Among the debates of one of the many Heroes of Shadow threads, some Wotc folk posted hoping to address the concerned populace. Ultimately, Rodney and Microbless didn't work on HoS though, so they mentioned they'd defer to an expert.
83118455 wrote:
I've been hoping for this since essentials previews started and it became apparent essentials wasn't just a starter product but a new (albeit compatable) direction for the entire game.
I agree with this. The only possible reason they wouldn't answer this question is that yes, Essentials is it from here on out... Hope you like Essentials...
I agree with this. The only possible reason they wouldn't answer this question is that yes, Essentials is it from here on out... Hope you like Essentials...
Not necessarily. If Essentials did not sell well than I bet we'll see a return to the old format. WotC will be in a major planning phase right now, going over all the sales figures from the last quarter.
Personally, however, I suspect Essentials has done well enough that we'll see mostly Essentials style materials in new print materials. This is purely speculative and based on anecdotal evidence that the Essentials products have sold very well. My FLGS did a brisk business with the "Heros of... " line, DM Kits and Monster Vaults. I also have a friend who works in a Wal-Mart and he says they couldn't keep the Red Box on the shelves. While this is great news for D&D as a whole, it does not bode well for the fans of AEDU.
But, we'll just have to wait and see. It'll take WotC a while to process the Christmas sales data and decide on a plan. I think we'll see the future of D&D (or at least the 2011 stuff) around the end of the month.
Looks like we're back to "no meaningful communication"...
Seriously, can a VCL please poke someone on the chance they know when they'll be able to get back to us?
Theres a class acts: knight article this month. So they maybe still keeping essentials around.
Its a given at this point that they are going to keep post-E around. What we want to know is if we will get robust or equal support for pre-E...
Well, there's also an Ardent article this month, so yeah, it appears they're supporting both, at least with Dragon.
Here let me bold the part your overlooking...
Theres a class acts: knight article this month. So they maybe still keeping essentials around.
Its a given at this point that they are going to keep post-E around. What we want to know is if we will get robust or equal support for pre-E...
A couple of items, powers, feats, or whatever is not robust or equal support. Its throwing pre-E a bone so they can focus on post-E
Sorry for the lack of response here everyone. Trevor and I are working with Rodney & R&D to get some answers or maybe a Q&A session, live chat, etc. so that you can get answers directly from those involed.
That would be cool! I hope it happens soon. We have waited for weeks now for those answers.
Looks to me like they are stalling. Its a simple "yes" or "no" question. How hard is it to ask someone?
Should know by now Wotc always drops really annoying news with news of a new product, that is also likely annoying.
Sorry for the lack of response here everyone. Trevor and I are working with Rodney & R&D to get some answers or maybe a Q&A session, live chat, etc. so that you can get answers directly from those involed.
Yes please !!!! The Community really want to know if yes or no you will continue supporting previous materials or is Heroes of Shadows an Essential book in disguise, well hidden with a Stealth check of 36.
Thanks Micheal for jumping in. Don't let us down brother, we are waiting.....
Looks to me like they are stalling. Its a simple "yes" or "no" question. How hard is it to ask someone?
The question was: "Will it be Essentials style from here on out, AEDU style, or a balance of the two from here on out?"
That's not necessarily a simple yes/no sort of question. The people asking the question and the people answering it do not necessarily agree on the meaning of the terms "Essentials style", "AEDU style", or even what exactly "class" means these days.
Is the mage "Essentials style"? Or does "Essentials style" only apply to things like the knight and slayer? Was the pyromancer build "support for an Essentials class" or can it also be legitimately considered to be "support for the PHB1 wizard"? Are the psionic augmentation classes "AEDU style" classes? And just what is a "new class" now? Is the blackguard a "more strikery paladin build"? Or is it a new class that just "counts as" a paladin for feats and other prerequisites? The HoS blurb stated that it would contain "new classes" (plural). We now know it contains only one new class (the vampire) by the pre-Essentials definition of class. But some people (e.g. Cyber-Dave) argue that some of the new post-Essentials builds/subclasses, such as the slayer and the blackguard, are sufficiently different from their parent classes that they should actually be considered separate classes of their own.
I agree that it's utterly ridiculous that it's taken this long just to tell us that the question might possibly, at some vague future time, be answered. But I can appreciate that WotC want to make sure any answers they do eventually give won't be misinterpreted.
Looks to me like they are stalling. Its a simple "yes" or "no" question. How hard is it to ask someone?
The question was: "Will it be Essentials style from here on out, AEDU style, or a balance of the two from here on out?"
That's not necessarily a simple yes/no sort of question. The people asking the question and the people answering it do not necessarily agree on the meaning of the terms "Essentials style", "AEDU style", or even what exactly "class" means these days.
Is the mage "Essentials style"? Or does "Essentials style" only apply to things like the knight and slayer? Was the pyromancer build "support for an Essentials class" or can it also be legitimately considered to be "support for the PHB1 wizard"? Are the psionic augmentation classes "AEDU style" classes? And just what is a "new class" now? Is the blackguard a "more strikery paladin build"? Or is it a new class that just "counts as" a paladin for feats and other prerequisites? The HoS blurb stated that it would contain "new classes" (plural). We now know it contains only one new class (the vampire) by the pre-Essentials definition of class. But some people (e.g. Cyber-Dave) argue that some of the new post-Essentials builds/subclasses, such as the slayer and the blackguard, are sufficiently different from their parent classes that they should actually be considered separate classes of their own.
I agree that it's utterly ridiculous that it's taken this long just to tell us that the question might possibly, at some vague future time, be answered. But I can appreciate that WotC want to make sure any answers they do eventually give won't be misinterpreted.
Mage is essential due to the array of post level 1 features, and that those properties are inaccessible to base wizards, unhybridable, etc. Essential's-style is failing "to fit into the structure which ensured class parity at all levels and interchangibility via multiclassing".
Pyromancer supported the PHB wizard little more than the barbarian or warden supported the fighter- some powers to steal. Psionics are AEDU since the power point math fits the encounter power structure, even to the point they can still be interchanged, but of course the PP system has serious mechanical deficeits in other aspects.
Blackguard is (almost assuredly) the Cavelier in power structure with a striker damage bonus replacing defender aura and some other mutliuse power replacing holy shield- it's a paladin build much like the grappler fighter acts different from the greatweapon.
Arranging a livechat, where people can explain what they actually mean by the questions they ask and the answers they give, and can ask for clarification when things are not clear, seems like a much better solution than giving a quick, but potentially misleading, answer in a forum post.
Those are fine answers, but they are only your answers. Your definitions. But those definitions are not universal. If Mike or Trevor posts to say "Yes, you will see plenty of support for non-Essentials classes and builds in the future", but what they actually mean is that there will be more stuff like the pyromancer, you're going to end up thinking they lied to you.
Arranging a livechat, where people can explain what they actually mean by the questions they ask and the answers they give, and can ask for clarification when things are not clear, seems like a much better solution than giving a quick, but potentially misleading, answer in a forum post.
but that's their MO, hide a nugget of new information in a obscure forum announcement...
Sorry for the lack of response here everyone. Trevor and I are working with Rodney & R&D to get some answers or maybe a Q&A session, live chat, etc. so that you can get answers directly from those involed.
I know I don't post often and I'm playing less and less every month so I'm betting that this will basically be ignored. But given the advanced thought and planning that already went into the decisions to drop mini's, E-Drag and E-Dun compilations etc etc ...how can such an important and dare I say critical aspect of ongoing D&D support be unknown, and why would it take days to know when WotC will actually be talking with their customers and answering their questions about this issue?
This type of mismanagement absolutely boggles my mind. Seriously ... is there a group of people who actually create marketing strategies to piss off the largest number of customers at a single time? If there isn't, it sure looks like there is from this side of the GM's screen.
Absolutely mind boggling.
Sorry for the rant, but this lack of anything close to professional customer service or even basic communication with your customers is simply beyond my ability to understand.
Sorry for the lack of response here everyone. Trevor and I are working with Rodney & R&D to get some answers or maybe a Q&A session, live chat, etc. so that you can get answers directly from those involed.
I know I don't post often and I'm playing less and less every month so I'm betting that this will basically be ignored. But given the advanced thought and planning that already went into the decisions to drop mini's, E-Drag and E-Dun compilations etc etc ...how can such an important and dare I say critical aspect of ongoing D&D support be unknown, and why would it take days to know when WotC will actually be talking with their customers and answering their questions about this issue?
This type of mismanagement absolutely boggles my mind. Seriously ... is there a group of people who actually create marketing strategies to piss off the largest number of customers at a single time? If there isn't, it sure looks like there is from this side of the GM's screen.
Absolutely mind boggling.
Sorry for the rant, but this lack of anything close to professional customer service or even basic communication with your customers is simply beyond my ability to understand.
+1
I really wish that someone from WotC would actually respond, what with it now going on 4+ days since they admitted that they weren't responding. But the lack of communication has simply become part of WotC's way of doing business. And since their customers continue subscribing and buying stuff, I guess there is no incentive to improve.
Sorry for the lack of response here everyone. Trevor and I are working with Rodney & R&D to get some answers or maybe a Q&A session, live chat, etc. so that you can get answers directly from those involed.
OK, are there any news on how this is progressing, Microbless? Let's not let this thing slip.
Those are fine answers, but they are only your answers. Your definitions. But those definitions are not universal. If Mike or Trevor posts to say "Yes, you will see plenty of support for non-Essentials classes and builds in the future", but what they actually mean is that there will be more stuff like the pyromancer, you're going to end up thinking they lied to you.
Arranging a livechat, where people can explain what they actually mean by the questions they ask and the answers they give, and can ask for clarification when things are not clear, seems like a much better solution than giving a quick, but potentially misleading, answer in a forum post.
The Mage and the Wizard are the most similiar of pre to post essential class design. The differences they still have, the features/hybridability/etc. are also true for every other essential class out of the gate. If ever there was a definition of "essential" class compared to before, it'd be what I highlighted. Can you think of a definition that is somehow similiarly or even more correct?
The Mage and the Wizard are the most similiar of pre to post essential class design. The differences they still have, the features/hybridability/etc. are also true for every other essential class out of the gate. If ever there was a definition of "essential" class compared to before, it'd be what I highlighted. Can you think of a definition that is somehow similiarly or even more correct?
You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what my personal definitions are (though, for the record, I mostly agree with yours). What matters is that not everybody agrees on the definitions, so any simple one-word answers WotC might give will inevitably end up being misleading to at least some people.
You can have answers quickly. Or you can have answers that are helpful and unambiguous. You can't have both.
Although, thus far, it looks more like "you can't have any answers"...
Sorry for the lack of response here everyone. Trevor and I are working with Rodney & R&D to get some answers or maybe a Q&A session, live chat, etc. so that you can get answers directly from those involed.
Tomorrow will be 2 weeks from this statement. So far we have heard nothing. I'm going to keep bumping this thread every week until we hear some answers.
Microbless, Trevor, Rodney, anyone at WotC who is reading this.... your hard core fans are confused and frustrated. They are losing patience and the speculation machine is whipping people up into a frenzy of ill will. This is not good for the game or your business. You really need to get out ahead of this and be honest with everyone about the future direction of 4e.
And I was wondering this for a long time before then.
1) You have not yet done anything about this. If so, I'd like you to ask for permission and the information as soon as possible, or if you are not going to do it ever, I'd like to hear about that too.
2) You have done something, but have not got green light and/or the information from the upper echelons yet. In that case, I'd like you to bump them about the issue. Or maybe you have got red light. I'd like to know, if so.
3) You have the permission and information already, but have not yet informed us about these things. If so, I'd like to hear ETA for when it happens.
So whatever the situation, I'd like to hear what it is and how it is progressing.
Mike/Trevor, I'm rapidly approaching my "I'm exhausted of defending you" moment here. Just so you know.
You shouldn't have defended them at all. Just unsub and be done with it, they'll take note of a hug loss of income and adjust accordingly...
Just thought I'd share.
They were asked this question at the expo today: they didn't give an answer.
Just thought I'd share.
What did they say?
Either way it means we won't like the answer or they don't know... which is sad...
They were asked this question at the expo today: they didn't give an answer.
Just thought I'd share.
What did they say?
Either way it means we won't like the answer or they don't know... which is sad...
Something along the lines of "That's a business decision, so we don't know." which has got to be bull IMO. Even if they're not responsible for making those decisions, they would know by now what that decision is, seeing as they're the guys in charge of the whole freaking game.
They were asked this question at the expo today: they didn't give an answer.
Just thought I'd share.
What did they say?
Either way it means we won't like the answer or they don't know... which is sad...
Something along the lines of "That's a business decision, so we don't know." which has got to be bull IMO. Even if they're not responsible for making those decisions, they would know by now what that decision is, seeing as they're the guys in charge of the whole freaking game.
Everything down to the wording of a feat is a "business decision". Maybe they meant a management decision. Either way I agree, they know, they are just trying to avoid the angry mob at the castle gates when they have to tell us. They're putting it off until the last possible moment. Which is exactly the wrong thing to do... but we're talking about WotC...
If they release support for just Essentials, they piss off the (presumably numerous, based on recent events) 4e customers who didn't buy Essentials and prefer pre-E. If they go back to the old system, they piss off the people who bought into the "new way going forward". If they try to support both, they'll effectively just be competing with themselves, selling any given product to a fraction of the customers they normally would.
My bet is neither. I think both 4e and 4eE have failed, and they will push out whatever projects are still inutero, then switch entirely to board and card games using the D&D brand name. 5e if we're lucky will come winter of 2012, and will effectively be a CCG/Boardgame.
See, now they've totally dicked themselves over.
If they release support for just Essentials, they piss off the (presumably numerous, based on recent events) 4e customers who didn't buy Essentials and prefer pre-E. If they go back to the old system, they piss off the people who bought into the "new way going forward". If they try to support both, they'll effectively just be competing with themselves, selling any given product to a fraction of the customers they normally would.
My bet is neither. I think both 4e and 4eE have failed, and they will push out whatever projects are still inutero, then switch entirely to board and card games using the D&D brand name. 5e if we're lucky will come winter of 2012, and will effectively be a CCG/Boardgame.
Thats pretty much how i'm reading the situation. They may persist with adventures & monster stuff for a while as they work for both styles. They'll stick them in box sets (i'm guessing as the margins are better? but that's speculation.) and do silly things with cards.
You shouldn't have defended them at all. Just unsub and be done with it, they'll take note of a hug loss of income and adjust accordingly...
You first.
Seriously, though, I'm long past the point of continually threatening to cancel my subscription every time WotC does something I don't like. I'll decide when it's actually up for renewal whether I still consider it worth the price, and I'll base that entirely on what the subscription offers then, not on future promises or past disappointments (mainly, it's going to go on whether the CB is actually useful to me and my players - i.e. whether it's actually better for us than the old offline version).
In any case, that's not really relevant, because I wasn't talking about defending WotC over DDi, I was talking about defending Trevor and Mike for not having gotten back to us with an answer yet. The idea of a proper Q&A session rather than just a quick written answer delivered second- or third-hand seemed like a good idea to me. But, weeks later, it's starting to just look like a delaying tactic. I hope I'm wrong about that.
"That's a business decision, so we don't know."
They got away with saying that without the audience lynching them?
Was there at least a collective groan and rolling of eyes? Nervous laughter followed by a "No, seriously, tell us!"?Great. Essentials literally kills D&D.
Since it is literally impossible for a product to murder a franchise, I'll assume you meant "figuratively."
Also, I think you're wrong. WotC's biggest problem isn't the products, it's their marketing. Their products are fine, but they don't seem to know how to sell it well. That's something I'm sure they've noticed, but not something they can come out and say (PR issues and all that).
Next week it'll be 2 months I've been waiting for my answer...
+1
Edit: Note that they refused to answer at DDXP...
Bumping until we get the answers promised. Not that I care that much anymore. I have pretty much moved on to play WHFRP after being disappointed at WotC and their handling of D&D these past months.
Good idea. I haven't played WHFRP yet, but Dark Heresy is an outstanding game, and fantasy seems very high quality as well.
A. Featured in Rule of Three
or
B. Officially declared business decisions that'll not be answered.
Thanks in advance to the forum canvas-ers.
You know, I'd love to have the question from the OP either:
A. Featured in Rule of Three
or
B. Officially declared business decisions that'll not be answered.
Thanks in advance to the forum canvas-ers.
'business decisions' just means they ain't gotta clue... its corporate speak... its akin to 'refocusing on our core competencies', 'outsourcing to increase our pofit margin' and other such ignorant phrases...
In Hindsight, we've gotten a few answers in the past 3 months.
Are there any 'classes' in the Heroes of Shadow book that are not essentials builds of exisiting classes- whether they've been previewed yet or not?
Yes, the Vampire, that's it.
Are any of the previewed essentials builds (Blackguard, Necromancer, Nethermancer, Hexblade, Assassin) receiving traditional versions with AEDU (at will, Encounter, Daily Utility) power structure and no class features added at weird levels like 9, 23, etc?
Nope, the Assassin build is reprinting the Executioner with nothing new, the other 4 have some essential quirk to their structure keeping them non interchangable with old builds.
Are the shadow powers for non-shadow classes only aimed at what the new essential builds can take (anything for warpriest and mage, Dailies only for Cavelier/Sentinel, tricks for Theifs) or will we see things like Weaponmaster Fighter encounter powers, Avenger Dailies, or even stuff for Psionic classes?
This one is still up in the air actually, unless all the Deathpriest powers were Warpriest ones.
Is the Shadow power source going to exist in the same way primal, arcane, and Divine exist- with dedicated feats, new mechanical tricks (like familiars), and shared paragon paths? Or is it just a keyword on certain powers like the Umbiri that may have feat interaction?
Well, there's the Ossassin and the Vampire, but who knows what thematic elements they'll be getting, so this one's a coin toss.
Is there going to be anything new for the Bleak Disciple/Night Stalker Assassin or is all new efforts aimed toward the Executioner?
Haha, nothing new at ALL, just reprinting the executioner.
3. Will we see more support for classes that use the standard at-will, encounter, daily, and utility power progression from the Player's Handbook?
Yes. We'll continue to support those classes with new builds, and as we consider creating new classes we will use that progression when it is appropriate. Using data we cull from the Character Builder, we can determine the most and least popular classes. Obviously, we will provide support for classes that receive the most play. For less popular options, we'll look to see what we can do to make those choices more appealing via new builds, new powers, and other new options. From our data, the Player's Handbook classes are quite popular and will receive continuing support in the future.
From today's Rule-of-Three (2-28-2011):
3. Will we see more support for classes that use the standard at-will, encounter, daily, and utility power progression from the Player's Handbook?
Yes. We'll continue to support those classes with new builds, and as we consider creating new classes we will use that progression when it is appropriate. Using data we cull from the Character Builder, we can determine the most and least popular classes. Obviously, we will provide support for classes that receive the most play. For less popular options, we'll look to see what we can do to make those choices more appealing via new builds, new powers, and other new options. From our data, the Player's Handbook classes are quite popular and will receive continuing support in the future.
Cool... more mage style classes...
There. Was that so hard?
I have hope now. Lets just hope they don't go back on their word as they have in the past. Lets also hope that this isn't some kind of corporate speak to mean we'll throw a bone to the pre-E crowd...
We'll continue to support those classes with new builds
When and where, is the next question. There are no more "X Power" books on the horizon and Mearls basicaly laughed at the idea of them at DDX, so... ?
There. Was that so hard?
A better sign than most seen the past; but with the release schedule as it is, what does it mean?
One new class a year that "might" be AEDU if they think it's appropriate? A "build" thats 1 set of powers for 10 levels like the Feyknight? If we had more specifics, like "X book in Y month has new classes" or "full new build for Artificier in Dragon Z" it'd be hopeful, but as it is now it feels like another dodge.