Innovation of the game as a whole seems to have stalled.
This will probably sound ridiculous, absurd even, given that the essence of Essentials is options, mechanics, subsystems, a mass of material that can change the workings of the game. But there is an quintessential problem that irks me no matter what is displayed.
We've seen it all before.
The "new" essentials classes are 3rd edition designs ported into the game; the same stat block, the same divide between Boring-Basic-Attack martial classes and Subschools-For-Everyone wizards and clerics. The "new" magic item rules are just the previous edition's magic item rarity charts, expanded to fit the Vault. The "new" versions of current powers such as Magic Missile are just nostalgia-driven ports that completely ignore why things were changed in the first place. The "new" racial design is just a way to have their cake and eat it too; why bother with giving a race like a dwarves feat support to hep them be good fighters when you can just give them the primary stat bonus and declare Problem Solved? And to top it all off, it comes with the announcement of retooling an old setting, rather than making a brand new one for 4th edition.
Indeed, Essentials is taking us in a new direction. Backwards.
More precisely, backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards, retreading the same ground, over and over and over again. The first essentials set will give us a tough-as-nails warrior who gets in the face of the enemy and takes one for the team. It will have a sinister and shadowy thief who dances and dives into position to shank everyone in sight. It will have a mystic magister who weaves reality with a whirl of his fingertip, and a devoted sage channeling the power of the gods. Which will be totally different from the tough-as-nails warrior we currently have, or the sinister and shadowy thief we can already play, or the mystic magister and devoted sage who have been in the game since day 1.
Now, that may not be fair. Some people have been looking forward to a simpler class, for example, as it is easy to build and run. Funny, though, considering they only made them for martial classes; a basic Mage and Adept would do just as well, but that's another rant.
Here's the problem. As someone who likes 4th edition? Who appreciates the complex martial classes that are actually interesting to play at the table for more than a single session, finds the wizard to be a perfectly playable class and the cleric a refreshing simplification of the smorgasbord of subdomains that was the 3rd edition class, who has found this edition to be an innovative twist that freed it from the shackles of nostalgic, illogical thinking and created a new and wondrous system based on being fun and functional first and foremost?
I see absolutely no time being spent innovating this game.
Retrofitting, oh, of that I see plenty. Remaking the old mundane classes, reworking the random rolls for treasure, remodeling perfectly functional classes to conform to nostalgic concepts, plenty of that going on. And to be fair, sometimes that can be helpful. It can reach out to new players, help bring a few lingering no-sells into the fold, or just provide a variant option for accomplishing the same task in an interesting and different way.
But we aren't seeing anything that is truly new.
There are plenty of things this edition cannot do, areas left unexplored, things that would be fun and interesting which could be included in anyone's game, and Essentials isn't doing anything to get there. It's taking us right back where we started, and reprinting old ideas with a new coat of paint. What, at the end of the day, does it really change? The fighter gets in the enemy's face and takes one for the team. The rogue dances and dives around shanking. The wizard waves his staff with a knob on the end and fire appears. The cleric does the holy mumbo jumbo and people get well. Treasure gets distributed, and the lucky people are happy and the unlucky people melt down their stuff to get what they wanted instead.
Why is it important to create another defender who sits next to the monster and whacks it with a stick, just in a more boring fashion, yet we've never seen a non-melee defender, be it a summoner with a massive guardian, a powerful caster with a very limited area of effect (a Seer comes to mind...), or a masterful archer trained to harry and hamper a single target?
Why is it vital to remake the Wizard with spell schools, rather than creating a Controller who doesn't repeat the 'Troller Triad of Area Effect/Condition Overload/Summoning that has been repeated over and over again (have you noticed that wizard, druid, and psion all repeated the condition/AoE + supplement book gives Summoning pattern)?
Why do we need to slap an optional modifier on every race, but we've never had any progress on non-humanoid creatures, finding a way to make larger or smaller creatures functional and balanced, or providing half-classes or themes that can simulate an undead state, monstrous lineage, or otherworldy power?
Why are we spending so much time on random treasure distribution and DM control (which could be solved via computer program and learning to say no and work things out), but we've never created a true magic-itemless game, one that doesn't just replace items 1-for-1 like boons, but actually presents a fair and balanced system of alternate, tiny abilities that mimic what items normally provide, yet can support a full game?
Why is it we're designing duller combatants who repeat the same sword swing again and again throughout their adventuring career, but no measures have been taken to expand ranged combat and make it more interesting? The bow ranger is one of the least dynamic classes in the game, because the movement and positioning aspects that made martial classes so much more fun to play are absent from what is essentially a turret. Why haven't we seen ways to make ranged combat equally as fun and interesting, powers that change based on the range to the target or ways the archer can be involved in tactical positioning?
Why is it that we're churning out even more old settings and going back on the Only Three Products And That's It plan, but no one is writing a brand new campaign setting actually designed around 4th edition principles? One in which ritualism is a key component of the world's history, or the power sources are interwoven into the world's metaphysics, or simply something completely unexpected?
Why is it that we're seeing so much excitement over classes actually capable of performing different roles with different builds, but we've never seen a class that broke the Role system? Why isn't there a Blue Mage/Spellthief who utilizes the unified mechanics of powers (both monstrous and PC) to be a proper Power Stealer/Mimic/Manipulator? Why is it that we've never made a character who never rolls to attack, or has a method of combat that turns the system on its head, like Psychic Combat (without the functionality failure or complete lack of balance) or Possession?
Where is the innovation that gives you the option to do something you have never done before, to perform a feat currently impossible, or to bring into the game a concept that has never seen play?
Retrofitting can be good. It can bring back old favorites, take discarded concepts and remake them to be useful again, and bring back nostalgic wonder of ages past. But if we never go anywhere we haven't gone before and make cosmetic updates designed to make things look prettier, all we will do is shuffle again and again over the same treaded ground.
"Why is it that we're seeing so much excitement over classes actually capable of performing different roles with different builds, but we've never seen a class that broke the Role system? Why isn't there a Blue Mage/Spellthief who utilizes the unified mechanics of powers (both monstrous and PC) to be a proper Power Stealer/Mimic/Manipulator? Why is it that we've never made a character who never rolls to attack, or has a method of combat that turns the system on its head, like Psychic Combat (without the functionality failure or complete lack of balance) or Possession?"
The reason as I see it is simple...Game balence and that is what this edition has stressed since day one.
I for one don't like this new direction but I will give it a look over and the make my final call then. If I wanted to play a simpler game I would play the early editions of D&D with the cardboard cut out classes they had. The thing that drew me to 4th was the new direction and the shedding of all the baggage of the older editions had.
1) We have a fighter as a striker. Not true cross role, but it's definatly breaks the "class = role" barrier.
2) We have classes without daily powers. The power structure is now up for grabs, this opens alot of things, like giveing a class a power and not have to worry about another class poaching it. VASTLY reducing the balance concerns and allowing for unique actions.
3) We have a classes that uses their move or minor action to power their attacks. That's definatly a new mechanic.
4) New item system. I havn't seen it, but mike merls specificly mentioned it "opened up design space".
Sometimes you need to go back and redo some foundation work before you can build on it.
I agree that we need more invovation. However there's a few things in essentials that hearled that such changes.
1) We have a fighter as a striker. Not true cross role, but it's definatly breaks the "class = role" barrier.
2) We have classes without daily powers. The power structure is now up for grabs, this opens alot of things, like giveing a class a power and not have to worry about another class poaching it. VASTLY reducing the balance concerns and allowing for unique actions.
3) We have a classes that uses their move or minor action to power their attacks. That's definatly a new mechanic.
4) New item system. I havn't seen it, but mike merls specificly mentioned it "opened up design space".
Sometimes you need to go back and redo some foundation work before you can build on it.
To be clear, you are saying that by going backwards (in the sense that the OP means - e.g., 2 and 4 would seem to fall into the "going back to the old way" category), they're setting the groundwork to move forward? I wasn't sure if you meant "healed such changes" or "herald such changes."
I wasn't sure if you meant "healed such changes" or "herald such changes."
Herald.I agree that we need more invovation. However there's a few things in essentials that herald such changes.
1) We have a fighter as a striker. Not true cross role, but it's definatly breaks the "class = role" barrier.
2) We have classes without daily powers. The power structure is now up for grabs, this opens alot of things, like giveing a class a power and not have to worry about another class poaching it. VASTLY reducing the balance concerns and allowing for unique actions.
3) We have a classes that uses their move or minor action to power their attacks. That's definatly a new mechanic.
4) New item system. I havn't seen it, but mike merls specificly mentioned it "opened up design space".
Sometimes you need to go back and redo some foundation work before you can build on it.
1) True, but its also an entire re-write of the class that only shares utilities with the fighter. The ranger and barbarian are both off-shoots of the fighter from previous edditions.
2) Lack of dailies creates balance concerns, look at every previous edition. And so what if some classes can't poach daily powers, those that DO (the like, 25 of them, not including the warpriest and mage) still can.
3) Curse, Oath of Enmity, and Hunter's Quarry, not quite the same, but definitely not new. The Assassin arguably fixed the flaws of using a minor action for it (which often deprives you of utilities) by making it a 1/round free action.
4) It creates rare items, which aren't compatible with the parcle system, and well, there's threads on this allready.
We've seen it all before.
Where is the innovation that gives you the option to do something you have never done before, to perform a feat currently impossible, or to bring into the game a concept that has never seen play?
Retrofitting can be good. It can bring back old favorites, take discarded concepts and remake them to be useful again, and bring back nostalgic wonder of ages past. But if we never go anywhere we haven't gone before and make cosmetic updates designed to make things look prettier, all we will do is shuffle again and again over the same treaded ground.
I'd say Essentials classes are definately new innovation: you yourself talk about them being a game changer. Although they were created for the purposes of emulating the ease of play in 3ed, they are not like 3ed Martial classes. They are effective at high levels. Although they lack options, they can still get the job done. The Essential Rogue is to the PHBI Rogue as the Sorcerer is to the Warlock: similar ground, but a build that focuses more on damage than interesting tricks.
I think the Essentials classes will appeal to people who want to focus on one part of a class' schtick and were not as appreciative of the Powers system in PHBI. Personally, I think the vein of development game designers should strike first and hardest is that which people want explored.
I may be a snob and think that everyone should learn and like the PHBI powers system (and I am, I'm not talking about anyone else), but I am already happy with the system. I am appeased. New classes that stick in this system will just be more of the same to me, and will not make me want to play the game any more than I already do. However, a class that appeals most to someone who doesn't like/fully appreciate the current classes will have more worth to them, far more than more-of-the-same classes will to me.
Mark Rosewater from Magic: The Gathering talks about building cards that appeals only to a certain sub-section of the players. Obviously, cards that appeal to everyone is best. However, cards that are more flavourful than powerful, or incredibly powerful but hard to cast, will attract certain people in ways that a please-everybody version would not elict.
As long as these classes don't kill the game, excite a noticeable group of players, and remain viable options for the rest, I think they'll be worthwhile to have made.
Here's the problem. As someone who likes 4th edition? Who appreciates the complex martial classes that are actually interesting to play at the table for more than a single session, finds the wizard to be a perfectly playable class and the cleric a refreshing simplification of the smorgasbord of subdomains that was the 3rd edition class, who has found this edition to be an innovative twist that freed it from the shackles of nostalgic, illogical thinking and created a new and wondrous system based on being fun and functional first and foremost?
I see absolutely no time being spent innovating this game.
Forgive me if I give you a such a small reply, but here goes:
Do you feel more support for the "old" format is needed?
Look around. How many "old format" classes we have now? How many defenders? How many strikers? How many powers-per-class?
I don't know if you followed the ENnies, or the generic anti-D&D arguments, but I see a world that is full of praise for RPG systems that can be contained in 100 pages of material; I see people affirming that D&D character concepts are too narrow, that more should boil down to customization and RP, that systems that describe classes in 3 pages are superior, and all that.
I disagree with all that criticism, but at some point... how many classes, how many powers would D&D need? How many people you see complaining about having to buy books? D&D is different from most other RPGs because it's a living system, with dozens of books released every year. Still, an RPG system cannot become an encyclopedia. Add the Heroes of Shadow, and we probably are nearing a thousand pages dedicated to classes and paragon paths.
You have points. However, 4e did more in terms of classes, powers, variety and options than any other system is doing. I'd argue that it probably did more than 3rd edition and 2nd edition together. I wouldn't be so shocked if I'm told that the gold vein is exausted. If anything, WotC trying something new (by going backwards, ok, but in an innovative form) is appreciable because instead of sticking to a format that was producing classes that started having limited appeal (let's admit it - the battlemind works in a vacuum, but it fails compared to the previous offers; personally I think it's a sign of the system starting to get bloated) they're trying something different.
Essentials don't really appeal me, but if you asked ME, the best thing for D&D now would be trimming player-devoted content (like PHBs and Power books) and focus on fluff/crunch/expanded rule systems/settings/monsters/books of challenges etc. It won't happen, because player-dedicated content sells better, but I would argue that the system needs no innovation. 4e is fine as it is; it's great as it is, and we have all the tools to use it for the best. My perspective is that the system is complete; I'll take everything WotC releases under scrutiny and probably buy it all and likely use something from everything, but if 4e stopped being published today, I would already have a bigger, fuller and more satisfying system than anything else on the market.
We need to accept that we often hold a very strong double standard towards WotC; just take a look at how many people love Shadowrun. If Shadowrun was asked to meet the same demands the audience expects WotC to meet, it would be shred to pieces. But since it's D&D, wanting the Moon and cookies and whipped cream on top is taken for granted. Personally, I'm more than willing to rate 4e as a great system now; right now I got all I need to play D&D with my friends, and more than I get in any other system. What comes from the future is all additional content, and in my perspective, even if it's terrible stuff... I already have enough today, so what do I lose?
a) Lack of dailies creates balance concerns, look at every previous edition. And so what if some classes can't poach daily powers, those that DO (the like, 25 of them, not including the warpriest and mage) still can.
b) It creates rare items, which aren't compatible with the parcle system, and well, there's threads on this allready.
just a quick note
a) I don't buy this, in previous edition we had some classes that didn't have dailies (true) and then some classes that had dozens of dailies, in fact balance problem come beyond the 11th level not from level 1
now a 1st level mage has 1 dailies, and a 30th level mage got how many 4-5 dailies
since we know that balancing up to 10 dailies is a no brainer even for older edition why we should worry about this?
b) since uncommon and rare items go beyond the previous rule why they should be a big problem?
e.g.: use the particle system and if you file like giving out a rare item to one character add it, or use the particle system and treat uncommon item in a different way....
edit: and about going backward it's not true, they are taking inspiration from some elements but the magic school are something completely different from any previous edition of the game, and the new fighter/rogue are not dumb just have different options to do a job done (the difference between a stance/trick from an at-will is in how you can represent it mentally more than anything, they are still at-wills)
It simply does not matter where the good idea comes from, as long as it's a good idea and works.
It would be silly to discount every good, workable idea just because it came from a video game. It might diminish the 4e = WoW arguments if you actively avoided any mechanics frequently used in video games, no matter how well they worked. But you'd be weakening the game by having to rely on entirely new ideas or other sources of inspiration. It's an unnecessary restriction on creativity.
So, with that in mind, why restrict ideas just because they came from older editions. If it worked then and might not be working now, why not take a concept or idea and make the old idea fit the new game?
Here's something to remember: a good idea is a good idea.
It simply does not matter where the good idea comes from, as long as it's a good idea and works.
It would be silly to discount every good, workable idea just because it came from a video game. It might diminish the 4e = WoW arguments if you actively avoided any mechanics frequently used in video games, no matter how well they worked. But you'd be weakening the game by having to rely on entirely new ideas or other sources of inspiration. It's an unnecessary restriction on creativity.
So, with that in mind, why restrict ideas just because they came from older editions. If it worked then and might not be working now, why not take a concept or idea and make the old idea fit the new game?
Oh, great. Next you'll be asking us to agree on what a good idea is.
Here's something to remember: a good idea is a good idea.
It simply does not matter where the good idea comes from, as long as it's a good idea and works.
It would be silly to discount every good, workable idea just because it came from a video game. It might diminish the 4e = WoW arguments if you actively avoided any mechanics frequently used in video games, no matter how well they worked. But you'd be weakening the game by having to rely on entirely new ideas or other sources of inspiration. It's an unnecessary restriction on creativity.
So, with that in mind, why restrict ideas just because they came from older editions. If it worked then and might not be working now, why not take a concept or idea and make the old idea fit the new game?
Simple answer is that a lot of the ideas that they are taking from old editions aren't good ideas. They might have "worked" in past editions, but the complete class imblance between caster and non-casters in past editions "worked". That doesn't mean that it was a good idea or an idea that should ever be resurected.
Simple answer is that a lot of the ideas that they are taking from old editions aren't good ideas. They might have "worked" in past editions, but the complete class imblance between caster and non-casters in past editions "worked". That doesn't mean that it was a good idea or an idea that should ever be resurected.
where is now this imbalance?
we don't have the insanely powerful dailies of old edition, we don't have character with 25 dailies vs character with 0 dailies and the same damage output they had at 1st level
now we have character with 5 not overpowered attack dailies vs characters with an output damage comparable to that of said characters with attack dailies...
so I keep asking where is such imbalance? where is the sameness with older editions?
Here's something to remember: a good idea is a good idea.
It simply does not matter where the good idea comes from, as long as it's a good idea and works.
It would be silly to discount every good, workable idea just because it came from a video game. It might diminish the 4e = WoW arguments if you actively avoided any mechanics frequently used in video games, no matter how well they worked. But you'd be weakening the game by having to rely on entirely new ideas or other sources of inspiration. It's an unnecessary restriction on creativity.
So, with that in mind, why restrict ideas just because they came from older editions. If it worked then and might not be working now, why not take a concept or idea and make the old idea fit the new game?
Simple answer is that a lot of the ideas that they are taking from old editions aren't good ideas. They might have "worked" in past editions, but the complete class imblance between caster and non-casters in past editions "worked". That doesn't mean that it was a good idea or an idea that should ever be resurected.
I assume you're referring to random treasure, but it's too early to say if this works or not.
If you're referring to the classes I disagree. I like the idea of martial characters that are simpler and lower complexity than other classes. It fits the play style of some players and can be a nice simple class for new players. Some players can handle the stack of cards and some stumble over their choices.
I have a 3e player who loves her fighters and rangers for simplicity and my wife, light of my life she is, had much, much more fun with her 3e ranger than she is with her dwarf warlord. She doesn't handle choices well and her turn slows down the game for everyone.
But I'm extremely excited about several of the 2011 releases, particularly the Gloomwrought box and Heroes of Shadow. You may see the game going nowhere. I see 4e finally and at long last delivering the content I've personally been waiting for since it arrived in the first place. I don't care about essentials, and will be annoyed at every errata made to accomodate its new classes, and it doesn't bloody matter because I have a release date for the necromancer class, and it's just in time for my birthday.
In the long run essentials is a blip on my rader.
where is now this imbalance?
we don't have the insanely powerful dailies of old edition, we don't have character with 25 dailies vs character with 0 dailies and the same damage output they had at 1st level
now we have character with 5 not overpowered attack dailies vs characters with an output damage comparable to that of said characters with attack dailies...
so I keep asking where is such imbalance? where is the sameness with older editions?
I never said that the imblance was brought back, I was using it as an example of something from previous editions that should never be resurected and which no one can logically argue should be resurected(won't stop some people, but that is a different issue). I mean technically there has to be imbalance with daily and non-daily classes, but how serious that imbalance is in practice has yet to be seen(and even the nature of that imbalance). And I really didn't mean to bring that up right now.
I assume you're referring to random treasure, but it's too early to say if this works or not.
If you're referring to the classes I disagree. I like the idea of martial characters that are simpler and lower complexity than other classes. It fits the play style of some players and can be a nice simple class for new players. Some players can handle the stack of cards and some stumble over their choices.
I have a 3e player who loves her fighters and rangers for simplicity and my wife, light of my life she is, had much, much more fun with her 3e ranger than she is with her dwarf warlord. She doesn't handle choices well and her turn slows down the game for everyone.
Really I was referring to most of the throwbacks. I mean sure there are some that are pretty harmless and pointless like mage schools(althoguh I somewhat wish they had made the mage a completely seperate class), but overall most of the throwbacks are bad decisions.
Item rarity? They could have easily accomplished the goals they are after from this with two rule changes(one of which they are doing anyways) and using a mechanic which has existed since FRCS. All of this without turning their backs on the decision to put magic items into the hands of the players instead of the DM.
The essentials design philosophy on classes goes back on the 4ed design philosophy of giving every class interesting options at every level and the design principle of giving the classes equal resources. If they realy wanted to try and make a less complex class, then they should have made a standard power structure class that had all of its encounter and daily powers trigger on hits. It would mostly play like the knight/slayer, but it wouldn't sacrfice the good points of 4ed class design. Designing easier to play classes does not require you to scrap what works.....and if your wife doesn't handle choices well why is she playing a warlord? I haven't actually played one, but I think of them as one of the more choice intensive classes. Seems that might go better if she played one of the less choice intensive classes that already exist. *shrugs*
And right now I'm blanking on other bad decisions. Really I'm just getting to the point where I'm just eye rolling at most of the changes because they don't add anything although some of them might not be absolutely horrible.
Oh right you mentioned random item tables. Absolutely horrible idea to ressurect. I consider that one to speak for itself.
They are deliberately taking a step back, because they felt there needed to be a "PHB 0". Like the highway metaphor used by the designers, the PHB 1, MM, and DMG get you on the Dungeons and Dragons Highway at exit 28. Essentials is designed to get you on the highway at exit 1. Almost literally indicating that it is a step backward.
I think the reason you haven't seen innovation yet is because, frankly, we haven't gotten there. It took WotC 3 PHBs to feel comfortable with modifying the class structure. Sure they modified it to "retrofit" 3e Power Points to work with 4e. Sure, they then saw the potential to bring back "simpler" classes for new players.
But I don't think this indicates a "road to nowhere". If you forget the past, forget that all the Essentials classes and Psionic classes resemble old ideas, you can see the design for what it is. It's stretching 4e's boundaries. It is innovating 4e, because its making 4e perfectly playable in different ways (PP mangement, simpler classes, etc.).
This is all growing pains for 4e as far as I'm can tell. In my mind they're just being cautious, by bringing in familiar elements first. I think you'll be happy with Heroes of Shadow, since it's a new concept. I think once they get to the Elemetal powersource we'll all be suprised with what they come up with.
However, if I see "Heroes of Incarnum" any time soon, I think I'll agree with you 100%.
In the mean time, dailies vs. non-dailies, and growing list of features vs features at level 1, changing the items rules, etc. are problems waiting to happen. Yes it might turn out ok, with Knight/Slayer being a worthwhile level 30 character and people not spamming a sack of swords, or it could fall on it's face- the previews won't tell us.
I doubt Heroes of Shadow was delayed because of Essentials. We just got the PHB3 earlier this year, and Heroes of Shadow looks to be like the PHB 4 equivalent for next year. It's right on schedule.
Was just thinking, if they were to combine all 3 of the Player’s Options: Heroes of Shadow, Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier and Hero Builder’s Handbook into 1 book, will it be enough to form the PHB4?
I doubt Heroes of Shadow was delayed because of Essentials. We just got the PHB3 earlier this year, and Heroes of Shadow looks to be like the PHB 4 equivalent for next year. It's right on schedule.
I don't dispute that PHB4 (HoS) would have been released in March. But as it is, we had no previews for it, and seems like it'll be less material- certainly a narrower scope of a single power source. Last thing we want for the shadow classes is something like the power point system but with even less chance to correct it with player feedback.
Amid all the hype, counterhype, confusion, hysteria, dissension, counter-dissension, and general madness that has accompanied the previews of Essentials, this may just be more fuel on the fire. But I thought I would discuss, for a moment, my thoughts as to the whole state of things, and what I see as the major problem with the entire mess of things.
Innovation of the game as a whole seems to have stalled.
This will probably sound ridiculous, absurd even, given that the essence of Essentials is options, mechanics, subsystems, a mass of material that can change the workings of the game. But there is an quintessential problem that irks me no matter what is displayed.
We've seen it all before.
The "new" essentials classes are 3rd edition designs ported into the game; the same stat block, the same divide between Boring-Basic-Attack martial classes and Subschools-For-Everyone wizards and clerics. The "new" magic item rules are just the previous edition's magic item rarity charts, expanded to fit the Vault. The "new" versions of current powers such as Magic Missile are just nostalgia-driven ports that completely ignore why things were changed in the first place. The "new" racial design is just a way to have their cake and eat it too; why bother with giving a race like a dwarves feat support to hep them be good fighters when you can just give them the primary stat bonus and declare Problem Solved? And to top it all off, it comes with the announcement of retooling an old setting, rather than making a brand new one for 4th edition.
Indeed, Essentials is taking us in a new direction. Backwards.
More precisely, backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards, retreading the same ground, over and over and over again. The first essentials set will give us a tough-as-nails warrior who gets in the face of the enemy and takes one for the team. It will have a sinister and shadowy thief who dances and dives into position to shank everyone in sight. It will have a mystic magister who weaves reality with a whirl of his fingertip, and a devoted sage channeling the power of the gods. Which will be totally different from the tough-as-nails warrior we currently have, or the sinister and shadowy thief we can already play, or the mystic magister and devoted sage who have been in the game since day 1.
Now, that may not be fair. Some people have been looking forward to a simpler class, for example, as it is easy to build and run. Funny, though, considering they only made them for martial classes; a basic Mage and Adept would do just as well, but that's another rant.
Here's the problem. As someone who likes 4th edition? Who appreciates the complex martial classes that are actually interesting to play at the table for more than a single session, finds the wizard to be a perfectly playable class and the cleric a refreshing simplification of the smorgasbord of subdomains that was the 3rd edition class, who has found this edition to be an innovative twist that freed it from the shackles of nostalgic, illogical thinking and created a new and wondrous system based on being fun and functional first and foremost?
I see absolutely no time being spent innovating this game.
Retrofitting, oh, of that I see plenty. Remaking the old mundane classes, reworking the random rolls for treasure, remodeling perfectly functional classes to conform to nostalgic concepts, plenty of that going on. And to be fair, sometimes that can be helpful. It can reach out to new players, help bring a few lingering no-sells into the fold, or just provide a variant option for accomplishing the same task in an interesting and different way.
But we aren't seeing anything that is truly new.
There are plenty of things this edition cannot do, areas left unexplored, things that would be fun and interesting which could be included in anyone's game, and Essentials isn't doing anything to get there. It's taking us right back where we started, and reprinting old ideas with a new coat of paint. What, at the end of the day, does it really change? The fighter gets in the enemy's face and takes one for the team. The rogue dances and dives around shanking. The wizard waves his staff with a knob on the end and fire appears. The cleric does the holy mumbo jumbo and people get well. Treasure gets distributed, and the lucky people are happy and the unlucky people melt down their stuff to get what they wanted instead.
Why is it important to create another defender who sits next to the monster and whacks it with a stick, just in a more boring fashion, yet we've never seen a non-melee defender, be it a summoner with a massive guardian, a powerful caster with a very limited area of effect (a Seer comes to mind...), or a masterful archer trained to harry and hamper a single target?
Why is it vital to remake the Wizard with spell schools, rather than creating a Controller who doesn't repeat the 'Troller Triad of Area Effect/Condition Overload/Summoning that has been repeated over and over again (have you noticed that wizard, druid, and psion all repeated the condition/AoE + supplement book gives Summoning pattern)?
Why do we need to slap an optional modifier on every race, but we've never had any progress on non-humanoid creatures, finding a way to make larger or smaller creatures functional and balanced, or providing half-classes or themes that can simulate an undead state, monstrous lineage, or otherworldy power?
Why are we spending so much time on random treasure distribution and DM control (which could be solved via computer program and learning to say no and work things out), but we've never created a true magic-itemless game, one that doesn't just replace items 1-for-1 like boons, but actually presents a fair and balanced system of alternate, tiny abilities that mimic what items normally provide, yet can support a full game?
Why is it we're designing duller combatants who repeat the same sword swing again and again throughout their adventuring career, but no measures have been taken to expand ranged combat and make it more interesting? The bow ranger is one of the least dynamic classes in the game, because the movement and positioning aspects that made martial classes so much more fun to play are absent from what is essentially a turret. Why haven't we seen ways to make ranged combat equally as fun and interesting, powers that change based on the range to the target or ways the archer can be involved in tactical positioning?
Why is it that we're churning out even more old settings and going back on the Only Three Products And That's It plan, but no one is writing a brand new campaign setting actually designed around 4th edition principles? One in which ritualism is a key component of the world's history, or the power sources are interwoven into the world's metaphysics, or simply something completely unexpected?
Why is it that we're seeing so much excitement over classes actually capable of performing different roles with different builds, but we've never seen a class that broke the Role system? Why isn't there a Blue Mage/Spellthief who utilizes the unified mechanics of powers (both monstrous and PC) to be a proper Power Stealer/Mimic/Manipulator? Why is it that we've never made a character who never rolls to attack, or has a method of combat that turns the system on its head, like Psychic Combat (without the functionality failure or complete lack of balance) or Possession?
Where is the innovation that gives you the option to do something you have never done before, to perform a feat currently impossible, or to bring into the game a concept that has never seen play?
Retrofitting can be good. It can bring back old favorites, take discarded concepts and remake them to be useful again, and bring back nostalgic wonder of ages past. But if we never go anywhere we haven't gone before and make cosmetic updates designed to make things look prettier, all we will do is shuffle again and again over the same treaded ground.
You know what?
I could not disagree more. I love retro and I welcome the retro changes.
And also, the old core stuff needs to be fixed, I have to convert most of my books to current philosophy just to use them.
We've seen it all before.
Retrofitting can be good. It can bring back old favorites, take discarded concepts and remake them to be useful again, and bring back nostalgic wonder of ages past. But if we never go anywhere we haven't gone before and make cosmetic updates designed to make things look prettier, all we will do is shuffle again and again over the same treaded ground.
I'd say Essentials classes are definately new innovation: you yourself talk about them being a game changer. Although they were created for the purposes of emulating the ease of play in 3ed, they are not like 3ed Martial classes. They are effective at high levels. Although they lack options, they can still get the job done.
We haven't seen what Essentials classes are like at high levles, just /some/ Heroic level stuff, so we don't know how much relative effectiveness the martial builds will retain at higher level. The 3e fighter could be viable at high levels, it wasn't easy to pull of as a player or enable as a DM, but it was possible. I can't imagine Essentials screwing up so badly that it regresses all the way to the level of inbalance in 3.x and earlier, but it /is/ clearly and intentionally heading in that direction. 'Lacking options' also makes the Essentials martial types similar to the 3.x (and earlier) non-casters.
I think the Essentials classes will appeal to people who want to focus on one part of a class' schtick and were not as appreciative of the Powers system in PHBI. Personally, I think the vein of development game designers should strike first and hardest is that which people want explored.
Yes, it's clear that there's been a lot of demand for this new retrograde direction. Pathfinder wouldn't be doing so well if there weren't, for instance. I suspect Essentials martial classes won't really appeal to those holdouts, though, so much as playing a caster along side a more limitted martial character (helpfully played by a newbie, because it's 'easier') will apeal to them.
I suspect Essentials martial classes won't really appeal to those holdouts, though, so much as playing a caster along side a more limitted martial character (helpfully played by a newbie, because it's 'easier') will apeal to them.
Not all vetran grognards are elitist trash who only play casters while forcing the newbs to play the meet shields. Some folks actualy apprecated the simplicity of the classic Fighter and played such classes precisly so they wouldn't have to read an entire extra chapter just so they could get down and dirty in a dungeon. I imagine that for those folks not having to poor over a half dozen or more power options per level, when all they want is some sword swinging action, will be quite desirable.
Though I agree with VaultDweller - this needed more cats.
I suspect Essentials martial classes won't really appeal to those holdouts, though, so much as playing a caster along side a more limitted martial character (helpfully played by a newbie, because it's 'easier') will apeal to them.
Not all vetran grognards are elitist trash who only play casters while forcing the newbs to play the meet shields.
Of course we're not all like that. I'm not saying we are. I'm saying the ones that have been so vociferous in their demand that the Fighter be returned to its previous lowly satus probably mostly fall into that category.
Some folks actualy apprecated the simplicity of the classic Fighter and played such classes precisly so they wouldn't have to read an entire extra chapter just so they could get down and dirty in a dungeon.
I was a fan and frequent defender of the 3.x Fighter. The fighter was highly customizeable, and when you did a build-to-concept using the Fighter as the core of it, you could bet pretty close and get a pretty consistent feel from it. The caster classes didn't give you that, because there was always the option of prepping different spells than the 'signature' ones that defined the concept - and the continuous presence of overpowered spells made that option a little too good (the Sorcerer was a clear exception, BTW). I also quite liked having high-availability abilities - it always sucked not having the right spell prepped or having cast it too soon. And, I really strongly disliked the 3.x alphabetical organization of spells and having to plow through tons of them to get an idea of what your caster is like at a given level and how best to use his abilities.
So, really, I should be a prime candidate for wanting a 'simpler' fighter. Except for one thing: all the 4e classes are /much/ simpler than 3.x casters, and, really, barely more complex than the fighter. While the 4e classes all have dailies and encounters, the organization of those powers by class and level makes it very easy to familiarize yourself only with what you need to in order to make a good decision at level-up. Just like picking feats with a 3.x fighter, really. The tactical options you have in 4e combat are pretty comparable to those you had with a 3.x fighter - you have a wide potential variety of exploits, but, when playing, you have two or three at wills, and at 1st, an encounter and a daily. Add in the options of charging, bull rushing, and grabbing, and that's still pretty easy. A 3.x fighter, OTOH, had a feat or two that might or might not give him extra options. With or without the feat, he could have 'threatening' reach with the right weapon, attack at melee or long range (again, depending on the weapon he pulled out). Charge, Bull Rush, Grapple (which was heinously complicated), Trip, Disarm, Fight Defensively or Sunder. Feats like Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Expertise, Spring Attack, (Great) Cleave, and Whirlwind Attack all let the fighter do aditional tricks in combat. Really, the level of choice and complexity in playing a well-built, tactically aware fighter in 3.x was not that far from that of a typical 4e fighter - it just required a lot more care and system mastery to get there, and it contrasted with the overpoweredness of the casters, of course.
In 4e, role, more than class, determines complexity in play. Controller and Leaders are the most complex (requiring taking into account everything your allies and enemies are doing or might do, in addition to your own choices). Defenders (like the Fighter) are less so, you have to consider the relative threat of enemies, vulnerability of allies, and how you can aply your defender features to keep the former away from the later. But it's strikers that are the simplest: pick a target, kill it - if a monster's already taken meaningful damage, you don't even need to think much about target choice, focus fire is king.
I imagine that for those folks not having to poor over a half dozen or more power options per level, when all they want is some sword swinging action, will be quite desirable.
There were typically about 4 powers to choose from per level (where there was a power choice) for most classes in the 4e PH, Fighter included. That's not an intimidating array, compared, say to feats, and it's only at level-up. If the Essentials fighter just had 'power steering' at chargen and level up - if the Knight was just a fighter that had One-handed Weapon Talent, Cleave, Tide of Iron, Steel Serpent Strike, and Comeback Strike picked out for you at level 1; while 'Slayer' had two-handed weapon talent, Reaping Strike, Cleave, Spinning Sweep, and Brute Strike at level 1 - and then each had a progression of Encounters, Utilities and Dailies likewise spelled out on a level chart, it would be very simple at chargen, indeed: pick 'Knight' or 'Slayer.' One choice. After that, pick one of 4 powers, two of which go away after you use 'em, is not any more complex than picking among the options available to an ordinary 3.x fighter.
I don't have to buy the Essentials books, and I probably won't. If they go back to the Player's Handbook / Power books, I'll keep on buying those. If the players I DM for or play with choose to go that direction, good for them and good for the company.
That's it.
I'll continue to play "old school(?)" 4th edition characters...
Heh. Yeah, a 'direction' that's only been around for D&D for two or three years is hardly 'old.' While the 'new' direction of Essentials /is/ the same tired old direction of the prior 30 years.
I don't like the new Essentials direction at all. That said, if it brings new players into the fold or brings former players back to the game, that's certainly a good thing for the game and the gaming community. I'll continue to play "old school(?)" 4th edition characters, and supporting my players if they choose to invest their resources into picking up Essentials.
I don't have to buy the Essentials books, and I probably won't. If they go back to the Player's Handbook / Power books, I'll keep on buying those. If the players I DM for or play with choose to go that direction, good for them and good for the company.
That's it.
Your view on the Essentials is pretty fair and mature. Perhaps the poster maps might interest you as a DM? You might find some feats or powers to suppliment your PH1-3 classes as well. New monsters as well in the Monster Vault.
I don't like the new Essentials direction at all. That said, if it brings new players into the fold or brings former players back to the game, that's certainly a good thing for the game and the gaming community. I'll continue to play "old school(?)" 4th edition characters, and supporting my players if they choose to invest their resources into picking up Essentials.
I don't have to buy the Essentials books, and I probably won't. If they go back to the Player's Handbook / Power books, I'll keep on buying those. If the players I DM for or play with choose to go that direction, good for them and good for the company.
That's it.
Your view on the Essentials is pretty fair and mature. Perhaps the poster maps might interest you as a DM? You might find some feats or powers to suppliment your PH1-3 classes as well. New monsters as well in the Monster Vault.
Thanks! I am pretty curious about the Monster Vault. I can't get enough of cool monsters.
I no longer have to worry about all those dozens of extra abilities monsters had that diverted attention away from how to use them in a fight.
Dividing the monsters by their roles in combat (soldiers, skirmishers, lurkers, etc) was a masterstroke, because now without even looking at the monsters powers I know more or less how to use it in a fight. (Okay this guy will be in the back, this guy will charge in and start dealing as much damage as possible before he's taken down, etc.)
The sliding scale of "how important to the fight this monster is", going from Minion to Solo, was also amazing. Because of the divorce from versilimitude & simulationism, I don't have to make monsters laughably underleveled or devestatingly overleveled. Minions can allow those cinematic scenes with PCs plowing through the opposition, and Solos can give the PCs that great boss fight, all with keeping monster levels within the acceptable range of attack and defense values to keep the fight exciting.
Now, sure, there have been modifications to monster design (fixing solos to be more interesting, the adjusting of hp and damage in the MM3, etc) but that's just refining the original set up of monsters in 4e, which I thought was nothing but gold.
I guess your mileage may vary, but I really can't understand how anyone doesn't see the merits of 4e monster design.
Wow, really? I'm not trying to disuade you from your opinion or anything, but I think you're the first person I've heard of that doesn't like the new format. I know it helps me run monsters better, I guess I just figured it was universal.
Yeah, it was a pretty popular move and not one I object to. Our primary dungeon delve group finished up 30th level and we never strayed from the first 3 core books. I just got really, really used to the MM stat blocks. Orcus came out at the right time! We all died.
The higher damage in MM3, though, just seems like a response to ongoing power inflation. Perhaps even trying to get ahead of any power inflation that might stem from the massive updates coming in October...
The healer in the group has actually started paying attention again when i use stock monsters thanks to MM3.
Ahhh... Gotta love looking back.
Nothing says nastalgia like dead links.
Ahhh... Gotta love looking back.
Nothing says nastalgia like dead links.
Huh... they show up fine when I look at them...
4E Teaser
4E Part 1
4E Part 2
Oh, 4e's aproach to monsters is the good kind of retro (it really does go all the way back to 1e, when monsters used a completely different system than PCs, even 2e edged toward giving monsters some mechanical similarity to characters).
The higher damage in MM3, though, just seems like a response to ongoing power inflation. Perhaps even trying to get ahead of any power inflation that might stem from the massive updates coming in October...
I noticed that with my MM3 that the monsters did more damage. There was even a power creep from PH1 to PH2. They also lowered the defense stats on the monsters in MM3. I don't paticularly like when a system changes a lot within a few years but I don't express that dislike as something wrong that Wizards is doing either. The key reason for my group sticking with the core 3 is balance and the deluxe books have the errata in them. I'm no fan of errata....
Solo monsters in paragon and epic tiers especially, with inflated monster hit points and defences when compared to average (ie, not super optimized) PC attack scores and damage output could produce long boring fights, where the outcome is solidly determined as much as an hour before the fight ends - with monsters unable to truely threaten the PCs, but with PCs needing many, many rounds to wear down the monster's hit points. Have you ever played against a +2 to +3 level PHBI red dragon (the suggested level range in the DMG for a difficult, climactic encounter)? Between its massive hit point pool and nigh unhittable AC the combat frequently is less intense and exciting and more frustrating and dull.
I'm not saying this is a universal experience, or the experience of your group, but the changes in monster stats are a reaction to mass feedback saying the monsters in the PHBI were frequently boring to play against, not a reaction to power creep in the game. As for Power Creep - Fighters have been the strongest defenders since day one, Rangers the most damaging strikers, Clerics the best healers, Warlords the best enablers. Unerrata'd orbizards were the most abusive stunlock controllers... Most PHBI classes were and still are among the strongest in the game at their respective jobs (warlocks and paladins perhaps standing as exceptions). Some of the most powerful paragon paths, and the strongest epic destiny, are also found in the PHBI. Even if you don't count any expansion material, Many PHBI classes still shine when compared to their PHBII and PHBIII equivalents.
I found most MM1 mobs were weak or just had ways to make combats longer.
The healer in the group has actually started paying attention again when i use stock monsters thanks to MM3.
This is the actual reason. Lot's of people complained about combat taking too long, so they made it shorter.
I would agree Mal the PHB1 fighter is by far the best defender to date and the cleric is still the best healer. As for damage output the ranger is still the best. The PHB2 and 3 classes are just not as good the original classes are just that much better. I find the newer classes flashier but not as good at there roles.
I wouldn't generalize it that far. The paladin and Warlock had functionality issues, and the cleric was two very different classes - one much better then the other. 4e was new, and the designers didn't have a full grasp on everything they were doing at the time. New options can really only increase the maximum power level, since they can be combined with existing options, but, baring a few standout exceptions (assassin, battlemind) most of the classes we've seen since PHBI are neither as dominating as the fighter or ranger nor as troubled as the Paladin and Warlock were out of the gate.
I have general confidence in the quality of design improving over time (and that is definitely the case with monsters, even if PC stuff is more debatable), though I'm not entirely pleased with all of the specific developments we're seeing in essentials, and will probably be skipping over most of this material while I wait patiently for Heroes of Shadow.
In 4e creatures have mechanics behind them that makes them actually FEEL like you're fighting the monster you're fighting, rather than a bunch of weird attacks that don't make sense combined with dry sword-choppa. I love that, and I'm a hardcore verisimilitude junkie. I could have done without the ten statblocks per monster (seriously I can make variant monsters in 4e pretty easily, I mean that's kind of the point) and I could have used a nice single column of flavor for each critter--but even saying that, the MMs do such a great job of using the space they have you often end up with more flavor in their little sluglines than you did in some of the more rambling (and let's face it, cribbed word for word often from the 2nd ed. MM) entries. Besides, even though I don't need ten kinds of kobold doesn't mean other folks don't so I guess I've learned to take the bad to get the awesome.
The reasons for the shifts in monster stats, particularly HP and Damage are in responce to player feedback. Experiences of core 4e combat as a 'slog' with monsters and PCs trading blows back and forth for dozens of rounds, long after all encounter powers are expended and falling back on the same at will powers over and over are common.
I've only had this experience vs monsters 4+ levels above the party - their defenses get too high, and they take forever to beat down. H1 and H2 both featured such overleveled elites in their climactic battles. Encounters with solos work fine - they're immense bags of hps, but you can hit 'em.
4e really works better with 'longer' (in rounds) combats, anyway, since it has so many tactical options and ways for characters to work together, having time to set up combos before the monster just up and dies on you is nice. I've been disapointed more often by monsters that died anticlimactically in the middle of some spectacular combo than by monsters that lingered on too long.
As for Power Creep - Fighters have been the strongest defenders since day one, Rangers the most damaging strikers, Clerics the best healers, Warlords the best enablers. Unerrata'd orbizards were the most abusive stunlock controllers... Most PHBI classes were and still are among the strongest in the game at their respective jobs
That just indicates that the power inflation has come in the form of new powers, builds, items, and other options useable by existing classes, rather than strictly in the form of new classes.
That's a wrap! Thanks for all your time and energy people!
1 Controller level +6 (Howling Hag)
3 Soldier/Brute level +1 (3 Guard Drakes)
2 Artllery level +1 (2 Goblin Sharpshooters)
It took 30 minutes to complete & 3 party members were reduced to 0 hps but we did it just fine.
And... Cut!
That's a wrap! Thanks for all your time and energy people!
It's funny that the people this comic is making fun of are the ones posting it around. Irony makes me happy.
And... Cut!
That's a wrap! Thanks for all your time and energy people!
It's funny that the people this comic is making fun of are the ones posting it around. Irony makes me happy.
It's called "Propaganda".
The tactic is this: When you fear the truth from the other side, you try and make them sound as absurd as possible.