|
6 months ago ::
Dec 15, 2012 - 3:53PM
#31
|
|
|
I dunno, I kind of think 4e has actually INCREASED in popularity lately. WotC stirred up interest a bit again but didn't really give out anything people can slake it with (DDN at present isn't really a usable game except for one-shots/playtesting).
I think Essentials was the horribly wrong reaction of WotC. They had this stupidly optimistic business plan and they messed up in a number of ways, then they lost faith in the product instead of doubling down on it. Instead of squandering all their design talent on board games, and then Essentials, they should have had them writing GOOD adventures and producing a fully realized setting. All that other stuff was a distraction. A lot of the "cram out yet another supplement" thing they did for the first year or two was a little unwise as well. They managed to do 3 decent setting launches, but at the same time left all of those hanging with 1 adventure each too. It just wasn't enough, and the one set of modules they did release was horrible, then followed with a delve book (big wow) and that Giants thing, which was pretty mediocre too.
And yeah, ditching PDF sales was moronic. I'm not convinced WotC YET is fit to be a game publisher. They just seem INEPT and they certainly don't seem to get the best creative use of their people either. Paizo uses the same people pretty much and the writing on their products is generally way better, the art is mostly better, etc. WotC can do game design OK, but they're way too buttoned down to be doing fantasy RPGs. They need to either stop playing Brand Management: The Game(TM) or just quit and do board games.
Yes, several questionable business decisions have been made:
a) No official pdf material availalble: pretty much like asking for piracy
b) Poor support for campaign settings, both in terms of quantity and quality of material (the majority of 4E official adventures are shocking - we ended up adapting 3.x ones or making our own up)
c) Essentials was promoted in a very confusing way, none understood what it was (and probably it wasn't clear on the WotC side to begin with). Eventually it didn't bring back anyone while it managed to piss off part of the 4E community
d) The move to 'online only' tools (of lower quality than the client-based ones) didn't go down well with DDI customers (unsurprisingly)
e) No official Apps whatesover avaialbe (a potential source of revenues and opportunity to promote the brand missed)
f) Almost no 3rd party products using the sytem, which would have broadened the potential audience for it (thanks to the move from OGL to GSL, which put off pretty much any company who wanted to give 4E a shot)
All things considering it is almost a miracle it made it this far.
I think the whole Essentials thing was the nail in the coffin. Not that I think Essentials stuff is bad at all, just that it doesn't really contribute positively to the product. People are confused about what books to buy. The material is redundant with the core books, which was a waste of effort and focus. I feel rather like WotC has failed to live up to being in charge of the game at this point. I wasn't that impressed with 3e to start with, it just seems like for every one good thing WotC does they manage to do 5 bad/questionable things. I just don't get it.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 4:35PM
#32
|
|
|
Many reasons. Most of which have already been stated by other posters.
Having played all versions, I'd say the most important factor for me is that every class gets cool stuff to do. I have fond memories of earlier editions, but I never want to go back to a game where the cleric was little more than a walking medicine cabinet who acts pious, and the wizard is either gimped or overpowered, depending on his level. I think it's great that fighters, originally the most vanilla of classes, get interesting abilities.
I think it's fantastic that everyone can heal themselves. Despite what some detractors say, it's a much more realistic approach to healing, as long as one gets on board with the fact that hit points represent the ability to continue, and not just gouges and broken bones.
When I tried the D&DNext playtest and I saw a cleric with a cure light wounds spell that healed 1d8, that alone pretty much closed the door on 5e for me. I never want to go back to that.
My only real complaint about 4e is that there is waaaaay too much damn tracking. If I could only get rid of every power that "lasts until the end of your next turn."
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 5:11PM
#33
|
|
|
My only real complaint about 4e is that there is waaaaay too much damn tracking. If I could only get rid of every power that "lasts until the end of your next turn."
While I doubt there's going to be official help on that, I do have a few suggestions you might want to consider as houserules:
- end of your next turn effects become "start of your next turn" instead
- lower the number of conditions in the game and simplify them. Suggestions:
- Make daze = -2 to attack rolls + combat advantage instead.
- Modify mark to be daze if creature marked attacks any creature other than the creature that marked it.
- Merge stun, surprised and petrify. Stun = cannot take actions + combat advantage. Permanent petrify = permanent stun + gains stone-like qualities.
- Merge restrained and immobilize, make immobilized = can't take actions involving movement (typically move actions)
- Merge deafened and blinded, make compromised senses = -10 to Perception checks + daze if temporary, cannot make Perception checks (with associated sensory organ) if permanent.
- Have all types of ongoing damage stack up, but removable with one save instead of separately saving against each.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 7:20PM
#34
|
|
|
Love this topic and discussion.
4th combat takes too long for a roleplaying game. That said I love the tactical options and strategies offered by 4th and the fact that every class is relevant at every level.
WoTC should adapt the rules to a tabletop skirmish game.
The 4th rules lend themselves perfectly to the boardgames WoTC published.
But our group is going back to 3.5 with houserules for our roleplaying games. We just can't spend 2-3 hours on an encounter.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 7:38PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
Because we are in the middle of a campaign. Also I love much of the 4e mechanics. I have fun with the system, just like I had fun with 2nd and 3.5, the system and crunch isn`t all too important to me.. We have not yet had the problem that combat takes too long, monsters don`t always fight to their death, and I use a lot of minions. What I don`t love about the system is how big the character sheat is and that the number magic items you are supposed to have are built into leveling, that makes it feel very meta to me, if not done right..
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 7:49PM
#36
|
|
|
What I don`t love about the system is...that the number magic items you are supposed to have are built into leveling, that makes it feel very meta to me, if not done right..
try inherent bonuses from dark sun or the alternative awards ideas from the dmg2, they will change your game for the better. then you dont have to give out items or a set amount of money on a schedule.
also this:
monsters [don't] always fight to their death
is so true. many people that talk about long encounters fight every single one to the death. personally i use a morale system; i highly recommend it.
frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/04/morale-i...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:09PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2007
|
I found that while combats take longer, DM's also make fewer combats in an adventure, but make them more important/memorable. Alot of pre-4e experience felt more like Diablo (not making a D&D = video game jab, i just mean mowing down hordes of mobs over and aover) with more RPing, whereas 4e feels more like a movie or comic book, or actual story.
I don't like 4e's magic system at all, and now fully embrace inherent enhancement.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:12PM
#38
|
|
|
I found that while combats take longer, DM's also make fewer combats in an adventure, but make them more important/memorable.
This. No random wandering encounters that exist just to wear down your resources. Encounters that are actually important, big, plot-relevant set-pieces.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 9:30PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
What I don`t love about the system is...that the number magic items you are supposed to have are built into leveling, that makes it feel very meta to me, if not done right..
try inherent bonuses from dark sun or the alternative awards ideas from the dmg2, they will change your game for the better. then you dont have to give out items or a set amount of money on a schedule.
also this:
monsters [don't] always fight to their death
is so true. many people that talk about long encounters fight every single one to the death. personally i use a morale system; i highly recommend it.
frothsof4e.blogspot.com/2012/04/morale-i...
=V my players don't like enemies not fighting to the end...it get them pissed off...I don't have a morality system, i just RP the enemies decisions, some would fight to the end, but others won't based on their personality, also depending on the enemy, i will play them alot more tactical and smarter in combat, playing like a real tactical master the enemies really make a simple encounter really challenging =P
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 20, 2012 - 4:20PM
#40
|
|
|
I'd like to think that Inherent Bonuses isn't even that necessary; just throw lower-leveled monsters to compensate (since you're not following the default assumption of giving all characters magic items). After all, a level 21 Fighter who, armed with nothing more with a pair of spiked gauntlets[1] will be hitting level 16 opponents 55% of the time assuming 24 STR, although the defenses is still low enough to keep them as a relevant threat[2]. With an EXP budget of 12,800 EXP (assuming 4 PCs), that's easily 9 opponents that the PCs can reasonably face even in the absence of magical weapons, expertise feats and armor (as opposed to 4 opponents that the PCs can't fight well without magical equipment and other stat-boosting stuff).
The main problem with this would be that the PCs would have to plow through more HP than same-level opponents[3], but players can compensate by taking either more anti-group abilities or powers with higher [W] and damage dice (since that'll be the main source of damage instead of static bonuses). After all, by giving the Fighter a maul instead of spiked gauntlets, that's 4d6+6 (20 average) with his basic attacks, and with some of his powers likely doing 4[W] damage or more, that's easily 8d6+6 (34 average). In addition, even though individually the monsters aren't that much of a threat[4], if you utilize the standard EXP budget for level 21 that'd mean the PCs are much more threatened by level 16s without equipment, as opposed to level 21s with equipment[5].
Which seems... pretty alright actually.
[1] +20 to hit, 2d6+6 damage (13 average), assuming purely mundane campaign
[2] +21 vs. 27 AC assuming mundane scale armor only
[3] 9 standard lvl 16 enemies with 184 HP (1656 combined HP), versus 4 standard level 21 enemies with 270 HP (1080 combined HP)
[4] level 16 monster does 3d8+11 damage (24.5 average) vs. level 21 monster doing 4d6+15 damage (29 average)
[5] 9 standard lvl 16 enemies would likely dish out 220.5 dpr combined, while 4 standard lvl 21 enemies would likely dish out 116 dpr combined
|
|
|
