Poll: A different approach to the 4E PHB?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What if the designers of 4E had taken a different approach to the Players Handbook? What if they had desgned it as "Player's Handbook 1: Heroic Tier" and only included levels 1-10 of each class presented? Assuming the page count stayed the same, that would free up 70+ pages of content. If they used this space to cover missing races (gnome & half-orc? four pages), missing classes (bard, barbarian, druid and monk? 32 pages), add some feats for added races and classes (6 pages at most?), the + in the 70+ is for paragon or higher only magic items and rituals, so that would leave at least 28 pages for additional heroic-tier magic items and rituals.

"Player's Handbook 2: Paragon Tier" could have fleshed out more significant rules for what it means to become a paragon. The same for "Player's Handbook 3: Epic Tier."

Would you like this approach more, less, or the same as the approach WoTC took? Do you think this approach would have been as good of a business decision as the current model?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I asked this question not long ago.

General sense seemed to be that most people wouldn't think they're getting a "complete" game.

Which makes sense, and echoes how the fans of half-orc druids are feeling right now.

Even if the game *is* complete with just 10 levels.

 

[buzz]

I voted that I would not like this idea. Honestly, I think there's more than enough content in the current PHB, and would hate to see the 1st-30th "arc" split across three books. Inevitably, you'd always need three books to get a complete picture of a class or race, and supplement-itis would explode. E.g., if a new class gets introduced in a later book, and that gets split across three PHBs, that's three more PHBs I'd feel compelled to buy in addition to the three I need just to play the game across all levels.

Now, this might seem good on paper for WotC margins, but I think they'd actually lose money, given the massive release schedule and diminishing sales of non-core books. I.e., working harder to produce more books that each sold less.

Honestly, one of my favorite things about 4e is the slow release schedule for supplements. Individual books will sell more, and the need for another "reboot" will take that much longer to manifest.

 

[MintMMs]

The current Players Handbook is sliced vertically. That is to say they've got a few classes statted all the way to the end. What you're proposing is to cut it horizontally, by tier. The problem is what to do with the future addons? When the Artificer comes out for the Eberron books later next year, how do you propose to handle that? You're asking that the Artficer levels 1-10 appear now, even though it hasn't been finalized.

You could say, "well, we'll just get 1-30 of the Artificer then" but that ticks off the player of the wizard, who has to wait yet another year to do epic play. Or if you cut it off and only give 1-20 of the Artificer in the Eberron books, that means that a player will need several books to have the complete class.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I asked this question not long ago.

General sense seemed to be that most people wouldn't think they're getting a "complete" game.

Which makes sense, and echoes how the fans of half-orc druids are feeling right now.

Even if the game *is* complete with just 10 levels.

Not sure how I missed your poll.

I think I would have liked this approach, with my caveats above. The Paragon book would not *just* cover levels 11-20, it would add more value to what being a Paragon character means. The Paragon Path idea could have been fleshed out more. They could have even gone a route where the base classes only go 10 levels and you then chose a Paragon Path for 11-20. The same thought could be put into the Epic book and Epic Destinies.

Not every group is going to want to play Paragon or Epic either. But if they put enough work into those books to make those tiers more dynamic than they are now I think more groups would choose to play those tiers.

As far as the business model, I don't think it would do any worse than BECMI and in fact might draw players fond of those days to 4E. PHB1 would equate to B/E; PHB2 to C/M; and PHB3 to Immotal. Basic D&D seemed to evolve that way. Basic and Expert set were basically the same rules, Basic focused on dungeon exploration and Expert focused on wilderness exploration. Companion and Master added new rules to the system, making the game feel different. And of course Immortal focused on your PC's immortality.

I think we'd have a more dynamic game in our hands with more interesting Paragon and Epic options headed our way. I think there would be less complaints that the game was incomplete as it would be easier to convert character concepts for those willing to restart and it would be easier to decide whether you wanted to convert your campaign depending where you are level-wise and the 4E release schedule.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The current Players Handbook is sliced vertically. That is to say they've got a few classes statted all the way to the end. What you're proposing is to cut it horizontally, by tier. The problem is what to do with the future addons? When the Artificer comes out for the Eberron books later next year, how do you propose to handle that? You're asking that the Artficer levels 1-10 appear now, even though it hasn't been finalized.

You could say, "well, we'll just get 1-30 of the Artificer then" but that ticks off the player of the wizard, who has to wait yet another year to do epic play. Or if you cut it off and only give 1-20 of the Artificer in the Eberron books, that means that a player will need several books to have the complete class.

All base classes could be 10 levels by design with powers that scale by level through 30th. Paragon Paths could then be more fleshed out to be the replacement for your class at levels 11-20. So when the PHB2 arrives it would have PPs for all existing classes to date. Supplements after PHB2 that contain new classes would then include PP info specific to the new class. PP rules in this model wouldn't exist until the PHB2 provides the rules. NOT the way PPs work now, but a fully fleshed-out approach of PPs that replace your character class.

 

[buzz]

As far as the business model, I don't think it would do any worse than BECMI...

I'm not sure that BECMI was a particularly successful model; granted, I have no data.

I think there would be less complaints that the game was incomplete as it would be easier to convert character concepts for those willing to restart and it would be easier to decide whether you wanted to convert your campaign depending where you are level-wise and the 4E release schedule.

Would each PHB in your model have the complete rules, differing only in the class/feat-related bits? I.e., would I need to buy PHB1 in order to use PHB2 and PHB3?

FWIW, White Wold has done this with it's Scion RPG. Three core books that each describe a different level of play (Hero, Demigod, God). I have no idea if this is working for them or not, but it's a common strategy for them. WW is all about dividing games into as many books as possible.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm not sure that BECMI was a particularly successful model; granted, I have no data.


Would each PHB in your model have the complete rules, differing only in the class/feat-related bits? I.e., would I need to buy PHB1 in order to use PHB2 and PHB3?

I think just the fact that CM&I all existed is proof enough that it was a good model for TSR. I don't think that they were THAT bad in a business sense to push a line that wasn't selling.

The base rules would be in the PHB1, so you would always need PHB1. Also, having PHB3 would be useless without PHB2. But you wouldn't need PHB2 and 3 to play, you'd just be limited to 10th level without them.

The difference would be *just* class/feat. It would be an entirely different approach to PPs. PPs sounded like so much more in the previews. What we got isn't a let down IMO, but I think it could have been better. With more time and space they could have lived up to their full potential.

 

[buzz]

PPs sounded like so much more in the previews. What we got isn't a let down IMO, but I think it could have been better. With more time and space they could have lived up to their full potential.

I was admittedly surprised at how minimal PPs were, but I understand now that, much like 4e multiclassing, the goal is to maintain the integrity of the base class.

Then again, PCs get so many feats now that, as more books get released, we'll begin to see that feats + powers + PPs will, combined, offer a staggering amount of variation.

 

[justanobody]

They may have well have just made class books at that rate.

I think that all should be there from the beginning that is considered core. After that it just isn't core, if it isn't part of the first set of books.

Nothing else should expect it to be a part of the average library for gamers.

I always hated an adventure of something else telling me I needed 6 other books. STOP IT!

If it isn't in the first 3 books PHB/DMG/MM, then it had better be in the adventure or campaign books, etc I am currently reading.

They pretty much DID make the heroic tier PHB and put it in the starter set didn't they?

I think there should be as few core books as possible to let people choose what excess/extra material they want.

I think tiered books as the only initial offering would have flopped and no one bought it.

Races take about 2 pages each as is and the first page is less than half information and more than half imagery and white space. Want more races, then cut down on the wasted space.

Each power card sheet for DDI can be printed 9 per page landscape. IIRC there is a page with only 3/4 powers on it. There more space saved.

There were a ton of ways to reduce wasted space and include other races of classes in the initial PHB.

I think the biggest problem is all the crap from 3rd that was taken out of core, in order to add new stuff just to make 4th edition speshul. Dragonborn and tieflings didn't need to displace gnomes and half-orcs.

They shouldn't have made the books look flashy shiny, and made them for best use.

I think a proper distribution of "roles" would have worked better as well to include a better class selection, but they kept the old classes for consistency and screw-up role divisions with a single controller...

There is like 4 pages of skills, 32 pages on combat, and 45 pages on equipment.

It is great that those magic items are somewhere players can find them, but still wasted space with little jumping people pictures. But does each item need the prices repeated when they are already in a master table along with their item bonus?

Cut the wasted space and full page art, and add more information.

Sell a D&D picture book separate for those needing/wanting excess imagery.

So basically use the space more wisely to get more information in there. Don't have a 1 inch border/margin around a whole page with text on it and all those classes and races could have probably easily fit that people miss most.

Gnome, half-orc, druid, barbarian, etc.