NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 6145144" data-attributes="member: 79401">Unless you can cite extensive market research that demonstrates that a significant percentage of those players who either tried and then abandoned, or simply refused to try in the first place, the 4E system, named martial healing and warlords as their sole (or even primary) reason for doing so, then this is stuff and nonsense.There are plenty of things that people who dislike 4E dislike about it. You can have two people who dislike the system equally who dislike it for entirely different reasons. Some people swear that you can attribute 4E's failure to replicate the sales of early 3E to the absence of Half-Orcs and Gnomes in the first PHB. There are others who'll swear it's 'saminess' that killed the system. Others that it's a dependency on miniatures. Some blame the simplified skill list. Some blame the early marketing ('Ze game remains ze same!', 'Grrr, I'm a monster!'). Others point to the lack of magical supremacy. Others blame the move away from the OGL. Others blame the delays and issues with the licence that WotC did eventually release. You'll find people who blame the magic items. You'll find people who think the pursuit of balance is misguided and harmful. A lack of a ranged archer build for the fighter. The lack of magic for the ranger. V shaped classes. Feat taxes. Too many feats. Bad adventure modules. Taking Dungeon and Dragon from Paizo. Turning Dungeon and Dragon into digital magazines. The apparently offensive presence of whitespace in the books. The formatting of the powers. The art style. The presence of too much reused art (or the presence of too little). You'll also find people who'll point out that the market was in a very different place than it was when 3E launched. Or that the economy was in a different situation.The relative lack of success of 4E can probably be attributed to all of these things and more … and some of it's relative success can be as well. Some of the things that turned some gamers off, turned others on. Anybody who claims to know for sure what particular thing could've been done differently that would've resulted in a significantly more successful system is blowing smoke. We may play a game of make-believe, but we don't live in a world of it: none of us can know for sure how things would've played out if the system had been different.I think it's safe to say though that placing all of the blame on warlords and martial healing is patently absurd, given all of the various other aspects that people have complained about (amongst them including people who have no problem with martial healing and warlords).The bottom line, for me, is that regardless of 4E's success or lack thereof, it was an edition of D&D. Many of the players who liked (and still like) and played (and still play) the system, like martial healing and like warlords. If, as WotC has repeatedly stated, Next is supposed to be the inclusive addition that appeals to all D&D fans, then leaving out martial healing and warlords entirely is a bizarre approach to take.</blockquote>

Verification