Since this isn't software, no, there isn't. Wizards kind of labels it how they wish.

Following normal software rules though we'd be on something crazy like 4.18.???

4 is the version.
18 is each release after. This includes enhancements (new books) and bug fixes (erratas).
??? would be the number of drafts wizards had to make of the 18th release. Fair enough. Then we're so far at D&D 4.18, and should expect 4.19 next month.

At least by our arbitrary numbering system.

Sipex
2011-01-10, 04:32 PM
I'm not even saying 4.18 is correct (which it's not, Wizards didn't call it that), I didn't actually count the seperate erratas and book releases, I just picked a number out of thin air.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 04:43 PM
No there is no way. 3.5 was called that because WotC called it that.
And so? Lots of things in life are called different names than what their owner or creator gives them.

So, a reasonable version numbering would be the following, taking a major number for each edition, minor for each large addition or change to the main ruleset, and "build" for each splat or errata document.
4.0 = PHB
4.1 = PHB2
4.2 = PHB3
4.3 = Redbox
4.4 = HOFL
4.4.1 = October errata
4.4.2 = Prepare-for-HOFK errata
4.4.3 = HOFK
4.4.4 = December errata (expected in january)
4.4.5 = HOS (expected in march)

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-01-10, 04:54 PM
And so? Lots of things in life are called different names than what their owner or creator gives them.

So, a reasonable version numbering would be the following, taking a major number for each edition, minor for each large addition or change to the main ruleset, and "build" for each splat or errata document.
4.0 = PHB
4.1 = PHB2
4.2 = PHB3
4.3 = Redbox
4.4 = HOFL
4.4.1 = October errata
4.4.2 = Prepare-for-HOFK errata
4.4.3 = HOFK
4.4.4 = December errata (expected in january)
4.4.5 = HOS (expected in march)
First off, did the Red Box actually change anything? I thought it just repackaged the game. That would bump everything down to 4.3, then.

Second off, that's a player-centric numbering, and thus only partially accurate. A wholly accurate numbering should include the MM2, MM3, AV1, AV2, and DMG2, all of which revised the game as much as the PHB2 and PHB3 did. Which pushes it far past 4.4, in that case.

Personally, I'd number things like the PHB2, MM2, etc. as 4.0.1, 4.0.2, etc., reserving the first decimal increment for sizeable changes, which would leave Essentials at 4.1.??, using another digit for errata.

Alternately, we could just number it 4e.e and leave it at that, because it's simpler. :smallsmile:

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 05:09 PM
First off, did the Red Box actually change anything?
Ironically yes. It is a step in between the older rules and HOFL, but fully compatible with neither.


A wholly accurate numbering should include the MM2, MM3, AV1, AV2, and DMG2,
That depends on your point of view. I by no means claim that my numbering is the True Accurate One (although I do find your allegedly-simpler abbreviation confusing). In my opinion none of the five books in your list made any major changes to the rules of the game; they just list additional options (in the monster and item books) and give a lot of suggestions and ideas but no actual rules (in the DMG2). YMMV.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-01-10, 05:47 PM
That depends on your point of view. I by no means claim that my numbering is the True Accurate One (although I do find your allegedly-simpler abbreviation confusing). In my opinion none of the five books in your list made any major changes to the rules of the game; they just list additional options (in the monster and item books) and give a lot of suggestions and ideas but no actual rules (in the DMG2). YMMV.
Yeah....

See, "additional options" are the only things you really get in the PHBs, too. It's just additional options on the DM's side, rather than the player's.

So if you nix those too...we're only at 4.2 by your numbering scheme.

Since, though, "4.4" and similar names aren't really motivated by a "realistic" sense but rather an analogy sense, I favor something that conveys the meaning of an edition that isn't the massive step of 3.5, but that isn't the same as the original. Thus 4e.e, which wasn't my idea.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-10, 06:01 PM
I favor something that conveys the meaning of an edition that isn't the massive step of 3.5, but that isn't the same as the original.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, people both overstate the difference between 3.0 and 3.5, and understate the difference between 4E as first printed, and 4E as it is now. So far, no evidence has been provided for the claim that the former is somehow more "massive" than the latter.

MeeposFire
2011-01-10, 06:03 PM
People try to provide evidence but we cannot agree on the value of the differences. It is a very subjective discussion as for example how big of a difference is the DR change in 3.5? Some say it is a big change others say it is actually rather small.

Sipex
2011-01-11, 09:26 AM
This is why you can only have it stated that every book release is of equal numbered increment or that none of them are. We cannot be the judges of what constitutes as an update to the system just as a customer cannot be the judge of what patches constitute the need for a software version update (the answer is all of them btw).

Yakk
2011-01-11, 10:46 AM
That's odd. The single most boring aspect of 3.X was that most non-full caster melee and skill monkey builds spent 90% of their time in combat doing the exact same thing over and over again. This was later remedied by the introduction of the Psychic Warrior, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Incarnate, Totemist, Binder, Factotum, etc. I was hoping that in the transition from 4.4E -> 5E WotC would take the structure of 4E and basically just double the number of Powers everyone got, do more to differentiate them and make them interesting, and remove passive Feats (+X to Whatever). But this seems like a big step in the opposite direction.
Yes, they essentials-style martial classes have a simpler power structure. This is more boring to many people. To other people it is less annoying.

The essentials-style martial characters happen to be playable in a group with the non-essentials style martial characters -- so nothing was lost.

---

It isn't quite as simple as basic attack.

Each essentials style martial character has a few mechanics. First, they have a "non-attack" at-will boost actions. Fighters have stances, Rogues have move tricks. Each of these boost actions causes a boost to your basic attacks.

Fighter at-will stances are a minor action, only one can be up, and they are about as varied in their impact as non-essential fighter at-will attack powers are. There is a pseudo-cleave, a pseudo-tide-of-iron, etc.

Rogue tricks are move actions. They give them some mobility options (like monks do) without it being as mechanically complex. Their next attack then gets a boost, similar to an at-will attack.

They still have class features -- some streamlined (Knight defender aura is a much less stateful version of combat superiority). Striker damage mechanics still exist.

Encounter powers are, for the most part, seriously stripped down to damage boosts. The interesting thing here is that they are all post-hit triggers. This supports my theory that the essentials classes where designed around a certain type of player I've played with.

This is the guy who always says "I attack", then rolls dice to attack. After he rolls and picks a target he wants to pick a power. This isn't because he wants to cheat -- it is because he wants to do one thing at a time.

An essentials style class would work wonders for this player. The stance for fighters is on, and stays on until you turn it off -- so if you forget to change stance, it isn't a problem. The rogue trick is tied to how you move -- so if you don't move, clearly you aren't tricking, and if you move, your trick has been picked.

When you attack, you always just pick a target and roll a d20.

After you evaluate that, you can make a separate decision to use an encounter power to boost the effect, instead of having to make the decision first, then roll dice. At any one point, you make a single decision, and these decisions do not have to be nearly as "forward thinking".

Even the removal of hunter's quarry -- the minor action whose only purpose was to add a boost to your next attack. He often forgets to say he's doing it, he even picked a paragon path that lets him quarry the entire field of opponents so it doesn't matter when he forgets.

With the essentials ranger, their striker damage mechanic goes off after they attack. The choice/action is pushed back to when you use it.

You could build classes that always do this. Imagine encounter powers that are all triggered after a hit -- so a fighter power that gives you a secondary attack vs fort that deals extra damage and causes an additional rider (the secondary attack is so that landing it isn't guaranteed, giving more variability to fights.)

Person_Man
2011-01-11, 12:06 PM
You could build classes that always do this. Imagine encounter powers that are all triggered after a hit -- so a fighter power that gives you a secondary attack vs fort that deals extra damage and causes an additional rider (the secondary attack is so that landing it isn't guaranteed, giving more variability to fights.)

That's a thoughtful and interesting analysis. It makes a lot of sense to have several base classes with mechanics designed for new players or players with really bad memories. There's almost always 1-2 of them in my games as well.

But ideally, they should have thought about that while they were designing 4E, and not a year after the fact. It's odd and confusing to have 3 different versions of the same game (4E, 4E with DDI, Essentials). It just further fractures an already divisive group of gamers. It reminds me of the last days of TSR, where they had 11ish semi-incompatible game settings (Al-Qadim, Birthright, Council of Wyrms, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, Mystara, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and Spelljammer).

It's also no excuse for boring and/or repetitive Powers and Feats. Although that's obviously a matter of taste.

Reverent-One
2011-01-11, 12:49 PM
But ideally, they should have thought about that while they were designing 4E, and not a year after the fact. It's odd and confusing to have 3 different versions of the same game (4E, 4E with DDI, Essentials). It just further fractures an already divisive group of gamers. It reminds me of the last days of TSR, where they had 11ish semi-incompatible game settings (Al-Qadim, Birthright, Council of Wyrms, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, Mystara, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and Spelljammer).


Why do you consider it to be 3 versions of the same game? And even more so, why distinguish between 4e and 4e with DDI?

Yakk
2011-01-12, 11:40 AM
But ideally, they should have thought about that while they were designing 4E, and not a year after the fact. It's odd and confusing to have 3 different versions of the same game (4E, 4E with DDI, Essentials).
Hmm? Are you talking about "4E with no errata", "4E with errata", "essentials-only games with ... chickens?"

I'm confused.

Note that the Fighter(Slayer) can be played in a group with a Fighter(Weaponmaster) (the new name for the PHB1 fighter).

4e is exception based design. While there is a stream of errata, that can be used independently (or not) of the new builds in essentials. The essential style builds (or classes that say "can use feats from this other class" if you don't like the name build for whatever reason) are just another type of exception.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-12, 11:51 AM
Note that the Fighter(Slayer) can be played in a group with a Fighter(Weaponmaster) (the new name for the PHB1 fighter).
Sure, and you can also play a Slaad Witchalok. The question is, will the DM let you?

On the one hand, WOTC official events (such as DDE) tend to require that you build something with only the latest books - so no Weaponmaster for you. On the other hand, many DMs don't allow options from sources they don't have; so with a DM who works from the offline character builder, you can't use a Slayer.

It's in WOTC's best interest to promote 4.4-only campaigns and let the earlier books go out of stock, because they'll sell more material that way.

Tiki Snakes
2011-01-12, 11:56 AM
Sure, and you can also play a Slaad Witchalok. The question is, will the DM let you?

On the one hand, WOTC official events (such as DDE) tend to require that you build something with only the latest books - so no Weaponmaster for you. On the other hand, many DMs don't allow options from sources they don't have; so with a DM who works from the offline character builder, you can't use a Slayer.

It's in WOTC's best interest to promote 4.4-only campaigns and let the earlier books go out of stock, because they'll sell more material that way.

Mild Tangent - I really, really want the rest of the witchalok class. It was such a good april fools preview, but I want the full thing!

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-12, 11:58 AM
Sure, and you can also play a Slaad Witchalok. The question is, will the DM let you?
I don't see why not. They seem perfectly balanced (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Preview_Witchalok.pdf) :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2011-01-12, 12:09 PM
I don't see why not. They seem perfectly balanced (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Preview_Witchalok.pdf) :smalltongue:

Sure, but the Turqoise Bicycle power is greenly overpowered.

Reverent-One
2011-01-12, 12:16 PM
Sure, and you can also play a Slaad Witchalok. The question is, will the DM let you?

And that's a matter of houserules, not RAW. So no, that's not really the question.

Yakk
2011-01-12, 01:09 PM
Sure, and you can also play a Slaad Witchalok. The question is, will the DM let you?
Huh? Will the DM let you play anything? Are you claiming a massive systematic conspiracy to split games up?

On the one hand, WOTC official events (such as DDE) tend to require that you build something with only the latest books - so no Weaponmaster for you.
So they had a Dark Sun promo thing, and then they had a DDE promo thing. I see the conspiracy.

On the other hand, many DMs don't allow options from sources they don't have; so with a DM who works from the offline character builder, you can't use a Slayer.
And if the DM doesn't like the letter W, you won't be able to play Wizards, Warlocks and Warlords. WotC's wystematic use of the letter W in class names has led to a splitting of the D&D play space between pro-W and anti-W factions.

Quick, to the barricades.

But seriously, really? I suppose this hobby is full of people who like arbitrary rules. So any kind of non-uniformity in the hobby leads to people drawing lines in the sand -- this shall not pass.

Not my problem, fortunately. :)

Kurald Galain
2011-01-12, 01:23 PM
Huh? Will the DM let you play anything? Are you claiming a massive systematic conspiracy to split games up?
I know sarcasm is fun, but in this case it does suggest you're missing the point.

Yakk
2011-01-12, 02:48 PM
Yes. As far as I can tell, you are presuming DM-rules-incompatibility where the DM picks and chooses what parts of the current set of 4e rules and books the DM wants to use.

The splits you are mentioning seem to be "some official WotC events that promote new product iteration are running only on the new product iteration", and "the easy to pirate offline character builder ruleset produces a playable game of D&D". These mostly line up, but not totally. And you are talking about DMs playing with one set, or the other, as if it is systematic.

I've played with as many people who ban all classes starting with W as I have with either of the above. I've been invited to more games that where "PHB 123 only" than either of the above. In effect, any subset of 4e that is playable seems to generate the exact same effect.

Hence "I hate W" -- it is a playable subset of 4e. No Warlocks, Wardens, Warforged, Wizards or Warlords. And I was so hoping to play War^3, the Warforged Warlock|Warlord (multiclass Battlemind, for extra fightbrain).

Reverent-One
2011-01-12, 03:06 PM
And I was so hoping to play War^3, the Warforged Warlock|Warlord (multiclass Battlemind, for extra fightbrain).

And such a character would, of course, use a Warhammer, correct? :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2011-01-12, 04:04 PM
Yes. As far as I can tell, you are presuming DM-rules-incompatibility where the DM picks and chooses what parts of the current set of 4e rules and books the DM wants to use.
The point is that "book X and Y can be played together at the same table" is a red herring.

In 3E there are many debates on whether campaigns are best played core-only, or all WOTC books, or all except Tome of Battle, or all plus Dragon Magazine. All of these are pretty common suggestions. PM states he finds it "odd and confusing" that such debates now also apply to 4E.

Now "odd and confusing" is a matter of opinion. On the other hand, that these debates exist (and are common) is a matter of fact. This means that it's really not true that the evolution of 4E is oh so different because "all books can be played together". They technically can, but in practice they're often not.

MeeposFire
2011-01-12, 04:19 PM
The point is that "book X and Y can be played together at the same table" is a red herring.

In 3E there are many debates on whether campaigns are best played core-only, or all WOTC books, or all except Tome of Battle, or all plus Dragon Magazine. All of these are pretty common suggestions. PM states he finds it "odd and confusing" that such debates now also apply to 4E.

Now "odd and confusing" is a matter of opinion. On the other hand, that these debates exist (and are common) is a matter of fact. This means that it's really not true that the evolution of 4E is oh so different because "all books can be played together". They technically can, but in practice they're often not.

Your statement has one flaw in it and that is the official rule terminology. In 3e core was only a certain few books which by definition relegates other books into lesser territory. In 4e everything is core. All of it. So while an individual DM can of course say no to anything the game will say "that is fine just realize you are removing a core option". That is a very big difference in philosophy that you cannot just throw out in this sort of discussion.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-12, 04:40 PM
In 4e everything is core. All of it. So while an individual DM can of course say no to anything the game will say "that is fine just realize you are removing a core option".
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what WOTC intended when they changed the meaning of the word "core" for the new edition - but I'm also pretty sure that that's not how it works in practice.

For example, it's very common to find campaigns that allow only PHB1, or only the books the DM owns, or everything except Dragon magazine.

But this is about pragmatism; people don't pay attention to WOTC's definitions, but they do pay attention to their tools, i.e. the character builder. For everyone who has access to the CB, the logical set of options is "everything in the CB" (which boils down to all books except Dark Sun and 4.4). For the new online CB, I believe the default set of options is 4.4-only.

So overall, I don't believe that "everything WOTC has published" is a common starting point for D&D campaigns, regardless of edition.

MeeposFire
2011-01-12, 05:01 PM
Neither one of us can say how many 4e campaigns block books or even sets of books. I can say that of the many games I know of in my area they all allow every book (though not every option from every book). One big reason is that 4e has made it clear that all books are allowed in a standard game. Now I am sure you can say that your area has groups that do not allow whole book types out of their games but in the end I do not think that either of us has enough evidence to make any real statement hence my first sentence. The only part I can say for sure is that 4e explicitly states that all books are equal and 3e said the opposite. How much significance on individuals does this have is unknown on a large scale but on the game itself it s important.