D&D 4E What I want from 4E DnD in 3 simple steps.

[delericho]

I was with you up to here:

So when just last year I was paying for the four things above and perfectly happy to do so - hell even just the monster builder alone - now I am paying the same amount and happy with nothing. That is not being a spoiled child, that is recognizing when you've just been utterly screwed by a company that you had loyally supported.

Please understand that you've not been screwed. If you're not happy, you should cancel your sub (and so not pay), and should have contacted WotC for a refund (they were providing these at about the time the new CB hit).

Honestly, WotC have absolutely no interest in screwing you (or anyone) - it's really nothing personal. They're focussing their efforts where they think those will make the most money. That happens to not be in the areas that are best for you. A lot of us went through exactly the same thing back in 2008.

It's really just business. Sadly.

Oh yeah! It is 4th edition we're discussing. I don't care what a broken terrible system did or didn't do. I am talking about what a formerly really great system did successfully do.

Also, this. I really don't want to kick off another round of Edition Wars, but 3.5e was (and is) a really great system too, and did a hell of a lot right. 4e made some improvements, to be sure, but it also did a number of things that were not improvements.

But I don't want to rehash that again, so that's all I'll say about that.

 

[Aegeri]

Please understand that you've not been screwed. If you're not happy, you should cancel your sub (and so not pay), and should have contacted WotC for a refund (they were providing these at about the time the new CB hit).

Unfortunately I didn't at the time, because I was a bit silly and still took "faith" in Wizards that things would be fixed. That was then and this is now. It is worth noting I canceled my subscription a long time ago. I think mine only still functions due to the letter I sent them (basically the OP of this thread), which instead of a refund probably just prompted an extension of the service.

A lot of us went through exactly the same thing back in 2008.

I don't worry about edition changes. If a company wants to change everything up, that's the way to do it and I take them fairly well. I played 2E for years, but 3E and its gross broken imbalances/issues/splatbook creep (far worse than 4E, as 4E has nowhere near the sheer "broken" for reasons inherent to the system) just made me absolutely hate DnD. So I stopped playing 3E shortly after 3.5 came out because it just wasn't worth the time or effort anymore. I didn't even take an interest in 4E until I played it at the games day just before its release!

I do take exception to suddenly murdering everything that had been doing pretty well, dividing the community and then dropping support for the things your new edition does far better than the previous one. That's not "business" to me, that's what I call "pure stupidity".

 

[kaomera]

"Fire and forget" classes and races aren't actually a horrible thing... if you get it right the first time. A class needs 3-4 builds to be flexible enough for most people, with reasonable choices for each build, and a few feats for customizing within a build (so, NOT rune feats). The problem with the runepriest is that it has about as many real choices as the average Essentials class, while the seeker simply has bad choices. The artificer could use another build, but honestly really isn't that bad off.

I agree that a bad class is bad... lol... My point is, mainly, that I don't think that "added support" is a good way to fix a bad class. To me it just seems that if the class wasn't good enough to play in the first place, it should be fixed before more options are added. Otherwise you just end up with a mess.

I'm interested in why a class needs so many choices to be seen as viable (you certainly don't seem to be the only one with that opinion, in fact I'm afraid I may be the only one who doesn't share it...). I'd be happy playing a completely pre-generated character, if it was a concept that interested me and was effective enough that it wasn't causing the party problems. I can see where more options is a better value, because it creates more combinations, but really I can only play one of those combinations at a time.

 

[Incenjucar]

I agree that a bad class is bad... lol... My point is, mainly, that I don't think that "added support" is a good way to fix a bad class. To me it just seems that if the class wasn't good enough to play in the first place, it should be fixed before more options are added. Otherwise you just end up with a mess.

I'm interested in why a class needs so many choices to be seen as viable (you certainly don't seem to be the only one with that opinion, in fact I'm afraid I may be the only one who doesn't share it...). I'd be happy playing a completely pre-generated character, if it was a concept that interested me and was effective enough that it wasn't causing the party problems. I can see where more options is a better value, because it creates more combinations, but really I can only play one of those combinations at a time.

Choice is important for many people - a major reason that Essentials upsets many people. Every additional choice increases the chance that you can play the EXACT character you want to play, and having the freedom to choose (sometimes even when an illusion) is very pleasant. There are also many cases of a class being good except for X, Y, and Z. The Battlemind is a great example of this: A single tweak changed it from being a pariah to being awesome. I believe the same was done with Paladin marks. Assassins could go from meh to oh sweet with minor changes to their shroud mechanic. Sometimes you get a class that's overall great, but has a few levels of only meh choices. Sometimes you get a class feature that just isn't properly supported (Binder hexblades have no access to an Essentials-style expertise feat for their flails, for example).

It's cool that you enjoy pre-generated characters, but others really enjoy the act of building the character themselves and thus "owning" it - even if it ends up being very similar to another build based on the same idea. That's why we have feats and power choices and so forth to begin with. I don't ask that you agree, but I feel it would benefit you to understand the perspective.

For a lot of people, a home cooked character just tastes better.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm interested in why a class needs so many choices to be seen as viable (you certainly don't seem to be the only one with that opinion, in fact I'm afraid I may be the only one who doesn't share it...).

Part of it is power inflation. As games like D&D add content, they add 'unintended synergies' that can be used to make characters more powerful. 4e, even more than other eds, tends to put options in 'silos' based around class. So options don't expand at the same rate for every class. A class that receives little support for a while falls behind that power-inflation curve, and could become less and less viable.

It's not so much that people don't have enough options for their favorite class(es), it's that old options become less viable as the general power level of the game leaves them behind.

Of course, some 'old' options were sufficiently overpowered from the beginning that it'd take a /lot/ of power inflation to leave them behind...

 

[Riastlin]

Part of it is power inflation. As games like D&D add content, they add 'unintended synergies' that can be used to make characters more powerful. 4e, even more than other eds, tends to put options in 'silos' based around class. So options don't expand at the same rate for every class. A class that receives little support for a while falls behind that power-inflation curve, and could become less and less viable.

It's not so much that people don't have enough options for their favorite class(es), it's that old options become less viable as the general power level of the game leaves them behind.

Of course, some 'old' options were sufficiently overpowered from the beginning that it'd take a /lot/ of power inflation to leave them behind...

Personally, I think another part of it is simply that a lot of players want to be able to have their own "take" on a class, or create a character that stands out from others of its class in some respect. Not necessarily more powerful, just different. Take the runepriest for example. From a pure effectiveness standpoint, I think the runepriest is fine. Sure, the rune feats definitely need some work in my opinion, but the class is certainly effective and doesn't feel as though its being left behind in terms of power.

The problem though is that by and large, there's very little variance from one runepriest to the next. Even Defiant vs. Wrathful sees very little in the way of difference in terms of play (sure, one wants to get hit while the other doesn't) but for the most part, they play very similarly (both wanting to be attacked, dealing good damage, etc.) It really only takes a person familiar with the class one or two questions for instance to get a pretty good idea of how the character is built.

A suppose a similar analogy might be if you took the fighter class and said "Okay, the fighter has two options: wield a longsword and heavy shield, or wield a greataxe". This is of course, exaggerating the issue a bit, but not all that much. The fighter class would still be very effective, but it would be less interesting knowing that you only had two options. There's really very little ability to make your fighter unique compared to other fighters, etc. Player choice is what makes RPGs so fun compared to other games. We get to create the characters (not be given them), we get to create the stories (not be told them), etc. You CAN have fun with pre-gen characters and a lack of options to be sure, but for most, its a lot more fun when you get to make meaningful choices along the way.

 

[kaomera]

Choice is important for many people - a major reason that Essentials upsets many people. Every additional choice increases the chance that you can play the EXACT character you want to play, and having the freedom to choose (sometimes even when an illusion) is very pleasant.

OK, I can see where people want that "one special feat" (or whatever) that exactly fits the concept they want to play. There's a few of those I wouldn't mind seeing myself. I just don't see where the scatter-shot approach of the power books was really delivering that. And the idea that essentials is not just flat-out more choices boggles my mind. If "it's not more choices for X class" is the issue, then why didn't people react this way to PHB2 or 3 or any of the setting books? Why did people not rise up in anger when the swordmage got published instead of more options for the existing classes?

There are also many cases of a class being good except for X, Y, and Z. The Battlemind is a great example of this: A single tweak changed it from being a pariah to being awesome. I believe the same was done with Paladin marks. Assassins could go from meh to oh sweet with minor changes to their shroud mechanic. Sometimes you get a class that's overall great, but has a few levels of only meh choices. Sometimes you get a class feature that just isn't properly supported (Binder hexblades have no access to an Essentials-style expertise feat for their flails, for example).

This requires what I would consider actual support, not just burying the classes under a heap of more options. I don't want to see "fixes" that just turn everything else into trap options. To me the essentials style class writeup is support, it helps a player actually create a good, fun character. Just churning out new options is IMO not only a bad strategy for WotC to follow, but it's actually hurtful to a lot of players.

It's cool that you enjoy pre-generated characters, but others really enjoy the act of building the character themselves and thus "owning" it - even if it ends up being very similar to another build based on the same idea. That's why we have feats and power choices and so forth to begin with. I don't ask that you agree, but I feel it would benefit you to understand the perspective.

For a lot of people, a home cooked character just tastes better.

No, I get that. It's just that I'd much rather take something good and try and make it my own than be handed a huge pile of options many of which are just outright bad. IMO this, and not any subtle changes to the place of martial classes, is what is killing balance in 4e. Constantly pushing the character-building minigame to the exclusion and detriment of actual play is bad. And I think that new feats are a bad way to fix things that are actually wrong with the system.

I'm kind of afraid that we're moving away from supporting all players towards only supporting the most educated and savvy players, especially with the shift towards online content. It's great that the system rewards good (mechanical) character building, but the standards that it adheres to aren't an actual, obvious thing if you haven't been told about them.

It's not so much that people don't have enough options for their favorite class(es), it's that old options become less viable as the general power level of the game leaves them behind.

This is an attitude that seriously worries me. The idea that there's no way to actually mitigate power-creep to the point that it isn't going to ruin the game and require a complete re-boot every couple of years. 4e's actually done fairly well in terms of older options hanging in there, except for the "math fix" foolishness. I'm really, really bummed out that the Character Compendium is online-only, because I don't want to have to explain to another new player why some options aren't any good, or try and get them hooked up wih the errata... The biggest power-creep I've seen from 4e happens in the time that it takes for charop to compile a guide for a new class; OTOH if everyone had access to those guides it would probably actually help balance overall.

 

[kaomera]

Personally, I think another part of it is simply that a lot of players want to be able to have their own "take" on a class, or create a character that stands out from others of its class in some respect. Not necessarily more powerful, just different. Take the runepriest for example. From a pure effectiveness standpoint, I think the runepriest is fine. Sure, the rune feats definitely need some work in my opinion, but the class is certainly effective and doesn't feel as though its being left behind in terms of power.

I don't even see the runepriest as ending up being much different from the cleric in terms of mechanical effect. I get that there's a lot more to it than that (OK, I could maybe keep that in mind a bit better sometimes, I guess), but I'd really like to see more stuff that actually behaves differently at the table.

I can accept that players like customizing their characters, and I'm sorry (and this goes out to Incenjucar too) if I've been marginalizing that. Good new options are, well, good too; albeit I'd like to see them better organized and I think maybe the powers books where a bit too much all at once. But I really am somewhat distressed at what I see as an emphasis on "meaningful choices" while alone in front of the CB over "meaningful choices" at the table. You only get to play one character at a time, once you sit down at the table I don't think a pre-gen is really much more a "lack of options" as a character you spent hours working on. Maybe it's just the people I've been playing with, but 4e doesn't seem to encourage collaboration in character generation much (or even as much as it seems it should, given possible synergies, etc.). And I'm just old-school enough to at least want to say that "if it didn't happen at the table, then it doesn't matter".

 

[webrunner]

1) I want a definitive 100% clear with utterly no bollocks answer if classes like the runepriest, seeker and artificer are ever going to see support again. It's been asked constantly and Wizards have constantly ignored giving a definitive answer. If everything in future is just going to be more bloody Wizard builds, I'd like to know so I can cease wasting my money buying and my time allowing further PC option books in my games.

2) I want some kind of epic tier support on the way. Either a DMG3, a monster vault that actually realizes epic needs more monsters than demons (they did so well with MM3 and then... I dunno..) or even just consistent dungeon articles. Just something. This is mandatory really and both my games have plenty of time before epic tier. There is lots of time for this!

3) A working monster builder. That's all. Just a working monster builder. I really am very angry about the fiasco with the original monster builder and then the joke of a "monster builder" they released recently.

If I had to hazard a guess, Runpriest and Seeker will not receive any other updates, particularly seeker. I seriously think Wizards expects any Seeker player to re-build their character as an essentials Hunter, as it's a primal/bow/controller just like the Seeker. Seeker was obviously created to fill the niche that they couldn't at the time with Ranger until Essentials opened up the "new role/power source build for existing class" design space.

Artificier, I'm not sure. It's heavily tied to Eberron and they tend not to do much for Eberron, sadly. But an article might pop up.

2, i couldn't say. They did recently ask about epic teir support so I assume some is coming.

3, that's also coming. The fiasco recently was mostly one of communication -they misinformed us before the release that it would be a real monster builder release and not just an import function for the VT. But I would guess they're not leaving it as is

 

[MrMyth]

My Human Chucking Seeker need some lovin', although partially in the form of a +3 proficiency throwing weapon that does more than a d6.

Yeah, I totally read this as a Seeker specialized in using humans as thrown weapons.