If it's the Heroes of Random Phrase book I'm thinking of, it was cancelled. The content will be distributed via other means (most people assume that means "via D&D Insider").
At DDXP they said that some of it was goin into another book..
At DDXP they said that some of it was goin into another book..
Did they say book? I read it as if you don't have DDi; Frack off.
What I got was they are going to find other ways to deliver this content. Which probably means yes, some of it will be distrubitted via DDi, to increase it's value.
Which as a paying customer, I think is fine. I can see how a non DDi customer wouldn't.
At DDXP they said that some of it was goin into another book..
Did they say book? I read it as if you don't have DDi; Frack off.
You are also quite well known for viewing EVERYTHING WotC does as a personnal affront to yourself.
Essentials doesn't suck. In fact, it is probably the best set of splat books released for 4e so far...
Even if I don't own the books, I certainly hope so, it's their second attempt at the same stuff, it should be better the second time around, if not there is a problem.
Essentials doesn't suck. In fact, it is probably the best set of splat books released for 4e so far...Opinions based on retro grade classes. I'm not interested in retro. Retro has no place in game design.
No, those are my opinions based on the quality of the product. High quality, well balanced, retro style classes have a HUGE place in game design; they appeal to the game's legacy. If the classes were not well balanced, not high quality, and recalled the imbalance of previous editions, I wouldn't like them. Instead they recall all the flavor, but keep all the balance and well oiled mechanics of 4e.
Essentials doesn't suck. In fact, it is probably the best set of splat books released for 4e so far...
complete agreeance x14 (myself plus all the players I normally DM for)
Essentials doesn't suck. In fact, it is probably the best set of splat books released for 4e so far...
However, this is an opinion based on your desire for more legacy in 4th edition material. For those of us who dislike the reintroduction of legacy material we had thought was gone, this is detrimental to the overall experience, not enhancing.
Please note: I am not saying that nothing should ever change. Since 4e is my favorite edition of D&D to date, it is obvious that I am ok with change. But, to expect that a game not appeal to its legacy when it has such a rich history of it, when so many fans buy the brand because of that legacy, is ridiculous in the extreme. And, to claim that your experience has in any way suffered because of the incorporation of a bunch of splat material that happens to have more appeal to players other than yourself is completely unreasonable. Nobody has removed any of your favorite classes from the game. All they have done is give some classes with legacy appeal to those of us who really wanted them.
At DDXP they said that some of it was goin into another book..
Did they say book? I read it as if you don't have DDi; Frack off.
You are also quite well known for viewing EVERYTHING WotC does as a personnal affront to yourself.
You need to go back and read the Q&A stuff that was posted. They specifically said the content from the HoSS (Heroes of sword and spell) was being split up and put into other books...
Well, see, I want to play D&D. D&D is a name that exists on the wave of legacy. Remove that legacy and you are no longer playing D&D, at least insofar as that term recalls a particular history of tropes. If I wanted to play a game other than D&D I would not keep buying D&D brand name products. Thankfully, Essentials has satisfied my desire to play D&D. As for your desire that 4e not introduce any legacy to its product line, perhaps you should remember that 4e is not the most important part of the title. The most important part of the title is the actual name of the brand, Dungeons and Dragons. If you weren't interested in playing a game that has some legacy behind it, perhaps you should not have bought into a game that has so much history...
Please note: I am not saying that nothing should ever change. Since 4e is my favorite edition of D&D to date, it is obvious that I am ok with change. But, to expect that a game not appeal to its legacy when it has such a rich history of it, when so many fans buy the brand because of that legacy, is ridiculous in the extreme. And, to claim that your experience has in any way suffered because of the incorporation of a bunch of splat material that happens to have more appeal to players other than yourself is completely unreasonable. Nobody has removed any of your favorite classes from the game. All they have done is give some classes with legacy appeal to those of us who really wanted them.
I wouldn't want them to remove all the legacy. I had just understood that some of the less attractive (to me) legacy was gone. I love that mimics, beholders, dragons, gnolls, etc are still a whole part of the brand. I am happy that they kept alignment around. I love the "here but different" feel of the AEDU class design. You can be a fighter just like before, but now he has options that are more than "hit".
For me, an example would be comparing the original Final Fantasy with Final Fantasy IX. In the original Final Fantasy, the white and black and red mages got spells, all the fighter, thief or martial artist got were attacks. Much later they could get some weak spells, but their options weren't more than Attack, Defend and Item for all practical purposes. Bringing in Final Fantasy IX which was intended to pay homage to Final Fantasy while moving forward, and the thief, knight, martial artist and lancer all have super special powers that work similar to spells that they can learn. Some are more healing powers, some steal from the enemy, plenty do damage. Final Fantasy IX is still my favorite of the series for exactly that reason; it kept the legacy that should stay, but it also made each character feel usable instead of useless (Final Fantasy 6, with it's everyone can learn spells system was wonderful too, as each character still had interesting secondary abilities). 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons was like the FFIX of the D&D editions for me: all the fun of the old editions with plenty new to get excited about. Essentials feels as if they thought they made a mistake, and have decided to return to old Final Fa. . . D&D.
Kalnaur, that is all great and dandy, but not everyone agrees with you. I don't. I don't see any reason why those of us who don't agree with you should not be catered to as well. Moreover, I don't see how a few products that cater to us in any way undermine or negativly effect your enjoyment of 4e. Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
I sure see a lot of disappointment behind posts that at first seems to put forth a sense of entitlement, but I think it's more the former than being spoiled and rabid. People are disappointed that their preferred version of the game will have no more new material.
Personally, I don't really like Essentials, but I see how some can enjoy it and I see it simply as the end of my favorite edition, just like if 4th ended altoghether. That's not the end of the world really, it's only a game.
I decided to stick with the products I have which will continue to provide many more hours of fun and will wait for 5th for new material (tiles and campaign settings excluded maybe).
In the meantime, if Wizards can do some tests, trials and errors with Essentials in preparation for the next edition, I'm only glad because it will mean that the game will improve like it did from previous editions to newer, and the next edition I play will be even better for that I'm sure.
When I look at the past products, we have had a new edition or a .5 every 3 -5 years since 3rd?...That puts us at 2012-2013? (assuming the Mayans were wrong...)
The Mayan calander only calculates the predicted point in time when a very specific celestial phenomena was to occur. One which had deep religious significance for them (as it marked the death/rebirth of one of their most sacred gods), and whose date was pinpointed based on their understanding of celestial movements and mathematics.
While I cannot recall the specifics, this event has something to do with a Celestial body (or Constellation) crossing the Photon Belt, and is little more than the ending/beginning of a new Age.
It boggles my mind how this religious event came to be synonymous with the armageddon [not to be confused with an/the apocalypse as an apocalypse is a phase of awakening/enlightenment whose literal translation is Lifting the Veil (from ones eyes) ]
The World has ended numerous times anyway. The Paleolithic World, Ancient World, Dark/Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Industrial Worlds have all come and gone.
In fact, the World has ended at least once within some peoples lifetime (with the passing of the Industrial Age sometime within the early-mid 20th C and the rise of the Information Age which began some time near the start of the Cold War and which has accelerated exponentially with the arrival of the internet).
Oh how I hate how definitions evolve over time. It causes so many people to misinterpret the intentions of pre-modern scholars, and come to widely inaccurate conclusions as a result.
As a tangent - the Mayans were not wrong, our interpretation of its significance however IS.
The Mayan calander only calculates the predicted point in time when a very specific celestial phenomena was to occur. One which had deep religious significance for them (as it marked the death/rebirth of one of their most sacred gods), and whose date was pinpointed based on their understanding of celestial movements and mathematics.
While I cannot recall the specifics, this event has something to do with a Celestial body (or Constellation) crossing the Photon Belt, and is little more than the ending/beginning of a new Age.
It boggles my mind how this religious event came to be synonymous with the armageddon [not to be confused with an/the apocalypse as an apocalypse is a phase of awakening/enlightenment whose literal translation is Lifting the Veil (from ones eyes) ]
The World has ended numerous times anyway. The Paleolithic World, Ancient World, Dark/Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Industrial Worlds have all come and gone.
In fact, the World has ended at least once within some peoples lifetime (with the passing of the Industrial Age sometime within the early-mid 20th C and the rise of the Information Age which began some time near the start of the Cold War and which has accelerated exponentially with the arrival of the internet).
Oh how I hate how definitions evolve over time. It causes so many people to misinterpret the intentions of pre-modern scholars, and come to widely inaccurate conclusions as a result.
+1
For all intents and purposes Essentials is our .5 edition. It is meant to revive the game, attract new players, bring old players in, and generally sell more products. Whether its backwards compatible or not doesn't matter. Its meant to keep D&D going for another year without a new edition...
As a tangent - the Mayans were not wrong, our interpretation of its significance however IS.
The Mayan calander only calculates the predicted point in time when a very specific celestial phenomena was to occur. One which had deep religious significance for them (as it marked the death/rebirth of one of their most sacred gods), and whose date was pinpointed based on their understanding of celestial movements and mathematics.
While I cannot recall the specifics, this event has something to do with a Celestial body (or Constellation) crossing the Photon Belt, and is little more than the ending/beginning of a new Age.
It boggles my mind how this religious event came to be synonymous with the armageddon [not to be confused with an/the apocalypse as an apocalypse is a phase of awakening/enlightenment whose literal translation is Lifting the Veil (from ones eyes) ]
The World has ended numerous times anyway. The Paleolithic World, Ancient World, Dark/Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Industrial Worlds have all come and gone.
In fact, the World has ended at least once within some peoples lifetime (with the passing of the Industrial Age sometime within the early-mid 20th C and the rise of the Information Age which began some time near the start of the Cold War and which has accelerated exponentially with the arrival of the internet).
Oh how I hate how definitions evolve over time. It causes so many people to misinterpret the intentions of pre-modern scholars, and come to widely inaccurate conclusions as a result.
+1
For all intents and purposes Essentials is our .5 edition. It is meant to revive the game, attract new players, bring old players in, and generally sell more products. Whether its backwards compatible or not doesn't matter. Its meant to keep D&D going for another year without a new edition...
More or less my thinking also, on both accounts. I was using the Mayan example as bad humor obviously.
No Thunder_Dragonborn, what I see are rabid, salivating, spoiled, children. That is about the only description I can think of to describe people who say that something that others love, that has no real effect on their lives or gaming experience, should be killed with fire. These new classes don't take your old classes away. Why, exactly, shouldn't those that prefer the new class structures be allowed to play them? Why, exactly, shouldn't those who prefer the new class structure have a few products that cater to them? Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
Kalnaur, that is all great and dandy, but not everyone agrees with you. I don't. I don't see any reason why those of us who don't agree with you should not be catered to as well. Moreover, I don't see how a few products that cater to us in any way undermine or negativly effect your enjoyment of 4e. Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
No effect on our lives and gaming experience you say? DnD encounters now bars our favorite builds, and LFR has changed how it gives us treasure. The ability to use old builds in official play outside of FR will finally be reallowed, but only if you buy the fortune cards. Our future classes were stolen to fit the new model: necromancer, dark knight, and new builds for Ossassin. Our book pages and magazine articles are crammed with fluff, over especially non-inspiring elements as the per level statboosts or needlessly echoing the flavor text of a power, while things like Runepriest languish in a tiny option pool. PHB4 become Heroes of Heroic Tier, then was cancelled, while Heroes of Shadows, the next closest thing, misses the March window for new major player book, and no new power books on the horizon.
Even if Essentials has done great things for you, it's not innocent nor harmless to my interests.
yeah soooooo.......... endlessly repeated arguments aside has there actually been any new info on the content of heroes of sword and spell?
No word as yet. I am eagerly awaiting announcement of the 4E/Essentials transparency rules, which I assume will be released either in Dragon, or via some as-yet announced supplement.
No Thunder_Dragonborn, what I see are rabid, salivating, spoiled, children. That is about the only description I can think of to describe people who say that something that others love, that has no real effect on their lives or gaming experience, should be killed with fire. These new classes don't take your old classes away. Why, exactly, shouldn't those that prefer the new class structures be allowed to play them? Why, exactly, shouldn't those who prefer the new class structure have a few products that cater to them? Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
Kalnaur, that is all great and dandy, but not everyone agrees with you. I don't. I don't see any reason why those of us who don't agree with you should not be catered to as well. Moreover, I don't see how a few products that cater to us in any way undermine or negativly effect your enjoyment of 4e. Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
I have said once and again that my only reason for disliking Essentials designs are that they have let us know that it is the design headspace going forward, without actually telling us what that means. If it means I get not a single other bit of support for the original classes due to Essentials design and layout, I'll be super-pissed. If it means that they are taking some ideas forward (sub-classes, for example) while keeping earlier 4th ed concepts going as well (further support for and new classes with the original and uniform design of the PHB classes), I will be the first to join hands with you and agree to enjoy what we both love: the 4th edition that means D&D for each of us.
No, those are my opinions based on the quality of the product. High quality, well balanced, retro style classes have a HUGE place in game design.
High quality? Defender and Leader feature homogeny =! high quality, it equals "easy to write". In fact, the majority of the essentials line seems to be about what's easy to get out the door: a class with exactly one attack power doesn't need much proofreading right? It's like a restauraunt putting out a bowl of lettice where they used to have a salad bar and calling it "and increase in quality." And yet, somehow, they still screw it up: the scout's single encounter power is functionless due to a lack of attention to rules, the Hexblade is just confusing once you try to parse rules for AIP or Dual Wielding Spellcaster or Pact Blades or some multiclassing (or even if you don't, for alot of the new players the line is ostensably aimed at) Not to mention the bullox they made of some of the rules in the Rules Compendium: there's one set of criteria for how to tell if a power (not otherwise designated as such) is an attack power or not, and another set of criteria to determine if a power is an attack. Try explaining that to a new player, please, I'd enjoy that.
Well balanced? At the same time they were homogenizing some roles, they've tossed whatever semblance of balance there was in striker features out the window. Slayer bonus damage is every attack, Thief and Executioner is 1/turn, and the Scout's is 1/round. Why? It's not clear why they made these destinctions, but it makes a Slayer more powerful right of the bat with action points, dispite their superiority in HP, Defenses, Mobility, and Saves. Is a Hunter a comperable controller to a Mage? Can he even do the same damage as a mage? No, he's strictly inferior.
That's not even mentioning the balance issues they've introduced when blending pre-E and post-E classes and elements. Knights that deal +4xCon Damage at level 11, while proning and dazing on each attack with no str required... because they didn't forsee (or care about) the disparity in how melee basic attacks are treated between the two systems. How about the fact that with a slayer in a party with a Warlord, the leader is dealing striker+ damage? That's cool, right two roles at once? Neat trick right? Melee training, already a requirement (as in, mathematically CRITICAL) for classes like the battlemind, was nerfed to make it so the new classes can't abuse it (they abuse other stuff anyway) leaving said classes with huge holes in how they function.
How does the Artificer work with the new magic item system? Some features and powers are insanely overpowered while others are signifigantly deminished and still others are now entirely useless... and this is balanced? Compare the effectiveness of the new defender aura with any of the old defender mark/enforcement capability, and try to tell me they're balanced. "If the enemy gets away..." you say, and I laugh, because the chances they would get away are so slim the PC should hope to GOD they try it... compared to the -2 to attacks someone gets for shift-charging away from a warden or battlemind, or the NOTHING an enemy gets when it does the same away from a paladin or fight that didn't manage to get a mark on something adjacent to him. That disparity is balanced to you?
Sorry for the rant. It's just I find it odd that so many people can have such a strange opinion on "quality" and "balance".
No, those are my opinions based on the quality of the product. High quality, well balanced, retro style classes have a HUGE place in game design.
High quality? Defender and Leader feature homogeny =! high quality, it equals "easy to write". In fact, the majority of the essentials line seems to be about what's easy to get out the door: a class with exactly one attack power doesn't need much proofreading right? It's like a restauraunt putting out a bowl of lettice where they used to have a salad bar and calling it "and increase in quality." And yet, somehow, they still screw it up: the scout's single encounter power is functionless due to a lack of attention to rules, the Hexblade is just confusing once you try to parse rules for AIP or Dual Wielding Spellcaster or Pact Blades or some multiclassing (or even if you don't, for alot of the new players the line is ostensably aimed at) Not to mention the bullox they made of some of the rules in the Rules Compendium: there's one set of criteria for how to tell if a power (not otherwise designated as such) is an attack power or not, and another set of criteria to determine if a power is an attack. Try explaining that to a new player, please, I'd enjoy that.
Well balanced? At the same time they were homogenizing some roles, they've tossed whatever semblance of balance there was in striker features out the window. Slayer bonus damage is every attack, Thief and Executioner is 1/turn, and the Scout's is 1/round. Why? It's not clear why they made these destinctions, but it makes a Slayer more powerful right of the bat with action points, dispite their superiority in HP, Defenses, Mobility, and Saves. Is a Hunter a comperable controller to a Mage? Can he even do the same damage as a mage? No, he's strictly inferior.
That's not even mentioning the balance issues they've introduced when blending pre-E and post-E classes and elements. Knights that deal +4xCon Damage at level 11, while proning and dazing on each attack with no str required... because they didn't forsee (or care about) the disparity in how melee basic attacks are treated between the two systems. How about the fact that with a slayer in a party with a Warlord, the leader is dealing striker+ damage? That's cool, right two roles at once? Neat trick right? Melee training, already a requirement (as in, mathematically CRITICAL) for classes like the battlemind, was nerfed to make it so the new classes can't abuse it (they abuse other stuff anyway) leaving said classes with huge holes in how they function.
How does the Artificer work with the new magic item system? Some features and powers are insanely overpowered while others are signifigantly deminished and still others are now entirely useless... and this is balanced? Compare the effectiveness of the new defender aura with any of the old defender mark/enforcement capability, and try to tell me they're balanced. "If the enemy gets away..." you say, and I laugh, because the chances they would get away are so slim the PC should hope to GOD they try it... compared to the -2 to attacks someone gets for shift-charging away from a warden or battlemind, or the NOTHING an enemy gets when it does the same away from a paladin or fight that didn't manage to get a mark on something adjacent to him. That disparity is balanced to you?
Sorry for the rant. It's just I find it odd that so many people can have such a strange opinion on "quality" and "balance".
+1
Well said. Don't forget the lack of options as an Essentials character advances...
Edit: Didn't they announce at DDXP that the content from HoSS was going to be split into different books?
High quality? Defender and Leader feature homogeny =! high quality, it equals "easy to write". In fact, the majority of the essentials line seems to be about what's easy to get out the door: a class with exactly one attack power doesn't need much proofreading right? It's like a restauraunt putting out a bowl of lettice where they used to have a salad bar and calling it "and increase in quality." And yet, somehow, they still screw it up: the scout's single encounter power is functionless due to a lack of attention to rules, the Hexblade is just confusing once you try to parse rules for AIP or Dual Wielding Spellcaster or Pact Blades or some multiclassing (or even if you don't, for alot of the new players the line is ostensably aimed at) Not to mention the bullox they made of some of the rules in the Rules Compendium: there's one set of criteria for how to tell if a power (not otherwise designated as such) is an attack power or not, and another set of criteria to determine if a power is an attack. Try explaining that to a new player, please, I'd enjoy that.
Defender and leader feature homogeny? You are going to have to explain that, because there is more to differentiate the class features of the essentials classes than is evident in what has come before. And, I don't agree that the Hexblade is confusing, nor do I agree that the Rules Compendium is confusing. It all seems pretty clear cut to me.
Well balanced? At the same time they were homogenizing some roles, they've tossed whatever semblance of balance there was in striker features out the window. Slayer bonus damage is every attack, Thief and Executioner is 1/turn, and the Scout's is 1/round. Why? It's not clear why they made these destinctions, but it makes a Slayer more powerful right of the bat with action points, dispite their superiority in HP, Defenses, Mobility, and Saves. Is a Hunter a comperable controller to a Mage? Can he even do the same damage as a mage? No, he's strictly inferior.
That's not even mentioning the balance issues they've introduced when blending pre-E and post-E classes and elements. Knights that deal +4xCon Damage at level 11, while proning and dazing on each attack with no str required... because they didn't forsee (or care about) the disparity in how melee basic attacks are treated between the two systems. How about the fact that with a slayer in a party with a Warlord, the leader is dealing striker+ damage? That's cool, right two roles at once? Neat trick right? Melee training, already a requirement (as in, mathematically CRITICAL) for classes like the battlemind, was nerfed to make it so the new classes can't abuse it (they abuse other stuff anyway) leaving said classes with huge holes in how they function.
How does the Artificer work with the new magic item system? Some features and powers are insanely overpowered while others are signifigantly deminished and still others are now entirely useless... and this is balanced? Compare the effectiveness of the new defender aura with any of the old defender mark/enforcement capability, and try to tell me they're balanced. "If the enemy gets away..." you say, and I laugh, because the chances they would get away are so slim the PC should hope to GOD they try it... compared to the -2 to attacks someone gets for shift-charging away from a warden or battlemind, or the NOTHING an enemy gets when it does the same away from a paladin or fight that didn't manage to get a mark on something adjacent to him. That disparity is balanced to you?
Sorry for the rant. It's just I find it odd that so many people can have such a strange opinion on "quality" and "balance".
You are not forgiven. That rant was a load of hogwash. Despite making a lot of claims, almost none of them are true. I have checked the numbers in the CharOp forum, comparing the new E classes to character builds created using older classes. The numbers don't agree with what you are saying. The E classes are not overpowered. Hell, the current reigning DPR kings are still created using older classes. And, despite your claim that there is a huge disparity in E striker effectiveness, there is not. The reason the scout has a once per round striker feature while the other classes have a once per turn striker feature is because twin attacks can be used to pump out a whole lot more DPR on your round than what the other striker class features can amount to. About the only complaint you have which is justified is the one you make in regards to the scout feature being broken (thankfully my DM allows me to run the scout as per the RAI instead of the RAW), and the new magic item rules not being created with the Artificer in mind.
So yes, I call Essentials both balanced and high quality. They are, bar none, my favorite 4e splat books.
No Thunder_Dragonborn, what I see are rabid, salivating, spoiled, children. That is about the only description I can think of to describe people who say that something that others love, that has no real effect on their lives or gaming experience, should be killed with fire. These new classes don't take your old classes away. Why, exactly, shouldn't those that prefer the new class structures be allowed to play them? Why, exactly, shouldn't those who prefer the new class structure have a few products that cater to them? Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
Kalnaur, that is all great and dandy, but not everyone agrees with you. I don't. I don't see any reason why those of us who don't agree with you should not be catered to as well. Moreover, I don't see how a few products that cater to us in any way undermine or negativly effect your enjoyment of 4e. Again, its not like the old classes were removed...
No effect on our lives and gaming experience you say? DnD encounters now bars our favorite builds, and LFR has changed how it gives us treasure. The ability to use old builds in official play outside of FR will finally be reallowed, but only if you buy the fortune cards. Our future classes were stolen to fit the new model: necromancer, dark knight, and new builds for Ossassin. Our book pages and magazine articles are crammed with fluff, over especially non-inspiring elements as the per level statboosts or needlessly echoing the flavor text of a power, while things like Runepriest languish in a tiny option pool. PHB4 become Heroes of Heroic Tier, then was cancelled, while Heroes of Shadows, the next closest thing, misses the March window for new major player book, and no new power books on the horizon.
Even if Essentials has done great things for you, it's not innocent nor harmless to my interests.
If you want to complain about the way WotC is running their encounters program I won't step in your way. I understand your complaints, and support them. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with Essentials. It has to do with the way WotC is running the program, as evinced by the way they are now making mistakes in regards to forcing players to buy fortune cards (which has nothing to do with Essentials one way or the other, and is, in my opinion, a whole lot more offensive than telling people that they can only run characters from the most recent books released).
As for the rest, what a load of bull. You have 13 books (and 2 race pamphlets) dedicated to character creation using pre-E builds. You can live while those of us who prefer Essentials style classes get a few splat books geared towards satisfying us. The fact that the new material is geared towards satisfying us in no way ruins your D&D games. It does not take away the older classes. You can continue to use those 13 books (and 2 race pamphlets) to build and play the type of characters you prefer.
I have said once and again that my only reason for disliking Essentials designs are that they have let us know that it is the design headspace going forward, without actually telling us what that means. If it means I get not a single other bit of support for the original classes due to Essentials design and layout, I'll be super-pissed. If it means that they are taking some ideas forward (sub-classes, for example) while keeping earlier 4th ed concepts going as well (further support for and new classes with the original and uniform design of the PHB classes), I will be the first to join hands with you and agree to enjoy what we both love: the 4th edition that means D&D for each of us.
That is fair. Though, I think it is also fair to expect them to build and focus on their Essentials foundation for a short while. After all, there are 13 books (and 2 race pamphlets) dedicated to pre-E classes right now. There are only 2 books geared towards Essentials style characters (so far).
I would, however, like to point out that WotC has continued to support older class builds via Dragon magazine. So, I think it is objectively evident that WotC is currently doing exactly what you want them to, at least in so far as you have described your desires in that post...
I have said once and again that my only reason for disliking Essentials designs are that they have let us know that it is the design headspace going forward, without actually telling us what that means. If it means I get not a single other bit of support for the original classes due to Essentials design and layout, I'll be super-pissed. If it means that they are taking some ideas forward (sub-classes, for example) while keeping earlier 4th ed concepts going as well (further support for and new classes with the original and uniform design of the PHB classes), I will be the first to join hands with you and agree to enjoy what we both love: the 4th edition that means D&D for each of us.
That is fair. Though, I think it is also fair to expect them to build and focus on their Essentials foundation for a short while. After all, there are 13 books (and 2 race pamphlets) dedicated to pre-E classes right now. There are only 2 books geared towards Essentials style characters (so far).
I would, however, like to point out that WotC has continued to support older class builds via Dragon magazine. So, I think it is objectively evident that WotC is currently doing exactly what you want them to, at least in so far as you have described your desires in that post...
I wouldn't call a couple of holdover articles support, but whatever...
You said "no real effect on their lives or gaming experience", but now I'm waiting over 5 months for a book worth buying, and 80% if not 100% of the new classes (rather then retreads for your new system) are Essential only. With the staggeringly little amount of effort it takes to produce something like the recent "Feyknight" arcticle, you'd think everyone at Wizards besides Schwab would have a little time to throw me a bone. His Ardent article this month was half a year old anyway.
I wouldn't call a couple of holdover articles support, but whatever...
Of course you wouldn't. You get articles that support pre-E builds, and decide to call them holdover articles. I am not particularly surprised. You like to try and see things in the most negative light possible. And you know what, who am I stand in your way!? Enjoy seeing the end of days because a few other players happen to be getting a few products geared to their tastes instead of yours. I've already written what I am seeing above, and nothing has been written to change my opinion.
For the record, Kalnaur gets a pass on my judgment. Unlike most of the others here, he seems to be somewhat more reasonable. There are other reasonable E-haters out there also; Foxface comes to mind. But other posters are just out to lunch. Things should die in fire, even though many of us enjoy them quite a bit, because they don't quite match your tastes? Claiming that Essentials material is imbalance even though it is a flat out boldfaced lie (as evinced by the analysis and builds the CharOp forums have provided on those classes)? Ok...
You said "no real effect on their lives or gaming experience", but now I'm waiting over 5 months for a book worth buying, and 80% if not 100% of the new classes (rather then retreads for your new system) are Essential only. With the staggeringly little amount of effort it takes to produce something like the recent "Feyknight" arcticle, you'd think everyone at Wizards besides Schwab would have a little time to throw me a bone. His Ardent article this month was half a year old anyway.
That is not a real effect on your life or gaming experience. You can continue to play all the classes you love. There are still 13 books and 2 race pamphlets dedicated to creating the type of characters you like. To date there are only 2 Essentials books dedicated to creating E-style characters, with one more such book on the product list. Complaining that WotC is taking some time to build a foundation of material dedicated to matching the tastes of some players that have, up until now, not been catered to isn't complaining about a real effect on your life or gaming experience, it is acting spoiled.
Of course you wouldn't. You get articles that support pre-E builds, and decide to call them holdover articles. I am not particularly surprised. You like to try and see things in the most negative light possible. And you know what, who am I stand in your way!? Enjoy seeing the end of days because a few other players happen to be getting a few products geared to their tastes instead of yours. I've already written what I am seeing above, and nothing has been written to change my opinion.
They admitted in a podcast or a twit (twitter) somewhere I don't remember where, but they admitted it was in the works for one of the already printed books and was pulled. They just now got it out. It was a holdover from pre-E...
For the record, Kalnaur gets a pass on my judgment. Unlike most of the others here, he seems to be somewhat more reasonable. There are other reasonable E-haters out there also; Foxface comes to mind. But other posters are just out to lunch. Things should die in fire, even though many of us enjoy them quite a bit, because they don't quite match your tastes? Claiming that Essentials material is imbalance even though it is a flat out boldfaced lie (as evinced by the analysis and builds the CharOp forums have provided on those classes)? Ok...
I've never made any of the statements you just referenced. I could care less whether they continue Essentials or not as long as they do continue pre-E design as well. I never claimed they were imbalanced.
Sblocked for those that don't want to mess with it (but Dave please read)
Show
If you go back to our original conversation you'll note I said the Executioners Encounter power LOOKED overpowered. I readily admitted I was mistaken when someone actually posted the numbers in the Troll post you set up in the CharOP sub-forum.
If you go back to our original conversation you'll note I said the Executioners Encounter power LOOKED overpowered. I readily admitted I was mistaken when someone actually posted the numbers in the Troll post you set up in the CharOP sub-forum.
They admitted in a podcast or a twit (twitter) somewhere I don't remember where, but they admitted it was in the works for one of the already printed books and was pulled. They just now got it out. It was a holdover from pre-E...
Yup. They are still putting out information about pre-E builds. But, they are not supporting pre-E builds at all. True story. And, just because some of the information was written in the past the fact that they are still putting it out for the communities consumption is totally negated. True story.
I've never made any of the statements you just referenced. I could care less whether they continue Essentials or not as long as they do continue pre-E design as well. I never claimed they were imbalanced.
I was not only refering to comments made by you, but rather to comments made in this thread in general. However, it should be noted that in post number 28 Damon_Tor said that Essentials classes are imbalanced, and in post number 29 you quoted what he said and wrote "+1." As such, you did in fact say that Essentials classes are imbalanced in this thread.
If you go back to our original conversation you'll note I said the Executioners Encounter power LOOKED overpowered. I readily admitted I was mistaken when someone actually posted the numbers in the Troll post you set up in the CharOP sub-forum.
Yup. It is a troll post, because instead of allowing you to spout falshoods I took the time to gather the math required to prove you wrong. True story.
They admitted in a podcast or a twit (twitter) somewhere I don't remember where, but they admitted it was in the works for one of the already printed books and was pulled. They just now got it out. It was a holdover from pre-E...
Yup. They are still putting out information about pre-E builds. But, they are not supporting pre-E builds at all. True story. And, just because some of the information was written in the past the fact that they are still putting it out for the communities consumption is totally negated. True story.I've never made any of the statements you just referenced. I could care less whether they continue Essentials or not as long as they do continue pre-E design as well. I never claimed they were imbalanced.
I was not only refering to comments made by you, but rather to comments made in this thread in general. However, it should be noted that in post number 28 Damon_Tor said that Essentials classes are imbalanced, and in post number 29 you quoted what he said and wrote "+1." As such, you did in fact say that Essentials classes are imbalanced in this thread.
If you go back to our original conversation you'll note I said the Executioners Encounter power LOOKED overpowered. I readily admitted I was mistaken when someone actually posted the numbers in the Troll post you set up in the CharOP sub-forum.
Yup. It is a troll post, because instead of allowing you to spout falshoods I took the time to gather the math required to prove you wrong. True story.
More snark @ Dave
Show
Except it hit page 3 before someone posted the math... and yes you singled me out and used insulting words. It was a troll post. You didn't gather the math someone else did after 2 pages of elitist bull...
Btw thanks for taking what I said out of the sblock so everyone could see it and be forced to listen to us argue rather than discuss what the thread was about...
Except it hit page 3 before someone posted the math... and yes you singled me out and used insulting words. It was a troll post. You didn't gather the math someone else did after 2 pages of elitist bull...
Btw thanks for taking what I said out of the sblock so everyone could see it and be forced to listen to us argue rather than discuss what the thread was about...
Except it hit page 3 before someone posted the math...
People posted all the math required to prove the point to a reasonable poster long before page 3. It was on page 3 that people posted enough math for you to finally admit that you were wrong.
and yes you singled me out and used insulting words.
I did not use insulting words (at least in the original post. Everyone started to get anoyed at you when you were being intentionally obtuse and refusing to admit the obviouse).
It was a troll post. You didn't gather the math someone else did after 2 pages of elitist bull...
It was not a troll post. And, I didn't say I posted the math. I said I gathered it. As in, I made the thread to create a communal effort to produce the math required (because it was simply too time consuming for me to do it all myself).
Btw thanks for taking what I said out of the sblock so everyone could see it and be forced to listen to us argue rather than discuss what the thread was about...
You are welcome.
I wouldn't call a couple of holdover articles support, but whatever...
More trolling and vitriolic h4te? You call these articles "holdover" articles, but on what basis? There's no quantifiably objective way for us, as consumers (as opposed to the people inside wotc on the production team) to really say if those articles are "holdovers" that we're just now getting, or new content/continued support. YOU choose to see them as holdovers because you're a Negative Nancy who sees doom and gloom and the end of D&D.
Well, that's your choice. But it has no bearing whatsoever on objective FACT.
And I'm not an "apologist", or whatever lingo you E-haters are using these days. I personally don't like much of Essentials. But what I do rail against is the whole "it's 4.5" argument, because that's a load of horse****.
I actually consider myself one of the more reasonable posters who don't like Essentials. I don't like the oversimplified Basic Attack method of a lot of the classes. I don't mind the warpriest or mage for the most part, but I dislike the reduced emphasis on rituals and the fact that the warpriest gets raise dead as a daily power automatically. I haven't even picked up HotFK. I have the CB, and nothing about the hexblade, cavalier, sentinel or new Ranger sub-classes is so thrilling to make me want it.
I will say this for Essentials though. The slayer filled in a missing niche. The Heavy-Armor-Striker. No striker before now has worn anything heavier than hide. And I have seen people brought back into D&D by Essentials, so for that I applaud it. I'm on the fence as far as the formatting, but I recognize that, as someone who's been into 4e since the beginning, I am accustomed to the old format, so I don't recognize any kind of increased ease of reading in the new one. I don't care for item rarity rules, the Executioner class (despite the poison/daily thing which is neat), or the mixing of power sources. I agree that the old sacred cows that were DELIBERATLEY removed as a part of 4e design going back to the ORCUS 1 team should have stayed gone.
All this...all this from me, lokiare, and I still think you just spout baseless, mindless hate and vitriol and doom. I would like a return to "classic 4e", I want more books of the same quality we got before Essentials. But I'm not going to start wearing eyeliner and tight pants and cry about how it's never going to happen, because "oh, wotc doesn't listen to the consumers, wahhhh!"
Obviously they do. Just not to you. And who says they should listen to you? Entertainment companies that ACTUALLY don't respond to customer feedback don't last. And WotC/Hasbro has been around for a long time and still strong. What should be obvious is that there's more feedback IN FAVOR of the things you don't like, which is why they are going forward.
But you think you're privilged, and unique, and your opinions are vital and universal facts, so you're blind to all of this.
WotC has stated that they will continue to support our previous material as they always have. With so many classes, you can't reasonably expect that the next Class Acts article (for example) is going to be for the class you want, but we're still getting them. But whgen we do, you somehow still see wotc breaking their word, despite objective evidence to the contrary.
There's no pleasing some people. And those people, being never pleased, are never happy. If you really love the game, and want to see it move forward, you're going to have to change your outlook, at least in some way. If wotc can't do anything to make you happy, then play a game made by another company and go post on their forums. That doesn't mean you have to find something positive in every product, but being negative about it all, even when the things you asked for (calling them "holdover articles"), is childish, petty, and is only going to make you more and more negative and unhappy.
I wouldn't call a couple of holdover articles support, but whatever...
More trolling and vitriolic h4te? You call these articles "holdover" articles, but on what basis? There's no quantifiably objective way for us, as consumers (as opposed to the people inside wotc on the production team) to really say if those articles are "holdovers" that we're just now getting, or new content/continued support. YOU choose to see them as holdovers because you're a Negative Nancy who sees doom and gloom and the end of D&D.
Well, that's your choice. But it has no bearing whatsoever on objective FACT.
Let me just invalidate your entire post by saying "They(WotC) told us they were hold overs from pre-E"... I'll try to find the link. It was in one of the podcasts or twitter twits or whatever, but it was said by a WotC employee...
And I'm not an "apologist", or whatever lingo you E-haters are using these days. I personally don't like much of Essentials. But what I do rail against is the whole "it's 4.5" argument, because that's a load of horse****.
I actually consider myself one of the more reasonable posters who don't like Essentials. I don't like the oversimplified Basic Attack method of a lot of the classes. I don't mind the warpriest or mage for the most part, but I dislike the reduced emphasis on rituals and the fact that the warpriest gets raise dead as a daily power automatically. I haven't even picked up HotFK. I have the CB, and nothing about the hexblade, cavalier, sentinel or new Ranger sub-classes is so thrilling to make me want it.
I know the current trend in the past few days is to hate on Lokiare, but its beginning to get ridiculous...
I am not an E-hater as you put it. I'm a pre-E lover. The difference is I don't hate Essentials. I don't like the limited options as you progress and don't want to see 4E go all "Essentials from here on out", but for those that like post-E I'm glad they get what they want, I just don't want to be the one that doesn't get anything...
Whether or not its 4.5 doesn't matter... what matters is its driving yet another wedge in the D&D fanbase...
I will say this for Essentials though. The slayer filled in a missing niche. The Heavy-Armor-Striker. No striker before now has worn anything heavier than hide. And I have seen people brought back into D&D by Essentials, so for that I applaud it. I'm on the fence as far as the formatting, but I recognize that, as someone who's been into 4e since the beginning, I am accustomed to the old format, so I don't recognize any kind of increased ease of reading in the new one. I don't care for item rarity rules, the Executioner class (despite the poison/daily thing which is neat), or the mixing of power sources. I agree that the old sacred cows that were DELIBERATLEY removed as a part of 4e design going back to the ORCUS 1 team should have stayed gone.
I agree with most of this, except that they could have just made another fighter build that could use heavy armor. In fact most of essentials could have been made as pre-E classes with no loss of functionality... an Example:
Slayer Weapon Affinity - Daily - Minor
for the rest of the day you gain a +1 class bonus to attack when using a two-handed weapon
All this...all this from me, lokiare, and I still think you just spout baseless, mindless hate and vitriol and doom. I would like a return to "classic 4e", I want more books of the same quality we got before Essentials. But I'm not going to start wearing eyeliner and tight pants and cry about how it's never going to happen, because "oh, wotc doesn't listen to the consumers, wahhhh!"
I'd like you to quote me when I said any of that. I think your confusing me with someone else...
Obviously they do. Just not to you. And who says they should listen to you? Entertainment companies that ACTUALLY don't respond to customer feedback don't last. And WotC/Hasbro has been around for a long time and still strong. What should be obvious is that there's more feedback IN FAVOR of the things you don't like, which is why they are going forward.
But you think you're privilged, and unique, and your opinions are vital and universal facts, so you're blind to all of this.
There's a problem with your argument. If D&D tanked completely WotC wouldn't bat an eye. Their money maker is MtG. D&D doesn't even show up as a blip on Hasbro's radar...
I don't care if they don't cater to me personally, but a large number of people want to know whether pre-E will get support, its that simple...
WotC has stated that they will continue to support our previous material as they always have. With so many classes, you can't reasonably expect that the next Class Acts article (for example) is going to be for the class you want, but we're still getting them. But whgen we do, you somehow still see wotc breaking their word, despite objective evidence to the contrary.
WotC has stated many things and lied by omission or mistake or whatever...
Forgive me if I don't drink the kool-aid and think on my own...
I'd be happy if they had several articles a month for pre-E design...
That hasn't happened...
They stated that article was in the works long before Essentials came out...Its a hold over by their own admission...
There's no pleasing some people. And those people, being never pleased, are never happy. If you really love the game, and want to see it move forward, you're going to have to change your outlook, at least in some way. If wotc can't do anything to make you happy, then play a game made by another company and go post on their forums. That doesn't mean you have to find something positive in every product, but being negative about it all, even when the things you asked for (calling them "holdover articles"), is childish, petty, and is only going to make you more and more negative and unhappy.
Yes, but I'd much rather discuss the newest feat and how it can be used to break the system rather than the failings of the company that makes the feat...
I'll find you the link... They stated themselves (WotC) that those articles were hold overs from before Essentials came out...
Specifically, the Ardent article was a holdover from Psionic Power- stuff they comissioned and paid for but couldn't fit in. Sadly it's the Runepriest and Seeker which needs help and there's nothing on the horizon for them.
Its no wonder the Runepriest is at the bottom of the 'popular CB class" list. Its only support is rare items..yay!
I wonder if the changeling was least popular race.
That completely changed any sort of focus on the game, and the customers who were supporting it. Then after the post E shake up, nothing went back to being on schedule. Only one book is being produced like any of the PHB's, and we're getting Never Winter as a campaign setting, which is already in the FR setting. There's no previews of anything interesting in the last few months (save for HoS); and nothing save for what seems like a few articles lost in the mass...that even touch on pre-E stuff.
This already been 6 months since essentials came out, and those who don't want it; haven't been getting that much love, if at all. And when they mention new design paradigm, it should have been evident that new stuff will follow, especially in the vein of the Assassin; completely re-made - and really not part of the actual essentials line up... being in DDi of all things. There's lots of clamoring for support of classes that didn't, (Runepriest, I'm looking at you) and so far have no outlook with the cancellation of three books; and their re-purposing. So anyone asking about this book, it's gone and going to the new RnD tested and approved Magazines which oddly enough are also getting scrapped (they don't plan on releasing single pdfs (bandwidth... whatever)).
Like it or not, Essentials is driving a stake and already dividing the DnD consumership; regardless of it's tenuous status of 4.5 or not. If anything, this scenario shouldn't have happened had they just kept on releasing stuff like PHB4 or even new power books all the while releasing Essentials. While it still would have been divisive, it would have been the difference between having the Red Box vs the rest of the Essentials. Not this bemoaning the end of the game like it was a true edition change.
People still want to play with things they were given earlier, and so far there's no support or fixes for things that didn't quite pan out with some of their earlier productions. People are angry over this. And I'm thinking, rightfully so. It's been a long time since nothing but Essentials took over (relatively), and so far there hasn't been much of anything to support some of their lacking classes and races.
Also, there nothing on the Feb calendar for Dragon. Feb is about 2 days away now. If they want to appease anyone, the Feb calender better have actual content.
If it means that we'll start getting extra content above and beyond what's already supposed to come out each month then I'll be for it. But if, instead they just decided to fold it into DDI as part of their small smattering of articles each month then that'll be a pretty raw deal.
I doubt that we'll get anything above and beyond of what we're currently getting (and if the VT is finished there will be a price increase, at best with a "prolong now for old price one last time" offer like with the last price increase).
They'll just release what they already had for the books instead of having to write something new for DDI.
Sure, the articles (these days) are given much more scrutiny given that Dragon is now considered official, and I'm sure the authors have to go through a much more rigorous draft/re-draft process until the "math" lines up, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of articles are fan-made.
Previews, Confessions, Ampersand, and the like come directly from the minds of WoTC, but stuff like the Eladrin Knight article could easily have been written by a fan and then picked apart by Wizards (I cannot say for certain as I don't have DDi, and cannot verify the author).
You do realize that the majority of DDi articles are written by fans (who have submitted them). This has been the case since Dragon went online, and was present to some degree even within the print copies.
Sure, the articles (these days) are given much more scrutiny given that Dragon is now considered official, and I'm sure the authors have to go through a much more rigorous draft/re-draft process until the "math" lines up, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of articles are fan-made.
Previews, Confessions, Ampersand, and the like come directly from the minds of WoTC, but stuff like the Eladrin Knight article could easily have been written by a fan and then picked apart by Wizards (I cannot say for certain as I don't have DDi, and cannot verify the author).
Some articles are written by fans, but first the "pitch"- the goal of the article must be approved by the editor, and then Wizard's has the pay the writer for what they accept. There's been many articles submitted towards the goals of supporting weak classes and races, but they've been rejected for not appealing to the editor's taste. Robert Schwab, author of what, 60% of the player content in this month, is a freelancer but also a book contributor. He's not just a fan, he's practically employed.
Robert Schwab, author of what, 60% of the player content in this month, is a freelancer but also a book contributor. He's not just a fan, he's practically employed.
Except that's going to be true of most freelancers. They're fans who submit articles and get published so they get paid, which is "practically employed" by Wizards. And people who get published find it easier to get published in the future because they are a known quantity.
If they don't know you, the pitch has to be impeccable, or you're going to be too much effort. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the fan-submitted stuff is dreck. So, yeah, people may say they pitched runepriest articles or strength-cleric articles and they got rejected. But it doesn't mean they reject they idea -- they may simply have rejected the idea's writer.
So Scwhalb gets a lot of print because he consistently produces high-quality articles. So when Schwalb says, "I have an ide for Strongholds" or "I just thought of a great idea for an Ardent", the editors are more likely to green light it. So Schwalb gets a lot of print.
But if someone they don't know writes an article that says "Here's some stuff to fix the Stength Cleric", that stuff better be mind-blowing.
If you want to write articles for Dragon, write some adventures for Dungeon first. Write some articles that have no mechanics in it, because those are going to be easier to edit. And make sure what you write is professional quality.
WoTC can't really keep writers on staff, simply because there generally isn't enough work going on that would keep a full time writer busy, and writing isn't exactly 9-5. Editing can be, production work like I do is. Illustration is somewhere inbetween.
An editor can be working on many different projects.
If anyone is really interested in a freelance writing career, I am going to suggest reading "My So Called Freelance Life" my Michelle Goodman. It gives great practical advice on being a freelancer of any kind, though she is a professional freelance writer herself. What I found most valuable was the parts that talk about how you approach and think about being a freelancer.
You do realize that the majority of DDi articles are written by fans (who have submitted them). This has been the case since Dragon went online, and was present to some degree even within the print copies.
Sure, the articles (these days) are given much more scrutiny given that Dragon is now considered official, and I'm sure the authors have to go through a much more rigorous draft/re-draft process until the "math" lines up, but the fact still remains that the vast majority of articles are fan-made.
Previews, Confessions, Ampersand, and the like come directly from the minds of WoTC, but stuff like the Eladrin Knight article could easily have been written by a fan and then picked apart by Wizards (I cannot say for certain as I don't have DDi, and cannot verify the author).
Some articles are written by fans, but first the "pitch"- the goal of the article must be approved by the editor, and then Wizard's has the pay the writer for what they accept. There's been many articles submitted towards the goals of supporting weak classes and races, but they've been rejected for not appealing to the editor's taste. Robert Schwab, author of what, 60% of the player content in this month, is a freelancer but also a book contributor. He's not just a fan, he's practically employed.
WotC almost never accepts articles from non-employees or ex-employees. Someone did a count a while back and found that only 1 out of every 20 articles is done by someone not directly associated with WotC... Its almost pointless to submit an article unless you are an accomplished writer...
Its almost pointless to submit an article unless you are an accomplished writer...
Sure. Because unaccomplished writers generally suck at writing. That said, let's look at this claim...
Each magazine has regular features by staff (editorials, Alumni articles, playtesting, Eyes on the Realms, etc.) Each issue only has three or four articles that could be submitted by freelancers.
Dungeon 186 has articles from Robert Schwalb and Ray Franklin
Dungeon 185 has an article from Ari Marmell
Dungeon 184 has articles from Dan Marthaler, Jeff LaSala
Dungeon 183 has an article from Dan Marthlaer
Dungeon 182 has articles from Robert Schwalb, Rob Wieland and Aeryn Rudel
Dungeon 181 has articles from Robert Scwhalb, Jeff LaSala and Aeryn Rudel
Dungeon 180 has articles from Scott Gray, Gareth Hanrahan, Robert Schwalb
Dungeon 179 has articles from Corwin Riddle, Syd Thurston, and Scott Gray
Dragon 395 has articles from Robert Schwalb and David Adams
Dragon 394 has articles from Jim Auwaerter, Galen Mullins, Sarah Zettel, and David "Jester" Gibson
Dragon 393 has articles from Jeff Morgenroth, Rosemary Jones, and Scott Gray
Dragon 392 has articles from Robert Schwalb, Derek Guder, and Kay Kenyon
Dragon 391 has articles from Scott Gray, Robert Schwalb, and Paul Park
Dragon 390 has articles from Robert Schwalb, Pierre Van Rooden, Daniel Jones, Arnie Frank, Claudio Pozas, Tim Eagon, and Rachel Cirricione
Dragon 389 has articles from Kevin Anderson, Anthony Harrison, Jeff Morgenroth, Robert Schwalb, and Derek Guder
These are the issues published under the editorship of Steve Winter. Sure, Schalb sees a lot of credits, but his articles are generally the most favorably received. Quality speaks. But there's plenty of submissions by freelancers, even ignoring Schwalb (which is an unfir punishment for being successful). Some of them have prior publishing credits, but a lot of them do not.
Essentials doesn't suck. In fact, it is probably the best set of splat books released for 4e so far...
I have to disagree here. With the exception of the feats (I like the power creep ones), I have no use for essentials.
The classes are uninspired and generic. They took archetypes that were already covered, and created new classes/builds around them, and didn't even have the decency to include the multiclass rules, the Hybrid rules (even though I hate hybrids as well), or anything to aid in the meshing of 4e and 4e.e.
During the development and release of essentials, those of us who were waiting for AEDU-style classes to get new material, or for there to be new classes that follow that format, have been summarily ignored by WotC.
Those of us who used the offline CB (and those of you who have deluded yourselves into believing that the online CB will one day be worth the money you're paying for it), have seen a good product's support removed and replaced with a far inferior product.
I understand that some people REALLY like essentials. I started with 3.5, and I never saw the balance issues in my 3.5 play.
Heck, I still play 3.5. But, my favorite thing about 4e? (after the existence of the Warlord class) Having interesting things to do as a non-magical character. I've Tried essentials, and It just doestn' have that feel to it. Why is my stronger damage capped? Where are my dailys?
Why would I want to say: "I make a melee basic attack"?
The nonexistence of that sentence is the whole reason I liked 4e at release.
My personal opinion on the Essentials is that I don't really find them all that interesting. The more retro feel these classes have is fine, but like so many other gamers out there I never got rid of my old game books. So if retro is what I want then I'll play earlier editions. Why play a class that reminds you of 3rd Edition when you can just play 3rd Edition? What I liked most about 4E was that it wasn't 2nd Edition or 3rd Edition. It feels like 4E has sort of lost it's way a bit. I would have prefered it if they had made the Essentials 4.5 and not compatible so that everyone can have the edition they prefer. Probably would cut down on the argueing a bit.
All that being said, I have great hope for the future. If WotC can manage to support both versions of 4E at once, I would be impressed. If that is their intent, it may be the reason some of the cancellations happened. Or not, what the heck do I know?
Robert Schwab, author of what, 60% of the player content in this month, is a freelancer but also a book contributor. He's not just a fan, he's practically employed.
Except that's going to be true of most freelancers. They're fans who submit articles and get published so they get paid, which is "practically employed" by Wizards. And people who get published find it easier to get published in the future because they are a known quantity.
I highlighted my main point, which I'm not sure I had made clear earlier. Getting your stuff published in the books is a bigger deal than Dragon Magazine (or at least it apparently was before this new R&D review process they have that I am not happy with).
Let's say Jake hates psionic classes. He's OK with his friends playing them, but he's never going to play one himself. So he decides not to buy PHB3, because it's got too much psionic stuff in it. He also won't buy Psionic Power, for pretty obvious reasons. But he likes primal classes. Let's say WotC releases Primal Power 2. Jake can buy this and get loads of new powers, feats and paragon paths for his barbarian and shaman characters. He even gets access to a new sort of superior totem for his shaman that works well with the sorts of powers he's picked. OK, there's a small amount of material for the seeker in the book, which Jake can't use because he doesn't have PHB3 (although, if he has a DDi subscription, even that's not a problem). But most of the book is at least potentially useful to him.
Sarah, however, hates Essentials with the passion of a thousand burning suns. That seems OK at first. She just won't buy any of the Essentials books. But she plays a paladin who has recently committed an evil act (believing it to be necessary to avoid a greater evil). Sarah and her DM have sketched out some ideas about having the paladin fall from grace. Maybe she'll multiclass into warlock or something? Oh look! Heroes of Shadow is coming out, with a new 'blackguard' paladin build! Surely, there will be loads of new powers, feats, and maybe a paragon path for Sarah's paladin to take, to represent her fall... Oh, wait. No. It's not a new 'build' in the sense Sarah is used to, from which she can (more or less freely) take powers. It's an Essentials style subclass and all the interesting stuff has been done as un-leveled powers and class features. Her character can't use any of this new material unless she completely rebuilds her character as a 'blackguard' rather than a PHB paladin. And her party still needs a defender, so switching to the blackguard, which is a striker, isn't really an option. Sarah feels like she's wasted her money on this book.
If most or all future support is going to be in a format that makes it difficult for non-Essentials players to use, then it seems to me that those non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint. For them, Essentials is not merely 'more options' that doesn't personally affect their games, it's a fundamental change that leaves 'their' game in the same position as a new edition would have done - i.e. they can look forward to very little (or even none at all) support that they can actually use.
Speaking as someone who mostly likes Essentials, I can understand (and sympathise with) those who think it's ruined 'their' game. Sure, you can see it as 'just more options', but it's fundamentally different from, say, a PHB4 or an Arcane Power 2.
Let's say Jake hates psionic classes. He's OK with his friends playing them, but he's never going to play one himself. So he decides not to buy PHB3, because it's got too much psionic stuff in it. He also won't buy Psionic Power, for pretty obvious reasons. But he likes primal classes. Let's say WotC releases Primal Power 2. Jake can buy this and get loads of new powers, feats and paragon paths for his barbarian and shaman characters. He even gets access to a new sort of superior totem for his shaman that works well with the sorts of powers he's picked. OK, there's a small amount of material for the seeker in the book, which Jake can't use because he doesn't have PHB3 (although, if he has a DDi subscription, even that's not a problem). But most of the book is at least potentially useful to him.
Sarah, however, hates Essentials with the passion of a thousand burning suns. That seems OK at first. She just won't buy any of the Essentials books. But she plays a paladin who has recently committed an evil act (believing it to be necessary to avoid a greater evil). Sarah and her DM have sketched out some ideas about having the paladin fall from grace. Maybe she'll multiclass into warlock or something? Oh look! Heroes of Shadow is coming out, with a new 'blackguard' paladin build! Surely, there will be loads of new powers, feats, and maybe a paragon path for Sarah's paladin to take, to represent her fall... Oh, wait. No. It's not a new 'build' in the sense Sarah is used to, from which she can (more or less freely) take powers. It's an Essentials style subclass and all the interesting stuff has been done as un-leveled powers and class features. Her character can't use any of this new material unless she completely rebuilds her character as a 'blackguard' rather than a PHB paladin. And her party still needs a defender, so switching to the blackguard, which is a striker, isn't really an option. Sarah feels like she's wasted her money on this book.
If most or all future support is going to be in a format that makes it difficult for non-Essentials players to use, then it seems to me that those non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint. For them, Essentials is not merely 'more options' that doesn't personally affect their games, it's a fundamental change that leaves 'their' game in the same position as a new edition would have done - i.e. they can look forward to very little (or even none at all) support that they can actually use.
This is exactly how I feel about Essentials. I don't even hate it with a passion. I am indifferent to it, until it eats my pre-E. (which according to the Magazine quote thread it pretty much has "Essentials is the baseline")...
Speaking as someone who mostly likes Essentials, I can understand (and sympathise with) those who think it's ruined 'their' game. Sure, you can see it as 'just more options', but it's fundamentally different from, say, a PHB4 or an Arcane Power 2.
Let's say Jake hates psionic classes. He's OK with his friends playing them, but he's never going to play one himself. So he decides not to buy PHB3, because it's got too much psionic stuff in it. He also won't buy Psionic Power, for pretty obvious reasons. But he likes primal classes. Let's say WotC releases Primal Power 2. Jake can buy this and get loads of new powers, feats and paragon paths for his barbarian and shaman characters. He even gets access to a new sort of superior totem for his shaman that works well with the sorts of powers he's picked. OK, there's a small amount of material for the seeker in the book, which Jake can't use because he doesn't have PHB3 (although, if he has a DDi subscription, even that's not a problem). But most of the book is at least potentially useful to him.
Sarah, however, hates Essentials with the passion of a thousand burning suns. That seems OK at first. She just won't buy any of the Essentials books. But she plays a paladin who has recently committed an evil act (believing it to be necessary to avoid a greater evil). Sarah and her DM have sketched out some ideas about having the paladin fall from grace. Maybe she'll multiclass into warlock or something? Oh look! Heroes of Shadow is coming out, with a new 'blackguard' paladin build! Surely, there will be loads of new powers, feats, and maybe a paragon path for Sarah's paladin to take, to represent her fall... Oh, wait. No. It's not a new 'build' in the sense Sarah is used to, from which she can (more or less freely) take powers. It's an Essentials style subclass and all the interesting stuff has been done as un-leveled powers and class features. Her character can't use any of this new material unless she completely rebuilds her character as a 'blackguard' rather than a PHB paladin. And her party still needs a defender, so switching to the blackguard, which is a striker, isn't really an option. Sarah feels like she's wasted her money on this book.
If most or all future support is going to be in a format that makes it difficult for non-Essentials players to use, then it seems to me that those non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint. For them, Essentials is not merely 'more options' that doesn't personally affect their games, it's a fundamental change that leaves 'their' game in the same position as a new edition would have done - i.e. they can look forward to very little (or even none at all) support that they can actually use.
I honestly don't know if I could put this any better, but this in and of itself really, really must be communicated to Wizards of the Coast.
Essentials doesn't suck. In fact, it is probably the best set of splat books released for 4e so far...
I have to disagree here. With the exception of the feats (I like the power creep ones), I have no use for essentials.
Go ahead and disagree. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Why would I want to say: "I make a melee basic attack"?
The nonexistence of that sentence is the whole reason I liked 4e at release.
1) Because that is not all you say. I am playing a scout. I don't "only" make melee basic attacks. Where other players choose which attack powers to use, my choices come in the form of figuring out how to make the best use of movement, utilities, and stances, to trigger the best possible damage in a round. Having played Essentials an non-Essentials characters, I can tell you that the end result is not all that different from where I am sitting. Your character certainly isn't any weaker than any non-Essentials character. It just manages its resources differently. And really, I like that... a lot. I wouldn't if it also equated to imbalance. But, the balanced way they built the classes makes that difference have some major appeal. And, that is the difference between these classes and their 3e or 2e variants. The older editions coupled different resource management with major imbalance. This edition gives us different resource management in a balanced package. For those of us who love the retro feel of earlier editions, but hate their imbalance, the Essentials classes are a perfect middle ground. That makes them a high quality product. It might not be the product you want, but it achieves its design goal perfectly... minus a few hiccups which I do wish they would release errata for. But every book they have released has those.
2) The non-Existence of that sentence might be why you love 4e, but that is specific to you. There is no reason why other player groups should not be catered to as well.
I would have prefered it if they had made the Essentials 4.5 and not compatible so that everyone can have the edition they prefer. Probably would cut down on the argueing a bit.
I wouldn't. That would have, for all intents and purposes, made it a new edition. That would have sucked. I much prefer being able to spend all my money invested in 4e on the same game.
Speaking as someone who mostly likes Essentials, I can understand (and sympathise with) those who think it's ruined 'their' game. Sure, you can see it as 'just more options', but it's fundamentally different from, say, a PHB4 or an Arcane Power 2.
I don't agree. I don't see any sort of fundamental difference.
Let's say Jake hates psionic classes. He's OK with his friends playing them, but he's never going to play one himself. So he decides not to buy PHB3, because it's got too much psionic stuff in it. He also won't buy Psionic Power, for pretty obvious reasons. But he likes primal classes. Let's say WotC releases Primal Power 2. Jake can buy this and get loads of new powers, feats and paragon paths for his barbarian and shaman characters. He even gets access to a new sort of superior totem for his shaman that works well with the sorts of powers he's picked. OK, there's a small amount of material for the seeker in the book, which Jake can't use because he doesn't have PHB3 (although, if he has a DDi subscription, even that's not a problem). But most of the book is at least potentially useful to him.
Most of an Essentials product is potentially useful to a player as well. There are plenty of feats and powers you can cannibalize from the product. But, if you hate what is in it you hate what is in it. There is no difference in the relationship. For all of the potential usefulness of the PHB 3, if you hate the classes in it it is not useful to you.
Sarah, however, hates Essentials with the passion of a thousand burning suns. That seems OK at first. She just won't buy any of the Essentials books. But she plays a paladin who has recently committed an evil act (believing it to be necessary to avoid a greater evil). Sarah and her DM have sketched out some ideas about having the paladin fall from grace. Maybe she'll multiclass into warlock or something? Oh look! Heroes of Shadow is coming out, with a new 'blackguard' paladin build! Surely, there will be loads of new powers, feats, and maybe a paragon path for Sarah's paladin to take, to represent her fall... Oh, wait. No. It's not a new 'build' in the sense Sarah is used to, from which she can (more or less freely) take powers. It's an Essentials style subclass and all the interesting stuff has been done as un-leveled powers and class features. Her character can't use any of this new material unless she completely rebuilds her character as a 'blackguard' rather than a PHB paladin. And her party still needs a defender, so switching to the blackguard, which is a striker, isn't really an option. Sarah feels like she's wasted her money on this book.
1) How is this any different than a character who is playing a ranger, wants to add some primal magic to their concept, buys the PHB 3 for the Seeker, and finds out that they really don't like the class's mechanics?
2) You have a pretty strong double standard. The E-paladin build includes multiple new level 1 at-will attack powers, multiple new leveled utility powers, and multiple new leveled daily attack powers. The only thing it doesn't offer is new encounter attack powers. That still leaves plenty of material that Sarah can cannibalize to give her pre-E paladin a bit of the flavor of a "post-E" build, which, logic would imply, is likely to be true of the blackguard as well. There is more that Sarah can easily cannibalize from the such builds than a ranger character interested in adding some primal magic to their class concept can easily cannibalize from the seeker.
3) Any group that tells a player that they require that the player play a specific role is lame. Let the player play whatever interests them.
If most or all future support is going to be in a format that makes it difficult for non-Essentials players to use, then it seems to me that those non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint. For them, Essentials is not merely 'more options' that doesn't personally affect their games, it's a fundamental change that leaves 'their' game in the same position as a new edition would have done - i.e. they can look forward to very little (or even none at all) support that they can actually use.
It doesn't seem that way to me at all. They have 13 books and 2 race pamphlets dedicated to building the type of characters they enjoy. The relationship between the E products and any other splat book is only "fundamentally different" if you examine them with a double standard. They can patiently wait while those of us who prefer E builds are catered to for a little while. Though, I certainly have no desire for all pre-E style character support to cease to exist. That, however, doesn't mean that they need new support immediately, or that every (or any) product released in the near future should have something in it which is specifically designed to cater to players who prefer pre-E style character support. As I said, there is a pretty big disparity between 13 books, 2 race pamphlets, and a few years worth of Dragon support, and 2 books, 1 book on the horizon, and a few months of Dragon support. There is nothing wrong with WotC taking some time to close that gap a little bit.
Well, for the sake of fairness, I hate the incompatable 'power point' system in the PH3 for the exact same reason.A future product (book or article) that enables a single character to combine options from both systems, the original and the essential, will go a long way to alleviate many concerns. Customers on both sides of the o-e divide seem to want something like this.
It would have to be a full book for me to care.
All things considered, I probably agree with the designers about slowing the rate of book publications. If they release the content as articles first, they can see which articles pass the test of time, then consolidate these into a high-quality hardcover format. For people who only want entire books it might mean delayed gratification, but the result is a great book whose every page has useful and appealing content.
They can't figure it out because the conclusion is based on unreasonable double standards... which also fits with my current thesis on the nature of "Essentials hate."
Cyber-Dave, I would like to relate my genuine elation that you have found a mechanic that you enjoy so much. There are few things as a gamer that is as satisfying as finding the perfect character mechanic, game system, or even role playing concept to play around with. I myself have been fortunate enough to experience this a time or two.
We as gamers are a diverse group that often disagree with one another over the most insignificant things. Why should the Essentials be any different? Don't lose sight of the simple fact that none of us are obligated to enjoy any product. I myself simply find the 4E proper builds more interesting than the Essentials ones, and by way of this, find the Essentials less useful. There is nothing unreasonable about this.
Granted, there are those who hate the Essentials passionately for reasons that they don't care to articulate. Others hate it for reasons they can't articulate. This is true for anything.
For me, the problem is this. I do not know what WotC plans for the future of 4E. If they plan to try and support both versions of 4E equally; great but tell us this. If they plan to abandon the Essentials line entirely; great (not for you Cyber-Dave, sorry) but tell us. If they plan to publish little or no more 4E proper material; fine but tell us.
If the 4E that I love is dead; I can deal with that. In fact, I can deal with it even better knowing that there are those out there that still like the game and it's current direction. If the 4E that I love isn't dead however; then I would like to know. It's the not knowing part of all this that is the most frustrating. Well, at least for me, but what the heck do I know anyway?
Cyber-Dave, I would like to relate my genuine elation that you have found a mechanic that you enjoy so much. There are few things as a gamer that is as satisfying as finding the perfect character mechanic, game system, or even role playing concept to play around with. I myself have been fortunate enough to experience this a time or two.
We as gamers are a diverse group that often disagree with one another over the most insignificant things. Why should the Essentials be any different? Don't lose sight of the simple fact that none of us are obligated to enjoy any product. I myself simply find the 4E proper builds more interesting than the Essentials ones, and by way of this, find the Essentials less useful. There is nothing unreasonable about this.
Granted, there are those who hate the Essentials passionately for reasons that they don't care to articulate. Others hate it for reasons they can't articulate. This is true for anything.
For me, the problem is this. I do not know what WotC plans for the future of 4E. If they plan to try and support both versions of 4E equally; great but tell us this. If they plan to abandon the Essentials line entirely; great (not for you Cyber-Dave, sorry) but tell us. If they plan to publish little or no more 4E proper material; fine but tell us.
If the 4E that I love is dead; I can deal with that. In fact, I can deal with it even better knowing that there are those out there that still like the game and it's current direction. If the 4E that I love isn't dead however; then I would like to know. It's the not knowing part of all this that is the most frustrating. Well, at least for me, but what the heck do I know anyway?
I have no issue with any of what you said here. Of course there is nothing subjectively wrong with disliking Essentials. You should understand, however, that nobody is obliged to provide you with what you subjectively prefer. You are not the only person out there. When two different groups have two different subjective preferences, someone is likely to get disappointed. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting the developers to be explicit about the plan going forward. But, they have been. They have explicitly said that Essential style classes are going to be the baseline going forward, but they do plan to continue to give some support to pre-E style class design. Exactly how much amounts to "some" has yet to be seen. Still, their statements leave their intentions pretty clear...
Cyber-Dave, I would like to relate my genuine elation that you have found a mechanic that you enjoy so much. There are few things as a gamer that is as satisfying as finding the perfect character mechanic, game system, or even role playing concept to play around with. I myself have been fortunate enough to experience this a time or two.
We as gamers are a diverse group that often disagree with one another over the most insignificant things. Why should the Essentials be any different? Don't lose sight of the simple fact that none of us are obligated to enjoy any product. I myself simply find the 4E proper builds more interesting than the Essentials ones, and by way of this, find the Essentials less useful. There is nothing unreasonable about this.
Granted, there are those who hate the Essentials passionately for reasons that they don't care to articulate. Others hate it for reasons they can't articulate. This is true for anything.
For me, the problem is this. I do not know what WotC plans for the future of 4E. If they plan to try and support both versions of 4E equally; great but tell us this. If they plan to abandon the Essentials line entirely; great (not for you Cyber-Dave, sorry) but tell us. If they plan to publish little or no more 4E proper material; fine but tell us.
If the 4E that I love is dead; I can deal with that. In fact, I can deal with it even better knowing that there are those out there that still like the game and it's current direction. If the 4E that I love isn't dead however; then I would like to know. It's the not knowing part of all this that is the most frustrating. Well, at least for me, but what the heck do I know anyway?
I have no issue with any of what you said here. Of course there is nothing subjectively wrong with disliking Essentials. You should understand, however, that nobody is obliged to provide you with what you subjectively prefer. You are not the only person out there. When two different groups have two different subjective preferences, someone is likely to get disappointed. Of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting the developers to be explicit about the plan going forward. But, they have been. They have explicitly said that Essential style classes are going to be the baseline going forward, but they do plan to continue to give some support to pre-E style class design. Exactly how much amounts to "some" has yet to be seen. Still, their statements leave their intentions pretty clear...
I am aware of these earlier statments made by WotC. "Some" is a favored word used by marketing departments that is intentionally vague to allow a certain degree of wiggle room to allow them to do as they please. I'm a math person so numbers and percentages please me. But "some" amounts to an unknown variable which is anything but clear.
Additionally, I never expected anyone to cater to me. All I really want is a declaration of CLEAR intent. I want answers, and I'll be ok with whatever those answers are. Worst case scenario (well, for me at least) my perfered version of 4E is dead, and I can look at my collection of 4E books knowing it had a good run. I realize the answers I desire are not likely forth coming, and my continued ranting on the subject will do no one any good. What this amounts to is venting. My apologies if this bothers someone.
This is exactly how I feel about Essentials. I don't even hate it with a passion. I am indifferent to it, until it eats my pre-E. (which according to the Magazine quote thread it pretty much has "Essentials is the baseline")...
It's really hard to believe that, given everything you say about Essentials and how the future of D&D and any future products are doomed to suck and have no thought put into them, even though you are speaking on pure speculation with no evidence.
Oh, and you have still yet to furnish this "proof" of yours, which somehow magically "invalidated" my statements earlier. So they still stand.
If most or all future support is going to be in a format that makes it difficult for non-Essentials players to use, then it seems to me that those non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint. For them, Essentials is not merely 'more options' that doesn't personally affect their games, it's a fundamental change that leaves 'their' game in the same position as a new edition would have done - i.e. they can look forward to very little (or even none at all) support that they can actually use.
It doesn't seem that way to me at all. They have 13 books and 2 race pamphlets dedicated to building the type of characters they enjoy. The relationship between the E products and any other splat book is only "fundamentally different" if you examine them with a double standard. They can patiently wait while those of us who prefer E builds are catered to for a little while. Though, I certainly have no desire for all pre-E style character support to cease to exist. That, however, doesn't mean that they need new support immediately, or that every (or any) product released in the near future should have something in it which is specifically designed to cater to players who prefer pre-E style character support. As I said, there is a pretty big disparity between 13 books, 2 race pamphlets, and a few years worth of Dragon support, and 2 books, 1 book on the horizon, and a few months of Dragon support. There is nothing wrong with WotC taking some time to close that gap a little bit.
I'm surprised at you Cyber-Dave, for not being reasonable to this point. Given that Duskweaver was entirely reasonable, and did not present a one-sided argument nor make statements of "facts" without evidence. Indeed, to the contrary, he likes Essentials. What he has said, however, was an IF scenario. Hypothetical. IF future material is more difficult for non-Essentials gamers to use, THEN non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint.
And you don't see it that way, at all?
Maybe you should e-mail this to the powers that be; that way they might actually understand the issues with sub-classes vs. real classes. As of right now they know essentials wasn't received well but cannot pull their heads far enough out of their collective **** to figure it out. The class design is incompatable and they don't understand that. I don't care if the classes can function side by side.
You think the people who designed the game are somehow ignorant of the incompatibility of the E-classes with the pre-E classes, but that you, a consumer (who is NOT, as far as I can tell, a professional game designer, let alone one who worked on THIS game), have discovered this light of truth that has escaped them?
Essentials was not well recieved? I'm afraid you are going to have to furnish proof on this one. Anecdotal evidence from Essentials-hate on these forums is not conclusive, because it is possible, indeed likely, that more people come to the forums to complain about a product than come to the forums to express love of it. Still...there are several prominent members of the forum community who love Essentials, and testimonials from old-edition grognards who have returned to 4e because of Essentials. And let's not forget you have ZERO input, positive or negative, from the thousands of gamers who NEVER come to these forums.
But it was not well-recieved by YOU, that's what you mean, isn't it? YOUR opinion must be so vital and universal that it somehow carries more weight than anyone else's.
You think the people who designed the game are somehow ignorant of the incompatibility of the E-classes with the pre-E classes, but that you, a consumer (who is NOT, as far as I can tell, a professional game designer, let alone one who worked on THIS game), have discovered this light of truth that has escaped them?
I think they understand it perfectly. I think it's why they keep them seperate in official events. They know that when a Taclord parties with a Slayer you get a Leader that deals Striker+ Damage and that the Pre-E defenders will feel worthless next to E+ defenders. They also probably don't want atrificers asking how their class features are supposed to work with the new item system. that might be awkward.
Essentials was not well recieved? I'm afraid you are going to have to furnish proof on this one.
You know we can't produce proof, which is why you ask for it.
We can produce evidence, but you'll reject it. Example: why go back on the E+ item book, Mordenkinen's Magical Emporium (or whatever)? It's a critical product for the Essentials line, and is virtually mandatory if attempting to use the new item system. Anyone who bought the Essentials line would be very likely to buy it... yet they pulled it. Why would they do that unless they expected it to fail? And why would they expect it to fail unless Essentials itself did not sell as well as they had expected? The costly change for Heroes of Shadowfell from softcover to hardcover is more evidence. If their new publications did well, why not stick with the new digest format?
But it was not well-recieved by YOU, that's what you mean, isn't it? YOUR opinion must be so vital and universal that it somehow carries more weight than anyone else's
I think his conclusion is based on the evidence before us, on WotC's shifting product lineup. They wouldn't be doing that if they didn't need to change the plan, and they wouldn't need to change the plan if the plan was working. The fact that he predicted Essentials would fail (based on his dislike of the product) before it was clear that it had isn't relevant to his conclusion that it did.
I don't agree. I don't see any sort of fundamental difference.
A PHB4 or Arcane Power 2 wouldn't significantly change the content of future books the way Essentials has. If PHB4 introduced a new arcane class, support for that class would then be in AP2. But it wouldn't change the fact that the artificer, bard, swordmage, etc. would also be supported by AP2 (and other future products, including DDi articles) and would get pretty much the same level of support as they would have done if the new class in PHB4 did not exist.
But (some) people are worried that Essentials means that future books (and DDi) will contain support primarily aimed at Essentials builds that is, in many cases, unusable by other characters. It seems sensible to assume that classes with no Essentials build (e.g. the ardent) will continue just as they've always been (and the recent DDi ardent article seems to support this). But will rangers get any support not aimed primarily or exclusively at hunters and scouts? Will the entirety of future support for this class that is actually useable by non-Essentials rangers be limited to utility powers?
Unlike some people, I don't claim any special powers of foresight, so I have no idea what the answer to that question is. All I'm saying is that I understand why the 'Essentials haters' are so worried, and I don't think their concerns are entirely without merit. (I also think it's pretty obnoxious to dismiss them as such, and slightly disingenuous to claim that Essentials doesn't have the potential to affect their personal D&D experience.)
Put yourself in the shoes of somebody playing a beastmaster ranger, for example. If all future ranger support is going to be for the hunter and scout, and therefore almost entirely unusable by you, then how is Essentials different (in purely practical terms, to you personally) than a new edition? In either case, your character isn't going to get any more support.
Most of an Essentials product is potentially useful to a player as well.
I'm assuming you mean 'post-Essentials product' here, otherwise this is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of the usefulness of future products. When we actually get to see HoS, we'll have a better idea of what future 'post-Essentials' support looks like and to what extent it's going to be useful to non-Essentials characters/players. But I think it's just as premature to say "support for non-Essentials characters will be just as good as it would have been without Essentials" as it is to say "Essentials has killed 4e".
It's the uncertainty people are upset about, as far as I can tell. There are people who can see the very real possibility that their characters will not get any more meaningful/useable support ever. Which would put them in the same position as if Essentials was a complete new edition.
I am definitely not saying they are right, or that I agree with them. Just that I don't think they should be written off as 'haters' or 'whiners'.
There are plenty of feats and powers you can cannibalize from the product.
I don't think anyone has claimed that they can't make use of the new expertise feats in HotFL and HotFK, for example. But there's a big difference between a book that contains dozens of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers from levels 1-30, a half-dozen paragon paths and a handful of feats, all of which your character can take, and a book that contains (effectively) just the handful of feats and some utility powers.
I mean, would you buy HotFL just for Heavy Blade Expertise?
1) How is this any different than a character who is playing a ranger, wants to add some primal magic to their concept, buys the PHB 3 for the Seeker, and finds out that they really don't like the class's mechanics?
Ironically, the ranger is a much better example than the paladin.
But can you really not see a difference between "I don't like how these seeker powers work, so I won't multiclass my ranger into seeker (but, hey, maybe some of these druid or shaman powers will do instead)" and "I cannot actually use most of this material with my character at all, because my ranger doesn't have un-levelled at-will stances, wilderness knacks or access to the Power Strike power"?
2) You have a pretty strong double standard. The E-paladin build includes multiple new level 1 at-will attack powers, multiple new leveled utility powers, and multiple new leveled daily attack powers. The only thing it doesn't offer is new encounter attack powers. That still leaves plenty of material that Sarah can cannibalize to give her pre-E paladin a bit of the flavor of a "post-E" build, which, logic would imply, is likely to be true of the blackguard as well.
I concede that the paladin was a bad example. Like the mage, the cavalier is pretty easily compatible with its base class. Let's pretend Sarah plays a ranger, fighter, rogue, druid, warlock or strength cleric instead, OK?
There is more that Sarah can easily cannibalize from the such builds than a ranger character interested in adding some primal magic to their class concept can easily cannibalize from the seeker.
Well, the ranger and the seeker are different classes. The cavalier and the blackguard and Sarah's pre-Essentials paladin The scout and the hunter and Sarah's pre-Essentials ranger are all the same class. I think it's reasonable to expect material for a single class to be more freely compatible than material for two different classes.
3) Any group that tells a player that they require that the player play a specific role is lame. Let the player play whatever interests them.
Maybe (as with my group) Sarah and her fellow players came to a collective agreement to keep all four party roles filled. Or maybe Sarah (like me) just prefers playing defenders to playing strikers.
It doesn't seem that way to me at all. They have 13 books and 2 race pamphlets dedicated to building the type of characters they enjoy. The relationship between the E products and any other splat book is only "fundamentally different" if you examine them with a double standard. They can patiently wait while those of us who prefer E builds are catered to for a little while. Though, I certainly have no desire for all pre-E style character support to cease to exist. That, however, doesn't mean that they need new support immediately, or that every (or any) product released in the near future should have something in it which is specifically designed to cater to players who prefer pre-E style character support. As I said, there is a pretty big disparity between 13 books, 2 race pamphlets, and a few years worth of Dragon support, and 2 books, 1 book on the horizon, and a few months of Dragon support. There is nothing wrong with WotC taking some time to close that gap a little bit.
You missed that word 'if', didn't you? (You also seem to have missed the whole point of my post, which was an attempt to understand the 'other side' of the argument, not an attempt to construct an argument of my own, and certainly not an attempt to convince anyone to change their mind.) People are worried because of the uncertainty. Whether their fears actually come to pass is, as yet, unknown. That does not mean that their concerns should be dismissed out of hand. It seems from your response that you feel you know for sure what the future of the game is going to be: a bit of Essentials-specific support for a while, then a return to support for pre-Essentials classes/builds. You might turn out to be right. But, IMO, your rosy optimism (and what looks like a knee-jerk dismissal of the concerns of those who don't share it) is built on no better foundation than the pessimism of the 'Essentials haters'.
Don't you think the forums might be a lot less unpleasant if people would allow themselves to see arguments from the other side's point of view occasionally? Do we really have to be so damn certain we're right all the time?
I'm surprised at you Cyber-Dave, for not being reasonable to this point. Given that Duskweaver was entirely reasonable, and did not present a one-sided argument nor make statements of "facts" without evidence. Indeed, to the contrary, he likes Essentials. What he has said, however, was an IF scenario. Hypothetical. IF future material is more difficult for non-Essentials gamers to use, THEN non-Essentials players have a legitimate complaint.
And you don't see it that way, at all?
I actually missed the if. I am sorry about that. I am only human. I make mistakes too.
A PHB4 or Arcane Power 2 wouldn't significantly change the content of future books the way Essentials has. If PHB4 introduced a new arcane class, support for that class would then be in AP2. But it wouldn't change the fact that the artificer, bard, swordmage, etc. would also be supported by AP2 (and other future products, including DDi articles) and would get pretty much the same level of support as they would have done if the new class in PHB4 did not exist.
Are you sure about that? PHB 3 seemed to significantly change the content of future books. It was the gateway that introduced different forms of resource management, a gateway that was then passed through by the Essentials line.
But (some) people are worried that Essentials means that future books (and DDi) will contain support primarily aimed at Essentials builds that is, in many cases, unusable by other characters. It seems sensible to assume that classes with no Essentials build (e.g. the ardent) will continue just as they've always been (and the recent DDi ardent article seems to support this). But will rangers get any support not aimed primarily or exclusively at hunters and scouts? Will the entirety of future support for this class that is actually useable by non-Essentials rangers be limited to utility powers?
DDi has already proved itself willing to support pre-E material. As for how future books will support existing content, I have no idea so I will not comment. I do, however, think that complaining about future events seems a little silly. It is sort of like the scene of white queen crying because she will prick her finger in Alice Through the Looking Glass.
Unlike some people, I don't claim any special powers of foresight, so I have no idea what the answer to that question is. All I'm saying is that I understand why the 'Essentials haters' are so worried, and I don't think their concerns are entirely without merit. (I also think it's pretty obnoxious to dismiss them as such, and slightly disingenuous to claim that Essentials doesn't have the potential to affect their personal D&D experience.)
I don't have any special powers of foresight either. But I don't see why Essentials haters are so worried. They claim that there will be no future support for pre-E content, despite a magazine that continues to support pre-E material. They cry about future events, acting as if they have already come to pass, much like the White Queen. And as for what is obnoxious, I think statements, by people like Thunder_Dragonbane, that Essentials should burn in fire are obnoxious. I think making fallacious claims, and twisting the words of the devs to your own biased conclusion, are obnoxious. I think calling for Mike to lose his job is obnoxious. And I think it is disingenuous to claim that a potential future product is currently changing your game, or that Essentials itself has had any current impact on current games. Since I have seen all these obnoxious and disingenuous acts come to pass, you will pardon me for not having much patience for the crowd as a whole anymore. (Though, I do make exceptions to the case for people such as Foxface.)
Put yourself in the shoes of somebody playing a beastmaster ranger, for example. If all future ranger support is going to be for the hunter and scout, and therefore almost entirely unusable by you, then how is Essentials different (in purely practical terms, to you personally) than a new edition? In either case, your character isn't going to get any more support.
You mean the same beastmaster ranger who has had zero real support, except for a few DDi articles, which pre-E classes have continued to receive post-Essentials? That probably was not the best choice of examples. And, Essentials is practically different from a new edition because it allows you to continue to use and play 13 books and 2 race pamphlets worth of material at the game table. A new edition would not do that.
I'm assuming you mean 'post-Essentials product' here, otherwise this is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of the usefulness of future products.
No, I meant Essentials. And, it is not irrelevant to a discussion of future products. We have not seen future products, so we have no idea what they will and will not do. However, we have seen Essentials products. We know what they do and do not do. We can thus base a discussion of how Essentials will effect the future of the game based on how Essentials itself effects the game.
It's the uncertainty people are upset about, as far as I can tell. There are people who can see the very real possibility that their characters will not get any more meaningful/useable support ever. Which would put them in the same position as if Essentials was a complete new edition.
Except, much of the Essentials products can be cannibalized to support pre-E characters. So, in a worst case scenario, pre-E characters might not get any dedicated support, but they would still get very real, very meaningful, and usable, support (for the most part. Martial characters would get the short end of the stick). There is also still a major difference from a new edition, because a new edition also invalidated prior books (making their use at a table against the RAW).
I am definitely not saying they are right, or that I agree with them. Just that I don't think they should be written off as 'haters' or 'whiners'.
It really depends on who. Foxface hates Essentials. I don't think he is a hater or whiner. Others, however, are.
I don't think anyone has claimed that they can't make use of the new expertise feats in HotFL and HotFK, for example. But there's a big difference between a book that contains dozens of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers from levels 1-30, a half-dozen paragon paths and a handful of feats, all of which your character can take, and a book that contains (effectively) just the handful of feats and some utility powers.
I said feats and powers. Every character type in the game gets new powers that they can use from the Essentials line. Martial characters don't get any attack powers, but other character types do. Which really isn't so bad, considering that martial characters have had the most support to date.
I mean, would you buy HotFL just for Heavy Blade Expertise?
Hyperbole. The book offers a lot more than that to every type of character.
But can you really not see a difference between "I don't like how these seeker powers work, so I won't multiclass my ranger into seeker (but, hey, maybe some of these druid or shaman powers will do instead)" and "I cannot actually use most of this material with my character at all, because my ranger doesn't have un-levelled at-will stances, wilderness knacks or access to the Power Strike power"?
Indeed, I do see a major difference between the PHB 3 and HotFK. PHB 3 does not offer a single new ranger power. HotFK does not offer any new ranger attack powers, but it does offer new ranger utility powers (some of which are very neat). Both the PHB 3 and HotFK offer new feats that a ranger can use. Both PHB 3 and HotFK offer new attack powers that a ranger can use via multiclassing feats. So, as far as I can tell, HotFK actually offers your ranger example more support than the PHB 3.
I concede that the paladin was a bad example. Like the mage, the cavalier is pretty easily compatible with its base class. Let's pretend Sarah plays a ranger, fighter, rogue, druid, warlock or strength cleric instead, OK?
Sure. The druid and warlock example also provide plenty of new attack powers (much like the cavalier). The strength cleric seems to be an unreasonable example, as it refers to a specific build. In regards to those multi attack stat classes, there are many future splat books which did not offer a particular attack stat build any real choices (in fact, that was one of the major complaints people had with that style of class). The ranger, fighter, and rogue each get new utility powers in addition to new feat support, which, as I pointed out above, is more than the PHB 3 gave them. I also don't see a problem with the pre-E martial classes getting a little less support than the other classes, because up until the E books those classes had the most support of any power source.
The scout and the hunter and Sarah's pre-Essentials ranger are all the same class. I think it's reasonable to expect material for a single class to be more freely compatible than material for two different classes.
Don't think of the scout and the hunter as pre-E rangers. Think of them as new classes that gain a special class feature that allows them to use pre-E ranger feats. Think of the scout and hunter utility powers as bonus support for a type of class whose power source has received more support than any other class type to date. In other words, I don't think the current set up is unreasonable in any shape or form.
Maybe (as with my group) Sarah and her fellow players came to a collective agreement to keep all four party roles filled. Or maybe Sarah (like me) just prefers playing defenders to playing strikers.
Awesome. So, she can grab a few of the blackguard powers without building a full out blackgaurd. Since the pre-E paladin has no alignment restrictions, it works. There are even some feat choices from the divine power book that she can use to bolster that concept with such a mix-mash build.
You missed that word 'if', didn't you? (You also seem to have missed the whole point of my post, which was an attempt to understand the 'other side' of the argument, not an attempt to construct an argument of my own, and certainly not an attempt to convince anyone to change their mind.)
I did miss the if. My apologies. I did not miss the point though. I just don't think the 'other side,' as a whole, deserves to be understood. The 'other side,' as an amalgamated whole, is little more than a massive set of fictions and double standards. However, I should note that I do not mean that statement to apply to the points or concerns of certain individuals, such as Foxface.
People are worried because of the uncertainty. Whether their fears actually come to pass is, as yet, unknown. That does not mean that their concerns should be dismissed out of hand.
As I said, I understand, and in the case of those fears and uncertainties as they are expressed by certain individuals I understand and sympathize. In the case of the amalgamated whole, I see more bologna than substance.
It seems from your response that you feel you know for sure what the future of the game is going to be: a bit of Essentials-specific support for a while, then a return to support for pre-Essentials classes/builds.
Not true. I have no idea what the future will bring. I just think that the existing Essentials builds offer more support than the amalgamated Essentials hating whole gives it credit for.
Don't you think the forums might be a lot less unpleasant if people would allow themselves to see arguments from the other side's point of view occasionally? Do we really have to be so damn certain we're right all the time?
The other sides point of view is not necessarily valid. I see where people like Foxface come from, even if I don't always agree with them. Most of the anti-Essentials diatribes I read, however, are not worth any sympathy.
The other sides point of view is not necessarily valid.
Aaaand... I'm don here, as you obviously don't actually care about any opinion other than your own.
The other sides point of view is not necessarily valid.
Aaaand... I'm don here, as you obviously don't actually care about any opinion other than your own.
On the contrary, I care deeply about opinions other than my own. But, unless they are well stated, and intelligent, I don't plan to invest them with validity. I have yet to see a post by Foxface (other than a couple where he made some choice comments about Mike Mearls) that I can not at least sympathize with; he hates Essentials by the way. Most of the posts by Kaulnaur (spelling?) I can give credit to as well; he also hates Essentials. Hoffnaug (spelling?) in this thread also came across as being fairly reasonable (I mean, I can't agree with his contextualization of the word some, but whatever); he also hates Essentials. All, however, from what I have seen, tend to admit that their position is nothing but a subjective preference for pre-E material and the desire to be able to purchase more products geared towards their preference. That sentiment I can understand. I can't get behind it, because it exists contrary to my own subjective preferences and desires, but I can understand it. The market will decide which of our subjective preferences should be catered to. But the entire flimsy set of arguments designed to give that subjective preference the cloak of objective validity? Blech. There is nothing worthwhile of sympathy or understanding there...
On the contrary, I care deeply about opinions other than my own. But, unless they are well stated, and intelligent, I don't plan to invest them with validity. I have yet to see a post by Foxface (other than a couple where he made some choice comments about Mike Mearls) that I can not at least sympathize with; he hates Essentials by the way. Most of the posts by Kaulnaur (spelling?) I can give credit to as well; he also hates Essentials. Hoffnaug (spelling?) in this thread also came across as being fairly reasonable (I mean, I can't agree with his contextualization of the word some, but whatever); he also hates Essentials. All, however, from what I have seen, tend to admit that their position is nothing but a subjective preference for pre-E material and the desire to be able to purchase more products geared towards their preference. That sentiment I can understand. I can't get behind it, because it exists contrary to my own subjective preferences and desires, but I can understand it. The market will decide which of our subjective preferences should be catered to. But the entire flimsy set of arguments designed to give that subjective preference the cloak of objective validity? Blech. There is nothing worthwhile of sympathy or understanding there...
If WOTC releases rules to bridge Pre-Essentials with essentials, there would be no valid reason to complain since all new essentials material would equal new material for everyone.
For example, the necromancy school in heroes of shadow will be just another school choice for mages, (see here) As of now, there are 0 rules for allowing a phb1 wizard to pick up a school, all he can do is pick an implement mastery and call it a day. If a phb1 wizard had rules support to allow him to exchange his implement class feature for a wizard school specialization, then this would be the ideal situation.
Until wotc does release these types of rules, essentials builds will continue to divide content and players. And because of this, I am 100% against new essentials material until these rules make print. They should prioritize all their efforts on merging essentials with pre-essentials first before churning out content only usable to people who jump on the essentials bandwagon. Being able to use just a select few number of powers/feats from a book is ridiculous. I want to be able to buy future books and not be shoehorned into playing a class variant of my own class. If i'm playing a rogue, I should be able to pick up thief weapon talent or weapon finesse or any variant thereof in future thief content in exchange for something.
This also goes the same way for people playing essentials classes. If i'm playing a slayer I should have a choice between if I want to have stances instead of dailys. I should also have the choice to have no dailys and dump power strike for more interesting encounter attack powers in MP1,MP2 and phb1.
And as I recall, wotc stated that essentials is supposed to introduce new players to the game. Which in itself is a good thing, however, the lack of compatibility makes this a horrible introduction as it forces some players to remake their character to use the content of previous books. Using the prior slayer example, say I'm playing a slayer and I purchased MP1. I can't use anything in the book except for some feats and the fighter utility powers. But hey, I want to have the tempest technique class feature, or use some of these encounter attack powers or at-wills, sorry bud you have to redo your character as a normal fighter.. Why can't I just keep on playing my slayer and maybe sacrifice a couple class features to pick it up? Because wotc didn't think this through...
I am severely disappointed in the way wotc is handling this and hope they release the merging rules soon ( which personally I believe should have been released immediatly when essentials was first released, but oh well.). I also hope they release the mordekeinen's magic emporium content very soon, since the magic item rarity system is an epic fail until that information is released (I am aware that it might not see release, but they better release the content in some form or fashion very soon as it was needed months ago...). I am certain if wotc does these two things, it will go a long way into quelling many people's concerns with essentials and future content.
No, those are my opinions based on the quality of the product. High quality, well balanced, retro style classes have a HUGE place in game design.
High quality? Defender and Leader feature homogeny =! high quality, it equals "easy to write". In fact, the majority of the essentials line seems to be about what's easy to get out the door: a class with exactly one attack power doesn't need much proofreading right?
Right. 'Easy to get out the door' is important when your Dark Corporate Masters are taking away your budget with one hand while flogging you for more revenue with the other.
As much as I love the meticulous class balance 4e achieved, it rendered new classes extremely difficult to create. The sheer volume of features and powers required was staggering. E-classes are much easier to create - martial classes are a snap, and even more nearly traditional ones have significantly fewer powers. It means less choice for the player, too, so it's easier to build characters (the one or two distinct characters each class can model), too. Less is more.
Of course, it's less of what some of us want out of the game, being more of what we wish would never be added back into the game, again... :shrug:
Well balanced? At the same time they were homogenizing some roles, they've tossed whatever semblance of balance there was in striker features out the window. Slayer bonus damage is every attack, Thief and Executioner is 1/turn, and the Scout's is 1/round. Why? It's not clear why they made these destinctions, but it makes a Slayer more powerful right of the bat with action points, dispite their superiority in HP, Defenses, Mobility, and Saves. Is a Hunter a comperable controller to a Mage? Can he even do the same damage as a mage? No, he's strictly inferior.
Distinction for the sake of distinction. Balance is prettymuch off the table in Essentials, it's obvious. It's been judged more important that the classes be distinct, easy to build, and easy to play.
Compare the effectiveness of the new defender aura with any of the old defender mark/enforcement capability, and try to tell me they're balanced.
I can definitely speak to this one. I played a Knight in Encounters along-side a 4e Fighter for a bit, and the degree to which the Knight out-performed the Fighter in 'marking' and 'mark'-punishment was embarrassing. It's not just that the Knight need only get (or have an enemy moved) adjacent to de-facto-mark, it's that his mark-punishment is an OA instead of an Immediate Action, and his stance and power attack are useable with it. At 1st level, my Knight was able to pull tricks like spoiling enemy attacks by pushing them away from my allies when they tried to attack them. Just outright cancelling an enemy's attack. It's quite a surge of power inflation. It might not matter with very inexperienced players, but if you know what you're doing, you're faced with a stark choice: the traditional fighter, which is interesting and varied in play, or the Knight, which is deadly-dull, but substantially more effective as a defender.
The other sides point of view is not necessarily valid.
Aaaand... I'm don here, as you obviously don't actually care about any opinion other than your own.
On the contrary, I care deeply about opinions other than my own. But, unless they are well stated, and intelligent, I don't plan to invest them with validity. I have yet to see a post by Foxface (other than a couple where he made some choice comments about Mike Mearls) that I can not at least sympathize with; he hates Essentials by the way. Most of the posts by Kaulnaur (spelling?) I can give credit to as well; he also hates Essentials. Hoffnaug (spelling?) in this thread also came across as being fairly reasonable (I mean, I can't agree with his contextualization of the word some, but whatever); he also hates Essentials. All, however, from what I have seen, tend to admit that their position is nothing but a subjective preference for pre-E material and the desire to be able to purchase more products geared towards their preference. That sentiment I can understand. I can't get behind it, because it exists contrary to my own subjective preferences and desires, but I can understand it. The market will decide which of our subjective preferences should be catered to. But the entire flimsy set of arguments designed to give that subjective preference the cloak of objective validity? Blech. There is nothing worthwhile of sympathy or understanding there...
2 things:
1) Kalnaur: You and every other frickin' internet forum member out there. What is so hard about the nickname? ;)
2) Hating Essentials: I don't hate Essentials; my wizard is thinking about retraining Scorching Burst into Freezing Burst, and that's cool with me. What I dislike, to be very specific, is the class design of Essentials. This includes the implementation of martial characters (and the martial source bleeding into other classes), spell schools, divine domains and general layout of the digest sized books. That is not to say I or others cannot cannibalize (to use your term) essentials classes (either now or in the future) but it is more incidental support than intended and/or focused support.
I only dislike the whole of Essentials if the design of Essentials precludes any meaningful, dedicated support for the design of pre-Essentials designed classes. By meaningful or dedicated support I mean books with continued 4th edition support. Currently, that looks to be the case. But I cannot divine nor foresee, so the future could be full of books supporting both our desired edition.
I don't know about not releasing any new Essentials style material first, but you won't hear me disagree with you Saric. I would really like them to release all that stuff ASAP as well.
It does seem a little overboard and a bad business decision to stop all content release until they release the bridge rules. But to be honest, wotc has no excuse, if they had already decided that this was the direction moving foward, we already should have those rules either in the essentials books or in some article somewhere when essentials was released or maybe 1-2 months afterwards. Its February and heroes of the fallen lands came out in september. five or more months for those rules is way too long.
If they are unsure of what content to release as they seemed to infer at dndxp, then those rules would be a great start. The good thing about it is that if they do so, it benefits their current customers and new ones, since an old customer can use a lot more of the new content without having to play a sub-class most of the time, and a new customer will be happy since he/she will have the rules to fully use non-essentials game material besides a couple feats and not be stuck waiting for essentials specific material to be released slowly over time... I'm sure many people would be more enthusiastic about new content if it could be used wholly, regardless if its an essentials/non-essentials character. (At least I know I would...)
Saric: Yea. I agree. The rules should have been out yesterday. But I still like what I am getting in the meantime...
Kalnaur: Sorry for misspelling your name. The rest is really just semantics, and you posting about how you dislike a bunch of stuff I like.
The only thing that is obvious is that you just posted a total load of bologna Tony. But hey, that is what generally passes for an anti-E post these days.
Saric: Yea. I agree. The rules should have been out yesterday. But I still like what I am getting in the meantime...
Kalnaur: Sorry for misspelling your name. The rest is really just semantics, and you posting about how you dislike a bunch of stuff I like.
The meaning of the words and fine line between hating some of the essentials ideas or material and all of it is important. I dislike the classes and their entire design (where I know you much prefer the classes, though I am still hazy as to why, beyond legacy nostalgia), but am quite happy that the races got the either or ability scores. Since Essentials as a line of products are tiles (which I am ambivalent about), the Red Box (ditto), two players books (dislike the classes and layout but like some of the powers and feats; feel the design was misguided but headed in a possible interesting direction), the Rules Compendium and Monster Vault (nifty but not required), and the DM Kit (Not really seeing the need for this for myself personally, but probably would have liked at least the tokens to start with), there is plenty to either like or hate, and with the understanding that the semantics you mentioned is trying to codify and define certain terms, I think this is really rather important. If Essentials is understood to be 10 products, I am fine with Essentials existing; most of the material ranges from nifty but not needed to questioning why they changed it, but by itself induces no other feelings.
However, Essentials design is by contrast a possibly more far-reaching concept, and one that could have a future impact on my games. Not so much because of a lack of options from current material (as you are so ready to remind us that the pre-E crowd has 13+ books), but because of the possible discontinuation of further support for my prefered material over your prefered material. I will give you that certain "Essentials" powers and feats can be used on the whole by many players, even those of the pre-E classes. However this currently feels more like them throwing the 4th edition players a bone and less like dedicated support. Also, there are magazine articles, but one must pay the subscription fee or not get that support. If the only support the previous designs get is online support, then what of those with not the funds to continually spend for a subscription? I usually get my material from friends and family as gifts, and they are much less willing to buy me a digital subscription to digital content over a physical product, be that off of Amazon or from the local bookstore. If (and note there is an if there) the only support in books heading forward is that of Essentials, The 4th edition material that is new (and commonly inspiring) for me will be done with.
Lastly, some people might be happy with 13+ books. I would personally like to see 2 times that number filled with more options. Some complain about "bloat". Apparently, their definition of "bloat" is my definition of "enough usable options". Around 25 to 30 books full of various options sounds great to me. It sounds like something I could have now and still be playing when I'm 60. Who knows, I may never use or have my characters use all the options for classes that are currently present. That doesn't mean I don't want more material anyway. ;) It's consumerish and wasteful and selfish, but in the end, I really want more options for the class system I love. All the rest of the system has stayed virtually the same, and I find it confusing and frustrating for them to go in such an odd direction. At least odd to me.
I really am curious though, now that I find this question bumping around in my mind: what, besides the flavour of legacy, do you like about the Essentials class design? Or is it all about the nostalgia factor? Anyone who enjoys the E-classes could reply to this, but I am wondering about Dave in particular.
The only thing that is obvious is that you just posted a total load of bologna Tony. But hey, that is what generally passes for an anti-E post these days.
Motice the difference between our posts and yours? We post specific examples of issues we have with the system, and you simply respond with "That's not true!"
You stated earlier that Essentials is high-quality and balanced, which we disputed. Explain how leaders doing striker damage +int mod is balanced within the 4-role system. Explain how Defender's Aura is balanced compared to any Pre-E marking mechanic. You can say "nah-uh" all you like, but it's not like we're making this stuff up.
If essentials material was released to be usable wholly by the old classes (as in the parent class can mix/match class features to pick some features/powers from the sub-class and vice versa) , would you care if all material was essentials based in the future?
Example, imagine being a standard fighter and being able to substitute combat superiority and combat challenge for the knight's Defending aura and Battle Guardian and vice versa. Or subbing out all your encounter powers for Power Strike and weapon specialization (unsure why you'd want to do that but hey its a choice that you would have the option of making for yourself.) Another example would be picking up Heroic Slayer from the slayer in exchange for combat challenge and combat superiority.
The only thing that is obvious is that you just posted a total load of bologna Tony. But hey, that is what generally passes for an anti-E post these days.
Motice the difference between our posts and yours? We post specific examples of issues we have with the system, and you simply respond with "That's not true!"
You stated earlier that Essentials is high-quality and balanced, which we disputed. Explain how leaders doing striker damage +int mod is balanced within the 4-role system. Explain how Defender's Aura is balanced compared to any Pre-E marking mechanic. You can say "nah-uh" all you like, but it's not like we're making this stuff up.
Neither you nor Tony gave specific examples backed by hard evidence. What the two of you did was make false claims (in the form of examples), and present anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. I have heard many people give anecdotal evidence about the way E characters and non-E characters play at the table that is directly contrary to yours. My own experience is directly contrary to yours.
As for your "examples," they are simply false. I am not sure what else you would like me to do but tell you that. I suppose I could post hard numbers to prove that it is bologna, but I have got involved in such a discussion twice (and been on the winning side of the discussion twice), and yet people are still making new claims about Essentials (which are equally bologna) in a very similar spirit. I have come to the conclusion that such lies will persist no matter what I do. Someone out there is going to make a claim in a similar spirit; someone out there is going to make a claim that sounds a lot like the claims that the Executioner is overpowered, or the Druid can simultaneously fill three combat roles as well as any other class, never mind the fact that their "examples" have no hard evidence, and that the hard evidence (which can be gathered on the CharOp board) contradicts their claims.
But, if you really want some hard numbers to prove you wrong, go head over to the CharOp board. You will notice that all the top damage dealers in the DPR kings thread are not Essentials characters. If you make a post about any particular Essentials class being overpowered compared to pre-E, the posters in that board will set you straight quite quickly.
Me, I am simply not willing to go through the effort crunching math to prove a point, because as soon as I defeat your claim someone else is going to spout very similar bologna, but bologna that is just different enough to require me to do the math all over again. So I am going to rely on doing what you did, making a statement without the backing of hard evidence. The only difference is that my statement is true, while your statement is false. End of story...
Well, not quite. Lazy Warlords playing in a group of Essentials characters do get quite a damage boost. That, however, doesn't bother me so much. Mainly because the Lazy Warlord is never the one making the attack (even if it is his power that sets off the attack), another character is. It never comes out feeling like the Lazy Warlord is overshadowing anyone. It just comes out feeling like the Lazy Warlord is giving another character a nice boost. That set up does not bother me.
That set up is also not quite as overpowered as some claim, however, as the Lazy Warlord (for the most part) does not grant charges. Essentials characters achieve the high end damage numbers they can achieve via charges. Their damage, otherwise, is actually pretty comparable to the at-will damage of other classes (for the most part). Mind you, the slayer gets his Dex as a bonus to damage, and all of them can still gain some minor stance based damage bonus, so it is absolutely somewhat more effective than the average pre-E melee basic attack. But, it still doesn't allow the Lazy Warlord to command E strikers to deal their high end DPR capabilities.
And, it should also be noted that a pre-E rogue can be used to make an awsome melee basic attack as well (as they will still be able to apply their sneak attack damage once a turn now), and that the scout still has a once per round striker feature (which means that unless he misses with on his turn, a Lazy Warlord can't use the scout for a big increase in the group's DPR).
I really am curious though, now that I find this question bumping around in my mind: what, besides the flavour of legacy, do you like about the Essentials class design? Or is it all about the nostalgia factor? Anyone who enjoys the E-classes could reply to this, but I am wondering about Dave in particular.
I like that it has different resource management mechanics than a "magical" Essentials build. This helps to differentiate the mechanical feel of magic and mundane attacks (to me). I would not like this if the two were not balanced against each other, but since the builds are, I like it quite a bit.
I also like being able to play at a static/mean DPR capability. Pre-E builds are quite swingy in terms of their damage output. Their higher end numbers outperform (martial) E builds, their lower end numbers underperform (martial) E builds, all depending on if/when they use their encounter and daily powers, and if/when they roll misses (with their mean capabilities sitting at roughly the same numbers as the martial E builds). Martial E-builds tend to be much more static in their damage output. I enjoy playing a more reliable character (even if it means I don't always spike quite as high).
One thing I really love about the way my scout plays is the nature of the choices I make in combat. Instead of choosing which power I play I need to think about which stance to use, how to move my character, and which enemy to attack, in order to trigger the best DPR with my attack that round. I just find the end process of the choices I make more rewarding (perhaps because I see more effect on the physical movement of characters on the board than I did when I played a regular pre-E ranger build).
Also, the scout was the only character that allowed me to create my character concept. It gave me a reason to use one bigger axe and one smaller axe (which I find visually appealing). It gave me the ability to regularly knock people prone with an attack (which I wanted to do because I wanted to model my character of the capabilities of the NPC wolves in the game). It gave me a light smattering of primal magic, but not enough that it would take over my character concept. It gave me the powers I wanted to play with...
I’m not one of them but I’ll answer this with a resounding maybe. IF the multiclassing rules were finally released I might use them to cannibalize essentials garbage into pre-essentials classes, but at the same time I would hate to multiclass fighter / fighter just to do so. I’m not a huge fan of multiclassing in the first place.
Would I care if all material was 4.5 in the future, yes, I’m not interested in it or the class design.
I was not referring to multclassing into the same class. Multiclassing into your own class is an abhorrent idea, and I hope they never do it... I was referring to choosing your own class features that you get at level 1 and beyond.
Say. you chose to play a level 1 fighter. At level 1 You can choose between, combat challenge, Defender Aura+Battle Guardian, or Heroic Slayer.
You can choose to have daily attack powers as normal, or to have an assortment of stances and a few class features.
You can choose to pick encounter attack powers as normal or pick to have power strike + weapon specialization.
You can choose to have at-will attack powers as normal, or to have just stances in their place.
Make more sense now?
This I would go for. Which to me means WotC will not do it. What I said a few hours ago is more likely due to their lack of understanding as to the complaints of the 4.5 design.
I'm sure everyone would go for it, there is like 0 drawback to this idea. Its a win-win situation for wotc, as old players would buy essentials books because they can use it all for their older chars, and new players buy it because its already in essentials format. Granted, still thinking about wotc's lack of common sense makes me annoyed at them even more. I should go shovel some snow/ice to vent.... or spam them with suggestions by e-mail.
@ Damon_Tor, Kalnur & Tony_Vargas
If essentials material was released to be usable wholly by the old classes (as in the parent class can mix/match class features to pick some features/powers from the sub-class and vice versa) , would you care if all material was essentials based in the future?
Example, imagine being a standard fighter and being able to substitute combat superiority and combat challenge for the knight's Defending aura and Battle Guardian and vice versa. Or subbing out all your encounter powers for Power Strike and weapon specialization (unsure why you'd want to do that but hey its a choice that you would have the option of making for yourself.) Another example would be picking up Heroic Slayer from the slayer in exchange for combat challenge and combat superiority.
You mean if they took the class features of Essentials classes that now exist and will exist and made them interchangeable with features that already exist within the core class?
It might make me happier. I would have to see how they decided to do it.
If, for example, the slayer features still made the fighter a striker more than a defender, I would still find the design lacking. For me, in my mind, if you are playing a fighter, you are not a damage dealer. You are a meat shield. And I would prefer a brand new class with brand new mechanics over trying to change the working mechanics and baseline of original 4th edition of "a Fighter is always a Defender. No exceptions."
If, however, the class feature did not override the intrinsic need for a Fighter to (in my opinion) never be a striker as a main role, I could totally get behind the concept of the swap if it helped the fighter become a secondary striker. Still not as good as a real striker, but better at being a striking defender than perhaps a sword and board knight type defender.
So the answer is maybe. I was and still am a huge fan of roles, and of roles defining what classes could do. I am also a big fan of cutting apart legacy classes that could do it all into smaller classes with dedicated roles. As I understand it, that is what the Shaman, Warden and Druid are: 3 parts of the original druid. I don't want a druid that can be a primary leader. The name for that class now is Shaman. However I can get behind a Druid with leadery leanings, the concept of a secondary role that they partially but not fully fill.
I really am curious though, now that I find this question bumping around in my mind: what, besides the flavour of legacy, do you like about the Essentials class design? Or is it all about the nostalgia factor? Anyone who enjoys the E-classes could reply to this, but I am wondering about Dave in particular.
I like that it has different resource management mechanics than a "magical" Essentials build. This helps to differentiate the mechanical feel of magic and mundane attacks (to me). I would not like this if the two were not balanced against each other, but since the builds are, I like it quite a bit.
I also like being able to play at a static/mean DPR capability. Pre-E builds are quite swingy in terms of their damage output. Their higher end numbers outperform (martial) E builds, their lower end numbers underperform (martial) E builds, all depending on if/when they use their encounter and daily powers, and if/when they roll misses (with their mean capabilities sitting at roughly the same numbers as the martial E builds). Martial E-builds tend to be much more static in their damage output. I enjoy playing a more reliable character (even if it means I don't always spike quite as high).
One thing I really love about the way my scout plays is the nature of the choices I make in combat. Instead of choosing which power I play I need to think about which stance to use, how to move my character, and which enemy to attack, in order to trigger the best DPR with my attack that round. I just find the end process of the choices I make more rewarding (perhaps because I see more effect on the physical movement of characters on the board than I did when I played a regular pre-E ranger build).
Also, the scout was the only character that allowed me to create my character concept. It gave me a reason to use one bigger axe and one smaller axe (which I find visually appealing). It gave me the ability to regularly knock people prone with an attack (which I wanted to do because I wanted to model my character of the capabilities of the NPC wolves in the game). It gave me a light smattering of primal magic, but not enough that it would take over my character concept. It gave me the powers I wanted to play with...
Well then I can truly say that as much as I dislike Essentials classes in every way, I am still glad they came about.
I do have a follow-up question though . . . If they had come out with a book of prebuilt hybrid classes, and one of them was a scout that mixed the ranger with the barbarian, and that allowed for this concept you had to be created, would that have been as good? Or was the concept helped by the nostalgia and familiarity within the Essentials design and flavour?
I do have a follow-up question though . . . If they had come out with a book of prebuilt hybrid classes, and one of them was a scout that mixed the ranger with the barbarian, and that allowed for this concept you had to be created, would that have been as good? Or was the concept helped by the nostalgia and familiarity within the Essentials design and flavour?
It was definitely helped by the nostalgia (though I am not quite sure what you mean by familiarity) created by the Essentials design and flavor. Seeing some of my favorite aspects of 2e classes reintroduced, using balanced mechanics, with the Essentials classes really reinvigorated my interest in 4e. I just didn't describe the nostalgia appeal in my last post because you asked what other than nostalgia made me like those classes so much...
Look, I am not kidding when I say that the Essentials products are pretty much my favorite products in the 4e D&D line. Hell, the only products I like more than the Essentials line are the Dark Sun Campaign Setting and the Dark Sun Creature Catalogue (because I love Dark Sun, a lot). That being said, I don't actually want to see support for pre-E builds peter out (except when I am suffering a gut reaction to the posts of people such as Lokaire, Thunder_Dragonbane, and the like). I would also love for a book to be released that better integrates the mechanics of pre-E and post-E characters, in a single character build (if only to make the material in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting more compatable with the Essentials builds
).
I do have a follow-up question though . . . If they had come out with a book of prebuilt hybrid classes, and one of them was a scout that mixed the ranger with the barbarian, and that allowed for this concept you had to be created, would that have been as good? Or was the concept helped by the nostalgia and familiarity within the Essentials design and flavour?
It was definitely helped by the nostalgia (though I am not quite sure what you mean by familiarity) created by the Essentials design and flavor. Seeing some of my favorite aspects of 2e classes reintroduced, using balanced mechanics, with the Essentials classes really reinvigorated my interest in 4e. I just didn't describe the nostalgia appeal in my last post because you asked what other than nostalgia made me like those classes so much...
Look, I am not kidding when I say that the Essentials products are pretty much my favorite products in the 4e D&D line. Hell, the only products I like more than the Essentials line are the Dark Sun Campaign Setting and the Dark Sun Creature Catalogue (because I love Dark Sun, a lot). That being said, I don't actually want to see support for pre-E builds peter out (except when I am suffering a gut reaction to the posts of people such as Lokaire, Thunder_Dragonbane, and the like). I would also love for a book to be released that better integrates the mechanics of pre-E and post-E characters, in a single character build (if only to make the material in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting more compatible with the Essentials builds ).
I did indeed ask for the nostalgia to be omitted. Mainly to see if it was the only ingredient, or the final ingredient in your love of Essentials. The differentiation is important, because if nostalgia was the only reason, I don't think I could be "happy for you" that the Essentials classes exist. Mainly because nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia is nostalgia done poorly, and upsets me.
However you made the case for mechanical differences (which I am not a fan, of but can see the allure of), reliability and subtle vs. overt tactical decisions (stance and power strike use vs power usage and timing).
I know a fair amount of my own dislike for the Essentials classes is their breaking of Roles (which for me should be a set in stone main role and a flexible secondary role) and what I see as less "flash". The Knight is less flashy than pretty much any 4th edition fighter, and I love flash.
To perhaps explain my love of the 4th edition class design, a bit of background. Past 4th edition, I have only played D&D on console or computer games. I'm always the wizard. Or the Sorcerer. Or the whatever that is magical and flashy and cool.
So along comes 4th edition. And all the classes are flashy and cool. Not all of them are magical, but what they hey, two out of three ain't bad. And this class design put up in stark contrast why I was not a player of fighters. Or barbarians. Or heck, any class that had no spells. I need the flash. To feel cool, to feel important, and most specifically, for my character to be (or at least seem to be) powerful.
Then Essentials comes along, and creates these subtle class concepts. No flash, broken roles, etc. I got angry.
Had they just pulled a bait and switch? Were they telling me that the game rules I liked were wrongbadfun? It sure felt like it. I wanted the flash back. I wanted definite specific lines to roles and power sources. They had given me that. Then they changed it. It made me sad.
At this current point, I'm not sure whether to be
or 
about the vampire class in HoS. I'm not sure if I am 
or 
. And that leaves me just a tad, well 
.But through it all, I am glad someone enjoys what these people have worked on. I guess while you get what you want, all I really can do is this: -->
@ Damon_Tor, Kalnur & Tony_Vargas
If essentials material was released to be usable wholly by the old classes (as in the parent class can mix/match class features to pick some features/powers from the sub-class and vice versa) , would you care if all material was essentials based in the future?
Example, imagine being a standard fighter and being able to substitute combat superiority and combat challenge for the knight's Defending aura and Battle Guardian and vice versa. Or subbing out all your encounter powers for Power Strike and weapon specialization (unsure why you'd want to do that but hey its a choice that you would have the option of making for yourself.) Another example would be picking up Heroic Slayer from the slayer in exchange for combat challenge and combat superiority.
You mean if they took the class features of Essentials classes that now exist and will exist and made them interchangeable with features that already exist within the core class?
It might make me happier. I would have to see how they decided to do it.
If, for example, the slayer features still made the fighter a striker more than a defender, I would still find the design lacking. For me, in my mind, if you are playing a fighter, you are not a damage dealer. You are a meat shield. And I would prefer a brand new class with brand new mechanics over trying to change the working mechanics and baseline of original 4th edition of "a Fighter is always a Defender. No exceptions."
If, however, the class feature did not override the intrinsic need for a Fighter to (in my opinion) never be a striker as a main role, I could totally get behind the concept of the swap if it helped the fighter become a secondary striker. Still not as good as a real striker, but better at being a striking defender than perhaps a sword and board knight type defender.
So the answer is maybe. I was and still am a huge fan of roles, and of roles defining what classes could do. I am also a big fan of cutting apart legacy classes that could do it all into smaller classes with dedicated roles. As I understand it, that is what the Shaman, Warden and Druid are: 3 parts of the original druid. I don't want a druid that can be a primary leader. The name for that class now is Shaman. However I can get behind a Druid with leadery leanings, the concept of a secondary role that they partially but not fully fill.
If there is a petition for some DDI articles to make the essentials stuff compatible with the old class builds I am so very behind this. Somebody start a petition and/or an article for Dragon now! It would be nice if they produced a more comprehensive errata to clear the irrelevant feats off the feat list too now that some essentials feats are soooo much better.
I don't know how other people feel but I think a new category of feat bonus called 'superior feat bonus' is needed. The expertise feats will either be universal or banned in home campaigns but there are many flavourful feats with situational feat bonuses that are rendered completely irrelevant by the feat bonuses from expertise. I think that if the situational feat bonuses were branded 'superior feat bonuses' which stack with feat bonuses would preserve some flavour and avoid the move towards vanilla high attack roles.
I'd also be in favour of feats where the precondition is a low primary stat e.g. a wizard/multiclass/hybrid with intelligence 15 or less (increasing in increments as you level) that grants an untyped bonus to attack rolls with wizard powers. It's an inelegant feat tax but it would allow roleplayers a way to avoid (in part) the requirement to always max the main stat of your class, will help dual stat builds and hybrids with incompatible stats.
I don't dislike Essentials but if there is to be massively reduced support for older builds then I do think that making the new stuff compatible as far as possible using DDI would be a very, very, very, good thing. Lets give them some positive feedback on this issue please!
Nah uh!
Right then...
Well, not quite. Lazy Warlords playing in a group of Essentials characters do get quite a damage boost. That, however, doesn't bother me so much. Mainly because the Lazy Warlord is never the one making the attack (even if it is his power that sets off the attack), another character is. It never comes out feeling like the Lazy Warlord is overshadowing anyone. It just comes out feeling like the Lazy Warlord is giving another character a nice boost. That set up does not bother me.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Note that a warlord needn't "lazy" to grant attacks.
That set up is also not quite as overpowered as some claim, however, as the Lazy Warlord (for the most part) does not grant charges.
By level 11, a Warlord optimized for charges will be able to grant two charges per turn at-will. Even before that, though, there are plenty of encounter and daily powers that grant charges, often to several allies at once.
Essentials characters achieve the high end damage numbers they can achieve via charges.
True, they do their truly absurd, game-breaking damage when they charge. A properly built charging Slayer deals damage in excess of a pre-E encounter power when charging via Surprising Charge, a feat they sacrifice nothing to qualify for, unlike other charging strikers. If they use Power strike the damage exceeds Pre-E daily levels.
Their damage outside of a charge is still in excess of what Pre-E strikers can accomplish on a basic attack, however. At level 1 it's 1W+Str mod+Dex mod+stance (2 or 4 depending on the situation). This is every hit. Note that the 1W is in no way restricted: Slayers will be using a d10 weapon at minimum.
Their damage, otherwise, is actually pretty comparable to the at-will damage of other classes (for the most part). Mind you, the slayer gets his Dex as a bonus to damage, and all of them can still gain some minor stance based damage bonus, so it is absolutely somewhat more effective than the average pre-E melee basic attack. But, it still doesn't allow the Lazy Warlord to command E strikers to deal their high end DPR capabilities.
Again, Warlords grant charges. By level 11 they can do so twice per round effectively at-will.
And, it should also be noted that a pre-E rogue can be used to make an awsome melee basic attack as well (as they will still be able to apply their sneak attack damage once a turn now), and that the scout still has a once per round striker feature (which means that unless he misses with on his turn, a Lazy Warlord can't use the scout for a big increase in the group's DPR).
This element was added to the rogue by Essentials, I do not consider it representative of Pre-E balance. Further, the most a rogue will do on a basic attack is 1[W]+Str+Str+2d6. 2d6 averages 7 damage. Hey, that's two more than the slayer's +2 stance, right? Sure, except that the rogue is using a 1d4 (2.5 avg damage) weapon, and str is his secondary attribute. He can increase it to a 1d6 (3.5 avg) at the cost of his +1 attack bonus (which the slayer gets at all times) or a 1d8 (4.5 avg) with a feat (a feat the slayer can use to get a 1d12 (6.5 avg) +3 prof weapon with high crit) AND the fact that the rogue needs CA for every attack, which means either he or his flanking partner is out past the frontline. The rogue has striker defenses and striker HP and surges.
By contrast, the slayer's at-will damage is 100% unconditional, and uses whatever weapons he wants.
I'll note to entirely avoided the issue of Pre E and Post E defenders, between which you don't seem to think there is a disparity.
The Knight and Cavalier:
"Mark" everyone Adjacent to them at all times, and anyone who becomes adjacent.
Enforce an unlimited # of times per round (OA instead of II)
Can enforce vs Shifting enemies
Can enforce with at-will and encounter equivalent effects/damage
Can only enforce vs Adjacent
"mark" -2 to hit penalty fades if the enemy gets away.
Enforce an unlimited # of times per round (OA instead of II)
Can enforce vs Shifting enemies
Can enforce with at-will and encounter equivalent effects/damage
Can only enforce vs Adjacent
"mark" -2 to hit penalty fades if the enemy gets away.
True, they do their truly absurd, game-breaking damage when they charge. A properly built charging Slayer deals damage in excess of a pre-E encounter power when charging via Surprising Charge, a feat they sacrifice nothing to qualify for, unlike other charging strikers. If they use Power strike the damage exceeds Pre-E daily levels.
Their damage outside of a charge is still in excess of what Pre-E strikers can accomplish on a basic attack, however. At level 1 it's 1W+Str mod+Dex mod+stance (2 or 4 depending on the situation). This is every hit. Note that the 1W is in no way restricted: Slayers will be using a d10 weapon at minimum.
I want you to back up this claim with hard evidence. I want to see math that actually provides a game breaking DPR on Slayer charges. I want you to provide a fully built and calculated DPR for the Slayer. CharOp it as much as you like. I will return with a pre-E build that can beat that DPR. And of course Slayers have better melee basic attacks than pre-E characters. That is the point of Essentials. Their mean DPR, however, is very comparable to the mean DPR of pre-E strikers. Which I will be happy to prove to you, if you actually provide any real math. So again, provide me with a fully CharOped Slayer build. I will then provide you with a fully CharOped pre-E build. We can compare the two builds after that.
This element was added to the rogue by Essentials, I do not consider it representative of Pre-E balance. Further, the most a rogue will do on a basic attack is 1[W]+Str+Str+2d6. 2d6 averages 7 damage. Hey, that's two more than the slayer's +2 stance, right? Sure, except that the rogue is using a 1d4 (2.5 avg damage) weapon, and str is his secondary attribute. He can increase it to a 1d6 (3.5 avg) at the cost of his +1 attack bonus (which the slayer gets at all times) or a 1d8 (4.5 avg) with a feat (a feat the slayer can use to get a 1d12 (6.5 avg) +3 prof weapon with high crit) AND the fact that the rogue needs CA for every attack, which means either he or his flanking partner is out past the frontline. The rogue has striker defenses and striker HP and surges.
1) A rogue can increase his damage to 1d10 with a single feat.
2) The most a rogue will do on a melee basic attack is 2[w]+2*Str+5d6 damage; The most a Slayer can achieve is 2[w]+Str+Dex+8+8 (though, that last +8 drops to +4 if the Slayer is not willing to take a -2 penalty to the attack roll, or the creature has anyone adjacent to it other than the Slayer). That is not counting bonuses from feats. That is pretty comparable. Namely, without any feats, that is 40.5 average damage for the rogue and 43 damage for the Slayer (39 damage if it can't meet the conditions to deal +8 damage with a stance, but then the rogue's average damage drops to 22.5 if it can't achieve combat advantage). I am assuming the use of a shortsword and a greatsword. Again, considering the fact that the Slayer doesn't get encounter powers that are nearly as powerful as those of a rogue, or any daily powers, that is very comparable.
3) Using encounter and daily powers the rogue can apply a ton of status effects that lock down enemies. A slayer has no ability to do that.
4) Getting CA is trivial.
5) Giving the rogue this ability only served to bring balance to the game, not take it away. As far as I understand it, classes like the ranger, or even barbarian, could massively outperform the rogue. Giving a rogue a once per turn sneak attack simply puts them back on the same playing field.
6) Final summation: stop trying to feed people bologna while calling it steak.
I'll note to entirely avoided the issue of Pre E and Post E defenders, between which you don't seem to think there is a disparity... blah, blah, blah.
I love how your analysis completely ignores the existence of encounter and daily powers in pre-E defenders, and the manner by which those powers enhance the capabilities of those characters. Yes, the knight has better class features than pre-E characters. That is because his powers are strictly inferior. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems to work out fairly balanced in the end. The warden in the group I play in is amazing. He can do many things that a knight never could. But you know what, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and defenders are not my strong suit. I almost never play them. So, I posted choice sections of your post in a thread in the CharOp forum. Those people know the finer mechanics of the game a lot better than I do. They can explain them to both of us...
The Knight and Cavalier:"Mark" everyone Adjacent to them at all times, and anyone who becomes adjacent.
Enforce an unlimited # of times per round (OA instead of II)
Can enforce vs Shifting enemies
Can enforce with at-will and encounter equivalent effects/damage
Can only enforce vs Adjacent
"mark" -2 to hit penalty fades if the enemy gets away.
The request for positive feedback didn't even last a single post. This is my sad face
I am in support of any 4e product that will bridge the gap between the two versions. I just don't know if they even plan to make one anymore.
Just to say it, I do not hate the Essentials. I hate the the fundamental change of direction in WotC's design philosophy that they represent. The classes themselves I personally find to lack the interest that I need them to have so that I can genuinly get excited about them. That being said, I do not hate them I just do not prefer them. This is my subjective opinion which I am entitled to.
Others find the new sub-classes very intersting and that's great. Cyber-Dave in particular has found a way to make his character concept come alive through the new mechanic. I would never condemn a system that can allow someone to do this.
At the end of the day I know that I am just not the target market for the Essentials, and I can live with that. I simply don't have to like it. However, I am still fostering some small bit of hope that maybe one day an Essentials style class will appeal to me. Until that day comes, I will not sing the praises of the new era of 4e. I will instead choose to look fondly on old days gone by.
Admittedly I am not super familiar with them [Warlords].
...
...and defenders are not my strong suit.
So your entire basis on the claim that Essentials is balanced is based on striker DPR vs the Char Op Tofu block?
I want you to back up this claim with hard evidence. I want to see math that actually provides a game breaking DPR on Slayer charges. I want you to provide a fully built and calculated DPR for the Slayer. CharOp it as much as you like. I will return with a pre-E build that can beat that DPR. And of course Slayers have better melee basic attacks than pre-E characters. That is the point of Essentials. Their mean DPR, however, is very comparable to the mean DPR of pre-E strikers. Which I will be happy to prove to you, if you actually provide any real math. So again, provide me with a fully CharOped Slayer build. I will then provide you with a fully CharOped pre-E build. We can compare the two builds after that.
Challenge Accepted. Rules:
1. Team of 5.
2. You cannot use elements from Essentials. You must use the rules as they were before the essentials changes: Sneak Attack is 1/round, for example. I do not have this limitation.
3. We can revise our teams as many times as we like until we are satisfied at the outcome.
4. Basic Items Only. This is going to get very complicated if we have to figure out what uncommon items my theoretical DM may or may not have allowed be to have, and you really don't want me bringing an artificer to the party using E+ rules... Basic "Magic Items +1" only.
5. Assume a 5 encounter workday and 5 round encounters.
6. If your team does not appear able to survive incoming damage, I will laugh at you.
What level would you like to do this at?
So your entire basis on the claim that Essentials is balanced is based on striker DPR vs the Char Op Tofu block?
No, the basis of my claim is the CharOp crowd having looked over all the classes, and deemed them pretty much comparable; as in, balanced. Also, anecdotal evidence based on personal observations at the game table. Also, me having run the numbers on a couple of Essentials characters vs. similar Essentials characters, such as my scout vs. a two weapon ranger, and found the end results very comparable.
Challenge Accepted. Rules:
1. Team of 5.
2. You cannot use elements from Essentials. You must use the rules as they were before the essentials changes: Sneak Attack is 1/round, for example. I do not have this limitation.
3. We can revise our teams as many times as we like until we are satisfied at the outcome.
4. Basic Items Only. This is going to get very complicated if we have to figure out what uncommon items my theoretical DM may or may not have allowed be to have, and you really don't want me bringing an artificer to the party using E+ rules... Basic "Magic Items +1" only.
5. Assume a 5 encounter workday and 5 round encounters.
6. If your team does not appear able to survive incoming damage, I will laugh at you.
What level would you like to do this at?
How about, instead, you do exactly what I said. Build me an Essentials character. Make it level 30. Buy level appropriate magic items. Give me your best DPR. Since you claim that Essentials characters can break the game with their DPR, you shouldn't have too much trouble. I will then give you a build created without using an Essentials class that can beat your DPR. I don't plan to create you a full team of 5, because that is simply more effort than I am willing to put into this, and it is unecessary. If Essentials is as overpowered as you claim you should be able to prove just how powerful your Essentials striker is by achieving a broken DPR. If you can't, well then, we will see just how much value your claims about the Slayer hold.
In terms of your comments about the knight and the warlord, Nightwhisper has posted some problems with your claims, and I have noted that you have completely failed to take powers into account. I also have a thread started in the CharOp forum on the subject. We will see what the boards have to say (so far, the CharOp board seems to think you are out to lunch).
Basic summation, he is way off base. Warlords could already effectively do with sorcerers, barbarians, and avengers what they can do with thieves and slayers (scouts are not the best warlord backup, because their striker features only activate once per round). Meanwhile, knights have among the worst capabilities to set up a "don't attack me catch-22" of any defender. They also suffer from only being able to defend against targets that are adjecent, and while they can keep people adjacent easily they have little in the way of the ability to force people to move adjacent; in other words, monsters can easily set up situations that result in only a single monster being locked down by the knight. Damon_Tor is also woefully underestimating the value of daily powers in his calculations.
The only thing that is obvious is that you just posted a total load of bologna Tony. But hey, that is what generally passes for an anti-E post these days.
Excuse me?
First off, that was /barely/ anti-E at all. I'm a true hater, and I could have been a whole lot more virulent than that! While I was making my dislike clear, I was actually pointing out that the negatives we see in Essentials are actually there for reasons. Reasons that make sense when you look at it from the right angles. WotC has limitted resources. WotC needs to make money. WotC has a heterogenous fanbase. It all adds up to, sometimes, the most sensibe design decisions not being the /best/ design decisions.
Secondly, I'm didn't say anything that someone at WotC hasn't come out and said or hinted at in one form or another. WotC /has/ suffered layoffs, and it's a fact of life that corporate America is always hungry for revenue. WotC has said - again and again - that Essentials characters are meant to be easier to create and to play; that classes are meant to be more differentiated and unique (less pressed into role-based molds, less generic-seeming powers, more unique-seeming features); that Essentials is meant to apeal to new and returning players; that exacting game balance is less of a priority than 'opening up design space.' I just threw a cynical little spin on it, while admitting that what was being dones was consistent with those goals.
No reseblance whatsoever to tasty italian luncheon meats.
I can't say that the Storm Warpriest in my game is particularly potent. I guess she does good healing, when she does the healing. But it seems pretty sucky to hit for 7 damage and add 3 to somebody's next damage roll as the general schtick of the class. I suppose that it adds up if you keep at it.
But yeah, the Essentials classes definitely aren't overpowered. By any stretch. What I do believe is that they're (in reference to slayers, thieves, hexblades, ect.) one-trick ponies, optimization-wise: they charge as much as they can using a rapier or gouge. While charging is fun -- there's all kinds of stackables -- it's the static mods on multi-attacks that do anything. LDB over in the CharOp forum even thinks that the strikers underperform unless they poach multi-attacks from elsewhere. They've tinkered with the leaders and found that they did their jobs okay, as well as the defenders. It doesn't help that these classes have such alien features and there are no class feats that treat these features.
The only sub-class that seems nearly objectively better than it's main class is the Mage. However, it is important to couple that information with the observation that the Wizard is widely regarded as a weak set of class features. Its powers tend to be great, thankfully, but its features do nothing in the vein of Control.
Also, Cyber-Dave, careful with all this Essentials-hate-hunting. You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain. I can almost see the strain in your posting, at this point; maybe let the haters hate and leave it be. They outnumber you, and they replenish without an end in sight. You might also piss off the CharOp people, if you keep starting threads to get them to help you prove a point; maybe not now or the next time, but maybe the time after that.
Caeric, you are probably right.
How about, instead, you do exactly what I said. Build me an Essentials character. Make it level 30. Buy level appropriate magic items. Give me your best DPR. Since you claim that Essentials characters can break the game with their DPR, you shouldn't have too much trouble. I will then give you a build created without using an Essentials class that can beat your DPR. I don't plan to create you a full team of 5, because that is simply more effort than I am willing to put into this, and it is unecessary. If Essentials is as overpowered as you claim you should be able to prove just how powerful your Essentials striker is by achieving a broken DPR. If you can't, well then, we will see just how much value your claims about the Slayer hold.
So you decline.
I'm interesting in actual performance of the classes, not battling the block of tofu. I'm interested in proving my point: warlords + slayers are not balanced. Your challenge has nothing to do with that. If I was interested in creating a current DPR king I'd be doing exactly that.
I remember fondly, now, arguing with someone about whether hybrids could outdamage a pure-classed striker back in the early days of PHB3. So, I made a DPR king; topped the list (excepting the feychargers, who had their own category) at every level past heroic for a while. Someone challenged me when I told them the new magic missile could be broken. Know what I did? I made a guy who used it to 1-round auto-kill Bahamut. So I'm a litte upset you turned me down. Would have been fun.
P.S. If anyone is intrested in seeing just what the CharOp community thinks of Damon_Tor and Tony_Vargas's claims, check out this link here.
I'm reading the thread now.
I refuted the Avenger/Barb/Sorcerer claim soundly btw. Of the three, only the barbarian comes close but he falls apart when he can't charge, and he has to blow his multiclass and give up a secondary stat to take dex (which supports class features and powers inappropriate for a charger). Even then, sacrificing all that, he only matches the slayer when charging. If the warlord can't grant a change and has to use vanilla Commander's strike for whatever reason, guess who he's going to give it to?
So far only Erachima is backing you up. Everyone else is off topic, talking about Scouts and Rain of Blows.
The defender issue isn't particularly quantifiable. I guess there are more DMs who just auto-attack the 'tank' than I thought.
Explain how leaders doing striker damage +int mod is balanced within the 4-role system. Explain how Defender's Aura is balanced compared to any Pre-E marking mechanic. You can say "nah-uh" all you like, but it's not like we're making this stuff up.
I see this comment get bandied around a lot as an argument why Essentials is unbalanced, but it is a complete straw-man argument as I will demonstrate.
Yes, I admit that the Slayer (and to lesser extent the Thief and Hunter) is unbalanced when put alongside a Warlord with Commander's Strike, but ironically - the fault lies with the Warlord, and not with anything printed in Essentials.
Remove Commander's Strike from the equation or pair these classes up with any other Leader, and the problem magically disappears.
Upon initial launch, myself and numerous other players commented on the fact that Commander's Strike was potentially unbalanced, and potentially more powerful than any other at-will power in the game and that it was only a matter of time before this became a certainty.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Commander's Strike + new content would eventually result in a broken combination, that only errata could resolve.
This was discussed at length in late 2008 long before Essentials was even conceived, let alone implemented.
Using this one interaction to say that Slayers (and to a lesser extent, other E-Strikers) are broken, is a fallacy. Using this one interaction to say that Leaders (plural) dealing Striker + Int modifier damage isn't just fallacious, it is down-right manipulative.
Besides, its not like 4E didn't have other broken interactions caused by singular elements (specific feats, powers, items, etc) before Essentials was launched, nor will it be the last time that an old element and a new element interact in unbalanced ways.
Case in Point: How many broken combinations could be created with that single armor enchantment (whose name eludes me), pre-errata?
In any event, my above statement holds true regarding any (and all) new content, regardless of whether said content was pre-E or Essentials-based.
I call foul on using this argument as a weapon against Essentials. Errata exists to deal with unfortunate interactions such as these, and to my knowledge - the Dev's have yet to release a post-E Errata Update, making this argument extremely unfair and premature.
I fail to see how the Slayers "Striker Feature" is any different. If you can cite other examples of where Leader + E.Striker is a deadly combination, your argument would hold more weight, but as it stands - it is a straw-man argument based on a single feature taken as representative of the entire product line!
The thief and executioner can do it as well. I don't have Heroes of Those Other Places, but my understanding is the scout doesn't have the same problem (it just has a different problem all of its own) It's also not just the Warlord. Shaman's have the most powerful at-will basic attack granter in the game right now, and that was just released a few months ago. The bard can dabble in it, and even the cleric and ardent have a few powers that grant attacks
Power's that granted melee basic attacks were not problematic until melee basic attacks became as strong and stronger than at-will powers.
Effect: The ally gains no benefit from precision-based damage when making this attack.
Precision has an apocryphal connection to an expanded crit range, but that doesn't make sense by the context. Care to explain?
So you decline.
On the contrary, it seems you have declined. Post your level 30 build. Lets see you use the Slayer to create DPR that "breaks the game." You claimed you could. Are you now reneging?
I'm interesting in actual performance of the classes, not battling the block of tofu. I'm interested in proving my point: warlords + slayers are not balanced. Your challenge has nothing to do with that. If I was interested in creating a current DPR king I'd be doing exactly that.
Creating a 5 man team with a ridiculous set of stipulations has nothing to do with whether a warlord + slayer is imbalanced or not. And, my challenge had to do with your claim that the Slayer's DPR "breaks the game." Create your Slayer. I will create a pre-E build we can compare it to. We will see both the amount of damage such a character will deal with melee basic attacks (which a warlord can grant) and the amount of damage the character will deal overall.
I'm reading the thread now.
I refuted the Avenger/Barb/Sorcerer claim soundly btw. Of the three, only the barbarian comes close but he falls apart when he can't charge, and he has to blow his multiclass and give up a secondary stat to take dex (which supports class features and powers inappropriate for a charger). Even then, sacrificing all that, he only matches the slayer when charging. If the warlord can't grant a change and has to use vanilla Commander's strike for whatever reason, guess who he's going to give it to?
So you say. Nobody else seems to agree with you in that thread.
So far only Erachima is backing you up. Everyone else is off topic, talking about Scouts and Rain of Blows.
Are you sure you are actually reading the thread? Because, so far, every single person in the thread has said that Essentials characters are not imbalanced. Not the slayer, the thief, the scout, the knight, or any other Essentials class. And, nobody seems to agree with you that the warlord plus Essentials striker combo is more effective, overall, then a warlord with barbarian, avenger, or sorcerer.
The defender issue isn't particularly quantifiable. I guess there are more DMs who just auto-attack the 'tank' than I thought.
Yup. Not particularly quantifiable. Translation: another place where your claims turned out to be false.
Just saying.
To paraphrase: The fault lies not with the new E-Strikers, but with Commander's Strike, a power many posters (myself included) have been concerned about from day 1, due to the sheer potential for abuse it made allowances for. It was only a matter of time before this became a reality.
It should also be noted that this power is potentially more powerful than all other at-wills in the entire game, and is definitively on the strong side as far as at-wills are concerned, and will continue to do so even were safe-guards (to prevent abuse) inherent to the power itself.
As it currently stands, Commander's Strike is the single-most powerful Leader-At Will in the entire game! If that doesn't sound like the problem lies with this one power and not anything else, I don't know what does. Its not like you hear any-one complaining about Direct the Strike being unbalanced (it isn't), despite the fact it is more versatile and less situational than CS.
Perhaps Commander's Strike and all Striker-Damage Features can be re-worded to grant a power bonus to damage rolls. That would eliminate all future interactions.
And for the record, the first DPR king on the list who isn't a Battlemind is a Thief.
Just saying.
The entire DPR kings list is as follows:
1095 DPR Genasi, Battlemind|Sorcerer, Lightning Fury, Invincible Mind(30th), by Kergma(@&)
1012.4 DPR (1435.7 DPR post MS) Murderous Mind(30th), by langeweile(9@&)
372-443 DPR Bugbear Thief/Kulkor/Thief of legends (30th), by Langeweile(essentials)
379 DPR Marilith Summoner(30th), by Nelphine(@&)
268(1 PP) DPR Tiefling Battlemind(30th), by SongNSilence(29@&)
258 DPR Tiefling Hellish Cheese(24th), by Landsknecht73(@9&)
255 DPR Bugbear Avenger/PMC Ranger/Martial Archetype(30th), by Nelphine
226 DPR One Stroke to Kill Them All(30th)
216.7 + 116.7(5x5) Pyronious B(30th), by IronSky
211 DPR Executioner(30th), by SongNSilence(&)
180 DPR Avenger charger(30th), by Nelphine
179 DPR(pre-MS) - 210.8(post MS) Achilles(30th), by langeweile
177.615 + Prone Warlock|Assassin Kulkor Charger(30th), by Squad(@&)
176.84 DPR Super Duper Knight(30th), by mellored
175.5(1PP) / 211.1(post milestone) DPR Dwarf of Brutal Mercy(30th), by langeweile(2&)
160 DPR UberSuperCharger(30th), by Nelphine
155 DPR Wil Resurrected(1/2 Elf Avenger/Morninglord/Eternal Seeker)(30th), by kilpatds(269@&)
144 DPR Auspex7's Emnity(30th), by Mellored
141 DPR Slap Chop(Githzerai Avenger/Ardent Champion/Demigod)(30th), by Auspex7(%@&)
143.4 DPR Stormwarden(30th), by LordDuskBlade (16;@&)
140 DPR Bugbear Avenger/Ardent Champion/Eternal Defender(30th), by Nelphine(common only)
135 DPR(single attack) Warforged MonkLock(Barb.)/Warforged Juggernaut/Reincarnate Champion (30th), by Nelphine
112.3 DPR Wil (Revenant Avenger/Pitfighter/Eternal Seeker)(30th), by kilpatds (62&)
109.84 DPR Human, Warlock, Student of Caiphon, Radiant One(30th), by Squad(9&@)
95.37 DPR Longtooth Shifter Fighter/Son of Mercy/Demigod(30th), by kilpatds(1?&)
77.5 DPR Mora the unkillable avenger(30th), by mellored
77/55 DPR Wolfpack Guradian(30th), by LordDuskBlade(@&)
69.05 DPR(close burst 4) Sheilded Punisher(30th), by Cecil90670
63.5 DPR GraveDigger(30th), by Damon_Tor(@&)
0.75 DPR, Santa Clause(30th), by Elwyndas
The top 2 on the list are not Essentials characters. The thief is an essentials class, but requires heavy use of pre-Essentials material. And the vast majority of the characters on the list are not essentials characters. In fact, at a quick glance, it seems that the thief is the only Essentials class on the list (though there might be another one hidden in there somewhere). Just saying.
On the contrary, it seems you have declined. Post your level 30 build. Lets see you use the Slayer to create DPR that "breaks the game." You claimed you could. Are you now reneging?
I need you to define "breaks the game", please. I define it as something like "6d6+Str+Dex+4+Any other riders at level 4 2/encounter" but your mileage may vary. Exactly what benchmark do I need to hit to prove this?
Am I going to beat those Battleminds at the top? No, but they are way past breaking the game (even assuming I agree with their RAW). Can I use a slayer to 1-turn kill a level 30 standard brute? Probably. Can I beat the thief who's currently in 3rd? Dunno. I could give it a shot, but I don't see how me beating a thief at dpr will prove anything.
The thief is an essentials class, but requires heavy use of pre-Essentials material.
So are you conceeding that Pre-E and E+ are not balanced against each other?
It sounds like that's what you're doing.
Remember, the DPR Kings (like most CharOp) builds of its kind, are primarily thought-exercises made specifically to see how far the system can be taken.
Sure, they are playable and fully legal - but they are an example of the extreme upper limit of what the system can achieve.
Case in Point: Pun-Pun, CoDZilla, and other notable examples - all of which break-down at the playable level (CoDZilla for example required several rounds of pre-buffing in order to reach its godly goodness but was an example of how clerics/druids were unbalanced compared to other classes).
The fact that the Thief requires pre-E material in order to ramp up to that level indicates that if/where any balance-issues exist, it lies in the pre-existing material (and not in the new material).
And no, I am not conceding that pre-E and E are not balanced against each other (because there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that such is the case). Quite the contrary, I am pointing out that the thief build in question is not indicative of the average thief build. Like all the DPR kings, it makes use of unforeseen combination, using all the material released to date, in order to create an incredibly powerful character. If one is going to pull out a random element out of that build when placing the term overpowered one may as well place that term on the bugbear, kulkor battle-master paragon path, or the thief of legends epic destiny. Of those facets, only one comes from Essentials. It is also one of the very few builds in the DPR kings roster that bothers making use of any Essentials material at all. So, using that as an example to show that Essentials classes are overpowered is ridiculous to say the least.
Create your Slayer. I will create a pre-E build we can compare it to. We will see both the amount of damage such a character will deal with melee basic attacks (which a warlord can grant) and the amount of damage the character will deal overall.
Alright, well I already had this build ready go: it's not a charger, it's a proxy for a warlord team I was working on. It's built for things like defenses and utlity for it's use (hence Eternal Defender +1 to reach which is not optimizing for Tofu DPR) Just going to look at the damage of a melee basic as a starting point for an average slayer build.
Show
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
level 30
Half-Orc, Slayer, Kensei, Eternal Defender
Slayer Weapon Specialization: Brutal Axe
Kensei Focus: Kensei Focus (Gouge)
Background: Auspicious Birth (Auspicious Birth Benefit)
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 28, Con 13, Dex 26, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 12.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10.
AC: 45 Fort: 45 Reflex: 46 Will: 44
HP: 217 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 54
TRAINED SKILLS
Intimidate +25, Endurance +23, Athletics +29, Religion +20
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +23, Arcana +15, Bluff +16, Diplomacy +16, Dungeoneering +17, Heal +17, History +15, Insight +17, Nature +17, Perception +17, Stealth +23, Streetwise +16, Thievery +23
FEATS
Level 1: Master at Arms
Level 2: Weapon Proficiency (Gouge)
Level 4: Improved Defenses (retrained to Superior Reflexes at Level 21)
Level 6: Quick Draw
Level 8: Weapon Focus (Axe)
Level 10: Disciple of Divine Wrath
Level 11: Reserve Maneuver
Level 12: Impaling Spear
Level 14: Strength From Pain
Level 16: Punishing Axe
Level 18: Headsman's Chop
Level 20: Armor Specialization (Scale)
Level 21: Superior Will
Level 22: Spear Mastery
Level 24: Ferocious Critical
Level 26: Deadly Axe
Level 28: Epic Will
Level 30: Epic Resurgence
POWERS
Reserve Maneuver: Rain of Blows
Slayer utility 1: Mobile Blade
Slayer utility 1: Battle Wrath
Slayer utility 2: Glowering Threat
Slayer utility 6: Ignore Weakness
Slayer utility 7: Unfettered Fury
Slayer utility 10: Clearheaded
Slayer utility 16: Relentless Advance
Slayer utility 17: Duelist's Assault
Slayer utility 22: Slayer's Defiance
ITEMS
Meliorating Elderscale Armor +6, Reaper's Axe Gouge (Large) +6, Gauntlets of Brutality (paragon tier), Iron Armbands of Power (epic tier), Cloak of Distortion +6, Hungry Spear Gouge +6, Circlet of Indomitability (epic tier), Belt of Vim (epic tier), Boots of Quickness (epic tier), Farndak's Glittering Ring (epic tier), Symbol of Victory +2
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
level 30
Half-Orc, Slayer, Kensei, Eternal Defender
Slayer Weapon Specialization: Brutal Axe
Kensei Focus: Kensei Focus (Gouge)
Background: Auspicious Birth (Auspicious Birth Benefit)
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 28, Con 13, Dex 26, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 12.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10.
AC: 45 Fort: 45 Reflex: 46 Will: 44
HP: 217 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 54
TRAINED SKILLS
Intimidate +25, Endurance +23, Athletics +29, Religion +20
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +23, Arcana +15, Bluff +16, Diplomacy +16, Dungeoneering +17, Heal +17, History +15, Insight +17, Nature +17, Perception +17, Stealth +23, Streetwise +16, Thievery +23
FEATS
Level 1: Master at Arms
Level 2: Weapon Proficiency (Gouge)
Level 4: Improved Defenses (retrained to Superior Reflexes at Level 21)
Level 6: Quick Draw
Level 8: Weapon Focus (Axe)
Level 10: Disciple of Divine Wrath
Level 11: Reserve Maneuver
Level 12: Impaling Spear
Level 14: Strength From Pain
Level 16: Punishing Axe
Level 18: Headsman's Chop
Level 20: Armor Specialization (Scale)
Level 21: Superior Will
Level 22: Spear Mastery
Level 24: Ferocious Critical
Level 26: Deadly Axe
Level 28: Epic Will
Level 30: Epic Resurgence
POWERS
Reserve Maneuver: Rain of Blows
Slayer utility 1: Mobile Blade
Slayer utility 1: Battle Wrath
Slayer utility 2: Glowering Threat
Slayer utility 6: Ignore Weakness
Slayer utility 7: Unfettered Fury
Slayer utility 10: Clearheaded
Slayer utility 16: Relentless Advance
Slayer utility 17: Duelist's Assault
Slayer utility 22: Slayer's Defiance
ITEMS
Meliorating Elderscale Armor +6, Reaper's Axe Gouge (Large) +6, Gauntlets of Brutality (paragon tier), Iron Armbands of Power (epic tier), Cloak of Distortion +6, Hungry Spear Gouge +6, Circlet of Indomitability (epic tier), Belt of Vim (epic tier), Boots of Quickness (epic tier), Farndak's Glittering Ring (epic tier), Symbol of Victory +2
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
Though, I would like to point out that your numbers are so far bellow what the non-Essential classes in the DPR kings thread can do that any one of those in the group will far outperform your build. Hell, some of those builds will do enough damage in a single round to match what your build will do when the damage of its turn is combined with the damage it will deal on the warlord's turn.
"Breaks the game" means "reaching a level that can not be matched by other classes." Specifically, in this case, pre-E classes. If your build can be matched, then the class does not break the game.
Then I hereby rescind my statement that Slayer's break the game. Under your definition, as they do not beat Bruttal Barrage cheese, they do not break the game.
They are, however, the most powerful proxy for a warlord by far.
Give me a few days to build one. I will have one up for you soon.
Oh.
Okay then.
We are just comparing at-will melee basics, right? Doesn't really seem like a "days" kind of project...
Give me a few days to build one. I will have one up for you soon. I have a barbarian or a barbarian-ranger hybrid idea for this project. I think it will compare very nicely.
Though, I would like to point out that your numbers are so far bellow what the non-Essential classes in the DPR kings thread can do that any one of those in the group will far outperform your build. Hell, some of those builds will do enough damage in a single round to match what your build will do when the damage of its turn is combined with the damage it will deal on the warlord's turn.
This isn't at-will DPR. What do you think we're doing here?
And you realize I intend to compare levels before 30.
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
Not coming out in book form.
Are we hoping it comes out in another form?
I forget, was this the E to 4th ed bridge?
The reaction to this facet of the book was probably the primary reason why the book was cancelled.
In addition to this, it was also going to provide rules that increased the transparency between both systems, and IIRC, several new sub-systems for the game that people had been asking to see.
I suspect the latter information only represented a fraction of the overall book space, and will be cannibalized either for Dragon, or another as-yet unannounced product (or both).
The request for positive feedback didn't even last a single post. This is my sad face
*chuckle* Well, I guess I really shouldn't laugh at that...
Sooooooo.
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
Not coming out in book form.
Are we hoping it comes out in another form?
I forget, was this the E to 4th ed bridge?
I am hoping they ditched the reprinting and fused it with the Hero Builder's Handbook. Make it PHB sized.
Sooooooo.
Heroes of Sword and Spell.
Not coming out in book form.
Are we hoping it comes out in another form?
I forget, was this the E to 4th ed bridge?
I am hoping they ditched the reprinting and fused it with the Hero Builder's Handbook. Make it PHB sized.
Actually I think that's exactly what they said at DDXP in the Q&A...
"Breaks the game" means "reaching a level that can not be matched by other classes." Specifically, in this case, pre-E classes. If your build can be matched, then the class does not break the game.
So, something isn't 'game breaking' if something else already breaks the game just as bad?
I'm sorry, if some whacked build can erase Orcus in one round or lock him down until he rolls a natural 20, it's game-breaking. I don't care how many other equally whacked builds can do something comparable - they're /all/ game breaking.
And they're just builds. A corner-case, broken-combo, char-op build says very little about how balanced or imbalanced a class involved in its blasphemy really is in reasonable play...
I am hoping they ditched the reprinting and fused it with the Hero Builder's Handbook. Make it PHB sized.
O.o I didn't thuink anything in this book wasn't a reprint besides the fluff.....and printing the fluff without the crunch doesn't really work. I mean I suppose you could print out the fluff for all the powers, but it would just be weird.
Actually, the Hero Builder's Handbook is also toast.... We have yet to hear anything regarding the method of delivery for the "original" content from these two books.
It would be cool if they nixed those two books only to harvest the best parts and push the two into one super awesome book, like some kind of super mutant book.
The heroes book thing was supposed to be for heroic tier, wasn't it? It makes the most sense to put things concerning character creation into a book like that.
I am hoping they ditched the reprinting and fused it with the Hero Builder's Handbook. Make it PHB sized.
O.o I didn't thuink anything in this book wasn't a reprint besides the fluff.....and printing the fluff without the crunch doesn't really work. I mean I suppose you could print out the fluff for all the powers, but it would just be weird.
I was under the impression that PO:HoSaS was going to have reprints of the PHB Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, and Warlord. It was just going to have the tables like the classes in HoFL/HoFK do. The preview of the book that was in Ampersand looked like that. Perhaps I was wrong.
I am hoping they ditched the reprinting and fused it with the Hero Builder's Handbook. Make it PHB sized.
O.o I didn't thuink anything in this book wasn't a reprint besides the fluff.....and printing the fluff without the crunch doesn't really work. I mean I suppose you could print out the fluff for all the powers, but it would just be weird.
I was under the impression that PO:HoSaS was going to have reprints of the PHB Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, and Warlord. It was just going to have the tables like the classes in HoFL/HoFK do. The preview of the book that was in Ampersand looked like that. Perhaps I was wrong.
Yeah it was going to consist of reprints, new fluff, and tables. If you take out the reprints you would only really have a bunch of fluff and 15 tables. I'm just uncertain as to why you would want tables(which arguably are reprints themselves) and fluff with no mechanics attached put into another book.
That'd be really cool. Especially since, as has been pointed it, it'd mean that all new content, sub-class or super-class, would be relevant to all parts of the class. A new Knight article might mean a new kind of brawler fighter idea by extension, or a new Cleric article could result in a peculiar-yet-effective Warpriest that fights by swinging fish at stuff.
Really, the anger at Essentials; it's... almost justified. Look, nothing but Essentials was brought to market for at least half a year, completely and utterly obliterating the schedule of books that was coming out before it. There was always a guarantee at a new PHB, or at least a campaign book, and more stuff that was actually new.
...
People still want to play with things they were given earlier, and so far there's no support or fixes for things that didn't quite pan out with some of their earlier productions. People are angry over this. And I'm thinking, rightfully so. It's been a long time since nothing but Essentials took over (relatively), and so far there hasn't been much of anything to support some of their lacking classes and races.
To paragraph A, and most points of this nature, they could have called essentials PHB4. they really could have. It is. The two heroes books are the PHB4. adjustments to humans, half-elves, new stat builds for the "core" races. New powers for fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, warlocks, rangers, rogues...
You can say what you want about how essentials killed all the percolating cauldrons of books just waiting to be approved, but fact of the matter is, essentials ARE THE BOOKS that were percolating.
These decisions aren't based on a whim. Stuff like this takes time to design, write, playtest, and then print. The minimum dev time for these books were 1 year from inception. So once they finished with the PHB3, they probably got to making the PHB4, then remarketed it as essentials. You have no actual factual knowledge that essentials is killing YOUR 4e line, these opinions are the same tortured rants that came from 3.5'rs when 4e came out, and that 3.0e'rs wailed and gnashed teeth around 3.5
Suck it up people. the game is changing. backward, forward, it changing. There's a reason why 2d platform video games keep coming back. they are FUN (IMO usually more fun) and why 3d fighting video games like virtua fighter didn't really pan out. Forward direction does not always equal progress. sometimes reinvention and revision is better. The D&D game is changing. it's called retro. Not always bad.
Paragraph B:
I've said this before, but if the WotC Black Baggers come by and take all your old supplements, call a cop. SERIOUSLY! because then we have a problem. If the statement is made because like a petulent child that can't have his new toy five minutes after he got his old one he wants to throw a tantrum then that is opinion that may need years of couselling to realize the roots (I'm gonna go freudian, Jungian deep seated issues like this generally are more esoteric).
Please tell me that life isn't so fleeting and meaningless that you can't enjoy a product that simply has only millions of options. Genuinely, it must be a struggle to have already played every combination of fun that 4e has to offer. The life of this kind of opinion must be one frought with trust funds and unemployment compensation to generate this kind of time on our hands.
My goalposts are not shifty.
Yes. they are.
Really, the anger at Essentials; it's... almost justified. Look, nothing but Essentials was brought to market for at least half a year, completely and utterly obliterating the schedule of books that was coming out before it. There was always a guarantee at a new PHB, or at least a campaign book, and more stuff that was actually new.
...
People still want to play with things they were given earlier, and so far there's no support or fixes for things that didn't quite pan out with some of their earlier productions. People are angry over this. And I'm thinking, rightfully so. It's been a long time since nothing but Essentials took over (relatively), and so far there hasn't been much of anything to support some of their lacking classes and races.
To paragraph A, and most points of this nature, they could have called essentials PHB4. they really could have. It is. The two heroes books are the PHB4. adjustments to humans, half-elves, new stat builds for the "core" races. New powers for fighters, rogues, wizards, clerics, warlocks, rangers, rogues...
You can say what you want about how essentials killed all the percolating cauldrons of books just waiting to be approved, but fact of the matter is, essentials ARE THE BOOKS that were percolating.
These decisions aren't based on a whim. Stuff like this takes time to design, write, playtest, and then print. The minimum dev time for these books were 1 year from inception. So once they finished with the PHB3, they probably got to making the PHB4, then remarketed it as essentials. You have no actual factual knowledge that essentials is killing YOUR 4e line, these opinions are the same tortured rants that came from 3.5'rs when 4e came out, and that 3.0e'rs wailed and gnashed teeth around 3.5
Suck it up people. the game is changing. backward, forward, it changing. There's a reason why 2d platform video games keep coming back. they are FUN (IMO usually more fun) and why 3d fighting video games like virtua fighter didn't really pan out. Forward direction does not always equal progress. sometimes reinvention and revision is better. The D&D game is changing. it's called retro. Not always bad.
Its not always good either, especially when the removal of such things is WHY the new was good.
Also, there'd be the same debates if it was called PHB4. Not that it'd be like the other PHBs, PHBs generally introduce NEW races and classes, not just rehash old. Heroes of Shadow is more of a PHB4 than essentials is as it introduces new power sources, clases, and races, and oh look, it supports essentials.
Not killing our 4e line? You mean like...the lack of Arcane Power 2, Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2, Psionic Power 2 or a DMG 3 anywhere on the horizon? Fighters and other martial classes back to the "I hit with my axe" design, the butchering of such a concept being what got alot of people to like 4e.
Or how about the fact so many books next year have been cancelled, and heroes of shadow being reformatted a few months from release.
I also find it funny the person you quoted how he's upset undersupported races/classes arent getting much/any support thanks to essentials, and then you counter by declaring how Essentials gives more options to the more supported classes/races in the game.
Maybe you should "suck it up" and realize not everyone likes where the game is going?
My goalposts are not shifty.
Yes. they are.
No. They are not. The point is to prove that Essentials characters are not overpowered, and that Essentials classes don't break the game. That is my goalpost. Never once did I say otherwise, or do otherwise. In fact, one of my big pet peeves about the way people claim Essentials is overpowered is the way they do so by examining one facet without any surrounding context. Hence why I will not engage in any comparison that attempts to do so (by, for example, examining only the melee basic attack damage without examining how much total damage the pre-E character will deal over the course of its turn and the turn on which it acts as a proxy).
Alright, well I already had this build ready go:...Now show me yours.
Ok, the first draft of my build is almost ready. I just need to calculate all the math, which I will probably do Sunday Night/Monday sometime (I don't really have the free time to spend on the calculations until then). I just didn't want you thinking I had forgotten. I ended up building it as a Mul barbarian fighter. I may make some additional tweaks based on the suggestions of the CharOp board, as I really only chose Mul for flavor reasons. There might be another Str/Con based race that works better.
No. They are not. The point is to prove that Essentials characters are not overpowered, and that Essentials classes don't break the game. That is my goalpost. Never once did I say otherwise, or do otherwise.
'Don't breake the game,' is pretty easy - the game can still be /played/, it's no more broken than 3.5 was, heck even with the Essentials changes, imbalancing though they can't help but be, the game is still probably a lot less 'broken'/more-playable than 3.5, even at the levels where 3.5 really worked. 4e was pretty robust, Essentials and Post-E will have to get a lot worse to genuinely break it.
But as balanced as 4e was pre-E? No. When you have two sets of classes managing encounter & daily resources and another (E-martial) managing only encounter resources, they're not going to balance accross different encounters/day. When you have two sets of classes gaining class features as they level, and another getting class features front-loaded at 1st & 11th (pre-E classes), they're not going to balance across levels.
And, of course, there's the power inflation. It's inevitable, of course, if Essentials hadn't deviated at all, and had just been a PH4 or something, there'd've still been power inflation. But, it's undeniably there. The Theif's SA went from per round to per turn (and the Rogue shared in that power inflation via errata); the Knight's mark punishment did the same (and the Fighter didn't get errata'd to match); Freezing Burst is strictly superior to Scorching Burst (it has a slide 1 tacked on, and cold is less-commonly-resisted than fire); Mage encounter powers were upgraded, and some wizard powers upgraded to match. Does that make the E-classes 'overpowered?' No more so than the Invoker was 'overpowered' compared to the original 4e wizard, because some of it's at-wills seemed a little better. It's just power inflation, it's easier to make new stuff more interesting by making it just a little better in some ways. No single increment of power inflation breaks the game, but, over time, it makes it more and more prone towards breaking...
No. They are not. The point is to prove that Essentials characters are not overpowered, and that Essentials classes don't break the game. That is my goalpost. Never once did I say otherwise, or do otherwise.
'Don't breake the game,' is pretty easy - the game can still be /played/, it's no more broken than 3.5 was, heck even with the Essentials changes, imbalancing though they can't help but be, the game is still probably a lot less 'broken'/more-playable than 3.5, even at the levels where 3.5 really worked. 4e was pretty robust, Essentials and Post-E will have to get a lot worse to genuinely break it.
Lets see the proof. Because, the people in the CharOp forum think you are wrong. And, I tend to take their word over yours. They back up their claims with a lot of math.
But as balanced as 4e was pre-E?
The people in the CharOp forum say yes.
The Theif's SA went from per round to per turn (and the Rogue shared in that power inflation via errata)
Which I call making the game more balanced, not less. It finally brought the rogue up to par with classes like the ranger and the barbarian.
the Knight's mark punishment did the same (and the Fighter didn't get errata'd to match)
Except, you insist on examining the knights mark punishment through tunnel vision so that you don't have to see the class abilities of the two classes compared as a whole. Because, once they are compared as a whole, the end result is that your thesis gets blown out of the water.
Freezing Burst is strictly superior to Scorching Burst (it has a slide 1 tacked on, and cold is less-commonly-resisted than fire); Mage encounter powers were upgraded, and some wizard powers upgraded to match.
So, the wizard, a class that got called underpowered by a whole lot of people, got a bit of a boost? Oh gods no!! The inhumanity of it all.
Does that make the E-classes 'overpowered?' No more so than the Invoker was 'overpowered' compared to the original 4e wizard, because some of it's at-wills seemed a little better.
Speaking of goal shifting...
Do you actually take that stuff seriously as you post it? Really Tony!?I've seen the same CharOp options, feats and items applied to both E and pre-E classes in Encounter games and it all come down to taste.
I have to agree with Tony though, as any edition brings more options with time, they tend to be the better options, call it power creep if you will, maybe not creep but easier-to-get-to-the-same-power-level. From what I've seen an out-of-box E character has an easier time than pre-E, but when optimization comes in, they perform almost identically.
No. They are not. The point is to prove that Essentials characters are not overpowered, and that Essentials classes don't break the game. That is my goalpost. Never once did I say otherwise, or do otherwise.
'Don't breake the game,' is pretty easy - the game can still be /played/, it's no more broken than 3.5 was, heck even with the Essentials changes, imbalancing though they can't help but be, the game is still probably a lot less 'broken'/more-playable than 3.5, even at the levels where 3.5 really worked. 4e was pretty robust, Essentials and Post-E will have to get a lot worse to genuinely break it.
Lets see the proof. Because, the people in the CharOp forum think you are wrong. And, I tend to take their word over yours. They back up their claims with a lot of math.
I just said it wasn't broken. Do you want me to back up my claims when I'm agreeing with you, too?
Because, honestly, it's not that important to me... convincing you that you're right, I mean.
And what's this bizzare fixation on CharOp in a discussion of /balance/? CharOp is an amusing exercise in which clever folks intentionally break the game, just to see how badly they can break it.
Sometimes they do such a swell job it provokes errata.
Which I call making the game more balanced, not less. It finally brought the rogue up to par with classes like the ranger and the barbarian.
I hadn't noticed any problem with the rogue. It hit like crazy - not just the +1 f/weapon talent with a +3 prof weapon, but having many powers that attacked non-AC defenses, on top of that, /and/ constantly going for CA.
Maybe the 1/round SA was holding them back from partaking in some multi-attack loophole or something, but that's hardly a sign of being 'below par.' Quite the contrary, it's a sign that some loopholes might need closing.
the Knight's mark punishment did the same (and the Fighter didn't get errata'd to match)
Except, you insist on examining the knights mark punishment through tunnel vision so that you don't have to see the class abilities of the two classes compared as a whole. Because, once they are compared as a whole, the end result is that your thesis gets blown out of the water.
The Knight's mark-punishment is strictly superior to the Fighter's. The Fighter still has a lot going for it - dailies, most obviously. But more potent mark-punishment makes you a better defender. Brute Strike, not so much. Thicket of Blades, yeah, a bit, for 1 round. The fighter gets a daily at first, and tops out at 4 at 20th. So that's 1-4 rounds, depending on level, in which he gets to do something so awesome it makes up for the Knight being better at basic defender functions all the rest of the time. (Mind you, depending on the campaign, 'all the rest of the time' might be another 4 rounds ).
I don't doubt that the fighter'll be doing enough more interesting/fun/tactical/flexible things that it makes it more fun to play than a Knight. But I don't see it making up the difference as a Defender.
And the Fighter was already arguably the best Defender.
Freezing Burst is strictly superior to Scorching Burst (it has a slide 1 tacked on, and cold is less-commonly-resisted than fire); Mage encounter powers were upgraded, and some wizard powers upgraded to match.
So, the wizard, a class that got called underpowered by a whole lot of people, got a bit of a boost?
The Wizard was never underpowered. I've played them, even PH-only, they're very effective. They only got dis'd because they didn't stack up to the 3.x Wizard. Well, that and the controller role wasn't well-understood.
My goalposts are not shifty.
Yes. they are.
[Ron Manager]
Small boys in the park, kobolds for goalposts...
[/Ron Manager]
I for one just wanted the book to be released so we could say that Essentials was not a new edition but with WOTC pulling this book and the lack of a timeline of when we might see this material really leaves alot to be desired. WOTC needs to get this stuff out A.S.A.P, it will put out most of the fires regarding essentials vs reg 4th ed. Just a note I do like several classes in the essentials and I own most of the essentials products and am currently using them. I am not a hater but I do prefer pre essential classes more due to there versatility.
I agree 100%. There are lots of directions they can take the game in - encouraging more roleplyaing based feat choices, tidying up the feat list they have, feats to encourage style over numbers, racial powers alongside skill powers, feats to allow essentials classes to buy class powers they wouldn't normally have access to etc.
That's at will though, still need to calculate the per-turn on the two "alpha rounds" that his buffs are in effect, and I don't expect combat to last much past that: keep in mind the 3 warlords will be granting two of these slayers their charge on their turns, for a total of 4 charges per round each. I really doubt there will be an encounter left standing after two rounds of these guys going at it fully buffed.
Take your time Dave, like I said, I still have some math to do.
My goalposts are not shifty.
Yes. they are.
[Ron Manager]
Small boys in the park, kobolds for goalposts...
[/Ron Manager]
It's not that Dave's goal is shifty, it's that his definition of overpowered/broken is way higher Damon's or mine. I believe getting your static mods 3 times a round (via multi/off action attacks) is a bad thing for the game, not the minimum a striker should be expected to accomplish, so yes there are broken Pre-E builds as well. Course Wizards probably doesn't care about balancing the old stuff anymore since they've banned it all from normal official play and who knows what the new fortune card based encounters are going to be like.
I wonder what's taking Cyber-Dave so long. I'm already at 187.715 damage per charge, all usable off of the warlord's Crush Them. (That beats the DPR King's Top Non-Essentials Charger, by the way, an Avenger. The two chargers that beat him are a Thief and an Executioner. EDIT: Sorry, that's not a charger, and it's not an Executioner.)
Um, the character you posted up above is not doing 187.715 damage per charge. Where are you getting that number from? Or, is that counting buffs from other classes?
By the way, the character you posted has an illegal feature. You cant use the reserve maneuver feat on it. That feat only allows you to hold a maneuver reserved in place of a class encounter power that has a level attached to it. The Slayer has no such powers. Your build cannot legally access reign of blows.
Take your time Dave, like I said, I still have some math to do.
Yea. I am still building. You have seen the thread in which I have started building it in the CharOp forum. I will say this though, I already have it doing 82.245 DPR with no buffs or situational modifiers vs. characters without combat advantage, and 92.435 DPR under the same conditions if it has combat advantage. It is trivial for my build to gain combat advantage. It is trivial for me to up that by +20 DPR (give or take) if I have one rage active, one stance active, and am attacking a prone target. If my target is not prone I can up it by +11 DPR or so. And that is not even touching the mean DPR I will achieve when I factor in nova rounds, or any buffs from leaders. Unlike the slayer, this character can also become a secondary defender when needed (at the cost of a drop in DPR during rounds in which he is doing so). Also, unlike the slayer, after this character attacks with a charge its foe ends up prone and pushed 1 square away from it.
Unless I am mistaken, and have missed something, that already puts my build's basic DPR above the DPR you provided. Its melee basic attack DPR will, admittedly, be lower, but its charge damage will be higher. And, considering that I was wrong, and it is woefully easy for warlords and ardents to grant charges virtually at-will, the build I am creating will be able to use its charge capabilities as proxy contributions. Not to mention, with the right combination of abilities my build will be able to get individual rounds during which its expected DPR will be significantly higher, and its mean DPR over the course of a 5-10 round fight will also be significantly higher as a result. Hell, 3/4 of its encounter abilities grant multiple attacks (3 attacks per encounter power after recent errata, specifically). And when the rages and stances go active... not to mention, my build's utility is a head and shoulders above the utility of the build you provided (with my build knocking targets prone and pushing them 1 square with every charge, and my build being capable of acting like a fairly sticky secondary defender).
People can check out what I am doing here.
Um, the character you posted up above is not doing 187.715 damage per charge. Where are you getting that number from? Or, is that counting buffs from other classes?
Different character. Like I said, the guy I posted wasn't a charger.
By the way, the character you posted has an illegal feature. You cant use the reserve maneuver feat on it. That feat only allows you to hold a maneuver reserved in place of a class encounter power that has a level attached to it. The Slayer has no such powers. Your build cannot legally access reign of blows.
He has a paragon path, which contains a level 11 encounter power. For someone who seems to be all about what Char-Op has and hasn't covered in regards to slayers, something that basic should have hit your radar at some point. Didn't you even make a comment somewhere about "why do you think Slayers take Rain Of Blows?" or was that someone else? How do you think they do this?
I will say this though, I already have it doing ... 92.435 DPR ...+20 DPR (give or take) if I have one rage active, one stance active, and am attacking a prone target....
So ~112 DPR is what you're going with? Really?
Why don't you just cut/paste the Superduper Charger from the DPR Kings? Save yourself some trouble.
And no, it won't beat what I've put together, which is 187.715 at-will DPR, all of it usable with Crush Them.
Unless I am mistaken, and have missed something, that already puts my build's basic DPR above the DPR you provided. Its melee basic attack DPR will, admittedly, be lower, but its charge damage will be higher.
I've rebuilt. Apples to Apples, Slayer Charger to your Fighter|Barb charger. (Oh, and my non-charging melee basic will still be higher.)
And, considering that I was wrong, and it is woefully easy for warlords and ardents to grant charges virtually at-will, the build I am creating will be able to use its charge capabilities as proxy contributions. Not to mention, with the right combination of abilities my build will be able to get individual rounds during which its expected DPR will be significantly higher, and its mean DPR over the course of a 5-10 round fight will also be significantly higher as a result. Hell, 3/4 of its encounter abilities grant multiple attacks (3 attacks per encounter power after recent errata, specifically). And when the rages and stances go active... not to mention, my build's utility is a head and shoulders above the utility of the build you provided (with my build knocking targets prone and pushing them 1 square with every charge, and my build being capable of acting like a fairly sticky secondary defender).
On the secondary defender front: My team won't need one. All my characters have defender level AC, and my leaders can redistribute damage via interrupts... of course, so can yours, assuming both the accelerators are opering under similar builds. They also hand out saves, HP and Temp HPs like candy.
I predict you will have an advantage in round 1, though it won't be as big as you think it is, due to accuraccy. In round two you'll lag far behind, and after round three you'll wonder why you even bothered. And that's just the 1 encounter per day you can actually use Goad of Blood. Your rages are fine, but they don't synergize well with your basic premise.
I've posted some suggestions for your build in your thread there. I tried to remain as helpful as possible: My Genasi suggestion will add an absurd amount of damage per attack, specifically, possibly even enough to put your guy ahead for two rounds instead of just the one, but we won't really know until we both finish our nova math. How's yours coming?
My goalposts are not shifty.
Yes. they are.
No. They are not. The point is to prove that Essentials characters are not overpowered, and that Essentials classes don't break the game. That is my goalpost. Never once did I say otherwise, or do otherwise. In fact, one of my big pet peeves about the way people claim Essentials is overpowered is the way they do so by examining one facet without any surrounding context. Hence why I will not engage in any comparison that attempts to do so (by, for example, examining only the melee basic attack damage without examining how much total damage the pre-E character will deal over the course of its turn and the turn on which it acts as a proxy).
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
My goalposts are not shifty.
Yes. they are.
No. They are not. The point is to prove that Essentials characters are not overpowered, and that Essentials classes don't break the game. That is my goalpost. Never once did I say otherwise, or do otherwise. In fact, one of my big pet peeves about the way people claim Essentials is overpowered is the way they do so by examining one facet without any surrounding context. Hence why I will not engage in any comparison that attempts to do so (by, for example, examining only the melee basic attack damage without examining how much total damage the pre-E character will deal over the course of its turn and the turn on which it acts as a proxy).
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
Well lets determine how a character can break the game. I'd say any character that can kill an equal level creature in 3 hits or less DPR is broken. Since it is expected that your average battle will require 3-5 hits to kill any given creature...
Well lets determine how a character can break the game. I'd say any character that can kill an equal level creature in 3 hits or less DPR is broken. Since it is expected that your average battle will require 3-5 hits to kill any given creature...
The criteria Char Op uses, based on what appears to be WotC's own metric, for strikers, is as follows. This is for at-will damage.
3 turns, 1 kill- Baseline Striker.
2 turns, 1 kill- Optimized Striker.
1 turn, 1 kill- Overpowered Striker.
By itself, the slayer is a normal striker, fitting in category 1 easily, and 2 with some effort.
The problem is is that he turns the aforementioned Warlords into category 3 strikers. This is because (1) 4e and 4e Essentials treat melee basic attacks very differently, and (b) his striker feature is available more than 1/per round.
Problem 1 is also an issue with feats and other elements, and directly contibute to slayers performing better than intended. It allows them to target reflex with every attack, for example. It makes turning them into chargers effortless. I abuse a more niche element of this in by build, by making Trip Up function at will for a second attack every turn. That tactic isn't viable for most characters, because most characters will not have melee basic attaks worth building around.
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
Um, I have not changed my criteria. What I term "breaking the game" is, by definition, something that can achieve levels beyond what classic 4e builds can. If it can't do that it isn't broken. If it can, it is broken.
Damon_Tor: I haven't been home since the last post I made (I just walked in my door), and I need to leave again (weekly D&D game). I will try to get some math done tonight, though I have to wake up bright and early tomorrow for a rather annoying court date (I hate doing my civic duty) which may eat up most of Monday. In other words, I am in the middle of a busy couple of days. Please be patient. I will try and have everything completed as soon as I can.
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
Um, I have not changed my criteria. What I term "breaking the game" is, by definition, something that can achieve levels beyond what classic 4e builds can. If it can't do that it isn't broken. If it can, it is broken.
Damon_Tor: I haven't been home since the last post I made (I just walked in my door), and I need to leave again (weekly D&D game). I will try to get some math done tonight, though I have to wake up bright and early tomorrow for a rather annoying court date (I hate doing my civic duty) which may eat up most of Monday. In other words, I am in the middle of a busy couple of days. Please be patient. I will try and have everything completed as soon as I can.
You know what? I'm done talking to you forever. It's obvious that you don't believe you can ever be wrong, and I'd rather not end up making a mistake when posting in response to such a "know it all" that I end up getting myself banned from these forums. Pointing out your wrongness just isn't worth it.
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
Um, I have not changed my criteria. What I term "breaking the game" is, by definition, something that can achieve levels beyond what classic 4e builds can. If it can't do that it isn't broken. If it can, it is broken.
Damon_Tor: I haven't been home since the last post I made (I just walked in my door), and I need to leave again (weekly D&D game). I will try to get some math done tonight, though I have to wake up bright and early tomorrow for a rather annoying court date (I hate doing my civic duty) which may eat up most of Monday. In other words, I am in the middle of a busy couple of days. Please be patient. I will try and have everything completed as soon as I can.
You know what? I'm done talking to you forever. It's obvious that you don't believe you can ever be wrong, and I'd rather not end up making a mistake when posting in response to such a "know it all" that I end up getting myself banned from these forums. Pointing out your wrongness just isn't worth it.
If you get a temp-ban for pointing out someone is wrong, then they are obviously a plant by the company. Its ok though, its SOP for a company to try to boost the hype for their new products. I've seen several posters that no matter what they said or did never got edited and never got banned. I mostly argue with them to show how ignorant they truly are rather than out of any sense of right or wrong.
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
Um, I have not changed my criteria. What I term "breaking the game" is, by definition, something that can achieve levels beyond what classic 4e builds can. If it can't do that it isn't broken. If it can, it is broken.
Damon_Tor: I haven't been home since the last post I made (I just walked in my door), and I need to leave again (weekly D&D game). I will try to get some math done tonight, though I have to wake up bright and early tomorrow for a rather annoying court date (I hate doing my civic duty) which may eat up most of Monday. In other words, I am in the middle of a busy couple of days. Please be patient. I will try and have everything completed as soon as I can.
You know what? I'm done talking to you forever. It's obvious that you don't believe you can ever be wrong, and I'd rather not end up making a mistake when posting in response to such a "know it all" that I end up getting myself banned from these forums. Pointing out your wrongness just isn't worth it.
If you get a temp-ban for pointing out someone is wrong, then they are obviously a plant by the company. Its ok though, its SOP for a company to try to boost the hype for their new products. I've seen several posters that no matter what they said or did never got edited and never got banned. I mostly argue with them to show how ignorant they truly are rather than out of any sense of right or wrong.
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
That's not what i'm saying. I'm doing this so I don't flip out one day and begin flaming him.
Also, this forum has the stupidest way of showing a blocked user posted. Why can I still see his sig?
You changed your criteria. that is the definition of shifting goalposts.
First goal: "prove that Essentials classes can break the game."
Second Goal: "Prove that Essentials classes break the game worse than any classic 4e build can"
Dave, that's a shifted goalpost.
Um, I have not changed my criteria. What I term "breaking the game" is, by definition, something that can achieve levels beyond what classic 4e builds can. If it can't do that it isn't broken. If it can, it is broken.
Damon_Tor: I haven't been home since the last post I made (I just walked in my door), and I need to leave again (weekly D&D game). I will try to get some math done tonight, though I have to wake up bright and early tomorrow for a rather annoying court date (I hate doing my civic duty) which may eat up most of Monday. In other words, I am in the middle of a busy couple of days. Please be patient. I will try and have everything completed as soon as I can.
You know what? I'm done talking to you forever. It's obvious that you don't believe you can ever be wrong, and I'd rather not end up making a mistake when posting in response to such a "know it all" that I end up getting myself banned from these forums. Pointing out your wrongness just isn't worth it.
If you get a temp-ban for pointing out someone is wrong, then they are obviously a plant by the company. Its ok though, its SOP for a company to try to boost the hype for their new products. I've seen several posters that no matter what they said or did never got edited and never got banned. I mostly argue with them to show how ignorant they truly are rather than out of any sense of right or wrong.
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
That's not what i'm saying. I'm doing this so I don't flip out one day and begin flaming him.
Also, this forum has the stupidest way of showing a blocked user posted. Why can I still see his sig?
Aaaah... ok... makes sense now. I don't block people for the same reason. I like hearing their reasoning and occasionally if they are both civil and factual change my opinion because of their input. {snark}Lately though these forums have become hostile with everyone just attacking everyone...{/snark}
Damon_Tor: I just reread something up above that I missed before (after getting home from my weekly D&D game). You said you are using reserve maneuver to hold a paragon path power in reserve. You may not do that by the RAW. The rules specifically say that you can only put a class power on reserve. They do not say that you can put a paragon path power in reserve. A paragon path power is, as far as I can tell, not considered to be a class power... that is why you can't retrain paragon path powers for another power from your class. At least, that has always been my understanding of the rules.
I've got to correct you here. The phrasing of the feat asks you to pick a class power that you don't know. However, it says that you can use it instead of an "encounter attack power of the same level or higher." It doesn't say that it needs to be a class one that it's replacing. It just needs to have a level. I'm surprised you aren't up on this. It's in all the Essentials striker builds in the CharOp forum, basically. I guess there just aren't a lot of those.
This is all really silly, Damon_Tor. Slayers wielded by a Warlord aren't going to put out much more damage. Honestly. The only damage boost that would apply that no one else has as a result of Commander's Strike or Direct the Strike is the striker feature of the Slayer and Battle Wrath, which ranges from +5 to +19. Even if the Warlord does use Commander's Strike, he's just getting +19 damage on the granted attacks that hit. It's also worth noting that there are few warlord powers that grant a charge attack, and most of them are daily powers. The ones that are encounter powers are far enough apart that a Warlord is better off only having one or two, because there are simply too many good Warlord powers that are more worthwhile than stuff almost twenty levels below you for that +19 damage.
Most of all, you're underestimating what Essentials strikers fail at: conditions and forced movements. Other classes have basic attacks that do more than just damage. Granting the attack to your regular ol' Fighter buddy could end the encounter faster, if it means that he gets to mark one more guy and pull him into a vortex of agony. Granting the attack to your friendly neighbourhood Avenger could mean a crit (which can be built up to quite the consistent damage spike) and some tactical sliding. Sometimes a condition is the prelude to more damage (or less damage for your allies, which means more damage from them).
But yes, though; if you had a group of five people with one slayer and four lazy warlords, you are definitely going to notice a higher damage output by far. A slayer taking every turn of the round is a scary slayer indeed. That's not a problem for the same reason the Battlemind Barrage-a-majig isn't a problem, though: there's a very tiny cross-section of people that would ever decide to play this setup without anticipating it and with negative feelings regarding it. It may be so low odds that no one ever actually attempts this combo in a real game.
Just a quick note though, there is a warlord paragon path power that grants 2 of your allies a charge attack. It is an encounter power. If one of your allies hit, you do not expend the power. I am still far from finished with my barbarian charging build, but two characters of that build will give a warlord a 97% chance of being able to use that power again. So, he can basically grant charges at-will. Ardent's can grant charges at the cost of 2 power points, which by 30th level also basically equates to at-will. But I do agree with your overall point...
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
And Plants? Like WoTC forum goers under cover? Do we need to water them? What if they don't get enough sunlight? Is the idea of WoTC having undercover users on the forums a completely ludicris idea and should be laughed at for being so ridiculous? Is CyberDave infact... ORCUS WITH VINEY TENTACLES?
He and Dave are just very loyal. I don't fault them for it; we all have a blind spot somewhere.
Suck it up people. the game is changing. backward, forward, it changing. There's a reason why 2d platform video games keep coming back. they are FUN (IMO usually more fun) and why 3d fighting video games like virtua fighter didn't really pan out. Forward direction does not always equal progress. sometimes reinvention and revision is better. The D&D game is changing. it's called retro. Not always bad.
Not killing our 4e line? You mean like...the lack of Arcane Power 2, Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2, Psionic Power 2 or a DMG 3 anywhere on the horizon? Fighters and other martial classes back to the "I hit with my axe" design, the butchering of such a concept being what got alot of people to like 4e.
And again, you can't prove that the e line is actually killing the 4e line. What are facts (unless you can support them with notes from a developers meeting at WotC, or equivalent source) are that:
--new options for classes have not been presented in an ad nauseum collection of books with numbers at the end. (arcane power 2, primal power 2, rocky 7, holloween 19, etc).
--new books like DMG3 and PHB4 have not been released (and were never slated to either)
--Books that expanded classes with new options are available (and by new options I mean a striker fighter, new spells for wizards, melee builds for warlocks, alternate rangers with primal powers, etc.).
--Both essentials and non essentials content was removed from the release schedule for reasons largely unknown (some of the content will be released via other books, DDI, etc.)
My gripe, my contention is that people make baseless statements like "X thing I don't like is killing my game, depleteing the ozzone, and is the seed of chaos made by free masons." It's an unprovable statement.
You may not like the e books and their direction, but IF they had made an arcane power 2, it QUITE LIKELY would have featured the material in DEVELOPMENT, like the warlock class, the wizard class, and other game features like it.
So yeah, I'll say that instead of whining that the people who made the core material have shifted to a diferent name for the material they've decided to make, you can constructively disect what you don't like about e books other then they are "dumbed down." Plenty of people (many of them people who got a little frustrated with the power at every level and 50 different names to say I hit a guy) like the focused options in the e books.
I also find it funny the person you quoted how he's upset undersupported races/classes arent getting much/any support thanks to essentials, and then you counter by declaring how Essentials gives more options to the more supported classes/races in the game.
I think I'm funny. I'm glad you find me funny. Realistically, classes are always going to be left out. I, personally was appalled that they made the rune priest. I mean...seriously? lets glut the classes, especially leaders, with another (IMO VERY) generic class that sucks (not mechanically, but because they could have made it an add on to the artificer). Is WotC perfect. nope. Did they screw the pooch IMO about that. Yup. But guess what. I bought the PHB3, decided that the rune preist was crap for me, and didn't place one single digital piece of ink about it anywhere.
I managed, some how, to covort my contempt for a stupid and worth (again, all IMO) class in a private and none public fashion, because I knew that those were the breaks.
Maybe you should "suck it up" and realize not everyone likes where the game is going?
so you'll pardon my frustration with people who rail on that the new products don't support their gaming options. Mine aren't often supported. I have a number of views about the game's design that I think WotC could have done better at.
But I don't blame WotC choices for ruining MY game, killing MY content. I'm not so ego centric to think that:
a. My gaming experience is the single most important, and that there is some measured attempt to ruin by TPTB.
b. All my choices and gaming preferences are the mainstream, and that content that isn't directly pandering to my interest is a betrayal or act of malevolent commercialism.
c. I am OWED by WotC and all their future products because I PREVIOUSLY purchased a product. Certainly they should be customer oriented, and I hope they are, but they don't owe me anything because I gave them $50 profit in 2009
So, have differing opinions. Just please, don't think that things are out to get "you" and "your" game too.
But I think I'm even more upset there wasn't a more official announcement. it seems like the whole production schedule was thrown for a loop, and I don't remember an announcement about it. that is irk-some for me.
I could be mistaken, but I didn't see a single book on the schedule that was pre-E. They canceled only post-E content. The only book that might have been pre-E was the cross-over book that would reformat old classes as post-E, and possibly errata them into post-E form (i.e. no choices weird class features showing up past level 1, etc etc...)
As far as I'm concerned, the book could have as well been titled "Errata We Charge For 2: Nerfed Warlords" It was fairly clear what the intent was behind it.
Suck it up people. the game is changing. backward, forward, it changing. There's a reason why 2d platform video games keep coming back. they are FUN (IMO usually more fun) and why 3d fighting video games like virtua fighter didn't really pan out. Forward direction does not always equal progress. sometimes reinvention and revision is better. The D&D game is changing. it's called retro. Not always bad.
Not killing our 4e line? You mean like...the lack of Arcane Power 2, Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2, Psionic Power 2 or a DMG 3 anywhere on the horizon? Fighters and other martial classes back to the "I hit with my axe" design, the butchering of such a concept being what got alot of people to like 4e.
And again, you can't prove that the e line is actually killing the 4e line. What are facts (unless you can support them with notes from a developers meeting at WotC, or equivalent source) are that:
--new options for classes have not been presented in an ad nauseum collection of books with numbers at the end. (arcane power 2, primal power 2, rocky 7, holloween 19, etc).
--new books like DMG3 and PHB4 have not been released (and were never slated to either)
--Books that expanded classes with new options are available (and by new options I mean a striker fighter, new spells for wizards, melee builds for warlocks, alternate rangers with primal powers, etc.).
--Both essentials and non essentials content was removed from the release schedule for reasons largely unknown (some of the content will be released via other books, DDI, etc.)
My gripe, my contention is that people make baseless statements like "X thing I don't like is killing my game, depleteing the ozzone, and is the seed of chaos made by free masons." It's an unprovable statement.
You may not like the e books and their direction, but IF they had made an arcane power 2, it QUITE LIKELY would have featured the material in DEVELOPMENT, like the warlock class, the wizard class, and other game features like it.
So yeah, I'll say that instead of whining that the people who made the core material have shifted to a diferent name for the material they've decided to make, you can constructively disect what you don't like about e books other then they are "dumbed down." Plenty of people (many of them people who got a little frustrated with the power at every level and 50 different names to say I hit a guy) like the focused options in the e books.
I also find it funny the person you quoted how he's upset undersupported races/classes arent getting much/any support thanks to essentials, and then you counter by declaring how Essentials gives more options to the more supported classes/races in the game.
I think I'm funny. I'm glad you find me funny. Realistically, classes are always going to be left out. I, personally was appalled that they made the rune priest. I mean...seriously? lets glut the classes, especially leaders, with another (IMO VERY) generic class that sucks (not mechanically, but because they could have made it an add on to the artificer). Is WotC perfect. nope. Did they screw the pooch IMO about that. Yup. But guess what. I bought the PHB3, decided that the rune preist was crap for me, and didn't place one single digital piece of ink about it anywhere.
I managed, some how, to covort my contempt for a stupid and worth (again, all IMO) class in a private and none public fashion, because I knew that those were the breaks.Maybe you should "suck it up" and realize not everyone likes where the game is going?
so you'll pardon my frustration with people who rail on that the new products don't support their gaming options. Mine aren't often supported. I have a number of views about the game's design that I think WotC could have done better at.
But I don't blame WotC choices for ruining MY game, killing MY content. I'm not so ego centric to think that:
a. My gaming experience is the single most important, and that there is some measured attempt to ruin by TPTB.
b. All my choices and gaming preferences are the mainstream, and that content that isn't directly pandering to my interest is a betrayal or act of malevolent commercialism.
c. I am OWED by WotC and all their future products because I PREVIOUSLY purchased a product. Certainly they should be customer oriented, and I hope they are, but they don't owe me anything because I gave them $50 profit in 2009
So, have differing opinions. Just please, don't think that things are out to get "you" and "your" game too.
I think this arguement is beginning to turn quite ugly. The ability to respect the opinions of others without having to except them as your own is a cornerstone of intelligent conversation. I completely agree with you that statements like essentials should die by fire and that's the way it is so suck it up are a bit off putting. But trying to high road people for not supplying proof for an opinion is unproductive. You can no more prove that essentials is not killing 4e proper than someone who doesn't like the essentials can prove that it is. I concede the existence of a few dragon articles, and a promise that 4e proper will still get some support. That being said, it isn't enough information to be considered proof as of yet. Unprovable is unprovable either way by definition.
I completely agree with you that WotC has no obligation to give me the material that I want. I do not expect to be catered to, and I never have. However, I am well within my right to be dissapointed by some of the decisions WotC has made recently. The Fortune Cards and the cancelation of the Ravenloft setting strikes me as bad decisions that contribute to my feeling of unease about the current direction of 4e. This is my opinion.
Additionally, as someone previously in this thread pointed out, the essentials style classes contain some powers that can be used by the 4e proper classes. This is a very valid point, and one that causes me further unease. Because it would qualify as support; I fear this will fulfill WotC's promise of continued support. I cannot speak for others on this, but I am not willing to buy entire books full of things I wont use in hopes that it will contain a handfull of options that I might. I have no proof to give that this is the way things will go. I have no evidence to back anything I have said up, and I do not need any. These are opinions, fears, and concerns that I am sharing with the people on this board as a ligitimate point of veiw.
There is a big difference between not agreeing with someone and telling them they are wrong. No one person's view is more important or more valid than any other person's view. I think the sooner we remember that the better it will be for all of us.
The Fortune Cards and the cancelation of the Ravenloft setting strikes me as bad decisions that contribute to my feeling of unease about the current direction of 4e.
Is a valid opinion and one I agree with. I'm sad that ravenloft is canceled, and I'm sad to see a disappointing release schedule thus far. Mys uspicion with the cards it that they are already printed and ready, so cancelling them does no one any good.
but this kind of opinion:
As far as I'm concerned, the book could have as well been titled "Errata We Charge For 2: Nerfed Warlords" It was fairly clear what the intent was behind it.
is inflammatory because your placing motive, unsubstantiatable motive, behind the decision, and it makes me feel like I'm being derided by a peer for my non-dislike for the e books.
As I said, I don't like plenty of 4e things, I don't accuse them of killing my game. doing so is childish. this isn't like a patch on a video game, where you have to use the changes and errata. It's just new stuff. use it or don't.
so while I see the aspects of my high horse are a bit heavy handed, it's born from frustration from people that are not even content to bash existing products, but to bash things they haven't seen, with no proof that the insidious capitolist/inept decisions are being made the way they want them to be.
I will not condone ignorant villification for ignorances sake.
Edit: I don't know what happened to the fonts. sorry.
It's true, I was a tad self righteous, but I just get frustrated. the difference is something like:The Fortune Cards and the cancelation of the Ravenloft setting strikes me as bad decisions that contribute to my feeling of unease about the current direction of 4e.
Is a valid opinion and one I agree with. I'm sad that ravenloft is canceled, and I'm sad to see a disappointing release schedule thus far. Mys uspicion with the cards it that they are already printed and ready, so cancelling them does no one any good.
but this kind of opinion:As far as I'm concerned, the book could have as well been titled "Errata We Charge For 2: Nerfed Warlords" It was fairly clear what the intent was behind it.
is inflammatory because your placing motive, unsubstantiatable motive, behind the decision, and it makes me feel like I'm being derided by a peer for my non-dislike for the e books.
As I said, I don't like plenty of 4e things, I don't accuse them of killing my game. doing so is childish. this isn't like a patch on a video game, where you have to use the changes and errata. It's just new stuff. use it or don't.
so while I see the aspects of my high horse are a bit heavy handed, it's born from frustration from people that are not even content to bash existing products, but to bash things they haven't seen, with no proof that the insidious capitolist/inept decisions are being made the way they want them to be.
I will not condone ignorant villification for ignorances sake.
Edit: I don't know what happened to the fonts. sorry.
Well stated. I'm glad you didn't take my statement as an abmonishment, because it wasn't really meant to be one. I'm very much in favor of people expressing opinions I don't agree with if they are intended to advance a conversation. I do so love a good arguement.
I'm a bit concerned about WotC direction lately, not with the e books, but just the lack of actual source material compared to say, 2008.
But I've weathered this storm several times. I've seen it with modern, the starwars RCR and SAGA, and maybe 3e was a good example of how not to make books after you anounce a line is ending.
I'm sad that I won't get conversion rules though. at least that I have to wait. I'm sad that ravenloft is not coming out because It's my 2nd favorite setting (w00t for darksun).
My main concern is that they will abandon the game for a new edition, which I probably wouldn't buy, but for the same reason I probably would buy a new Star wars RPG. I've got a complete game. Frankly I'm at a loss for how much more I need to make the game playable.
Oh, I'm sad that they're going back to hardbacks. the digest is somethign I like, cheaper, portable, smaller total price point.
oh well
I mean, there was only two products in the entire schedule (to date) that I was interested in, one of which is delayed (Heroes of Shadow) and one of which was cancelled (Heroes of Sword & Spell, formerly Heroes of Legend).
The last time I was this concerned (and disappointed) with the product schedule was back 2007/2008 during the end days of 3.5.
While I am trying to be optimistic, I am starting to worry that Hasbro is rethinking the entire product line, as I am fairly certain that Hasbro has been partially at fault for the string of cancellations to date (either directly, or indirectly by way of forcing Wizards to abandon products which are projected to fall short of an expected sales quota).
I don't want to come across all doom and gloom, and am sincerely trying to remain optimistic, however I am usually at a point where I have to choose between two (or more) excellent and desirable products with which to spend my money on......
Its rather disappointing when I have to struggle to find a product I am interested in purchasing (and being forced to look at older products just to find something even remotely interesting).
For example - this month, I gave in and purchased the Monster Vault (as it has been several months since my last 4E purchase), not because it offered me anything exciting, or new, but simply because it offered Updated and Errata'ed MM1 monsters (thereby eliminating one layer of complexity from my game, by eliminating the need to cross-reference).
Oh... and because it also included a large quantity of Monster Tokens in order to suppliment my fairly large (but incomplete) miniature collection.
Well stated. I'm glad you didn't take my statement as an abmonishment, because it wasn't really meant to be one. I'm very much in favor of people expressing opinions I don't agree with if they are intended to advance a conversation. I do so love a good arguement.
In your earlier post you implied DMG3, wasnt announced, thats not actually true, they talked about it and its release at Gencon 2009 (and I think XXP 2010 as well). The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, excluding the 3 fortune card decks, we have 10 items.
1) 3 Dungeon Tiles
2) A revamped DM Screen
3) 2 box sets (Shadowfell & Monster Vault: Nentir Valley)
4) 3 books (Heroes of Shadow, Neverwinter Campaign Guide & Heroes of Feywild)
5) 1 Module (Gardmore Abbey)
Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008, and its far fewer modules then those years too. I'm not sure how selling 1/3-1/2 as much stuff as before and convincing people to leave DDI (which the new CB and no gathered magazines surely has encouraged) is the way to become more profitable.
Well stated. I'm glad you didn't take my statement as an abmonishment, because it wasn't really meant to be one. I'm very much in favor of people expressing opinions I don't agree with if they are intended to advance a conversation. I do so love a good arguement.
In your earlier post you implied DMG3, wasnt announced, thats not actually true, they talked about it and its release at Gencon 2009 (and I think XXP 2010 as well). The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, excluding the 3 fortune card decks, we have 10 items.
1) 3 Dungeon Tiles
2) A revamped DM Screen
3) 2 box sets (Shadowfell & Monster Vault: Nentir Valley)
4) 3 books (Heroes of Shadow, Neverwinter Campaign Guide & Heroes of Feywild)
5) 1 Module (Gardmore Abbey)
Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008, and its far fewer modules then those years too. I'm not sure how selling 1/3-1/2 as much stuff as before and convincing people to leave DDI (which the new CB and no gathered magazines surely has encouraged) is the way to become more profitable.
Its a new corporate strategy pioneered by Micro$oft. You release a really crappy version of your product, it lowers expectation. You then release a product that is a step or two better, people hail it as a great improvement. When you compare previous version though, you find that it really isn't that much better than the version before the previous one. We've seen it with going from Windows 95, Windows ME, and Windows 98. More recently we've seen it in Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.
LOL Windows is actually a lot like the CB for me. Search is everything and Windows 7 fulfills all my dreams.
I think windows 7 is a decent operating system, just it has had graphics driver issues with every machine i've seen it on, even ones that came with win 7 installed.
I also apparently cant sort my large picture folder i ported over from XP, instead it all goes "cant be displayed" until I reboot.
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
I love Canadian Bacon. I like something that loads it even more. So much the better if I create the, uh, "Bacon" to be uh, loaded myse. . . this metaphor ain't working at all, is it?
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
I love Canadian Bacon. I like something that loads it even more. So much the better if I create the, uh, "Bacon" to be uh, loaded myse. . . this metaphor ain't working at all, is it?
Naw, but it keeps us from getting temp-banned for what someone did in one month in their basement, compared to what WotC took 2+ years to do...
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
I love Canadian Bacon. I like something that loads it even more. So much the better if I create the, uh, "Bacon" to be uh, loaded myse. . . this metaphor ain't working at all, is it?
Naw, but it keeps us from getting temp-banned for what someone did in one month in their basement, compared to what WotC took 2+ years to do...
In a totally unrelated post, I love using homebrewed content!
Also, this forum has the stupidest way of showing a blocked user posted. Why can I still see his sig?
Plus, of course, when someone quotes the entire load of BS your blocked user posted, you get to see that, too...
... you can never completely escape.
The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008.
That's not all bad. If what's in the pipeline iss all as bad as what we've gotten since August, it's really better to have less crap that more crap...
...OK, maybe it's not that bad. But, a game like D&D does quickly begin to groan under the weight of its own supplements, so a more modest publishing schedule isn't bad for the game, per se. Bad sign for the business, or for the longevity of the current edition, perhaps...
The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008.
That's not all bad. If what's in the pipeline iss all as bad as what we've gotten since August, it's really better to have less crap that more crap...
...OK, maybe it's not that bad. But, a game like D&D does quickly begin to groan under the weight of its own supplements, so a more modest publishing schedule isn't bad for the game, per se. Bad sign for the business, or for the longevity of the current edition, perhaps...
I think it's a bad sign.
My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008.
That's not all bad. If what's in the pipeline iss all as bad as what we've gotten since August, it's really better to have less crap that more crap...
...OK, maybe it's not that bad. But, a game like D&D does quickly begin to groan under the weight of its own supplements, so a more modest publishing schedule isn't bad for the game, per se. Bad sign for the business, or for the longevity of the current edition, perhaps...
I think it's a bad sign.
My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
I sugest you listen to the latest podcast. It sound like (without specifically stating it) they are saying the products themselves weren't up to snuff. So they got pulled and reshuffled. Also, that they personally think that flooding the market with products is not the right way to go. Now, I am an options fiend, but even I can see wisdom in that kind of move.
OR you could simply figure this is some evil plot by Hasbro and do this:
I sugest you listen to the latest podcast. It sound like (without specifically stating it) they are saying the products themselves weren't up to snuff. So they got pulled and reshuffled. Also, that they personally think that flooding the market with products is not the right way to go. Now, I am an options fiend, but even I can see wisdom in that kind of move.
OR you could simply figure this is some evil plot by Hasbro and do this:
Marketing speak can tell you alot as long as you don't actually listen to what they say.
I sugest you listen to the latest podcast. It sound like (without specifically stating it) they are saying the products themselves weren't up to snuff. So they got pulled and reshuffled. Also, that they personally think that flooding the market with products is not the right way to go. Now, I am an options fiend, but even I can see wisdom in that kind of move.
OR you could simply figure this is some evil plot by Hasbro and do this:
Marketing speak can tell you alot as long as you don't actually listen to what they say.
So, this then?
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
Oh come on. You know you are the company conspiracy theorist on this here forum. You have no faith in the company to make a decision because all they care about is the cash. Good for you.
It must be really easy to debate people as shallow as I am, who do things with little to no discernible motivation.
I, personally, will give them the benefit of the doubt. Every bit of material preceding Essentials has earned them that much from me. Plus, Hasbro has made many products that I have enjoyed in my 31 years of life. If they or some other company have screwed you over in some fashion, then your position is sort of understandable.
They lost the benefit of the doubt with the CBC/OCB deception. I understand why they made the move to the online CB, and if they had handled it better I'd still be a customer. Instead, they knowingly decieved us about the state of the Dark Sun/Essentials update to the CBC while leaving us without updates for three months and a sub-functional replacement tool for the next two.
I wasn't like this 6 months ago. They've worn out the benefit of the doubt through their own actions. Poor business ethics hurts profits by eroding consumer confidence and loyalty, in the end, hurting the brand.
My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
This is all I said. I don't blame Hasbro or WotC for trying to make a profit (that was entirely your caricature of me. I'm the one of the most pro-capitalist people I know.) I like many of Hasbro's products, and they aren't a bad company. I don't think they're a good fit for D&D though: I don't think any company that size is, since D&D is a niche product that will never have the profit margins a company that size requires, and their impulse will be to turn it into a more mainstream product, an action I fear will result in exactly the sort of thing I said it would, withdrawal from the PnP market and a shift to board games and CCGs.
You can disagree with me all you like, but if you think you understand my motivations or political views, reducing them to animated GIFs, you're kidding yourself.
Oh come on. You know you are the company conspiracy theorist on this here forum. You have no faith in the company to make a decision because all they care about is the cash. Good for you.
It must be really easy to debate people as shallow as I am, who do things with little to no discernible motivation.I, personally, will give them the benefit of the doubt. Every bit of material preceding Essentials has earned them that much from me. Plus, Hasbro has made many products that I have enjoyed in my 31 years of life. If they or some other company have screwed you over in some fashion, then your position is sort of understandable.
They lost the benefit of the doubt with the CBC/OCB deception. I understand why they made the move to the online CB, and if they had handled it better I'd still be a customer. Instead, they knowingly decieved us about the state of the Dark Sun/Essentials update to the CBC while leaving us without updates for three months and a sub-functional replacement tool for the next two.
I wasn't like this 6 months ago. They've worn out the benefit of the doubt through their own actions. Poor business ethics hurts profits by eroding consumer confidence and loyalty, in the end, hurting the brand.My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
This is all I said. I don't blame Hasbro or WotC for trying to make a profit (that was entirely your caricature of me. I'm the one of the most pro-capitalist people I know.) I like many of Hasbro's products, and they aren't a bad company. I don't think they're a good fit for D&D though: I don't think any company that size is, since D&D is a niche product that will never have the profit margins a company that size requires, and their impulse will be to turn it into a more mainstream product, an action I fear will result in exactly the sort of thing I said it would, withdrawal from the PnP market and a shift to board games and CCGs.
You can disagree with me all you like, but if you think you understand my motivations or political views, reducing them to animated GIFs, you're kidding yourself.
Now I get where your unhappiness lies. See, I wasn't a subscriber. I subscribed at the last minute, and got the last update for the offline CB. It is most definitely all I will be using, i.e. no online CB for me. Their Online initiative has no draw for me. So if it had been, I could see being as annoyed as you. Heck, with all the good will they have garnered, it's amazing they haven't burned it all away with the Essentials Classes and Boxed Material. But I always look on the bright side. I have a ton and a half of material from them to play with at my leisure.
My problem with your fear, however, is that it seems to be based in the idea that Hasbro has made WotC it's own personal marionette, based on your derisive tone and calling their information "market speak". I'm just not seeing it.
And if you get so irritated by me posting smilies that imitate what I see you doing in my head, I apologize. Not for my actions, but for the feelings my actions seem to illicit in you.
Last things, do you think that the inclusion of board or card games into the D&D property is a bad thing? Do you think that, if the board games and card games showed more success than the D&D line as a whole, that the D&D RPG would be shelved? Do you think it is possible for niche boardgames of an already niche product to outsell the product of their origins? And if it were shelved, what impetus would people have to acquire things bearing the D&D label? I ask these as genuine questions, not as any sort of attack, so do not take it as such. I am genuinely curious.
Now I get where your unhappiness lies. See, I wasn't a subscriber. I subscribed at the last minute, and got the last update for the offline CB. It is most definitely all I will be using, i.e. no online CB for me. Their Online initiative has no draw for me. So if it had been, I could see being as annoyed as you. Heck, with all the good will they have garnered, it's amazing they haven't burned it all away with the Essentials Classes and Boxed Material. But I always look on the bright side. I have a ton and a half of material from them to play with at my leisure.
My problem with your fear, however, is that it seems to be based in the idea that Hasbro has made WotC it's own personal marionette, based on your derisive tone and calling their information "market speak". I'm just not seeing it.
"Personal marionette" isn't meaningful. But yes, Hasbro does effect WotC to one degree or another. An example is Hasbro's layoffs from last year: do we think WotC was immune to that? how much are those layoffs effecting the product release schedule? The magazine quality? The release of errata? I don't know, but it seems likely there is some correlation.
And if you get so irritated by me posting smilies that imitate what I see you doing in my head, I apologize. Not for my actions, but for the feelings my actions seem to illicit in you.
I understand the need to fictionalize people you don't understand, don't worry about it.
Last things, do you think that the inclusion of board or card games into the D&D property is a bad thing?
Not in and of themselves, no.
Do you think that, if the board games and card games showed more success than the D&D line as a whole, that the D&D RPG would be shelved?
No. If D&D PnP products are below Hasbro's revenue goals they will be shelved, regardless of how the other D&D branded products do.
Do you think it is possible for niche boardgames of an already niche product to outsell the product of their origins?
Unequivocally. The Call of Cthulhu RPG does fine, but the board games outsell the RPG supplements by a significant margin. Board Games appeal to casual gamers much more than RPGs do: they are less niche, not more.
And if it were shelved, what impetus would people have to acquire things bearing the D&D label?
It's a well known brand, regardless of whether or not anything resembling its original incarnation continues to exist. It's not overly relevant to a D&D board game or CCG if there's a D&D PnP currently being published. You do have a point though, and Hasbro is clearly trying to focus on using the D&D PnP products to tie in with other branded products, like the Neverwinter "setting" ties in with the upcoming computer game.
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
But that's such a cute little box. look at that little guy spin...
whee!!!!!!
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
But that's such a cute little box. look at that little guy spin...
whee!!!!!!
I like how the optimists paint the pessimists as panicking Armageddon preachers of doom. Its really funny when things go exactly how they predicted too, like the 2008 financial crisis. It was predicted by pessimists years in advance...
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
But that's such a cute little box. look at that little guy spin...
whee!!!!!!
I like how the optimists paint the pessimists as panicking Armageddon preachers of doom. Its really funny when things go exactly how they predicted too, like the 2008 financial crisis. It was predicted by pessimists years in advance...
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
I'm sorry if yours is. Truly.
Honestly I just like the guy going in circles. Tee Hee, look at him go.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
If you mean that literally, as a realist you believe in what is obvious and literal, you draw no conclusions. I'm a scientist: I collect data and form a hypothesis. Right now, the simplest explanation for the what we're seeing is that Hasbro is putting heavy pressure on WotC to improve profits, and that the first attempt to do so, Essentials, has failed. My hypothesis is that the next step is to move the D&D brand away from PnP products, and this is supported by the removing of PnP products from the list of upcoming products and the addition of Board Games, CCGs, and Video Games.
It's not a conclusion I've jumped to without any thought or consideration. If anyone has a simpler explanation for what's been happening with D&D my hypothesis will change. As a realist, you have no standing to criticize the conclusions of others, as you are not willing to draw any of your own.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
If you mean that literally, as a realist you believe in what is obvious and literal, you draw no conclusions. I'm a scientist: I collect data and form a hypothesis. Right now, the simplest explanation for the what we're seeing is that Hasbro is putting heavy pressure on WotC to improve profits, and that the first attempt to do so, Essentials, has failed. My hypothesis is that the next step is to move the D&D brand away from PnP products, and this is supported by the removing of PnP products from the list of upcoming products and the addition of Board Games, CCGs, and Video Games.
It's not a conclusion I've jumped to without any thought or consideration. If anyone has a simpler explanation for what's been happening with D&D my hypothesis will change. As a realist, you have no standing to criticize the conclusions of others, as you are not willing to draw any of your own.
Responding in reverse decending:
I don't even disagree with your conclusion, it is a sound explanation. Another is that WotC did put out some shoddy product and they didn't want to damage their rep any more than already...
Show me some evidence. Insider testimony. Internal memos. Financial sheets for WotC that say that the return on captial investmetn is too low.
Opinions can be very well though out, and still be really, really, really wrong (short list: pretty much any science by aristotle, popular reading in itally circa 1920-1935, Lenin's "interpretation" of the communist manifesto. Aaron Burr thinking he could win a duel. The Fact the Marx clearly sadi that china would be the last place that should pull off a communist revolution. Mao convincing the peasant to tear down their infrastructure to make steel in their back yards...).
My opinion, since you asked for it, and was stated up top, is that MY game is not ruined. I like the ebooks (some more, some less, more than divine power, that's for sure) but I have the old character builder on my computer. That software didn't have a time bomb to 'splode it and render it useless.
I'm not a WotC "fan," I don't rabidly support them, I just feel like witch hunting (aka forming a decision/opinion/major editorial bent w/o empirical evidence) is silly, and negative, and detracts from the community as a whole.
So yeah. I suppose I am a realist. I feel about things that are happening, I think about them, have opinions, but until I see some form of evidence one way or the other, I'm not gonna jump on a band wagon.
And again, if you feel your game has been ruined, I'm sorry (you being the anyone out there who feels this way you). It sucks when things end. I was sad when the old robotech game ended. Or when heroes unlimited seemed to die off, and don't get me started on the general lack of support for After the Bomb, only the greatest mutant animal system ever (though I lvoes me my Gamma World). It's lame when the games we love aren't supported well. But you can always play them. PnP gaming isn't about the shiniest new toy, the goals of a corporate conglomerate, or even if material which clearly is unbalanced "game breaking" is released to enhance the appeal of each new supplement with crippling power creep. It's about having fun.
Clearly some people are no longer having fun, which is the opposite of playing a game, so something needs to be done... but fascile arguments aren't going to be a solution.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
If you mean that literally, as a realist you believe in what is obvious and literal, you draw no conclusions. I'm a scientist: I collect data and form a hypothesis. Right now, the simplest explanation for the what we're seeing is that Hasbro is putting heavy pressure on WotC to improve profits, and that the first attempt to do so, Essentials, has failed. My hypothesis is that the next step is to move the D&D brand away from PnP products, and this is supported by the removing of PnP products from the list of upcoming products and the addition of Board Games, CCGs, and Video Games.
It's not a conclusion I've jumped to without any thought or consideration. If anyone has a simpler explanation for what's been happening with D&D my hypothesis will change. As a realist, you have no standing to criticize the conclusions of others, as you are not willing to draw any of your own.
Responding in reverse decending:
I don't even disagree with your conclusion, it is a sound explanation. Another is that WotC did put out some shoddy product and they didn't want to damage their rep any more than already...
Show me some evidence. Insider testimony. Internal memos. Financial sheets for WotC that say that the return on captial investmetn is too low.
Opinions can be very well though out, and still be really, really, really wrong (short list: pretty much any science by aristotle, popular reading in itally circa 1920-1935, Lenin's "interpretation" of the communist manifesto. Aaron Burr thinking he could win a duel. The Fact the Marx clearly sadi that china would be the last place that should pull off a communist revolution. Mao convincing the peasant to tear down their infrastructure to make steel in their back yards...).
My opinion, since you asked for it, and was stated up top, is that MY game is not ruined. I like the ebooks (some more, some less, more than divine power, that's for sure) but I have the old character builder on my computer. That software didn't have a time bomb to 'splode it and render it useless.
I'm not a WotC "fan," I don't rabidly support them, I just feel like witch hunting (aka forming a decision/opinion/major editorial bent w/o empirical evidence) is silly, and negative, and detracts from the community as a whole.
So yeah. I suppose I am a realist. I feel about things that are happening, I think about them, have opinions, but until I see some form of evidence one way or the other, I'm not gonna jump on a band wagon.
And again, if you feel your game has been ruined, I'm sorry (you being the anyone out there who feels this way you). It sucks when things end. I was sad when the old robotech game ended. Or when heroes unlimited seemed to die off, and don't get me started on the general lack of support for After the Bomb, only the greatest mutant animal system ever (though I lvoes me my Gamma World). It's lame when the games we love aren't supported well. But you can always play them. PnP gaming isn't about the shiniest new toy, the goals of a corporate conglomerate, or even if material which clearly is unbalanced "game breaking" is released to enhance the appeal of each new supplement with crippling power creep. It's about having fun.
Clearly some people are no longer having fun, which is the opposite of playing a game, so something needs to be done... but fascile arguments aren't going to be a solution.
QFT
Last things, do you think that the inclusion of board or card games into the D&D property is a bad thing?
To the customer who has no interest in RPGs, the expansion of the D&D property into board games and CCGs is potentially a good thing, since they might like one or the other, and don't care if the RPG line falls off in quality as a result. To the customer who has no interest in board or card games, it's potentially a bad thing.
If D&D were doing really well, and the possible expansion of the line were to be accompanied by an equal expansion in the resources devoted to it - if WotC were hiring rather than laying off, for instance - then the latter concerns would be minimal.
Do you think that, if the board games and card games showed more success than the D&D line as a whole, that the D&D RPG would be shelved?
Yes. If a spin-off proves much more successful than the original, the original could be shelved to devote more resources to producing and promoting the spin-off.
Do you think it is possible for niche boardgames of an already niche product to outsell the product of their origins?
RPGs are a small niche. Boardgames are mainstream. Yes, a mainstream product can greatly outsell the niche product it is based upon. It's not /likely/ to, but when it happens it's a tremendous 'win' for the owners of the original property.
And if it were shelved, what impetus would people have to acquire things bearing the D&D label?
The impetus wouldn't be "I think I'll buy something because it has the nameplate of an obscure game played by geeky loosers in the 80s." Rather, the hope would be that people would start thinking "Maybe I'll check out something with the nameplate of that wildly successful boardgame/CCG/MMO/3D Fantasy Blockbuster everyone's talking about."
A good example would be the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The property started out as a niche underground comic - it was iconoclastic, and a bit silly, but actually quite dark and 'adult.' When it was made into a kids' cartoon, the underground comic disapeared, and the whole franchise lightened up, dumbed down and became mainstream. The cartoon was wildly successful compared to the underground comic, which, today, is all but forgotten.
A good example would be the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The property started out as a niche underground comic - it was iconoclastic, and a bit silly, but actually quite dark and 'adult.' When it was made into a kids' cartoon, the underground comic disapeared, and the whole franchise lightened up, dumbed down and became mainstream. The cartoon was wildly successful compared to the underground comic, which, today, is all but forgotten.
I would agree that there is danger in spin offs for all the reasons you said. But, using TMNT as an example:
The dark comics of the early days actually inspired a new set of dark comics in the i'll fated dreamwave days, and the original comics brought about the TMNT RPG from Palladium (which rocked, and was one of the more sensible Palladium properties).
The toys and cartoons entrenched the TMNT brand in young minds (like mine) and when the omnibus of the old, original comics was released the other year I picked it up because I had fond memories of both the RPG and Cartoon, and now it was (more) age appropriate (how age appropriate are comics to a 30 year old in "mainstream society" right? ;) ).
Similar things could be said for the old Marvel transformer comics, far more adult in their storytelling than the cartoons, and now those comics combined with the cartoons have given rise toa (at times questionable) media frenzy the last 5 years. And While I love almost everything IDW did with the transformers (and will poke micheal Bay in hell with a very sharp pinapple) My enjoyment of the original Marvel stories aren't destroyed. SUre they got shafted by a changing marketplace, and yeah the writing was shoddy at times, but they did their best to put out stories that I thought were pretty good, under some dubious business practices by Hasbro ( like killing off characters to support new toy lines *cough* optimus prime *cough*).
One thing's for sure though. Transformers, and TMNT are still around, in the original media that spawned them and I can reread all my favorite stories with out them being ruined by what other people have done with the characters/franchise.
And Plants? Like WoTC forum goers under cover? Do we need to water them? What if they don't get enough sunlight? Is the idea of WoTC having undercover users on the forums a completely ludicris idea and should be laughed at for being so ridiculous? Is CyberDave infact... ORCUS WITH VINEY TENTACLES?
He and Dave are just very loyal. I don't fault them for it; we all have a blind spot somewhere.
Suck it up people. the game is changing. backward, forward, it changing. There's a reason why 2d platform video games keep coming back. they are FUN (IMO usually more fun) and why 3d fighting video games like virtua fighter didn't really pan out. Forward direction does not always equal progress. sometimes reinvention and revision is better. The D&D game is changing. it's called retro. Not always bad.
Not killing our 4e line? You mean like...the lack of Arcane Power 2, Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2, Psionic Power 2 or a DMG 3 anywhere on the horizon? Fighters and other martial classes back to the "I hit with my axe" design, the butchering of such a concept being what got alot of people to like 4e.
And again, you can't prove that the e line is actually killing the 4e line. What are facts (unless you can support them with notes from a developers meeting at WotC, or equivalent source) are that:
--new options for classes have not been presented in an ad nauseum collection of books with numbers at the end. (arcane power 2, primal power 2, rocky 7, holloween 19, etc).
--new books like DMG3 and PHB4 have not been released (and were never slated to either)
--Books that expanded classes with new options are available (and by new options I mean a striker fighter, new spells for wizards, melee builds for warlocks, alternate rangers with primal powers, etc.).
--Both essentials and non essentials content was removed from the release schedule for reasons largely unknown (some of the content will be released via other books, DDI, etc.)
My gripe, my contention is that people make baseless statements like "X thing I don't like is killing my game, depleteing the ozzone, and is the seed of chaos made by free masons." It's an unprovable statement.
You may not like the e books and their direction, but IF they had made an arcane power 2, it QUITE LIKELY would have featured the material in DEVELOPMENT, like the warlock class, the wizard class, and other game features like it.
So yeah, I'll say that instead of whining that the people who made the core material have shifted to a diferent name for the material they've decided to make, you can constructively disect what you don't like about e books other then they are "dumbed down." Plenty of people (many of them people who got a little frustrated with the power at every level and 50 different names to say I hit a guy) like the focused options in the e books.
I also find it funny the person you quoted how he's upset undersupported races/classes arent getting much/any support thanks to essentials, and then you counter by declaring how Essentials gives more options to the more supported classes/races in the game.
I think I'm funny. I'm glad you find me funny. Realistically, classes are always going to be left out. I, personally was appalled that they made the rune priest. I mean...seriously? lets glut the classes, especially leaders, with another (IMO VERY) generic class that sucks (not mechanically, but because they could have made it an add on to the artificer). Is WotC perfect. nope. Did they screw the pooch IMO about that. Yup. But guess what. I bought the PHB3, decided that the rune preist was crap for me, and didn't place one single digital piece of ink about it anywhere.
I managed, some how, to covort my contempt for a stupid and worth (again, all IMO) class in a private and none public fashion, because I knew that those were the breaks.
Maybe you should "suck it up" and realize not everyone likes where the game is going?
so you'll pardon my frustration with people who rail on that the new products don't support their gaming options. Mine aren't often supported. I have a number of views about the game's design that I think WotC could have done better at.
But I don't blame WotC choices for ruining MY game, killing MY content. I'm not so ego centric to think that:
a. My gaming experience is the single most important, and that there is some measured attempt to ruin by TPTB.
b. All my choices and gaming preferences are the mainstream, and that content that isn't directly pandering to my interest is a betrayal or act of malevolent commercialism.
c. I am OWED by WotC and all their future products because I PREVIOUSLY purchased a product. Certainly they should be customer oriented, and I hope they are, but they don't owe me anything because I gave them $50 profit in 2009
So, have differing opinions. Just please, don't think that things are out to get "you" and "your" game too.
But I think I'm even more upset there wasn't a more official announcement. it seems like the whole production schedule was thrown for a loop, and I don't remember an announcement about it. that is irk-some for me.
I could be mistaken, but I didn't see a single book on the schedule that was pre-E. They canceled only post-E content. The only book that might have been pre-E was the cross-over book that would reformat old classes as post-E, and possibly errata them into post-E form (i.e. no choices weird class features showing up past level 1, etc etc...)
As far as I'm concerned, the book could have as well been titled "Errata We Charge For 2: Nerfed Warlords" It was fairly clear what the intent was behind it.
Suck it up people. the game is changing. backward, forward, it changing. There's a reason why 2d platform video games keep coming back. they are FUN (IMO usually more fun) and why 3d fighting video games like virtua fighter didn't really pan out. Forward direction does not always equal progress. sometimes reinvention and revision is better. The D&D game is changing. it's called retro. Not always bad.
Not killing our 4e line? You mean like...the lack of Arcane Power 2, Primal Power 2, Divine Power 2, Psionic Power 2 or a DMG 3 anywhere on the horizon? Fighters and other martial classes back to the "I hit with my axe" design, the butchering of such a concept being what got alot of people to like 4e.
And again, you can't prove that the e line is actually killing the 4e line. What are facts (unless you can support them with notes from a developers meeting at WotC, or equivalent source) are that:
--new options for classes have not been presented in an ad nauseum collection of books with numbers at the end. (arcane power 2, primal power 2, rocky 7, holloween 19, etc).
--new books like DMG3 and PHB4 have not been released (and were never slated to either)
--Books that expanded classes with new options are available (and by new options I mean a striker fighter, new spells for wizards, melee builds for warlocks, alternate rangers with primal powers, etc.).
--Both essentials and non essentials content was removed from the release schedule for reasons largely unknown (some of the content will be released via other books, DDI, etc.)
My gripe, my contention is that people make baseless statements like "X thing I don't like is killing my game, depleteing the ozzone, and is the seed of chaos made by free masons." It's an unprovable statement.
You may not like the e books and their direction, but IF they had made an arcane power 2, it QUITE LIKELY would have featured the material in DEVELOPMENT, like the warlock class, the wizard class, and other game features like it.
So yeah, I'll say that instead of whining that the people who made the core material have shifted to a diferent name for the material they've decided to make, you can constructively disect what you don't like about e books other then they are "dumbed down." Plenty of people (many of them people who got a little frustrated with the power at every level and 50 different names to say I hit a guy) like the focused options in the e books.
I also find it funny the person you quoted how he's upset undersupported races/classes arent getting much/any support thanks to essentials, and then you counter by declaring how Essentials gives more options to the more supported classes/races in the game.
I think I'm funny. I'm glad you find me funny. Realistically, classes are always going to be left out. I, personally was appalled that they made the rune priest. I mean...seriously? lets glut the classes, especially leaders, with another (IMO VERY) generic class that sucks (not mechanically, but because they could have made it an add on to the artificer). Is WotC perfect. nope. Did they screw the pooch IMO about that. Yup. But guess what. I bought the PHB3, decided that the rune preist was crap for me, and didn't place one single digital piece of ink about it anywhere.
I managed, some how, to covort my contempt for a stupid and worth (again, all IMO) class in a private and none public fashion, because I knew that those were the breaks.Maybe you should "suck it up" and realize not everyone likes where the game is going?
so you'll pardon my frustration with people who rail on that the new products don't support their gaming options. Mine aren't often supported. I have a number of views about the game's design that I think WotC could have done better at.
But I don't blame WotC choices for ruining MY game, killing MY content. I'm not so ego centric to think that:
a. My gaming experience is the single most important, and that there is some measured attempt to ruin by TPTB.
b. All my choices and gaming preferences are the mainstream, and that content that isn't directly pandering to my interest is a betrayal or act of malevolent commercialism.
c. I am OWED by WotC and all their future products because I PREVIOUSLY purchased a product. Certainly they should be customer oriented, and I hope they are, but they don't owe me anything because I gave them $50 profit in 2009
So, have differing opinions. Just please, don't think that things are out to get "you" and "your" game too.
I think this arguement is beginning to turn quite ugly. The ability to respect the opinions of others without having to except them as your own is a cornerstone of intelligent conversation. I completely agree with you that statements like essentials should die by fire and that's the way it is so suck it up are a bit off putting. But trying to high road people for not supplying proof for an opinion is unproductive. You can no more prove that essentials is not killing 4e proper than someone who doesn't like the essentials can prove that it is. I concede the existence of a few dragon articles, and a promise that 4e proper will still get some support. That being said, it isn't enough information to be considered proof as of yet. Unprovable is unprovable either way by definition.
I completely agree with you that WotC has no obligation to give me the material that I want. I do not expect to be catered to, and I never have. However, I am well within my right to be dissapointed by some of the decisions WotC has made recently. The Fortune Cards and the cancelation of the Ravenloft setting strikes me as bad decisions that contribute to my feeling of unease about the current direction of 4e. This is my opinion.
Additionally, as someone previously in this thread pointed out, the essentials style classes contain some powers that can be used by the 4e proper classes. This is a very valid point, and one that causes me further unease. Because it would qualify as support; I fear this will fulfill WotC's promise of continued support. I cannot speak for others on this, but I am not willing to buy entire books full of things I wont use in hopes that it will contain a handfull of options that I might. I have no proof to give that this is the way things will go. I have no evidence to back anything I have said up, and I do not need any. These are opinions, fears, and concerns that I am sharing with the people on this board as a ligitimate point of veiw.
There is a big difference between not agreeing with someone and telling them they are wrong. No one person's view is more important or more valid than any other person's view. I think the sooner we remember that the better it will be for all of us.
The Fortune Cards and the cancelation of the Ravenloft setting strikes me as bad decisions that contribute to my feeling of unease about the current direction of 4e.
Is a valid opinion and one I agree with. I'm sad that ravenloft is canceled, and I'm sad to see a disappointing release schedule thus far. Mys uspicion with the cards it that they are already printed and ready, so cancelling them does no one any good.
but this kind of opinion:
As far as I'm concerned, the book could have as well been titled "Errata We Charge For 2: Nerfed Warlords" It was fairly clear what the intent was behind it.
is inflammatory because your placing motive, unsubstantiatable motive, behind the decision, and it makes me feel like I'm being derided by a peer for my non-dislike for the e books.
As I said, I don't like plenty of 4e things, I don't accuse them of killing my game. doing so is childish. this isn't like a patch on a video game, where you have to use the changes and errata. It's just new stuff. use it or don't.
so while I see the aspects of my high horse are a bit heavy handed, it's born from frustration from people that are not even content to bash existing products, but to bash things they haven't seen, with no proof that the insidious capitolist/inept decisions are being made the way they want them to be.
I will not condone ignorant villification for ignorances sake.
Edit: I don't know what happened to the fonts. sorry.
It's true, I was a tad self righteous, but I just get frustrated. the difference is something like:The Fortune Cards and the cancelation of the Ravenloft setting strikes me as bad decisions that contribute to my feeling of unease about the current direction of 4e.
Is a valid opinion and one I agree with. I'm sad that ravenloft is canceled, and I'm sad to see a disappointing release schedule thus far. Mys uspicion with the cards it that they are already printed and ready, so cancelling them does no one any good.
but this kind of opinion:As far as I'm concerned, the book could have as well been titled "Errata We Charge For 2: Nerfed Warlords" It was fairly clear what the intent was behind it.
is inflammatory because your placing motive, unsubstantiatable motive, behind the decision, and it makes me feel like I'm being derided by a peer for my non-dislike for the e books.
As I said, I don't like plenty of 4e things, I don't accuse them of killing my game. doing so is childish. this isn't like a patch on a video game, where you have to use the changes and errata. It's just new stuff. use it or don't.
so while I see the aspects of my high horse are a bit heavy handed, it's born from frustration from people that are not even content to bash existing products, but to bash things they haven't seen, with no proof that the insidious capitolist/inept decisions are being made the way they want them to be.
I will not condone ignorant villification for ignorances sake.
Edit: I don't know what happened to the fonts. sorry.
Well stated. I'm glad you didn't take my statement as an abmonishment, because it wasn't really meant to be one. I'm very much in favor of people expressing opinions I don't agree with if they are intended to advance a conversation. I do so love a good arguement.
I'm a bit concerned about WotC direction lately, not with the e books, but just the lack of actual source material compared to say, 2008.
But I've weathered this storm several times. I've seen it with modern, the starwars RCR and SAGA, and maybe 3e was a good example of how not to make books after you anounce a line is ending.
I'm sad that I won't get conversion rules though. at least that I have to wait. I'm sad that ravenloft is not coming out because It's my 2nd favorite setting (w00t for darksun).
My main concern is that they will abandon the game for a new edition, which I probably wouldn't buy, but for the same reason I probably would buy a new Star wars RPG. I've got a complete game. Frankly I'm at a loss for how much more I need to make the game playable.
Oh, I'm sad that they're going back to hardbacks. the digest is somethign I like, cheaper, portable, smaller total price point.
oh well
I mean, there was only two products in the entire schedule (to date) that I was interested in, one of which is delayed (Heroes of Shadow) and one of which was cancelled (Heroes of Sword & Spell, formerly Heroes of Legend).
The last time I was this concerned (and disappointed) with the product schedule was back 2007/2008 during the end days of 3.5.
While I am trying to be optimistic, I am starting to worry that Hasbro is rethinking the entire product line, as I am fairly certain that Hasbro has been partially at fault for the string of cancellations to date (either directly, or indirectly by way of forcing Wizards to abandon products which are projected to fall short of an expected sales quota).
I don't want to come across all doom and gloom, and am sincerely trying to remain optimistic, however I am usually at a point where I have to choose between two (or more) excellent and desirable products with which to spend my money on......
Its rather disappointing when I have to struggle to find a product I am interested in purchasing (and being forced to look at older products just to find something even remotely interesting).
For example - this month, I gave in and purchased the Monster Vault (as it has been several months since my last 4E purchase), not because it offered me anything exciting, or new, but simply because it offered Updated and Errata'ed MM1 monsters (thereby eliminating one layer of complexity from my game, by eliminating the need to cross-reference).
Oh... and because it also included a large quantity of Monster Tokens in order to suppliment my fairly large (but incomplete) miniature collection.
Well stated. I'm glad you didn't take my statement as an abmonishment, because it wasn't really meant to be one. I'm very much in favor of people expressing opinions I don't agree with if they are intended to advance a conversation. I do so love a good arguement.
In your earlier post you implied DMG3, wasnt announced, thats not actually true, they talked about it and its release at Gencon 2009 (and I think XXP 2010 as well). The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, excluding the 3 fortune card decks, we have 10 items.
1) 3 Dungeon Tiles
2) A revamped DM Screen
3) 2 box sets (Shadowfell & Monster Vault: Nentir Valley)
4) 3 books (Heroes of Shadow, Neverwinter Campaign Guide & Heroes of Feywild)
5) 1 Module (Gardmore Abbey)
Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008, and its far fewer modules then those years too. I'm not sure how selling 1/3-1/2 as much stuff as before and convincing people to leave DDI (which the new CB and no gathered magazines surely has encouraged) is the way to become more profitable.
Well stated. I'm glad you didn't take my statement as an abmonishment, because it wasn't really meant to be one. I'm very much in favor of people expressing opinions I don't agree with if they are intended to advance a conversation. I do so love a good arguement.
In your earlier post you implied DMG3, wasnt announced, thats not actually true, they talked about it and its release at Gencon 2009 (and I think XXP 2010 as well). The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, excluding the 3 fortune card decks, we have 10 items.
1) 3 Dungeon Tiles
2) A revamped DM Screen
3) 2 box sets (Shadowfell & Monster Vault: Nentir Valley)
4) 3 books (Heroes of Shadow, Neverwinter Campaign Guide & Heroes of Feywild)
5) 1 Module (Gardmore Abbey)
Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008, and its far fewer modules then those years too. I'm not sure how selling 1/3-1/2 as much stuff as before and convincing people to leave DDI (which the new CB and no gathered magazines surely has encouraged) is the way to become more profitable.
Its a new corporate strategy pioneered by Micro$oft. You release a really crappy version of your product, it lowers expectation. You then release a product that is a step or two better, people hail it as a great improvement. When you compare previous version though, you find that it really isn't that much better than the version before the previous one. We've seen it with going from Windows 95, Windows ME, and Windows 98. More recently we've seen it in Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7.
LOL Windows is actually a lot like the CB for me. Search is everything and Windows 7 fulfills all my dreams.
I think windows 7 is a decent operating system, just it has had graphics driver issues with every machine i've seen it on, even ones that came with win 7 installed.
I also apparently cant sort my large picture folder i ported over from XP, instead it all goes "cant be displayed" until I reboot.
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
I love Canadian Bacon. I like something that loads it even more. So much the better if I create the, uh, "Bacon" to be uh, loaded myse. . . this metaphor ain't working at all, is it?
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
I love Canadian Bacon. I like something that loads it even more. So much the better if I create the, uh, "Bacon" to be uh, loaded myse. . . this metaphor ain't working at all, is it?
Naw, but it keeps us from getting temp-banned for what someone did in one month in their basement, compared to what WotC took 2+ years to do...
Note: I am not saying Dave or Damon_Tor are plants, just that getting banned for proving posters wrong is a sign of a plant...
If I'm a plant for WotC, I'm probably not very good at my job. (Also, I'm on strike two on bans, and I get ORCed all the time, probably more than you due to how 'helpful' I had been in regards to people looking for the Canadian Bacon Loader)
Naw, I don't suspect you. I do suspect Dave and Dane though, they don't ever get edited or banned... well then again Dave hates Fortune Cards... maybe I'm wrong, or he's just that good... Dane on the other hand is all but proven...
Canadian Bacon Loader....heheheheh nice...
I love Canadian Bacon. I like something that loads it even more. So much the better if I create the, uh, "Bacon" to be uh, loaded myse. . . this metaphor ain't working at all, is it?
Naw, but it keeps us from getting temp-banned for what someone did in one month in their basement, compared to what WotC took 2+ years to do...
In a totally unrelated post, I love using homebrewed content!
Also, this forum has the stupidest way of showing a blocked user posted. Why can I still see his sig?
Plus, of course, when someone quotes the entire load of BS your blocked user posted, you get to see that, too...
... you can never completely escape.
The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008.
That's not all bad. If what's in the pipeline iss all as bad as what we've gotten since August, it's really better to have less crap that more crap...
...OK, maybe it's not that bad. But, a game like D&D does quickly begin to groan under the weight of its own supplements, so a more modest publishing schedule isn't bad for the game, per se. Bad sign for the business, or for the longevity of the current edition, perhaps...
The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008.
That's not all bad. If what's in the pipeline iss all as bad as what we've gotten since August, it's really better to have less crap that more crap...
...OK, maybe it's not that bad. But, a game like D&D does quickly begin to groan under the weight of its own supplements, so a more modest publishing schedule isn't bad for the game, per se. Bad sign for the business, or for the longevity of the current edition, perhaps...
I think it's a bad sign.
My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
The issue to me is that there are far fewer D&D products announced for this year, then any year since WOTC took over, thats not a good sign in my opinion, Thats fewer books (or even books+Box sets) then we got in either half of the 2010, or 2009, or even 2008.
That's not all bad. If what's in the pipeline iss all as bad as what we've gotten since August, it's really better to have less crap that more crap...
...OK, maybe it's not that bad. But, a game like D&D does quickly begin to groan under the weight of its own supplements, so a more modest publishing schedule isn't bad for the game, per se. Bad sign for the business, or for the longevity of the current edition, perhaps...
I think it's a bad sign.
My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
I sugest you listen to the latest podcast. It sound like (without specifically stating it) they are saying the products themselves weren't up to snuff. So they got pulled and reshuffled. Also, that they personally think that flooding the market with products is not the right way to go. Now, I am an options fiend, but even I can see wisdom in that kind of move.
OR you could simply figure this is some evil plot by Hasbro and do this:
I sugest you listen to the latest podcast. It sound like (without specifically stating it) they are saying the products themselves weren't up to snuff. So they got pulled and reshuffled. Also, that they personally think that flooding the market with products is not the right way to go. Now, I am an options fiend, but even I can see wisdom in that kind of move.
OR you could simply figure this is some evil plot by Hasbro and do this:
Marketing speak can tell you alot as long as you don't actually listen to what they say.
I sugest you listen to the latest podcast. It sound like (without specifically stating it) they are saying the products themselves weren't up to snuff. So they got pulled and reshuffled. Also, that they personally think that flooding the market with products is not the right way to go. Now, I am an options fiend, but even I can see wisdom in that kind of move.
OR you could simply figure this is some evil plot by Hasbro and do this:
Marketing speak can tell you alot as long as you don't actually listen to what they say.
So, this then?
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
Oh come on. You know you are the company conspiracy theorist on this here forum. You have no faith in the company to make a decision because all they care about is the cash. Good for you.
It must be really easy to debate people as shallow as I am, who do things with little to no discernible motivation.
I, personally, will give them the benefit of the doubt. Every bit of material preceding Essentials has earned them that much from me. Plus, Hasbro has made many products that I have enjoyed in my 31 years of life. If they or some other company have screwed you over in some fashion, then your position is sort of understandable.
They lost the benefit of the doubt with the CBC/OCB deception. I understand why they made the move to the online CB, and if they had handled it better I'd still be a customer. Instead, they knowingly decieved us about the state of the Dark Sun/Essentials update to the CBC while leaving us without updates for three months and a sub-functional replacement tool for the next two.
I wasn't like this 6 months ago. They've worn out the benefit of the doubt through their own actions. Poor business ethics hurts profits by eroding consumer confidence and loyalty, in the end, hurting the brand.
My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
This is all I said. I don't blame Hasbro or WotC for trying to make a profit (that was entirely your caricature of me. I'm the one of the most pro-capitalist people I know.) I like many of Hasbro's products, and they aren't a bad company. I don't think they're a good fit for D&D though: I don't think any company that size is, since D&D is a niche product that will never have the profit margins a company that size requires, and their impulse will be to turn it into a more mainstream product, an action I fear will result in exactly the sort of thing I said it would, withdrawal from the PnP market and a shift to board games and CCGs.
You can disagree with me all you like, but if you think you understand my motivations or political views, reducing them to animated GIFs, you're kidding yourself.
Oh come on. You know you are the company conspiracy theorist on this here forum. You have no faith in the company to make a decision because all they care about is the cash. Good for you.
It must be really easy to debate people as shallow as I am, who do things with little to no discernible motivation.I, personally, will give them the benefit of the doubt. Every bit of material preceding Essentials has earned them that much from me. Plus, Hasbro has made many products that I have enjoyed in my 31 years of life. If they or some other company have screwed you over in some fashion, then your position is sort of understandable.
They lost the benefit of the doubt with the CBC/OCB deception. I understand why they made the move to the online CB, and if they had handled it better I'd still be a customer. Instead, they knowingly decieved us about the state of the Dark Sun/Essentials update to the CBC while leaving us without updates for three months and a sub-functional replacement tool for the next two.
I wasn't like this 6 months ago. They've worn out the benefit of the doubt through their own actions. Poor business ethics hurts profits by eroding consumer confidence and loyalty, in the end, hurting the brand.My fear is that 4e will dry up and that Hasbro won't have any interest in financing a 5e, opting instead to use the D&D brand name for boards games and CCGs.
This is all I said. I don't blame Hasbro or WotC for trying to make a profit (that was entirely your caricature of me. I'm the one of the most pro-capitalist people I know.) I like many of Hasbro's products, and they aren't a bad company. I don't think they're a good fit for D&D though: I don't think any company that size is, since D&D is a niche product that will never have the profit margins a company that size requires, and their impulse will be to turn it into a more mainstream product, an action I fear will result in exactly the sort of thing I said it would, withdrawal from the PnP market and a shift to board games and CCGs.
You can disagree with me all you like, but if you think you understand my motivations or political views, reducing them to animated GIFs, you're kidding yourself.
Now I get where your unhappiness lies. See, I wasn't a subscriber. I subscribed at the last minute, and got the last update for the offline CB. It is most definitely all I will be using, i.e. no online CB for me. Their Online initiative has no draw for me. So if it had been, I could see being as annoyed as you. Heck, with all the good will they have garnered, it's amazing they haven't burned it all away with the Essentials Classes and Boxed Material. But I always look on the bright side. I have a ton and a half of material from them to play with at my leisure.
My problem with your fear, however, is that it seems to be based in the idea that Hasbro has made WotC it's own personal marionette, based on your derisive tone and calling their information "market speak". I'm just not seeing it.
And if you get so irritated by me posting smilies that imitate what I see you doing in my head, I apologize. Not for my actions, but for the feelings my actions seem to illicit in you.
Last things, do you think that the inclusion of board or card games into the D&D property is a bad thing? Do you think that, if the board games and card games showed more success than the D&D line as a whole, that the D&D RPG would be shelved? Do you think it is possible for niche boardgames of an already niche product to outsell the product of their origins? And if it were shelved, what impetus would people have to acquire things bearing the D&D label? I ask these as genuine questions, not as any sort of attack, so do not take it as such. I am genuinely curious.
Now I get where your unhappiness lies. See, I wasn't a subscriber. I subscribed at the last minute, and got the last update for the offline CB. It is most definitely all I will be using, i.e. no online CB for me. Their Online initiative has no draw for me. So if it had been, I could see being as annoyed as you. Heck, with all the good will they have garnered, it's amazing they haven't burned it all away with the Essentials Classes and Boxed Material. But I always look on the bright side. I have a ton and a half of material from them to play with at my leisure.
My problem with your fear, however, is that it seems to be based in the idea that Hasbro has made WotC it's own personal marionette, based on your derisive tone and calling their information "market speak". I'm just not seeing it.
"Personal marionette" isn't meaningful. But yes, Hasbro does effect WotC to one degree or another. An example is Hasbro's layoffs from last year: do we think WotC was immune to that? how much are those layoffs effecting the product release schedule? The magazine quality? The release of errata? I don't know, but it seems likely there is some correlation.
And if you get so irritated by me posting smilies that imitate what I see you doing in my head, I apologize. Not for my actions, but for the feelings my actions seem to illicit in you.
I understand the need to fictionalize people you don't understand, don't worry about it.
Last things, do you think that the inclusion of board or card games into the D&D property is a bad thing?
Not in and of themselves, no.
Do you think that, if the board games and card games showed more success than the D&D line as a whole, that the D&D RPG would be shelved?
No. If D&D PnP products are below Hasbro's revenue goals they will be shelved, regardless of how the other D&D branded products do.
Do you think it is possible for niche boardgames of an already niche product to outsell the product of their origins?
Unequivocally. The Call of Cthulhu RPG does fine, but the board games outsell the RPG supplements by a significant margin. Board Games appeal to casual gamers much more than RPGs do: they are less niche, not more.
And if it were shelved, what impetus would people have to acquire things bearing the D&D label?
It's a well known brand, regardless of whether or not anything resembling its original incarnation continues to exist. It's not overly relevant to a D&D board game or CCG if there's a D&D PnP currently being published. You do have a point though, and Hasbro is clearly trying to focus on using the D&D PnP products to tie in with other branded products, like the Neverwinter "setting" ties in with the upcoming computer game.
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
But that's such a cute little box. look at that little guy spin...
whee!!!!!!
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
But that's such a cute little box. look at that little guy spin...
whee!!!!!!
I like how the optimists paint the pessimists as panicking Armageddon preachers of doom. Its really funny when things go exactly how they predicted too, like the 2008 financial crisis. It was predicted by pessimists years in advance...
So, this then?
Must be nice to be able to put people who disagree with you in such a neat little box.
But that's such a cute little box. look at that little guy spin...
whee!!!!!!
I like how the optimists paint the pessimists as panicking Armageddon preachers of doom. Its really funny when things go exactly how they predicted too, like the 2008 financial crisis. It was predicted by pessimists years in advance...
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
I'm sorry if yours is. Truly.
Honestly I just like the guy going in circles. Tee Hee, look at him go.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
If you mean that literally, as a realist you believe in what is obvious and literal, you draw no conclusions. I'm a scientist: I collect data and form a hypothesis. Right now, the simplest explanation for the what we're seeing is that Hasbro is putting heavy pressure on WotC to improve profits, and that the first attempt to do so, Essentials, has failed. My hypothesis is that the next step is to move the D&D brand away from PnP products, and this is supported by the removing of PnP products from the list of upcoming products and the addition of Board Games, CCGs, and Video Games.
It's not a conclusion I've jumped to without any thought or consideration. If anyone has a simpler explanation for what's been happening with D&D my hypothesis will change. As a realist, you have no standing to criticize the conclusions of others, as you are not willing to draw any of your own.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
If you mean that literally, as a realist you believe in what is obvious and literal, you draw no conclusions. I'm a scientist: I collect data and form a hypothesis. Right now, the simplest explanation for the what we're seeing is that Hasbro is putting heavy pressure on WotC to improve profits, and that the first attempt to do so, Essentials, has failed. My hypothesis is that the next step is to move the D&D brand away from PnP products, and this is supported by the removing of PnP products from the list of upcoming products and the addition of Board Games, CCGs, and Video Games.
It's not a conclusion I've jumped to without any thought or consideration. If anyone has a simpler explanation for what's been happening with D&D my hypothesis will change. As a realist, you have no standing to criticize the conclusions of others, as you are not willing to draw any of your own.
Responding in reverse decending:
I don't even disagree with your conclusion, it is a sound explanation. Another is that WotC did put out some shoddy product and they didn't want to damage their rep any more than already...
Show me some evidence. Insider testimony. Internal memos. Financial sheets for WotC that say that the return on captial investmetn is too low.
Opinions can be very well though out, and still be really, really, really wrong (short list: pretty much any science by aristotle, popular reading in itally circa 1920-1935, Lenin's "interpretation" of the communist manifesto. Aaron Burr thinking he could win a duel. The Fact the Marx clearly sadi that china would be the last place that should pull off a communist revolution. Mao convincing the peasant to tear down their infrastructure to make steel in their back yards...).
My opinion, since you asked for it, and was stated up top, is that MY game is not ruined. I like the ebooks (some more, some less, more than divine power, that's for sure) but I have the old character builder on my computer. That software didn't have a time bomb to 'splode it and render it useless.
I'm not a WotC "fan," I don't rabidly support them, I just feel like witch hunting (aka forming a decision/opinion/major editorial bent w/o empirical evidence) is silly, and negative, and detracts from the community as a whole.
So yeah. I suppose I am a realist. I feel about things that are happening, I think about them, have opinions, but until I see some form of evidence one way or the other, I'm not gonna jump on a band wagon.
And again, if you feel your game has been ruined, I'm sorry (you being the anyone out there who feels this way you). It sucks when things end. I was sad when the old robotech game ended. Or when heroes unlimited seemed to die off, and don't get me started on the general lack of support for After the Bomb, only the greatest mutant animal system ever (though I lvoes me my Gamma World). It's lame when the games we love aren't supported well. But you can always play them. PnP gaming isn't about the shiniest new toy, the goals of a corporate conglomerate, or even if material which clearly is unbalanced "game breaking" is released to enhance the appeal of each new supplement with crippling power creep. It's about having fun.
Clearly some people are no longer having fun, which is the opposite of playing a game, so something needs to be done... but fascile arguments aren't going to be a solution.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist, and I just haven't seen anything to lead me to the prediction that MY game is ruined.
If you mean that literally, as a realist you believe in what is obvious and literal, you draw no conclusions. I'm a scientist: I collect data and form a hypothesis. Right now, the simplest explanation for the what we're seeing is that Hasbro is putting heavy pressure on WotC to improve profits, and that the first attempt to do so, Essentials, has failed. My hypothesis is that the next step is to move the D&D brand away from PnP products, and this is supported by the removing of PnP products from the list of upcoming products and the addition of Board Games, CCGs, and Video Games.
It's not a conclusion I've jumped to without any thought or consideration. If anyone has a simpler explanation for what's been happening with D&D my hypothesis will change. As a realist, you have no standing to criticize the conclusions of others, as you are not willing to draw any of your own.
Responding in reverse decending:
I don't even disagree with your conclusion, it is a sound explanation. Another is that WotC did put out some shoddy product and they didn't want to damage their rep any more than already...
Show me some evidence. Insider testimony. Internal memos. Financial sheets for WotC that say that the return on captial investmetn is too low.
Opinions can be very well though out, and still be really, really, really wrong (short list: pretty much any science by aristotle, popular reading in itally circa 1920-1935, Lenin's "interpretation" of the communist manifesto. Aaron Burr thinking he could win a duel. The Fact the Marx clearly sadi that china would be the last place that should pull off a communist revolution. Mao convincing the peasant to tear down their infrastructure to make steel in their back yards...).
My opinion, since you asked for it, and was stated up top, is that MY game is not ruined. I like the ebooks (some more, some less, more than divine power, that's for sure) but I have the old character builder on my computer. That software didn't have a time bomb to 'splode it and render it useless.
I'm not a WotC "fan," I don't rabidly support them, I just feel like witch hunting (aka forming a decision/opinion/major editorial bent w/o empirical evidence) is silly, and negative, and detracts from the community as a whole.
So yeah. I suppose I am a realist. I feel about things that are happening, I think about them, have opinions, but until I see some form of evidence one way or the other, I'm not gonna jump on a band wagon.
And again, if you feel your game has been ruined, I'm sorry (you being the anyone out there who feels this way you). It sucks when things end. I was sad when the old robotech game ended. Or when heroes unlimited seemed to die off, and don't get me started on the general lack of support for After the Bomb, only the greatest mutant animal system ever (though I lvoes me my Gamma World). It's lame when the games we love aren't supported well. But you can always play them. PnP gaming isn't about the shiniest new toy, the goals of a corporate conglomerate, or even if material which clearly is unbalanced "game breaking" is released to enhance the appeal of each new supplement with crippling power creep. It's about having fun.
Clearly some people are no longer having fun, which is the opposite of playing a game, so something needs to be done... but fascile arguments aren't going to be a solution.
QFT
Last things, do you think that the inclusion of board or card games into the D&D property is a bad thing?
To the customer who has no interest in RPGs, the expansion of the D&D property into board games and CCGs is potentially a good thing, since they might like one or the other, and don't care if the RPG line falls off in quality as a result. To the customer who has no interest in board or card games, it's potentially a bad thing.
If D&D were doing really well, and the possible expansion of the line were to be accompanied by an equal expansion in the resources devoted to it - if WotC were hiring rather than laying off, for instance - then the latter concerns would be minimal.
Do you think that, if the board games and card games showed more success than the D&D line as a whole, that the D&D RPG would be shelved?
Yes. If a spin-off proves much more successful than the original, the original could be shelved to devote more resources to producing and promoting the spin-off.
Do you think it is possible for niche boardgames of an already niche product to outsell the product of their origins?
RPGs are a small niche. Boardgames are mainstream. Yes, a mainstream product can greatly outsell the niche product it is based upon. It's not /likely/ to, but when it happens it's a tremendous 'win' for the owners of the original property.
And if it were shelved, what impetus would people have to acquire things bearing the D&D label?
The impetus wouldn't be "I think I'll buy something because it has the nameplate of an obscure game played by geeky loosers in the 80s." Rather, the hope would be that people would start thinking "Maybe I'll check out something with the nameplate of that wildly successful boardgame/CCG/MMO/3D Fantasy Blockbuster everyone's talking about."
A good example would be the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The property started out as a niche underground comic - it was iconoclastic, and a bit silly, but actually quite dark and 'adult.' When it was made into a kids' cartoon, the underground comic disapeared, and the whole franchise lightened up, dumbed down and became mainstream. The cartoon was wildly successful compared to the underground comic, which, today, is all but forgotten.
A good example would be the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The property started out as a niche underground comic - it was iconoclastic, and a bit silly, but actually quite dark and 'adult.' When it was made into a kids' cartoon, the underground comic disapeared, and the whole franchise lightened up, dumbed down and became mainstream. The cartoon was wildly successful compared to the underground comic, which, today, is all but forgotten.
I would agree that there is danger in spin offs for all the reasons you said. But, using TMNT as an example:
The dark comics of the early days actually inspired a new set of dark comics in the i'll fated dreamwave days, and the original comics brought about the TMNT RPG from Palladium (which rocked, and was one of the more sensible Palladium properties).
The toys and cartoons entrenched the TMNT brand in young minds (like mine) and when the omnibus of the old, original comics was released the other year I picked it up because I had fond memories of both the RPG and Cartoon, and now it was (more) age appropriate (how age appropriate are comics to a 30 year old in "mainstream society" right? ;) ).
Similar things could be said for the old Marvel transformer comics, far more adult in their storytelling than the cartoons, and now those comics combined with the cartoons have given rise toa (at times questionable) media frenzy the last 5 years. And While I love almost everything IDW did with the transformers (and will poke micheal Bay in hell with a very sharp pinapple) My enjoyment of the original Marvel stories aren't destroyed. SUre they got shafted by a changing marketplace, and yeah the writing was shoddy at times, but they did their best to put out stories that I thought were pretty good, under some dubious business practices by Hasbro ( like killing off characters to support new toy lines *cough* optimus prime *cough*).
One thing's for sure though. Transformers, and TMNT are still around, in the original media that spawned them and I can reread all my favorite stories with out them being ruined by what other people have done with the characters/franchise.