Which is a shame, because if they had given people the option to choose which errata to include, DDI with a simple base like Essentials or the upcoming Rules Compendium book would be a great way to maintain the "living game" design philosophy WotC has talked about since 3.5 while avoiding forcing people to include certain revisions in their games.

Ahhh. The marvels of technology. Electronic formats are so much better. Paper will cease to exist. Yaddi, yaddi, yadda.

I didn't say they were generally better.

But when it comes to supporting a specific design philosophy, the whole "living game" thing Wizards has talked about since 3.5, then yes, it is easier to implement and much more cost-effective for the consumer.

Physical products like books still have value, but electronic delivery methods (whether we're talking about software or data) are much more convenient, especially when your game is constantly evolving.

Quote from: Peregrin;392989I didn't say they were generally better.

My comment wasn't directly at you specifically, dude. It was just jest on my part.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;392701http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/20100709

Cleric class preview for Essentials. VERY different from standard 4E Cleric. Don't need DDI to check. I'm going to wait to comment.

I got one (okay two) question(s):

Will It Sell at stores?

Will it get people to buy more game or RPG stuff?


If the answer is yes to both of those questions then I'll be happy with it.



- Ed C.

Quote from: Peregrin;392989I didn't say they were generally better.

But when it comes to supporting a specific design philosophy, the whole "living game" thing Wizards has talked about since 3.5, then yes, it is easier to implement and much more cost-effective for the consumer.

Physical products like books still have value, but electronic delivery methods (whether we're talking about software or data) are much more convenient, especially when your game is constantly evolving.

This statement is so far out, I am considering puttin gpoor Peregrine to the IL, just because I fear we do not even share the same hobby. The Fuck?

They released the wizard preview Here.

Two things of interest: they apparently posted that before testing using attack powers on your allies; and secondly that as expected the abandonment of the standard ability progression has left the 4e multiclass feats not making any sense at all.

I am not really sure what the argument that this doesn't count as a 4.5 revision is. The actual 3.5 classes could multiclass with 3e classes just fine. The Essentials Wizard doesn't actually have a 3rd level power slot to potentially give up to power multiclass feats.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;394505Two things of interest: they apparently posted that before testing using attack powers on your allies; and secondly that as expected the abandonment of the standard ability progression has left the 4e multiclass feats not making any sense at all.

I am not really sure what the argument that this doesn't count as a 4.5 revision is. The actual 3.5 classes could multiclass with 3e classes just fine. The Essentials Wizard doesn't actually have a 3rd level power slot to potentially give up to power multiclass feats.

Wonder how munged up the 4E hybrid class rules will become, with 4E Essentials.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;394505I am not really sure what the argument that this doesn't count as a 4.5 revision is. The actual 3.5 classes could multiclass with 3e classes just fine. The Essentials Wizard doesn't actually have a 3rd level power slot to potentially give up to power multiclass feats.

Frank,

How dim could you be? To wit:

Quote from: WoTCNot a New Edition

No matter how I write the words or how many times I say it, confusion abounds. Must just be the nature of the internet, I guess. Well, here I go again ...

It simply can't be a new edition, because they keep telling us over and over and over and over again that it's not a new edition.

Like, QED and such.

It's only not a new edition (or half edition) in an Alice in Wonderland sense, where words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Essentials looks to be as much a new edition to 4e as 3.5 was to 3.0.

Quote from: Garnfellow;394550Frank,

How dim could you be? To wit:


It simply can't be a new edition, because they keep telling us over and over and over and over again that it's not a new edition.

Like, QED and such.

I'm missing the massive irony emoticon on your post. Still, I lol'ed.

Quote from: Doom;394554It's only not a new edition (or half edition) in an Alice in Wonderland sense, where words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. Essentials looks to be as much a new edition to 4e as 3.5 was to 3.0.

More. It is more of a new edition than 3.5 was. The released materials for D&DEs are less compatible with 4e materials than 3.5 materials were with 3e. And the mantra "this is not a new edition, it is a revision" is exactly the same as the stuff they were floating just before 3.5 hit the shelves. And that's even before the fact that they are apparently releasing the classes in the order of most familiar to 4e players to least. They promised that by the end of the class list we'd be looking at classes that did not even have Daily abilities. We are on class 2 (of of the Essentials releases, and we're already at "completely incompatible with the 4e multiclassing rules." Where are we going to be, compatibility wise, when we get to Class 4? Or 6?

However, I must protest. The speech about words meaning whatever the speaker wanted them to mean and having no shared context amongst expected audience members was by Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass, which is the sequel to Alice in Wonderland.

So far the only argument I am seeing that this doesn't count as 4.5 is that Mike Mearls said it doesn't. And that's... not a good argument. At all. By that logic you could say that The Last Airbender movie was awesome on the grounds that M. Night Shyamalan said it was awesome. Market-speak doesn't equal truth. From where I'm standing, I'm not even sure 3.5 is the best comparison, because it's less compatible than that. Maybe we should be comparing the levels of compatibility to the jump from AD&D to 2nd Edition AD&D.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;394557More. It is more of a new edition than 3.5 was. The released materials for D&DEs are less compatible with 4e materials than 3.5 materials were with 3e. And the mantra "this is not a new edition, it is a revision" is exactly the same as the stuff they were floating just before 3.5 hit the shelves.

So far the only argument I am seeing that this doesn't count as 4.5 is that Mike Mearls said it doesn't. And that's... not a good argument.

Market-speak doesn't equal truth. From where I'm standing, I'm not even sure 3.5 is the best comparison, because it's less compatible than that.

Once burned, twice shy.

Wonder if WotC's decision makers are secretly hoping that "4E classic" (ie. May 2008-> August 2010) will slide into the background, and fade away into obscurity.

Quote from: Doom;394554It's only not a new edition (or half edition) in an Alice in Wonderland sense, where words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean.

Just like how politicians and propagandists speak.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;394505I am not really sure what the argument that this doesn't count as a 4.5 revision is. The actual 3.5 classes could multiclass with 3e classes just fine. The Essentials Wizard doesn't actually have a 3rd level power slot to potentially give up to power multiclass feats.

Frank, you really, really need to stop letting your emotions get in the way of your ability to read. I mean, this is seriously bad. Here is how you've just committed a crime against reading comprehension.

First, the level 3 row in the chart shows that wizards (still) get an encounter power at level 3. I mean, it's that fucking simple. Go look at it. If you compare the chart of spells known per level to the last column of the chart on page 29 of the PHB, you will notice that they are nearly identical through levels 26, at which point the Essentials wizard has one fewer utility powers.

Of course, that's the utility power gained from your epic destiny, which is why it doesn't show up on the wizard chart.

There's also a note that says certain wizard paragon paths gain an extra encounter and utility power. Every paragon path printed to date has that feature. But, yeah -- you could write a paragon path that doesn't get a utility at level 12 and an encounter at level 11 and a daily at level 20. There is, in fact, nothing in the rules that says you can't.

But don't get distracted by that. I want to make this point again, and then I'm going to get all wild and make another post:

Frank failed to read the fucking chart.