The wizard is one of the weakest classes at low levels. At high levels is still made of glass compared to other classes. So if the wizard is not super powerful at high level (quadratic) why will someone play wizards if you virtually will be worse than the other classes? Even if it is as good as the other at high level why should I be worst at first just to be the same at the end?
Are 4e wizards underpowered at low levels? I've never heard anyone say that, and I don't see anything about them that screams I SUCK!
One reason is if you want to cast spells, page through musty spell books and know arcane facts about the universe.
I don't see choice of class as a selection of which option is superior in power level, so any putative ranking of the classes isn't really relevant.
The wizard is one of the weakest classes at low levels. At high levels is still made of glass compared to other classes. So if the wizard is not super powerful at high level (quadratic) why will someone play wizards if you virtually will be worse than the other classes? Even if it is as good as the other at high level why should I be worst at first just to be the same at the end?
AFAIK from the optimization forums the wizard in 4E is still considered the most powerful class. Its close and a well optimized [insert other class here] is better then an unoptimized wizard.
Since it appears that they are boosting the power of wizards in DND next we can take it for granted that the wizard will remain the most powerful class in the game. All evidence indicates that the class will be the most powerful class by a significant margin though maybe not to quite the degree that is true of 3.x.
In my 4e game wizards aren't bad, well the ones my players have used. They are less "quadratic" as has been pointed out. They seem to excel at area affects and some pretty potent utility powers. And their rituals are darned useful as well.
Do they go down faster than a warrior in melee. Yep. But in ranged spell slinging they seem to do as well as any other class. Warlocks and Bards seem to do roughly as bad when meleeing a brute.
|
Funnily when I got into D&D with v3.5 I never had any desire to play a Wizard - the class just never appealed to me (I still have never played a wizard in 3.5, or PF).
However when I read the 4e Wizard, specifically the At Will cantrips, I immediately wanted to play one. The powers evoked all sorts of roleplaying opportunities to me, I imagined this wizard entering an inn, spotting a shady looking character in the back, walking over to him and as he sat down opposite he waved his hand and the unlit candles on the table spring to life (Prestidigitation).
Suddenly I saw that a wizard could start using his spells for dramatic effect without worrying that he had expended a valuable spell slot.
Now PF RPG went some way to try to do the same thing by making cantrips at Will as well, but you still need to prep cantrips and therefore there was still a choice of flavour (Prestidigitation) over cantrips that are more likely to be mechanically effective in achieving a goal (Detect Magic, Read Magic, Acid Splash & Message).
Also in PF the At Will spells are limited to just cantrips, whereas in 4e Thunderwave and Cloud of Daggers are At Will too, so you could use Thunderwave without targeting anyone to aid in an Intimidation attempt (I did this in a LFR game), and Cloud of Daggers could be cast (and re-cast) in a door way to ensure some privacy.
Equally Encounter powers allow even more powerful spells to be used just for flavour because, assuming you can have a 5 minute breather afterwards, they will be available again for the next encounter that day.
E.g. use Charm of Misplaced Wrath to cause a distraction by having one of the criminal gang's thug guards move up to and attack his cohort, allowing all the PCs to sneak by.
TL;DR: The reason for me to play a Wizard in 4e is the flavour, to play a mysterious practitioner of magic who can summon arcane energy to use at his whim.
The wizard is one of the weakest classes at low levels. At high levels is still made of glass compared to other classes. So if the wizard is not super powerful at high level (quadratic) why will someone play wizards if you virtually will be worse than the other classes? Even if it is as good as the other at high level why should I be worst at first just to be the same at the end?
Wizards in 4E are great, and, with the right build, they are super powerful at high levels. The pyromancer I built for my gf has an (at-will) scorching burst with 1d6+24 dmg (+27 if more than 2 creatures are hit) at level 13. The encounters and dailies are even better, and wizard utility powers are some of the most versatile.
There are just so many options for wizards: Almost every book and supplement has some new powers and feats for them: Arcane power, Essentials, Shadowfell, Feywild ...
Of course, it being 4E, the difference in power levels are not as absurd as in 3.5 or PF, but still: wizards in 4E are amazing.
The biggest issue I had with wizard in 4E, and it's probably been dealt with by now if you want to buy enough splat books, is that everything was damage oriented, and that killed most of the traditional wizard builds. Having a blaster wizard be viable was nice, but not at the expense of it being the only option, and saying that it's added in additional splat books or on DDI shows that WotC was either lazy, greedy, or both. The core book should include enough to allow a decent variety of options, and the 4E player's handbook was just plain pathetic, especially for the wizard, but really for the range of options of all the classes. Other than that, I really didn't see that much problem with the wizard in 4E. Their goals for Next both interest and scare me, especially when it comes to the wizard. I'm going to have to wait and see how that turns out before I can proper judgment.
DDI was the core book for 4E, IMO. That was one of the most significant changes they made.
DDI was the core book for 4E, IMO. That was one of the most significant changes they made.
And one of the most problematic. They tried to make the rule system the money maker when the basic rules have never been the primary money maker of any RPG. Adventures, worlds, and other accessories have always been where the real money of that market lies, not the base rules.
DDI was the core book for 4E, IMO. That was one of the most significant changes they made.And one of the most problematic.
Other than me, our group thinks it's fantastic (I like books, personally). Whether it was seen to be successful enough will become clear once WoTC reveal how the D&D Next rules will be delivered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other than me, our group thinks it's fantastic (I like books, personally). Whether it was seen to be successful enough will become clear once WoTC reveal how the D&D Next rules will be delivered.
If they continue to rely on DDI, or something similar to it, they'll not get very many people back. Having to pay a monthly subscription just to access the basic rules and character options is not a good way to attract players. I could see it for the magazines, but not for the basic rule compendium and race and class information.
I have no idea. Whilst I can see why people think DDI is so great, I hope you're right.
I'm more pessimistic than you - I think the online tools, and auto errata, coupled with the unrivaled price will mean it will continue to be popular. I suspect that book publishing is becoming less and less profitable. It wouldn't surprise me if the core books were released in dual format but the modules were electronic only. Digital delivery is kind of ideal for a modular system, after all.
That was how the offline character builder worked. Now they've switched to online, it's only available to subscribers. It's a bargain if you use everything you're entitled to, but its not for everyone.
The wizard is one of the weakest classes at low levels. At high levels is still made of glass compared to other classes. So if the wizard is not super powerful at high level (quadratic) why will someone play wizards if you virtually will be worse than the other classes? Even if it is as good as the other at high level why should I be worst at first just to be the same at the end?
Well, the term "Powerful" is always subjective. What, in your terms, does this mean? Or, more precisely, what is lacking in power for the Wizard in 4E?
At low levels, Wizards don't do as much damage as other classes, namely the Strikers (Ranger, Rogue, and sometimes Warlock from the PHB). But what they lack in damage, they make up for in total control. In the early days, before Errata, the Orbizard was one of the most dominant builds of wizards in the game. They could completely hold monsters actions for turns on end (and can do still, with some finangling). Wizards in 4E are about controlling the environment, monsters actions, and putting down lots of negative effects. I dare say the aspects of the 4E wizards are more on-par with what people did with the 3E wizard since everyone knew dealing straight damage was folly in 3E.
That being said, I really liked the 4E wizard and thought that the flavor was better made for him over previous editions. Some people weren't a big fan of Rituals, but I think this puts them heads and tails above other classes when it came to Out-of-Combat stuff and the possibility to creater your own rituals (or re-write 3E stuff into Rituals) was pretty fun too.
he biggest issue I had with wizard in 4E, and it's probably been dealt with by now if you want to buy enough splat books, is that everything was damage oriented, and that killed most of the traditional wizard builds. Having a blaster wizard be viable was nice, but not at the expense of it being the only option, and saying that it's added in additional splat books or on DDI shows that WotC was either lazy, greedy, or both. The core book should include enough to allow a decent variety of options, and the 4E player's handbook was just plain pathetic, especially for the wizard, but really for the range of options of all the classes.
Could you elaborate a bit more on this? I mean, sure most of their combat spells were damage dealing with effects applied during or after the fact, but I think that helped fuel out-of-combat stuff as I didn't have to allocate "combat spells" vs. "non-combat/fluff spells" from the same pool of resources. And why didn't you utilize more Rituals for your character or use the combative spells out-of-combat (like Ray of Frost to freeze floors, Scorching Burst to light boxes, furniture, etc.. on fire?)
.
That being said, I really liked the 4E wizard and thought that the flavor was better made for him over previous editions. Some people weren't a big fan of Rituals, but I think this puts them heads and tails above other classes when it came to Out-of-Combat stuff and the possibility to creater your own rituals (or re-write 3E stuff into Rituals) was pretty fun too.
Could you elaborate a bit more on this? I mean, sure most of their combat spells were damage dealing with effects applied during or after the fact, but I think that helped fuel out-of-combat stuff as I didn't have to allocate "combat spells" vs. "non-combat/fluff spells" from the same pool of resources. And why didn't you utilize more Rituals for your character or use the combative spells out-of-combat (like Ray of Frost to freeze floors, Scorching Burst to light boxes, furniture, etc.. on fire?)
First, the rituals were a complete waste of time. They cost way too much and took too long to cast for the benefit they provided. Maybe that's changed, but the concept didn't really work all that well in implementation the few times I tried them. Even when they actually worked (which considering that most were still attempting to be combat buffs, this was uncommon due to the cast times), they still were usually a sub-optimal choice for the cost.
Second, re-utilizing damage powers is still doing damage, albeit in a creative manner. This works to a point, but there is only so much one can do with powers that are designed explicitly with a specific target in mind. Also, the almost complete lack of illusions and other nonthreatening, non damage spells really did hurt. In combat, the options were about the same; out of combat, they weren't even close. A few utility powers and the poor implementation of rituals could not make up for distinct lack of options the base class provided.
First, the rituals were a complete waste of time. They cost way too much and took too long to cast for the benefit they provided. Maybe that's changed, but the concept didn't really work all that well in implementation the few times I tried them. Even when they actually worked (which considering that most were still attempting to be combat buffs, this was uncommon due to the cast times), they still were usually a sub-optimal choice for the cost..
That being said, I really liked the 4E wizard and thought that the flavor was better made for him over previous editions. Some people weren't a big fan of Rituals, but I think this puts them heads and tails above other classes when it came to Out-of-Combat stuff and the possibility to creater your own rituals (or re-write 3E stuff into Rituals) was pretty fun too.
Could you elaborate a bit more on this? I mean, sure most of their combat spells were damage dealing with effects applied during or after the fact, but I think that helped fuel out-of-combat stuff as I didn't have to allocate "combat spells" vs. "non-combat/fluff spells" from the same pool of resources. And why didn't you utilize more Rituals for your character or use the combative spells out-of-combat (like Ray of Frost to freeze floors, Scorching Burst to light boxes, furniture, etc.. on fire?)
Ok, let me address some things here:
Cost: At the early levels, yes the cost was a bit high but this also took into consideration that the DM kept pretty strongly to the treasure parcel charts in the DMG. You were supposed to gain an approx amount of GP per level as you adventure. Mages and Clerics would often use this income to buy and use Rituals.
Time: Rituals were never designed to be used in combat, grant buffs to make your character's better in battle, etc. They were used primarily outside of battle for all sorts of non-combative solutions to problems or for magical aid. For example, Knock is a ritual that unlocks locked doors. It's a sure bet that costs a bit of GP and some time. What it doesn't invalidate is the Rogue who can unlock it with a moderate chance of success OR the Fighter's ability to just knock the door the lock is holding closed, down. Is magic useful here? Sure, it provides an excellent solution to a problem, but will it be the solution used every time? No, probably not.
Number of Rituals: The number of Rituals released in the PHB = 44. The number of Rituals able to be used now = 241. In addition, there are quite a few feats that allow you to use Arcana in place of specific ritual's Key Skill, Reduce the casting time of rituals, reduce the cost of specific rituals, etc. And I personally allow my PCs to create new rituals that aren't covered in the 244 options provided.
Second, re-utilizing damage powers is still doing damage, albeit in a creative manner. This works to a point, but there is only so much one can do with powers that are designed explicitly with a specific target in mind. Also, the almost complete lack of illusions and other nonthreatening, non damage spells really did hurt. In combat, the options were about the same; out of combat, they weren't even close. A few utility powers and the poor implementation of rituals could not make up for distinct lack of options the base class provided.
Ok, lets look at some improvisation used with Wizard spells:
Grease: make an area slipper for a quick escape, hold down an area for difficult terrain, using on wall so creatures can't climb on it, using it on yourself to aid in an escape grapple check.
Ray of Frost: Freeze a small pool with monsters trapped under the ice, freeze the ground to make difficult terrain, create ice for any number of mundane things, freeze creatures to a spot.
Scorching Burst: Light furniture on fire, light multiple torches, light a room, make a campfire, light oil on fire, melt a metal chain to drop a chandeliere(sp?) on a creature's head.
Or how about a Fighter using Cleave to destroy multiple support beams to bring down a floor with a monster on top?
As for Illusions, the wizard class alone sports 52 unique Illusion spells that range from cantrips like Ghost Sound to 29th level Daily attacks like False Reality.
Again, I fail to see how 3E's spells somehow create some belief that they're more versatile than 4E's vesions just because 4E's do damage or have a specific target included. The DMG specifically addresses the idea of using your spells outside of combat for improv-esque actions so long as it's cool with your DM.
You apparently missed the "early on" part in my post. As in, the original PHB, and maybe a few books beyond that up to PHB 2. At that point, neither rituals nor powers gave nearly as much flexibility or usefulness outside of combat. The rituals were still too expensive and reactionary in nature to be overly useful, even if they weren't designed strictly for combat. The powers were almost entirely elemental in nature, which can only be readjusted so far. I'm quite certain that if I were to restart playing 4E now, and wanted to subscribe to DDI, there would be a lot more options on both fronts, but that also is part of the problem.
In earlier editions, I could buy a single book, or two or three at most, and without too much difficulty, adjust each class to fit several different types of characters, including, in most cases, one or two that barely included combat at all. Even the fighter types could be manipulated to a decent degree with work. That was most certainly not possible with 4E, not even after the PHB 2 came out. It could be done, but it was heavily reliant on DM permission, which is fine to a point, but has it's own problems. Now, if a person wanted to pay for DDI, the situation became much easier, but as noted above, unless you really wanted to use all of the features DDI offered, the subscription really isn't worth it. Or, you could buy splat books that were in some ways even worth less than their 3.5 counterparts, individually at least. Again, not a very cost effective approach for someone who wanted as many character options as possible, but could care less about other things. The same with the basic classes, and rules; in order to get those in one place, along with all the updates, you have to pay a subscription that includes things that many players may not care about.
The lessons I really, really hope that WotC learned from this experience really are two. One, the core player's handbook must be sufficient for a player to play a decent variety of character types without having to get explicit DM permission, and/or be amateur DMs in their own right. For all that the 4E players handbook had a fair bit of material in a very encyclopedic format that should have allowed the inclusion of much, much more material, the handbooks for Ad&D, 3rd, and 3.5 all managed to include just as much and more.
2nd, if you are going to offer a subscription, a one size fits all to get even basic access to character and rule information is not going to get much of a fan base. For every person who wants the monster builder and the magazines, there's five others who simply want to build a kickass character, and have no interest in DMing, or doing anything that even remotely resembles DMing. Also, by making it possible for everyone, regardless of whether or not they pay a subscription to have full access to the basic rules, along with any updates, and the core races and classes, again with updates, at least a few additional powers from later sources, and maybe a few expanded feat selections, WotC would have a much stronger carrot to entice people to buy the subscriptions. Instead of hiding everything behind their firewall where nonplayers couldn't see anything, people could actually see how the game was developing and progressing over time, making it easier for them to adjust their opinions of the system, and maybe even convince them to pick it up once or twice to try it themselves. This is perhaps where 4E fell the hardest; I could understand a rough launch with all the new things they tried, but when the argument three years later is, subscribe to DDI and see all the changes we've made, it's quite hard to convince those who were disappointed with it early on that the subscription is worth it just to see how certain details have changed, and really the only way to truly change people's mind is to allow them to see the source material, at least partially.
You apparently missed the "early on" part in my post. As in, the original PHB, and maybe a few books beyond that up to PHB 2. At that point, neither rituals nor powers gave nearly as much flexibility or usefulness outside of combat. The rituals were still too expensive and reactionary in nature to be overly useful, even if they weren't designed strictly for combat. The powers were almost entirely elemental in nature, which can only be readjusted so far. I'm quite certain that if I were to restart playing 4E now, and wanted to subscribe to DDI, there would be a lot more options on both fronts, but that also is part of the problem.
Fair enough, I was going from a fully realized approach we have now vs. what was released. Again, as for the expense that largely depends on how forth coming your DM is in the GP department. If he's stingy, then I could see their use GP a bit higher than what I would've liked. As for the powers, again I don't see the bredth of options being that much different than 3E's set of options for a spellcaster, espically since 3E wizards have to put those spells into very limited spell slots that also compete for combat-oriented spells too. And also, 4E's combat-oriented nature and rules for combat only approach to the game is a main reason why most of their spells are battle focused. But they still get cantrips like Ghost Sound, Prestidigitation, Suggesion, Whispering Wind, Mage Hand, Light, Water Stride that are all more or less non-combative yet have interesting and cool effects (and most of them aren't daily consumable).
Perhaps an example of an earlier edition spell or slew of spells that some how facilitate the versatility they have over 4E might help me better understand your point of view?
In earlier editions, I could buy a single book, or two or three at most, and without too much difficulty, adjust each class to fit several different types of characters, including, in most cases, one or two that barely included combat at all. Even the fighter types could be manipulated to a decent degree with work. That was most certainly not possible with 4E, not even after the PHB 2 came out. It could be done, but it was heavily reliant on DM permission, which is fine to a point, but has it's own problems. Now, if a person wanted to pay for DDI, the situation became much easier, but as noted above, unless you really wanted to use all of the features DDI offered, the subscription really isn't worth it. Or, you could buy splat books that were in some ways even worth less than their 3.5 counterparts, individually at least. Again, not a very cost effective approach for someone who wanted as many character options as possible, but could care less about other things. The same with the basic classes, and rules; in order to get those in one place, along with all the updates, you have to pay a subscription that includes things that many players may not care about.
Ok, so the problem was that you couldn't make a non-combative characters in 4E as opposed to 3E and to this I'd have to counter, is this the way in which D&D normally operates? Meaning, specifically, how much of D&D is combat vs. Non-Combat and should this reflect character design? At the onset of 4E, most things were combat oriented with a few Utility being out-of-combat abilities. Yet, as the game matured we got Skill powers that reflect a more non-combat nature, we got Themes with a good sense of non-combative ideas and abilities, we got feats and even a few Paragon Paths that weren't necessarily Super-Combat focued. But I daresay this was exaclty the same thing presented in 3E/v3.5 with their classes, Prestige Classes, and Feats.
As for DDI, I have to say it's probably the best investment one could purchase if they're looking to fully play 4E. The Character Builder and Monster Creator, and Compendium alone are probably worth the amount by themselves and the articles are just icing on the cake. But lets look at it like this, I received the 4E PHB/MM/DMG bundle for my birthday back on '08. That cost was approx $60. Had I only bought the DDI subscriptios from then on, foregoing ALL sourcebooks crafted from then until now, I would have spent $285.60. Now, say another person paid for each book with Character Options (meaning the Power books, Heroes of...books, Neverwinter book, and 2 other PHBs, they would've paid over $400.00 easy. Sure, they have those books and they'll never go away unlike something that DDI might do, but for someone who might only play over the summer for 3 months, a 3-month subscription for $23.85 isn't a bad price at all. Also, I'd venture to say that DDI isn't required to play 4E but it's a nice tool to have.
The lessons I really, really hope that WotC learned from this experience really are two. One, the core player's handbook must be sufficient for a player to play a decent variety of character types without having to get explicit DM permission, and/or be amateur DMs in their own right. For all that the 4E players handbook had a fair bit of material in a very encyclopedic format that should have allowed the inclusion of much, much more material, the handbooks for Ad&D, 3rd, and 3.5 all managed to include just as much and more.
I'd argue that because each class got a significant amount of powers, unlike 3E where you had a whole chapter that consisted of spells for only half the book's classes, it didn't allow for a bigger class base. That and the bigger print size dind't help either. But I agree that certain classes should be involved with the 1st PHB (I think there should only be 1 PHB personally). Yet the Developers of D&D:Next specifically that if a class has been printed in a 1st PHB, it'll be featured in Next's PHB, which tops the number somewhere around 20. That should be sufficent, yea?
2nd, if you are going to offer a subscription, a one size fits all to get even basic access to character and rule information is not going to get much of a fan base. For every person who wants the monster builder and the magazines, there's five others who simply want to build a kickass character, and have no interest in DMing, or doing anything that even remotely resembles DMing.
I'm not opposed to a more selective DDI approach. Perhaps calling one a Player packet that only includes stuff for Players, a DM packet where one specifically calls for DM stuff and perhaps a Delux packet with the whole thing inclosed.
Also, by making it possible for everyone, regardless of whether or not they pay a subscription to have full access to the basic rules, along with any updates, and the core races and classes, again with updates, at least a few additional powers from later sources, and maybe a few expanded feat selections, WotC would have a much stronger carrot to entice people to buy the subscriptions. Instead of hiding everything behind their firewall where nonplayers couldn't see anything, people could actually see how the game was developing and progressing over time, making it easier for them to adjust their opinions of the system, and maybe even convince them to pick it up once or twice to try it themselves. This is perhaps where 4E fell the hardest; I could understand a rough launch with all the new things they tried, but when the argument three years later is, subscribe to DDI and see all the changes we've made, it's quite hard to convince those who were disappointed with it early on that the subscription is worth it just to see how certain details have changed, and really the only way to truly change people's mind is to allow them to see the source material, at least partially.
Now we're breaching SRD/OGL/GLS contracts and a whole slew of problems opens up. This is, IMO, the biggest controversial topic in the Gaming industry. I think when WotC started the OGL, it's intent was good. Give gamers a solid game they can view, tweak, change, and modifiy as they see fit and make it free. From there, we can release specific WotC material that you can only get from WotC (or MOngoose or Green Ronin) and that'll be our cut. But 8, 10, 12 years down the road I don't think it was cutting it anymore. Now matter how much you tweak a system with mods and add-ons, it's not going to evolve that much to make it worth buying all over again. So you have a system overhaul or significant change to the game. WotC did this but far too early (or, release a game far too much in it's infancy) and we got v3.5 instead. To do so a 3rd time with the likes of Pathfinder (in lieu of 4E), WotC would've been torched. WHY pay for another upgrade to the same system when the changes aren't significant? But I'm getting off the track here.
I don't know where D&D:Next stands in their views of an OGL. I have my doubts and I think WotC will never do another OGL game because it's too much hassle and it bit them hard on the ass for breaking from that. Much like Pathfinder would be succomed to if the broke from their OGL/v3.75 style and content. The simple thing is, people like free stuff and if I can download a game or view a sight with all the information available to use at-will with no money given to the company, why would I? I don't think I've given Paizo $$ in over two years but I view and use their stuff regularly. So DDN needs to have a very very basic core foundation to show the public 'freely' to entice people to play, I'm OK with that. But giving them MORE stuff for free really hurts those who actually pay or it with their money.
Perhaps an example of an earlier edition spell or slew of spells that some how facilitate the versatility they have over 4E might help me better understand your point of view?
The lack of serious illusion, transmutation, or really even enchantment spells as options in the first book are significant. Yes, they got added back in later, but they were not really present in enough numbers to build a viable build around.
As for DDI, I have to say it's probably the best investment one could purchase if they're looking to fully play 4E. The Character Builder and Monster Creator, and Compendium alone are probably worth the amount by themselves and the articles are just icing on the cake.
Key word there is "fully." A lot of players don't want or need access to information about every class because they have the class or two they like to play, and could care less about anything else; same goes with races. The Compendium is material that shouldn't require a subscription to have access to, or at least the basic parts of the compendium shouldn't. Monster Creator doesn't matter to the average player because they are not creating monsters; that's a DM function.
I'd argue that because each class got a significant amount of powers, unlike 3E where you had a whole chapter that consisted of spells for only half the book's classes, it didn't allow for a bigger class base. That and the bigger print size dind't help either. But I agree that certain classes should be involved with the 1st PHB (I think there should only be 1 PHB personally). Yet the Developers of D&D:Next specifically that if a class has been printed in a 1st PHB, it'll be featured in Next's PHB, which tops the number somewhere around 20. That should be sufficent, yea?
And yet, even with all the powers they listed, the spell casters especially had a big giant nerf bat taken to them and hard. The only class that really benefited from the new format was the fighter; pretty much everyone else lost options. That's not a good way to start off a new edition. As for Next, we'll have to wait and see how it turns out; I'm cautiously optimistic, but reluctant to get overly excited.
I'm not opposed to a more selective DDI approach. Perhaps calling one a Player packet that only includes stuff for Players, a DM packet where one specifically calls for DM stuff and perhaps a Delux packet with the whole thing inclosed.
That would encourage a lot more people to look at it. Having some things be a one time purchase, and others be subscription based, based on the content in question, would be another vast improvement. Whatever they need to do, they need to be flexible, and the current system is not. One big challenge with the character build was, and may still be, that everything was automatically included as new books were released, negating the need to pay for the material in the books; that was a dumb move, but switching to something like what herolab has where you buy the core information, and than can buy addons would allow people to get what they want without putting WotC in a difficult position of not being able to sell the books.
I don't know where D&D:Next stands in their views of an OGL. I have my doubts and I think WotC will never do another OGL game because it's too much hassle and it bit them hard on the ass for breaking from that.
This is going to be the real challenge of Next. They really need an licensing structure that allows them to give graduated access to different material. Core material and rules should be extremely easy to access, if not completely open, to serve as a carrot. Updates and limited expansions on this core material should also be easily accessible to everybody, as over time this will help blunt any initial negative reactions. Further material could and should have greater restrictions to protect their IP. Again, it's a matter of flexibility, and they need to find a happy medium between the last two editions. While the 3.5 OGL ended up being too open ended, the 4E licensing was just as bad as it choked out a lot of otherwise interested 3rd parties that could have filled in a lot of the gaps that the 4E ruleset had, like adventures and world settings.
The key words, in the end, truly are adaptability, flexibility and modularity, in everything from the rules themselves to how they are released and shared. 3.5 ended up a bit too loose; 4E isn't loose enough. Next will have to find the middle ground that exists between those two extremes. It can be done, as Paizo has proven, but it will take a certain amount of corporate flexibility that WotC may not have.
If they can pull it off, I will be quite impressed; I may or may not buy the system, based on it's own merits, but at least WotC will have proven that they can do it. If they don't, I would expect the D&D brand to not have much more activity in the RPG department any time in the near future. It'll have to be carried by novels and maybe the occasional board game or computer game. Two failed releases in a row will pretty much ensure that.
Here we have the perennial argument that 4e bought up. If the game system doesn't spell out stuff outside combat does it exist? Can it exist? Lots of people want/need the Pathfinder level of out of combat rules to define the out of combat experience. Others don't.
You will never hit the right level for everyone, hence the 5e approach to be all things to all people. Unfortunately this approach often results in something nobody cares for.
Here we have the perennial argument that 4e bought up. If the game system doesn't spell out stuff outside combat does it exist? Can it exist? Lots of people want/need the Pathfinder level of out of combat rules to define the out of combat experience. Others don't.
I think they could find a decent middle ground between the 3.5 level (more than absolutely necessary) and the 4E level (not even trying to define them at all) if they pull off the modularity they keep vaunting. Basic guidelines available for everyone with more detailed options available for those who need/want them. It's tricky, but not impossible.
Here we have the perennial argument that 4e bought up. If the game system doesn't spell out stuff outside combat does it exist? Can it exist? Lots of people want/need the Pathfinder level of out of combat rules to define the out of combat experience. Others don't.
You will never hit the right level for everyone, hence the 5e approach to be all things to all people. Unfortunately this approach often results in something nobody cares for.
Yeah, I think there's this seductive fallacy that because some people like lots of mechanical rules for non-combat activities and some people like them to have none and be totally driven by narrative - therefore a little bit of mechanical support will be appealing to both.
With luck, the modularity will address this (with no rules in the default game and a 'cruch-heavy' noncombat resolution module). I'm skeptical though.
Yeah, I think there's this seductive fallacy that because some people like lots of mechanical rules for non-combat activities and some people like them to have none and be totally driven by narrative - therefore a little bit of mechanical support will be appealing to both.
With luck, the modularity will address this (with no rules in the default game and a 'cruch-heavy' noncombat resolution module). I'm skeptical though.
The problem with no rules is that it is as limiting as too many rules. All to often it devolves into the same kind of situation where people either end up doing nothing or go overboard trying to cheese everything out. Having some kind of usable, but still flexible, basic guidelines encourages the people who would end up doing nothing, while providing at least some kind of curbing effect on those who try to manipulate everything. There is a middle ground between the two extremes that would satisfy, if not thrill, most people; D&D just has to find it. Maybe it will with Next; one can certainly hope.
I dont agree. I like no rules for noncombat stuff (it doesnt end up the way you describe at our table).
A middle ground is going to be too many rules for me and not enough for most.
I dont agree. I like no rules for noncombat stuff (it doesnt end up the way you describe at our table).
A middle ground is going to be too many rules for me and not enough for most.
Your table is not the norm; most tables I've been at it, it just doesn't really work. I don't think most groups need the detailed rules, but they do need a basic outline to serve as a guide to ensure that everyone is roughly on the same page. People may say they don't like it, but the reality is most groups need it and can get used to it. Otherwise, you end up with the DM going one direction, half the players going another, and the rest of the players caught in the middle. This may have worked fine back when the majority of groups were high school buddies, but the system needs to grow up with the players. Structure should not be the focus of the game, but it needs to be there in the background, even if just loosely, and the only way to give structure while still speaking to the larger market is a combination of both the rules themselves and the DM working together. If done right, DMs like yourself will probably not even notice because you're already following all of the "rules" that truly matter anyway. Other systems have pulled it off; there is no reason that Dungeons and Dragons can't if everyone from player to DM to WotC remains somewhat flexible in their expectations.
Yeah, I understand you. I just disagree.
I dont agree. I like no rules for noncombat stuff (it doesnt end up the way you describe at our table).
A middle ground is going to be too many rules for me and not enough for most.
I have a similar preference. My gaming life began with Basic/Expert in 1981 which was very much like 4e with a lack of out of combat rules. Which probably explains my comfort with this style of gaming.
In more recent times I have developed a love of rules systems that bring some gameist elements to the roleplaying, but focus on character narrative rather than "what can I do" style rules. Which is really easy to drop into 4e, much harder in Pathfinder with its fiddly rules for everything approach.
So I very much agree. My 4e, Mouseguard, Swords without Master mash up suits me just fine. More out of combat stuff will get in my way, but almost certainly will not satisfy the Pathfinder/3.5 fans.
I have a similar preference. My gaming life began with Basic/Expert in 1981 which was very much like 4e with a lack of out of combat rules. Which probably explains my comfort with this style of gaming.
In more recent times I have developed a love of rules systems that bring some gameist elements to the roleplaying, but focus on character narrative rather than "what can I do" style rules. Which is really easy to drop into 4e, much harder in Pathfinder with its fiddly rules for everything approach.
So I very much agree. My 4e, Mouseguard, Swords without Master mash up suits me just fine. More out of combat stuff will get in my way, but almost certainly will not satisfy the Pathfinder/3.5 fans.
Unfortunately for both of you, the relative lack of success of 4E is not in your favor. While it is due to many factors, the lack of noncombat rules are a big part of it. The players have changed, and a "DM rules everything" setup is not as viable as it once was. What they need to do with Next is clearly define the "rules" vs the "guidelines." This is the biggest failing of 3.5; too many things published with the intentions of being guidelines ended up getting translated as rules.
The rules should be clear, concise, and included in the core book to provide a solid backbone for the system. They should also, for the most part, not come into direct play at the table. This is especially true with noncombat scenarios, where they can better define the natural limits of what the system was designed to handle rather than concrete examples of normal actions. Once a campaign starts, these should be rarely, if ever, changed, but could still be easily enough changed as part of the process of defining the individual campaign when it come to goals and overall tone.
The guidelines should be where the rules meet gameplay, and therefore, far more flexible and adaptable. This is where things like DC charts, expanded skill descriptions and suggestions, as well as most of the detail work of 3.5 could be put, and while some of it might be useful in the core book, this is where the modularity would really shine. Class design should also partially fall into this category. Running a kingdom, for example, with armies, sieges, and everything else that such an adventure entails, could be a separate supplement. If the campaign in question really delves into running a kingdom, that supplement would be really helpful. If it only dabbles in it, or the PCs don't really touch it, than relying on the base rules + DM control is probably fine for all involved. Same could go with crafting, technology, and spell research.
In short, the rules should provide a common base across the system to define how the different subsystems and pieces interact with each other and what the natural limits of the system are, but the amount of guidelines sought beyond that should be based on the individual subsystem in question, not the system as a whole. The biggest failing of both 3.5 and 4E is that everything became all or nothing. Next has to find a way to establish a common ground between all of the people involved in any given campaign while still leaving room for personal interpretation and creativity. It's a daunting task, but at least this time around, the folks in charge seem to understand the basic challenges, so there is room for cautious optimism.
EDIT: Basically 4E started down this path by clearly defining the important rules. It just forgot that most people also like the guideline portion at least occasionally.
Unfortunately for both of you, the relative lack of success of 4E is not in your favor. While it is due to many factors, the lack of noncombat rules are a big part of it. The players have changed, and a "DM rules everything" setup is not as viable as it once was.
I think you misunderstand, it's not unfortunate for me as I'm not arguing for anything. I'm happy playing pretty much any system our way (I play "rules lite noncombat pathfinder" without too much trouble).
I'm disagreeing with your claim that there's a middle way which will be palatable to those who like no noncombat rules and those who like very complete, detailed and consistent rules for out of combat activities. It will obviously be palatable to you, but that wasn't the initial point.
If my wife likes the red shirt and I like the blue, it doesn't follow that we'll settle for a purple one.
Unfortunately for both of you, the relative lack of success of 4E is not in your favor. While it is due to many factors, the lack of noncombat rules are a big part of it. The players have changed, and a "DM rules everything" setup is not as viable as it once was.
I think you misunderstand, it's not unfortunate for me as I'm not arguing for anything. I'm happy playing pretty much any system our way (I play "noncombat pathfinder" without too much trouble).
I'm disagreeing with your claim that there's a middle way which will be palatable to those who like no noncombat rules and those who like very complete, detailed and consistent rules for out of combat activities. It will obviously be palatable to you, but that wasn't the initial point.
If my wife likes the red shirt and I like the blue, it doesn't follow that we'll settle for a purple one.
Except that it very few people I've met truly use every single rule from 3.5/PF, nor do the 4E people come up with everything on their own. It's not a matter of no rules vs a rule for everything, it's a matter of understanding what rules are universally accepted and used by everyone, and what guidelines/subsystems are more niche. The example of a t-shirt doesn't work because neither 3.5 nor 4E are a solid set of rules; both are a complex system of subsystems and rules working with each other to create the whole package. Isolating which parts are universal, and which parts aren't can sometimes be a challenge, to be certain, but not impossible. Pathfinder seems to be doing it just fine, so there is precedent for it working, even if it completely failed for WotC in the past. If WotC can get past the need for every bit of published material to be equally viable in every world and every campaign, a problem with both 3.x and 4E, they can pull it off just as easily.
Unsurprisingly, I still disagree. I don't consider PF to be some kind of "decent middle ground" between 3.5 and 4E. It's a very good, highly rules intensive system (my favorite such game, as it happens). My preferred game at the moment is swords and wizardry (well down the "no rules" end of the pack).
In my view, there isn't some ideal system between those two which would suit strict devotees of both. They are fundamentally trying to do different things.
Your table is not the norm; most tables I've been at it, it just doesn't really work. I don't think most groups need the detailed rules, but they do need a basic outline to serve as a guide to ensure that everyone is roughly on the same page. People may say they don't like it, but the reality is most groups need it and can get used to it. Otherwise, you end up with the DM going one direction, half the players going another, and the rest of the players caught in the middle. This may have worked fine back when the majority of groups were high school buddies, but the system needs to grow up with the players. Structure should not be the focus of the game, but it needs to be there in the background, even if just loosely, and the only way to give structure while still speaking to the larger market is a combination of both the rules themselves and the DM working together. If done right, DMs like yourself will probably not even notice because you're already following all of the "rules" that truly matter anyway. Other systems have pulled it off; there is no reason that Dungeons and Dragons can't if everyone from player to DM to WotC remains somewhat flexible in their expectations.I dont agree. I like no rules for noncombat stuff (it doesnt end up the way you describe at our table).
A middle ground is going to be too many rules for me and not enough for most.
Not the norm? Seems normal to me...it's how my table is run, as well as the half-dozen GMs I've gamed with since '89. Of course, the obvious point is that it's my own experiences with gaming. To this day I find it odd that so much has to spelled out for outside of combat.
As for the rest of your perspective, it's seems nice in theory, but I seriously doubt it can happen. Then again, I've found the super crunchy codification of everything in the d20 era to be frustratingly limiting from the stand point of "On the fly rulings, not rules for everything" approach to gaming.
It's not a matter of no rules vs a rule for everything, it's a matter of understanding what rules are universally accepted and used by everyone, and what guidelines/subsystems are more niche
I got that concept from your first post:
I think they could find a decent middle ground between the 3.5 level (more than absolutely necessary) and the 4E level (not even trying to define them at all) if they pull off the modularity they keep vaunting. Basic guidelines available for everyone with more detailed options available for those who need/want them. It's tricky, but not impossible.
Unsurprisingly, I still disagree. I don't consider PF to be some kind of "decent middle ground" between 3.5 and 4E. It's a very good, highly rules intensive system (my favorite such game, as it happens). My preferred game at the moment is swords and wizardry (well down the "no rules" end of the pack).
In my view, there isn't some ideal system between those two which would suit strict devotees of both. They are fundamentally trying to do different things.
PF may not be the perfect middle ground, but it shows that a lot of people are willing to be a bit flexible when they feel the company behind the game is as well.
Also, you seem to think that WotC is primarily concerned about strict devotees to either extreme. They are shooting for the market that wants both to some degree or another that is willing to sacrifice some corners for the convenience of having to learn only one system for a wider variety of game styles. Whether or not they succeed is another matter entirely, but there is a market for such a game if it is truly well done and the company provides a level of support that the market is willing to accept, and it's a lot bigger market, or at least a larger currently untapped market, than either extreme. I have no idea if I'd even consider such a system, myself, but there are plenty who would, and I hope WotC succeeds, even if I don't buy the product. Having a range of truly quality options is better for the market as a whole.
Not the norm? Seems normal to me...it's how my table is run, as well as the half-dozen GMs I've gamed with since '89. Of course, the obvious point is that it's my own experiences with gaming. To this day I find it odd that so much has to spelled out for outside of combat.As for the rest of your perspective, it's seems nice in theory, but I seriously doubt it can happen. Then again, I've found the super crunchy codification of everything in the d20 era to be frustratingly limiting from the stand point of "On the fly rulings, not rules for everything" approach to gaming.
Many new players have had completely different experiences with both the rules and the people they play with, and your experiences are becoming less and less the norm as our society changes. It'll probably eventually swing back to the "DM rules everything on the fly," but right now, it's still firmly in the "published rules matter" column.
As far as the theory, I agree that actual execution is going to be a challenge, but it is possible, and it does seem to be precisely what they are aiming for with Next. For the sake of WotC, and the D&D brand, I hope they succeed, because the market will be stronger if they do, but we'll just have to wait and see. It's actually pretty doable as long as the challenges are well understood and approached correctly.
Also, you seem to think that WotC is primarily concerned about strict devotees to either extreme.
I don't know why you think that, I'm not talking about what WoTC should do or are trying to do. I have no confidence in my (or anyone's to be frank) knowledge of what WoTC are aiming for.
You identified the two extremes and suggested a decent middle ground would be ideal and I disagree. I don't think purple will please fans of both red and blue.
You identified the two extremes and suggested a decent middle ground would be ideal and I disagree. I don't think purple will please fans of both red and blue.
The biggest difficulty seems to be that you are thinking of the approaches as two distinct entities, whereas WotC is approaching them as a continuum where both are constantly interacting with each other. One of the bigger, if not the biggest, challenges that WotC faces is getting people to adjust to the latter interpretation over the former, as all earlier editions have favored the former. Next will be the first D&D edition that truly emphasizes the continuum approach, and that will bother some folks as much as the heavy focus on narrative for 4E or the heavy focus on mechanics in 3.x did.
A modular system is (pretty much by definition) not a continuum. I think you're projecting, to be frank.
Irrespective, distinct entities exist even in a true continuum. Temperature varies across a continuous scale, yet ice and steam are real things. Water won't be a good substitute for either.
A modular system is (pretty much by definition) not a continuum. I think you're projecting, to be frank.
Irrespective, distinct entities exist even in a true continuum. Temperature varies across a continuous scale, yet ice and steam are real things.
How is a modular system not on the continuum they've been using to explain their thought process for Next? They are shooting for a game that allows the whole gamut of possibilities; it may not be a single continuum, true, rather more like several all rotating around a single point, but the model is still reasonably sound. As for your example, ice and steam are indeed real things, but both tend to be limited in their applications, whereas water is not, and WotC is clearly going for a more widely applicable general sort of game that can be adjusted and added to as needed by the end user. The focus this time around seems to be less on the individual parts, and more on the entire picture, so strong proponents of any given approach, subsystem, or idea are likely to be disappointed. It's an interesting gamble, and one that will definitely be worth watching as it unfolds. Stronger feelings can mean stronger support, but also stronger hate, as 4E's release clearly showed. It'll be interesting to see how much they are willing to down play the release in order to avoid that same magnitude of disappoint and hate this time around.
You've missed the point of the analogy. Water may well be more generally useful than ice or steam but it still won't satisfy someone who wants either.
You said:
"There is a middle ground between the two extremes that would satisfy, if not thrill, most people; D&D just has to find it."
and I disagree (with that, not with some theoretical market strategy of WoTC).
You've missed the point of the analogy. Water may well be more generally useful than ice or steam but it still won't satisfy someone who wants either.
You said:
"There is a middle ground between the two extremes that would satisfy, if not thrill, most people; D&D just has to find it."
and I disagree (with that, not with some theoretical market strategy of WoTC).
Except that this time around, that does appear to be WotC's marketing strategy. Put together something that everyone can agree on, even if it's not what any of those people would choose as a first choice. They aren't concerned about pleasing individual DMs or players, they are trying to make the group needs paramount and making it easier for groups as a whole to bridge their differences. The whole "I'll play a 4E style character while you play a 3.x style character" is about making it so that you can play with others more effectively, not about being the individual's dream ruleset. WotC is banking on people looking past the rules to their friends behind the character sheets and sucking it up a bit for the sake of the group.
Ok. I give up.
Except that this time around, that does appear to be WotC's marketing strategy. Put together something that everyone can agree on, even if it's not what any of those people would choose as a first choice. They aren't concerned about pleasing individual DMs or players, they are trying to make the group needs paramount and making it easier for groups as a whole to bridge their differences. The whole "I'll play a 4E style character while you play a 3.x style character" is about making it so that you can play with others more effectively, not about being the individual's dream ruleset. WotC is banking on people looking past the rules to their friends behind the character sheets and sucking it up a bit for the sake of the group.You've missed the point of the analogy. Water may well be more generally useful than ice or steam but it still won't satisfy someone who wants either.
You said:
"There is a middle ground between the two extremes that would satisfy, if not thrill, most people; D&D just has to find it."
and I disagree (with that, not with some theoretical market strategy of WoTC).
As someone who's already emeshed in the Playtest and keeps up with the articels as they surface, this will not be the case IMO. Themes, which make up a bulk of the 3E/4E style of the game is dicated by the DM, not player-by-player (as far as I know) and I believe it'll be an all or nothing approach. Espically with how swingy their incorporation is to character design. For example, a Character that has Themes will most likey be stronger mechanically than a character without themes and might upset some balancing factors. OF course, DMs might allow this but make it a note that the player who chose not to use Themes has no room to complain when he's underperforming compared to everyone else.
Also, I've seen a lot of non-combative rules for v3.5 and I find a good portion of them convoluted. Take, for example, the rules on towns and economy. In 3E we got an almost 'Stat' block for a city that looks like this:
Awesome-ville (small town): Conventional; AL NG; 1,000 gp limit; Assets 45,000 gp; Population 803; Mixed (human X, halfling Y, Elf Z, ect).
This is to show how much money they can handle, how much stuff the town had, how much you'll be able to sell stuff there for, the population broken up into raes, the overall alignment, and stuff. But do we need this? Who really used the rules for running a town's economy? Because I never did and I reading the rules for it made my head swim. I don't want to have to look up and see what the going price is for Longswords or how much it'll cost a groug if they sell 9 longswords in town, or how much silver to gp the ratio is going to be based on how much GP the town has. That's all SIM stuff and I HATE SIM-type of games. I don't think any of this really has to do with Dungeons and Dragons, but other might disagree. So a compromise is in order. Go ahead and have a TON of rules to help simulate this type of game, but how about some guidelines or simple ad-hoc suggestions for people who think it's complete rubbish?