Tony Vargas
Legend
I guess to future-proof it, too, in case someone tossed out a prayer or something with the implement keyword that one of those classes might take?
D&D 4E Have you ever run 4e using just Essentials?
Tony Vargas
Legend
Yup, Heroes of Shadow, apparently had multiple Cleric Implement prayers in the Domains it introduced.
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Yeah, I just started looking into these more closely. They intentionally made the Death domain warpriest use more implement powers.
They did something similar with the Druid (Protector) in Heroes of the Feywild to compliment the Sentinel, which was largely a weapon/melee role. They also had the Protector pick encounter attack powers while giving them a static daily power (summon animal). This was a reversal from the Sentinel which got multiple uses of an encounter attack power (the companion combo attack) while getting to pick various daily attack powers.
Funny that it took me this long to see these nuances now.
Joshua Randall
Legend
If I were making 4.5 one of the first things I would do is drop the weapon/implement distinctions and have a rule like, “pick a thing you hold/wield in your hands [or bare handed, sure]. That’s your thing that you use for all attacks/powers.”
something something adjust defenses to account for the proficiency bonuses something something
something something adjust defenses to account for the proficiency bonuses something something
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
One of the design goals for introducing implements was to give "spell casters" cool magic items to use that were not just more spells in a can. Before 4e, martial/combat characters were compensated with a larger, more interesting selection of magic weapons, armors, and items with interesting and diverse properties in an attempt to stay relative in the game as wizards, druids, and clerics dominated the game at higher levels with more spells, more magic, and more power without item boosts. Since 4e leveled the playing field for all classes, it only made sense that they should all be equally reliant (and rewarded) with a fair share of interesting, useful, and exciting magic items.
That said, Essentials inadvertently skewed that with their new classes being designed simultaneously in too many spaces. First, they wanted to make them familiar to old-school classes (which I think goes against the original philosophy and appeal of 4e for many fans). Then they wanted to make them more focused and efficient, reducing the number of decision points for players (as if they were doing everyone else a favor). But they also wanted to make sure everything worked with all the previous material, which is where a lot of compromises and problems were created.
The way I see things is you can't move forward if you don't stop looking back. Essentials could have been an opportunity to correct course as an alternate path rather than force it into a space that didn't need it. Of course, that makes no sense to business mind, but frankly, I don't care what a business thinks. If you care more about the profit than the product, it will show. I have never been less interested in new DnD content and products since I started playing back in the 80s than right now, and I know I am not alone in this.
(Somehow this turned into a rant, but I meant everything I said so I'm going to let it ride because I'm tired of being quiet about it.)
That said, Essentials inadvertently skewed that with their new classes being designed simultaneously in too many spaces. First, they wanted to make them familiar to old-school classes (which I think goes against the original philosophy and appeal of 4e for many fans). Then they wanted to make them more focused and efficient, reducing the number of decision points for players (as if they were doing everyone else a favor). But they also wanted to make sure everything worked with all the previous material, which is where a lot of compromises and problems were created.
The way I see things is you can't move forward if you don't stop looking back. Essentials could have been an opportunity to correct course as an alternate path rather than force it into a space that didn't need it. Of course, that makes no sense to business mind, but frankly, I don't care what a business thinks. If you care more about the profit than the product, it will show. I have never been less interested in new DnD content and products since I started playing back in the 80s than right now, and I know I am not alone in this.
(Somehow this turned into a rant, but I meant everything I said so I'm going to let it ride because I'm tired of being quiet about it.)
Tony Vargas
Legend
I suppose the Hexblade was the culmination of that, a weapon-wielding arcanist who used an implement with implement enhancement bonuses and enchantments to conjure a weapon with weapon stats to use with implement powers.... ???
...one of my players has had a Hexblade since 2011, he's 30th level, he still doesn't always remember exactly how it's supposed to work. I don't think I ever did.
Joshua Randall
Legend
Jacob, your rant is spot on, and the blame can be placed squarely at the feet of Mearls (and I think also Bill Slavicek who was still, at that time, in charge?).
4e chickened out of its own innovations and the company put all their chips on the nostalgia slot. The fact they were rewarded for this is sad, and means it could be another generation before we get another actually innovative D&D game.
At which point I will be in my 80s, so… yeah.
4e chickened out of its own innovations and the company put all their chips on the nostalgia slot. The fact they were rewarded for this is sad, and means it could be another generation before we get another actually innovative D&D game.
At which point I will be in my 80s, so… yeah.
Jacob Lewis
Ye Olde GM
Just to be clear, I don't believe fault can be placed squarely on an individual (or individuals) because they did their jobs. I'm highly certain many people were involved in the decisions to make the designers change course, many who we may never hear about because they are further up the corporate command chain. Wizards rarely acts with total autonomy ever since the parent company acquired them and began making demands to show higher profits for IPs they considered to be under monetized.
So, no. It is not Mearls, or Slavicek, or Crawford, or even Wizards. It is Hasbro, and the VPs and CEOs looking to build their portfolio for their next bigger salary gig, who lost my trust and my business. People can argue that the new edition has been good for the hobby, but they're wrong. It's only been good for Hasbro and for people who are happy with their lackluster version of the game. The only reason there is still a OGL for 5e is because they found a way to make it profitable for themselves, and even then they nearly took that away to keep more for themselves. But people want to forget and continue supporting them, thinking they'll never betray them the way they betrayed the fans of 4e.
So, no. It is not Mearls, or Slavicek, or Crawford, or even Wizards. It is Hasbro, and the VPs and CEOs looking to build their portfolio for their next bigger salary gig, who lost my trust and my business. People can argue that the new edition has been good for the hobby, but they're wrong. It's only been good for Hasbro and for people who are happy with their lackluster version of the game. The only reason there is still a OGL for 5e is because they found a way to make it profitable for themselves, and even then they nearly took that away to keep more for themselves. But people want to forget and continue supporting them, thinking they'll never betray them the way they betrayed the fans of 4e.
Joshua Randall
Legend
Yesssss! Let the 5e hatred flow through you! Strike down One D&D as well and take your place beside me! We will rule side by side and bring good gaming to 4e neo-grognardia!!!
Last edited:
cavalier973
Hero
I don’t hate any edition of D&D. There are editions I prefer, but I am happy for other people who like the editions that I don’t.
I like 4e, a lot. It’s the only edition on which I have spent a (relatively) substantial amount of money. Some have speculated that, had WoTC called it something different, like “D&D Tactics”, or if they had started with the Essentials line, then 4e might have been more successful. I used to make the latter argument, but I think I was wrong.
I think that WotC’s best tactic was to open up all the editions, with reprints or PoD versions of older rule sets. They actually did this in the latter part of the 4e era. I really like my PoD copy of the Rules Cyclopedia.
Malcolm Gladwell had a Ted Talk about spaghetti sauce, and one of the things he talked about was the idea, “don’t make the ‘perfect Pepsi’, make the ‘perfect Pepsis’.”
People have different ideas about what D&D is; accommodate them, as resources and profit margins allow, is my recommendation.
Sorry for the off-topic post
I like 4e, a lot. It’s the only edition on which I have spent a (relatively) substantial amount of money. Some have speculated that, had WoTC called it something different, like “D&D Tactics”, or if they had started with the Essentials line, then 4e might have been more successful. I used to make the latter argument, but I think I was wrong.
I think that WotC’s best tactic was to open up all the editions, with reprints or PoD versions of older rule sets. They actually did this in the latter part of the 4e era. I really like my PoD copy of the Rules Cyclopedia.
Malcolm Gladwell had a Ted Talk about spaghetti sauce, and one of the things he talked about was the idea, “don’t make the ‘perfect Pepsi’, make the ‘perfect Pepsis’.”
People have different ideas about what D&D is; accommodate them, as resources and profit margins allow, is my recommendation.
Sorry for the off-topic post
Similar Threads
