Legends and Lore: What's With the Polls?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Wizards being stronger than fighters isn't something that follows its own logical course. It is not a tautology. Wizards have been stronger in previous editions of D&D because the collective wisdom was that it makes sense for wizards to be stronger than fighters from a setting standpoint. The people who are called wizards wield god-like powers and fighters swing swords.

IMO, if wizards are going to be so much better, they either need to be relegated to NPC's, and be rare, or the system needs to recognize that any relevant character (IE, PC) should have a caster ability. You dont run a Mage game with 2 players being reality bending uber magi, and one guy as a street smart punk who can hotwire cars.

 

[Dannager]

IMO, if wizards are going to be so much better, they either need to be relegated to NPC's, and be rare, or the system needs to recognize that any relevant character (IE, PC) should have a caster ability. You dont run a Mage game with 2 players being reality bending uber magi, and one guy as a street smart punk who can hotwire cars.

Sure, that's a solution, but I think they're both relatively poor (though you could certainly work up a setting that would justify everyone having caster abilities). People want to play spellcasters. Other people want to play Conan (or whatever they think Conan would be).

 

[Balesir]

The only style of fantasy that 3e "simulates" is the kind found in Ars Magica, and Ars Magica is better at it to boot.

Good comparison. Ars Magica is well designed for "exploring a setting and situation non-competitively"; it succeeds hugely on that level. Note that it has no character levels, no significant "combat experience" to increase wizardly power and no tie of a player to a specific character (troupe play FTW!).

Taking the earlier arguments in the thread, though, if choosing the attributes of an RPG system is like choosing the attributes of a house, I do think that objecting to Essentials is mostly like arguing over the colour of the curtains. I mean, not everybody needs the same basic house - number of rooms, size of dining area, utilities supply etc. all affect the uses to which the building may be put - but, if all you dislike is the curtain colour, I think the place still ought to be on your shortlist.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Sure, that's a solution, but I think they're both relatively poor (though you could certainly work up a setting that would justify everyone having caster abilities). People want to play spellcasters. Other people want to play Conan (or whatever they think Conan would be).

My example would be Harry Potter for the "everyone is a mage" game. Or Mage.

Previous editions of D&D magic is too easy for it to not follow the logical course and become commonplace. Its fast casting, nearly perfectly safe, and generally without consequences. The solution to almost any problem in earlier editions was to cast spell X to overcome problem Y, with players somehow thinking themselves clever in the process. Pretty much every nobleman would be sending their kids to magic school, and it would be as common as getting a degree in our world.

4th edition does away with that, and in the process creates a more believable realm where its possible to believe every non-dirt farmer wouldnt have some magical training. Magic can still do things that non-casters can do, and gets the benefit of versatility (Mage spell book class feature, ritual magic), its just often slower and more expensive. The high arcana, the ground shaking magic, is removed from player control, and in effect, restores it to being special. Utility magic is what you use when the mundane fails, rather than mundane being what you settle for use when you dont feel like pulling out a scroll.

You mention Conan, but the slayer isnt any more Conan than the Fighter or Warlord. But it does work to take him out of control of the party stop/go dynamic by removing his resources, and putting the adventuring day reigns back into the casters hands. He doesnt get any big boy moves to really show off. He's the same every fight more or less. Its shuffling him back to the edge of the party, out of the spotlight. If every power source got the same treatment, you'd hear less complaints (and really, this is my only major gripe with essentials). But they didnt. And Mike Mearls, the guy who designed Iron Heroes, with its complex non-casters and stunt systems, couldnt figure out anything better than just dumbing them down and making them more bland?

The new martials classes arent about someone being Conan. Its about getting those grognards back who want to have a Robin (the one in the green underroos!) to their Superman who gets to change his super powers every day. I'm guessing they're still playing pathfinder, with its uber casters (and excellent adventures/suplements), so it wont produce the desired effect. Regardless, they're out now. Mike Mearls said this represents the new design, I'm hoping he hears enough "NO's!" to reconsider something else for future martial development.

 

[Barastrondo]

I cannot disagree with this loudly enough.

I frankly and honestly hold to the opposite - if your martial fighter hero with a sword and armor is not doing wild and amazing things, then you are not simulating fantasy.

What we need is more people reading Orlando Furioso. I know I'd be delighted to see a wider acknowledgement of the idea that knights running around in full plate, fighting armies and leaping from battlement to battlement almost "anime-style", and sometimes even being women as well as epic army-thrashing badasses, is at least as old as the 16th century.

(Plus you'd think the whole "overcome ten champions in one day, then satisfy ten women in one night" labor would be irresistible to write up as a skill challenge.)

 

[frankthedm]

The problem with the gnome example is that there's a vocal minority who, despite not playing with a gnome, or intend to play a gnome, insists there be no gnomes because their mere existence hurts them in some way,.

Yes, there is a "Cult of the Anti-Gnome", waiting patiently for the day D&D is gnome free.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Good, they can go play those systems and it is okay if 4E is not for them.

No, actually, from their perspective, and from WotC's perspective, that's not okay. One does not sell millions of units by saying "Go play some other game if you don't like it." Standing on pointless principle is destructive in a mix as rich and varied as D&D. This is part of what Mearls seems to be saying here: D&D has a varied audience who want different things from the game, and D&D needs to be able to address as many of those needs as they can. Which is why D&D includes things from Gamma World to board games to Essentials and many notes in between. D&D is not just one thing.

Which means "My way or the highway" isn't going to work if they want to reach as many players as possible. It is easy -- so easy -- to just take the highway.

Purity of principle has its place. Art. Religion. Hell, your own table, if that's what you want. But your table is not D&D, it is a small sub-segment, and it is not representative of everyone that D&D is trying to reach.

That design seems to be replacing newer classes, so we end up with a less diverse game where we have "on rails" classes

No one is making you give up your fighter dailies if you want them.

I really don't know how WotC could be more explicit about this.

They don't seem to be eager to produce a Martial Power 3, but I'm not sure anyone needs another 4 fighter powers per level anyway.

More options will not reduce your current available options, which currently have the most options.

I get now that some people have a (misguided, IMO) greatly intense dislike of a violation of 4e's rigid powers structure.

I don't see how you go from that to "Everyone who wants something out of this game that I dislike should be expelled from the game!"

I have a greatly intense dislike of Fortune Cards (or at least their randomized booster collectible aspect).

I don't think that those who like them are wrong for liking them. It's fine that they're in the game, and even though I won't use them, others can, and I'll be content with that.

I would have a stronger opinion if fortune cards were somehow required to play the game, but they're an option, an addition, something I can take or leave as I see fit.

The same is true of Essentials. Nobody is taking away your existing fighter dailies, which, by the way, there are 165 of currently. Compared to the wizard (156) and the cleric (144), the fighter is in NO risk of running out of options any time soon.

In fact, an Experiment:
[sblock=Experiment! Science!]
If you gain a level once per month, it takes about 2 and a half years to gain 30 levels with one character. In that time, you will gain roughly 10 chances to have a daily power (including utilities). So in two years, your character can gain 10 daily powers. To get through every option, you would have to play more than 16 fighters, and playfor over 40 years. Functionally speaking, you could play nothing but fighters for the rest of your life, every single week, and never have to choose the same daily twice. You are not deprived of options!
[/sblock]

You disagree with the design philosophy? Fine. Good for you, even. Don't let it at your table, and engage in constructive conversation about it as much as you are able.

Don't begrudge those who do like it, though. Ultimately, as Mearls is pointing out here, D&D needs to be diverse to appeal to a diverse crowd. Diversity includes the way you play, but it also probably includes ways you HATE to play. They're coming along for the ride anyway. Disagree with them, protest them, but don't say they have no right to play.

 

[Aegeri]

No, actually, from their perspective, and from WotC's perspective, that's not okay. One does not sell millions of units by saying "Go play some other game if you don't like it."

DnD doesn't sell millions of units anyway. The question is can Wizards continue selling books to the people who already enjoyed 4E - yet are now so dissatisfied with the current direction they are no longer buying books. It's interesting that you make this big tent argument on some incensed moral high-ground, but fail entirely to take into account losing their current customers.

Is losing a whole bunch of your existing fanbase - that 75% from the poll before unhappy with classes with heavily reduced options - worth picking up 10% of people who will still hate your system anyway? Wizards aren't turned into gods and the fighter still contributes just as much to every combat. The wizard isn't one shotting everything - heck he's actually going to find it a real struggle to keep up with a charging slayer build for damage. So the people who whine that Wizards aren't more powerful than Fighters aren't going to like the essentials classes anyway. Existing 4E players aren't playing the game still because they think martial classes having no options is good. In fact if you've read as many of these threads as I have, it's pretty clear that a lot of 4E players are upset by "on rails" essentials class design.

I've always thought to myself that's what you'd call a "Pyrrhic" victory.

Standing on pointless principle is destructive in a mix as rich and varied as D&D.

So is losing your existing customers: But I guess when you already have their money you don't have to care about them eh?

Which means "My way or the highway" isn't going to work if they want to reach as many players as possible. It is easy -- so easy -- to just take the highway.

And what about when your existing customers stop buying your products?

My objection to your argument is that, in my experience with this argument, the majority of the people who are upset their wizard can't outgun the mere fighter aren't going to be swayed by what essentials did in the first place.

So what is really gained here?

No one is making you give up your fighter dailies if you want them.

I really don't know how WotC could be more explicit about this.

I've actually made this exact point - it's something that heavily cripples your argument. Nothing about essentials resets 4E to remove the aspect the people who want "superior" magic users want. Fighters still kick the absolute crap out of things and the slayer is actually pretty brutally effective. I mean you bring up points like "narrative" and here is the mere "martial" slayer who is entirely immune at epic to magical slow. How are they going to treat that?

Just because a slayer is simple and on-rails, doesn't mean it eliminates the problems these guys have with 4Es martial character design.

They don't seem to be eager to produce a Martial Power 3, but I'm not sure anyone needs another 4 fighter powers per level anyway.

This is a great point, but then you have to consider a Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2 and Arcane Power 2.

Who would benefit from such a book?

Who doesn't have any support?

Runepriests are divine aren't they?

Artificers are arcane aren't they?

Seekers are primal aren't they?

Oh but we don't care about those. Instead we'll be giant hypocrites: Defending the re-release of TWO fighter classes (albeit stripped down), ANOTHER dual wielding ranger build, MORE bloody Wizard builds, another cleric build, another paladin build and another druid build.

All the while saying "This makes 4E more diverse!"

Really? It does?

More options will not reduce your current available options, which currently have the most options.

So you poo-poo a martial power 3, while failing to realize all the two essentials books did was basically increase our options for playing fighters, rangers and wizards. Yet a Primal Power 2, Arcane Power 2 and Divine Power 2 would SPECIFICALLY cover the three classes that need support most in 4E.

Uh-huh.

I get now that some people have a (misguided, IMO) greatly intense dislike of a violation of 4e's rigid powers structure.

You and I in this case are talking past one another. I don't mind the power structure being changed. My objection is:

Did we need more fighters? Do we need to republish the original PHB fighter again?

Did we need more wizards? Do we need to republish the original PHB wizard again?

Did we need more clerics? Do we need to republish the original PHB cleric again?

You see, I actually don't mind the slayer and scout and thief inherently. I think they are pretty neat builds who are very effective. The thing is, why did we have to make subclasses of existing classes to begin with for this purpose? Why was it so specifically required we gut a fighter for someones sensibilities in this manner? Couldn't a new class with a new concept that was its own thing have done the same idea? No, we had to specifically gut the fighter for no reason other than appealing to people who will still hate the system anyway.

Also I think they should have been the odd build - but not the standard. On rails classes are good for learning the game and for people who don't like a lot of options - we now have what, 5 of them or something? Shouldn't we be going back to trying to push the original AEDU systems in other ways, like the Psionic classes did?

Incidentally, Psionic Power was one of the best books Wizards released. I loved it and it really made me change my mind on psionics quite a lot.

Just for the record.

I don't see how you go from that to "Everyone who wants something out of this game that I dislike should be expelled from the game!"

But don't they have their own game? That suits them? That does what they want exactly? You still haven't made a convincing argument whatsoever that anything essentials did will win over the "I hate my wizard being equal to a fighter" crowd. Because it didn't.

I have a greatly intense dislike of Fortune Cards (or at least their randomized booster collectible aspect).

I hate these as well and would flat out never allow them in my games. Just another stupid design decision from Wizards - but unlike many of their others I refuse to live with it. Incidentally if it isn't clear from my posts I do not ban - or disallow - almost anything in 4E. The exception would be fortune cards. There are a lot of things in 4E I dislike, but my personal preferences have nothing to do with what I allow my players to play - an important difference. I think Dragonborn are stupid and I can't fathom why people wouldn't run from them in terror. Do I let my personal sensibilities get in the way of a player being able to play a Dragonborn PC?

Absolutely, 100% not.

So I live with what Wizards makes and unless it's grossly unbalanced I am not going to ban something. My players can play what they enjoy, unless there is a reason for a restriction like I'm running Dark Sun (where I run that rather RAW deliberately). I also love diversity and love to exploit PCs weaknesses as well as their strengths. Sometimes I ensure the odd encounter really falls right into every trap a PCs powers will set for monsters. Why? Because it's fun and makes that character feel like a total badass - by extent makes the player feel satisfied with his build. Boring one note-railroad classes that do the same thing - albeit consistently - lose some of the fun overall for me. I don't mind the odd one, but if they start becoming the norm I'm not going to be enthused.

I would have a stronger opinion if fortune cards were somehow required to play the game

They are if you want to play encounters IIRC.

The same is true of Essentials. Nobody is taking away your existing fighter dailies, which, by the way, there are 165 of currently. Compared to the wizard (156) and the cleric (144), the fighter is in NO risk of running out of options any time soon.

And yet the culling of power books ensures the poor Runepriest, Seeker and Artificer get nothing.

But who cares about them right? So long as we get ANOTHER fighter build it's okay!

Don't begrudge those who do like it, though. Ultimately, as Mearls is pointing out here, D&D needs to be diverse to appeal to a diverse crowd.

This argument fails to acknowledge that it also has to appeal to your existing customer base.

Thus far you've failed to make your argument on two points:

1) You have already conceded critical failures in your argument when you concede essentials really didn't do anything to the relative power of a fighter vs. a wizard. A mage has tons of options, but he's not inherently better than the slayer (who can be brutally effective). How does that solve anything about the player who can't stand his wizard being shown up by a mere fighter? Quite frankly, it doesn't so they aren't going to be swayed by this.

2) You fail every time to address how existing customers have been incensed and lost by this change in direction by wizards. In fact I would say in your argument you've completely not considered it as an equally important factor. You seem to consider expanding the big tent - without realizing that people might leave it.

Overall none of your arguments sway me whatsoever, especially given the number of discussions on essentials I've read that hinge around one side saying "I will not buy anything essentials related EVER" and another side that says "It's just more 4E DnD, what's the big deal?". There are very few "Wow this essentials stuff is just like the [insert previous edition] I love! I'm totally getting into 4E now!" because it - as you even admit - basically isn't.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Like I said, I don't hate Essentials. Essentials can be rather nifty and, for the right type of player, it's right up their alley!

What I hate is the idea is that Essentials is all we're going to be getting. Psionics was a one shot experiment. Essentials should be the same. And we should see more variants and changes and experiments made on the Powers system. Essentials as a one shot deal would be fantastic. Hey, here's the simple and easy to understand martial classes the niche of the fanbase wanted! They're happy now! And the ones that aren't happy will never be!

My biggest dislike with the Powers system was that everything was tied to it. Making everything tied to Essentials isn't the answer to this.

My biggest worry is that WotC is going to start treading down the path of quadratic wizards linear fighters again. That's the last thing I want, and that's one of the things that well and truly would divorce WotC from my money.

As for the "grognard dollar," it's lost. It is lost. They don't hate WotC because wizards are no longer gods, though that was certainly one of the original reasons. They hate WotC because they hate WotC. They think WotC fired them as a customer, and pooped on their head, and destroyed everything they love, and those three things are things I have seen put at WotC on places like the Paizo forums.

That dollar is never coming back, no matter how many changes to the game you make.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No one is making you give up your fighter dailies if you want them.

Well, outside of the only current official organized play from WotC, D&D Encounters.

But, really, the point isn't that they have taken the Fighter's toys away, it's that it seems they may be trying to. The ball is rolling in that direction (see previous 'conspriracy theory manifesto' post).

More options will not reduce your current available options, which currently have the most options.

Actually, new options that obviate old ones can result in a net loss of 'real' options. For instance, if you have a number of feats that give a modest feat bonus in narrow categories, they're options - if you add a new feat that gives a larger blanket feat bonuses in all those castegories, all those old options are effectively gone, because they've become bad choices.

The same goes for any game element, if it's left behind in effectiveness, it's been replaced. It's still there, but you're a chump if you use it.

It would take years of power inflation, cunning kept from ever touching the old martial builds, to 'replace' them with the E-martials that way, but it's a concievable possibility, and, worse, a concievable (childish, petty) intention of Essentials and those who pushed for it's aproach to the martial source.

I get now that some people have a (misguided, IMO) greatly intense dislike of a violation of 4e's rigid powers structure.

The AEDU class advancement structure is key to 4e's class balance. Class balance is something that D&D had never successfully delivered before (not even close), so, yes, losing that would upset some people.

How many? Impossible to say, but, of the respondents to the poll we're discussing, 3.9% said they 'didn't care about balance.' So, potentially, 96% of 4e fans /do/ care about balance. And the class structure the 'new design direction' is throwing under the bus is all about balance.

And the sad part it, isn't doesn't need to go under the bus to satisfy the demand for a simpler-to-build or simpler-to-play class. The archer-ranger build, for instance, is already quite simple to play, in spite of being AEDU. The Warpiest is very simple to build (one choice: domain), in spite of being AEDU. A Fighter build that used the underlying AEDU structure 'behind the curtain,' could quite easily have been both - while still being 'upgradeable' to a 'real' Fighter, later, if desired.


I can tell you really want to wrap yourself in the banner of inclussion (and, hey, maybe you personally belong wrapped in it, I don't know you, you could be a paragon of tollerance), but, the anti-martial stance of those Essentials apears to be catering to is distinctly exclussive. When someone complains that a Fighter using a daily power 'breaks verismilitude' or 'ruins immersion,' they're not just talking about a fighter they're playing, they mean any fighter - any non-caster, be it PC, NPC or monster - that they /see/ doing that. Because verisimilitude and immersion are /not/ and cannot be limited to just your character. It is a stance that is, at bottom, all about making other people play the character you want them to, not the character they want to. Using a 'big tent' analogy to defend that attitude is a bit ironic.