4Edition. Do you like it?

[Mortavius]

Valid point Jester, but I'm curious. Can you honestly not see their point of view? I mean, whether I agree with them or not, I can see their side of the equation. They wanted to start off nice and easy so that new players wouldn't have any problems understanding the system. Again, not saying I agree that it was the right move (although personally I don't think that it was game-destroying or anything), but I can totally understand their reasoning, and respect why they did it, even if I would have personally liked a little more tinkering to begin with.

I'm glad they started playing around in the PHB2, even if it was with minor stuff like the Barbarian's rage mechanic, for example.

[Jester of the FoS]

They definitely did some tweaking, but from the playtest stuff I've seen they had the classes for PHB1&2 done at roughly the same time. I've heard talk of early playtests with developers playing wardens and the like.
They really did work the kinks out of the system for the benefit of the later classes, but at the cost of making the core, basic classes of the game sub-par and less desirable.

One of my big complaints was how unrecognisable PCs were at the end of 3e when you had raptorian duskblades, killorean spellthiefs, illuminum dragonshamans, and dragonborn archivists. Once PHB3 comes out I can see more and more people dropping PHB1 and sticking with the more playable and interesting PHB2 and 3 classes, with the "core" books being sidelines except in the event of a rules question.

It didn't take long at all before they figured out the problem with daily powers and tweaked them for the later books. And they radically changed skill challenges, DC, and the like. They've already changed minion, elites, and solos in DMG2 (5 minions/standard in paragon, 6/standard in epic). Another year or even six months of playtesting would have resulted in these changes for the core books.
PHB2, MM2, and DMG2 show the game how it's supposed to be.

Instead of being motivated to make a good game it's much more motivated financially to get the product out and start making money. Other game companies manage to make a profit just fine and release the game when it's ready. Wizbro needs to re-examine their priorities.
We saw this before when 3e came out and it needed tweaking right out the bat resulting in 3.5.

[Sareau]

I don't care for 4E one bit-it's very slapped together, and owes more to World of Warcraft than it does to Dungeons and Dragons. For terms of game balance and playability, it has virtues-and while I do not have a problem with D&D being "Baby's First RPG", I do have a problem with playing a system I would categorize so.

The major problem is that characters are cookie cutter images, identical at each level-no customization and inability to adjust your character for different situations are flaws.

All in all, I'd put it in the same category as second edition, and I'll just wait until 5th edition comes out to be won over again.

[alhoon]

As for releasing early... I would disagree. What they should have done was start playtesting earlier.
It was quite clear that 3E has reached the end of the road financially. They should have forseen this earlier and instead of using their resources on very specialized books they should have hired a few more playtesters for a more time.

And organize a couple more 4E events like they did, before release, in rapid succession. I.e IIRC the "play 4E in the Gencon" should have been "play 4E in your local store and email us the results. DMs will get bonus minis." for 3-4 months.

[Jester of the FoS]

As for releasing early... I would disagree. What they should have done was start playtesting earlier.
It was quite clear that 3E has reached the end of the road financially. They should have forseen this earlier and instead of using their resources on very specialized books they should have hired a few more playtesters for a more time.

And organize a couple more 4E events like they did, before release, in rapid succession. I.e IIRC the "play 4E in the Gencon" should have been "play 4E in your local store and email us the results. DMs will get bonus minis." for 3-4 months.

They could have dragged-out 3e easily for another year, there were plenty of suggestions for books (Heroes of Intrique, Complete Warrior 2, a Races of book for goblins and/or orcs).

But I totally agree that your more-playtesting would have been a good idea. It's become clear that they cannot accurately playtest content, especially in amounts they're putting it out. In 4e every class is suddenly a sorcerer and has 50 spells to test.

The silly thing, is they have a built-in organization that is just perfect for mass playtesting: the RPGA. With downloadable adventures and characters of various tiers they could have really hammered out the flaws in the game for 3-6 months more months.

[Mortavius]

Once PHB3 comes out I can see more and more people dropping PHB1 and sticking with the more playable and interesting PHB2 and 3 classes, with the "core" books being sidelines except in the event of a rules question.

I agree that this is a definate possibility, all I can say is that I hope it's not the case. I have faith that the developers will know enough to keep the core classes in their niches, and thus not allow them to be overshadowed by what comes next.

It didn't take long at all before they figured out the problem with daily powers and tweaked them for the later books.

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to, can you elaborate?

And they radically changed skill challenges, DC, and the like.

Agreed, although to be precise, those changes were made in free errata quite a ways before PHB2 was released, IIRC.

They've already changed minion, elites, and solos in DMG2 (5 minions/standard in paragon, 6/standard in epic). Another year or even six months of playtesting would have resulted in these changes for the core books.

These are good changes Jester, and I applaud them, but you can't honestly tell me that this same thing didn't happen in 3E, or even 2E for that matter. If you look at the way the books progressed, and the changes and additions that came out in later books, they did the same thing. And one could make the argument that if they spent more time on the original book (whatever book that may be in this case), they wouldn't have had to make these sorts of changes down the line.

Instead of being motivated to make a good game it's much more motivated financially to get the product out and start making money. Other game companies manage to make a profit just fine and release the game when it's ready. Wizbro needs to re-examine their priorities.
We saw this before when 3e came out and it needed tweaking right out the bat resulting in 3.5.

While this may be a fair assessment, I feel it should be pointed out that unless you have had a Wizards source actually tell you this, you are speculating. And to be blunt, it's exactly the sort of speculation I heard when 3.5 was released. That sort of "Wizards/Hasbro wants more money" argument and doesn't care about it's fan base.

And to be fair and precise...it's not like 3E was released and then they immediately released 3.5. We played 3E for five years before they released a new version, ala 3.5. And in my group at least, we had fun. Were the changes made in 3.5 for the better? Absolutely. Was 3E broken an unplayable? Not at all. And I would suspect that the majority of people who started with 3E would agree with me.

[HuManBing]

Once PHB3 comes out I can see more and more people dropping PHB1

I agree that this is a definate possibility, all I can say is that I hope it's not the case. I have faith that the developers will know enough to keep the core classes in their niches, and thus not allow them to be overshadowed by what comes next.

I found that this was not the case in 3.5. The Book of Nine Swords classes were considerably more powerful than the original Monk/Fighter/Barbarian core classes. Granted, you're talking about 4th Ed, so it's possible they may have learned to avoid repeating the mistakes of 3.5.

you can't honestly tell me that this same thing didn't happen in 3E, or even 2E for that matter.

... although this statement would tend to counterindicate my momentary optimism, above.

unless you have had a Wizards source actually tell you this, you are speculating.

Sometimes, speculation is all you have. This is especially true when you're talking about a profits-motivated business model, as few corporations are willing to own up to it. In the absence of a statement affirming or denying, we must settle for rational conclusions drawn from personal observations. Whether Jester's analysis convinces you is a question only you can answer, but his analysis is not automatically invalid merely because no WotC statements back it up.



I will forward my opinion that 4E needs Giant Space Hamsters.

[Deewun]

I actually really like 4e and ran a pretty successful campaign for around 10 months right when it came out. While there is a bit of power creep from each book, Wizards is constantly trying to make sure that the original classes (the PHB ones) are not being overlooked. In terms of the best version of a role, the fighter is still the best overall defender, just as Wizard is the best controller, Cleric is the best leader, and Ranger/Rogue are really the best strikers. While the new classes are newer, shinier, and do things in different ways, the continue to give new feats, powers, and ideas to the original classes that started things off.

I also fight pretty hard for 4e because of how much I despised 3.x, as a player and as a DM. Heck, in all honesty, I would much rather play AD&D than 4e.

[Jester of the FoS]

Once PHB3 comes out I can see more and more people dropping PHB1 and sticking with the more playable and interesting PHB2 and 3 classes, with the "core" books being sidelines except in the event of a rules question.

I agree that this is a definate possibility, all I can say is that I hope it's not the case. I have faith that the developers will know enough to keep the core classes in their niches, and thus not allow them to be overshadowed by what comes next.

It's already happened.
The invoker's Rebuke Undead is better than the cleric's Turn Undead AND they're a better controller than the wizard. Arcane Power tried to fix the wizard, but any progress that was made was undone by Divine Power that knocked the Invoker back on top. And expect Primal Power to also push the druid back ahead of the wizard too.

Compare the PHB1 wizard's at-will powers with the other controller's abilities. It's kinda sad how they're outclassed each and every way.

It didn't take long at all before they figured out the problem with daily powers and tweaked them for the later books.

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to, can you elaborate?

The problem being missing. Suddenly, rolling a "1" on your big once/day power affects all classes and not just the 3.5 pally and wizard.
PHB2 and some of the power books before it set-out to change daily powers.
Instead of dailies being a really good hit and something extra with a minor miss effect, dailies do something cool (an effect, like the warden's shapechanging, the barbarian's rage, or invoker's zones) which is the primary purpose of using the power AND have an additional effect on a hit.
The damage from your daily abilities is almost a bonus.

And they radically changed skill challenges, DC, and the like.

Agreed, although to be precise, those changes were made in free errata quite a ways before PHB2 was released, IIRC.

Yes. And if they would have mass playtested the game sooner (or delayed the release) it would have been in the official books. It took less than a week for someone to say "hey, these skill challenge numbers look wonky" followed shortly by "solo fights are long an boring".

[Mortavius]

unless you have had a Wizards source actually tell you this, you are speculating.

Sometimes, speculation is all you have. This is especially true when you're talking about a profits-motivated business model, as few corporations are willing to own up to it. In the absence of a statement affirming or denying, we must settle for rational conclusions drawn from personal observations. Whether Jester's analysis convinces you is a question only you can answer, but his analysis is not automatically invalid merely because no WotC statements back it up.

Very true, and a very good point. I just think it's fair to make sure that it is noted that it is speculation. I've heard so many wild accusations leveled at WotC over the years (and I'm not saying this is one of them) that to me it's important to note when something is fact, and when it's a guess, even if that guess is made from logical reasoning and business practice.

Personally, I've always responded to the WotC is out to just make money accusation with a simple "Yeah? They're a business. It's what they do." The same thing happens in every business out there. New products replace old ones, and consumers have a choice of whether to move on to the new model or continue to use the old one, even if it isn't officially supported anymore.

[Mortavius]

I have to say your comments have inspired me to look over the powers Jester. I haven't looked them over in-depth or compared them, so I'm intrigued to do so, when I next get some free time.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Re. game edition revisions:

1st edition had Unearthed Arcana. 2E had the Option books. 3E had the 3.5 revision. Basic/Expert/etc D&D had, well, Basic/Expert/etc. Every edition of the game has gotten a major re-vamping within a few years of its release. Mid-edition tinkering with the game rules is nothing new, whether you blame it on money-grubbing by the publishers, or because there's simply no way a couple of dozen designers and a few hundred playtesters can catch all the liabilities in a game-system, in a matter of months, that tens of thousands of home campiagns can in four or five years of adventuring.

[HuManBing]

I also fight pretty hard for 4e because of how much I despised 3.x, as a player and as a DM. Heck, in all honesty, I would much rather play AD&D than 4e.

Hmm, so 1st/2nd ed. > 4th ed. > 3.5 in your opinion?

I do remember the AD&D years very fondly, but I was a teen then and probably not a critical consumer.

Personally, I've always responded to the WotC is out to just make money accusation with a simple "Yeah? They're a business. It's what they do." The same thing happens in every business out there. New products replace old ones, and consumers have a choice of whether to move on to the new model or continue to use the old one, even if it isn't officially supported anymore.

Consumers have a third choice, though: go elsewhere. It's what I did, and I took Ravenloft with me to a different game system and I'm porting it over in my spare time.

You are absolutely right about the motivation of a company. Companies and corporations ultimately have stockholders to satisfy, and the only way a stockholder knows the company is doing its job correctly is if the stock value increases. So you can't blame a corporation if it wants to act in a profits-driven manner. (In fact, in some industries, if a corporation doesn't act to maximize profits, the CEO and officers can be criminally charged...)

That having been said, not all corporations place such an emphasis on profits, and some place higher value on customer satisfaction and product support. So, although you can't blame a company for eyeing the profits line, you can choose to leave it and go elsewhere, to a corporation that acts in a way you like. A lot of people forget this key second part - that the corporation has freedom to choose how it provides a good or service but that the consumer has the freedom to walk away too.

In retrospect, the 3.5 --> 4E shift indirectly helped me play and try out a load of really good non-d20 RPG systems. It also made me much more open to trying weird homebrew game systems, when before I would refuse to touch anything that wasn't "holy DnD" to me.

There seems to be a sentiment that prior editions of DnD were somehow more altruistic or less profits-driven than current - but I'm not so sure. It's not like 3.5 was some halcyon era of a perfect game system, with a perfect company providing support. Much of WotC's actions which I dislike now are nothing new - they've been doing this since 3rd Ed, and TSR was doing similar things with 2nd Ed. before that.

[Deewun]

I also fight pretty hard for 4e because of how much I despised 3.x, as a player and as a DM. Heck, in all honesty, I would much rather play AD&D than 4e.

Hmm, so 1st/2nd ed. > 4th ed. > 3.5 in your opinion?

I do remember the AD&D years very fondly, but I was a teen then and probably not a critical consumer.

On the nose.

[alhoon]

Yes. And if they would have mass playtested the game sooner (or delayed the release) it would have been in the official books. It took less than a week for someone to say "hey, these skill challenge numbers look wonky" followed shortly by "solo fights are long an boring".

Indeed I find Solo fights long and boring and the wizard lacking in power. If you check earlier threads when it first came out, you could see my outrage on the wizard's lack of power and versatility.
On Invokers... yes. They seem better controlers overall. Most of their powers do damage+something controling.

You say the Solos have been fixed? Where if I may ask?

Also I would try to fix the wizard IMC to be somewhat more powerful.