After the end of the essentials line, the production of new books have been ramped way down, so very little support is coming out for anything at all. As of you post-essentials printed support, as opposed to support from D&Di, for anything consists of two book, a tile set, and some of the fortune cards.
The books are of course Heroes of Shadow and the Shadowfell book. HoS contains many things that can be used by pre-E classes, but that is mainly do to the modular design. The content for HoS was likely set in stone before essentials finished off. Generally I like it , but it seem in some aspects a half-hearted attempt, most likely do to the format change from soft cover to hardcover pushing things out and the vampire lacking many options, like say Ki Focuses being printed in that book.
The Shadowfell book I do not have, so I do not know much about it.
D&Di has givens us reprints of several of the classes like the fighter, cleric (twice to to a SNAFU), rogue, and an erratta'd warlock. It also has the multiclass and hybrid rules for essentials and HoS classes. This was supposed to be in a book that was canceled. Also they have put out a number of useful generic themes and and a good article for the strength cleric.
As for future support, it seems anything other than D&Di is likely to be locked in for the rest of the year.
I'm casting because these two topic are not only related, but are derailing several threads to boot.
After the end of the essentials line, the production of new books have been ramped way down, so very little support is coming out for anything at all. As of you post-essentials printed support, as opposed to support from D&Di, for anything consists of two book, a tile set, and some of the fortune cards.
The books are of course Heroes of Shadow and the Shadowfell book. HoS contains many things that can be used by pre-E classes, but that is mainly do to the modular design. The content for HoS was likely set in stone before essentials finished off. Generally I like it , but it seem in some aspects a half-hearted attempt, most likely do to the format change from soft cover to hardcover pushing things out and the vampire lacking many options, like say Ki Focuses being printed in that book.
The Shadowfell book I do not have, so I do not know much about it.
D&Di has givens us reprints of several of the classes like the fighter, cleric (twice to to a SNAFU), rogue, and an erratta'd warlock. It also has the multiclass and hybrid rules for essentials and HoS classes. This was supposed to be in a book that was canceled. Also they have put out a number of useful generic themes and and a good article for the strength cleric.
As for future support, it seems anything other than D&Di is likely to be locked in for the rest of the year.
I don't really expect much change in the immediate future. They changed their strategy when they released Essentials, and it looks like they're in the midst of changing it again and that takes time. I'd expect the rest of 2011 to be quiet. For the future, I'd like to see what comes from having a better system for guest contributions to Dragon(maybe they can get Dragon back to where it used to be), for them to continue what they started with the Battle Cleric and fill in all the holes in the old classes, and to give the new classes feat and item support on par with what the older classes got from Martial/Divine/ect books and the Adventurer's Vaults, and fill out the obvious things for the new classes like giving the missing weapon options for Knights and Slayers, or Sorcerer-King and Vestige Hexblades
Regardless- the ship has sailed. Essentials is the current design philosophy. Then again- who is to say that 4th doesn't have any other new design philosophies to churn out. If it went from AEDU, to Essentials and then perhaps a hybrid of the two- I can roll with that.
Runepriests
Artificers
Seekers
Assassins (thoguh they have a class acts this month so fingers crossed)
Non-shielding Swordmages
General Epic tier stuff for the newer classes
Beastmaster ranger stuff that actually makes the beast useful.
Also needed, errata to update certain things which have been left behind by updates, such as the shielding Swordmage's damage reduction, which is not as potent as it used to be thanks to MM3 damage guidelines. There's plenty else, but it's all been gone through in great detail in the past.
As I see it, WotC has doubled down on DDI; I think they look at it as the real core of their business now, hence the book slowdown. And honestly? Since about February or March, DDI has been pretty stellar. I feel like I've gotten my money's worth out of my year subscription already, and I'm only four months into it.
I kinda liked Heroes of Shadow, even though the best class from it - the Blackguard - is sadly inappropriate for my Dark Sun game. (I did add in a Gloom Pact Hexblade and a Vampire as NPCs, but that's neither here nor there.) The Shadowfell box is an excellent, amazing product that was completely worth the purchase ... but I rather fear I won't get much use out of it.
Threats to the Nentir Vale was simultaneously a showcase of the best monster design to come out of WotC to-date, and a letdown because of the tepid Paragon support and non-existent Epic support. I also have to admit I don't like the backs of the new tokens, but that's hardly a critical failing.
If WotC can continue this same level of support, I expect I'll be a happy customer and a DDI subscriber for the near future.
I would like ongoing support for AEDU to focus on quality not quantity and I think the best home for it is DDi, with the caveat that all AEDU support should be available in the annuals (do they even still print those?) for those that prefer print products.
I don't think that's what's behind the slower pace, though. The pace has slowed, but quality hasn't improved in the new products, nor is it being maintained for the game as a whole. In fact, in both cases it's consistently slipping. DDI subscribers must apreciate the canabalization of scheduled print products to provide them with more content. I don't object to the free Dragon re-reprints on principle, for instance, though, again, they're not exactly improvements - the best ones refrain from making the classes technically worse.
As far as the support strategy going forward, Essentials should be kept as an evergreen 'on ramp,' to the game for new players, much like BECMI was back in the day. It's adequate for that, though by no means stellar, and it would be insane to whipsaw retailers by changing the vanguard product line /again/. That should remain it's only function, though. Existing core books and suplement should stay in print, and new ones should be hard bound and in the core style, building upon the game as a whole (existing print, /and/ DDI), rather than on the limitted sub-set of Essentials. Perhaps it'd make sense to organize or label future content in a way that helps direct customers to the products it builds upon - it would encourage them to subscribe to DDI, if nothing else, and I don't think WOTC could ever feel they have too many DDI subscribers providing them with a regular income stream.
1.) More support for new races, especially classic monster races such as goblin, kobold, orc, hobgoblin, etc... I can see this being a great series of Insider articles: 1 race a month with mutiple articles. One that introduces the species as a PC race, one that gives feats for the race to select, one that gives items that fit in with the race, one that gives a few optional class abilities / powers that fit in well with the race, etc...
2.) Detailed rules for interesting corner case situations that could inspire DMs for adventure ideas. As an example: An article providing rules for melee fighting while the PC and its foe are in freefall. An article that provides optional rules for naval combat. Rules for fighting in a place with no gravity. Etc...
3.) Additional coverage for classes that are underpowered or under utilized to increase their 'viability'. I'd rather raise the old up than see new stuff. This includes seeker, artificier, rune priest, etc...
4.) Take a look at all of the powers, feats, etc... in 4E that were good ideas, but were too weak to use. Improve them. Take a look at all of the feats in 5E that fall within the 'feat tax' discussions. Figure out ways to keep them from being 'no choice' decisions.
Beyond that, I just want R&D to pay attention to lessons learned, and start 5e off on the right foot, 3 or 4 years down the line. If they think the brand is best served by an "Essentials-style" on-ramp (simple to play, easy to grok, evergreen), then do it from the start. If the whole thing needs to be simple, then do it. If complexity needs to be optional, then do it. Establish a modus operandus and stick to it. Don't shift the tone midway through an edition. That just drives people crazy.
New races, or at least more monster conversions to races; while I hate kobolds and goblins, I'd like to have anyone who wants them to be viable and interesting races.
Otherwise I don't really mind, I end up doing Homebrew more than any official material anyways.
Oh, I just remembered. A monster writing book. Or rather, a single place where it explicity explained thier monster design philosophy and the proper numbers.
...
Yeah, that's all I got on the 'personal wants' level.
On the 'not for me personally but I know people who'd probably want it' level, finishing up PC writeups for the rest of the MM pseudo-playable lineup.
I would like to see support for the aforementioned classes and builds and about four AEDU classes for shadow and elemental power sources. After that, the player side of things would be pretty complete for me in 4e. New useful DM content can be churned out ad infinitum, however (monsters, settings, adventures, etc.).
Yes please..
Beyond that, I just want R&D to pay attention to lessons learned, and start 5e off on the right foot, 3 or 4 years down the line. If they think the brand is best served by an "Essentials-style" on-ramp (simple to play, easy to grok, evergreen), then do it from the start. If the whole thing needs to be simple, then do it. If complexity needs to be optional, then do it. Establish a modus operandus and stick to it. Don't shift the tone midway through an edition. That just drives people crazy.
Yes, this. I am very happy with my current collection of 4e Classic and Essentials books and materials. I have enough to run for a long time. So, for 5e to convince me to move to it, it needs to not only be better but also be consistent.
I think 4th edition could have some longevity but given the road its on I just don't see it. They need to turn things around and bring some positive momentum to the game.
Then again, it could have it and I just will never know since none of the 12 people I play with have DDI subscriptions.
Print up some books dammit!
1) More support for Psionics - geez Psions still don't get life detection or mind reading powers - both of those are basic psion abilities that should have been included in PHB3 - PSICRYSTALS! - MINDBLADES/SOULKNIVES ! - some RANGED Ardent powers! Kalashtar Atavist theme/paragon path!
2) Artificers
3) a Binder fix - I want to like the class but they are subpar to the normal Warlock - adapt the Curse ability to have them "control" instead of harming targets - give them summoning powers that last all day like the HoS wizards have
4) Dark Pact Hexblade
5) Eldritch Blast - ugh do something with this power
6) more Themes! I love them!
overall the less support has been crappy, it used to be they churned out support like nobodys buisness, playtests and the like.
i would like more support. just more, thats all i really dont care if its Essentials or Pre E i vastly want more stuff for the following classes
1. warpriest
1a. seeker
2 artificer.
3 hexblade items that ACTUALLY work for hexblades
4. warlock feats not tied to the curse mechanic
now other than that i would like books galore
my idea of the perfect 4e is 50+ classes (essentials or AEDU, i dont really care) with as much support as fighters and wizards and 100+ races with as much support as the eladrin, dragonborn or dwarf.
i highely that will ever happen, but baby step that way and im happy.
As far as the support strategy going forward, Essentials should be kept as an evergreen 'on ramp,' to the game for new players, much like BECMI was back in the day. It's adequate for that, though by no means stellar, and it would be insane to whipsaw retailers by changing the vanguard product line /again/. That should remain it's only function, though. Existing core books and suplement should stay in print, and new ones should be hard bound and in the core style, building upon the game as a whole (existing print, /and/ DDI), rather than on the limitted sub-set of Essentials. Perhaps it'd make sense to organize or label future content in a way that helps direct customers to the products it builds upon - it would encourage them to subscribe to DDI, if nothing else, and I don't think WOTC could ever feel they have too many DDI subscribers providing them with a regular income stream.
This. You should be hired as the head of D&D RPG R&D.
I would like more PC races... for example hobgoblins. I want small races can do other thing apart form being rogues..
When I bought a D&D book (I did a lot) my preference is new PC classes and races. But I want PC classes I can feel inspiration to create a story about my characters. I don´t talk about build or daily powers, but I can feel my knight, gladiator, crusader, hexblade, duskblade, swashbuckler or samurai PC has got a special taste, style of game and backgroud. (for example knight has got vows, and code of honour about challenging current strongest enemies) I want a necromancer, summoner or a elementalist character isn´t only a wizard with diferent list of spells. I don´t want Swashbuckler is only a warrior withour amour, or archivist is only a cleric withou amour.
I wish classes of inquisitor/witch hunter (or avenger class concept is changed), and alchemist (with own system of powers, not a imitation of artificer). I would like subclasses or themes for socerer class for no-draconic origin. (but a celestial origin woulb be better for returned favoured soul class (what if its name is "chosen"?).
I would like create a story about how puremind (=divine mind/ardent from complete psionic) having religious conflict againts divine spellcasters (not a heresy exactly). I want create a story about a hobgobling invader empire (with a background mixture klingons from star treck and planet of apes).
But if I buy book about new PC classes and I only see a list of powers of a character from a videogame.... Anything doesn´t work.
i kno essential sorcerer is coming in the elements book but no mention of bard anywhere
oh and essential support for invokers. i'm newly in romance with them *SMILE*
essential bard and sorcerer please!11!!!1!
i kno essential sorcerer is coming in the elements book but no mention of bard anywhere
oh and essential support for invokers. i'm newly in romance with them *SMILE*
You could always play a PHB2 invoker...
@pyke: ease of play, tight mechanics & shiny perspectives. Would be best if all essential ized stuff came in cute little books like the official essentials but I'll suffer that loss haha
Yeah I am not a fan of the formatting. And for me what you call ease of play means bored with lack of choices. I can undrstand why some people like the new designs but for the most part it has made me stop buying books.
Yeah I am not a fan of the formatting. And for me what you call ease of play means bored with lack of choices. I can undrstand why some people like the new designs but for the most part it has made me stop buying books.
when did i say ease of play? all i said i love the new formatting....for me that is why i love the Class Compendium , great read and finally got me to read the older classes....for me...reading power after power was boring and really what makes a class for me are class features not powers so most of the time when i looked at a class i would go to lvl 3 or 5 powers...depending on the class,the paragon paths then to the next class to see the class features, i think that is also why i love the essentials sub-classes....it was not just power after power...there was also bonus along the way when lvling up
Bad design is bad design regardless of what you call it.
As a player that hasn't read fluff sense late 2nd ed seeing nothing but in a rule book is a massive turn off. If I want fluff I'll write it. Likely better. Stop filling your page count with useless garbage that has no meaning to anyone.
just because the fluff is useless to you, does not mean its useless to everyone, for me it is a great, read along side the boring reading of powers....i cant stand to read. for me the classes have came more alive for me with the fluff....with just powers info they are just classes i pick and go like WoW but with the fluff they had became something more then that.
Bad design is bad design regardless of what you call it.
As a player that hasn't read fluff sense late 2nd ed seeing nothing but in a rule book is a massive turn off. If I want fluff I'll write it. Likely better. Stop filling your page count with useless garbage that has no meaning to anyone.
just because the fluff is useless to you, does not mean its useless to everyone, for me it is a great, read along side the boring reading of powers....i cant stand to read. for me the classes have came more alive for me with the fluff....with just powers info they are just classes i pick and go like WoW but with the fluff they had became something more then that.
I will say that fluff is important but so is good class design something Essentials does not have. The vamp is just plain sad and this bladesinger looks to be more crap just to name 2, I will not even talk about the warlock. The use of mage being the fall back plan for everything. Another thing the difference in difficulty between essentials classes is just not right, at least AEDU all classes were equal in difficulty. I have called essentials 4.5 in the past but the more I think about it its more like 3.75 to me. WOTC said it was designed as an entry point for new players but I think its true target was the 3rd and 3.5 holdouts.
Yeah I am not a fan of the formatting. And for me what you call ease of play means bored with lack of choices. I can undrstand why some people like the new designs but for the most part it has made me stop buying books.
when did i say ease of play? all i said i love the new formatting....for me that is why i love the Class Compendium , great read and finally got me to read the older classes....for me...reading power after power was boring and really what makes a class for me are class features not powers so most of the time when i looked at a class i would go to lvl 3 or 5 powers...depending on the class,the paragon paths then to the next class to see the class features, i think that is also why i love the essentials sub-classes....it was not just power after power...there was also bonus along the way when lvling up
But, the layout of the class compendium is barely changed from the original PHBs, as far as I can tell...
Class features -> Powers -> PPs.
Oh, right, adding fluff by saying (e.g.):
Shield smash
You can use you shield to do stuff. With this exploit you can use your shield to do (this).
(Power Block)
Shield Smash
You can use your shield to do (this).
That adds so much depth to Shield Smash.
Seriously, I can't find a SINGLE thing that the CC does beter than the PHBs. It's not easier to read, because there's all that immediate redundancy.
(immediate redundancy defined as saying the same thing, or almost the same thing, within one vertical inch of text)
I starts off with a general description of when the power might be most useful and against what opponents (good for newbies), and follows it up with something technically repetitive of the original flavor text but in this case better because it isnt well trying to define what something does...by reusing the things name? - unlike the original flavor text.
I am not saying that it is the case for all the rewrites but .. for this case it is actually superior.
the support for the Oassassin is the kind of thing i would like more, i think they should target to have 1 class act a week, 1 theme and 1 article with some new items
and perhaps a new class every 6 months this would give the support that i think all people crave
Works for me!
Full-Shadow full-classes. That have options. And don't suck.
agreed, the binder and vampire are incredably weak
but the blackgaurd and executioner are really good classes, the Oassassin has gotten a big leap in my book since the last article that gave feats to improve the shroud mechanic, to the point where i kind of want to play an Oassassin
the support for the Oassassin is the kind of thing i would like more, i think they should target to have 1 class act a week, 1 theme and 1 article with some new items
and perhaps a new class every 6 months this would give the support that i think all people crave
Unfortunately, those are feat patches instead of real fixes. They helped a bit, but the powers really need to be addressed. The class has a lot of cool factor, it just needs mechanics to back it up. Hopefully, they don't wait another 2 years to add more to it. :P
Full-Shadow full-classes. That have options. And don't suck.
agreed, the binder and vampire are incredably weak
but the blackgaurd and executioner are really good classes, the Oassassin has gotten a big leap in my book since the last article that gave feats to improve the shroud mechanic, to the point where i kind of want to play an Oassassin
the support for the Oassassin is the kind of thing i would like more, i think they should target to have 1 class act a week, 1 theme and 1 article with some new items
and perhaps a new class every 6 months this would give the support that i think all people crave
Unfortunately, those are feat patches instead of real fixes. They helped a bit, but the powers really need to be addressed. The class has a lot of cool factor, it just needs mechanics to back it up. Hpefully, they don't want another 2 years to add more to it. :P
fair points, but ill take what i can get with the assassin.
would you agree however that a support schedule below would be a good way to eventually get to each class that needs support?
1 Class Act/week
1 item article/week
1 theme/week
1 class every 6 months
agreed, the binder and vampire are incredably weak
but the blackgaurd and executioner are really good classes
Note the "full shadow" part. The executioner is pretty cool, but it feels more like a rogue than anything else. It has hints of shadow magic in the utilities, but the majority of what it does is purely martial in flavor and feel. Likewise, the Blackguard is pretty cool, but it's far more divine then shadow, more focused on being an 'anti-paladin' then a 'warrior of darkness and shadows'. I don't like seeing neat archetypes that could have sustained their own classes shredded up to fit under the hat of some other existing class, regardless of how well or poorly it fits. Heroes of Shadow was more like "Heroes of anything but Shadow". The original assassin got the fluff and feel right, but failed on damage scaling. But there's plenty of room for shadowy character classes - so long as existing classes don't keep chewing it up and spitting out half-hearted non-efforts like the 'necromancy' school for the mage. I mean, how is that at all an attempt to let players play that archetype at the table?
the Oassassin has gotten a big leap in my book since the last article that gave feats to improve the shroud mechanic, to the point where i kind of want to play an Oassassin
While I'm not a fan of patch feats as a means of fixing mechanical issues, that boat has long since sailed in 4e. That said, I'm glad Assassins have recieved some support to prop up their mechanically terrible class feature. Still, it wasn't enough of a boost to make up for the poor damage output of thier powers in paragon and epic tiers. The assassin fix is only half done. I'm grateful for the half we got, and hope the half we still haven't received eventually arrives.
I do love the assassin. I loved it before these patches - and happily played it in heroic tier games, where the poor damage scaling of its powers and class features hasn't yet manifested. It will be awesome when they can be viably played between levels 13 and 29.
That said, shadow as a concept has enough mileadge for more then one class. It's a shame that at this point it looks like that's all we'll ever get in 4e. The half-hearted, half-shadow, half-classes on display in HoS are far from satisfactory on this front, even the ones, like the executioner or the blackguard or the death domain warpriest that are mechanically functional enough to be valid options, and have enough of their own identity that I don't begrudge their existance.
the blackgaurd is one of my favorite classes right now, to me it feels nothing like a divine class (and ive played alot of divine classes) no channal divinity, no need for gods and i felt that in heros of shadow it was more focused on being a dark warrior with the fluff and all that, but this is compleaty a matter of pers[ective and if the shoe dosent fit you then i have no right to tell you to wear it.
i despise the necromancer school because it dident seem to do anything regaurding necromancy exept a few lame powers and it takes you till level 20 to summen 5 useless minions. i would rather you be able to summon 5 minions a day from level 1 and they take their actions at the end of your turn (they did this with minions in encounters and it worked just fine)
as for the assassin, i think that the assassin is pretty good right now a drow assassin with insightful killer, keeper of the black flame and death shroud ki focus, you can throw out 4 shrouds out the gate as early as level 4! and at late levels you will throw out 4d8+20 then 4d8+40 in epic thats pretty darn good extra damage it sucks it burns feat slots but support is support and ill take it.
i despise the necromancer school because it dident seem to do anything regaurding necromancy exept a few lame powers and it takes you till level 20 to summen 5 useless minions. i would rather you be able to summon 5 minions a day from level 1 and they take their actions at the end of your turn (they did this with minions in encounters and it worked just fine)
It just wasn't a sincere attempt to make the archetype playable, and completely belies the entire premise of 4.e class design - that they'll use whatever mechanics or progression work the best for the concept. Frankly, with the action economy issues of 4e, the only real way to do a necromancer is as some sort of pet class a la the shaman, a decrepit spellcaster in the back channeling dark magic through a front line corporeal undead avatar, maybe supplemented with the occasional temporary incorporeal summon.
That technology already exists in 4e, it's existed since PHBII, it works fine and fits the concept pretty well. You could actually feel like a necromancer doing that sort of thing. But such mechanics don't fit under the hat of the "mage school" framework, and when confronted with a choice between using the mechanics that would actually allow the concept to function and using the mechanics that they could most easily shove under the hat of an existing e-class, the mechanics that would take the least of effort on the part of the designers, they went with the latter.
as for the assassin, i think that the assassin is pretty good right now a drow assassin with insightful killer, keeper of the black flame and death shroud ki focus, you can throw out 4 shrouds out the gate as early as level 4! and at late levels you will throw out 4d8+20 then 4d8+40 in epic thats pretty darn good extra damage it sucks it burns feat slots but support is support and ill take it.
The key part of that is "as early as level 4". The problems with the ossassin have never been heroic tier problems. Well, survivability was a heroic tier problem, but not an overpowering one. They were perfectly viable for the first 10 or so levels even when they first came out. Feat patches to the shroud mechanic may extend that into mid paragon, but their poor power selection will still overwhelm them by the latter half of paragon, epic at the latest.
Again, I love ossassins. What they got was great. Just don't let them off the hook yet, the job isn't quite done.
At least there's more hope for a fully functional ossassin, and at least the ossassin is reasonably functional for some portion of its life. There is no point in a necromancer mage's progression at which the material presented in HoS actually delivers on the concept, and very little hope of a new class ever being printed to remedy the situation.
The key part of that is "as early as level 4". The problems with the ossassin have never been heroic tier problems. Well, survivability was a heroic tier problem, but not an overpowering one. They were perfectly viable for the first 10 or so levels even when they first came out. Feat patches to the shroud mechanic may extend that into mid paragon, but their poor power selection will still overwhelm them by the latter half of paragon, epic at the latest.
Again, I love ossassins. What they got was great. Just don't let them off the hook yet, the job isn't quite done.
A "Choose # Feat(s) that have Assassin's Shroud as a prerequisite" class feature added on to the ossassin would be a way to add some longevity to its effectiveness and take some of the sting out of the feat patches, but, yeah, they definitely need some better powers to choose from after heroic.
(The Assassin's Shroud power is one of those things that - to me - looks interesting Mechanically, but when you start to look at the Dynamics and Aesthetics of it in actual play it's pretty bad. Kinda like the Necromancer Mage.)