Yeah, though I will say there are quite a few good 4e books. Exactly which ones they are depends on the interests of the buyer, but none of the 4e DM supplements are bad. I've used the Draconomicons, Open Grave, and MotP particularly, and Demonomicon has given me some good ideas as well. The other ones are useful too, I just haven't had much call to dig into them so far. Not that there's a vast reason to own every book particularly, but just liked the DM books, they're pretty readable and fun. The player side books really are less exciting, but certainly pretty well done overall.
They did come out with them pretty fast at first, but I think they still managed to achieve a decent level of quality, despite all the complaints by the peanut gallery here (wonder what they'd say to the old 1e UA, that's an example of a book that was just plain crappy).
Alot of the quality is fine but they become a bit pointless after a while. My theory s that after the PHB2 and the 1st round of splats in 3.5/4th quality went down hill. Martial Power, Complete Warrior fine, Complete Champion, Martial Power 2 a bit pointless.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
Alot of the quality is fine but they become a bit pointless after a while. My theory s that after the PHB2 and the 1st round of splats in 3.5/4th quality went down hill. Martial Power, Complete Warrior fine, Complete Champion, Martial Power 2 a bit pointless.
There definitely is a point of diminishing returns. I'd say with 4e though the objective quality of the material actually went up after the first round of books. PHB1, MP1, and AV1 were particularly buggy. PHB2, and later splat books generally were more mechanically polished, up to the point where they started to experiment a whole lot in PHB3 and etc. PHB3 just seemed strained. The concepts were marginal, the implementation of psionics doesn't really quite work right, etc. Even then there were some nice parts like Skill Powers and Hybrids.
I agree with the sentiment with 4e though that they should have slowed down, done more setting and adventure work, done some more APs, and held off on more books. More experience in play, some real actual playtesting of some experiments, and just generally understanding and refining the game more than spitting out content as fast as possible (though the DM-side stuff mostly mattered less, except a lot of the monsters in it now need some revision).
There definitely is a point of diminishing returns. I'd say with 4e though the objective quality of the material actually went up after the first round of books. PHB1, MP1, and AV1 were particularly buggy. PHB2, and later splat books generally were more mechanically polished, up to the point where they started to experiment a whole lot in PHB3 and etc. PHB3 just seemed strained. The concepts were marginal, the implementation of psionics doesn't really quite work right, etc. Even then there were some nice parts like Skill Powers and Hybrids.
I agree with the sentiment with 4e though that they should have slowed down, done more setting and adventure work, done some more APs, and held off on more books. More experience in play, some real actual playtesting of some experiments, and just generally understanding and refining the game more than spitting out content as fast as possible (though the DM-side stuff mostly mattered less, except a lot of the monsters in it now need some revision).
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The core set was quite buggy. By the time MM3 came along, I had almost wrote 4E off as yet another WotC idea that started strong but was slowly swirling down the drain. PHB3 was, arguably, the most useless PHB to date. MM3, however, was great. The new monster stat-block layout, the revisions in HPs, damage, and so on were good to see. It allowed me to actually use the monsters as-is from the book without my own revisions. It's good to see that Monster Vault kept up that good format.
I know many asked for further splats (more Martial Power books, Arcane Power, Primal Power, etc.), but I don't know what they would've really added to what we already have. After all, there's only so many ways you can twist "1[W]+Stat Mod Damage+Effect" until it's just rewording of existing powers.
Instead of further character-building splats (as I'm quite tired of things like Shardmind, Wilden, Runepriest, and Vampire being passed off as viable options), I would love to see further campaign setting options. Bring on Ravenloft, DragonLance, Spell Jammer, and so on. Even if one of them isn't your particular cup of tea, each of them had legions of fans that would love to see them reborn. Bring on a brand-new setting, if it's worth bringing on.
There definitely is a point of diminishing returns. I'd say with 4e though the objective quality of the material actually went up after the first round of books. PHB1, MP1, and AV1 were particularly buggy. PHB2, and later splat books generally were more mechanically polished, up to the point where they started to experiment a whole lot in PHB3 and etc. PHB3 just seemed strained. The concepts were marginal, the implementation of psionics doesn't really quite work right, etc. Even then there were some nice parts like Skill Powers and Hybrids.
I agree with the sentiment with 4e though that they should have slowed down, done more setting and adventure work, done some more APs, and held off on more books. More experience in play, some real actual playtesting of some experiments, and just generally understanding and refining the game more than spitting out content as fast as possible (though the DM-side stuff mostly mattered less, except a lot of the monsters in it now need some revision).
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The core set was quite buggy. By the time MM3 came along, I had almost wrote 4E off as yet another WotC idea that started strong but was slowly swirling down the drain. PHB3 was, arguably, the most useless PHB to date. MM3, however, was great. The new monster stat-block layout, the revisions in HPs, damage, and so on were good to see. It allowed me to actually use the monsters as-is from the book without my own revisions. It's good to see that Monster Vault kept up that good format.
I know many asked for further splats (more Martial Power books, Arcane Power, Primal Power, etc.), but I don't know what they would've really added to what we already have. After all, there's only so many ways you can twist "1[W]+Stat Mod Damage+Effect" until it's just rewording of existing powers.
Instead of further character-building splats (as I'm quite tired of things like Shardmind, Wilden, Runepriest, and Vampire being passed off as viable options), I would love to see further campaign setting options. Bring on Ravenloft, DragonLance, Spell Jammer, and so on. Even if one of them isn't your particular cup of tea, each of them had legions of fans that would love to see them reborn. Bring on a brand-new setting, if it's worth bringing on.
I actually like the way most stuff is actually PoL based though. I mean there are interesting settings, but I don't really USE them. I've used the mechanics that were included in FR etc, here and there, but I'd rather get more monster groups, better and revised monsters, better and revised items, some adventures I can reuse or mine ideas from. Small amounts of other crunch are fine too if they serve a specific purpose. Like the Kara-Tur stuff that is coming out. There are obviously some mechanics there, but they fill in little empty spots or enable a whole new set of builds with a small amount of work.
4e's ultimate problem is that it hasn't evolved a way to deprecate stuff. Everything really should be able to be just rewritten and improved, or flagged as deprecated and you use it at your own risk because it isn't considered anymore when new stuff is added. Unfortunately you can't deprecate dead trees.
MM3 and PHB2 were good in 3.5 as well. The powers system is kinda good but seems inherently limited before it becomes staile so any new class has to compete with 3 years of well supported PHB classes.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
I've used the mechanics that were included in FR etc, here and there, but I'd rather get more monster groups, better and revised monsters, better and revised items, some adventures I can reuse or mine ideas from. Small amounts of other crunch are fine too if they serve a specific purpose. Like the Kara-Tur stuff that is coming out. There are obviously some mechanics there, but they fill in little empty spots or enable a whole new set of builds with a small amount of work.
The crunchy bits from FR, Eberron, and Dark Sun are good. Very good. I'm not sure how they could compile them all into a single book and have an actual "theme" to the book, though, without them being campaign setting books. The only exception I can really see would be an Unearthed Arcana-like book, much like the one from 1E. It had no specific "theme" to the book, but introduced mechanics that were real game-changers, and that stuck around for many years. It looked as though the devs were coming up with interesting mechanics that they wanted to introduce to the game, but didn't want to spread those mechanics out between a dozen different books. Unearthed Arcana was their answer. Setting-neutral mechanics compiled into a single book might be a positive thing for 4E, and something the devs might want to look into.
I've used the mechanics that were included in FR etc, here and there, but I'd rather get more monster groups, better and revised monsters, better and revised items, some adventures I can reuse or mine ideas from. Small amounts of other crunch are fine too if they serve a specific purpose. Like the Kara-Tur stuff that is coming out. There are obviously some mechanics there, but they fill in little empty spots or enable a whole new set of builds with a small amount of work.
The crunchy bits from FR, Eberron, and Dark Sun are good. Very good. I'm not sure how they could compile them all into a single book and have an actual "theme" to the book, though, without them being campaign setting books. The only exception I can really see would be an Unearthed Arcana-like book, much like the one from 1E. It had no specific "theme" to the book, but introduced mechanics that were real game-changers, and that stuck around for many years. It looked as though the devs were coming up with interesting mechanics that they wanted to introduce to the game, but didn't want to spread those mechanics out between a dozen different books. Unearthed Arcana was their answer. Setting-neutral mechanics compiled into a single book might be a positive thing for 4E, and something the devs might want to look into.
Well, it is a likely possiblity. In any case it is a well-worn path, both 1e and 2e did it, and 3.5 as well for that matter. There's no reason 4e shouldn't get a "here's a little different spin on things" book. Essentials kinda did that in a mild way, but there could be a UA. Heck, have another UA every year if you want. You will still have to demarcate things as no longer being assumed to be allowed in the game though, basically deprecated.
People have talked about the M:tG model of editions, but M:tG always had one thing going for it, which was that either you didn't care that much, or you had the official rules for what was allowed in play at any given time. Moxes just weren't considered fair play anymore. Maybe some things eventually go away entirely. The whole thing rests on the question of if players will go for that. What if they don't want to change much? Do they just eventually get left behind because now you have to play with X, and Y rules to have Z rule? It isn't clearly a winning strategy. You could end up with 100 little camps of followers of one variation or another instead of just one group that wants to stick with 3.5.
So, I dunno. Just seems to me the more things get changed the less people consider it D&D, and it has really nothing to do with game quality or design. So the logical thing to do is NOT change the game MORE, just tweak things a bit until it is as good as it gets, as limited as that is.
