|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 8:06AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2008
|
Or maybe they were so specific with their language to avoid people trying to using the meaningless "4.5" buzz term to try and gank them like they did duringing the Edition Wars, and try to smear their attempts to expand the game as a money grab or a design failure. You know. Kind of like what is happening now.
From what we know the Essentials line, it will not change the usability of current material, it will not change the way the game works on any fundamental level. Most people still get their daily powers. All of your old books are still good. At best it just makes a few new ways to play old classes based on improved design philosophy. You know. Like the Power books. Which we've been getting for two years.
Calm down. This is not 4.5. You're all being silly.
At best this is a great new way to work on the game. At worst? Something to be swept under the rug and continue on with all of the toys you have and will get in the future.
*Calmed down* Agreed! 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 8:12AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
I think both the preview information and Mike Mearls have made it clear that they are not trying to create something that takes the place of the existing content. However, it is interesting to note that Mike wrote "We very carefully designed the new classes." This along with the article today discussing the elimination of daily powers and the introduction of a different path for power progression raises the question of whether there will really be fighter type A and B with little compatibility or crossover between the two. Obviously we already have different builds within the classes that can have either minor or profound effects on which class powers you can select. In cases like the original cleric where the effects of build are profound in terms of which powers you will select, effectively creating two separate classes, the general response has been negative. In contrast, I think the response has been more positive to builds that tweak a class concept but don't limit power selection too much, and the response has also been positive to increased options for multiclassing like hybrid builds. I hope in addition to trying to make sure the "new classes" would not necessitate a change in the way we play our current classes, that WoTC also made sure that the content for the "new classes" would work well with existing classes. For instance I want to find our sooner rather than later whether a new ranger build/class with its associated content in the essentials line will only be useful to me if I roll up a new ranger, or whether I can take advantage of exciting new options with my existing ranger.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 8:19AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2009
|
We're in a bit of a weird space, since we don't really talk about the next year's releases until GenCon. However, I can say that since wrapping up Essentials design we've been busy working on 2011 releases. Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
Thanks for the heads up, man. I'm really looking forward to what you and your team have in store for us and am very excited to see these previews. I trust that you guys are going to fully integrate everything pre-essentials, essentials and post-essentials into a truly awesome game with a breadth of options for everyone, including the older guys who are stuantchly against change (and really, NO ONE wants to see another edition war).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 9:59AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
WOTC will never admit they are pulling a .5 job because it will go over like a lead balloon.
you mean like:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 10:44AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2009
|
WOTC will never admit they are pulling a .5 job because it will go over like a lead balloon.
you mean like:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg
Actually I hope it's more like this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=owmrpWyTdxQ
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 12:06PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
Has there been any mention about how the character builder will handle the Essentials changes?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 12:51PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
Likely the same way it handles any book with more options, it simply adds them to the lists.
As for sub classes, they will likely appear amongst the class list.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 12:53PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2007
|
While there's no official word that I'm aware of, I don't see any reason the Essentials content can't be added in the same manner as Power and Races books, and Dragon articles. Even if a "core" class feature such as how a fighter marks is changed we already have books and articles that do that included in the Character Builder. They read "this replaces your (class)'s (feature name)". Psionic characters also have choices between PPs or dailies (or maybe that's just for psionic+non-psionic hybrids, can't remember off-hand) - so if you use an Essentials class feature it would probably trigger the restriction on daily powers. What other changes are there to accommodate?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 2:08PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2008
|
We're in a bit of a weird space, since we don't really talk about the next year's releases until GenCon. However, I can say that since wrapping up Essentials design we've been busy working on 2011 releases. Perhaps more to the point, I still use my PH 1 as my primary rules reference when working on those books.
So, I can't talk in specifics yet, but I think you'll be happy with what we announce.
I too appreciate the fact that Mike M. stopped by this post to help us all (present company included) understand the direction they are going.
Now that I look at it, coupled with what Mike said, it does seem to be a bit more split into two versions of 4e. 4eA what we are all used too since 2008 and 4eB, amore simplified version to draw in newer players, yet where the two are (and probably not seamlessly) compatible. I too am interested in purchasing the new line to see what it's all about; I have already pre-ordered all that can be pre-ordered, thru the end of this year and the beginning of next. I want to be excited about it but now just settling for curious.
All in all, thanks Mike.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2010 - 7:47PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Ok, now here's the interesting part, it continues: "Inside, however, it uses the newest version of the game."
Usually, when they write an article they use, by-and-large, the term '4th edition mechanics' or something close to that; but not this time. Any thoughts?
Maybe they read my mind?
I started using this language myself simply put because the game is D&D ... ummm not 4th edition. When there is a newer edition I will use the edition number for my current favorite D&D till then its just D&D. I think officially calling it anything else is wrong.
|
|
|
