"Let's look over the list of changes...:"
-Races will not get +2 to two scores, not a big deal; but now, when building a character using a PHB 1 or 2 race by hand, I'm going to have to seek out my racial scores and abilities in multiple books, which is a bit irritating.
-Subclasses, which, by and large, are showing a significant trend in moonwalking back to 3.5; AND while they do not stop anyone from using the old rules, they seem to be giving us damn good reasons to believe they will be stopping the flow of new material to support old builds.
-Power changes, now, again, certain characters (especially wizards) are going to have complete power changes which require searching through multiple books to figure out exactly what you're doing.
-An entirely new organization and setup for book releases, this pisses me off to no end. I believe I was promised organization in this system, a uniform standard to tell me what books will contain what information. No, I don't want a bunch of books with 'creative names', I like PHB 1 2 3... When I see that, I know what I am in for when reading the book. Changing this tells me that you are also changing the nature of the books, which means, breaking one of the major promises that made me decide that 4E was leaps and bounds greater than 3.5, not to mention other tabletop RPGs. I like organization.
-Oh, yes, then there are the softcover books, some people like them, I find them quite a deterrent, and I do not want to buy softcover books to add to my collection of all hardcover books. Call it nitpicking, but when I buy a set of books, I want them to sit side by side on a bookshelf and look like a set. Softcovers ruin that feel.
-I wholeheartedly supported Errata, sure, it was long, but a lot of it what typographical errors. However, now, we're changing a whole bunch of stuff, and I can't just build a character, by hand, using only the PHB, without knowing it probably isn't full of errata. If someone doesn't have DDI, that's even more sources to have to slog through to make sure your character is up to date.
-On that note, printing powers with bare-minimum changes in a future release with new material, is making us pay for errata, even if it's only partially. Plus, if I want the NEW material, I can't just ignore that release, which is really annoying. Show a little integrity, reprint the PHB, MM, DMG, PHB2, and MM2 with all the updates and changes to stat blocks, etc. Maybe find a way to give us a discount if we already own the material. I'll pay you for the extra effort to fix it, but not full price.
-Feats, now feats have prerequisites again, probably heavier ones than just race or class, etc. However, they don't fall into tier. Not to mention, new feats are being released which are strictly better than old ones. Are you going to clear the cache, or am I now going to have to go book diving... AGAIN... to make sure I am able to take the feats I want as soon as their available, and not take feats that are now obsolete?
-Magic item rarities... Adding rare items to the game which use additional rules, fine... Telling me my old items fit these new rules and the system by which they work is changed, not so fine.
-Stop adding cards to the game... This may not exactly be essentials related, but it seems to be a common complaint. I don't play magic because it's a WASTE of money, I don't need that crap in my tabletop RPGs. A few card peripherals, okay, but we're starting to see a trend; and while I still have a sliver of hope that DnD isn't being flushed into the capitalism toilet, it's getting smaller and smaller.
"I will edit this if I remember more, but that should really be enough..."
"Thing is... No one asked me what I thought about massive sweeping changes. Sure, they might be minor, but I paid for material with a reasonable expectation to see more material which adds to my previous material. I also didn't pay for material to have it replaced."
"Seriously, I'd be less insulted to see a 4.5, but they want so much not to do that, they would rather slip it by us and call it 'Revised' or 'Essentials'. That's like telling me I'm too stupid to notice you're changing the game I'm playing."
"Yes, I know, I could not buy the future material, but then, could I also get a refund on the material I bought with the expectation of seeing additional material to support it? Could I get a refund for my DDI year subscription that I paid for without ANY forewarning that in a year from now i might not be playing the same game? Just maybe, could someone tell me WHY exactly, I shouldn't feel like I am being abandoned for wishing to play the game I chose to buy and play 2-3 years ago?"
"I supported the idea of WotC keeping certain information to itself, however, this was too much. Show me some good reason why consumers should have faith in a company that changes so much, so quickly, with little warning."
"Congratualtions, whomever made these decisions, you succeeded on your Bluff check. Except, now, even if somehow the damage is mitigated, the trust has been damaged. The window of time to make it right is running out."
"Thing is... No one asked me what I thought about massive sweeping changes.
Welcome to planet Earth. Enjoy your stay!
"Just say, 'Here's 4E Revised, I know, it's technically 4.5, sorry. We'll try to make it as smooth a transition as possible and do everything in our power to make sure your old stuff isn't a waste of money or an inconvienience.'"
"However, in trying not to call it 4.5, now it's a bit of both."
"I'm not calling on an argument here, let's try to be mature for long enough to see if maybe someone will tell us what's going on... We are paying customers, and we deserve some consideration. Let's be mature about it and maybe we'll get it."
"Thing is... No one asked me what I thought about massive sweeping changes.
Welcome to planet Earth. Enjoy your stay!
"I get that, doesn't mean I have to like it, and sure as hell doesn't mean that every company has to act that way. Here's a piece of ingenuity... SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR CUSTOMERS!"
"If they can't even do that... How about the customers actually use the power they have as consumers to make a difference? If we make it hard for them to make a profit when they are deceptive, a lesson could be learned. However, we can't just stuff our money in our pockets and walk away, we have to tell them why. That's the only way they'll learn."
"Thing is... No one asked me what I thought about massive sweeping changes.
Welcome to planet Earth. Enjoy your stay!
"I get that, doesn't mean I have to like it, and sure as hell doesn't mean that every company has to act that way. Here's a piece of ingenuity... SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR CUSTOMERS!"
"If they can't even do that... How about the customers actually use the power they have as consumers to make a difference? If we make it hard for them to make a profit when they are deceptive, a lesson could be learned. However, we can't just stuff our money in our pockets and walk away, we have to tell them why. That's the only way they'll learn."
I'll try to address your post with a bit more attention and respect as soon as I can, but I'm also tempted to simply write an "User guide to conspiracy theories" and be done with all threads of this tone.
I'm not going at you specifically, but half the complaints about Essentials (which, incidentally, I don't like and will buy and probably never or rarely use) sounds dangerously close to "this is a conspiracy by WotC to try to get new customers and make money without instead catering to the people who already bought stuff 2 years ago".
You have a point on customers having the power to shape things; this power is used when you don't buy products you don't approve or like.
The huge mass of users who bought the core rulebooks and then went "I'm not buying Eberron cause I don't like the setting and Dark Sun cause they changed too much, I skipped the PHB3 because I don't care about psionics and the MM3 because 2 monster books are enough, I don't buy the planes splatbooks because I only play FR and I don't buy the -icons because they're glorified monster manuals with dozens of pages of useless fluff, but WotC should cater to me because I'm their core audience, even if I won't buy the Essentials because I don't want 4.5 and I wouldn't buy the PHB4 because there's already enough classes" have little right to complain. And they make the vast majority of the complainers.
When you decide a company isn't making a product you approve or like, and you stop buying it, you've already taken action as a customer. That's where your influence as a customer ends. What's left is the people who DO buy their products, and their future policy will be based on what sells and what doesn't, and what they think could sell.
While I'm a 4th edition enthusiast and I plan to keep buying every single manual published to support my hobby, this is something that has happened over and over and over in the PnP RPG world. A part of the audience is displeased with some sort of change, and so decides to boycott the products, and becomes extremely vocal about it on forums. The company will not care, because the opinion of non-customers is irrelevant, and if there's any brain in their current strategy, money is still there and not in going and catering to a few hundred loud complainers; however, potential new customers who frequent forums will see the ruckus and that will probably turn some audiences away. D&D will survive this because the brand power is too strong, but I've seen plenty of small entertainment products die simply because the audience suicided.
"On top of that, it's even more idiotic that you're probably right. They will get new players, those players will buy the products that conform to this setup, until another sweeping change is made, like an edition change. Then another set of players will come in, and they will survive that way. However, that means that either you deal with whatever crap is shovelled to you, or you don't play. That should never be the options available to me."
"I know there are people in the DnD team that give a damn, and I want to encourage people to call out to them and ask them to realize that loyalty to their product is earned, not given freely. Only if people decide to make that change, will it happen."
"Do you know why companies are allowed to get away with this kind of stupid crap? It's because of people like you, who give them a free pass to act however they please as if we don't have a right to argue no matter how much or little we have or will invest. Plus, people who have no concept of Carpe Diem, which really, is just stupid. In this day and age, most people just don't have an excuse not to be informed. Some people do, but the rest are just being foolish."
"On top of that, it's even more idiotic that you're probably right. They will get new players, those players will buy the products that conform to this setup, until another sweeping change is made, like an edition change. Then another set of players will come in, and they will survive that way. However, that means that either you deal with whatever crap is shovelled to you, or you don't play. That should never be the options available to me."
"I know there are people in the DnD team that give a damn, and I want to encourage people to call out to them and ask them to realize that loyalty to their product is earned, not given freely. Only if people decide to make that change, will it happen."
Get away with what crap? WotC is giving me more of what I want. They are improving with every product(minus the occasional setback like PHB3 level 1 Psion dailies) and you can see where they learned from their experience. They are taking risks and continuing to improve a great game to be even better. I'm personally fine with the changes. I don't understand the obsession with hardcover books, but the errata isn't really a big deal. Its only an issue if you play in LFR or something similar. Any other group can tell the errata to take a hike if they wish. We even have one Wizard in our group still using pre-errata Magic Missile.
"Do you know why companies are allowed to get away with this kind of stupid crap?
Couldn't find any stupid crap in GenCon anouncments. Likes almost everything. As in the beginning of 4E I felt it to be custom made for things I thought about myself, and now the same is with DDE - they literally listen to things I had in me head. So stop calling those wonderful products crap and get back to your old books - don't worry, we won't take them from you.
"Do you know why companies are allowed to get away with this kind of stupid crap? It's because of people like you, who give them a free pass to act however they please as if we don't have a right to argue no matter how much or little we have or will invest. Plus, people who have no concept of Carpe Diem, which really, is just stupid. In this day and age, most people just don't have an excuse not to be informed. Some people do, but the rest are just being foolish."
"On top of that, it's even more idiotic that you're probably right. They will get new players, those players will buy the products that conform to this setup, until another sweeping change is made, like an edition change. Then another set of players will come in, and they will survive that way. However, that means that either you deal with whatever crap is shovelled to you, or you don't play. That should never be the options available to me."
"I know there are people in the DnD team that give a damn, and I want to encourage people to call out to them and ask them to realize that loyalty to their product is earned, not given freely. Only if people decide to make that change, will it happen."
Get away with what crap? WotC is giving me more of what I want. They are improving with every product(minus the occasional setback like PHB3 level 1 Psion dailies) and you can see where they learned from their experience. They are taking risks and continuing to improve a great game to be even better. I'm personally fine with the changes. I don't understand the obsession with hardcover books, but the errata isn't really a big deal. Its only an issue if you play in LFR or something similar. Any other group can tell the errata to take a hike if they wish. We even have one Wizard in our group still using pre-errata Magic Missile.
"Can I continue to expect to get material which supports the non-errata, non-essentials game? You can say something about edition changes having the same issue, but they told us an edition change was coming."
"I bought books which I expected to see support for, with no knowledge of the actual nature of the Essentials design, not because I didn't keep up with the information, but because it wasn't provided. Now, if I decide not to use the essentials stuff, I simply have no extra support for that product. That's like buying a video game that the company promises an expansion for, and then beating it, not getting the whole story; and the company deciding to tell you later that they aren't going to release an expansion, but they will sell you a new game that will have a full story, and is pretty much exactly the same as the old game."
"Can I continue to expect to get material which supports the non-errata, non-essentials game? You can say something about edition changes having the same issue, but they told us an edition change was coming."
Did WotC explicitly say they are going to stop supporting the non-essentials game?
"Can I continue to expect to get material which supports the non-errata, non-essentials game? You can say something about edition changes having the same issue, but they told us an edition change was coming."
Did WotC explicitly say they are going to stop supporting the non-essentials game?
I suspect they didn't, but look at the Ravenloft deal. At some point during the convention someone said "there's cards in the Ravenloft ruleset" and 15 minutes later on forums there were people complaining about having to buy 4 full sets of collectible card sets over 5 years.
It's the Future Releases board, where if a WotC representative says "I still use the PHB1 as my primary source" the common reaction will be that of having 1003 people claiming he's lying and the other 3997 claiming it's the definite proof that the PHB1 is obsolete.
Essentials doesn't bother me nearly as much as 3.5, because of the modular nature of 4e. Nothing is incompatible about an old un-errata'd character and a new up-to-date character. DM-managed methodology, such as concerning magic items, is always at the DM's discretion. Any "rules" directed at a DM are always suggestions, unless you're one of the poor saps running RPGA nonsense. D&D's strength has always been that the group "owns" their game, not that they treat the rulebooks as gospel.
What WotC seems to have realized is that new players don't understand that you can skip the PH2. A PH4 would give the impression that you need 1/2/3 first. So post-Essentials we get Heroes of Shadow which clearly has no dependencies other than the core rules (which you can get from an old PH1 or Essentials). "Heroes" is being consistently used to indicate books for players, and "Shadow" is descriptive. I never would have guessed by Player's Handbook 3 that we'd get a Runepriest and a Seeker. Fallen Lands/Forgotten Empires is a little cryptic, class-wise (which is why they're in the subtitle!), but the races fit the bill.
And, most unfortunately for you, many more people will likely splurge on these new paperbacks because of their affordability.
Your analogy about the expansion is more like City of Heroes/City of Villains. Each was (before the merge) an entire game in its own right that can use the other game as an expansion. You could buy CoH and just play that. Or buy CoV and just play that. Or buy both and mix-and-match content from both in either. Over the years they've brought the games closer together by moving powers and powersets almost wholesale from one side to the other. And now the new expansion is going to let heroes and villains switch sides. It's possible because they're - gasp! - the same system. Just different options/packagings.
I don't understand the "loss of support" argument. I expect everything that comes out to be self-contained. A class has its base stats (HP, skills, etc.) and then its powers and feats. Support comes in the form of new powers and feats. They also usually have recommended builds, but that's just a suggestion (and a component of 4e that I don't use at all). If a new splat-book has a build that includes things from Essentials, so what? I didn't buy the book for the build, I bought it for the new content. 4e's greatest strength is what I keep referring to as its modular nature. Everything is an option that can be combined with other options.
I've bought more 4e products in 2 years than I did 3.x products over 7-ish years. And I see a few good products in the future. It's like 4e was made for me, like WotC is trying to get my dollar after I was so stingy with it in the last decade.
What WotC seems to have realized is that new players don't understand that you can skip the PH2. A PH4 would give the impression that you need 1/2/3 first. So post-Essentials we get Heroes of Shadow which clearly has no dependencies other than the core rules (which you can get from an old PH1 or Essentials). "Heroes" is being consistently used to indicate books for players, and "Shadow" is descriptive. I never would have guessed by Player's Handbook 3 that we'd get a Runepriest and a Seeker. Fallen Lands/Forgotten Empires is a little cryptic, class-wise (which is why they're in the subtitle!), but the races fit the bill.
And, most unfortunately for you, many more people will likely splurge on these new paperbacks because of their affordability.
Your analogy about the expansion is more like City of Heroes/City of Villains. Each was (before the merge) an entire game in its own right that can use the other game as an expansion. You could buy CoH and just play that. Or buy CoV and just play that. Or buy both and mix-and-match content from both in either. Over the years they've brought the games closer together by moving powers and powersets almost wholesale from one side to the other. And now the new expansion is going to let heroes and villains switch sides. It's possible because they're - gasp! - the same system. Just different options/packagings.
I don't understand the "loss of support" argument. I expect everything that comes out to be self-contained. A class has its base stats (HP, skills, etc.) and then its powers and feats. Support comes in the form of new powers and feats. They also usually have recommended builds, but that's just a suggestion (and a component of 4e that I don't use at all). If a new splat-book has a build that includes things from Essentials, so what? I didn't buy the book for the build, I bought it for the new content. 4e's greatest strength is what I keep referring to as its modular nature. Everything is an option that can be combined with other options.
I've bought more 4e products in 2 years than I did 3.x products over 7-ish years. And I see a few good products in the future. It's like 4e was made for me, like WotC is trying to get my dollar after I was so stingy with it in the last decade.
"I get that, doesn't mean I have to like it, and sure as hell doesn't mean that every company has to act that way. Here's a piece of ingenuity... SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR CUSTOMERS!"
How do you know they are not? Because of some vocal minority online? Or in some other venue? In the end only time will show us if Essnetials is the big mistake people claim it to be.
It's like 4e was made for me, like WotC is trying to get my dollar after I was so stingy with it in the last decade.
Used to feel that way...only for me it was 3 decades, but not necessarily now. I am uninterested in Retro gaming. I am quite glad to be unsubscribed and not updating my character builder... And I am sad as we were just introducing some nieces and nephews and I wanted to be introducing them to a D&D that had grown instead of one that is backsliding... but if essentials is THE introductory product? not thank yo
Back in the day, Wizards thought about releasing codes in books that gave you a digital version and rules in the compendium. Maybe this wasn't their exact thought but it was discussed. At that time, I huffed that I'd have to buy so many books to get the info. Then DDI came out... personally, I love it.
I realize I don't get any fluff, but man I hated all the 3.5 books I bought that were just fluff and no rules.
Wizards, from one person to you, change away. So long as DDi remains roughly under or equal to $10 a month, I'll keep subscribing and save myself some serious cash. I'm not sure my LFGS appreciates this, and probably none of the bigwigs at Hasbro, but you got me hooked.
The best part of this, and I realize not everyone feels this way, but I pay roughly $80/year to play D&D, nothing more. Give or take that is.
Back in the day, Wizards thought about releasing codes in books that gave you a digital version and rules in the compendium. Maybe this wasn't their exact thought but it was discussed. At that time, I huffed that I'd have to buy so many books to get the info. Then DDI came out... personally, I love it.
I realize I don't get any fluff, but man I hated all the 3.5 books I bought that were just fluff and no rules.
Wizards, from one person to you, change away. So long as DDi remains roughly under or equal to $10 a month, I'll keep subscribing and save myself some serious cash. I'm not sure my LFGS appreciates this, and probably none of the bigwigs at Hasbro, but you got me hooked.
Pretty much same here.
"Seriously, I'd be less insulted to see a 4.5, but they want so much not to do that, they would rather slip it by us and call it 'Revised' or 'Essentials'. That's like telling me I'm too stupid to notice you're changing the game I'm playing."
I feel the same way. I don't mind the changes - but I'd appreciate it if WotC would acknowledge what's happening to the game.
I feel the same way. I don't mind the changes - but I'd appreciate it if WotC would acknowledge what's happening to the game.
Which is?
So making changes to established rules and rule elements only because Essentials breaks them and not because they were broken before is not making changes to "past content" just because they are using errata to do it?....
No more so than using errata to fix any interaction with any other new release. This isn't the first time older material has needed "fixin" because as RAW stands it would be broken combined with newer material, and it probably won't be the last either.
Without essentials the new magic missle would not have been designed and would not have overwritten the old one.
Maybe so, maybe no.
Folks had been complaining about Magic Missile requiring an attack roll since the start of 4e, and there had been numerous discussions about changing it to something resembling its incarnation in previous editions. There is likely a connection between the the updated Magic Missile attack power and the Essentials class feature, but which came first may prove something of a chicken-or-the-egg scenario.
That said I think that "updating" the attack power (especialy for the explicit purpose restoring the power to its classic form) was a gross missuse of a errata, as errata should be reserved for clarifications and the elimination of game breaking effects and combinations.
I realize this type of logic would mitigate about 50% of these forums, but damn, this thread is full of fail.
So uh. . . since when did we have to play the game the way Wizard of the Coast wrote it?
Since organized play.
Stop whining because everything isn't going your way. And maybe take a second to realize that not much is actually changing, and what is changing is doing so for the better of the game. Calm. Down.
"Argue against any one change that this isn't 4.5, and you may make some headway... However, I find this approach by WotC (or Hasbro, whoever is driving this method) insulting."
"Let's look over the list of changes...:"
-Races will not get +2 to two scores, not a big deal; but now, when building a character using a PHB 1 or 2 race by hand, I'm going to have to seek out my racial scores and abilities in multiple books, which is a bit irritating.
-Subclasses, which, by and large, are showing a significant trend in moonwalking back to 3.5; AND while they do not stop anyone from using the old rules, they seem to be giving us damn good reasons to believe they will be stopping the flow of new material to support old builds.
-Power changes, now, again, certain characters (especially wizards) are going to have complete power changes which require searching through multiple books to figure out exactly what you're doing.
-An entirely new organization and setup for book releases, this pisses me off to no end. I believe I was promised organization in this system, a uniform standard to tell me what books will contain what information. No, I don't want a bunch of books with 'creative names', I like PHB 1 2 3... When I see that, I know what I am in for when reading the book. Changing this tells me that you are also changing the nature of the books, which means, breaking one of the major promises that made me decide that 4E was leaps and bounds greater than 3.5, not to mention other tabletop RPGs. I like organization.
-Oh, yes, then there are the softcover books, some people like them, I find them quite a deterrent, and I do not want to buy softcover books to add to my collection of all hardcover books. Call it nitpicking, but when I buy a set of books, I want them to sit side by side on a bookshelf and look like a set. Softcovers ruin that feel.
-I wholeheartedly supported Errata, sure, it was long, but a lot of it what typographical errors. However, now, we're changing a whole bunch of stuff, and I can't just build a character, by hand, using only the PHB, without knowing it probably isn't full of errata. If someone doesn't have DDI, that's even more sources to have to slog through to make sure your character is up to date.
-On that note, printing powers with bare-minimum changes in a future release with new material, is making us pay for errata, even if it's only partially. Plus, if I want the NEW material, I can't just ignore that release, which is really annoying. Show a little integrity, reprint the PHB, MM, DMG, PHB2, and MM2 with all the updates and changes to stat blocks, etc. Maybe find a way to give us a discount if we already own the material. I'll pay you for the extra effort to fix it, but not full price.
-Feats, now feats have prerequisites again, probably heavier ones than just race or class, etc. However, they don't fall into tier. Not to mention, new feats are being released which are strictly better than old ones. Are you going to clear the cache, or am I now going to have to go book diving... AGAIN... to make sure I am able to take the feats I want as soon as their available, and not take feats that are now obsolete?
-Magic item rarities... Adding rare items to the game which use additional rules, fine... Telling me my old items fit these new rules and the system by which they work is changed, not so fine.
-Stop adding cards to the game... This may not exactly be essentials related, but it seems to be a common complaint. I don't play magic because it's a WASTE of money, I don't need that crap in my tabletop RPGs. A few card peripherals, okay, but we're starting to see a trend; and while I still have a sliver of hope that DnD isn't being flushed into the capitalism toilet, it's getting smaller and smaller.
"I will edit this if I remember more, but that should really be enough..."
"Thing is... No one asked me what I thought about massive sweeping changes. Sure, they might be minor, but I paid for material with a reasonable expectation to see more material which adds to my previous material. I also didn't pay for material to have it replaced."
"Seriously, I'd be less insulted to see a 4.5, but they want so much not to do that, they would rather slip it by us and call it 'Revised' or 'Essentials'. That's like telling me I'm too stupid to notice you're changing the game I'm playing."
"Yes, I know, I could not buy the future material, but then, could I also get a refund on the material I bought with the expectation of seeing additional material to support it? Could I get a refund for my DDI year subscription that I paid for without ANY forewarning that in a year from now i might not be playing the same game? Just maybe, could someone tell me WHY exactly, I shouldn't feel like I am being abandoned for wishing to play the game I chose to buy and play 2-3 years ago?"
"I supported the idea of WotC keeping certain information to itself, however, this was too much. Show me some good reason why consumers should have faith in a company that changes so much, so quickly, with little warning."
"Congratualtions, whomever made these decisions, you succeeded on your Bluff check. Except, now, even if somehow the damage is mitigated, the trust has been damaged. The window of time to make it right is running out."
Personally I don't get it.
You rant and rave about all the things in the game that you DON'T like and then in one of your long winded rants, you claim that you do not care what WoTC does to D&D and that you will play any edition.
That mere statement has made this entire rant unnecessary and contradictory. You should really think before pounding such anger into your poor, defenseless keyboard.
I mean, 3 years ago, when they announced 4E, the same arguments were being thrown around. And us d20 fans were outcast because the 4E fans liked the 'shiny'.
Oh, my sides hurt from laughing so much.
You know how much all this cracks me up, right?
I mean, 3 years ago, when they announced 4E, the same arguments were being thrown around. And us d20 fans were outcast because the 4E fans liked the 'shiny'.
Oh, my sides hurt from laughing so much.
It's no different from when 3E came out too, or 3.5E. I'm sure there were complainers when they had AD&D and Basic D&D. There aways will be.
You know how much all this cracks me up, right?
I mean, 3 years ago, when they announced 4E, the same arguments were being thrown around. And us d20 fans were outcast because the 4E fans liked the 'shiny'.
Oh, my sides hurt from laughing so much.
And just like last time, the only people being "outcast" are the ones who choose to be outcast.
You know how much all this cracks me up, right?
I mean, 3 years ago, when they announced 4E, the same arguments were being thrown around. And us d20 fans were outcast because the 4E fans liked the 'shiny'.
Oh, my sides hurt from laughing so much.
And just like last time, the only people being "outcast" are the ones who choose to be outcast.
Yes, because it's so easy to stick around a forum when everyone calls you 'grognard' and 'stupid' for not liking what the company is producing.
You know how much all this cracks me up, right?
I mean, 3 years ago, when they announced 4E, the same arguments were being thrown around. And us d20 fans were outcast because the 4E fans liked the 'shiny'.
Oh, my sides hurt from laughing so much.
And just like last time, the only people being "outcast" are the ones who choose to be outcast.
Yes, because it's so easy to stick around a forum when everyone calls you 'grognard' and 'stupid' for not liking what the company is producing.
Beyond a few buttheads (the sort which will be found on any side of any discussion on the internet) who I have no doubt did exactly that, I don't recall that happening to too many people unless they took the attitude of "not liking what the company is producing" PLUS the attitude of "and anyone who does is stupid"
Again, the ones who chose to outcast themselves.
Is this a new direction in 4e development? Certainly. Is it a direction I like? I really don't know yet. Is this new direction anywhere near as abrasive as 3.5 was, or as an actual change to a new edition would have been? Absolutely not. Every book we have bought to date is still fully functional. So what is the big deal? If essentials products are released and you like the new direction, buy them. If not, don't, and keep playing 4e as is.
But whatever.
I'm just guessing but i don't think they'll directly get support. Mages and warpriest will probably see new powers via wizard/cleric, and the thief/slayer/knight will see new feats and utilities via rogue/fighter, but i don't think they'll release a dragon article for that has the slayer requirement. If they do come out with a new class (necromancer?), then they may release future sub-classes for it.
Thanks for the response.
My question about this -- then why even have a 'starter game' (to some degree what Essentials is) if it changes into something so much different later? Additionally, why have a game that is confined to those 10 Essential products, which, if successful, gains new players who then join a community and living game which is different than the system they bought?
Again, I'm just thinking out loud -- I'd like to see the game shift more to the Essentials, and I'd like WotC to be a bit more transparent about how they see the future of Essentials (at least the options it introduces) being supported in the future.
Yes, because it's so easy to stick around a forum when everyone calls you 'grognard' and 'stupid' for not liking what the company is producing.
No different than equating anyone liking Essentials to being an idiot.
It's really a shame considering we're witnessing such fine specimen of alpha male geniouses, but once again I fear our only hope of seeing you come up with a better argument than "if you don't agree with me you're stupid" is waiting for you to grow up, and from here it looks like we'll probably be playing 7th edition by then.
"Sadly, you're right. I'll give you that, and given your comment would be, and likely are being, considered pretty abrasive. The only difference between your approach and mine, is that you don't even wade amongst the idiots, you just stand above them. That's not an insult, by any means, just an observation."
"Trust me, my anger and agression is proof of my humility, that I even waste my time thinking that a few people won't be idiots. It's just seen as arrogance by idiots because they don't want to be called something they've rightly earned."
"As for my quotations, you're wrong, but thank you for speculating on your own. I'd tell you why I actually do it, and it is a bit obsessive-compulsive... I juggle a lot of mental disorders... However, I really don't want to give anyone else who can read this a straight answer. I find that watching them flail about over it, and call foul when I call them on their stupidity, is the only pleasure I get from these futile appeals to higher intelligence."
"I can come at an argument several different ways, and see things extremely complexly. Not to mention change my mind a little or completely in seconds, which most people take to maean my arguments are contradictory. They have a unified idea, it's just that you're only reading what you want to try to support your arguments."
This whole debate about your intelligence level as compared to the "idiots" who disagree with you is just annoying and irrelevant. I've seen nothing from your posts that would indicate a higher than average intelligence quotient. That isn't to say you do not possess a high IQ; just that you don't come off as being brighter than any other light bulb on this board. Regardless, you can't appeal your own arguments to a higher authority of intelligence if that authority is yourself. It's like saying, "I'm right, and I know I'm right because I'm always right." And seeing as you are not the grand arbiter of what makes one intelligent (and the fact that what makes one intelligent and how many different categories of intelligence exist are both quandaries that are still hotly debated in modern science), no one here should be expected to hold your opinions to a higher standard based on anything other than the demonstrable merit of your arguments.
If you see those who disagree with you as beings who possess a lower intelligence level than yourself, then why is it that you and I disagree about pretty much everything related to Essentials, yet I was easily able to figure out why you use quotes when you type? (I pointed out that your quote usage was because of OCD in a reply to you several weeks ago if you do not remember). I must possess a degree of intelligence at least on par with that of yours since your mysterious quote phenomenon seems to be one of the ways you arbitrarily decide who is and is not intelligent.
In summation, get off your high horse and just discuss this like a normal human being. Because that is what you are.
Sure, a little honesty would've been nice, but do you REALLY expect a bunch of capitalists trying to get your money to be straight with you? The whole POINT of merchandising is lying to make your product look better; downplaying or ignoring its flaws and emphasizing its strengths! So really, respect for consumers is a pretty ridiculous notion, considering they are compelled by every pillar of our society to make a profit, and profit by its very nature is ripping people off. Respect doesn't really factor into the equation.
Wow. Do you expect to be ripped off every time you buy something?
"As for my quotations, you're wrong, but thank you for speculating on your own. I'd tell you why I actually do it, and it is a bit obsessive-compulsive... I juggle a lot of mental disorders... However, I really don't want to give anyone else who can read this a straight answer. I find that watching them flail about over it, and call foul when I call them on their stupidity, is the only pleasure I get from these futile appeals to higher intelligence."
As a small side note, I think I speak for the vast majority of people when I say that I honestly couldn't care less about why you do that. It's simply annoying - if you didn't sport that sig, probably most people would question you simply because it looks weird.
However, your sig is completely explanatory on the topic. Some people stand out simply with the strength of their words. For those who don't there's always extravagant formatting
.
If you see those who disagree with you as beings who possess a lower intelligence level than yourself, then why is it that you and I disagree about pretty much everything related to Essentials, yet I was easily able to figure out why you use quotes when you type? (I pointed out that your quote usage was because of OCD in a reply to you several weeks ago if you do not remember). I must possess a degree of intelligence at least on par with that of yours since your mysterious quote phenomenon seems to be one of the ways you arbitrarily decide who is and is not intelligent.
In summation, get off your high horse and just discuss this like a normal human being. Because that is what you are.
This is dangeously close to becoming an ad hominem, so it's my last message on the topic, but to my absolutely average and probably sub-par (female level?) brain those quotations seem just like the forum equivalent of a kid painting his fingernails because nobody would notice it otherwise. It's a fairly explicit plea for attention, as confirmed by the poster himself.
If you see those who disagree with you as beings who possess a lower intelligence level than yourself, then why is it that you and I disagree about pretty much everything related to Essentials, yet I was easily able to figure out why you use quotes when you type? (I pointed out that your quote usage was because of OCD in a reply to you several weeks ago if you do not remember). I must possess a degree of intelligence at least on par with that of yours since your mysterious quote phenomenon seems to be one of the ways you arbitrarily decide who is and is not intelligent.
In summation, get off your high horse and just discuss this like a normal human being. Because that is what you are.
This is dangeously close to becoming an ad hominem, so it's my last message on the topic, but to my absolutely average and probably sub-par (female level?) brain those quotations seem just like the forum equivalent of a kid painting his fingernails because nobody would notice it otherwise. It's a fairly explicit plea for attention, as confirmed by the poster himself.
It was actually a reverse ad hominem. Since Ryuka seems to think he/she/it is correct based on her belief that she is more intelligent than most who post here, I was simply pointing out that he/she/it does not display any qualities that seem to indicate this supposed higher intelligence level. Ryuka was the one who used the ad hominem on itself. I only pointed this out because it is annoying for anyone, regardless of any slight IQ differences perceived by either side, to be told their opinion is wrong because they are stupid.
I'm not even saying Ryuka is not intelligent; just that being intelligent has no relevance here. Intelligent people make bad decisions every day, and are never correct about everything.
"Sadly, you're right. I'll give you that, and given your comment would be, and likely are being, considered pretty abrasive. The only difference between your approach and mine, is that you don't even wade amongst the idiots, you just stand above them. That's not an insult, by any means, just an observation."
"Trust me, my anger and agression is proof of my humility, that I even waste my time thinking that a few people won't be idiots. It's just seen as arrogance by idiots because they don't want to be called something they've rightly earned."
"As for my quotations, you're wrong, but thank you for speculating on your own. I'd tell you why I actually do it, and it is a bit obsessive-compulsive... I juggle a lot of mental disorders... However, I really don't want to give anyone else who can read this a straight answer. I find that watching them flail about over it, and call foul when I call them on their stupidity, is the only pleasure I get from these futile appeals to higher intelligence."
"I can come at an argument several different ways, and see things extremely complexly. Not to mention change my mind a little or completely in seconds, which most people take to maean my arguments are contradictory. They have a unified idea, it's just that you're only reading what you want to try to support your arguments."
This whole debate about your intelligence level as compared to the "idiots" who disagree with you is just annoying and irrelevant. I've seen nothing from your posts that would indicate a higher than average intelligence quotient. That isn't to say you do not possess a high IQ; just that you don't come off as being brighter than any other light bulb on this board. Regardless, you can't appeal your own arguments to a higher authority of intelligence if that authority is yourself. It's like saying, "I'm right, and I know I'm right because I'm always right." And seeing as you are not the grand arbiter of what makes one intelligent (and the fact that what makes one intelligent and how many different categories of intelligence exist are both quandaries that are still hotly debated in modern science), no one here should be expected to hold your opinions to a higher standard based on anything other than the demonstrable merit of your arguments.
If you see those who disagree with you as beings who possess a lower intelligence level than yourself, then why is it that you and I disagree about pretty much everything related to Essentials, yet I was easily able to figure out why you use quotes when you type? (I pointed out that your quote usage was because of OCD in a reply to you several weeks ago if you do not remember). I must possess a degree of intelligence at least on par with that of yours since your mysterious quote phenomenon seems to be one of the ways you arbitrarily decide who is and is not intelligent.
In summation, get off your high horse and just discuss this like a normal human being. Because that is what you are.
"I don't remember you... I don't frequent these boards and I tend to try to forget my visits to most internet forums. However, yet again, why I do it in the first place hasn't been addressed, only that it is perpetuated by compulsion."
"Also, don't take my agreeing with certain of his behaviors, to mean I agree with him. Just that I can respect the disdain with which he treats other people. No, I haven't really spoken intelligently, I don't to people who don't earn that level of respect first. Even to my friends, I can be condescending when they earn it, however, they know why I do it, and benefit from it."
"Either way, I have philosophical compulsion to try to appeal to people... I'm done."
It turns out that my tongue-in-cheek guess wasn't too far off the mark after all:
I think everything s/he types is in quotation marks because s/he is typing "in character." ;)
A cursory sift through Ryuka's posts yielded this, typed by Ryuka almost two years ago in another thread:
"As per your question about my quotes, since you asked politely, it's because I write and roleplay often, so I do it as a force of habit. I can't really stop myself, because I do it automatically now, it makes more sense when I am typing actions along with my speech," he nods. "Like so."
No offense, Ryuka, but it might save you a lot of confrontation, thus leading to more fruitful discussion, if you changed your signature line to something more like the above quote instead of the one you presently sport, which positively drips with disdain...
I also find it a little ironic that Essentials is being defended on the same grounds as other new editions. Oh, 'grognards' are just upset because it's 'change.' 'Move on...'
There's a pattern to RPG publishing, particularly RPGs with strong name recognition and kludgy mechanics. The game comes out. It doesn't cover much, and it's rough, but new suplements come out that make it better, then more suplements that make it a little hard for the GM to keep on top of, then /more/ suplements that start to really damage what game balance there may have been. Then a new ed comes out, there's resistance, but it's cleaner, better balanced, and more playable. It's embraced, but, y'know, it has rough spots and it doesn't cover that much, so there are suplements....
It's like a product life cycle. A new ed of an RPG starts out balanced, playable, and sparse, and eventually become bloated, imbalanced, and playable only by the most devoted powergamers (who scream bloody murder when the rev cycles).
Essentials is /not/ just another turn of this cycle. For the first time, the devoted fans of the old edition have been numerous and loud enough to get the new edition to reverse some of it's changes.
Telling people who don't like that to be quiet and give it a chance, and 'you just don't like change' is rediculous. Whining and bitching made Essentials happen. If you don't like it, there's a clear prescription to get rid of it: whine and bitch about it - and don't buy it. Keep ostentatiously playing "no Essentials" 4e games, especially at conventions. It worked for the guys that balked at 4e.
I'm just guessing but i don't think they'll directly get support. Mages and warpriest will probably see new powers via wizard/cleric, and the thief/slayer/knight will see new feats and utilities via rogue/fighter, but i don't think they'll release a dragon article for that has the slayer requirement. If they do come out with a new class (necromancer?), then they may release future sub-classes for it.
Thanks for the response.
My question about this -- then why even have a 'starter game' (to some degree what Essentials is) if it changes into something so much different later? Additionally, why have a game that is confined to those 10 Essential products, which, if successful, gains new players who then join a community and living game which is different than the system they bought?
Again, I'm just thinking out loud -- I'd like to see the game shift more to the Essentials, and I'd like WotC to be a bit more transparent about how they see the future of Essentials (at least the options it introduces) being supported in the future.
First, the rules arn't significantly different. It's the same rules, they just get simplier, more straight forward powers/classes.
You also don't want to overwhelm the newbies, so it makes sense to keep essential options lilmited. Get a class, a choice of 2 out of 3 powers (insdead of 2 out of 20), and some preselected features as you level.
They also said (at gen-con) when people "graduate" from essentials, they'll "go pro" and join the rest of the players. So i don't see any limit on how many options or support other classes get, just the intro classes.
At the core, you have a game with six stats, races, classes, items, spells and a set of polyhedral dice. Each edition did a different take on those basics.
I'm bringing all this up because I'm watching the fan base splinter again and again and again because the game people like to play changes on them and instead of people amicably deciding to 'live and let live', it turns into 'my version's better because of X'. I jumped ship when 4th edition came out. Not because I thought the rules were crap, but because I didn't feel like they represented what I felt was D&D. I believe they are an excellent rules system, just as I believe Worlds of Darkness' system is excellent for their game. But I don't have interest in playing them, so I don't.
So, go, play what you like and stop arguing about it.
And 2nd edition wasn't 'signficantly' different than 1st, 3rd different than 2nd, 3.5 different than 3.0 and 4.0 different than 3.5.
At the core, you have a game with six stats, races, classes, items, spells and a set of polyhedral dice. Each edition did a different take on those basics.
I'm bringing all this up because I'm watching the fan base splinter again and again and again because the game people like to play changes on them and instead of people amicably deciding to 'live and let live', it turns into 'my version's better because of X'. I jumped ship when 4th edition came out. Not because I thought the rules were crap, but because I didn't feel like they represented what I felt was D&D. I believe they are an excellent rules system, just as I believe Worlds of Darkness' system is excellent for their game. But I don't have interest in playing them, so I don't.
So, go, play what you like and stop arguing about it.
Probably the smartest thing anyone has said on these forums in a while...
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
It's like a product life cycle. A new ed of an RPG starts out balanced, playable, and sparse, and eventually become bloated, imbalanced, and playable only by the most devoted powergamers (who scream bloody murder when the rev cycles).
Essentials is /not/ just another turn of this cycle. For the first time, the devoted fans of the old edition have been numerous and loud enough to get the new edition to reverse some of it's changes.
I think your analysis is off, this time.
Old fans have nothing to do with essentials, and there's no reversing whatsoever. I don't know if you have seen the Essential classes in full, but my educated guess is that a tiny fraction of the 4e community will use those classes. They're an incredibly explicit downgrade; the only "hardcore" players I can see switching to them are either powergamers (a non-derogatory term in my eyes, btw) who are attracted by some powerful or exploitable mechanic or pure roleplayers who will appreciate the simplicity.
Everyone else will do what WotC keeps repeating everywhere: upgrade or just stick to core 4e classes. You don't go from a class with 80 or 100 different powers to choose from to one with 10. Unless you're craving for semplification, Essentials seem to be exactly what they're advertised at: a simplified version of the game.
Essentials is /not/ just another turn of this cycle. For the first time, the devoted fans of the old edition have been numerous and loud enough to get the new edition to reverse some of it's changes.
Telling people who don't like that to be quiet and give it a chance, and 'you just don't like change' is rediculous. Whining and bitching made Essentials happen. If you don't like it, there's a clear prescription to get rid of it: whine and bitch about it - and don't buy it. Keep ostentatiously playing "no Essentials" 4e games, especially at conventions. It worked for the guys that balked at 4e.
I don't agree that this is what happened, but since you do, let me pose a question to you. What exactly is changing that was caused by the whining of previous edition grognards? And when I say changing, I don't mean new options; I mean actual rule changes that cause the game to work less like 4E and more like 3.X. I make this distinction because the only parts of Essentials I can see that look more old-school are the optional martial builds and the optional treasure distribution system.
The only thing I can see to back your claim up is the magic missile change. And if that is the one thing that these screaming grognards were able to change, then that's not only a tad pathetic, but statistically insignificant to a theory which aims to prove that the grognards are indeed causing changes.
I would classify myself as "apprehensive" about the Essentials line.
I just think that WotC is being a little too slick about the whole endeavor and there’s a bit of a feeling that I’m getting hustled. If the whole 4e system is being tweaked because they think the new version is better, just come out and say it. Of course we can keep using the old rules, just like we can use house rules, because that’s been their mantra ever since 4e came out. All of a sudden, however, they’re acting as though it’s a brand new “feature” of Essentials. Just because they’ve learned some valuable lessons about how to integrate a new system from the rocky, brute force transitions to 3.5 and 4e doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fundamentally different approach to D&D that will be the norm from now on. Something about a pig in make-up and all that.
Here's the deal: Wizards is listening to us, and they did ask us what we wanted. They send out surveys all the time, they talk to people at conventions, they have several groups of playtesters constantly sending feedback, they read the forums and post on them from time to time, etc. And it's working, because a whole lot of us are really looking forward to everything that's coming out.
Other than this post, I haven’t seen anyone outside of the Wizards staff who is “really looking forward” to Essentials. Everyone seems to be split between the “opposed” and “undisturbed” camps. That doesn’t sound like the stuff products designed by fan feedback are made of. Sure they have surveys and playtesters, but that’s to make sure that the new design is a.) acceptable to the current players and b.) not broken. Essentials is the next stage after Encounters in Wizards’ ongoing campaign to bring in new, casual players. Classes based around assuming a certain stance and then making a basic attack? That just feels dumbed down in comparison to using unique powers. Not a huge difference, but just a little bit simpler.
All of the changes follow the same model. No attack roll for magic missile? That’s how someone who hasn’t played since the 80’s remembers it. No matter how excited the developers get in their articles and podcasts – and some of the pitches have been WAY more enthusiastic than the material would warrant – this was a pure business decision.
"Congratualtions, whomever made these decisions, you succeeded on your Bluff check. Except, now, even if somehow the damage is mitigated, the trust has been damaged.
You mean we'll FINALLY see someone speak in less than glowing terms about WotC? It's the dawning of a new era: RPGers will be brave enough to not blindly play only the current edition of D&D: they will try new games, or just play with their older books. Oh glorious day, this day when gamers threw off the stuffy straightjacket of conformity and politeness and asserted their opinions for the first time ever! A brave new world awaits!
Other than this post, I haven’t seen anyone outside of the Wizards staff who is “really looking forward” to Essentials. Everyone seems to be split between the “opposed” and “undisturbed” camps. That doesn’t sound like the stuff products designed by fan feedback are made of. Sure they have surveys and playtesters, but that’s to make sure that the new design is a.) acceptable to the current players and b.) not broken. Essentials is the next stage after Encounters in Wizards’ ongoing campaign to bring in new, casual players. Classes based around assuming a certain stance and then making a basic attack? That just feels dumbed down in comparison to using unique powers. Not a huge difference, but just a little bit simpler.
That's because the people on the forums arn't the target audiance. We're already playing, we don't need simple classes to introduce us into it. In fact, we're all pretty big fans of how things are, else we wouldn't be on the forums talking about it.
The forums are a strongly biased place.
And i have seen people excited about it here. Not for themselves, but for friends, or realitives, who they want to join in the fun. In fact, i would rate the repsonses as
25%: OMG WFT, don't change my game!
50%: meh, i'll just update the CB and check out the new feats
25%: Awsome, i'm gunna buy it for my (person who's never played before).
Note that the first group is the most vocal, but there's really only 8 or so seperate posters.
Other than this post, I haven’t seen anyone outside of the Wizards staff who is “really looking forward” to Essentials. Everyone seems to be split between the “opposed” and “undisturbed” camps.
That's strange because I've actually noticed more support for it than negativity. I don't know if you frequent any other D&D forums, but this one is by far the one with the most people against Essentials. And I would venture to say that in my estimation there are still just as many supporters posting here as non-supporters. It's just that being the official site paints a big, red target for grognards and trolls who want to swing by and stir the pot after getting all their info about Essentials from like-minded folk who are just posting their own fears and assumptions as fact.
It's the same reason why you see protests on the news where angry mobs are demanding more censorship on TV or lower taxes for the rich, but you never see huge groups of people gathered outside the White House just to say, "We like what you're doing. Keep it up." If the Essentials were being covered on Fox News, Glenn Beck would be telling us, "Wake up, America! WotC is pulling the wool over your eyes with socialized gaming, and it's called Essentials. Protests are breaking out all over the nation and it's becoming more and more obvious every day that we as a nation reject Essentials and everything it stands for!"
25%: OMG WFT, don't change my game!
50%: meh, i'll just update the CB and check out the new feats
25%: Awsome, i'm gunna buy it for my (person who's never played before).
As much as I know you're numbers are just as made up as mine, I'd imagine its really like this:
25%: OMG WFT, don't change my game!
60%: meh, i'll just update the CB and check out the new feats
10%: Awsome, i'm gunna buy it for my (person who's never played before).
05%: New player reads it, understands it or has a desire to buy it themselves.
I'd figure most people who play, either have already taught the game to their friends, in a RAW or houserules version, or have already made the decision it's just not worth it. If they have, this may get them to relook, but only if they are willing to risk buying the essentials to see.
As for the folks who just happen to buy it themselves (not D&D in general but this specific version of D&D) because of the new design, package and maybe some reference they read, I expect this number to be very small.
Again, guesswork at best.
And I would venture to say that in my estimation there are still just as many supporters posting here as non-supporters.
I'm not considering the "meh, what's the big deal?" crowd as supporters. Nor the people bashing on the haters for being reactionaries. That leaves, by a couple reasonable estimates, about 15-25% of the paying customers who think it's a really good idea and 0% who think it actually improves the game.
It's great that they want to make the game more accessible to more people, but there's going to be a price. That mentality is going to permeate all of the new material from now on, for better or worse.
Though i do expect alot of people to pick up the rules compendium. Being able to look up the interaction between insubstantial and resist in one book rather then looking though 2 seems like a pretty good benifit.
Rules Compendium + CB = Full game.
That mentality is going to permeate all of the new material from now on, for better or worse.
That's the line that's been taken out of context and gotten most people upset. But after essentials their going back to printing more PoHB's.
PoHShadowsB is next. It's just going to be a bit shorter, cheaper, and more focused then the other PHB's.
"Congratualtions, whomever made these decisions, you succeeded on your Bluff check. Except, now, even if somehow the damage is mitigated, the trust has been damaged.
You mean we'll FINALLY see someone speak in less than glowing terms about WotC? It's the dawning of a new era: RPGers will be brave enough to not blindly play only the current edition of D&D: they will try new games, or just play with their older books. Oh glorious day, this day when gamers threw off the stuffy straightjacket of conformity and politeness and asserted their opinions for the first time ever! A brave new world awaits!
A lot of us already play/played other RPGs. If anything I played other RPGs more during 3E/3.5 then 4E. I played WFRP and Shadowrun plus I dabbled in GURPS and White Wolf. 4E feels like a more complete game to me and I don't stray outside of it too much. I am looking to play in a V:tR game if I can find one but I generally stick with D&D nowadays.
To say maybe now people will stop playing WotC games unquestioningly is a little demeaning. From what I understand non-D&D players always considered D&D a hack-and-slash non-RPG and it has nothing to do with which edition its in. I personally disagree with this as roleplaying isn't reliant on system, but on the mindset of the group you play in.
Other than this post, I haven’t seen anyone outside of the Wizards staff who is “really looking forward” to Essentials.
Really? I've mentioned my own excitement for it several times on this forum, including the early pages of this very thread.
Like someone else said: this discussion board has by far the most negativity towards Essentials of any of the half-dozen D&D/gaming fora I frequent. Lots of people are excited about it, and I really do get the impression that the haters are just a very vocal and vitriolic minority.
Other than this post, I haven’t seen anyone outside of the Wizards staff who is “really looking forward” to Essentials. Everyone seems to be split between the “opposed” and “undisturbed” camps.
I am really looking forward to Essentials. It is exactly what I need to run a game for my group which includes some 3e veterans, but some people who haven't played since 2e or even 1e. Some of them are people who never played before 4e. And many of them find the "everyone gets powers" system to be annoying.
There, now you have. One more for your list.
If the Essentials were being covered on Fox News, Glenn Beck would be telling us, "Wake up, America! WotC is pulling the wool over your eyes with socialized gaming, and it's called Essentials. Protests are breaking out all over the nation and it's becoming more and more obvious every day that we as a nation reject Essentials and everything it stands for!"
Oh, Glenn Beck...
That's a pretty accurate analogy, though.
They also managed to maintain the stance of "Class A, G and L are Role one. Class B, M, and V are Role two . . . etc." The last Ampersand (which is free-for-all) article, listed one of the new fighter builds as a striker. Rather than keeping things simple, I fear that this will complicate things, and confuse potential new players.
I hope to be wrong. I hope the Essentials line does well and we get a flood of new gamers into our hobby. I reserve judgement.
Old fans have nothing to do with essentials, and there's no reversing whatsoever.
I guess the clearest example is Magic Missle, which was explicitly changed to be more like the classic version. But, the more telling example is in the Essentials Classes. The Mage is a bit more like the old wizard. The martial classes are reduced to basic-attack spamming, with a little customization, very much like a 3.x fighter, who just attacked all the time, maybe adjusting AC with Expertise or damage with Power Attack, or Tripping now or then.
So, yeah, 4e was a radical change, there was a powerful reactionary response to that change, and they're starting to roll 'em back, just a bit. Maybe even hoping they can roll back, re-trench a bit, and sell the returning lapsed players on the 4e paradigm once they've tried it.
Essentials is /not/ just another turn of this cycle. For the first time, the devoted fans of the old edition have been numerous and loud enough to get the new edition to reverse some of it's changes.
Telling people who don't like that to be quiet and give it a chance, and 'you just don't like change' is rediculous. Whining and bitching made Essentials happen. If you don't like it, there's a clear prescription to get rid of it: whine and bitch about it - and don't buy it. Keep ostentatiously playing "no Essentials" 4e games, especially at conventions. It worked for the guys that balked at 4e.
I don't agree that this is what happened, but since you do, let me pose a question to you. What exactly is changing that was caused by the whining of previous edition grognards? And when I say changing, I don't mean new options; I mean actual rule changes that cause the game to work less like 4E and more like 3.X.
Adding options /is/ changing a game. The post-Divine Power Paladin, for instance, was quite a bit different than the pre-Divine Power one, because the class got a lot of new options that made it better, not because they changed much of the class.
The 4e holdouts were irate that the wizard was 'nerfed,' didn't have schools anymore, had to roll to hit with all his spells. Courtesy of Essentials, the Mage gets a free spell that he doesn't have to roll to hit with, the schools are back, and the Wizard's encounter powers are getting upgraded. They complained that the Fighter shouldn't have powers, and now the new Fighter builds use all basic attacks. They hated surges and the very idea of a warlord healing - no action on that yet.
They're hardly getting everything they wanted - they /really/ wanted 4e shelved and a return to 3.5 - but they're getting a little of it, and, if it gets some of them to return, they may well get more. Conversely, once they've finally tried 4e, they might start to realize it's really not that bad, and stop complaining so much. (Hey, I'm trying to be optimistic, it's not easy for me.)
The edition wars are very much back, gentlemen. If you are not keeping up, not prepared to throw away what you liked, then its the grinder for you and game over.
The idea of a sign over a table that says "4th edition - Non Essentials" really does give me some satisfaction. It can take a spot next to the 3.5 table and the Pathfinder table.
We who fell in the edition wars open our arms to those who are about to be turned upon and kicked out in this latest round of fighting. We, the damned, await more with whom to share our disenfranchise misery.
Unless, at last, you finally stand up to this and speak out.
I somehow suspect it is easier to deny and destroy those who were your brothers, as happened before.
Old fans have nothing to do with essentials, and there's no reversing whatsoever.
I guess the clearest example is Magic Missle, which was explicitly changed to be more like the classic version. But, the more telling example is in the Essentials Classes. The Mage is a bit more like the old wizard. The martial classes are reduced to basic-attack spamming, with a little customization, very much like a 3.x fighter, who just attacked all the time, maybe adjusting AC with Expertise or damage with Power Attack, or Tripping now or then.
So, yeah, 4e was a radical change, there was a powerful reactionary response to that change, and they're starting to roll 'em back, just a bit. Maybe even hoping they can roll back, re-trench a bit, and sell the returning lapsed players on the 4e paradigm once they've tried it.
Now THIS analysis is correct, but I think your interpretation is exceedingly negative.
I think that what happened is simply that WotC realized how flexible the 4e system was, and the benefits of its modularity, and saw the chance to radically change their product policy.
The new 4e format could live next to a reinterpretation format, safely. Adding "old style" classes came at no harm for the system itself. While some changes will be rolled into the system (but you could argue that the decision to revert to the old Magic Missile format can be seen as an indipendent "errata" from Essentials), the vast majority of the Essential content can be ignored (and I know me and my group mostly will, because I saw where the Essential classes aim to go and we think the 4e format is a lot more complete).
I think the Essential line isn't WotC going back to an older format; it's simply the realization that the two formats aren't as mutually exclusive as the new one and 3.5 were (as was demonstrated by the Tome of Battle).
Much like a grinder, it attracts new players by crushing up some of the old ones and eradicating them. It's doing it quickly too, an efficient machine, though some would say it is getting faster as time goes on....ever hungry for new blood.
The edition wars are very much back, gentlemen. If you are not keeping up, not prepared to throw away what you liked, then its the grinder for you and game over.
The idea of a sign over a table that says "4th edition - Non Essentials" really does give me some satisfaction. It can take a spot next to the 3.5 table and the Pathfinder table.
We who fell in the edition wars open our arms to those who are about to be turned upon and kicked out in this latest round of fighting. We, the damned, await more with whom to share our disenfranchise misery.
Unless, at last, you finally stand up to this and speak out.
I somehow suspect it is easier to deny and destroy those who were your brothers, as happened before.
This forum needs a function to trigger violins in the background.
I'll paint you a different scenario: a table where people is playing 4e, where the Essential books will be sitting along the other manuals, and nobody plays an Essential class. Mine will look like that.
Nobody will be grinded. Nobody will be phased out. Nobody will be killed.
Some drama queens will suicide, but there's little we can do about it. It happens every time a new product is announced.
Though i note that the old rules are being changed to fit with essentials....it isnt backwards compatible if that needs to happen (Melee training).
So, if this is the case, they are not two piles of books, but one. With the old ones being mangled and altered to suit the new. I dont like the sound of that at all.
Much like a grinder, it attracts new players by crushing up some of the old ones and eradicating them. It's doing it quickly too, an efficient machine, though some would say it is getting faster as time goes on....ever hungry for new blood.
The edition wars are very much back, gentlemen. If you are not keeping up, not prepared to throw away what you liked, then its the grinder for you and game over.
The idea of a sign over a table that says "4th edition - Non Essentials" really does give me some satisfaction. It can take a spot next to the 3.5 table and the Pathfinder table.
We who fell in the edition wars open our arms to those who are about to be turned upon and kicked out in this latest round of fighting. We, the damned, await more with whom to share our disenfranchise misery.
Unless, at last, you finally stand up to this and speak out.
I somehow suspect it is easier to deny and destroy those who were your brothers, as happened before.
I think you're being a touch melodramatic about this product, let alone the game itself.
Honestly it seems what can't be "ignored" anymore is people overreacting about a game. There is way to much energy being wasted putting a "Oh my God The sky is falling" or "Essentials is ruining X setting." Personally, I suggest several people take a step back, take a deep breath, and rethink how much time they are spending with this game/hobby.
Awesome, now we have two disgrunted dudes posting poems on a forum dedicated to a game they don't like and throwing insults around and singing about how awesomely intelligent they are.
Well, I wasn't specifically bragging that I was intelligent, I was more just agreeing that most people are idiots. I mean, they voted Bush in twice, and people all over the world are willing to kill each other over which old, dusty book they like better, and over little pieces of paper that only have value because we think they do.
I wasn't specifically calling anyone stupid, though. I don't think there would be many idiots playing a game that involves heavy use of mathematics, so other than just the aura of anonymity that prompts people to be uncharacteristically belligerent online, I don't think anyone here is lacking in any higher functions.
And I realize that people are going to disagree with what I say. They almost always do. But I don't think that means they're stupid, just that I have a unique way of thinking about things that most people don't share. For example, I don't know anyone else who objected to Gram staining experiments in Biology on moral grounds because they caused the unnecessary death of microorganisms. I'm not saying that I'm always right, because I'm often wrong, and I personally don't have anything against essentials (the future things with all the cards seem kind of dumb though).
Oh, and I guess I should've been clearer about the female thing. I wasn't claiming that women are stupid, I was just pointing out the fact that men have, on average, higher I.Q.s than men, and intelligent women (I assume) generally wouldn't be as condescending about it as a man would.
At least not to your face.
Wow. Do you expect to be ripped off every time you buy something?
Well, this is off-topic, but yes, that's the entire point of capitalism, and economics in general. The fact that "making a profit" means "getting more money than you spend" is something everyone knows and accepts as correct, because most people just don't bother to think about it very closely (not saying they're stupid, just saying it's human nature to gloss over inconvenient details).
But if you do, you basically see that "Profit" is essentially synonymous with "cheating" simply because it involves buying things for a certain price (or "worth") and then selling them for more than "what they're worth". Then when dealing with employees, employers almost invariably have to pay their employees far less than their labor is actually worth, otherwise they won't "turn a profit".
Of course "worth" is relative, since, like I said, it's all just little pieces of paper which are actually completely worthless, and the system has just tricked us all into thinking they have some objective value, when they're really nothing more than a symbol of our work (which is undervalued).
So, yeah...
"Also, don't take my agreeing with certain of his behaviors, to mean I agree with him. Just that I can respect the disdain with which he treats other people. No, I haven't really spoken intelligently, I don't to people who don't earn that level of respect first. Even to my friends, I can be condescending when they earn it, however, they know why I do it, and benefit from it."
Well, I wouldn't say I treat others with disdain, usuallly. I generally try to be polite unless for some reason I feel like soap-boxing (which was pretty much what that last post was). It's just sometimes I feel compelled to say something inflamatory, since everyone always just ignores me otherwise...
>_>
<_<
So, uh... anyway, on topic. Yeah, the whole debate about essentials is ultimately pointless foaming at the mouth. WotC isn't going to pull them off the shelves because a bunch of people rant about them, and ultimately most of the changes are for the better (so far). Yeah, like I said, it's pretty much the beginning of a gradual shift into 4.5 edition, but it seems like they learned a better way to do it that won't completely invalidate the previous edition (though I was a little leery when they compared PHB4 to "Unearthed Arcana"...)
So, ultimately, we may get a more polished game that'll work better, and it'll save us a couple extra years before the inevitable switch to 5th edition. Hell, if they keep up with this strategy, there might not be 5e, they might just keep gradually "updating" the game rules until it no longer even resembles O4e.
... Intruigingly like evolution, if you think about it.
Rich: It’s perfectly ok if, at the same table, Joe is playing a Fighter straight out of the Players Handbook, with all of the power selections that he would ordinarily have had, and Dave, sitting next to him, is playing a Slayer, out of Essentials.
Source.
So yes, both can play at the same table.
Rich: It’s perfectly ok if, at the same table, Joe is playing a Fighter straight out of the Players Handbook, with all of the power selections that he would ordinarily have had, and Dave, sitting next to him, is playing a Slayer, out of Essentials.
Source.
So yes, both can play at the same table.
Yeah, this was brought up in another forum...hell maybe this one earlier, and was completely ignored after two posts. Really annoying when they have shown that this isn't a replacement edition.
...therefore you can all but expect that the fighter will get gound into dust by errata for the sake of making the Slayer seem awesome.
Except that in it's current form if they both play at the same table, Bill the Fighter/Pitfighter(or Son of Mercy) would be pumping out about as much damage as Dave the Slayer, as well as still having all his defender tools to play with, which would make Dave feel stupid about his character choice...
...therefore you can all but expect that the fighter will get gound into dust by errata for the sake of making the Slayer seem awesome.
Quick, quick, the sky is falling, and WotC is going to cause it on purpose!!!
God these conspiracy theories are getting tired and old.
Except that in it's current form if they both play at the same table, Bill the Fighter/Pitfighter(or Son of Mercy) would be pumping out about as much damage as Dave the Slayer, as well as still having all his defender tools to play with, which would make Dave feel stupid about his character choice...
...therefore you can all but expect that the fighter will get gound into dust by errata for the sake of making the Slayer seem awesome.
Let's see that slayer build so we can compare.
Adding options /is/ changing a game. The post-Divine Power Paladin, for instance, was quite a bit different than the pre-Divine Power one, because the class got a lot of new options that made it better, not because they changed much of the class.
But those aren't the type of changes we're talking about. We're talking about actual changes on the scale of something like the PHB2's updated stealth skill rules. And so far there is nothing like that coming that we know about. People keep saying, "Here's an example: magic missile/melee training," but they aren't really giving an example; they're just using one of the only two changes we know about* to try and make it look like there are hundreds of other changes. The type of changes you're bringing up would suggest that every single 4E book has changed the edition so that we're currently at 36th Edition or something.
Feats and powers have been receiving errata since 4E came out. And some of them have been changed way more than melee training, which is one of the most mild "nerfs" ever in 4E. Magic missile is probably the most iconic D&D wizard spell ever, and yet it is currently a bland, boring, underused and underpowered spell that goes largely ignored. So what if the developers took something no one was using and found a meaningful use for it?
*Clarification: The only changes we know about that aren't considered good and necessary by even most of the Essentials haters.
The 4e holdouts were irate that the wizard was 'nerfed,' didn't have schools anymore, had to roll to hit with all his spells. Courtesy of Essentials, the Mage gets a free spell that he doesn't have to roll to hit with, the schools are back, and the Wizard's encounter powers are getting upgraded. They complained that the Fighter shouldn't have powers, and now the new Fighter builds use all basic attacks. They hated surges and the very idea of a warlord healing - no action on that yet.
Except that this isn't supported by any evidence at all. The developers have explained their reasons for making the mage and slayer the way they did, and it doesn't sync up with your assumption. What makes you think that people who don't like 4E, were happy with 3.5, and are now either still playing 3.5 or have moved on to Pathfinder are participating in some mass stealth petition to get WotC to change small parts of 4E. As if having magic missile auto-hit would be the main thing these secret 3.5 lobbyists would get pushed through first. It just doesn't make sense. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter because apparently you could just have it changed right back by whining as much as the secret people did.
Wow. Do you expect to be ripped off every time you buy something?
Well, this is off-topic, but yes, that's the entire point of capitalism, and economics in general. The fact that "making a profit" means "getting more money than you spend" is something everyone knows and accepts as correct, because most people just don't bother to think about it very closely (not saying they're stupid, just saying it's human nature to gloss over inconvenient details).
But if you do, you basically see that "Profit" is essentially synonymous with "cheating" simply because it involves buying things for a certain price (or "worth") and then selling them for more than "what they're worth". Then when dealing with employees, employers almost invariably have to pay their employees far less than their labor is actually worth, otherwise they won't "turn a profit".
Of course "worth" is relative, since, like I said, it's all just little pieces of paper which are actually completely worthless, and the system has just tricked us all into thinking they have some objective value, when they're really nothing more than a symbol of our work (which is undervalued).
So, yeah...
I would say you are assuming that this is a zero-sum game...that people cannot find value on both sides of a transaction, even though it seems you are alluding to it in your last paragraph by saying worth is relative, which I agree with.
To bring this somewhat on topic, if WotC produces a product like Essentials and customers find enough value in it to commit their limited resources towards a purchase, then both sides end up with something. WotC earns a profit and the customer has use of WotC's IP as presented in a book or other format.
If customers did not feel the products created enough value on their end, they would not buy them and WotC would be forced to make some tough decisions on the matter.
As to the employment issue, if someone feels they are undervalued, they can always attempt to negotiate or leave in pursuit of more gainful opportunities. Nothing holds them in a position other than the fact that they feel having the position in question has more value to them then either seeking another or having no position at all.
PS - I do agree with you about fiat paper currency! It is only worth what it is because we are told that is what it is worth. Its intrinsic value is nil.
Before I go, I want to give a shout-out to the weirdo who habitually misuses quotes: Buddy, when I read your posts, they look ridiculous to me. This would be forgiveable if not for your insulting signature, which is allegedly supposed to be some kind of explanation for your abuse of the English language. (Note that I called your language "English"; that's what you and I are writing in. There's no such language as "American".) Also, your arguments are ridiculous and juvenile.
How was that for a parting shot?
I would say you are assuming that this is a zero-sum game...that people cannot find value on both sides of a transaction, even though it seems you are alluding to it in your last paragraph by saying worth is relative, which I agree with.
To bring this somewhat on topic, if WotC produces a product like Essentials and customers find enough value in it to commit their limited resources towards a purchase, then both sides end up with something. WotC earns a profit and the customer has use of WotC's IP as presented in a book or other format.
If customers did not feel the products created enough value on their end, they would not buy them and WotC would be forced to make some tough decisions on the matter.
As to the employment issue, if someone feels they are undervalued, they can always attempt to negotiate or leave in pursuit of more gainful opportunities. Nothing holds them in a position other than the fact that they feel having the position in question has more value to them then either seeking another or having no position at all.
PS - I do agree with you about fiat paper currency! It is only worth what it is because we are told that is what it is worth. Its intrinsic value is nil.
Well, of course people can find enjoyment on both sides, otherwise the system wouldn't work. It's not that you can't be happy paying more for less, it's that you (really, everyone) has been indoctrinated since day 1 to be consumers, and think it's right that companies profit off them, because it's "just the way things are". So, yeah, I'm generally more or less satisfied with the books I buy, but that doesn't mean I think PHB3 was really worth 35 dollars plus tax (which is why I go to a store that gives me a 30% discount for paying cash).
As for employment, I was more speaking in general terms that employers across the board pay their workers less than their labor is really worth, because it's a built-in assumption of the system we live in. It's not necessarily the individual establishments that cheat you, it's the entire wage labor system and the top-heavy pay rates.
For example, I could be a busboy in a mailroom for a big corporation, and spend literally all day shuttling letters and files back and forth across multiple floors and rooms, while the CEO of the company basically just sits in his office, signs whatever papers come to his desk, and sits through meetings now and then (after flying to them on his personal jet, or being driven in his limo by a chauffeur). Yet, my pay rate would be lightyears below his... is that really fair? No, of course not, but we've been raised to accept it, and view it as inevitable.
Before I go, I want to give a shout-out to the weirdo who habitually misuses quotes: Buddy, when I read your posts, they look ridiculous to me. This would be forgiveable if not for your insulting signature, which is allegedly supposed to be some kind of explanation for your abuse of the English language. (Note that I called your language "English"; that's what you and I are writing in. There's no such language as "American".) Also, your arguments are ridiculous and juvenile.
I'm not in the habit of playing devil's advocate, but I really don't see why everyone is going off about the quotes thing. I mean, yeah, they're unusual and unnecessary, but people are acting as if this dude is writing everything in multicolored ciphers that make it impossible to read, or something. I mean, are quotations really that obtrusive?
.
.
.
Anyway, I'm kind of interested in this Bladesinger they're mentioning. I mean, it's almost certainly going to just be an essentialized Swordmage, but I'm wondering what exactly they have in mind. The only thing I could think of would be that they're finally going to enable them to use any weapon instead of just blades, or they're going to give support for TWF.
I play a Swordmage, so I'm just generally interested in how this turns out.
I'm not in the habit of playing devil's advocate, but I really don't see why everyone is going off about the quotes thing. I mean, yeah, they're unusual and unnecessary, but people are acting as if this dude is writing everything in multicolored ciphers that make it impossible to read, or something. I mean, are quotations really that obtrusive?
Well, if you consider quotations are conventionally used to express something you're quoting, they are. I admit the first time I read one of his messages I was thinking "who the hell is this guy quoting and when he will start saying something himself?". Then you read the sig, and understand, and decrypt. But having to ignore common language conventions is certainly disruptive.
iF i sTARTED wRITING lIKE tHIS, iT wOULD sTILL bE rEADABLE, bUT iT wOULD sTILL bE dISRUPTIVE aND i wOULD sTILL lOOK sTUPID.
iF i sTARTED wRITING lIKE tHIS, iT wOULD sTILL bE rEADABLE, bUT iT wOULD sTILL bE dISRUPTIVE aND i wOULD sTILL lOOK sTUPID.
QFT, although you don't argue stupid points, so I would be a lot less inclined to think you stupid.
Old fans have nothing to do with essentials, and there's no reversing whatsoever.
I guess the clearest example is Magic Missle, which was explicitly changed to be more like the classic version. But, the more telling example is in the Essentials Classes. The Mage is a bit more like the old wizard. The martial classes are reduced to basic-attack spamming, with a little customization, very much like a 3.x fighter, who just attacked all the time, maybe adjusting AC with Expertise or damage with Power Attack, or Tripping now or then.
So, yeah, 4e was a radical change, there was a powerful reactionary response to that change, and they're starting to roll 'em back, just a bit. Maybe even hoping they can roll back, re-trench a bit, and sell the returning lapsed players on the 4e paradigm once they've tried it.
Now THIS analysis is correct, but I think your interpretation is exceedingly negative.
Really? I was holding back. I even tried to end on an optimistic note. I'm a bitter, cynical old man: I can be a lot more negative than that. ;)
I think that what happened is simply that WotC realized how flexible the 4e system was, and the benefits of its modularity, and saw the chance to radically change their product policy.
I can picture that. It involves picturing an animated bluebird perched on Mike Mearl's shoulder as he dances through the office with Polly Anna and Pipi Longstocking... Seriously, though, that sounds more like a talking point than anything else. It uses a lot of words with positive connotations (except for 'radically change' - maybe try 'significantly enhance' or 'creatively re-define' next time), without actually saying anything more substantive than "Essentials will be different."
The new 4e format could live next to a reinterpretation format, safely. Adding "old style" classes came at no harm for the system itself.
Now you're talking about something that hasn't happened yet as if it already went swimmingly.
I think the Essential line isn't WotC going back to an older format; it's simply the realization that the two formats aren't as mutually exclusive as the new one and 3.5 were (as was demonstrated by the Tome of Battle).
Anything can be made compatible, but in the process of forcing them to work together, you can also end up making them both worse - and the combined mess /even/ worse. 3.x was an improvement to D&D, because it brought the game to levels of customizeability and simulationism never before achieved. 4e was an improvement to D&D, because it brought the game to levels of balance and playability never before achieved. It may seem like a good idea to combine them, but they're really going for mutually exclusive things.
I can picture that. It involves picturing an animated bluebird perched on Mike Mearl's shoulder as he dances through the office with Polly Anna and Pipi Longstocking... Seriously, though, that sounds more like a talking point than anything else. It uses a lot of words with positive connotations (except for 'radically change' - maybe try 'significantly enhance' or 'creatively re-define' next time), without actually saying anything more substantive than "Essentials will be different."
...
Now you're talking about something that hasn't happened yet as if it already went swimmingly.
I disagree; I don't care for what happened to Mr Mearl's bird, but I (and you, and mostly everyone who followed GenCon) have seen the Essential classes and they don't change 4e in the slightest. The game keeps working under the same principles; the rules are unchanged; in fact, I dare say that the Essential classes are so uninteresting that they will largely pass unnoticed.
Trust me, the most common reaction to the Essentials will be "that's it?". Now, I don't wanna sound too negative about Essentials - I'll buy them, I'll use some stuff, and there certainly is a part of them which will alter the way the game will play, in the same way an Errata or the PHB4 or the DMG3 would have - but people is overblowing them like it's not even funny.
Now, for a second, try to take a step back and look at the situation.
What changed with the Essentials?
We just had a discussion that fundamentally rooted down to: "Yes, everything is still compatible, but Magic Missile was changed and the PHB4 is paperback, so it's completely a new edition and 4E is dead!".
Really, what changed? What happened past normal Errata policies and the introduction of a new format for player classes? What makes the Essential classes make the edition different that didn't make the Complete Psionic Handbook make 3.5 obsolete?
What happened?
Magic Missile was changed?
But first let me clarify what I like/don't mind.
1) Rules compendium. Fine by me, it'll be nice to have everything, errata and all in one place. I hope they do issue errata for older books though. There will probably be many more minor errata to come, lets not just ignore them. So say there's a change to, flight, for example in the RC lets see this in the relevant sections of PHB,MM and DMG erratas. I suspect this will be the case.
2) Dungeon tiles. Nice. It'll be good to have base set to work from. I don't currently use them, but will be picking these up when they come out.
3) Essentials as an intro product. Fine, but not for me. Simple linear builds. Martial classes that just hit. The beauty of 4E is the modularity of it. I'm happy that i can just leave these on the storeshelf and continue my game as is.
But, I am less impressed by:
4) Paperbacks. I'm a little rough on my books, they get carted to different gaming groups, hoyed in bags with dice and pencils and boxes of cards. I'm worryied these new format books are going to look pretty battered after a year. I know my WoD paperbacks did. I'd imagine the rules comp will be one that will be handy to have at every gaming session, so should be robustly built to my mind.
4) The shape of things to come. This is less about essentials itself (as I've said I'm not that bothered about bits of it anyway, but I'm also happy to not buy them) but what they are heralding in. I understand that it's still one ruleset, that the figher can stand by the slayer. Fine.
But heroes of shadow? What's it going to look like? Linear builds? A couple of builds per class. Are these new classes going to have the same customisablity of the current class system? Six or seven power options per level? Or is it really going to be a couple of builds as we are seeing for the essentials classes, with a couple of options within those builds at some levels. The essentials classes have the advantage of being builds of existing classes. Once you want to customise your thief, you can pull powers from rogue. Necromancer wont have this support. I'd like shadow classes available in my game. But at the moment have no idea what to expect from the post essentials source book. And they ain't saying yet.
There are a couple of limited quotes everyone is using to say what they want, "baseline going forwards" is being interpreted as "onoez!!!!1! essentials forever!"
"Essentials line limited to 10 products" is being used as "after essentials things will go back to the way they were"
Neither of these is what the the respective camp are saying to my mind but there's not much info about what is happening after essentials.
The branding has changed slightly, ushered in in essentials, the format has, the philosophy has, with all the talk of more things that can be done with the class build model. It's apparent to me that there will be changes.
I'm not saying the sky is falling, but the lack of info is concerning. WOTC talk lots about how it'll all be compatable, it's the same game. Good, i wouldn't expect anything less.
But there is clearly changes too, and there's a definite lack of info on what it'll be.
My worry then, is that yes it's all modular, it's all compatable. But that future "modules" are looking like they might be something I'm a lot less interested in (at least as far as classes go).
I like buying, reading and using D&D products. But if future "class" modules aren't what I'm looking for, if they look like this new linear simple model, I'll be disappointed and will think twice about buying them even though shadow classes should be something I'm looking forward to.
I hope I'm pleasently surprised.
The game keeps working under the same principles; the rules are unchanged; in fact, I dare say that the Essential classes are so uninteresting that they will largely pass unnoticed.
Trust me, the most common reaction to the Essentials will be "that's it?". Now, I don't wanna sound too negative about Essentials - I'll buy them, I'll use some stuff, and there certainly is a part of them which will alter the way the game will play, in the same way an Errata or the PHB4 or the DMG3 would have - but people is overblowing them like it's not even funny.
I think that my reservations come not from the changes themselves but from the mentality behind them. Sure there have been rules changes and errata throughout, but this is now two "releases" in a row (counting Encounters as the first one) that have a primary focus on casual gaming.
The fact that these are builds with fewer, somewhat simpler options means that they will not significantly impact any current tables. But Hasbro is legal bound to the will of its shareholders, so if Corporate feels that bite-sized, easy to grasp rules and characters are where the money is, that's the kind of game WotC is going to trend towards in the future. Not a consiracy theory, or a claim that they're in the midst of rolling out 4.5 behind out backs, but the truth of the matter is that the success of this strategy would send the development of D&D in a direction that I would rather not see it taken in.
But if future "class" modules aren't what I'm looking for, if they look like this new linear simple model, I'll be disappointed and will think twice about buying them even though shadow classes should be something I'm looking forward to.
I hope I'm pleasently surprised.
You bring up some good disussion points and clearly get across your fears, like the one bolded above. I, of course, have no more concrete info than anyone, but I hope to allay your fears.
So far, we have seen three kinds of major departures from the original unifed class advancement table. The first was Psionics and the Augmentation mechanic. This wasn't simple or linear (Well, it might be argued as such, but there's still a lot of complexity and resource management involved).
The other two kinds we've seen in Essentials previews. One of them is the new martial builds, where it's very simple and linear. We also have Essentials builds like the Mage and new Domain Clerics. These aren't all that much simpler than the old unified advancement table. Sure, they trade some class features out at higher levels, but the complexity previewed for these classes seems just about on par with PHB1,2,&3 stuff. (I think it was even stated in a podcast that Domain encounter powers for the Cleric can be swapped out for regular cleric encounter powers from other sources.)
So only one of these alternate advancement systems could be called "simple" fairly. But the Basic Attack spamming martial classes were specifically designed to be simple. They are targeted for the new players that might get confused by all these options and "just wanna hit stuff".
My point, my shared perspective to possibly allay your fears, is that there is no evidence that Heroes of Shadow classes will be linear and simple, whatever advancement scheme they operate under. They might be standard advancement, they might be something new, but because they aren't targeted for new players (Heroes of Shadow is not an Essentials product) they will probably have a depth and complexity to them comesurate with standard or psionic classes (the two advancement schemes we currently know everything about).
Honestly it seems what can't be "ignored" anymore is people overreacting about a game. There is way to much energy being wasted putting a "Oh my God The sky is falling" or "Essentials is ruining X setting." Personally, I suggest several people take a step back, take a deep breath, and rethink how much time they are spending with this game/hobby.
This, more than anything else in this thread, needs to be repeated. I've been saying this since I started posting here.
Take a chill pill guys; it's just a game, honest. We can have a civil discussion about it on an internet message board. I know we can.
What changed with the Essentials?
We don't know, because it isn't out yet.
But, so far, every preview has shown a tendency towards 'retro' mechanics - undoing improvements that 4e brought to the table, like unifying level progression and resource-management burden for all classes.
Honestly it seems what can't be "ignored" anymore is people overreacting about a game. There is way to much energy being wasted putting a "Oh my God The sky is falling" or "Essentials is ruining X setting." Personally, I suggest several people take a step back, take a deep breath, and rethink how much time they are spending with this game/hobby.
This, more than anything else in this thread, needs to be repeated. I've been saying this since I started posting here.
Take a chill pill guys; it's just a game, honest. We can have a civil discussion about it on an internet message board. I know we can.
Agreed. If congress can do it so can we.
Wait... umm... Never mind.
"HellO evEryOne, it'S yoUr faVoRite thIef, thaX!!!"
Hows that for annoying?
My character named thaX on Slothmud typed like the following.
"HellO evEryOne, it'S yoUr faVoRite thIef, thaX!!!"
Hows that for annoying?
"wHaT aRe YoU tAlKiNg AbOuT?" "i ThInK tHe WaY yOu ArE tAlKiNg Is FiNe!"
The other two kinds we've seen in Essentials previews. One of them is the new martial builds, where it's very simple and linear. We also have Essentials builds like the Mage and new Domain Clerics. These aren't all that much simpler than the old unified advancement table. Sure, they trade some class features out at higher levels, but the complexity previewed for these classes seems just about on par with PHB1,2,&3 stuff. (I think it was even stated in a podcast that Domain encounter powers for the Cleric can be swapped out for regular cleric encounter powers from other sources.)
When he said "linear simple model", I think he means to include the new Wizard and Cleric builds as well. Yes, there are just as "complex" as core classes, but they have a paint by number feel. "What is your domain? Here are the powers for you."
Compare and contrast to the Battle Cleric, who is offered more than a few STR based powers at each level. Or the Archer Ranger, who has more than one Ranged Power to choose from as he levels up.
Certainly powers were designed for certain builds (Bane is for the Shielding Cleric and Hurling Charge is for Marauder Rangers), but that is markedly different from choosing to be a Storm Domain Warpriest and having all your encounter powers dictated to you unless you decide to swap out powers.
What changed with the Essentials?
Just as it appears you hint, nothing will really change. Prince Ardjuna the Hindaean Warlord will still use the same old rules. His companion Karak the Cleric of Kord will still use the same old rules.
If a new adventurer joins us using a build from the Essentials, it will have no more effect on us than if someone joined us with a build from one of the previous books.
When he said "linear simple model", I think he means to include the new Wizard and Cleric builds as well. Yes, there are just as "complex" as core classes, but they have a paint by number feel. "What is your domain? Here are the powers for you."
I have trouble seeing that extending beyond the "newbie friendlyness" of the essentials, and not a whole lot different then the suggested powers and feats that's been there since PHB1.
Both have the same level of customizability, it' just that in the latter, the obvious choices are explicitly handed to you instead of making you search for them. Because it's newbie friendly. However, according to the podcasts, the Storm Cleric could potentially have NO storm cleric encounter powers, if I so chose.
As for the Mage, I hear there are going to be non-swappable Utility powers. However, the Mage also get to add Encounter powers to his spellbook, unlike the vanilla Wizard. Seems like an even trade to me, but that's subjective.
I mean you could argue that even Psionics is "simple and linear" because you are "denied" the choice of what Encounter power to take, because they come pre-packaged in your At-Wills. I don't think that's a fair arguement because it's ignoring the power point resource management, and I don't think it's a fair arguement to say the Doman Cleric is "simple and linear" just because some choices are explicitly pointed out. And I don't think it's a fair argement to say the Mage is "simple and linear" because Utilities are handed to you, ignoring the increased versatility in attack powers in your Spellbook.
Also, I don't really see much of a difference between "These powers obviously belong to this build but we're not going to explicitly tell you. You're free to pick them or not." and "These are the powers that belong to this build. Here, they're yours. Or, if you want, you can pick something else."
The "new and deproved" fighter can't choose any powers at all. All of the powers don't have a level, so you are basically stuck with what you got, over and out.
Basically, essentials managed to be the first RPG rules set ever (and I played a LOT of them) that managed to show me a sword and board fighter build and I thought to myself "No I will never play that crap"
I really thought that was not possible, but hey... it's not that you sometimes learn something after 25+ years of playing those games...
think I've put my finger on it at last , what i don't like about what I see.
But first let me clarify what I like/don't mind.
1) Rules compendium. Fine by me, it'll be nice to have everything, errata and all in one place. I hope they do issue errata for older books though. There will probably be many more minor errata to come, lets not just ignore them. So say there's a change to, flight, for example in the RC lets see this in the relevant sections of PHB,MM and DMG erratas. I suspect this will be the case.
2) Dungeon tiles. Nice. It'll be good to have base set to work from. I don't currently use them, but will be picking these up when they come out.
3) Essentials as an intro product. Fine, but not for me. Simple linear builds. Martial classes that just hit. The beauty of 4E is the modularity of it. I'm happy that i can just leave these on the storeshelf and continue my game as is.
But, I am less impressed by:
4) Paperbacks. I'm a little rough on my books, they get carted to different gaming groups, hoyed in bags with dice and pencils and boxes of cards. I'm worryied these new format books are going to look pretty battered after a year. I know my WoD paperbacks did. I'd imagine the rules comp will be one that will be handy to have at every gaming session, so should be robustly built to my mind.
4) The shape of things to come. This is less about essentials itself (as I've said I'm not that bothered about bits of it anyway, but I'm also happy to not buy them) but what they are heralding in. I understand that it's still one ruleset, that the figher can stand by the slayer. Fine.
But heroes of shadow? What's it going to look like? Linear builds? A couple of builds per class. Are these new classes going to have the same customisablity of the current class system? Six or seven power options per level? Or is it really going to be a couple of builds as we are seeing for the essentials classes, with a couple of options within those builds at some levels. The essentials classes have the advantage of being builds of existing classes. Once you want to customise your thief, you can pull powers from rogue. Necromancer wont have this support. I'd like shadow classes available in my game. But at the moment have no idea what to expect from the post essentials source book. And they ain't saying yet.
There are a couple of limited quotes everyone is using to say what they want, "baseline going forwards" is being interpreted as "onoez!!!!1! essentials forever!"
"Essentials line limited to 10 products" is being used as "after essentials things will go back to the way they were"
Neither of these is what the the respective camp are saying to my mind but there's not much info about what is happening after essentials.
The branding has changed slightly, ushered in in essentials, the format has, the philosophy has, with all the talk of more things that can be done with the class build model. It's apparent to me that there will be changes.
I'm not saying the sky is falling, but the lack of info is concerning. WOTC talk lots about how it'll all be compatable, it's the same game. Good, i wouldn't expect anything less.
But there is clearly changes too, and there's a definite lack of info on what it'll be.
My worry then, is that yes it's all modular, it's all compatable. But that future "modules" are looking like they might be something I'm a lot less interested in (at least as far as classes go).
I like buying, reading and using D&D products. But if future "class" modules aren't what I'm looking for, if they look like this new linear simple model, I'll be disappointed and will think twice about buying them even though shadow classes should be something I'm looking forward to.
I hope I'm pleasently surprised.
"However, this, above, is part of my point. The other point regards the idea that they've withheld information, and they continue to withhold the information I need to make a reasonable purchasing decision. Which means, screw them, why should I buy a product which they may very well stop supporting without warning."
"They keep saying, 'You can use the old stuff...' Eventually, it reaches a point at which we stopped asking that and they keep reiterating it because they realized that the people who are pissed off, aren't pissed off about that. So, instead of lying to us outright, they just say nothing, and let us find out after the fact, that way, they can milk money from the people who don't know any better or don't want to wait and see what's going to happen. Plausible deniability though it may be, it's deceitful."
"If nothing is wrong, why not say that? Unless, saying it would be a lie. I mean, why not waylay the anger if it's as easy as telling us that we will see a PHB4 in the future, or we won't lose out on hardcovers. Why throw up this wall around their information unless they are hoping maybe they'll get a few extra profits from people who 'hope for the best' before they pull back the curtain and reveal they screwed the pooch. I mean, like you guys said, it's not like they wouldn't get a different set of players, so why not milk the ones who are going to leave for whatever money they can before kicking them to the curb."
"Think what you want otherwise, but even if that's not their intention, if the game changes drastically, and they don't tell anyone what to expect, that's what they are doing. Just because a bunch of you are okay with the changes, and so you don't care if other people are screwed for it, doesn't mean that it's okay."
"As an addendum... Once again, I don't care if you don't like my typing conventions. I also don't care if I'm insulting you, if you're insulted, it's because you know, somewhere in your mind, that I'm telling the truth, and it bothers you. If not, then nothing I say should even bother you, because it doesn't apply to you."
"Also, I might note, that many people mistake what I'm doing for caring... Yes, I care, but not about what you think of me, or anything worthless like that... I care that the world is filled with a hugely disproportionate amount of idiots, and so, it's my job to educate. The kicker is, I know most people don't want to be educated, they are PROUD of how stupid they are, which is why their stupidity is inexcusable. So, I treat them with disdain when I educate them, because if they refuse to learn from something merely because it offends them, then they don't deserve to learn from it."
"You know, someday, I need to fix my signature to say all this for me so I don't have to waste my time anymore."
"Oh, and to the 'it's just a game' crowd. That's what I think about your existence, and DnD, from a subjective point of view, is much more important than you are... A lot of people are changed by it, and it's probably older than a lot of people here, and has had more of an effect on the world. Given, this isn't me lauding how vital DnD is, just how useless most people are, or how pretty much everything can be treated as 'just a...' whatever. It's just food, it's just oxygen, it's just religion, it's just politics, it's just money... So, how about you don't tell me, or anyone else, what they should prioritize in their lives. If it's 'just a game' to you, that's nice, don't condescend people who feel it's more important to them than that..."
Also, I don't really see much of a difference between "These powers obviously belong to this build but we're not going to explicitly tell you. You're free to pick them or not." and "These are the powers that belong to this build. Here, they're yours. Or, if you want, you can pick something else."
The "new and deproved" fighter can't choose any powers at all. All of the powers don't have a level, so you are basically stuck with what you got, over and out.
Basically, essentials managed to be the first RPG rules set ever (and I played a LOT of them) that managed to show me a sword and board fighter build and I thought to myself "No I will never play that crap"
I really thought that was not possible, but hey... it's not that you sometimes learn something after 25+ years of playing those games...
Actually, I was talking about the Domain Cleric and Mage not being "simple and linear". I know the new fighter and rogue builds are "simple and linear" and my point is that WotC knows they are simple and linear and did that on purpose. You, having been playing for 25+ years, are not the target audience for the simpler martial builds. New players that sit down, and get confused with all the different powers, and just get frustrated and think"Can't I just, you know, hit stuff?", THATS who those builds are aimed at. It was a deliberate and intentional design decision to assist newbies in getting into the game.
To reiterate: I never said the new fighter wasn't simple, I said just the opposite. When I said "These are the powers that belong to this build. Here, they're yours. Or, if you want, you can pick something else.", I was speaking to the Domain Cleric.
"However, this, above, is part of my point. The other point regards the idea that they've withheld information, and they continue to withhold the information I need to make a reasonable purchasing decision. Which means, screw them, why should I buy a product which they may very well stop supporting without warning."
They are releasing previews two times a week, have put up several podcasts, gave away more info at GenCon, and have another big convention coming up in a few weeks. They still have 5 preview articles coming out this month. They aren't exactly withholding information. They may not be giving you all the information you want at the speed you wish to digest it; but that isn't something that should be expected of them. They don't even have to give us the information they have so far.
When the books come out, you should have enough information to know whether or not you want to buy them. If not, you'll be able to read reviews online or just go to the bookstore and read the books for yourself before making your purchase.
"Also, I might note, that many people mistake what I'm doing for caring... Yes, I care, but not about what you think of me, or anything worthless like that... I care that the world is filled with a hugely disproportionate amount of idiots, and so, it's my job to educate. The kicker is, I know most people don't want to be educated, they are PROUD of how stupid they are, which is why their stupidity is inexcusable. So, I treat them with disdain when I educate them, because if they refuse to learn from something merely because it offends them, then they don't deserve to learn from it."
What makes you believe you are qualified to teach anyone? On what basis do you judge who is intelligent and who is stupid? Is it sentence structure? How about whether or not one holds subjective opinions to be true facts? Or maybe claiming one's job is to educate, yet clearly not understanding that treating someone like an idiot is a terrible teaching tactic? Or, could it just be going around thinking you are correct about every single thing and that anyone who disagrees must be stupid?
You have done nothing to prove you are not a part of this "disproportionate amount" for which you hold so much disdain. If you wonder why some of us find it annoying that you separate yourself as such, it's because we've already seen a completely average person berate "stupid people" to the point of becoming a parody of himself. His name is Carlos Mencia. So come down and talk with the rest of us like a normal human being. You'll at least spend less time defending yourself and more time engaged in meaningful conversation.
It's just safer that way. Good day everybody"However, this, above, is part of my point. The other point regards the idea that they've withheld information, and they continue to withhold the information I need to make a reasonable purchasing decision. Which means, screw them, why should I buy a product which they may very well stop supporting without warning."
They are releasing previews two times a week, have put up several podcasts, gave away more info at GenCon, and have another big convention coming up in a few weeks. They still have 5 preview articles coming out this month. They aren't exactly withholding information. They may not be giving you all the information you want at the speed you wish to digest it; but that isn't something that should be expected of them. They don't even have to give us the information they have so far.
When the books come out, you should have enough information to know whether or not you want to buy them. If not, you'll be able to read reviews online or just go to the bookstore and read the books for yourself before making your purchase.
"Not the point, I'm not arguing the point with people who don't get it. Like I said, I made my peace, and the fact is, that the system, and people in general, aren't willing to be intelligent about it. Whatever."
"Also, I might note, that many people mistake what I'm doing for caring... Yes, I care, but not about what you think of me, or anything worthless like that... I care that the world is filled with a hugely disproportionate amount of idiots, and so, it's my job to educate. The kicker is, I know most people don't want to be educated, they are PROUD of how stupid they are, which is why their stupidity is inexcusable. So, I treat them with disdain when I educate them, because if they refuse to learn from something merely because it offends them, then they don't deserve to learn from it."
What makes you believe you are qualified to teach anyone? On what basis do you judge who is intelligent and who is stupid? Is it sentence structure? How about whether or not one holds subjective opinions to be true facts? Or maybe claiming one's job is to educate, yet clearly not understanding that treating someone like an idiot is a terrible teaching tactic? Or, could it just be going around thinking you are correct about every single thing and that anyone who disagrees must be stupid?
You have done nothing to prove you are not a part of this "disproportionate amount" for which you hold so much disdain. If you wonder why some of us find it annoying that you separate yourself as such, it's because we've already seen a completely average person berate "stupid people" to the point of becoming a parody of himself. His name is Carlos Mencia. So come down and talk with the rest of us like a normal human being. You'll at least spend less time defending yourself and more time engaged in meaningful conversation.
"Did you read what I said? I know it's a poor teaching method, I don't treat people I like that way. However, it is my job to TRY to teach people, and when i say that, I mean, it's everyone's job. However, more importantly, it's everyone's job to learn, and if you refuse to learn from me, because you dislike the way I treat you, GOOD! I still fulfilled my obligation, and I managed to watch ignorant people remain ignorant."
"I've tried to teach people with civility, they're still to stupid to listen. Those that aren't, are my friends, and they know that if I am kind or berating, I'm still teaching them."
"As for meaningful conversation, I have that, with my friends. Most people don't have the facilities to participate in a meaningful conversation with me, all I hear is all the arrogance, assumption, and mind-numbing drivel that spills out of their mouths (or from the keyboards). I have a policy of giving back what I've been given, so I return that arrogance to the rest of the world, because I realized that pretending that I am just one of the crowd is pointless."
"So, I'll sit up on my pedastel, because I'd rather live in misery (which I generally don't, except when I hit a low in my bipolarity) than in the stupidity of the 'normal' person. Why would I insult myself by lowering myself to other peoples' standards?"
The "new and deproved" fighter can't choose any powers at all.
Orly? So you got the box already I assume? Please give us more details then.
Orly? So you got the box already I assume? Please give us more details then.
Snarls_at_Fleas, I believe you misedited that quote. I wasn't the one to say that.
Orly? So you got the box already I assume? Please give us more details then.
Snarls_at_Fleas, I believe you misedited that quote. I wasn't the one to say that.
You are right. My apologies.
Basically, essentials managed to be the first RPG rules set ever (and I played a LOT of them) that managed to show me a sword and board fighter build and I thought to myself "No I will never play that crap"
I really thought that was not possible, but hey... it's not that you sometimes learn something after 25+ years of playing those games...
4e just spoiled you. I mean, why would you have played a Sword & Board fighter in early 2e or post-UA 1e instead of a double-specialized dual-wielding quisinart of doom?
You, having been playing for 25+ years, are not the target audience for the simpler martial builds. New players that sit down, and get confused with all the different powers, and just get frustrated and think"Can't I just, you know, hit stuff?", THATS who those builds are aimed at. It was a deliberate and intentional design decision to assist newbies in getting into the game.
AFAICT, the oldtimers who balked at a 'Fighter with powers' are exactly who these new-old 'simpler' builds are aimed at. It's just some of us oldtimers like the new stuff. I've seen both genuinely new and 'new to 4e' oldtimers try 4e for the first time, and it's invariably a subset of the grognards that can't grok powers, and end up flipping around until they find 'basic attack' printed on the card for their magic weapon, and end up using that all the time (after they spend 10 minutes confirming that there was no mistake on their hps, because you add CON, not CON bonus to them - heck, that got me the first time). They're just so used to fighters being boring that they have a mental block against options when 'stuck' playing one. New players pick up on at-will/encounter/daily right away. They don't know that it's a revolutionary change to the system, so aren't stunned by it, they just accept it.
Now, in a mixed group of genuinely new players and 4e holdouts, I'd expect the newbies to be playing the martial characters - because the grognards snapped up the casters and condescendingly suggested they play the 'easier' basic-attack spammers. So, in that sense, they're "for the new players."
Well, he was a BECMI elf for a few months before I was introduced to AD&D by a guy (longtime friend now) two grades above me who saw my character sheet fall out of my book-bag on the school bus.
The "new and deproved" fighter can't choose any powers at all.
Orly? So you got the box already I assume? Please give us more details then.
I didn't get the box, but they said it umpteen times that you can't choose any powers as a essentials fighter - besides utilities.
They just try to sell it as a bonus instead of the sad boring thing that it is :P
"Yay guess what you are allowed to switch PHB *utilities* for your fighter"
Just look at the progression table, it says everything. You basically don't have dailies and can't choose encounters.
Instead you get "class features"
But if there isn't anything as cool as "Come and Get it" I won't give the new and deproved fighter a chance.
4e just spoiled you. I mean, why would you have played a Sword & Board fighter in early 2e or post-UA 1e instead of a double-specialized dual-wielding quisinart of doom?
Well you are propably right to a certain degree. And of course I should have said "fantasy rules set" since I never wanted to play a Sword & Board fighter in Star Wars (be it d6, or one of the d20 incarnations) or in Traveller.
But DSA, GURPS, Midgard - well even basic D&D had at least somewhat appealing advantages for my fighter compared to a caster (well, mages had a much greater chance to start play with only 1 hp :D )
Even in 3.x fighters where fun at least at the beginning. While the wizard was wondering if he would release his precious spell my fighter just hacked away before the wizard finally decided to do his 1d4+1 points of magic missile damage...
But this? 4e classes are much more versatile and powerful than their counterparts in previous editions, and they basically reduced the customizability of the fighter to the 3.5 level (arguably less than that, but we don't know the feats that are released with essentials)
Ok you still have utility powers... which are sooo cool for fighters (groan)
However, we haven't seen the full 1-30 spread for the builds yet, so we don't know who's right.
Or, you could be right, the fighter is stuck with whatever he chose at 1st level and gets pidgeonholed with no more relevant choices to make above 1st level except for feats and utility powers.
If you read/listen to the interviews it's pretty clear that this is the deal. WotC guys said it several times.
However, we haven't seen the full 1-30 spread for the builds yet, so we don't know who's right.
We have seen what they get at 1-10 from the table. We don't know what their class features do, but we know what they get. And we know that you can't switch a class feature (which has no level) with a power (that has a level)
Essentials fighters are supposed to be boring. That's sorta their selling point.
I understand what you are saying but dont say boring. Boring is never a good term. Say simple instead. Simple can be good and is what you are really trying to say, at least in my oppinion.
Essentials fighters are supposed to be boring. That's sorta their selling point.
Hm... well... that's IMO the best comment I have read about that topic
Or, you could be right, the fighter is stuck with whatever he chose at 1st level and gets pidgeonholed with no more relevant choices to make above 1st level except for feats and utility powers.
If you read/listen to the interviews it's pretty clear that this is the deal. WotC guys said it several times.
I did listen to the inteviews, and I think we just have to agree to disagree on this. You're obviously interpreting their words differently than I am, and as far as speculation goes that's perfectly fine. But just for the record, I didn't hear anything that made me think that essentials fighters will have no options whatsoever within their build later on.
However, we haven't seen the full 1-30 spread for the builds yet, so we don't know who's right.
We have seen what they get at 1-10 from the table. We don't know what their class features do, but we know what they get. And we know that you can't switch a class feature (which has no level) with a power (that has a level)
If you will remember, I never said that Essentials fighters may have access to non-essetials options (other than feats and utilities). What I said was that Essentials fighters may have interesting options within their essentials builds. Because we've only seen the full description of class features at 1st level. We have a table of class features up to level 10, but we don't know what those features do.
Some of those features could very well offer you an intersting choice of options. You know, like class features that give you a choice? Like Fighter Talent being able to give you One-Handed Weapon Talent, Two-Handed Weapon Talent, Brawler Style, Battlerager Vigor, Tempest Technique, or the Arena Fighter's style from Dark Sun. It's all one class feature, but each choice within that one class feature changes a lot about how you play your fighter. And if you just went by a table "Fighter Talent" doesn't really imply much.
Who's to say that higher level Slayers don't have a class feature which is essentially "pick what kind of additional effect you want Power Strike to have"? Or "Gain an additional at-will stance power from the below list"? It's obviously not the same as having access to all those encounter and daily powers non-essentials fighters have, but that doesn't mean they can't be interesting choices. There's no evidence to say that there isn't going to be something like this.
Of course, there's nothing to say there is, either. But I'm not arguing that there IS going to be something like this, just that there CAN. Because no one has seen the builds in full, and you can't make broad statemets like "essentials fighters get no choices" off the limited information we've been given.
Essentials fighters are supposed to be boring. That's sorta their selling point.
I understand what you are saying but dont say boring. Boring is never a good term. Say simple instead. Simple can be good and is what you are really trying to say, at least in my oppinion.
I think 'boring' sums it up, though. I find the 4e archer ranger boring, for instance (I know it's a very effective build with a lot going for it, I just don't find it engaging to actually play for any length of time). It's not that it doesn't have just as many powers and options as most others, it's just that it's the simplest role, and it's powers aren't that varied, and that will get boring before a more complex structure or role does. I could see making all the Essentials classes much simpler to build, that would be helpful to knew players. But 'simpler' to play just means they won't showcase 4e's strongest points nor help new players advance along the game's learning curve.
I JUST CAN'T FIGHT THIS FEEEEELING ANYMOOOOOOORE!
And the feeling is Deja Vu?
Have you heard that one of the goals for Essentials and onward is /much less errata/....?
Sure. They wanted to do that. But since they made the same mistakes they made with 3.0, 3.5 and 4E, I am afraid that this is either wishful thinking on their part or they stop to make the game as balanced as before.