When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Fifth Element]

It's not a line, it's a continuum. Certainly you run into the realm of diminishing returns somewhere -- there's no reason to put rules for playing a smurf in a Star Trek game, for example. But for a fantasy role-playing game that has had everything from gnome miners to aliens with lasers to mind-flayers sailing the stars, it certainly makes sense to go out of your way to be as inclusive as possible.

Considering some of those examples come from entirely different campaign settings, I don't think you have a point. There's nothing preventing a 4E version of Spelljammer.

 

[Psion]

Of course one could argue that this also makes a good point for keeping them a separate book, since it apparently sells. But maybe Druids and Bards in PHB II would sell better then Minotaurs and Dragonborn in PHB II?

There was a podcast that stated that's exactly why some things that were formerly core (I think Frost Giants were the examples at hand) were being put in the "II (III, IV, etc.) books. Because things sell better when they are perceived as "core".

 

[justanobody]

The system is balanced for diverse groups composed of multiple roles, which is the design intent. Shifting the goalpost away from the design intent, then declaring that balanced was not achieved according to your shifted goalpost is a completely dishonest assessment.

No balance does not mean uneven one one side for one reason or another. You are claiming game balance, rather than class balance to prevent having to play through every level to find that balance, but the balance is still artificial since it requires some arbitrary restraint in the form of using a specific combination of classes rather than allowing for every possible combination of classes.

It doesn't solve the old problems, just masks them with a new one that is overlooked. So balance was not truly reached between the classes and thus the reason focus was shifted to classes to obscure this fact.

Can a party of all defenders compare to a mixed party? How about all strikers? controllers? all leaders?

The balance is artificial because you have to achieve it through some complex means rather than a natural one.

Until the classes are balanced against each other so that each class can hold its own against a mixed group then you have not reached a state of balance and are relying on the balance of functions of the group at each level, which still causes specific classes/roles within the party to work better that others at certain levels. You have just taken wizards overpowered at higher levels to make them overpowered in the odd levels* and underpowered in the even ones to make it more spread out.

*Odd and even used as quick concepts rather than actual dissection of the levels for simplicity's sake of the argument.

This goes for all other classes as well.

Having them unbalanced for lower amount of time before they are overpowered again, doesn't make for balance, but for less focus to be on who is overpowered/underpowered and when.

No one is suggesting the balance is perfect. Just better.

I will not say better, but the unbalance is more evenly distributed throughout the classes at various levels. As opposed to having large instances of unbalance that become more readily noticeable.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There was a podcast that stated that's exactly why some things that were formerly core (I think Frost Giants were the examples at hand) were being put in the "II (III, IV, etc.) books. Because things sell better when they are perceived as "core".

Yes, I think this is at least the "business" intent.

From my perspective, I have seen two benefits so far:
- This gives the designers more time to design their stuff.
- This means the supplements I personally would have bought anyway will contain more useful material for me than they did in 3E. (Sometimes I shudder on the amount of material I never used simply because I found it disappointing, weak or just not to my "flavor" preferences)

The drawback of course is that we still need to buy supplements, so from a financial perspective, it didn't really change for me (but it might have for others, who didn't use to bother with supplements since the core rules contained their Druids and Frost Giants.)

 

[MrMyth]

I've said before, and I'll say again, if 4E had been a Saga-ized D&D, it would have been a huge win, instead of leaving me (and several others, as evidenced by these recurring threads) feeling like we got kicked out for liking an unfashionable play style.

While not familiar enough with Saga to know what you are looking for - what 'unfashionable play style' do you feel 4E is somehow against?

I have found the 4E class building system to have a remarkable level of versatility and customizability. The opening of skill access and former class features via feats allows one to adapt to almost any character concept they might have.

Most complaints I've seens have been built around, honestly, mechanical concepts, like not being able to play a Rogue who Sneak Attacks with a Greataxe. That isn't a character concept, and I don't feel there is any fault in a system that lacks that potential - as long as one can play a stealthy thief who slices people apart with a greataxe, which is an entirely viable concept.

You mention being frustrated that others forced your fighter to act as meat-shield - that is a group problem, not part of 4E. It is no different than 3rd Edition clerics who wanted to fight in melee, but got told to sit in back and heal the group. Each class can generally fit into several roles, even if they have some specific ones they default to.

Fighters are Defenders with a bit of Striker, and can just as easily be heavy-hitting warriors as meat-shields. If you want to play a Fighter as a damage-dealing machine, the system is more than ok with that - the only thing standing in your way, apparently, is the group you play with.

In 3E, it was easy to multiclass and rather expected that you would. I already mentioned Dragon magazine's series of articles building about fifty different "classes" simply by mixing the core 10. In ten years of playing 3/3.5, I used non-core classes a total of twice, both on the same character.

Sure, you could assemble a fighter/rogue/sorcerer/druid/bard/wizard, but... what does that mean? What character concept is that?

Pretty much any genuine concept you could build in 3.5, you can build in 4E. There are a few exceptions, mainly dealing with elements that haven't come out yet (unarmed combat, shapeshifting, for example). But 4E can build many very different types of characters, in what I feel is a much more fluid fashion than in 3rd Edition.

That's simply not the case. Even if you stayed pure fighter, which IME only NPCs ever did, you quickly became very good at whatever your specialization may be -- or you quickly became very flexible in a variety of situations.

I really didn't find this to be true. 90% of fighters are good with one weapon, and spent their rounds taking a 5' step and a full-attack. Of the rest, a handful were specialists in tripping foes with spiked chains, but combat manuevers were generally weak unless you were extremely designed for them.

I'm actually rather amazed you can insist 3rd Edition fighters ended up very different from each other, while insisting 4E character building isn't flexible.

What character builds do you see missing from 4E? Seriously, compare it to the launch of 3.0. In 3.0, trying to play a hybrid build was very, very challenging - a Fighter/Wizard took a significant hit to both side's effectiveness. Even for the Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge, it took many, many levels of being subpar to really start to feel decent at the split roles. The primary use of multiclassing was to grab a single dip of barbarian or cherry pick a few abilities from top-heavy classes that only enhanced what you were already good at.

In 4E, there are a variety of ways to play a character good at two things - and with 4E multiclassing, you are actually decent at both roles. And while 3rd Edition eventually got better at this, from introducing various feats and prestige classes... I think 4E is much more effective right out of the gate, and with more potential to cover different concepts in the long run.

However, if I want to play a half-orc fighter/bard, and the rules pitch an error, that's bad for roleplaying, ain't it?

Only in the same way that 3.0 was bad for roleplaying because you couldn't play a Dragonborn Warlord/Warlock.

Specific lack of options is going to vary between every edition - that isn't something that hinders roleplaying, that is the inherent limitation in only having so many pages available in any given product. You feel one set of options might be better than another; someone else might feel differently. That isn't the fault of the system.

And, honestly? Right now, in 4E, you could build an Orc Fighter/Charisma Rogue, or Fighter/Warlord, and run it in a very similar style to a 3.0 Fighter/Bard... and I bet it would be a much more functional character on the table. And I bet when the PHB2 comes out, and you can assemble a half-orc fighter/bard, it will also be an entirely viable choice.

And that, at least on this topic, feels like the important thing to me. The core multiclassing rules for 4E seem better suited to building character concepts than in 3rd Edition. You might have less options, but most of those missing options are entirely mechanical ones, rather than actual character concepts - and the options you do have are actually playable at the table, rather than hybrids that sound awesome in theory and are useful in practice.

 

[Imaro]

This is a just out of curiosity question...

When people compare the options of 3.5 to 4e do they take into consideration the Monster Manual which had an abundance of mosters that could be made into PC's (You know one of the advantages of monsters and PC's operating on the same rules)? I'm just curious because I don't see it brought up in any of the debates.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To the OP. well Jeff, did you find anything helpful in all the fire and smoke.

As for my tuppence worth. I don't think that anyone that was fundamently happy with 3e would be happy with an edition that changed thing in any major way.
I believe that 4e was going to change things because WOTC need to sell stuff to keep going and I suspect that a Saga-ised 4e would not have extended the mathematical sweet spot enough to sell as many books as they envisioned. If we look now, to get what we had in the core 3e we will at least 5 books.
The current core 3 gives you fighter, paladin, cleric, ranger, rogue, warlock, warlord and wizard.
To get ranger pets we need another book and at lest one more (and perhaps 2 I am not sure) to get Druid, Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer.
Probably another couple of books for psionics.
Not to mention the books for the necromancer, illusionist and enchanter

The classes are pretty tightly focussed and the maths is pretty well worked out so I can see alot more book being brought out without greatly upsetting the power balance.

Could they have done this in a Saga-ised D&D, I dunno, maybe maybe not.

However, I also reckon they wanted to reclaim their IP. Hence all the problems with the GSL. I suspect that this is linked to the DDI initiative and desire to create a subscription revenue stream for access to WoTC ip.

 

[Aeolius]

When people compare the options of 3.5 to 4e do they take into consideration the Monster Manual which had an abundance of mosters that could be made into PC's.

That is one of 3e's biggest strengths and one reason 3e brought me back to the fold. Granted, I rarely run games that allow "core" races for PC use. Here's hoping the 4e MM2 will have some useful playable races in it, like locathah, merfolk, and sea elf.

 

[El Mahdi]

Better not tell THESE FOLKS

They don't count, they're just grognards.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

WotC didn't decide you weren't their target audience; you did.

Actually, that is flat out absurd.

How so? Ahh...you have some amplifying information for me:

...a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.

Wrong, unfortunately. No company decides they want to intentionally lose money. 1% or 4% or 9& or whatever percent. It just doesn't happen, silly.

Now, now - they may make decisions to increase their revenues with the understanding that they may lose a couple folks to gain more.

That's probably what you meant, so we'll leave it there.

But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements.

Who said anything of the sort? They absolutely did radically change the game.

Little Byron, I think you and I actually agree on a couple things.

That's just dumb.

I know it is, but it's the truth nonetheless. And I still love you.

WP