Perhaps the biggest news from Gen Con was Wizard of the Coast’s (WotC’s) planned changes to 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, turning it into Dungeons and Dragons Essentials, a simpler and more streamlined version of the game.
The most easily seen change in the new version is more straightforward character development, making it easier for players to advance their characters as they level. There are many other differences as well including new magic item rarities (no longer can all items be easily be made by players) and new rules and guidelines for monsters.
WotC claims Essentials is not a 4.5 edition, much like when Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 evolved into 3.5. WotC also says this isn’t a new edition either, but many players say otherwise, since all the 4th edition rules will be adapted to fit the new Essentials rules and WotC has canceled or delayed the release of many 4th Edition rulebooks.
WotC has burned fans in the past with edition shifts – half or full – and wants desperately to avoid doing it again. The official line is Essentials is an entry level version of 4th edition, a much simpler version of the game, which in turn was supposed to be much simpler version of the 3.5 edition. Much of this new simplicity is achieved by new class ‘builds’, which are mostly incompatible with old classes. While new class builds might not make a new edition, changing the rules of the older game to match the newer is a strange way to say the “new game is no different than the old game.”
These issues are pretty much irrelevant. 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons started with 3 core rule books in 2008: the Player’s Handbook, the Dungeon Master’s Guide and the Monster Manual. Rules errata have affected every class in the Handbook. Errata changed essentially all the non-combat rules and most other hard rules in the Guide. The latest errata changed every single number on every single monster in the Manual.
Whatever 4th Edition was when it came out 2 years ago, that game is gone, to be replaced by a new game only accessible by those that can access the constant stream of updates.
Here’s a little something related to the “Changed-It’s-The-Same” debate for your viewing humor:
Read [The Tone Show] Site [WotC Community Forums]
Buy your D&D stuff from these merchants:
Hi there. After viewing a discussion with the author of this post on Amazon's boards (in which he claimed the have stumbled across the post, rather than having wrote it) he asserted that because no comments had been left that his 'article' must be true!
(http://www.amazon.com/tag/dungeons and dragons/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg4?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx27SHHKZC9MC6U&cdPage=4&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx28GGHOR04W6WM&displayType=tagsDetail)
While he's also asserted that any post made after he said "no posts means I'm right!" would be invalid, I've decided to go ahead and write a counter-argument just for fun.
"Perhaps the biggest news from Gen Con was Wizard of the Coast’s (WotC’s) planned changes to 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, turning it into Dungeons and Dragons Essentials, a simpler and more streamlined version of the game."
'Biggest News' is pretty subjective, but it's a minor point to quibble over, so I won't. WotC did not announce D&D 4e would "become" D&D Essentials, but rather announced a product line CALLED D&D Essentials. It includes gaming aids for new players, new formatting of old information (an update of monsters to fit the better received MM3 version rather than the previous two versions) a rules and errata compilation (which does include -some- new errata-like changes, optional rules, and updates) and some additional class build options. These include Wizards, Rangers, et al that are more thematically linked to 3.5s versions of those classes than the current iterations.
The design intent was that the Essentials supplements would be as compatible with the currently released material as a release of "Arcane Power 2," and I have seen nothing in the previews that dissuades me from believing that they have achieved this goal. I would love to see the author show me any referenced evidence that this is not so.
"Simpler" and "more streamlined" is an appropriate descriptor for some of the rules updates, but is misleading when applied to the whole of the release schedule. The 'starter kit' is indeed packaged with a simplified version of the rules in a smallish book to help new players get a better feel for the game before wading hip deep into shifting, blasts, bursts, modifiers, proficiencies, etc. Still, this pamphlet packaged in a kit is not the whole of the release, nor is it truly representative of the system as a whole.
"The most easily seen change in the new version is more straightforward character development, making it easier for players to advance their characters as they level. There are many other differences as well including new magic item rarities (no longer can all items be easily be made by players) and new rules and guidelines for monsters."
Again, the opening statement here is pretty subjective. Beyond that, there are some changes in the areas that you mentioned, but not exactly in the ways mentioned. Magic items will be given a bit more clarified -ranking- in an effort to allow the DM (as well as players themselves, should they desire) to better control, limit, or choose thematically appropriate options for magic items. Any restrictions are imposed (as always) largely by the players and the DM, rather than the rules. Monster changes are primarily a reformat, although some entries have been rebalanced to provide more or less of a challenge appropriate to their level. Again, much of the character related material consists of:
A. Updates to the rules for either clarity or balance.
B. Changes to base races to allow more options within those races (e.g. stat bonus options similar to those in PH3)
C. Additional builds for common classes that are a nostalgic throwback to a 3.5 theme.
"WotC claims Essentials is not a 4.5 edition, much like when Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 evolved into 3.5. WotC also says this isn’t a new edition either, but many players say otherwise, since all the 4th edition rules will be adapted to fit the new Essentials rules and WotC has canceled or delayed the release of many 4th Edition rulebooks."
4th edition rules are adapted to fit errata, as was done with 3.0 and 3.0 errata (pre 3.5 release) and 3.5 and it's errata. Claiming that the whole of the rules will change is irresponsible 'reporting.' Please feel free to quote relevant passages in the new rules, designer notes or interviews, or anything at all to back this up.
While several 4th releases are coming out later than anticipated by fans, I haven't heard of any cancellations at all, although I actually would have expected to see some of them folded into the new books. Still, with that expectation, no cancellations. Again, feel free to provide any factual references to this information.
"WotC has burned fans in the past with edition shifts – half or full – and wants desperately to avoid doing it again. The official line is Essentials is an entry level version of 4th edition, a much simpler version of the game, which in turn was supposed to be much simpler version of the 3.5 edition."
The official line is that the Essentials "starter kits" are and entry level version of the game, while others are an update to clarify or compile errata and format changes. I could likely argue with you for days as to whether 4th or 3.5 is the simpler game, although we likely have very different definitions of the word as it relates to gaming. Still, 'complexity' does not always come with hallmarks of good game design such as balance, fairness, fun, etc, so it's not worth further argument, unless you just feel that we must.
"Much of this new simplicity is achieved by new class ‘builds’, which are mostly incompatible with old classes."
Incorrect. While multiclassing/hybridizing them may or may not be advisable, they are not "incompatible." Incompatible would imply that they could not be played using the same ruleset, or could not even coexist within the same game. Even "mostly incompatible" is an egregious overstatement in this case.
"While new class builds might not make a new edition, changing the rules of the older game to match the newer is a strange way to say the “new game is no different than the old game.”
These issues are pretty much irrelevant."
I had to check the date on this post after reading this sentence. Surely enough it's from about three days ago, well after the initial release schedule for the Essentials line had been announced, including two "Heroes of…" preorders which include the 'character builds' that you say 'may not make it in the game.' Still, for irrelevant issues, (also, irrelevance in general is a very subjective term.) you seem to have invested more time formulating complaints about them–more than you spent researching, it appears.
"4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons started with 3 core rule books in 2008: the Player’s Handbook, the Dungeon Master’s Guide and the Monster Manual. Rules errata have affected every class in the Handbook. Errata changed essentially all the non-combat rules and most other hard rules in the Guide. The latest errata changed every single number on every single monster in the Manual."
Every single class? Every single number on every single monster? All the non-combat rules? "most" other rules? Really?!
No, not really. Yes, there have been a large number of changes, especially compared to the 3.5 philosophy of "wait a year and publish a Tome of/Book of/Magic of" and call it new material when we're really just fixing the worst problems with the old. Definitely compared to the 2nd Ed (TSR) philosophy of "we'll just publish another sourcebook in six months and reference it in 12 other releases from that month."
On the other hand, errata shows an ongoing interest in game balance and fairness. The fact that (despite publishing the Rules Compendium, with a cover price about half of what a normal hardback in the series costs) the errata are available to everyone -for free- shows at least a marginal interest in showing the customer that even if the original product was not perfect (and what product ever is? especially games!) they're at least willing to correct the worst of it.
"Whatever 4th Edition was when it came out 2 years ago, that game is gone, to be replaced by a new game only accessible by those that can access the constant stream of updates. Here’s a little something related to the “Changed-It’s-The-Same” debate for your viewing humor:"
Again, I'm not sure what makes you think that 4th is "gone" or that whatever you think is replacing it will only be available for a privileged few.
As for the video… I find it amusing that it was one of the videos circulating when 3.0 was released and all the "purists" were shouting about how terrible it was compared to 2nd edition… And how it was the "downfall of real roleplaying" and "its rules forbid roleplay" and "it killed how interesting my character could be" and "was dumbed down for idiots" and "it's not real Dungeons & Dragons."
Do those arguments sound familiar, Mr. Doom?
I guess it's appropriate, although not in the way you intended.
But…I never asserted any such thing that you say in the first paragraph; beginning like this is not a good way to start a reasonable discussion at all.
You've spent much time on this, and I thank you for the opportunity for me to back with facts the assertions made in the article.
I will not address your expressions of opinion, however, but that does still leave me with a few things to answer.
In paragraph 5, line 2, you have a question about compatibility. There are serious compatibility issues in the Essentials builds. First, you can not use hybrid rules (from PHB3) with any of these builds. Two, you cannot use any 'recover daily power' items or abilities (from Arcane power 1 and 2) with any of the builds that have no daily powers. Three, you cannot multiclass (from PHB 1) with any of the builds that do not have encounter powers. There are many other issues, but three is enough evidence that, indeed, there will be compatibility issues.
I think much of the confusion comes from you not listening to the podcast from the developers of Essentials, and I encourage you to do so: http://thetome.podbean.com/2010/08/0…eminar-part-1/
The plan really is to change the 4e rules to match the Essentials rules. For those that also don't want to listen, allow me to include but one example.
Someone asked: "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."
You'll note: there is no denial that, indeed, they will change the 4e rules to line up with Essentials.
This is what's going to be done with every rules change in Essentials: change the 4e rules to match Essentials. I'll leave you to actually listen to what WOTC says, I believe that will clear up much of the confusion.
You can also see this in the latest errata for "Tumble" which now matches the Tumble rules in Essentials. Now that we've cleared that up, let me move on to some of your other questions.
Yes, indeed, every class in the Player's Handbook has been affected by errata. Clerics have had their healing rules changed, among many other things. Fighters have had "Come and Get It" changed, among many other things. Paladins have had Exalted Retribution changed, among many other things. Rangers have had Blade Cascade changed, among many other things. Rogues have had Tumble (and Stealth) changed, among many other things. Warlocks have had Thirsting Maw changed, among many other things. Warlords have had Lead The Attack changed, among many other things.
That's every single class in the book, and thus I've answered your question with specifics.
The latest errata asserts that the numbers for all the monsters prior to Monster Manual 3 need to be changed to match the new guidelines (from Monster Manual 3). Please, please, review the latest errata for yourself and see that this is the case: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateJuly2010.pdf
Ok, I concede, the monsters probably have the same speed as before (6, for the most part). But the other 95% of the numbers on monsters need to be changed, as per the errata. I play the game extensively, and I assure you, the speed is not by any measure the most relevant part of a monster's abilities. Anyone familiar with the game will tell you that the vast majority of the battles are on maps where a speed above 4 is meaningless, and even 2 is usually more than sufficient, so my minor omission here isn't particularly relevant.
Please, review the Dungeon Master's Guide and determine for yourself what non-combat rules there are there. The most significant (nearly only) non-combat rules are, of course, the skill challenges, occupying a full chapter in the book (technically, more than a chapter, as other chapters reference it). Skill challenges have been errated between 3 and 14 times (depending on how you with to make the counting) since the DMG has been published, and many other rules have been changed as well.
I'm under the impression you've not seen the video any more than the podcasts or the errata files, which is why you believe the video is about 3rd edition. Please view the video, it's amusing enough. You'll note the video ends in 2008–this is when 4e was released; 3e is from a number of years earlier, I assure you.
I absolutely agree with you that it's a good thing WoTC erratas the game, even extensively, as each errata improves the game. We're well past 100 pages now, as well as the nearly complete rewrite of Essentials (or, more accurately, the rewrite of 4e to match the Essentials rules set), and the game is certainly improved thereby. A person playing from the books would be "corrected" constantly if he played at a table where everyone else was playing from the online updates.
Thank you for your response, and I'm glad to have helped you to better understand Essentials.
I made a mistake.
In my above post I misread a specific passage, and thus responded to it in a manner that was nonsensical.
“While new class builds might not make a new edition, changing the rules of the older game to match the newer is a strange way to say the “new game is no different than the old game.”
These issues are pretty much irrelevant.”
I had read this as 'while new class builds might not make a new edition' meaning that the builds mentioned in the Essentials line would not be included in the final press. Given your proclivity for the argument that "Essentials" is 5e or at least 4.5, I wasn't able to fathom that you were admitting that this was not reason enough to support that argument, rather than saying that a feature would not make it into the final prints. The wording of the sentence could have been more clear, but I'll still claim it as my own poor reading comprehension failure.
So, allow me to address your intended point:
The addition of new class builds does not make a new addition, you are correct.
An overhaul of existing rulesets MIGHT, actually be strong enough to be a new edition, but that depends on the breadth and depth of that overhaul.
On the other hand, this is not an overhaul. It's not 'changing old rules to suit new content,' it's 'introducing new -options- that fit the clarified and amended rules as currently written by errata.'
Here's a link to the latest podcast (available for free download, as are the rules errata) in which you can listen to an interview with the Essentials line developers clarifying further (beyond what the previews and press releases already have) is and, more importantly, isn't.
http://www.wizards.com/DND/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20100721
Alas, my response still seems to hung up in 'possible spam' land.
I really don't think I said anything about Essentials being 5e in the article…it might be best to stick with things I actually said, rather than, well, things that don't apply at all.
I'll try a new post, hopefully one that won't be interpreted as spam (I'm removing some links):
I never asserted any such thing that you say in the first paragraph of your first post; beginning like this is not a good way to start a reasonable discussion at all.
You've spent much time on this, and I thank you for the opportunity for me to back with facts the assertions made in the article.
I will not address your expressions of opinion, however, but that does still leave me with a few things to answer.
In paragraph 5, line 2, you have a question about compatibility. There are serious compatibility issues in the Essentials builds. First, you can not use hybrid rules (from PHB3) with any of these builds. Two, you cannot use any 'recover daily power' items or abilities (from Arcane power 1 and 2) with any of the builds that have no daily powers. Three, you cannot multiclass (from PHB 1) with any of the builds that do not have encounter powers. There are many other issues, but three is enough evidence that, indeed, there will be compatibility issues.
I think much of the confusion comes from you not listening to the podcast from the developers of Essentials, and I encourage you to do so (link removed, but hopefully the one you've provided is good enough).
The plan really is to change the 4e rules to match the Essentials rules. For those that also don't want to listen, allow me to include but one example.
Someone asked: "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."
You'll note: there is no denial that, indeed, they will change the 4e rules to line up with Essentials.
This is what's going to be done with every rules change in Essentials: change the 4e rules to match Essentials. I'll leave you to actually listen to what WOTC says, I believe that will clear up much of the confusion.
You can also see this in the latest errata for "Tumble" which now matches the Tumble rules in Essentials.
Now that we've cleared that up, let me move on to some of your other questions.
Yes, indeed, every class in the Player's Handbook has been affected by errata. Clerics have had their healing rules changed, among many other things. Fighters have had "Come and Get It" changed, among many other things. Paladins have had Exalted Retribution changed, among many other things. Rangers have had Blade Cascade changed, among many other things. Rogues have had Tumble (and Stealth) changed, among many other things. Warlocks have had Thirsting Maw changed, among many other things. Warlords have had Lead The Attack changed, among many other things.
That's every single class in the book, and thus I've answered another of your question with specifics.
The latest errata asserts that the numbers for all the monsters prior to Monster Manual 3 need to be changed to match the new guidelines (from Monster Manual 3). Please, please, review the latest errata for yourself and see that this is the case: (please search online for this, it's easy to find).
Ok, I concede, the monsters probably have the same speed as before (6, for the most part). But the other 95% of the numbers on monsters need to be changed, as per the errata. I play the game extensively, and I assure you, the speed is not by any measure the most relevant part of a monster's abilities. Anyone familiar with the game will tell you that the vast majority of the battles are on maps where a speed above 4 is meaningless, and even 2 is usually more than sufficient, so my minor omission here isn't particularly relevant.
And thus is another question answered.
Please, review the Dungeon Master's Guide and determine for yourself what non-combat rules there are there. The most significant (nearly only) non-combat rules are, of course, the skill challenges, occupying a full chapter in the book (technically, more than a chapter, as other chapters reference it). Skill challenges have been errated between 3 and 14 times (depending on how you with to make the counting) since the DMG has been published, and many other rules have been changed as well.
And thus is another question answered.
I'm under the impression you've not seen the video any more than the podcasts or the errata files, which is why you believe the video is about 3rd edition. Please view the video, it's amusing enough. You'll note the video ends in 2008–this is when 4e was released; 3e is from a number of years earlier, I assure you.
I believe I've now answered the bulk of your questions, sorry if I missed a few minor ones in there.
I absolutely agree with you that it's a good thing WoTC erratas the game, even extensively, as each errata improves the game. We're well past 100 pages now, as well as the nearly complete rewrite of Essentials (or, more accurately, the rewrite of 4e to match the Essentials rules set), and the game is certainly improved thereby. A person playing from the books would be "corrected" constantly if he played at a table where everyone else was playing from the online updates.
Thank you for your response, and I'm glad to have helped you to better understand Essentials.
Sorry if this is a triple post, the software insists what I have is spam.
Allow me to address your first post, first:
I never asserted any such thing that you say in the first paragraph; beginning like this is not a good way to start a reasonable discussion at all.
You've spent much time on this, and I thank you for the opportunity for me to back with facts the assertions made in the article.
I will not address your expressions of opinion, however, but that does still leave me with a few things to answer.
In paragraph 5, line 2, you have a question about compatibility. There are serious compatibility issues in the Essentials builds. First, you can not use hybrid rules (from PHB3) with any of these builds. Two, you cannot use any 'recover daily power' items or abilities (from Arcane power 1 and 2) with any of the builds that have no daily powers. Three, you cannot multiclass (from PHB 1) with any of the builds that do not have encounter powers. There are many other issues, but three is enough evidence that, indeed, there will be compatibility issues.
I think much of the confusion comes from you not listening to the podcast from the developers of Essentials, and I encourage you to do so: http://thetome.podbean.com/2010/08/0…eminar-part-1/
The plan really is to change the 4e rules to match the Essentials rules. For those that also don't want to listen, allow me to include but one example.
Someone asked: "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."
You'll note: there is no denial that, indeed, they will change the 4e rules to line up with Essentials.
This is what's going to be done with every rules change in Essentials: change the 4e rules to match Essentials. I'll leave you to actually listen to what WOTC says, I believe that will clear up much of the confusion.
You can also see this in the latest errata for "Tumble" which now matches the Tumble rules in Essentials. Now that we've cleared that up, let me move on to some of your other questions.
Yes, indeed, every class in the Player's Handbook has been affected by errata. Clerics have had their healing rules changed, among many other things. Fighters have had "Come and Get It" changed, among many other things. Paladins have had Exalted Retribution changed, among many other things. Rangers have had Blade Cascade changed, among many other things. Rogues have had Tumble (and Stealth) changed, among many other things. Warlocks have had Thirsting Maw changed, among many other things. Warlords have had Lead The Attack changed, among many other things.
That's every single class in the book, and thus I've answered your question with specifics.
The latest errata asserts that the numbers for all the monsters prior to Monster Manual 3 need to be changed to match the new guidelines (from Monster Manual 3). Please, please, review the latest errata for yourself and see that this is the case: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateJuly2010.pdf
Ok, I concede, the monsters probably have the same speed as before (6, for the most part). But the other 95% of the numbers on monsters need to be changed, as per the errata. I play the game extensively, and I assure you, the speed is not by any measure the most relevant part of a monster's abilities. Anyone familiar with the game will tell you that the vast majority of the battles are on maps where a speed above 4 is meaningless, and even 2 is usually more than sufficient, so my minor omission here isn't particularly relevant.
Please, review the Dungeon Master's Guide and determine for yourself what non-combat rules there are there. The most significant (nearly only) non-combat rules are, of course, the skill challenges, occupying a full chapter in the book (technically, more than a chapter, as other chapters reference it). Skill challenges have been errated between 3 and 14 times (depending on how you with to make the counting) since the DMG has been published, and many other rules have been changed as well.
I'm under the impression you've not seen the video any more than the podcasts or the errata files, which is why you believe the video is about 3rd edition. Please view the video, it's amusing enough. You'll note the video ends in 2008–this is when 4e was released; 3e is from a number of years earlier, I assure you.
I absolutely agree with you that it's a good thing WoTC erratas the game, even extensively, as each errata improves the game. We're well past 100 pages now, as well as the nearly complete rewrite of Essentials (or, more accurately, the rewrite of 4e to match the Essentials rules set), and the game is certainly improved thereby. A person playing from the books would be "corrected" constantly if he played at a table where everyone else was playing from the online updates.
I believe this answers most of your questions in your first post, sorry if I missed something in all that.
I see your second post likewise has an assertion never made by me nor referenced in the article, about this being a "5e"; I'm not sure why you feel the need to do this sort of thing.
Thank you for your response, and I'm glad to have helped you to better understand Essentials.
There also seems to be some confusion about what an 'edition' is, especially in reference to book publishing. A new edition of a book, typically, has about all the same material as the previous edition, plus some additional material.
You can see this in textbooks all the time, where a 'new edition' is nearly page by page identical, with perhaps one extra chapter added in the end. You can also see this in encyclopedias, where the latest edition of the encyclopedia does not, by any means, negate all the information in the previous editions (and is often contained in the new editions as well).
For gaming, new editions follow a similar pattern. For example, the newest edition of Axis and Allies has all the same rules as the edition of 25 years ago (except for some errata), plus some additional rules. Similarly, the 25th anniversary edition of Divine Right likewise has all the same rules of the 1978 edition, plus extras (and, of course, some errata and tweaks).
It's not just books and games that use the word in this manner. Even when dealing in coins, different editions still share many strong similarities. For example, the Special Edition Canadian maple leaf coins are very similar to 'old edition' coins (still contain an ounce of precious metal, still have the queen on one side, and a maple leaf on the other, still have very high purity, etc), plus some extra details (enameling, gilding, etc).
So, in the sense that you are saying, namely that Essentials is just like 4e, plus a few more options, then, yes, I concede that it is a new edition. You are not by any means the only person to make that claim, but WoTC insists that it is not a new edition, despite what that word means elsewhere.
Sorry, Rick, no matter how hard you try to make it seem like the D&D world is exploding, it just isn't so. You seem to be implying that having a bunch of (existing) rules errata has made D&D either a new version already or made it unplayable? I'm not sure what your point is there, honestly, other than bemoaning change. I've been playing 4e since it came out, and not one of these changes has affected my campaign, made me change or alter any of my stories or encounters, nor have they rendered invalid anything that has happened in my game. No one has been made to learn any new rules, nor has anyone ever said to me, "wow, Kevin, it seems like there are all these changes and it's like we're not even playing the same game any more." Sorry, you can use the words "every class and number has changed" all day long, but it still won't make your implications accurate. Every month, most every cell in my body changes, yet oddly… I'm the same person. Different, yet indistinguishably and irrelevantly so.
You also seem to be misunderstanding the word incompatible. If I can play my original 4e (even updating using PHB3 rules) fighter alongside someone else's Essential fighter, they're compatible. Are there rules for using these new builds with the hybrid feats? Probably not. That does not mean you can't play them together. They are no more incompatible than the wizard class is incompatible with the rogue class. No, you can't mix and match abilities, but the characters can play alongside each other using the same overarching rule set. So either you are mistaken in your understanding, or you are using the word incompatible to mean something that I find totally inaccurate and irrelevant.
Truly though, you lose all credibility when you say things like, "You can also see this in the latest errata for 'Tumble' which now matches the Tumble rules in Essentials." Essentials is not corrupting 4e rules, replacing old rules with errata. They are the SAME game. Some rules have errata. Because the rule system IS the same, obviously what applies to one book applies to another. It would make no sense to have two rule books that are the same system yet have different rules. If this WERE a new edition of the game, they would not bother to "update" the older one. 4e didn't "update" rules for 3e because they were different systems. 3.5 changed actual subsystems. Not errata or clarifications, but actual changes. Weapon size, for example. You could not play 3e characters with 3.5e characters in the same campaign without modifying the actual gear and characters. Essentials does not do that.
The proof is in the playing. My D&D game will not have to change. At all. Some of the rules have errata, just like they do currently. And just like all older versions of the game, if the official rules didn't get fixed with errata, they got fixed by my house rules, so it's irrelevant to me. The characters playing in my game will also not have to change. They can continue on with the exact same characters and gear, and the new player joining my game will be able to create a character with either the original PHB or with Essentials, and they will be able to slide right into the game without any modifications to anyone or anything else. And THAT is the true measure of compatibility. No changes required on my part, players can use either book as source material, thus they are compatible in my book no matter how you try to redefine it. When Essentials makes me alter my game world, adventures, or existing PCs, I'll agree with you. Until then, however, the sky just ain't fallin'.
Hello, stranger. It's fascinating that coincidentally you too begin with an assertion I never made. At no point did I assert anything is exploding, nor is the game in any way unplayable due to these changes, nor is there any bemoaning of any sort.
There's also much confusion here, I'm not sure you're necessarily even responding to me or anything I wrote. I can't help but guess that perhaps this post was made in error, and is a response to something somewhere else? I'll try my best to respond to your concerns, however.
I agree with you that Essentials and 4e are the 'same' game. This is because, as mentioned in the article, 4e rules are being changed to match those in Essentials. I guess this is your fundamental point of confusion. If I redefine 'apple' to mean the same thing as an 'orange', then, yes, apples and oranges, are, in my own little world, the same thing. However, this can lead to considerable confusion, when people unfamiliar with my own personal word definitions try to interact with me.
This is equivalent to the changes being made to 4e, as the 4e rules are being changed to accomodate Essentials, as discussed and acknowledged by WoTC, as mentioned in my posts above (and in the podcast). We even see the same levels of confusion–keep in mind, there are 100+ pages of threads in both official and fan forums trying to figure this stuff out, in addition to the posts here. If it were nearly as clear as you claim, it would not be a bone of contention, concern, and confusion everywhere, including the official forums.
Similarly, there are issues with the definition of compatibility. The components of an electric car are not, in many ways, compatible with the components of a car using an internal combustion engine. And yet, they can use the same roads with no difficulty, without forcing the other to change.
In the same vein, 4e characters and Essentials characters can play at the same table, and as long as one doesn't try to mix the two rule sets (insofar as there are two sets), there are no difficulties. Of course, the same argument, by others, has recently been made for 3.5 and 3.0 characters, they can also play at the same table (you'll note WoTC itself made such claims with the release of 3.5). So, 3.5 and 3.0 are just as compatible as 4e and Essentials. If you believe one is compatible, you much accept the other as well, and the same is true regarding incompatibility.
I had a lengthy response written when your site decided inexplicably to reload the page, losing my original text. Let it suffice to say that you are (in my opinion) mischaracterizing or misquoting several things (including WotC) in many regards, including the concept of Essentials rules overwriting 4e rules as well as them saying that 3.5 characters can play alongside 3.0 characters.
1) When they talk about 4e being made like Essentials from now on, they mean the same thing as when they said PC races will be made like they were in the PHB3 from now on. NOT that there's a new rule set going forward, or that races must be converted, but that they found what they consider to be a better race design and plan on using that going forward.
2) 3.0 to 3.5 involved weapon size rules changing, the number of feats per creature level changing, some creature types going away, some subtypes going away, psionics being basically rewritten, DR changing entirely. Essentials contains no such rule changes. The rule changes are much more in line with the changes to polymorph or tumbling rules. Fixes to broken or very confusing mechanics that don't change your actual character.
3) There are not 100s of pages of threads of people trying to figure this stuff out. There are 100s of pages of threads of people freaking out about the unknown. Part of this is caused by WotC choosing to release information in what I would personally deem a less than logical manner. The greatest part of it, however, is simply the way people (especially the vocal end of the gaming community) happen to respond to any type of change. When people (other than some of us who were at GenCon) see the new rule books and THEN try and figure out the impact, I'll be more prone to listen. Moaning into the wind before you actually know anything, however, especially when raising phantoms of past issues, makes it hard to interpret the comments as anything other than fear mongering.
4) You are absolutely correct. Electric cars and combustion engine cars are totally compatible in regard to the roads, just like core 4e characters and Essentials characters are compatible with the 4e rule set. The same cannot be said of 3.0 to 3.5 characters unless you perform actual conversion. Nor can the same be said for 3.5 to Pathfinder, for example. You either seem to understand my point, or made it for me by accident.
In the end, my overall point was that the tone of your article seemed to be one of the Chicken Little persuasion. If this was not your intention, you may wish to reread your article given that the only two people to respond both came to that same conclusion. it's all about your choice of words and comparisons.
So, where exactly are you getting the whole "they're changing old rules to make them compatible with Essentials?"
I've seen no word of this.
In fact, your entire post just seems to be a bunch of "Wizards is doing this, but they're really doing this," with no evidence or explanation of how you went from here to there. I think you're just a troll.
Thank you for your intelligent and well-reasoned comments. The evidence comes from the provided interview with WoTC employees, and their own news releases.