Wizards Watch: When did George Lucas join WotC’s R&D Team?
Greedo shot first at Han Solo in the Cantina; The Force is really bacteria called midichlorians; and the Core 4E Fighter is now a Weaponmaster.
Really? He missed at that range?
Although re-writing the class summary in the Essentials format, as seen in the HoFK/HoFL player books, has little effect on how the classes functions – the Fighter (Weaponmaster) and the Warlord (Marshall) still have their full complement of encounter and daily powers – the changes to various powers and class features, however, are frankly a bit mystifying. I totally agree that, in some cases, clarifications were needed to avoid confusion, but I am completely perplexed why we are seeing some powers downgraded in power, after more than two years of play and almost a half-dozen PHB errata!
Just leafing through my pdf downloads, there have been five errata and updates for the 4E Player’s Handbook now – Aug 2008, Jan 2009, Nov 2009, May 2010, and July 2010 – not including the two new class specific updates for the the Warlord (Marshall) and the Fighter (Weaponmaster)! Yet more than 30 class features and powers were either clarified or changed in the recent Weaponmaster and Marshall updates to the Class Compendium – powers which had been, apparently, just fine for the last two years of game play.
So why are we seeing these changes now? And how many more changes to PHB Core Classes are we going to be seeing in the coming months?
The Double-Edged Nerfbat
Uh, what am I called now?
But other powers, like Come and Get It, was pretty clearly a “nerf”, making the power do less damage to foes and changing the circumstances under which the power can operate. Strangely enough, the Epic version of the Come and Get It encounter power – Warrior’s Urging – was not reduced in damage like the Heroic version of the power, still gaining a STR bonus to the damage on attacks. Personally, I don’t see why the damage needed to be nerfed at all, and the other changes to the powers seem to make a certain logical sense otherwise.
But when looking at the Warlord (Marshall) changes, it becomes a bit more murky as to the reasons which prompted the errata and re-writing of the powers. For instance, in several cases, the powers which allowed the Warlord (Marshall) to move or shift an ally now declare that it requires a free action to perform the move.
While superficially, requiring a free action seems like no real concern, as such actions are typically unlimited during a turn. However, given the clarification in the Rules Compendium regarding the use of free actions, the Warlord might find his powers less efficacious based upon the will of the Dungeon Master:
In certain circumstances, the DM might decide to limit the use of free actions further. For instance, if an adventurer has already used free actions during a particular turn to talk, drop things, and use a class feature, the DM might rule that the adventurer can use no more free actions during that turn.
Of course, one would hope that a DM would not invoke this rule too often, as it would seriously disarm the effects of several Warlord powers – but yet the potential is there. Personally, I wonder if those “certain circumstances” that will “limit the use of free actions further” might not arise during competitive D&D play. I am always wary of rules that “might” be evoked by one DM, but completely allowed by a different DM – a situation which would have been avoided if the “free action” text had not been added.
Conclusions
It always concerns me to see a “paper & pencil” game like D&D 4E suffering from the types of class changes we have seen in MMO style computer games over the years. Making corrections and clarifications to class features and powers are all well and good, as they help to keep players and DMs from wasting valuable game-time arguing over a phrase which might be ambiguous or confusing, and open to misinterpretation. But going back into a sourcebook like the Core PHBs, and making major changes which affect the damage output or special effects or even changing the names of the classes – especially this long after release – feels like someone is re-writing the very foundation of the game.
Changes like these should have happened a long time ago, if they really needed to happen at all, and can only lead to player dissatisfaction if they continue. I don’t think that gamers like to wake-up one morning and find that their character and his powers have undergone a strange metamorphosis overnight – it is both unsettling and potentially frustrating. From my own perspective, it is one of the reasons I have quit playing certain classes in MMOs in the past, disliking the sheer frustration at discovering a favorite character no longer functions like he used to.
I must assume we will see the rest of the PHB classes, and likely the PHB2 classes as well, “essentialized” for inclusion in the Class Compendium. My only hope is that any future changes to class powers and features will be of a clarification type change, in order to make the game easier to play, with less ambiguity.
And let’s leave the “re-envisioning” of past creative endeavors to Mr. Lucas and his movies, and not have that sort of hindsight-imagining in D&D 4E.
About The Author
“I don’t think that gamers like to wake-up one morning and find that their character and his powers have undergone a strange metamorphosis overnight – it is both unsettling and potentially frustrating.”
Well said. While at first I found some of the updates necessary (while I mourn the loss of Kenshiro Cascadero still, it was necessary to keep him from getting off 20 attacks with Blade Cascade) a lot of the later nerfs seem rather petty and minor. There came a point before I stopped playing 4e where I just ceased to keep track of them, but to get into any gaming group I had to either have the CB to track these, or go read them myself anyway, since they are an expected part of the game experience.
Hey Mike,
I am in complete agreement. I’m afraid that they are crafting D&D 4.5 as we speak. Without an official announcement of 4.5 they hope to slip all these changes unoticed to avoid all the critizism that they have recieved in the past for doing underhanded deeds just like our own government.
Yes this is the Shawn you know and love from EP.
All I can say is, I completely agree… but I don’t think you’re going to get your wish.
I am just confused with all the changes and am having trouble keeping up with what is new and what is not. I don’t know why things need a name change but in the Rule of three this week they mentioned the Marshall and the Weaponmaster and the reason for the changes. Oh well, what can we do.
Changes like these are part of the reasons why my group left 4e. Too much tinkering, errata and changes. I hope they know what they’re doing, for the sake of the game and its players. I sense an underlying growing frustration coming from the community. I hope im wrong.
Changes like these are part of the reasons why my group left 4e. Too much tinkering, errata and changes. I hope they know what they’re doing, for the sake of the game and its players. I sense an underlying growing frustration coming from the community. I hope im wrong.
What should the time limit be for improving the game?
If these nerfs really change the damage output of every fighter, then that’s a pretty clear indication that those powers needed nerfing, because every fighter picks those powers
And why shouldn’t they clarify classes by give a specific name to a class build?
“Improving” is a subjective term. Adding peanut butter to chocolate? That’s an improvement! Unless you have a peanut allergy… in which case that may kill you.
Changes always happen for ridiculous reasons – most of which we don’t know the argument for… Maybe “Wyld Stallions” got together some night and someone used Come and Get It, and Shelly (looking up from polishing her nails or ‘bedazzling’ her phone) said to herself “OMG! That’s soooo overpowered! lolz!” and as a result? Errata!
At least, that’s how I like to imagine a lot of these changes come about.
PS: Call my Warlord a “Marshall” and I’ll flip you. I’ll flip you for real.
@Wyatt – It saddens me to hear from guys like you and NewbieDM leaving 4E over issues like this, but I cannot blame you. I think WotC needs to realize that D&D 4E/Essentials is not an MMO, and needs to stop treating it as such, or they will continue to lose awesome players like you guys. And it is that hope, of making them realize they can push changes too far, that prompted me to write this editorial in the first place.
@Shawn – Thanks for commenting! Glad you liked my post – although I’m not sure how far of a metaphor stretch it is to liken WotC’s errata/changes to a government conspiracy!
@Alton – Yea I read the Rule-of-Three and thought their reasoning was ridiculous. The Knight and Slayers are supposed to be BUILDS of the Core 4E Fighter, and as such Fighter feats should apply to all three without needing a name change. The renaming of the Fighter to Weaponmaster, and suggesting that there will feats designed specifically for Knights, Slayers, and Weaponmasters seperately, infers that these are completely different classes, and undermines the idea that Essentials and Core 4E are perfectly “compatible”.
@NewbieDM – I’m concerned about the growing community frustration too – and hope we are both wrong, but I fear we’re not. Gamers will only tolerate so much frustration and disappointment in a game product, then they will go off and look for a more fun and less frustrating game experience – I’ve had veteran D&D players in one of my 4E campaigns question “what the hell” WotC is doing, cancel their DDI subscriptions, and even start asking why we haven’t tried Pathfinder. Frankly, I am finding it harder and harder to try and defend WotC’s actions to them.
@Chris – As I stated in my blog, I think there is a big difference between making rules clarifications (which are definite improvements), versus changing the fundamental nature of how a power works. I agree, there should be no time limit on making rules clarifications, but entirely altering how a power operates due to some bizarre perception of “class balance” or “damage output” should have been made a long time ago.
And it was never stated that every Fighter would be effected by the change or that the power was only desirable due to damage output. For the record, Hydra Charge does the same damage in a Burst 1, and confers a -2 to attack rolls vs. enemies, and can be used at the end of a charge – but WotC didn’t decide to nerf that 7th Level Encounter power. The problem is that a major change to a power occurred – a power which had been functioning fine for over 2.5 years – and suddenly it gets changed with no explanation or reason. And that change will suddenly and drastically effect both the player experience as well as the character concept, of every Fighter who happens to have that power in their arsenal.
As with any group of consumers, the D&D gaming community has the right to question why their game product is being retro-actively altered, and our play experiences altered along with it. This is not an MMO, where players agree to a EULA that actually states that the game play experience can change over the course of the game. WotC has free reign to make all the corrections and clarifications it wants, but it should save the major content changes and alterations for the next “edition” of D&D.
Frankly, I’ve ceased to care about WotC as a company, and nearly D&D as a brand..
I still love the game, but the horrible management and bad business decisions have seemingly overwhelmed R&D, and it’s starting to affect the products themselves.
I’m just glad that I have all the books I need to play 4e for a long, long time – even if I have to go back to paper and a calculator to make characters.
I guess I’m in the vast minority here, but I’m fine with power-level changes that come years after a book was published. If a power is so strong that nearly every player of that class who cares at all about building an effective combat character takes it, then that power might be too strong. Come And Get It was like that. So is Twin Strike (and I’m guessing the folks who are worried that Twin Strike will get nerfed might be right).
I understand that a lot of players philosophically disagree with the notion that the company that publishes the game should apply retroactive edits to published material years after the fact, not just for clarification but also for power level adjustments. I’m not one of those players. If the change makes the game more balanced and gives players more interesting choices and variety among characters, I’m fine with it.
Then again, I’m a relatively new player (I’ve only been in the game for a little over a year) and I’ve been a DDI subscriber pretty much from the start, so these changes seem pretty natural to me. And no, I’ve never played an MMO. This approach just makes sense to me, for whatever reason.
I think the better question is, “why did it take SO LONG for Come and Get It to get nerfed?” It obviously needed it. It was a daily attack that you could use every encounter.
I imagine they delayed the errata even further than necessary to give the impression that they’re releasing errata less often, but in this case I think it only served in increasing player resentment.
Also, I’m not sure why it’s necessary to use “fighter (weaponmaster)” in feat requirements when one could say “Fighter Weapon Talent” like they’re been doing for two years. The former is clearer, I suppose.
I must admit though that I fully approve of giving the PH1 builds real names, as it’s much easier and more natural to say “arcanist” or “arcanist wizard” than “Core wizard” (it and the mage are just as Core as each other, sorry buddy!) or “Player’s Handbook wizard” (there’s builds for this outside of the PH1).
@OnlineDM & adajford – Aren’t you both making a pretty big assumption? We’re operating in a vacuum when it comes to the reasons behind why a power gets changed – and the automatic assumption is that the power MUST be too powerful, otherwise why would it be changed, right? Admittedly, Come and Get It in its old format where the “pull 2″ was an auto-hit might be considered overpowering – but if they fixed the auto-hit by adding a hit roll, why did they also have to nerf the damage? They didn’t nerf the damage on the Level 23 Encounter power version of the power – they just added the hit roll on the pull.
But what bothers me about the dev teams logic where “if a power is effective and popular, it’s overpowered and needs to be nerfed”, is how backwards that thinking really is. If there is a list of powers and one jumps out as clearly superior to the others, why should the correct response be to nerf that power so that it’s just as unappealing as all the other powers?
How about this as an alternative process: analyze the power list that has the one superior power, and select two or three other powers to get a bit of a boost and make them just as appealing! Then the players would have had some truly interesting choices, instead of a selection of lackluster powers.
Interestingly, Come and Get It was rated as “gold” in the WotC Forum optimization guides, with Hydra Charge a close second. And so is that what we are to expect now from the Design Team – having them go through their collected data of popular powers from Character Builder and the optimization write-ups on the forums, just so they know where they can apply the nerf-bat?
All-in-all, I would have to call that a pretty pathetic philosophy of power (re-)design. And once again, these changes should have happened a long time ago, if they really needed to happen at all.
I 100% hate errata. I still use Twin Strike as it is written in Martial Power; I have no intention of changing Come and Get It (My 9th level Fighter has it now). If you go over to the Wizard’s Forum and express that there feels like there are 2 different 4th editions, they will with vitriol and vehemence tell you how you are a troll or ignorant. Not a friendly place to post these days.
My Deluxe PHB has no pencil marks in it and my group is quite cool with the fact that I’ll use it as is until 4th is dead.
My Fighter will Never Be A Weapons Master.
Heh… I don’t know how some people reconcile hating long term balancing of the game system, while at the same time trying to fearmonger that WOTC is trying to drop a new, incompatible 4.5 version on us.
I mean, doesn’t the former argue against the latter? If a new ‘lets-make-everyone-buy-the-same-books-over’ version was their plan, why the hell would they make so much of an effort to maintain balance in the current system with all the errata.
Seriously, there’s no need for nerf-rage. Last summer they added errata for wizard powers, giving a lot of them half-damage miss effects. That was not a nerf? If every weaponmaster build is taking come-and-get-it, then, uh yeah – it should probably be adjusted. Why? Because whenever ‘must-have’ powers exist, it’s effectively limiting character choice.
But the best part of this whole ‘issue’ is that the game still totally works whether you call your fighter a fighter, a nerf-herder, or a weapon-master. And it works if you use the rules as written in 1st edition phb or if you go and reprint your updated character sheet every month as a ddi subscriber. I’m glad that the developers are trying to maintain balance and diversity in the game.
Oh, and in terms of Come-and-Get-It – why are we glossing over the fact that it now targets Will instead of AC… that’s a pretty significant positive bump, in addition to matching the flavor of the power.
For myself, WotC’s willingness to fix broken elements of the game – or even finetune elements that are only slightly unbalanced – is exactly what I look for in a professional game publisher. This idea that pursuing a balanced and well-designed game is a bad thing is something I cannot understand.
Now, I don’t fault anyone who doesn’t want to deal with keeping up with such errata, sure – but blaming WotC or other players who want to use properly balanced material? That just seems silly.
In the end, sure, it would be ideal if nothing needed fixing in the first place. But I’ve never seen a game pull that off, and would rather what we have now than what we had in 3rd Edition, where glaring issues in classes and other content went untouched for the entire life of the game.