Dragon 397: Letters To The Editor Up

[The Halfling]

Once again, what for Paizo would be a messageboard post is provided by WotC as part of DDi's "content".

Edit: It seems I wasn't particularly clear.

This should have been a messageboard post. For Paizo it would have been a messageboard post. It should not be considered part of the "content" of DDi, just as the atrocious Ampersand should simply be a blog or messageboard post.

I disagree also. Information like this needs to be front and center. It needs to be easily found and seen, not buried in the messageboards.

Honestly, how are these articles any different from Scale Mail, From the Editor, and Sage Advice articles that used to be in the old print versions. Print editions done by Paizo itself. I would say those articles DID take away from magazine content given that each physical magazine had a finite number of pages.

Sorry, Paizo is not the end all be all of publishers.

 

[renau1g]

Once again, what for Paizo would be a messageboard post is provided by WotC as part of DDi's "content".

Edit: It seems I wasn't particularly clear.

This should have been a messageboard post. For Paizo it would have been a messageboard post. It should not be considered part of the "content" of DDi, just as the atrocious Ampersand should simply be a blog or messageboard post.

This is not behind the paywall, therefore it's not part of DDi's content. You pay for the content. This is (in reality) little different than their blog post. You pay for neither.

paizo.com - Error

OMG! As part of my monthly subscription to their AP's they dare post this as content! RAWR!

Oh...wait I don't pay for it, but I'm still mad

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like that they're not interested in pumping out stuff just to pump out stuff, but I think a few of the PHB3 classes (and a few PHB2 classes) need stuff to be pumped out for them.

I also have no idea what "articles on getting the most from what's already in the game rather than loading more onto it" means or would even look like. What, they want you to tell people how to be TEH ULTIMATE WARDEN, CharOp style? That doesn't sound very useful or constructive to me...

Fact is, as loaded as the game already is, getting more loaded is something that needs to happen.

Though I like that they want to be more careful about it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sounds like they are not going to fill holes in less popular classes.

I wouldn't say that they DIDN'T say this, nor would I say that they DID say this. It seemed rather unclear to me. They put in a couple letters that seemed to be saying "please emphasize other things besides more content", but letter #2 especially didn't really say "don't ever print more stuff", it was more like please don't continue to give us more of the same. Nor did they actually say they won't put out more of the content these writers are concerned about.

I think the 'holes in less popular classes' is a bit of a separate issue from bloat. Personally it seems to me like Seeker in particular isn't so much considered useless or trivial as it is just filling a space in the game that is already very crowded. I liked the Seeker concept, but OTOH there are so many fairly similar options now it seems to me they rather have to pick one or two. Naturally they're more likely to pick the Hunter and the Scout for instance vs the Seeker. Notice too that Runepriest has gotten at least a modicum of support, though again the class occupies a rather crowded part of the game.

Honestly I think the real issue is that PHB3 occupies a very awkward place in the game. Psionics has mechanical issues and was always a peripheral part of D&D. Seeker and Runepriest almost seem like they existed to fill out the book. They're interesting ideas, but didn't really provide character archetypes that were in high demand or couldn't exist in existing classes in some form. Hybrids are fairly niche too, mostly interesting to hard core players. Kind of seems like this book was more an exercise in carrying out a plan that had already been basically abandoned.

I mean lets consider what would PHB3 have been like if it had been released a year later than it was? A lot different, maybe basically non-existent.

 

[renau1g]

I think if it was released now, they'd likely have made Runepriest a build for clerics (bsaically replacing the also-not supported Str. Cleric), and Seeker a Ranger Build (which they essentially did with Hunter). Psionics... yeah not sure about them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think if it was released now, they'd likely have made Runepriest a build for clerics (bsaically replacing the also-not supported Str. Cleric), and Seeker a Ranger Build (which they essentially did with Hunter). Psionics... yeah not sure about them.

Right, I think the question thus is less "why aren't they supporting these undersupported classes" but more a question of "why did they release classes that were of little use or already planned to be obsolete" (Essentials was obviously well under way by the release of PHB3). I think just pure momentum is the answer, but now they are in this awkward spot where they have two classes that really aren't that necessary, even if they do have some neat mechanics. I'd also say that Runepriest in particular embodies a direction in 4e design that didn't prove out very well. The class is HORRIBLY complicated to play. Very cool, but almost nightmarishly complex. The very antithesis of the Essentials classes. At this point they're probably mostly hoping people sort of just forget about them, lol. I almost think they'd be happy if we all just sort of forgot that everything pre-Essentials existed in general.

 

[Riastlin]

This goes a bit to the Legends & Lore article this week as well. They talk about complexity and to me, fighter is one of the hardest classes to make now in some ways. The options are just so many that its hard to wrap your head around it unless a) you already have a pretty clear idea of what you want to do going in and b) already know which powers and feats will get you to that idea. Of course, if you already know a and b then the number of options really don't matter.

By contrast, as others have said, I would have no problem with additional seeker or runepriest content. I confess that I don't know much about seekers since the concept didn't really appeal to me personally, but with runepriests its pretty much "Oh are you defiant or wrathful?" and that answer will make it so that everyone has a pretty good idea what you do (assuming they are familiar with runepriests of course). A third build and some feats for both of these classes would go a long way.

I also agree that the statement "we are looking for articles that explain how to get more out of what you already have" is pretty damn vague and confusing, which probably explains why these writers are in "short supply". I mean, do we really need an article that suggests targeting minions with the cleave? Or telling the wizard to put his most debilitating conditions on the biggest threat? Perhaps there is a need for some content along those lines (would be useful to new players perhaps), but a little would likely go a long way there.

And yes, I agree that being as this is a free article, its not DDi content. Additionally, placing it on the front page does make it easier to find.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now I didn't get the impression "We're not going to support less popular classes" at all.

What I got was "We haven't gotten very many worthwhile articles and/or writers for these things."

Here's what I took away from letter #2 and what it sounds like WotC would like to receive in order to accomplish it.

The letter says they want articles that take existing crunch and use it in new ways, rather than adding new crunch. This is certainly understandable... because every new Class Acts article that focuses on a new organization or that puts together a race/class combo (like last months's Bards of Wolfstone or the previous month's Sword Guard of Astrazalian) usually consists of several new powers, several new feats and/or a paragon path.

But the thing the article does not include are example of existing powers or existing feats that a person in this organization would also usually take to help fill out this character. Now my guess the reason for this is word count. WotC doesn't have the money to pay for the article to have both things. So if it comes to "new and hopefully interesting crunch" versus "a list of crunch you already own"... the impression is that the former is more worthwhile to people subscribing and more of a reason to keep DDI. After all... why subscribe to DDI if all you're getting from it is lists of things you already own and could put together yourself?

However, my impression from Steve's answer to question #2 is that an article such as that would be useful and printable... assuming they got some good writers to actually put those proposals together.

So for example... an article that recreated the thief's 'Thug' kit from 2E's Complete Thief's Handbook. If you wanted to make a character that was the muscle for a thieves guild. It's a pretty standard archetype and certainly doable using 4E.

The article would then talk about what being the hired muscle for a thieves guild entails, the types of person who would become a Thug, and the build options to create this 'kit'. You start with the Brutal Scoundrel or Ruthless Ruffian rogue tactic... you list several Backgrounds the Thug might have, the skills a Thug would most likely lean towards, several rogue powers at each level that the Thug could take (with fluff reasons why they would be chosen), a list of feats that lend itself to building a Thug, and finally the two or three paragon paths that emphasize his Thuggishness. Voila! An article that highlights a specific character concept without having to generate all-new crunch. And this kind of thing could be done across the board. Take any 2E kit from any of the Complete X Handbooks and write articles about creating these archetypes using existing crunch.

***

I think the biggest stumbling block for this kind of article though... is making sure that the writer is good enough and makes the fluff to explain all the choices interesting enough that a person doesn't read it and immediately say "Well, duh! I could have come up with that! You're not telling me anything I don't already know! Why am I paying for this crap?!?" Because god knows we'd certainly get plenty of people who would make that complaint unless the info given was just so cool or used in such a creative way that they'd forget to get mad.

And finding those writers who want to take on this kind of challenge is probably not that easy.

 

[Nichwee]

I also agree that the statement "we are looking for articles that explain how to get more out of what you already have" is pretty damn vague and confusing....

Yeah. Oddly it is vague enough that it could mean the following:
"We want articles that look at adding a few new bits to the game to increase the versatility/strength of options already in the game."

This would mean we could get an article for a Seeker that adds just a few feats, a couple of powers and one or two items could allow a current build to power up/change focus.
So the article might introduce feats that allow any Seeker power that pushes or slides to impose "the target grants CA to next attack against the target". Suddenly any already existing power that the Seeker has to push/slide is increased in usability and teamwork value.
A couple of Utility Powers for a Seeker to add a perk to his/her attacks for a little while would similarly alter the strength of existing content rather than add lots of new content.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah. Oddly it is vague enough that it could mean the following:
"We want articles that look at adding a few new bits to the game to increase the versatility/strength of options already in the game."

This would mean we could get an article for a Seeker that adds just a few feats, a couple of powers and one or two items could allow a current build to power up/change focus.
So the article might introduce feats that allow any Seeker power that pushes or slides to impose "the target grants CA to next attack against the target". Suddenly any already existing power that the Seeker has to push/slide is increased in usability and teamwork value.
A couple of Utility Powers for a Seeker to add a perk to his/her attacks for a little while would similarly alter the strength of existing content rather than add lots of new content.

Yeah, this would be my preference. Not 'no new crunch at all' but very targeted crunch combined with some good fluff that would leverage existing content that really isn't being used much or just isn't very usable as-is.

DEFCON1's example of the Ruthless Ruffian is a perfect one. This is a build which is reasonably interesting in theory and could see some use, but which is simply mechanically inferior and not so big a departure from a Brutal Scoundrel that very many players will take a hit in performance just to use it. Yet it could probably be made quite effective with maybe a single feat. The build is viable, just sub-optimal and adding some small bit of crunch could bring it up to par and make all the existing content designed to work with it actually mean something. There are other builds like this too. The Swarm Druid is the other real poster child for this. A single feat could fix the AC scaling issue with this class and all of a sudden a whole chunk of 'dead' content becomes useful. It is adding crunch to the game but in a highly targeted way.

The rest of an article on one of these builds could provide ideas for cool character concepts using that build, point out other existing options that such a character could leverage, etc. I think a good 4 page article could be turned out on the RR or the SD builds as well as a number of other ones.

Or maybe these kinds of articles could approach it from the opposite end. You have a character concept, what are 3-4 ways you could implement it? What are the advantages and disadvantages and story reasons why you might want to use different ones.