Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 12:15 AM	Okay. Apparently, it's not enough that hundreds of people post on the forums to whine about what they don't like in the game, now the game designers are doing it on the main page. Guys, I get where you were going with this, but...just stop. Now, I don't mean to say that you guys, as players, don't have a right to opinions and dislikes. However, isn't it a bit much to use an official capacity to whine/complain/call it what you will about things you don't like about the game that you're a personal representative of? You are representative of your game and your company. Obviously the company has no issues with what you're doing, or you wouldn't be doing it, but this doesn't make it proper (for lack of a better word). Another thing I find repulsive about it, is that what you're presenting is coming from the "officials", but is really nothing more than opinion, with all the good and bad things that come from that. For example, in the column today, the writer talks about not liking Polymorph effects. You see, I like to actually play D&D, not argue about rules, and with you it’s always the same. There’s just not enough time in the day to hear questions like “do my magic gauntlets still apply?,” and “so if I’m an uber-smurf, do I get all smurf powers or only some?,” so I’m moving on. You know, that wasn’t the only way you slowed our games down either. How long did John flip through the Monster Manual during his turn while we all just sat there? I tried to be understanding with you. Okaaay. So what? That doesn't mean they're bad. That means that you don't like them. Personally, when I see things like that article (usually in the form of regular forum posts), all that comes to my mind is "perhaps you should think about what's possible and not possible with that effect in your game, and rule it consistently so as not to have problems". In other words, don't whine about it, fix it. If one were to spend a minute learning the polymorph rules (which, although they may be a bit scattered, are quite clear, and I find it oddly amusing that a designer would actually have this problem), and then develop the intestinal fortitude required to make rulings in these situations and the consistency to make the ruling again in the future, then this would cease to be a problem and would instead become what it is: another fun thing to use in D&D. In conclusion, I find it discouraging that the designers are being given free reign to present their personal whines and gripes about the game while in their official capacity. It's not right. If they really must do so, get it off the main page (where only official information and news should be presented) and into a forum topic. Let it be so noted that I am not attacking the designers personally or for having personal opinions. I am stating that I don't feel that their opinions should be presented in such a capacity as to allow for confusion as to the validity of what they're presenting.
smoker 12-19-05, 01:20 AM	Given that WOTC has had layoffs three times over the past 4-5 years, I am surprised that WOTC still has good designers. The gaming industry has gone through a tough time, and I think we are starting to see some of this frustration come out in articles by the designers. I think you also reach a point, where some of the fans of the products know the products better than the designers. I think it's good that the designers are asking for feedback. I think they need our help to move D&D forward. And it looks like the gloves are off. I haven't seen enough recommendations in the D&D recommendation thread. I honestly think the designers are using that thread to come up with some new ideas. I would take that opportunity to suggest things you like and tell them about things you don't like. I also think that WOTC needs an influx of cash badly. GI JOE CCG failed. Hecatomb looks like it's failing. A&A minis, who knows at this point? D&D minis, are they selling? Development in SWs is pretty much dead. All the "Last Unicorn" stuff is dead, but it's probably sitting as goodwill on their balance sheet. That leaves D&D and Magic. I don't see much growth happening in Magic. I think their strategy is to just maintain sales. And I don't think there have been any D&D blockbusters lately. The above tells me that 4th ed D&D is at least in design phase. WOTC needs cash or else they will see more cuts. I wonder what new product is being designed to be released at next year's GC. Hopefully, WOTC will get some licensing dollars from D&D online to keep them afloat through 2006. smoker
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-19-05, 02:43 AM	This is quite possibly one the best articles posted on the D&D site. All three of the issues pointed out are big problems. Two are heavy balance problems, the animated shield and polymorph, and the antimagic field is an old relic with a lot of adjudication problems. Three rules that definitely should get the axe next edition. I like to hear designers complain about things bad with the rules. I like to hear them say stuff like "This rule sucks". It tells me they're thinking about things and not just arbitrarily going along with the rules like yes-men simply because that's what was written earlier.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 02:53 AM	@ smoker: You raise a few really good points. It is sad to see so many good people getting the brunt of an industry downturn, and it sucks to see such bad omens in the industry (although how bad they actually are may be a bit played up on the 'net). As to: I think you also reach a point, where some of the fans of the products know the products better than the designers. I think it's good that the designers are asking for feedback. I think they need our help to move D&D forward. And it looks like the gloves are off. I've hit the point where I like the game as it is. Anything that needs to be changed, I can change myself just as easily as I could buy a book or download "official" eratta. There hits a point, for me anyway, where I'm done buying, and I certainly don't need the level of coddling that WotC provides. (I know that I'm older than their target demographic, and that's fine. It just means that I'm much less likely to keep spending my money on them.) So for me, I like my game the way it is. I don't really think there's much room for the game to move forward. I think that this new attitude of "progressive gamism" is a false creation of a game industry. There's this idea that if the game isn't officially (read: you have to pay for it) constantly evolving, then it isn't a good game. The industry (or company in this case) creating this myth is the same game industry that, instead of developing new products that actually have their own merits, tries to get away with just rehashing things that already work and supplementing those things that work with half-baked short-term money grab products. There's this idea that if the game isn't officially (read: you have to pay for it) constantly evolving, then it isn't a good game. If, for example, WotC really is going through some tough times, it isn't because D&D isn't any good and needs a hundred more rules "clarifications" and rules compilations, but because they've overreached their niche market (which it is, whether they like it or not) and are now hanging over open space. Perhaps if they'd get away from silly little money grabs and maybe even realize that any new system they publish doesn't have to be D20, then some of these writers and designers could use their time more productively and come up with new and interesting systems. I think their worry on that one is that anything with real substance that they produce will be in competition with D&D. I don't see that as true, since unless they published another "High Fantasy Role Playing D20", the market would be completely different. There would be those consumers that purchased and played both, but I'd wager that if "system x" were different enough (and good), they'd simply pick up a new demographic to go along with their D&D set. At any rate, I agree with you completely that most of the silliness is resultative of an overall slump in the industry. Hopefully soon it will pick itself up. I just don't think re-hashing a game that is already filled to the brim with options (good and silly) and easily house-ruled is going to do that for WotC. At least, it won't if there are that many more folks like myself out there.
nastynate 12-19-05, 03:29 AM	It's good to hear official wizards reps confirm some of the things that we all gripe about. Although I've never really had problems with anti-magic fields, the other two gripes are certainly problematic. Animated shields make wielding anything other than a two-handed weapon seem kind of pointless. They do not represent a balance problem, because wizards will still rock most any fighter's world, but they do pigeon hole you into a particular style of combat. Sure you can choose not to exploit the mechanics of the game, in favor of the flavor of your character, but I feel like warriors need to optimized just to keep up with with some of the other classes. As for the polymorph effects...they're awful. The concept is fine, but mechanically they are terrible. However none of these "gripes," should have been posted in an article without offering a solution. How can "official complaining," help anyone? If one were going to write an artical about the problem of anti-magic, then perhaps following it up with, "This is how we as a company suggest you handle it." Otherwise link to the errata that does exist [in the case of polymorph]. We as consumers post our opinions all over these boards, but we do not have the official stamp of approval to change things as they do. By joining us in our rants and not offering a solution, they come across as impotent to provide solutions to their own errant creations. That's not a good way to build confidence in your customers.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 03:44 AM	This is quite possibly one the best articles posted on the D&D site. All three of the issues pointed out are big problems. Two are heavy balance problems, the animated shield and polymorph, and the antimagic field is an old relic with a lot of adjudication problems. Three rules that definitely should get the axe next edition. I like to hear designers complain about things bad with the rules. I like to hear them say stuff like "This rule sucks". It tells me they're thinking about things and not just arbitrarily going along with the rules like yes-men simply because that's what was written earlier. I think you're missing part of my point. Read my second post for more details. As to the rules in question in the article, allow me to take a crack at them (and demonstrate the fact that no, you really don't need somebody else to "officially" tell you what to do about things in your game of D&D): Figuring out how powerful it was to turn into a troll, an annis hag and a grig was great. But really, your wild ways are too much for me -- I mean the firbolg was bad enough, but then we met the war troll together and it really just seemed like too much. With you, it only takes one monster in a book of 200+ to ruin the experience. Easy fix: Tell your player "if you want to change into something, have the stats ready beforehand." Wow. It took me all of 12 words to change it from a "problem" into "not a problem at all". Now, you could argue that hypothetically, a situation could come up in which they want to turn into something that they don't have ready yet. That's true, and just fine. By the time they've written up their "main" set of creature transformation stats, they'll be much better at doing it, and it won't slow down play all that much. As far as "what goes" is concerned...BE A DM. Make decisions. Adjudicate. Judge. That's what you're there for. It might be tough sometimes, but you don't get better at something if it's always easy, right? So that's a DM whine, not a valid complaint. (Not in my view anyway.) And if you really just don't want to be bothered by it...ban it. You're the DM, remember? Do you really need someone else to tell you that you don't like a spell? You see, I like to actually play D&D, not argue about rules, and with you it’s always the same. Player and DM problem, not a rules issue. This is, again, easily solved if the DM has the guts to do it. There’s just not enough time in the day to hear questions like “do my magic gauntlets still apply?, This is clearly addressed in the rules. ” and “so if I’m an uber-smurf, do I get all smurf powers or only some?,” So is this. so I’m moving on. You know, that wasn’t the only way you slowed our games down either. How long did John flip through the Monster Manual during his turn while we all just sat there? Yet again, the author is turning their personal inability to adjudicate the rule, and a player's laziness, into a problem with the rule. And this is worth it being an official article? And on Antimagic Field: This, again, is only a "complex issue" if you lack the nerve to simply rule on it. If there's one primary thing I dislike about 3.x D&D, it's that it has created this idea that the players are entitled to as much say about how things work as the DM. This is not so. With that in mind, I will now show you how to easily prevail over this spell. Player: If you are outside of the field and attack a creature in the field with a magic sword, does the magic apply? DM: No, the swords magical effect would be nulled inside the field. The sword is still enchanted and therefore magical, but when used against that particular creature it is simply treated as a masterwork weapon. Player: If you are outside of the field and a creature standing inside it attacks with a magic weapon, does the magic apply? [color=blue]DM: I'm going to say no. My reasoning is that since the creature's body is generating the effect, it's hand is creating enough of an effect that the weapons magic is still suppressed. (Notice here how the DM makes a judgement call. It's not supported perfectly by the rules, but he makes the call nonetheless. In the future, that's how the spell works in his game. That's what a DM is for.) Player: If part of an area spell overlaps with the field, is the whole spell suppressed, or just the overlapping portion? DM: Just the overlapping portion. Since the field cancels out things that enter its area, not things whose area it enters, the rest of the other effect works just fine. If the item which is generating the other effect is placed within the confines of the Antimagic Field, then the entire effect is suppressed until the object leaves the field, upon which it returns to normal function. And the questions go on and on and on. As do the answers. What is there in this example that means the spell is "bad" or "broken"? All I see is a DM that needs some more experience behind the screen. (Note: That's not inherently a bad thing. I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, only that it's not any sort of position to start making blanket "this is broken" statements from. Worse than the rules complexity by far, the 6th level spell has an effect far out of proportion to it’s level and cost to generate. Again, if you hold this opinion, it's easy enough to change it so it fits your view of what it should be. Raise its level. Up the cost of the components (or give it one, in the case of spells without). All-in-all, this one spell causes many more problems than it solves. If you see "having to think and make a judgement" as a "problem", then I suppose this might hold water. Since that's my job when I sit in the DM's chair, however, I think if I had this many "problems" with DMing, I'd just play. Floaty Shields <snip> Here, the author complains that something needs fixing...and then talks about how easy to fix it is. Again...where's the problem? A shield floating around a greataxe wielding barbarian just doesn’t jive well with my personal tastes, but I’m perfectly willing to hear others tell me that they find the visual compelling. At least here it's made absolutely clear that it's a simple issue of taste. I can see the author's point, although I personally think it would look pretty nifty. I don't really see that a magically animated shield would have that much trouble not being in front of the greataxe when its swung, either, but that's just me. If a shield created by the wizard spell can swing around in time to block a magic missile, then an animated shield can get out of the way of an axe swing. So, as you can see, my main issue isn't with the fact that someone has opinions about things in the game, or even that they're giving those opinions. My issue is that putting those opinions on the main page, where they are very likely to be misconstrued as "upcoming changes" or "eratta" is irresponsible and not a very good use of space. Especially when the issues raised are false dilemnas in the first place.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 03:58 AM	It's good to hear official wizards reps confirm some of the things that we all gripe about. Although I've never really had problems with anti-magic fields, the other two gripes are certainly problematic. Animated shields make wielding anything other than a two-handed weapon seem kind of pointless. They do not represent a balance problem, because wizards will still rock most any fighter's world, but they do pigeon hole you into a particular style of combat. Sure you can choose not to exploit the mechanics of the game, in favor of the flavor of your character, but I feel like warriors need to optimized just to keep up with with some of the other classes. As for the polymorph effects...they're awful. The concept is fine, but mechanically they are terrible. However none of these "gripes," should have been posted in an article without offering a solution. How can "official complaining," help anyone? If one were going to write an artical about the problem of anti-magic, then perhaps following it up with, "This is how we as a company suggest you handle it." Otherwise link to the errata that does exist [in the case of polymorph]. We as consumers post our opinions all over these boards, but we do not have the official stamp of approval to change things as they do. By joining us in our rants and not offering a solution, they come across as impotent to provide solutions to their own errant creations. That's not a good way to build confidence in your customers. So you're saying you need someone to "officially" tell you how to fix something in your game? I don't mean that to sound like I'm insulting you. I'm not. I simply don't understand the mindset. I do understand though, that this mindset also includes such brainwashing results as: - It has to be put out by WotC for me to be able to use it in my game. - It has to be the same in everyone's D&D game. If I see someone doing it differently, they must be wrong. - If I didn't pay $40 for it, it's not good enough for my game. - The designers always know better than me how I should run my game. I don't mean to make this into a generational or age issue. However, the new generation of gamers, those "raised" on 3.x D&D, have been seemingly rendered powerless and incapable of acting by the false "gaming ideology" that seems to have been created primarily by WotC's D&D. Maybe it's a spell. Call it: Hold Gamer: Level: Zero Save: None Restrictions: Only available to WotC employees. When cast by an employee of WotC, this spell renders a player completely incapable of making a decision in their game. The target of the spell is immediately compelled to run to the D&D forums and search for an official ruling. After two rounds of searching, if an official ruling cannot be found, the player will then post a rant or whine to the D&D forums stating that the rule in question is completely broken. Under no circumstances will the player just make a judgement call and continue playing, using the new judgement as status quo. It's ridiculous. Also, I realize that my posts here are quite critical of WotC. I apologize if any feelings are hurt, as that's not my intent. I care very much about this game, as I'm sure we all do, and am simply offering my observations on matters. I realize that I'm probably not perfectly informed. I also realize that the designers and developers are doing what they think is best, while also working within the confines of a major corporation. I appreciate the work the guys up at WotC are doing, whether I agree with all of it or not.
nastynate 12-19-05, 04:43 AM	So you're saying you need someone to "officially" tell you how to fix something in your game? Not at all. I'm saying that wizards shouldn't put out an article *****ing about things they screwed up, without offering a solution. Why bring it up, if you're not going to fix it? We cannot expect our house rules to to be accepted as canon, but they can.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 04:58 AM	Not at all. I'm saying that wizards shouldn't put out an article *****ing about things they screwed up, without offering a solution. Why bring it up, if you're not going to fix it? We cannot expect our house rules to to be accepted as canon, but they can. Ah. Apologies then, I misread you. I agree with your observation in general, I just don't see a need for them to issue these fixes "officially". (Especially when the problem seems to have been created specifically so it could be "addressed".) Indeed, it's the very fact that their opinion will be taken as canon that makes me cringe that this article is posted to the main page.
nastynate 12-19-05, 05:34 AM	Indeed, it's the very fact that their opinion will be taken as canon that makes me cringe that this article is poted to the main page Yep. It says to all who read it. "Look at these things we messed up. We're pretty disappointed in our system...oh well."
Ocom 12-19-05, 05:37 AM	if you don't like Wizards then go do something else rather blab about it here. And WTH is hecatomb failing. It's only problem is that it's based on Duel Masters witch was a hybrid of MtG and pokemon imo (DONT EVER HYBRID STUFF WITH OTHER, ESPECIALY MAGIC!) Pokemon was very weak, Duel masters was even more weaker (too goddamm simple and you can't concentrate on MtG while some punks are high on their pokemon, Duel Masters, Yu-Gi-Oh [Oh how i hate that crappy game]) Hecatomb is at least more complicated and better design for me. i have always wanted to destroy the world :devil: But the other thing is that hecatomb cards are made of special plastic thad really rises their price. A little about economy In america Mtg Boosters cost 2.50usd maybe Over here is 4 usd and to think over here the minimum wage is like 210 usd and most players aren't rich or underage the price is a bit too much. and 40% of the peaple recive wages below the minimum. so :censored: the goverment (especially the :censored: goverment) :censored: capitalism and especialy :censored: Estonia all :censored:'s are the F words hecatomb boosters cost 5$ at wizards so i would expect it to cost 7 or 8 over here and that most people can't afford. After MtG prices raised a couple of years ago (about 1$) they said that the within 3 months the sales went down like 20% Thank god wea have people who are not so much interested in money. They just pay the salesperson and like 8 or 10% of the profit's. All other profits are going on holding event's and such. That's just :censored: nice. given that the average MtG booster box sale is about 3,6 per month over a year including the prerelease mania and various events. God i went off topic. anyway me being too lazy (and probably stupid :P) to erase may offtopic is trying to say that wizards has a lit of room for improvement and let the design team do their jobs. Most peaple don't work good under pressure. Those who do well give them a day off sometimes. Push them too hard and they crack. anyway complaining about them is not making things better. I say GJ Wizards. I dont have any complaints for you x'ept killing chainer but that probably goes to Scott McGough EDIT: This was posted to smoker who thinks Hecatomb is failing. It's a decent game with freaky pictures Probably made a fool of myself with this post but hey won't deny being one.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 07:27 AM	<snip> My. That was...constructive and relevant. :rolleyes: Did you even read the posts made to the thread? Judging from your...less than coherant response, I'd guess "no". If you had, you'd realize that one of the issues brought to bear was that Wizards is "talking bad" about Wizards. Reading. It does an online discussion good.
Thorak 12-19-05, 08:24 AM	I have to agree with the general gist. This is irritating. It comes off as whiny. You work for the company. If you see a problem with a rule, fix the damn rule. If you tried to publish a RotG article on AMF, and it had to get thrown out, then fix AMF. Cripes. Not to mention, on his AMF points specifically, I wholeheartedly disagree. The spell is just fine. I'm going to add to what Slyde had to say, with a bit more in certain areas to explain why I disagree; If you are outside of the field and attack a creature in the field with a magic sword, does the magic apply? Obviously it does not. To quote the portion of AMF the article itself cited; "Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines." Since it extends out 5' from you, obviously, if your sword is hitting me, it's "within its confines". Seems blatantly obvious, to me. If you are outside of the field and a creature standing inside it attacks with a magic weapon, does the magic apply? Depends. Is it "within its confines"? If yes, then yes. Obviously. If no, no. Cripes, AMF even explicitly says "Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area . . ." For any non-reach weapon wielded by a Medium or Small creature, the answer is incontrovertibly "no". They can only attack adjacent squares, which are within that 5' radius. For creatures with Reach, like Large creatures, the DM should decide if it's just the portion within the field that's suppressed, or if the entire item is negated by contact. It's not a difficult decision to make, certainly not worth this kind of pathos. Ditto for reach weapons; if the haft isn't the enchanted bit, then you should be able to use it fine. If the weapon as a whole is the enchanted bit, by your interpretation, make the same decision as above; either what's outside works and what's inside doesn't, or part of it being inside interrupts the flow and shuts the whole item down. Simple. And if you want what's officially suggested, it's the "any portion outside works normally" version. Last line of AMF's description; "Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field." Not exactly difficult to assume items work the same as creatures for this purpose. If part of an area spell overlaps with the field, is the whole spell suppressed, or just the overlapping portion? Obviously, just the overlapping portion. The spell itself answers this explicitly, using Haste as an example. It's suppressed in the field, but works fine outside it. It isn't even canceling the effect, it suppresses it, so you can cast Haste on a creature in an AMF. It doesn't have any effect until the creature leaves, as long as it still is in effect. So why would a Fireball be any different? And the questions go on and on and on. Since all the "questions" are dealt with handily by the actual text of the spell, I'm forced to assume either this designer doesn't own a PHB, or is running off his shoddy memory of the spell rather than checking what it says. Worse than the rules complexity by far, the 6th level spell has an effect far out of proportion to it’s level and cost to generate. Its corner-case existence also forces an unreasonable amount of complexity into other portions of the game. For example, if you take the antimagic field spell out of the game, the three different types of special abilities (extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like) become much simpler. All-in-all, this one spell causes many more problems than it solves. I don't agree it's out of proportion. By the level you get it, characters are starting to rely on their magical gear, especially protections. The only way a Fighter can compare in combat to a dragon, even a little, is by using magical arms and armor. If he's relegated to using masterwork stuff, he's going to be slaughtered. If it suppressed hostile magic only, then yes, that would be too powerful. But it suppresses everything. This means the character using one has no magical gear or buffs to benefit from, which is a price most characters won't choose to pay. So, to sum up; there's nothing wrong with AMF, and this designer needs to be a bit more familiar with the rules. I wouldn't have had nearly so much of an issue if this had been a comment on the boards by the designer, but it's an official article. However, I'm looking forward to part 3, since I'd like to know why there's so much trouble getting Errata issued when the FAQ can apparently be published without any kind of editing or proofing by other designers whatsoever. At least, I'm hoping they'll deal with that issue.
KJW 12-19-05, 09:02 AM	Well I totally agree with Slyde that the three 'problems' they have with the rules are easily corrected by the DM just making consistent calls. With polymorph, like Slyde, I require the player to have his stats already prepared, anyone who intends to use polymorph just need to read the spell in its entirety, I think it is pretty clear. With antimagic field, I have never had a problem adjudicating the effect, like Thorak says the spell is very clear in the PHB. With animated shields I have limited them to special knightly orders and thus have had no problems with the balance issue. I agree with you, Slyde, a decent DM willing to make rule calls, and read the rules, can run 3.5 perfectly. This is the problem of any roleplaying game, how much authority do you give the players and DMs and how much authority do you give the rules. Right now 3.5 is pretty balanced for my taste, but it admittedly still requires a good DM for some areas where the players have lots of freedom to be creative. I think the designers' problems with these mechanics, especially the two spells, is that they allow a clever player to really shine and mess up the carefully balanced encounter system of D&D. I admit sometimes a player with polymorph will do the unexpected and that anti-magic field can spell doom for your BBEG, but this is cleverness and shouldn't be punished. The tighter they make the system the less creativity the players will be allowed to express.
Cennedi 12-19-05, 09:46 AM	I agree with the OP I have never had issue with any of the spells or items mentioned and really dont see how a dev did. besides if you dont like something in DnD just leave it out of your game. problem fixed. Off topic the thought that there could be a sooner than later 4th edition of DnD makes me sad in my pants. seems every edition is released faster than the last. figure 1ed was around for 15~ or so years 2ed for around 10~ years 3ed for around 2~ years 3.5 also around 2~ years <~ = give or take a year> and now we are talking about a 4ed already? My second off topic point was this. though TSR was known for DnD they also released many other products back in the day, star frontiers, gang busters, boothill, gammaworld, ect. I think it would be nice to see some of these games modernised and rereleased. but /shrugs Its not my call. Perhaps if DnD came up with a good mass mini-battle system like WHfantasy and warhammer40K and released minis at least as detailed as the GW figs that would help support the company aswell?
Edrick_Malichi 12-19-05, 10:34 AM	I would like to throw in my 12-cents: There are people within WotC that like the rules that where presented. I don't know this because I work there or have mystical mind-reading powers (I don't know if I'd love it or hate it if I did... hmmm), but because the rules where created in the first place. I see this sort of thing happen all the time, related to D&D and not. Person1: Look at this game mechanic I made - everyone likes it! Person2: I think it's seriously flawed. Person1: I think it's going into the book because you're the only one who doesn't like it. You can apply this conversation to almost any design, whether you are co-creating a campaign with others or designing something for another industry. At one point in time someone thought it was just fine. Not everyone has the same tastes, not even WotC designers. When new people come in and look at old material, they cringe. Of course they can do better - who couldn't, in hindsight. WotC employees are pratically just like us - they have their own tastes and likes/dislikes, and their opinions reflect that. Sure, that column might match the current mindset of R&D, but it wasn't always that way, nor will it always be.
KJW 12-19-05, 11:39 AM	At one point in time someone thought it was just fine. Not everyone has the same tastes, not even WotC designers. When new people come in and look at old material, they cringe. Of course they can do better - who couldn't, in hindsight. WotC employees are pratically just like us - they have their own tastes and likes/dislikes, and their opinions reflect that. Sure, that column might match the current mindset of R&D, but it wasn't always that way, nor will it always be. OK the designers don't like some of the mechanics of the system, I can easily accept that. D20 and 3.5 represent a compromised approach of many different ideas and theories. That some designers have problems with the rules is to be expected. BUT what is the point complaining about something and not offering a solution? Sure some of us will complain on the boards about rules, but we are not designers by profession. We have other occupations and are really fishing around for new ideas to fix our problems with the system. Slyde's point and I agree is that there really isn't a problem with the rules they cited and if there is, then why don't the designers provide a solution? Why attack your own system and just throw up arms in frustration at the problem? It is a little odd.
Ogmug 12-19-05, 12:19 PM	I think some of you are looking at a tree trunk and screaming you can't see the forest. The article in question is part of a "series". Until it is finished, isn't it a bit premature to start screaming about the stupidity of railing against a ruling or three that you don't agree with? Furthermore, just because you work at WOTC, doesn't mean you will be able to get your changes to the rules approved, much less published. WOTC obviously gave him permission to write the article about what he doesn't like. I seriuosly doubt they operate in a vacuum. If they didn't like what he said, it wouldn't have been published on THIER website. Corporations have things called "change control". This is a process by which changes to existing products and services goes through a comittee, and often get rejected based on politics by some guy you don't even know. He does point out a few flaws in the spells. When Polymorph came out, It WAS a good spell, relatively balanced (maybe a bit powerful). But with the advent of additional official wotc products, the power level of the spell shot through the roof. In the previous article, the same author talked about things he DID like, and this article was a contrast / comparison to that. Additionally he added several houserules that the other R&D staff use, and promised in a future article to talk abou them in a little more detail and explain why they are houserules instead of regular rules. Why not wait till the end of the series of articles to complain?
Koga:The ninja trick 12-19-05, 12:43 PM	The Koga likes this, it's constructive critiscm. It's nice to know Wizards is a leniant company that doesn't care if thier employees have bad opinions over specific elements in thier game. WOTC realizes they aren't perfect, and the developers telling thier side of the story can't hurt the situation anymore then it already is. Let freedom ring. As it was, The Koga's bastard cousin who's friends kicked him out of thier gaming group (They "say" it's cause he was wierd with all his demon talk, but the real reason was cause Katey had a huge crush on him, and they nipped that in the bud. Because sense she was the "rich friend", if we got too close that could make thier game tottaly dependant on The Koga and her, and she already was bossy enough. Didn't need The Koga's help. :P ) and he called the other day to see if he could borrow The Koga's Monster Manual. (He tries this about once every 2 months..) And then we got into the discussion of clerics/druids. (He's pro-cleric/druid, suprisesuprise..) "They're #!@#$ broken.." "They don't have to be if you get good roleplayers.." "True, but it shouldn't have to be the full-responsibility of the player to keep them from appearing stronger then the rest of the party. That's a display of poor class construction when players have to PURPOSELY nerf themselves by roleplaying not to do things when they normaly could without rancor.." He shutup, The Koga has no emotion behind his hatred for Cleric/Druids. Which makes his debating powers double the powerful. The Koga w/out emotion is broken.. :P
Gilean 12-19-05, 01:15 PM	Well, they are true problems. Fixing them would be better than complaining, of course. In case of AMF, removing it. Anyway.You see, I like to actually play D&D, not argue about rules, and with you it’s always the same.Player and DM problem, not a rules issue. This is, again, easily solved if the DM has the guts to do it.It may be a social issue, but one caused by the rules. Better (or written better, anyway) rules, and less problems.
LordHumungus 12-19-05, 01:33 PM	I must admit to being disappointed in the article as well as its predecessor. The first one seemed to be nothing more than "Hey, buy these books" especially seeing as how there was nothing in the list of things he liked that came from the core rules, discounting, of course, the pointless, oops he didn't put anything from our core rules in this list, better tack this paragraph in. They may as well have put -editor at the end of the paragraph. The Development Doesn't Like Much article was disappointing to me in that it offered no solutions to any of the problems, other than not allowing them at all. I agree with others who've posted here that by not providing any answers, it's just complaining and should be in a forum. Putting it on the front page gives off the wrong image. I don't need someone to tell me the "official" way to do/handle something, but oftimes I can see things in a different light even if I don't agree with their interpretation. Other posters in this thread have summed up the Polymorph and Anti-Magic Field issues quite well. The Animated Shield can be handled every bit as easily, simply by not telling the PCs "OK, you head into the Wal-Mart...uh...err...I mean Grindlethorpe Barsalligus' Palace of Magical Curiosities and Artifacts Arcane and Grindlethorpe the Gnome greets you. He invites you to browse the list of items he has for sale," as you hand them the DMs Guide. I guess I am guilty of expecting the articles to be something they weren't. Informative. :P
Wrathamon 12-19-05, 02:05 PM	I rather have a company acknowledge problematic rules then ignore them and pretend they don't exist. I think they avoided saying "solutions" because it would then be transformed into canon, and that wasnt the intent. They are just letting people who are having issues know that they know, so you aren't alone. I applaud them, because it is pretty obvious that some of these mechanics are either A not balanced or B confusing to a lot of players. Maybe not all of the players agree, but its nice to know that it is being acknowledge on some level. Also, D&D isnt always "your" game if you play at a lot of conventions or rpga style games where player turn over is high. I dont want to have to explain or learn DMs interpretations all over again every game session. There needs to be a set of rules that aren't being HR. I have played in several D&D games where the DM pretty much had a different take on everything and it became confusing and pretty much a waste of time. If we are all playing by the same rules it becomes much easier for Player A to play with Player B and so on.
DaveReaves 12-19-05, 02:58 PM	One thing I notice is that Wizards is not producing as much "new" stuff as they once were. On the main page, we are looking at seven links to games that come from previous licenses (Duel Masters, Xaiolin Showdown, Kids Next Door, Neopets, Avalon Hill, Axis and Allies Minis, and Starwars). The most notoriously unplayed games are licenses from the popular things of the day. Has anyone here played the Spongebob Squarepants game? How about Digimon, PowerRangers, StarTrek, RIFTS, Simpsons... see where I'm going with this? The companies who crank out these games don't care anymore about the game than they do any action figure or other toy they produce and as such its a not all that great a game compared to Magic, L5R or Warlord. They are product placement first and a game second. Now that Hasbro and WotC are one in the same, I expect to see more. GI Goe toys are made by Hasbro, Starwars Toys are made by Hasbro, Axis and Allies and Avalon Hill board games are from Hasbro. I bet you see more and more Hasbro products turned games coming out of Wizards. The Tonka CCG, Transformers CCG, FURBY CCG, and My Little Pony Miniatures haunt my dreams. List of things that Wizards will probably turn into a CCG or Mini's game (http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=brands) </tell it like it is> EDIT Looking back my post seems a non sequitur so I shall go more into why I feel it is relevant. You can only do the same thing so long. How many prestige classes can you design before you suffer burnout? But that seems to be the trend in Wizards' recent products- Reuse what we have, keep the brand alive. As someone mentioned further up in the thread there has been quite a few layoffs in WotC in the past few years. Not just in the D&D teams, of course, but all over. In those same years you see "what works" being used more and more. How many of these card games are broken into colors and have you assign some cards as mana of their respective color to play other cards? I know Duel Masters and Hecatomb work this way. Something tells me a game designer should be able to come up with a different mechanic to put cards in play, so who was in charge of making the decision to stick with what works? A lot of these game designers take pride in what they do. To always work in the confines of a system (be that system using one system for putting cards in play in a CCG or constantly trying to evolve our beloved d20 rules) is going to take a toll on anyone. Eventually, no matter how good the company is to you other wise, if you are good at your job (in this case designing games) but you are hitting a point where your creativity is stifled by being limited to what has been done in the past your going to form a negitive opinon about the company and its products. Many of these R&D guys have lived, breathed and dreamed d20 for a long time, but (and this is the point I was trying to make above) now that the once innovative WotC is bound to the marketing whims of Hasbro, your going to see more of what works and less innovation because innovation is risky where as what works, well, works. Hasbro has the licenses to work with, wants to make money and has done so in the past by using what works. What works is market saturation in as many forms as possible, meaning Tonka toys, TV series, bath soap and collectable game.
Greg_K 12-19-05, 03:11 PM	I actually, have no problems with the designers stating what they do or do not like regarding the rules. Whether or not I agree does not matter, it gives me some glimpse into their outlook of the rules. However, I do agree that solutions from the designers to the perceived problems would be helpful.
DmofAlterak 12-19-05, 03:55 PM	I say good for the DM I'am a DM as well if you want to check out my website where you can play check my public profile.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 07:38 PM	First, thanks to everyone that's contributing their thoughts to this thread. Now to continue. This is the problem of any roleplaying game, how much authority do you give the players and DMs and how much authority do you give the rules. Right now 3.5 is pretty balanced for my taste, but it admittedly still requires a good DM for some areas where the players have lots of freedom to be creative. Well said. I suppose a large part of where I'm coming from is that I don't want the system to be the final, easy answer to everything. Why? Because it isn't possible. All that working toward that end will do is turn the system into a computer program that requires neither players nor DM. Is that what the designers (and we gamers) want? A quick, simple answer to everything? I would posit that if this is what you're after, then perhaps role-playing isn't really for you. At least, not the DM's chair. There is a reason that every game system ever made has had a blurb covering the fact that "this system can't/won't be able to provide an answer to every situation that can happen in your game", and that games have a game master. If you want "infinite possibilities", then you cannot place ultimate limits on everything. Trying to do so will ruin the game. I think the designers' problems with these mechanics, especially the two spells, is that they allow a clever player to really shine and mess up the carefully balanced encounter system of D&D. I admit sometimes a player with polymorph will do the unexpected and that anti-magic field can spell doom for your BBEG, but this is cleverness and shouldn't be punished. The tighter they make the system the less creativity the players will be allowed to express. Again, well put. That's precisely the issue at hand. They're trying to find the "numerically perfect" balance between how smart the players are, and how smart the DM is. My cry to arms is STOP. You cannot use a rules system to "fix" the fact that players of role-playing games will and do have different inherent capabilities. The only thing that will make these players and DMs better is going through these types of situations. Not looking on page 1,303 to find out that if a bard is wearing Badger Musk while singing "Ode to My Busted Lute" then a noble of the Demtantus house will weep 14.3 tears of joy, 10.2 tears of sadness, and sing along to the last three lines. At what point do we all just quit playing and move on to either a video game or a system that actually allows some DM adjudication and player creativity? For me it hasn't come yet (I play other systems anyway, so perhaps it's a bit diluted), but I can see that the current track being taken will lead me to that station unerringly if someone doesn't hit the brakes. <snip> You raise a very valid point. However, as most of us are saying, it isn't that someone up there in D&D land doesn't like something that bugs us. It's that someone in D&D land doesn't like something because they don't understand the rules and don't have what it takes to DM them (ability to make sound judgements based on presented information, and then follow that judgement consistantly). Someone with these issues should be studying the rules in between sessions in which they are a player, not complaining about the rules from the DM's seat. The article in question is part of a "series". Until it is finished, isn't it a bit premature to start screaming about the stupidity of railing against a ruling or three that you don't agree with? No. Not really. If someone punched you in the face, would you be content to stand there and make sure they intended to punch you until you were unconscious, or would you respond in some manner? (A bit harsh as an example, but the same reasoning.) Furthermore, just because you work at WOTC, doesn't mean you will be able to get your changes to the rules approved, much less published. WOTC obviously gave him permission to write the article about what he doesn't like. I seriuosly doubt they operate in a vacuum. If they didn't like what he said, it wouldn't have been published on THIER website. While this is true (I stated exactly that earlier in the thread), it doesn't mean that they forsaw this type of reaction to it. It's my hope that this reaction will give them pause in continuing to allow such silly things to be published as official articles. We may or may not have any effect, but we have just as much right to disagree with their actions as they have to take those actions. As an addendum, I'd like to point out that WotC is one of my favorite companies in the industry simply because they entertain these types of discussions and actually take note of them on occasion. While I don't always like what they choose to listen to from the community at large, I absolutely love that they do listen. He does point out a few flaws in the spells. When Polymorph came out, It WAS a good spell, relatively balanced (maybe a bit powerful). But with the advent of additional official wotc products, the power level of the spell shot through the roof. Nothing in the game is more powerful than the DM allows it to be. It's still a good spell. Letting it get out of hand is the DM's fault. A DM should be able to provide a challenge to the party no matter what the wizard is Polymorphed into. In the previous article, the same author talked about things he DID like, and this article was a contrast / comparison to that. Additionally he added several houserules that the other R&D staff use, and promised in a future article to talk abou them in a little more detail and explain why they are houserules instead of regular rules. Yes. I like the inclusion of their house rules. Why? Because it says "House Rules that some of us use" right there on top. To me, that's the equivalent of publishing another Unearthed Arcana, which is a fantastic idea. Alternates. Variants. These have nothign to do with why we have a problem with the primary content of the article. (Indeed, they should probably have been separate articles altogether.) Why not wait till the end of the series of articles to complain? Because I'm judging this article on it's own merit (or lack thereof). The fact that there was an article before and one coming after doesn't change the fact that this article was intrensically no more valuable than "random forum whining post 342,398". Why not wait until you're unconscious to ask that guy why he hit you in the face? The Koga likes this, it's constructive critiscm. No, it's not. It's complaining. Constructive criticism is when I tell someone that's bending over to pick something up that perhaps if they would use their legs to lift that box, they wouldn't suffer as much back pain. Constructive criticism is when I let someone know that they spelled antidisestablishmentarianism incorrectly, and let them know how to spell it. I appreciate the point you were trying to make, but the evidence to support it simply doesn't exist. It may be a social issue, but one caused by the rules. Better (or written better, anyway) rules, and less problems. Very true. However, as some of us have said, we don't see it as bein nearly the issue that it's being made into. Also, I've explained why I think that there's a certain point where the designers must stop trying to over-simplify and explain things. The Animated Shield can be handled every bit as easily, simply by not telling the PCs "OK, you head into the Wal-Mart...uh...err...I mean Grindlethorpe Barsalligus' Palace of Magical Curiosities and Artifacts Arcane and Grindlethorpe the Gnome greets you. He invites you to browse the list of items he has for sale," as you hand them the DMs Guide. I guess I am guilty of expecting the articles to be something they weren't. Informative. *rimshot* :D Thanks for the humor in an otherwise pretty critical thread. I also agree with your methodology of how to not handle magical items. :) I rather have a company acknowledge problematic rules then ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Well, perhaps there are players and DMs that see these particular rules as problems. Hopefully, in time, they'll learn to see them as what they are: challenges. However, if WotC continues just "patching up" (or removing) these "problems" from the game, we're going to have a cover with blank pages. There are not easy answers for everything, nor should there be. I think they avoided saying "solutions" because it would then be transformed into canon, and that wasnt the intent. They are just letting people who are having issues know that they know, so you aren't alone. Again, if they were real problems in this case, I would agree with you. As it stands, the only thing they're letting us know we're not "alone on" is complaining. I applaud them, because it is pretty obvious that some of these mechanics are either A not balanced or B confusing to a lot of players. Maybe not all of the players agree, but its nice to know that it is being acknowledge on some level. Also, D&D isnt always "your" game if you play at a lot of conventions or rpga style games where player turn over is high. I dont want to have to explain or learn DMs interpretations all over again every game session. There needs to be a set of rules that aren't being HR. I have played in several D&D games where the DM pretty much had a different take on everything and it became confusing and pretty much a waste of time. Honestly though, convention gaming and the RPGA seems to be the least of their focus areas. How much activity occurs on the RPGA boards compared to the main boards? Not much. Also, it's a common thing that I've observed in newer gamers/players, this mindset that DMs ruling things a bit differently (or heck, a lot differently) is "bad" or as you put it "a waste of time". We used to call that "interesting" and "variety". Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly assuming that you're a new player or new to gaming. I'm simply indicating that they are the population in which I see this mindset most commonly. I don't understand it in anyone. If we are all playing by the same rules it becomes much easier for Player A to play with Player B and so on. Before WotC and, to a certain extent Games Workshop, created the new mythos of RAW as god-status and unmalleable, I rarely saw players that couldn't sit down, listen to an explanation of any rules differences in a particular GM's game, and go "okay, let's play". Yes there were always rules-lawyers, but they were not the norm that they seem to be today. Differnces in rules interpretations don't make a game unplayable. Unreasonable players make a game unplayable. You can only do the same thing so long. A good observation, and one I tried to make (although perhaps not clearly) earlier in the thread. Diversity in the right directions means solvency for any company. Diversity in the wrong directions means trouble. Continually modifying one product may be a money maker, but just as in the case of GW's Warhammer, it inevitably leads to alienation of one generation at a time. Whether this is fine and dandy or grounds for war is a matter for another thread. Excellent points throughout your post. Also, Greg K's sig has the ultimate answer to all of this: Don't let rules replace good DMing skills. :)
smoker 12-19-05, 08:09 PM	I want to comment on the official versus un-official (namely, house rules). I think everyone creates houses rules to a certain degree. I can tell you that I have never created house rules to the extent that 3.5 is compared to 2. When I look at a D&D product, my first question is: is it cool? My second question is: how time will this save me? I work a pretty demanding job, so I am willing to spend some money on quick fixes, rather than try to come up with everything from scratch. When I was a kid, I took the oppositie approach. I couldn't afford all the books to save me time, so I made a lot of stuff up. And I want WOTC to innovate. Some of the best d20 related innovation I am seeing today is coming from Monte Cook's alternative PHBs. These are great. smoker
Slyde Shadowdart 12-19-05, 09:16 PM	I want to comment on the official versus un-official (namely, house rules). I think everyone creates houses rules to a certain degree. I can tell you that I have never created house rules to the extent that 3.5 is compared to 2. When I look at a D&D product, my first question is: is it cool? My second question is: how time will this save me? I work a pretty demanding job, so I am willing to spend some money on quick fixes, rather than try to come up with everything from scratch. When I was a kid, I took the oppositie approach. I couldn't afford all the books to save me time, so I made a lot of stuff up. And I want WOTC to innovate. Some of the best d20 related innovation I am seeing today is coming from Monte Cook's alternative PHBs. These are great. smoker Very good points all around. And as to Monte Cook's new stuff...*drool*. I just picked up Iron Heroes. Fantastic stuff! I can't wait to run a game.
Kem 12-19-05, 10:04 PM	I find it mildly ironic that people are attacking the article for complaining about things that can be fixed with house rules, by GIVING house rules. Rules that they use. Hope none of you are the people that say that the devs don't listen/don't know the game.
Greg_K 12-19-05, 10:16 PM	And I want WOTC to innovate. Some of the best d20 related innovation I am seeing today is coming from Monte Cook's alternative PHBs. These are great. For best d20 innovations outside the revised core rules, my list would include: 1) Green Ronin 2) Monte Cook 3) RPG Objects: Blood and Fists for d20 Modern (actually any of their stuff from Charles Rice is superb) 4) EnWorld: Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth for d20 Modern 5) WOTC: various elements from d20 Modern, Wheel of Time, and Star Wars
smoker 12-19-05, 11:04 PM	What products from Green Ronin?
BladeDrinker 12-19-05, 11:09 PM	I think you're missing part of my point. Read my second post for more details. As to the rules in question in the article, allow me to take a crack at them (and demonstrate the fact that no, you really don't need somebody else to "officially" tell you what to do about things in your game of D&D): You're not the first person to fix (or try to fix, anyway) the polymorph chain. But this in turn raises another problem; namely that people handle polymorph differently from table to table. I don't see that the designers acknowledging that some rules are clunky is a problem. In fact, it's a very good step towards fixing them. I do understand though, that this mindset also includes such brainwashing results as: - It has to be put out by WotC for me to be able to use it in my game. - It has to be the same in everyone's D&D game. If I see someone doing it differently, they must be wrong. - If I didn't pay $40 for it, it's not good enough for my game. - The designers always know better than me how I should run my game. No. I use a lot of things that aren't designed by WotC. Even rules issues. Particularly naval and mass combat, which have honestly been awful in most WotC attempts at them. But at the same time I would like WotC to fix problems relating to the core material. The vast majority of it is great, but there are still things that should be changed. IE, Improved Critical and Keen not stacking. (It's only overpowering with the Frenzied Berserker, which is a curve wrecker I'd rather ban anyway.) Yes, I can just house rule things the way I want them to go. But it makes sense for the designers to admit mistakes and work to correct them too. It's true that they didn't present a solution to the problems at hand in the article. But I don't think it's correct to characterize their comments as pointless b----ing. The articles are designed to give us a window into the design process which is helpful for people who want to make house rules.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-19-05, 11:37 PM	You guys miss the part where Decker and Noonan aren't the only ones in control of the rules. They may want a fix, but that doesn't mean that fix gets printed. I think its good that they did this article because it goes to show that not every game element is mean for every table. Even the designer's table, despite the fact that some people use the designer's name to bludgeon people who want to make changes with. Me? I'm just going to kick back and wait for some malcontent to tell Decker or Noonan to 'Go play GURPS or White Wolf, lol." Because that's what would have happened to any other random poster that made some of those gripes. Edit: Some of those house rules are abyssmal though. Specifically Death Hurts and Its you, not your gear.
Greg_K 12-20-05, 12:34 AM	What products from Green Ronin? Psychic's Handbook: Skill and feat system for classic style "mind powers" with rules for both DND and d20 Modern Blue Rose/True 20: an optional d20 system that uses several options from the Unearthed Arcana including the generic classes, d20 Modern style occupation, the injury system done correctly, and a skill and feat Magic system based on the rules from the Psychic's Handbook. Mutants and Masterminds: okay this is both OGL and the superhero genre, but it shows real innovations with the d20 system. It is also the original source for the Unearthed Arcana injury system which in UA, like most of the other combat options, was not handled properly.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-20-05, 03:03 AM	The Development Doesn't Like Much article was disappointing to me in that it offered no solutions to any of the problems, other than not allowing them at all. Well the thing is that those problems aren't necessarily easily fixable without banning. Polymorph mechanics are basically something that just can't work. Consider that polymorph is such a complex spell that it's effects span four full books (MM1-3 and the fiend folio). You just can't quick fix that in one article. A lot of people can conclude polymorph doesn't work, but finding a fix to it is very difficult, if not impossible. Polymorph right now is so broke that it needs to get the axe and start back from the drawing board. Polymorph just doesn't work right now. Animated shields and Antimagic field are just bad concepts and banning is precisely what should be done with them. It was even stated that the designers went through problems trying to write the article on AMF with all the contradictions of attacking into an AMF or attacking out of an AMF and all that stuff. In the end they just decided to ban the stupid thing. As stated, AMF was nothing short of an adjudication nightmare. Animated shields on the other hand are imbalanced and one of those questions best answered with a simple "No.", the same as if your barbarian PC asked if he could get his rage benefits without suffering any of the penalties. Sometimes a flat "No" is the best answer.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-20-05, 03:06 AM	Edit: Some of those house rules are abyssmal though. Specifically Death Hurts and Its you, not your gear. What didn't you like about death hurts? I though that was a pretty good fix to the "you're now screwed" penalty for dying.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-20-05, 03:16 AM	You weren't really screwed when you came back down a level from RD. You eventually and organically leveled back out with the party. Using death hurts, you are magically and inexplicably cured of the 'RD sickness' when you level, which is, in game terms, a completely arbitrary time. It just doesn't sit well with me. And no, its not the same as the 'I learned to play the lute from killing goblins' problem.
Yak of Darkness 12-20-05, 03:43 AM	Polymorph mechanics are basically something that just can't work. Consider that polymorph is such a complex spell that it's effects span four full books (MM1-3 and the fiend folio). You just can't quick fix that in one article.Because you have to use all four of those books. I mean, you might as well say that polymorph is too complex because you *have* to deal with the Monster Manual, Monster Manual II, Monster Manual III, Fiend Folio, Book of Vile Darkness, Book of Exalted Deeds, Manual of the Planes, Planar Handbook, Complete Arcane, Draconomicon, Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness, Frostburn, Stormwrack, Sandstorm, Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of the Wild, Races of Eberron . . . oh hell, what about the campaign settings? The Realms alone have, I think, eighty-five thousand monsters at last count! And since you have to use every single one of these things in your game, polymorph is way too complex! It's like the people who say the Archivist is an irreparably broken class, because a 3.0 campaign-setting splatbook lets a precious few clerics gain anyspell on a domain list. Personally (and although it admittedly can make things a bit wonky), I'm kinda glad that WotC doesn't feel like they have to rein in their creativity/innovation in order to consider the effect of every single new thing they make on every single item in every single book for every possible iteration of D&D. Can polymorph be wonky? Sure. Is it a complex mechanic? Definitely. Overly-so? Maybe. But it's not possible for a DM to have specifically the "OMG too many monsters in too many books" problem, unless it's self-inflicted.
LordHumungus 12-20-05, 04:16 AM	*rimshot* :D Thanks for the humor in an otherwise pretty critical thread. I also agree with your methodology of how to not handle magical items. :) Ahh, I am not alone on that one....that makes me feel a little better about the future of the game. Going back and re-reading my post, I realize that many of my issues with the articles are that they just aren't what I expected them to be. Knowing that the newer article would contain both things that the designers disliked and some house rules, I falsely assumed that the house rules would address some of the issues they brought up. I also figured there would be more there than 2 spells that have well known issues and a magic item. Again, that is my fault, I suppose. I also hoped that the house rules would be things that you can't find serching through a few of the many "Post your house rules here" or "Rate my House Rules" threads on the House Rule board. I was hoping for something a little more unique. Obviously, the 9 levels ain't enough would be excluded from this, as I think it is an intriguing concept and something I am looking forward to seeing fleshed out. As for the touch of humor, well....the thread definitely needed it :D
Jesse_Decker 12-20-05, 05:03 PM	Howdy Folks, How can "official complaining," help anyone? A fair question, even if I would have picked a different label. :) The "dislikes" column was meant to engender discussion, to show (rather than simply tell) that R&D is willing to cop to the fact that there are problems with portions of the game, and to raise warning flags over those problems for players and DMs.
RogerWilco 12-20-05, 06:37 PM	I rather have a company acknowledge problematic rules then ignore them and pretend they don't exist. I think they avoided saying "solutions" because it would then be transformed into canon, and that wasnt the intent. They are just letting people who are having issues know that they know, so you aren't alone. Apparently you're correct on this and it does mean WotC isn't locked up in some ivory tower, but actually trying to interact with it's customers. I applaud it, because it creates loyalty (at least with me), and means there at least is discussion, if not a solution. Sometimes WotC seems like a large void, or maybe more a lot of small chambers without communication between them. It's therefore also nice to see the author reply in this thread! Also, D&D isnt always "your" game if you play at a lot of conventions or rpga style games where player turn over is high. I dont want to have to explain or learn DMs interpretations all over again every game session. There needs to be a set of rules that aren't being HR. I have played in several D&D games where the DM pretty much had a different take on everything and it became confusing and pretty much a waste of time. If we are all playing by the same rules it becomes much easier for Player A to play with Player B and so on. I have two reasons to want to avoid this rules confusion/unclarity, my pet peeve currently being the Arcane Hierophant (see sig.). The two reasons: 1) People have started organising RPGA events in my area, and I'd like to join. I'd cringe when I think how different DMs would rule this class given the history I already have with it, so my first point is basically your point. 2) Secondly people are putting these rules into games and electronic tools. I've had a very lengthy discussion (see sig.) with Code Monkey Publishing* about how the interpreted some rules in the character generation tools I use. (they publish e-Tools and datasets for PCGen) * By the way I realy like the way you can report errors to CMP and have them respond/fix it. Their service is great with respect to customer feedback. I would be very interested in next weeks article about how "D&D gets patched", especially if anything is done with the Errata thread(s) on these boards/feedback trough Customer Service/etc.
smoker 12-20-05, 10:17 PM	Howdy Folks, A fair question, even if I would have picked a different label. :) The "dislikes" column was meant to engender discussion, to show (rather than simply tell) that R&D is willing to cop to the fact that there are problems with portions of the game, and to raise warning flags over those problems for players and DMs. Unfortunately, folks took the name of the article the wrong way. I think the expectation that people have is that if a rule is broken, it's either fixed in errata or the DM comes up with a house rule. I guess alot of folks wonder why a developer or developers are stating stuff is broken, rather than fixing the rule. It's like Microsoft saying their software is broken, but not fixing it. Maybe a different article named would have helped out the cause. smoker
Wrathamon 12-21-05, 02:46 AM	I wrote a bunch of stuff... but thought better. Its too easy to read into someones written words when their is no body language or tone... with that said I think I wrote too much still. :P Lets just say I understand that in a perfect world we could all get along and be able to handle changes on the fly and trust that the DM is making a good call for the benefit of all. That is why I also play Rules Lite systems as well... less combinations means less potential abuses. It's great when those changes are told up front (which they should) but a lot of the time those things come up in the middle of the game. That is when it becomes a problem, or when other players "fun" is threatened because they can't compete with the Ubertoon. People complain about power gamers being more abundant... I would say blame the internet. You really only have a handful of true power gamers and rule benders... Power combos that cause balancing issue and loop holes are perpetuated on the net, then tried out in your local weekend game... but, that means that the people making the rules... read this and then make changes accordingly... its called evolve or die. So, by exploiting the game it allows the designers to fix holes in the system. Like white blood cells killing bugs in your body. Patches for games are a good thing... it means you are keeping the game healthy. Why is it okay for a PC game but not a paper game? You could say that I dont need someone to fix my game... that is fine. You dont have to download the patch ;) But, in all seriousness I understand your point, hopefully you can see mine. I like to know as someone put it, the designers aren't living in Ivory Towers... they are gamers just like you and I and we are all playing the same game.
Slyde Shadowdart 12-26-05, 01:15 AM	I find it mildly ironic that people are attacking the article for complaining about things that can be fixed with house rules, by GIVING house rules. Rules that they use. Hope none of you are the people that say that the devs don't listen/don't know the game. And I find it ironic that you find yourself so clever for posting without reading the thread. Oh wait...that's not irony. You're not the first person to fix (or try to fix, anyway) the polymorph chain. But this in turn raises another problem; namely that people handle polymorph differently from table to table. That isn't a problem for some of us. I rather enjoy discovering new ways that people handle these sorts of things. Although it's a bit of a tangent that has grown from the original post, the attempts at "complete standardization" are driving me batty. I've addressed my views on this however, and any more would be rehashing.
Elemmakil 12-26-05, 06:47 PM	I liked the article; its kinda nice to here someone from Wizards actually admit that they aren't perfect :D. I also agree with them on at least 2 of the accounts: polymorph and animated shields. As for the criticisms that they didn't offer solutions:Animated Shield Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both of her hands. Only one shield can protect a character at a time. A character with an animated shield still takes any penalties associated with shield use, such as armor check penalties, arcane spell failure chance, and proficiency.And also see:Changing the rules doesn’t help what I consider to be a pretty poor aesthetic, however. A shield floating around a greataxe wielding barbarian just doesn’t jive well with my personal tastes, but I’m perfectly willing to hear others tell me that they find the visual compelling.This indirectly suggests just banning them, by not rescinding the statement that it should be fixed, and by saying that no fix would be satisfying. On polymorph: I've never seen a fix that I thought worked, so I can't condemn Wizards for not coming up with one: The clause that items that a new form cannot wear meld is clumsy, at best. There are no rules on what a bear can wear, as an example. I can put a hat on my pet dog (in real life), so can I polymorph into a dog, keeping my hat? My hat falls off my pet, so would I need to move slowly if I polymorphed into a dog with a hat, or it will fall off? Also, the DMG talks about item resizing extensively, whith this general result: For everything other than magic shields or weapons, size shouldn't be an issue. So, do the items resize magically? It doesn't say so, but that is a simple, easy and balanced solution to the 'size isn't an issue' issue. However, do they resize if you polymorph into a giant? It can wield those items, and whether they resize magically or need adjustment is entirely up to the DM. Even worse: one imbalanced monster does indeed send the spell's power through the roof. So, can I, as a DM, ban non-core monsters for just player use? Yes, but it seems unfair and arbitrary: Polymorph can only turn you into a completely random set of creatures, not another completely random set. Right. More problems: Polymorph any Object is very vague. Can it turn you into any creature, or only creatures that polymorph can turn you into? The FAQ does acknowledge that the description could be more clear. Fix those in one house rule.