Dear Wizards, I no longer have a clue what you're doing

[jbear]

So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that? I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself. Too bad they didn't pick a couple more articulate letters but maybe not too many people have written in. Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe.

Honestly I don't feel particularly confused at all at this point. HoS is coming out, we know what's going to be in there more-or-less. What they're doing next seems pretty obvious. Not sure I understand why they didn't just make a bunch of big announcements at DDXP, their PR seems disorganized, but whatever. Where's the confusion really?

I agree with not seeing the confusion any more:

CBuilder is online. Bugs are being hammered out. Custimization options will be installed in the future at an unknown date.

Monster Builder is going online. They would be wise to not rush its release til the bugs it is sure to have are ironed out.

VTT is 2d, but it exists and on all accounts is already functional. It is similar looking to map tools but will integrate CBuilder and MBuilder. Soon access will be opened to all DDI subscribers once beta testing 'stage 1' is finalised. Customization and Importing will initially be zero.

Books recently pulled (Class Compendium at least) will be released one part per month via Dragon Magazine. This seems to be a way to boost the quality of the highly criticised magazines.

Dungeon and Dragon Magazines are no longer compiled, release schedules are not concrete but the editing process is far more rigorous, seemingly in an effort to raise the aforementioned quality of DDI magazines. Public response (on these boards) to recent articles seems to confirm a change in the quality of articles being released.

Boxed sets and Board Game expansions, and Player card packs are the 'physical' products they intend to sell. Products perhaps less profitable (minis, several books and Ravenloft?) are a no go.

WotC is taking on board the criticism they have been receiving. Communication from the company has increased notably and the article Aegeri links communicates that they want to take steps to dealing with the criticisms received. They offer their hand to anyone who has not only criticism but a constructive suggestion on how to improve. They go further asking for submissions along those lines.

The essentials lines have been completed, products aimed at bringing new players into the game. Numerous anecdotal accounts of Parents using the Red Box to bring their kids into the game read here and on the WotC boards, seem to confirm that this has been at least partly successful.

What else isn't clear? And I know all this without being a current subscriber.

Whether you like it or not is a different story.

Personally I'm waiting for things to come to fruition. When that happens I'll resubscribe.

 

[MrMyth]

So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that? I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself. Too bad they didn't pick a couple more articulate letters but maybe not too many people have written in. Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe.

Personally, I'm very pleased they have introduced this feature - I am eager to see what people are writing and what their responses are.

At the same time, the actual response in this article is really disappointing. Having one poster presenting the common request for more content for undersupported classes, and having them post a relatively unrelated letter to try and justify not doing so - while explaining that what they really want for the magazine are articles that don't present new content, but instead just provides more ways to use the content you have - is not what I want to see.

I want more content. We don't need to just have completely random bloat of feats and options, but there is plenty of room for new content in areas where it is lacking, and plenty of room to provide new options that expand the game rather than bloat it.

 

[kaomera]

I want more content. We don't need to just have completely random bloat of feats and options, but there is plenty of room for new content in areas where it is lacking, and plenty of room to provide new options that expand the game rather than bloat it.

I'm not sure I agree. The game seems pretty well bloated as-is, just trying to pick a feat in the CB has become a nightmare. And PHB3 is filled with stuff that I can't see as anything but failed concepts - I really have no idea how WotC would make something like the Runepriest or the Seeker better without just starting over from scratch.

But I think the issue, with respect to the responses WotC gave to that question, is that I expect WotC would love to produce such content, but they lack the time* and/or ideas; and at the same time, while they'd like to see more sumbissions from readers** I really expect that they would want such core-rulesy stuff to come from in-house... So, catch-22. I really, personally, feel like the (IMO pointless) furor over essentials has derailed WotC, and they're just starting to get back on track.

*Yes, they have the time, it's just been allocated to other projects.

**Although they could really stand to handle them better.

 

[Incenjucar]

I disagree that Runepriests, Seekers, and other unsupported classes are "failed."

They are incomplete, sure. Abandoned, definitely. Failed? People keep bringing them up over and over again because, in many cases, they WANT TO PLAY THEM. Battleminds were spoken of as a failure awhile back, now some people swear by them because they fixed their big glaring problem. Psionics were spoken of as failed and then Psionic Power came out and bam, threads of dread on that topic have vanished.

 

[Quickleaf]

My Seeker/Ranger hybrid disagrees and would like to remind you of the optimized ranged basic attacks he makes if you move too close (spitting cobra stance), if you have no cover (flying steel), or if you just happen to be in his field of fire (thousand arrow awareness). Not to mention the awesomebadfun of swapping and dazing two enemies within longbow range on the first round (feyjump shot). Did I mention he multi-classed rogue to gain the sharpshooter PP, and it rocks?

The problem isn't that the seeker is fundamentally flawed. It's that the class lacks the options of classes with splat books...hence my hybrid multi-class character.

However just going Hunter looks more and more attractive because it is easier to keep track of.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My Seeker/Ranger hybrid disagrees and would like to remind you of the optimized ranged basic attacks he makes if you move too close (spitting cobra stance), if you have no cover (flying steel), or if you just happen to be in his field of fire (thousand arrow awareness). Not to mention the awesomebadfun of swapping and dazing two enemies within longbow range on the first round (feyjump shot). Did I mention he multi-classed rogue to gain the sharpshooter PP, and it rocks?

The problem isn't that the seeker is fundamentally flawed. It's that the class lacks the options of classes with splat books...hence my hybrid multi-class character.

However just going Hunter looks more and more attractive because it is easier to keep track of.

I think the issue really is that Seeker feels like a rather fringe concept. Using a bow to exercise control feels rather forced. I can't think of a single example from myth, legend, or fantasy that this is building on. Beyond that it DOES feel like more of an extension of what other archery classes already do. If you're a bad-assed archer you can't just pigstick people? If a ranger can TS the heck out of the enemy you'd kind of expect a Seeker to have that basic vanilla level of competency with a bow as well.

OTOH the Hunter seems pretty complete and makes sense. It is just taking the basic ranger archer concept and extending it in a more solidly woodsy nature guy direction. The PHB1 ranger was nice in that he could be easily recast as pretty much any sort of guy with great bow skills. The only issue was if you wanted some more primal sort of old-fashioned ranger stuff to go with that you HAD to MC/Hybrid to get it. The Seeker class was a great resource for doing that, but as you say Hunter is just vastly simpler and accomplishes the same thing. In the course of which it pretty much leaves the Seeker without much reason to exist.

And that really IMHO is the core reason why Seeker simply hasn't gotten support. It is hard to figure out what to do with it. The concept seems forced to start with and even if you filled it out with another build and a lot more powers you'd still be feeling like you really wanted to mix in archer ranger with that. It just works better from a character building perspective.

Runepriest has somewhat the same issue. I think it turned out better in that respect, it has an interesting niche, but it is a very narrow niche. Then couple that with the exceedingly complex and fiddly mechanics and the class seems rather marginal. The concept deserves more support, but again I kind of get the feeling that the weight of opinion over at WotC is it should somehow live as an option within a broader class and that the mechanics really should be simplified. Hard to say if they will ever get around to that or figure out a really good way to do it, but I don't think we'll see a lot of support for the existing class as it is presented in PHB3.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the throwing weapon version of the seeker however is a very very sound concept... except when you consider that they somehow forget to give him some good thrown weapons...

 

[kaomera]

I disagree that Runepriests, Seekers, and other unsupported classes are "failed."

Well, to me they seem like they didn't accomplish what they set out to accomplish. "Failed concept" is just my opinion of them, I don't have huge amounts of experience with the classes (I doubt I'll ever get to play any of them, especially since I have at least a half-dozen character concepts from the PHB1 launch that I haven't gotten to try yet), and I'm more than willing to accept that they are just awesome for some other players.

However just going Hunter looks more and more attractive because it is easier to keep track of.

This is the core issue for me. Personally I like some of the PHB3 class fluff, but I don't much care for the extra mechanical complexity - I've got other things I like to focus my attention on when I'm at the table. I can see how some players do, and in fact I can see that complexity being a major draw in and of itself. In fact I think that adding complexity was really one of the goals of the PHB3 classes, and that's where I find that they are "failed concepts".

First of all, that added complexity comes at the cost of being a liability when some players get their hands on these classes. IMO all it really takes to manage such a character is to some extra organization and avoiding splitting your concentration too much. But there are enough players who won't meet that need that I think that the potential issue is significant. And it isn't just a matter of the player in question dealing with the issue in all cases - it's a PHB2 class, but the Shaman is an example of this. Playing with a Shaman as leader you need to consider the extra terrain that the spirit companion represents...

Even then I could deal with it (in small doses - I'm not sure I'd want 3 or 4 players in a party that take 10+ minute turns), but I've found that I just feel like these classes could be any other class of the same role. They don't seem to add anything much for anyone else at the table, and when you're asking me to deal with your added complexity I think that's kind of a problem.

Mind you, most players should be able to handle this without anyone else even noticing. I have an Ardent in my Dark Sun group, and the only clue that he's not playing any other leader is when he fiddles with the beads he uses to track power points, and in fact he's the fastest player at the table. But if I'm sitting on my hands while a player takes a long pause to consider his options for the fourth or fifth time in a round, I think that's an issue.

And there's one other thing, related to adding more support for these classes - if WotC couldn't find enough new stuff to make them really unique and interesting within the core PHB3 release, I kind of think that new material would just end up being even more generic. I think there is kind of a limited space that the designers are working in, unless they start doing stuff like inventing new conditions or mixing up the roles or something.

 

[Aegeri]

So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that?

For me it is the quality of the answers. The dismissing of a wide range of complaints that certain classes are just being utterly forgotten by Wizards, plus with the direction in essentials there is now no guarantee they will ever get support. Remember when we had a reliable release schedule with books like Arcane Power? Where you knew with patience you would be getting something.

Now every single indication to me from Wizards is those classes are going to be left to die. There is a very distinct and real feeling that they are going to try to republish - and make people pay for - the wizard/cleric/fighter and such as much as possible.

Personally I am really not happy about that one bit.

I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself.

It is not the questions, it's the answers I am finding unsatisfying and disappointing.

Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe.

Numerous times actually and I sent the OP into Wizards some time ago.

HoS is coming out

For now.

What they're doing next seems pretty obvious.

Really? Care to enlighten me, because I have zero confidence in Wizards now and zero confidence in them adding support for several classes/races that really warrant it. For example last week we were supposed to get an article detailing new stat options for the older races not updated by essentials. Like everything in Dragon these days, it disappeared and is nowhere to be seen.

Even if it does come out, how much would you want to bet that Wizards actually updates *all* the original races that could use the new stat options? I am going to bet you some Players Handbook races might get them, but the ECG races (Kalashtar notably) I have a distinct feeling is going to get screwed. Like always.

Where's the confusion really?

Their inability to stick to a release schedule - both physical and in their digital magazines, the fact to me they seem to want to endlessly republish the Wizard/Fighter/Cleric as much as they can and such forth.

I'm just going to be frank and say I'm getting very sick of how Wizards are doing things. I mean things that should have been obvious great additions to announce into the whole game, like themes have an entire nebulous date. Where are the other expertise feats for weapon groups that weren't in the first two E-books?

I just still don't understand what they are doing anymore.

 

[Incenjucar]

I have increasingly been getting the impression that the current "owners" of 4E, for whatever reason, don't like the direction 4E went on release, and are trying to make it their own. This gives them very little incentive to pull forward the work of those who came before, and may be part of why they seem to drag their feet on everything. I dearly hope this isn't true, and I don't want to seem like I'm accusing anyone of anything, but that's the impression their publishing behavior and their often-antagonistic statements and actions suggest amid the information blackout required by business.