Cynicism of an AD&D refugee

pawsplay

Hero
Ok, fair warning. This is a fairly cynical post.

So, with 4e, they decided to streamline things, silo classes into their archetypes, and try to balance everything. They also created an explosion of individual powers for every class. Some classes got more powers, others ended up with less. There are plenty of advanteges to the approach they took.

But there is a glaring weakness. It isn't very easy to improvise a new class, and each class is pretty limited in what it does well. Multiclassing sometimes works well, but other times, it just doesn't do anything.

Now, the easiest way to address this problem is to publish. More paths, more powers, a couple of new classes. Every gap is now a potential new area for published material. Which, by the way, costs money, either in terms of a Dragon subscription or in the way of a new book.

So where does that leave us? Let's say you played and enjoyed an Eldritch Knight in D&D 3.5. Well, in 4e, you can choose to

A) suck worse than a poorly planned 3.0 fighter/wizard, by taking less than exciting multiclass choices
B) lose your character's basic flavor, by taking somewhat more effective multiclass choices
C) play something else
D) pay money

Now, there's no question that fencers, fighter-mages, lightly armored fighters and the like benefitted a lot from the 3.5 splatbooks. But even with just core, they're viable. Perhaps not ideal, but in their own niche, as good as anything else. Not so with 4e.

Much like Rifts, you have to pay to play. Sourcebook after sourcebook, slowly giving you the options you need to play the character you want, or giving you the upgrades you need to compete with the other PCs.

It reminds me of the darkest days of AD&D 2e, when TSR began publishing a splatbook for every class and every race, full of "kits." In addition to the power ups to be found, these kits more often than not simply allowed you to do something you wanted to before but found strenuous under the class system. Now, I can think of precious few AD&D 2e characters, kit or no, who can't be translated into 3.5 terms, usually with just core. But 4e? Forget about it.

I quit playing AD&D around when Powers & Skills came out. While some have made comparisons between 4e and the earliest editions, 4e reminds me strikingly of AD&D 2.5. Only this time, born as what it will be, with built-in incompleteness. Dare I say it, collectability?

In the long run, 4e may end up costing similarly to what 3.5 cost to many collectors. But it's clear it was designed with returning revenue in mind. Online subscriptions. Classes forever in need of expansion. Old options excised and then reintroduced. With 3.5 I felt like a I had a choice; very rarely did an option in a new book presuppose something in another. Toward the very end, I saw just the beginnings of "new core" with new Invocations and such showing up in each book. But never so much it crowded out what I could use. I cherry-picked from the very beginning, and I never felt left out. Sure, I didn't have the Dragon Slayer with its full BAB and two good saves and caster progression at 1st level, but so what? I didn't need it, and if someone referenced it online, it didn't take much to fill me in.

While I am sure the new D&D was designed with lofty game play goals in mind, I do not hesitate to suggest it was designed with certain financial goals in mind, too. Now, I am one for good business, but I would never deliberately attempt to make my customers pay more for less value, and that's what I feel is being sold here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

...

So where does that leave us? Let's say you played and enjoyed an Eldritch Knight in D&D 3.5. Well, in 4e, you can choose to

A) suck worse than a poorly planned 3.0 fighter/wizard, by taking less than exciting multiclass choices
B) lose your character's basic flavor, by taking somewhat more effective multiclass choices
C) play something else
D) pay money

Now, there's no question that fencers, fighter-mages, lightly armored fighters and the like benefitted a lot from the 3.5 splatbooks. But even with just core, they're viable. Perhaps not ideal, but in their own niche, as good as anything else. Not so with 4e.
I've gotta correct you here, pawsplay:

  • A. is impossible. In 4E, effectiveness is built into the basic mechanics of every class, making every character at least moderately effective; one or two feats spent on multiclassing will never break you in 4E. OTOH, in 3E, if you multiclassed poorly and wasted a couple feats, you'd be totally hooped compared to an average, single-classed character. Thus, it's impossible for a 4E character to "suck worse than a poorly planned 3.0 fighter/wizard."
  • B. is an old debate: Do character options define "flavor"?
  • C. is always applicable.
  • D. is especially always applicable. On this basis, I feel this is a particularly unfair argument against 4E, particularly if it's leveled at DDI. A DDI subscription costs dramatically less than the total of all of the material it presents, especially when you consider that it presents the mechanics from each book.
pawsplay said:
Much like Rifts, you have to pay to play. Sourcebook after sourcebook, slowly giving you the options you need to play the character you want, or giving you the upgrades you need to compete with the other PCs.

It reminds me of the darkest days of AD&D 2e, when TSR began publishing a splatbook for every class and every race, full of "kits." In addition to the power ups to be found, these kits more often than not simply allowed you to do something you wanted to before but found strenuous under the class system. Now, I can think of precious few AD&D 2e characters, kit or no, who can't be translated into 3.5 terms, usually with just core. But 4e? Forget about it.

I quit playing AD&D around when Powers & Skills came out. While some have made comparisons between 4e and the earliest editions, 4e reminds me strikingly of AD&D 2.5. Only this time, born as what it will be, with built-in incompleteness. Dare I say it, collectability?

In the long run, 4e may end up costing similarly to what 3.5 cost to many collectors. But it's clear it was designed with returning revenue in mind. Online subscriptions. Classes forever in need of expansion. Old options excised and then reintroduced. With 3.5 I felt like a I had a choice; very rarely did an option in a new book presuppose something in another. Toward the very end, I saw just the beginnings of "new core" with new Invocations and such showing up in each book. But never so much it crowded out what I could use. I cherry-picked from the very beginning, and I never felt left out. Sure, I didn't have the Dragon Slayer with its full BAB and two good saves and caster progression at 1st level, but so what? I didn't need it, and if someone referenced it online, it didn't take much to fill me in.

While I am sure the new D&D was designed with lofty game play goals in mind, I do not hesitate to suggest it was designed with certain financial goals in mind, too. Now, I am one for good business, but I would never deliberately attempt to make my customers pay more for less value, and that's what I feel is being sold here.
I absolutely agree that 4E has been designed with a financial motive, but I disagree that it's the sole motive. I recognize your concern about 4E presenting less material, although I don't share it; I definitely disagree that 4E is a "[deliberate] attempt to make... customers pay more for less value," because I definitely don't feel that 4E has been of less value than 3.5E has. In fact, I'd argue it offers me more value, because I have to worry much less about balance when a new product comes out for 4E than I did with 3.5E.
 


I agree with the OP here. So much is missing from core that it feels like WoTC put "pump our customers for more money" over "make a good product."
 

Well, I didn't want to get too far into the mechanical nitty gritty, but just to be clear, what I intended to address with A) was the option of spending a couple of feats to do power swaps that are not synergistic. Sucking worse than a poorly planned 3.0 fighter/wizard was perhaps a hyperbole... I will grant that the 4e version probably sucks no worse than the 3.0 version in its own special way.
 

I agree with the OP here. So much is missing from core that it feels like WoTC put "pump our customers for more money" over "make a good product."

It was simply an effort to produce what they believed to be a good game over a longer product cycle than the previous edition. Supplemental material sells better if its considered core. Core books are more likely to be purchased by everyone in a group rather than just those interested in particular info from a specialized splat. Thats the reason WOTC produces so few adventures. One person in niche market group buying a product is not a good revenue model.

As a bonus, the slew of core books weighing down the 4E crowd will make the idea of most everything being on cards in 5E welcome news.

Game design goes hand in hand with planned obsolescence.
 

Pawsplay said:
While I am sure the new D&D was designed with lofty game play goals in mind, I do not hesitate to suggest it was designed with certain financial goals in mind, too. Now, I am one for good business, but I would never deliberately attempt to make my customers pay more for less value, and that's what I feel is being sold here.

No matter what edition, you are being pumped for everything you're worth. The less work they have to do for your dollar, the better off they are. That's pretty basic business, there. 4e is no different than any other incarnation of D&D in that respect.

Now, usually what makes it okay is this idea of value. But value is a pretty subjective thing. One man's trash and all that.

You could say that the lack of variety is diminishing D&D's value for you. It's true that 4e has less out-of-the-box options than 3e, and it's also true that part of the reason for some of that is to drive up sales of future books. That's less variety.

But variety isn't important to everyone.

Some people find greater value in whatever 4e is giving them. They don't find that much value in greater variety..

Yes, 4e was made, in part, to make more money, and that certainly affected the game at many levels. The ultimate question is this: Is what is left valuable enough to you? If so, you're good. If not, there's a lot of alternate options out there. :)
 
Last edited:

Hmm. I mean, if its Eldritch Knight you're after, you could be a Wizard of the Spiral Tower, or you could be a Warlord multiclassed into a Wizard, or... well, you get the idea.

I dunno. I understand that some people are really, really attached to certain races and classes, and those races and classes aren't in the core rules. But come on now. Haven't we moved beyond that? Limited space, need to add new material while paying homage to the old, depth to classes versus number of classes, doesn't that basically cover it?

Come 5e, 4e grognards are going to be raging because the, I dunno, Hexblade is core, and the Warlord got bumped from the PHB. I guess I can understand it, if Fighter got bumped I'd be annoyed, but it seems like this is a non issue when you view it from a distance.
 


I agree with the OP here. So much is missing from core that it feels like WoTC put "pump our customers for more money" over "make a good product."

I'm beginning to think the worst thing WotC ever did was give away 3.X for free in the form of the SRD. By doing so, the created an expectation that the D&D rules should be mostly free, fairly complete, and all further/future supplements were only "splat" that served to clutter the game with rules the DM must work tirelessly to squelch.

While I don't think 4e's core is "complete" I can completely see the rationale for stringing out its release of important info and making the supplements much more important to the game as a whole. Does my wallet like it? No. But I completely understand them wanting to make money by selling stuff.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top