|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 10:27AM
#91
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
Paizo gets a pass because WotC gave them the opportunity to become the "other DnD" company, publishing official DnD content in two magazines for many years on a regular basis with an already exisiting loyal subscriber base. And Paizo took that chance and performed well.
So when WotC officially ended 3rd edition, it was easy for Paizo to pick up the pieces (all covered by an OGL, a contractual transferral of the use of IP to WotC's competitors) and continue what had become what many perceive as the tradition of DnD.
It is not because Paizo was innovative or designed stuff in a better way. PF is only repackaged 3rd edition, after all (which is ok to play of course, play whatever you prefer). But WotC handed over their brand to be used by a competitor.
This, together with a lack of responsiveness to their customer's need, is the main reason why Paizo is as strong as they are. WotC transferred brand loyalty over to Paizo. And since this thread contains opinions of Mr. Rouse on that matter, one really has to ask oneself if one should listen to somebody who was responsible for such a managing blunder. I sure will not.
4E, as much as I love it, was certainly unable to gather as many people as anticipated. I am sure WotC expected to retain more followers of 3rd DnD. But the system of 4E cannot because the differences between what is perceived as "the feel" of DnD and how 4E looks and plays like is too big. Now, I do not think that 4E as a money maker failed. WotC has a very solid subscriber base with DDI, making millions every year without having book publishing costs attached.
But as a new edition eventually has to come along (3.5 followed 3.0 after only 3 years and 3.5 ended after 5 years), in a playing field like this it becomes hard to convince a basically conservative player base to invest money into a new product when the old product can be used over and over again because it gets full support through the possibilities of an OGL and a company with the quasi DnD brand attached to it.
And Next will have the same issues. But in addition, WotC will have to convince the solid 4E players now, too. We are talking about the people who are paying for WotC things at the moment, WotC's customer base. And they will have to achieve this without disturbing the customers they lost in 2008. And that is tough. As I said earlier, I wish them the best of luck with this.
My two cents.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 10:29AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2012
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...You can read how to prevent edition wars here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 10:40AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2009
|
Thank you for this. I guess if that's the point, why don't they just come out and say it then?
They have. Multiple times:
"4e was broken as a game and business and it needs to go away....The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now."
- Scott Rouse, WotC Brand Manager
Still doesn't stop the flamewars. Now let's move on and make DDN great, m'kay?
Wow, did they say that? I am impressed. Seems like not too long ago they were loath to disclose any mistakes.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 10:56AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
Thank you for this. I guess if that's the point, why don't they just come out and say it then?
They have. Multiple times:
"4e was broken as a game and business and it needs to go away....The audience is fractured among a few D&D systems, the GSL did not accomplish what it was supposed to do (create broad 3pp support for the system), the designs has evolved over time (class changes, monsters etc), Essentials was/is confusing to new(er) players and veterans. If 4e was healthy we would not be talking about 5e right now."
- Scott Rouse, WotC Brand Manager
Still doesn't stop the flamewars. Now let's move on and make DDN great, m'kay?
Wow, did they say that? I am impressed. Seems like not too long ago they were loath to disclose any mistakes.
And this is how memes start....
"They" did NOT say that. WotC did NOT say anything like this.
Mr. Rouse did say that when DnDNext was announced. Which was 3 years AFTER he was fired from WotC as Brand Manager. So he did NOT say that as a representative for WotC.
However, that does not make his statement about the fractured player base and the role of the GSL any less true IMO. I find the "broken as a game" is completely out of line, though. After all he promoted 4E in 2008 and part of 2009.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 12:53PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
BS Lokiare, why dump on essentials then? Those classes weren't broken AFAIK. Were they underpowered by a large extent? I was unde rthe impression that most classes in 4th ed were slightly underpowered when compared to the orignal PHB classes.
We dumped on them because we saw them in previous editions and how badly they were out of balance and we had no intention of going back, plus not having choices kind of felt backwards to us, and most of us found them boring. It wasn't because they dropped AEDU. It was because they were bad classes.
For instance if the Slayer had used basic attacks and then every level got a choice of a new rider effect they could apply once per encounter to their attacks, we probably would have loved the class. Instead we basically got 'hit it, hit it harder, hit it' over and over and over. Most of the Essentials classes were a mess. The Vampire for instance either ends a combat at full hp and with full healing surges, because they start with a max of 2 and can drain one off an enemy once per encounter, or they die horribly because no one can heal them more than twice in a combat. They also drain the rest of the parties healing surges between encounters. Horrible, just horrible...
Crappy races and class design isn't an edition exclusive thing. Every edition has them. A side effect of AEDU though is that it really does limit class design and expansion. FOr some reaosn 4th ed players thought that AEDU was an inviolate part of 4th ed. IN previous editions no one cared that much if a new class used totally different mechanics (Psionics or whatever). Not everyone liked them of course but they were not blamed for sinking an edition.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 1:06PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
I can see how you might get that impression looking at the covers, perhaps you can open the books and then read what's inside to see that all the classes have at-wills just like in every edition and what they removed was the AEDU structure which was replaced by a new structure for each class.
Warpriest from Heroes of Forgotten Lands says hi. If it had any at-wills at all, it had, like, one. I don't even think it had one. Snark just makes you look silly when your points don't hold up under scrutiny. Your pre-concieved notion that the 4e brand is causing me to not do research, therefore making me wrong, would be hilarious if it wasn't so offensive.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 1:07PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2012
|
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 1:51PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
For instance if the Slayer had used basic attacks and then every level got a choice of a new rider effect they could apply once per encounter to their attacks, we probably would have loved the class. Instead we basically got 'hit it, hit it harder, hit it' over and over and over.
While I consider that pretty boring, I have one PC who loves the essentials fighters over the AEDU fighter, simply because of the innate simplicity.
I didn't really see Essentials as a failure, because you could use Essentials classes alongside classic 4E classes. And the people that wanted simple got what they wanted, while the people who wanted complex could also do that. Essentials started playing around with the basic rules of 4E. It did pretty much eliminate a lot of multiclassing potential for the new classes, but then you probably weren't playing an Essentials class for that anyway.
By the time Essentials came out, I thought it was a reasonable expirement in simplifying the game, because at that point 4E had enough classes anyway. The design team was already scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for random ideas like the Runepriest. So creating a more basic style fighter was fine, because people who didn't want that type of class didn't have to play it.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 6:41PM
#99
|
|
|
Look, I realize that schadenfreude is a human emotion, but can we stop bashing those people who like other editions and instead try to figure out how to make an edition that everyone can like? I mean, I personally like complex warriors, but Wotc did a good job with expertise dice. I feel that design can lead to complex and simple fighters. We need to focus on helping Wotc make _all_ designs like that - save or die, tactical combat, overpowered casters, balanced classes. If supporting all that sounds impossible- that's why Wotc needs our help to make all of us happy. If we're too happy that a previous edition failed, we're going to deserve this next edition failing as well. If we're too happy to win with our mechanics by letting others lose, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves when we all lose.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 05, 2012 - 9:36PM
#100
|
|
|
I can see how you might get that impression looking at the covers, perhaps you can open the books and then read what's inside to see that all the classes have at-wills just like in every edition and what they removed was the AEDU structure which was replaced by a new structure for each class.
Warpriest from Heroes of Forgotten Lands says hi. If it had any at-wills at all, it had, like, one. I don't even think it had one. Snark just makes you look silly when your points don't hold up under scrutiny. Your pre-concieved notion that the 4e brand is causing me to not do research, therefore making me wrong, would be hilarious if it wasn't so offensive.
So you admit it had one at-will, and then you go on to maintain your absurd opinion.
Again when you open the book Heroes of the Fallen Lands (not Heroes of the Forgotten Lands) to page 88 you find that the Warpriest gets 2 at-will powers, a utility power, an encounter power, smite undead (encounter), channel divinity (encounter), and a daily power. At higher levels they get free riders to their powers.
Now looking at the other classes:
Knight gets an at-will basic attack, an at-will aura, an at-will power that keys off the aura, 2 at-will stances, and power strike (encounter). At later levels they get more encounter powers, and more at-will powers.
Slayer gets an at-will basic attack, 2 at-will stances, power strike (encounter) multiple times as they level, an encounter utility power, more at-will stances at higher levels, and more encounter utility powers as they level.
Thief gets an at-will basic attack, a once a round sneak attack, an encounter backstab, 2 at-will Rogue tricks, more at-will or encounter utility powers as they level, and more at-will Rogue tricks as they level.
Mage gets a rider to their spells, swappable encounter utility and daily spells basically went back to a simplified vancian chart, several at-will or encounter cantrips, at-will magic missile, 2 at-will spells, more riders to spells as they level as well as more encounter utility and daily spells.
You'll notice that they all get different amounts of powers as well as different progressions and different types.
Now lets compare those to 3.5E classes.
Fighter gets an at-will basic attack, they get at-will attacks through fighter only feats.
Monk gets an at-will basic attack, at-will flurry of blows, daily stunning fist, weekly quivering palm, daily wholeness of body.
Paladin gets an at-will basic attack, at-will aura of good, at-will detect evil, daily smite evil, daily lay on hands, daily turn undead, daily spells.
Ranger at-will basic attack, at-will powers (animal empathy, etc), daily spells
Rogue at-will basic attack, at-will sneak attack, daily and at-will special abilities as they level.
Sorcerer gets daily spells.
Wizard gets daily spells.
I see no real difference there except the addition of encounter powers to some classes. They broke the progression up in Essentials so that none of the classes followed the same progression. They even mixed up whether a class gets encounter, at-will, or daily powers and at what levels. They added situational riders and chosen riders.
Please if you don't know what you are talking about then just don't say anything, its for the best...
|
|
|
