PDA

View Full Version : 4.4 developments



Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 11:33 AM
Oddly, the three books Heroes Of Sword And Spell, Champions Of Heroic Tier, and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium have been removed from WOTC's download site. These are, respectively, a book that updates five PHB classes for the new 4.4 rules; rules for crafting and profession et al; and a set of new items that follow the new rarity rules.

The WOTC forums don't know what to make of this yet, and there has been no official news so far on whether this is a website error, delay, or cancellation of the books. Heroes Of Shadow is still there, though.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 11:35 AM
The WOTC forums don't know what to make of this yet, and there has been no official news so far on whether this is a website error, delay, or cancellation of the books. Heroes Of Shadow is still there, though.

This is probably why the WotC forums don't know what to make of it.

ericgrau
2010-12-27, 11:38 AM
This might be a tangent but I was wondering where the name "4.4" came from. Is it because WotC said "This is not 4.5, it's just some extra optional books" and some smart alec said "Okay, it must be 4.4"?

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 11:42 AM
This might be a tangent but I was wondering where the name "4.4" came from.
From me, because I wanted a convenient shorthand, and because the term "4.5" is considered offensive by some people, for reasons that I haven't quite grokked yet.

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 12:02 PM
This might be a tangent but I was wondering where the name "4.4" came from. Is it because WotC said "This is not 4.5, it's just some extra optional books" and some smart alec said "Okay, it must be 4.4"?

Pretty much.

OracleofWuffing
2010-12-27, 01:16 PM
And don't forget that 4e was already used as shorthand for fourth edition, so, it's like, make your own abbreviation for fourth edition essentials...

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-12-27, 01:27 PM
I'm rather partial to 4' myself, since it's more of a cousin to 4th Edition, but still completely compatible, unlike the relationship of 3 to 3.5, or 3.anything, for that matter.

That's a rather...interesting move by WOTC, but I'd rather not comment until there's official word on the why.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 01:40 PM
I'm rather partial to 4' myself, since it's more of a cousin to 4th Edition, but still completely compatible, unlike the relationship of 3 to 3.5, or 3.anything, for that matter.

That's a rather...interesting move by WOTC, but I'd rather not comment until there's official word on the why.

3.0 and 3.5 were about as compatible as 4e and essentials.

This makes me kind of sad. I was going to give 4e another try with Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium.

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 02:13 PM
3.0 and 3.5 were about as compatible as 4e and essentials.

No, 3.5 material fully replaced the related 3.0 material. You don't have a choice between a 3.0 ranger and 3.5 ranger in a 3.5 game, there's only the 3.5 version unless your DM houserules it in. 4e and Essentials material however, can be used together at the same table with no houseruling required.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 02:16 PM
No, 3.5 material fully replaced the related 3.0 material. You don't have a choice between a 3.0 ranger and 3.5 ranger in a 3.5 game, there's only the 3.5 version unless your DM houserules it in. 4e and Essentials material however, can be used together at the same table with no houseruling required.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, some of 3.0 was replaced with 3.5. Some wasn't. Plenty of 3.0 material is useable in 3.5. That material is about as compatible with 3.5 as 4e is compatible with essentials (since there are parts of essentials and 4e that don't mix, like the thief build with the standard Rogue).
Also, essentials included a lot of errata that updates stuff in 4e (like sneak attack 1/turn instead of 1/round), so you'd need houserules in the same way as your ranger example. Of course, I don't know why you would do it either for 3.0 Ranger or 1/round sneak attack, because both are very good changes.

tbarrie
2010-12-27, 02:29 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, some of 3.0 was replaced with 3.5. Some wasn't. Plenty of 3.0 material is useable in 3.5.

Contrast with 4th Edition, where everything is still usable.


That material is about as compatible with 3.5 as 4e is compatible with essentials (since there are parts of essentials and 4e that don't mix, like the thief build with the standard Rogue).

They fail to mix only in the sense that any two base classes fail to mix, i.e. that you can't be both at once.


Also, essentials included a lot of errata that updates stuff in 4e (like sneak attack 1/turn instead of 1/round), so you'd need houserules in the same way as your ranger example.

A fair bit of errata, yes, but I don't think it's the single largest update we've had, is it?

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 02:32 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, some of 3.0 was replaced with 3.5. Some wasn't. Plenty of 3.0 material is useable in 3.5. That material is about as compatible with 3.5 as 4e is compatible with essentials (since there are parts of essentials and 4e that don't mix, like the thief build with the standard Rogue).

The difference being that when Essentials and 4e material doesn't mix, that's because it's something along the lines of an ACF, like using the Monk fighting styles from Unearthed Arcana. While you can't combine both sets of material into one character, you can include characters with either set in the same playgroup. When 3.5 material replaces 3.0 material, it saying that the 3.0 material doesn't exist and shouldn't be used at all.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 02:33 PM
Contrast with 4th Edition, where everything is still usable.
It isn't, as you mention yourself.



They fail to mix only in the sense that any two base classes fail to mix, i.e. that you can't be both at once.
Except they are not two base classes. Thief is a completely non-compatible build for the Rogue base class.


A fair bit of errata, yes, but I don't think it's the single largest update we've had, is it?
And...? I don't really understand what's the problem.

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 02:42 PM
Except they are not two base classes. Thief is a completely non-compatible build for the Rogue base class.


No, it's a build that's non-compatible with the builds presented in the PHB1, not with some seperate "base class".

randomhero00
2010-12-27, 02:43 PM
So can anyone tell me what's actually new or useful for someone who can already build an optimized character?

ericgrau
2010-12-27, 03:03 PM
Oops, I did cause a bit of a tangent. So not only is the Mordenkain's Magnificent Emporium product page missing it's also missing from the product listing, suggesting that this removal is intentional. Maybe they're revising the descriptions?

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 03:10 PM
Oops, I did cause a bit of a tangent. So not only is the Mordenkain's Magnificent Emporium product page missing it's also missing from the product listing, suggesting that this removal is intentional. Maybe they're revising the descriptions?

Yeah, on-topic, I have no idea what's going on. The books are still available for preorder on amazon, and they've already had a preview on the main site for the Class Compedium. Wait and see, I guess.

randomhero00
2010-12-27, 03:17 PM
So can anyone tell me what's actually new or useful for someone who can already build an optimized character?
So quoting myself, no one knows yet?

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 03:21 PM
No, it's a build that's non-compatible with the builds presented in the PHB1, not with some seperate "base class".

I'm sorry, but are you saying Rogue is not a base class?

Ichneumon
2010-12-27, 03:23 PM
So quoting myself, no one knows yet?

Personally, I like the new builds. So, they give you more options?

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 03:26 PM
I'm sorry, but are you saying Rogue is not a base class?

What's a "base class" in 4e?

What I'm saying is, there's not some distinct Rogue base class that exists that the builds like the Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel are compatible with that the Thief build is not. The Rogue class encompases the various builds, which may or not be compatible with each other.

randomhero00
2010-12-27, 03:28 PM
Personally, I like the new builds. So, they give you more options?

What do you mean by options? From everything I've heard they've dumbed down the classes. Which would be less options.

Ichneumon
2010-12-27, 03:33 PM
What do you mean by options? From everything I've heard they've dumbed down the classes. Which would be less options.

They haven't done that. They've just provided you with MORE options by giving you new builds you can use. True, in comparison with the other builds, the new builds are more restrictive and "dombed down", but you're entirely free to use them or not. The same as with the "beast master"-ranger build, that one is also not fully compatible with other builds of ranger, but giving us the beast-master build still increases our options, not limits it.

randomhero00
2010-12-27, 03:43 PM
They haven't done that. They've just provided you with MORE options by giving you new builds you can use. True, in comparison with the other builds, the new builds are more restrictive and "dombed down", but you're entirely free to use them or not. The same as with the "beast master"-ranger build, that one is also not fully compatible with other builds of ranger, but giving us the beast-master build still increases our options, not limits it.

So there are new abilities and powers?

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 03:45 PM
What's a "base class" in 4e?

What I'm saying is, there's not some distinct Rogue base class that exists that the builds like the Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel are compatible with that the Thief build is not. The Rogue class encompases the various builds, which may or not be compatible with each other.

But all those builds are compatible with each other, except for the Thief.

Ichneumon
2010-12-27, 03:48 PM
So there are new abilities and powers?

Yes. Rangers and Druids get cool "Wilderness Knacks" abilities. There is a build for Druids that gives druids an animal companion, to name a few tghings. The list goes on. These new builds are more simple than the old builds, but they are new builds, not just simplified versions of the old builds.

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 03:49 PM
But all those builds are compatible with each other, except for the Thief.

The Thief build is notably more different than the other builds, yes. And your point is?

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 03:50 PM
The Thief build is notably more different than the other builds, yes. And your point is?

My point is exactly that. It's not totally compatible, exactly as some stuff from 3.0 to 3.5. You needed to tweak it to combine it.

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 03:55 PM
My point is exactly that. It's not totally compatible, exactly as some stuff from 3.0 to 3.5. You needed to tweak it to combine it.

No, it's like the various class variants in Unearthed Arcana, which you can't combine (excepting a Thug/Sneak Attack fighter variant combo and possibly one or two others) and are all part of 3.5.

ZeltArruin
2010-12-27, 03:56 PM
But all those builds are compatible with each other, except for the Thief.

I think the best way to answer your question is with a question: Are sorceror's and wizards compatable? Why can't I be a sorceror that uses the wizards class features?

Answer: they are different classes.

For all purposes, I believe that the essentials classes are independant of classes in any other book.

nightwyrm
2010-12-27, 03:59 PM
My point is exactly that. It's not totally compatible, exactly as some stuff from 3.0 to 3.5. You needed to tweak it to combine it.

I don't think that's the point. With 4e, you can have an essential thief character and a phb rogue character in the same party and the party will work fine. You can't run a 3.0 ranger and a 3.5 ranger in the same party.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 04:01 PM
No, it's like the various class variants in Unearthed Arcana, which you can't combine (excepting a Thug/Sneak Attack fighter variant combo and possibly one or two others) and are all part of 3.5.
I don't see your point here. You can't combine variants because you're trading stuff. It's like spellcasting or a bonus feat are a 3.5 Ranger's choice for a daily power or something.
All builds before the Thief could grab powers from other builds. Given the crippling nature of straying away from your main stats this was usually not a very good idea (AFAIK, I'm not well versed in 4e). The Thief is different in that it can't do this. You can't have a Thief with Sly Strike (was that the name? I really can't remember. The one that adds both Dex and Cha to damage) and that's about it.


I don't think that's the point. With 4e, you can have an essential thief character and a phb rogue character in the same party and the party will work fine. You can't run a 3.0 ranger and a 3.5 ranger in the same party.
Of course that's not the point, becase that's not what I've been saying. ^^
3.0 Ranger was updated to 3.5 Ranger. But you have, say, Extra Favored Enemy feat from Ghostwalk (3.0) and you can take it as a 3.5 Ranger. The Red Avenger class from Sword & Fist (3.0) can be taken by any 3.5 character that qualifies. And so on and so forth.

Meta
2010-12-27, 04:02 PM
I don't see your point here. You can't combine variants because you're trading stuff. It's like spellcasting or a bonus feat are a 3.5 Ranger's choice for a daily power or something.
All builds before the Thief could grab powers from other builds. Given the crippling nature of straying away from your main stats this was usually not a very good idea (AFAIK, I'm not well versed in 4e). The Thief is different in that it can't do this. You can't have a Thief with Sly Strike (was that the name? I really can't remember. The one that adds both Dex and Cha to damage) and that's about it.

Yes you can

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 04:06 PM
First off, I just say "Essentials", usually. I have a fast typing speed, so it's not like I actually save any meaningful amount of time by typing 4.4, and I prefer to use the official term anyway. If I tried to use an abbreviation, it'd probably be something like B4 (for Basic 4, since I'm of the opinion that Essentials is to 4E what BECMI was to AD&D but better because it's fully compatible).

Secondly, Class Compendium/Champions of Heroic/Mordenkainen's Emporium gone from WOTC catalog? %*&@ YOU TOO, WOTC. :smallfurious: If this is for real this will be the first time WOTC has done something with 4E that actually pissed me off since failing to deliver D&Di content on launch day.

Reverent-One
2010-12-27, 04:07 PM
I don't see your point here. You can't combine variants because you're trading stuff. It's like spellcasting or a bonus feat are a 3.5 Ranger's choice for a daily power or something.
All builds before the Thief could grab powers from other builds. Given the crippling nature of straying away from your main stats this was usually not a very good idea (AFAIK, I'm not well versed in 4e). The Thief is different in that it can't do this. You can't have a Thief with Sly Strike (was that the name? I really can't remember. The one that adds both Dex and Cha to damage) and that's about it.

And in the Thief's case, you're trading away access to the normal At-will/Encounter/Daily powers for a number of other class features and access to the set of at-will "Rogue Tricks".

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 04:11 PM
Yes you can
Oh, can you? So I was incorrect all along, I apologize.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 04:26 PM
For everyone talking about how the Essentials builds are incompatible with the standard 4E classes: the Class Compendium was supposed to be the book that reconciled them with one another, offering rules for how standard builds can grab Essentials build stuff and vice versa. If we've lost the Class Compendium, we've lost that.

And that makes me angry.:smallfurious:

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 04:44 PM
For everyone talking about how the Essentials builds are incompatible with the standard 4E classes: the Class Compendium was supposed to be the book that reconciled them with one another, offering rules for how standard builds can grab Essentials build stuff and vice versa. If we've lost the Class Compendium, we've lost that.

And that makes me angry.:smallfurious:

I wasn't aware the Class Compendium would do that, but it makes me sad. I really wanted a more customizable Essential Assassin.

WitchSlayer
2010-12-27, 04:46 PM
Starting to wonder if they will move away from Essentials after the line has finished up.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 04:54 PM
I wasn't aware the Class Compendium would do that, but it makes me sad. I really wanted a more customizable Essential Assassin.

Well, it was only going to touch the classes from Heroes of the Fallen Lands. It was also going to provide the Warlord, presented unchanged but in Essentials format. The book's full name was Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell, with the implication being that there would be later Class Compendiums to cover other Essentials classes.


Starting to wonder if they will move away from Essentials after the line has finished up.

I was hoping that they would keep it going, actually; it seemed like an excellent way to get people into the hobby, and I was hoping to see the rest of the PHB2 races get the Essentials treatment (since they and the setting and MM races are the only ones that haven't yet). Did Essentials not sell well? It seemed to me like it should have sold well, assuming they marketed it effectively.

Then again, the last time D&D had TV spots or anything, TSR was still alive.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 05:57 PM
For everyone talking about how the Essentials builds are incompatible with the standard 4E classes: the Class Compendium was supposed to be the book that reconciled them with one another, offering rules for how standard builds can grab Essentials build stuff and vice versa. If we've lost the Class Compendium, we've lost that.

And that makes me angry.:smallfurious:

But we haven't lost it. for all we know, the lack of it on the website could be a clerical error.

:CalmDownSmiley:

Edit, I've also read that the WotC offices are currently shut down, and have been. (2 week break, I believe.) So, chill, people.

Gralamin
2010-12-27, 06:08 PM
Did Essentials not sell well? It seemed to me like it should have sold well, assuming they marketed it effectively.

Then again, the last time D&D had TV spots or anything, TSR was still alive.

It may not be an issue of selling, from what I understood the original intention was for Essentials to be a discrete set of a few products. Whether or not that is staying true or not is pretty much unknown at this point.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-12-27, 06:20 PM
It may not be an issue of selling, from what I understood the original intention was for Essentials to be a discrete set of a few products. Whether or not that is staying true or not is pretty much unknown at this point.

I don't know about "few". Personally, I was hoping for Essentials to expand into a line that added like a new product or two every now and then, sort of like BECMI D&D under TSR. It was always going to be a specific line of products that would never trump or replace standard 4E, naturally; just a way to get new people into the game or spice up the game for people who already know what they're doing.

I consider the Rules Compendium and Monster Vault to truly be essential, even to standard 4E. They're FANTASTICALLY useful for my 4E game, as is the DM Kit's fully-errata'd DM screen. I also love the new Dungeon Tiles Master Sets; those will serve me QUITE well, especially given that they contain reprints of tiles from out-of-print DU tile sets. I'd love to see more stuff in that vein, stuff that is wondrously useful to newbies and veterans alike.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 07:15 PM
I consider the Rules Compendium and Monster Vault to truly be essential, even to standard 4E. They're FANTASTICALLY useful for my 4E game, as is the DM Kit's fully-errata'd DM screen. I also love the new Dungeon Tiles Master Sets; those will serve me QUITE well, especially given that they contain reprints of tiles from out-of-print DU tile sets. I'd love to see more stuff in that vein, stuff that is wondrously useful to newbies and veterans alike.

I have to agree here.

I absolutely abhor the essentials builds. I have looked over all of them and can find nothing worthwhile about them. The only Feats I can get behind are the overpowered redux's of expertise and Defense feats. (I like power creep...)

The RC and the MV are two of the most useful 4e books I've seen, and have seen a lot of use.

now if only we could get a lasting printing of the Rules compendium. We've had it for 3 sessions and it's already bendy.

Mojo_Rat
2010-12-27, 08:45 PM
I think the intent of compatability here is that somone can play a PHB Fighter and somone else can play an Essentials fighter (slayer) in the same game without problems. (or thats the advertised intent)

From the 1 playtest I did I didnt get the impression that Fighter (slayer) options could ever mesh with PHB fighter options.

Essentially (haha) They limited scope ive examined for the martial types is they move away from at-will attack powers to stuff that you can use to make a base attack stronger limited times per encounter.

It is attractive to a diferent class of player. Given i dont like power based combat for non spellcasters i liked it from the 1 play test.

ShaggyMarco
2010-12-27, 09:12 PM
At the very least, you can take Utility powers and class feats (that don't hinge on specific class features you don't have) with no problem between all Essentials and 4ed "classic" fighters, rangers, and rogues.

Meta
2010-12-28, 12:44 AM
Oh, can you? So I was incorrect all along, I apologize.

I should elaborate. A human can select an additional at-will from his/her class as you may or may not know. A human thief can select any pre-essentials 4e rogue at-will. Like the one you mentioned. Sly Flourish I believe you mean. Does that make sense? It's the same 'class.' So I would say that makes the connection more of a continuation than the 3 - 3.5 gap.

EDIT: What Shaggy said as well. There's quite a lot of sharing going on.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-28, 03:53 AM
I think the intent of compatability here is that somone can play a PHB Fighter and somone else can play an Essentials fighter (slayer) in the same game without problems.
Sure. But remember that it cost many pages of errata (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9090134&postcount=90) to the original PHB to make this happen.

It's true that you can play a 4.4 character in a 4.0 campaign and vice versa. However, this is also true for a 3.5 character in a 3.0 campaign. That, in the end, many people did not end up doing the latter doesn't change that it was marketed by WOTC in almost exactly the same way.

And of course, there's no "going back". 4.4 is the new direction, and all future books will follow this direction. WOTC is not going to revert this and start printing 4.0 material again (which is unfortunate for, say, the Seeker).

Reverent-One
2010-12-28, 09:16 AM
And of course, there's no "going back". 4.4 is the new direction, and all future books will follow this direction. WOTC is not going to revert this and start printing 4.0 material again (which is unfortunate for, say, the Seeker).

And what exactly is this "new direction" that you keep talking about? You've never actually given it any sort of definition, but just keeping throwing the phrase around as if it's meaning is obvious. Are you talking about feats no longer being sorted by tiers and magic items having rarity labels stuck on their stat blocks? It that case, you'd be right, but then, that's not really any sort of significant change, is it?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-12-28, 09:33 AM
Based on the timeline of edition changes (2e, 2e rulebook revision, 3e, 3.5, 4e), 4.5 would have been released sometime around 2011 as a liberal estimate. Instead, Essentials was released around 2010; hence 4.4. This etymology is total nonsense. Also, 4.4 reflects the fact that Essentials is, indeed, a more incremental change. Taking the sum total of WotC errata and adding it to essentials, the result is rather distant from 4e base; but Essentials in and of itself is not such a substantiative change as 3.0 -> 3.5 was.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 04:36 AM
Also, I hadn't noticed it before, but the PHB Races: Humans book has likewise disappeared, and the entire line of PHB Races books has been quietly cancelled. So if you need inspiration on how to play something as weird and exotic as a human, you're out of luck :smalltongue:

The Nentir Vale Gazetteer has also vanished.

mathewt
2010-12-30, 02:31 PM
Also, I hadn't noticed it before, but the PHB Races: Humans book has likewise disappeared, and the entire line of PHB Races books has been quietly cancelled. So if you need inspiration on how to play something as weird and exotic as a human, you're out of luck :smalltongue:

The Nentir Vale Gazetteer has also vanished.

I think the Races line disappeared a while back. I seem to remember Mike Mearls saying on the podcast that retailers didn't like the thin books and that they didn't sell well anyway, so the rest were canceled.

Blackfang108
2010-12-30, 02:33 PM
I think the Races line disappeared a while back. I seem to remember Mike Mearls saying on the podcast that retailers didn't like the thin books and that they didn't sell well anyway, so the rest were canceled.

Yeah. I remember that. That was quite some time ago.

gourdcaptain
2010-12-30, 03:08 PM
Problem is, the two are compatible in the sense they use the same base mechanics but the philosophies behind both of them are very different. I tend to get bugged by the locked down nature of the builds (did the warpriest REALLY need to be locked into their at-will and encounter choices? really?) and the general treatment of previous content to make way for it (melee training, the fact that D&D Encounters still only allows HoFL and HoFK characters, the lack of apparent future AEDU builds with full selection).

And item rarity is a complete joke in its current implementation - the uncommon tier contains everything from useless to godly items, the commons are completely uninteresting (and no ki focus), and there's about three rares and they all are kinda ... mediocre and not all that impressive. And rolling for random drops is exceedingly lame. It says something that all four of the 4e DM's I know and have played under at some point or another are completely ignoring rarity and still using parcels.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-31, 05:27 AM
It says something that all four of the 4e DM's I know and have played under at some point or another are completely ignoring rarity and still using parcels.

I've not heard of any DM who uses the rarity system - and that includes the D&D authors! Several of them have publically stated they're not using that rule.

Kerrin
2010-12-31, 11:39 AM
I've only read through the item rarity rules (not played using them) and they seem kinda klooby (aka goofy). I'm ignoring them and doing what seems/feels right.

On a related note, how have folks felt about 4e's selling-loot mechanic? It feels more wonky than the rather straight forward 3.5 mechanic of selling items for 50% of list price (assuming the PCs are somewhere where they can find a buyer for the more odd or expensive items, of course).

Sipex
2010-12-31, 11:42 AM
For selling I let all mundane loot be sold for 1/2 the price because really, getting 1/2 of 25g isn't going to break the game.

Otherwise I let my players roll a streetwise check or use contacts to sell loot for a specific amount (usually I'll look up the value, make an offer and they might haggle a bit)

Kerrin
2010-12-31, 01:48 PM
I like the Streetwise idea if players want their characters to have a more "interactive" selling experience.

I wonder if the selling rules as-written are done that way to DIScourage characters from feeling like they have to pick up every dagger and shortsword they come across and to ENcourage DMs to handle loot in a more efficient and fun manner and stop sweating every little thing the characters come across.

I know over the years I've played in various games I've always felt like the characters HAD to pick up everything they came across in order to make some money, which gets old and annoying after a while. "How many shortswords are we carrying? How many suits of leather armor did we stack in the corner of the dungeon again?"

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-01-01, 01:39 AM
I like the Streetwise idea if players want their characters to have a more "interactive" selling experience.

I wonder if the selling rules as-written are done that way to DIScourage characters from feeling like they have to pick up every dagger and shortsword they come across and to ENcourage DMs to handle loot in a more efficient and fun manner and stop sweating every little thing the characters come across.

I know over the years I've played in various games I've always felt like the characters HAD to pick up everything they came across in order to make some money, which gets old and annoying after a while. "How many shortswords are we carrying? How many suits of leather armor did we stack in the corner of the dungeon again?"

I had the feeling that it was there to discourage selling mundane loot. I'm running a 4E game (where I am using the rarity rules, because I feel like it avoids Ye Olde Magic Marte syndrome decently enough and makes magic items feel more special, though I'm still using parcels), and I'm using Kobold Hall+published adventures. Throughout Kobold Hall, the PCs were looting the kobolds' bodies for spears and slings and kobold armor and stuff, figuring they might be able to sell it when they got back to Fallcrest. Naturally, to keep them from bulking up on such ridiculous crap, I described the armor as rusty and kobold-specific, etc. They still grabbed it.

I allowed them to use the items and keep them (the halfling cleric loves the heavy shield he pulled off a Dragonshield and loves the sling he pulled off a slinger), but when they tried to sell the kobold armor, there was exactly NOBODY willing to buy it. Some of the other stuff? Those worked okay, but selling at 20% convinced them that it wasn't really worth the effort.

Haven't had to worry about that kind of thing since.