WOTC changes 4E cleric - forums go bat$hit

[Exploderwizard]

All I can do is laugh at this. The failure of WOTC to understand the basic differences between the MMO and P&P format for game content continues to amaze and amuse at the same time.

[Ladybird]

If I was cynical, I'd point out that this sort of errata essentially renders published books obsolete and makes it necessary to subscribe to their digital services if you want to use the "official" or "correct" or "current" version of the rules.

I don't think being cynical has anything to do with it. That's exactly what the online stuff is for: players get up-to-date gameplay, WotC get subscription revenues and can see exactly what material is actually getting used in play, everyone (In theory) should be happy... and WotC should be making a good return on it's investment, which is the end goal for them.

[jgants]

You joke, but WotC automatically updates their character creator and online tools to reflect the rules changes.  

If you're someone who uses such tools, rule changes like this actually are more or less mandatory, especially now that it's all web-based rather than relying on a software update that could potentially be ignored.

Basically, they've finally found a system where the designer really has about as close to an MMO's level of control on the game rules as possible.

Which is precisely the reason I stopped updating my character builder last July and dropped my subscription - my players absolutely, positively do not want their powers to randomly change in effect.

I had to stop because of the damn magic missile fiasco.  But that was nothing compared to the shitstorm I would have had over this change.

Had my group actually been using the current online character builder and forced to switch to the new powers, it would have instantly killed my campaign full stop.  There is no way in hell my cleric player would agree to those changes, and I refuse to try and keep multiple versions of rules active at the same time.

[Insufficient Metal]

Fortunately, we have the perfect emoticon for this moment.

:teehee:

Speaking of Penny Arcade, the 4E rules "patch" reminds me of this:

[misterguignol]

I guess the monsters stay the same, but all character info is practically useless if you want to "stay current".

Actually, some monsters from the Monster Manuals changed with the publication of the Monster Vault.

[LordVreeg]

All I can do is laugh at this. The failure of WOTC to understand the basic differences between the MMO and P&P format for game content continues to amaze and amuse at the same time.

yeah. The idea that rulesets can have some level of 'toolkit' applicability, to mesh with a setting, instead of a total overkill RAW, that will literally trasnfiorm characters in the middle of an adventure?

Go figure.

[Reckall]

I'm even seeing posts that WOTC has 'ruined the game'.

Maybe they are catching up. The time needed for a 4E fan is about right.

BTW, I glanced at the .PDF and I found this:

"Why This Is the Class for You: You like playing a character who helps other
characters to fight their best, using your magic to aid their attacks and heal
their injuries."

...But I was unable to find the rules about why one shouldn't hold his ice-cream upside down. Are those elsewhere?

[Melan]

The total malleability of rules is not some new, out of the blue development: it is the product of a design mindset that has now been around for some time, one that considers any single element of the game interchangable and devoid of intristic value.

[ggroy]

You joke, but WotC automatically updates their character creator and online tools to reflect the rules changes.  

If you're someone who uses such tools, rule changes like this actually are more or less mandatory, especially now that it's all web-based rather than relying on a software update that could potentially be ignored.

Basically, they've finally found a system where the designer really has about as close to an MMO's level of control on the game rules as possible.

It seems like WotC is taking this approach for the 4E themes, by making them mostly online-only at this point.  (4E themes are like Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies, but are chosen at level 1).

More generally they're probably betting on enough D&D players paying monthly subscriptions, for the online character generator stuff which is not published at all in paper books.

If it comes down to the point where the online DDI revenue is significantly larger than the D&D book sales revenue, I wouldn't be surprised to see them reducing (or even ceasing) publication of future crunch heavy D&D books (ie. player's options, power, etc ... type books) beyond the core rulebooks.

[ggroy]

yeah. The idea that rulesets can have some level of 'toolkit' applicability, to mesh with a setting, instead of a total overkill RAW, that will literally transform characters in the middle of an adventure?

WotC will just attribute it to continual hiccups from the Spellplague in the 4E Forgotten Realms.  

[islan]

Yeah, the only objectively "bad" thing about this I can see is that the changes appear in the online character generator, which forces you to update if you make use of that.  Also if you play in Encounters, but that is a per-adventure game anyway, rather than an ongoing campaign, right?

If you don't use the character creator app, I don't see why this would effect ongoing campaigns.  I thought the entire point of the freely released "essentialized" builds of the PHB 1 classes was because the fans were demanding it, and it was nice of Wizards to release them online rather than push out another book like they were planning to originally.  And from what I hear from the 4e players, pre-Essential character classes can mix easily with Essential character classes in the same game.  In other words, these class build remakes are only for the Essentials-only crowd, instead of the fans who have been around since the beginning and still want to use their PHB1. Still a shame about the character creator, though.

[Ghost Whistler]

2/10

What's D&D?

[Insufficient Metal]

yeah. The idea that rulesets can have some level of 'toolkit' applicability, to mesh with a setting, instead of a total overkill RAW, that will literally trasnfiorm characters in the middle of an adventure?

I say they're not going far enough. They should make a software ruleset that changes every time you load it, and at random, throughout play. Basically the tabletop RPG equivalent of Calvinball.

Oops, your only fighter just turned into a bard mid-combat and is singing a song about you getting your ass kicked! Now what, dork?

[Cole]

At this point, is there really any purpose to a 4e rulebook?  Anything you get can be changed at any time.  I guess the monsters stay the same, but all character info is practically useless if you want to "stay current".

Presumably they can make their money off of Insider. Buying the books does seem like a sucker's game at this point, unless it's an adventure or something like that.

BTW, so much for the theory that Essentials wasn't heralding a change to the entire line that would culminate in changes so severe that it would be better described as 4.5e or 5e.  

The changes mostly seem to be so picayune that I would have a hard time calling them "severe."  I guess you need to have your classes updated to the new versions for organized play but they were making little changes pre-essentials too. Errata is constant. Makes them money, I imagine. But then it also makes Insider seem like a sucker's game too.

Maybe the best solution for a lot of players would be to just pick a version of 4e as your house rules and stick with it, per Jgants. But the builder being online and the autoupdate makes that a pain, too, per J Arcane. Making 4e characters isn't quite a HERO level of busy-work, but I still wouldn't really want to do that without an app.

[Peregrin]

For organized play, a serial approach to updates and content can work.  Have one "core" rulebook for DMs and players (like the little essentials books sort of act as), and then have everything else be digitally distributed to customers through a service, with printouts and everything.  I do not mind this, if the main goal is organized play, but even then, games that flourish in OP usually are standardized and rarely change (chess, holdem' poker).

But this sort of thing actively wrecks the sort of tight-knit, "I know what you're talking about" communities that make it easy to find a game of, say, Dark Heresy.  It had it's share of errata, but the game is pretty-much the same and when I transfer from one campaign to another, it's not going to really be that much of a hassle.

Now, with these printed hardcover books, Essentials options, and continual class-tweaking, it's going to be much harder to find a "common ground."  Now, instead of just saying "Hey, want to play some 4e", anytime I try to organize a game, I'll have to specify what format and updates I'm using.  It's a lot more difficult to negotiate than saying "core only", because there are so many changes spread throughout, and anyone who actually cares about the mechanical component of the game (which is a lot, if my experience with d20 and 4e players is any indication) is going to want to know which version of what class and what specific updates are or are not being implemented in a given game.  People on other sites can say "It's not a big deal!", but yes, it is, to a lot of players, especially if the changes effect one of their favorite classes.

I don't know.  I just don't see how this model can work for a gametype that usually spans many, many sessions.  It may work for "encounter" format play, or "raids", or whatever, but it's absolutely at odds with long-term play.