(a) Happy with what is coming and sure it will make us DDi subscribers happy.
(b) Unsatisfied with what is coming.
(c) As much in the dark as the rest of us about what is coming.
(d) Unable to say anything about this due to NDA.
I'm also going to assume that if they don't respond to this thread at all it's because of their NDAs.
Cheers!
Blakey
(Puts on dancing shoes.)
Based on what I have been told, and keeping in mind that there is a lot that we are not told, the future (whether it is short-term or long-term I can't say) will see some people unhappy with what is coming, and some people happy with what is coming. Personally, based on my personal situation, I am happy with what is in the pipeline.1 However, there is a lot that I don't know of that I am sure is in the works. (Heck I *know* that there is stuff that people outside the DDI studio don't know about coming down the pipe.)
1 - I feel that I would be happy whether or not I am a VCL.
I don't fit quite into any category.
For the most part, I am C with a sprinkle of A. I am almost completely in the dark. The only difference is that I briefly saw a layout of the room before they turned the lights out, so I stumble along blindly just like the rest, except when I stub my toe on something, I can say 'oh, that was the sofa I just hit' rather than wondering what it was that I just nearly killed myself over. Either way, my toe still hurts, and I wish someone would turn on the lights.
So, web based tools sounds like a good thing to me and I'm hopeful that they allow everyone to be able to use the tools... mac users, and linux users alike. Thats a very good thing, and I'm optimistic about that. Unfortunately, I'm concerned that users who don't have always-on access will get shut out from the new hotness.
Either way, I have no concrete information about how that will work. No NDAs means no information.
Perhaps WotC should take note - people who have more idea what is coming are happy with it, so why not enlighten all of us?
Blakey, the slightly more cheerful.
My interpretation of the answers is that people who dislike online-only CB will be the disappointed ones and Mac and Linux users will be the happy ones. Alas, I belong to the first group and am going to cancel my sub if there will be no more support for offline CB.
When I read mudbunny's post my first thoughts where the same as yours. I know WHY they would go down this route but that wont stop me getting even more disappointed with D&Di.
My sub runs out in December, I think I'm going to be very cautious updating my CB in November* in case they try to lock our offline version.
*Assuming the November update actually happens in November, of course.
I'm just trying to figure out what had the VCL's so excited three or four weeks ago. I was implied that wahtever it is/was was on the cusp of being told/released, but so far bupkiss, save for a valiant attempt by Paolo to give more info that seems to have been mercilessly crushed.
The only new thing that came from WOTC was the fact that they were going to web based tools. Could that have been it? Once that news broke, seemed to me alot of people were upset they were working on that instead of getting the latest stuff into the CB.
Can one of the VCLs say if web based tools was what the excitment was about?
Of course, as Mudbunny pointed out, there will always people who always complain.
WotC isn't exactly bulletproof on the tech side of things. What are they going to do to ensure that when you go to use the online CB that it actually works?
God...thinking about this just irritates me. To think that a gaming session could be derailed because they are offline or the players are offline.
Let's face it...the books are pretty useless considering the countless revisions and errata that has been released since the beginning.
Let's face it...the books are pretty useless considering the countless revisions and errata that has been released since the beginning.
Huh.
I find this Hilarius considering 3.X had as much Errata, and we didn't need Etools to play.
Actually come to think of it 2E had a lot of errata to (albeit printed in the next book released so you had to buy it and keep abreast of which one was current...)
I bet 1E would have had as much too, but Gygax felt the DM shouldn't be an idiot and control the game without being hand held.
Let's face it...the books are pretty useless considering the countless revisions and errata that has been released since the beginning.
Huh.
I find this Hilarius considering 3.X had as much Errata, and we didn't need Etools to play.
Actually come to think of it 2E had a lot of errata to (albeit printed in the next book released so you had to buy it and keep abreast of which one was current...)
I bet 1E would have had as much too, but Gygax felt the DM shouldn't be an idiot and control the game without being hand held.
The errata and complications and inconsistencies was what stopped us from playing 3.X
Kudos to WotC for creating the CB and making a valuable tool that we could use to ensure there was at least some manner of baseline.
For the matter, what about the other games that don't do errata?
Did it stop you from 2E? I ask as I know that there were a number of differences from the classic PHB to the one released shortly before the release the PO series (Which in and of themselves had even MORE changes).
For the matter, what about the other games that don't do errata?
By the time 3.0 rolled around, we were pretty willing to dump 2.0 due to how "vast" and unmanageable it had become as well.
The CB really is a helpful tool.
Did it stop you from 2E? I ask as I know that there were a number of differences from the classic PHB to the one released shortly before the release the PO series (Which in and of themselves had even MORE changes).
For the matter, what about the other games that don't do errata?
I honestly think all this errata and updates are what is killing the whole hobby for me. In 1e, and 2e we played by the rules we had in front of us.
...AND WE HAD FUN!
It really didn't matter to us if there were rules updates. We were focused entirely on the story we were telling, not the math behind the rules that allowed us to tell the story. Gamers today focus way too much on the aspects of power gaming, builds, and power synergy. I have players around my own gaming table who care more about doing more damage than the last guy, than fulfilling their role.
[Edit] And of course now WotC doesn't let you stand still. I have no desire to play Essentials, but apparently if I want to use Character Builder I'm not going to have a choice.
If I DL a 3.5 character builder (either an excel sheet or another builder) It give me options of what books and rules I want to use.. a simple checkbox that allows or removes content for your personal game would be a great and simple addition to the builder.
I also know that this idea was brought up a long time ago by someone else, but once again WotC refuses to listen to the customers.
@Kalex- Actually, least I heard there would be an option to continue using Char Builder without using the Essentials builds. That was awhile back though. Not sure if its still viable.
That option exists right now! The character builder has no Essentials builds in it, so if you stop updating, you've toggled that option.
It's not just the builds I am worried about. I don't like a lot of the updated powers either [ex.: Magic Missile], but I know they have said they won't maintain older versions of the updated powers. So my choice is use CB as is and never update it (actually it is too late for a lot of things anyway), or go along with the new Essentials stuff. Sucks pretty bad if you ask me.
My mistake. I thought you were concerned about the Essentials characters. Not updates to the core rules.
Yea, unfortunately, no way to avoid updates to the official rules.
Sad thing...
If I DL a 3.5 character builder (either an excel sheet or another builder) It give me options of what books and rules I want to use.. a simple checkbox that allows or removes content for your personal game would be a great and simple addition to the builder.
I also know that this idea was brought up a long time ago by someone else, but once again WotC refuses to listen to the customers.
Actually you can do this in CB. It's called Campaign Settings and I have a campaign setting file I use with my group. However, what it doesn't allow for is 4e Magic Missile and 4E Magic Missile to exist separately in the program. I already know I can block the classes, but what I can't block is the changes to the races and powers that already exist in the builder. That's what ticks me off.
It's not just the builds I am worried about. I don't like a lot of the updated powers either [ex.: Magic Missile], but I know they have said they won't maintain older versions of the updated powers. So my choice is use CB as is and never update it (actually it is too late for a lot of things anyway), or go along with the new Essentials stuff. Sucks pretty bad if you ask me.
My mistake. I thought you were concerned about the Essentials characters. Not updates to the core rules.
Yea, unfortunately, no way to avoid updates to the official rules.
The problem with those changes is they were very obviously made to pave the way for Essentials. There is no reason for the change to MM for example unless you have a new hugely powerful, broken wizard build in Essentials. They made changes to the core rules in keeping with the new Essentials design philosophy and thats where my problem lies.
Did it stop you from 2E? I ask as I know that there were a number of differences from the classic PHB to the one released shortly before the release the PO series (Which in and of themselves had even MORE changes).
For the matter, what about the other games that don't do errata?I honestly think all this errata and updates are what is killing the whole hobby for me. In 1e, and 2e we played by the rules we had in front of us.
...AND WE HAD FUN!
agreed and signed
The "errata" wasn't around for 2.0...at least not to my knowledge but the kits and class handbooks, etc...Oh my...it was a great deal to keep track of.
4.0...what a mess. I'm relatively fine with the errata because the CB helped manage it. We just wouldn't implement a rule change until it was in the CB.
Like changes to magic missile. We had no idea about that change until a buddy leveled up his mage and POOF...it's a bit of a bother at times but at least the CB did a fine job of squaring all of that up.
I just don't see how errata is a deal breaker. Let alone managing it. The only thing I can see as an issue is what Kalex is (rightfully) complaining about, the inability to ignore errata.
Actually for as much as I like the CB, my group and I are discussing the possibility of dumping the CB altogether and going back to making our characters by hand so we don't have to use the new material that we universally pretty much hate [apart from the new fluff about the Nentir Vale].
Yanno...I was just thinking about implementing the same process.
4.0...what a mess. I'm relatively fine with the errata because the CB helped manage it. We just wouldn't implement a rule change until it was in the CB.
Like changes to magic missile. We had no idea about that change until a buddy leveled up his mage and POOF...it's a bit of a bother at times but at least the CB did a fine job of squaring all of that up.
Probably one of the most insightful comments I've seen in awhile. Errata is fine, as long as its managable. The CB makes errata managable.
4.0...what a mess. I'm relatively fine with the errata because the CB helped manage it. We just wouldn't implement a rule change until it was in the CB.
Like changes to magic missile. We had no idea about that change until a buddy leveled up his mage and POOF...it's a bit of a bother at times but at least the CB did a fine job of squaring all of that up.
Probably one of the most insightful comments I've seen in awhile. Errata is fine, as long as its managable. The CB makes errata managable.
Also agreed! I really do appreciate the efforts put into balancing the game post-release, amid a wealth of option-sprawl, and the CB is absolutely great for consolidating all of that.
I'd DEARLY love an Essentials toggle button though. Not really interested in playing alot of the options that I've seen presented from it.
How many changes to the core rules occurred with Essentials? From what I can recall from the October errata update, the changes were rather underwhelming. Besides Magic Missile, how many other old powers underwent such a radical change?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as core rule changes caused the release of Essentials, this talk seems to be much ado about nothing.
I understand about MM, but most of the other changes seemed either good or easily ignored.
The complaint is more about what is to come, although I don't see why it was necessary to make the errata changes to the core game before Essentials was even out. We noticed the change to Magic Missile in the CB (I believe) in the July or August update.
I'm not happy with the way many things are changing in Essentials as IMHO the changes represent not only Power Creep, but what I am going to call Power Leap™.
How many changes to the core rules occurred with Essentials? From what I can recall from the October errata update, the changes were rather underwhelming. Besides Magic Missile, how many other old powers underwent such a radical change?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as core rule changes caused the release of Essentials, this talk seems to be much ado about nothing.
I understand about MM, but most of the other changes seemed either good or easily ignored.
This was actually addressed in an Ampersand article, i believe.
The gist was that a lot of wizard encounter powers got miss effects, and a handful of feats got updated, and a very few items got nerfed, and some clarifications were made. Nothing major.
I'll see if I can find a link.
Edit: I was wrong. It wasn't ampersand: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
How many changes to the core rules occurred with Essentials? From what I can recall from the October errata update, the changes were rather underwhelming. Besides Magic Missile, how many other old powers underwent such a radical change?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as core rule changes caused the release of Essentials, this talk seems to be much ado about nothing.
I understand about MM, but most of the other changes seemed either good or easily ignored.
This was actually addressed in an Ampersand article, i believe.
The gist was that a lot of wizard encounter powers got miss effects, and a handful of feats got updated, and a very few items got nerfed, and some clarifications were made. Nothing major.
I'll see if I can find a link.
Edit: I was wrong. It wasn't ampersand: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...
So, with minimal ironangsarcasm can you explain the new magic item rules. or at least where i can find them in comprehensive form?
How many changes to the core rules occurred with Essentials? From what I can recall from the October errata update, the changes were rather underwhelming. Besides Magic Missile, how many other old powers underwent such a radical change?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as core rule changes caused the release of Essentials, this talk seems to be much ado about nothing.
I understand about MM, but most of the other changes seemed either good or easily ignored.
Magic Missile wasn't essentials...it was far earlier. As was ... Beacon of Hope, I believe that went from burst 5 to burst 3...and another spell...Grasp of the Grave? (not exactly sure of the name) But GotG went from entirely, horribly killer, to only moderately so.
This all happened prior to essentials.
By my understanding (and it's not a clear understanding), backstab damage changed regarding weapons to be used. Magic items and their usage changed...and...hmmm...targets for PCs making assist rolls possibly? Racial bonuses as well, I believe.
Not HUGE changes with essentials for the "game" , but as for character builds, well that's an entirely other thread.
Ramius
How many changes to the core rules occurred with Essentials? From what I can recall from the October errata update, the changes were rather underwhelming. Besides Magic Missile, how many other old powers underwent such a radical change?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as core rule changes caused the release of Essentials, this talk seems to be much ado about nothing.
I understand about MM, but most of the other changes seemed either good or easily ignored.
Magic Missile wasn't essentials...it was far earlier. As was ... Beacon of Hope, I believe that went from burst 5 to burst 3...and another spell...Grasp of the Grave? (not exactly sure of the name) But GotG went from entirely, horribly killer, to only moderately so.
This all happened prior to essentials.
By my understanding (and it's not a clear understanding), backstab damage changed regarding weapons to be used. Magic items and their usage changed...and...hmmm...targets for PCs making assist rolls possibly? Racial bonuses as well, I believe.
Not HUGE changes with essentials for the "game" , but as for character builds, well that's an entirely other thread.
I don't like the new Magic Missile. I know they are trying to recapture the flavour of the old spell but with the old spell you at least got to roll damage. Now there's no dice-rolling at all. You just say hey, there you go, take off another few hit points. No fun in that.
Implements
Going forward, the Dungeons & Dragons game will feature a system of proficiency with implements that works just like weapon proficiencies. If you are proficient with an implement, you can use it with any of your implement powers. It doesn’t matter where that power comes from—a paragon path, a different class, a new build, whatever—you can use any implement that you’re proficient with to use your power.
Previously, a power’s class determined the implements that could function with it. This change was made to make it easier to understand how implements interact with powers and to make multiclassing less arduous.
How many changes to the core rules occurred with Essentials? From what I can recall from the October errata update, the changes were rather underwhelming. Besides Magic Missile, how many other old powers underwent such a radical change?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as core rule changes caused the release of Essentials, this talk seems to be much ado about nothing.
I understand about MM, but most of the other changes seemed either good or easily ignored.
Magic Missile wasn't essentials...it was far earlier. As was ... Beacon of Hope, I believe that went from burst 5 to burst 3...and another spell...Grasp of the Grave? (not exactly sure of the name) But GotG went from entirely, horribly killer, to only moderately so.
This all happened prior to essentials.
By my understanding (and it's not a clear understanding), backstab damage changed regarding weapons to be used. Magic items and their usage changed...and...hmmm...targets for PCs making assist rolls possibly? Racial bonuses as well, I believe.
Not HUGE changes with essentials for the "game" , but as for character builds, well that's an entirely other thread.
I don't like the new Magic Missile. I know they are trying to recapture the flavour of the old spell but with the old spell you at least got to roll damage. Now there's no dice-rolling at all. You just say hey, there you go, take off another few hit points. No fun in that.
No fun for you possibly but for the mage in my campaign...he has a riot with it and has gotten QUITE strategic with it.
Put me down for A and D.
Of course, as Mudbunny pointed out, there will always people who always complain.
In my case, it would be not so much complaining as a howl of maddened frustration, making me wonder why I bothered working my way up from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Neutral.
I'm just glad Paolo was able to respond in that other thread, letting us know that WotC is trying to return to its old policy of openness with us, the customers, instead of Hasbro's apparently preferred method of "Shut up, we'll tell you what we want you to know on a rotating schedule of 'never' and 'sometime after the next Ice Age, but only if we darn well feel like it'!" Plus, knowing that the VCL's are almost as much in the dark as the rest of us does indeed make me feel somewhat better, oddly enough...