Is WotC even trying to unite the community anymore?

282 posts / 0 new
Last post
They made a big fuss about uniting the editions and saying that modularity will allow you to play D&D in the style you want. The preview articles however seem to be taking a lot of traditional elements and setting them in stone while describing 5E's vaunted modularity as having less and less ability to change the game in a fundamental way. 
It's also been a while since I've seen them trumpet the "5E will be for fans of all editions" line. Makes me wonder if this goal is still present, or even if it ever was more than empty marketing.
...whatever
Put five d&d players in one room and ask what they really want in d&d next

Get five totally different answers.
There's a d20 Monkey comic about WotC being trapped between two unsteady rockpiles with aspects from either side of the Edition Wars written on them. I would post it, but I'm at work, and I can't get to the comic.

But, I think that the question isn't "Is Wizards trying to unite the fanbase." I think the question is really, "Can Wizards unite the fanbase."

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
I think it can be done. They are trying to do it. But they are doing it wrong.

The original idea of a core kernel of rules with a pile of optional rules and guidelines is great.

The issue is the optional rules are not being talked about officially until after the forums erupt into an uncontrollable volcanic stream.

The other issue is the talk about the core with little mention of altering rules for the core. So the magma surfing starts.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

TO be honest, it really can't be done. I don't even blame WoTC. Or I don't think they are fully to blame.

Gamers are just stubborn people. They like what they like, and if you don't give them more of the same, they have a big tantrum.

Which means, WoTC either keeps trying to give them the same thing in a new package, or try and come up with something new.

Either way, they get slammed. It's a completely no win situation, in regards to moving DnD forward.

 
I think it´s impossible to please everybody in a game when every one has different expectations form different past experiences. It´s easier to do a whole new thing and be successful than trying to do all things at the same time.

I think they lost focus on the modularity thing because the core rules have so many problems they can´t fix yet they are overwhelmed. The modularity would work best if they choose to work from 4E, that was already a stable system, and fix it making all the modularity from it. It would keep all the current fans, and bring a lot more.

Now they got back to an unstable core system, it´s going to take a while to get it working.

If the modularity thing will still be supported in a year from now. Who knows? it´s easy to do promises you can´t fulfill, and we have seeing WoTC doing it before.
They made a big fuss about uniting the editions and saying that modularity will allow you to play D&D in the style you want. The preview articles however seem to be taking a lot of traditional elements and setting them in stone while describing 5E's vaunted modularity as having less and less ability to change the game in a fundamental way. 
It's also been a while since I've seen them trumpet the "5E will be for fans of all editions" line. Makes me wonder if this goal is still present, or even if it ever was more than empty marketing.

I think they would love to accomplish this goal, but that doesn't mean it CAN be done. Basically the problem is that every game design creates its own 'ouvre', its own unique mix of themes, play styles, tone, conventions, canon, etc. All of that has to be fairly cohesive in order for a game to feel like it 'hits the spot'. Some games are more flexible than others but all of them need an identity.

Consider the differences between GURPS and D&D. They are both at this point about equally old games, and each one has gone through about the same number of editions. GURPS however isn't a game that is very strongly identified with. Nobody but geeks have ever heard of it (or even any of its genre supplements). The game by itself has no real identity. It is indeed GENERIC. It is a fun game and there are people that really like it and play it, but you never can get away from a certain sense of blandness with that game. Many of its core elements are compromises that are intended to be 'good enough' for a wide range of games, but it is never the "WOW, this is awesome!" type of game. Contrariwise look at the strong identification of players with D&D and specific editions of D&D. No modular system that is designed to please everyone and do everything will acomplish that...

That is not dead which may eternal lie
I think it can be done. They are trying to do it. But they are doing it wrong. The original idea of a core kernel of rules with a pile of optional rules and guidelines is great. The issue is the optional rules are not being talked about officially until after the forums erupt into an uncontrollable volcanic stream. The other issue is the talk about the core with little mention of altering rules for the core. So the magma surfing starts.



Totally agreed.

As well, a problem comes up in that the core does not seem to follow their stated goals for it. The core was supposedly going to a be a simple base which you can then put more onto to create a more complex experience. However, only the Martial classes are simple. They made no attempt to present a simple casting system, and instead just copy-pasted the complex Vancian spellcasting system. It really makes it seem like they are forsaking design goals in order to try to appeal to a certain part of the fanbase.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
They made no attempt to present a simple casting system, and instead just copy-pasted the complex Vancian spellcasting system.



Well what more do you want?  D&D Vancian is already pretty damned simple;
1) You Lv. up. 
2) You look at the chart. 
3) You say "Oh, I've gained another spell of x lv."
4) And then you flip to the section of the book that covers spells of that lv. & pick one.
* Somtimes you may need to repeat steps #3 & 4.Wink



TO be honest, it really can't be done. I don't even blame WoTC. Or I don't think they are fully to blame.

Gamers are just stubborn people. They like what they like, and if you don't give them more of the same, they have a big tantrum.

Which means, WoTC either keeps trying to give them the same thing in a new package, or try and come up with something new.

Either way, they get slammed. It's a completely no win situation, in regards to moving DnD forward.

 



See: Unpleasable Fanbase and They Changed It, Now It Sucks.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Put five d&d players in one room and ask what they really want in d&d next

Get seven totally different answers.



Fixed.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Put five d&d players in one room and ask what they really want in d&d next

Get ten totally different answers.



Fixed.



Fixed
The comic mentioned earlier.

www.d20monkey.com/comics/2012-06-28-2012...

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.


See: Unpleasable Fanbase and They Changed It, Now It Sucks.


Ogiwan bring fair points. This fanbase is very large and probably unpleaseable. Any changes is susceptible of making one part or another of the fanbase, simply unhappy.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Put five d&d players in one room and ask what they really want in d&d next

Get INFINITY totally different answers.



Fixed.



Fixed



Fixed.

Also, thank you Valdark.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Funny but true comic :P


Wizards in a though spot right now.  

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Well...I do think that the most diehard-vocal of the fanbase is going to be disappointed, or at the very minimum one 'side' of it is.  Not 'side' as in Edition War (although there is a strong break along that line), but 'side' as in the aspect of gaming culture you're from.  It might be the side I approach the game from.  It might be the side ((insert popular mechanics-first supporter here)) comes from.

But when there are 10 posts bemoaning the 'oh so terrible bad poor shoddy sloppy design' a couple minutes after a new article is posted, you can pretty much bet that those are on the fringe of their side, and the fringes aren't going to be where WotC is going to look to 'unify' people.  After the Civil War, there were still hardliners on both the Union and the former Confederacy.  Neither of them were happy...and history still records that the work of Reunification was accomplished.  Heck, there are still holdouts to this day! (Although...obviously not the same ones lol)  A few holdouts are the cost of unifying the greater whole.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Well...I do think that the most diehard-vocal of the fanbase is going to be disappointed, or at the very minimum one 'side' of it is.  Not 'side' as in Edition War (although there is a strong break along that line), but 'side' as in the aspect of gaming culture you're from.  It might be the side I approach the game from.  It might be the side ((insert popular mechanics-first supporter here)) comes from.

But when there are 10 posts bemoaning the 'oh so terrible bad poor shoddy sloppy design' a couple minutes after a new article is posted, you can pretty much bet that those are on the fringe of their side, and the fringes aren't going to be where WotC is going to look to 'unify' people.  After the Civil War, there were still hardliners on both the Union and the former Confederacy.  Neither of them were happy...and history still records that the work of Reunification was accomplished.  Heck, there are still holdouts to this day! (Although...obviously not the same ones lol)  A few holdouts are the cost of unifying the greater whole.


This.

People get worked up too much by what people ranting on forums say.  The true state is nearly always much closer to the middle than either of the screeching would indicate.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I think minimally D&D needs to support the traditional playstyles of yesteryear and stop orphaning players with new editions.  It's ok to add new stuff but lets not abandon the core game and rewrite it from scratch.  4e was a totally new game.  I think if they just provide any game that adheres to the core design of 1e,2e,3e then they'll be off to a good start.  A lot of people would love to play some variation on the traditional D&D they've always played.  If additional options are available that allow for other playstyles as well then all the better.  I am certain though that any game that isn't "D&D" to a lot of people won't succeed. 
I agree Emerikol. D&D needs to be universally recognized as a franchise by more than it's name alone to garner the kind of success that it used to have in the world of Role playing. This also reunites much of the fanbase under the traditional playstyle and platform of old school D&D from yesteryear. The edition that has been a clean break from that ruleset and playstyle was not embraced by what I believe is the core of the fanbase considering  it's sales and the fact that we are here now playtesting this next ed. of the game four years after its release. It should have little influence on the core of the game if the goal is sales or success. Let rules that allow this type of playstyle and ruleset be part of an optional rule system the way the Players Options were in the days of 2nd ed. Then the larger player base as well as the smaller more vocal one can play according to their desires. D&D must remain steeped in its roots and still evolve to be relevant on the current market. As for the idea of complexity consider this, the original AD&D game was marketed to ages 10 and up. By the way my 12 year old is D.M.ing for me and my wife in an ongoing game.
TO be honest, it really can't be done. I don't even blame WoTC. Or I don't think they are fully to blame.

Gamers are just stubborn people. They like what they like, and if you don't give them more of the same, they have a big tantrum.

Which means, WoTC either keeps trying to give them the same thing in a new package, or try and come up with something new.

Either way, they get slammed. It's a completely no win situation, in regards to moving DnD forward.

 



See: Unpleasable Fanbase and They Changed It, Now It Sucks.


This is pretty much the issue at hand.

For example:
WotC releases Essentials. While it is balanced and meshes seemlessly with 4th Edition, most 4e fans reject it outright. Sales tank.
WotC scrambles to adjust upcoming releases to format them closer to older 4e books (starting with Heroes of Shadow). Many 4e fans still dismiss the books. Sales plumet. 
With much of the fanbase not having moved to 4e and the existing fans not buying their books, WotC is forced to plan for a new edition. They begin work on 5e.
The fans begin to protest that 4e, the edition they abandoned and killed, is not being supported. And complain that there is not enough 4e in the new edition. 
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

Like I said before. The issue is the developers are too slow with their talk about modules.

The core will be the most hated part of the design. The modules the most love.

Why they don't talk more about modules baffles me.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Put five d&d players in one room and ask what they really want in d&d next

Get some long winded, boring stories about this one time in my friends campaign from everyone, and then everyone telling everyone else they are wrong and don't know the first thing about DnD.



Fixed.



Fixed



Fixed.

Also, thank you Valdark.



FIXED

FIXED


Mguy, is that you?

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

...

 



See: Unpleasable Fanbase and They Changed It, Now It Sucks.


This is pretty much the issue at hand.

For example:
WotC releases Essentials. While it is balanced and meshes seemlessly with 4th Edition, most 4e fans reject it outright. Sales tank.
WotC scrambles to adjust upcoming releases to format them closer to older 4e books (starting with Heroes of Shadow). Many 4e fans still dismiss the books. Sales plumet. 
With much of the fanbase not having moved to 4e and the existing fans not buying their books, WotC is forced to plan for a new edition. They begin work on 5e.
The fans begin to protest that 4e, the edition they abandoned and killed, is not being supported. And complain that there is not enough 4e in the new edition. 



In a way it's even worse then that: if 4e had simply tanked, it would be one thing, but it has it's adherents, the ones currently buying product (or, until 5th was announced, anyway).

What if you are (as I am), very satisfied with both essentials and for example Heroes of Shadow? Wizards is, indeed, in an insoluable position. This group doesn't want a 5th, they want (at most) a slightly more comprehensive Essentials!

There really is no happy medium: there are fundamentally divergent design philosophies behind these editions, and people who really liked one are very unlikely to be happy to switch to the other.
The problem is that gamers, especially ones into medieval fantasy or sci-fi, are very critical (often times ridiculously so).  Ever read message boards when Lord of the Rings was coming out?  Or now for the Hobbit?  Or for Star Wars?  Everything is gripe, gripe, gripe.  "I CAN"T BELIEVE THERE IS NO TOM BOMBADIL!!  THIS ISN'T TOLKIEN!!!"  and yet the movies were fantastic.  Star Wars fans with the new trilogy almost couldn't be pleased from the start.  That isn't to say that there can't be valid criticisms, but often people in these areas look to pre-emptively be the first to complain about how the new thing is the worst.  The Simpsons character 'Comic Book Guy' is one of the most brilliant parodies of this.  'Worst. ___.  Ever.'

As to 5th, I'd just tell the designers that at a certain point they should tune out the forum noise and try to make a fun and innovative version of the game.

I'd trade it all for a little more! Grognard? Is that French for awesome?

Like I said before. The issue is the developers are too slow with their talk about modules. The core will be the most hated part of the design. The modules the most love. Why they don't talk more about modules baffles me.




I'm currently lovin the core.  especially the fact that it is so easy to run my games within it because the rules don't fight me when I want to change them a little.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />For example:
WotC releases Essentials. While it is balanced and meshes seemlessly with 4th Edition, most 4e fans reject it outright. Sales tank.
WotC scrambles to adjust upcoming releases to format them closer to older 4e books (starting with Heroes of Shadow). Many 4e fans still dismiss the books. Sales plumet. 
With much of the fanbase not having moved to 4e and the existing fans not buying their books, WotC is forced to plan for a new edition. They begin work on 5e.
The fans begin to protest that 4e, the edition they abandoned and killed, is not being supported. And complain that there is not enough 4e in the new edition. 



I would argue that the quality of product post-essentials, except for Heroes of the Feywild and perhaps Heroes of the Fallen Lands, is what caused the books to be dismissed. For example, while their fluff okay, the Binder and Cavalier are horribly designed classes from the word go. Everything the Binder can do as a controller, its parent class the Warlock does ten times better and doesn't have to be in melee for its primary class feature to function. The Cavalier, meanwhile, is the defender least likely to succeed at is primary role.

Simple math - when you don't put out a quality product, people don't buy it. When people don't buy it, sales plummet. When you continue to put out bad products, more people stop buying. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  Don't blame people who like 4e for lower sales post-essentials. Blame Wizards for making a bad product post-essentials.
I would argue that the quality of product post-essentials, except for Heroes of the Feywild and perhaps Heroes of the Fallen Lands, is what caused the books to be dismissed. For example, while their fluff okay, the Binder and Cavalier are horribly designed classes from the word go. Everything the Binder can do as a controller, its parent class the Warlock does ten times better and doesn't have to be in melee for its primary class feature to function. The Cavalier, meanwhile, is the defender least likely to succeed at is primary role.

Simple math - when you don't put out a quality product, people don't buy it. When people don't buy it, sales plummet. When you continue to put out bad products, more people stop buying. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  Don't blame people who like 4e for lower sales post-essentials. Blame Wizards for making a bad product post-essentials.


I strongly disagree.

Firstly, the most recent books have been among the best of 4th edition. If they had released more books like the Heroes of the Feywild and Elemental Chaos at the start of 4e we wouldn't be talking about 5e.

Secondly, you refer to two classes in two different books, one released many months after Essentials and all the related hate. The binder is in the book retooled to not be Essentials. The cavalier is also one of five classes in its book and only one of 10 Essentials classes. It is quite literally only 10% of the line. And, to judge the classes, people would have to buy the books and sales would be better. The problem was no one even did that.

People bought many worse books and the binder and cavalier are not by far the worst 4e classes.
The PHB1 was full of broken classes that barely did their job and needed to be patched by the various powers books. The MAD paladin. The warlocks with dead levels. The wizard that could only control via dailies. All the crazy broken options.

And the cavalier did an excellent job tanking in my 4e game. Auto damage is nice and killed many, many monsters. And a much better group tank then the pre-Essentials tanks focusing on one foe while the rest of the mob beat on the party. There's no way one bad class killed the entire edition. That's just silly. 
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

After the Civil War, there were still hardliners of both the Royalists and the former Parliamentarians.  Neither of them were happy...and history still records that the work of Restoration was accomplished.  Heck, there are still holdouts to this day!


Fixed.

And I don't just mean because I've played with the US-centric assumption that 'the Civil War' means the War Between the States. I mean because nobody gets to be the thoroughly-thrased slave-owning faction here. We all get to be the survivors, the people picking up the pieces, the people who didn't get all of what they wanted. Those who wanted divinely inspired leadership got corrupt incompetence. Those who wanted genuinely popular, democratic governance got military dictatorship. And so on. We all win, we all lose.

I'd like to think that the vision for D&DN can succeed. But there are always going to be unpleasable fans - the Fifth Monarchists, Diggers, Jacobites, and so on of this scenario. We can't sacrifice the whole to save the part; we just have to do what we can.

Z.
They made a big fuss about uniting the editions and saying that modularity will allow you to play D&D in the style you want. The preview articles however seem to be taking a lot of traditional elements and setting them in stone while describing 5E's vaunted modularity as having less and less ability to change the game in a fundamental way. 
It's also been a while since I've seen them trumpet the "5E will be for fans of all editions" line. Makes me wonder if this goal is still present, or even if it ever was more than empty marketing.

I don't think it is possible to truly unite the editions, and I think this statement was a little misrepresentative.  I do believe they are trying to please fans of pre-4e DnD, but the have turned their backs on 4e.  I also think that saying it going to be "your" game is also a little false, and I think the the core rules have been set for a while.  I do think they should give us a really good idea soon as to exactly what the modules will entail as it might please someone like myself who likes 4e more than other editions.  I had really hoped that more of 4e was going to be included in DnDNext because right now, I think of it more as DnDBack.

See what happens....trying to stay optimistic. 

Chelsea FC - winner of 2012 FA Cup and Champions League Champions of Europe! Three Lions Resident Footie
FIXED


Mguy, is that you?




I don't know what you mean. I'm not Mguy.
After the Civil War, there were still hardliners of both the Royalists and the former Parliamentarians.  Neither of them were happy...and history still records that the work of Restoration was accomplished.  Heck, there are still holdouts to this day!


Fixed.

And I don't just mean because I've played with the US-centric assumption that 'the Civil War' means the War Between the States. I mean because nobody gets to be the thoroughly-thrased slave-owning faction here. We all get to be the survivors, the people picking up the pieces, the people who didn't get all of what they wanted. Those who wanted divinely inspired leadership got corrupt incompetence. Those who wanted genuinely popular, democratic governance got military dictatorship. And so on. We all win, we all lose.

I'd like to think that the vision for D&DN can succeed. But there are always going to be unpleasable fans - the Fifth Monarchists, Diggers, Jacobites, and so on of this scenario. We can't sacrifice the whole to save the part; we just have to do what we can.

Z.


Ummm...I wasn't implying -anything- about slave-owners or anything of that nature.  I was just grabbing something that still makes political headlines every now and then on both sides (ie, something I figured most would understand in some way).  If it came across as a different way, I truly apologize.  Or maybe you just confuzzled me some.

At either rate it -seems- we're on the same page though.  The fringe ideological holdouts can't be converted, sad as that is, but life must go on.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

FIXED


Mguy, is that you?




I don't know what you mean. I'm not Mguy.


Ahh.  That whole fixed fixed fixed thing reminded me of another poster on a different site I saw recently, that's all.  No harm done.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I would argue that the quality of product post-essentials, except for Heroes of the Feywild and perhaps Heroes of the Fallen Lands, is what caused the books to be dismissed. For example, while their fluff okay, the Binder and Cavalier are horribly designed classes from the word go. Everything the Binder can do as a controller, its parent class the Warlock does ten times better and doesn't have to be in melee for its primary class feature to function. The Cavalier, meanwhile, is the defender least likely to succeed at is primary role.

Simple math - when you don't put out a quality product, people don't buy it. When people don't buy it, sales plummet. When you continue to put out bad products, more people stop buying. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  Don't blame people who like 4e for lower sales post-essentials. Blame Wizards for making a bad product post-essentials.


I strongly disagree.

Firstly, the most recent books have been among the best of 4th edition. If they had released more books like the Heroes of the Feywild and Elemental Chaos at the start of 4e we wouldn't be talking about 5e.

Secondly, you refer to two classes in two different books, one released many months after Essentials and all the related hate. The binder is in the book retooled to not be Essentials. The cavalier is also one of five classes in its book and only one of 10 Essentials classes. It is quite literally only 10% of the line. And, to judge the classes, people would have to buy the books and sales would be better. The problem was no one even did that.

People bought many worse books and the binder and cavalier are not by far the worst 4e classes.
The PHB1 was full of broken classes that barely did their job and needed to be patched by the various powers books. The MAD paladin. The warlocks with dead levels. The wizard that could only control via dailies. All the crazy broken options.

And the cavalier did an excellent job tanking in my 4e game. Auto damage is nice and killed many, many monsters. And a much better group tank then the pre-Essentials tanks focusing on one foe while the rest of the mob beat on the party. There's no way one bad class killed the entire edition. That's just silly. 

Jester:

Just because you think the most recent books have been among the best in 4th Edition, doesn't mean they are. HoEC had some okay stuff in it, but HotFW and HotFK are the only two essentials books with any real meat to them - HotFW moreso than HotFK.

I grant you that, with some exception, most of the HoX classes do a passable job at their role low-to-mid heroic, but as you get closer to Paragon only a select few manage to maintain even baseline mechanical and mathematical expectations for their roles.

Just looking at HotFL:
* Having played both Cavalier and Paladin, Cavalier is only a good defender when the DM chooses for it to be good. The bonus damage, especially at higher tiers, is negligible, the Cavalier has no means to keep things locked down, and its aura ceases to function the moment something moves away - which it can do quite readily. Finally, Divine Sanction powers don't play well with the Cavalier's Defender Aura. The Paladin, meanwhile, is capable of multi-marking, has a few slow powers for stickiness, and can build upon Divine Challenge and Divine Sanction to make disobeying them quite painful for its foes. The only thing the Cavalier has going for it is the summoned mount, and most of the time it can't be used depending on where/what kind of adventure you're undertaking.

* The Sentinel is a leader built on a controller frame without the necessary tools to be an effective leader - either through enabling, buffing, or healing. Sadly, a hybrid Sentinel/other leader (such as Shaman or Cleric) is far superior to the Sentinel itself due to more freedom in power choices.

* The Hunter suffers from the same problem Seeker does - single target control. If anything, the Hunter is a better Striker than Controller due to a relative lack of tools.

* The Scout is probably the best built class in HotFL and admittedly the one I've looked at the least due to lack of appeal. But why play a Scout when Ranger does it better in a number of ways? Granted, Twin Strike and access to minor action attacks have a lot to do with Scout not being even in the same galaxy as its parent class, Ranger. The biggest thing Scout has going for it is an extreme stretch in RAW for Paragon Multiclassing to take Dual Weapon Attack since it is an at-will power and that's all PMC looks for.
Like I said before. The issue is the developers are too slow with their talk about modules. The core will be the most hated part of the design. The modules the most love. Why they don't talk more about modules baffles me.




I'm currently lovin the core.  especially the fact that it is so easy to run my games within it because the rules don't fight me when I want to change them a little.


I assume you mean 5e?
Honestly..they are trying to unite the community..they are doing the best they can....or the best they know how to do.  Wizards as a company isn't used to being open, and especially isn't used to their tests being done this way.  In the past all of their playtests were small...multiple groups who they had a tight control to watch.

But this test?  No it was given out to anyone who signed up.  and over half of the people who actually playtested the game..ignored what was being tested.  Everybody looks and cries over broken fighters, wizards..clerics..rogues..etc.  But actually read the playtest..those arn't whats being tested (more than likely they were characters made just for the playtest, and probably had no char creation rules to speak of).  What was being tested was the core mechanics of gameplay...but everybody ignores that and screams bloody murder over the characters who were not the point of the test at all.

And then we get onto these boards...half of the people are jumping under a bus and screaming out as loudly and annoyingly as they can "RUN OVER ME!".  And then trying to claim that Wizards has thrown them under the bus.

Another half is trying to make the game as much like 'their edition' as possible.  Yet another is bashing other editions in any way they can, using hateful speech, as well as pure out lies.

And at this point you see we have 4 halves on the board all pulling in different directions, and realize the non-euclidean mess that Wizards actually has on their hands.  With more halves somehow showing up.

Each and every single one of them clamoring and screaming that they are the core fanbase.  They are the holder of the one right true way of playing D&D, that everyone else was wrong, incorrect, and everyone elses way of playing D&D should be forgotten now and forever.


And yet...not a single one actually read what Wizards wants to make.

Wizards isn't trying to make a single game that uses the rules of all previous editions..while it will try to pull what it believes to be good and D&D central ideas from all editions...its goal isn't to make one huge edition that looks like every single one.

If you go into DDN thinking you'll see 4.5.  or 3.75.  Or a new brand of 2e..or 1e...or whatever.  You WILL be disapointed.

Wizards stated goal has, instead, been to create a game..that has its own system..a simple 'core' system.  That will form the strong backbone of the edition.  It won't be a revamp of an old edition..it will be its own thing.  From there the hope is to supply modules...or if you like 'sub-systems' that help it mimic the way other systems felt.

The same way the current Wizard in the playtest isn't a wizard from 3.5....but gives a nice mimic of the way he feels to play.  As well as finding ways to improve some peoples percieved issue of 'well out of spells I shoot my crossbow'.

The hope of DDN..is to give an edition where nobody has 'won' but everybody is satisfied with what they got.  The issue is they are still building the core...and the pieces they are testing dosn't represent the entire thing they have in mind.  But people are still screaming because their specific piece is still in the works..or still needs more testing...in the playtest of all places.
Having played both Cavalier and Paladin, Cavalier is only a good defender when the DM chooses for it to be good. The bonus damage, especially at higher tiers, is negligible, the Cavalier has no means to keep things locked down, and its aura ceases to function the moment something moves away - which it can do quite readily. Finally, Divine Sanction powers don't play well with the Cavalier's Defender Aura. The Paladin, meanwhile, is capable of multi-marking, has a few slow powers for stickiness, and can build upon Divine Challenge and Divine Sanction to make disobeying them quite painful for its foes. The only thing the Cavalier has going for it is the summoned mount, and most of the time it can't be used depending on where/what kind of adventure you're undertaking.


 It's unfair to compare the pre-Essentials paladin with multiple books and all available options behind it and the HoFL cavalier with maybe one Dragon article behind it. For example, Divine Sanction was one of the series of paladin powers added in Divine Power to fix the base PHB1 paladin, who suffered heavily from MAD and a poor mark.


But the gist of your arguments comes down to the Essentials classes being poor. Okay, we'll accept that as true for the moment. 

Now, which seems more likely:

Scenerio 1) 4th Edition is going strong. Sales are good. WotC releases two books with terrible classes. People stop buying their books and sales drop for four months. They cancel the remaining Essentials books and change the formatting of the already written book in the hopes it does better, but it doesn't. WotC decides not to fix those classes via new content or return to the style of product that had been doing well. Instead, they'll end the edition early and spend the next two years planning a new edition, producing content that *might* make money in twenty-four months.

Scenerio 2) 4th Edition is doing poorly. Sales have slumped. The year before they tried removing PDFs figuring piracy was costing sales, but that didn't do much. They decide to bring more people into the game with a new product line aimed at new players and people who didn't like earlier 4e books. The line does badly leaving them scrambling for options and no choice but hoping a new edition does better. 

4e was not healthy. It had a small but likely dedicated fanbase, and when many of them abandoned the game with Essentials, dismissing many of the later books sight unseen. People asking if Heroes of Elements or Heroes of Feywild were "Essentials" and then instantly dismissing the books when it was revealed the classes therin were not exclusively AEDU. And thus, the edition died. Essentials was the hail mary pass to save 4e and the fanbase fumbled the reception. 

And now there are a tonne of threads and blogs about how WotC is turning their back on the 4e fans.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 




No offense, but what you are describing doesn't sound like game design, it doesn't sound like good writing, it sounds like politics. Where the maxim is, "everyone is equally disappointed". Not a good selling point.

The other thing it sounds like? One of those huge movies, like the Phantom Menace, where there is literally "something for everyone", from tiny little children to politics bores.

How often do you hear "designed by a comittee" as a compliment?
4e was not healthy. It had a small but likely dedicated fanbase, and when many of them abandoned the game with Essentials, dismissing many of the later books sight unseen. People asking if Heroes of Elements or Heroes of Feywild were "Essentials" and then instantly dismissing the books when it was revealed the classes therin were not exclusively AEDU. And thus, the edition died. Essentials was the hail mary pass to save 4e and the fanbase fumbled the reception. 

And now there are a tonne of threads and blogs about how WotC is turning their back on the 4e fans.


I also did a blog on the topic of why 4e failed here. In it I argue why Essentials was a big mistake, but not just because the classes were arguably inferior.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

....

But this test?  No it was given out to anyone who signed up.  and over half of the people who actually playtested the game..ignored what was being tested.  Everybody looks and cries over broken fighters, wizards..clerics..rogues..etc.  But actually read the playtest..those arn't whats being tested (more than likely they were characters made just for the playtest, and probably had no char creation rules to speak of).  What was being tested was the core mechanics of gameplay...but everybody ignores that and screams bloody murder over the characters who were not the point of the test at all.

...



+1,000,000

Your whole post is good but this is especially relevant.  I've never seen a bigger bunch of people who can't handle a playtest.  I'd like to lock them in a room and force them to repeat the above paragraph a thousand times before I let them out.