# Dear Wizards, I no longer have a clue what you're doing



## Aegeri (Jan 13, 2011)

Once upon a time I was very happy with Dungeons and Dragons 4E. While it had its teething problems such as it's rangers that could one shot orcus, it's bloodmages that could inflict ludicrous damage that made any striker cry and other issues: It was the best damn edition of DnD I'd ever played. It was easy to think about and run as a DM, meaning I could focus my attentions on the actual important things about the campaign. Story, NPCs, encounter design and making a plot that wasn't a solid railroad my PCs couldn't effect. 

Certain things about 4th Edition took me a long time to grasp. It took me a long time to get to grips with how to deal with the player characters power curve into epic. I had to really learn how to get the most out of encounters in 4E and once I did, I was rewarded with fun, interesting and tactically relevant combats. It meant they fit into the story as my villains weren't instantly one shot by some ridiculous SoD spell (or ridiculous rules quirks) and more was spent focused on playing the game.

As time moved on I enjoyed 4E more and more and more. While the digital magazines often varied in content, the wonderful monster builder tool made making new monsters - my favourite 4E hobby - easy. I could make "professional" looking stat blocks with ease and keep all my creations on my PC in one easy to find place. Regular updates to keep all monsters in the builder, meant I had an easily accessed archive to compare any two creatures together regardless of where I was. The character builder meant I could construct and keep easy track of my PCs, what items they had and basically make my life very easy (as a DM).

Monster manual 3 completely rewrote the book on how monsters were designed in a fantastic way. Epic creatures gained enough teeth to not ineffectually cat-scratch at PCs. Many solos rediscovered something between their legs that they had been missing: _Their balls_. Newer and better design principles for monsters came in across the board. This was a wonderful landmark in books for running a game in 4E, one that has pleasantly continued.

Then last year was possibly the best for DnD ever when Dark Sun came out. Dark Sun 4E captured my imagination in ways no other setting did since Planescape (in 2nd Edition). I loved the new mechanical crunch, I loved the setting for being everything I loved about the 2E setting with all the stupid gone, I loved making the second book a monster book and it really felt _different_ to a Eberron/FR/PoL setting. Wizards were prepared to make a setting awesome by itself and not just compromise everything! This was awesome and I can't wait for it to contin-

Oh.

Where did we go wrong Wizards? The first thing you did was release essentials. Now, I am not against essentials and I don't think they are too bad overall and certainly not the devil. The new builds in fact I actually really approve of even though I thought I would hate them. But where was the _love_ in these products that clearly went into every aspect of Dark Sun? It felt like reprints, especially the Warpriest (Redone Strength Cleric) and Mage (Redone wizard, obviously). That both of the "Heroes of" books reprint so much material between them doesn't help. 

Then there are the boxed sets with essentials. The red box was good for nostalgia reasons, but was not really the introduction to 4E for a new player that I hoped it could be. The DM's kit was plain worthless as I already owned the previous two DMGs. All I got out of it was an adventure and tokens, which wasn't really a great return for the investment to be frank. The monster vault was a good product, but reading it the entire thing felt in many ways like errata to the original MM. This is especially telling when you consider most of the MV monsters have replaced MM counterparts in the compendium directly (Ala in an errata like fashion). Of course MV is a really good book and I think was great - but it had that tinge of disappointment attached to it.

Wizards decided that wasn't enough, they then took the character builder away from me. A resource that saved me countless hours and a very handy tool for me, became online only. Unfortunately during this process it made the character builder utterly unusable for me. I still haven't got it to successfully load before crashing and letting me make an entire character. Even if I could, it doesn't let me (or my players) add houseruled feats, magic items and other things easily. I can no longer easily keep a coherent record of my PCs characters - especially those PCs in my Dark Sun game (where themes aren't in the original CB at all). In the end I could live with this, but then insult was added to injury.

One update to the MB added a host of bugs that made editing monsters - if you've read my posts on monster design before you'll see the complexity of the creatures I make - a total nightmare for me. I frequently spend more time correcting errors for monsters I try to publish and share for others than I do actually writing the damn thing in the first place. Then of course Wizards decided just not to support the tool anymore. There isn't even an online equivalent, just a buggy mess that has been left to die and no longer supported. That's a real blow for me and now I'm back to writing monsters by hand. It's just easier to do the maths in my head and write a monster out than _use the official tools_. That's just stupid.

Then there is the terribly implemented and thought out magic item rarity in essentials. Now firstly I support the magic item rarity 100%. I think it's a solid concept but the execution is terrible. Consider for example that Ogre Gauntlets are apparently rare and give a +2 bonus to damage for a daily power. While an uncommon like Iron Armbands gives a +2 damage bonus all the time. This is plainly ridiculous, why would anyone feel that the gauntlets were a "character defining" item? Why would any player want it to begin with? But the real problem is there is an entire lack of rares and commons. It can be very hard finding suitable common and rare items for different slots, considering there is a huge lack of both kinds of items.

During all of this Dragon and Dungeon have really declined heavily. Dragon is filled with fluff articles that offer poor to really bad mechanical crunch most of the time (noting that this isn't always true: Always gems). Dungeon is becoming a delve magazine, where actual cartography is gone in favor of hacked together Dungeon tile maps and quality articles feel constrained by not getting enough space. Court of the Bramble Queen comes to mind. The one focusing on the Prince of Frost from earlier in Dungeons life cycle was almost twice the length! Now even when articles are posted is like betting on a blind man on fire throwing darts at a board. There is just no predictability anymore.

Now we've just got to the point after the best moment in 4E (IMO) all the way back when I was discussing Dark Sun to the current situation. Three books have been canned, one of them a desperately needed book on rare items (that are sorely lacking right now), the release schedule looks completely barren, the digital tools/offerings have still not improved and the monster builder is still a broken mess. Everything that was starting to get somewhere in July and August of last year has now been practically dismantled bit by bit. There just isn't anything to cheer about anymore or even look forward to - the ship looks like it is firmly beginning to sink.

I love Gamma World, but for those who don't I can feel their pain because the last few months big releases were Gamma World and two expansions (One is due next month). But for DnD since essentials there has been nothing except... dungeon tiles? You don't want to hear my opinion on what I think of that frankly. 

Over the time since 4E has been released I've bought everything just about. I can even name the products I don't have: Dungeon/Dragon annual, Players Handbook Races: Human/Dragonborn/Tiefling and Hammerfast (slipped through the cracks, but I intend to get it). Right now there just isn't anything that excites me the way the previews of say - Dark Sun - excited me so much last year. In fact all looking at the release schedule this year reminds me of how little actual books/supplements seem to still be coming out for DnD. I am also uniquely concerned that the epic tier is going to be entirely ignored by Wizards. Monster Vault , which is excellent in spite of my quibble about it feeling a bit "errataish" has a miserable amount of epic monsters (13 IIRC). The next "monster" book is Threats to the Nentir Vale and quite honestly I can't see that book having a big focus on more epic monsters (where we _desperately_ need more standard non-demon monsters).

In fact, I can't figure out what Wizards is doing anymore. All I see when I look at the sparse release schedule, the entire lack of content that I want and the seemingly volatile situation DDI has gone through is the last throes of this edition. I would love to be wrong here, but as someone who truly enjoys 4E to such an extent I've devoted a lot of time over these 2 years to running 2 campaigns minimum, it just seems that it's all going to be over. It's especially hard to take because when Dark Sun was released, I couldn't have been happier about 4E and felt it was truly getting to the point it was really great.

Ever since Dark Sun it's just been purely downhill. I personally hope that Wizards doesn't just wait on whatever they've got planned if they _do_ have something planned. The whole fiasco with everything that happened recently has put a major damper on how I feel about 4E. Just doesn't feel like there is any future in 4E right now. I was one of those who argued with the essentials "naysayers" (for lack of a better description) that essentials would be over and then back to normal business.

Don't I feel stupid now.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 13, 2011)

Well, the most recent Ampersand is probably the most disappointing article I have ever read.

It is like they have no idea what their customers are saying. Instead of concrete details, they just give spin and promises. Thanks a lot.

Why, oh why cannot they announce things FIRST, then do it?  There would be a lot less angst.

All I know is that 2011 might be the cheapest gaming year for me since the year before I started playing.


----------



## JediSoth (Jan 13, 2011)

I just bought into Essentials; just came around and decided to give 4E another chance ... and now I find out they cancelled the magic item book?? UGH.

It's like they're SO terrified someone might get their books illegally, they're no longer willing to let people buy printed versions legitimately. All I wanted was a magic item book so I could do it all OFFLINE, if necessary.

I feel like no matter how much I try to understand and like D&D 4E, WotC just doesn't want me to.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 13, 2011)

Probably becuase they have no idea what they are doing.


----------



## JediSoth (Jan 13, 2011)

Personally, I think someone in charge at WotC LIKES the publicity all the rampant speculation about their decisions generates. As Brendan Behan said, "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."

As baffling as some of the business decisions WotC makes are, they DO get people talking about their products. And even if it's all negative talk, from what I understand, the online community is a minority of their customers at the moment.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 13, 2011)

I don´t know if i am really disappointed or not, actually.

I like what they did with essentials. Basically. But some things they left behind make me sad. Where are monster building guidelines and rituals etc. I really want books that close the gap between Essentials and advanced.

I however really approve that Magazine articles are getting real R&D approvement. And cutting those books means we really could get quality content online and our subscription can really become worthwhile again.

Am i feeling really conmfortable right now, not really. But lets critically look at the next few months of online articles and see if we get really valuable content. Maybe subscribers get some nice bonuses now. But i definitively am not sure anymore too...


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 13, 2011)

I think that they might appear pretty rudderless right now because commands may have come from "on high" for the brand to shape up or ship out, as it were.

So now, they have to abandon whatever plan they had (to whatever degree of well-thought-out-ness that it may have been), and start scrambling to please the bosses and shareholders.

They might be in a lose-lose situation. Essentials may have been _good_, but not good _enough_; it may have sold well, but not well enough. Targets may have been set by Hasborg higher-ups that were difficult, if not impossible, to meet.

I recall a rumour back when 3e first came out that despite the PHB outselling any previous PHB, they nearly cancelled the D&D line entirely because it didn't sell well enough. Now, like I said, it was just a rumour I heard, and probably not true at all, but it illustrates the point.


----------



## Aegeri (Jan 14, 2011)

I have to admit from a marketing point of view that may be a good thing, but for being a fan of DnD it's making life pretty hard.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Jan 14, 2011)

JediSoth said:


> Personally, I think someone in charge at WotC LIKES the publicity all the rampant speculation about their decisions generates. As Brendan Behan said, "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."
> 
> As baffling as some of the business decisions WotC makes are, they DO get people talking about their products. And even if it's all negative talk, from what I understand, the online community is a minority of their customers at the moment.




But, if they're cutting support for the offline crowd (books) and possibly enhancing support for DDI, then the focus is being repurposed toward the online crowd. If someone is smart enough to log on to DDI and subscribe, they are also likely familiar with other venues of information on D&D. 

I don't know....I can't imagine that book sales are in such a slump that going online is the only lucrative option available to WotC. For some bizarre reason this reminds me of last year's fiasco with GOG.com, where the online retailer of Good Old Games seemed to close up shop for a week, then returned after a few days revealing it was a publicity stunt, and they were back, better than ever, still DRM free and selling Baldur's Gate for PC. Unfortunately, I don't think that's what is going on here....but I do suspect that the announcement of the new Neverwinter Nights and Daggerdale computer games have a lot to do with WotC's future product plans, and I know that the new marketing director has all his prior experience in DDO and online MMORPGs, so my suspicion is that going forward, online is their new business model--and the existing fans can take it or leave it.


----------



## BobTheNob (Jan 14, 2011)

Well stated in general, but I do disagree on essentials.

I (finally) got my hand on a complete set of Essentials books and have been going through them like a kid in a candy store. My conclusion? I love em! lluurvv EM!

I just think essentials is slicker, better presented, easier to read, tighter. The builds are far more distinct (which admittedly the blurred lines between non essential classes was really starting to bug me....20+ classes and so much damned material its becoming hard to tell the difference between what they do  ) and...well, I wont go on, this is opinion only and I dont want to step on peoples feet. I just think Essentials is a great product. Does it totally reinvigorate the game for the existing player base? No...Sorta.

Within the next three months our group is changing campaigns, and when we do, we are (practically, but not totally) throwing out all pre-essentials content. Truth is we just got a little tired of the bloated nature of 4e, and essentials HAS totally invigorated the game for us. Our group (not yours...ours) which only plays once per week and leaves the other 6 entirely 4e free (except me  ), needed simplicity.

So please understand, essentials was NOT the product that the existing base who were happy with 4e were waiting for, its the product that appeals to those new to 4e or who were getting over of its current form.

Personally, I wish essentials was the original set of books for 4e.


----------



## aco175 (Jan 14, 2011)

Have not realy got into essentials all the way yet but like most of what I have seen.  I was also hoping for a cool magic book this year to help me make cool rare items, but alas?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Consider for example that Ogre Gauntlets are apparently rare and give a +2 bonus to damage for a daily power. While an uncommon like Iron Armbands gives a +2 damage bonus all the time. This is plainly ridiculous, why would anyone feel that the gauntlets were a "character defining" item? Why would any player want it to begin with? But the real problem is there is an entire lack of rares and commons. It can be very hard finding suitable common and rare items for different slots, considering there is a huge lack of both kinds of items.




I agree, this would absolutely ridiculous... if the Ogres of Gauntlet Power were Rare (they're not... they're Uncommon), if they only granted a +2 bonus to damage as a daily (they don't... they grant a +5 bonus), if they lacked a property (they have a property: +1 to Athletics/Strength checks) and if they were equal or higher level than the Iron Armbands (they aren't, they're 1 level lower).


----------



## Aegeri (Jan 14, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> I agree, this would absolutely ridiculous... if the Ogres of Gauntlet Power were Rare (they're not... they're Uncommon)



You are incorrect, they are rare. Page 265 of the Dungeon Masters Book.



> if they only granted a +2 bonus to damage as a daily (they don't... they grant a +5 bonus)



That is also actually wrong. See page 265 of the Dungeon Masters Guide. It's a +2 bonus to melee damage rolls until the end of the encounter.



> if they lacked a property (they have a property: +1 to Athletics/Strength checks) and if they were equal or higher level than the Iron Armbands (they aren't, they're 1 level lower).



This doesn't make them a good rare item whatsoever. 

May I ask where you're getting the stats for the Ogre Gauntlets from? Because they are a level 5 rare (hands slot) item in the Dungeon Masters Book on page 265. They are not an uncommon item with a +5 bonus to damage daily as you describe. Noting that this is a free action for one attack, while the DMBs rare version is +2 damage for an entire encounter.

In fact I have just realized you are indeed confused and are looking at the wrong item. You are looking at the original item in the PHB. The item I am talking about is the RARE Gauntlets in the Dungeon Masters Book. I am still completely correct on my assessment, but you did make me briefly worried.

And yes, for a rare item they _really are that terrible_.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> And yes, for a rare item they _really are that terrible_.



Maybe it's because when combined with the Girdle of Giant Strength and a big magic hammer... oh, wait, sorry. Wrong edition.


----------



## Aegeri (Jan 14, 2011)

It appears that the Gauntlets of Ogre Power rare in the DMB is _so bad_ it isn't even listed in the compendium. _Hilarious_.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> You are incorrect, they are rare. Page 265 of the Dungeon Masters Book.




According to Wizards, the D&D Compendium is the latest source for any game element. It lists the Gauntlets as a Level 5 Uncommon item with a Daily power that adds a +5 power bonus to an attack.

However, it appears the Compendium does not have the DM's Kit data included, but does have the other Essentials items in it (Bracers of Mighty Striking reference Essentials 1 as a source).


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> It appears that the Gauntlets of Ogre Power rare in the DMB is _so bad_ it isn't even listed in the compendium. _Hilarious_.




Nothing from the DM's Kit is in there, it seems. The Staff of the Magi is missing, and the Holy Avenger is marked as Uncommon when I remember it being one of the only Rares in the game upon the DM's Kit's release.


----------



## Aegeri (Jan 14, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> According to Wizards, the D&D Compendium is the latest source for any game element




Given how poor their recent efforts with DDI are, do you really believe that? I wouldn't trust the compendium as far as I could throw it at the moment. In addition to this they have been really all over the place with the compendium. Some monster vault creatures have simply replaced the older version, while others are added in pretty much alongside the original MM versions. This is why I commented on the MV creatures feeling like "errata" - especially if you look at how the compendium handled inserting them.

Either way, if you have the book you should go and have a look at the items in it. The Ogre Gauntlet "rare" in the DMB is everything that is wrong with the item rarity system and its intentions as "Character defining" items.

Edit: For those following who are confused. The item Raven is referring to is published in the original PHB. It gives a +1 to athletics skill checks and strength checks as a property, is a level 5 uncommon (IIRC now) and has a daily power as a free action to add +5 damage onto a damage roll you make.

The rare gauntlets were published in the essentials DM's kit book. They have the same property, the sole thing that makes them "rare" compared with the original gauntlets uncommon is they get a +2 bonus to damage until the end of the encounter.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Given how poor their recent efforts with DDI are, do you really believe that? I wouldn't trust the compendium as far as I could throw it at the moment. In addition to this they have been really all over the place with the compendium. Some monster vault creatures have simply replaced the older version, while others are added in pretty much alongside the original MM versions. This is why I commented on the MV creatures feeling like "errata" - especially if you look at how the compendium handled inserting them.
> 
> Either way, if you have the book you should go and have a look at the items in it. The Ogre Gauntlet "rare" in the DMB is everything that is wrong with the item rarity system and its intentions as "Character defining" items.
> 
> ...




Sadly this story kinda sums up where 4ed is at


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't know Aegeri, I get your frustration level. OTOH there's another end to this telescope (yes, a very old reference but this crowd will easily get it...). 

My monster builder works fine (maybe luckily my DDI ran out 2 days before the last update, so I don't know what went on with the last update there). Same with offline CB, it is still working fine. Even with the last offline CB update it was going fine. 

As for Dragon and Dungeon, I've found there are a pretty decent number of articles that I can get something out of. At least I read them and get ideas or just some entertainment. I'd pay for DDI for the Compendium and CB alone. They are both incredible time savers and I got DDI before MB even existed (but it is certainly way useful and I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it online).

I have 25 really nice 4e books, all of which I'm happy with. Some are better than others, but they are all well written and most of the material is very usable and sensible. The game system itself is the same as ever and as good as the day I bought into it. Essentials is fine. I have only really looked at it enough to know what it is about and I doubt anyone will suddenly want an Essentials character tomorrow, but if they do great. Even if I had some philosophical problems with it I can just ignore it and if players want it, well good for them they can play whatever they want as long as it is balanced and works, which Essentials does.

So basically I figure I have the key tools from WotC that I need to just keep on playing for as long as it holds my fancy to play 4e. It could be 10 years and if the company closed its doors tomorrow it would be sad, but I'd have no problem just going on playing. I can still play 2e and TSR is cold in its grave. Heck, I can still buy every 2e book ever printed for cheap money if I wanted to. I'm pretty certain that will be true for 4e probably as long as I want to keep gaming. 

Overall whatever this tempest in a teacup is over what WotC is doing with 4e it seems quite remote and barely important to me. I'll probably keep paying for DDI for as long as it has some usable tools and I hope and expect they will get better, but I don't really NEED DDI to play and I don't even really need WotC to play. 4e makes me happy, WotC's troubles and foibles are far off remote things. Interesting to read about but not important to my actual gaming.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 14, 2011)

This year for Christmas Hasbro laid off the fans. Sorry, mate.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 14, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> This year for Christmas Hasbro laid off the fans. Sorry, mate.




lol. Could be. I'd XP you but apparently I've been overly generous of late...


----------



## blalien (Jan 14, 2011)

I'm withholding judgement for a few months.  If all the canned content appears online and Wizards announces some new books to flesh out the schedule, I will be pleased.  If they don't do one or both of those things, then I'll start agreeing with this apocalyptic talk.

For now, I just wish Wizards would be more honest.  Either give us a real schedule for 2011 or tell us that they're having difficulties.  Tell us what the worst-case and best-case scenarios are.  Tell us if we might see a permanent trend to online content, or if 4th edition is really in decline.


----------



## Iron Sky (Jan 14, 2011)

Our group pretty much bailed at around the Dark Sun/Essentials border for most of the reasons the OP mentioned.

We're playing a Dark Sun game at the moment and its great, but I have a feeling it might be our last 4e game. I was thinking of running a 4e game once the Dark Sun game was over, but it seems wizards has gone from the game getting better and better every month to... not so much.

I think much of the appeal of the game was seeing how it would improve next, what the next errata would fix. I'll pay to ride in a taxi that's going to the destination I want to arrive at, not one that's taking me further away from it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 14, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> lol. Could be. I'd XP you but apparently I've been overly generous of late...




Blame Gary.


----------



## Zaran (Jan 14, 2011)

I believe that the only way their stategy would work well is as follows:

1) All the content they planned on printing in books is rolled into DDI. 

2) DDI users get access to every bit of D & D by having a current account. And I mean everything (DMG tables, Rare Items, XP Charts)

3) They don't get greedy and start charging extra for DDI

4) (and this is one I think they will fail on) They actually produce good content! Whether it's Dungeon, Dragon, or other game aid.

If they can do this, and this might be their plan, I think it will work great because they easily can get 100 dollars a year from every dnd household out there which I'm sure isn't what was happening last year.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 14, 2011)

blalien said:


> I'm withholding judgement for a few months.  If all the canned content appears online and Wizards announces some new books to flesh out the schedule, I will be pleased.  If they don't do one or both of those things, then I'll start agreeing with this apocalyptic talk.
> 
> For now, I just wish Wizards would be more honest.  Either give us a real schedule for 2011 or tell us that they're having difficulties.  Tell us what the worst-case and best-case scenarios are.  Tell us if we might see a permanent trend to online content, or if 4th edition is really in decline.




Sadly, I don't think we can expect this of them. While it would be nice to know and perhaps useful for the fans, what possible benefit could WotC gain from announcing, "Yeah, the D&D line is going down the drain and we don't know how long we can keep it going?" That would only undercut sales further and make it harder to get financing if they need it (and I'll bet they do).

Rule one of being a corporation is never publicly admit to being in trouble. If forced to release numbers that show your business declining, move heaven and earth to find a way to spin them positively, or at least make a credible claim that "We've had some trouble in the past, but we have a bold new strategy going forward that's going to fix everything."


----------



## gourdcaptain (Jan 14, 2011)

Shazar said:


> I can't agree with the first part of your post, but the rest is spot on.




Could you trim that quote down?


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 14, 2011)

JediSoth said:


> Personally, I think someone in charge at WotC LIKES the publicity all the rampant speculation about their decisions generates. As Brendan Behan said, "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."




What utter nonsense.  Tell that to Toyota, whose sales plummeted after the whole failing brakes issue became public knowledge.  

I could think of dozens of other examples, but why bother? It should be self-evident that there is such a thing as bad publicity and companies try to avoid it like the plague.

Whether WotC is suffering bad publicity right now is another issue, but it seems like perhaps they are.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 14, 2011)

I posted my thoughts on Wizard's actions on my blog.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 14, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> What utter nonsense.  Tell that to Toyota, whose sales plummeted after the whole failing brakes issue became public knowledge.



For the record, it was a sticking electronic throttle control problem. The unit in question was actually manufactured by a third party and used in vehicles marketed by other makes as well. It only became statistically significant because Toyota used it in many of their models and they sell _a lot_ of cars.

The media attention, while warranted to a degree, had become more of a witch hunt than a safety issue in the then-current political-economic climate.




Chainsaw Mage said:


> I could think of dozens of other examples, but why bother? It should be self-evident that there is such a thing as bad publicity and companies try to avoid it like the plague.
> 
> Whether WotC is suffering bad publicity right now is another issue, but it seems like perhaps they are.




That said, your point is valid. It may even bear some resemblance to the  public image issues that D&D held back in the 1980s, though you  could argue that the image may have even helped sales in some  demographics back then.

The kinds of things they've been doing of late I don't think is  well-represented by that analogy though. I think stirring up the  hornet's nest that is their fanbase with incomplete or misleading  preview articles only serves to get those fans talking about the game,  which, good or bad, is probably what they want.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 14, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> What utter nonsense.




A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.  It applies as well to clichés as to any other saying.


----------



## jedijon (Jan 15, 2011)

Wizards is Japan in the 1700s.  WotC, you are a bastion of impregnable awesomeness whose every decision "vaults" you further into a "compendium" of wonder.  Your fervor is no "miniature" affair!

Cancellations are merely the result of baleful blows of worthless detractors, and all is well in your sane and virtuous land!

Besides, Magic is all you really ever needed.  And now, let's "Dancey".


----------



## fumetti (Jan 23, 2011)

Obviously, WOTC desperately wants a business model that milks its customers on a weekly/monthly basis.  They want DnD to be an Xbox Live product.

Since they can't have that, they want a collectible-game model like MTG, YuGiOh, MageKnight, Heroclix, etc.

And they are doing everything possible to recreate Dungeons and Dragons to fit that model, even if they have to destroy it in the process.

What's worse is that it's owned by Hasbro.  If DnD tanks, Hasbro isn't going to keep it going at break-even just to keep fans happy.  Hasbro doesn't like properties that don't sell well (see the repro vintage GI Joe line), and doesn't mind putting them on a shelf.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 23, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Obviously, WOTC desperately wants a business model that milks its customers on a weekly/monthly basis.  They want DnD to be an Xbox Live product.
> 
> Since they can't have that, they want a collectible-game model like MTG, YuGiOh, MageKnight, Heroclix, etc.
> 
> ...




*yawn* This tired argument has been made since 1997. After 14 years of it being wrong, you think people would actually give up on it.


----------



## korjik (Jan 24, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> *yawn* This tired argument has been made since 1997. After 14 years of it being wrong, you think people would actually give up on it.




My rare minis disagree with your assesment.


----------



## TheClone (Jan 24, 2011)

4e feels like a total construction site to me. 
- Some Books canceled
- Dungeon & Dragon rebuild, so you can pick the articles you like, but no compilation for the collector's and magazine fans anymore
- CB rebuild but with less features and usability but has potential to grow up. Some like it offline, some online
- MB has bugs for me, too, but it still works. But needs updates with all the recent monsters
- VT is a good start for a beta. If they integrate the right features, it might become a good tool.

...and some other. They're changing a lot. There are (many) parts of it that have a potential to become real good things. But so far it's just potential. Will they be able to realize it? I'm pretty skeptical because recently they just released new construction sites. Dark Sun and the rebuild done with Essentials were my last highlights, too.

Currently I'm just afraid of what's up next, because we're totally hanging on WotC's drip. If they cancel the online tools, we're screwed. Nobody ever wants to look up the powers and feats for his build across all those books, I guess. At least I won't. And with that no new characters, no level up, no D&D 4. There is no real evidence that this will happen soon, but the with the current downfall of everything 4e it's just my (at least partly) irrational fear.

And I'd hate to go back to 3e, especially as a GM. 4e did a really good job for GMs. Tough I now have a brand new Pathfinder Core Book in the shelf and it will be my next option if I can't sure that my next campaign will live shorter than 4e support.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 24, 2011)

TheClone said:


> And I'd hate to go back to 3e, especially as a GM. 4e did a really good job for GMs. Tough I now have a brand new Pathfinder Core Book in the shelf and it will be my next option if I can't sure that my next campaign will live shorter than 4e support.




You could always give Savage Worlds a try:
Core Book $10
Wizards and Warriors (free) or Fantasy Companion $20. The latter includes race creation, new edges, some new powers, trappings 

Modern Martial Arts (by the Brand Manager) a few unarmed combat edges: free
Dials for adjusting lethality (by brand manager): free

Furthermore, several of the best third party companies for d20 Modern have started converting their Ennie nominated or awarding stuff over to Savage Worlds

Thrilling Tales 2e (Adamant) for Pulp

Mars: Savage Edition (Adamant) for planetary Romance

Darwin's World (RPGObjects) for post apocalypse

Sidewinder:Recoiled (Dog House Rules) for Wild West: okay, this may be a long wait as no time frame was given for completion.  However, they have been doing some small stuff.


----------



## occam (Jan 24, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Three books have been canned, one of them a desperately needed book on rare items (that are sorely lacking right now), the release schedule looks completely barren, the digital tools/offerings have still not improved and the monster builder is still a broken mess. Everything that was starting to get somewhere in July and August of last year has now been practically dismantled bit by bit. There just isn't anything to cheer about anymore or even look forward to - the ship looks like it is firmly beginning to sink.




Not to dispute any of your feelings, but I would've recommended waiting until _after_ DDXP before expressing fundamental doubts about the future of D&D. I don't know what WotC will discuss there, but rending of garments and gnashing of teeth soon before their designated event to talk about future plans just seems a bit hasty.

If you don't like what you hear from DDXP, rend and gnash away!


----------



## ATimson (Jan 25, 2011)

occam said:


> Not to dispute any of your feelings, but I would've recommended waiting until _after_ DDXP before expressing fundamental doubts about the future of D&D.



Maybe my impatience is because I'm a lapsed fan who only got back into D&D in early December after a year-plus hiatus, but it feels like Wizards is killing the game right as I picked it up (again). So rather than slowly building up my copies of the back catalog new, I've just gone ahead and bought as much as I could afford from Half.com and Amazon Marketplace.

It's used or remaindered copies that WOTC won't see any money from, but Wizards isn't giving me any reason to believe this stuff will stay in print. DDXP was too late.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jan 25, 2011)

This thread inspired me to pop back over to Wizards.com and read some of what's being done or said over there for the first time in a long while.

I have to say, it certainly sounds like the wheels are coming off.  Not a good thing.  I hope they have a unified position to get behind for DDXP.


----------



## Aegeri (Jan 26, 2011)

I am pretty sure for the first time since they made the magazines online only they are going to fail to publish multiple articles.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2011)

With the con coming up this week, I am really hoping we'll get some kind of an idea where WotC is going with the brand. For now I'd answer the OPs statement with "I very much doubt that anyone inside the company knows where it's going either.

This is one of those situations where I really hope I'm wrong, but things do not look good. It's like they've basically called it a day and are all but closing up shop. I'd really like to buy something, but it's yet another month where I don't even have that option.

We will see, I suppose.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 26, 2011)

I know!

You can only have so much books a year after a certain period of time, since players don´t buy books and DM´s have all books they need.

So essentials was an attempt to reorganize things into packages that help new DMs and new players and get them buing into DDI, which will in return give actual content that is good and balanced and tools that are very convenient for players and DMs alike.

A good idea if you ask me, but noone asks me to be honest...^^


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Jan 26, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You can only have so much books a year after a certain period of time, since players don´t buy books and DM´s have all books they need.




Players...  don't... buy... books..........

There's something in that statement that doesn't quite ring true -- if only I could put my finger on it...

*crash* *bang* *ow* *damn I needed that ankle*

(Sounds courtesy of me tripping over one of my piles of 4e books)


----------



## fumetti (Jan 26, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> *yawn* This tired argument has been made since 1997. After 14 years of it being wrong, you think people would actually give up on it.




Given that it hasn't been wrong for a single second since WOTC took over (they began with reimagining DnD as a miniatures combat game from the start), there is no reason to "give up on" the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 26, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Given that it hasn't been wrong for a single second since WOTC took over (they began with reimagining DnD as a miniatures combat game from the start), there is no reason to "give up on" the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth.




  Well, it's true that WotC did push D&D in a much more mini-centered direction once they took over (this, along with the instability of the rules, is one of my two major reasons for not really buying into 4E--and I'd generally abandoned 3E long before), but the collectible miniatures aspect didn't show up until 2003 and 3.5.

  I do think that WotC tends to be somewhat unstable with regard to their plans for the game (witness the "we'll put out major evergreen supplements and let the OGL support the rest" plan of 2000-2001 or so in comparison to the "lots of hardcovers" model of 3.5 or the DDI push, the "settings killed TSR" vs. the setting search, the rise and fall of the miniatures, and so forth), but I'm not sure if that reflects flexibility and adaptation to a changing marketplace, or a flailing about searching for the 'one thing' that will make D&D as big as it was in the 80s (which was a fluke and a fad, IMO). Probably a mix of both.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 27, 2011)

fumetti said:


> Given that it hasn't been wrong for a single second since WOTC took over (they began with reimagining DnD as a miniatures combat game from the start), there is no reason to "give up on" the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth.




"Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures"

They reimagined a game that began as a miniatures-based combat game into a miniatures-based combat game. Not to mentions the decades in between where all the measurements in the game were given in inches (which had to be converted to feet). The more things change, eh?

And I like how the "reimagining" actually doesn't touch on the post I was responding to, where the poster claimed they want to make D&D "an Xbox Live product." He also claimed that they want to turn D&D into a collectible game, a claim made since WotC bought TSR in the 1990s, and a claim which has yet to turn out to be true... unless the non-collectible, non-subscription D&D I've been playing is from some alternate universe.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 27, 2011)

The Little Raven said:


> He also claimed that they want to turn D&D into a collectible game, a claim made since WotC bought TSR in the 1990s, and a claim which has yet to turn out to be true...




Just wait.


----------



## 666Sinner666 (Jan 27, 2011)

My main problem with 4e and WOTC right now is Essentials. They essentially decided they did not like the way 4e characters worked and changed it. But instead of having a solid release schedule where slowly but surely every class got remade into an Essentials version they have released the same classes in three different products, some of those just for the sake of nostalgia. Now the only class based release I see for 2011 is the shadow source book which from the description focuses on Assassins, Necromancers, and Hexblades. The first and last are the only two existing classes with the other being a new class. Why continue to make new classes under Essentials when you have not even remade all the existing classes into their Essentials couter parts? To boot thats the only character based release for this year as well. What a load of BS.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2011)

666Sinner666 said:


> My main problem with 4e and WOTC right now is Essentials. They essentially decided they did not like the way 4e characters worked and changed it. But instead of having a solid release schedule where slowly but surely every class got remade into an Essentials version they have released the same classes in three different products, some of those just for the sake of nostalgia. Now the only class based release I see for 2011 is the shadow source book which from the description focuses on Assassins, Necromancers, and Hexblades. The first and last are the only two existing classes with the other being a new class. Why continue to make new classes under Essentials when you have not even remade all the existing classes into their Essentials couter parts? To boot thats the only character based release for this year as well. What a load of BS.




I don't think that is a fair representation of what WotC has said they are doing with Essentials. They have said since the very beginning that it is a fixed product designed to be a starting point for people to get into 4e. As such it doesn't need to provide every option that the core books do. Since it is also NOT being extended with more products there is every chance that what we have is all there is. MAYBE there will be additional options that Essentials characters can use, maybe even new classes designed similarly to Essentials classes, but there is no commitment from WotC to do that. Essentials is done, complete. 

As for Heroes of Shadow as far as we know it isn't aimed at introducing new classes. The Necromancer, Hexblade, etc are OPTIONS for existing classes. At most they are new builds with a shadow theme. There will be a couple of shadow themed races and a whole bunch of stuff to let you play an 'edgy' type of character. In other words, it isn't new classes per se. They also haven't said it specifically is designed around Essentials. It will definitely work with Essentials, but they never said it wouldn't work with older stuff too.

We also have no idea that this is the only 'crunch' book of 2011. DDXP is almost here and that's the typical place where WotC will announce product plans aside from maybe Gencon. I'll bet that there is some kind of big announcement of plans. They've said there will be, though from all the hand wringing around you you'd never know it.


----------



## ATimson (Jan 27, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> DDXP is almost here and that's the typical place where WotC will announce product plans aside from maybe Gencon. I'll bet that there is some kind of big announcement of plans.



If there's going to be an announcement of 2011 product, it'll be at DDXP. Gencon is too late; the late 2011 (and probably early 2012) products will have already been solicited to retailers by then.


----------



## 666Sinner666 (Jan 27, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think that is a fair representation of what WotC has said they are doing with Essentials. They have said since the very beginning that it is a fixed product designed to be a starting point for people to get into 4e. As such it doesn't need to provide every option that the core books do. Since it is also NOT being extended with more products there is every chance that what we have is all there is. MAYBE there will be additional options that Essentials characters can use, maybe even new classes designed similarly to Essentials classes, but there is no commitment from WotC to do that. Essentials is done, complete.
> 
> As for Heroes of Shadow as far as we know it isn't aimed at introducing new classes. The Necromancer, Hexblade, etc are OPTIONS for existing classes. At most they are new builds with a shadow theme. There will be a couple of shadow themed races and a whole bunch of stuff to let you play an 'edgy' type of character. In other words, it isn't new classes per se. They also haven't said it specifically is designed around Essentials. It will definitely work with Essentials, but they never said it wouldn't work with older stuff too.
> 
> We also have no idea that this is the only 'crunch' book of 2011. DDXP is almost here and that's the typical place where WotC will announce product plans aside from maybe Gencon. I'll bet that there is some kind of big announcement of plans. They've said there will be, though from all the hand wringing around you you'd never know it.




So after 3-4 years of 4e being out on the market WOTC reprinted the original classes with all new ways/concepts of building the characters to hopefully get new players? Thats what your saying WOTC has said and/or is saying? Why not just issue updated reprints of the core products again and slap the word "Revised" in front of the titles? Would that have not been easier? Heck, I would actually buy those books.

At this point then they have wasted time and money getting nothing of value to their existing player base. I could already teach a brand new player with no RPG experience how to play 4e in a few hours and so could any of the people I have gamed with. There may be a lot of choices for characters but once you have the basics its all about common sense and personal preference from there on out.

Unless you had another point I missed my reason for being "mad" at WOTC regarding D&D still stands.


----------



## TheClone (Jan 27, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Players...  don't... buy... books..........
> 
> There's something in that statement that doesn't quite ring true -- if only I could put my finger on it...
> 
> ...




There something even in this statement that doesn't quite ring true. 

I played 4e regularly two years or so I guess before I even bought a PHB1. And 3e for 5 years without owning a single book. But I never dmed one of those without having books. It guess the truth lies somewhere near "A fair amount of players doesn't buy books and most o them buy significantly less books than DMs" with fuzziness depending on where you are and whom you talk to.


----------



## tyrlaan (Jan 27, 2011)

A few not so random thoughts from this peanut gallery...

1) As a customer, I care about being satisfied. I don't care and should not be expected to care about the inner workings of a company. I just want them to give me product and/or service offerings that I want. My point here is I shouldn't have to wait for something like DDXP for me to feel confident about being a WotC customer and I shouldn't have to wait for something like DDXP before I voice my gripes or praises. At this very moment I am a customer and any decision I make to buy a product today will be based on the information I have today. 

1a)DDXP should be for generating customer hype, not settling minds of distressed customers.

2)I feel like there's a helping of hyperbole getting thrown around regarding the death of 4e. Even if 4e as a product dies, what exactly is stopping us from still playing it? I won't be switching game systems just because WotC stops selling 4e material and/or offering their software tools. I've spent YEARS playing TTRPGs without a single line of code to back me up and I see no reason why I couldn't go back to that if I choose. 

2a)While my point is all the cool toys WotC has provided us are not required to play, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't complain about their implementation. Claiming you won't play without them or that the edition is dead without them seems extreme. Choosing to stop paying to use them, on the other hand, seems totally reasonable. 

2b)My stance clearly suggests I'll keep playing 4e without WotCs support. That's great for me, but not great for WotC. But I suppose the point is not that WotC will care if you keep playing 4e if they stop supporting it, but they will care if you stop using 4e material if they continue to support it. So while I can say it's no skin off my nose if they abandon 4e, this sentiment should seriously concern WotC because I don't need to be their customer anymore. In short (and to Aegeri's OP), if they can't provide things to me that I want to pay for, they might as well can 4e as far as I'm concerned. I've got what I need to keep playing.


----------



## TheClone (Jan 27, 2011)

tyrlaan said:


> Even if 4e as a product dies, what exactly is stopping us from still playing it? I won't be switching game systems just because WotC stops selling 4e material and/or offering their software tools.




Yes, one can play 4e without the software tools. But I wouldn'T want to, because not having a compendium makes my life as a DM an player harder. Not having a CB makes my live as player harder. WotC has published an awful amount of stuff for each class, build and regarding items and everything. Collection that among all those books requires huge amounts of time. And I like to DM 4e because it does NOT require so much time.

Surely no one forces you do quit playing 4e if the software does not work anymore. Anyone can still play it. But I don't really want to anymore at that point. It's currently nasty enough with the bad usability of the CB and to some extend also the compendium.

The 4e tools provided a real improvement to rpgs, so you could say, you'll drop back to normal again. but I don't thing other rpgs or editions of D&D have gotten such a vast amount of books you have to consider and so I think 4e in this way would not have been possible with all those tools.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2011)

666Sinner666 said:


> So after 3-4 years of 4e being out on the market WOTC reprinted the original classes with all new ways/concepts of building the characters to hopefully get new players? Thats what your saying WOTC has said and/or is saying? Why not just issue updated reprints of the core products again and slap the word "Revised" in front of the titles? Would that have not been easier? Heck, I would actually buy those books.
> 
> At this point then they have wasted time and money getting nothing of value to their existing player base. I could already teach a brand new player with no RPG experience how to play 4e in a few hours and so could any of the people I have gamed with. There may be a lot of choices for characters but once you have the basics its all about common sense and personal preference from there on out.
> 
> Unless you had another point I missed my reason for being "mad" at WOTC regarding D&D still stands.




Except that your 'madness' at them is based on your own perceptions. WotC is no doubt in a much better position to understand what factors are involved in acceptance and uptake of their game system.

So lets paint a picture. They have a product which is reasonably well received amongst a segment of the existing market, all of those people who switched to 4e when it came out or since then. They see 2 things though. One is that there is a whole segment of people who continue to play 3.5 or who are playing Pathfinder, which nobody would deny is a popular game and may be as popular as 4e or at least close. Secondly they see the whole market slowly shrinking as the flow of new players into D&D (and RPGs in general) is small and doesn't replace those who 'retire' from the game. Old people also have less income and they'd rather have a younger demographic.

So, with a single product release, Essentials, they aim to kill two birds with one stone. They address some of the negative feedback they've gotten from both current players of 4e and people that stuck with 3.5/PF. Secondly that product streamlines certain aspects of the game and can be presented in a cleaner and more easily digested form which may appeal to people with less money to spend and who may be just starting. As a third feature it also addresses certain issues with the supply chain. 

Thus Essentials. It is NOT aimed at you the existing dedicated 4e player. They certainly hope you'll buy it and use it as supplementary material, but they didn't design it with you in mind and don't expect it to meet specific needs you have. Being 'mad' about it is like if you owned a Ford Explorer and Ford decided to come out with a new smaller line of hybrid SUVs. You still have what you want, and they still sell what you want (and notice they still sell the PHB1 etc, it hasn't gone away and they even stated they didn't anticipate discontinuing this product).

As for a revised PHB it doesn't solve any issues for them. In fact it makes things worse. It would force them to eat an inventory of existing books. It would simply add one more SKU to the extensive 4e line, and it would also both obsolete retailer's inventory and be confusing as people wonder if the revised 4e PHB1 is what they want. It also probably wouldn't generate a huge amount of sales. My guess is something akin to these factors is what lead them to decide to cancel Heroes of Sword and Spell. Given that option isn't viable from a business perspective what would you have had them do instead of what they did do? Being mad simply seems irrational to me. WotC seems to be putting out as many products as they can manage to put out that they think will actually sell right now. Despite all the armchair quarterbacking and bitching by people if you actually take a step back and look at what they've done over the last 3 years you find they've released around 30 books in a very short period of time and created a pretty credible digital service. No product is flawless and you can with your 20/20 hindsight criticize them for certain things, but on the whole they've been rather brilliant. WotC didn't create the game industry as it is today, and they simply have to deal with the hand they've been dealt. I'd suggest everyone get off their high horses and take a look at reality. 



TheClone said:


> Yes, one can play 4e without the software tools. But I wouldn'T want to, because not having a compendium makes my life as a DM an player harder. Not having a CB makes my live as player harder. WotC has published an awful amount of stuff for each class, build and regarding items and everything. Collection that among all those books requires huge amounts of time. And I like to DM 4e because it does NOT require so much time.
> 
> Surely no one forces you do quit playing 4e if the software does not work anymore. Anyone can still play it. But I don't really want to anymore at that point. It's currently nasty enough with the bad usability of the CB and to some extend also the compendium.
> 
> The 4e tools provided a real improvement to rpgs, so you could say, you'll drop back to normal again. but I don't thing other rpgs or editions of D&D have gotten such a vast amount of books you have to consider and so I think 4e in this way would not have been possible with all those tools.




It is hard to imagine any scenario where 4e would be abandoned. Consider that D&D as a property has a certain value. Hasborg could decide to free up some capital and sell it, but putting it to sleep for 5 years would just kill it, there'd be no players left and its brand recognition would be in the toilet with anyone they'd want to bring in at that point. Given that value is really in the community with D&D the options are really sell now or continue to support the game at whatever level is justified by the market. 

Now, noting that the staff working on 4e has NOT been cut this year, despite Hasborg taking a beating, I'd have to conclude that they have significant product plans. In other words even if they are going to cut back on certain products and focus on other ones they're still going to be continuing the D&D product line and supporting 4e. It may not be as many products this year, we don't know, but they've got SOMETHING for all those people to do or they wouldn't be on payroll anymore. 

Really the worst case scenario would be WotC spends its time spinning out more D&D-esque board games, moves DDI to more of a maintenance mode, and just puts out a small number of books or boxed sets, plus maybe the odd tile product or other accessory for a couple years. Given the fairly high DDI numbers it is hard to imagine that being shut down. If all they do is maintain it, do a low level of bug fixing and adding something now and then when a book or article comes out, then it is hard to see it not making money, certainly at anything even close to the existing subscriber base. Beyond that a sale of the game isn't totally inconceivable and who knows what would happen then. However I don't really see where there is any potential buyer out there with the deep pockets to make that attractive to them. 

In short I wouldn't look for anything to change much. I think new product will be announced at DDXP and we'll see that most of this is just people's overactive imaginations combined with a modest cleanup and reworking of products due this year. It may be a slower year, but things will go forward and 4e will continue pretty much like now, albeit probably with a slightly different mix of print and digital material.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2011)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Players...  don't... buy... books..........
> 
> There's something in that statement that doesn't quite ring true -- if only I could put my finger on it...
> 
> ...



You must be confused...


----------



## TheClone (Jan 27, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In short I wouldn't look for anything to change much.




Sorry to just pick this one sentence. But this would be the worst case at least if you take the last month. There's total confusion about what wizards is goind to do or doing. Surely it's not our job, but confused customers won't trust the brand as much as usual. So hopefully they'll come back on track soon. I really wish no ill to WotC, Hasbro or D&D. A rpg market without a strong D&D would be a real problem for the whole scene, because D&D is THE known brand. So I whish them luck, but I'd really like to have some trust in WotC, which I currently have not much. Sorry, guys.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2011)

nevermind. I misread


----------



## Abstruse (Jan 28, 2011)

"People are talking about everything we're doing, so we must be on the right track!"  Is this:

1) George Lucas on the prequels
2) Agents for a teen starlet
3) Advertising consultants after creating a commercial where the car decapitates a cat
4) Wizards of the Coast after ditching half of their release schedule and killing the miniatures line in favor of token sets and Dungeon Tiles


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 28, 2011)

666Sinner666 said:


> So after 3-4 years of 4e being out on the market WOTC reprinted the original classes with all new ways/concepts of building the characters to hopefully get new players? Thats what your saying WOTC has said and/or is saying? Why not just issue updated reprints of the core products again and slap the word "Revised" in front of the titles? Would that have not been easier? Heck, I would actually buy those books.




I wouldn't.  And I'd hardly call the Knight, the Slayer, the Cavalier, both Rangers, and the new Druid nothing of value.  That's six new and useful classes.  Including in descending order of importance:
1: A class for people who want to Just Hit Stuff in combat.
2: Two types of defender who don't spew marks everywhere and thus take a lot less tracking and hence brainpower.
3: A Martial Controller - and trickshooting archer (bard of all things was closest before).
4: A simple two weapon fighter that makes sense.  And doesn't bother with annoying things like Quarries.
5: A pet-class leader.

Once you get beyond that, school-based wizardry is an improvement over implement-based wizardry.  Wis-clerics finally get melee powers.  Hexblades are cool even if I have no wish to play one.  And there are apparently people who massively prefer thieves to rogues - and for that matter I'm using one as an NPC companion character because they are so much easier to run than normal PCs.  If you think of the two Heroes books as generalised splatbooks they aren't bad.

Monster Vault is IMO the best monster manual ever written for D&D.  And the Rules Compendium is useful and can be treated as a revision.



> At this point then they have wasted time and money getting nothing of value to their existing player base.




As a member of the existing player base, I have found Monster Vault, both Heroes books, and the Rules Compendium all extremely useful.


----------



## Reigan (Jan 28, 2011)

Previously, new player material largely contained new classes and builds, but also a few new options for existing builds. Essentials doesn't do that, it only supplies new characters to play. If, like me you don't get to play many new characters, the current policy does not supply enough new, usable material to make it worth buying. For example, I play a paragon tier bard, I didn't find any of the existing paragon paths particularly interesting and there are far fewer powers to choose from than in heroic. If and when new bard material appears it will be an Essentials build, I won't be able to get any benefit out of it unless I scrap my existing character and reroll the new one.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jan 28, 2011)

Reigan said:


> Previously, new player material largely contained new classes and builds, but also a few new options for existing builds. Essentials doesn't do that, it only supplies new characters to play. If, like me you don't get to play many new characters, the current policy does not supply enough new, usable material to make it worth buying. For example, I play a paragon tier bard, I didn't find any of the existing paragon paths particularly interesting and there are far fewer powers to choose from than in heroic. If and when new bard material appears it will be an Essentials build, I won't be able to get any benefit out of it unless I scrap my existing character and reroll the new one.



Unless, of course the Essentials Bard (if we ever see one) uses the same (or similar) power structure as it did before. See also Mage and Warpriest.

And then there are the multiclassing and power swap options that were supposed to be published in one of the books that got cancelled. That would have made lots of things compatible. We might see it on DDI as a Dragon article or series of articles. Not guaranteed, but I'm hopeful. The waiting part kind of sucks though.

I empathize about the lack of PP options. I've had that issue with characters before. If you have an accommodating DM, you could always see if they will allow you to just make one up.

And I have to disagree that Essentials 'only' supplies new characters to play. There are a plethora of Feats in those books that are fantastic options, in many cases improvements of existing ones. If you play a Wizard or Cleric, there are TONS of powers to cherry pick. Laser Clerics finally get some half-decent melee options. All builds presented give a pile of Utility powers that any other member of that class can take, all the way up.

There are also a bunch of racial options. You play a Human or Half-elf? Each has a new racial power option. The others all get a choice of secondary stat boost. Those are not insignificant options.


----------



## Osgood (Jan 28, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Old people also have less income and they'd rather have a younger demographic.




Perhaps I am an exception, but I make a heck of a lot more money now than when I started playing 25 years ago.  Sure I have a lot more expenses and responsibilities, but I easily spend ten times what I spent on game products alone in 1986... even with inflation that is a huge jump.

WotC absolutely wants to bring in new customers, but if they are doing it because the youngsters have more cash, they are in for a surprise.

_EDIT:_ I just checked my books to see what I spent on books, minis, Dwarven Forge and terrain last year... It's closer to 30 times what I spent on any given year in the 80's.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 28, 2011)

Osgood said:


> Perhaps I am an exception, but I make a heck of a lot more money now than when I started playing 25 years ago.  Sure I have a lot more expenses and responsibilities, but I easily spend ten times what I spent on game products alone in 1986... even with inflation that is a huge jump.
> 
> WotC absolutely wants to bring in new customers, but if they are doing it because the youngsters have more cash, they are in for a surprise.
> 
> _EDIT:_ I just checked my books to see what I spent on books, minis, Dwarven Forge and terrain last year... It's closer to 30 times what I spent on any given year in the 80's.




Sure. I think that's true for most of us. OTOH the people that didn't have the money to spend aren't playing anymore. Mostly I meant though that if the player base is getting up to retirement age one of these days, then things might not look quite so good. Mostly it will be a few years, but you do need to keep renewing your customer base. Plus getting a new customer that is say High School or College age is great, you have them for years to come. Get back some 40-somethings and yeah they'll be around a while, but it is not quite the same thing. Younger people also tend to be good at marketing their interests to their friends. Most of us older players I suspect don't get much outside our existing gamer circles as much. I know I wouldn't even bother to try to get my non-gamer friends playing nowadays, they just aren't interested. So I play with my gamer friends, which are the same ones as they were 20 years ago.


----------



## Osgood (Jan 28, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Sure. I think that's true for most of us. OTOH the people that didn't have the money to spend aren't playing anymore. Mostly I meant though that if the player base is getting up to retirement age one of these days, then things might not look quite so good. Mostly it will be a few years, but you do need to keep renewing your customer base. Plus getting a new customer that is say High School or College age is great, you have them for years to come. Get back some 40-somethings and yeah they'll be around a while, but it is not quite the same thing. Younger people also tend to be good at marketing their interests to their friends. Most of us older players I suspect don't get much outside our existing gamer circles as much. I know I wouldn't even bother to try to get my non-gamer friends playing nowadays, they just aren't interested. So I play with my gamer friends, which are the same ones as they were 20 years ago.




I see where you are coming from, but I think that depends on the individual.  There are five people that I play with right now, two of us have played since high school, my brother joined us when his group collapsed in the late 90's, but the other two are in the mid-twenties.  I'm sure this isn't the norm, but our group has always done a fair amount of recruitment... so much so that there is an entire group of people we used to play with who get together a couple times a month.


Incidentally I am looking forward to retirement as my gold age of gaming.  I have this secret dream of a gamer retirement village full of private gaming room stocked with minis and books... who's with me?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 28, 2011)

> Old people also have less income




No...not really.  My current salary is more than 100x what I had as a kid starting out in the hobby.  And I'm trying to transition into something that pays better because I'm not being paid all that much.

What _may_ be true- and may be what you meant- is that with increasing responsibilities, older people may have less "DISPOSABLE or DISCRETIONARY" income.  Still, after paying for housing, transportation and food, I daresay that my absolute $$$ of D&D money is higher than ever before.  That's why I can buy $800 gemstones and $3000 guitars*...and STILL buy RPG products.

Perhaps you meant further "as a percentage of their overall income?"

Regardless, one truth you sort of touched on is the "younger demographic."  Generation X, prosperous though it is, is rapidly being outspent by Generation Y.  Why?  Because GenY is nearly as big as the Baby Boom generation.  Even though only a portion of GenY is in the job market, they already account for as much- if not more- entertainment spending than GenX, a trend that will only continue.







* I'm also old enough to know how not to pay full price for said items.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 30, 2011)

The worst thing for me is the new Character Builder which has half the functionality of the old one. Unbelievable.

The biggest selling point for DDI was the CB: now they are chasing off customers with an inferior and at times useless product.

For example, power cards can no longer be edited to display the appropriate weapon or implement of choice. Even basic and range melee attacks cannot be edited. (My warlord throws javelins, but the CB insists that his range basic attack is an (improvised weapon) using dexterity.)


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 30, 2011)

What they're doing is aiming at integrating VTT, CB and MB, and that's way easier if you minimize options before that is done. Infuriating yes, and for some (rightly so) a reason to cancel DDI for the time being. Badly communicated, too. But i understand where they are coming from.


----------



## GameDoc (Jan 30, 2011)

> Older people also have less income.




Not necessarily.  While there are many senior citizens on a fixed income, retired people are one of the prime marketing demographics for a lot of entertainment industries due to their disposable income.  They're one of the most sought after customer bases for casinos and cruise lines.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 30, 2011)

That gives me an idea...

Anyone want to invest in these businesses targeting aging gamers:

1) Golden Grells Retirement Community (and elsewhere, Greyhawk's)

2) St. George & the Dragon Casino

3) Rescue the Princess Cruise Lines

4) Forgotten Realms Alzheimers Clinic


----------



## Thorvald_Grimbjorn (Feb 1, 2011)

I am completely in agreement with the OP's sentiments.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 1, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No...not really.  My current salary is more than 100x what I had as a kid starting out in the hobby.  And I'm trying to transition into something that pays better because I'm not being paid all that much.
> 
> What _may_ be true- and may be what you meant- is that with increasing responsibilities, older people may have less "DISPOSABLE or DISCRETIONARY" income.  Still, after paying for housing, transportation and food, I daresay that my absolute $$$ of D&D money is higher than ever before.  That's why I can buy $800 gemstones and $3000 guitars*...and STILL buy RPG products.




What also needs to be accounted for is how much time older people have to actually use their potential purchases as compared to when they were teenagers. Like you, I have significantly more discretionary income available, but I also have, due to my family, significantly less time to use for RPGs. And to add to that it is also much more difficult to get my schedule (well, as much as you can schedule a sick child) to sync up with the schedules that my friends end up with.

That is why people in their late teens/early 20s are such an attractive market. They have a nice overlap of discretionary income *and* time in which to use the discretionary income.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 1, 2011)

Here's the thing: my lack of time or ability to use a luxury product- an RPG, a guitar, a gemstone- has NEVER impacted my buy/don't buy decision; money has.

Why?  Because if I can't afford something, I can't afford it.  If I can (or THINK I can due to some plastic cards in my wallet), but can't use it now, I may still buy it because I can envision (or imagine) a time when I can.

That may make me atypical, but judging by average American savings/income consumption rates and rising consumer credit debt, I don't think so.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Feb 2, 2011)

TheClone said:


> The 4e tools provided a real improvement to rpgs, so you could say, you'll drop back to normal again. but I don't thing other rpgs or editions of D&D have gotten such a vast amount of books you have to consider and so I think 4e in this way would not have been possible with all those tools.




4E tools are cool and handy (er, "were") but are hardly "required". A for the number of books...did you play 3E? Did you play 2E and the "Complete book of class x, race y, or niche Z"? They've been putting out vast amounts of books for a long time and many of us have managed to play the game without computer tools for a long time. Hero System and GURPS both had official character builders long before D&D did, and neither has ever been considered essential to play. Easier? Sure. Required? No.

I agree with the OP by the way, and nothing I've seen from DDXP answered much if the uncertainty noted in this thread.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Feb 3, 2011)

I have to say I am very dissappointed in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines.  When I was younger, i was too cheap to pony up for a subscription, so I would go to my friends house and read his.  They were wonderful, detailed, great maps and interesting to read even if I didn't play the game all that much. Awhile back my friend was moving and didn't want his old magazines and I got to be the lucky beneficiary of most of his collection!  

When DDI decided to make the magazines online, I thought great I can't wait to have all this stuff on my laptop available.  But ya, most of the adventures seem short, lack a compelling story and the maps are shameless plugs for their tilesets.  This saddens me greatly.  D&D has a large place in my heart and I hope they do not simply make it a marketing vehicle for game related widgets.  

I have not updated my monster builder recently, but I too loved this tool.  (The only "tool" that was actually released for DMs).  If I update and find it is now a broken tool I will be very disappointed.  It was a very easy to use and well thought out application, unlike the character builder in many ways.  In fact I would have to assume the folks who designed the monster builder were a completely different team from those who designed the character builder.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Feb 3, 2011)

Otterscrubber said:


> I have to say I am very dissappointed in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines.  When I was younger, i was too cheap to pony up for a subscription, so I would go to my friends house and read his.  They were wonderful, detailed, great maps and interesting to read even if I didn't play the game all that much. Awhile back my friend was moving and didn't want his old magazines and I got to be the lucky beneficiary of most of his collection!
> 
> When DDI decided to make the magazines online, I thought great I can't wait to have all this stuff on my laptop available.  But ya, most of the adventures seem short, lack a compelling story and the maps are shameless plugs for their tilesets.  This saddens me greatly.  D&D has a large place in my heart and I hope they do not simply make it a marketing vehicle for game related widgets.
> 
> I have not updated my monster builder recently, but I too loved this tool.  (The only "tool" that was actually released for DMs).  If I update and find it is now a broken tool I will be very disappointed.  It was a very easy to use and well thought out application, unlike the character builder in many ways.  In fact I would have to assume the folks who designed the monster builder were a completely different team from those who designed the character builder.




Eh, probably the same general engineering group. Anyway, if you haven't updated MB then you should be good to go. I've not applied the latest update to mine either and it works great still, though of course with all the same bugs and oddities it always had. 

Same with CB. Never did the last update. I guess maybe that means I'm missing a few things, but none of them seemed to be really useful anyway, and I don't have to deal with the silliness that the last update dealt to inventories. 

I have to say too, while the new online CB is still somewhat deficient in certain areas it is still a pretty good program. Definitely still needs some work, but it is more than usable, at least for me. Frankly I don't use it that much since the old one is still around anyhow. Plus you can get all kinds of 3rd party patches for the old one, which is very cool and totally legit.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 10, 2011)

When I read responses to questions like those in the recent Letters to the Editor that Wizards posted, I am reminded of why I wrote this thread in the first place.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 10, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> When I read responses to questions like those in the recent Letters to the Editor that Wizards posted, I am reminded of why I wrote this thread in the first place.




So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that? I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself. Too bad they didn't pick a couple more articulate letters but maybe not too many people have written in. Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe. 

Honestly I don't feel particularly confused at all at this point. HoS is coming out, we know what's going to be in there more-or-less. What they're doing next seems pretty obvious. Not sure I understand why they didn't just make a bunch of big announcements at DDXP, their PR seems disorganized, but whatever. Where's the confusion really?


----------



## jbear (Mar 10, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that? I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself. Too bad they didn't pick a couple more articulate letters but maybe not too many people have written in. Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe.
> 
> Honestly I don't feel particularly confused at all at this point. HoS is coming out, we know what's going to be in there more-or-less. What they're doing next seems pretty obvious. Not sure I understand why they didn't just make a bunch of big announcements at DDXP, their PR seems disorganized, but whatever. Where's the confusion really?



I agree with not seeing the confusion any more:

CBuilder is online. Bugs are being hammered out. Custimization options will be installed in the future at an unknown date.

Monster Builder is going online. They would be wise to not rush its release til the bugs it is sure to have are ironed out.

VTT is 2d, but it exists and on all accounts is already functional. It is similar looking to map tools but will integrate CBuilder and MBuilder. Soon access will be opened to all DDI subscribers once beta testing 'stage 1' is finalised. Customization and Importing will initially be zero.

Books recently pulled (Class Compendium at least) will be released one part per month via Dragon Magazine. This seems to be a way to boost the quality of the highly criticised magazines.

Dungeon and Dragon Magazines are no longer compiled, release schedules are not concrete but the editing process is far more rigorous, seemingly in an effort to raise the aforementioned quality of DDI magazines. Public response (on these boards) to recent articles seems to confirm a change in the quality of articles being released.

Boxed sets and Board Game expansions, and Player card packs are the 'physical' products they intend to sell. Products perhaps less profitable (minis, several books and Ravenloft?)  are a no go.

WotC is taking on board the criticism they have been receiving. Communication from the company has increased notably and the article Aegeri links communicates that they want to take steps to dealing with the criticisms received. They offer their hand to anyone who has not only criticism but a constructive suggestion on how to improve. They go further asking for submissions along those lines.

The essentials lines have been completed, products aimed at bringing new players into the game. Numerous anecdotal accounts of Parents using the Red Box to bring their kids into the game read here and on the WotC boards, seem to confirm that this has been at least partly successful.

What else isn't clear? And I know all this without being a current subscriber.

Whether you like it or not is a different story.

Personally I'm waiting for things to come to fruition. When that happens I'll resubscribe.


----------



## MrMyth (Mar 10, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that? I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself. Too bad they didn't pick a couple more articulate letters but maybe not too many people have written in. Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe.




Personally, I'm very pleased they have introduced this feature - I am eager to see what people are writing and what their responses are.

At the same time, the actual response in this article is really disappointing. Having one poster presenting the common request for more content for undersupported classes, and having them post a relatively unrelated letter to try and justify not doing so - while explaining that what they really want for the magazine are articles that don't present new content, but instead just provides more ways to use the content you have - is not what I want to see. 

I want more content. We don't need to just have completely random bloat of feats and options, but there is plenty of room for new content in areas where it is lacking, and plenty of room to provide new options that expand the game rather than bloat it.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 11, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> I want more content. We don't need to just have completely random bloat of feats and options, but there is plenty of room for new content in areas where it is lacking, and plenty of room to provide new options that expand the game rather than bloat it.



I'm not sure I agree. The game seems pretty well bloated as-is, just trying to pick a feat in the CB has become a nightmare. And PHB3 is filled with stuff that I can't see as anything but failed concepts - I really have no idea how WotC would make something like the Runepriest or the Seeker better without just starting over from scratch.

But I think the issue, with respect to the responses WotC gave to that question, is that I expect WotC would love to produce such content, but they lack the time* and/or ideas; and at the same time, while they'd like to see more sumbissions from readers** I really expect that they would want such core-rulesy stuff to come from in-house... So, catch-22. I really, personally, feel like the (IMO pointless) furor over essentials has derailed WotC, and they're just starting to get back on track.

*Yes, they have the time, it's just been allocated to other projects.

**Although they could really stand to handle them better.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 11, 2011)

I disagree that Runepriests, Seekers, and other unsupported classes are "failed."

They are incomplete, sure. Abandoned, definitely. Failed? People keep bringing them up over and over again because, in many cases, they WANT TO PLAY THEM. Battleminds were spoken of as a failure awhile back, now some people swear by them because they fixed their big glaring problem. Psionics were spoken of as failed and then Psionic Power came out and bam, threads of dread on that topic have vanished.


----------



## Quickleaf (Mar 11, 2011)

kaomera;5491012And PHB3 is filled with stuff that I can't see as anything but failed concepts - I really have no idea how WotC would make something like the Runepriest or the Seeker better without just starting over from scratch.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> My Seeker/Ranger hybrid disagrees and would like to remind you of the optimized ranged basic attacks he makes if you move too close (spitting cobra stance), if you have no cover (flying steel), or if you just happen to be in his field of fire (thousand arrow awareness). Not to mention the awesomebadfun of swapping and dazing two enemies within longbow range on the first round (feyjump shot). Did I mention he multi-classed rogue to gain the sharpshooter PP, and it rocks?
> 
> The problem isn't that the seeker is fundamentally flawed. It's that the class lacks the options of classes with splat books...hence my hybrid multi-class character.
> 
> However just going Hunter looks more and more attractive because it is easier to keep track of.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2011)

Quickleaf said:


> My Seeker/Ranger hybrid disagrees and would like to remind you of the optimized ranged basic attacks he makes if you move too close (spitting cobra stance), if you have no cover (flying steel), or if you just happen to be in his field of fire (thousand arrow awareness). Not to mention the awesomebadfun of swapping and dazing two enemies within longbow range on the first round (feyjump shot). Did I mention he multi-classed rogue to gain the sharpshooter PP, and it rocks?
> 
> The problem isn't that the seeker is fundamentally flawed. It's that the class lacks the options of classes with splat books...hence my hybrid multi-class character.
> 
> However just going Hunter looks more and more attractive because it is easier to keep track of.




I think the issue really is that Seeker feels like a rather fringe concept. Using a bow to exercise control feels rather forced. I can't think of a single example from myth, legend, or fantasy that this is building on. Beyond that it DOES feel like more of an extension of what other archery classes already do. If you're a bad-assed archer you can't just pigstick people? If a ranger can TS the heck out of the enemy you'd kind of expect a Seeker to have that basic vanilla level of competency with a bow as well.

OTOH the Hunter seems pretty complete and makes sense. It is just taking the basic ranger archer concept and extending it in a more solidly woodsy nature guy direction. The PHB1 ranger was nice in that he could be easily recast as pretty much any sort of guy with great bow skills. The only issue was if you wanted some more primal sort of old-fashioned ranger stuff to go with that you HAD to MC/Hybrid to get it. The Seeker class was a great resource for doing that, but as you say Hunter is just vastly simpler and accomplishes the same thing. In the course of which it pretty much leaves the Seeker without much reason to exist.

And that really IMHO is the core reason why Seeker simply hasn't gotten support. It is hard to figure out what to do with it. The concept seems forced to start with and even if you filled it out with another build and a lot more powers you'd still be feeling like you really wanted to mix in archer ranger with that. It just works better from a character building perspective.

Runepriest has somewhat the same issue. I think it turned out better in that respect, it has an interesting niche, but it is a very narrow niche. Then couple that with the exceedingly complex and fiddly mechanics and the class seems rather marginal. The concept deserves more support, but again I kind of get the feeling that the weight of opinion over at WotC is it should somehow live as an option within a broader class and that the mechanics really should be simplified. Hard to say if they will ever get around to that or figure out a really good way to do it, but I don't think we'll see a lot of support for the existing class as it is presented in PHB3.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 11, 2011)

the throwing weapon version of the seeker however is a very very sound concept... except when you consider that they somehow forget to give him some good thrown weapons...


----------



## kaomera (Mar 12, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> I disagree that Runepriests, Seekers, and other unsupported classes are "failed."



Well, to me they seem like they didn't accomplish what they set out to accomplish. "Failed concept" is just my opinion of them, I don't have huge amounts of experience with the classes (I doubt I'll ever get to play any of them, especially since I have at least a half-dozen character concepts from the PHB1 launch that I haven't gotten to try yet), and I'm more than willing to accept that they are just awesome for some other players.



Quickleaf said:


> However just going Hunter looks more and more attractive because it is easier to keep track of.



This is the core issue for me. Personally I like some of the PHB3 class fluff, but I don't much care for the extra mechanical complexity - I've got other things I like to focus my attention on when I'm at the table. I can see how some players do, and in fact I can see that complexity being a major draw in and of itself. In fact I think that adding complexity was really one of the goals of the PHB3 classes, and that's where I find that they are "failed concepts".

First of all, that added complexity comes at the cost of being a liability when some players get their hands on these classes. IMO all it really takes to manage such a character is to some extra organization and avoiding splitting your concentration too much. But there are enough players who won't meet that need that I think that the potential issue is significant. And it isn't just a matter of the player in question dealing with the issue in all cases - it's a PHB2 class, but the Shaman is an example of this. Playing with a Shaman as leader you need to consider the extra terrain that the spirit companion represents...

Even then I could deal with it (in small doses - I'm not sure I'd want 3 or 4 players in a party that take 10+ minute turns), but I've found that I just feel like these classes could be any other class of the same role. They don't seem to add anything much for anyone else at the table, and when you're asking me to deal with your added complexity I think that's kind of a problem.

Mind you, _most_ players should be able to handle this without anyone else even noticing. I have an Ardent in my Dark Sun group, and the only clue that he's not playing any other leader is when he fiddles with the beads he uses to track power points, and in fact he's the fastest player at the table. But if I'm sitting on my hands while a player takes a long pause to consider his options for the fourth or fifth time in a round, I think that's an issue.

And there's one other thing, related to adding more support for these classes - if WotC couldn't find enough new stuff to make them really unique and interesting within the core PHB3 release, I kind of think that new material would just end up being even more generic. I think there is kind of a limited space that the designers are working in, unless they start doing stuff like inventing new conditions or mixing up the roles or something.


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 13, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> So, when they initiate a feature to improve communications with the customers (one of several such initiatives ongoing) you're down on them for that?




For me it is the quality of the answers. The dismissing of a wide range of complaints that certain classes are just being utterly forgotten by Wizards, plus with the direction in essentials there is now no guarantee they will _ever_ get support. Remember when we had a reliable release schedule with books like Arcane Power? Where you knew with patience you _would_ be getting something. 

Now every single indication to me from Wizards is those classes are going to be left to die. There is a very distinct and real feeling that they are going to try to republish - and make people pay for - the wizard/cleric/fighter and such as much as possible. 

Personally I am really not happy about that one bit.



> I don't understand... From my perspective those sorts of questions are exactly the kind of question I'm asking myself.




It is not the questions, it's the answers I am finding unsatisfying and disappointing.



> Picked up your pen Aegeri? hehe.




Numerous times actually and I sent the OP into Wizards some time ago.



> HoS is coming out




For now.



> What they're doing next seems pretty obvious.




Really? Care to enlighten me, because I have zero confidence in Wizards now and zero confidence in them adding support for several classes/races that really warrant it. For example last week we were supposed to get an article detailing new stat options for the older races not updated by essentials. Like everything in Dragon these days, it disappeared and is nowhere to be seen.

Even if it does come out, how much would you want to bet that Wizards actually updates *all* the original races that could use the new stat options? I am going to bet you some Players Handbook races might get them, but the ECG races (Kalashtar notably) I have a distinct feeling is going to get screwed. Like always.



> Where's the confusion really?




Their inability to stick to a release schedule - both physical and in their digital magazines, the fact to me they seem to want to endlessly republish the Wizard/Fighter/Cleric as much as they can and such forth.

I'm just going to be frank and say I'm getting very sick of how Wizards are doing things. I mean things that should have been obvious great additions to announce into the whole game, like themes have an entire nebulous date. Where are the other expertise feats for weapon groups that weren't in the first two E-books? 

I just still don't understand what they are doing anymore.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 13, 2011)

I have increasingly been getting the impression that the current "owners" of 4E, for whatever reason, don't like the direction 4E went on release, and are trying to make it their own. This gives them very little incentive to pull forward the work of those who came before, and may be part of why they seem to drag their feet on everything. I dearly hope this isn't true, and I don't want to seem like I'm accusing anyone of anything, but that's the impression their publishing behavior and their often-antagonistic statements and actions suggest amid the information blackout required by business.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 13, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> the throwing weapon version of the seeker however is a very very sound concept... except when you consider that they somehow forget to give him some good thrown weapons...




That illustration of the twin-axe Seeker is somewhat deceptive, isn't it?

However, I figure any decent DM has enough handwavium to dispense with that issue (though he really shouldn't have to).


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 13, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That illustration of the twin-axe Seeker is somewhat deceptive, isn't it?




I believe it to be recycled whirling barbarian art that ended up in the article.

With hilarious consequences of course.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 14, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I believe it to be recycled whirling barbarian art that ended up in the article.
> 
> With hilarious consequences of course.




Article?  I'm talking about the one in the PHB...2?  With, as I recall, snowflakes or other indicators of "cold."


----------



## Aegeri (Mar 15, 2011)

I was thinking of the CA article for seekers a while back, which had art that had nothing to do with what was in the actual article. Seekers are quite confused obviously.


----------



## Grimgrin (Mar 15, 2011)

It's obvious to me .....
Fewer 4e Book Releases
Less Online 4e Support
Promised big announcement

Its 5e time!


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 15, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Article?  I'm talking about the one in the PHB...2?  With, as I recall, snowflakes or other indicators of "cold."




If it's in PHB2, then it's not the Seeker, since that debuted in PHB3.


----------



## tuxgeo (Mar 16, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That illustration of the twin-axe Seeker is somewhat deceptive, isn't it?
> 
> However, I figure any decent DM has enough handwavium to dispense with that issue (though he really shouldn't have to).




. . .



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Article?  I'm talking about the one in the PHB...2?  With, as I recall, snowflakes or other indicators of "cold."




The pic of a twin-axe seeker on page 120 of PHB3* does show tiny bluish things on his axes, but under a magnifying glass they look like insects to me, not snowflakes; and, as the pic is located directly beneath the power "Burrowing Shot," I take that to mean that the bluish things are -- spiritual Blue Beetles. 
YMMV, of course. 

*PHB3 as The Little Raven said.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Mar 16, 2011)

I do like 4E, more or less, and I will continue my DDi subcription provided the new Monster Builder actually works properly.

Of course, I am expecting that the version we see on 22Mar will be a motherless dog (and I will be stunned [save ends, -5 saving throw penalty] if this e-turd is cranked out on 22Mar) but once I have this, plus the Compendium, I consider that to be enough to run the games I plan to run for the next few years. 

In other words, I am lowering my expectations. I am not expecting the e-turd versions of _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ to ever be worthwhile again so I am discounting them completely.

Just give me a functioning Character Builder, a functioning Monster builder and the surprisingly functional Compendium and that is enough. I've still got Paizo products for inspiration!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 16, 2011)

which does not mean that we don´t hope for the best.


----------



## webrunner (Mar 16, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I was thinking of the CA article for seekers a while back, which had art that had nothing to do with what was in the actual article. Seekers are quite confused obviously.




Well yeah, they're still Seekers after all this time.  If they weren't confused they'd be "Founders" by now.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 16, 2011)

Hmmh ok, after trying to build one, it also bugs me that the melee/thrown seeker gets no shield proficiency...

a good weapon or a shield would not be asking for too much, was it?

As I said, a nature warrior that uses thrown weapons, one or two of them would have been quite solid, it just needs some support.


----------

