Ask Wizards about Tome of Battle? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ask Wizards about Tome of Battle? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
OamuTheMonk
09-30-06, 01:08 AM Has anyone else noticed that the Ask Wizards feature on the front page of the D&D site has become exclusively Tome of Battle related? The last eighteen questions have been about ToB.

I don't own Tome of Battle, but, to me this suggests that it might be even more incomprehensible than Wizards usual level of incomprehensibility--devoting an almost-daily web feature to decoding a book's contents seems to suggest that it might not be all that well designed content-wise.
CuttinCurt
09-30-06, 01:14 AM Purely speculation my friend. I own it, like it, and understood it about as fast as it took me to read all the feats and special abilities of the monk class when I first started laying this game back in 1980.

Which means I agree with you, from my persepective, but would not suggest that "as a whole" the book is beyond the gametesters.

CC
allenchan
09-30-06, 01:37 AM Personally, I think it means exactly the opposite. If you knew how many custserv questions the CO boards were constantly flinging at them, you'd understand. They're still trying to find ways to tear it apart, and for the most part, have yet been unable to. Along with concise and clear responses, wotc's customer service with the Bo9S is a definate step in the right direction. There's yet to be a single conflicting statement they've given and none of their replies are "just because we say so". I say, bravo.
OamuTheMonk
09-30-06, 05:00 AM If the book is so crystal clear, and the rules regarding these new martial classes and maneuvers can be easily understood, where are all these questions (in ask Wizards) coming from? It's not like people are still writing in with questions like "What is base attack?" and "Can a Dwarf be a Ranger?"

Is it just a promotional device?

It's not a critical question, I guess, but I don't really have any interest in the wider-ranging WOTC supplements (Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle), and I'm just wondering when the ask Wizards feature will move on. Eighteen questions in a row seems excessive, if the book is already as clear as Cyrstal Gravy.
frasmage
09-30-06, 10:54 AM Well, there was a little confusion with a few things and there was also some confusion amongst the WotC help staff - when people emailed questions, many of them got different answers for the same questions, so my thoughts are they are trying to sort this all out (of course they could just send everyone to the ToB faq that someoe made on CharOps, that answers all thsoe questions)
fatal error
09-30-06, 12:30 PM It probably suggests that many more people bought it than the other variant system, ToM, MoI, etc.

I didn't find any of the Ask Wizards questions except the one about Adaptive Style to be necessary. So I think the book is pretty clear. I think it is mainly just the fact that it is a new mechanics system that some people find it confusing. The reason this didn't happen with the others may be as I stated above, more people bought ToB.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OamuTheMonk 09-30-06, 01:08 AM	Has anyone else noticed that the Ask Wizards feature on the front page of the D&D site has become exclusively Tome of Battle related? The last eighteen questions have been about ToB. I don't own Tome of Battle, but, to me this suggests that it might be even more incomprehensible than Wizards usual level of incomprehensibility--devoting an almost-daily web feature to decoding a book's contents seems to suggest that it might not be all that well designed content-wise.
CuttinCurt 09-30-06, 01:14 AM	Purely speculation my friend. I own it, like it, and understood it about as fast as it took me to read all the feats and special abilities of the monk class when I first started laying this game back in 1980. Which means I agree with you, from my persepective, but would not suggest that "as a whole" the book is beyond the gametesters. CC
allenchan 09-30-06, 01:37 AM	Personally, I think it means exactly the opposite. If you knew how many custserv questions the CO boards were constantly flinging at them, you'd understand. They're still trying to find ways to tear it apart, and for the most part, have yet been unable to. Along with concise and clear responses, wotc's customer service with the Bo9S is a definate step in the right direction. There's yet to be a single conflicting statement they've given and none of their replies are "just because we say so". I say, bravo.
OamuTheMonk 09-30-06, 05:00 AM	If the book is so crystal clear, and the rules regarding these new martial classes and maneuvers can be easily understood, where are all these questions (in ask Wizards) coming from? It's not like people are still writing in with questions like "What is base attack?" and "Can a Dwarf be a Ranger?" Is it just a promotional device? It's not a critical question, I guess, but I don't really have any interest in the wider-ranging WOTC supplements (Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle), and I'm just wondering when the ask Wizards feature will move on. Eighteen questions in a row seems excessive, if the book is already as clear as Cyrstal Gravy.
frasmage 09-30-06, 10:54 AM	Well, there was a little confusion with a few things and there was also some confusion amongst the WotC help staff - when people emailed questions, many of them got different answers for the same questions, so my thoughts are they are trying to sort this all out (of course they could just send everyone to the ToB faq that someoe made on CharOps, that answers all thsoe questions)
fatal error 09-30-06, 12:30 PM	It probably suggests that many more people bought it than the other variant system, ToM, MoI, etc. I didn't find any of the Ask Wizards questions except the one about Adaptive Style to be necessary. So I think the book is pretty clear. I think it is mainly just the fact that it is a new mechanics system that some people find it confusing. The reason this didn't happen with the others may be as I stated above, more people bought ToB.