If you were asked by your parent company to reduce D&D to it's "bare minimums" what might that look like?
A perpetual, evergreen Essentials line, some monster and hero tokens, some generic maps (tiles) a couple times a year and a flavor of the week board game?
Would you continue to print source material books if you could instead release them digitally?
If D&D were being cancelled or massively scaled back, what might that look like?
If you were asked by your parent company to reduce D&D to it's "bare minimums" what might that look like?
A perpetual, evergreen Essentials line, some monster and hero tokens, some generic maps (tiles) a couple times a year and a flavor of the week board game?
Would you continue to print source material books if you could instead release them digitally?
Actually I think you might be onto something...
I pointed out in another thread that the first two years of 4e saw a release schedule of >1 book per-month plus adventures, settings, race books and tiles. We are now in the middle of a 4 month wait between books and currently only 3 books, 1 supplement (fortune cards) and a couple of tiles sets for the first six months of 2011. This is a drastic change in the business model from 2008-10.
Then I remembered the same things being said in the Star Wars forums here last year, and bam they cancelled it.
I don't think its just paranoia. The whole thing with D&D minis, the Essentials paperback line replacing the hardbook$, all seens to point to exactly this: it's no worth to WotC (or the parental enterprise) cancel D&D (it's a solid brand), it seens better put it on hold/stasis and wait a year or two and release a new edition/variation of the same edition, trying to regain the old good sells of the initial years of 3rd edition.
Hope they at least release they stuff they wrote already for DDI, or direct download or something.
HOWEVER, there is a chance that WotC is simply in a planning phase and is still reviewing its options after going over the Christmas sales figures. I hope we're all pleasantly surprised and we see a few big announcements at the D&D Experience. The fact that this event is still going ahead at all makes me think this is the case. If D&D was somehow being killed off, this event would suck bad and WotC would be better off pulling the plug.
Best guess: The disappeared books will be delayed until later in the year, and perhaps in a different form. The plan for 4e "going forward" is being rejigged a little and this lull is just a bump in the road.
Worst fear: 5e gets announced at D&D Experience.
The recent moves - repackaging the game as Essentials, shifting form minis to more affordable tokens, leveraging digital to more cheaply get content to the hardcore niches - makes sense, in this context. (Putting aside the debate of whether these goals are met by the products/choices. One thread at a time, folks!)
A significant scaling back of the rate at which new D&D products are released is exactly what I've been expecting from WotC for two years now. I'm actually surprised it took this long to happen.
If WotC/Hasbro realised that America and most of the rest of the Western world is still in the midst of the worst economic mess since the 1930s and that their potential customers do not have anywhere near the sort of disposable income they were expecting them to have when they initially planned the rollout of 4th edition, what would that look like?
A significant scaling back of the rate at which new D&D products are released is exactly what I've been expecting from WotC for two years now. I'm actually surprised it took this long to happen.
Frankly, I'm really getting sick and tired of all this bloody whining about economy this and economy that.
I'm officially ****ing poor, according to the numbers, and yet I am still able to eat steak, buy hobby items, and live in a decent apartment.
I think the only people suffering are fools that think they can have it all indefinitely.
Newsflash, owning a car and a house is a rich person trick, and not automatically assured for blue collar schmucks.
Maybe if more people did like me and just accepted that a car and a house is not mandatory, they'd be actually better off.
I don't own a car or a home, but I have everything else.
All about priorities and knowing how to set them.
Oh and NO you do NOT need a car, don't bring up work. You simply don't live where there is no work fool.
What I really want is for them to release all the books they (not quite) promised us at the last GenCon.
I was really excited about Heroes of Sword and Spell and Champions of the Heroic Tier (or whatever it was called). I am still crossing my fingers that the material in those books will still get published. And, if Ravenloft and the Shadowfell boxed set don't get released I will be heartbroken.[Snip intemperate rant]
Wow. OK. Not sure what bearing any of that has on the point I was making, which was just that D&D's customer base doesn't have as much money to spend on shiny new gaming products as WotC/Hasbro probably imagined they would when they started working on 4th edition.
Honestly, I would rather they scaled back product releases, kept sporadically releasing one or two books, and kept up with the DDi releases (basically putting 4e on stasis for a few years), then an announcement that they are releasing 5e. Give it 3 or 4 more years and I would probably be on board for buying books for a new edition. But if they announce a new edition right now, while I won't begrudge that edition, and I won't come here and act the way the 3e crowd did when 4e was released, I also don't think I will be willing to buy 5e books any time soon. It would have to be pretty phenomenal for me to want to play it more than the 4e products I already have... I really like 4e.
What I really want is for them to release all the books they (not quite) promised us at the last GenCon. I was really excited about Heroes of Sword and Spell and Champions of the Heroic Tier (or whatever it was called). I am still crossing my fingers that the material in those books will still get published. And, if Ravenloft and the Shadowfell boxed set don't get released I will be heartbroken.
I agree with everything said here 100%. Although I have to add that as much as I enjoyed 4th edition before Essentials, I absolutely love it now and I'm greatly hoping that all this theorizing turns out to be nothing.
I love both of the current "Heroes of..." books, and I'm greatly looking forward to "Heroes of Shadow" based on the previews we've gotten so far... so I very much hope that we continue to see products like this for some time to come.
And I've been a huge fan of Ravenloft (both the rpg materials and the novels) since back in AD&D 2nd edition so I would also be heartbroken if the proposed Ravenloft campaign setting doesn't come out. (On a side note, I rather dug the recent Ravenloft novels "Heaven's Bones" and "Mithra's Court".)
I agree with everything said here 100%. Although I have to add that as much as I enjoyed 4th edition before Essentials, I absolutely love it now and I'm greatly hoping that all this theorizing turns out to be nothing.
I love both of the current "Heroes of..." books, and I'm greatly looking forward to "Heroes of Shadow" based on the previews we've gotten so far... so I very much hope that we continue to see products like this for some time to come.
And I've been a huge fan of Ravenloft (both the rpg materials and the novels) since back in AD&D 2nd edition so I would also be heartbroken if the proposed Ravenloft campaign setting doesn't come out. (On a side note, I rather dug the recent Ravenloft novels "Heaven's Bones" and "Mithra's Court".)
Oh, I agree with everything you have said 100%. I love Essentials. I think the Essentials products have done the 4e line a lot of good. I am also really looking forward to HoS. And the Shadowfell and Ravenloft products on the horizon have me VERY excited. Ravenloft is one of my all time favorite settings (alongside Dark Sun, Eberron, and Planescape).
If WotC/Hasbro realised that America and most of the rest of the Western world is still in the midst of the worst economic mess since the 1930s and that their potential customers do not have anywhere near the sort of disposable income they were expecting them to have when they initially planned the rollout of 4th edition, what would that look like?
A significant scaling back of the rate at which new D&D products are released is exactly what I've been expecting from WotC for two years now. I'm actually surprised it took this long to happen.
Remember when that one PR guy/representative from Wizards announced
"Now, where going to be scaling back our 2011 product line , don't be alarmed established customer base." ?
Yeah, I don't either...
For a company that in the past seemed to pride itself on its intimacy with its player/fan base, the communication break down has gotten awful. Do they owe it to us? Nah. Would it alleviate a lot of doomsaying? Probably. I personally haven't seen a person named Wotc_"_____" post in quite some time.
If I stop seeing my friend Bill, I'm gonna think one of two things a) he doesn't want to hang out anymore or b) he's dead...
I hope that Essentials backfired and Wizards is back peddling from it. That would be better THAN (not then) continued support for the crap.
I agree, hopefully they will scale back and go back to AEDU pre-E classes. I mean they could really reformat the Slayer and Thief to pre-E format with little effort...
I hope that Essentials backfired and Wizards is back peddling from it. That would be better THAN (not then) continued support for the crap.
That would be terrible... it'd be like "hey we've made the game better and more thematic" then taking it away just because a very vocal minority doesn't like the new direction.
And seeing as how the Red Box was the highest sold RPG product of 2010 (and didn't come out until September) I'd say I'm definately not the only one who enjoys the new products.
Now don't get me wrong, I liked pre-Essentials 4th edition, but for several reasons I don't really want to go into right now ('cause I'd just be rehashing other posts) I'm much happier now. While I greatly enjoyed pre-Essentials 4th, I absolutely love post-Essentials 4th.
I was very happy with both of the "Heroes of..." books that we've gotten so far, and if the previews are any indication I'll most likely love "Heroes of Shadow." (Although I am a little iffy about the Shade starting play with one fewer healing surge. I don't personally see one less surge as that big a problem, but I also know from experiance that other players will complain enough about it to me, as their DM, to give me a headache. There's a good chance that I'll houserule it away.)
If WotC really feels that they need to do something to appease those who don't like the new Essentials style class / sub-class format, then I'd much rather they make roughly a 1/4 of new books and Dragon articles focus on the older pre-Essentials stuff rather than choose to get rid of what I feel was a huge improvement to the game.
If essentials sold well, they won't backpedal from it, and if it sold poorly then the 'vocal minority' isn't actually a minority.
Very true.
I probably don't have to worry about them backpedaling then... unless of course people bought the Red Box and then were dissapointed, like I was, when I found out that the Red Box had little to nothing to do with the rest of the Essentials products... although at least it came with an adventure and a dungeon map.
I hope that Essentials backfired and Wizards is back peddling from it. That would be better THAN (not then) continued support for the crap.
That would be terrible... it'd be like "hey we've made the game better and more thematic" then taking it away just because a very vocal minority doesn't like the new direction.
And seeing as how the Red Box was the highest sold RPG product of 2010 (and didn't come out until September) I'd say I'm definately not the only one who enjoys the new products.
Now don't get me wrong, I liked pre-Essentials 4th edition, but for several reasons I don't really want to go into right now ('cause I'd just be rehashing other posts) I'm much happier now. While I greatly enjoyed pre-Essentials 4th, I absolutely love post-Essentials 4th.
I was very happy with both of the "Heroes of..." books that we've gotten so far, and if the previews are any indication I'll most likely love "Heroes of Shadow." (Although I am a little iffy about the Shade starting play with one fewer healing surge. I don't personally see one less surge as that big a problem, but I also know from experiance that other players will complain enough about it to me, as their DM, to give me a headache. There's a good chance that I'll houserule it away.)
If WotC really feels that they need to do something to appease those who don't like the new Essentials style class / sub-class format, then I'd much rather they make roughly a 1/4 of new books and Dragon articles focus on the older pre-Essentials stuff rather than choose to get rid of what I feel was a huge improvement to the game.
I can see where you are coming from. Well spoken.
Here's hoping...
I also kind of feel that once there's more sub-classes available I hope that it will help the Essentials-haters feel that the new class/sub-class format doesn't hurt choices in the game. (simply shifts where those choices are made)
Here's hoping...
Except that the choices at the low levels of the class is core to our dislike. It doesn't matter if you give us 10 different slayer builds. If we can't choose to change up the slayer at higher levels it will still not be well received...
Take all the comments being made about Heroes of Shadow for instance! There are people who want more E-builds and others that will only buy it if comes with Classic builds. There were people sighing thankfully about the release of the Class Compendium because they took it as evidence as a "bridge" between Essentials and Classic (presenting old builds in the newer format and mechanics that would allow old builds to better integrate with Essentials, as advertised).
Evidently, none of us here have numbers - how many are pro-E? How many will only play Classic? How many mesh the two together? How many don't give a damn? But at any rate, there were no "divides" before Essentials were released - and now we have a number of people who think they're better, a number of people who think they're worst and those who don't care. I don't really think this makes it easier for them to sell D&D :P.
But again, this is all mere speculation based on my own opinion, much like yours
. I'm worried about the lack of books too. And this is a important hint WotC marketing should take.Whatever efforts they may have enacted in the marketing department, I think there are a significant number of customers in their market that have been feeling that D&D 4 has been going downhill since early 2010. And this is dangerous for the continued success of the D&D brand.
Whatever effects Essentials may have had, one thing is clear - they divided the fan base and confuses the hell out of newcomers... Overall, unless they're making spectacularly high sales of Essential books, I don't think that they made a good move.
Take all the comments being made about Heroes of Shadow for instance! There are people who want more E-builds and others that will only buy it if comes with Classic builds. There were people sighing thankfully about the release of the Class Compendium because they took it as evidence as a "bridge" between Essentials and Classic (presenting old builds in the newer format and mechanics that would allow old builds to better integrate with Essentials, as advertised).
Evidently, none of us here have numbers - how many are pro-E? How many will only play Classic? How many mesh the two together? How many don't give a damn? But at any rate, there were no "divides" before Essentials were released - and now we have a number of people who think they're better, a number of people who think they're worst and those who don't care. I don't really think this makes it easier for them to sell D&D :P.
But again, this is all mere speculation based on my own opinion, much like yours
Whatever efforts they may have enacted in the marketing department, I think there are a significant number of customers in their market that have been feeling that D&D 4 has been going downhill since early 2010. And this is dangerous for the continued success of the D&D brand.
Amen! +1.
Whatever effects Essentials may have had, one thing is clear - they divided the fan base and confuses the hell out of newcomers... Overall, unless they're making spectacularly high sales of Essential books, I don't think that they made a good move.
As someone who is a newcomer I can tell you that essentials isn't all that confusing. It's new class builds and it pretty much made getting in the game easier for me. Pre-E books have a huge catalog, and I wasn't sure what it all entailed really. All I knew was the compodium, and Heroes of... books were all I need. They were pretty easy to follow, and have helped me pick up the game pretty fast. I knows there is still a lot I don't know and I do like choices (which Essentials seems to lack), but Essentials was the right step for me. Anything else and I'd have probably been over my head. And I'm enjoying my Slayer alot in encounters.
Evidently, none of us here have numbers - how many are pro-E? How many will only play Classic? How many mesh the two together? How many don't give a damn?
I can answer the last question: pretty much everybody. While on the forums the Essentials-hate has died down in a much-predicted fashion, those who don't come here (read: most D&D players) simply don't care. There is no divide between those people because they are forced to take the products at face value (like everyone here should have done).
All in all, this divide exists in the minds of some forum posters who created it. And it was mostly due to their irrational fear of completely different people doing something another group of people did a decade ago, and their dissatisfaction with the well-above-average amount of preview material we were given about Essentials. And finally we're here, where the haters are coming out of the woodwork again to use the recent cancellation of some products to say that D&D has failed and it's all because of Essentials.
How about this? Let's all just play D&D and stop pretending we're developers and market researchers and designers and everything else. Play the game, read the previews, buy the products you like and send constructive criticism in the form of an e-mail to Wizards. Everyone's obsessive need to be a part of some needless and exaggerated counter-culture is what will ruin this hobby. There are certain people who are always going to complain about everything; especially the things they like. Their inane and purposefully offensive rants make it impossible to tell what really needs to be done with the game. Real concerns are buried within mounds of vile back-and-forth arguments that designers understandably don't want to read, while non-issues and conspiracy theories are blown out of proportion and spread through misinformation, misunderstandings and outright lies being presented as truth in a public forum populated by a fair number of people who are either too lazy or too busy to do their own research on the topics.
Whatever efforts they may have enacted in the marketing department, I think there are a significant number of customers in their market that have been feeling that D&D 4 has been going downhill since early 2010. And this is dangerous for the continued success of the D&D brand.
And so why not clean the slate and start with 5E? I love the concept of 4E as much as the next guy (that would probably be C-D), but the execution has been nothing short of embarrassing. So if most of us are going to spend our money on D&D stuff anyway, why not take the lessons of this edition and try to do something better?
Just because it's a new edition doesn't mean the concept has to be completely different. For example, why not take the concept of powers (one of the hallmarks/best features of 4E), and tweak them in a way that produces less rules conflicts (one of the most frustrating aspects of 4E)? I've always maintained that a good design idea would feature less powers per character, with each power including a quasi-"talent tree" that would allow the player to "level up" his powers, rather than just gaining a bunch of new ones.
Again, I really enjoy 4E, but it's getting way too bogged down. I wouldn't mind cleaning house a little.
This bad communication continued with the character builder and other things. Because of this bad communication they have gone to a blackout model of no communication which as we can see also is leading to more trouble here.
Communication is WotC biggest problem and it is not as simple as some suggest as they have done poorly when talking and not talking.
I love the essentials style classes and I think it is great that we have them but I do wish they had not stuck their feet (yes both of them hence why they cannot talk now) in their mouth and caused this stupid divide.
Again, I really enjoy 4E, but it's getting way too bogged down. I wouldn't mind cleaning house a little.
Yup... and it is my belief that the Essentials line and the new format of Class / Sub-Class / Build is the designers way of un-bogging the game and cleaning house. Now, your choice of first class, then sub-class, then build (Wizard / Mage / Enchantment) dictates most (but not all) of your powers and class features, thus really cleaning up the power selection / leveling up process which had gotten really bogged down and clunky (besides just silly in the cases where you were allowed to take powers that had not a single thing to do with your build.)
Plus, the new format fixes two big problems with pre-E 4th edition... namely, that every build of a class was shoe-horned into the same role simply because the game wasn't set up to do otherwise... and classes that should have had dual-power-source options (like the Ranger and the Swordmage) didn't because the baseline game rules stated that every class had only one Power Source (and only a single Party Role) regardless of what actually made sense.
Yup... and it is my belief that the Essentials line and the new format of Class / Sub-Class / Build is the designers way of un-bogging the game and cleaning house. Now, your choice of first class, then sub-class, then build (Wizard / Mage / Enchantment) dictates most (but not all) of your powers and class features, thus really cleaning up the power selection / leveling up process which had gotten really bogged down and clunky (besides just silly in the cases where you were allowed to take powers that had not a single thing to do with your build.)Taking powers that were not intended for the “build” you chose in 4.0 were the easiest way to differentiate your character from any other character of your class.
In some cases the expected “build” choice at the level was sub-par to another; you just didn’t get the extra rider effect for choosing the better power because the rider was for another “build”.
I cannot think of a single character for 4.0 that I’ve made that followed exactly the presented “build”. This I think is why I dislike essentials so much, I hate to be herded in class progression. When it was all that was available (1st – 3.x ed) it was sub-par but acceptable; going back is not something I’m interested in.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but then I also look back at some of the silliness of the pre-E setup. Granted, choosing a power not meant for your build isn't always silly... but I'll give two specific examples that always cheesed me off.
Warlocks and Sorcerers
Warlocks make a Pact with a powerful supernatural entity to gain some small measure of thier power. (Not totally unlike how Clerics are invested with Divine magic by way of secret rituals.) I totally love this background; I think it's really cool and makes a lot of sense to me. But all that coolness kind of gets thrown out the window when you go to choose your powers (or DM for a player who is playing a Warlock) and find that you can choose any power regardless of Pact. Why in the world would being invested with some of the power of a Devil grant you Fey magics... or why would an Archfey investing you with some of their might give you cosmic horror themed aberrant magic.
My problem with Sorcerers is near identical to my problem with Warlocks, except replace "Pacts with supernatural entities" with "innate sorcerous bloodlines." There should be seperate Bloodlines for Sorcerers descended from Dragons, Angels/Devas, Demons, etc. ... and logically they wouldn't all have access to the same magics.
These two specific instances were not my only problems with the pre-Essentials anything-goes power selection, but were definately the most glaring. None of the others were nearly as bad (at least not that I can think of off the top of my head.) And stuff like that is one of the biggest reasons that I'm very happy to have the new post-Essentials class format.
Also, I feel that some of the "builds" in pre-Essentials weren't nearly different enough to actually be seperate builds or weren't really done all that well. They were only there so that the designers could say "yup, there's two different builds available." Granted, they did start getting a lot better around the time of the Power books.
Edit: Also, I feel that the biggest way to differentiate two characters of the same class is through roleplaying and feats. I could have each member of my gaming group create a Slayer as an experiment... and I'd bet heavily that each of those characters is a very different person who does not do things in exactly the same way.
Yup... and it is my belief that the Essentials line and the new format of Class / Sub-Class / Build is the designers way of un-bogging the game and cleaning house. Now, your choice of first class, then sub-class, then build (Wizard / Mage / Enchantment) dictates most (but not all) of your powers and class features, thus really cleaning up the power selection / leveling up process which had gotten really bogged down and clunky (besides just silly in the cases where you were allowed to take powers that had not a single thing to do with your build.)Taking powers that were not intended for the “build” you chose in 4.0 were the easiest way to differentiate your character from any other character of your class.
In some cases the expected “build” choice at the level was sub-par to another; you just didn’t get the extra rider effect for choosing the better power because the rider was for another “build”.
I cannot think of a single character for 4.0 that I’ve made that followed exactly the presented “build”. This I think is why I dislike essentials so much, I hate to be herded in class progression. When it was all that was available (1st – 3.x ed) it was sub-par but acceptable; going back is not something I’m interested in.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but then I also look back at some of the silliness of the pre-E setup. Granted, choosing a power not meant for your build isn't always silly... but I'll give two specific examples that always cheesed me off.
Warlocks and Sorcerers
Warlocks make a Pact with a powerful supernatural entity to gain some small measure of thier power. (Not totally unlike how Clerics are invested with Divine magic by way of secret rituals.) I totally love this background; I think it's really cool and makes a lot of sense to me. But all that coolness kind of gets thrown out the window when you go to choose your powers (or DM for a player who is playing a Warlock) and find that you can choose any power regardless of Pact. Why in the world would being invested with some of the power of a Devil grant you Fey magics... or why would an Archfey investing you with some of their might give you cosmic horror themed aberrant magic.
My problem with Sorcerers is near identical to my problem with Warlocks, except replace "Pacts with supernatural entities" with "innate sorcerous bloodlines." There should be seperate Bloodlines for Sorcerers descended from Dragons, Angels/Devas, Demons, etc. ... and logically they wouldn't all have access to the same magics.
These two specific instances were not my only problems with the pre-Essentials anything-goes power selection, but were definately the most glaring. None of the others were nearly as bad (at least not that I can think of off the top of my head.) And stuff like that is one of the biggest reasons that I'm very happy to have the new post-Essentials class format.
Also, I feel that some of the "builds" in pre-Essentials weren't nearly different enough to actually be seperate builds or weren't really done all that well. They were only there so that the designers could say "yup, there's two different builds available." Granted, they did start getting a lot better around the time of the Power books.
Edit: Also, I feel that the biggest way to differentiate two characters of the same class is through roleplaying and feats. I could have each member of my gaming group create a Slayer as an experiment... and I'd bet heavily that each of those characters is a very different person who does not do things in exactly the same way.
The problem is that you could play your Sorcerer or Warlock as getting exactly the right flavored powers and I could choose completely wonky choices that seemingly made no sense, and we'd both be happy. With Essentials you can't do this.
While I agree that you can differentiate two characters of the same class and race through roleplaying and possibly feats, it shouldn't be limited to that, we should be able to differentiate them by choices as they level AND roleplaying. Not one or the other. Remember the Tenents of 3.X and 4E are not to favor roleplayers over power gamers. Give them both things to work with.
I'd also like to say the Hexblade can still pick "out of pact" dailies, so they still didnt fit it exactly.
The old system was good because it could please most people. Certain power outside your pact? Reflavor. Now if a subclass isnt the way you like it, its take it or leave it.
Honestly, I like options, and I dont like having a super small pool of powers, like the slayer does. I dont see what seems thematic about doing the same thing over and over, its why I don't like the execution of the power point classes either.
Yup... and it is my belief that the Essentials line and the new format of Class / Sub-Class / Build is the designers way of un-bogging the game and cleaning house.
But in order to "clean house," you need to actually clean something out. I have no problem with Essentials in a vaccuum. What bothers me is that these classes were just schlepped onto the rest of 4E, and the designers basically crossed their fingers and hoped that everything would be compatible.
In fact, this whole edition has been characterized by layering upon layering upon layering. And until Essentials, each of those layers has added more and more complexity (basic classes, animal companions, Wild Shape and Chaos Sorcerers, psionics, etc.). What happens is that each layer makes the game more involved, increases the potential for conflicts between design elements, and makes the game less accessible for players (unless you just willingly blind yourself to everything pre-E).
I would have preferred 4.5E. At least that would have created a clean break and allowed the designers to start from a semi-clean slate. Instead, we've got chocolate in the peanut butter, so to speak. And "chocolate" is code for "shoddy pre-E execution."
I'd also like to say the Hexblade can still pick "out of pact" dailies, so they still didnt fit it exactly.
yeah, I know
it's like they came sooo close to actually fixing the class and making it make sense to their own background fluff, but then decided to leave just a little screwy for no apparent reason.
As for reflavoring powers that were meant for one Pact to make them fit another... I see no real problem with that (hell, we even had a Dragon article about it recently), but it's something that would be between you and or DM. It's time for you to receive a new power from your Pact, but you prefer a power from one of the other Pacts and think that you can reflavor it to fit in with the theme and background of the Pact you chose... ask your DM about, and their really shouldn't be a problem just switching them out.
Despite that though, I don't really think that that should be the default assumption. By default, a Necrotic power is necrotic and a Radiant power is radiant... relavoring is not part part of that equation, it's a houserule.
Other classes, even the sorc, it isnt as pronounced (especially since one build is even intentionally chaotic), as most follow a mostly core theme.
I will say, I am usually the DM these days, and I honestly dont care if a fireball is a a ball of fire, an eruption from hell or an elemental plane, a glowing explosion from the heavens, or a d-born taking a deep breath. If the mechanics are the same, and it looks cool for the character, I dont see why not.
However, in the old system, you could choose all star pact powers for you star pact warlock, and i could mix and match because i find its dual-primary annoying, and some feypact powers really kind of fit the illusions and far-realmy stuff of the stars, or dark pact powers that help emphasis the power of the void, possibly better than the star powers at certain levels. I dont see why this would make either party upset.
Now, your mostly locked in. So now one of us is happy, the other unhappy.
Yup... and it is my belief that the Essentials line and the new format of Class / Sub-Class / Build is the designers way of un-bogging the game and cleaning house.
But in order to "clean house," you need to actually clean something out. I have no problem with Essentials in a vaccuum. What bothers me is that these classes were just schlepped onto the rest of 4E, and the designers basically crossed their fingers and hoped that everything would be compatible.
In fact, this whole edition has been characterized by layering upon layering upon layering. And until Essentials, each of those layers has added more and more complexity (basic classes, animal companions, Wild Shape and Chaos Sorcerers, psionics, etc.). What happens is that each layer makes the game more involved, increases the potential for conflicts between design elements, and makes the game less accessible for players (unless you just willingly blind yourself to everything pre-E).
I would have preferred 4.5E. At least that would have created a clean break and allowed the designers to start from a semi-clean slate. Instead, we've got chocolate in the peanut butter, so to speak. And "chocolate" is code for "shoddy pre-E execution."
In a lot of ways I really agree with you, except that the "layering" you're talking about almost seems like an inevitable part of every edition. (not that that's a good thing.)
Also, I do understand why they wanted to try to make the new format compatible with the old. For better or for worse, they seemed to think that by not making this stuff a true, new ".5" edition that they'd be able to update the game and move it forward in a new direction without pissing off the fans of what came before too severely. Whether they'll succeed in the long run or if it was even a good idea to try is highly debatable.
I idea, in theory, is that within the same gaming group some players can be playing new-format classes and some can be playing old-format classes and that this shouldn't cause much problem when playing. I can't really attest personally to whether or not this works as intended because my gaming group has switched entirely to only playing new-format classes... we just feel that they're better designed and more thematic.
Granted, we're also in the process of designing some of our own classes and sub-classes, so about half of my players are actually playtesting some of the classes we're designing while the other half is playing classes from the "Heroes of..." books.
A couple more comments!
Good to see you again Loonmaxx
. First, let me say I don't disagree with many of your comments! And I certainly agree with your last paragraph! ^^ I just don't share your opinion about the divide existing solely on these forums. At least, it seems to happen across the net - the brazilian forums I visit are torn apart by the same divide. At some level, this has to have some bearing on reality. A poster who says that he only play Essentials will only be buying products for the Essential line - and that separates him from someone who will only play Classic. Again, there are countless bloggers stating similar decisions and/or ideas, both american and brazilians.
One of the reasons I'm not participating in the new Encounter programs is just that they will only allow Essential books! That's also a divide. So I don't know how "virtual" or how "immaterial" this divide really is...
And just to be clear, I don't think the cancellation of the new books is a consequence of the Essentials! I just think they were a bad move - the E-line could be released the exact way they were, but the communication/marketing part, as Crimson Dawn suggested, was done poorly, and reflected bad for the company. I would love the new options, if I didn't felt they were dividing the way the game is played
.For those who dislike Essentials, whatever their number, last year was bad - with the lack of books, the numerous controversies (encounters E-only, CB going on-line only, etc). Hell, even for those that like Essentials, there was pretty much to be afraid last year! And with these new cancellations and annoucements, things certainly don't look good for those who like any kind of D&D 4ed RPG style of play!
Battles14, you'll certainly find no disagreement from me about 5th! There's certainly a lot of confusion about all the changes Wizards implemented in 4th since last year, and this has generated a lot of bad feeling. Besides, the design tenets for 4th have changed in drastic ways, most clearly with the Essential line, but many interesting subsystems were created and left behind and some ideas were simply not fully explored. A 5th edition, another clean slate, would solve most of all these "problems"
. However, I don't think this would be economically feasible for them. Releasing 5th at this time would just further divide the fanbase. Who is to say that this 5th will not be plagued by the same problems 2 years after its release? If there is something Wizards is teaching me, as a customer, is to buy their editions 2 years after they launched, to see if they reeeeally are being carefully developing it in a coherent direction
. But again, 5th would be better than to "freeze 4th until the storm passes", at least for us customers. This may be problematic in the company end of the game though :P.And I couldn't agree more with you that Essentials have not really helped "cleaning the slate" for 4th. Perhaps they will clean, but for that Classic must be abandoned - and again, that seems to be problematic...
------
But let us not unfocus this thread. Essentials were not the problem. These products are fine, and have their niche among all the fanbase. It was the management of the E-line that caused controversies (and still causes. I really think we're in the "deep breath" until Heroes of Shadow is released and the debate of the "future direction of 4th" is rekindled). And most important, the management of the E-line is even less problematic than all the controversies sparked by the update process, the changes in the magazines, the move to on-line CB, etc.
My only point is that Wizards racked up too many "negative points" too fast. People are worried, and it's only natural - we all love the game we are playing, and will all be very vocal with our opinions about the subject
. Everyone here in this thread is preoccupied with the meaning of all these cancellations and annoucements. Everyone here want this game to thrive, and that's why such news leave us all frightned .All I'm saying that as a classic 4e fan, I wouldn't be opposed to read a good new about the game here in the next couple of weeks
. It's been months since I had any news that would make me feel "whooooo, that's nice!" about 4e, and I think this feeling may be shared by some of the fanbase! :PAgain people, we're all in the same side here, even though we may like different ways to play 4e! ^^ Keep that in mind
.In a lot of ways I really agree with you, except that the "layering" you're talking about almost seems like an inevitable part of every edition. (not that that's a good thing.)
I completely agree. It's inevitable. But it also serves as a good barometer of when it's time to wind down and start thinking about a new edition. So I'd argue that it should be limited as much as possible, in order to increase the longevity of a particular edition (and decrease the consumer fatigue of constantly having to buy new books).