3
\$\begingroup\$

Wizards of the Coast has stated that D&D Essentials is to be treated as just another set of rulebooks for 4.0 - not a new or at all separate system of rules.

As such, is the D&D-Essentials tag really appropriate or needed? Should we start tagging every post for the rulebook from which they originate?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

I think it is appropriate right now.

Right now folks that I've talked to are examining the books and determining how they are going to be used in their own groups (if at all). Having the questions explicitly tagged is helpful I think.

In several months (certainly much less than a year) it should become apparent whether Wizards is speaking the truth to us. I think Essentials will be strongly integrated into the new online tools which will make it harder for everyone to ignore.

In short, I think my answer to this question will change in 3-6 months. For now, I think the tag is useful.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree, and essentials is a useful subclass of questions like like "powers" or "items" as it refers to an identifable set of material. \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Nov 15 '10 at 23:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Most essentials tag uses have been wrong, as they refer to content thats not unique. Might as well have different tags for PHB1 vs PHB2. Essentials is really only of value when its something that only exists because of essentials, like the current red bx question. \$\endgroup\$ – anon186 Nov 15 '10 at 23:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jeremiah - I agree in principle, although I would include Heroes of the Fallen Lands under the Essentials tag as well. I haven't taken the time to analyse the particulars of what is tagged with it. \$\endgroup\$ – Pat Ludwig Nov 16 '10 at 0:15
4
\$\begingroup\$

I think a different tag is appropriate. Essentials and 4e are "compatible" but that's not the same as being the same game. And note how they don't say 4th edition on the cover anywhere - someone who gets into the game just via Essentials may or may not know it's "Fourth Edition!" It's a whole new set of books, whole new set of base classes, etc. It's "very similar," in the same way that I don't see a lot of difference between 3.5e and 3e (and Pathfinder), but if a question applies to both, tag it with both.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the point about essentials not calling its self 4e is an important one. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Withers Nov 16 '10 at 3:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Have you looked at the cover of a 4e Player's Handbook lately? The only mention of 4th edition is in a paragraph of text on the back cover. The game is marketed as "Dungeon & Dragons" to the masses. \$\endgroup\$ – Pat Ludwig Nov 16 '10 at 5:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ In response to "if a question applies to both, tag it with both.": Technically all 4e questions, except those specifically targeting non-Essentials classes, apply to both 4e and Essentials - should we re-tag them all with both? \$\endgroup\$ – Iszi Nov 16 '10 at 14:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Iszi Only if you're really bored. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Jan 12 '11 at 1:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .