The End of 4e D&D.

[TheFlatline]

Which means they're either on the bleeding edge of the future of this hobby, or they're out in the weeds.

I hope they're out in the fucking weeds personally. The idea of D&D switching to a subscription-based model makes me want to projectile vomit. It seems like they're halfway there.

[virgil]

Just how different are the original three books with the errata?

[TheFlatline]

PHB has 22 pages of current errata according to the D&D archive site. It looks like 90% of it changes powers. I'm not going to get out the book and compare A/B but my general rule of thumb is if you hit 10 pages of rules-altering errata (and not clarifications/typo fixes) then you are in a sore need of a new printing.

The DMG has 7 pages, but that includes reworking how all the MM1 monsters work as was stated above, and is a pretty big fucking change. A few others seem pretty fundamental.

The MM1 has 5 pages of power clarifications and alterations. However, according to DMG errata, you're looking at recalculating your monsters anyway, so in theory the entire friggin book needs alteration. They just gave you the formulas to do it yourself.

And it's not so much the sheer number of changes that are there at this point in time, it's also the evolution that got us here. Books aren't like computer programs. They're a pain in the ass to patch, and in the case of dead tree games, what's been printed is probably going to be what's played.

[virgil]

How does the DMG errata change the format of the MM1? I didn't recall the MM referring to the DMG for stuff like HP/Damage, and the implication I'm getting is that the changes are much bigger than a point here and there.

[malak]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateJuly2010.pdf

If you look at page 4 of the errata, you will see that they replaced the baseline values for monster damage, defenses and HP. The idea is that every monster should follow this table, because it's the official way to level a monster up or down.

Setting Damage
Page 184 - 185: In Monster Manual 3 and other upcoming books, we have changed the way we calculate damage for monsters, traps, and other hazards. When using the new damage numbers, choose a column on the Damage by Level table based on the characters’ level and the severity of the effect. Use the first column for an effect that hurts one creature at a time, and the second column for an effect that harms multiple creatures.
For brutes, the damage should be 25 percent higher. For limited damage, such as damage from encounter powers or recharge powers, increase the value by 25 to 50 percent.
Monster accuracy also underwent some changes. The table below reflects the new numbers.

[hogarth]

Why do we have to play with their changes?

-Crissa

You don't, assuming that you have the old 4E books. But I think the theory is that new players will have to use the new books because the old books won't exist any more. So if you bring the 4E PHB to a game, and everyone else brings the Essentials player manuals, it'll sort of work, except some of the rules in your book will be different from theirs (due to "errata" a.k.a. rules changes between editions).

It's really no different than using 3.5 books in a 3.0 game, or vice versa.

[Ferret]

Holy crap, are you guys seeing the @criticalhits twitter feed from Wizards product announcement event at gen-con? Magic items will be classified as" common, uncommon, and rates". Lots of new board games, new Essentials books. Of course nothing for non-Essentials play.

[hogarth]

Lots of new board games, new Essentials books. Of course nothing for non-Essentials play.

If you believe what WotC is trying to say, there is no such thing as "non-Essentials play". There is only "4E" (which happens to include some old books that are slightly different from the current version).

[Windjammer]

Lots of new board games, new Essentials books. Of course nothing for non-Essentials play.

If you believe what WotC is trying to say, there is no such thing as "non-Essentials play". There is only "4E" (which happens to include some old books that are slightly different from the current version).

This is exactly right. Remainder of post cross-posted from my posts on RPGSite, where ggroy had linked a recording of WotC' GenCon Seminar covering Essentials (among other things).
---

Thanks for linking the recording. Very informative. Strongly recommend to listen to that.

It appears the whole "is Essentials a new (half) edition?" issue that vexes the forum is the wrong question to ask. Instead of asking what Essentials is when compared to 4.0, the question ought to be - what happens to 4.0, now that Essentials is coming out. The answer to that in the podcast is striking, and as follows.

Every power currently in the DDI will be brought in line with the Essentials bench mark. A huge swath of "updates" will ensue once Essentials is out. Every power will be screened individually and be brought in line. There will be mostly nerfs, or leaving powers untouched, but power-ups will be far and few between. In short, 4.0 will be removed from the DDI whole sale.

At that point someone in the audience asked about Magic Missile. Basically what's described in the previous paragraph is exactly what happened to an individual power like Magic Missile already. What no one knew so far - this is going to happen to every power in the game. The question was a very good one, as it applies not just to Magic Missile but to the Essentials overhaul across the board:

"Why do you change powers to line them up with Essentials? Why not have two powers on DDI, say Melf's Magic Missile and Evard's Magic Missile, so people on DDI can choose which one they want to use?"

To which Bill Slavicsek answered:

"There were two goals with Essentials. One is to introduce new players. The other is to make 4E a simpler, more streamlined and more accessible game. Having 17 versions of magic missile in the DDI runs counter to that."

So that's it. Abyssal Maw and others were right all along. Essentials 'still is' 4E, because it will be the only rules version of 4th edition there is. 4.0 will be updated to be D&D Essentials.

I'm intrigued how this will go down. The last huge wave of errata in May (? don't mean the one in July, but an earlier one) pissed off fans so much, because it was so excessive, that WotC issued a press statement to the effect "yeah, we know that we've been updating too much - from now on our policy is to issue updates only conservatively". Well, that appears to have been a bit shortsighted on their part.

---------------------

I forgot one thing in the podcast, which is relevant and interesting to this news.

Some powers in the upcoming "Heroes of" splats will be exclusive to PCs using Essentials builds. Meaning, you can't choose it for a non-Essentials class build. (Personally, I don't think the Character Builder will explode if you tried, or simply bar you, but then your character will be labelled "non-legit".)

So there are two reasons for that.

One - this allows the WotC team to ignore unwanted synergies from Core and Essentials, and prevents them from thinking through all the possible loop holes that people could come up with by combining the extant powers from the Power splats (or items from the Adv. Vaults) with material in Essentials. This was the reason given in the podcast. Giving them more elbow room on the side of design.

Two - this is my own take. Making stuff exclusive for Essential builds? Clear incentive for players to use these builds. Even if you find the class write up subpar, if there's a couple of powers you REALLY want, you'll go and play the Essentials build. Now that is clever.

------------------------

Oh, and one other revealing thing. The WotC people were asked the question whether the future (and design) of 4th edition D&D will depend on whether Essentials is a success or not. Meaning, if Essentials is doing well, everything will be Essentials, and if isn't doing well then everything will revert back to where things were before Essentials shuffled things around.

To which Rich Baker (or the other guy, don't recall his name) said, laughingly: "Well, if Essentials does poorly, we'll all lose our jobs, so I guess this is a question for Bill Slavicsek."

Slavicsek: "There is no question for us whether Essentials will be a succes or not. We already premised the future of 4E on Essentials."

I didn't get the impact of this while listening to the podcast - probably because it came up before the remark on benchmarking 4.0 to fit Essentials. But now it's obvious what he meant: since the core game will be changed to fit the Essentials benchmark, there's no going back to a pre-Essentials stage design-wise. As I said upthread, for WotC there'll only be one game for now on - Essentials. It's really the final step in a long road away from 4.0 over the past two years. As stated, it consolidates all the errata that were issued so far and adds a batch of its own.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So. How in the fuck is this not a new edition? Fuck the 4.5E stuff, this is an entirely new edition. I mean, you flat-out can NOT bring 4E dead-tree edition stuff to Essentials--which is a significant higher magnitude of change from 3.0E to 3.5E and even 3.5E to Pathfinder. I mean, bringing Spell Compendium material to Pathfinder will cause your game to break, but you're still allowed to.



I've never seen such a huge degree of hubris from a gaming company before that didn't break the law. You can't just go back in time, do some funky retcon shenanigans, and pretend like the old material didn't exist. I still own a paper copy of most of my 4E books even after I vowed not to give WotC another cent until the design team gets sacked. No amount of wishful thinking on their part is going to get me to forget that I dropped around four hundred dollars over one and a half years on their products and then convince me that there's no way I can use those materials anymore.

And for what? So they can avoid the shame of having to call Essentials stuff 4.5E? First of all, people are going to call it that anyway. Second of all, calling it 4.5E doesn't necessarily hurt things. Even though I strongly disagree with the common wisdom, 3.5E is seen as an improvement over 3.0E. It's not a badge of shame or anything. Third of all, even if calling something 4.5E would have pissed off the fans, they're pissed because it's a change for the sake of change that forces them to spend money. This is a bigger degree of magnitude of change that wastes even more money. I mean, even though Manual of the Planes and Oriental adventures are 3.0E material, I still don't feel as though I wasted my money. If I want to, I can mostly use material from that book without too much problem; even copy-pasting monsters despite the changes to the damage and hit point system.

I mean, honestly, what the fuck is Wizards fucking thinking?

This is going to explode in their faces. I guarantee it. I wanted Mike and Bill to have to go get real jobs where they work 50 hours a week (but really 40 hours because everyone knows management skates out) for a comfortable middle-class salary in some middle-management position where their soul slowly deadens between bouts of consumerist orgies so that they'll never touch another D&D product again. But not at this cost.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I wish there was some way to get the contents of this Podcast out to the boards at large. Or at least see the reaction of it to places other than here.

This is about to go over as well as a Robert Newcomb novel at a feminist rally.

[hogarth]

So. How in the fuck is this not a new edition? Fuck the 4.5E stuff, this is an entirely new edition. I mean, you flat-out can NOT bring 4E dead-tree edition stuff to Essentials--which is a significant higher magnitude of change from 3.0E to 3.5E and even 3.5E to Pathfinder.

Sure you can bring "old" 4E books to an "Essentials" game, just like you can bring Sword & Fist to a game that uses Complete Warrior. The only problem is that they're only partially compatible and there's a bunch of overlap.

I find it amusing that everything about "old" 4E and "Essentials" 4E has an exact analog with 3.0E and 3.5E, and yet WotC swears up and down that there's no relation.

[Username17]

Well, if Essentials does poorly, we'll all lose our jobs, so I guess this is a question for Bill Slavicsek.

This is the best news I have heard in some time.

I mean yes, I understand that there are basically no sales values that Essentials can have that would make them admit publicly that it ha done poorly. But just knowing that the guys on the inside are nervous as fuck and think that heads are going to roll if the sales are bad "in reality" gives me hope. Real hope that Slavicsek and Mearls could lose their jobs in a few months. That makes me all tingly.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sure you can bring "old" 4E books to an "Essentials" game,

This goes quite a bit further than that 3.5E did to 3.0E. <10% of the spells got changed going from 3.0E to 3.5E, the vast majority of them being in the PHB. I mean, there were updates to other non-core material in later books but it wasn't that extensive.

Moreover, look at the Sword and Fist book again. Not many expansion options got the axe as you'd think. Let's take a look. Actually, you know what? Since I have most of these books on hand and know where the feats originated from, I don't have to look too hard to see where the feats come from. So I can do pretty much 90% of the feats that got changed going into 3.5E.

Close Quarters Fighting: No change, it's a straight-up reprint with a couple of sentences added to clarify.

Defensive Throw: No change, reprint.

Eagle Claw Attack: Positive change, the feat in 3.0E straight up did NOTHING. Like, literally nothing. It's more useless than Weapon Specialization: Net. The feat still sucks in 3.5E, but at least it does something now.

Earth's Embrace: Enormous nerf. Instead of doing critical hit damage you do a measly +1d10 damage. This along with the change to polymorph completely killed off the fighter-grappler build.

Expert Tactician: This got nerfed, but in another 3.0E product. Song and Silence.

Eyes in the Back of Your Head: This feat became easier to qualify for in 3.5E.

Fists of Iron: Small nerf despite the +1 damage. It requires an additional feat that you had anyway and draws from your stunning attempts rather than a separate counter.

Flying Kick: Nerf, only does 1d12 extra damage instead of double unarmed damage. While this really hurt monks, it was probably a good thing because it made druids significantly less crazy.

Freezing the Lifeblood: Enormous nerf, requires a BAB of +10 instead of +5 now. This means that monks can only take this at level 18 now instead of 9.

Great Ki(ai) Shout: Huge nerf, now only affects characters which have less hit die than you have.

Hold the Line: Straight-up reprint, no change.

Improved/Superior Expertise: No change, reprint.

Improved Overrun: Drastic change, though it's not the feat's fault so much as it was Andy's Stealth nerf. This is actually the first feat to get hugely nerfed in the transition from S&F/OA to Complete Warrior/Player's Handbook.

Karmic Strike: Requires an extra feat, but overall it's a buff. Instead of the damage happening simultaneously, you go first now. Which can allow you to kill a fucker or use an expansion option to scoot away from the attack instead of taking damage. This turns Karmic Strike from 3.0E's 'nice trick' to 'if you're not a Book of Nine Swords character, get this or Elusive Target if you want to fight in melee'.

Monkey Grip: This got buffed from 3.0E to 3.5E. It's easier to qualify for and doesn't just restrict you to using a larger weapon in one hand anymore.

Off-Hand Parry: lol

Pain Touch: This got a significant (accidental) buff. In addition to being much easier to qualify for at low level, thus actually succeeding in the task of making monks not completely worthless, in 3.5E it works for any stunning attack rather than just ones made from Stunning Fist.

Pin Shield: This feat got nerfed in some ways, buffed in others. In 3.5E the reduction to AC happens automatically at the cost of giving up all of your off-hand attacks. In 3.0E you could only get the AC reduction on off-hand attacks AND if you hit with it, but you got your attack back. Overall, I'm going to say that it's a nerf at low levels, buff at higher levels.

Power Critical: Got an enormous nerf from Masters of the Wild. Which I don't really blame them for since it made druids go completely crazy.

Prone Attack: Got buffed going into 3.5E. You now also suffer no penalty to AC for being attacked while prone.

Roundabout Kick: Reprint.

Sharp-Shooting: Reprint.

Shield Expert/Improved Shield Bash (3.5E): Name's different, function is the same. Improved Shield bash is easier to qualify for now, which is awesome. However:

Improved Shield Bash (3.0E)/Improved Shield Bash (3.5E): A nerf because the old-style Improved Shield bash pushed an enemy five feet when you hit them with it without the need for a bull-rush check. That's extremely helpful and in conjunction with Divine Shield made paladins quite the face-rocker in melee from levels 6-9.

Throw Anything: Ineffective nerf. Instead of throwing ANY weapon you can only throw melee weapons. But you wouldn't want to throw ranged weapons in the first place anyway. So...? :puzzled:

Zen Archery: Ridiculously powerful buff for cleric archers. This completely opened the cleric archer profession up away from elves with the war/elf domain and gave us clerics who upped the ante with the Spell and Travel and Trickery domains while having a higher attack bonus. Nice work, assholes.

Divine Cleansing: Reprint.

Divine Might: Nerf or buff. It lasts only one round now instead of several, but is only a free action now. Which makes it more usable than the DotF one--unless you read the Sage's ridiculous comment about Divine Might being a free action for no real reason.

Divine Resistance: Buff, gives temporary hit points now.

Divine Shield: Enormous nerf or buff, depending on how you view things. This completely killed off the Captain America paladin, which makes me sad. Yes, the bonus to AC is much larger now (since it's untyped instead of an enhancement). But no one really used Divine Shield for that anyway.

Divine Vengeance: Buff, doesn't require extra turning anymore.

The feats didn't fare too bad. If you're a monk, 3.5E was like having your balls/ovaries carved out from your body cavity, but if you were any other sword-based class you could still pretty much play the same character. There are a couple of other feats that I missed in other expansion options, too, most notably Practiced Spellcaster and Persistent Spell. But that's Forgotten Realms crap anyway.

So let's look at the PrCs now. Things ended up much worse for the compatibility fight in this light.

(EDIT: I was about to go on a long tirade detailing the differences... but I realized I already did that. So I'm just going to repost what I wrote from this thread. Yeah, from a 'did Complete Warrior screw over the fighters' standpoint it's pretty damning. But hogarth said that the change from 4.0E to 4.5E Essentials is just as big. And that just ain't so. I mean, ALREADY 4.0E as of September 2009 and July 2010 have completely different metagames.)

Bear Warrior
3.5E Bear Warriors get fewer skills, lose out on a save, and get their bear forms at later levels than their OA counterpart. Depending on what expansion options you have you might be able to rage slightly more often than the OA Bear Warrior. But honestly, who gives a fuck? You have less of a reason to stay in the class and you get the abilities you need later. Weak.
Verdict: Puzzling nerf. The PrC is noticably WEAKER now but the core competencies aren't all that changed. People most complained about the one-level dip and... that's still there.


Blade Singer
Disappointing nerf to Tome and Blood stealth rewrite. It's better than a one-level dip in Bladesinger than the Tome and Blood Counterpart and you end up casting higher-level spells if you came into it as a wizard. But it performs its core function (staple arcane spellcasting onto a gish) overall worse because it's more difficult.
Verdict: Nerf. Not a big nerf since it's not all that much worse than the original class, but it's still an ugly example of how 3.5E does business.


Cavalier
The 3.5E Cavalier drops a feat that old Cavaliers wouldn't use (Weapon Focus: Sword), gets rid of a game-breaking prerequisite, gets a much higher bonus on their Courtly Knowledge Check, and levels of Cavalier stack with Paladin for determining your mount.
However, the Sword and Fist Cavalier got a higher attack bonus and also got Full-Mounted Attack, which was so badass that people stood up and took notice. The new Full-Mounted Attack is just puzzlingly bad. That ability is completely useless. I could be doing an attack at my full BAB at 5x the damage... or I could be doing 3 to 5 separate attacks at a steadily lowering base attack at 1x the damage. Why, God, why?
Verdict: Nerf. It's not a big nerf if you're ending the campaign early, but it doesn't have an ability that makes you do a backflip once you slog through it anymore.


Drunken Master
Oh, Jesus. This used to be an extraordinarily good dipping class for people who had two levels in rogue (or monk, if they were using the OA variant) or for monks who predicted that their campaign would end before level 16. Now it's not good for any-fucking thing. This goddamn class doesn't even advance a monk's unarmed damage or flurry rate. Awful.
Verdict: Nerf. And not just any nerf either, but it was like someone injecting your genitals with hot foam, carved them out of your body cavity, and tossed your foam penis or vulva or what-have-you round the room while the game devs laughed at you.


Eye of Gruumsh
Well, they removed the clause from MotW that states that people raised by orcs can still become this PrC. You just gotta love that D&D racism.
3.5E Eyes get two more skills. Swing Blindly is no longer a suicidal course of action--the MotW version gave a +2 bonus to strength while raging at the cost of provoking AoOs like you were spellcasting. Barbarians can not use the Concentrate skill while raging. Yeah.
Verdict: Boosted from unusable to acceptable dipping class. Excellent! Party time! Woo woo woo wooooooo! You guys know it's things like this which cause people to accuse Andy Collins for having a hard-on for dwarven Fighter/Barbarians, right?


Frenzied Berserker
The Frenzied Berserker deals flat-out more damage than the MotW version at the cost of losing nothing else.
Verdict: Boosted from decent to crazy-good, especially with the 3.5E change to Power Attack. I want everyone to learn the lessons from this class to game design. If you have a bunch of strong options and a bunch of weak options and you decide to nerf the strong options, you need to nerf ALL of them. Otherwise you'll have a game that's just as unbalanced but also the additional disadvantage of being more boring than before.


Halfling Outrider
The Sword and Fist Halfling Outrider is on the whole much weaker than the 3.5E counterpart, what with better AC bonuses and mounts. Except that the S&F Halfling Outrider had a Leap from the Saddle that was their version of Full-Mounted Attack, which boosts the considerable gap.
Verdict: It's a wash. If you held a gun to my head I would ask to be the 3.5E halfling outrider if I could get to be the S&F Cavalier, too. If you forced me to stay within editions, I would pick the 3.0E Halfling Outrider and Cavalier.


Hunter of the Dead
These classes are almost exactly the same, except for a 'hilarious' typo in the example character which clearly uses the 3.0E text. The new hunter of the dead has a slightly expanded spell list and two extra smite undeads after 8 levels; the old one had a much larger Positive Energy burst.
Verdict: It's a wash. The new Hunter of the Dead is slightly better at one-on-one combat, the old Hunter of the Dead is better at low-CR horde-breaking. But it doesn't matter, since the PrC still SUCKS and makes you wish you were playing a Tempest or a Consecrated Harrier or a Knight of the Middle Circle instead. Or preferably all three. Anything but this garbage


Knight of the Chalice
The 3.0E version had a d12 for hit dice. The 3.5E version had a d10. That's already a bad sign. The 3.5E is also missing two spells from the list (though they are VERY important spells: Zeal and Weapon of the Deity).
The 3.5E's Fiendslaying applies to more monsters than the 3.0E version. Good.
The 3.5E Censure Demon specifies that the demon is sent back as with a dismissal spell (the 3.0E says that they're just sent back to their home plane; wow, that's useless)
The 3.5E's Courage of Heaven is much better, giving blanket immunities to themselves and their buddies to all evil outsiders, rather than just self-immunities and bonus to buddies from demons only.
Verdict: Boost. They still suck, but just extending their ability to all fiends rather than just demons made them a whole lot better for no reason.


Knight Protector
They extended the racial prerequisites. That's good. They increased the BAB requirement and dropped the skill bonuses. Um, what the shit? That's a kick in the throat, but not deal-breaking.
But THEN they got rid of Defensive Blow, which was the entire reason people entered the class. Did they give the Knight Protector something to compensate for this? No.
I don't think so, assholes.
Verdict: Nerfed into uselessness. Knight Protector was one of those PrCs that every fighter needed to keep up at higher level. And in Andy Collin's diseased mind every fighter having Knight Protector in their resume meant that the class was overpowered, rather than the fighter archetype being underpowered. Bleh.


Order of the Bow Initiate
Okay, so first of all they required an extra skill to bring up and reduced the hit dice. What is with 3.5E edition and being so motherfucking stingy with the d12 and d10?
And look at this! The Old Order of the Bow Initiate had Close Combat Shot, Ranged Sneak Attack, and full-BAB which would've been enough to justify the class on its lonesome. Then as a further kick in the nuts they lost their superior version of Zen Archery, Superior Weapon Specialization, and their own version of opportunist (but with a bow which was all sorts of awesome).
The new OotBI gets... Sharp-Shooting. And the ability to make ranged sneak attacks at 60 feet at 10th level. Holy god, that is awful.
I really can't believe this. They took a perfectly good class and nerfed it into uselessness. I mean, the Knight Protector was super-nerfed but people didn't spend more than a few levels in this class. OotBI used to be one of the few warrior-PrCs that were good for all 10 levels.
Verdict: Nerfed into uselessness. If you still want Close Combat Shot it's still there, but why would you bother anymore?


Purple Dragon Knight
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Dragon Knight can be gotten at level 6, but requires a BAB of +4. The Complete Warrior one needs to be level 5 but requires a BAB of +5. The FRCS PDN requires Leadership (one of the best feats in the game), while the Complete Warrior PDN needs Negotiator (one of those shitty +2 bonus to two skills feats)
The Complete Warrior PDN also has a +2 bonus to DC for their 'fear' ability, which still fails to keep it level appropriate since the DC is based on class level and the class is only 5 levels long.
Verdict: Since it now requires a dump feat for a marginal benefit, now nerfed into uselessness.


Ravager
The Sword and Fist Ravager requires an extra awful feat (dirty fighting). Looking good so far, Complete Warrior Ravager.
However, the Complete Warrior Ravager has a nerfed Aura of Fear (the S&F Ravager's is unlimited) and a nerfed 'Crudest' Cut (the text in the table and class ability doesn't match, but Crudest sounds awful). The S&F Ravager loses an additional Cruelest Cut if they miss with all of their attacks after declaring that they are using the ability but they only need to hit on any of the attacks in that around rather than a specific one.
The CW Ravager's Visage of Terror is much better than the S&F one, which doesn't require a range of touch and has a save DC that equals their class level + CHA + 10 rather than 14 + CHA.
Verdict: It's a wash pretty much. Ravagers still suck snail bait in both this and the previous edition. If you want to flip out and torture people with your rage, be a Frenzied Berserker instead. Be an Eye of Gruumsh. Hell, be a frickin' Barbarian.


Spellsword
This class is significantly better than the Tome and Blood version, since it gives you what you want right away. However, it practically demands a two-level dip in a non-full caster class. If you were going to do that, why wouldn't you just prepare all of your spells Stilled? You could equip heavier armor and have three or four levels into whatever bullshit class you wanted. Like Incantatrix.
Verdict: Better than the Tome and Blood version, but still crappy compared to core options. How come all of the classes that got boosts still suck so very, very much?


Tattooed Monk
The new Tattooed Monk requires the feat of Endurance now. UGH. But they also let you have every knowledge skill instead of just Arcana and Religion. Um, yay?
Class abilities are still sparse as ever (why would ANYONE take the 10th level of this class?)
Okay, the tattoos are different. And by the way, FUCK YOU for making me detail the differences.

Arrowroot Tattoo: Same.
Bamboo: Same.
Bat: Same.
Bellflower: Same.
Butterfly: Same.
Centipede: Same.
Chameleon: The effect is the same, but alter self works differently in this edition. So it's a buff (pretty significant buff actually), but a meaningless one because it's a fucking second-level spell.
Cloud: This tattoo does not exist for the CW Tattoo Monk! I know it's based off of a spell that only exists in OA, but why?
Crab: The OA TM gains +X/DR, with the +X being their constitution bonus, which means they could get 10 DR of epic-level damage reduction. Which was actually pretty damn good... for monks. The CW TM gains... magic damage reduction. What the hell?
Crane: Same.
Crow: The OA TM specifically states that you can't have this tattoo in non-Rokugan campaigns, so I won't hold it against them.
Dragon: The OA TM gains a scaling x1d8 fire breath with this tattoo, which gives them the grand total of 5d8 damage. The CW just uses an elixir of dragon breath. You know that line about winning the Special Olympics? Yeah.
Dragonfly: The OA's tattoo is an extraordinary ability for some reason.
Falcon: Same
Lion: The OA TM doesn't use up their smite attempt if they miss, unlike the CW version.
Monkey: Same
Moon, Crescent: Same, except the CW tattoo monk needs to get theirs at a later level (9 instead of 7). However, the CW monk can get both this and the Full Moon Tattoo, while the OA one can't (they need to belong to a specific school).
Moon, Full: Same
Mountain: Same, except that a CW monk can end their stance early. Which is a good thing, considering how this fucking thing prevents you from moving.
Nightingale: Same.
Ocean: Same, except that an OA monk needs to be 5th level in this class to take this tattoo first.
Phoenix: Same.
Pine: The CW TM just gets the Remain Conscious feat. The OA TM gets Endurance AND Remain Conscious. You know, that feat tax that the CW version now mysteriously has?
Scorpion: OA does not require the monk to be aware of this attack before applying this admittedly very useful ability (you can sometimes sink a monster's attack by as much as 20 points; very nice).
Spider: The CW version does more constitution damage (2 initial and secondary and isn't temporary) but doesn't stack with Stunning Fist. Hell, it siphons attempts OFF of your Stunning Fist ability. The OA just lives with having poisoned fists for the rest of their life.
Sun: Same, but see that annoying note about exclusive schools above.
Tiger: Same.
Tortoise: Same.
Unicorn: The OA monk can apply their bonus to ANY roll; the CW can only use theirs on d20 rolls.
Wasp: Same, but the OA has a level prerequisite of 3.
White Mask: Same, but the OA has a level prerequisite of 3.

Verdict: Nerfed into uselessness. That goddamn crab tattoo was the only reason why anyone gave this PrC a second look and they took it away from us. Goddamn you, Andy Collins... goddamn you.

That's a pretty big change. It redid the metagame in significant ways. Now Maj's cheese-monk is completely and utterly pointless. But you know what? From a compatibility standpoint it's not that big of a deal. Most of the PrCs in Sword and Fist didn't get touched. Shintao Monk (the best of the lot) didn't get touched. 3.5E killed off the fighter-archer and some obscure builds. Aside from that, there were four other PrC nerfs. The Hospitaler, the Sacred Fist, the Sacred Exorcist, and the Master of Shrouds.

And that's nearly the entirety of non-spell changes from 3.0E to 3.5E. It's pretty significant, but most of your Sword and Fist book is still usable.

But it's not really that bad all told compared what's going to happen to 4E. 4E errata killed off many more builds at once than even Complete Warrior did. Even before we get into the whole thing of 'can't use 4.5E material, ever, if you have a 4.0E character' which is a load of fucking horseshit, if Windjammer's quote is correct then WotC is going to go a step further than 3.5E ever did in killing off old characters.

[hogarth]

But hogarth said that the change from 4.0E to 4.5E Essentials is just as big.

Hang on -- I certainly didn't say "just as big", because frankly I have no idea how big the changes are going to be from 4E -> 4.5E. I just mean that I can't think of a single aspect of the situation that isn't similar to the change from 3E -> 3.5E.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hang on -- I certainly didn't say "just as big", because frankly I have no idea how big the changes are going to be from 4E -> 4.5E.

Well, 4E errata has completely killed off several builds, making the changes from what the game looked like at the start to how it is now pretty extensive.

Part of it is attributed to the really boxed-in class system. I mean, the only build that 3.5E really and truly killed off was the fighter archer. I'd say that the monk was completely eviscerated, too, but I can't care too much about a change that moves them from 'worst class' to 'completely worthless'. Yeah, the cavalier/Knight Protector nerf SUCKS, but on the bright side they do have power attack and a bunch of other PrCs to grab bonuses from. And pounce is easier for them to grab. Your character will look a little different but the functionality is pretty much the same.

Unless they issue another set of errata, several 4E builds are totally and truly buried. The cold/radiant sorcerer is dead as a doornail. So is the feycharger. And the razor cleric. And the hospitaler super-tank. The thunderglaive and tempest fighter are on life support. The druid and shaman were briefly relevant before being kicked to the bottom tier. Barbarians and Avengers for a couple of months were worth playing until they got kicked down the tier ladder a second time. The new psionic classes also look like they're about to be killed in the next set of errata, too.


With the monster hit point/damage errata, 4.5E has already happened. Essentials is supposed to be a degree of change HIGHER than that. While in a superficial way 3.0E->3.5E is similar to what the game devs are planning for 4.5E, the fact of the matter is that we're already there.

We're heading into completely new territory at this point.

[Windjammer]

Even before we get into the whole thing of 'can't use 4.5E material, ever, if you have a 4.0E character' which is a load of fucking horseshit, if Windjammer's quote is correct then WotC is going to go a step further than 3.5E ever did in killing off old characters.

Well, the important qualification (already contained in my post above) is that only some Essentials powers can't be taken by pre-Essential class builds, not every one.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, the important qualification (already contained in my post above) is that only some Essentials powers can't be taken by pre-Essential class builds, not every one.

If we've learned anything about 4E it's that seemingly 'useless' abilities can combine in unexpected and frightening ways that causes people to cry to Mike Mearls.

Radiant Hunter for example is mostly worthless. It makes Hunter's Quarry damage do radiant damage. Morninglord is also mostly worthless, since it requires you to use radiant weaponry--which is at this point the Radiant Mafia is inferior to the lightning/thunder combo and frostcheese.

But if you put them together, you get to have your choice of Radiant Mafia and frostcheese or stormcheese for your Twin Strike ranger. The CharOP boards haven't really discovered this yet (lordduskblade hints at it but doesn't spell it out yet) and I don't really feel like bringing it up.

Unless they're willing to go over options with a finetooth comb, then this project isn't going to work. But then again, we know that WotC balances options by the Character Optimization boards anyway. Which is why after all this time Stinking Cloud still hasn't been touched despite it being flat-out one of the best wizard dailies in the game.

[Windjammer]

But then again, we know that WotC balances options by the Character Optimization boards anyway.

As it so happens, while I was googling for the May rules update which tried to communicate that WotC is henceforth going to be more "conservative" in their amount of errata, I found this gem - it's by WotC' Chris Sims who, I think, has been crucial in the update process for 4E:

It’s a mistake to rely on play feedback only from extremely sharp players. They outperform normal players, skewing perceptions.

I think he got a point. I also think he doesn't quite state whether 4E made (and continues to make) that mistake or not.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Some choice quotes from Windjammer's link:

Or that it’s possible that those classes already exist. @aquelajames didn’t want another Oriental Adventures.

OF COURSE FUCKING NOT. 4E D&D doesn't do contained campaign setting/setting expansion books anymore. The only one they did for 4E was fucking Manual of the Planes. I don't know what is the deal with 4E's hard-on for segregating the classes, powers, feats, magical items, monsters, and fluff from each other but it's dumb as shit. It turned Draconomicon and Open Grave from 'easy pitch over the plate' to 'worthless shit only a fanboy would buy'.

Powers evolved from Heinsoo crazy (6d12? Really?) to the versions you see today. The early mandate was to push limits on design.

I find this hilarious. Classes in the PHB2 are much more cookie-cutter than the ones in PHB1, which is sad.

Also, this has the side-effect of making the PHB paragon paths/epic destinies the 'choice' of the litter because they are on the whole better than the bullshit found in later books.

The initial 4e Monster Manual draft had more fluff. It was cut, I guess, to fit more stats. But monster powers alone are often evocative.

Fucking World of Warcraft pedophile-felching shitbrained doucherockets.

#
# 3e D&D crit confirmation rolls had obscure mathematical reasons, but we R&Ders and players saw it as post-crit denial. No fun.
# 4e was also built to better control PC and monster crit ranges.

If you guys were trying to reduce critical hit fetishism then you have failed utterly. Yeah, they're less common now, but the relative effect for critical hits are much stronger. There are entire builds that get their mojo off of critical hits at the cost of sacrificing a bunch of other shit (like avengers who weasel their way into Student of Caiphon) and they compete favorably with 'pure damage' builds.

When @loganbonner started, I was happy a new person (like me!) entered the industry. Weird we both got laid off the same day.

You hear that, bitches? You're fucking next, Slavicsek and Mearls. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but Lord help me they DO turn. Like Stark, Reynolds, and Collins, soon your ass will be MINE.

[FatR]

OF COURSE FUCKING NOT. 4E D&D doesn't do contained campaign setting/setting expansion books anymore. The only one they did for 4E was fucking Manual of the Planes. I don't know what is the deal with 4E's hard-on for segregating the classes, powers, feats, magical items, monsters, and fluff from each other but it's dumb as shit. It turned Draconomicon and Open Grave from 'easy pitch over the plate' to 'worthless shit only a fanboy would buy'.

Can you elaborate? I mean, what's so differend between 3.5 Draconomicon and 4E Draconomicon?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can you elaborate? I mean, what's so differend between 3.5 Draconomicon and 4E Draconomicon?

The 4E Draconomicons (both Chromatic and Metallic versions) offers no new races, paragon paths, epic destinies, classes, powers, feats, or non-artifact magical items. The Metallic version doesn't even have any goddamn rituals.

It should have actually been really easy for Wizards to have sold these books. They just needed to put in the sorcerer, some dragon-based powers, some dragon-flavored feats and magican items, a playable kobold race, some dragon-flavored paragon paths such as a dragon summoner and a dragon-using beastmaster ranger.

But they didn't do that shit. Why? Because Andy Collins is so incompetent that he couldn't sell a trashcan to a teen mommie on prom night.

... ooo, that was in bad taste even for me.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I don't know about the Dracos, but I have compared Open Grave vs. Libris Mortis. Libris Mortis not only had more fluff, but more meat too. They managed this because Open Grave is about 3/4s encounters. I'm not saying that a book that contains tons of encounters ready-made isn't useful and/or demanded, but I am saying that's not what one would expect.

[Lago PARANOIA]

From a 'can the idea lend itself to a quality product' perspective, Count is correct. Can you really honestly say that from an objective perspective a book that's just encounters with undead / minor undead fluff / undead monsters in it is poor writing compared to a book that also has a necromancer and Bone Swords in it? No. Even though no one is ever going to use Enemies and Allies or Book of Challenges because it has almost nothing for the typical PC, I still enjoyed reading those books. I enjoyed Enemies and Allies so much that I wrote a thread about it.

But from a sales perspective, it's a no-brainer. People shelled out real money for Stormwrack and Frostburn, but that's only because those books came out with shit beyond new monsters and setting fluff.

[sake]

The new psionic classes also look like they're about to be killed in the next set of errata, too.

Even more fun... people with advance copies of psionic power are saying they still didn't do jack shit to make higher level At Wills worth having (Hell, their damage still doesn't even match a normal classes' At Will at lv 21) so when Mind Thrust, Dishearten, and Demoralizing Strike get nerfed you can just delete the classes completely, as the Psion will make even the Seeker and Swarm Druids look good in comparision.

Also I think it's funny that the Psion is still the only psionic class that actually uses INT in any way.