Promises, promises...what WotC said, and actually did, with 4E

[Deset Gled]

This is just to look back on the last year, at all the things we were told--often with great confidence--and how they really turned out.

We were told that 3.5 errata would not be stopped when 4e was announced, and the errata that was already planned/in progress (like Complete Champion). We were also told that 3.5 info, including errata, would still be available in archives on the website. Instead, the errata was never released, and a few errata files (MIC and PHB2) have been removed from the website.

 

[helium3]

-Emerald Frost

Emerald Frost is in there, it's just called Burning Blizzard now. If you look at the dual energy type damage boosting feats they line up pretty well with the stuff in that article. Only, there's nothing else. I had a post on this a while back. It seems like they dropped something from the system or decided to push back the roll-out to a later date.

 

[Staffan]

This.

I mean, the Warlock preview mentioned a "Shadow" pact, and that warlocks had a "Soul Ruin" melee power. And that was a year ago. Surprise that things were changed since last year from active development and playtesting.

One of the FR previews mentioned that there will be a "Dark" warlock pact in the FRPG, which is favored by drow (but not exclusive).

 

[Moggthegob]

i do not know if this has already been entioned and I hate to revive this dead horse.

But the promise at DnD experience that " We aren't working on a version of the game that would require miniatures." While one of the biggest ire points after the announcement of 4e, this in and of itself is a broken promise.

Look at the abilities presented in 4e and tell me this system could be used without miniatures.

 

[Andor]

i do not know if this has already been entioned and I hate to revive this dead horse.

But the promise at DnD experience that " We aren't working on a version of the game that would require miniatures." While one of the biggest ire points after the announcement of 4e, this in and of itself is a broken promise.

Look at the abilities presented in 4e and tell me this system could be used without miniatures.

It can be used without miniatures. You can also fire a howitzer without hearing protection, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Jack Colby]

Boy, leave it to the internets to take things in the wrong spirit.

Considering the thread title, what did you expect to happen?

 

[TerraDave]

Obviously I misunderestimated the impact of the word "promises".

And that may be the wrong word. Promises implies comitment. For 4E what we got where more like statements of fact, like this:

Even at 1st level, a fighter who uses an axe has a different power selection than a fighter who relies on a flail or a rapier or a pick.... Many fighters will opt for swords. Swords have the most flexible assortment of powers.

So, no promise, just some basic facts about the game. That don't actually show up in the final product. Oh sure, the general point of the article is true: fighters get some powers that key off specific weapons (and work with different abilities). But, at 1st level...and that whole swords thing...not so much.

I am not saying this is a big deal (and I don't think my thread title says it is) And of course it is easy to do this a year latter...that is the whole point

 

[Lizard]

A lot of these boiled down to "The internet exploded with hateful bile when they leaked them".

I still have flashbacks of "Angry Over Golden Wyvern" threads. The Golden Wyvern and level limits on Rings hijacked so many discussions.

And WOTC listened. Good for them.

There are times when you need to stick to your guns -- when you have A Vision, and you will not be dissuaded by naysayers. Then there's times when you have an idea which sounds really neat in the echo chamber but which turns out to not work in the Real World. Of the two things you mention -- rings and god-awful feat names -- the "game design" reasons given for them simply didn't hold up to any kind of examination. They were developer pet ideas which might be just fine in a personal campaign but which didn't work for what has to be a broad, generic, fantasy toolkit. (Ring limits, in particular, were hideously egregious -- if ALL magic items were level limited, well, cool, we can grok that, but JUST rings? My first level fighter can wield a 30th level sword but not an 11th level ring? The FRACK?)

Overall, of all the stuff promised but not delivered, the only thing I really miss is race mattering a lot over the full life of the character. Perhaps when the race splats arrive, we'll see more of it.

 

[Lizard]

i do not know if this has already been entioned and I hate to revive this dead horse.

But the promise at DnD experience that " We aren't working on a version of the game that would require miniatures." While one of the biggest ire points after the announcement of 4e, this in and of itself is a broken promise.

Look at the abilities presented in 4e and tell me this system could be used without miniatures.

I do not thing 4e require minis any more than 3e did.

Take that as thou wilt.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Obviously I misunderestimated the impact of the word "promises".

The terminology also implied that WotC shouldn't have made changes to the game. In fact, I would say it's a good thing that they didn't feel constrained by them.