Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[I'm A Banana]

Hmm, I am not sure I can agree. The system feels pretty upgradeable to me. You might not be able to rip out the power system and implant something new, but you can create new powers and new monsters relatively easy. New classes are harder, but the House Rule forum seems to indicate it is no _that_ difficult to come up with something. (Playtesting is ever the problem )

Well, true.

My main point was that 4e isn't interested in you updating your half-orc barbarian as much as it is interested in giving us sexy new tiefling warlocks as a way to cement a strong brand identity distinct from previous editions.

Someday you might be permitted a half-orc barbarian, but 4e isn't interested in updating your campaign.

That doesn't mean that it's impossible to come up with house rules that cover this, it just means that 4e, from WotC's perspective, isn't exactly in a hurry to cover this.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, true.

My main point was that 4e isn't interested in you updating your half-orc barbarian as much as it is interested in giving us sexy new tiefling warlocks as a way to cement a strong brand identity distinct from previous editions.

Okay, I think I might agree with this one.

I don't see it as necessarily bad, giving players what they want anyway. Savage Species and the LA concept certainly wasn't introduced because people were disinterested in "oddball" creatures.

But it certainly leads us to problems, like long-term players "hating" the game for its changes. It's not my problem personally, luckily. We'll see how well it works out for WotC in the long term (I think it's safe to say that they are successful at the moment).

 

[Nebulous]

(I think it's safe to say that they are successful at the moment).

If the sales records and reprints are any indication, I would think that Hasbro is very, very happy.

As for the ritual question, i can accept that a low-magic or group without a mage might need access to rituals. I suppose they do come with some prerequisites that most people might not pay. In fact, i'm curious now to see how this pans out in the long run.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Okay, I think I might agree with this one.

I don't see it as necessarily bad, giving players what they want anyway. Savage Species and the LA concept certainly wasn't introduced because people were disinterested in "oddball" creatures.

But it certainly leads us to problems, like long-term players "hating" the game for its changes. It's not my problem personally, luckily. We'll see how well it works out for WotC in the long term (I think it's safe to say that they are successful at the moment).

Yeah, I'm largely in agreement. It's certainly bad for some folks, but probably not the majority, as WotC has probably noted.

 

[Korgoth]

4E's greatest innovation is being the first version of the game not to include an "Animate Dead" spell. This is an example of the great sophistication of the modern, scientifically-designed rule set: it employs an "economy of actions" model of exception-based consumer satisfaction in order to squeeze an extra 35 bucks out of you in the coming months.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This isn't something that strongly bothers me, I have to admit.

I do agree that by previous AD&D standards, 4E is something of a "short-change". There's not a lot of well, anything, in it. There's not a lot of classes, or particularly epic destinies, not a lot of treasure/magic items, not a lot of information on creating your own stuff (except monsters), and so on.

HOWEVER, this doesn't bother me much because it's representative of virtually every OTHER modern RPG I've read, particularly White Wolf ones. So I barely even noticed initially. Only when I'd been fiddling for a while did I notice there were no guidelines or even vague suggestions for creating your own powers for classes (kind of a big deal, imho) or for creating entire new races and classes. It's not like you can't work it out yourself, but it's stuff that tended to be in previous editions of AD&D, for better or worse.

Also lowering the bother level is the consistent "RC D&D 2.0" vibe I've gotten off 4E, and that didn't include all that stuff either, that I remember.

So is the OP right in that he's a little short-changed? I think he is. Is it a significantly bad thing? Not for me. I may feel different when WotC is asking me to pay $35 for DMG III or whatever, though, when there's just one thing I want in the book. It's going to be very important that WotC design the new PHB/DMG/MM so that they DO NOT just include "one useful thing for everyone", but reliably have a broad range of useful material.

PS - Korgoth I love you.

 

[Nebulous]

It's going to be very important that WotC design the new PHB/DMG/MM so that they DO NOT just include "one useful thing for everyone", but reliably have a broad range of useful material.

I'm somewhat worried that some of this "useful material" is going to be updated rules from the previous PHB/DMG that takes precedence over the former books. And which may or may not ever be available on the DDI.

 

[Filcher]

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.

Back in the day we used to have fun making stuff up. When did we become so reliant on canon?

 

[The Little Raven]

There's not a lot of classes,

I just wanted to point something out.

The AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook had 8 classes: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, and Wizard. It also had 6 races: Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, Human. 4e has 8 classes and 8 races.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4E's greatest innovation is being the first version of the game not to include an "Animate Dead" spell. This is an example of the great sophistication of the modern, scientifically-designed rule set: it employs an "economy of actions" model of exception-based consumer satisfaction in order to squeeze an extra 35 bucks out of you in the coming months.

I thought it was more like this:
"Animate Dead? When was the last time a player used this spell?"
"Hmm... Don't know? There must be someone playing evil campaigns! But I can't remember someone specifically. Certainly not among us, nor among the focus groups."
"Okay, BULLET THROUGH THE HEAD it is then."

And they certainly will squeeze more then 35 Bucks out of me over the next few months. Barring bizarre things happening.