Heroes of the Feywild Excerpts

[Argyle King]

While I agree with your argument, one could also argue that the lack of new ideas or synergies with previously existing classes indicate that maybe they weren't worth adding in the first place.

Look at 3.5 as an example. The Complete books added 12 new classes to the game. I think it became obvious from the books that followed that some of the classes (warlock!) had really taken hold in people's imagination and some others (samurai!) didn't.

Personally, I liked the Samurai; however, it was quite poor in a mechanical sense. In a system where disparity between classes already existed, it was difficult to justify choosing a class which was arguably less useful than the fighter.

The warlock got support because it was an early test of 4E material. It was a popular class and I do not doubt that had a hand in garnering more support, but I also suspect it got an added boost in material due to the fact that it was already known to be part of the next edition of the game.

 

[Drammattex]

There are only so many dudes working at WotC, and they can only create so much stuff. At a certain point, they have to decide whether to spend that limited amount of creation time on expansions for not-very-popular stuff, expansions for popular stuff or entirely new stuff, and they have to strike a balance between them. In that balancing act, the unpopular stuff naturally gets short shrift, but that's better than a lack of support for popular stuff and new stuff IMHO. Not-so-popular support also often doesn't sell well, so can't justify its existence.

Also, the Character Builder provides Wizards with hard data as to what options are being used, how frequently, and by how many different users. I'm sure there are counter-arguments to be made, but... it's probably hard to argue with the evidence.

And it's not as if those classes are completely unsupported. Rob Schwalb wrote a big piece on Runepriests earlier this year. For this effort, he received some pointed, personalized hate mail. I don't know that he's positively itching for another helping. I wouldn't be.

 

[Incenjucar]

The satyrs actually look to be playable, and have some nice little quirks in there.

Not a bad job by WOTC.

They're actually a very strong race. They have about as many tricks as a small race.

 

[Dire Bare]

So because you don't feel it, it doesn't therefore exist? <snip> So you work for WotC's letter receiving department now and know this for fact?

Oh please. You feel the lack. I don't. It's my suspicion that those that agree with you are in a distinct minority, but complain loudly. Squeaky wheel and all. Do I have statistical proof? Of course not. Relax and lighten up on the offended hyperbole.

So, ENWorld isn't representative of the gaming community (which, I agree), but all the "gazillions" on other gaming message boards are? Folks on message boards in general (all of them combined) don't represent the gaming community.

If there were really that many folks clamoring for more Runepriest support, trust me, we'd have it. If everybody was sick of Elves, again, we'd see less of that. No hard, statistical data on my end, just the powers of reason.

 

[Rune]

It's a little sad that that we have the exact same memory of this experience, with the exact same quotes, and the exact same age.

My XP comment was supposed to say, "You aren't the only one!"

 

[Klaus]

I don't see why this is the answer for lack of content? Was the tome wizard a submission before it went into Arcane Power? Why do I have to rely on user submissions for content that should be from the same people who gave us the original stuff? User submissions should be a small percentage of content distributed to us.

I really dislike lack of submissions as an excuse for lack of WotC creators.

It's no excuse.

I tend to gravitate toward the underdog, 'cause I like challenges. That's why I jumped at the opportunity to write the Kara-Tur runepriest article that's due anytime now. I have submitted ideas for many things you might consider "neglected". But it's not a matter of "I want to write an 'X' article", it's about coming up with a cool concept and story about 'X' and letting the mechanics flow from it.

Plus, as Drammatex pointed, WotC has data about what's most played, what's never played, etc. And while they sometimes give support to the straggler corners of the system, they'd be crazy not to support the parts that most people like.

 

[Klaus]

Also, the Character Builder provides Wizards with hard data as to what options are being used, how frequently, and by how many different users. I'm sure there are counter-arguments to be made, but... it's probably hard to argue with the evidence.

And it's not as if those classes are completely unsupported. Rob Schwalb wrote a big piece on Runepriests earlier this year. For this effort, he received some pointed, personalized hate mail. I don't know that he's positively itching for another helping. I wouldn't be.

Pointed, personalized and completely undeserved. The man is a creative madman and a writing machine, and that article had awesome seeds for an entirely new design space (runes as treasure).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Looks good. The racial power is solid, and I like that they always have bluff as a class skill.

I do find the fluff a little amusing. It seems a little ... backpedalish? "Satyrs are hedonistic ... but not too hedonistic". "Satyrs like to partay, but aren't stupid about it."

Yeah, I spotted that, too. Which is fine, though a little tetchy. MY Satyr doesn't need to know the word "restraint," even if Satyrs typically do. I can choose to bring ruin and suffering to those I care about, even if Satyrs typically do not. Adding the capability of them not to have to do that makes the race a little more diverse and interesting, less a one-trick pony, which is good.

I also spotted some weirdness on the racial power: "But not into hindering terrain." Well, why the heck not, man? There's, like, zero story info supporting that, and it's also one of the most fun things to do with forced movement. Seems crazy lame, and its on its way to being houseruled IMC.

I guess I'm not personally enamored of the racial power generally, just because movement doesn't have a big appeal for me generally, but eh...I like 95% of the race. I like that they make good warlocks. I like that their art didn't go overboard with horrible tumescent growths and thick deformities that the tiefling art calls "horns and tails." I like the quirky flavor of stuff like "MALE ONLY" and their origin.

I'm looking forward to the races from this book overall, I think, even if pixies twist my nipples with rulespeak and pedantry. Satyrs are good, and I've got high hopes for "hema"dryads.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'd be interested in knowing the thought process there. I'd guess it's a matter of encouraging a more nuanced approach to the roleplaying. If the default satyr PC is nothing but frolicking and fornicating with the occasional homicidal rage, it could get pretty old pretty quick. But throw in the idea that they can be shy and cautious, and it keeps them from falling into Chaotic Stupid territory.

Satyrs are Epicurean rather than Cyprean hedonists. It makes so much sense they've had words to describe it older than the language we're speaking.

 

[Marshall]

There are only so many dudes working at WotC, and they can only create so much stuff. At a certain point, they have to decide whether to spend that limited amount of creation time on expansions for not-very-popular stuff, expansions for popular stuff or entirely new stuff, and they have to strike a balance between them. In that balancing act, the unpopular stuff naturally gets short shrift, but that's better than a lack of support for popular stuff and new stuff IMHO. Not-so-popular support also often doesn't sell well, so can't justify its existence.

That would be a plausible excuse if they werent wasting their time rehashing the same old content over and over(essentials) and expanding oversupported classes into roles that are already covered by other undersupported classes(Mages/Bladesingers vs. Sorcs/Swordmages).