Diablo in 4e

[Psyren]

I have an idle project in my head and the more I think about it, the more I believe 4e would be a perfect fit; Tabletop Diablo. 4e's computationally easy powers framework seems like the ideal vehicle for translating Diablo abilities to a table. Diablo has powers that:

• Do direct damage
• Do area damage (in cones, lines, bursts, emanations, and chains)
• Do ongoing damage
• Move enemies and do damage
• Stun, root, snare, blind, and charm enemies while doing damage
• Heal/buff allies while doing damage
• Force enemies to attack certain targets
• Force enemies not to attack certain targets
• Zone enemies into or out of small areas
• Create mobile minions
• Create stationary minions
• Have no cooldowns
• Have short cooldowns
• Have long cooldowns

4e can translate all of that pretty easily (well maybe not the minions thing, I honestly don't know how 4e handles summons). It also provides much more - skill checks, NPCs, rituals, quests, exploration, everything one would need to set a full-fledged campaign in the world of Sanctuary... say, circa the last days of the ancient Nephalem empire before their powers began to fade.

Setting aside, has anyone tried this before? Any suggestions to flesh it out?

[Dimers]

Yeah, I've often made that comparison too. Resistances and regeneration also carry over well, and insubstantiality/phasing would add an interesting element to Diablo's possibilities. Dailies don't map very well, but eh, close enough.

Summons work fine in 4e. You'll want to be aware of the differences between 'summon' and 'conjuration' before you try to run a game, but both are viable ways to create extra combatants on-the-spot. Features like beast companion, animal companion, fey beast or thrall can expand the options too, making more lasting mooks for the PC team.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I've often made that comparison too. Resistances and regeneration also carry over well, and insubstantiality/phasing would add an interesting element to Diablo's possibilities. Dailies don't map very well, but eh, close enough.

You can get this in Diablo as well, see the Witch Doctor's Spirit Walk or the Demon Hunter's Smoke Screen. The key I think would be somehow making it a reactive condition, one you could use to avoid damage from an area power. To capture the feel of Diablo everyone would need an "oh-crap" ability to dodge the big hits, though you could also simulate this to some extent via healing surges if you treat HP as partially an abstraction like "stamina" or "luck."

Summons work fine in 4e. You'll want to be aware of the differences between 'summon' and 'conjuration' before you try to run a game, but both are viable ways to create extra combatants on-the-spot.

That's definitely the part I wasn't clear on, can you elaborate on how that works in 4e?

[ThePurple]

That's definitely the part I wasn't clear on, can you elaborate on how that works in 4e?

"Conjuration" powers are basically effects that exist separately but are not actually separate creatures (and do not actually occupy the space they're in unless specifically mentioned). They don't even have their own stats (if something targets it, it generally just uses the creator's stats; they don't even have hp most of the time; they tend to just die if they're attacked, though many can't be attacked at all). They aren't affected by the environment and, if moveable, stop existing as soon as they're out of range or LoS of their creator. In general, they also do whatever it is they do automatically, with additional options requiring the creator to use the action.

"Summoning" powers are actually separate creatures. They count as a separate creature allied to the creator and have attributes (speed, size, etc) like a real creature (though they still tend to use their creator's defenses and hp). They don't have HSs but their creator can allow them to use their creator's HSs and, if the summoned creature is reduced to 0 hp or less, the creator loses an HS. However, while they have their own stats and whatnot, summoned creatures *do not* have their own actions; their creator must spend their own actions to command the summoned creature to act (even for things like OAs and immediate actions) and, even then, they're limited to the actions that are listed for the summoned creature (the only "default" action they get are a minor action command to have it crawl, escape, run, stand up, shift, squeeze, or walk).

In short, "conjurations" are things you create that don't really do much but don't really require much while "summons" are more substantial and require a lot more input (and investment). Summons are also much riskier and, in my experience, most players tend to see summons as not being worth it (since they're still consuming your actions to do whatever it is they do and, even if you just use them to soak up some hits, you'll still lose the HS).

[Kurald Galain]

summoned creatures *do not* have their own actions

For several summon powers, the summoned creatures do have their own actions. Arguably those are the only summon powers worth using.

[Dimers]

Here's my whole writeup. Some of it overlaps with what ThePurple said.

Summonings versus conjurations

A summons is a creature and an ally. It can flank. It occupies space. Most summons can make opportunity attacks, though that isn't inherent. Since it can be attacked, a summons has one type of duration limit that conjurations don't. On the other hand, summons are lasting unless the power states otherwise, which means they'll stay on the battlefield if you're dominated or very busy. Being attackable also means they draw more enemy attention than conjurations typically do, soaking up some hits that would otherwise affect the party. Summons are more durable if their creator is more durable. They move as minor actions but don't automatically fly, and can take some actions other than movement and attacking, also as minor actions. Many have opportunity attacks (which take your opportunity action to use). Summons share knowledge with their creator.

A conjuration is an indestructible effect, not a creature. It can't flank and doesn't count as an ally for any purpose. It doesn't occupy space unless the power says so; if it does, you and your allies can move through it and enemies can't. Most conjurations require actions to sustain, attack and move. All conjurations move three-dimensionally without restriction (including floating in air indefinitely), but movable conjurations end if you are out of their casting range at the end of your turn (including through enemy action). Because they lack opportunity attacks and can't be destroyed, conjurations are generally ignored by enemy combatants.

To attack a target through a conjuration, you need line of sight to the target but don't need line of effect for anything. To attack a target through a summons, you need LoE to the summons but don't need LoS for anything. Presumably a summons can't target a creature Hidden to it without an AoE attack, but if there's one you can see and the summons can't, you can direct the summons to attack with the standard penalty.

Although summons may technically be dazed or dominated, they have neither turns nor actions, so they're not affected by either condition. Neither conjurations nor summons can drag a grabbed target, which requires a special attack as a standard action. RC244 clarifies that sustaining is required for grabs generated by the grab attack action, but it seems like summons' and conjurations' grabs don't need sustaining, and there's no rule to allow them to do so. There's also no rule to let them stop grabbing when the creator wants them to.

Many figurine-type creatures and a few that are based on powers are (incorrectly, apparently) described using the terminology for creatures through-and-through but have the conjuration keyword. If you use one, buyer beware ... check your assumptions with the DM.

The fact that a shaman's Spirit Companion is a conjuration leads to some unexpected results. A lot of players think of it more as a creature, a summons. But it's incapable of thought or even sensation.

Some druid summons and some wizard summons will do stuff without you spending your action on it, but it's not always positive. E.g. the druid 1st-level daily that summons a boar: if not given directions by you, it charges the nearest bloodied creature, not enemy.

You can get this in Diablo as well, see the Witch Doctor's Spirit Walk or the Demon Hunter's Smoke Screen.

Oh, heh, right I'm used to thinking in Diablo II terms. Closest you get to "phasing" in D2 is teleporting/jumping past a see-through barrier.

For several summon powers, the summoned creatures do have their own actions.

Elaborate, please? Do you mean they do things on their own, like the abovementioned Fierce Boar, or do you mean they actually get a minor/move/standard of their own and a turn in which to spend it? I haven't seen anything like the latter.

[Psyren]

Thanks for the explanations! Reading it now, I would say both types are fine, because Diablo has both - "Conjurations" would probably be things like the Wizard's Hydra, the Demon Hunter's Sentry, or the Crusader's Phalanx - capable of attacking on their own without being attacked in return. Meanwhile the "Summoning" powers sound like proper summons like a Necromancer's golem or a Barbarian's Call of the Ancients.

Speaking of the latter - that's the kind of thing I'd consider to be a daily under this system - a huge cooldown that you could use to really turn the tables in a big fight. Then, much like in Diablo, there would be legendary or set items that let you use these abilities more often. (Are there magic items or other effects in 4e that let you use daily powers more than once, or turn them into encounter powers? That would help capture the feel of Diablo in a tabletop format I think, except instead of grinding RNG for these items, they would be the object of epic quest chains and necessary to take on the big bads of Sanctuary like the Prime Evils.)

[ThePurple]

For several summon powers, the summoned creatures do have their own actions. Arguably those are the only summon powers worth using.

Those are the "instinctive action" ones and, even then, they're the example of "specific over general". Of course, it's not so much "have their own actions" as it is "if you don't use your action to direct them, they get a bonus action to do this one specific thing".

[Psyren]

Those are the "instinctive action" ones and, even then, they're the example of "specific over general". Of course, it's not so much "have their own actions" as it is "if you don't use your action to direct them, they get a bonus action to do this one specific thing".

That would be totally fine - a simplistic "AI" for these kinds of creations might be too lightweight for a dedicated D&D summoner, but for Diablo pets that are glorified damage-sticks it would fit perfectly I think.

The next thing I'd figure out would be power sources. Wizard, Crusader, and Barbarian are pretty easy (arcane, divine, and martial respectively.) Monk would probably be okay as Psionic like they are now, though I'm unclear on how that might cause them to deviate from the AWED system everyone else is using. Are hybrid power sources possible in 4e, like divine/psionic? And for Demon Hunters I'm drawing a blank - does 4e have any classes that rely on gadgets/engineering? If so, what power source do they use?

[Dimers]

((proper summons like a Necromancer's golem or a Barbarian's Call of the Ancients)) - that's the kind of thing I'd consider to be a daily under this system - a huge cooldown that you could use to really turn the tables in a big fight. Then, much like in Diablo, there would be legendary or set items that let you use these abilities more often. (Are there magic items or other effects in 4e that let you use daily powers more than once, or turn them into encounter powers?)

It's not common, but occasionally a power or feat will let you recharge a power under certain circumstances. Artificer has that as a base ability -- they can recharge the daily powers of items. Another example is the 12th level power of Tactical Warpriest PP.

Monk would probably be okay as Psionic like they are now, though I'm unclear on how that might cause them to deviate from the AWED system everyone else is using. Are hybrid power sources possible in 4e, like divine/psionic? And for Demon Hunters I'm drawing a blank - does 4e have any classes that rely on gadgets/engineering? If so, what power source do they use?

Psionic monk: they're currently at-will/encounter/utility/daily like the non-psi classes, so that's no problem.

Hybrid power sources: they technically exist for certain classes (hunter ranger, scout ranger, berserker barbarian, skald bard, executioner assassin) but that has little meaning. Not much in the game is based solely on power source. E.g. a couple divine feats can be taken just by having any divine class, but most work only when you use a divine power.

Gadgeteer: No, not really. Artificer class does by fluff ... executioner assassin's poisons are basically short-term equipment upgrades ... several of the Essentials classes gain permanent 'upgrades' with leveling, but those are all static. I'd look at Runepriest for inspiration before any of those.

[Kurald Galain]

Elaborate, please? Do you mean they do things on their own, like the abovementioned Fierce Boar,

Yes. Some of summons these can be detrimental if not commanded, but some others will automatically do something useful. That's a decent action advantage and a good way to get multiple attacks per round. For instance, the Magma Beast.

[Actana]

The next thing I'd figure out would be power sources. Wizard, Crusader, and Barbarian are pretty easy (arcane, divine, and martial respectively.) Monk would probably be okay as Psionic like they are now, though I'm unclear on how that might cause them to deviate from the AWED system everyone else is using. Are hybrid power sources possible in 4e, like divine/psionic? And for Demon Hunters I'm drawing a blank - does 4e have any classes that rely on gadgets/engineering? If so, what power source do they use?

Monks are fairly divine in nature in Diablo, though I could see psionic be used if only for variety. Witch Doctors would be primal, and you have the Wizard, Crusader and Barbarian nailed down pretty well. The Demon Hunter I'd say is both martial and shadow in their power sources, shadow being the rather forgotten and neglected power source, but it fits well.

But overall as said, the power source matters very little in the grand scheme of things.

[Psyren]

It's not common, but occasionally a power or feat will let you recharge a power under certain circumstances. Artificer has that as a base ability -- they can recharge the daily powers of items. Another example is the 12th level power of Tactical Warpriest PP.

No items though? I could gate some "cooldown removal" as part of a PP or ED ability or feat, but part of Diablo's aesthetic is phat lootz.

I can always brew something of course (in fact, converting some of the existing unique and set items would be a goal), but just wanted to see if there was existing precedent, or wording I could crib.

Psionic monk: they're currently at-will/encounter/utility/daily like the non-psi classes, so that's no problem.

Really? I thought the power points that psi characters use interfered with that. Am I off base?

Hybrid power sources: they technically exist for certain classes (hunter ranger, scout ranger, berserker barbarian, skald bard, executioner assassin) but that has little meaning. Not much in the game is based solely on power source. E.g. a couple divine feats can be taken just by having any divine class, but most work only when you use a divine power.

Gadgeteer: No, not really. Artificer class does by fluff ... executioner assassin's poisons are basically short-term equipment upgrades ... several of the Essentials classes gain permanent 'upgrades' with leveling, but those are all static. I'd look at Runepriest for inspiration before any of those.

Yeah, I figured the power source thing was largely fluff, but it's such a lightweight and uniquely 4e thing that I wanted to try and include it

Monks are fairly divine in nature in Diablo, though I could see psionic be used if only for variety. Witch Doctors would be primal, and you have the Wizard, Crusader and Barbarian nailed down pretty well. The Demon Hunter I'd say is both martial and shadow in their power sources, shadow being the rather forgotten and neglected power source, but it fits well.

But overall as said, the power source matters very little in the grand scheme of things.

You're right, I'm leaning towards divine for Diablo Monks.

A hybrid source for DHs sounds fitting. Pure Shadow I'll probably leave for the Necro.

[Actana]

Interestingly enough, the Diablo Necromancers are actually priests of Rathma, a former nephalem. The necromancers themselves seem to also be more arcane than anything. The reason I'd say they're not shadow is that they don't really use the same source as the DH does - the DH uses the demons' own powers against them in some manners.

Even more interesting is that the necromancers never seemed to face the same corruption that hit the other Mage Clans, despite delving into blood magic and curses and all that which regular folk think is really nasty.

But, all in all, it's not like the power sources need to be that strictly defined and I wouldn't say that a shadow power source doesn't fit the necromancer. But lorewise they do seem to be mostly just regular arcane, just used in a different way.


Oh, and as far as the 4e monk goes, they don't have power points despite being psionic. Hence, they have the regular A/E/D/U system in place.

[Dimers]

No items though? I could gate some "cooldown removal" as part of a PP or ED ability or feat, but part of Diablo's aesthetic is phat lootz.

I can always brew something of course (in fact, converting some of the existing unique and set items would be a goal), but just wanted to see if there was existing precedent, or wording I could crib.

Yes to existing items, no to standardized wording. Sorry. Genasi armor, orb of invasive fortune and crusader's weapon are a couple possible examples, and there's a handful more here and there, but the terminology varies from one to the next.

Not that that should stop you from designing your own, of course!

Oh, and as far as the 4e monk goes, they don't have power points despite being psionic. Hence, they have the regular A/E/D/U system in place.

Yeah, the power point system is "Psionic Augmentation", which the other three psi classes have but the monk doesn't. There are not many "any psionic class can use this" options -- most of them require PsiAug specifically or trigger by spending power points. So 4e monks are effectively their own little niche (psionic AEDU class).

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, the power point system is "Psionic Augmentation", which the other three psi classes have but the monk doesn't. There are not many "any psionic class can use this" options -- most of them require PsiAug specifically or trigger by spending power points. So 4e monks are effectively their own little niche (psionic AEDU class).

Supposedly, somewhere back in development there was going to be a "Ki" power source that the Monk was going to be a part of. But between not having many classes that fit for it and the boundary between "essengially magic through mental discipline" and "essentially magic through physical and mental discipline" was rather fuzzy, they scrapped it. Monk was put in Psionic and they called it a day.

[hamishspence]

Supposedly, somewhere back in development there was going to be a "Ki" power source that the Monk was going to be a part of.

I remember seeing that, in Races & Classes - one of the two 4e preview books (the other was Worlds & Monsters).

[ThePurple]

Supposedly, somewhere back in development there was going to be a "Ki" power source that the Monk was going to be a part of.

"Elemental" and "Shadow" were also supposed to be completely separate power sources too, rather than secondary power sources that are tacked on to other stuff.

But between not having many classes that fit for it

I think it was less about "not having many classes that fit for it" (Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, and Monk all fit and could be made mechanically distinct from other classes by pushing the supernatural elements; Samurai could be built around fear effects, which are woefully underutilized imo, and iajutsu style immediate actions, similar to Lightning Rush; Ninja would be like magical rogues that use elemental jutsus, which are actually a thing with ninja and not just something Naruto came up with) and more about "not wanting to have an Asian power source that ends up being all Japanese".

the boundary between "essengially magic through mental discipline" and "essentially magic through physical and mental discipline" was rather fuzzy, they scrapped it.

The boundaries between power sources have always been pretty vague and largely arbitrary. How is Primal magic any different from divine magic coming from a nature deity since they're both "nature magic"? How is divine magic any different from warlock arcane magic since they're both coming from incredibly powerful external entities? Why is sorcerer, which is intuitive, using the same power source as wizard, which is scholarly? How are psions and wizards really that different, especially since they both use extremely similar powers?

Barring the psionic power source, the power sources don't even really have that much in the way of a unifying design mentality to bring the power sources together from that perspective, which is a major flaw in 4e's design, imo.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it was less about "not having many classes that fit for it" (Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, and Monk all fit

Except those aren't classes.

The fighter class is broad enough that it easily covers the concept of a samurai. Likewise, the rogue class already covers ninjas, and 'sohei' is simply a synonym of 'monk'. There is simply no need for multiple classes to represent the same broad character archetype; this is also why there's no Pirate, Champion, or Templar class.

[ThePurple]

The fighter class is broad enough that it easily covers the concept of a samurai.

I would disagree, mainly because they're different archetypes. They're *similar* archetypes, but that's it. Fighter v. Samurai is a very similar separation as Fighter v. Paladin (Paladins are simply fighters with deific empowerment while samurai are fighters with supernatural powers), but no one has tried to argue that Paladin should be removed. The same applies to Fighter v. Barbarian. Fighter is the *basic* "guy that fights with weapons" class; its presence doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any other classes that are similar, especially if they can be made mechanically and thematically distinct from the basic mold. It makes perfect sense, imo, for there to be an option to build a "realistic" samurai that is just a fighter as well as an option to build a "cinematic" samurai that is mechanically distinct and unleashes vacuum blades, stuns hordes of enemies with its steely gaze, and strikes so quickly that the target doesn't even notice it until 5 seconds later.

The "rogue = ninja" argument only works if you ignore the fact that the literary ninja archetype isn't a purely martial construct. Ninjas include a plethora of metaphysical and magical capabilities that the Rogue class, as written, doesn't actually allow for (and doesn't make sense within the martial "I don't have any magic at all" power source).

In both of these cases, I wouldn't see a problem with it *if they had actually created class options for those classes that rendered the archetype redundant*, but they didn't. I also would say that they shouldn't make more classes *if there weren't already a limited number of role+primary+secondary set ups that prevent a lot of long-standing concepts from being mechanically valid*.

Furthermore, it really just serves to further the idea that distinctions that we make with archetypes of Western culture (fighter v. paladin; fighter v. barbarian; fighter v. ranger; ranger v. barbarian; wizard v. sorcerer) are more important than distinctions that are made with archetypes of Eastern culture (rogue v. ninja; fighter v. samurai). Pedants love pointing out that, historically, samurai were no different than knights and, because we use the fighter class to represent knights, the fighter class can represent samurai too though they're always strangely silent on how, historically, paladins and warrior-clerics were no different than knights and that the exact same logic could be applied to the pantheistic reinterpretations of the Christian holy-warriors that filled the same role as other "fighters with benefits" in other cultures.

In short, "you can do that with a fighter" logic only applies if you apply that to *all* fighter archetypes, not just the Asian ones. If you can't have a samurai class because a fighter does that, you shouldn't have barbarian or paladin either.

As for "sohei = monk", keep in mind that the word "monk" doesn't actually have *anything* to do with a fighting style. It refers to people that live in monasteries and the modern archetype of the fighting monk is based almost entirely upon the Chinese notion of the ascetic warrior-monk that uses unarmed combat in plain clothes (and is one of the only cases in which the Eastern archetype has drowned out the Western archetype). The sohei archetype, on the other hand, has stronger religious overtones as well as incorporating more weapon and armor usage. The words have expanded beyond what they originally meant to become entirely different concepts. As such, the argument that a monk class renders a sohei class redundant is as valid as the notion that a fighter class renders a barbarian class redundant.

[Kurald Galain]

a "cinematic" samurai that is mechanically distinct and unleashes vacuum blades, stuns hordes of enemies with its steely gaze, and strikes so quickly that the target doesn't even notice it until 5 seconds later.

So a swordmage, really?

The "rogue = ninja" argument only works if you ignore the fact that the literary ninja archetype isn't a purely martial construct.

Sure. Ninja = essassin, then.

My point is, 4E has too many classes; and you can tell this from the fact that almost nobody ever plays the classes from the PHB3 and onwards. I used to run LFR for a couple years and kept track, so I have a decent sample size on this. Adding yet more classes is a kind of "quantity over quality" design which players tend to dislike, so WOTC was quite correct to ditch the superfluous power sources.

[tiornys]

My point is, 4E has too many classes; and you can tell this from the fact that almost nobody ever plays the classes from the PHB3 and onwards. I used to run LFR for a couple years and kept track, so I have a decent sample size on this.

Not saying you're wrong, but this type of evidence alone isn't sufficient to support the assertion. Yes, it's plausible that those classes don't get played because there wound up being too many classes, but it's also plausible that they don't get played because people preferred to keep playing characters they had already established, or because people weren't aware of them, or because they're underpowered compared to the classes that had a longer period of continuous support, or because they offer fewer options within the class than the classes with a longer period of continuous support, among other possible rationales. Most likely, the effect is caused by some combination of all of these things, but we can't really tell that either just from the data of what classes people were playing in LFR.

[JBPuffin]

Not saying you're wrong, but this type of evidence alone isn't sufficient to support the assertion. Yes, it's plausible that those classes don't get played because there wound up being too many classes, but it's also plausible that they don't get played because people preferred to keep playing characters they had already established, or because people weren't aware of them, or because they're underpowered compared to the classes that had a longer period of continuous support, or because they offer fewer options within the class than the classes with a longer period of continuous support, among other possible rationales. Most likely, the effect is caused by some combination of all of these things, but we can't really tell that either just from the data of what classes people were playing in LFR.

The more you said, the more correct you became; class support for the PHB material was so much more than most later classes - all the martial classes are pretty close to the top of 4eOP potential, with the divines close behind b/c radiant cheese - that it renders most of the other stuff situationally useful/multiclass-hybrid material. If they'd had more classes to put out at once and built on all of them through their various materials, the tiers might be quite different and more classes would be used, meaning that if you have a 12-class starter set rather than a 6-class starter set, it's more likely players will be equally drawn then two 6-class books released with several months and supplementary articles of separation.

[Kurald Galain]

but it's also plausible that they don't get played because people preferred to keep playing characters they had already established,

Clearly not, as players kept making new characters.

or because people weren't aware of them,

Come now, are you seriously suggesting that regulars in a D&D community would be unaware of the PHB3? You're really reaching here.

or because they're underpowered compared to the classes that had a longer period of continuous support,

Charop discussions consistently put most of the PHB3 classes on the same level as e.g. the much more commonly-played cleric or druid.

class support for the PHB material was so much more than most later classes

What you're missing is that popular classes get more support, because they have more fans asking for that material. Yes, this is a vicious cycle.

if you have a 12-class starter set rather than a 6-class starter set, it's more likely players will be equally drawn then two 6-class books released with several months and supplementary articles of separation.

That's "quantity over quality" again. There's a limit to how many classes a system can practically support, regardless of how many books those classes appear in.

[tiornys]

Clearly not, as players kept making new characters.

I'm not saying that any of these things explain the whole effect. But can you honestly say that everyone made new characters after the PHB3 drop?

Come now, are you seriously suggesting that regulars in a D&D community would be unaware of the PHB3? You're really reaching here.

Unaware? No. Less familiar with the material and therefore less likely to choose it, especially if short on time during character creation for some reason? Absolutely.

Charop discussions consistently put most of the PHB3 classes on the same level as e.g. the much more commonly-played cleric or druid.

Battlemind and Monk, yes, although only after further support came out.
Psion yes, but only if you play one of the most boring styles ever.
Ardent, Seeker, and Runepriest, no.

What you're missing is that popular classes get more support, because they have more fans asking for that material. Yes, this is a vicious cycle.

Do you honestly think well-made Samurai and Ninja classes wouldn't have been extremely popular?

That's "quantity over quality" again. There's a limit to how many classes a system can practically support, regardless of how many books those classes appear in.

Again, the point is not that your belief lacks merit. The point is that your argument does not prove your belief.

[Kurald Galain]

But can you honestly say that everyone made new characters after the PHB3 drop?

Conversely, can you say that no new players came in after the PHB3 was released?

Unaware? No. Less familiar with the material and therefore less likely to choose it, especially if short on time during character creation for some reason? Absolutely.

That just underlines my point that 4E has too many classes.

Battlemind and Monk,

If you want to argue class power level, let's do that in some other thread.

Do you honestly think well-made Samurai and Ninja classes wouldn't have been extremely popular?

Ninja would clearly have been popular. Samurai probably not so much. And that's because there are a lot of ninjas in fiction and pop culture, and not a lot of samurai. Ninja would have been a better candidate for a class than, say, runepriest.

Basically, it turns out that classes that correspond to a common fictional archetype are popular (e.g. wizard, rogue); whereas classes that are mainly a set of mechanics with a thesaurus-based name are not (e.g. ardent, warden). Obviously the design team started with the former, but eventually they ran out of flavorful ideas and started printing their mechanical ideas instead. And that's why 4E has too many classes.

[tiornys]

Conversely, can you say that no new players came in after the PHB3 was released?

Not at all. But I don't need to. I'm not trying to draw conclusions from evidence. I'm just pointing out that your evidence doesn't make a strong argument because it can be explained by too many factors.

Basically, it turns out that classes that correspond to a common fictional archetype are popular (e.g. wizard, rogue); whereas classes that are mainly a set of mechanics with a thesaurus-based name are not (e.g. ardent, warden). Obviously the design team started with the former, but eventually they ran out of flavorful ideas and started printing their mechanical ideas instead. And that's why 4E has too many classes.

This is a much better argument in favor of your stance.

[Inyssius Tor]

Ninja would clearly have been popular. Samurai probably not so much. And that's because there are a lot of ninjas in fiction and pop culture, and not a lot of samurai. Ninja would have been a better candidate for a class than, say, runepriest.

Basically, it turns out that classes that correspond to a common fictional archetype are popular (e.g. wizard, rogue); whereas classes that are mainly a set of mechanics with a thesaurus-based name are not (e.g. ardent, warden). Obviously the design team started with the former, but eventually they ran out of flavorful ideas and started printing their mechanical ideas instead. And that's why 4E has too many classes.

I agree with the point you're explaining here, but it's a completely different point from the original point you've been asserting. Everything but the last sentence of this quote points toward a particular conclusion, but it's not that 4E has too many classes; it's that 4E has some bad classes -- bad not in the sense that they're mechanically unsound (although on that note, you really are stretching a dubious point in your claim that most of the last few batches of 4E classes weren't generally less mechanically appealing than their predecessors), but in the sense that they're conceptually weak.

If you think that an equivalent amount of more conceptually solid classes wouldn't have had the same popularity problems as the increasingly uninspired ones we got, and that there were potential concepts they could have used that would have been more conceptually solid, it's obviously not the total number of classes that is the primary deciding factor there!

[Kurald Galain]

If you think that an equivalent amount of more conceptually solid classes wouldn't have had the same popularity problems as the increasingly uninspired ones we got, and that there were potential concepts they could have used that would have been more conceptually solid, it's obviously not the total number of classes that is the primary deciding factor there!

There's simply a limit of conceptually solid classes. This can be seen in the Heroes Of series, where WOTC tries to come up with archetypical concepts and completely fails to find anything that hasn't been covered before.

[Excession]

Supposedly, somewhere back in development there was going to be a "Ki" power source that the Monk was going to be a part of. But between not having many classes that fit for it and the boundary between "essengially magic through mental discipline" and "essentially magic through physical and mental discipline" was rather fuzzy, they scrapped it. Monk was put in Psionic and they called it a day.

I can't remember now where I read it, but the Seeker and Runepriest may originally have been two other Ki classes. Not sure why they dropped the power source, but it might have been because "cultural appropriation" isn't as iconic as Arcane or Divine.