4Edition. Do you like it?

[Jester of the FoS]

They reduced solo hp for MM2 and the formula for solos and elites in DMG2 (which is generally a solid purchase all around).
Basically, solo and elites no longer get defence bonuses and solos only have the hp of 4 monsters instead of 5. Most also become more dangerous when bloodied and deal twice the damage, which should be expected since you should walk out of a solo fight as hurt or more hurt than a regular fight.

[alhoon]

Twice the damage once bloodied?! Double damage is a x1.5 XP worth. Since it applied after bloodied is a x 1.25 modifier to XP

Reducing hp to 80% on the other hand is just a x 0.85 - 0.9 modifier to XP.

So basically they made solos 10% more difficult.

On the other hand... they made them better.

So, I need to buy DMG2 now, right?

They sold me a deficient product. From the very first campaign I ran in 4E, I and the players got boooored with the Solo combat. That's when I decided I'll never use them again but instead use Elites of higher level.

[Jester of the FoS]

It's a small change which makes the fight faster (or encourages other monsters) but also makes it more challenging at the tailing end (when people would start to get bored). So it makes sense.

That's pretty much the only changes: they have normal monster defences and reduced hp for solos. And DMG2 has some trap creation rules and minion rules (which still put their damage far, far too low).
It's easier to just subscribe to DDI for a month and snag the monster builder which can do the elites and solos for you.

[Jester of the FoS]

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.

Compare magic missile with avenging light, scorching burst with vanguard’s lightning, and ray of frost with grasping shards.

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.

I've been a big supporter of statements like this in the past, where I've responded "they're just a business and out to make money".
But Paizo is a business too and, unlike WotC who survive BECAUSE of brand loyalty, Paizo is setting out to establish it. A year-long free playtest, pdfs of all their products AND pdfs that are cheaper than the books themselves, honest dialogue with the people at the top of the organization with people on the MBs, etc.

WotC compared to many other companies -gaming or otherwise- comes off as greedy, litigious, and faceless. There's a big problem with the recently posted assassin class and the writer has commented on this... over at ENWorld and not the WotC forums.

[HuManBing]

(I)n the past, [...] I've responded "they're just a business and out to make money".
But Paizo is a business too and, unlike WotC who survive BECAUSE of brand loyalty, Paizo is setting out to establish it. A year-long free playtest, pdfs of all their products AND pdfs that are cheaper than the books themselves, honest dialogue with the people at the top of the organization with people on the MBs, etc.

Agreed. Same goes for my new favorite gaming company, Steve Jackson Games.

If you're a corporation, you're not required to behave in a consumer-friendly fashion.

But you can still choose to do so.

And if you're a consumer, you're well within your rights to take your money where the quality is.

[Jester of the FoS]

There are many, many great examples of gaming companies that support their fans, like Paizo, SJG, Goodman games, and the like. White Wolf opperates in a kind of grey area, publishing to make money but still providing excellent products and expansions (I think WotC's buisness model is based on much of WW's most recent update).
Then there are companies like Palladium that seem to operate as if it were 1989.

Even in non-gaming circles there are companies that inspire loyalty and support and companies that do not. Look at Google, which is quickly becoming The Man, and yet inspires great loyalty and support and confidence. I have unreasonably confidence in the quality and future products of Blizzard, who could easily just coast and put out half-assed works and still break sales records.

WotC is a buisness and is in it to make money. But sometimes the best way to make money is to give people what they want, produce high quality products, and take risks. The OPL was a huge risk but inspired amazing loyalty and defence of WotC that is probably still going on. But much of the ideas of the last 2-3 years have been... less inspiring and might slowly errode the fanbase.
4e is selling well, partially due to the juggernaut that the RPGA and LFR has become. But if they keep pissing-off the fans it will eventually hurt them.
I would argue it already is. PHB2 was pirated 10x for each legal pdf download. I didn't exactly jump at the chance to buy it myself, and I had a tonne of disposable income at the time. When Pathfinder dropped I snatched it up despite being much more poor because I wanted to support it.

[Jester of the FoS]

(I think WotC's buisness model is based on much of WW's most recent update).

I felt I should explain this.

Older editions of D&D operated on a core/expansion model. You got 90% of the full, complete hard rules in the main three books and then bought additional books optional books that expanded on those books. The additional books were always nice but add-ons. Complete Warrior and the Complete Fighter's Handbook didn't really add anything mandatory. And there was the finite number of those, one per class/role.
Ditto older White Wolf products. You had the core book of the line, which was the game in and of itself. Then you had the clan/faction/tribe books. Again, a finite number.

With the rebooted Wolf of Darkness they tried to change how they set-up slightly.
Before, they had most of the information included with some key mysteries that were left for other books. They also focused on the base campaign (Camarilla) and left room for other sects after. With the new line, they added more options (bloodlines and philosophies for vampire) so players would need more than just the one go-to book. And they left more parts of the world deliberately vague or had teasing references to be expanded on.
The result, with one book-a-month, was more books over a longer period which sustains profits for longer. They also decided to only have the three core lines (Vampire, Mage, Werewolf) and have limited releases for the other lines which began and ended.

You see much the same with the 4e line set-up. You have the base books which really have the bare-bones options, so the expansion books look even more attractive. The world is barely described pushing people to the setting books. And by spreading out the iconic races/ classes/ monsters they further encourage more spending.

As a sustained profit model it works great as it keeps them in money for a longer time, at the cost of more time between formerly basic content.


But I've done the buy-every-book thing (for half of 3.5) and there are plenty of people who will do that for 4e. But I'm older and have other things to spend my money on and want to just buy three books then stop. So Pathfinder is really appealing to me with it's two big books (one being huge yet cheap). So I can buy those and be done.

[HuManBing]

But I've done the buy-every-book thing (for half of 3.5) and there are plenty of people who will do that for 4e. But I'm older and have other things to spend my money on and want to just buy three books then stop.

This is pretty much my experience too. I chased down pretty much all the supplements for 3.5 in the hopes of getting a game system that finally worked the way I wanted it to, not realizing that this was a backwards way of doing things. Usually you'll know from the core books whether you like the system or not, and you won't need the supplements just to get it to work properly for your gaming tastes.

[Mortavius]

There's not a lot I can respond to here, because frankly, a lot of it is opinions, and who's to say that one person's opinion is wrong and another's is right?

I can point to things that WotC does that inspire loyalty from me, for example, the efforts of the DDI team. I personally think that the character builder is the best electronic thing to be released for D&D ever. And the basic version, while only giving levels 1-3, is free. AND they've even updated that basic version with all the stuff from the PHB2 (and presumably will do so again when PHB3 comes out).

I can talk about how I get articles three times a week (sometimes more) that I can use. Do I have to pay for them? Yes. But now I don't have to go down to my local store and buy a magazine only once a month. As well, all the stuff from those magazines that is pertinent to players is integrated into the aformentioned character builder, meaning the player doesn't have to look through 20 million books while making their character.

But these are just a few of the ways to me, that WotC is doing a good job, and just my opinions.

I feel D&D is completely playable with the base three books. All the base classes and roles are covered. Do the extra books add more? Yes. But they damn well better! Otherwise, how would they ever release new stuff?

Saying that the 4E books has only the bare bones material is another opinion. Saying it leaves out iconic races and classes? Depends on your point of view. Someone who has played since 1E probably wouldn't say that. Looking that far back, what's iconic to D&D? Fighters, Clerics, Thieves, and Magic-Users. All in the 4E book. So it doesn't have Druids or Barbarians. Well, Druids were only added to the core line-up in Advanced 2E. And Barbarians had to wait till 3E (though they were in 1E, so that was more of a step-back on 2E's part.) Considering the overhaul that Barbarians got in 4E, it makes sense to put them with the other Primal classes, IMO.

And saying that the world is barely described...Jester I challenge you to find me a PHB from 2E or 3E that DID describe the world in any more detail than 4E does.

Fact: 4E D&D isn't "defective," as alhoon said, any more than any other D&D product is "defective." To be defective, it has to have a flaw or be faulty. Under that definition, EVERY edition of D&D is defective, as none of them have been perfect. So saying Wizards sold you a defective product alhoon, well guess what? They've been doing it for over 25 years.

I have to admit, I find it strange. I have seen a lot of complaints about 4E on these forums, but people still seem to be buying the books. If the system is so bad, why keep buying the product? By doing so, you're encouraging WotC to continue doing what you don't like.

[Jester of the FoS]

I can point to things that WotC does that inspire loyalty from me, for example, the efforts of the DDI team. I personally think that the character builder is the best electronic thing to be released for D&D ever. And the basic version, while only giving levels 1-3, is free. AND they've even updated that basic version with all the stuff from the PHB2 (and presumably will do so again when PHB3 comes out).

The character builder is nice now, but it inspires more memories of the DM Tools from 3.0 and the character generator that came with the PHB.
If it came out with it when it was promised (June 2008) I'd probably feel better, rather than have the tools leak out over years.
And there are still many flaws with the character builder. It works great for the base stuff, but doesn't handle add-ons very well and seems very hastily updated. Look at familiars or paladins post Divine Power.
The Monster Builder has been out for three months now with none of the updates promised. Their development must be glacial slow.

I also don't feel the cost is worth it. I'll pay $7 for a print magazine knowing the store and distributor and printer are all raising the cost and knowing the publisher probably makes a buck-a-copy. The digital magazines seem pricier.
I also have concerns about the lack of revision/complaint resolution. There is precious little errata done between publication and compilation. And I've seen a good dozen people complain about being unable to professionally print the magazines because they lack a statement in the file saying they can be printed.
I also call BS on their statement Dragon content is a rigorously playtested and proofed as book-published content.

I can talk about how I get articles three times a week (sometimes more) that I can use. Do I have to pay for them? Yes. But now I don't have to go down to my local store and buy a magazine only once a month. As well, all the stuff from those magazines that is pertinent to players is integrated into the aformentioned character builder, meaning the player doesn't have to look through 20 million books while making their character.

It's alright, but I feel a good 1/4 of the magazine is what used to be Web Enhancements. And I greatly miss Dragon Mirth.

I'm curious to see how the magazines will handle the latest change, with the content being divided into DM content (in Dungeon) and PC content (in Dragon). It's worth noting the latest issue has a wealth of new player content for three classes AND an brand new class and it still has a page-count smaller than average issues of Dungeon.

I feel D&D is completely playable with the base three books. All the base classes and roles are covered. Do the extra books add more? Yes. But they damn well better! Otherwise, how would they ever release new stuff?

Saying that the 4E books has only the bare bones material is another opinion. Saying it leaves out iconic races and classes? Depends on your point of view. Someone who has played since 1E probably wouldn't say that. Looking that far back, what's iconic to D&D? Fighters, Clerics, Thieves, and Magic-Users. All in the 4E book. So it doesn't have Druids or Barbarians. Well, Druids were only added to the core line-up in Advanced 2E. And Barbarians had to wait till 3E (though they were in 1E, so that was more of a step-back on 2E's part.) Considering the overhaul that Barbarians got in 4E, it makes sense to put them with the other Primal classes, IMO.

[/quote]

There's a decent amount of content, but really only two variants of each class. It's very, very easy to have mechanically identical characters. The system is solid but inflexible with customization compared to 3e.

And iconic goes beyond just OD&D. The classes and races that have caught the player's eyes over thirty years and shown-up again and again. I would argue tieflings are iconic now, even before 4e.
Its sixteen months after launch now and we're just about to see summoning druids and are still five months away from psionics.

It is inarguable that they are withholding content and releasing it at a slower rate. They're spacing out releases to extend the line so they don't end-up having to force out Magic of Incarnum or Dragon Magic or Tome of Magic or Book of 9 Swords two or three years after the line's launch. And having a big book each and every month just so their profit it spread out over all four quarters.
The question is over if this is good or bad for the game.

And saying that the world is barely described...Jester I challenge you to find me a PHB from 2E or 3E that DID describe the world in any more detail than 4E does.

The "world" I meant was the greater world, the planar landscape and other realms.
The DMG contains almost unusably limited information on the planes, compared to the massive sections in the 3.5 DMG (or even the preview books).
Even the Manual of the Planes was small and sparse. Instead of the comprehensive book we've been used to since 1e it was sparse and terse to leave room for four or five new planar books once a year. I still have difficulty imaging the Shadowfell and expect the actual book to greatly change how it is seen.

[Jester of the FoS]

I have to admit, I find it strange. I have seen a lot of complaints about 4E on these forums, but people still seem to be buying the books. If the system is so bad, why keep buying the product? By doing so, you're encouraging WotC to continue doing what you don't like.

I think alot of people are "buying" the books from torrents.
Or getting the full book's content through the Character Builder. No one in my group has bought Arcane Power but they still use feats from it.

[Deewun]

I think alot of people are "buying" the books from torrents.
Or getting the full book's content through the Character Builder. No one in my group has bought Arcane Power but they still use feats from it.

Seconded. For our game, I bought the DDI thing, and had the player's reimburse me a little bit (I think I said 3 dollars), then gave them all the password. We all got the character builder, all the updates, for basically 3 bucks a person.

Wizards is a strange entity, trying to create product for their players in a way to not bust their pockets, but still really milking the customer for everything. DDI was the way to go, as I don't truely care enough to have the hardbacks.

Though, their treatment of "new domains" in Ravenloft is ghastly and should be avoided. Hell, the one of the head designer for 4e admitted not long ago on his twitter that he never read Ravenloft material before. Yet they are greenlighting "new" material for the "setting". Ugh. I'll take my gothic fantasy old-school, thank you.

[DocBeard]

Though, their treatment of "new domains" in Ravenloft is ghastly and should be avoided. Hell, the one of the head designer for 4e admitted not long ago on his twitter that he never read Ravenloft material before. Yet they are greenlighting "new" material for the "setting". Ugh. I'll take my gothic fantasy old-school, thank you.

The latest one, with the dragon darklord, was a great Darklord origin.

Yeah, the new domains are more one shot-ish/island of terrory, but that's how they're worked into the generic setting. It could be refitted for Ravenloft proper fairly easily.

Old-school Ravenloft had some real stinkers, too. Nothing unsalvageable, but I don't see why 'vampyrs' are so much more gothic and interesting than orcs.

[Deewun]

Huh, after the last two (Tiefling's bonded to the back and a very boring warlord) I gave up. I'll have to check out this new one.

As for Vampyrs over Orcs, I've always assumed it is less "gothic" on that choice and more "victorian." The evil we cannot see versus the evil we can. "Urban intrigue" instead of "ransacking orcs" I suppose.

[Jester of the FoS]

I think alot of people are "buying" the books from torrents.
Or getting the full book's content through the Character Builder. No one in my group has bought Arcane Power but they still use feats from it.

Seconded. For our game, I bought the DDI thing, and had the player's reimburse me a little bit (I think I said 3 dollars), then gave them all the password. We all got the character builder, all the updates, for basically 3 bucks a person.

Wizards is a strange entity, trying to create product for their players in a way to not bust their pockets, but still really milking the customer for everything. DDI was the way to go, as I don't truely care enough to have the hardbacks.

*Technically* sharing your password is against the terms of use of DDI, as it is for one individual.
However, corporations are individuals under the law so if you paid as a group you are arguably one individual. A D&D club with monthly dues that go towards shared books, pizza, and the like is a textbook corporate entity.
This may be how I have access to DDI, but as a moderator here I will neither confirm of deny this.

Personally, I think WotC is missing a great revenue stream by not offering group rates: a slightly higher monthly payment with multiple usernames/passwords and more downloads of the product. The game is played by groups, asking every individual in a group to pay the same rate regardless if they're a DM or a player is silly (especially since up until three months ago there was no DM tool).