Disappointed in 4e

[ExploderWizard]

I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.

Each "core" set would cover a level range and cover it much better.

For example the PHB and MM would contain more classes and monsters each for levels 1-10.

I would be much happier with a complete game spanning 10 levels than a preview with a smattering of content for 30.

Breaking down the game like this has other advantages too. Core mechanics can be stabilized and thier effects tested with all core classes to make sure everything works together. Feedback from the lower level play can be used to improve design on the higher level stuff BEFORE it sees print.

 

[Jasperak]

I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.

Each "core" set would cover a level range and cover it much better.

For example the PHB and MM would contain more classes and monsters each for levels 1-10.

I would be much happier with a complete game spanning 10 levels than a prieview with a smattering of content for 30.

Breaking down the game like this has other advantages too. Core mechanics can be stabilized and thier effects tested with all core classes to make sure everything works together. Feedback from the lower level play can be used to improve design on the higher level stuff BEFORE it sees print.

You know, just like the BXCMI that got me started in the game in the first place.

 

[Imaro]

Wow, the whole "holding things back" plan...IMO, just screams that the designers have no confidence in their ability to sell consumers on original material beyond the core. I mean, I guess I can see strategically why a company might make that type of decision...Besides the obvious, it also feeds into the whole... "Once you buy 4 more sourcebooks, then you'll like the game" crowd that jumps up whenever someone talks about the game feeling incomplete or missing a class/race/etc. they want to play.

Now where this could backfire, is that people become uninspired and/or unimpressed with the corebooks and decide to cut their losses with a game that feels incomplete, sticking with 3.x or even moving on to systems that offer much more for a better price.

I'm leaning in that direction now, after buying the corebooks and playing the game because "You have to play it to really get a feel for it.". I really am feeling that 4e was a waste, my players (who have played it) are totally cold on giving it another try...and the game doesn't inspire or wow me enough to really fight for it. I did buy Adventurer's Vault ( IMO, those new weapons really could have been in the PHB)...but I'm thinking that's about it for me and the 4e supplements. And all that quote does is make me more resolved not to support something I see as a shady decision on their part.

EDIT: I have thought about using the 4e rules for a boardgamish type game to run for my son and nephews, using the suggestion in the DMG for DM'less games...but even if I do eventually use it as such, I don't see myself buying anymore supplements for it in this capacity.

 

[Cryptos]

I'm sure several of these points have been brought up, but I just have to say:

1) The extreme cookie-cutterness of the characters. Every character seems to be plotted out in advance. You get 4 powers a level, each one similar, and two builds. This leads to an extreme lack of flexibility. Wanna play a ranger with a greatsword? Wanna play a fighter (not a ranger, because that is inevitably nature-themed) who specializes in archery? Wanna play a character who can stand toe to toe with his enemies and fight with two weapons? Want to play a cleric whose deity doesn't shoot Holy Laserz of P3nage? Well, just wait for some more $30 books...

No, our definition of "Ranger" has implied nature-based... 4e's definition is actually looser, not more cookie-cutter. From Ranger, I can make a military archer, a swashbuckler, a berserker, or even a rougish archer like the main character in the Thief series from the Ranger class, as well as the nature-based scout, among other things. I'd say that until Martial Power comes out, the nature aspect is actually underplayed in 4e and the Ranger class actually implies a couple different styles of fighting for a wide variety of characters rather than implying nature.

It's not so much that the classes are cookie-cutter by design. You're putting your own cookie-cutter to the dough they provide. I regularly make 4e Ranger characters for which nature is either not an aspect of the character or it's an afterthought once all other skills I want are taken care of. With just the core books, I could probably go off right now and make five different flavors of Ranger only half-trying. With just the core books for 3rd, all of my Rangers would have an animal companion. So which one is more cookie-cutter? In 4e, the majority of my Rangers have been ones tied more to civilization, and it really isn't that hard to do. It's almost the default assumption. You don't even have to choose Nature as a skill.

And while I did mention a splatbook above, it was in the context of how one could be more nature-oriented, which is the "cookie-cutter" version you state the Ranger has to be. So, let me get this straight: you're complaining that you can't make an archery fighter in 4e because that would be a Ranger, but in your mind all rangers have to be inevitably nature-themed, and in order to do more you'll have to wait and buy some $30 splatbook, when in reality what we've seen previewed of the $30 splatbook so far are actually are options to make the Ranger nature-themed? It sounds like you're creating your own limitations here.

It's less that 4e is forcing all warriors to be melee sword-and-board characters and more that you're limiting yourself to one class to find the archetypal warrior. In 4e, classes are not so much what you do as how you do it. This does require a bit of a paradigm shift, but in my opinion no flexibility was lost on the part of the game. The flexibility is lacking on the side of legacy D&D players from older editions.

The classes aren't quite cookie-cutter, we've just been conditioned by older editions to expect certain things from a class, and apply the cookie cutter to their dough.

 

[Korgoth]

They're referring to a flippant, joking comment made in the podcast, not any kind of officially stated business policy.

Its hard to be "charitable" when the folks are levellling the same tired, inaccurate dispersions over and over again, but I'll try.

This is entirely incorrect. You need to listen to Podcast 16; it is quoted by Alzrius above. The relevant portion begins at 1:52.

You really should get your facts straight before hammering on people for being "inaccurate" and not checking their facts.

 

[der_kluge]

I understand the desire to sell more books. I think it would have been better to subdivide the core ( if it HAD to be done) into the 3 tiers of play.

Each "core" set would cover a level range and cover it much better.

For example the PHB and MM would contain more classes and monsters each for levels 1-10.

I would be much happier with a complete game spanning 10 levels than a prieview with a smattering of content for 30.

Breaking down the game like this has other advantages too. Core mechanics can be stabilized and thier effects tested with all core classes to make sure everything works together. Feedback from the lower level play can be used to improve design on the higher level stuff BEFORE it sees print.

That would have been a wonderful move, unfortunately, I don't think the Epic level handbook sold very well for 3e, and I suspect they wanted to avoid a repeat of that.

 

[Fifth Element]

They're referring to a flippant, joking comment made in the podcast, not any kind of officially stated business policy.

No, I agree with Psion on this one. It was not a flippant, joking comment. It seemed quite serious and direct to me.

Its hard to be "charitable" when the folks are levellling the same tired, inaccurate dispersions over and over again, but I'll try.

In general I agree. But in this case you seem to be in the wrong.

 

[Fifth Element]

Wow, the whole "holding things back" plan...IMO, just screams that the designers have no confidence in their ability to sell consumers on original material beyond the core.

I don't see that at all. The fact is that "core" always sells better than "extra", no matter how good that "extra" is. So of course they hope everyone sees the PHB2, MM2 etc. as "core", since they're probably more likely to buy it in that case.

 

[Jasperak]

That would have been a wonderful move, unfortunately, I don't think the Epic level handbook sold very well for 3e, and I suspect they wanted to avoid a repeat of that.

That then begs the question, why saddle us with an incomplete game that extends to high levels when not as many people pay to play those levels? I would surmise that half the book will go unused because of groups not playing to those high levels.

 

[Dragonblade]

There are minor things that irk me with 4e. For example, I agree that the first Monster Manual should have included all the classic monsters and saved the new ones for future monster manuals.

But that said, I find the 4e play experience superior to 3e's play experience. D&D has never been more enjoyable for my group and its a DM's dream.