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

[mudbunny]

Well taking the chance they will look...

Consider licensing pathfinder or 3.5 into the DDI. Just for the tools even. I know ALOT of people that would pay $8 a month for that.

I have strongly suggested that they read all of the thread. I suspect that they will read most (if not all).

 

[Scribble]

In 3.5 and Pathfinder, Efreet can gran Wish to mortals. I see that many people see this as a great risk of gamebreaking. In fact, they see it as a potential abuse of the spell planar binding. What happened in 4th edition? At least in MMI (don't know others) Efreet are apparently far more cool in combat, with all their flames and whirling, flying scimitars. But designers removed the wish feature, because things like that are unthinkable in 4th edition.

Of course, the monster is very balanced, but, instatnly, any root with legends an arabian nights, any possible RP implication about desperate heroes, crazy summoners and twisted wishes is gone.

See for a DM like me, I vastly prefer the new way of doing things, simply because I don't want to be, well- misled.

If I look at a monster in the game, and the designers have told me they've done everything in their power to balance the game- I'd like to take that at face value.

Sure, I'm not going to expect it to be true 100% of the time, but I get a bit annoyed when something very balance harming is overlooked simply because it's "more in line with legends." I feel like I've almost been tricked into throwing my campaign out of whack.

I'd rather the game give me a set of stats that are balanced to the game, and then if there's something cool in the legends that can't be made to balance include the idea ONLY in the flavor. IE Some efreet in history are known to grant mortals wishes... blah blah.

Then as a DM I can decide if I want to throw something possibly unbalancing into my campaign. I don't need rules to make it work, because it's most likely going to be a one off thing the monster just does.

I don't need help from the rules unbalancing my game... I'm pretty good at that one myself. I just need help making sure things already ARE.

In short when it comes to adding unbalanced stuff to my game- Give ME the choice, don't trick me into making it because you thought a legend was cool.

Other people have different DMing styles then I do tough, so to each his own!

Moreover, in 3.5/PF, if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).

I prefer swapping out and adding abilities in 4e. I find it's faster/easier to get to where I need the monster to be.

Again- to each his own.

For me it is from observations on game days. I have not plugged anything into a scientific method but,

I used to run 4e for my gamestore up until the PHII release which I did not wish to buy. The people often playing (some kids, some my age) would look at numbers first (including movement, or push numbers) before they would think of effect. WHY? I think alot of it is layout. The powers dedicate much more space to emphasis on NUMBERS than fluff. I think, the layout brings the attention to the numbers not the fluff. This also feeds into why I think 4e distilled into a miniatures tactics game.

If layout changed in PHBII and beyond I am not aware as I have only casually flipped through later 4e books.

I've seen this since I started gaming in basic. I mean D&D in general has kind of promoted this attitude from the start wouldn't you say?

"Sure you can be a fighter with a higher wisdom then strength... but if you put that higher score in your prime requisite you get an XP bonus!!!"

I'd say it's not for nothing that Charisma has a history of being called the "dump stat."

 

[Stormonu]

Well, they have definitely improved the fluff of the releases since the first two PHB's, but how is it different than Power attack from 3.5e, or in 2e, 3/2 attacks/round?

For and example of continuing to improve the fluff see this from their spring 2011 Catalog:

"Welcome to Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium, a wondrous collection of magic items—each one with a story to tell. This tome provides Dungeon Masters with a ready assortment of treasures to tempt greedy players, along with historical nuggets and alluring adventure hooks that set these items apart from your run-of the-mill flaming sword or bag of holding....

...Key Selling Points
• Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Emporium strikes an excellent balance between rules content and story content, making it a fun read as well as a practical reference book for Dungeon Masters looking to sprinkle their dungeons with tantalizing treasures.
• This book provides an alluring collection of new magic items that players will desire for their characters, along with rich background information and adventure hooks that Dungeon Masters can use to add depth or story to the campaign. "

http://www.randomhouse.biz/international/PDFs/wotcspr11.pdf

I've got a mixed reaction to that, it almost sounds like Weapons of Legacy. Idea is good, the question is in the implementation. Also, it sounds like its all magic items - no mundane equipment. (And quite honestly, "magic item emporiums" has always had a negative connotation associated with it among old-schoolers, who tend to associate it with Monty Haulism. Don't know how well that book is going to go over with older players).

I'd love to see something like Aurora's Whole Realm Catalog back for 2E. Not just a big pile of equipment like 3E's Arms & Equipment guide, but a sort of "in character" catalogue of equipment that is as fun for the descriptions as for the actual items therein.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'd say it's not for nothing that Charisma has a history of being called the "dump stat."

Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers.

In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning. The class will make sure that you only need a couple of them and make sure that whatever they are will cover most of your needs. Not very strong? Play something that modifies physical attacks with WIS or CON.

Now that every stat can be an important combat stat, dump statting has become more equal opportunity.

No more pickin on CHA, you hear?

 

[Stormonu]

Holdup....Whoa. Looking at that catalog, there's a couple items in there that, as a current non-4E player, actually had me interested - and surprised.

They're doing a gazetteer on 4E Nentir Vale? I thought I had read back at the start of 4E they were trying to avoid something like that to keep it from becoming too "canonized", but I am somewhat happy they are finally going to do a write-up of a 4E "campaign world".

It does seem WotC has been shifting gears (ever so slowly), and the train is slowly moving back in a direction that might pick me back up. If so, that makes me happy. I've been wanting my gaming wants to converge with what they're producing for some time now. I want to buy D&D stuff, they just haven't been making stuff that interests me for some time (beyond dungeon tiles).

 

[MrMyth]

Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers.

In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning. The class will make sure that you only need a couple of them and make sure that whatever they are will cover most of your needs. Not very strong? Play something that modifies physical attacks with WIS or CON.

Now that every stat can be an important combat stat, dump statting has become more equal opportunity.

No more pickin on CHA, you hear?

Yeah, this is something I find simultaneously awesome and frustrating.

I think it is absolutey fantastic that I can build a Con 8 fighter, play up how sickly the guy is, and feel a tangible effect from it without feeling like the character has been crippled. I like that I can choose to dump Dex without feeling like it will mean I always get hit, and that my Bard who is all Charisma can still fight decently in combat.

At the same time, it does make certain things feel less special. I was always proud in 3rd Edition of having built a Wizard who was really strong and walked around in heavy armor. And... I still can, in 4E - it is probably even easier to do so.

But why bother, when I get more AC from my Int and Leather Armor, and can pick up Melee Weapon Training and hit things with my Int? In a way, it forces me to play up the actual flavor of those different stats, rather than rely on certain mechanics to make it obvious how I am built. I can respect that, sure. And I do thing it was a good call to try and push for more independance from stat reliance...

... but it does feel, at times, like they went too far. A good start, but there is certainly room for a compromise, and that is probably what I would be happiest with.

 

[Scribble]

Well, there was a time when you simply rolled ability scores. Sometimes CHA ended up being high and you got to enjoy the benefits of loyal henchmen and followers.

Yeah- let me amend my statement to AD&D and on?

In 4E your class determines your dump stat because the stats don't have much defined intrinsic value. Attack with CHA, use CON to modify AC. The stats themselves no longer have a meaning.

I'd argue this allows them to have more meaning actually.

Now they apply to more of your character as a whole.

Instead of simply knowing how intelligent you are, you can now use that intelligence to know the best way to hurt a foe.

High wisdom? Now your experience lets you know how an opponent will react so you can get the drop on him.


Now I can make a guy who knows how to really hurt people without being a meat-head.

Thats how I see it at least, so it works well for me.

It does seem WotC has been shifting gears (ever so slowly), and the train is slowly moving back in a direction that might pick me back up. If so, that makes me happy. I've been wanting my gaming wants to converge with what they're producing for some time now. I want to buy D&D stuff, they just haven't been making stuff that interests me for some time (beyond dungeon tiles).

Well possible welcome aboard! I'll grab one of those free pillow/blanket things
for you before they all get snagged up.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Throw on a template to the efreet from the DMG and you're good to go. You can add the sorcerer, fighter, or other templates as needed.

Fine.. but where is my wish? My point was not customization.. my point was what can do a particular edition compared to the other.

Moreover, as a kid starting to play D&D, I got an interest in Genie legends because of the game. Even assuming possible a Wish ritual, currently a kid playing 4th could not even conceive it just reading the Efreeti entry. Monster design should not only show, but even inspire.

(snip)

The more relevant issue is that rather than someone describing how they hit someone with their shield and send them flying, they'll just say that they are using "Solar Dragon Shield Slam" and roll some dice. But again - that is, at heart, a problem with player mentality more than the system. It is certainly something I wish WotC did more to discourage - or at least, presented more guidance for players and DMs on getting around it - but I don't think it is because shoving someone with your shield is more or less reasonable in either game.

Fair point... but I think my main point remains valid too: 3.5/PF has not mechanical obstacles for such things AND, in my opinion, is conceived with more inspiring (see Efreet above and below) even if more prone to be broken, mechanics.

I think your use of the term 'slightly' might be inaccurate - 4E supports a lot of different mechanics (often in rituals or utility powers), but something like Wish is in a completely different ballpark. We're talking about a magic that fundamentally rewrites the reality of the game - that's dangerous territory, and always has been. Equating WotC removing the most divisive spell in the game, with them removing all flavor from their monsters or mechanics, is a bit unreasonable to me.

Of course some spell needed a rework, as casting mechanics. Paizo did several things (even if could have be done more, but I played AD&D before 3.5 so my judgement could be.. grognard-y ). But FOR MY TASTES 4th edition designers went too far. Cannot speak for utilities but.. rituals were in 3.5 too, they wer called Incantations and are in the SRD. Moreover, 10 minutes casting time for a silence is like say to me "rituals are, you know, not intended to be ACTUALLY used").

I didn't "compared" the removal of spells and mechanics. I simply pointed out an example of putting balance as a priority, and the effects of it on the game.

In any case, 4E Efreeti - if you can bind them and demand a favor of them - still grant Wishes. They just don't do so by casting spells, they do so by having access to wealth and influence beyond a mortal's possible imagining!

I'm not sure how can this support a story of PC cleverness, wish twistings, power-hungry conjurers, and so on.

Which is to say, part of the 4E approach is to take truly game-changing elements and relocate them to the domain of the DM. Stuff that is tied to plot and DM judgement calls now falls firmly into it, rather than having mechanical restrictions.

A lot of people say this and -respectfully - always seemed strange to me. If wish and genies are powerful and dangerous, my call as a DM is needed. If they are limited to swing swords and spit flames, they is.. somewhat.. less need of me as a DM.. at least these are my feelings. Maybe I like to have troubles or my players are just too much good fellows

Which I admit - I'm not entirely a fan of. I'd like something a bit between the two, or simply more guidance on what certain enemies may be capable of outside of combat. And... sometimes WotC delivers. Not with every monster, but enough that I don't think 'avoiding flavorful concepts and mechanics' is 'unthinkable'.

Well, a matter of tastes.. if you enjoy your games, it's just right

I don't entirely think it fair to compare an advanced and customized creature to one right out of the book. You can customize creatures in 4E too. (And I find it a better process, in fact - I have never found monster advancement in 3.5 to actually work with the CR guidelines, though Pathfinder may have fixed that.)

3.5 CR breaks down after a while. PF, not enough experience at high levels, so I will see. But the guidelines in the Bestiary are REALLY good. If something in not in the advancement template or HD, the table will do the troubleshooting.

About the phane.. well, my feelings are opposite (as an example, I find needed for the story that players remain aged - makes the enemy more memorable.. and if they are really epic.. well, just find a quest for a fountain of rejuvenation!


@Scribble: point being, that, reading your post, seems that balance is a big priority... myslef, restrict the wishes of the Efreeti only to the fluff is really maim a monster.. take away something that makes it special. Destroy a whole story that could spring from a wish, a wish abuse, a clever rogue that found a bottle in a lost temple... is take away some magic, some inspiration from the game. From my game, from my tale.

And I don't think that this wish thing makes the Efreet more powerful in combat (in the case PC want to beat punches with him like with a fire giant). Unless it come out in a strange situation with humanoid allies of the genie. I wonder how could come useful a wizard alter self, a rogue disguise or a fighter intimidate in this instance.. see what I'm doing?

 

[Windjammer]

Basic point first: WotC fired all the great talent behind 4E - Heinsoo, Noonan, Schaefer, Bonner - so I think they'd need to hire some new talent with serious capacity before it's even WORTH discussing what WotC could do to improve D&D. My current impression is they'll quickly polish off D&D Essentials as "evergreens" and then go on a hiatus of not polishing the game, so they can dedicate their efforts to develop other product instead.

I think your use of the term 'slightly' might be inaccurate - 4E supports a lot of different mechanics (often in rituals or utility powers), but something like Wish is in a completely different ballpark. We're talking about a magic that fundamentally rewrites the reality of the game - that's dangerous territory, and always has been.

In any case, 4E Efreeti - if you can bind them and demand a favor of them - still grant Wishes. They just don't do so by casting spells, they do so by having access to wealth and influence beyond a mortal's possible imagining!

Which is to say, part of the 4E approach is to take truly game-changing elements and relocate them to the domain of the DM. Stuff that is tied to plot and DM judgement calls now falls firmly into it, rather than having mechanical restrictions.

I find this juxtaposition of points incomprehensible. It's like on the one hand WotC doesn't trust its customer base to cope with the intricacies of Wish when given mechanical expression (which, needless to say, any DM worth his salt can houserule away or houserule-morph into something else), on the other, 4E is great because it makes this really, really centre stage for pure DM adjudication i.e. giving the power back to the customer to handle the "dangerous" stuff all by themselves.

 

[MrMyth]

Basic point first: WotC fired all the great talent behind 4E - Heinsoo, Noonan, Schaefer, Bonner - so I think they'd need to hire some new talent with serious capacity before it's even WORTH discussing what WotC could do to improve D&D. My current impression is they'll quickly polish off D&D Essentials as "evergreens" and then go on a hiatus of not polishing the game, so they can dedicate their efforts to develop other product instead.

I... really don't see that likely. And I'm a fan of quite a bit of the talent currently there. But tastes vary, I suppose.

I find this juxtaposition of points incomprehensible. It's like on the one hand WotC doesn't trust its customer base to cope with the intricacies of Wish when given mechanical expression (which, needless to say, any DM worth his salt can houserule away or houserule-morph into something else), on the other, 4E is great because it makes this really, really centre stage for pure DM adjudication i.e. giving the power back to the customer to handle the "dangerous" stuff all by themselves.

I think the idea is that anything that is plot-based, or a DM's call, should be entirely in their field to handle as suits their campaign. Which... I understand the logic behind it. I think it needs more guidance - I'd love to see a section in the DMG3 (or eventual equivalent) that presents 'ideas' that DMs can thus use, whether the classic Wish scenario or anything else along those lines.

Without those, while I get the idea of "make it all a DM's territory", it runs the risk that a DM, without ever seeing the idea of a Wish, just won't ever use it. Which is a shame. At the same time, you avoid having to deal with players expecting to get access to a Wish whether the DM wants it or not. There is definitely pros and cons to both approaches - I don't think it is a matter of trust, though, so much as where they want the narrative power of such things to be.