Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[Imaro]

The effects of the exploits change depending on what weapion is being used.

Example:

Crushing Blow Fighter Attack 3

Weapon: If you’re wielding an axe, a hammer, or a mace, you gain a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Constitution modifier.

Thank you, that's all I was looking for.

 

[AllisterH]

But they aren't weapon dependant... a sword fighter can use the same exploits as an axe fighter... What differentiates these two was the question, not what differentiates them from spellcasters.

I see your question was answered but sorry for not being clear (my books weren't near me).

However, I was referring to the specific PHB II feats that pertained to weapon damage type (such as bludgeoning, slashing etc).

The 4E system for the fighters is basically an outgrowth of this.

 

[Scribble]

Thank you, that's all I was looking for.

No problem.

Oh in addition, you know how it says it adds the con modifier? Well weapons like that work off of CON and ive the fighter wth high con incentive to use them... Other weapon groups pull from different stats... So if you want to be an AX guy boosting your con will be a smart idea, but also makes you less effective with weapons not in the CON group.

So it gives a bit of rules boost to the idea of I'm an Axe fighter... It's what I do.

 

[Umbran]

Making assumptions about what you expect me to say had lead you to being stupid.

The guy who forgets the basic rules of civility on these boards has no place saying someone else is stupid.

Don't post in this thread again, RE.

I should not have to warn you folks - be civil.

 

[GVDammerung]

After reading the 4th Ed PHB it occurs to me that its not really a complete version of D&D the way 3rd Ed was. . . . I feel short-changed. . . . To get a complete D&D game that has the best of the prior versions, players will have to buy the PHB II (and maybe PHB III) and lots of splat books. . . . WotC will definitely sell more books with this savvy marketing strategy but more $ for WotC does not ensure that D&D is now or will be a better, more enduring game.

I agree with your analysis but not your conclusion. Sure. The PH sells out because everyone is curious. However, for the reasons you've identified, among others, I can see sales markedly dropping off after that. In sum, this was not a savvy strategy but overreaching that will move Wotc one step closer to 5e in 2013. IMO.

 

[timbannock]

4e has the quality of being designed by marketers, at least in part.

This has some interesting effects on the game, including a strong implied setting, ditching the old Greyhawk material, approaching major media outlets with D&D stuff, and, pertitent to this convo, giving us new hotness.

In the end, 4e does care more about its ability to sell itself than about its ability to update your rules and your characters.

For 3e it seemed like marketing was mostly an afterthought -- they wanted to retain the old D&D audience, and they'd figure out how to grow it after they were sure they could retain them.

For 4e, marketing (and branding and IP) are very central concerns.

Some of this will be for good, some of this will be for ill. Some of this means that your old favorites will wait because they aren't sexy enough.

1. Isn't this true of anything that requires money to be made?

2. Is it a matter of "it wasn't sexy enough" or "we want to make it sexier than it was"? There is a very fine difference there, but a difference none the less.

One case in point (but also IMHO): half-orcs. What does a half-orc do that the 4E orc player race writeup in the MM not do?

Another: sorcerer. The difference between sorcerer and wizard was -- in my experience -- that sorcerer rarely got used by players. If 4E gives it a very distinct feel from the wizard, then I'd say it's worth the wait.

 

[AllisterH]

The thing is, I'm not sure I agree with those that want "everything" from 3e especially given that everything was really, well NOT everything.

I mean, take the monk, bard and the fighter. All 3 classes that frankly, didn't work out of the gate and you had to wait until the splatbooks.

Would it have better to hold off on those classes and actually insure that they, I don't know, actually work?

A lot of 3E options were just plain bad (I really, REALLY hope System mastery wasn't intentional) or at the least, seriously sub-optimal.

Take the very first chapter, races. 4E's races actually are all interesting and have strengths but the difference IMO is that you can pretty much use ANY race with ANY class and be happy with your choice.

Compare this with the races in 3E. If you had a penalty in a stat, chances were, you're not going to be playing that race-class combination.

There was much wider variances in the 3.5 options which in my experience actally meant most of the lesser options just didn't get taken (did anyone take Toughness for any reason other than PrC)

I mean, a feat like Skill Focus/Skill Training in 4E is actually useful for EVERYBODY when the equivalent feat in 3E was a noob option.

So, here's my question.

Is it better to have 5 options where the difference between the worst and the best is much smaller than with 10 options where the difference between the worst and best is MUCH, MUCH wider.

 

[F5]

I'm coming to this conversation a bit late, I know, but the OP's opinion is very similar to mine...it feels like significant chunks of what I consider "D&D" are missing from 4E, and it feels like they're being dangled in front of us in an attempt to get more of us to buy PHB2.

But, as I think about it, the classes that got left out make sense. These are the classes that were hardest to shoehorn into certain campaigns. What do you do with the druid class if you don't want to focus on nature-magic in your world? Or if ALL magic comes from "nature" in some way? If you have no Far East, where do the Monks come from?

The classes that they included, while very specific in role, are all pretty vague in terms of fluff. You can make them fit almost anywhere, or come from almost any background. The Bard, Druid, Barbarian and Monk, while awesome classes that I will miss, have the most implied background material, and therefore are the least adaptable. I can see why, in a basic rulebook, they would have left them out.

Amazon says that PHB2 should be out in March of 09. My personal solution? I'll just hold off on any new 4E campaigns until then.

 

[Greg K]

If you have no Far East, where do the Monks come from?

My problem with the Monk was the abilities after the first 5 levels or so. If the class was built to be more customizable, the Far East would not be a problem. As for where monks would come from? Maybe, there is a civilization ruled by spellcasters. The spellcasters forbid weapons and an organization is formed that develops unarmed weapon fighting to an Art as in the novel Witch Blood by Will Shetterly with the order being that of the Warrior Saint.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Isn't this true of anything that requires money to be made?

No.

Quite frequently, marketers keep their attention focused on how to sell a product that is already completed by the experts who are making said product -- they don't tell you what you should make, they focus on selling whatever it is you DO make. Arguably, its when the marketing department gets too involved that the issue of artistic integrity (and, related, authenticity and quality) comes up: when a TV show adds an ancillary "adorable child" character in the 5th season to boost ratings is one example that often goes awry.

Of course, it can also go well, giving the creative minds more fuel for the fire. If we're gonna use the "extra character" analogy, I don't think anyone would argue that, say, South Park has suffered from the introduction of Timmy or Jimmy or Butters.

It's not really a good or bad decision, right out of the gate, but it is a decision that carries certain baggage with it.

2. Is it a matter of "it wasn't sexy enough" or "we want to make it sexier than it was"? There is a very fine difference there, but a difference none the less.

If you have to make it sexier than it was, then it obviously wasn't sexy enough for you.

One case in point (but also IMHO): half-orcs. What does a half-orc do that the 4E orc player race writeup in the MM not do?

For one, it gives you an interesting and conflicted back-story, being halfway into the civilized world and halfway out of it (kind of like the original tiefling flavor did for them). But 4e absolutely posits that sexiness is not in that kind of back story, or, at least, not ENOUGH in it to warrant how sexy the dragonborn are.

Another: sorcerer. The difference between sorcerer and wizard was -- in my experience -- that sorcerer rarely got used by players. If 4E gives it a very distinct feel from the wizard, then I'd say it's worth the wait.

I'm pretty sure that if the WotC folks wanted to make the sorcerer distinct, they could have and would have. They didn't really want to (yet), though. They wanted to give you sexy warlords and warlocks instead. These have the further benefit of being new hotness, breaking with the older edition, and further increasing how D&D can stand out in the fantasy melieu (whereas a "variant wizard" wasn't really one of those ways).

They just don't really care if you can't convert your sorcerer character right away, because the new hotness is more important to the strategy of the brand.