Dose anybody still play 4.0?

[Maho-Tsukai]

It seems the more and more I look the more and more I find that everybody has moved to 4.4e/neo redbox. I find this rather frustrating since I don't own content for 4.4e and as a result am terribly behind on the times.(I still use a homebrew necromancer class.) However, I don't have the cash to shell out on all the new 4.4 content and as a result am finding my player-base for 4e D&D to be shrinking down to nothing. So, I ask all of you, dose anybody at all play the original 4e still or should I just sell all my non 4.4-content to get some much needed cash to invest in 4.4e?

[Sipex]

Lots of people play 4e without essentials, myself included.

Sounds like you're just having bad luck with local groups.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yeah.

I'm actively restricting my Players from using Essentials stuff in my ongoing 4e game. But then again, I'm slow to embrace change :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Also, if you want all the Essentials stuff, just pony up for a DDI subscription. Split with your group and you can get a year for about $20 per person. (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Subscription.aspx)

[Reverent-One]

It seems the more and more I look the more and more I find that everybody has moved to 4.4e/neo redbox. I find this rather frustrating since I don't own content for 4.4e and as a result am terribly behind on the times.(I still use a homebrew necromancer class.) However, I don't have the cash to shell out on all the new 4.4 content and as a result am finding my player-base for 4e D&D to be shrinking down to nothing. So, I ask all of you, dose anybody at all play the original 4e still or should I just sell all my non 4.4-content to get some much needed cash to invest in 4.4e?

What's preventing you from using Pre-essential's material in any of the groups that have moved on to the material from the essential's line and beyond?

[Sipex]

On the flip side, essentials is supposed to be compatible with base 4e so you should be able to join a 4.4 group and play a 4e class.

Just talk to the DM first to make sure.

[valadil]

No Essentials for us. If somebody found content from it that they wanted I'd allow it. But this is still our first full campaign with 4.0 and we don't see the point in upgrading mid-campaign.

We're also feeling a little held back by Essentials because there's only one DDI account in the group. Most of us are stuck on the offline Character Builder which no longer receives updates. I don't support WotC as a software company, so I don't plan on giving them money once a month to use the new CB and all its updates.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Most likely. I'll just have to get my friends to try it, most likely. As the offical leader/DM/Organizer of my group I've intorduced them to 3.5e first(as it's my favored system and they have ease of acsses to sourcebooks since I have a disgustingly massive collection of 3.5e pdfs included a large library of 3rd party content so I've been able to provide them with quite literally whatever resource they need.) but I still enjoy 4e and I do feel my group would like it due to the fact they all come from a MMO/videogaming background when it comes to RPGs and would like the in-dept combat mechanics.(My group overall prefers combat to RP but dose not totally shun RP either.)

The only issue is I have far less resources to provide them and as a result a they would have to spend some money, and that is what may cause issues. I am lacking acssess to some key things like many of the better feats from later sourcebooks and ALL DDI-exclusive content, like the assassin class. Lucklly what I lack in actual wizards content I make up for in 3rd party content, but I am not sure thats enough to avoid them(and myself.) having to shell out a fair bit of cash due to most of my 3rd party content being very narrow(Mostly related to necromancy as my BIGGEST complaint was a lack of good "dark/necrotic" options for non-strikers and no Necromancer.)

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, I don't like what they're doing with Essentials and I feel like I've bought enough books for one edition already.

[evirus]

Yeah, I don't like what they're doing with Essentials and I feel like I've bought enough books for one edition already.

I'm trying to be openminded with essentials just like I was when 4.0 launched.

In both 4.0 games I'm in (+ the one I run) the material is allowed, but other than the +1 hit feats no one has really gotten anything tremendous out of it and no one has built an essentials character.

[Kylarra]

We have some of the feats out of essentials (lol powercreep), but that's it.

[Mando Knight]

Other than the lolpowercreep from the Essentials math-fix feats, I still dislike the nomenclature people keep coming up with to split 4e before and after the advent of the Essentials.

[Reverent-One]

Other than the lolpowercreep from the Essentials math-fix feats, I still dislike the nomenclature people keep coming up with to split 4e before and after the advent of the Essentials.

Times like this I wish this forum had a "Like" button.

[Tengu_temp]

Essentials combine the lack of options, both in combat and in character building, of AD&D with 4e's generally long and unexciting combat. I appreciate taking a step away from daily powers, but not in this direction! The only new things I like are some feats and items.

[Gralamin]

Essentials combine the lack of options, both in combat and in character building, of AD&D with 4e's generally long and unexciting combat. I appreciate taking a step away from daily powers, but not in this direction! The only new things I like are some feats and items.

Yeah, as a concept, I like Essentials: Take 4e, do something different with it, adjust it play with it, etc. However, it seems to a lot of us that essentials just took the decisions that we least like about 4e, and the decisions we least like about 3.5, and toss them in a blender. This is not an effective way to build a system, and is a huge turn off to people who have seen these mistakes before. (Edit: "We" here being a general pronoun for no one specifically aside from my self, but a general argument that people have agreed with many times)

Honestly, I wish they drop the Essentials class format, and try something new. A Magic of Incarnum for 4e, say, with a completely different class structure, but a good interface for multiclassing and hybriding.

[LikeAD6]

Lots of people play 4e without essentials, myself included.

Sounds like you're just having bad luck with local groups.
I do the same; in my game all sources of original 4e and Essentials are allowed except Dragon magazine, but that stuff is usually too weak for my powerbuilder players anyway.

[MeeposFire]

Other than the lolpowercreep from the Essentials math-fix feats, I still dislike the nomenclature people keep coming up with to split 4e before and after the advent of the Essentials.

Could not agree more. That is the biggest thing driving me away from the boards at WotC (too many idiots over there that make even liking playing a slayer seem like that you are a terrbile person) and over here I only have to deal with a few people making the annoying 4.4 comments. Oddly despite the hate over at the WotC boards from a few overzealous posters I do not recall 4.4 being a term over there. It seems to be concentrated here (and perhaps other boards that I don't frequent of course since I cannot say anything about those boards).

[Lord Ascapelion]

Trufax: Essentials /= 4.5 and it is not a new edition, despite what the haters may claim. The change from 3.0 to 3.5 included hundreds of little updates. While there certainly is errata, it's not really necessary to know about and unless one of your players is cruising for cheese, most likely will not be needed.

Everything from Essentials is compatible with normal 4e and everything from normal 4e is compatible with essentials. You can play each kind of character at the same table and there will be no problems. The only thing that may make a difference is that Essentials added "Flex stats" to many of the more popular races (For example, an elf gets +2 to Dex and can choose from Wisdom or Intelligence for its other +2.) Options for old-style 4e classes is mostly in feats and there are several very good ones.

Don't feel at all like you "need" to get the new Essentials books.

[MeeposFire]

I actually don't mind the idea of saying we are in an effective 4.5 right now but only if you attribute it to the right thing. You could say it is 4.5 by saying the combination of all the updates since the beginning, but you can't blame essentials for that since it is not the cause of over 90% of the updates (and some that it did "cause" were stuff that likely would have happened anyway).

So essentials does not equal 4.5. The updates equaling 4.5 is an interesting conversation. However there is no official 4.5 so using that term really does not mean anything.

[kieza]

I don't think I'm the target demographic for Essentials, because I like the changes 4e introduced. I don't see the point in paying for a complicated addon system that unfixes my fixes.

[Katana_Geldar]

I've heard Wizards staff are calling it 4.5. I only have one Essentials book, the Compendium and that's because it's so easy.

But none of my group are into essentials, we spent a lot of $$$ with vanilla 4E. Thanks Wizards!

[technoextreme]

Everything from Essentials is compatible with normal 4e and everything from normal 4e is compatible with essentials. You can play each kind of character at the same table and there will be no problems. The only thing that may make a difference is that Essentials added "Flex stats" to many of the more popular races (For example, an elf gets +2 to Dex and can choose from Wisdom or Intelligence for its other +2.) Options for old-style 4e classes is mostly in feats and there are several very good ones.

Uhhh.... All races have flex stats and that has nothing to do with Essentials because it started with PH3.


I've heard Wizards staff are calling it 4.5. I only have one Essentials book, the Compendium and that's because it's so easy.

But none of my group are into essentials, we spent a lot of $$$ with vanilla 4E. Thanks Wizards!
You do realize that even vanilla 4E has significantly changed before Essentials ever appeared right?

[Gralamin]

Uhhh.... All races have flex stats and that has nothing to do with Essentials because it started with PH3.

It actually started with the Eberron Player's Guide. The all races flex stats change was finalized in an online article much later on.

[Lord Ascapelion]

Uhhh.... All races have flex stats and that has nothing to do with Essentials because it started with PH3.


And if you read what I wrote, you'll see that what I said was not untrue at all. I never said that flex stats started with essentials nor did I say that no other races had flex stats. I was thinking of retrieving the article, but figured he could find out on his own, later.

[DeltaEmil]

I play 4th edition.
This incorporates the Players Handbook 1, 2, and Heroes of the Fallen Lands, together with the Dungeon Master's Guidebook 1 and 2, and the Monster Manual 1 and 3. I've seen the Monster Vault which incorporates the rules-change for hit points and damage value introduced in Dungeon Master Guidebook 2 and Monster Manual 3, and will try to get it as soon as possible. Monster Vault is the only book that will definitely replace most of the relevant stuff in Monster Manual 1.
I might probably get Monster Manual 2 too, but I'll have to apply the new damage and hit point value by myself, which is the one reason I'm not going to get it that soon.
One of my players also got the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting (ugh, Forgotten Realms), but so far, nobody really seems that interested in either the genasi, drow or the swordmages in there.

[WickerNipple]

I really don't understand the desire to split Essentials up into some sub-category.

I don't have any interest in playing an E-character, but they're completely compatible with all the rest of the game. Simple is good for some folks for a whole mess of reasons and bad for others for a whole mess of others. I'm personally glad there's options for both sides of that fence.

That having been said I hope it's not the direction they stick with forever. But hey.

From my experience of this particular argument it all stems from when the old character builder ended. The old product was better, it's true - but it's just a tool. Some people are allergic to Silverlight. I sympathize: It sucks and I hate that they've bought into that model. But... the data/compendium/etc itself is still a goldmine and is a constantly evolving product.

And -- the character builder has continued to improve. We just got back the text character summary and ritual books. Minor gains: but things people kept asking for. Connectivity still sucks but that's more about the silverlight model than it is about the wizards product.

D&D is a party game. Get your party to chip in the cash: it's less money for a whole year than one person buying all the books. Accept the "upgrade". It's not a big deal ~ nothing in there is going to suddenly ruin an evening of drinking and playing with toy soldiers and pretending to be said lofty heroes of old.

Edit~~And seriously come on: there is no pure 4e. We just went through one of the most hilariously ridiculous edition wars in ages. It still rages on this here forum. Things change ~ you play a game or you don't. We just don't need 4.xxxx @*($&@*($

[Zombimode]

I think a more meaningful spilt in gaming demographic is offline-CB vs. online-CB.

[Yora]

I'm not playing 4e, but what do you actually need a Character Builder for? Can't you make characters on paper?

[Gillric]

I'm not playing 4e, but what do you actually need a Character Builder for? Can't you make characters on paper?

Yes, you can still make characters on paper. The character builder is simply a single location to find all of your options for feats and powers with the newest errata included barring any errors that do crop up.

[M.c.P]

Its more a very nice option that, on a certain scale, is somewhat cheaper than buying the books, and always a bunch more convenient. Options are cool for a certain kind of player, and a DDI subscription is necessary for current Dragon Magazine content anyway.

On paper, if you wanted to choose from all the current Cleric options, you'd have the PHB, Divine Power, and Heroes of Shadow out, flipping through each of them when you picked up a power or feat. Add the other two player handbooks and both Heroes of the Adjective Place books if you want full feat selection options.

That said, working off one Player's Handbook, (or two books, in the case of the Blank Power supplements) works just fine. You won't make an unusably bad character, you'll be just fine alongside other players, you'll have cool things you can do. You'll save on printer ink as well, which is a pretty good plus.

[Mando Knight]

I'm not playing 4e, but what do you actually need a Character Builder for? Can't you make characters on paper?

You can also make BattleMechs on paper, but everyone I know uses Skunkwerks. Same reason: it brings everything together and makes the whole process easier. Faster. Near-automatic.

[Indon]

I'm not playing 4e, but what do you actually need a Character Builder for? Can't you make characters on paper?

The Character Builder gives you access to all the mechanics released in a bunch of books that, frankly, a lot of people don't want to buy considering what they'd get from it.

[Daftendirekt]

NWe're also feeling a little held back by Essentials because there's only one DDI account in the group. Most of us are stuck on the offline Character Builder which no longer receives updates. I don't support WotC as a software company, so I don't plan on giving them money once a month to use the new CB and all its updates.

You know, even with the offline character builder, you could install it on like 4 or 5 PCs with that account. And with the online one, why not all use that one? Our group of 4 all uses the one account for the character builder, and only occasionally have problems with 2 of us trying to use it at once. It also adds the convenience of all characters being in the same spot for the DMs perusal.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You know, even with the offline character builder, you could install it on like 4 or 5 PCs with that account. And with the online one, why not all use that one? Our group of 4 all uses the one account for the character builder, and only occasionally have problems with 2 of us trying to use it at once. It also adds the convenience of all characters being in the same spot for the DMs perusal.
One problem is that there is a cap on the total number of characters that Silverlight CB can save at a time. It's a fairly high (don't remember the exact number), but if you like saving old character builds or experimenting with other builds, you can hit it.

Aside from that, Silverlight is still terrible. Ugh. I actually just use the Classic CB I have installed on my computer for everything these days even though I still have a 1-year DDI subscription running. My Players have entirely switched over to Sliverlight CB, but that's largely because they're Mac/Linux users.

[Daftendirekt]

Fortunately, you can export characters to your computer and save the files there if a character is currently being used. Also, pretty sure at one point there were at least 12 random builds up on my friend's account. I really doubt your group would have that many going at once.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Fortunately, you can export characters to your computer and save the files there if a character is currently being used. Also, pretty sure at one point there were at least 12 random builds up on my friend's account. I really doubt your group would have that many going at once.
You'd be surprised :smallamused:

Annoyingly (but unsurprisingly) I can't find the limit with a quick search. Ah well :smallsigh:

[Erom]

Similar to others, I allow any 4.0 or 4.E material in my campaign, but because none of my players is willing to pay for DDI and the 4.E material isn't in the old character builder, none of my players have really shown any interest.

Which I actually consider kind of a shame - I think some of the new 4.E mechanics are nice, and if you allow material from both 4.0 and 4.E in your game you start getting a deliciously large number of options for character builds.

I really think a non-wotc character builder is going to come along at some point, though it really does seem like a massive undertaking, especially when you'd have to keep it on the down-low or get C&D'd. For all I know, it might ALREADY exist and I just haven't heard of it because GITP is my main DnD news source.

[Hzurr]

I don't play 4E, I only GM.

From a GM's standpoint, if a PC is using Essentials stuff, or only PHB1 stuff, or a mix it makes absolutely no difference to me. I build encounters the same, I plan out monsters the same. Essentials is the same game, with just new ways to build some classes.

So yeah, if a group you're going to join is running all essentials classes, your Fighter, or Barbarian, or Battlemind will fit in fine. It all works with one another, and arbitrarily splitting it is a bit silly.

[Emongnome777]

I really think a non-wotc character builder is going to come along at some point, though it really does seem like a massive undertaking, especially when you'd have to keep it on the down-low or get C&D'd. For all I know, it might ALREADY exist and I just haven't heard of it because GITP is my main DnD news source.

Check out Hero Lab (http://www.wolflair.com/index.php?context=hero_lab).

[technoextreme]

And if you read what I wrote, you'll see that what I said was not untrue at all. I never said that flex stats started with essentials nor did I say that no other races had flex stats. I was thinking of retrieving the article, but figured he could find out on his own, later.
Yeah I was actually pointing out that while essentials does actually introduce completely new things it also does have some products which essentially are nothing more than fixes for old stuff that was errated a while ago.

[salt3d]

You'd be surprised :smallamused:

Annoyingly (but unsurprisingly) I can't find the limit with a quick search. Ah well :smallsigh:

The limit is 20. I know because I hit it often. Including mine, I have stored in there all six PCs from my current home game. On top of that I have three of the PCs from a campaign I've started to DM. The rest are a selection of PbP PCs.

Having said all that, the export function is simple and effective, so I've never been concerned about the limit itself.

[Violet Octopus]

My university's roleplaying club uses the old character builder to make pregenerated characters, since half the people playing in the fortnightly dungeoncrawls haven't played D&D before this year and they wanted to get the ball rolling quickly.

People can play non-pregenerated characters instead, but I haven't heard any interest in Essentials, or hatedom, or anything.

I'm running Keep on the Shadowfell with 3 friends, who I've played 3.5 with in the past, mostly to see if we enjoy 4e at all. I told them about Essentials being a decent set of quasi-old-school classes, but no-one was interested in anything besides flex stats and the new Magic Missile. Even the guy who's been playing since AD&D 2e and wanted to play an old-school paladin went with the PHB1 version.

[Kurald Galain]

So, I ask all of you, dose anybody at all play the original 4e still or should I just sell all my non 4.4-content to get some much needed cash to invest in 4.4e?

At least in my area, several groups ban the 4.4 books (because of power creep, general dislike, or because it's not in the offline charbuilder). However, in those that don't, they get extremely little use. It seems that if you are familiar with the PHB1/2/3, there is actually extremely little in the 4.4 books that is useful to you.

Heck, WOTC's Encounters program is officially 4.4-only, but here it was houseruled to allow 4.0 stuff because otherwise not enough people would show up for it.

[amaranth69]

You'd be surprised :smallamused:

Annoyingly (but unsurprisingly) I can't find the limit with a quick search. Ah well :smallsigh:


The limit is 20 characters per account, which my group has hit easily on several occasions. However, as previously stated, you can export the file to your computer and then import it when you wish to level, print, or play with the character. Personally, I enjoy using the CB to mess around and put together different builds. One thing that I really wish they would address is our not being able to edit anything before printing. With the desktop CB it was possible to delete items you did not need to print such as the character portrait, which to me is a waste of ink.

[Maho-Tsukai]

One of the main reasons I want essentals is one thing: Necromancy. You CAN'T make a Necromancer without essentials as the heroes of shadow necromancer is only an option for the essentials mage. Sure, you can make a wizard with a smattering of necromancy spells, but he's not the same as a heroes of shadow necromancer and dose not "feel" like a necromancer. He's just a wizard with more necrotic spells then usual. Thus, I have ALWAYS resorted to using 3rd party and/or a homebrew necromancer class, the homebrew one being the "Dread Necromancer" which was created by and released as a free pdf by ThePlanesWalker of wizards forums. I personally love that class as it is VERY much a nod to 3.5e in the fact that despite being shadow(not divine) the class seems to be inspired more by 3.5e's necromancer clerics then actual DNs. It is the one class I have found that actually feels like an old 3.5e necro cleric in 4e, despite having cha as it's primary stat and not using wisdom for anything. I had loads of fun with Malfor, my pet 4e character who was a dragonborn dread necromancer that I've played numerous times and grown from a lowly level 1 all the way to epic.

But yeah, not every group is frendly to 3rd party and homebrew, and while I don't mean to generalize I find many 4e players to be a lot less open to 3rd party and homebrew content then 3.5ers, though that may be bad luck on my part as I've met plenty of "by the books" DMs for other systems.

[Kiero]

We do. We're not about to go out and buy new books just for the same of one of our "break" games that tends to fill an 8-10 session slot whenever we're not playing the main game (which isn't D&D at all).

[Kurald Galain]

One of the main reasons I want essentals is one thing: Necromancy. You CAN'T make a Necromancer without essentials as the heroes of shadow necromancer is only an option for the essentials mage.
What is it you're looking for in a necromancer, though? Because pretty much all the necromancy spells can be picked up by a 4.0 wizard if he wants to (and he already has better summons, too). And if there's one thing the necromancer still doesn't do, it's summon a legion of undead minions, except at level 20 with one particular paragon path.

[skywalker]

Honestly, I wish they drop the Essentials class format, and try something new. A Magic of Incarnum for 4e, say, with a completely different class structure, but a good interface for multiclassing and hybriding.

While we're busy wishing for impossible things, I'd like a unicorn that craps gold dubloons. Can Wizards get that for us, too?

On the Character Builder: There are ways to totally updated the old CB to include everything WOTC has released since they canceled it. The distributed community is frequently faster and better at the updates than WOTC themselves. Which is a little sad.

Generally on the Subject of 4.0 vs Essentials: There is some difference. I am running a Paragon-level campaign right now. Two players are using the Character Builder, two are using only the books they own. That equates to one Rogue straight out of the PHB, one Monk out of PHB3 and PsiPower, one Essentials Knight, and one original Cleric.

There are some issues: Not that they don't function together (they do, quite well in fact), but I have trouble picking out monsters. The knight has a +18 to attack rolls, while the rogue is somewhere around a +13. That means that a monster that the knight hits 50% of the time, the rogue hits 25% of the time. If I want to use a monster that is hard for the knight to hit (say, he hits less than 50% of the time), then the rogue is rapidly squeezed of combat completely. Obviously, it's partially the fault of the rogue only using one book, but it's also partially that Essentials classes are naturally more optimized out of the box.

BUT! I can't imagine running an "essentials only" game. Certainly it does insure homogeneity throughout the party (easing the burden I'm facing), but there's absolutely no other reason for it as far as gameplay. Maybe you would do it if you had a bunch of new players, to keep it simple. But the rules haven't changed, the game hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the character design paradigm.

I'm also playing a Hunter on another night. I personally love the class and I don't feel "option-less" at all. And my character gets along great with the knight, slayer, and bard that make up the rest of the party. I'm still playing "4.0," at least as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT:Oh! And we also got rid of the "essentials only" prohibition at my FLGS. I suspect a lot of places did, because really, what? Sure, it might intimidate new players if you show up with your multi-marking tiefling paladin, but new players only have fun if they have interested veterans to help them understand and enjoy the game. It's a balance.

[Lyin' Eyes]

But yeah, not every group is frendly to 3rd party and homebrew, and while I don't mean to generalize I find many 4e players to be a lot less open to 3rd party and homebrew content then 3.5ers, though that may be bad luck on my part as I've met plenty of "by the books" DMs for other systems.
I never met many 3PP/homebrew-friendly 3e DMs, but I think 4e has made it worse generally. I blame the CB.

('Course, I've never met a core-only 4e DM, while core-only seems to be a right-of-passage for 3e DMs.)


On the Character Builder: There are ways to totally updated the old CB to include everything WOTC has released since they canceled it. The distributed community is frequently faster and better at the updates than WOTC themselves. Which is a little sad.
What's a distributed community?


The knight has a +18 to attack rolls, while the rogue is somewhere around a +13.
Whoa, a difference of five bonuses? I don't like Essentials any more than the next girl, but I didn't think it was that bad.

[MeeposFire]

I never met many 3PP/homebrew-friendly 3e DMs, but I think 4e has made it worse generally. I blame the CB.

('Course, I've never met a core-only 4e DM, while core-only seems to be a right-of-passage for 3e DMs.)


What's a distributed community?


Whoa, a difference of five bonuses? I don't like Essentials any more than the next girl, but I didn't think it was that bad.

That is because there is no "core" in 4e D&D. The design in 4e says everything is core including dragon magazine. That is very different from 3e.

A difference of 5 points is doable since the rogue lacks access to expertise feats, could have a lower attack stat, and if the rogue does not use a dagger then they lose accuracy. Lets say the rogue started with an 18 and the knight used a 20, rogue uses a rapier and the knight a longsword, and the knight has an expertise feat. That would be a difference of 4 right there and none of it would be unusual in any game that had access to expertise feats. The last bonus could be from a stance that gives +1 accuracy though that is their "at will" power and that is weaker than various rogue at wills. The single biggest likely difference is the lack of an expertise feat.

[skywalker]

What's a distributed community?

A group of people who all have the ability to update files that contribute to the software as opposed to a closed off program that only updates from one source.


A difference of 5 points is doable since the rogue lacks access to expertise feats, could have a lower attack stat, and if the rogue does not use a dagger then they lose accuracy. Lets say the rogue started with an 18 and the knight used a 20, rogue uses a rapier and the knight a longsword, and the knight has an expertise feat. That would be a difference of 4 right there and none of it would be unusual in any game that had access to expertise feats. The last bonus could be from a stance that gives +1 accuracy though that is their "at will" power and that is weaker than various rogue at wills. The single biggest likely difference is the lack of an expertise feat.

That's pretty much the long and the short of it...

[Lyin' Eyes]

That is because there is no "core" in 4e D&D. The design in 4e says everything is core including dragon magazine. That is very different from 3e.
It also helps that 4e stuff is more or less balanced, regardless of source. (At least the official stuff; I can't comment on 3PP stuff.)

That's pretty much the long and the short of it...
I suspected as much. Can I ask why you don't give them taxpertise for free? There'd still be a gap, but it'd be more reasonable.

[skywalker]

I suspected as much. Can I ask why you don't give them taxpertise for free? There'd still be a gap, but it'd be more reasonable.

I was not the original DM. I took over after the first dungeon, and hadn't thought about it (they/we started at level 9, I was originally a player). I should consider that.

Oh, and the rogue's player literally hasn't cracked PHB2 to my knowledge, so he's got no idea what he's missing out on. Not that that's a good/bad thing, just that he doesn't know it's there to whine/agitate about.

[Maho-Tsukai]

A 4.0 wizard with some necrotic/necromancy-themed spells is NOT a necromancer, ESPECIALLY if he has little-no undead summons. I want to be able to summon the undead, not random outsiders and elementals, thank you. Hence I am forced to use homebrew and 3rd party for my necro as there is not enough non-essentials options for a necromancer-type....a wizard with some more necrotic spells then usual is not a necromancer to me. To me, undead animation/summoning is THE thing that defines a necromancer, without it he's just a darkness mage/black mage/whatever you want to call him....hence why without essentials my only options seem to be homebrew or 3rd party and finding somebody who'll except that in a 4e game is like finding an honest politician.

[Kurald Galain]

A 4.0 wizard with some necrotic/necromancy-themed spells is NOT a necromancer, ESPECIALLY if he has little-no undead summons.
I agree, but by that logic, a 4.4 necromancy-school mage is not a necromancer either. Its ability to summon undead is limited to one "shadow skeleton" per day at level 5 (upgraded to a wraith at level 19), and that's it. Anything else he can do, the 4.0 wizard can duplicate. Aside from that, both skeleton and wraith are pretty bad summons (whereas the 4.0 wiz gets a very good line of summons starting with Dretch at level 1 and Imp at level 5).

[Foeofthelance]

I agree, but by that logic, a 4.4 necromancy-school mage is not a necromancer either. Its ability to summon undead is limited to one "shadow skeleton" per day at level 5 (upgraded to a wraith at level 19), and that's it. Anything else he can do, the 4.0 wizard can duplicate. Aside from that, both skeleton and wraith are pretty bad summons (whereas the 4.0 wiz gets a very good line of summons starting with Dretch at level 1 and Imp at level 5).

Actually, once they get to Paragon class or so Necromancer mages get more summons I believe, including a Daily that summons a small army of skeletal minions that hang around until the next extended rest.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, once they get to Paragon class or so Necromancer mages get more summons I believe, including a Daily that summons a small army of skeletal minions that hang around until the next extended rest.
...you should probably base such comments on what you've read in the book, rather than on what you believe.

As I said earlier in the thread, "if there's one thing the necromancer still doesn't do, it's summon a legion of undead minions, except at level 20 with one particular paragon path." Yes, if they take one particular mediocre paragon path, then they get one more mediocre summon at level 20. Not "more summons including", no, just a single one. Given that most campaigns never reach level 20, that doesn't help much. Also, given that minions die like fruit flies in combat, in practice they won't stick around until the next extended rest either.

I understand that you want to play a necromancer that summons lots of undead, that that you dislike that the 4.0 wizard doesn't do that. My point is that the necromancy mage from Heroes of Shadow doesn't actually do that either.

[Aenghus]

I have a new player unfamilar with 4e who has an essentials PC - they are simpler and have less choices to make, which is useful when learning from scratch.

While I personally would soon find the PC boring( Executioner Assassin) I know different players have different tolerances for character complexity. I don't know if my new player will get bored and want to try something else or not, but time will tell.

The removal of the cap on daily item use means that one way of providing more options is more items with interesting daily powers. (While I'm irritated by the half-way mess that magic items are in essentials, I've always controlled the more ridiculous exploitations of daily item powers myself and am mostly ignoring the rarity rules, which are an IMO incomplete and failed mechanism to provide such control)

[Maho-Tsukai]

My issue is not quantity/number of undead but rather summoning undead in general. I want to have a necromancer who summons UNDEAD. Not outsiders, not elementals, UNDEAD. I don't care how many, one at a time is just fine. It's rather that I want my summons to be undead, not outsiders, elementals ect... The dread necromancer can't summon an army either. He only has normal summoning powers like the summoner wizard. The difference is his summons are UNDEAD. Not demons, not devils, not elementals...actual undead and summoning undead is what separates a necromancer from a demonologist or black mage or whatever you will call it. So my gripe is not that I can't have an army but that I can't have undead period, unless I buy the essentials stuff or use homebrew/3rd party.

[Hoggmaster]

Build a mage and refluff all the summons as undead. You and your DM should be able to do this effortlessly.

[Maho-Tsukai]

But that just dose not feel right, at all. Many of the wizard summons all have that "they have a chance to attack you/the team" which while great for the flavor they where made to represent(Demon/outsider/elemental binding.) it makes them rather horrible at replicating a necromancer as mindless undead usually obey the one who animated them no matter what. A Necromancer's zombies/skeletons in 3.5e and older additions never turned on him and as a result the flavor of the whole "chance to attack you/the party" thing just flat out dose not work fluff wise as replicating a necromancers MINDLESS AND LOYAL flunkies.

[Surrealistik]

Heyo! Somebody call for a horde wielding 4e Necromancer?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195549

And yes, nothing like that really exists at all in 4e officially, which is why I came up with this subclass.

[kyoryu]

Whoa, a difference of five bonuses? I don't like Essentials any more than the next girl, but I didn't think it was that bad.

Actually, the Knight will typically have a lower attack bonus than a Weaponmaster (PHB) Fighter, as they have several options for +1 attacks. It's not an Essentials thing.

Running a quick Rogue through the CB, at level 12, with a starting Dex of 18 (didn't even max Dex), and level-appropriate gear (+3), the Rogue ended up with a +17 to hit, and that's not putting any stat bonuses into Dex, or any Expertise feats.

You might end up with a +13 on your MBA (poor Str), or if you're not handing out appropriate weapons, or if the Rogue is totally unoptimized. Apart from that, even at level 12, +13 is really, really low. Not to mention that a Rogue should almost always be attacking with CA, for another +2.

A +13 to +18 difference in Paragon, assuming equal level, isn't an Essentials issue. Knights don't get random to-hit-bonuses. It's an optimization/equipment issue.

[Doug Lampert]

There are some issues: Not that they don't function together (they do, quite well in fact), but I have trouble picking out monsters. The knight has a +18 to attack rolls, while the rogue is somewhere around a +13.

Whoa, a difference of five bonuses? I don't like Essentials any more than the next girl, but I didn't think it was that bad.

That's a paragon level rogue with a +13 attack bonus.

Let's build a level 11 rogue with a +13 attack bonus.
Dagger: +3 proficiency, +1 rogue weapon talent.
1/2 Level: +5
18 Dex: +4
Total attack bonus: +13

Note: That's without combat advantage, that's with a starting dex of 15 or 16, and WITH NO MAGIC WEAPON!

+13 for a rogue at paragon level is unspeakably bad. That's bad for an implement power.


Running a quick Rogue through the CB, at level 12, with a starting Dex of 18 (didn't even max Dex), and level-appropriate gear (+3), the Rogue ended up with a +17 to hit, and that's not putting any stat bonuses into Dex, or any Expertise feats.

Emphasis added. There's a problem here. And it's not the knight.

As a rule of thumb, PC attack bonuses should be roughly level +4 +proficiency bonus (for weapons) +any special class boosts. A few points off of that is fine. But +13 at paragon level for a rogue (one of the most accuracy dependent classes in the game) is just horid.

DougL

[Kurald Galain]

But +13 at paragon level for a rogue (one of the most accuracy dependent classes in the game) is just horid.
I concur. You do need a bit of basic optimization, e.g. start your primary stat at 18, boost it whenever you can, and invest in a magic weapon (or implement). Expertise feats debuted in the PHB2, people.

A level-11 rogue should be around +18 to hit: +5 (dex) +5 (level) +3 (dagger) +1 (rogue weapon talent) +3 (magic weapon) +1 (expertise), and a well-played rogue has combat advantage pretty much all the time. And this is not even optimized.

[Blackfang108]

A 4.0 wizard with some necrotic/necromancy-themed spells is NOT a necromancer, ESPECIALLY if he has little-no undead summons. I want to be able to summon the undead, not random outsiders and elementals, thank you. Hence I am forced to use homebrew and 3rd party for my necro as there is not enough non-essentials options for a necromancer-type....a wizard with some more necrotic spells then usual is not a necromancer to me. To me, undead animation/summoning is THE thing that defines a necromancer, without it he's just a darkness mage/black mage/whatever you want to call him....hence why without essentials my only options seem to be homebrew or 3rd party and finding somebody who'll except that in a 4e game is like finding an honest politician.
Reflavor the Wizard Summons. Instead of a Astral Wasp, it's a Corpse Fly, etc.

EDIT:

If doing that seems wrong to you, don't complain that 4e can't do what you want it to.