Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Squizzle" data-source="post: 4530428" data-attributes="member: 76486">Anyone from WotC who is reading this, I implore you to ignore damn near everything in this thread. I have long been in the roleplaying hobby, but have never touched D&D until very recently. I was, of course, aware of D&D; it's the brand giant of the hobby's industry. It never appealed to me, however, because of its reputation for poorly-balanced, needlessly complex systems. Third edition had discouraged me immensely, as I had come to perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the profusion of races, classes, items, and magical powers rendered the game unnecessarily convoluted--that it demanded an intense degree of familiarity, and that it was  possible to create either a good PC or to follow a character concept, not both. It seemed that it was possible to create two PCs at the same level for the same game, and have them wildly differ in terms of overall effectiveness. Given that the game offered very little that I couldn't achieve with other systems, hey, no loss. Then a friend got fourth edition.On his recommendation, I gave it a try. It was simple to understand, and thoroughly balanced. There was a degree of design transparency that just floored me. There was a breakdown of classes by role, and races were exceedingly simple. Items were meticulously balanced, with a few exceptions. The powers system was and is exceptionally exciting in creation and fun in play. The only game I currently have going currently is, in fact, my weekly D&D4E game--that I'm GMing.  Please don't kill that game by trying to appeal to a market that--and I say this with all respect, and without any malice--already has a game they like. If they want to play a game more similar to prior editions, I cannot rightly say why they don't just play a prior edition, or one of the myriad retro-clones that exist for nearly every edition previous fourth. Instead, I want to make the following requests:1. A bit more and more varied art. I like the art you have, but it'd be ideal if there were and average of 1½ to 2 images for every creature or race presented, plus a few more "action shots"/set piece illustrations. Small banner illustrations might help get some more of these onto the page without disrupting layout too much.2. A bit more transparency to the rules design in a few areas. At current, I'm hesitant to alter things like--for instance--the Wintertouched feat, as I'm not sure about the balance for damage types. Certain things are obvious: thunder damage isn't intended to be an "at-will" thing. I'm not sure about the other damage types, except by vague inferences from item level and frequency of resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities. Making things a bit more transparent would add a lot more tools for me.3. This was going to be "more martial options", in an effort to further support swords & sorcery play (although it's already exceptionally well-supported), but Martial Power appears to be giving us just that. I'm sure that down the line, we'll get more martial classes and likely a Martial Power II. So, in absence of needing to request that: myconids! I've seen an old illustration, and creepy fungusmen are just aces. Make 'em playable for extra bonus fun.Thanks for the gaming, guys.</blockquote>

Verification