Is WotC's policy of no 4.5 good or bad?

[Kzach]

Personally I didn’t have a problem with 3.5. In fact, I felt it introduced a lot of needed changes. For me, it was actually, if anything, too little, too late.

There are some fundamental things about 4e that don’t work and prevent it from being a truly great game. If these things were changed, however, they would most definitely represent a 4.5 edition upgrade as they would be changing underlying mechanics and classes, not just tweaking rules.

I feel this would be a great thing. IMO, making these changes would make 4e one of the best RPG’s ever marketed. And yet… the grognard, fatbeard, nerdrage backlash that incited the promise of “No 4.5” in the first place, prevents WotC from going ahead and doing this.

Personally, I love 4e, but I’m also not blinkered enough to not see its flaws. I would love for WotC to pull its head in and focus on making 4.5 the best game ever and releasing it. Unfortunately, I also think that an extremely vocal minority are preventing that from happening, to the detriment of the silent majority.

Would you support a 4.5?

 

[jasonbostwick]

I probably wouldn't support a 4.5e that was a total split from the current system - I've bought too many books over the last 2 years to just have them be invalidated. I much prefer the incremental 'patching' that Essentials and the rules updates do, as it at leasts gives me the illusion that my shelf of books is still relevant.

I'm curious as to what you would consider the fundamental flaws in 4e? There are a lot of things I'm not too happy with about the system that have made me take a break for a while, but they're not the sort of things that I imagine a 4.5e would fix.
Most of them are things I could probably fix with houserules easily or even published rules variants from the DMG2, but I just can't be bothered. (i.e. magic item economy, importance of high attack stats, etc.) How fundamental of a change are you talking about?

 

[hvg3akaek]

The issue is the need to repurchase books. I didn't mind 3.5, but that was because I didn't own any 3.0 books, so nothing there got wasted.

If 4e was to move to 4.5e, and I had to repurchase all the books I had, then I simply wouldn't do it. Many of my 4e books have seen little use, so I feel that I would have to wait a whole lot longer before I had played my money's worth from them.

If anything, the DnDi itself has helped make sure that a 4.5e (where 4.0e books no longer were valid) won't really be successful. If DnDi changed, I would either stop my subscription (as it would no longer be compadible with the many books I own), or I would keep the subscription, but not purchase any more books (as I have spent the $$ already, and do not want to do it again just yet). Either way, WotC looses out, when compared to continuing 4e as it is. And, from those I game with, that seems to be a pretty normal consensus.

 

[doctorhook]

I would definitely support a "Revised 4th Edition". (I think the ".5" notation made a stupid name seven years ago, and would make a stupid name now, but then, what's in a name?) 4E rocks, but there's still some important tweaks to be made.

• For one thing, 4E gave us Utility powers, but it should've also given us Utility feats; we don't have to worry anymore about hindering ourselves when we choose between Magic Missile and Shield, and now it's time to stop worrying when we choose between Linguist or Skill Focus and Dwarven Durability.

That said, I don't think the fanbase has healed enough to take a "4R" at this time; even with Essentials, lunatics are already claiming that the sky is falling (again), and the grognards are already trying to organize victory parades and community dances on 4E's grave.

EDIT: D&DI rocks, because it partially removes the need to publish a full revision anyway.

 

[TerraDave]

We have had and are going to have plenty of changes.

It would be interesting if they were willing to say so.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with 3.5 wasn't whether or not it was a sufficent improvement over 3.0, it was the timing. It simply upset a lot of people to have to re-buy core books so soon.

As far as tweaking and fixing the system goes, that can be done via errata - or 'updates' - it certainly wouldn't hurt to publish a book containing core rule with all the errata. And, it seems that one of the Essentials products will be just that.

Seems to me a much better aproach than the way 3.5 was presented. Maybe it won't be better for WotC's bottom line - however much people grouse, it's core books that sell best, so releasing new versions of them generally makes money.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Yes, but essentials will probably 'do it' for me. Me and my brother have discussed how it would be cool to have the different power sources simply behave differently, much like psionics does/did (ignoring the problems with it), from the beginning.

The new essentials sub-classes going back to revisit the old archetypes so I think that's going to feed my desire for that.

EDIT: I definitely agree with you on 3.5; had no problems with it and we all embraced it. Sure, we had to all buy new books but our middle class family budgets took it just fine especially considering how valuable in terms of dollar/fun the game really is.

 

[mkill]

Edition changes aren't a bad thing in itself. After all, the hobby should evolve, and game rules are part of that. There will always be people who scream "they changed it now it sucks", and people who prefer playing older editions without kicking a fuss about it, but that's a fact of life.

As for 3.5, it came too early and too short. It fixed a number of smaller issues, but there were still too many issues in the game left that needed fixing.
* grappling
* caster level
* ECL
* polymorph
* self-buffing spellcasters
* dominance of save-or-die spells
* dead levels for fighter and other classes
* general class imbalance and unclear defined roles
* classes can't be frontloaded to discourage 1-level dips
* some options are deliberately designed to suck to reward system mastery (Toughness)

There were also a number of rules innovations that were only included after the 3.5 PHB was published.
* swift actions
* at-will casters (Warlock)
* defender mechanics (Knight class)
* martial classes with powers (ToB)

3.5 should have appeared 2-3 years later to address more issues and include some later innovations.

 

[babinro]

I would not support 4.5 given the expenses I've put into 4.0. I see nothing wrong with Wizards officially fixing things through errata as they've tried to do thus far.

Major reworks have already been done be it the stealth rules, the damage table, skill challenge mechanics, monster stats and the like. Simply adding official errata to repair math problems and other such mechanics seems like it would be sufficient.

If the game should change enough to call for 4.5 so to speak, I would be in favor of simply starting production on 5e working off what you've learned to create something entirely new and hopefully functional at all levels.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The bottom line is that continuing change as part of the product lifecycle is pretty much a given. As long as the brand is owned by a large company the revenue concerns will continue drive change for the sake of change.
New "must have" products every couple years is the business model and that is simply how it is. There is no great quest to find the "best" edition for the brand and keep it there as far as Hasbro is concerned. That point is reached with the release of every edition for some people.

The next edition could be the glowing golden edition universally loved by the entire fanbase but it would eventually be changed due to the need to sell reissued core material. Perpetual change is the name of the game and every customer just has to decide when or if they wish to step off the merry-go-round.