What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If everything is Core, then one presumably has to master everything to run the game.

With exception-based design I don't presume this at all. My players have my trust that they will "master" the elements of the game pertinent to their character. They have mastery over the feats and powers they have chosen. I get involved in mastering the power only if the player feels he needs clarification or the effects of a power seem out of whack to me. There is a solid core of rules in 4E that rarely changes and to run the game I feel that is the only part I have to master. Even monster powers are generally in thei own microcosm. Unlike previous editions where I presumably had to master much more of the rules as monsters and NPCs took their powers directly from class and spell lists more often than in 4E.

I''l rephrase. It doesn't make sense to me a warlord has a monopoly on bringing EVERYONE AND ANYONE back from death's door ALL OF THE TIME (in-game, assuming versimilitude, simulation, and all other applicable disclaimers for the semantically nitpicky)

He can't do it all of the time either. His resources are limited. The way I view the Warlord is actually alot closer to something that would probably sit better with you. I see him as a closer kin to an Earthdawn class. All classes in Earthdawn tapped into magic. In 4E terms, some would tap into the arcane nature of magic, others into the divine, while Warlords are tapping into Martial magic. This doesn't break from my view of previous editions either. Even the "lowly" Fighter in all editions of the game to date have been able to achieve the superhuman. To me, you can either view these superhuman feats as if they are Marvel Superheroes (which breaks genre for me) or as tapping into the inherent magic of the world, just not as directly as a Magic-User does.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure how to get a mod involved in this, but it sure seems like this conversation has gotten off the beaten track.

You need but to ask.

Sorry about the diversions - topic drift and thread fragmentation does happen, and we don't usually make a habit of preventing it.

Folks! Can we steer back to the original topic, please? Feel free to fork the side-discussions off, but let's do a favor and refocus in here. Thank you.

 

[Shazman]

I think NoWayJose has hit the nail on the head. Many of us want less "This guy has this ability just because he is a defender, leader, etc. or just to be balanced." and more "This guy has this ability because it makes sense for him to have this ability given his training, background, natural abilities, etc."
A move in that direction could go a long way towards winning some of the disenchanted back.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Let the player decide the spell's manifestation based on a theme chosen for the PC? I just don't understand why 4E doesn't seem to care about these kinds of questions.

Then you haven't read what I have. WotC has given alot of advice about reskinning your character. Not only CAN you decide the manifestation based on your PCs theme of any given power, WotC has openly encouraged it from the get-go.

 

[NoWayJose]

Then you haven't read what I have. WotC has given alot of advice about reskinning your character. Not only CAN you decide the manifestation based on your PCs theme of any given power, WotC has openly encouraged it from the get-go.

I do know about that. But, and this is the big 'but' -- I feel that WoTC's default description for powers (and some other rules) can be so lame and so weak in its logic, it's as if they are so fixated on metagame issues and lack the time and/or imagination and/or caring to address the issue I described above. And since they are so lazy or uncaring or whatnot, me and every other player and DM who cares about such things has a LOT of work to do reskinning everything, and that's not fun either.

Look, the point is that WoTC could have set a better precedent or baseline, they could have raised the bar a bit, but they didn't, and I do fault them for that.

Reskinning a power description should mean making it sound "different", not making it sound "better" or "more logical" or "more immersive" because it reads to some people as tepid or wrong or silly by default.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Oh you...

The fighter would need an INT of 17, no? (I speak AD&D, too!). Let's say he's smart, INT 14, but not in Mensa territory. He'd also have to stop acting as a fighter until he superseded his fighter level. Ah, the rigorous simulation of AD&D amazes even today!

(fortunately, it's still a fun game).

Yup multi-classing/dual-classing/level limits didn't make a lot of sense in AD&D on an individual basis. But due to the way the books were written, it explained their purpose when all together.

I think 3E went the correct step in having ECL adjustments when they did away with those limitations.
It made sense, the Fighter could learn magic from the Wizard and the Wizard could learn to swing a sword from the Fighter later in life.

But going back to the OP, these steps taken in previous jobs were easily transitioned for players and DM's. Names remained the same, class roles for the most part remained the same.
A few mechanics were tweaked, Non-Weapon Proficiencies of 2E became Skills of 3E.

 

[Herschel]

But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense because those truly natural born leaders BECOME warlords. That's their gig. Others can train in heal and take a utility power that helps heal when a comrade is down. There are a lot of ways to inspire/heal and all are fine when you remember that HP aren't actual, physical damage but an abstract.

For those who want their characters to be able to do everything, there really isn't anything WotC can do for them because they no longer design that kind of game under the D&D brand.

 

[fanboy2000]

3e - Region (area you're from).

4e - Background (are you're from). Multi-Class Only Class - Spellscarred. New Class - Swordmage.

Just to point out, the 3e Realms introduced a lot more than rules for what Region you were from. The introduced the Level Adjustment rules (along with their compliments, Character Level and Effective Character Level) and Epic level rules. Those rules later got their own supplements, at the end of 3e's life, and were latter incorporated into 3.5 rule books. It was in the 3e Realms that Tieflings first appeared as a 3e PC race. Quite frankly, the 3e Realms was a 4th core rule book for 3e before 3.5.

3e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.

4e - Dragonmarks. New Class - Artificer.

Don't for get action points and living constructs. Also, IIRC, it's the only 3.5 Campaign setting to introduce a new NPC class.

Sorry to be nitpicky, but it always amazes me how much people forget. The 3e Realms really shaped the 3e rules landscape in a major way. I didn't play in the Realms, but as a DM who allowed some level adjustment races, I simply can't say it didn't have a profound impact on my game.

My partner claims that I am very optomistic. Perhaps she is wrong?

I don't know, does she read your posts?

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Please don't ban me.

 

[MrMyth]

You know what Umbran, you can defend the way WotC has proceeded with alternate rules for settings and I can keep telling you how dissapointed I am in the approach they took but really this discussion has gotten a little pointless...

Let me tie it back into the OP... after coming from the land of milk and honey in alternate mechanics for settings in 2e and 3e (especially with the OGL), providing some form of different mechanics for flavor and variety when it comes to the different 4e settings would be one of the things WotC could do to get me interested in buying their stuff again

Ok, fair enough. So here is a question - how different do the mechanics need to be to count? For example, Dark Sun is coming out soon, and thus far looks to have a number of elements that make it distinct:
-Themes, which both help define characters and give them a slight power boost compared to other settings;
-Arcane Defiling;
-Weapon Breakage rules;
-Some form of more detailed survival/endurance rules;
-No divine characters by default.

Would these be what you are looking for?

I'm asking out of genuine interest here - as I mentioned before, I think there is a solid point of balance where you have mechanics that will make a setting unique while still keeping it accessible, and I'm just trying to figure out where that point might be.

 

[MrMyth]

It makes perfect sense because those truly natural born leaders BECOME warlords. That's their gig. Others can train in heal and take a utility power that helps heal when a comrade is down. There are a lot of ways to inspire/heal and all are fine when you remember that HP aren't actual, physical damage but an abstract.

For those who want their characters to be able to do everything, there really isn't anything WotC can do for them because they no longer design that kind of game under the D&D brand.

I am actually starting to get what he is looking for here. Basically, he doesn't want a character to have to give up their other capabilities to be defined as a natural born leader - perhaps in one party, Gandalf is the inspirational glue that holds everyone together, while in another it is Aragorn, and in yet another it is Frodo. Whether Wizard, Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, whatever - having that role of 'inspirational heart of the party' doesn't need to be tied to class.

Which I can understand. But at the same time... I sorta feel like you could make that same argument for Fighter, or Bard, or any number of other capabilities. Once you go down that road, you truly are looking at designing an entirely class-less system.

As it is, D&D somewhat assumes that if you really want to have those exceptional abilities, you need to represent it within the character's stats. In 4E, it presents the Warlord as one way of doing so - the most prominent way. Basically, they decided that 'inspirational leader of men' was a valid enough fantasy archetype to merit its own class. I don't think there is anything wrong with them doing so, or unrealistic about that (any more than the concept of any class.)

Could they have pursued a different approach, and made it some sort of template option (as seems to be showing up with Dark Sun themes?) Sure, probably.

But as has been noted - there are other options. As mentioned, every has this to some extent via Heal and Second Wind. Investing in Diplomacy, hunting down the right utility and skill powers, multiclassing - all these can help a character gain some of those talents.

Without that - you might be a naturally charismatic fellow, but you just haven't mastered the art of truly inspirational speeches, because you've spent more time learning to swing your sword and other tricks. Haven't we seen things like this before, as well? Rogues being the only ones able to find magic traps, for example - even a bard who is incredibly skilled with traps, natural dextrous and perceptive and such, can't ever be as good with traps as someone with the 'trapfinding' class feature?

In this case, there are options to help others represent that ability if they have it - but they'll never be as good at it as the Warlord, because that is the archetype he represents.

I can see someone preferring that they handled it differently - but I can't really get someone saying this approach doesn't make sense, when it is simply the same natural approach of the class system that has been part of D&D from the start.