The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
They have told us why they are slowing down the rate of releases. They released too much too quickly during the first two years of 4E. As a consequence, lots of things were rushed through R&D and Playtest, things that had to be fixed via errata later. There are currently 120 pages of errata across 4E.
One of the things Mike Mearls was told when he was given his job was to reduce the amount of errata needed on books produced during his watch. Slowing down production to increase quality control is one of the ways to do this (this has had the unfortunate side effect of bottlenecking Dragon and Dungeon content so badly that I think we are going to get 50% of our articles this month, despite WotC_Trevor's stated goal of getting all of March's content out in March.)
And, of course, there is the economy. Printing a hardcover book a month and expecting people to buy them, month after month, in the worst recession since the Great Depression, is probably unrealistic. Luxury spending is down across the nation. One of the first things to be cut out of a tight budget is entertainment, and D&D has a lot of competition for our entertainment dollar. Taking the time to make sure that what they produce is something that we feel we NEED to buy is a smart move.
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
Nope. 4E still has tons of conceptual ground to cover. I want to see 4E continue to its planned retirement in 2018 (I think it is going to fall a couple years short, but I WANT to see it go to 2018).
So far, 4E is my favorite edition of D&D. 5E is going to need to knock my socks off to get me on board.
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
Probably not. I like the feel of paper in my hands and the ability to have the books on hand no matter where I am (and no, printing it and binding it myself is not an acceptable substitute). I think the Virtual Tabletop is a great idea, since people have been playing D&D over vast distances for years (anyone remember the Play by Mail games that used to be advertised in Dragon? Snail mail, that is.). However, I have a group of friends that I game with regularly, and we like being able to look each other in the face and play together around the same table.
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
a) No.
b. & c.) Not until I read some reviews.
But... We would see a Points of Light pair of books first wouldn't we?
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
a.) no. THis was discussed.
b.) no. I'd be ticked off... I like 4th ed way too much had would have no interest in a new ed.
c.) see above.
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
As I recall, WotC pumped out more books per month in the final years of 3ed than in the beginning. They were still pumping out 3.5 books 6 months after the announcement that they were going to 4ed. At most, there was a six-month slow period RIGHT BEFORE Keep on the Shadowfell was released. So, unless 5ed is coming out this summer, this slowdown is not indicative of edition change.
But to answer your other questions:
B) No. When I played my last game of 3ed, I was very ready for 4ed (Leonal Guardinal vs. a Rogue and a Gunslinger; could've used his Dismissal power to send 1 PC back to Material plane and rip up the other one). I want to loathe 4ed and all its fault before I'm ready for 5ed, and I don't loathe it yet.
C) Eh. I've got a computer now, so I could do it. However, I'm a book person (if I could somehow read the Internet on a book and write e-mails on letterhead, I would
) and would highly prefer it. Still, once I subscribe to DDI and play around with it, maybe I'll change my mind.No.
No.
5th might not be up, but something is up.
The low level of content in the emags is an indicator that resources are directed toward something else.
Or that resources are being cut and aren't available for anything.
5th might not be up, but something is up.
The low level of content in the emags is an indicator that resources are directed toward something else.
Or that resources are being cut and aren't available for anything.
This.
All the evidence suggests they are not ramping down 4e, they are ramping down D&D.
The end effect, I think, will be the same, because Hasbro is fairly likley to liscence (not sell) the franchise to another entitiy who, wanting to make some cash from it, would release their own edition, 5e.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
I hope not. I expect D&D to go on an evolution track, slowly changing over time. D&D may be quite different from the 4we we know today five years down the line, but it won't be called "Fifth Edition".
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
No.
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
This depends on how WotC manages this edition change. If they maintain DDI functionality for 4e so that I can continue my camapigns, I might look at a new edition. But if they switch off 4e after the change, regardless whether this happens instantly or 12 later, it's adios amigo for me. In this scenraio they would have lost me as customer. Forever.
Huldvoll
Baron von Bomberg
b.) No. I've said since the start of 4e that I was satisfied enough with it for it to be my "last" D&D edition - unless I'm extremely impressed by whatever comes after. I look forward to it being "complete," where I can just gather up what I want/need. I have no interest in buying the same products (PH/DMG/MM, supplements) again.
c.) Well, see b. - but as for digital-only products in general, I have a resounding maybe. I really prefer paper products in all cases, and digital-only products really just... lack the appeal. So probably not.
I think we're more likely to see WotC sell more and more D&D-themed Board Games as we get less and less D&D content (maybe even more board-game supporting online content), than we are of getting a 5th Edition. That said, I don't think they're going to cancel 4e outright, nor are they going to reduce the content so much as to make D&Di not worth it to me. They'll keep developing the online tools, since people can't pirate those (or I guess it's pretty difficult to do so). These will get better and better, and the game will improve because of it. I can't vouch for the future of Dragon and Dungeon, but I'm hopeful this is just a speedbump we're in right now. But I do think we're going to see more board-games down the line. Hasbro knows those sell better. They'll keep pushing WotC to make them, and in various incarnations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised that if 5e EVENTUALLY came, it would be a board-requisite roleplaying game, rather than a paper & pencil roleplaying game. I don't know how that would work, but…
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
a.) No. Way too soon, after essentials, there'd be revolts and they know it.
b.) No.
c.) No, but exclusive online availability has nothing to do with it.
I'm tired of buying the same content over and over again. If I never pay for the fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, human, elf, dwarf, or halfling again it will be too soon. 4e's it for me, after this one I'm done with D&D if they can't offer more the a slight mechanical reimagining of the same stuff I was playing years ago.
If I ever purchase a 5e, it will be because the game lets me play new characters doing new things in new worlds. I bought into 4e on the promise of new horizons made at the outset of the edition, and for a while it really delivered, but that spirit's been sputtering out lately in favor of returning to tropes from 20 years ago, and I have no interest in picking up a new edition that sees its genesis under the current design philosophies.
The end effect, I think, will be the same, because Hasbro is fairly likley to liscence (not sell) the franchise to another entitiy who, wanting to make some cash from it, would release their own edition, 5e.
Since 2006, WotC yoinked back all the liscences for Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Dragon and Dungeon Magazine, and IP they let 3pp do for them. That trend has not reversed.
So it's highly unlikely, especially given WotC still has the most resources to make and market the products.
I think we're more likely to see WotC sell more and more D&D-themed Board Games as we get less and less D&D content (maybe even more board-game supporting online content), than we are of getting a 5th Edition. That said, I don't think they're going to cancel 4e outright, nor are they going to reduce the content so much as to make D&Di not worth it to me. They'll keep developing the online tools, since people can't pirate those (or I guess it's pretty difficult to do so). These will get better and better, and the game will improve because of it. I can't vouch for the future of Dragon and Dungeon, but I'm hopeful this is just a speedbump we're in right now. But I do think we're going to see more board-games down the line. Hasbro knows those sell better. They'll keep pushing WotC to make them, and in various incarnations. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised that if 5e EVENTUALLY came, it would be a board-requisite roleplaying game, rather than a paper & pencil roleplaying game. I don't know how that would work, but…
The evidence is that something is up. They either a) got rid of a bunch of staff and forgot to tell anybody or b) they are busy 'testing' something else as they are super late on website articles for 3 months counting that have little to no crunch and they ramped down their book production to the point that their R&D team should be sitting around the coffee pot doing nothing...
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
Yes, that observation has been made. However, we are also in the midst (or maybe towards the end) of the most brutal recesssion in 70 years. That could also have somethng to do with it. (Though, honestly, inexpensive escapist entertainment - which RPGs unquestionably are, when you think about $$s/hr - often does well in recessions.)
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
No and no. I think the slowdown is more a matter of limited development resources and difficulty in finding direction after the mixed reaction to Essentials. I think they'll be wanting to thoroughly ruin 4e before they present 5e. (Maybe that was the mistake with 4e, that they didn't bury 3.5 under a big enough mountain of crap before releasing a tidy new ed?)
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
As easily downloadable content, like 'pdf books,' maybe. I never have before, but I might. On a subscription/paywall model, no, never.
It's been to long since I got to make this kind of post.
We shall see but I am thinking its a total ramp down of D&D or that 5th edition is going to be anounced at gencon. If the reason for the slower pace is that there is no personal to do it then they should not have let go some of the best people they have had.
I'm fairly confident 5th edition is imminent. For a number of reasons, some of which are in this thread and some aren't. This looks like WOTC's usual clampdown prior to a major announcement. I would expect the announcement a few weeks prior to Gencon.
It's really in WOTC's best interests to do it at this point.
but I would NOT buy a 5e. not anytime soon. Not unless it REALLY impressed me (and i'd have to be so impressed that it would be a nigh on sexual feeling, something I can thankfully say has never happened from an RPG system).We still have plenty of campaigns to play (currently 10th level in H3, Scales of War, 4th level Chaos Scar, a few one-shot adventures, an Eberron Campaign, possibly plans for a FR Campaign...), so the release of 5e can wait for a few years as far as I'm concerned.
I would jump aboard if I liked the 5e and it would be in hardcover books. If it was an online edition only, there'd be ZERO chance of me even giving it a shot.
The last we had a slowdown in D&D products like what we are currently experiencing was when they were ramping up for the 4E announcement just at the end of 3.5's lifespan.
a.) Do you think that they are slowing down on 4E products because 5E is on the way?
b.) If they announced a 5E product this weekend would you be excited?
c.) Would you buy a 5E product if it was only available online?
a.) Like some others on here, I think something is up. I know they've given us an "explanation"... that passing everything through R&D has drastically changed things. But there is so little content being produced right now that it leaves me wondering, "WTF?"
Combine the unnanounced change to the DDi tools dating back to November with the cancellation of books, and add in the dearth of magazine content, and what do we get?
SOMETHING is up. Of that much I'm certain.
What that "something" is, is to me, an entirely unknown matter. Is it 5e? Is it the Hasbro mandated tie-in products? Are they focusing on the next big board game of Gamma World release? I can't say with any degree of certainty. But my trust in WotC is at an all time low, and so the lack of delivered content has me worried about what comes next.
b.) It's too soon for 5e. Even though I, personally, would rush out and buy it, I don't want it now because I think it will just further fracture the already fractured fanbase.
c.) Absolutely not. Not under any circumstances. I like my books, and I want ownership of my products. I do NOT want to rent D&D from WotC. All digital is all fecal to me.
c.) Absolutely not. Not under any circumstances. I like my books, and I want ownership of my products. I do NOT want to rent D&D from WotC. All digital is all fecal to me.
I agree with this completely. I don't like digital only format. I cannot stand reading more than a few pages on a computer screen at a time. Honestly, longer Dragon and Dungeon articles tax my limits. If they went all digital, I'd probably stop buying.
To the overall question: yes, I'd take a look at 5e if it came out today. However, whether I'd actually pay for it or not is another question entirely. Even if it's good, I'm still not giving WotC any of my money on principle. If Hasbro tosses in the towel and liscences the IP to someone else I'd support it though.
If they release 5th now or announce it it will be their death. 2 1/2 years or so is not long enough for an edition. If anything people will say 'But in another 2-3 years won't my 5th ed be out of date?' 2nd ed and 3rd ed were popular because they had a long time to get going (3rd had other issues - 3rd party books and feat saturation)
Something big - yes (end to DDi?) next edition : No (or I hope not!)
"or I hope not!"
That is it. It is possible. Many game systems have printed new editions every two or three years. But We got spoiled with D&D setting a standard of 15 years or so (or whatever). But now the model might be changing. With Hasbro at the helm, they will be looking at the business model and seeing what works best.
It is not likely to seem familiar to RPGamers.
We're seeing a slowdown now because WotC has a year-long development cycle. If they start book content now it will be released in Q1 of 2012. But, they cancelled five books and a sub-game at the last minute.
That's it, that's the sole reason for the slowdown of books. There is just no way to replace that content short of churning out extremely poor filler material.
They're trying to spin this, and hype it as something designed around quality instead of quantity. That's probably part of the reasoning behind the cancellation of the book, but not the sole reason. I expect the vehement reaction against Essentials and maybe less then expected sales for that line played a part.
The benefit of this is they can really, really focus on the content they will be releasing and make it all good content. And it frees up time time to make better content for 2012. I'm really excited for a couple of the forthcoming books. But not 5e. As BlackHalfDragon says, 4e hasn't been around long enough, they've just started pushing what the edition can do. There's too many people in mid-campaign. Just look at the decision not to release a DMG on the epic tier. And the designers have not had nearly enough time to plan, playtest, and really work on a new edition. If they push for a 2012 release it will be an extremely small edition change with reactionary changes to 4e's problems and not nearly enough examination at how the game could be tweaked and pushed.
That 'complementary' software might well drive up the cost of the book, which, when you consider how margins get squeezed in publishing, wouldn't be a great thing. Other than that misgiving, though, from a customer standpoint, it's a great idea, even if each core book turned out to be 50 bucks.
I don't know about +$20, but yeah, I'm sure there'd be an increase. In my mind, that would be balanced out by the cheaper PDF-only suppliments.
There's an argument that PDF-only would cut out FLGSs, but people often confuse PDF-only with Download-Only. FLGSs could sell the PDFs in CD form, and they could even use the exclusive content model video-games like to do with retailers... so buy it from Walmart you get bonus At-Will X, buy it from Barnes and Noble and you get bonus At-Will Y, buy it from a FLGS and you get bonus At-Will Z. They could release an annual Collecter's Set, a 2 CD set containing all the PDF releases for that year in a nice box with some extras stuffed in and release it in time for Christmas.
I don't know, seems pretty viable to me.
That 'complementary' software might well drive up the cost of the book, which, when you consider how margins get squeezed in publishing, wouldn't be a great thing. Other than that misgiving, though, from a customer standpoint, it's a great idea, even if each core book turned out to be 50 bucks.
I don't know about +$20, but yeah, I'm sure there'd be an increase. In my mind, that would be balanced out by the cheaper PDF-only suppliments.
There's an argument that PDF-only would cut out FLGSs, but people often confuse PDF-only with Download-Only. FLGSs could sell the PDFs in CD form, and they could even use the exclusive content model video-games like to do with retailers... so buy it from Walmart you get bonus At-Will X, buy it from Barnes and Noble and you get bonus At-Will Y, buy it from a FLGS and you get bonus At-Will Z. They could release an annual Collecter's Set, a 2 CD set containing all the PDF releases for that year in a nice box with some extras stuffed in and release it in time for Christmas.
I don't know, seems pretty viable to me.
Gah, that sounds horrible to me!
1) I don't like reading books on a computer screen. I don't care if it's downloaded or on CD, I don't like starting at a computer screen like that for long lengths of time.
2) Promotional powers? Ugh. I actually gagged at the thought of this.
That said, as long as there were still hardbound copies, I'd be cool. And CDs on its own doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Except... there wasn't really a slowdown prior to 4e's announcement, or even after. There was a slow down four or five months after GenCon that year during the build-up to the release. There was still a book-a-month for all of 2007 and a couple in 2008.
We're seeing a slowdown now because WotC has a year-long development cycle. If they start book content now it will be released in Q1 of 2012. But, they cancelled five books and a sub-game at the last minute.
That's it, that's the sole reason for the slowdown of books. There is just no way to replace that content short of churning out extremely poor filler material.
They're trying to spin this, and hype it as something designed around quality instead of quantity. That's probably part of the reasoning behind the cancellation of the book, but not the sole reason. I expect the vehement reaction against Essentials and maybe less then expected sales for that line played a part.
The benefit of this is they can really, really focus on the content they will be releasing and make it all good content. And it frees up time time to make better content for 2012. I'm really excited for a couple of the forthcoming books. But not 5e. As BlackHalfDragon says, 4e hasn't been around long enough, they've just started pushing what the edition can do. There's too many people in mid-campaign. Just look at the decision not to release a DMG on the epic tier. And the designers have not had nearly enough time to plan, playtest, and really work on a new edition. If they push for a 2012 release it will be an extremely small edition change with reactionary changes to 4e's problems and not nearly enough examination at how the game could be tweaked and pushed.
Eh, I think you hit it... there was too big a backlash to "E" whether it was the books or the format. And now they are having to re-organize everything. I assume and truly hope its not a 5th edition that comes. I have too much invested in my 4th ed right now to be even vaguely interested in updating everything.
Still on that note, I did pick up Monster Vautl at yesterday and I have to say, I love it...
Gah, that sounds horrible to me!
1) I don't like reading books on a computer screen. I don't care if it's downloaded or on CD, I don't like starting at a computer screen like that for long lengths of time.
2) Promotional powers? Ugh. I actually gagged at the thought of this.
That said, as long as there were still hardbound copies, I'd be cool. And CDs on its own doesn't sound like a bad idea.
What I bolded? Totally agree.
And a lot of people seem to agree with me. Which is sad in a way. The fact that Paizo sells as well as WotC in RPGs is people voting with their feet. I want to be loyal to the company I played with for fifteen years, but it just doesn't look or feel anything like the game I grew up with and loved.
This is really not trolling, I promise. I'm still going to pick up whatever shadowy and fey books are coming out, because there are some good ideas coming from WotC, but there's just something missing in D&D these days. I hope they get their act together for fifth edition, whenever that may be, because I sure miss Beholders/Mindflayers/Gith/Slaad/therealForgottenRealms/Eberron.
While I am not surprised essentials has driven people to pathfinder I think its for a different reason which is stability something 4th edition does not have right now. If they us the HOS format with some stuff for essentials and some for original 4th people will just not buy it out of confusion or lack of direction. I may even give pathfinder a glance because what we are getting now is complete garbage.
I think this is a very important idea.
I actually like Essentials a lot. Sorry, it worked on me and my friends by capturing aspects we liked about 4e, and aspects we missed from 3e. I'm running an (almost) all Essentials game right now.
But I agree 100% that 4e is being hurt by apparent lack of stability. And I don't just mean the rules/gaming system. I'm talking about delayed/missed articles, cancelled books, limited content, terrible communication, etc.! These things are all working together AGAINST WotC. They're shooting themselves in the collective foot.
So frustrating!
I may even give pathfinder a glance because what we are getting now is complete garbage.
Go right ahead. Really, what's stopping you? Do you need to convert your WotC dollars to Paizo francs? Get whatever you like. It's up to the gaming companies to woo you, not for you to marry yourself to them. And hey, maybe buying some PF will help you see (through contast) how good WotC's products are.
I've been browsing through the Paizo section of my FLGS and through my old Star Wars SAGA books, and it's been a great reminder on why I play 4ed.
I may even give pathfinder a glance because what we are getting now is complete garbage.
Go right ahead. Really, what's stopping you? Do you need to convert your WotC dollars to Paizo francs? Get whatever you like. It's up to the gaming companies to woo you, not for you to marry yourself to them. And hey, maybe buying some PF will help you see (through contast) how good WotC's products are.
I've been browsing through the Paizo section of my FLGS and through my old Star Wars SAGA books, and it's been a great reminder on why I play 4ed.
I'm sorry, was that a dis on SAGA? ;P
B- No. At GenCon, I'd laugh.
C- I think the VT is going to revolutionize D&D. As long as there is printed evergreen and the rest is mostly online- that's a future I'd be happy with.
While I am not surprised essentials has driven people to pathfinder I think its for a different reason which is stability something 4th edition does not have right now. If they us the HOS format with some stuff for essentials and some for original 4th people will just not buy it out of confusion or lack of direction. I may even give pathfinder a glance because what we are getting now is complete garbage.
I think this is a very important idea.
I actually like Essentials a lot. Sorry, it worked on me and my friends by capturing aspects we liked about 4e, and aspects we missed from 3e. I'm running an (almost) all Essentials game right now.
But I agree 100% that 4e is being hurt by apparent lack of stability. And I don't just mean the rules/gaming system. I'm talking about delayed/missed articles, cancelled books, limited content, terrible communication, etc.! These things are all working together AGAINST WotC. They're shooting themselves in the collective foot.
So frustrating!
And I think that nails it. I like "E" too. But its the perception of a "lack of stability" in the production of the system that's causing the issues.
While I am not surprised essentials has driven people to pathfinder I think its for a different reason which is stability something 4th edition does not have right now. If they us the HOS format with some stuff for essentials and some for original 4th people will just not buy it out of confusion or lack of direction. I may even give pathfinder a glance because what we are getting now is complete garbage.
I think this is a very important idea.
I actually like Essentials a lot. Sorry, it worked on me and my friends by capturing aspects we liked about 4e, and aspects we missed from 3e. I'm running an (almost) all Essentials game right now.
But I agree 100% that 4e is being hurt by apparent lack of stability. And I don't just mean the rules/gaming system. I'm talking about delayed/missed articles, cancelled books, limited content, terrible communication, etc.! These things are all working together AGAINST WotC. They're shooting themselves in the collective foot.
So frustrating!
And I think that nails it. I like "E" too. But its the perception of a "lack of stability" in the production of the system that's causing the issues.
Disagree.
4e has been troubled since Day 1. WOTC gambled, it divided their customer base and very strongly polarized it. Essentials is just a symptom, as WOTC is sorting out their plan for the future.
Man, what? Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
Wow, right on the money.
Man, what? Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
Wow, right on the money.
Wow. Totally different interpretation than my mine.
But that is life, is it not.
I think that they wanted to corner the D&D market. No GSL. I think that they could have done it without a new (in name only) edition of D&D.
Man, what? Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
Quoted for truth.
Last year, I bought several Pathfinder products (Core Rules, Advanced Players Guide), and thoroughly enjoyed my purchase.
I also purchased several 4th Edition Products (Darksun, PH3, AV1, & MP2) and several Essentials products (HoFL, HoFK, RC, MV) and guess what - I enjoyed those purchases also.
My game group is currently playing four different campaigns (of which I play in 3):
- Friday Night: D&D 3.5
- Saturday (12-6pm): D&D 4E
- Saturday (8-2am): D&D 3.5
- Sunday: Palladium Rifts (might soon be replaced with AD&D 2E)
In comparison, I played in numerous different campaigns last year including Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, Rifts, BESM, BESM d20, Warhammer Fantasy, World of Darkness (Both), Anima Beyond Fantasy, Mutants & Masterminds, & D20 Modern (with most campaigns lasting 2-3 months).
Man, what? Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
Quoted for truth.
Truth? Hum...
Man, what? Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
I disagree.
The intent wasn't to solve problems, the intent was to woo new players. WOTC often likes to pretend they are doing things as a response to complaints, when their real intent is to aquire new players through drastic alterations. They've done this several times with Magic the Gathering, usually citing focus groups of some sort. WOTC's not going to flat out say "We're doing this because we think it'll get us more customers, regardless of what existing ones think".
I'm not looking to touch off an edition war here, but the responses to 4e pretty clearly showed that the changes weren't for some universally recognized problem, like 2e's Kensai class was. As far as the adventures go, TBH, that's more an issue of quality than anything else. Good product lines get used, bad ones don't. WOTC really needs to reflect a bit on whether or not their approach to Adventures is faulty, I contend that a sourcebook with a full campaign would be a great deal more effective than 1 module every month or so.
Anyways, this has actually been pretty standard WOTC: Make massive changes in order to aquire new players, fail to meet some goal, quietly start rescinding some of the changes in a new edition, release new product line.
To be specific: WOTC created Portal for Magic the Gathering as an introductory set, and it didn't sell. So WOTC decided the next best thing was to change the Base Set into Portal starting with 6th edition, and the succeeding base sets showed even lower sales as a result. Then around tenth edition they quietly started restoring some of the complexity to the Base Set, and M11(11th edition) essentially returned to the original level of power.
It's very likely IMO that Essentials is following this pattern, with a reworking of some of the rules. The use of the most recognizable packaging in D&D's history is highly indicative of them trying to advertise to lapsed players that this is a product different from 4e and they should try it. I fully expect it as the precurser to 5e which will likely be a combination of 3.x and 4e.
WOTC's biggest failing is that they decide on aquiring new players, and take changes too far for some number of existing players without consideration. WOTC seems to love drastic reworking instead of incremental changes and testing. What I mean is, rather than release some of 4e's changes as supplemental product and test adoption rate, they just drop it all on people and then try to decide if it worked. It's gotten them in trouble more than once.
The intent wasn't to solve problems, the intent was to woo new players. WOTC often likes to pretend they are doing things as a response to complaints, when their real intent is to aquire new players through drastic alterations.
Is this reasoning based on the "Corporations-are-evil-and-always-lie" proof?
They've done this several times with Magic the Gathering, usually citing focus groups of some sort.
M:TG is a very different beast than any RPG. It has edition change EVERY YEAR, and the change (say, replacing Alara block with Scars of Mirrodin block) represents more of a campaign change than an edition change, if I could use a RPG metaphor.
WOTC's not going to flat out say "We're doing this because we think it'll get us more customers, regardless of what existing ones think".
But they're thinking it! Those rotten jerks...
I'm not looking to touch off an edition war here, but the responses to 4e pretty clearly showed that the changes weren't for some universally recognized problem, like 2e's Kensai class was.
Go to the right parts of the Internet, and I can find someone who could disagree with anything. I agree that not everyone recognized the problems with 3ed, but a lot of people had internalized those problems into features-not-flaws.
As far as the adventures go, TBH, that's more an issue of quality than anything else. Good product lines get used, bad ones don't. WOTC really needs to reflect a bit on whether or not their approach to Adventures is faulty, I contend that a sourcebook with a full campaign would be a great deal more effective than 1 module every month or so.
Again, YMMV. Some of the most "classic" adventures can be burned into cinders by the right people with actual beefs. For me, an adventure should be a soup stock that you season, not a spicy jambalya that you have to pick undesired additions out of.
For what it's worth, Mike Mearls has "bad-mouthed"* WotC's delve format and Dungeon Magazine apparently has a non-Delve format adventure in it.
Anyways, this has actually been pretty standard WOTC: Make massive changes in order to aquire new players, fail to meet some goal, quietly start rescinding some of the changes in a new edition, release new product line.
You mean, they learn from their mistakes? Those MONSTERS!
To be specific: WOTC created Portal for Magic the Gathering as an introductory set, and it didn't sell. So WOTC decided the next best thing was to change the Base Set into Portal starting with 6th edition, and the succeeding base sets showed even lower sales as a result. Then around tenth edition they quietly started restoring some of the complexity to the Base Set, and M11(11th edition) essentially returned to the original level of power.
But, and this is the important part, the new core sets are still aimed at new players. Some cards are more complex, but many of the complex cards are very flavourful and are obviously good to new players ( Grave Titan ). Through lots of trial and error, WotC has realized that new players don't want to have their hands held and be given useless cards that they'll throw away if they get serious. Hopefully, the same lesson will be learnt for the Red Box Starter Set.
It's very likely IMO that Essentials is following this pattern, with a reworking of some of the rules. The use of the most recognizable packaging in D&D's history is highly indicative of them trying to advertise to lapsed players that this is a product different from 4e and they should try it. I fully expect it as the precurser to 5e which will likely be a combination of 3.x and 4e.
And I fully agree. It's not going to be similar to 3ed, but it will probably work harder to get the flavour of past editions and the balance of present editions. I think Essentials is the first of many attempts to bridge the gap.
WOTC's biggest failing is that they decide on aquiring new players, and take changes too far for some number of existing players without consideration. WOTC seems to love drastic reworking instead of incremental changes and testing. What I mean is, rather than release some of 4e's changes as supplemental product and test adoption rate, they just drop it all on people and then try to decide if it worked. It's gotten them in trouble more than once.
Tome of Battle? Player's Handbook 2? Tome of Magic? Complete Mage? The Eberron Campaign Setting? Magic of Incarnum?
The last 5 years of WotC's 3ed was littered with testcases for a new edition, many of which have become popular fixes for 3ed. If you haven't noticed them, well, you probably got sideswiped like the people who stuck their noses in their Forgotten Realms book and didn't see the changes coming.
* And by bad-mouthed, I mean have pointed out faults with. I shake my head when people get angry when WotC "bad-mouthed" 3ed in the lead-up for 4ed, and say "THEY'RE BADMOUTHING THEIR OWN PRODUCT!"
Anyways, this has actually been pretty standard WOTC: Make massive changes in order to aquire new players, fail to meet some goal, quietly start rescinding some of the changes in a new edition, release new product line.
To be specific: WOTC created Portal for Magic the Gathering as an introductory set, and it didn't sell. So WOTC decided the next best thing was to change the Base Set into Portal starting with 6th edition, and the succeeding base sets showed even lower sales as a result. Then around tenth edition they quietly started restoring some of the complexity to the Base Set, and M11(11th edition) essentially returned to the original level of power.
That's an interesting insight. For those of us who are long-time D&Ders, not into magic, it's easy to forget that the game we've been with so long, is not being made by the same people, or same company, or perhaps even to the same ends, as when we first became acquainted with it.
We talk about the number of years between editions, for instance, as if the publishing decisions of TSR when it was small and struggling, had any bearing on what a unit of Hasbro would do today.
And, we have to remember, that, in it's heart and soul (whatever of it hasn't been sucked out by Hasbro), WotC is a CCG company, not an RPG company. That creates a barrier to understnding between them and their D&D fans.
Man, what? Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
If that was true, people wouldn't have been mad and left DnD for Pathfinder.
I disagree. The changes they made for 4e listened to the fraction of the fan base that was complaining about some quirks of D&D. The "sacred cows" as they became called. WotC listened to that outspoken portion of the fan base. However, the fans they listened to weren't the only fans in existence. It's the ones that left that liked their sacred cows. If you're claiming that WotC wasn't listening to fans, you obviously didn't visit the Psionics forum (and the general preference for something more balanced than Vancian spellcasting) or any of the threads that celebrated Book of Nine Swords as a chance for martial classes to not be utterly powerless past low levels. WotC did listen to a vocal portion of the fan base. However, another portion of the fan base hated those things, and it's probably them who turned to Pathfinder. The problem isn't ignoring the players. The problem is that when WotC listened to complaints about the system, they split the fan base. Some people hated the sacred cows, and others loved them. Now that we've been given the option, of course we're all going to choose the one we prefer. If WotC had any flaw here, it's that they didn't account for the fact that some people would want to keep their sacred cows. But you can't just reintroduce them to 4e. Now that the fan base is split, I don't see a practical way for one edition to satisfy both.
My group and I never had the "problems" so many people apparently whinned about, so when they changed those "problems" it really was a let down.
But when I talk about bad marketing, I am talking about comments like : Bullets to the Brain of Guardinals". I liked Guardinals. So did my players. I understand not everyone did and that alignments changed, but saying that Guardinals were just complicated and needed a bullet to the brain, I felt insulted and taken for granted.
If they would have said Guardinals had to be left aside because of the new design perogatives and they might make a comeback, I might have accepted this decision better and not felt taken for granted. Better marketing in other words.
Ok, I'm utterly in the dark about your Guardinal rant. Take me up to speed?
Everything in my experience (both from playing both 3ed and 4ed, and from reading the intent of 4ed from WotC) is that they listened to people who had problems with the system. They made the game better for people who wanted to play Martial and better for DMs who want to run balanced campaigns with less prep time. At worse, it made Wizard PCs equal to other classes and made adventures designed to be adventures, and not DM porn that is read but not used.
If that was true, people wouldn't have been mad and left DnD for Pathfinder.
On the contrary, that's exactly why people left for Pathfinder. Because 4e wasn't easily twisted into a "wierd wizard show" where casters dominated and CoDzilla tromped through the campaign breathing radioactive fire, but instead presented a balanced systems where a wide variety of heroic archetype could be viable player characters.
The problem is that when WotC listened to complaints about the system, they split the fan base. Some people hated the sacred cows, and others loved them. Now that we've been given the option, of course we're all going to choose the one we prefer. If WotC had any flaw here, it's that they didn't account for the fact that some people would want to keep their sacred cows. But you can't just reintroduce them to 4e. Now that the fan base is split, I don't see a practical way for one edition to satisfy both.
There really isn't. There had been an under-served portion of the fanbase that wanted a balanced/playable/modern version of D&D for decades. When they finally got want they wanted, the other extreme - those who liked imbalanced 'rewards for system mastery,' complexes of 'simulationist' sub-systems, and the old-school feel of D&D when it was a brand-new game - who had been catered too for those same decades, just couldn't deal, threw a hissy fit, and Piazo was bright enough to cater to them.
Still, it might be possible to bring back at least some of them. Those fans who were so pleased with 4e were accustomed to playing a D&D that fell far short of their aspirations for over 30 years - they've only had two years to get spoiled on the good stuff. It could well be that they're less likely to pitch a fit over things being put back the way they were. The genie could concievably be forced back into the bottle.
But when I talk about bad marketing, I am talking about comments like : Bullets to the Brain of Guardinals". I liked Guardinals. So did my players.
Ok, I'm utterly in the dark about your Guardinal rant. Take me up to speed?
When 4e bowdlerized the alignment system, they eliminated a number of alignments, and, to some extent, the specific outer planes associated with them. That eliminated the 'need' for a lot of inhabitants for those planes. The Gaurdinals (portmantaue of guardian + animal, NG celestial beings native to Elysium) were among them.
There had been an under-served portion of the fanbase that wanted a balanced/playable/modern version of D&D for decades.
This.
People who like 3ed have thousands of books designed for them under 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. Judging from the flames on the boards before 4ed was launched, people like myself weren't allowed to have one edition of D&D designed for us, because it would interfere with 3ed fans getting Fiendish Codex III: Hags and Yugoloths.
On the contrary, that's exactly why people left for Pathfinder. Because 4e wasn't easily twisted into a "wierd wizard show" where casters dominated and CoDzilla tromped through the campaign breathing radioactive fire, but instead presented a balanced systems where a wide variety of heroic archetype could be viable player characters.
Most folks I know that aren't too keen on 4E wanted a balanced system with more streamlined rules than 3.X. However, they did not want to throw out the sacred cows in the process of so doing.
I don't personally know anybody upset that 4E did not make casters dominate. Rather, they are upset because 4E changed the fundamental paradigms of game play.
Most folks I know that aren't too keen on 4E wanted a balanced system with more streamlined rules than 3.X. However, they did not want to throw out the sacred cows in the process of so doing.
Can't blame folks for wantin' the impossible. Reminds me of the Jack in the Box commerical. "We did some market research and it turns out our customers want great-tasting food - for free."
I don't personally know anybody upset that 4E did not make casters dominate. Rather, they are upset because 4E changed the fundamental paradigms of game play.
Yeah, I don't know anyone who admits to it, either. Never mind that 'casters dominating' /was/ a fundamental paradigm of 3.x game play.
Most folks I know that aren't too keen on 4E wanted a balanced system with more streamlined rules than 3.X. However, they did not want to throw out the sacred cows in the process of so doing.
Can't blame folks for wantin' the impossible. Reminds me of the Jack in the Box commerical. "We did some market research and it turns out our customers want great-tasting food - for free."
It is not impossible.
Yeah, I don't know anyone who admits to it, either. Never mind that 'casters dominating' /was/ a fundamental paradigm of 3.x game play.
Casters dominating at the higher levels was one aspect of pre 4E systems. However, the game has always consisted of more than a comparison of the relative utility between different classes. If the only aspect of the game that you have noticed over the pase 35 or so years of D&D's history is whether melee types can keep up with caster types, ummmm, I don't know what to say. Here's a handful of changes 4E wrought:
De-emphasis of exploration
De-emphasis of narrative combat
De-emphasis of resource management
De-emphasis of simulationism
Increase in gamism
Cosmology changes
Changes in the nature of various monsters
Reduction of fairy-tale creatures
Reduction of creatures of the sea
Laser focus on creatures as things you fight - only the Couatl is good
Emphasis on non-Tolkeinish PC races
Gutting of in-depth campaign settings - including blowing up the Realms
Fundamental re-work of magical items
The main 3 books do not feel as complete
Focus upon everything being core
Shift from considering classes as archetypes to classes as combat styles
Fewer skills, all of which are adventury
And a whole bunch of other things I cannot brainstorm right now
The majority of my friends that dislike 4E do so because of the cumulative effect of these changes. Personally, I agree with a lot of the changes. There are changes with which I disagree. I am very much on the fence as to which edition of the game I prefer between 1E, 2E, 3.5, or 4E. Each has its charms and its drawbacks.
However, as to the aspects of prior editions that I prefer over 4E, it absolutely has nothing whatsoever to do with making casters more powerful than non-casters. I've only played 2 arcane primary casters ever, one in 2E and a 3E sorcerer that I quit playing at 3rd level. I've never played a cleric. I've only played one druid which was killed at 2nd level by an ogre. I've played lots and lots of fighters and rogues.
Now, are there some individuals that are upset at 4E because it placed them on par with the other classes - of course there are. I'm sure there are plenty of folks that want their CoDzilla, or their wizard summoning efreet to wish up magical items, and whatnot. However, stateing that as the ONLY reason people don't like 4E is daft. There are a lot of reasons to like or dislike 4E that are completely unrelated to the relative power of casters and non-casters.
- Only de-emphasied if you make it. Exploration is huge in my 4e.
De-emphasis of narrative combat
- Same here. Combat actually has even more potential for narrative style, because it's now very visible where everything is in relation to one another. You just have to be creative.
De-emphasis of resource management
- See Dark Sun.
De-emphasis of simulationism
- I'll give you this one. That said, I'd call it a good thing – simulation can get in the way of fun. This is a fantasy roleplaying game, and Rule of Fun should be dominant, since the maximum profit for the players is how much fun they get. I understand, however, some people have more fun with more simulation of real issues. For most people, the simulation bogged down and got in the way of fun, though.
Increase in gamism
- Making a game more fun to the tactical mind does not make it any less a roleplaying game. It's just now good for both styles of play.
Cosmology changes
- I'll give you this one too. But the Great Wheel was riddled with problems (like unusable planes, and uninspired creatures and planes created for the sake of fitting the Wheel of alignments and every shade between them), while the World Axis reflects many real-world mythologies, and intuitively reorganises the planes to allow them space as both playable locations and as part of a world creation story and history, so I'd say it's a good change.
Changes in the nature of various monsters
- Again, many of these were positive changes. Succubi always acted more like Devils than Demons. They didn't make sense as Demons, and were only kept as Demons because they had been since 1E. Gnomes were transformed into Puck-like tricksters, which fit more into a mythological/fairy-tale-esque role than the "we're kinda like elves, and kinda like dwarves and kinda like halflings" role. They needed their own space.
Reduction of fairy-tale creatures
- I would direct you to check out creatures with the Fey subtype. The Feywild is a gold-mine for Fairy-Tales. And the edition is still young, and has yet to cover many creatures it still can.
Reduction of creatures of the sea
- Again, the edition is young, and ocean combat is more problematic than land combat, as well as rarer. It's happening, and increasing with each Monster Manual or similar product. Give them time.
Laser focus on creatures as things you fight - only the Couatl is good
- This is a good thing. Creatures you don't fight don't need stats. They can be described narratively by the DM.
Emphasis on non-Tolkeinish PC races
- Tolkienesque races got the most focus in Player's Essentials, so I don't know what you're talking about. Oh, including non-Tolkienesque PC races as core races? That's a good thing in my book. More playstyles available = more people happy.
Gutting of in-depth campaign settings - including blowing up the Realms
- I'll give you this one. A lot of people complained about the way the Spellplague affected the Realms. But it also allowed them to reinvent the setting and move it forward, rather than quagmiring in a world where PCs basically are slaves to Epic Level FORMER PCS MADE BY DEVELOPERS, WRITERS, AND EARLY FAMOUS GAMERS until they get to Epic Level themselves. Seriously, the Realms needed a facelift to remove a lot of the big-wigs from the chessboard and make room so that the PCs can be the stars of the action. It's just unfortunate the way they did this, and WotC learned their lesson and did a reboot with both Dark Sun and Eberron instead.
Fundamental re-work of magical items
- Magic Items are fantastic in 4e, just like Powers are. I don't know what you're talking about. This is a good thing.
The main 3 books do not feel as complete
- The main 3 books didn't feel complete back then because they decided to including things that weren't in previous editions, and to save other things for later. If you get the DM's Kit, the two Player's Essentials books, the Rules Compendium, and the Monster Vault, you might feel like it's significantly more complete in terms of what's offered (even if you're still missing Gnomes).
Focus upon everything being core
- Why is this a bad thing again?
Shift from considering classes as archetypes to classes as combat styles
- And now they're archetypes again, with various different subclasses beneath them. But Combat Styles? 4e Classes have always been much more than that.
Fewer skills, all of which are adventury
- Again, simulation is not always the best way to have fun. And fewer skills means you're better at what you do. I still feel like my characters can't be trained in enough of the skills they should be, and end up taking Multiclass feats and other feats that provide skill training to fill the gaps. This is another good thing in my book. And Adventury skills? This is your answer to the "lack of focus on exploration." Many of these skills are very useful in exploration. You just need to use them.
You know something I find incredibly hard to understand...... Why so many gamers seem to believe they can only play 4th Edition OR Pathfinder (or 3.X/2E/etc), or that they would be somehow be disloyal were they to [gasp] buy products from both Wizards and Paizo.
Last year, I bought several Pathfinder products (Core Rules, Advanced Players Guide), and thoroughly enjoyed my purchase.
I also purchased several 4th Edition Products (Darksun, PH3, AV1, & MP2) and several Essentials products (HoFL, HoFK, RC, MV) and guess what - I enjoyed those purchases also.
My game group is currently playing four different campaigns (of which I play in 3):
- Friday Night: D&D 3.5
- Saturday (12-6pm): D&D 4E
- Saturday (8-2am): D&D 3.5
- Sunday: Palladium Rifts (might soon be replaced with AD&D 2E)
In comparison, I played in numerous different campaigns last year including Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, Rifts, BESM, BESM d20, Warhammer Fantasy, World of Darkness (Both), Anima Beyond Fantasy, Mutants & Masterminds, & D20 Modern (with most campaigns lasting 2-3 months).
I'm not sure why people think they can't play both, but I will say not everyone has this kind of time to play RPG's. Some groups can only play one game so they are forced to choose.
That said, I keep buying 4e products even though I'm not playing it every week right now, because that's what I primarily play, and the system I have the most comfort with.
- Sunday: Palladium Rifts.
Casters dominating at the higher levels was one aspect of pre 4E systems. However, the game has always consisted of more than a comparison of the relative utility between different classes. If the only aspect of the game that you have noticed over the pase 35 or so years of D&D's history is whether melee types can keep up with caster types, ummmm, I don't know what to say.
It was what seemed to be at the bottom of 4e hater complaints. Just put together the "XOMG! The Fighter is a caster, now, it has dailies! Agh! my verisimilitude!" with the "The Wizard is terrible, it's been nerfed to worthlessness?" and it was kinda hard to miss. The vague 'oh I don't like the feel...' and disengenuous "I just wanna hit da orc wit ma axe" complaints, maybe a bit less obvious, but still consistent with it.
Besides, it was a /major/ sticking point with 3.x, the 'Fighter SUX' topics went into hundreds of pages. If you weren't delighted to see that problem finally solved, you were probably delighted to have it in the first place.
It also had a lot of symptoms...
De-emphasis of exploration
You mean, like the way a 3e caster would 'explore' by scrying, then teleport you in?
De-emphasis of resource management
Yes, casters have fewer dailies.
De-emphasis of narrative combat
OK, this is just backward. 4e is highly narrative. Maybe you mean 'simulationism?'
De-emphasis of simulationism
True, the game no longer simulates casters with unfettered power and non-casters tied down by un-heroic realism.
Increase in gamism
Yes, spells aren't long mixes of flavor text, description and mechanics that can be mined for abusive interpretations.
Cosmology changes
Extensive, but in a way also trivial.
Changes in the nature of various monsters
Like Demons being 'Elementals?' Meh.
Reduction of fairy-tale creatures
You miss the Leucrota or Peryton?
Reduction of creatures of the sea
Well, you don't ge water breathing as a 3rd level spell anymore...
Laser focus on creatures as things you fight
Yep, why have combat stats for creatures you won't fight? So a caster can polymorph into them, or summon them, perhaps?
Emphasis on non-Tolkeinish PC races
It's about time.
Gutting of in-depth campaign settings - including blowing up the Realms
I've always prefered coming up with my own settings, so I didn't notice that. Were some settings perhaps re-jiggered to make them a bit less high-magic?
Fundamental re-work of magical items
Yep, no more making items at half price, or stocking up on cheap wands and scrolls.
The main 3 books do not feel as complete
You can build a complete character of any level with just the PH. That's more complete than 3e.
Focus upon everything being core
Lame marketing ploy, agreed.
Shift from considering classes as archetypes to classes as combat styles
3e didn't consider classes as archetypes, they were much more like building blocks. If classes are combat styles, why are there both Tempest Fighters and TWF Rangers, both WIS Clerics & Invokers, both Wizards & Warlocks? Because they're based on archetypes. OK, the archer-ranger is based on an archetype, the TWF ranger is very much based on the 2e & 3e rangers.
Or do you mean because the classes all used the same underlying structure? Because that, too, gets back to the casters not dominating.
Fewer skills, all of which are adventury
But all of which matter, because casters can't trivially accomplish the same thing. With a low level spell. That they have in a wand with 50 charges.
Reduction of fairy-tale creatures
You miss the Leucrota or Peryton?
Actually, yes I do.
Gutting of in-depth campaign settings - including blowing up the Realms
I've always prefered coming up with my own settings, so I didn't notice that. Were some settings perhaps re-jiggered to make them a bit less high-magic?
I can only speak to Eberron, since that's the only one I've read both the 3.5 and 4e campaign settings for. I definitely liked the style of the 3.5 setting books for - it just feels like there was something missing in the 4e version. And no, I don't mean magic - I don't think 4e Eberron plays differently from 3.5. I just think that the 3.5 setting guide did a better job at describing the setting. If I had read the 4e books without the 3.5 ones, it wouldn't have caught my attention so much.
Don't get me wrong - I like 4e. Those are the only points I disagree on.
People are jealous. I want my character to do the same then his character. /cry
Grow up. You do not like the fighter, don't play one.
People are jealous. I want my character to do the same then his character. /cry
Grow up. You do not like the fighter, don't play one.
And that is the secondary benefit of 4ed's equalization of fighters and wizards: not having to play with people who think that game balance = jealousy and immaturity.
I played in a few 3.5E games without wizards, clerics or druids. In that case everything is pretty much balanced. If you throw even one magical class in there you throw the balance off, they are either too easy to kill at low levels or dominate everything at high levels. 4E fixed that.
If you want an NPC to be able to fight, stat it out in a monster block. Takes much less time and effort than making a 3.5E NPC even doing the 4E NPC and monster block combined. If you don't like the new cosmology use the old one. The only thing you are doing is changing a few sub-types and keywords. Fluff is fluff and roleplaying is roleplaying neighter are affected by either edition. Now storytelling is affected slightly by 4E, but generally its always been in the purview of the DM as the world master anyway...
are you saying you think the 3e/3.5e Fighter was fine as is Underwear_Surgeon? Because I'm sorry, but that is objectively wrong.
It wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be. It had more tactical and customization options than any prior version of the fighter did. I was just that, by the time you'd accumulated enough feats to fully realize a cool fighter concept, the casters might already be starting to take over the campaign. The casters were the 'badly designed' classes.
In 4e, fighters, other martial classes, and casters were much better balanced, which was nice. Brief, but nice.
Well they could have turned the entire game into wizards 3.5E style. You know where martial classes get 'attacks' they memorize at the beginning of the day and then have a certain number of each to use, but I don't think that would have went over as well.
They actually did something like that in 3.5 with Tome of Battle. For the most part it went over well, but with the strife from an edition change people would have yelled from the rooftops "D&D is Ruined FOREVER!"
It has everything to do with it. If a DM can't say no to certain combos or if a player has to use certain combos to be the msot powerful, you are dealing with maturity problems.
People who cry that that CODzilla was too powerful, did they ever wonder why the DM and other players didn't say: No CODzilla at the table or what that player made a CODzilla in the first place.
First off, the line of thought that it isn't a problem because the DM can fix it (say no) is flawed. If it was not a problem then the DM would not need to fix (say no) it in the first place. That contradiction makes that type of statement outside the bounds of reason.
Second, the most powerful combo is Pun-Pun, which can be of any class so that isn't what people are complaining about.
What I feel that needs addressed in this argument is the shear number of ways that magic can dead end plots and the myriad of ways that the DM must invoke Rule 0 to fix all that as well as the power difference between classes. This requires looking over the necessary implications of spells and combinations. Then looking over not only the adjustments to the rules that are required to stop fix them, but the further implications of the fixes.
It could be as simple as those with complaints know the system well enough that implications of many spells and there practical uses by NPCs (or PCs)requires them to make the NPCs (or PCs again) not do things that they they have every reason to do and thus interfere with the roleplaying for PCs or require the NPCs to constantly hold the idiot ball to prevent the whole campaign from going to the Nine Hells of Hades in a hand basket.
For those that do not possess this level of system mastery it might not seem a problem because they have not stumbled onto the cracks. Of course the level of abstraction or non-sequitor acts that those without the problem are willing to put up with can be higher as well.
If people can't manage their games, it should ruin the fun of those who can.
No if the DM fixes it then it is fine, but if WotC fixes it then your fun is ruined?
Doesn't that mean that your fun is based off the things that others do not like in the system?
Couldn't you also flip your own statement around and have the DM fix this ruining of fun for you?
Wouldn't that then mean that you want to ruin others fun because you refuse to fix the problem yourself, like to are accusing those that you are arguing against of doing?
All classes had small bugs.
Even CoDzilla.
The question is who would spend more money. The DnD whinners who made 4e possible or the DnD purists who left for PF?
Well, since 4e came out, Pathfinder only just tied D&D in one quarter (it was a big deal, I'm sure you all heard about it - it was the quarter Essentials came out), out of what, 10 or 11? (going on three years). Pathfinder wasn't even always coming in 2nd.
A perfect system doesn't exist, expecially in a system where liberty, options and customization actually exist. The DM becomes important and so does player restraint.
Tell me, do you make homebrew rulings in your 4e game when some errata hasn't came out about some flawed power/feat?
It's not broke because you can fix it is a different statement than if it is broke then fix it. The first is a self contradiction and therefor disproves itself. Requiring fixing mean that it must be broke in the first place. It's like saying that my car isn't broke down because the mechanic can fix it.
Second, the most powerful combo is Pun-Pun, which can be of any class so that isn't what people are complaining about.
No, but someone was crying about CODzilla a few post above in this thread. But Pun-Pun or CODzilla, it is the same battle. The DM and players have to say no if they do not like it.
Fixing the problem means that there was a problem to begin with.
Never had those problems. People were happy to play their classes (they did choose them) and they were happy that other people were happy about their class. Not everyone wants to be super pwoerful and not everyone will be jealous of someone who is more powerful.
How about someone that thought the fighter or monk looked cool and choose those classes and then where not at an effective level? For both these classes without system mastery you can easily be so far below par that you become useless. So it doesn't even need to be an attempt to become super powerful or jealous of other characters as just trying to make a character you like and being useless.
It could be as simple as those with complaints know the system well enough that implications of many spells and there practical uses by NPCs (or PCs)requires them to make the NPCs (or PCs again) not do things that they they have every reason to do and thus interfere with the roleplaying for PCs or require the NPCs to constantly hold the idiot ball to prevent the whole campaign from going to the Nine Hells of Hades in a hand basket.
That can be done in any edition. Why doesn't the BBEG in campaign just attack the level 21 players when he is level 30? It would be the smart thing to do. No? Suspending disbelief is need in a DnD game. And you are exagerating the problem.
Suspension of disbelief is not the same as the game requiring both the PCs and NPCs to gimp themselves. See my quoted comment below for why I think that requiring too much of this is bad.
For those that do not possess this level of system mastery it might not seem a problem because they have not stumbled onto the cracks. Of course the level of abstraction or non-sequitor acts that those without the problem are willing to put up with can be higher as well.
Nah. This is just people not being ****. It is super easy for any DM to kill is PC, no matter what the edition is.
Like it is easy for players to ruin a game. They do not even need to be make CODzillas, the yjust need to be **** at the table. Their is no rule for that, no matter what the edition is.
Not even close. I was explaining why people might not like your contention that they show just ignore the problems and pretend they do not exist. Not everyone enjoys the game in the same manner and those that do not enjoy it your way are not necessarily
es.If people can't manage their games, it should ruin the fun of those who can.No if the DM fixes it then it is fine, but if WotC fixes it then your fun is ruined?
Aligments and aligments mechanics didn't need fixing.
The only alignment mechanics that I feel needed fixing is the alignment restrictions on some classes like monks. Considering that make several of the trope codifiers for the monk unplayable by the RAW is was flawed.
Vancian spell casting was fine.
??? 4th still has it. I agree that the spell system isn't really the flaw. It was the spells themselves that have flaws.
People loved To9S, didn't that solve your problems with the fighter?
My problem? No it really didn't fix the fighter, but it did allow people that wanted to play melee classes that didn't require system mastery to be an the average level. I'm fine with that, but I never really cared about the fighter that much.
If the fighter was so boring, why did they make Essential martial classes look like it?
Because in the Great Edition Wars® people complained out the fighter "casting spells" A.K.A. using powers that where not spells and we had complains by people that just wanted to hit things with there swords.
Doesn't that mean that your fun is based off the things that others do not like in the system?
You mean me and all those people who jumped on the Pathfinder wagon? But it could also mean that we just didn't encounter the problems others have.
The bolded part is a point that I've been trying to get across.
Couldn't you also flip your own statement around and have the DM fix this ruining of fun for you?
No. Cause I do not liek the classes of 4e. I like how combat was remade, I like most of the philosophy behind monster design, I do like some of the reformated cosmology, but I do not like the classes of 4e. The DM doesn't have to redo entire classes when we have a perfectly valid system to play with.
So in other words you are not willing to fix what you thing is wrong with 4E, but claim that others should fix what they find wrong in 3E. So the answer is actually yes by your own argument.
Also, they stop adding flavor to DnD. I bought books also for flavor. Sure I can make some, but I also liked what they produced.
This is wrong. They have not made as much and clearly not as much as you like, but they still add flavor.
Wouldn't that then mean that you want to ruin others fun because you refuse to fix the problem yourself, like to are accusing those that you are arguing against of doing?
Not really. Saying no to a combo or a spell is really easy, as opposed to redesigning classes.
But you can actually do that so the answer is actually yes. Saying that it would be too much trouble for you to be willing to do so it not the same as saying that you are not refusing to to so. It just means that you have a reason to refuse.
And of course it is possible that people refuse to fix 3E for similar reasons that you are giving here. It is just too much work for them to hammer everything that they find wrong with the system into a shape they like with Rule 0.
And WotC can ruin people's fun all by it's own. As Essential classes argumetn are showing. The question is who would spend more money. The DnD whinners who made 4e possible or the DnD purists who left for PF? With Essentials and the black out, I will put my money on purists.
Using insulting names doesn't strength your argument or weaken the opposition. It can however overshadow any points that you make, so I suggest that you stop it.
As for essentials classes they are the result of the complaints, like those made by people that left 4E for Pathfinder.
All classes had small bugs. But yes, it was fine. We didn't have any problems with it in my group. It seems I wasn't alone. All the people who left DnD for Pathfinder either also didn't have any problems or it wasn't such a big problem to them. No?
Not as many left for Pathfinder as you may think. And Pathfinder claims to have rebalanced things, including the Fighter, anyways.
I think you're being willfully ignorant here.
2) I did not insult you. If you took it as an insult, that's on you, not me. And it most certainly is not a sign of success. Claiming it is is a fallacy.
-- Why is the Half Orc a PC race?
-- Wizard and Sorcerer are basically the same class with different mechanics.
Let me delve into that one for a sec. The Wizard kept the Vancian Casting mechanics (Fire and Forget) while the Sorcerer could cast any spell she knew. The difference was that the Wizard could keep a spellbook of every spell he collects, where the Sorcerer can only keep a limited number of spells, forgetting one to learn another if wanted. The Sorcerer, in comparison to the other classes in that PHB, seemed like a half class, half done, and wanting.
-- Multiclassing, favored classes, and PrC's seemed to easy and intuitive.
-- Fighter seemed to lose flavor compared to the previous editions.
-- Bard improved from the jack off in 2nd edition, but still not up to par with the rest of the classes. (I have a fondness for the Bard Class.)
Now, after playing 3rd edition for a while, the same problems came up that had been plagueing the brand throughout the editions. Wizard being the end all, be all of power at later levels, starting at fifth when they get Fireball. The Druid, without the level 13 limit, have become one of the most overpowered classes in 3rd edition. (Not to many people played them in my games because of the Neutral requirement) Multiclassing will most likely weaken characters unless planned out beforehand.
Oh, and Grapple rules are... well, that is mentioned in the video that introduced 4th edition. *groan*
4th edition took away a lot of sacred cows, and I say good riddance. PHB2 still has the Half Orc, of course, but with the popularity of Orc on WoW, I wasn't surprised at it's inclusion. Disappointed, but not surprised.
So Pathfinder is doing well. Good, competition is always welcome. It is a damn good setting. Notice, however, that some of the improvements on the system mirror changes that 4th edition has done. Skill points are no longer multiplied at first level, but instead trained class skills get a plus three added. Wizards and other casters have at wills. So on and so forth.
Requiring fixing mean that it must be broke in the first place. It's like saying that my car isn't broke down because the mechanic can fix it.
And that is my argument for keeing 3.5 alive. It wasn't broken. It didn't need fixin'.
Just becasue some people didn't like it, doesn't mean it is broken.
No, you're argument relies on the DM fixing problems. You keep going back to you can fix it to ignore the flaws. In the end it could be worth the effort to some to fix them, but they exist. Until you admit this your argument is outside the bounds of reason.
All editions have problems. Problem doesn't mean it is not usable. Pathfinder again.
Or people who play 4e even if it has problems.
I never said that any edition was perfect or that 4E doesn't have problems. You refuting an argument that wasn't given to avoid the flaw in your arguments. If you must fix problem then they exist.
Then it is the job of the DM and other players to make sure he has a PC that is satisfying. Newbies make bad choices in every edition. But even a badly build PC can do some cool stuff. Again, the problem here is the player.
It is the job of the designers to keep the poisoned candy out of the system. If they fail in that duty I have no problem with other players or DMs telling player not to eat that poisoned candy, but the very fact that it is there is a problem.
You seemingly saying once gain that the problem doesn't exist because you can fix it. Also not all groups will have player with either the experience to do so.
Well I guess when you didn't make a CODzilla you felt gimped. I didn't.
This is actually not true and you are once putting word in my mouth and this time is an insult used to side step my argument. If you must consistently pull back so the players can feel better about themselves, then I would feel restrained. This could be as simple as not being allowed to make a character using Tome of Battle because the group feels that fighters and monks without optimization are the par.
You mean power gamers? Munchkins?
No. The power balance in each game will very widely with the system mastery of the group. If I was a wizard must constantly not use my spell can get over the obstacle that all the others are struggling against so they feel better than my character then I am constrained.
On the other hand playing another class and being constantly overshadowed by another player using there basic options makes me feel like I cannot contribute.
So? House rule it. Problem solve. No need for a new edition. But by keeping it you open up new possibilities for players. Like the chaotic monk vairant tht Draong mag published. This variant won't see the light of day now. /sob
So it isn't a problem because you can fix it with Rule 0? You need to stop with the Oberoni Fallacy. I made my own more powerful unrestricted version of the monk and have access to other sources, but not the Dragon version. None of that means that the original monk is doesn't have a problem with the alignment restriction.
Meh. And a DM can always say that spell is a naughty no no.
Yes the DM can fix the problems with Rule 0, but that means that there is a problem in the first place.
I disagree. It does solve the fighter "problem" those who doesn't like the fighter can play the Warblade and call it a fighter. Cause those who play 4e like to talk about reskinning monsters. Why not reskin classes? And since those who like reskinning are probably the same people who didn't like the fighter. Problem solve!
Nope, you didn't even solve it with Rule 0 this time. I have no problem with calling a warblade a fighter, but the fighter in the Player's Handbook is still flawed.
Not sure the Slayer comes from that, but even if it did, it just shows that listenning to complainers isn't always the solution.
I agree with this. Just because people complain doesn't mean that something is actually wrong.
Ja, but those "problems" do not need a new edition to be solved.
So?
Redoing a classe from top to bottem is alot of ****. With 3.5 you do not need to redo classes from top to bottem. Just house rule to satisfy whinners or play a warblade. Problem solve!
You could make From Another Time, Another Land playable if you make enough houserules. However the ability to fix a problem doesn't mean that there is no problem in the first place.
Well flavor is a personal taste. I shouldn't have spoken about it... Or talked at all about 3.5 vs 4e.It just pisses me off everytime some says previous editions were retarded and unplayable. If it was true, people wouldn't have switch to PF.
That would piss me off as well. However I do not recall anyone here saying that, so it appears that you are rallying against a argument that isn't in play rather than the one that is.
Someone said to me before: Then play another game.
Like say 4E if you do not like 3E or Pathfinder. That is fine, but it flows both ways. If you do not like 4E you can play 3E Pathfinder or another game.
Put it feels sooo good. Generally people who do not like 4e are the victim of this sort of bashing. Like it was done many times in this thread.
I recall some of this, but two wrongs do not make a right. Each side should try to act better than they think the other side is, or we end up being as bad as the worst person in the argument.
Now I'll repeat once again, the ability to fix something doesn't mean that is is not a problem. To say that it isn't a problem because you can fix it is self contradictory and therefor wrong because if there was no problem, there would be no need to fix it. Thus you have a Fallacy of the Conclusion Contradiction the Premise A.K.A. the Oberoni Fallacy.
Also, you can do what our DM did and hit the CoD with a Dispel Magic and knock him down to size and then have incorporeal undead swarm us and the cleric fresh out of Turn Undeads.
I find it freaking hilarious when people complain they had players dominating the game with their spellcasters and fighters sucked. In our games most of the battles were won because of the Fighter and/or Barbarian.
The thing that people don't get is the spellcasters didn't walk around with their buffs up all the time and it took several rounds for those buffs to be cast. Meanwhile the melee players are kicking ass and taking names. There is no saving throw for a fighter or a barbarian knocking the crap out of a creature. The casters in our party (mainly myself) always took spells to help the party and to buff up our melee players.
This meant a balance of powers. But interestingly, in Essentials design, WotC realised some of the complexity for the Fighter and other Martial classes could be condensed away, while still preserving their power, usability, and fun. For some, this isn't as fun, because it means using the same Power Strike or some such power over and over again. But every time, it's built off of a different combo of stances and other boons, so it works out in the end being fun and flavourful if you focus on stressing the difference between one stance and another (or one trick and another, etc).
In any case, 4e fixed a major problem, and despite fears that Essentials would bring that problem back, they haven't. Even if Wizards have a daily resource (their daily powers) and Knights and Slayers don't have daily powers, they both have a daily resource in their healing surges, so the lack of infinite healing surges keeps the Fighter from fighting forever once the Wizard runs out of dailies – though the Knight could probably last a while longer due to having more healing surges than the Wizard.
A simple cure for the Cleric CoDzilla was to not allow Divine Metamagic and to not be dumb enough to think you can carry multiple Nightsticks on your person and think you are going to benefit from all of them seeing as how a Nightstick is a Rod.
The nightstick is poorly written and says that you get the benefit when you posses it. The general rules for the use of rods say to see the item for how it functions. Therefor I see no reason to believe that the interpretation is stupid.
Also, you can do what our DM did and hit the CoD with a Dispel Magic and knock him down to size and then have incorporeal undead swarm us and the cleric fresh out of Turn Undeads.
I'm not big on DMM so I do not know all the ends and outs that can boost it, but... One rod plus one feat is enough to get you a free use of the persistent metamagic. So you can have several uses left over and a bead of karma give to a +4 bonus to caster level dropping the change of dispel magic from working by about 20% giving a magic user of the same level a 25% chance for each spell to get rid of it. There are other boosts that you can use to get the chance even lower, but I'm not sure how easy it would be.
Of course instead of DMM you could just use that bead to boost Holy Word and have the good domain for no save paralyzes for those that are not good of equal level or lower for 1d10 minutes. I can think of two things that can get you additional +1 boosts each. The spellgifted trait and an ion stone.
But it safe to say that not everyone had the problems you seemed to encounter because some people didn't feel the system was that problematic.
They /liked the problems/ they loved having their 'system mastery rewarded' with overpowered characters. Whether they were just doing it in theoretical CharOp exercises, or actually ruining games for other players. Or even just getting together with like-minded players, and feeling really smart because your DM has to make everything CR+10...
So Pathfinder is doing well. Good, competition is always welcome.
I think of Pathfinder as a sort of no-pest strip, certain sorts of players prefer it. They rarely show up at a 4e table when I'm playing. Win-win.
Well they could have turned the entire game into wizards 3.5E style. You know where martial classes get 'attacks' they memorize at the beginning of the day and then have a certain number of each to use, but I don't think that would have went over as well.
To be perfectly fair:
- 4E (the system) would have been far more profitable had the developers simply called it something else (eg. Magic the Gathering RPG). If for a moment, we divorce 4E from its legacy as a D&D product, and simply look at the system based on its own merits - I doubt few people would say that 4E isn't one of the most revolutionary, and interesting game systems to come out in the last decade.
- In having the Dungeons & Dragons label, 4E suffers (unfairly) by its comparison to legacy products, and as a result has divided the D&D fan-base roughly in half. This was a bad move on Wizards part. A very bad move.
In hindsight, 4th edition changed too much too quickly, and the current system would have been better served by the following:
I think of Pathfinder as a sort of no-pest strip, certain sorts of players prefer it. They rarely show up at a 4e table when I'm playing. Win-win.
ooooooohhhhh in my current mood that almost belongs in my sig..... ha chah chah
Who says D&D needed to go to another edition...
Conceptual space was becoming increasingly more difficult to find in 3.X, if Magic of Incarnum (an excellent concept mind, but one that would have never been conceived if they weren't already scrapping the barrel for ideas), and Tome of Magic are any indication.
A new edition was on the way irregardless, if only for the above reason. In a hypothetical example, what would have happened if WoTC had simply made a new edition which was little more than 3.X with a shiny coat of paint?
I can tell you one thing..... If 4th edition (released only 5 years after the launch of 3.5) was little more than 3.X with a shiny coat of new paint, I can state with confidence that the product line would have failed spectacularly, if not WoTC gone belly-up itself.
To this day, WoTC has yet to shake its reputation as a money-grubbing company, a reputation they gained as a result of the quick change-over between 3.0 [2000-2003] and 3.5 [2003-2007]. I personally had spent over $4500 on 3.0 and 3.5 (combined), and would have steadfast refused to "upgrade" to 4E had it not been such a radiacal departure.
Comparison with Pathfinder
Looking at Pathfinder in comparison, the product line is only four books (Core Rules, Bestiary 1 & 2, and Advanced Players Guide), adventure paths and campaign settings notwithstanding.
The moment Pathfinder starts invalidating 3.X material, is the day Paizo will gain a negative reputation as a lying money-grubbing company itself (since the marketing for PF is that it would never invalidate 3.X material other than the core books).
As a result, I can see the Pathfinder product line (expansions, suppliments, etc) expanding to include perhaps 10 products in total (beastiary's excluded). Anything more than that, and I doubt there would be enough design space for them to keep their design promises, without creating their own version of Complete Warrior.
For the record - I like what Paizo did with Pathfinder, as it breathed another 5+ years into the 3.X product line; but despite how much I like the system, they are only delaying the innevitable, and eventually the system will lose traction, or be forced to update (invalidate) 3.X material.
What Paizo does is it listens to the community and what they want. When you look at a Pathfinder book and you look at a D&D book the difference in quality is staggering. When I bought my Pathfinder books I had a sense of getting my money's worth in just the quality of the book on it's own. The campaign setting for Pathfinder is spot on and I see a long long life in Pathfinder.
Apparently 4th edition D&D didn't go as well as the designers thought. There are aspects of 3rd edition they are trying to go back to and they don't do that for the hell of it.
Then there is the fact that if wands/scrolls are that common-place in your game, you can be all but certain that at least some guards will be likewise trained in UMD, and will have wands of dispel magic in their armory or cache.
Verisimilitude FTW.
Bingo!! So that means all those CoDzilla's and Wizard Gods could be cut down to size in a heartbeat.
With regards to Silence, as long as you stayed at least 10ft away you were good, or you could dismiss it anytime and with your wand just tap yourself again when you needed it. Spellcasters would have to rely on SIlent Spell to be able to cast it again without being heard.
Then there is the fact that if wands/scrolls are that common-place in your game, you can be all but certain that at least some guards will be likewise trained in UMD, and will have wands of dispel magic in their armory or cache.
Verisimilitude FTW.
Bingo!! So that means all those CoDzilla's and Wizard Gods could be cut down to size in a heartbeat.
With regards to Silence, as long as you stayed at least 10ft away you were good, or you could dismiss it anytime and with your wand just tap yourself again when you needed it. Spellcasters would have to rely on SIlent Spell to be able to cast it again without being heard.
Or you know use magic items like your rogue example...
If the party has a sneaky Ranger/Rogue type fellow, the spellcasters never want to use up their resources to replicate sneakiness with spells. They just let the Ranger/Rogue sneak up and scout things out.
If the party doesn't have a sneaky Ranger/Rogue, the spellcasters are there to replicate sneaky abilities. And the Wizard need not use his Invisibility spell on himself. As often as not, the Wizard would cast Invisibility on another party member and let them sneak up and scout things out.
If the adventure called for infiltration above and beyond mere scouting, plans will be made for everyone to have Invisibility, not just the Wizard.
At higher levels where casting Invisibility is a mere trivial expense of resources for the Wizard where he is constantly going Invisible whenever he wants, it is likewise true that an Invisibility potion is a mere trival expense of gold for the Fighter, so he is also constantly going Invisible whenever he wants.
And it is not like a spellcaster's spell list is a secret thing to the other party members. Often as not, it is the non-spellcasting members of the party who come up with the plan on how to use spells to accomplish objective X. They tell the spellcaster and basically use him as a tool.
That said, at high levels spellcasters do become a force beyond recognition in 3.X.
I'm just stating facts here and the spellcasters taking over, martial guys being useless is just way overblown
Are YOU sure you've played 3ed?
Who says D&D needed to go to another edition, yes I am aware that people like 4th edition but there are a lot of people who liked D&D the way it was
So people who like 4ed don't deserve nice stuff because people who already had 3ed don't want other people to have fun. That's typical.
What Paizo does is it listens to the community and what they want.
Again. WotC listens to people who don't like 3ed, and make 4ed. Paizo listens to people who don't like 4ed, and make PF. According to you, one listens to the community and the other doesn't.
That's a consistent personality trait amongst your type. Only your voice matters, and you're only too happy to make your fun override everyone else's, and say things you can't prove to convince yourself you're right.
Xun, have you actually played in a campaign as a UMD Rogue? Alongside a real spellcaster?I'm just stating facts here and the spellcasters taking over, martial guys being useless is just way overblown
Are YOU sure you've played 3ed?
I have played 3rd edition since the beginning and I still play it along with Pathfinder.Who says D&D needed to go to another edition, yes I am aware that people like 4th edition but there are a lot of people who liked D&D the way it was
So people who like 4ed don't deserve nice stuff because people who already had 3ed don't want other people to have fun. That's typical.
Thats a question you need to be asking WoTc.What Paizo does is it listens to the community and what they want.
Again. WotC listens to people who don't like 3ed, and make 4ed. Paizo listens to people who don't like 4ed, and make PF. According to you, one listens to the community and the other doesn't.
That's a consistent personality trait amongst your type. Only your voice matters, and you're only too happy to make your fun override everyone else's, and say things you can't prove to convince yourself you're right.
From what I've seen, Wizards listens, well to Wizards and they will pay the price in the end. I've come up with many many examples to back up my point. Stick your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalala doesn't make it go away.
Xun, have you actually played in a campaign as a UMD Rogue? Alongside a real spellcaster?
Actually I have and I have also proven about 10 times over that a Rogue can virtually eliminate the need for a spellcaster.
Ever heard of the "Batman build" for the rogue? You are essentially Batman and you have every tool for every job. I've had a 20th level rogue with UMD maxed out, a few bags of holding full of scrolls and other items, he had a belt full of wands that he could get to at any moment, he had the Magic Device Attunement feat that allowed use of any item for 24 hours after he passed his UMD check. He would buff and heal the party and occasionally give large area support such as a Fireball here and there. It's amazing what you can do when you have access to every spell ever made for 3rd edition.
As much as I love 3.x and will defend it, no DM should allow someone to have access to all the spell of an edition and a reasonable player shouldn't want them all either. Roleplay wise, I am not sure how this could be done either. Who has all the spells anyway?
Normally a rogue would get the scrolls and wands by buying them, but XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek skipped right over availability. The lower level spells are easy to get, but higher level ones would be harder to obtain, if you can at all.
To actually answer your question, the warlock and artificer classes are able to make scrolls with any spell on them.
A new edition was on the way irregardless, if only for the above reason. In a hypothetical example, what would have happened if WoTC had simply made a new edition which was little more than 3.X with a shiny coat of paint?
TSR did that, it was called AD&D 2nd Ed, and it was quite successful. Of course, a lot of that success was from jumping onto the 90s setting-centric bandwagon in a big way...
1979: AD&D 1E
1989: AD&D 2E
2000: D&D 3E
2003: D&D 3.5
2008: D&D 4E
While I cannot argue that had wizards waited 10+ years (aka 2012 or later) before releasing 4E, we would have been far more willing to accept a shiny coat of paint on a largely unchanged system.
As it was, 4E was released only 5 years after 3.5 (which itself was released only 3 years after 3.0), and as such, it required a major face-lift else the fans would have rioted.
As I said previous, I spent over $4500 on 3.X products and would have jumped ship had 4E had only superficial changes from 3.X, as I was not willing to invalidate my existing material twice within a single decade, especially after the money I had spent on it*
*I had purchased every sourcebook for 3.0, and almost every non-setting sourcebook for 3.5 over the 8 years of its print run. In fact, the only non-setting products I never purchased was MM3, MM4, Libris Mortis, Draconomicon, Rules Compendium and perhaps 1 or 2 other books I cannot remember at this time.
As much as I love 3.x and will defend it, no DM should allow someone to have access to all the spell of an edition and a reasonable player shouldn't want them all either. Roleplay wise, I am not sure how this could be done either. Who has all the spells anyway?
Normally a rogue would get the scrolls and wands by buying them, but XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek skipped right over availability. The lower level spells are easy to get, but higher level ones would be harder to obtain, if you can at all.
To actually answer your question, the warlock and artificer classes are able to make scrolls with any spell on them.
Availability depends on the person's campaign. Going to Sigil would be an easy place to find pretty much any spell in existance, or any other multi dimensional city or trading post. Rogues can speak to all types of spellcasters in different cities about purchasing useful scrolls and wands. I never skipped over availability because like I said before, depends on the game your DM is running.
Okay so say Wizards of the Coast was to announce a 5E tomorrow...what features of the new edition would there need to be for you to be excited and push you into the "OMG I NEED TO HAVE THIS!!!!" category?
Good god, this is a thread in and of itself... and really, should be avoided for now. We have 4th, we have 3.x/Pathfinder... use what you have for now...
Okay so say Wizards of the Coast was to announce a 5E tomorrow...what features of the new edition would there need to be for you to be excited and push you into the "OMG I NEED TO HAVE THIS!!!!" category?
Good god, this is a thread in and of itself... and really, should be avoided for now. We have 4th, we have 3.x/Pathfinder... use what you have for now...
But something is going on. If not 5e, what is it? 4.5? A return to pre-E 4e? A return to 3.5?
Fair enough... but this should be it's own thread...
Removal of Mearls from any sort of devlopment capability and the reinstatement of Heinsoo as lead devloper. {pipe dream; never going to happen.} I do not think I will ever buy anything from WotC again.
You make me Fly...High.
So essentials (ostensibly the final product that Heinsoo worked on as lead in charge of development) comes out, then they are effectively director less for what...6-7 months (lines up pretty well with the lack of direction seen in Dragon and the product line) and then mearls arrives and scraps books that may be redundant or not quality, and we won't see his stamp on a product likely until the campaign setting for nentir valley comes out...
Yeha, it's ALL Mearls fault.
PS. Mearls is a great name to just say. Mearls. Tee hee.
I mean, I know 'it's a bad craftsman that blames his tools' - but sometimes the suits will just give you crappy tools.
Who says D&D needed to go to another edition...
Conceptual space was becoming increasingly more difficult to find in 3.X, if Magic of Incarnum (an excellent concept mind, but one that would have never been conceived if they weren't already scrapping the barrel for ideas), and Tome of Magic are any indication.
A new edition was on the way irregardless, if only for the above reason. In a hypothetical example, what would have happened if WoTC had simply made a new edition which was little more than 3.X with a shiny coat of paint?
I can tell you one thing..... If 4th edition (released only 5 years after the launch of 3.5) was little more than 3.X with a shiny coat of new paint, I can state with confidence that the product line would have failed spectacularly, if not WoTC gone belly-up itself.
To this day, WoTC has yet to shake its reputation as a money-grubbing company, a reputation they gained as a result of the quick change-over between 3.0 [2000-2003] and 3.5 [2003-2007]. I personally had spent over $4500 on 3.0 and 3.5 (combined), and would have steadfast refused to "upgrade" to 4E had it not been such a radiacal departure.
Comparison with Pathfinder
Looking at Pathfinder in comparison, the product line is only four books (Core Rules, Bestiary 1 & 2, and Advanced Players Guide), adventure paths and campaign settings notwithstanding.
The moment Pathfinder starts invalidating 3.X material, is the day Paizo will gain a negative reputation as a lying money-grubbing company itself (since the marketing for PF is that it would never invalidate 3.X material other than the core books).
As a result, I can see the Pathfinder product line (expansions, suppliments, etc) expanding to include perhaps 10 products in total (beastiary's excluded). Anything more than that, and I doubt there would be enough design space for them to keep their design promises, without creating their own version of Complete Warrior.
For the record - I like what Paizo did with Pathfinder, as it breathed another 5+ years into the 3.X product line; but despite how much I like the system, they are only delaying the innevitable, and eventually the system will lose traction, or be forced to update (invalidate) 3.X material.
What Paizo does is it listens to the community and what they want. When you look at a Pathfinder book and you look at a D&D book the difference in quality is staggering. When I bought my Pathfinder books I had a sense of getting my money's worth in just the quality of the book on it's own. The campaign setting for Pathfinder is spot on and I see a long long life in Pathfinder.
Apparently 4th edition D&D didn't go as well as the designers thought. There are aspects of 3rd edition they are trying to go back to and they don't do that for the hell of it.
Then there is the fact that if wands/scrolls are that common-place in your game, you can be all but certain that at least some guards will be likewise trained in UMD, and will have wands of dispel magic in their armory or cache.
Verisimilitude FTW.
Bingo!! So that means all those CoDzilla's and Wizard Gods could be cut down to size in a heartbeat.
With regards to Silence, as long as you stayed at least 10ft away you were good, or you could dismiss it anytime and with your wand just tap yourself again when you needed it. Spellcasters would have to rely on SIlent Spell to be able to cast it again without being heard.
Then there is the fact that if wands/scrolls are that common-place in your game, you can be all but certain that at least some guards will be likewise trained in UMD, and will have wands of dispel magic in their armory or cache.
Verisimilitude FTW.
Bingo!! So that means all those CoDzilla's and Wizard Gods could be cut down to size in a heartbeat.
With regards to Silence, as long as you stayed at least 10ft away you were good, or you could dismiss it anytime and with your wand just tap yourself again when you needed it. Spellcasters would have to rely on SIlent Spell to be able to cast it again without being heard.
Or you know use magic items like your rogue example...
If the party has a sneaky Ranger/Rogue type fellow, the spellcasters never want to use up their resources to replicate sneakiness with spells. They just let the Ranger/Rogue sneak up and scout things out.
If the party doesn't have a sneaky Ranger/Rogue, the spellcasters are there to replicate sneaky abilities. And the Wizard need not use his Invisibility spell on himself. As often as not, the Wizard would cast Invisibility on another party member and let them sneak up and scout things out.
If the adventure called for infiltration above and beyond mere scouting, plans will be made for everyone to have Invisibility, not just the Wizard.
At higher levels where casting Invisibility is a mere trivial expense of resources for the Wizard where he is constantly going Invisible whenever he wants, it is likewise true that an Invisibility potion is a mere trival expense of gold for the Fighter, so he is also constantly going Invisible whenever he wants.
And it is not like a spellcaster's spell list is a secret thing to the other party members. Often as not, it is the non-spellcasting members of the party who come up with the plan on how to use spells to accomplish objective X. They tell the spellcaster and basically use him as a tool.
That said, at high levels spellcasters do become a force beyond recognition in 3.X.
I'm just stating facts here and the spellcasters taking over, martial guys being useless is just way overblown
Are YOU sure you've played 3ed?
Who says D&D needed to go to another edition, yes I am aware that people like 4th edition but there are a lot of people who liked D&D the way it was
So people who like 4ed don't deserve nice stuff because people who already had 3ed don't want other people to have fun. That's typical.
What Paizo does is it listens to the community and what they want.
Again. WotC listens to people who don't like 3ed, and make 4ed. Paizo listens to people who don't like 4ed, and make PF. According to you, one listens to the community and the other doesn't.
That's a consistent personality trait amongst your type. Only your voice matters, and you're only too happy to make your fun override everyone else's, and say things you can't prove to convince yourself you're right.
Xun, have you actually played in a campaign as a UMD Rogue? Alongside a real spellcaster?I'm just stating facts here and the spellcasters taking over, martial guys being useless is just way overblown
Are YOU sure you've played 3ed?
I have played 3rd edition since the beginning and I still play it along with Pathfinder.Who says D&D needed to go to another edition, yes I am aware that people like 4th edition but there are a lot of people who liked D&D the way it was
So people who like 4ed don't deserve nice stuff because people who already had 3ed don't want other people to have fun. That's typical.
Thats a question you need to be asking WoTc.What Paizo does is it listens to the community and what they want.
Again. WotC listens to people who don't like 3ed, and make 4ed. Paizo listens to people who don't like 4ed, and make PF. According to you, one listens to the community and the other doesn't.
That's a consistent personality trait amongst your type. Only your voice matters, and you're only too happy to make your fun override everyone else's, and say things you can't prove to convince yourself you're right.
From what I've seen, Wizards listens, well to Wizards and they will pay the price in the end. I've come up with many many examples to back up my point. Stick your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalala doesn't make it go away.
Xun, have you actually played in a campaign as a UMD Rogue? Alongside a real spellcaster?
Actually I have and I have also proven about 10 times over that a Rogue can virtually eliminate the need for a spellcaster.
Ever heard of the "Batman build" for the rogue? You are essentially Batman and you have every tool for every job. I've had a 20th level rogue with UMD maxed out, a few bags of holding full of scrolls and other items, he had a belt full of wands that he could get to at any moment, he had the Magic Device Attunement feat that allowed use of any item for 24 hours after he passed his UMD check. He would buff and heal the party and occasionally give large area support such as a Fireball here and there. It's amazing what you can do when you have access to every spell ever made for 3rd edition.
As much as I love 3.x and will defend it, no DM should allow someone to have access to all the spell of an edition and a reasonable player shouldn't want them all either. Roleplay wise, I am not sure how this could be done either. Who has all the spells anyway?
Normally a rogue would get the scrolls and wands by buying them, but XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek skipped right over availability. The lower level spells are easy to get, but higher level ones would be harder to obtain, if you can at all.
To actually answer your question, the warlock and artificer classes are able to make scrolls with any spell on them.
A new edition was on the way irregardless, if only for the above reason. In a hypothetical example, what would have happened if WoTC had simply made a new edition which was little more than 3.X with a shiny coat of paint?
TSR did that, it was called AD&D 2nd Ed, and it was quite successful. Of course, a lot of that success was from jumping onto the 90s setting-centric bandwagon in a big way...
1979: AD&D 1E
1989: AD&D 2E
2000: D&D 3E
2003: D&D 3.5
2008: D&D 4E
While I cannot argue that had wizards waited 10+ years (aka 2012 or later) before releasing 4E, we would have been far more willing to accept a shiny coat of paint on a largely unchanged system.
As it was, 4E was released only 5 years after 3.5 (which itself was released only 3 years after 3.0), and as such, it required a major face-lift else the fans would have rioted.
As I said previous, I spent over $4500 on 3.X products and would have jumped ship had 4E had only superficial changes from 3.X, as I was not willing to invalidate my existing material twice within a single decade, especially after the money I had spent on it*
*I had purchased every sourcebook for 3.0, and almost every non-setting sourcebook for 3.5 over the 8 years of its print run. In fact, the only non-setting products I never purchased was MM3, MM4, Libris Mortis, Draconomicon, Rules Compendium and perhaps 1 or 2 other books I cannot remember at this time.
As much as I love 3.x and will defend it, no DM should allow someone to have access to all the spell of an edition and a reasonable player shouldn't want them all either. Roleplay wise, I am not sure how this could be done either. Who has all the spells anyway?
Normally a rogue would get the scrolls and wands by buying them, but XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek skipped right over availability. The lower level spells are easy to get, but higher level ones would be harder to obtain, if you can at all.
To actually answer your question, the warlock and artificer classes are able to make scrolls with any spell on them.
Availability depends on the person's campaign. Going to Sigil would be an easy place to find pretty much any spell in existance, or any other multi dimensional city or trading post. Rogues can speak to all types of spellcasters in different cities about purchasing useful scrolls and wands. I never skipped over availability because like I said before, depends on the game your DM is running.
Okay so say Wizards of the Coast was to announce a 5E tomorrow...what features of the new edition would there need to be for you to be excited and push you into the "OMG I NEED TO HAVE THIS!!!!" category?
Good god, this is a thread in and of itself... and really, should be avoided for now. We have 4th, we have 3.x/Pathfinder... use what you have for now...
Okay so say Wizards of the Coast was to announce a 5E tomorrow...what features of the new edition would there need to be for you to be excited and push you into the "OMG I NEED TO HAVE THIS!!!!" category?
Good god, this is a thread in and of itself... and really, should be avoided for now. We have 4th, we have 3.x/Pathfinder... use what you have for now...
But something is going on. If not 5e, what is it? 4.5? A return to pre-E 4e? A return to 3.5?
Fair enough... but this should be it's own thread...
Removal of Mearls from any sort of devlopment capability and the reinstatement of Heinsoo as lead devloper. {pipe dream; never going to happen.} I do not think I will ever buy anything from WotC again.
You make me Fly...High.
So essentials (ostensibly the final product that Heinsoo worked on as lead in charge of development) comes out, then they are effectively director less for what...6-7 months (lines up pretty well with the lack of direction seen in Dragon and the product line) and then mearls arrives and scraps books that may be redundant or not quality, and we won't see his stamp on a product likely until the campaign setting for nentir valley comes out...
Yeha, it's ALL Mearls fault.
PS. Mearls is a great name to just say. Mearls. Tee hee.
I mean, I know 'it's a bad craftsman that blames his tools' - but sometimes the suits will just give you crappy tools.