| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Sep 2010 : 22:12:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by froglegg
In 4th edition the fighter has thoes powers if you will then in the red box the fighter dosent have them anymore. That = a revision or 4.5 just like the ranger in 3.0 gained stuff in 3.5 gaining or loseing it is a revision. So essentials = 4.5
John
The Red Box fighter is a fighter in name only. The "fighter" is a Parent class, meaning that the sub-classes in the Red Box (Slayer class and Knight class) have their own distinct flavor and abilites. They also have the option to take PHB/Martial Power Utility powers and feats designed for the Fighter. In addition, they can take Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies with the Fighter as a prerequisite.
Also, the Slayer is a "striker" first and fore-most. The slayer and the knight do NOT have the ability to "mark" a target and thus aren't as sticky as a natural-PHB fighter. There's a large contrast to the classes in Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the Red Box to the original classes in the PHB but they share those previous class titles (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) to gain the additional benefits previous source material can provide. Think of them as fully hedged out Builds from the ground up that has Fighter-esque elements, yet they are vastly different and do not attempt to re-create what the Figher (or any previous class for that matter) could do from the beginning.
In fact, I could easily see one character being a Slayer, attempting to do lots of damage while another character is a dwarf "brawler" build fighter from Martial Power 2 in the same party. The brawler grapples up an enemy and drags him back to the slayer where he delivers the killing blows. The fact that both classes can work in tandum clearly demonstrates that it's not a revision, but an addition to the previously published material. |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 Sep 2010 22:18:17 |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 04:49:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
If you want to say that the rule changes aren't significant enough to warrant an "edition change", that's fine. The quote above is simply untrue. I direct you to earlier in this thread, in which I linked to articles on the WoTC site which specifically stated that there are rule changes in Essentials which "replaces or over-writes what has come in previous installments of 4E."
Technically, those changes would've happend to 4E regardless of the Essentials line debut. The fact that they happen before the line was released means that they wanted people using the up-dates rules for the Magic Tables and most of the July up-dates before they bought the Red Box. Now, it does seem strange that they released this right before Essentials and it looks like they were implemented because of Essentials, but it's just not true. The Essentials product uses the up to date rule system, yet had it NOT debuted this month, I'm fairly certain the rule changes still would've been pushed through. Maybe not right now, but definitly before the next up-date scheduled in October. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2010 : 17:59:09
|
2e had several 'DM-only' sourcebooks, like The Complete Book of Necromancers, which is something you didn't see in 3e (unless you include the Setting Guide and DMG).
That tome, BTW, was good mix of rules and lore, and actually had quite a bit of FR-specific fluff, for a core book. That's the best kind - a splat that gives us new lore, and a good, healthy mix of new rules built around that lore. This goes in accordance to what Misc said about properly built PrCs, which Sage also agreed with.
Rules just for rules-sake have little value, IMHO. I can make-up fluff as well as the next guy, but when there are hundreds of PrCs I will probably never see used in my games, why bother? Oft-times, it is the fluff that goes with the PrC that gets players and DMs alike interested in it. Otherwise, its just a table of numbers and a few quirky abilities, and all you are doing is rolling dice.
Personally, I don't think they went far enough with the PrC concept. It started out well, but then became a default page-count filler, with TONS of redundancy. I'd like to see a system with four (Five if you want to separate Psionics) base classes, and EVERYTHING else be a PrC built-upon the prerequisite skills and multi-classing. For instance, Paladin shouldn't be a class - it should be a PrC option from multi-classing fighter and cleric. Something similar to how sub-classes worked in 1e/2e, I suppose.
A system like that, coupled with 'backgrounds' (ie, the Barbarian), 'Talents' (musical ability, mechanical, etc...) and secondary attributes (Voice quality, Appearance, etc..) would be ideal, IMHO.
So far, Essentials sounds like it has a lot of potential... I just hope they don't screw it up. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 21 Sep 2010 18:01:26 |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2010 : 01:05:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So far, Essentials sounds like it has a lot of potential... I just hope they don't screw it up.
I wonder?
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 16:30:24
|
Game system design and architecture clearly shows the massive difference between 3.0/3.5 and 4th/Essentials. It's not even apples and oranges-- it's apples and giraffes :D
People have found a perceived weakness and are trying to poke their finger through it. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 19:30:49
|
| I'd have to agree with Matt. Since buying the Essentials book Heroes of the Fallen Lands, I don't see any problems that come between the Essentials line and the Core line. All are compatable with one another except for Hybrids. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2010 : 21:34:53
|
I never ran into any problems going from 3e to 3.5 - not even the slightest little hiccup. To me, it was just a bunch of rules-clarifications and tweaks, and I couldn't even understand why they called it 'another edition'. If anything, Pathfinder is more like the real 3.5
So your point is............?
Through the life-cycle of 1e and 2e, there were FAR MORE rules changes within the edition. How many different versions of Fatigue did we have in 2e? Five?
NOT calling Essentials a new edition is simply a matter of verbiage and personal preference. The term is applied by the company making the product, based on their own sensibilities - it is meaningless. I have seen a number of 'new editions' of rules that weren't new editions at all (T&T comes to mind) - the companies involved simply applied that moniker to their latest re-vamp of the rules book, with whatever errata that had grown over the years. They called it that to get folks to buy it, so they would think they were getting something new and different.
So, using that argument, Essentials is NOT, IMHO, a new edition... but neither was 3.5. 4e was completely different from all D&D rules that had gone before, so that truly was a new edition.
Oh, and 2e was just 1e's 'collected errata' and optional rules - it wasn't really a new edition of the game at all. So far there have been only four versions I would quantify with the term 'edition' - OD&D/Basic, 1e/2e, 3e/3.5, and 4e/Essentials. The changes within an edition are just cosmetic, for the most part, or options, which really shouldn't count.
And all of that is just IMHO, which is subjective, and everyone will have their own idea of what constitutes a new edition, making these types of arguments irrelevant. As silly as trying to nail-down the exact meaning of 'new setting', or 'retcon'.
Is the new star Trek a retcon? It sure as hell looks like one, but guess what? By giving an in-story explanation (time-paradox continuity displacement), you remove the ability of fans to point fingers. Old Spock is from the original continuity, which gives it psuedo-substance, and therefor doesn't count as a retcon.
And the same goes for FR, for the most part. If the retcon happened within the storyline, it isn't a retcon. The spellplague and Abeir covered most of the perceived retcons, and 'unreliable narration' covers everything else. The few kinks still around are easily explainable (I've explained-away at least a dozen myself).
So, its all subjective, and everyone draws their own personal 'line in the sand' somewhere. Many of us did it back in 1e, or 2e - 4e just crossed the threshold of more people's personal tolerance levels for change then the previous editions did. When you try to feed someone too much at once, they choke on it - its that simple. 
Live, love, laugh.... and give Essentials a try.
I haven't figured out what world I will run it in, or even if I will bother with a world at all (that's REAL old-school), but I know if we don't let them know the new direction is GOOD, then we won't be seeing any more new FR lore ever again, except in novels.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 30 Sep 2010 21:41:41 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 03:20:30
|
| 2e was a mess when it came to rules updates and system changes. The only saving grace for me in relation to 2e is that it was the first edition of D&D I was introduced to. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4258 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 03:32:10
|
First Edition Unearthed Arcana might be seen as "Essentials" even...but hey, whatever floats someone's boat. Personally, I liked 1e Barbarians over a 2e Fighter with a "Barbarian Kit"...gimme my dang 20 Hit Points at first level man! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 01 Oct 2010 : 03:58:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Snip....
So, its all subjective, and everyone draws their own personal 'line in the sand' somewhere. Many of us did it back in 1e, or 2e - 4e just crossed the threshold of more people's personal tolerance levels for change then the previous editions did. When you try to feed someone too much at once, they choke on it - its that simple.
Live, love, laugh.... and give Essentials a try.
I haven't figured out what world I will run it in, or even if I will bother with a world at all (that's REAL old-school), but I know if we don't let them know the new direction is GOOD, then we won't be seeing any more new FR lore ever again, except in novels.
My friend and I were having a conversation about the Essentials books, and we both agreed that if WotC had went this route FIRST and slowly adapted the system for more modifications with the PHB/PH2/PH3 and all the Power books it would've went WAAAY more smoothly than the total 180 that did happen. But I guess thats why they say hind-sight is always 20/20.
And I'm glad your giving the Essentials a try. I re-did my current lvl 10 paladin into a Knight and I'm really excited to try it out. The whole stance + Melee Basic Attack is so simple and easy to get into that it's not alot of paperwork. And it's sorta fun to try and adapt previous material for the new stuff. My Knight went with the Sword Marshal paragon path instead of the standard Stalward Knight so I at least get a few attack powers to liven it up a bit. |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2010 : 01:29:27
|
[quote="froglegg"][quote="robertsconley"]It does a good job of taking a total novice and teaching how to play D&D 4e.
Of course when I got it. I put the box to proper use.
[imgurl=]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TIw388Pb27I/AAAAAAAABCg/UZrGvz0RHg4/s320/redboxfix.jpg[/imgurl][/quote]
I saw it in Wal-mart and I got it. :oops: After I said I would not give wizbro any more of my money. :oops: To me it makes for one heck of a computer/video game, kind of like NWN. But not a game I would want to play using pen/paper. Notice I said to me, this is how I feel about it. Others may just love the whole 4 edition D&D game and if you do I wish you good gaming :bigthumbsup: ! It is just not for me.
On a side note I will also be using the box just as the fellow did in his post.
John[/quote]
John |
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
Edited by - froglegg on 31 Oct 2010 17:54:08 |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2010 : 12:15:43
|
| So which part of the computer did you use to play? |
|
|
|
froglegg
Learned Scribe
317 Posts |
Posted - 31 Oct 2010 : 13:28:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
So which part of the computer did you use to play?
LOL Good one Mr. James. Maybe I should have said it would make for a good one like NWN.
John
P.S.
The bigest pull for me was the fact that it looked so much like the Mentzer red box. I know, I know it makes no sence but it did. I can't come up with an explaination it just did.
As a marketing ploy it worked on me, because I said I was not going to get it and yet there I was in line at Wal-mart with the red box.
Hats off to WizBro! It worked you got me to give up some cash.  And you got me to look over again at the 4th edition and if that was the reason for the marketing ploy of the red box, well it worked. 
John
|
Long live Alias and Dragonbait! Kate Novak and Jeff Grubb the Realms need you more then ever!
On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. - Elminster of Shadowdale
The Old Grey Box gets better with age! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What were they thinking?
