essentials compatability

[fendermallot]

Are all 4e book compatible with essentials?

[fendermallot]

I haven't really played since 2e, is there a book similar to 2e's "Wizard's Handbook"? Gives more feats and spells for wizard classes?

[MeeposFire]

Are all 4e book compatible with essentials?

Yes. They work side by side and most are different enough that you can justify both at the table at the same time based on what type of class features you like personally (for instance I like slayers and they work just fine next to a standard fighter as does the knight as they both have their strengths and weaknesses).

Many essentials based classes are more solid right out of the box and are simpler to build though they may not always have the same ceiling as the original classes (in most cases this is only noticeable if you are really high OP). Powers with levels are usable by the old classes if they are in the new book (for instance the original 4e wizard can pick beguiling strands for an at will power even though it is in the essentials book) if they are of the same base class (mage-wizard, slaer/knight-fighter, etc).

Just like any new splat you do have to read things to make sure any individual element works with any given class. If you try to take the daily multiclass feat as a slayer it won't do much (though you can technically take the feat) but the jack of all trades feat still works fine as it did back at the start of the game.

For the wizard you will get the most in terms of powers from the book Arcane Power. It will give you new feats, powers, paragon paths, class features, and epic destines. It is very nice though like most 4e products (especially for its time) it has a severe lack of flavor but the crunchy mechanical bits are very good. D&DI can be a good investment as well if you want more mage options.

[Kurald Galain]

Are all 4e book compatible with essentials?

No.

None of the earlier books (PHB1/2/3, and the Foo Power series) are written for 4.4, and most of the content therein cannot be used by 4.4 classes. The content from the AV/AV2 cannot be obtained either except as randomly generated loot.

The Red Box contains material that directly contradicts 4.4 material, most notably some wizard spells and the entire thief class.

Aside from all that, most books, particularly the PHB1, DMG1, and MM1, require extensive errata to become compatible with 4.4, although the errata is available for free.

[Blackdrop]

^^^^
That's...technically true. No, the material written before the Essentials stuff started coming out isn't fully usable by the newer classes (Though that really only pertains to the stuff that have class features from the root class for prerequisites[i.e Hexblade's can't take a good hunk of the Warlock's stuff since most of them pertain to either the curse mechanic or to the Warlocks Pact Boons]. The stuff without prereqs are usually fine). However, you can have a group with classes from PHB 1/2/3 and etc alongside the newer stuff and still play the game.

[Kurald Galain]

However, you can have a group with classes from PHB 1/2/3 and etc alongside the newer stuff and still play the game.
Yes, but in practice this may lead to balance issues. About half of the 4.4 classes are simply very weak as written. The other half tend to be stronger than 4.0 classes if played by a beginner, and still weaker than 4.0 classes if played by an experienced player.

Sure, you can combine them, but this doesn't work nearly as well as the WOTC marketing department states it does, and the books were clearly not designed to be combined in this fashion.



(Though that really only pertains to the stuff that have class features from the root class for prerequisites
That is incorrect. Most 4.4 classes simply aren't allowed to take the at-will, encounter, or daily powers from their 4.0 equivalent, either because they don't have that kind of power, or because they're given a fixed power by RAW instead of a choice of powers.

[Reverent-One]

Yes, but in practice this may lead to balance issues. About half of the 4.4 classes are simply very weak as written. The other half tend to be stronger than 4.0 classes if played by a beginner, and still weaker than 4.0 classes if played by an experienced player.

Sure, you can combine them, but this doesn't work nearly as well as the WOTC marketing department states it does, and the books were clearly not designed to be combined in this fashion.

They're clearly designed to be used together, the success of this design is what's at question. And thus far I've seen little evidence they result in the balance issues you talk about.

[shadowmage]

No.

None of the earlier books (PHB1/2/3, and the Foo Power series) are written for 4.4, and most of the content therein cannot be used by 4.4 classes. The content from the AV/AV2 cannot be obtained either except as randomly generated loot.

So then i can not use other Wizard powers with my essential Mage? Strange someone should tell the Programers of the Char gen, same with the Hexblade, I was picking all kinds of Warlock dailies and such. The Magic Item rarity is completely up to the DM so no you do not get it as "randomly Generated" loot

[Kurald Galain]

So then i can not use other Wizard powers with my essential Mage?
Yeah, that's an old trick, cherry picking only those examples that support your statement, when the majority of examples would not.

This table outlines whether a 4.4 class can take 4.0 powers. There's a lot more "no"s in here than "yes"s, which is my point.
{table]Class|At will|Encounter|Daily|Utility|Hybrid
Assassin|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Bladesinger|No|As daily|No|Yes|No
Cleric|No|No|Yes|Yes|No
Druid|Most|No|Most|Most|Yes
Fighter|No|One only|No|Pre-epic|No
Paladin|No|No|Yes|Yes|Yes
Ranger|No|No|No|Yes|No
Rogue|No|One only|No|Pre-epic|No
Vampire|No|No|No|No|Yes
Warlock|No|No|Yes|Yes|Binder only
Wizard|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes
[/table]

[Blackdrop]

Yeah, that's an old trick, cherry picking only those examples that support your statement, when the majority of examples would not.

This table outlines whether a 4.4 class can take 4.0 powers. There's a lot more "no"s in here than "yes"s, which is my point.
{table]Class|At will|Encounter|Daily|Utility|Hybrid
Assassin|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Bladesinger|No|As daily|No|Yes|No
Cleric|No|No|Yes|Yes|No
Druid|Most|No|Most|Most|Yes
Fighter|No|One only|No|Pre-epic|No
Paladin|No|No|Yes|Yes|Yes
Ranger|No|No|No|Yes|No
Rogue|No|One only|No|Pre-epic|No
Vampire|No|No|No|No|Yes
Warlock|No|No|Yes|Yes|Binder only
Wizard|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes
[/table]

To be fair the Vampire should have N/A under the power slots since they don't have a Pre-Essentials class. Also I count (Ignoring the Hyrbid column and the vampire) 18 "No's", 11 "Yes'", and 7 partials, so I'm not sure where you're seeing a large margin. And I think shadowmage was asking a question not making an example.

Furthermore I play in a mixed group (Hexblade, Executioner, Invoker, and Paladin|Sorcerer is you're wondering) and also have not seen the supposed "power gap" either.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair the Vampire should have N/A under the power slots since they don't have a Pre-Essentials class.
Not really. For a vampire player, there is very little useful content in the 4.0 books. That's really the point here.


I'm not sure where you're seeing a large margin.
I don't recall talking about "a large margin" any time recently, could you please point out where I was saying that?


Furthermore I play in a mixed group (Hexblade, Executioner, Invoker, and Paladin|Sorcerer is you're wondering) and also have not seen the supposed "power gap" either.
And other groups do report a power gap, so your point is?

[Reverent-One]

Anyway, in answer to the OP's question, I second this post:


Yes. They work side by side and most are different enough that you can justify both at the table at the same time based on what type of class features you like personally (for instance I like slayers and they work just fine next to a standard fighter as does the knight as they both have their strengths and weaknesses).

Many essentials based classes are more solid right out of the box and are simpler to build though they may not always have the same ceiling as the original classes (in most cases this is only noticeable if you are really high OP). Powers with levels are usable by the old classes if they are in the new book (for instance the original 4e wizard can pick beguiling strands for an at will power even though it is in the essentials book) if they are of the same base class (mage-wizard, slaer/knight-fighter, etc).

Just like any new splat you do have to read things to make sure any individual element works with any given class. If you try to take the daily multiclass feat as a slayer it won't do much (though you can technically take the feat) but the jack of all trades feat still works fine as it did back at the start of the game.

For the wizard you will get the most in terms of powers from the book Arcane Power. It will give you new feats, powers, paragon paths, class features, and epic destines. It is very nice though like most 4e products (especially for its time) it has a severe lack of flavor but the crunchy mechanical bits are very good. D&DI can be a good investment as well if you want more mage options.

If you want to define compatible as can the characters largely take all the mechanical elements from either source freely, then they wouldn't be, but I find that definition strange. By that definition, the first three PHBs aren't compatible since the classes all cannot share powers with a very limited exceptions. Alternate class features (even "kits" of class features like the essentials subclasses) aren't uncommon to d20 class systems, so I don't see why one would want to use that definition.

As for power gaps, the Character Optimization boards on Wizards of the coasts forums have done a good bit of testing on the essential classes and have generally found that even the weakest classes can fight on par with pre-essentials classes.

[Kurald Galain]

As for power gaps, the Character Optimization boards on Wizards of the coasts forums have done a good bit of testing on the essential classes and have generally found that even the weakest classes can fight on par with pre-essentials classes.
This is utterly incorrect. The charop boards have tested the 4.4 classes and determined that they can defeat a level-appropriate challenge.

But that does not mean they are "on par" with the strong 4.0 classes. Charop has not yet tested these to see how well they do in comparison. I would not be surprised to find out that these can defeat much higher-level challenges.

[Reverent-One]

This is utterly incorrect. The charop boards have tested the 4.4 classes and determined that they can defeat a level-appropriate challenge.

In a similar amount of time and similar amount of resource expenditure as pre-essentials classes.


But that does not mean they are "on par" with the strong 4.0 classes. Charop has not yet tested these to see how well they do in comparison. I would not be surprised to find out that these can defeat much higher-level challenges.

And when you have some evidence to support that theory, feel free to show it. Besides which, given the ease at which the essential classes generally beat their opponents (deciding an even level fight in 3 rounds, a solo fight 4 levels above them in 4), the same could easily be true for them as well.

[Epinephrine]

Yeah, that's an old trick, cherry picking only those examples that support your statement, when the majority of examples would not.

This table outlines whether a 4.4 class can take 4.0 powers. There's a lot more "no"s in here than "yes"s, which is my point.
{table]Class|At will|Encounter|Daily|Utility|Hybrid
Assassin|No|No|No|Yes|Yes
Bladesinger|No|As daily|No|Yes|No
Cleric|No|No|Yes|Yes|No
Druid|Most|No|Most|Most|Yes
Fighter|No|One only|No|Pre-epic|No
Paladin|No|No|Yes|Yes|Yes
Ranger|No|No|No|Yes|No
Rogue|No|One only|No|Pre-epic|No
Vampire|No|No|No|No|Yes
Warlock|No|No|Yes|Yes|Binder only
Wizard|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes
[/table]

Is Marshal essentials?

[MeeposFire]

Kurald has always had a problem with essentials hence his use of the rare "4.4". He is exaggerating the problems as if they were major when in fact it is minor at best.

The OP boards did tests and most of the essentials classes did fine (and the ones that idd not do "fine" was more of an issue of not doing things like they expect like not being really strong in one role). They can't always be taken to 11 like some classes but frankly you don't need to and unless you are going to OP a lot it doesn't matter anyway. They are easily used side by side together.

The essentials classes are great for low OP players (since they are usually better than low OP original classes), mid range OP (where both are good), and do not have as much potential in general at high OP (with exceptions like slayers, knights, thieves, and scouts).

The only complaint that makes sense is that many essentials classes are less fun to build since they have less customization but I consider that a minor concern for most people (most people build characters to play whereas building just for fun is a subset of that).

[MeeposFire]

Is Marshal essentials?

Marshal is the name of the subclass that is the original warlord class. At this time there is no other version of warlord. For your purpose I would say no since it isn't in an essentials book and it doesn't make use of the newer class paradigm. Then again you can use it with essentials classes no problem so take that as it were.

[Blackdrop]

Not really. For a vampire player, there is very little useful content in the 4.0 books. That's really the point here.


I don't recall talking about "a large margin" any time recently, could you please point out where I was saying that?


And other groups do report a power gap, so your point is?

Point One: I thought the point of the table was pointing out which powers could be cherry picked from their pre-Essentials counterparts, not which classes could benefit from powers printed from the from the aforementioned counterparts. Also if that was your point, then shouldn't the table just be the name| can it pick powers from Pre-E clases (yes or no) (in which case the vampire would be the only class with a "no" next to it)?

Point two: "There's a lot more "no"s in here than "yes"s ". I was using a synonym for the phrase "a lot more".

Point three: I was commenting on something Reverent had mentioned.