Were people's expectations of "Modularity" set a little too high?

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I don't think our expectations were too high, I think their talk was too big. When they talked modular, many thought they meant something like modular bays on a laptop. You can remove something, remove and replace something, or add something in. The core that we are seeing has too many things that are welded in, not bolted on. And the designers being adamant about not allowing those to be changeable, such as Vancian magic or Skills (someone brought up already, if you play without skills, what exactly does the Rogue do with their Scheme?). The type of "Modular" WotC has been advocating thusfar is more along the lines of "Scratch out this name, and Call it this". While that is modular, in a sense, it doesn't fit their initial description of being able to play a 4E-style (IMHO, that should mean AEDU, AEU, or ADU) character alongside a different edition character, because the fundamental changes needed to be available for making such wildly different characters just aren't possible with things like WIZARD IS VANCIAN-ONLY.

They seem to be moving away from the two most mechanically robust and modular versions of the game, 3E and 4E, in an effort to achieve a sort of modularity that has been present in the game since Day One.

And as for their talk being too big or our expectations being too high, it is THEIR responsibility to deal with that and deal with it well. As of right now, they just seem to be sweeping it under the rug. If how we thought modularity was going to be is wrong, THEY have to take the time to correct us by explaining what their meant by it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

They were able to be fixed by minor tweaks as opposing to having to fundamentally overhaul the entire system.

Show me a D&D edition that had to "overhaul" their entire system.

Don't even think about saying 3rd edition because there was no system "overhaul" there.

Also, what you consider "minor" and "overhaul" differ from what someone else thinks.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Show me a D&D edition that had to "overhaul" their entire system.

Don't even think about saying 3rd edition because there was no system "overhaul" there.

Also, what you consider "minor" and "overhaul" differ from what someone else thinks.

You mean the system that had all new, incompatible core rulebooks printed for it WASN'T overhauled? The system where the Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger were significantly changed from their previous version to the point where the two version were incapable of being played side-by-side without big issues arising WASN'T overhauled?

 

[dkyle]

Please explain how all those fixes were "minor".

The game, right out of the first run core books, works well enough to be more mathematically sound and transparent than any other edition of D&D. So whatever fixes there were later are irrelevant to that point, in the first place.

Those fixes are minor because, well, they are. A few tweaks to some numbers, and not much else. The core of the system was always sound.

Were there mistakes in 4E? Yes. Feat taxes are one of them. I wish they had just made Expertise an automatic part of the level-up process. Not jettisoning Ability scores entirely (or at least, not relegating them solely to the skill system), is another, that led to those "melee training" feats.

It took a while to work out Skill Challenges, but they were, as a system, the first time D&D had ever even attempted anything like that. Some rough edges were bound to occur. And it's not like they changed all that much. And it's, frankly, a minor system to begin with.

Yes, the monster math changed, but MM1 monster design was still better than any other edition. The math wasn't perfect, but at least it was there.

Basically, this whole argument that somehow 4E getting improved over its lifetime means it was bad is just unsound. It is entirely possible for good, well-designed things to get better.

It started out the best D&D ever. And it just got better from there.

Show me a D&D edition that had to "overhaul" their entire system.

Don't even think about saying 3rd edition because there was no system "overhaul" there.

Also, what you consider "minor" and "overhaul" differ from what someone else thinks.

Stating that other editions would require an overhaul to fix does not imply that any other edition was overhauled to fix it. Pre-4E editions were simply never fixed, and remain broken.

The closest thing to a fix to 3.5 I've seen is E6. I don't know if that's quite an overhaul (it's certainly far more extensive than 4E's lifetime changes), but it's also not really a full fix. I would still take original core 4E over it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You mean the system that had all new, incompatible core rulebooks printed for it WASN'T overhauled? The system where the Barbarian, Bard, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger were significantly changed from their previous version to the point where the two version were incapable of being played side-by-side without big issues arising WASN'T overhauled?

That was not an overhaul I'm afraid. The 3.0 and 3.5 books were compatible but the fact that 3.5 was printed was because there was no online tools like 4th edition did. If DDI existed back in 3rd then there would be no need for a reprint of the books.

WHY A REVISION?
The new Dungeons & Dragons game debuted in 2000. In the three
years since the d20 Open System energies the RPG industry, we’ve
gathered tons of data on how the game is being played. We consider
D&D to be a living game that constantly evolves as it is played.
We’ve gathered feedback from as many people who have played D&D
as we could. We’ve talked to you at conventions, examined countless
message boards devoted to the game, and collected information from a
variety of customer-response outlets including our customer service
department. We used all this data to retool the game from the ground up
and incorporate everyone’s suggestions. We listened to what you had to
say, and we responded enthusiastically to improve the game and this
product. If this is your first experience with D&D, we welcome you to a wonderful
world of adventure and imagination. If you used the prior version of this book,
rest assured that this revision is a testament to our dedication
to continuous product improvement. We’ve updated errata, clarified
rules, and made the game even better than it was. But also rest assured
that this is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game.
This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products
can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.
What’s new in the revised Player’s Handbook? We’ve increased the
number of feats and spells to choose from, and we’ve added new class
features to the barbarian, bard, druid, monk, ranger, and sorcerer. The
entire book has been polished and refined, all in response to your feedback
and to reflect the way the game is actually being played. We’ve
streamlined some rules, expanded others. We’ve overhauled skills and
spells. Take a look, play the game. We think you’ll like how everything turned
out.

How about read the above? It comes straight from the 3.5 PHB. Now what is the difference between posting all of this on DDI and reprinting another book containing the errata that was available at that time?

Also, why would you want to use an older ruling over a new one when the intent was to fix it? I guess 4th edition escapes this like it does everything else.

3rd edition didn't benefit from the convenience of DDI like 4th edition did.

Your definition of "overhaul" and "incompatible" differ from mine.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Show me a D&D edition that had to "overhaul" their entire system.

Don't even think about saying 3rd edition because there was no system "overhaul" there.

Also, what you consider "minor" and "overhaul" differ from what someone else thinks.

So 3.5 was minor changes? NOT on overhaul a mere 3 years in to the game requiring the purchase of ALL NEW books? That is a not "major overhaul" ?

 

[Argyle King]

So 3.5 was minor changes? NOT on overhaul a mere 3 years in to the game requiring the purchase of ALL NEW books? That is a not "major overhaul" ?

How many years into 4E was Essentials?

IMO, if you compare the original 4E books (without the marginal upgrades along the way) to Essentials and beyond, there will be differences which are at least as pronounced as those between 3.0 and 3.5. That's really the only way (again, imo) to compare the two because 3rd Edition did not have something like DDi to push out incremental changes in the same way 4th did/does.

Personally, I do not find using 3.0 stuff with 3.5 any more difficult than mixing Essentials and 4.0. If the argument is that there were 3.5 things which were replacements for 3.0 things, I'd point to the evolution of 4th Edition's expertise feats. I'd also point to skill challenge DCs which changed several times and are different depending on if you're using the first round of 4E books, DMG 2, or a DDi article. I can keep going if more examples are needed.

 

[dkyle]

That was not an overhaul I'm afraid. The 3.0 and 3.5 books were compatible but the fact that 3.5 was printed was because there was no online tools like 4th edition did. If DDI existed back in 3rd then there would be no need for a reprint of the books.

I agree that 3.5 was not an overhaul. The core mechanics did not change. But it also was nowhere near a "fix". Because the core mechanics remained fundamentally broken.

But I hope you can agree, then, that the errata and modifications over the lifetime of 4E are, at the very least, not a point against it in comparison to 3E/3.5.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

How many years into 4E was Essentials?

IMO, if you compare the original 4E books (without the marginal upgrades along the way) to Essentials and beyond, there will be differences which are at least as pronounced as those between 3.0 and 3.5. That's really the only way (again, imo) to compare the two because 3rd Edition did not have something like DDi to push out incremental changes in the same way 4th did/does.

Personally, I do not find using 3.0 stuff with 3.5 any more difficult than mixing Essentials and 4.0. If the argument is that there were 3.5 things which were replacements for 3.0 things, I'd point to the evolution of 4th Edition's expertise feats. I'd also point to skill challenge DCs which changed several times and are different depending on if you're using the first round of 4E books, DMG 2, or a DDi article. I can keep going if more examples are needed.

Difference is, I can play a 4E Fighter (Slayer) alongside a 4E Warlord and run into no problems. Heck, I can play a Fighter (Slayer), Fighter (Weaponmaster), and Fighter (Knight) all at the same table without any issues. I could not play a 3.0 Paladin and a 3.5 Paladin at the same table without issue. 4E Essentials was not an overhaul of the system or even much of a tweak of the system, it was literally more options for the same system.

 

[Remathilis]

So 3.5 was minor changes? NOT on overhaul a mere 3 years in to the game requiring the purchase of ALL NEW books? That is a not "major overhaul" ?

Hey remember that time 3.5 changed how ability score modifiers for all races changed so that you could pick from two choices rather than have fixed ones?

Or when humans and half-elves got new racial abilities?

Or when how implements work changed?

Or when Magic Missile was completely re-written?

Or when they changed how magic items were categorized and dumped the milestone mechanic?

Or when they dumped the tier requirement for feats?

Or when they revised dozens of wizard spells to add miss-effects?

Or when they made you buy new books to get all the errata?

Oh wait, no they didn't.