On the other hand it is pretty big so this is most likely just a slump. The economy can do it so can the game.
Etc.
Does D&D end if content ceases to be produced for it? No, don't be obtuse. People will still play. Books previously purchased will not cease to exist. Games will still happen, people will still enjoy them. Just like for 3.5 and previous versions.
And this all assumes you're correct. I would personally suspect that the content calendar updating has been lax. Or indeed, purposefully avoided, given the inevitable outcry when things are delayed. Or, these days, even just announced. See the reaction to Heroes of Shadow for more. People who have only the faintest idea of its content are already decrying it for killing the power source.
I scarcely blame WOTC for keeping a lid on things under the circumstances, much as I wish it were otherwise.
THE END IS NIGH!! REPENT, REPENT, THE END IS NIGH!!
Etc.
Does D&D end if content ceases to be produced for it? No, don't be obtuse. People will still play. Books previously purchased will not cease to exist. Games will still happen, people will still enjoy them. Just like for 3.5 and previous versions.
And this all assumes you're correct. I would personally suspect that the content calendar updating has been lax. Or indeed, purposefully avoided, given the inevitable outcry when things are delayed. Or, these days, even just announced. See the reaction to Heroes of Shadow for more. People who have only the faintest idea of its content are already decrying it for killing the power source.
I scarcely blame WOTC for keeping a lid on things under the circumstances, much as I wish it were otherwise.
They are decrying the killing of the power source based on the preview material and description of the product. They would all be happy to be proved wrong...
It doesn't end, it just stops continuing... which means no updates or new products...
On the other hand, they really just could have had an...awkward...last quarter there with way more than they could really chew, and management up and down the chain said "Let's slow down, step back and figure out WTF."
If, for whatever surprising reason, we're looking at the "end of D&D" anytime remotely soon, it will be a significant event, but the sun will also rise the next day. Unless they destroy the sun on their way out, of course.
I order my stuff from Amazon, even though I really like my local gaming store. I have an amazon prime account which mean all regular and 2 day shipping is free for a year. I certainly would spend more then the cost for a Prime Account in a year, so I'm saving money.
But even then, without Prime, the cost + shipping is still less then a store. WoTC has done as much as it can to help gaming stores, but you just can't compete with that.
Currently, i'm reading the Walking Dead. Each book is priced at $15 (save the first, which is $10). So far, there are 13 volumes. Amazon has them for $9.95. So I can save a total of $60 for volumes 2-13.
Why shouldn't I? Yes, I would love to support comic book stores more. But the simple truth is, anything successful, is going to be cheaper from Amazon.
I will echo the sentiment that it would be really, really difficult to make any definite statement one way or the other on the topic. I tend to be a "half full" kind of guy though so I doubt we'll see an end to D&D any time soon.
I mean, it survived TSR.
Trying to use a store's view seems useless.
I order my stuff from Amazon, even though I really like my local gaming store. I have an amazon prime account which mean all regular and 2 day shipping is free for a year. I certainly would spend more then the cost for a Prime Account in a year, so I'm saving money.
But even then, without Prime, the cost + shipping is still less then a store. WoTC has done as much as it can to help gaming stores, but you just can't compete with that.
Currently, i'm reading the Walking Dead. Each book is priced at $15 (save the first, which is $10). So far, there are 13 volumes. Amazon has them for $9.95. So I can save a total of $60 for volumes 2-13.
Why shouldn't I? Yes, I would love to support comic book stores more. But the simple truth is, anything successful, is going to be cheaper from Amazon.
I like my FLGS as well. I buy miniatures (both DND plastics and metals from others) from them all the time. I buy my paints there as well. However, I buy about 90% of my books at either Amazon or Barnes&Noble. 20-30% cheaper. Every time I buy a rulebook I save $10-$15. So, it doesn't surprise me that stores are reporting sales are down.
Add in the double whammy of a bad economy, and yeah... WOTC is probably feeling the pinch like companies all around the globe.
Is this the end of DND? No. That suggestion even makes me giggle. As a player and DM who HATED 3rd Edition, I loved it when 4e came out and it brought me back to DND after YEARS of not playing at all. And when I see a sparce release schedule and I combine that with the MONTHLY rules changes in 4e AND all the subtle changes to 4e introduced in later rulebooks... well it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if we will soon see 4.5 edition, or even 5th edition. End of DND? No. New edition or update edition? Maybe.
Trying to use a store's view seems useless.
I order my stuff from Amazon, even though I really like my local gaming store. I have an amazon prime account which mean all regular and 2 day shipping is free for a year. I certainly would spend more then the cost for a Prime Account in a year, so I'm saving money.
But even then, without Prime, the cost + shipping is still less then a store. WoTC has done as much as it can to help gaming stores, but you just can't compete with that.
Currently, i'm reading the Walking Dead. Each book is priced at $15 (save the first, which is $10). So far, there are 13 volumes. Amazon has them for $9.95. So I can save a total of $60 for volumes 2-13.
Why shouldn't I? Yes, I would love to support comic book stores more. But the simple truth is, anything successful, is going to be cheaper from Amazon.
I like my FLGS as well. I buy miniatures (both DND plastics and metals from others) from them all the time. I buy my paints there as well. However, I buy about 90% of my books at either Amazon or Barnes&Noble. 20-30% cheaper. Every time I buy a rulebook I save $10-$15. So, it doesn't surprise me that stores are reporting sales are down.
Add in the double whammy of a bad economy, and yeah... WOTC is probably feeling the pinch like companies all around the globe.
Is this the end of DND? No. That suggestion even makes me giggle. As a player and DM who HATED 3rd Edition, I loved it when 4e came out and it brought me back to DND after YEARS of not playing at all. And when I see a sparce release schedule and I combine that with the MONTHLY rules changes in 4e AND all the subtle changes to 4e introduced in later rulebooks... well it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if we will soon see 4.5 edition, or even 5th edition. End of DND? No. New edition or update edition? Maybe.
I think it's way to soon to see a new edition, though I don't rule that out.
They put out a lot of material. A book or more a month for 2.5 years. I thought it was to much. I think we are going to see ways for them to put out products that expand the player base, really, and focus on that. More ways to access DnD.
I don't want to be a doomsday prophet, but seeing the recent activity surrounding D&D here on the website (the loss of the content calendar, the really bad character builder, the very thin product lineup for 2011) I think this year will see the end of D&D from WotC. Period.
Forums are a horrible sign of product's success relative to the discussions contained. Not only do they only represent a paltry percentage of the overall consumer base, consumers are more likely to be vocal over a negative experience than a positive one. If you were to look at the forums for say World of Warcraft in a vacuum, I imagine your take away would not be that it's the most successful massively multi-player rpg on the market.
Now if you wanted to argue that it was in decline that would be another matter, but I don't see Wizards dropping such a well known brand any time soon. Even as other systems gain popularity in the community, Dungeons and Dragons is still a brand name that's know outside of it's niche.
So no offense, but I put about as much salt to your doomsday claim as I do the 2012 ones.
Interesting question: do WOTC lose money on sales through amazon as opposed to local game stores? Presumably there is a wholesale price, and both game stores and amazon pay it. Amazon saves by not needing direct sales infrastructure.
Wholesale prices are often negotiable if a particular outlet has enough business muscle.
Small stores also lose money on the scaling of having to hold local stock. Amazon can afford to hold less stock pro-rata to demand, and can use the law of averages in its favour when predicting sales and choosing what to stock.
I have a strong hunch that a majority of new customers come from gaming stores either from the suggestion of the clerk, the visibility of people actually playing the game, or programs that actively seek out new players like Encounters.
While Amazon can make suggestions based on past purchases, it's a far cry from the FLGS in terms of accessibility.
So no offense, but I put about as much salt to your doomsday claim as I do the 2012 ones.
Maybe they are preparing for the end of D&D... We're less than 2 years away from the end of the rest of the world, don't you have more important things to worry about!
So no offense, but I put about as much salt to your doomsday claim as I do the 2012 ones.
Maybe they are preparing for the end of D&D... We're less than 2 years away from the end of the rest of the world, don't you have more important things to worry about!
Like what to wear on doomsday.
The lack of conent announcements for 2011 fits a normal publishing pattern and indicates that WotC is in a decision making phase.
The 2 weeks before Christmas are generally a down time for most publishing companies. Whatever product that is being sold for Christmas (ex. 4e Essentials) was shipped to the stores in early November. Publishers use December as a month to do advanced planning of options for the coming year (ex. if Essentials sells well, we'll do plan A, otherwise its plan B or C or D). After the Christmas break is when the real hard work begins. Christmas sales numbers come in and management has to decide which plan to use. In this case, was Essentials a success? I suspect that the WoTC management spent today looking at December sales figures and charting the course for the coming year. Decisions are made, plans adopted, and the writers/designers/artists are given their instructions. Once things are underway then we'll see the content announcements.
Does the lack of new announced content mean D&D is dead? Not at all, but it does signify that WotC is reviewing options and plotting a course. That course might not even be a new one, but we can only speculate at this time. I would not be surprised at all if the upcoming 2011 content schedule is revised, but I don't think this in any way means the death of D&D.
D&D is a major brand name and brands don't die easily. They change and evolve but death is rare. That only occurs when a product is somehow tied up with something utter repulsive and hateful to the population. That is not how I would describe D&D.
D&D is a major brand name and brands don't die easily. They change and evolve but death is rare. That only occurs when a product is somehow tied up with something utter repulsive and hateful to the population. That is not how I would describe D&D.
A recent "100 best toys" show based on a large viewer poll rated D&D as second only to Lego. My wife suspects it was mainly middle-aged men fondly remembering school games who voted, but it does show that D&D brand is well regarded.
I have a strong hunch that a majority of new customers come from gaming stores either from the suggestion of the clerk, the visibility of people actually playing the game, or programs that actively seek out new players like Encounters.
While Amazon can make suggestions based on past purchases, it's a far cry from the FLGS in terms of accessibility.
Any other year and I would agree with you, but this year Hasbro finally convinced Wal-Mart and Target to carry D&D products (the new Red Box). I'd bet good money on the fact that there is a large number of kids who got the Red Box for Christmas because mom or dad saw it in the big store while shopping. Now many of those kids have tried it out over the holidays and are looking to get into D&D. That's what happened in the early 80's and I think WotC is hoping lightning will strike twice. It worked on me.... my mom bought me the original Red Box and I've been hooked ever since.
Now comes the hard part. All those kids looking to play D&D have to find a group of like minded players or FLGS that will support them or they will quit as quickly as they started. If I owned a FLGS I'd be blowing my 2011 advertising budget right now to get those new gamers into my store as quickly as possible.
I work in the publishing industry and have seen this before. Here's my take on it:
The lack of conent announcements for 2011 fits a normal publishing pattern and indicates that WotC is in a decision making phase.
The 2 weeks before Christmas are generally a down time for most publishing companies. Whatever product that is being sold for Christmas (ex. 4e Essentials) was shipped to the stores in early November. Publishers use December as a month to do advanced planning of options for the coming year (ex. if Essentials sells well, we'll do plan A, otherwise its plan B or C or D). After the Christmas break is when the real hard work begins. Christmas sales numbers come in and management has to decide which plan to use. In this case, was Essentials a success? I suspect that the WoTC management spent today looking at December sales figures and charting the course for the coming year. Decisions are made, plans adopted, and the writers/designers/artists are given their instructions. Once things are underway then we'll see the content announcements.
Does the lack of new announced content mean D&D is dead? Not at all, but it does signify that WotC is reviewing options and plotting a course. That course might not even be a new one, but we can only speculate at this time. I would not be surprised at all if the upcoming 2011 content schedule is revised, but I don't think this in any way means the death of D&D.
D&D is a major brand name and brands don't die easily. They change and evolve but death is rare. That only occurs when a product is somehow tied up with something utter repulsive and hateful to the population. That is not how I would describe D&D.
Maybe. But between the dearth of product offerings in 2011 and the apparent cancellation (or at least disappearance from the catalogue) of so many of the itmes they the DID apparently plan to come out with, something weird does seem to be going on. I really wish they'd say something one way or the other.
D&D is a major brand name and brands don't die easily. They change and evolve but death is rare. That only occurs when a product is somehow tied up with something utter repulsive and hateful to the population. That is not how I would describe D&D.
A recent "100 best toys" show based on a large viewer poll rated D&D as second only to Lego. My wife suspects it was mainly middle-aged men fondly remembering school games who voted, but it does show that D&D brand is well regarded.
I remember a survey (Nation-wide, of everyone, not just D&D players) that said that D&D was recognized in somewhere around 90% (they had an accurate number, I don't remember it, but it was between 85 and 95%) of households. Most companies trying to market a product would kill to have that level of recognition.
I have a strong hunch that a majority of new customers come from gaming stores either from the suggestion of the clerk, the visibility of people actually playing the game, or programs that actively seek out new players like Encounters.
While Amazon can make suggestions based on past purchases, it's a far cry from the FLGS in terms of accessibility.
Any other year and I would agree with you, but this year Hasbro finally convinced Wal-Mart and Target to carry D&D products (the new Red Box). I'd bet good money on the fact that there is a large number of kids who got the Red Box for Christmas because mom or dad saw it in the big store while shopping. Now many of those kids have tried it out over the holidays and are looking to get into D&D. That's what happened in the early 80's and I think WotC is hoping lightning will strike twice. It worked on me.... my mom bought me the original Red Box and I've been hooked ever since.
Now comes the hard part. All those kids looking to play D&D have to find a group of like minded players or FLGS that will support them or they will quit as quickly as they started. If I owned a FLGS I'd be blowing my 2011 advertising budget right now to get those new gamers into my store as quickly as possible.
Funny, I bought my 3.5 core books at Wal-Mart, Red Box is not the first time D&D has been there
...So no offense, but I put about as much salt to your doomsday claim as I do the 2012 ones.
Really? Looming oil crisis, usable water shortage, governments run by corporations. Head in the sand much?
...So no offense, but I put about as much salt to your doomsday claim as I do the 2012 ones.
Really? Looming oil crisis, usable water shortage, governments run by corporations. Head in the sand much?
Well at least the post-more localized apocalypse or societal collapse is marginally better than the destruction of the world.
Just think about how much easier it will be to recruit new D&D players when all our pesky electronics stop working!
they like to go over their complete release at the major cons, so i would expect that there will be more release information after that.
as far as the end of dnd, as long as i have my books, and my dice, and my imagination, i have all i need, and i suppose, if i end up in prision, i dont even really need the first two.
get togther, drink beer, role dice.
as far as light release schedual, dont forget that dnd xp is coming up this month in ft wayne.
they like to go over their complete release at the major cons, so i would expect that there will be more release information after that.
as far as the end of dnd, as long as i have my books, and my dice, and my imagination, i have all i need, and i suppose, if i end up in prision, i dont even really need the first two.
get togther, drink beer, role dice.
One I would love to be there this year for DND XP but it will have to be Gencon for me only.
Another is this is not the first time products have slipped in the schedule. It is quite possible the books just were not ready for release.
as far as light release schedual, dont forget that dnd xp is coming up this month in ft wayne.
they like to go over their complete release at the major cons, so i would expect that there will be more release information after that.
as far as the end of dnd, as long as i have my books, and my dice, and my imagination, i have all i need, and i suppose, if i end up in prision, i dont even really need the first two.
get togther, drink beer, role dice.
One I would love to be there this year for DND XP but it will have to be Gencon for me only.
Another is this is not the first time products have slipped in the schedule. It is quite possible the books just were not ready for release.
This is what was intimated in the Season 4 of Encounters information you can download if you are an event organizer and have ordered the Season. But you know we cant inject logic into an internet panic mode debate.
Trying to use a store's view seems useless.
I order my stuff from Amazon, even though I really like my local gaming store. I have an amazon prime account which mean all regular and 2 day shipping is free for a year. I certainly would spend more then the cost for a Prime Account in a year, so I'm saving money.
But even then, without Prime, the cost + shipping is still less then a store. WoTC has done as much as it can to help gaming stores, but you just can't compete with that.
Currently, i'm reading the Walking Dead. Each book is priced at $15 (save the first, which is $10). So far, there are 13 volumes. Amazon has them for $9.95. So I can save a total of $60 for volumes 2-13.
Why shouldn't I? Yes, I would love to support comic book stores more. But the simple truth is, anything successful, is going to be cheaper from Amazon.
I like my FLGS as well. I buy miniatures (both DND plastics and metals from others) from them all the time. I buy my paints there as well. However, I buy about 90% of my books at either Amazon or Barnes&Noble. 20-30% cheaper. Every time I buy a rulebook I save $10-$15. So, it doesn't surprise me that stores are reporting sales are down.
Add in the double whammy of a bad economy, and yeah... WOTC is probably feeling the pinch like companies all around the globe.
Is this the end of DND? No. That suggestion even makes me giggle. As a player and DM who HATED 3rd Edition, I loved it when 4e came out and it brought me back to DND after YEARS of not playing at all. And when I see a sparce release schedule and I combine that with the MONTHLY rules changes in 4e AND all the subtle changes to 4e introduced in later rulebooks... well it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if we will soon see 4.5 edition, or even 5th edition. End of DND? No. New edition or update edition? Maybe.
We already have 4.5, it is called Essentials.
Trying to use a store's view seems useless.
I order my stuff from Amazon, even though I really like my local gaming store. I have an amazon prime account which mean all regular and 2 day shipping is free for a year. I certainly would spend more then the cost for a Prime Account in a year, so I'm saving money.
But even then, without Prime, the cost + shipping is still less then a store. WoTC has done as much as it can to help gaming stores, but you just can't compete with that.
Currently, i'm reading the Walking Dead. Each book is priced at $15 (save the first, which is $10). So far, there are 13 volumes. Amazon has them for $9.95. So I can save a total of $60 for volumes 2-13.
Why shouldn't I? Yes, I would love to support comic book stores more. But the simple truth is, anything successful, is going to be cheaper from Amazon.
I like my FLGS as well. I buy miniatures (both DND plastics and metals from others) from them all the time. I buy my paints there as well. However, I buy about 90% of my books at either Amazon or Barnes&Noble. 20-30% cheaper. Every time I buy a rulebook I save $10-$15. So, it doesn't surprise me that stores are reporting sales are down.
Add in the double whammy of a bad economy, and yeah... WOTC is probably feeling the pinch like companies all around the globe.
Is this the end of DND? No. That suggestion even makes me giggle. As a player and DM who HATED 3rd Edition, I loved it when 4e came out and it brought me back to DND after YEARS of not playing at all. And when I see a sparce release schedule and I combine that with the MONTHLY rules changes in 4e AND all the subtle changes to 4e introduced in later rulebooks... well it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if we will soon see 4.5 edition, or even 5th edition. End of DND? No. New edition or update edition? Maybe.
We already have 4.5, it is called Essentials.
Comments like this always come across as petty and stupid to me.
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e. Feel free to disagree, but violating CoC isn't an acceptable response.
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e.
Essentials has done nothing to impact 4E rules or game play in my campaign. We used both, in harmony, without issue. It's hardly a blip on the radar, and at worst, it is an option that you can choose to ignore.
I don't see why everyone has a problem calling it that. Things have changed enough from the original PHB to be a different version of the same edition.
The problem is people read 4.5 and see it as a 4 letter word since the bad reception 3.5 got.
The difference is with this edition it's modula enough that you can play with both versions in the same game (that's a strength not a weakness).
It means there are options which is great.
Those who didn't like 4.0 may be happy with an all 4.5 game. Those who don't like 4.5 may be happy to not allow any essentials builds and the rest can freely mix as they please.
Anyway back to the topic at hand. :o)
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e.
Essentials has done nothing to impact 4E rules or game play in my campaign. We used both, in harmony, without issue. It's hardly a blip on the radar, and at worst, it is an option that you can choose to ignore.
Nothing you have said was untrue of 3.5. Essentials however, if used, represents a more drastic change to the 4e rules, than 3.5 did to 3e.
For instance anyone playing a Wizard build other than the Mage build is just plain crazy in my opinion. The mage is so vastly overpowered (even compared to other Essentials builds) that my resident game mechanics genius/power gamer has boasted that with appropriate levels of consumable healing magic, he could play through the entirety of the HPE series of modules (as originally printed) with a mage as the only character. In other words as solo adventures.
The change to the magic items and feats alone represents enough of a change to support my claim.
Sure anyone can ignore the Essentials material, or try to concoct some hybrid of 4e/Essentials, but if you play the rules as written (and don't forget that WotC has said this is the basis of the game going forward), I think my claim is pretty much irrefutable.
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e. Feel free to disagree, but violating CoC isn't an acceptable response.
In spite of all actual facts and evidence, too, apparently.
Seriously, you think to make blanket statements like this that you know to be incendiary and someone's just going to accept them as fact? There is no factual basis for what you have said.
Essentials material is expressly compatible with "classic" 4e. You can play a knight in a party next to to a taclord, lazer cleric, swarm druid, hexblade, and sorceror.
3.5 was expressly meant to REPLACE 3e rules. The base classes which were re-written were meant to COMPLETELY OVERWRITE the previous classes. WotC never advocated the continued use of 3.0 material which had been updated. Books that were not planned to have a 3.5 version were included in a free "update document" to modify them mechanically for 3.5, since 3.0 material was not directly compatible.
3.5 included sweeping changes to combat rules, such as: the size and reach of certain creatures (for instance, some Large creatures occupying a 1x2 space), which affected flanking, squeezing, and so forth. Many combat actions changes or were clarified (grappling, tripping, etc.). Rules for 3-dimensional combat were clarified.
Essentials has produced a number of new classes for the game. Sub-classes, really, since these classes can share some powers with the base classes whose namesake they share, even though they have little to no class features in common with said namesakes. WotC is not going to stop supporting the classes of "classic" 4e. We may, however, be seeing any future classes laid out in the level-by-level format of the Essentials classes, even if they are AEDU classes.
The closest thing that could be considered "edition changes" instead of simply additional material, is the changes to certain feats, and the treasure distribution system (i.e. item rarity). But then, that material also came out in errata, and did not require people to buy Essentials products. And of all those changes in that errata, only the item rarity system was anything more sweeping that the errata we've been getting to classes and feats since the release of 4e back in 2008. And even that was said by the devs to be optional for those who preferred the parcel system.
So really, NOTHING about Essentials is a "more drastic change" to 4e than 3.5 was to 3.0. Your statement is without factual support. It's not simply disagreeing. All objective, quantifiable evidence says you're WRONG.
I agree Essentials is 4.5
I don't see why everyone has a problem calling it that. Things have changed enough from the original PHB to be a different version of the same edition.
The problem is people read 4.5 and see it as a 4 letter word since the bad reception 3.5 got.
3.5 got a great reception. With my group, at least. The problem is that 3.5 was an actual difference in ruleset that was meant to invalidate the rules that it replaced. Essentials is meant to be additional options.
And things have been changing the original PHB since a month after its release. It's called ERRATA. And honestly, with the exception of the item rarity, the "Essentials changes" packet of errata was much less sweeping than some other months' errata.
Trying to use a store's view seems useless.
I order my stuff from Amazon, even though I really like my local gaming store. I have an amazon prime account which mean all regular and 2 day shipping is free for a year. I certainly would spend more then the cost for a Prime Account in a year, so I'm saving money.
But even then, without Prime, the cost + shipping is still less then a store. WoTC has done as much as it can to help gaming stores, but you just can't compete with that.
Currently, i'm reading the Walking Dead. Each book is priced at $15 (save the first, which is $10). So far, there are 13 volumes. Amazon has them for $9.95. So I can save a total of $60 for volumes 2-13.
Why shouldn't I? Yes, I would love to support comic book stores more. But the simple truth is, anything successful, is going to be cheaper from Amazon.
I like my FLGS as well. I buy miniatures (both DND plastics and metals from others) from them all the time. I buy my paints there as well. However, I buy about 90% of my books at either Amazon or Barnes&Noble. 20-30% cheaper. Every time I buy a rulebook I save $10-$15. So, it doesn't surprise me that stores are reporting sales are down.
Add in the double whammy of a bad economy, and yeah... WOTC is probably feeling the pinch like companies all around the globe.
Is this the end of DND? No. That suggestion even makes me giggle. As a player and DM who HATED 3rd Edition, I loved it when 4e came out and it brought me back to DND after YEARS of not playing at all. And when I see a sparce release schedule and I combine that with the MONTHLY rules changes in 4e AND all the subtle changes to 4e introduced in later rulebooks... well it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if we will soon see 4.5 edition, or even 5th edition. End of DND? No. New edition or update edition? Maybe.
We already have 4.5, it is called Essentials.
Comments like this always come across as petty and stupid to me.
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e. Feel free to disagree, but violating CoC isn't an acceptable response.
The changes from 3 to 3.5 didn't work together. Rules were completely rewritten, removed, or completely new. You really couldn't take the parts you liked from each with out new problems arrising.
Essentials is simply different options under the same rules. The new fighters don't replace the old fighters, and both can work within the same game. That goes for every class.
And any rule changes have been across the board for Core and Essentials. That was NOT the case for 3 to 3.5.
You can play the game the same way as before, if you choose to go classic, or essentials, or use both at the same time.
You couldn't really do that with 3.5.
Hence, essentials isn't 4.5. At best, it's basically putting out much of the same materials that we've already had, with alternate options. Go pick up the essentials rules compendium or the DM kit, the majority of both are direct text pick ups. They only changed where rules had change via erratta, or added additional text to further explain the rules.
[
For instance anyone playing a Wizard build other than the Mage build is just plain crazy in my opinion. The mage is so vastly overpowered (even compared to other Essentials builds) that my resident game mechanics genius/power gamer has boasted that with appropriate levels of consumable healing magic, he could play through the entirety of the HPE series of modules (as originally printed) with a mage as the only character. In other words as solo adventures.
And did you prove his claim? Has he any quantifiable credentials? Is there any objective evidence at all of this?
No? Moving on then.
The change to the magic items and feats alone represents enough of a change to support my claim.
See my above argument. While item rarity was, admittedly a big change, it was still released in errata and did not require people to buy the Essentials books in order to use said new rules.
And the changes to feats...are no more sweeping than the changes we've been getting for years. If you really think Essentials is 4.5, does tha mean that the July 2008 errata document was 4.1? Or the 2009 Errata documents were 4.2.4, 4.3.1, etc?
4e has been recieving updates and changes throughout its lifetime, and the changes which came in the "Essentials-ready" errata document were no more sweeping than any other, with the sole exception of item rarity, which was pretty major.
Sure anyone can ignore the Essentials material, or try to concoct some hybrid of 4e/Essentials, but if you play the rules as written (and don't forget that WotC has said this is the basis of the game going forward), I think my claim is pretty much irrefutable.
And I can play Rules-As-Written without using ANY material from HotFL or HotFK. I can use the classic 4e books AND the errata, as I have done before, and not touch a single product with "Essentials" on it and I am still using RAW.
Which pretty much REFUTES your "irrefutable" argument.
Essentials material is expressly compatible with "classic" 4e. You can play a knight in a party next to to a taclord, lazer cleric, swarm druid, hexblade, and sorceror.
Sure you could, but I can't imagine the players of the other characters wanting to play with one of the overpowered, broken builds from Essentials in the party. Nor would I expect them to want to fight against the new monsters that needed to be buffed in order to present a challenge to the broken Essentials builds. The beholder is so broken I can't even find anything funny to say about it.
3.5 was expressly meant to REPLACE 3e rules. The base classes which were re-written were meant to COMPLETELY OVERWRITE the previous classes. WotC never advocated the continued use of 3.0 material which had been updated. Books that were not planned to have a 3.5 version were included in a free "update document" to modify them mechanically for 3.5, since 3.0 material was not directly compatible.
I see you've swallowed this company advertising hook, line and sinker. Essentials is just more stealthy while going about the same thing to accomplish the same ends. Essentials is the game going forward, which means no support for 4e anymore, and they are rewritting the 4e classes. Ever hear of a product called Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell? They are updating the Player's Handbook classes and will probably do the same for the PH2 and 3 at some point.
Essentials has produced a number of new classes for the game. Sub-classes, really, since these classes can share some powers with the base classes whose namesake they share, even though they have little to no class features in common with said namesakes. WotC is not going to stop supporting the classes of "classic" 4e. We may, however, be seeing any future classes laid out in the level-by-level format of the Essentials classes, even if they are AEDU classes.
See above. PH classes being presented in Essentials format = replaced.
It's amazing how wrong you really are. Truly.
Glares
And did you prove his claim? Has he any quantifiable credentials? Is there any objective evidence at all of this?
No? Moving on then.
Notice how you're whole argument is predicated on false assumptions. LOL
We did hash out several fights mathematically. It can be done. Don't think I'd waste the year and a half playing through them just to prove a point though.
Quantifiable credentials? You are getting more ludicrous as this goes on. When losing an argument I find it best to concede a point rather than ask for unprovable and ultimately unverifiable phantom credentials. You're sounding desperate.
Essentials is more akin to the 2E Player's Handbook series than 3.5 replacement. It is an option, nothing more.
I see you've swallowed this company advertising hook, line and sinker.
And I see that you are just signing on to the entire "corporate conspiracy" theory for no other reason than to subscribe to that theory.
Essentials is the game going forward, which means no support for 4e anymore,
They have never stated this and they have actually said that standard 4E production will continue. Essentials will likely have a short run to bring new players into the fold and it will return to business as usual.
Strangely enough, both characters can be created in the character generator program. Considering that the new character builder was released after Essentials (i.e. "moving forward"), this completely blows your theory out of the water. They are completely supporting the 4E core characters as well as the Essentials characters.
But hey, my speculation is just as equal as yours. The truth likely lies in the middle.
I see you've swallowed this company advertising hook, line and sinker.
What was that you said earlier about responding in ways that violate the CoC? Did you get special permission to do so?
From Bill Slavicek's Ampersand article 7/9/10
Starting in September and rolling out until the end of the year, the Dungeons & Dragons Essentials products consist of 10 key products that form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward.
Last chance folks.
Edition wars and the sniping that goes along with it are (a) *not* appreciated in the DDI forums; and (b) completely offtopic not only for this thread, but for the DDI forums as a whole.
Thanks.
I'd suggest the entire thread be moved to a different forum. It is about the demise of D&D as a brand and only tangentially has anything to do with DDi.
Edition wars and the sniping that goes along with it are (a) *not* appreciated in the DDI forums; and (b) completely offtopic not only for this thread, but for the DDI forums as a whole.
Then this entire thread should be locked. "The End of D&D" is hardly a thread that warrants any constructive discussion, particularly in a DDI thread. The content of the OP is completely inflammatory by nature. An edition war discussion is inevitable considering the OP is obviously talking about the current edition of D&D.
...but seeing the recent activity surrounding D&D ... I think this year will see the end of D&D from WotC. Period.
The entire thread is a flame war just waiting to happen.
On a side note, 4E and Essentials are the same edition, so there really can be no "edition wars" within the same edition.
So you are pretty much just plain wrong.
And yet everything since 7/9/10 refutes your stance (and yes, contradicts the statement made). Again, if core 4E was not going to be supported, it would not have been in the character builder. The two "systems" work hand in hand with each other. One does not replace the other, which 3.5 did to 3.0.
Mudbunny,
I'd suggest the entire thread be moved to a different forum. It is about the demise of D&D as a brand and only tangentially has anything to do with DDi.
It started out somewhat on topic, what with the (unspoken) assumption that DDI is so central to the future of D&D that the mistakes that WotC has made with DDI are going to kill D&D as a whole. (A possibility as likely as some of my personal fantasies involving me, the female cast of the Charlie's Angels's movies and a wading pool filled with chocolate syrup.)
As long is it was touching on that, I could squint my eyes and keep it here. However, if it stays on the current topic of Essentialws vs non-Essentials, it won't get moved, it will just get locked.
*shrug*
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
In other words... actions speak louder than words.
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
I would like to point that every article that was for cClasses (There was a beastmaster ranger one too) since Essentials has been basic lip service with little minimum content. I wouldn't consider that support. They are more like "Shut-Up" articles.
Essentials material is expressly compatible with "classic" 4e. You can play a knight in a party next to to a taclord, lazer cleric, swarm druid, hexblade, and sorceror.
Sure you could, but I can't imagine the players of the other characters wanting to play with one of the overpowered, broken builds from Essentials in the party. Nor would I expect them to want to fight against the new monsters that needed to be buffed in order to present a challenge to the broken Essentials builds. The beholder is so broken I can't even find anything funny to say about it.
Another bull**** claim. The Essentials classes are not some kind of "power creep". The knight does not outperform other defenders, the thief does not out-DPR other rogue builds (although comparing it to other strikers than the rogue may be unfair since the rogue is one of the best strikers out there). The Warpriest isn't even a better healer than pre-Essentials cleric builds.
And as for the monsters, well, I don't own the Monster Vault, so I have not compared them to the "classic" monsters, but it's well-documented that the monsters in the PHB1, especially solo monsters, were slightly out of whack, which is why by the time the MM2 and MM3 were released, we saw a change in the way solo monsters were created.
I see you've swallowed this company advertising hook, line and sinker. Essentials is just more stealthy while going about the same thing to accomplish the same ends.
As Jharii said, you seem to have subscribed to some kind of "corporate conspiracy theory" hook line and sinker.
They are NOT going about the same ends, and have not replaced or removed existing material.
Essentials is the game going forward, which means no support for 4e anymore, and they are rewritting the 4e classes. Ever hear of a product called Class Compendium: Heroes of Sword and Spell? They are updating the Player's Handbook classes and will probably do the same for the PH2 and 3 at some point.
First off: those classes have already recieved significant errata. The "changes' to which you refer have already been made, and the Class Compendium is simply intended to be a re-print of the material with the errata integrated and in the "level-by-level" format of Essentials, which many people (not me, but others on these boards) find easier to read when advancing a character.
More importantly: That book has been removed from WotC's Product Catalogue, so there's no guarantee that it's even going to be released.
See above. PH classes being presented in Essentials format = replaced.
Essentials format =/= replaced, just a change in the layout of the powers and class features. They're basically re-arranging the paragraphs into the level-by-level format. Not changing the class feaures themselves.
It's amazing how wrong you really are. Truly.
And did you prove his claim? Has he any quantifiable credentials? Is there any objective evidence at all of this?
No? Moving on then.
Notice how you're whole argument is predicated on false assumptions. LOL
First off, nothing else in that post is in reference to your mythical "solo mage", and you did not respond to the rest of it because you were clearly unable to formulate any kind of a response that would support your argument.
When losing an argument I find it best to concede a point rather than ask for unprovable and ultimately unverifiable phantom credentials. You're sounding desperate.
Take your own advice.
You clearly are intent on spouting vitriolic and inflammatory garbage about how Essentials is 4.5e, not only without proof, but in the face of proof to the contrary.
Essentials material is supplementary to 4e. They are ADDITIONAL classes.
There have been changes to 4e since it's inception. So I ask again, was the July 2008 update 4.1? What about updates in 2009? Were they 4.2.3, 4.3.4, and so on? Those changes were FAR more drastic than the changes to feats made in the October 2010 errata. I do acknowledge that the changes to magic items to include rarity is more sweeping than the other updates, but it was, nonetheless, released as free errata to the core material.
You claimed that Essentials was more drastic than the change from 3.0 to 3.5. THAT change required us to buy whole new books for the new edition, because the pervious material was rendered INVALID. 4e has evolved contstantly, to be sure, but these are errata updates to the existing books we have. The material has NOT been rendered invalid, nor will it be.
You made some kind of lame, trumped-up claim that if we ignore Essentials material, or mix it with "classic 4e" that we are not playing with RAW, but this statement is a flat-out lie. I can play strictly RAW, with errata and not use any material from HotFL or HotFK, and still be playing 4e D&D by RAW.
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
Right because 4 Rare Paragon tier and higher items constitutes class support...
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
I would like to point that every article that was for cClasses (There was a beastmaster ranger one too) since Essentials has been basic lip service with little minimum content. I wouldn't consider that support. They are more like "Shut-Up" articles.
I would like to point out that this fits the stated format of the articles in dragon for all classes. They have stated, in no uncertain terms, that they are laying off of mechanical elements for now and focusing on so called "story elements". These things may not matter to you but they must matter to someone and thus constitute "support".
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
I would like to point that every article that was for cClasses (There was a beastmaster ranger one too) since Essentials has been basic lip service with little minimum content. I wouldn't consider that support. They are more like "Shut-Up" articles.
I would like to point out that this fits the stated format of the articles in dragon for all classes. They have stated, in no uncertain terms, that they are laying off of mechanical elements for now and focusing on so called "story elements". These things may not matter to you but they must matter to someone and thus constitute "support".
The types of articles that will come out in Dragon supporting the story elements will be ones that they chose to accept in the submission process over more mechanical themed ones. I think this is a mistake, as they have also had a survey to see what we want because there has been a big uproar that people are not getting what they want out of both magazines.
As far as Classic 4e format books Book of Shadow is 4e and not essentials as far as I know.
I highly doubt that WotC and DDI would be investing resources in the VT (and recently re-released CB) if D&D was going to "die in 2011."
On the contrary, I would expect the opposite. You don't start ramping up new and different ways to support the game if you don't intend on living past the next calendar year. And there is no indication of a fire sale.
Everything appears to be business as usual, which essentially means slow, clunky, and uninformed (as far as the consumer is concerned) progress.
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
Right because 4 Rare Paragon tier and higher items constitutes class support...
What does? Should it be 5 rares? Would that make a difference?
I see content specifically aimed for a class that some people claim will never see support again, and you want to nitpick just because they are doing it.
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
I would like to point that every article that was for cClasses (There was a beastmaster ranger one too) since Essentials has been basic lip service with little minimum content. I wouldn't consider that support. They are more like "Shut-Up" articles.
I would like to point out that this fits the stated format of the articles in dragon for all classes. They have stated, in no uncertain terms, that they are laying off of mechanical elements for now and focusing on so called "story elements". These things may not matter to you but they must matter to someone and thus constitute "support".
The types of articles that will come out in Dragon supporting the story elements will be ones that they chose to accept in the submission process over more mechanical themed ones. I think this is a mistake, as they have also had a survey to see what we want because there has been a big uproar that people are not getting what they want out of both magazines.
As far as Classic 4e format books Book of Shadow is 4e and not essentials as far as I know.
I remain unconvinced that the "uproar" is that big. I've seen less than fifty people on these boards complaining very loudly over the last few months.
I guess fifty people could be a lot.
There are the lurkers who will never post or those who never even come to the forums. I have seen twitters and blogs make passing swipes at the content.
On the topic of pre-e content not being supported any more is pretty much moot, as since essentials we have had:
A Psion Article
A RunePriest Article
and we will have a ardent article this month. Looks like there is still some support for pre-e classes.
Right because 4 Rare Paragon tier and higher items constitutes class support...
What does? Should it be 5 rares? Would that make a difference?
I see content specifically aimed for a class that some people claim will never see support again, and you want to nitpick just because they are doing it.
*facepalm*
At one point 4e was all about balance so that no single class was "worse" than another (at least by role). Fighters have received plenty of online support. Powers, feats, items, etc. Thats great too. But then you get a class like the Runepriest, woefully forgotten because of lack of support. The Runepriest needs options, not items a DM may or may not give you.
Thats not class support, those are scraps and random thoughts of some game designer phoned in and called an article.
I know Winters and the D&DI staff are adamant about making Dragon useless fluff, and I'm not saying Runepriests have to have a 10 page article chock full of feats and powers. But 4 blue items you can't trade at the auction house (Woops! Slipped into WoW mode) 4 rare items is barely scraps, and certainly not class support.
There are the lurkers who will never post or those who never even come to the forums. I have seen twitters and blogs make passing swipes at the content.
Are you sure they're not the same people?
I have no doubt that DDI has issues. My major complaint has always been the lack of good, solid communication (which has, for the most part, been much improved over the past month or so). I still find the content in the magazines interesting and I still use the character builder and the compendium even though they're online (I live in suberbia in the US. Internet is ubiquitus). While the OCB has some serious bugs and at least one fairly major design flaw, I see it more as a curiosity than something to rage over. I know it will eventually get ironed out and I still use it to make characters so it still has value to me.
This is pretty much the opinion of everyone I game with IRL so I'm sorry if I come off as dismissive but my experience is much different than some other people's here I guess.
There are the lurkers who will never post or those who never even come to the forums. I have seen twitters and blogs make passing swipes at the content.Are you sure they're not the same people?
I have no doubt that DDI has issues. My major complaint has always been the lack of good, solid communication (which has, for the most part, been much improved over the past month or so). I still find the content in the magazines interesting and I still use the character builder and the compendium even though they're online (I live in suberbia in the US. Internet is ubiquitus). While the OCB has some serious bugs and at least one fairly major design flaw, I see it more as a curiosity than something to rage over. I know it will eventually get ironed out and I still use it to make characters so it still has value to me.
This is pretty much the opinion of everyone I game with IRL so I'm sorry if I come off as dismissive but my experience is much different than some other people's here I guess.
they could be the same but there are 44578 members of DDI who are current subscribers. We see the handful of former subscribers and those who are saying they are no longer subscribers. You see the supporters and the detractors I have not made a rough count of how many that is but it sure is not 44,000 people ;)
I would think some of those follow AL and MB's advice and send feedback through the form or even send Dragon and Dungeon feedback via email. Or they just complain at their FLGS or at the gaming table and just live with it like some of us.
There just isn't enough posts to show that people are only joing the forums to post that they are quitting DDi. Even at the worst moments, such as when they switched to online CB, the post you are leaving thread got up to 98 posts, with a handful of people posting more then once, so probably around 80-90 individual people, some of which, didn't quit.
Sorry that DDi isn't going away. I also offer the Beta VT as evidence that it's going strong.
It's almost humorous to read. I see both sides making good arguments, but then turning them into total foolishness by trying to personally "win". It's like watching a bunch of 13 year olds having a pissing contest.
Mudbunny is correct: Lay off the personal attacks. And, I'll add: Stick to your CORE argument. Don't take the bait. Don't allow your opponent switch to an end-case wording of your argument, and then fiercely defend it.
It would also be nice if SOMEone spoke to the original poster's points.
It would also be nice if SOMEone spoke to the original poster's points.
Are you selectively not reading all of the posts or just skipping over some to try to emphasize your point? Or does "SOMEone" addressing the original post completely invalidate your entire post? (check page 6)
Whatever the case, you choosing to ignore those posts as well as not contributing to the original topic actually directly refutes your own point you are trying to make.
As an unbiased observer, it seems to me that both sides of the "Essentials is 4.5" debate are fighting for no purpose. You all have valid arguments. Your problem isn't the side you are presenting, but rather that you are forcing yourselves to debate at an extreme position, and framing the other side's positions in the most end-case way possible.
It's almost humorous to read. I see both sides making good arguments, but then turning them into total foolishness by trying to personally "win". It's like watching a bunch of 13 year olds having a pissing contest.
Mudbunny is correct: Lay off the personal attacks. And, I'll add: Stick to your CORE argument. Don't take the bait. Don't allow your opponent switch to an end-case wording of your argument, and then fiercely defend it.
It would also be nice if SOMEone spoke to the original poster's points.
I don't really have a horse in this race. My group is already treating 4e as if it is no longer supported and use only what was available as of August, more or less. That's why I got out of the argument.
As to the OP's points, I don't think any of them are valid. Just another disgruntled DDi customer lashing out over hurt feeling. The calendar is sparse, sure, but that alone isn't reason to suggest that the game is dead. His other points are purely ludicrous. The CB is more like proof that the game isn't dead, and magazine content is following a stated change. I don't see how any of it adds up to a dying brand.
Oh, and by the way, I can remember when there were cries of the death of D&D when WotC acquired the D&D brand, and again when Hasbro acquired WotC. Didn't come true then either.
Remember to keep posts here on-topic and friendly. Please consider the code of conduct when posting to these forums.
My group is already treating 4e as if it is no longer supported and use only what was available as of August, more or less.
Right...because THAT constitutes proof that 4e is no longer supported...
My group is already treating 4e as if it is no longer supported and use only what was available as of August, more or less.
Right...because THAT constitutes proof that 4e is no longer supported...
When Heroes of Shadow comes out does that mean 4e is still not supported? What about the Shadowfell boxed set? The Ravenloft Campaign Setting?
My group is already treating 4e as if it is no longer supported and use only what was available as of August, more or less.
Right...because THAT constitutes proof that 4e is no longer supported...
When Heroes of Shadow comes out does that mean 4e is still not supported? What about the Shadowfell boxed set? The Ravenloft Campaign Setting?
Pffft. All old hat. Isn't it all obvious? The Ravenloft board game unofficially launched D&D 5.0. Everything else is now obsolete.
This is pretty much the opinion of everyone I game with IRL so I'm sorry if I come off as dismissive but my experience is much different than some other people's here I guess.
Thus why anecdotes are pretty much useless in judging something like this. In my group one guy takes the same attitude as you and your group, one person hates it with a white hot passion, I'm ambivalent about it and the rest don't give a rat's patootie because they don't sub to DDI.
From this one can conclude....exactly nothing.
This is pretty much the opinion of everyone I game with IRL so I'm sorry if I come off as dismissive but my experience is much different than some other people's here I guess.
Thus why anecdotes are pretty much useless in judging something like this.
*nods*
The plural of anecdote is not data.
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e. Feel free to disagree, but violating CoC isn't an acceptable response.
I agree that the response wasn't a polite one. But I will certainly disagree with your statement - it's pretty clear when looking at them that the 3.5 change was more significant in pretty much every way, with more extensive changes to a much larger portion of the system, including much more fundamental changes to the core of the system itself, all of which had a much bigger impact on existing characters. (As compared to Essentials impact on existing characters, which was effectively... none.)
In spite of WotCs protestations, Essentials represents a more drastic change to 4e than 3.5 did to 3e. Feel free to disagree, but violating CoC isn't an acceptable response.
I agree that the response wasn't a polite one. But I will certainly disagree with your statement - it's pretty clear when looking at them that the 3.5 change was more significant in pretty much every way, with more extensive changes to a much larger portion of the system, including much more fundamental changes to the core of the system itself, all of which had a much bigger impact on existing characters. (As compared to Essentials impact on existing characters, which was effectively... none.)
The statement was a nothing more then an attempt to flame people, so I gave it a response on it's level, to be honest. Which is a violation of the Code of Conduct, I should have just ignored it.
But eh. Being rude is the only way to go on these forums it seems. I'm in Rome, so I'm doing as the Romans do. Within reason, I'm not going to jump off any bridges or eat monkey brains.
My group is already treating 4e as if it is no longer supported and use only what was available as of August, more or less.
Right...because THAT constitutes proof that 4e is no longer supported...
I never claimed that was proof anything.
The statement was a nothing more then an attempt to flame people, so I gave it a response on it's level, to be honest. Which is a violation of the Code of Conduct, I should have just ignored it.
But eh. Being rude is the only way to go on these forums it seems. I'm in Rome, so I'm doing as the Romans do. Within reason, I'm not going to jump off any bridges or eat monkey brains.
Dane, please stop attributing motives to me. My intention was nothing at all what you describe. Perhaps you would run afoul of a less significant percentage of the forum membership if you didn't try to read minds.
The statement was a nothing more then an attempt to flame people, so I gave it a response on it's level, to be honest. Which is a violation of the Code of Conduct, I should have just ignored it.
But eh. Being rude is the only way to go on these forums it seems. I'm in Rome, so I'm doing as the Romans do. Within reason, I'm not going to jump off any bridges or eat monkey brains.
Dane, please stop attributing motives to me. My intention was nothing at all what you describe. Perhaps you would run afoul of a less significant percentage of the forum membership if you didn't try to read minds.
If that's how I saw it, then that's how I saw it, and that's the intentions I saw with your post. It was off topic, and you had no reasons to support your statement. You don't give people much to go on with your statement, people are free to see it anyway they want.
You certainly followed it up with other statement (and not just directed at me) meant to flame and bait, so it's not like you are above trying to flame and bait.