Support for seeker? people are not playing it. They want to think about changing it to make it more exciting. Magazine is driven by submissions, and there are less submissions for the seeker.
I don't really like this kind of attitude. If people aren't playing it, then there is obvious a problem with the class and more work needs to be put into it in order to make it more desirable.
Next campaign setting is not Dragonlance. it is not just a setting but a way to play. It gives a new twist on play. "Twist is a good word," said one of the developers.
Okay, DnD already went outside the norm with 4th edition and now they are going even further with a new was to actually play. I'm just not sure how this will pan out.
Early in the summer, Steve Winter asked in the forums, what is not working? that is our to-do list. They are increasing playtesting, and decreasing books.
So there is going to be more playtesting with less people to do it? I don't see that going very well.
Republishing old editions? cant say anything yet, but there are plans.
I don't think this will turn out so great.
They are struggling with how to price pdfs.
Why? Just take a lesson from Paizo.
Virtual Table: Still in beta. They don't want to get ahead of themselves.
So in other words, we most likely won't see this thing out and about and ready to roll anytime soon.
What's up with Mike Mearls's legends and lore articles? where is mearls going with that? Mearls says he is just experimenting and doing R and D - there is no 5th edition
If there are any major changes to the game you can't surprise people. Mearls worries that fourth ed lectured people about how they should play. He wants to have a dialogue, not dictate. wants to regain trust.I'm still hoping for a 5th edition soon, but since I have to wait then I will continue to delve into 4th edition. Mmmmmm....not real sure how to take this answer.
Not planning to do different D&D eras like Modern. They want to concentrate on D&D.
We have boardgames so why not a Modern era?
Here are a few things that cause some concern. This is the DnD Q&A product announcement.
-snip-
Ah, bud... sounds like you just need a post-GenCon hug! Don't be so bummed, there's some cool stuff coming up.
The Mearls answer in no way said that he's hoping for a new edition soon. It said that he is throwing ideas around for the community to PEACH, basically, and taking notes on the responses. Whether what he and his department come up with is useful for 4e, or something to stick in a folder and dust off when it comes time to write the next edition isn't really important, they are doing their job and researching what makes the community like and dislike the game, what they can and/or need to improve.
Playtesting: Fewer products, more playtesters per release. Really don't know how you came to your conclusion on this one.
New setting: They also said it will involve dragons. It very well could be a setting and a set of rules for playing mythological beasts like dragons.
New setting: They also said it will involve dragons. It very well could be a setting and a set of rules for playing mythological beasts like dragons.
Like Council of Wyrms!
From the "new way to play" comments I don't think a Council of Wyrms reboot will be a different enough play experience. And, it will be a new setting, so not one previously published. I'm hoping for a more investigative take on D&D, but I don't think it will be anything like we've been predicting.
Expect to be surprised.
Then again, your surprise might be a good or bad surprise.
2. ive heard about all kinds of settings, just cross dragonlance off the list
3. thank god they are looking into that stuff, it is much needed and im glad they are responding to the fanbase
4. no idea why they would rerelease old edition stuff.
5. "just take a lesson from paizo" is not a way to run buisness you need to run your numbers, talk to experts and find out the most optimal situation to price somthing "do what that other guy is doing" is not a good way to run your buisness because you will always be a step behind
6. im in the beta, its pretty good to be honest and its really quick combat since people arnt adding math all day
7. i like mearls, i dont want to hear about support and products all day, his articles are cool and add discuss the concepts of an RPG and ill never fault the guy for trying to get better at his craft
8. i live in the modern era, its nothing special
The dragons was in response to "Will it have Dragons, and Lances?" Meaning are we getting dragonlance next year. Their response was, no it's not Dragonlance, but yes, its still D&D so there are dragons in the setting.
True...
From the "new way to play" comments I don't think a Council of Wyrms reboot will be a different enough play experience. And, it will be a new setting, so not one previously published. I'm hoping for a more investigative take on D&D, but I don't think it will be anything like we've been predicting.
Expect to be surprised.
Then again, your surprise might be a good or bad surprise.
I have faith!
1. the seeker needs support but no one plays it and i think they want to support what people play, but then you could argue more people would play it if the seeker was any good. some stuff is a lame duck and the seeker was one of them
2. ive heard about all kinds of settings, just cross dragonlance off the list
3. thank god they are looking into that stuff, it is much needed and im glad they are responding to the fanbase
4. no idea why they would rerelease old edition stuff.
5. "just take a lesson from paizo" is not a way to run buisness you need to run your numbers, talk to experts and find out the most optimal situation to price somthing "do what that other guy is doing" is not a good way to run your buisness because you will always be a step behind
6. im in the beta, its pretty good to be honest and its really quick combat since people arnt adding math all day
7. i like mearls, i dont want to hear about support and products all day, his articles are cool and add discuss the concepts of an RPG and ill never fault the guy for trying to get better at his craft
8. i live in the modern era, its nothing special
Why can't we just "like" "thumbs up" or "+1" people's posts?
Seriously, would it really be hard?
1. the seeker needs support but no one plays it and i think they want to support what people play, but then you could argue more people would play it if the seeker was any good. some stuff is a lame duck and the seeker was one of them
2. ive heard about all kinds of settings, just cross dragonlance off the list
3. thank god they are looking into that stuff, it is much needed and im glad they are responding to the fanbase
4. no idea why they would rerelease old edition stuff.
5. "just take a lesson from paizo" is not a way to run buisness you need to run your numbers, talk to experts and find out the most optimal situation to price somthing "do what that other guy is doing" is not a good way to run your buisness because you will always be a step behind
6. im in the beta, its pretty good to be honest and its really quick combat since people arnt adding math all day
7. i like mearls, i dont want to hear about support and products all day, his articles are cool and add discuss the concepts of an RPG and ill never fault the guy for trying to get better at his craft
8. i live in the modern era, its nothing special
Why can't we just "like" "thumbs up" or "+1" people's posts?
Seriously, would it really be hard?
Republishing old editions? cant say anything yet, but there are plans.
I don't think this will turn out so great.
If it gets holdouts to stop insisting that the game be made to suck the way they'd gotten used to, it'd be worth it.
Not planning to do different D&D eras like Modern. They want to concentrate on D&D.
We have boardgames so why not a Modern era?
4e's general aproach is very cinematic, it'd handle Modern far better than d20 ever could have. Squandered opportunity.
Not planning to do different D&D eras like Modern. They want to concentrate on D&D.
We have boardgames so why not a Modern era?
4e's general aproach is very cinematic, it'd handle Modern far better than d20 ever could have. Squandered opportunity.
Could not agree more. I've been eagerly awaiting D&D 4e Modern/Future since 4e first came out. I absolutely love doing crossover / reality travel style games, and it was my fervent hope that we'd get an official WotC-sanctioned Modern/Future game fully-compatible with regular Dungeons & Dragons, unlike D20 Modern which only kind of worked for crossover games because of how different the rules were between it and regular D&D 3e.
Here's hoping they change their minds aboug this.
New setting: They also said it will involve dragons. It very well could be a setting and a set of rules for playing mythological beasts like dragons.
Like Council of Wyrms!
I'd buy it. I don't know if 4e is quite the proper medium for it, but I wouldn't have thought 2e was, either, and it worked then.
Given that each dragon type has a enemy role, a CoW game could involve the combined choice of race and class, i.e. if you play a Red, you are a defender, if you play a Green you are a Controller, etc.
New setting: They also said it will involve dragons. It very well could be a setting and a set of rules for playing mythological beasts like dragons.
Like Council of Wyrms!
That might be awesome.
However, gun/military combat isn't really well replicated with the 5' square grid that and d20 game rocks. By the time you get to the combat where snipers are pot shotting or your storming normandy that 5' grid has just waved itself away. So you may need a different combat mechanic. That combat mechanic could also cover vehicle combat on a larger scale too.
Maybe that's just me, but I think people try to hard to make square pegs fill round holes when it comes to guns and a tactical grid.
Another thing is that most cinematic battles take place with in point blank ranges.
What, exactly is the problem with the grid? Is it lack of granularity? Is a 6-second turn too long?
I'd think a modern/cinematic gun battle would involve a lot of seeking cover, mostly, as the main difference between a firearm and melee-based tactical combat. The system does have plenty of rules for determining cover, and moving to get or get around combat might be an important part of it...
Since you asked...
The problem with the 5'grid is that guns have a decently long range. So do bows, but over the long haul a reasonably modern sniper has a massive range, and a 5' grid would just take up WAY too much room on a table (100 squares, which would lead to about a 200inch square surface which is about 16 feet to a side. That's bigger than some stuio apartments).
That's assuming that the characters need to get within range of the sniper to shoot, so they are ducking weaving and sneaking up to the post. If they have the capability of striking back then you have a long distance shooting match in which case every target likely has concelament and cover, so those little 3 square differences don't really matter.
Hence why for distance gun play I think ditching the 5' grid is beeter and to have something more abstract. I've been trying to figure out something effective but abstract for a while, but it's tough, and changing the scale of the grid is a possible solution, but one I find just requires more maps and reduces the movement/tactical aspect of the battles, leading to what Chris the S said is "I shoot Back" syndrome.
Personally, if you want realism in gun battles 4e just isn't the system for "you." There are plenty of other systems that model realistic gun play far better. For cinematic, confined gun battles 5' grids and highly tactical games like 4e can be very useful, but it takes a good tactical mind or they end up in slugging matches.
all my opinion of course.
Also getting close enough to attack a sniper doesn't require a grid, it's a skill challenge.
The crossbows as guns with some extra deadliness isn't a crude measure at all.
They say it is (actually, I think the word they use is 'inelegant,' but it comes to the same thing).
Mildly irritating that every set of gun-rules has to make allowances specifically for the rogue. It would have been nice if the original designers had included basic renaissance firearms in the game from the start, even if they'd done it the stupid way the 3e designers did and hid them away in the DMG.
They do say that. And they are incorrect.
What allowances specifically for the rogue? The crossbow analogue makes sense in rules terms, regardless of the rogue.
I agree that guns should have been in the rule books from the start, however.
What allowances specifically for the rogue?
There are two reasons for counting firearms as crossbows in Zeitgeist: so that they work with the character builder, and so they work with rogue features and powers. Apart from being 'equivalent' for rules purposes and having the same damage dice, they are otherwise new weapons.
www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products...
The core book is available in PDF
www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products...
and softcover
www.lulu.com/spotlight/chaos_trip_studio...
What allowances specifically for the rogue?
There are two reasons for counting firearms as crossbows in Zeitgeist: so that they work with the character builder, and so they work with rogue features and powers. Apart from being 'equivalent' for rules purposes and having the same damage dice, they are otherwise new weapons.
Riiight.
And you know, because it makes sense in rules terms for a situation where you want to be able to use the character builder.
WHich is a very good reason to use existing weapons.
And they represent guns just fine, so that helps.
What's inelegant is creating NEW weapons and then having to say that they count as old weapons because someone didn't think far enough ahead when the rules system was originally created. Bottom line (and this is the important part, not cheap shots about elegance), if the original system designers had decided to slaughter the sacred cow that D&D and gunpowder don't mix, in spite of numerous examples pointing to the contrary throughout its history, this wouldn't be an issue.
Not taking certain classes isn't really an ideal solution, because of the six classes capable of using ranged weapons as a primary attack, only the rogue has powers that really emphasize aggressive movement in combat - the 'push and pursue' approach is otherwise usually the province of defenders, and there aren't any ranged defenders. With the classes that exist currently, a 'modern' game that emphasized gunplay would either result in artillery blasting each other from across the board or the PCs being zerg rushed because there's no-one on the field to get in the way.
What there needs to be to have a dynamic ranged combat system is something akin to all the pursuit powers that fighters and swordmages have - rationales to encourage moving from cover to cover and not hunker down.
Gotta watch that blood pressure.
The problem with the 5'grid is that guns have a decently long range. So do bows, but over the long haul a reasonably modern sniper has a massive range, and a 5' grid would just take up WAY too much room on a table .
Ah. Well, the game already ignores the storied range of the english longbow, and a lot of modern cinematic action/adventure gun combat seems to take place at stupidly short ranges (so it can all be in the shot, if nothing else), anyway. I'd be willing to write that off as a genre bit.
If they have the capability of striking back then you have a long distance shooting match in which case every target likely has concelament and cover, so those little 3 square differences don't really matter.
A sniper will be prone behind superior cover and as much concealment as possible, and, yeah, anyone shooting back will try to get into a good position, too. I don't know how much fun shooting at eachother's muzzle flashes at -12 would be for most folks, though. So, yeah, something more abstract.
I'd say, keep the 5' scale for those close-in combats, go to something more like skill challenges (lots of stealth and perception, I suppose) for sniper duels and the like. Resolve a skill challenge to get in that one 'clean shot.' One scale simply isn't going to work for both Enemy at the Gate and Die Hard.
For cinematic, confined gun battles 5' grids and highly tactical games like 4e can be very useful, but it takes a good tactical mind or they end up in slugging matches.