Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5528296" data-attributes="member: 22424">The existence of weaknesses in 3.5e does not in any way excuse those same weaknesses in 4e. Also, there is nothing wrong in requesting more support for areas where it is seen to be lacking.The &quot;Epic Level Handbook&quot; was a 3.0e book; a condensed version of those rules was in the 3.5e DMG. In any case, the ELH was poorly implemented, but it did represent significant support.(That's also aside from the issue that 4e Epic levels are more akin to 3.5e High levels (13-20) than to 3e Epic levels.)In any event, there is much more to Epic support than just bland lists of powers and monsters. What is needed is actual Epic adventures (sorely lacking for 3e Epic levels, to be sure), and solid advice to DMs on what Epic characters should be doing, how to handle play at those levels, and so on. Indeed, even a clear statement on what Epic play is intended to represent would be a good start!Again, no. DDI subscribers are paying for a toolset that, at the moment, is far short of what was promised and which is, in some instances, simply not fit for purpose. They're absolutely right to be complaining.(In fact, the only thing they're doing wrong is continuing to subscribe. Frankly, they should cancel en masse until WotC actually put out the tools in a working state.)WotC probably should not have put out the offline fully-featured builders, it is true. But having done so, when they found they had to replace them, they should have made damn sure that the replacements were at least as good from day one. It is a very basic DMing lesson - it's much easier to give too little and then add more, than to give too much and have to take it away.Calling people &quot;spoiled childs&quot; is really not helpful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5528296, member: 22424"] The existence of weaknesses in 3.5e does not in any way excuse those same weaknesses in 4e. Also, there is nothing wrong in requesting more support for areas where it is seen to be lacking. The "Epic Level Handbook" was a 3.0e book; a condensed version of those rules was in the 3.5e DMG. In any case, the ELH was poorly implemented, but it [i]did[/i] represent significant support. (That's also aside from the issue that 4e Epic levels are more akin to 3.5e High levels (13-20) than to 3e Epic levels.) In any event, there is [i]much[/i] more to Epic support than just bland lists of powers and monsters. What is needed is actual Epic adventures (sorely lacking for 3e Epic levels, to be sure), and solid advice to DMs on what Epic characters should be doing, how to handle play at those levels, and so on. Indeed, even a clear statement on what Epic play is intended to represent would be a good start! Again, no. DDI subscribers are [i]paying[/i] for a toolset that, at the moment, is far short of what was promised and which is, in some instances, simply not fit for purpose. They're absolutely right to be complaining. (In fact, the only thing they're doing wrong is continuing to subscribe. Frankly, they should cancel en masse until WotC actually put out the tools in a working state.) WotC probably should not have put out the offline fully-featured builders, it is true. But having done so, when they found they had to replace them, they should have made [i]damn sure[/i] that the replacements were at least as good from day one. It is a very basic DMing lesson - it's much easier to give too little and then add more, than to give too much and have to take it away. Calling people "spoiled childs" is really not helpful. [/QUOTE]

Verification