OD&D-izing 4E; AKA "4E Lite"

[Finarvyn]

I want to play 4E Blackmoor when I buy it at GenCon, but I don't really know how to play 4E. So I had this (neat?) idea about taking the 4E rules and trying to slim them down to be more OD&D-like.

My thinking is that there are certain elements of 4E that are interesting:
1. Such as defining spells so that a 6th level MU uses 6th level spells. This always seemed odd in earlier editions.
2. Defining powers as round or encounter or adventure.
3. If I understand it right, if you find a "level 6 sword" you can't use it until you reach level 6; items and such are also rated by level.

And I'm posting this here rather than ENWorld or other 4E sites becasue I don't want to "go to the dark side" but instead maybe to bring the dark side to me. ;D

Also, I'll confess that I don't quite "get" the system yet -- there seems to be a lot of rules and specific situations where specific rules apply. However, I thought that the place to start would be to address the issue of character class.

What I did was to take a PDF of the PH and copy-paste powers into Word. With the intent of keeping it more "old school" I decided to limit the options as follows:
1. Stick to four core classes (Fighter, MU, Cleric, Thief)
2. Limit to levels 1 - 10.

When I cleaned up the formatting of the darned thing it was still 40 pages in Word!

My plan (if I don't lose interest) is to:
1. Figure out which rules are key and which ones can go away
2. Add in racial powers (again, only standard races)
3. Trim down those powers, eliminating ones which apply to rules that went away.

So ... has anyone put forth a decent effort to create a "4E lite" rules set that is more like OD&D? (I'd hate to put all this effort into a project only to find that someone has already walked this particular path.)

[tavis]

I've given this approach some thought (although I've been hoping Goodman / Necromancer / some rich dude will pay me to put forth a professional-level effort!)

My feeling is that the races and classes as they exist should be seen as a particular codification of the creative potential in the system. But what I like about OD&D is that your choice of class is minimally limiting - you can be a fighting man but play like a thief, or be a magic-user but act like a warrior, dishing your dagger's d6 of damage like and taking off your armor only when you're back in camp and need to cast read magic. (OK, I've never seen anyone actually do the last, although my interpretation of how armor interacts with spell-casting is designed to encourage it.)

So even a stripped-down version of 4E classes is going to be more restrictive than I'd like. Note, for example, that unlike OD&D the same effect is never available to multiple classes - choosing to be a cleric is going to mean you'll never have access to dispel magic. And, more generally, I feel the approach of "choose your class, then pick from its list of powers" is going to tend to encourage an "if it's not written on my sheet I can't do it" mentality.

My preferred approach would be to take the bare bones of the system and build up from there - a kind of "bring the dark side to me" approach that starts with a rule-minimal OD&D mentality and then starts replacing Chainmail with 4E as the backbone of its "alternate combat system". Back in the 4E playtest period I tried a fantasy/sci-fi time travel mashup with the following approach that I thought was promising.

Character creation basics: Use the monster creation rules in the DMG. Instead of choosing a class, players choose a role; how they interpret this is up to them (e.g. lurker = thief). Their role gives them their base defenses, HP, attack bonus vs. AC and vs. other defenses, and standard damage output. You might want to tweak the numbers some for balance (maybe to bring them more in line with a vanilla PC of each of the four types you chose), but this approximation should be good enough to run with at first.

Ability scores: In my mashup playtest I ignored individual ability scores altogether - if you needed to worry about it, each ability had the expected value for a monster of that level, but it was assumed to be already calculated into the overall role package. For OD&D I'd roll 3d6 in order for scores, and then use a minimal 3LBB-style modifier system - so that if you rolled a 15 for your Strength you might get a +1 to your Fort defense and melee attack & damage rolls, while a 6 Wisdom might give you a -1 Will and perhaps penalties on associated attack & damage rolls.

Skills: In OD&D style, I'd ignore these altogether; you could call for ability score rolls when it seemed appropriate, and give PCs up to a +5 "trained skill" bonus if they could persuade you that what they were trying was consistent with their class and background.

Character race: In my playtest I didn't use race; it was just a flavor aspect of your role selection. If you wanted to make it more mechanical, though, there's no reason not to throw in ability score modifiers and racial abilities from the race options you want to include.

Character powers: I recommend using the monster role parameters to handle bread-and-butter attacks ("I swing my sword and try to push him into the corner"), and the guidelines on DMG p. 42 to adjucate tricks that require special circumstances that wouldn't come up more than once per combat / once per day ("I throw the brazier of hot coals in his face"). In practice, this framework will often be looser than you'd want, so you could encourage the players to go through the power lists for any character class and choose a few powers that have effects they'd like to use as inspiration. Look to these sample powers for benchmarks about what you do besides damage - push, pull, knock prone, etc. (The PHBII is especially creative with effects that go beyond these basics.) It can be helpful to calculate the average damage of the sample power and look to see if it's traded some damage output for its special effect - if so, you'd want to reduce the DMG p. 42 guideline damage by a similar amount.

The stunting rules in the ind4e PDF might also prove useful in achieving the right free-form / creative solution approach to combat; I haven't tried them yet but it seems promising.

Healing: My playtest was a one-shot, so I didn't get into the details of healing surges etc. beyond letting people take a second wind in combat. I think it ought to work if you used some reasonable OD&D assumptions (you can bandage wounds for 1d6 if it's the first thing you do after each fight; clerical healing and potions are limited by spell slots & availability instead of healing surges), which would have the advantage of reinforcing old-school play styles and avoiding the fight-then-take-a-coffee-break rhythm of 4E.

Other combat rules: My preference would be to leave these alone. Even if the framework of conditions and penalties seems complex, I (and I'd guess most potential players of any kind of 4E hybrid) find it to be a fun complexity and at its heart it is a very robust miniature skirmish system. You might wind up reducing monster HP and upgrading their damage capabilities to make combat run faster, but my playtest experience suggested that the loose framework of character powers allowed an old-school matching of the pace and detail of combat to its importance. If I told the players they were facing a lone grunt, they took him out with basic attacks, fast and simple with no need for a grid. If I started sketching a battlemat and laid out four enemy minis with the hint of more to come, they'd reach for more complex powers and we'd get a satisfying tactical set-piece.

I'm psyched to see you interested in this, Fin! I'd been planning to run a straight OD&D game on Wednesday night before Gen Con, but if folks are available and interested maybe we could try out an "OD&D with 4E replacing Chainmail"-style game. My roommate and I will be running a number of 4E events for Goodman throughout the con, so we might also be able to recruit folks from the "dark side" for an after-hours game.

If you'll be in Indy on Wednesday night - or willing to stay up after midnight one of the other nights - maybe

[blackbarn]

Jul 11, 2009 6:21:26 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

3. If I understand it right, if you find a "level 6 sword" you can't use it until you reach level 6; items and such are also rated by level.

Actually, you can use items of any level as soon as you find them. In fact, the DM is encouraged to give PCs items that are higher level than themselves so they seem more special (some PCs can eventually make their own items of their own level or lower).

I wish you good luck on your project. I see how it could be done, and think it would make for a fun game, but it also sounds like a lot of work.

[Finarvyn]

Tavis, your ideas sound fantastic but I'm not sure I have a clean enough grasp of the way 4E works to just sit down and make use of them. :-( I will track down the Monster Creation rules and see if that gives me a nudge in the right direction.

Unless you have some additonal notes I could look at.

My GenCon visits are always hit-and-run affairs becasue I go down with my sister who is only a semi-gamer. We show up when the gates open on Thursday, visit the vendor area for a few hours, then leave when she gets tired of looking around. (Okay, somewhat after she gets tired.) We don't actually stop to play anything, and rarely attend the seminars.

[chronoplasm]

You might want to try it out of the box first before you start changing things. The game runs a lot differently in play than it appears on paper.
It does allow a lot more interpretation than you might immediately think though. For example, a lot of people complain that 4E pretty much forces you to use minis. Mike Mearls, one of the designers of 4E, suggests that this is not the case on his blog here
kotgl.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-minis-no-problem.html
I've tried this once. It works. It's just very difficult though.

*edit*
Fighters are really built around the Opportunity Attack mechanic. It's pretty central to what they do. Be careful when getting rid of OAs.
Warlords are designed to make the most of Action Points. If you don't intend on using the Warlord class, then you may go ahead and get rid of Action Points, but personally I think that this mechanic, and the presence of secular healing characters are two of 4E's strongpoints.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 11, 2009 16:54:46 GMT -6 chronoplasm said:

You might want to try it out of the box first before you start changing things. The game runs a lot differently in play than it appears on paper.

The problem is that I read the rules and they go CLANG and bounce off of my thick skull.

I'm not trying to simplify 4E just so others can understand it, but I'm hoping to simplify it so that I get it. Maybe it runs smoother than it reads, but it reads confusing.

[tavis]

Fin, I saw at the Goodman boards that you're looking to run 4E for your son. How old is he? I had some of the most satisfyingly old-school 4E play I've experienced with my seven-year-old. I asked him what he wanted to play and he said "A nature elf!"

So I said "OK, what can a nature elf do?" and it sounded like druid powers to me - controlling animated vines, having an animal companion - so I rolled one up for him (using the Goodman Forgotten Heroes one; I don't think the PHBII was out yet). What made it satisfying was that I handled the details of the rules; he just described what he wanted to do, I'd think about which of his powers were the closest fit & sometimes say "You can do that, but then you won't be able to use that vine again until you rest - do you want to use it now or save it for later", and then have him roll to hit. It felt a lot more free-flowing than any 4E I've played with adults.

Anyway, here's your quick start guide to 4E, or at least the version I sketched above. (You could also download the official free quickstart; the first series of encounters in the Shadowfell module do a decent job of teaching the basics of combat by introducing wrinkles gradually).

- Create PC basics by using the monster design steps & table on page 184. "Other defenses" are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. This gives you your starting stats.

- Roll up stats: Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma. The changes to the SIWDCCh order are purposeful - the first two stats govern your Fort defense, the next two your Reflex (and your AC if you're not in heavy armor), the final two your Will. If you have a 15+ stat, add one to that defense (and to the attack roll & damage of any attacks you decide are related to that stat); -1 if 6- stat.

- Fight! Freeform an encounter against other critters made using the above guidelines.

Here's what you need to know about combat:

* Each combatant gets a standard action (used for attacks, spells, etc.), a move action (move up to 30 ft. per action), and a minor action (draw a weapon, etc.). You can trade a higher-listed one for a lower - so you could take two moves if you took no standard, or three minors if that's all you did on your turn.

* There's no difference between attacks and spells. Use an attack roll for anything you do that affects someone else. (Saving throws are non-existent; when you see that term used in 4E, think "duration roll" instead.)

* To resolve an attack, the first thing to do is decide which of the victim's defenses it'll target. If armor would help stop the blow, it's vs. AC. If it's a poison or being tough would help prevent it, it's vs. Fort. If what matters is dodging the blast, it's vs. Reflex. If it's mind-affecting, it's vs. Will.

* If the attack is vs. AC, roll 1d20 + the attacker's Attack vs. AC number from p. 184 + any modifications by stats or circumstances (e.g. cover gives a -2, total cover -5). If the total is equal to or greater than the defense, it's a hit. Same thing for attacks vs. Fort, Ref, or Will, except you use the "Attack vs. other defenses" number from p. 184.

* When you hit, decide how much damage it does using the table on DMG p. 185. For normal attacks with two-handed weapons, I'd go with the Medium damage column. The Low column would be for light weapons. (Although armor is factored into the tables on p. 184 - a soldier can be assumed to be wearing plate, a lurker is in leather, etc. - you might want to give a +2 to AC and Ref for wielding a shield, or +1 for a buckler, to get a tradeoff between two-handed damage and sword-and-board defense).

* For spells and unique combat maneuvers with limited use, use the limited damage expression table on DMG p. 185. If the point of the effect is to knock someone down, etc. instead of just damaging them, use the low column (or even drop down to the normal damage table) for damage but add a condition from the list of PHB p. 277. Most 4E conditions last either until the end of the attacker's next turn or until the victim makes a "saving throw" - you could roll 1d3 for duration instead. (If not, the victim makes a save at the end of each of their turns; if they roll 10+ on d20, the condition ends.)

It might be good to make your PCs start at 4th level, so that they could go up against lower- and higher-level critters. You might also want to use OD&D rules for PC special abilities - e.g., if you're a magic-user you get X number of spells chosen from the usual list, but your AC sucks because you have the artillery role, and your weapon attacks always use the low damage column but you can't use a shield. That'd perhaps give you some structure about deciding how many special powers & what type of things characters ought to be able to do. In fact, I think you could have a lot of fun running a classic TSR D&D module pretty much as written, but swapping out all the numbers using the above guidelines, reading HD as level.

- Other stuff. In true OD&D style, you may want to use imagination/common sense or 1d6 randomization to adjucate outcomes for everything but combat. If you want to try the 4E mechanics for skills and ability checks, though, here's how.

* Determine what stat it's based on (e.g. climbing walls = Strength). Calculate the bonus for that stat; like in 3E, it's (stat - 10) / 2. Decide if you're going to give the PC a skill bonus for training or background (in core 4E, training is on/off, and gives a +5 if you have it).

* Roll 1d20 + stat bonus + training bonus + 1/2 the character's level.

* If you're trying to outdo another creature's efforts, have them make a similar roll (e.g. Dex roll for stealth vs. Wis roll for perception). If you're trying to affect their essential nature, roll against one of their defenses (e.g. Cha roll for Intimidate vs. their Will defense). If you're just up against an obstacle in the world, see DMG p. 42 for guidelines of difficulty classes (DCs) for obstacles of different levels. In each case, you succeed if you score equal to or over the DC / defense / opposing roll.

IMO, that's a pretty good way to get started. Once you've tried playing this way, you might be ready to make some PCs using the actual rules in the PHB (the free Character Builder is great here) and fight some actual statted-up monsters. Once you do that, you'll want to start looking at the "How to Read a Power" section of the PHB and the chapter on combat, but you should be able to take it one detail at a time.

I see the virtues of using 4E instead of Chainmail as:

- Diverse ways of handling different types of dangerous force. It's very intuitive that poison is an attack vs. Fortitude, while a charm spell is an attack vs. Will. (Making melee guys and spellcasters both roll the random factor up front does help create the uniformity between classes that people dislike - OD&D casters have a nice feel of "Unlike a mere sword, my spell always hits; it's not my fault if they happen to save").

- Mechanically robust scaling. The math is nicely worked out so that a fight between 1st level creatures will play out similarly to one between 30th level creatures. It's nice to be able to say "this tough monster is a level 6 critter" and have that determine everything else you need to know. (The uniform scaling does mean that there's no creative solution to beat monsters whose level is enough higher than yours that you can't hope to hit; you'll have to add in Achilles heels by either deciding to reduce one or two defenses or otherwise ruling in a vulnerability.)

- Unified mechanics. I'm a lot less certain this is a virtue than I was when I first moved from AD&D to 3E, but for what it's worth 4E does a good job with its underlying engine for skill & ability checks.

[Finarvyn]

Jul 11, 2009 19:32:45 GMT -6 tavis said:

Fin, I saw at the Goodman boards that you're looking to run 4E for your son. How old is he?

He's in high school, but he doesn't want to read D&D rules for some reason. (Give him a Warhammer rulebook and he'll pour over it for hours. Go figure.)

By the way, I haven't processed all that you have posted, but have an EXALT in the meantime!

Nice to know that there are several OD&D folks willing to discuss 4E in a civilized manner.

[chronoplasm]

I'll give you an exalt too tavis. That was a good summary!

[doc]

I don't know if I can add much more to what has already been suggested.

I would also get rid of the Skills list or else really streamline it so that no more than 3-4 skills are needed for each character. So you could maybe say that a character has 1-3 skills (depending on his class), plus one more if his INT is higher than 13.

I would likely do away with Feats altogether. They were a very cool way to differentiate between what characters were good at in 3E, but with the advent of the Powers driven 4E I think they really aren't needed as much.

While I would go with the traditional four races, I would include Eladrin as well, since in game context (if not mechanics) they are also elves (think the elves of Rivendell as compared to the Forest Elves).

On a side note, I've picked up the 4E Blackmoor, but have only had a chance to skim through it. A lot of the non-mechanics text seems to have been lifted from the old 3.5 Blackmoor hardcover, though I am interested to see how the Blackmoor-specific classes translate.

Doc

[Finarvyn]

Helpful suggestions, all!

As far as keeping races such as the Eladrin, I have no problem with it. I was just trying to figure out how to get a handle on a system that seems to be expanding faster than I can figure it out. I mean, there are 2 players handbooks, extra martial and arcane sourcebooks, a couple of monster books, and the list goes on...

My thought was to try to simplify everything and my initial plan was to simply limit the choices. Having read some of the other suggestions, however, I need to re-think this approach. It looks like I might be able to keep more options but trim out skills and feats and some of the less critical rules and this may be closer to what I want.

Fingers crossed! :-)

[chronoplasm]

The rapidly expanding material is nice for people who want more options, but it's completely optional.
For your purposes, I'd say stick with just the PHB I, DMG I, and MM I.
It doesn't sound like you really need anything outside of that.

[apeloverage]

You might find microlite20 inspirational ( www.microlite20.net ) , although obviously it's based on 3rd edition. It uses 3 stats (Str, Dex, Mind) and 4 skills (Physical, Subterfuge, Knowledge, Communication)

[Finarvyn]

Jul 12, 2009 22:02:27 GMT -6 apeloverage said:

You might find microlite20 inspirational

I've seen it, and it certainly is rules lite. I should ask Chgowiz if they're planning on making a microlite4E.

[chgowiz]

Jul 13, 2009 7:48:12 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Jul 12, 2009 22:02:27 GMT -6 apeloverage said:

You might find microlite20 inspirational

I've seen it, and it certainly is rules lite. I should ask Chgowiz if they're planning on making a microlite4E.

I don't know. m20 was based on the SRD/OGL. Since the GSL/4E has a different license, I don't know if Greywulf is planning on a 4e-ized update. I know there were several threads about including Feats/Powers, but I didn't really pay much attention. I was too busy enjoying m74.

[Deleted]

Jul 11, 2009 7:36:37 GMT -6 tavis said:

So even a stripped-down version of 4E classes is going to be more restrictive than I'd like. Note, for example, that unlike OD&D the same effect is never available to multiple classes - choosing to be a cleric is going to mean you'll never have access to dispel magic.

That's true of many of the combat and skill oriented effects, but also most (all? I don't have all the books) of the casters get access to any of the rituals (which is where a lot of the indirect effects like Comprehend Languages and such got moved).

(I also don't have much problem importing powers and such from other classes when it makes sense, but that may make me a Heretic in 4E circles).

Jul 11, 2009 7:36:37 GMT -6 tavis said:

And, more generally, I feel the approach of "choose your class, then pick from its list of powers" is going to tend to encourage an "if it's not written on my sheet I can't do it" mentality.

I think you might be able to get around a lot of this with by making one more power card:

Do A Thing!
At-Will, Standard Action
Your character attempts to do something awesome!
Range, Area, Targets: Adjudicated by the DM, based on the thing you are attempting to do.
Attack: Adjudicated by the DM
Hit: [insert damage values from p.42 of the DMG here] or as adjudicated by the DM, plus any additional effects adjudicated by the DM.
Miss: As adjudicated by the DM.
Effect: As adjudicated by the DM.

Note that I think it's really important to put the sample damages from the DMG on the card even if you never end up using them in play. The damage values on the high end of the charts are decent enough that players should be tempted to try it out when they're low on encounter powers and don't want to (or can't) dip into dailies.

Who knows, maybe over time "Do A Thing!" will become their power of choice and you can drop some of the others? That would lighten up the rule-load a good bit

[tavis]

I like the Do a Thing! card. I've seen advice elsewhere to have a "Do Something Awesome" encounter and daily, but the idea to put the damage values on the card is new to me & makes a lot of sense.

You're right that anyone with the Ritual Caster feat has access to rituals. In that case, though, I think the distinction between rituals and powers is too restrictive. Silence is the canonical example for me - think of all the things you could do with the silence spell (interrupt enemy casters and accidentally screw your allied casters, move stealthily through a dungeon, inadvertently tip off people of your presence when they lose their ability to hear, etd), so few of which make it into 4E because they don't fall neatly on one side or the other of combat/skills vs. off-the-grid ritual-land.

Since thinking about the silence ritual makes me cranky, let me say a positive thing - I playtested the adventure I ran at Gen Con using OD&D, which was great for coming up with freewheeling concepts. Taking one of those concepts (a combat on a rotating sphere that PCs might be pushed onto / jump off of) and turning it into a 4E battle was very satisfying because the dramatic scenery rewarded all the counting of five-foot squares, and the climactic battle justified the amount of game time we spent resolving the combat.

Recently I've been thinking that maybe all I want from a 4E lite is to use all the 4E rules but only for the scenes where they're needed. I'd have players make versions of their characters using both OD&D and 4E (maybe 3E too if we want fiddly skill points and weird multiclassing sometimes), and we'd mutually decide which version we'd use to play out which scenes.

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2009 21:39:04 GMT -6 tavis said:

You're right that anyone with the Ritual Caster feat has access to rituals. In that case, though, I think the distinction between rituals and powers is too restrictive. Silence is the canonical example for me - think of all the things you could do with the silence spell (interrupt enemy casters and accidentally screw your allied casters, move stealthily through a dungeon, inadvertently tip off people of your presence when they lose their ability to hear, etd), so few of which make it into 4E because they don't fall neatly on one side or the other of combat/skills vs. off-the-grid ritual-land.

I don't have my books with me, but I'm not even sure that silence stops spellcasting in 4E .

Still, there's no reason you can't have a power and a ritual for similar effects. Just make sure the ritual version does something to justify the extra costs and casting time associated (even if that something is just being allowed to access it without spending a power slot on it, or accessing it from a class not normally allowed to).

Oct 15, 2009 21:39:04 GMT -6 tavis said:

Recently I've been thinking that maybe all I want from a 4E lite is to use all the 4E rules but only for the scenes where they're needed. I'd have players make versions of their characters using both OD&D and 4E (maybe 3E too if we want fiddly skill points and weird multiclassing sometimes), and we'd mutually decide which version we'd use to play out which scenes.

I'm kind of a newcomer, but that idea, more than anything, signifies why this whole "old-school" idea appeals to me - use whatever rules make sense for the occasion and don't worry about it.

-witness

[Deleted]

Interesting discussion!

Some ideas (using your base four classes assumption):

-Convert cleric and wizard powers to "spells" and assign them a "spells per day" progression

-Eliminate Fighter powers. Assign the "at-wills" as class abilities and give them the ability to do auto x2 damage once per encounter and x3 damage once per day. Eliminate the class ability dependent on minis - the marking/opportunity attack ability - and replace with a damage boosting ability such as +2d6 dmg to "marked" opponents (equivalent to the rogue's sneak attack dmg) or allow a reroll on a missed attack roll ala the elven racial ability.

-Eliminate Rogue powers. Assign the at-wills as class abilities, and assign a +1/2lvls bonus to-hit with pg42 stunts.

The elimination of Powers seems to be the biggest "fix" necessary to remove 4E from the realm of the battlemat.

[Finarvyn]

I thought I'd give this a bump, since I'm thinking about 4E again. Has anyone put together a doc that has "4E lite" rules in it? What I'd like is something similar to Holmes in size but for a novice to run 4E.

[piper]

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but there is a starter boxed set for 4e:

www.gamesbyjames.com/browse.cfm/4,1127.html

[Finarvyn]

I have that. It doesn't have character generation rules, if I recall correctly.

I'd really like some sort of word doc where someone has trimmed out the stuff I don't need and kept the parts that I do. I find that starting with the rules and trying to eliminate what I don't need really requires that I have a more solid understanding of the system than I have, which is why I'm hoping someone better versed in 4E puts together a home-brew rules set which is really light weight. That way I only have to learn what I need.

[tombowings]

Sounds like a fun project, I'll try and give it a whirl, might take a few weeks though...and I haven't played 4e for about a year now.

[coffee]

Supposedly they're coming out with a new starter set, that will include character generation. As I understand it, it'll be more like Holmes then we've seen for a long time.

I wanna say it's coming out in September or so.

[Finarvyn]

Is that the new red box set? I'd forgotten about that.

[coffee]

That's the one. I don't really know anything else about it, but I happened to remember it and figured I'd mention it.

[vito]

Jun 20, 2010 17:20:19 GMT -6 coffee said:

That's the one. I don't really know anything else about it, but I happened to remember it and figured I'd mention it.

That would be D&D Essentials.
The basic set will include only four classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) and four races (dwarf, elf, halfling, human) and material for levels 1-3.
I understand that there may be some changes made to the class and race features for purposes of simplicity, and possibly to apply lessons learned after PHB2 and PHB3. In that sense, D&D Essentials may be almost like a D&D 4.5.
There will be supplemental materials for it including a new rules compendium, soft-cover splat books with simplified versions of the other races and classes featured in 4E, and a book featuring new races and classes for playing "shadow characters" (assassins, necromancers, revenants, etc.)

I'm pretty stoked about it myself.

[Finarvyn]

That is good news and thanks for the info, vito! I'm looking forward to this product!

[bluskreem]

Jun 22, 2010 19:05:05 GMT -6 @vito said:

[
There will be supplemental materials for it including a new rules compendium, soft-cover splat books with simplified versions of the other races and classes featured in 4E, and a book featuring new races and classes for playing "shadow characters" (assassins, necromancers, revenants, etc.)

Wait Essentials is getting supplements? that's awesome!

[tombowings]

Looks likes I have my work done for me. Maybe I'll check it out.