Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5505411" data-attributes="member: 78116">DnD doesn't sell millions of units anyway. The question is can Wizards continue selling books to the people who already enjoyed 4E - yet are now so dissatisfied with the current direction they are no longer buying books. It's interesting that you make this big tent argument on some incensed moral high-ground, but fail entirely to take into account losing their current customers.Is losing a whole bunch of your existing fanbase - that 75% from the poll before unhappy with classes with heavily reduced options - worth picking up 10% of people who will still hate your system anyway? Wizards aren't turned into gods and the fighter still contributes just as much to every combat. The wizard isn't one shotting everything - heck he's actually going to find it a real struggle to keep up with a charging slayer build for damage. So the people who whine that Wizards aren't more powerful than Fighters aren't going to like the essentials classes anyway. Existing 4E players aren't playing the game still because they think martial classes having no options is good. In fact if you've read as many of these threads as I have, it's pretty clear that a lot of 4E players are upset by "on rails" essentials class design.I've always thought to myself that's what you'd call a "Pyrrhic" victory.So is losing your existing customers: But I guess when you already have their money you don't have to care about them eh?And what about when your existing customers stop buying your products? My objection to your argument is that, in my experience with this argument, the majority of the people who are upset their wizard can't outgun the mere fighter aren't going to be swayed by what essentials did in the first place.So what is really gained here?I've actually made this exact point - it's something that heavily cripples your argument. Nothing about essentials resets 4E to remove the aspect the people who want "superior" magic users want. Fighters still kick the absolute crap out of things and the slayer is actually pretty brutally effective. I mean you bring up points like "narrative" and here is the mere "martial" slayer who is entirely immune at epic to magical slow. How are they going to treat that? Just because a slayer is simple and on-rails, doesn't mean it eliminates the problems these guys have with 4Es martial character design. This is a great point, but then you have to consider a Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2 and Arcane Power 2.Who would benefit from such a book?Who doesn't have any support?Runepriests are divine aren't they?Artificers are arcane aren't they?Seekers are primal aren't they?Oh but we don't care about those. Instead we'll be giant hypocrites: Defending the re-release of TWO fighter classes (albeit stripped down), ANOTHER dual wielding ranger build, MORE bloody Wizard builds, another cleric build, another paladin build and another druid build.All the while saying "This makes 4E more diverse!"Really? It does?So you poo-poo a martial power 3, while failing to realize all the two essentials books did was basically increase our options for playing fighters, rangers and wizards. Yet a Primal Power 2, Arcane Power 2 and Divine Power 2 would SPECIFICALLY cover the three classes that need support most in 4E.Uh-huh.You and I in this case are talking past one another. I don't mind the power structure being changed. My objection is:Did we need more fighters? Do we need to republish the original PHB fighter again?Did we need more wizards? Do we need to republish the original PHB wizard again?Did we need more clerics? Do we need to republish the original PHB cleric again?You see, I actually don't mind the slayer and scout and thief inherently. I think they are pretty neat builds who are very effective. The thing is, why did we have to make subclasses of existing classes to begin with for this purpose? Why was it so specifically required we gut a fighter for someones sensibilities in this manner? Couldn't a new class with a new concept that was its own thing have done the same idea? No, we had to specifically gut the fighter for no reason other than appealing to people who will still hate the system anyway.Also I think they should have been the odd build - but not the standard. On rails classes are good for learning the game and for people who don't like a lot of options - we now have what, 5 of them or something? Shouldn't we be going back to trying to push the original AEDU systems in other ways, like the Psionic classes did?Incidentally, Psionic Power was one of the best books Wizards released. I loved it and it really made me change my mind on psionics quite a lot. Just for the record.But don't they have their own game? That suits them? That does what they want exactly? You still haven't made a convincing argument whatsoever that anything essentials did will win over the "I hate my wizard being equal to a fighter" crowd. Because it didn't.I hate these as well and would flat out never allow them in my games. Just another stupid design decision from Wizards - but unlike many of their others I refuse to live with it. Incidentally if it isn't clear from my posts I do not ban - or disallow - almost anything in 4E. The exception would be fortune cards. There are a lot of things in 4E I dislike, but my personal preferences have nothing to do with what I allow my players to play - an important difference. I think Dragonborn are stupid and I can't fathom why people wouldn't run from them in terror. Do I let my personal sensibilities get in the way of a player being able to play a Dragonborn PC?Absolutely, 100% not.So I live with what Wizards makes and unless it's grossly unbalanced I am not going to ban something. My players can play what they enjoy, unless there is a reason for a restriction like I'm running Dark Sun (where I run that rather RAW deliberately). I also love diversity and love to exploit PCs weaknesses as well as their strengths. Sometimes I ensure the odd encounter really falls right into every trap a PCs powers will set for monsters. Why? Because it's fun and makes that character feel like a total badass - by extent makes the player feel satisfied with his build. Boring one note-railroad classes that do the same thing - albeit consistently - lose some of the fun overall for me. I don't mind the odd one, but if they start becoming the norm I'm not going to be enthused.They are if you want to play encounters IIRC.And yet the culling of power books ensures the poor Runepriest, Seeker and Artificer get nothing.But who cares about them right? So long as we get ANOTHER fighter build it's okay!This argument fails to acknowledge that it also has to appeal to your existing customer base.Thus far you've failed to make your argument on two points:1) You have already conceded critical failures in your argument when you concede essentials really didn't do anything to the relative power of a fighter vs. a wizard. A mage has tons of options, but he's not inherently better than the slayer (who can be brutally effective). How does that solve anything about the player who can't stand his wizard being shown up by a mere fighter? Quite frankly, it doesn't so they aren't going to be swayed by this.2) You fail every time to address how existing customers have been incensed and lost by this change in direction by wizards. In fact I would say in your argument you've completely not considered it as an equally important factor. You seem to consider expanding the big tent - without realizing that people might leave it.Overall none of your arguments sway me whatsoever, especially given the number of discussions on essentials I've read that hinge around one side saying "I will not buy anything essentials related EVER" and another side that says "It's just more 4E DnD, what's the big deal?". There are very few "Wow this essentials stuff is just like the [insert previous edition] I love! I'm totally getting into 4E now!" because it - as you even admit - basically isn't.</blockquote>

Verification