Quote from: StormBringer;392797The only thing you can customize in 2e or 3.x was the feat or skill/NWP selection, really.  Other than that, they were both fairly rigid class/level systems.  And having two or three build options isn't really 'customizable' to a significant degree, so 4e really doesn't lag noticeably in that regard.

Are you serious? In 3E every time you gained a level you could choose to take a level in any class.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;392801Are you serious? In 3E every time you gained a level you could choose to take a level in any class.

And...?  It was the same level anyone else could take in that class.  Aside from feats and skills, there is little to differentiate 3rd level Fighter A from 3rd level Fighter B.

Not that this is a problem, but claiming that is a high degree of customization is a bit overwrought.

I've read some fans already welcoming "more customization" because they felt the 4E classes are too rigid. What I find surprising is that they must be confusing or conflating the differenciation between character classes and their level of mastery for/with the customization aspects included in each class.

From what I understand, the design team of Essentials wants to recreate the original feel of choosing your own degree of mastery requirement by selecting this or that class to start the game with, but from what I understand, each class per se seems actually MORE rigid than its straight 4E equivalent, less customizable, more archetypal. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book, mind you.

Quote from: Benoist;392807I've read some fans already welcoming "more customization" because they felt the 4E classes are too rigid. What I find surprising is that they must be confusing or conflating the differenciation between character classes and their level of mastery for/with the customization aspects included in each class.

From what I understand, the design team of Essentials wants to recreate the original feel of choosing your own degree of mastery requirement by selecting this or that class to start the game with, but from what I understand, each class per se seems actually MORE rigid than its straight 4E equivalent, less customizable, more archetypal. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book, mind you.

Wholly agree.

Thats kind of what I mean by resembling AD&D as opposed to 3.5E. The new stuff isn't modular and mix and match(like 3.5E), but simply a new non-modular template(like AD&D kits or sub-classes).

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;392820Thats kind of what I mean by resembling AD&D as opposed to 3.5E. The new stuff isn't modular and mix and match(like 3.5E), but simply a new non-modular template(like AD&D kits or sub-classes).

The old stuff isn't modular.  You are conflating 'character' and 'class'.

Quote from: StormBringer;392830The old stuff isn't modular.  You are conflating 'character' and 'class'.

If you are claiming that 3.5E isn't modular, you come from a different planet than any I'm familiar with. Did you play 3E in a cave by yourself for its entire run?

Well at least it seems like they're listening to people, given the recent errata and now this new light shed on Essentials.

Perhaps Mearls wasn't a bad choice for lead?

Quote from: Benoist;392807I've read some fans already welcoming "more customization" because they felt the 4E classes are too rigid. What I find surprising is that they must be confusing or conflating the differenciation between character classes and their level of mastery for/with the customization aspects included in each class.

From what I understand, the design team of Essentials wants to recreate the original feel of choosing your own degree of mastery requirement by selecting this or that class to start the game with, but from what I understand, each class per se seems actually MORE rigid than its straight 4E equivalent, less customizable, more archetypal. Which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book, mind you.

Quote from: StormBringer;392812Wholly agree.

Thirded.

Quote from: Peregrin;392835Well at least it seems like they're listening to people, given the recent errata and now this new light shed on Essentials.

Perhaps Mearls wasn't a bad choice for lead?

I really wish that WoTC had followed this model for 4E from the get-go.

I like the idea of offering a simple game from the outset and gradually adding more complexity in a modular fashion so that individual groups can play the way they like.

It might have made a big difference as far as the way that D&D 4th edition has been perceived by the community at large.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;392833If you are claiming that 3.5E isn't modular, you come from a different planet than any I'm familiar with. Did you play 3E in a cave by yourself for its entire run?

Ok, now you are saying the whole 3.5 ruleset is modular?

You need to define what you are talking about.  This is intentional obfuscation on your part now.

The modularity of 3.5E lies in the multiclassing system, where when you gain a level you can take that level in any base class or a prestige class you qualify for. Its fundamental to the system. Cherry picking class features and "dipping" is at the core of 3.5E. Some of it doesn't work in practice(like multiclassing spellcaster classes), but I don't see how you can overlook this without rose colored glasses.

I skimmed the article and went, "Huh?" I'm still going "Huh." So...it's 4e, but everything is pre-selected for you?

I think I'll wait till it comes out and I can read it before I worry about it.

Seanchai

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;392846Cherry picking class features and "dipping" is at the core of 3.5E.

For people who want to optimize their characters for sure. But that's not the whole experience 3.x provides, and its not at its core either. I think 3.x is modular, but I would identify this core modularity more with feats, streamlined game mechanics, and features like monsters and PCs functioning according to the same templates, rather than cherry picking class levels specifically. You spend too much time on the WotC optimization forums, TCO.

Quote from: jgants;392753Yeah, I'm confused as well.  Up until the last couple of days, all I remember hearing was it presented as 4e-lite.  But now they are making it very clear it is 4.5.


Actually, the way they keep making massive rule changes with the errata lately, 4e is becoming 4.5e anyhow.

I have to say, the whole thing is really putting me off the game.  And not because of the changes themselves - I think they sound positive and are the kind of direction I wish they would have gone in the first place.

No, the problem is once these changes (recent errata and essentials) start making their way into the DDI, all hell is going to break loose with my group.  Having major changes halfway through the campaign is going to cause nothing but confusion and frustration, which is going to be a major headache for me.  The magic missile change in particular is going to cause a bitchfit of epic proportions with the wizard player; I can already feel my ears beginning to bleed in anticipation.

I'm tempted to end the campaign right now and switch over to one of the other games I'd like to run (including a couple of my own design) just to avoid the inevitable, but since they just renewed their DDI subscription, I'm pretty much stuck with continuing on for at least the rest of the year.

This is exactly my sentiment too. The situation isn't that different to the problems I've had in the past two years, though. I'm happy for WotC to come out with rules updates on a regular basis, but I'd like to have the option to opt out of playing with them, and I'd like to have that option without major hassle. The Character Builder with its attitude of supporting only one version of the rules ever, the most recent one, is such a hassle. It's a major reason for me to NOT subscribe to DDI, to NOT make the Character Builder the corner stone of my 4E campaigns.

Essentials is only going to escalate that trend, unless WotC fundamentally alters its attitude towards how they implement the software. Currently, the Builder already allows people to customize the software with recourse to how many splat books are allowed in a campaign; what I'm missing is an option to only play with certain rules updates. It's a major hassle if your group wants to play without the stylistic changes and stealth nerfs to magic missle and righteous brand, for instance.

For my money, a number of people on the WotC forum are right that the designer philosophy behind current errata and Essentials is no longer the one that informed 4.0 at its outset. Me, I prefer the uncompromised 4.0 philosophy of Heinsoo and Noonan. The real issue for me is: can Essentials provide a more attractive version of 4E to me and my group? It's a question of both underlying philosophy and designer competence. If Essentials fails to live up as regards my own group's expectations, that's going to be the end of buying 4E crunch. I'm happy that the 4E books I liked most - like the Planes books - are so crunch neutral that I can happily continue buying these, even if 4E morphs even more in the next 2 years.