Artificer, Assassin (Not the essentials one, which looks good but the original Dragon one, which is just terrible in its current state), Runepriest and Seeker. They vary from chronically underpowered (especially after essentials ruined a whole bunch of the artificers class features/powers), under-supported and have no redemption anywhere in sight - they're the forgotten classes of 4E. Other classes could use a new book as well, for some boosts and new options.
Class Compendium Official Announcement
- Thread starter nogray
- Start date
Artificer, Assassin (Not the essentials one, which looks good but the original Dragon one, which is just terrible in its current state), Runepriest and Seeker. They vary from chronically underpowered (especially after essentials ruined a whole bunch of the artificers class features/powers), under-supported and have no redemption anywhere in sight - they're the forgotten classes of 4E. Other classes could use a new book as well, for some boosts and new options.
RLBURNSIDE
First Post
When you can only
access a character builder when you're online and have a credit card, is when I'll be switching to an open source builder, or just using pen n paper. That's ironic...because people getting 5 updates per month is a good deal. Paying to access a website is gonna be rife for hacking, not only that but I don't relish the idea of losing control over my IP. Yes, my character IS my intellectual property, Wotc. I don't sign away ideas to you, AND give you my money at the same time. Although the courts have recently said that's the case with software subscriptions on Autocad, i.e. you no longer own the software you puchased, it's leased to you. How they can justify changing that retroactively is beyond me.
I don't play MMOs with monthly fees because I don't want to play online with some 13 year olds, I want to play in person with my friends. The subscription model where I pay to get data and code updates to an offline builder IS a good deal to me (when they actually come through with the updates, and the errata don't stink to high heaven). I just renewed my Dnd insider account since I'll probably get access to next month's too. I really need the next update for my character pre-paragon. Our DM has access to other's accounts, even though we normally play at my place. Another bonus for having updatable accounts. Wotc probably makes more profit from out group because everybody likes having their own account. I suspect once it becomes a login to a centralised storage for your character, it will take away the incentive to get separate accounts since everyone will just want to update their online copy of their character sheet.
ps what happens when the net goes down? Or we want to level up when we drive to the country and play up north at a cottage? Online tools stink. And I worked for online for YEARS in the video game industry. Trust me : Online only STINKS and is anti-thetical to the entire premise of pen n paper role playing.
Wotc will lose money if they force us to be always-on all the time. I don't even like playing MMOs any more, playing with my friends in real life is where it's at. I shouldn't even need to pay if I don't want the updates, that's another bonus for the offline version. If we're happy with the way the rules are right now...why update? If they give us better options, a more streamlined set of feats and items that are actually worth a damn, THEN maybe it's worth paying to update.
access a character builder when you're online and have a credit card, is when I'll be switching to an open source builder, or just using pen n paper. That's ironic...because people getting 5 updates per month is a good deal. Paying to access a website is gonna be rife for hacking, not only that but I don't relish the idea of losing control over my IP. Yes, my character IS my intellectual property, Wotc. I don't sign away ideas to you, AND give you my money at the same time. Although the courts have recently said that's the case with software subscriptions on Autocad, i.e. you no longer own the software you puchased, it's leased to you. How they can justify changing that retroactively is beyond me.
I don't play MMOs with monthly fees because I don't want to play online with some 13 year olds, I want to play in person with my friends. The subscription model where I pay to get data and code updates to an offline builder IS a good deal to me (when they actually come through with the updates, and the errata don't stink to high heaven). I just renewed my Dnd insider account since I'll probably get access to next month's too. I really need the next update for my character pre-paragon. Our DM has access to other's accounts, even though we normally play at my place. Another bonus for having updatable accounts. Wotc probably makes more profit from out group because everybody likes having their own account. I suspect once it becomes a login to a centralised storage for your character, it will take away the incentive to get separate accounts since everyone will just want to update their online copy of their character sheet.
ps what happens when the net goes down? Or we want to level up when we drive to the country and play up north at a cottage? Online tools stink. And I worked for online for YEARS in the video game industry. Trust me : Online only STINKS and is anti-thetical to the entire premise of pen n paper role playing.
Wotc will lose money if they force us to be always-on all the time. I don't even like playing MMOs any more, playing with my friends in real life is where it's at. I shouldn't even need to pay if I don't want the updates, that's another bonus for the offline version. If we're happy with the way the rules are right now...why update? If they give us better options, a more streamlined set of feats and items that are actually worth a damn, THEN maybe it's worth paying to update.
Mercurius
Legend
Let's calm down about the possibility of DDI being online only - it is all speculation at this point (Although I will agree that this is just the sort of numb-skulled thing WotC would do).
But just to be sure, if you haven't already it might be wise to get a one month subscription and download CB and AT now, just in case!
But just to be sure, if you haven't already it might be wise to get a one month subscription and download CB and AT now, just in case!
You missed my other point. The fact that they're repeating 3.0/3.5 all over again.
You're going to have Core-only 4E players, Essentials only 4E players, or both. 4E is doing real bad right now, considering they actually TIED with Pathfinder on their sales. For the biggest RPG in the world to get shown up by, in a sense, a "rookie" is pretty indicative of what's happening to their fan base --- They're really, really mad.
This Essentials line is making it much worse. From gaming shops and the gamers I talk to in my region, even the pro-4E people, are either shaking their heads and going,"I told you a 4.5e was coming, they're just more clever about it this time. But it's still screwed up."
If this was about errata, then re-release errata books, or better yet, just the Rules Compendium. No, it's not just about errata. It's about "cleaning" everything up, repackaging, re-selling. Adding and altering many aspects of the game that makes it different enough from the Core where you might as well just come out and say it instead of insulting the customers by covering it up.
And they've caught themselves in a lie. 4E's design, as stated dozens of times before, was meant to be "pick up and play", easier for newcomers to join in, easier for old gamers to come back to gaming with D&D again after two decades, and so on. So what this Essentials line is telling me is that they've lied to me originally about the intent of the design, and now they're going to make and support D&D 4E for both Twiddle-Dee and Twiddle-Dumb?
Also, they're going to continue offering support for both Core and Essentials lines? Two lines!? Is that necessary? So now we have 2 versions of the same game being supported? I can hear the ravings now. Why didn't they just continue to support both 3.5e AND 4E? In fact, why haven't they continued supporting all the editions?
A smart business decision would be to do what World of Warcraft does, since they modeled 4E on them anyway --- let the ones that don't have the expansion still be able to play your game. I don't have Wrath of the Lich King, but I can still play WoW and get all the updates. I'm not locked out. WotC should've done 1 or 2 large books a year, with 1e/2e/3e support. 3e versions of 4e monsters, 2e kits of 4e paragon paths, 1e versions of 4e classes, etc. That would've been the best move for them financially. They'll be raking in cash from all the old edition players who will immediately buy that book (and, heck, once or twice a year? It'll sell out so quickly) and with continued support of 4E, still rake in the cash from that!
You'd have to be a WotC zealot to not be able to admit that WotC was just fine at 3.5e and, if anything, should've gone the Pathfinder route of fixing 3rd Edition up. Any sensible person would have to admit, yes, WotC is screwing up badly, yet again, and I don't think they should have the privilege of owning the brand and are much better off selling it to someone that cares, knows what they're doing, and won't screw people over (Paizo would've been awesome).
I am calling it like I see it. I really don't understand why anyone would spin it any other way in their defense. They don't have much of a defense other than they have a "revolving door" employee circle making all these changes and decisions. Another set of layoffs and resignations (hm, I wonder why so many are quitting?) will come in just another 6 months or so, and we'll have another round of unnecessary changes from the new blood.
I never thought I'd say this but...I really miss TSR.
You're going to have Core-only 4E players, Essentials only 4E players, or both. 4E is doing real bad right now, considering they actually TIED with Pathfinder on their sales. For the biggest RPG in the world to get shown up by, in a sense, a "rookie" is pretty indicative of what's happening to their fan base --- They're really, really mad.
This Essentials line is making it much worse. From gaming shops and the gamers I talk to in my region, even the pro-4E people, are either shaking their heads and going,"I told you a 4.5e was coming, they're just more clever about it this time. But it's still screwed up."
If this was about errata, then re-release errata books, or better yet, just the Rules Compendium. No, it's not just about errata. It's about "cleaning" everything up, repackaging, re-selling. Adding and altering many aspects of the game that makes it different enough from the Core where you might as well just come out and say it instead of insulting the customers by covering it up.
And they've caught themselves in a lie. 4E's design, as stated dozens of times before, was meant to be "pick up and play", easier for newcomers to join in, easier for old gamers to come back to gaming with D&D again after two decades, and so on. So what this Essentials line is telling me is that they've lied to me originally about the intent of the design, and now they're going to make and support D&D 4E for both Twiddle-Dee and Twiddle-Dumb?
Also, they're going to continue offering support for both Core and Essentials lines? Two lines!? Is that necessary? So now we have 2 versions of the same game being supported? I can hear the ravings now. Why didn't they just continue to support both 3.5e AND 4E? In fact, why haven't they continued supporting all the editions?
A smart business decision would be to do what World of Warcraft does, since they modeled 4E on them anyway --- let the ones that don't have the expansion still be able to play your game. I don't have Wrath of the Lich King, but I can still play WoW and get all the updates. I'm not locked out. WotC should've done 1 or 2 large books a year, with 1e/2e/3e support. 3e versions of 4e monsters, 2e kits of 4e paragon paths, 1e versions of 4e classes, etc. That would've been the best move for them financially. They'll be raking in cash from all the old edition players who will immediately buy that book (and, heck, once or twice a year? It'll sell out so quickly) and with continued support of 4E, still rake in the cash from that!
You'd have to be a WotC zealot to not be able to admit that WotC was just fine at 3.5e and, if anything, should've gone the Pathfinder route of fixing 3rd Edition up. Any sensible person would have to admit, yes, WotC is screwing up badly, yet again, and I don't think they should have the privilege of owning the brand and are much better off selling it to someone that cares, knows what they're doing, and won't screw people over (Paizo would've been awesome).
I am calling it like I see it. I really don't understand why anyone would spin it any other way in their defense. They don't have much of a defense other than they have a "revolving door" employee circle making all these changes and decisions. Another set of layoffs and resignations (hm, I wonder why so many are quitting?) will come in just another 6 months or so, and we'll have another round of unnecessary changes from the new blood.
I never thought I'd say this but...I really miss TSR.
Last edited:
Obryn
Hero
This is the root of your misunderstanding - the belief that these are two separate lines, requiring separate support.
Would you care to stop telling people what they think, or casting labels on people who disagree with you?
-O
Klaus
First Post
Essentials is a 10-product line within the larger tapestry of 4e, not apart from it. It offers D&D in a different package than the traditional "PHB/DMG/MM" model ("RC/HotFL/HotFK/DMK/MV").
Certain choices made for the Essentials products (greater emphasis on story/fluff, smaller paperbacks, feat organization) will inform the D&D line from here on out, and it seems the Class Compendium is an opportunity to present some of the most basic PH1 classes using those choices (plus, it's an opportunity to present several powers in the most current form).
Saying that now there'll be "Core only", "Essentials Only", etc, is no different than saying "no 'Power' books!", "No magazine material" or somesuch.
Certain choices made for the Essentials products (greater emphasis on story/fluff, smaller paperbacks, feat organization) will inform the D&D line from here on out, and it seems the Class Compendium is an opportunity to present some of the most basic PH1 classes using those choices (plus, it's an opportunity to present several powers in the most current form).
Saying that now there'll be "Core only", "Essentials Only", etc, is no different than saying "no 'Power' books!", "No magazine material" or somesuch.
If you feel WotC is insulting customers (ie. you), why don't you file a complaint about it with the better business bureau?
Do you expect corporations to tell the truth?
RLBURNSIDE
First Post
Arrrgh
New multiclassing rules!!
More options are better (IMO). If Wotc can also fix current racial power attack bonuses, and remove the power-swapping nature of multiclassing in favor of picking and chosing what class features (without a silly feat tax like Hybrid Talent...which was a total waste of a feat one of the reasons base classes with one or two multi-swaps were better in many cases).
E.g. I play a hybrid paladin | ranger. I can never mark and quarry at the beginning of combat, quarry doesn't apply to my paladin powers, and even if I do use a minor action to apply quarry that round while using a standard for a paladin encounter or daily, I still loathe the fact that I can't apply Divine Challenge mark damage on the same round as Snarling Wolf Stance is active. too many Immediate actions arrrrgh! I mean, you lose way too much on some classes when you hybrid, and gain not enough to make many combinations worthwhile. Aragorn is clearly, for instance, a ranger | paladin or ranger | leader-type, and that just doesn't work in this game. The extra hybrid talent to use two swords kills the ability to get the armor proficiency.
Please make the hitpoints gained per level EXACTLY halfway between the classes, so that 5.5 / level means, 5.5, not 5. I.e. on every two levels you have one that's not rounded down into oblivion. Same thing with surges. What's the point of having 1/2 a surge if you can't use it?
I wonder if, say, a Knight could be combined with a Scout...and get some of the cool TWF from the Scout, and be both Martial, Divine, And Primal. That would qualify you for a huge number of feats, which is also a balance issue right there. If I can take Paladin's Truth without spending a useless entry MC feat, I'd almost rather play a straight up Scout.
The armor proficiency should be 1/2 way between the classes too, not the lowest common denominator. If they do this, they might be able to build Aragorn without cludgy rules and having a bunch of powers you never use. Themes could be good for this. I like throwing heavy weapons, why I can't I take a theme of powers to achieve this, as a pure paladin? There are almost no ranged attacks except RBAs. Why? There should be one that does, say, an RBA + Apply divine sanction at the same time.
Let's hope Multiclassing 3.0 / Essentials works better than what we have, which is really bad for some iconic cases.
New multiclassing rules!!
More options are better (IMO). If Wotc can also fix current racial power attack bonuses, and remove the power-swapping nature of multiclassing in favor of picking and chosing what class features (without a silly feat tax like Hybrid Talent...which was a total waste of a feat one of the reasons base classes with one or two multi-swaps were better in many cases).
E.g. I play a hybrid paladin | ranger. I can never mark and quarry at the beginning of combat, quarry doesn't apply to my paladin powers, and even if I do use a minor action to apply quarry that round while using a standard for a paladin encounter or daily, I still loathe the fact that I can't apply Divine Challenge mark damage on the same round as Snarling Wolf Stance is active. too many Immediate actions arrrrgh! I mean, you lose way too much on some classes when you hybrid, and gain not enough to make many combinations worthwhile. Aragorn is clearly, for instance, a ranger | paladin or ranger | leader-type, and that just doesn't work in this game. The extra hybrid talent to use two swords kills the ability to get the armor proficiency.
Please make the hitpoints gained per level EXACTLY halfway between the classes, so that 5.5 / level means, 5.5, not 5. I.e. on every two levels you have one that's not rounded down into oblivion. Same thing with surges. What's the point of having 1/2 a surge if you can't use it?
I wonder if, say, a Knight could be combined with a Scout...and get some of the cool TWF from the Scout, and be both Martial, Divine, And Primal. That would qualify you for a huge number of feats, which is also a balance issue right there. If I can take Paladin's Truth without spending a useless entry MC feat, I'd almost rather play a straight up Scout.
The armor proficiency should be 1/2 way between the classes too, not the lowest common denominator. If they do this, they might be able to build Aragorn without cludgy rules and having a bunch of powers you never use. Themes could be good for this. I like throwing heavy weapons, why I can't I take a theme of powers to achieve this, as a pure paladin? There are almost no ranged attacks except RBAs. Why? There should be one that does, say, an RBA + Apply divine sanction at the same time.
Let's hope Multiclassing 3.0 / Essentials works better than what we have, which is really bad for some iconic cases.
Which was true of 3e and 3.5e too. The vast majority of the changes were in the category of what would now be called update, the actual mechanical changes were few and far between.
You could play monsters with a 3.5 DR with 3.0 characters under 3.0 DR rules and vice versa and you wouldn't have any technical problems. Sure, there might be balance reason due to the different philosophies (the 3.0 guys wondering why one would bother to assign such a low DR with such an obscure material that their +1 weapon beats anyway, while the 3.5 guys would curse whoever assigned such a high "all or nothing DR" with such an obscure material) behind, but no technical barriers.
You could play a 3.0 ranger beside a 3.5 ranger (although one would wonder why someone would want to be the 3.0 ranger ins this case), there was no game system barriers preventing it. Or take a 3.0 PrC unchanged for your 3.5e character, also no technical barrier just a balance issue due to the different philosophy (e.g 3.5e disliking the 17-20 thread range the 3.0 PrC just granted you). The only thing which you basically needed to change to make classes compatible would be a couple of skill names.
Last edited:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
4e is doing worse in germany than 3.x
At least in gaming stores. As far as I can tell books sitting on the shelves are the same as they were months ago...
It could have to do with a lack of foreign language support...
A big problem wotc faces however is the internet crowd that spreads rumors. No matter what they do, the sky is falling.
You see the same reaction on blizzard forums everytime a patch is released. Just 100 times more annoying. And blizzard is doing fine, that is for sure...
At least in gaming stores. As far as I can tell books sitting on the shelves are the same as they were months ago...
It could have to do with a lack of foreign language support...
A big problem wotc faces however is the internet crowd that spreads rumors. No matter what they do, the sky is falling.
You see the same reaction on blizzard forums everytime a patch is released. Just 100 times more annoying. And blizzard is doing fine, that is for sure...
