What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Primal]

So, "Region" is a unique rule to enhance the flavor of the Realms in 3e, but it's 4e brother-by-another-mother "Background" doesn't count. And a multi-class only class (which exists in no other setting so far) doesn't count either or an entirely new class doesn't count? The same Dragonmarks and Artificer class available in both editions of the game means that 3e has unique rules for the setting, but 4e doesn't?

To be fair, 'Region' determined your optional starting equipment and which FR Regional/Racial feats you could take. 'Background', AFAIK, is only a static bonus to one of the skills -- or your initiative, which is "the" choice for most optimizers I know.

 

[wedgeski]

Posrep to everyone who has achieved a 53 page thread on this subject with no lock. It's been a great read and I hope there are eyes from Wizards giving it a scan.

 

[Imaro]

3e - Region (area you're from).

4e - Background (are you're from). Multi-Class Only Class - Spellscarred. New Class - Swordmage.



3e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.

4e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.



Not an actual setting in 4e. Merely the inspiration for the Domains of Dread concept in 4e. Note that none of the Domains of Dread presented are from Ravenloft.



So, "Region" is a unique rule to enhance the flavor of the Realms in 3e, but it's 4e brother-by-another-mother "Background" doesn't count. And a multi-class only class (which exists in no other setting so far) doesn't count either or an entirely new class doesn't count? The same Dragonmarks and Artificer class available in both editions of the game means that 3e has unique rules for the setting, but 4e doesn't?

Go back and re-read the posts... backgrounds are in the general 4e rules, so no they are not a specific chnge in rules or new mechanic that differentiates gameplay in FR vs. Nentir Vale or anywhere else (unlike 3e where this was quite specific to FR period)... likewise classes. When did I say the Artificer in Eberron (I cited the introduction of action points officially in Eberron and only officially in Eberron) or new classes in general was what I was talking about, I gave specific examples of the types of things I was talking about... again, please go back and read my posts before trying to engage me in discussion. You're not addressing anything I've posted.

As far as Ravenloft goes... you're nitpicking, but whatever.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Really?

To me it seemed more like the process for that went "We don't want the cleric to be the only healer anymore, and we define healing as a 'leader' role ability, and 'leaders' also include general character enhancements. Also, we like playing with minis, and we're making this in-depth tactical combat system, and we need a class to show it off. Lets make our new healer a tactical buffer!"

Had that been all they wanted, they could simply have used the arcane healer in 3.X - the Bard - as the second Leader (and some other new class). On the other hand, PHB 1 classes were clearly produced with less skill than PHB 2 classes (for instance there were V shaped classes). They clearly had the idea of the Warlord and wanted to use that to show off what could be done.

 

[Shazman]

Except, I don't think they knew what they wanted the bard to be like at that time. I think I remember them saying somehwere that they didn't know what to do with the bard and gnome, which is why they weren't in the PHB I. So we got the warlord instead.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would point out the Gazateers for Mystara, each of which had new rules related to the area described, and the historical "green books" for 2e as obvious places where the rules are being changed to fit the setting. As has been mentioned upthread, all the fear, terror, and madness rules of Ravenloft are another obvious place.

If "swap halflings for kender" was the only change you noted going from pre-DragonLance D&D into Krynn, well, the authors failed, because they were trying to make that world feel unique, and specific changes were made to accomplish that task. Three moons of magic and all that, if nothing else.



RC

 

[renau1g]

Go back and re-read the posts... backgrounds are in the general 4e rules, so no they are not a specific chnge in rules or new mechanic that differentiates gameplay in FR vs. Nentir Vale or anywhere else (unlike 3e where this was quite specific to FR period)... likewise classes. When did I say the Artificer in Eberron (I cited the introduction of action points officially in Eberron and only officially in Eberron) or new classes in general was what I was talking about, I gave specific examples of the types of things I was talking about... again, please go back and read my posts before trying to engage me in discussion. You're not addressing anything I've posted.

As far as Ravenloft goes... you're nitpicking, but whatever.

Well, the FR backgrounds are actually quite a bit different in their mechanics than the "core" ones. Also, IIRC, the backgrounds weren't introduced into the "core" material until PHB2, which was 2009 release, whereas the FR books came out in 2008, so they introduced it first.

 

[Imaro]

Well, the FR backgrounds are actually quite a bit different in their mechanics than the "core" ones. Also, IIRC, the backgrounds weren't introduced into the "core" material until PHB2, which was 2009 release, whereas the FR books came out in 2008, so they introduced it first.

Actually they were introduced in Scales of War first... in Dragon, which is general D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, the FR backgrounds are actually quite a bit different in their mechanics than the "core" ones. Also, IIRC, the backgrounds weren't introduced into the "core" material until PHB2, which was 2009 release, whereas the FR books came out in 2008, so they introduced it first.

Heh.

That's a problem with "Everything's core", isn't it?

You can't really have mechanics that are setting-specific while at the same time having every mechanic be core.

At some point, you have to choose which it is going to be.


RC

 

[NoWayJose]

Even more radically - the unconscious PC is slipping further and further into the inviting light - but then remembers the Warlord PC, and how s/he stressed the importance of never giving up until the mission is completed - and then the unconscious PC's eyes flicker open.

If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability? It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession. A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.

Using a power in 4e is clearly something that the player of the PC does, but it's always an open question whether or not it is something that the PC him/herself has done.

Which is very problematic if you're truly roleplaying and immersed in your character and imagining what your PC is doing, and not "reverse engineering" what the rules say.

To relate this back to the OP, 4E would win me back if the allocation and effects of powers were less arbitrary and more consistent in terms of crunch to fluff simulation. All other potential faults (PDFs, marketing, etc.) would be forgiven as long as I loved the feeling of the game.