personal rant and disclaimer
I don't like the current way Wizards is advancing DnD. I don't like the move to a Web-based character builder. I think Essentials has done as much harm as it has done good, and I don't like what I've been seeing from Dragon magazine, which has been one of the two big motivating factors for my lengthy Insider subscription (the other, the CB, has already vanished as I knew it). Item rarity is a lovely concept, but its implementation leaves much, much to be desired.
And you fail to point out what YOU would like to see.
Actually, if you read to the end, he did.
At this point, the 2nd update to the Essentials Assassin* had better be damn impressive. If "Totems of the Far Realm" likewise has even a single common item within it, I'll be equally impressed.
I am in full agreement. They've used some great article concepts: Rune Priests, Corelleon, Shifters; and they've done absolutely nothing with them. And sorry, I also agree the Paragon path is pretty much garbage. Although I'll admit I liked this Bazaar of the Bizarre. Its a fun article, with rich history, and well... eladrin-ness.
And you fail to point out what YOU would like to see.
Actually, if you read to the end, he did.
Im refering to themes he would like to be addressed, not if the not-yet-posted articles will be interesting.
In the end, it is all very situational: you are playing a martial PC, articles about arcane stuff wont be immediately usefull; you are DMing in Paragon, Heroic adventures wont be worth much of your time.
Some think there isnt enough fluff and too much crunch, others are pissed with too much fluff and not enough crunch.
I would like fewer backgrounds, period. They are the weakest, most underdeveloped aspect of character creation.
I personally would like to see power and PP articles for Monks.
I would like to see previews for non Gamma World, non Essentials books; It's been four months since Psionic Power and Dark Sun, and if essentials is really not replacing core 4e, I want to see some book proof of it. What's the release schedule look like, anyway? All I know that's in development is Arcane Power 2. At any rate, it's looking like it won't be until April (at bare minimum) before there's a chance for non-essential books.
I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.
it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days. i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars.
they have said many many times, to submit article ideas, then write them. you shouldnt let others dictate what your game is about anyway.
the paizo adventures were very railroady. each encounter can be completely seperated from the adventure. i like that. but, i ramble.
if you dont like whats being published, write it yourself. you may even find yourself walking away with a paycheck.
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.
I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.
They can publish them as lore articles, and stop creating a glut of +2 to a skill backgrounds. From now on, if it doesnt do something mechanically unique, it shouldnt clog up the compendium. It was a waste of a winning races article. Like pretty much the whole month. A FAR better alternative would have been to offer a racial theme for the shifter, to allow power substitution if you want to play more to the shapeshifter angle. BUt that would require actual work, something the mags havent really felt like doing in a while.
Looks like if the Assassin article isnt amazing, I'll be asking for my fiftth refund in row.
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.
I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.
They can publish them as lore articles, and stop creating a glut of +2 to a skill backgrounds. From now on, if it doesnt do something mechanically unique, it shouldnt clog up the compendium. It was a waste of a winning races article. Like pretty much the whole month. A FAR better alternative would have been to offer a racial theme for the shifter, to allow power substitution if you want to play more to the shapeshifter angle. BUt that would require actual work, something the mags havent really felt like doing in a while.
Looks like if the Assassin article isnt amazing, I'll be asking for my fiftth refund in row.
You really come across sounding as if the magazines have to cater to your needs only, and that everyone else doesn't matter.
it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days. i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars.
'
LOL. Lets see, adventures with a coherent story and plot, vs some miniature skirmish wargame battle set ups. Hmmm....
Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.
it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days. i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars.
'
LOL. Lets see, adventures with a coherent story and plot, vs some miniature skirmish wargame battle set ups. Hmmm....
Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.
Which is interesting because I have found bark at the moon to be a great adventure sofar.
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.
I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.
They can publish them as lore articles, and stop creating a glut of +2 to a skill backgrounds. From now on, if it doesnt do something mechanically unique, it shouldnt clog up the compendium. It was a waste of a winning races article. Like pretty much the whole month. A FAR better alternative would have been to offer a racial theme for the shifter, to allow power substitution if you want to play more to the shapeshifter angle. BUt that would require actual work, something the mags havent really felt like doing in a while.
Looks like if the Assassin article isnt amazing, I'll be asking for my fiftth refund in row.
You really come across sounding as if the magazines have to cater to your needs only, and that everyone else doesn't matter.
Indeed. I dont feel the need to water down every statement with some hand wringing 'IMO". Reasonable people assume that already.
Even you cant deny theres a glut of backgrounds. The basic set up is pick a skill to get +2, add a skill, add a language etc. There is no need to publish MORE variation of what already exists. These are the lazy crunch equivalent of the 3rd edition +2/+2 feats, where they could have made ONE generic feat (pick 2 skills, gain +2/+2) and been done with it. Actyually, this crap is worse, because they generic option already exists, and yet they are STILL publishing "NIce Abs" to give you a +2 to athletics and diplomacy.
There is, flat out, no need for most backgrounds mechanics that see print, because the mechanics are ALREADY there. They are a waste of space and just clog the database. These are illusory crunch, adding to the bloat for sake of adding. The space could have been devoted to fleshing out the ideas presented in the article more.
Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.
Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.
I disagree. I thought there was some pretty fantastic material in Dungeon this month.
All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.
Not rocket science.
How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?
All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.
Not rocket science.
Write a quality article for one of those articles and submit it.
Mind you, I find WotC's current trends to be... Incredible lame, at best. But if they aren't getting articles for those classes, then they aren't getting articles for the classes.
it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days. i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars.
'
LOL. Lets see, adventures with a coherent story and plot, vs some miniature skirmish wargame battle set ups. Hmmm....
Dungeon did give us the Briar Queen this month, but the "adventures" are junk.
That is "your" opinion. I like Bark at the moon and I am sure I will like the 2nd part to it as well. One persons Junk is another persons Treasure and all that.
And about Miniature skimish wargame battle setups. That is every dang encounter that anyone ever builds that features mini's/tokens. The games very nature is about tactical combat.
Note: I'm assuming that that's the reason they railroad you. How else are you going to hear the story?
i would be even happier if dungeon was just 80 pages of encounters. perhaps with a theme, but just 60 or so encounters, then i could put them together as i liked.
How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?
All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.
Not rocket science.
Write a quality article for one of those articles and submit it.
Mind you, I find WotC's current trends to be... Incredible lame, at best. But if they aren't getting articles for those classes, then they aren't getting articles for the classes.
People have been writing articles but they have not been taken. The ones not taken are many times the very things people most want to see such as seeker power articles and the like.
People have been writing articles but they have not been taken. The ones not taken are many times the very things people most want to see such as seeker power articles and the like.
Yes, exactly the point I was going to make.
The 'Then write your own article!' reply doesn't really work for me. Can you imagine an editor of Time or The Wall Street Journal replying to a reader's letter by saying that? It would be ridiculous. Why? Because I am not a professional RPG writer; that's why I buy DnD books. If I were, I wouldn't need to buy them in the first place.
And in any case, even if I were to write articles on crunch, they would not be accepted. Wizards has made their new direction crystal clear: they want more fluff, not crunch. So the only option we have is to keep letting them know that we dislike this new direction, whether by cancelling our subscriptions or giving them feedback on these boards. I prefer to keep my subscription (I do still find some of the content useful) and make my views known in the hopes that the direction will eventually be reversed.
Ampersand -- "If you’re already a D&D Insider, then you’ve been enjoying the new web-based D&D Character Builder." ...seriously?
Heh, yeah. This one made me laugh out loud as well. What little credibility Ampersand had as anything but a mouthpiece for the marketing department just died with that sentence.
Is it at all possible that the submitted articles are poorly written? I haven't seen the submissions so don't take anything personally...
My point is more basic than that:
If you buy tires from Goodyear and they all blow flats two days later, you would not be happy if Goodyear's response was, 'Well, if you don't like our tires, make them yourself!'
So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.
Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.
And if I was the only one complaining about the declining quality, you might have a point. But unrtunately, its not the case. How long is the runepriest thread about people being unhappy with what was offered? Was the shifter article well received? How about the thoroughly redundant backgrounds in the corellon article?
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Granted, as a WOTC apologist, I dont expect you to acknowledge that.
And about Miniature skimish wargame battle setups. That is every dang encounter that anyone ever builds that features mini's/tokens. The games very nature is about tactical combat.
No, its a limit of the delve format, which was a specific choice to drive mini/token and tile sales. It took away from exploration, as you just progress from set up to set up. Its by far the worst thing about the current adventures. It also makes it difficult as hell to figure out what is going on in an adventure. Changing the encounter format would likely reduce many (unfounded) complaints about the lack of RP in 4th edition. But its hard to get that from the main publisher's adventure presentation.
you just don't understand, man. Pathfinder is all about the story!
Note: I'm assuming that that's the reason they railroad you. How else are you going to hear the story?
If by having a villain actually do something other than exist in a dungeon tile setup, you mean railroad, then yes. Or events that actually occur outside of the PC's initiative radius. Dungeon has devolved into skirmishes, little more. And its pretty easy to throw some minis on a tile and call it a day if that's all you want outside of an adventure.
Is it at all possible that the submitted articles are poorly written? I haven't seen the submissions so don't take anything personally...
It is possible but considering we have seen articles with not the best editing I tend to doubt that is the only reason. Further I believe they edit any article somebody submits anyway so they could improve the article if needed. I think it is more of a problem is that most people are not writing the articles WotC wants produced at this time. I really doubt most submissions they get are for more backgrounds, rare items, and many of the other things we see. I am sure it is more like new runepriest, seeker, essentials classes (soon anyway), sorcerer, etc articles dealing with powers, feats and paragon paths.
Bark at the Moon is a let down in two areas. It's strong reliance on a notoriously boring feature: The disease track. Also, it's maps were pretty awful/unispired. I feel they've put out stronger adventures. Heck, just the last one in November was great.
The Assassin debacle is dissapointing as well as just the overall complete lack of crunch or any real content. Did any of you guys, paying money monthly for D&D support, not know you could reflavor powers?? I mean that's printed in the books.
Did your Shifter in your Frogotten Realms campaign really need half a dozen background options? I'm thinking that anyone still playing a pure Runepriest (ie, you didn't just give/house rule your runepriest healing/inspiring word) is really let down by the upper paragon "items" they got. I know I'll likely never play my LFR Runepriest, in low heroic, again.
So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.
Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.
And if I was the only one complaining about the declining quality, you might have a point. But unrtunately, its not the case. How long is the runepriest thread about people being unhappy with what was offered? Was the shifter article well received? How about the thoroughly redundant backgrounds in the corellon article?
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Granted, as a WOTC apologist, I dont expect you to acknowledge that.
Unfortunately the complaints about the decline of quality are basically the same as yours, you didn't like what they wrote about, or it's not what you personally are interested in.
Which doesn't mean the quality has gone down, they are just trying to cover more subjects then you are interested in.
How difficult is it for WotC to realize that we need more crunch for undersupported classes?
All one has to do is compare the number of powers available to the fighter to those available to the Runepriest or Seeker.
Not rocket science.
Write a quality article for one of those articles and submit it.
Mind you, I find WotC's current trends to be... Incredible lame, at best. But if they aren't getting articles for those classes, then they aren't getting articles for the classes.
People have been writing articles but they have not been taken. The ones not taken are many times the very things people most want to see such as seeker power articles and the like.
I'd like to point out that I specifically stated "quality article" - Anybody can write a bunch of new powers and some story, but if they're really horribly balanced or don't fit the thematics that WotC wants for the class, they won't get accepted.
ive been reading dragon magazine for a long time, and i really dont see that much difference from then till now. during the tsr days, there were many that i didnt read anything but the letters, same with the paizo days. there were some real stinkers during the paizo days.
it would cost you 14 dollars a month for dragon and dungeon in the paizo days. i am paying less now and getting much more for my 10 dollars.
they have said many many times, to submit article ideas, then write them. you shouldnt let others dictate what your game is about anyway.
the paizo adventures were very railroady. each encounter can be completely seperated from the adventure. i like that. but, i ramble.
if you dont like whats being published, write it yourself. you may even find yourself walking away with a paycheck.
There's a whole other thread on this topic. Some posters did some digging and found that 9 out of 10 articles are written by staff or ex staff or "pros". So there is little or no chance that you will get something published by WotC in Dragon or Dungeon. Sorry to burst your bubble there...
I was not impressed with this months magazine. Themes and crunch for unsupported classes and races is my main desire. It does not even have to be classes or races I like.
I submitted a class acts: clerics a while ago and never heard a response back. It was specifically a battle clerics proposal with new at wills, encounter powers, feats, and paragon paths with no prereqs for strength clerics. This is the least supported build out of all the PHB1 classes and some of the ideas had been tried out by other posters in home games and worked well.
omg i so wish that article had come out
The problem with people posting they don't like certain kinds of material, and want less of it, means that those who do like it, suddenly aren't getting what they want.
I personally like the background articles, because it gives me ideas.
Some backgrounds can be nice - but they need to be genuinely interesting. Stuff that actually inspires players to try out a character they wouldn't otherwise pursue. And to that end, I actually found some of the Shifter backgrounds interesting, though I'm dismayed they returned to non-standard bonuses for them.
But at other times... I mean, did you read the backgrounds in the Corellon article? "Be some sort of artist". "Be some guy who knows stuff about the outdoors." Simply a waste of space.
Anyway, I was amused by the OP, since I had also been thinking of doing a summary of recent articles in light of the disappointments of December. I was actually planning on going back farther, so I could highlight some of the worthwhile articles of late - I actually hadn't felt the quality on Dragon had really gone downhill until, well, this month. And its not over yet, at that.
But yeah, last two weeks have definitely been a series of disappointments.
You really come across sounding as if the magazines have to cater to your needs only, and that everyone else doesn't matter.
If he is a subscriber, he is perfectly in his right to feel disappointed if the product he is paying for doesn't live up to his expectations - and to cancel his subscription or ask for a refund in such a case. Now, that doesn't mean WotC is required to cater to him, but raising concerns about the magazine content is hardly out of line.
Especially when, I think, many of the concerns can actually be addressed. Two such solutions come to mind - Dragon finding a better balance, for one thing. Don't compensates for months of crunch-heavy articles with months of fluff-heavy articles - either one will leave people unhappy. Instead, find a happy medium.
And, meanwhile, make sure Dragon content belongs in dragon. Multiple articles that fit better in Dungeon is going to leave players very disappointed. Similarly, name articles properly - if people know an article will be all about magic items, they will not build up different expectations and hopes for an article where they expect powers and feats for an undersupported class.
This month, thus far, Dragon has had almost no player content. Not just content aimed at different classes or builds - but almost no content at all. That is a serious issue, and something the editors should take note of.
Now, the month isn't over yet. But saying that customers shouldn't complain when a company fails to deliver - sorry, not your call to make. The company can choose to listen or not. Customers can choose to cancel subscriptions or not. Either way, I don't think people are 'at fault' for honestly expressing their dissatisfaction in a forum designed for this sort of communication.
If he want's to be taken seriously by WoTC, he needs to have more to say then he doesn't like articles about X, and wants more Y.
Because then someone is going to come and say, I want more Y and NO X.
It's not that hard to understand.
I submitted a class acts: clerics a while ago and never heard a response back. It was specifically a battle clerics proposal with new at wills, encounter powers, feats, and paragon paths with no prereqs for strength clerics. This is the least supported build out of all the PHB1 classes and some of the ideas had been tried out by other posters in home games and worked well. This was shortly before they released the warpriest preview articles so even if they liked my ideas they may have given up supporting that build altogether.
I was not impressed with this months magazine. Themes and crunch for unsupported classes and races is my main desire. It does not even have to be classes or races I like.
it sounds more like you submitted game mechanics, then an article, honestly. I doubt they are looking for other peoples game mechanics.
He's free to say anything he wants.
If he want's to be taken seriously by WoTC, he needs to have more to say then he doesn't like articles about X, and wants more Y.
Because then someone is going to come and say, I want more Y and NO X.
It's not that hard to understand.
He did say more. Remember, the concern raised in the original post wasn't that Dragon was providing specific player content he wasn't interested in. The concern was that this month of Dragon had thus far provided almost no player content at all.
He gives evidence for this by listing what content we have: 11 backgrounds, 4 rare items, 8 more rare items, 1 paragon path and a few more backgrounds.
Comments that show what he wants? "Feat, and/or power support for *the* least supported class." "Perhaps we'll finally get some more common items -- a common ring, perhaps, we haven't had one of those yet!"
What does he want? Actual player options. Content like feat and power support. Does that mean we want 10 page articles of nothing but feats? Of course not. But we don't want a complete lack of that support, either. And right now, more functional common items are of much more use to players than rare items.
That is a distinct and clear-cut statement that WotC can absolutely make use of.
Now, you can disagree with it. You can say, "Yes, I really want nothing but backgrounds and rare items." I'll find that hard to believe, but... go ahead and say it.
But instead, you've chosen to try and dismiss his arguments entirely by saying they are just uninformed complaining, without giving any actual direction for WotC to pursue, and that WotC can't listen to him anyway because other customers will always want the opposite of what he does.
And I don't think any of those things are true. I think he laid out exactly why he was upset about the December content, as well as exactly what content he was indeed interested in. And I think it very unlikely that there are as many fans of the sort of content we've been given this month, as compared to the sort of content many people want.
he doesn't want items in Dragon, he wants them moved to Dungeon. Even though they have been part of the player side of material since the game came out, which is why they are included in the players handbooks and not the DMGs. So, WoTC should make use of his desire to move all items to Dungeon? They should suddenly reorganize that whole aspect simply because this person doesn't like it?
A paragon path isn't an option for a player? Well who's it for, the DM? Don't paragon paths come with...powers?
I'm not dismissing he doesn't like the content. But the fact that it doesn't make it poor quality. All he's basically done is get angry because he doesn't like the stuff they focused on this month.
There isn't any way WoTC can give him what he wants, without denying someone what they want.
Yes, he laid out what he was upset about Decembers issue. Well, it all came down to "Stuff I don't Like" Ok, fine you didn't like it. Maybe next month there will be stuff you do like. Maybe there will be articles about Dark Sun. Since I'm not running a Dark Sun campaign and I don't have psionics in my world, such articles would be a waste to me. But, since I understand that others use this material, it's good for them. I don't begrudge them articles they are interested in, that I am not.
And as for the content, I found some very useful stuff in it. Sorry
He's free to say anything he wants.
If he want's to be taken seriously by WoTC, he needs to have more to say then he doesn't like articles about X, and wants more Y.
Because then someone is going to come and say, I want more Y and NO X.
It's not that hard to understand.
He did say more. Remember, the concern raised in the original post wasn't that Dragon was providing specific player content he wasn't interested in. The concern was that this month of Dragon had thus far provided almost no player content at all.
He gives evidence for this by listing what content we have: 11 backgrounds, 4 rare items, 8 more rare items, 1 paragon path and a few more backgrounds. [...]
Yea, it's not like there has recently been a thread complaining about lack of rare items for the heroic tier, and how WotC built a great rarity system that can't be used because of no items. Oh, wait, there is: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.
Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.
And if I was the only one complaining about the declining quality, you might have a point. But unrtunately, its not the case. How long is the runepriest thread about people being unhappy with what was offered? Was the shifter article well received? How about the thoroughly redundant backgrounds in the corellon article?
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Granted, as a WOTC apologist, I dont expect you to acknowledge that.
Unfortunately the complaints about the decline of quality are basically the same as yours, you didn't like what they wrote about, or it's not what you personally are interested in.
Which doesn't mean the quality has gone down, they are just trying to cover more subjects then you are interested in.
So in other words, people agree with me that the quality is declining because of poor article choices. You're continuing to plug your ears and dismiss complaints as "that's like, your opinion man."
I'm a player, who was under the preconceived notion, that "every month, players should find something of value to their characters"
That used to be a motto of the Dragon Magazine Redesign, and if you want to fight me on it, I can go and pull up many of the old editorials and such that I read through before essentials and give you that data.
Fluff is good. But lately the articles feel like a bowl of milk with no cereal.
There were articles that used to bring tears to my eyes they were so good. They would bring up new powers/feats/abilities that a player in most any campaign could use, and not only that, but how a person might use them, and what they could mean to a character.
You know, the new psionics article that everyone is complaining about? That is the only article this month I am not disappointed in. Rare items, great, no one knows how to make those, and no one has ever made a custom, campaign only, breaks everything if a player could just buy one item.
Lets face it, It's not a "I don't want content X" it's gimme a break, why is there no content Y.
People are upset, and rightly so, that everything they knew that was carved in stone got replaced by a new tablet carved in stone that told no one how to use the other stuff they used to have.
That's why we are really upset to be honest. I'm a DM foremost and a player second, and right now, I don't know how to regulate treasure, starting at higher levels, what will happen when they rebuild the five builds from player's Handbook, if the encounter values changed...
Dragon used to educate, not just spew off random locations from various realms with a wall of text, followed by items that players have no education on how to add to their game. I miss learning stuff like that, and I sure as heck don't like the essentials assassin no matter how many times they ram it down my throat. This will be the third month it gets re-released to us. I game with seven other people and they all hate it still.
So basically, they didnt give you what you want this month. Welcome to what magazines are like.
Your whole point makes me think of a person that decides to eat out. Orders, eats 90% or all of the meal, then says he wants a refund or discount because he didn't like his meal.
And if I was the only one complaining about the declining quality, you might have a point. But unrtunately, its not the case. How long is the runepriest thread about people being unhappy with what was offered? Was the shifter article well received? How about the thoroughly redundant backgrounds in the corellon article?
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Granted, as a WOTC apologist, I dont expect you to acknowledge that.
Unfortunately the complaints about the decline of quality are basically the same as yours, you didn't like what they wrote about, or it's not what you personally are interested in.
Which doesn't mean the quality has gone down, they are just trying to cover more subjects then you are interested in.
So in other words, people agree with me that the quality is declining because of poor article choices. You're continuing to plug your ears and dismiss complaints as "that's like, your opinion man."
If the only thing you or others have to offer as why it's poor quality is because you don't like it, then yes, it's just your opinion. As it's been also pointed out many, many times. The number of people posting in a forum is never even close to a good representation of the larger customer base.
Just because a group of people share the same opinion, doesn't mean it's more then that. An opinion.
I found the articles useful. Others have found them useful. Others have asked for just such articles.
Are you saying that your opinion is better then theirs?
if Goodyear's response was, 'Well, if you don't like our tires, make them yourself!'
This is disengenuous though and your analogy is far from apt. First of all, no one at WotC (that I am aware of) has said: if you don't like it, make your own! It's other customers saying that. Secondly, it isn't about a defective product. It's about a product that isn't too your tastes (or possibly as advertised but that's a can of worms I really don't want to get into right now). And finally, comparing articles in an online gaming magazine to tires on a car is really, really over the top. One is a safety concern and the other is... well... it's a GAME.
I think it's more like this:
You go to a restaurant. The waiter suggests the macaroni and cheese. You order it and find there isn't enough cheese on it for you. You stand up in the middle of the restaurant and shout: "I HATE THIS MACARONI AND CHEESE I CANT BELIEVE IM PAYING FOR IT!" and the guy at the table next to shouts back: "Then make your own next time!"
Yeah. I think that's apt.
Yea, it's not like there has recently been a thread complaining about lack of rare items for the heroic tier, and how WotC built a great rarity system that can't be used because of no items. Oh, wait, there is: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Yeah, but... who's that thread by? Looks more like a DM concern than a player one. Perhaps a reason why these articles should be in Dungeon, not Dragon. Yes, players can make some use of them and try and lobby their DM to include the perfect rare for that character. But I don't think that will happen often, especially as it is, honestly, somewhat against the design of the new system.
Also, I notice that other folks in that thread are tossing out the other view - asking for more common items. And those folks are typically the players, not the DMs.
That's really one of the big problems with this month - it isn't that there isn't room in the magazines for these articles. But they shouldn't be the only articles. And in some cases, they need to be better labelled, or placed in the right magazine.
it sounds more like you submitted game mechanics, then an article, honestly. I doubt they are looking for other peoples game mechanics.
They may not might be looking for other people's mechanic, but a lot of their subscribers want more mechanics and don't care who writes it as long as it is published in dragon.
I submitted a class acts article proposal that was heavy on mechanics, just like many of the other previous class acts articles have been. I just checked the compendium total support for strength clerics in dragon has been 16 strength cleric powers, no feats specifically for them, but about 6 geared towards them or balanced builds, and one paragon path for half orc clerics/paladins and one paragon path for any divine character. So for powers they have had decent support, but little for feats and almost nothing for paragon paths.
No, he stated that they provided player content that he doesn't care about. He doens't like backgrounds because he thinks they are the weakest aspect of character development.
And, well... they are. For one thing, character's only get one. That makes them much more limited in use than powers or feats. More importantly, getting a new background called "Guide" when we already have one called "Explorer/Guide" is pretty useless. The real goal for backgrounds should be inspiring creative new characters. For myself, I thought the Shifter article didn't do a terrible job of this. But when it's the only real player content in the month, it feels pretty light.
he doesn't want items in Dragon, he wants them moved to Dungeon. Even though they have been part of the player side of material since the game came out, which is why they are included in the players handbooks and not the DMGs. So, WoTC should make use of his desire to move all items to Dungeon? They should suddenly reorganize that whole aspect simply because this person doesn't like it?
Well, no, they should reorganize it because of their new rarity system in which PCs have less control over what items they get. They do have control over common items, which are the ones that the OP is asking for, in fact. Rare items - which will show up once or twice a campaign, as chosen by the DM - just are not player content.
Sure, give us commons in Dragon. Even uncommons, which players have more hope of questing for or convincing the DM to include. But multiple articles focused entirely on rare items? That's poorly done.
A paragon path isn't an option for a player? Well who's it for, the DM? Don't paragon paths come with...powers?
Yeah, its an option. Singular. Since Dragon has gone online, a 9 page article with a single paragon path would feel like a relatively small amount of crunch. But that is occasionally acceptable. When it is the only real crunch over half a dozen articles, there is a problem.
I'm not dismissing he doesn't like the content. But the fact that it doesn't make it poor quality. All he's basically done is get angry because he doesn't like the stuff they focused on this month.
Yes. He does not like the fact that Dragon magazine is no longer providing him with player content. Not that it is providing player content for characters other than he uses - that the numerical amount of content it has provided this month is a fraction of the expectations he has for the magazine.
He's paying for the magazine. That's what gives him the right to complain. What gives you the right to complain about his compaint?
Feel free to offer your own support for what the are publishing. But taking him to task for offering an honest opinion about a genuine issue that numerous subscribers have noted - sorry, I don't find that particularly reasonable.
There isn't any way WoTC can give him what he wants, without denying someone what they want.
So, you believe that if WotC:
-included an extra page of feats in the Corellon article;
-moved the two 'rare item' articles to Dungeon magazine;
-added a Runepriest Class Acts article with actual player support that enhanced existing runepriest options;
-and added a Bazaar of the Bizarre article presenting new common items for player use...
Then we would have mass outrage from some other source?
Cause, honestly, I don't see that.
Yes, not every month can have content designed exactly for one person's use. But the lack of mechanical support for player options in this month's Dragon is still an issue, regardless of what the actual articles are, themselves, about. And I think it has only added to the fire that people had expectations raised based on the incorrect names given to certain articles, or the presence of Dungeon content in Dragon.
His complaint is...opinion. It all comes down to his personal preference. Even if you worded it nicely, it still comes down to "Dear WoTC, In the future, please include only the following in Dungeon magazine, as anything other then the following list, is worthless to me, as it is not what I am interested in."
Also, there are only so many mechanics you can add to the game. If anything chances are WoTC is just running out of ideas for mechanics.
There isn't a Mass Outrage right now over the current articles. There's a bunch of people complaining.
And someone already provided a link to a thread asking for...more rare items. So, there you have it.
Also, there are only so many mechanics you can add to the game. If anything chances are WoTC is just running out of ideas for mechanics.
So what you are saying is that WoTC is out of ideas for mechanics and at the same time not interested in listening to anyone else's ideas for mechanics. That is not a good sign for the direction of the game.
Also, there are only so many mechanics you can add to the game. If anything chances are WoTC is just running out of ideas for mechanics.
So what you are saying is that WoTC is out of ideas for mechanics and at the same time not interested in listening to anyone else's ideas for mechanics. That is not a good sign for the direction of the game.
I'm sure you are a nice person, and that your ideas could very well have merit, but I seldom put much faith in players abilities to come up with balanced mechanics.
But seriously, how many powers can you come up with for a class that stay within the classes scope, before you start to infringe on other classes?
There isn't a Mass Outrage right now over the current articles. There's a bunch of people complaining.
I'm normally one of the biggest defenders of Dragon magazine, and have largely disagreed with the complaints about reduced quality over the last few months. And yet, I find the complaints this month - about a lack of player content - legitimate, in that you can objectively show that the amount of player content has rapidly dropped compared to... every previous issue of the online magazine. That seems, to me, to be significant.
And someone already provided a link to a thread asking for...more rare items. So, there you have it.
Yes. As noted, a thread wherein DMs asked for more rare items. And in which players asked for more common items.
So why do we have two articles aimed at DMs in Dragon instead of Dungeon? The magazine previously made a specific attempt to gear Dragon at players and Dungeon at DMs. If they are changing that, they should probably announce that this is the case.
I'm sure you are a nice person, and that your ideas could very well have merit, but I seldom put much faith in players abilities to come up with balanced mechanics.
But seriously, how many powers can you come up with for a class that stay within the classes scope, before you start to infringe on other classes?
Well, given the runepriest has a relatively unique mechanic, probably significantly more than the handful of powers out for it right now.
Remember, that's part of the point - people agree that we don't want another 30 powers for the Fighter, who already has hundreds. Yes, the room for expanding that content is largely spent. But there is plenty of room for expanding these existing classes that don't have anything resembling that support.
Especially since, as some have noted, one of the 4E's design philosophies was to provide support for content throughout the edition, rather than 'fire and forget' new classes.
Now, personally, I think Runepriest and Seeker are viable choices as they are. I think they can function without extra support - though it would certainly be nice to see.
But I also think there is still plenty of room in this game to expand player options in Dragon magazine. I certainly don't think anyone at WotC would officially agree with your stance that there is no more room for them to come up with new powers and feats, and that the edition is basically over. Which I can't imagine is your actual belief, but certainly seems to be what you are arguing here...
The issue is not whether my ideas had merit, but do anyone's have merit. There are surely other people out there who have submitted decent mechanical articles for the classes lacking them. There are a lot of classes that are just one or two dragon articles away from being where they should be mechanically and which will in all likelyhood not be getting any help in book form anytime soon: Runepriests, Seekers, Wisdom Ardents, Strength Clerics, Sorcerers, Arificers, and assault and ensnaring Swordmages could all use some help.
As far as balance goes, several of the ideas I had were actually other peoples that I got from a thread I started asking people how to fix the battle cleric and several of which had already been playtested. Is letting battle clerics use charisma for healer's lore for the cost of a feat broken for instance? It does however fix the major problem of battle clerics being way too mad.
Serveral of the powers I suggested were very similar to what came out with the warpriest very shortly afterward I emailed my suggestion so as soon as I saw the warpriest I assumed my proposal was going to be rejected because they had thought of much of the same things for the warpriest before I suggested them. One at will I included in my proposal for instance was the same as Brand of the Sun, but with a different name and used strength instead of wisdom.
See why it's hard to take the complaints as anymore then opinion. They put item articles in the player side. Items are listed in Player handbooks. Have been from the begining. Artifacts tend to be in the DMGs, because they are special.
You're welcome to keep calling it DM material, and there for not player material. It's still player material. So it was in the right spot.
Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's poor quality. At best it just means it's not cattering to your specific needs. And as for that? Magazines are like that. They follow trends.
MrMyth, you keep saying they have two articles aimed at DMs in the wrong magazine. However, items have always been presented as player material, not DM material.
See why it's hard to take the complaints as anymore then opinion. They put item articles in the player side. Items are listed in Player handbooks. Have been from the begining. Artifacts tend to be in the DMGs, because they are special.
Indeed. Which is why I addressed this above, in how this paradigm was changed by the new magic item rarity system. I do appreciate you mentioned artifacts, though - given that rare items fill a very similar role in the campaign as unique, special items, of which only one or two might be seen over the course of a campaign, entirely at DM discretion.
Hence, why they are DM content, not player content.
Also, in support of my point - I'm not positive on this, but isn't the DM's Kit where the existing Rare magic items can be found? Didn't WotC explicitly leave common and uncommon items in the Player's content (Heroes of the Fallen Lands / Forgotten Kingdoms) and move rare items to the DM's Kit?
That would seem to pretty much say all that needs to be said.
You're welcome to keep calling it DM material, and there for not player material. It's still player material. So it was in the right spot.
Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's poor quality. At best it just means it's not cattering to your specific needs. And as for that? Magazines are like that. They follow trends.
Who said anything about poor quality? Half my problem is that several of these articles are actually decent in their own right - any one or two of them would be welcome in a regular month. But compiling an entire issue of them is alarming, and a trend I don't want to see in the magazine.
I'm sure you are a nice person, and that your ideas could very well have merit, but I seldom put much faith in players abilities to come up with balanced mechanics.
Speaking as a gamer who spends half his time running RPGs and the other half playing in them, that's kind of insulting. And it's also a detrimental attitude for someone who should be encouraging the community to contribute the articles you constantly call for in your posts. Have you gotten a DDi publication credit that I'm not aware of, Mr. McArdy?
But seriously, how many powers can you come up with for a class that stay within the classes scope, before you start to infringe on other classes?
(sarcasm)
Omigod. Oh my god, he's right.
*whistles through fingers* EDITION CHAAAAAAAAANGE! Guys, we need an edition change, stat! WE HAVE RUN OUT OF MATERIAL. I REPEAT, WE HAVE RUN OUT OF MATERIAL FOR 4TH EDITION D&D.
(/sarcasm)
And now, I will shamelessly plug my craving for a good article on the Essentials Druid that gives Autumn and Winter class variants in addition to Spring and Summer.
Perhaps Mr. McArdy would be so kind as to write one for me?
I'm sure you are a nice person, and that your ideas could very well have merit, but I seldom put much faith in players abilities to come up with balanced mechanics.
Speaking as a gamer who spends half his time running RPGs and the other half playing in them, that's kind of insulting. And it's also a detrimental attitude for someone who should be encouraging the community to contribute the articles you constantly call for in your posts. Have you gotten a DDi publication credit that I'm not aware of, Mr. McArdy?
But seriously, how many powers can you come up with for a class that stay within the classes scope, before you start to infringe on other classes?
(sarcasm)
Omigod. Oh my god, he's right.
*whistles through fingers* EDITION CHAAAAAAAAANGE! Guys, we need an edition change, stat! WE HAVE RUN OUT OF MATERIAL. I REPEAT, WE HAVE RUN OUT OF MATERIAL FOR 4TH EDITION D&D.
(/sarcasm)
And now, I will shamelessly plug my craving for a good article on the Essentials Druid that gives Autumn and Winter class variants in addition to Spring and Summer.
Perhaps Mr. McArdy would be so kind as to write one for me?
Can your nerdrage.
There is a difference between writing an article, and writing game mechanics.
Sorry you are intulted by my personal opinion. I'm insulted by your outragous and overly dramatic reaction. Save it for the stage.
Now were are we? Two insulted nerds.
Oh, excellent! We're getting the assassin article on the 21st.
No matter how many times the article comes out it never gets old right?
It sounds like MrMyth is so intent on proving me wrong, he's not really paying attention. Sorry, but for me the conversation with you, MrMyth is over. Simply because you don't seem to be interested taking the time to consider what I'm saying, as to find words and parts of points to attack.
That's fine, not upset, or anything. That's pretty typical on forums.
Um, I'm not Dane.
You know, that's a really good point!
My apologies to both parties on that count, as yeah, that pretty much negates everything I said in my last post. Kalex, sorry for tossing those comments your way. I do stand by my thoughts that, as nice as flavor articles along these lines actually are, I think they should be a part of the magazine, not the entire thing - and that while some players might find the mechanics the easy part, others will find the RP elements the easy part, and the magazine should be providing both sides with what they need.
Dane, apologies as well - I will say that my comments weren't from an 'intent on provind you wrong', but that I genuinely was taken aback by what I saw as hypocrisy. Which, it turns out, was the result of conflating two different posters, rather than one poster actually putting forward two opposing arguments.
I do stand by my earlier comments, though, that Rare items are clearly the domain of DMs rather than players, as established by WotC itself, and that articles focusing on them belong in Dungeon rather than Dragon.
Edit: And just to clarify to avoid thread confusion (as I deleted the offending post), I had a post above responding to Kalex, thinking he was Dane, and thus commenting on the hypocrisy of an above post claiming that only professional designers can get mechanics right, and then a later post claiming that mechanics are easy and anyone can crank them out. Which, as it turns out, was because those were two posts by completely different posters, and hence perfectly reasonable positions to be held by either one.
See now I just read the To Live Defeated article and LOVED it! I like backstory and campaign world fluff, and articles like this one that take a view of a common game mechanic from a different perspective. This is the kind of thing we need more of, not more powers, feats, magic items, and backgrounds. There is more than enough of that stuff, and quite frankly the math behind them is fairly transparent. Not enough Runepriest powers for your liking. Write some! Should take you all of about 10 minutes to come up with a dozen or so.
I could not disagree more. The article was totally useless to me, and the example of precisely the sort of thing neither I nor my players need.
And as several posters have already noted, the 'If you don't like their articles, write some!' argument fails to understand that even if we wrote them (and in fact some posters actually have written and submitted crunch articles) they won't get published, because WOTC won't accept them due to their new 'direction'.
There is a Houserule and Homebrew section of this forum that is designed exactly for these types of user contributions, and you don't even need a DDI subscription or WotC to approve the submissions to participate!!
Awesome! And they are now in the character builder then? They've all been tested and approved for balance? They're all well written and easy to use?
See now I just read the To Live Defeated article and LOVED it!
Are you kidding me? This article was pure crap and should never have been published in the first place.
What on earth happened to Totems of the Far Realm?
Awesome! And they are now in the character builder then? They've all been tested and approved for balance? They're all well written and easy to use?
Sorry, you can't have both unless you house them into a 3rd party character builder (i.e. Hero Forge), which is completely within your power to do.
That's the beauty of D&D. It's ultimately up to you. You don't need anyone to tell you how to play your game!
Awesome! And they are now in the character builder then? They've all been tested and approved for balance? They're all well written and easy to use?
Sorry, you can't have both unless you house them into a 3rd party character builder (i.e. Hero Forge), which is completely within your power to do.
That's the beauty of D&D. It's ultimately up to you. You don't need anyone to tell you how to play your game!
Fantastic! It's a shame that it is so impossible to write fluff articles, and that there aren't already a million sites where you can get other people's fluff... thank the gods Wizards has decided to focus on the fluff, which is impossible to write ourselves, and to completely ignore crunch!
Fantastic! It's a shame that it is so impossible to write fluff articles, and that there aren't already a million sites where you can get other people's fluff... thank the gods Wizards has decided to focus on the fluff, which is impossible to write ourselves, and to completely ignore crunch!
Of course, you are more than welcome to be completely sarcastic when someone is trying to actually help you find solutions. That tells me that you really aren't interested in anything but griefing. Sorry for trying to help.
Fantastic! It's a shame that it is so impossible to write fluff articles, and that there aren't already a million sites where you can get other people's fluff... thank the gods Wizards has decided to focus on the fluff, which is impossible to write ourselves, and to completely ignore crunch!
Of course, you are more than welcome to be completely sarcastic when someone is trying to actually help you find solutions. That tells me that you really aren't interested in anything but griefing. Sorry for trying to help.
I appreciate the attempt to help. But every time those of us who disagree with the new direction (tm) try to make our voices heard, we inevitably get the 'If you don't like it, write your own!!!' response. I was just trying to point out that homebrew sites can produce both, so simply directing us to them doesn't really address the central question. Moreover, it is actually harder to incorporate homebrew crunch into our games than it is to incorporate homebrew fluff because crunch has to be in the character builder for some of my players to even consider using it, whereas crunch can be added anytime, anywhere. Some people just don't seem to appreciate this.
Sorry if you got caught in the crossfire, and thanks for your help.
There are a dozen people that contribute to these forums that I would entrust generating consistent content to potentially add to a campaign. I also entrust myself to do the same. I don't need it to be official, and stamping Wizards of the Coast on it certainly doesn't mean that it's worthwhile, as is obvious by this thread.
For instance, in the campaign I am running now, it is more attuned to high adventure and magic is considered evil. Magic-related classes are not allowed in the campaign. But in order to give the players some more options, monks have been converted from the psionic class, barbarians have been converted from the primal class, and bards have been converted from the arcane class. Maybe they are considered different classes altogether now, maybe not. But you get the idea. If there is a need for you, it's ultimately up to you to fill that need. You can even make your players responsible for fleshing out their classes a bit more if the material is limited. And there is a lot of material out there to get ideas from, including the homebrew section. It doesn't even have to be exactly what you are looking for, just something that gives you ideas.
As it stands, I don't think that I have ever run a campaign that was verbatim to the core material. There has always been custom content, whether it was provided by myself or someone else. That's one of the things that makes D&D outstanding.
On a side note, this is entirely why I was never threatened by Essentials, although now that it has been released, I do like some of what it does offer.
See now I just read the To Live Defeated article and LOVED it! I like backstory and campaign world fluff, and articles like this one that take a view of a common game mechanic from a different perspective. This is the kind of thing we need more of, not more powers, feats, magic items, and backgrounds. There is more than enough of that stuff, and quite frankly the math behind them is fairly transparent. Not enough Runepriest powers for your liking. Write some! Should take you all of about 10 minutes to come up with a dozen or so.
I could not disagree more. The article was totally useless to me, and the example of precisely the sort of thing neither I nor my players need.
And as several posters have already noted, the 'If you don't like their articles, write some!' argument fails to understand that even if we wrote them (and in fact some posters actually have written and submitted crunch articles) they won't get published, because WOTC won't accept them due to their new 'direction'.
I didn't say write some and try to get published. I just said write some. The game is already bloated with far too many powers, feats, magic items, and backgrounds. We absolutely do not need more. There are 7476 powers, 3031 feats, 8837 items, and 714 backgrounds. It is a fairly simple thing to take existing material and re-task it.
[EDIT] I just noticed that you also made a comment about it being in the Character Builder. I do understand that issue, and I hope that one day custom content is fully supported by the character builder, but I still stand by my "opinion" that the game has already become far too bloated with mechanical character options. While you tout the "balanced," and "play-tested" aspect of "official" rules content what you fail to recognize I believe is that WotC can't even keep all their crunch straight. It is virtually impossible to create powers and feats that don't duplicate or stack in crazy, unforeseen ways with what already exists, and that doesn't even address the fact of power creep which is another problem I have with all the crunch. It seems like the designers try to out do each other, by creating ever more unbalanced and overly powerful powers and feats. Enough already. Give us a monthly article on the Nentir Vale (since a campaign book doesn't seem to be forthcoming) like the ones Ed Greenwood used to write about the Forgotten Realms before it saw publication.
While items have traditionally, for 4E, been presented as a player resource, rare items are not.
They are entirely dependent on the DM, and nothing said will change that.
In addition, there has been no content that interests me as a player.
Now, before Dane and friends all jump on the endlessly rehashed bandwagon, why don't you ask this question?
"What interests you as a player?"
What would you do if I told you 'everything'?
Based on your current history of posting, I'm led to believe that your heads would explode from the illogic- surely, a player can't possibly be interested in 'everything'- he must have a pet class that he wants specific crunch for, and thus be disappointed when WotC publishes material for stuff he isn't using- but the truth is I don't have a specific pet class.
I've played leaders, strikers, defenders, and controllers from across every power source on the board. I've played characters of every race, class, tier, and item availability, and I love them all.
When WotC publishes material that any of these permutations can use, I am happy.
When WotC publishes material that none of these permutations can use, like they have this month, I am considerably less happy.
So get off your high horse about people being angry because their 'pet class/race' isn't being supported- because it's complete and utter horseshite.
We, the customers, are angry because there's been virtually zero support for anything that is available as a player option.
My point is that there is no guarantee that Wizards is going to produce anything of quality in their articles. There is no guarantee that any of it is balanced, tested, etc. It's simply considered "official" because they produced it. That's not good enough for me or my campaigns.
The content from Wizards should be quality and balanced. It should be implied that the makers of a game are going to produce quality game mechanics. I wish I could wave a magic wand and be able to make new powers and feats and rituals for my characters. But every DM I've had has been hesitant to add in new content, even if they're willing to houserule in many other things. I'm not willing to submit anything to Wizards because it's likely they're just going to rip apart anything that I like and completely destroy my work.
Totems are not well supported at all, and honestly I do we'll ever get an essentials style "totem expertise" feat like wizards get for their implements.
The game is already bloated with far too many powers, feats, magic items, and backgrounds. We absolutely do not need more. There are 7476 powers, 3031 feats, 8837 items, and 714 backgrounds. It is a fairly simple thing to take existing material and re-task it.
And yet strength clerics have 1 paragon path without any prereqs, 2 if you count chromatic bane, and 4 at will choices. Seekers and runepriests have a grand total of 4 paragon paths for each class. No one (or hardly anyone) is asking for more crunch for fighters or warlords or wizards or dwarves. We want crunch for artificers and seekers and shardminds and changlings and other things which have not receieved much support. That is the reason many people were dissapointed with the runepriest article. Not because the article was bad, but that they want more support for a class that has a lot of mechanical potential, but needs some help.
And its fine if you want to reflavor stuff and rebuild it for your homegames. For people who play LFR that is not an option and its not an option in a lot of other games where people play with DMs who don't like homebrew.
I respectfully disagree with you Kalex (and agree with GelatinousO .
I find some classes woefully undersupported, and this is far more of a problem for me than anything else... especially an alleged lack of fluff. My girlfriend for example is currently trying to play a Seeker; she can see that the fighter has many times more choices at each level than her, and that is a problem. She is not conversant enough with the rules to design her own powers, and I quite frankly don't have the time to do so myself (that's why I pay WotC for their books and for the Insider). I spend what time I have on building good adventures and preparing to DM games. This lack of crunch has a direct and negative impact on my game... and it's hard enough trying to get my gf to play DnD!
I need more crunch for the Seeker. This is the one thing above all others that would improve my game. I'm know many Runepriests, Battleminds and others feel the same.
I don't mind if this month doesn't have anything for the Seeker, as long as SOME undersupported races and classes get some more options; then I will feel like perhaps WotC realizes that some races and classes are underplayed due to a lack of support, and that at some point in the future the Seeker may not have to live with limited choices and class-support envy.
What on earth happened to Totems of the Far Realm?
i know, i was thinking 'weird shaman support=home run'
ps kalex just listing numbers is pretty meaningless, so many of the feats and powers have specific requirements that just listing the numbers does nothing to argue for less material, but good try! i think youll find most subscribers would like more 'crunch' and dont worry about misleading statistics
pps kalex if you really want to combat needless bloat send an email to wizards re mordenkainens emporium
i know, i was thinking 'weird shaman support=home run'
Dear God. If we can agree on something then this is truly the end of the world.
The game is already bloated with far too many powers, feats, magic items, and backgrounds. We absolutely do not need more. There are 7476 powers, 3031 feats, 8837 items, and 714 backgrounds. It is a fairly simple thing to take existing material and re-task it.
And yet strength clerics have 1 paragon path without any prereqs, 2 if you count chromatic bane, and 4 at will choices. Seekers and runepriests have a grand total of 4 paragon paths for each class. No one (or hardly anyone) is asking for more crunch for fighters or warlords or wizards or dwarves. We want crunch for artificers and seekers and shardminds and changlings and other things which have not receieved much support. That is the reason many people were dissapointed with the runepriest article. Not because the article was bad, but that they want more support for a class that has a lot of mechanical potential, but needs some help.
And its fine if you want to reflavor stuff and rebuild it for your homegames. For people who play LFR that is not an option and its not an option in a lot of other games where people play with DMs who don't like homebrew.
Okay. One of the stated reasons for the new CB being online and having a backend database was so that WotC could datamine and find out what classes, races, or whatever need help. Maybe you should give them the chance to do that.
First, I would not be surprised if WoTC is seeing what classes people are making in the online CB. I also wouldn't be surprised if they aren't gathering information on what people are looking up in the Compendium. Which they should, in my opinion.
Now, lets say they are finding that the number of people looking up strength based clerics, or runepriests, or shifters or any of the other stuff people are asking for more support, is like 2-3%?
Should they make supporting material equal to that 2-3% of all the stuff they come out with for that year, or should they do way more and try and make the support material they come out with equal in amount across the board for any class or race?
Okay. One of the stated reasons for the new CB being online and having a backend database was so that WotC could datamine and find out what classes, races, or whatever need help. Maybe you should give them the chance to do that.
Wasn't it actually so they could determine what classes/races were popular so they could give more feats to dwarf fighters?
Here is a question.
First, I would not be surprised if WoTC is seeing what classes people are making in the online CB. I also wouldn't be surprised if they aren't gathering information on what people are looking up in the Compendium. Which they should, in my opinion.
Now, lets say they are finding that the number of people looking up strength based clerics, or runepriests, or shifters or any of the other stuff people are asking for more support, is like 2-3%?
Should they make supporting material equal to that 2-3% of all the stuff they come out with for that year, or should they do way more and try and make the support material they come out with equal in amount across the board for any class or race?
You assume people don't play classes/races because they were under supported. More support would encourage more people to play those classes/races, ergo undermining your entire point.
"What interests you as a player?"
What would you do if I told you 'everything'?
I've played leaders, strikers, defenders, and controllers from across every power source on the board. I've played characters of every race, class, tier, and item availability, and I love them all.
When WotC publishes material that any of these permutations can use, I am happy.
When WotC publishes material that none of these permutations can use, like they have this month, I am considerably less happy.
So, your definition of 'everything' is considerably more narrow than the usual 'everything'. After all, I'd bet 'rare items' falls under 'everything'. I'd also bet 'rare items' is material that any of those permutations can use.
"What interests you as a player?"
What would you do if I told you 'everything'?
I've played leaders, strikers, defenders, and controllers from across every power source on the board. I've played characters of every race, class, tier, and item availability, and I love them all.
When WotC publishes material that any of these permutations can use, I am happy.
When WotC publishes material that none of these permutations can use, like they have this month, I am considerably less happy.
So, your definition of 'everything' is considerably more narrow than the usual 'everything'. After all, I'd bet 'rare items' falls under 'everything'. I'd also bet 'rare items' is material that any of those permutations can use.
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
I respectfully disagree with you Kalex (and agree with GelatinousO
I find some classes woefully undersupported, and this is far more of a problem for me than anything else... especially an alleged lack of fluff. My girlfriend for example is currently trying to play a Seeker; she can see that the fighter has many times more choices at each level than her, and that is a problem. She is not conversant enough with the rules to design her own powers, and I quite frankly don't have the time to do so myself (that's why I pay WotC for their books and for the Insider). I spend what time I have on building good adventures and preparing to DM games. This lack of crunch has a direct and negative impact on my game... and it's hard enough trying to get my gf to play DnD!
I need more crunch for the Seeker. This is the one thing above all others that would improve my game. I'm know many Runepriests, Battleminds and others feel the same.
I don't mind if this month doesn't have anything for the Seeker, as long as SOME undersupported races and classes get some more options; then I will feel like perhaps WotC realizes that some races and classes are underplayed due to a lack of support, and that at some point in the future the Seeker may not have to live with limited choices and class-support envy.
Okay, but I guess at least part of my point is that the class IS playable. Perhaps for such a new player as your girlfriend too much choice would actually be a problem.
I'm not saying no crunch at all. Just that I think the balance needs to be kept between crunch and fluff, and when people come on the forums and make over the top, overly emotional comments it makes me think the part of the mags that I most enjoy might go away because of a few squeeky wheels. What I don't have time to do anymore is develop an entire world full of interesting people for the games I DM. Fluff about the Nentir Vale is my number one most desired content for either magazine.
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
Wishlists?
Also, does your DM forbid you to use those items you do have? If your DM doesn't give you rare items, ever, then yes, he is the sole person to control them. Players, I suppose, can actually use some items. Players, also, can actually talk reasonably with their DMs and say what they want, especially since, to give the argument a 180º spin, the official player's magazine is telling them that cool items are out there. You actually have a good reason to talk to your DM about what items can be integrated to your campaign, and you manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Here is a question.
First, I would not be surprised if WoTC is seeing what classes people are making in the online CB. I also wouldn't be surprised if they aren't gathering information on what people are looking up in the Compendium. Which they should, in my opinion.
Now, lets say they are finding that the number of people looking up strength based clerics, or runepriests, or shifters or any of the other stuff people are asking for more support, is like 2-3%?
Should they make supporting material equal to that 2-3% of all the stuff they come out with for that year, or should they do way more and try and make the support material they come out with equal in amount across the board for any class or race?
You assume people don't play classes/races because they were under supported. More support would encourage more people to play those classes/races, ergo undermining your entire point.
I didn't assume anything. But you did. It's an assumption that if a class had more support, people would play it. You could write a whole book about every single possible cleric out there, and I still wouldn't want to play a cleric. I know lots of people that don't want to play fighters. Or wizards.
Ever. It has nothing to do with how much support there is for a class. It has to do with their preference.
I asked if WoTC knows that some classes only attract a small percentage of players, should they devote equal time to developing more materials for those class, or an equal percentage based on interest
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
Wishlists?
Also, does your DM forbid you to use those items you do have? If your DM doesn't give you rare items, ever, then yes, he is the sole person to control them. Players, I suppose, can actually use some items. Players, also, can actually talk reasonably with their DMs and say what they want, especially since, to give your argument a spin, the official player's magazine is telling them that cool items are out there. You actually have a good reason to talk to your DM about what items can be integrated to your campaign, and you manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Well, sure, if you want to go against the game rules then that's perfectly fine and dandy. And if your DM is willing to do that, then more power to your group. But what about LFR players? Or people with DMs that follow the rules explictly (1 rare per tier at most)? This is to say nothing of the fact that, by their very nature of being completely under the DMs control, they are not player content. Stick then in Dungeon where they belong.
Incorrect. Rares are not an item any player can use. They are not an option any player can add to their characters for whatever reason - be it flavour, mechanical concept or simply because they are cool. Rares are not player content because they are controlled solely by the DM.
Wishlists?
Also, does your DM forbid you to use those items you do have? If your DM doesn't give you rare items, ever, then yes, he is the sole person to control them. Players, I suppose, can actually use some items. Players, also, can actually talk reasonably with their DMs and say what they want, especially since, to give your argument a spin, the official player's magazine is telling them that cool items are out there. You actually have a good reason to talk to your DM about what items can be integrated to your campaign, and you manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I agree with this. Players need access to read about rares, and I don't want mine reading through the DMG or Dungeon Magazine to get it.
They are DM options, and entirely reliant on a willing, or lax, DM.
They are not, nor have ever been, a player option given the rules for them. The rules are very specific about that.
So yes, everything else has always been a player option. Rares are the exception.
Oh, and boons.
Oh and for the record, no one in either the campaign I DM, or the one I play in use any of the classes, or races you describe as needing help. We did have a shardmind briefly at first level, but his actions wrote him out of the story. Other than that the other options weren't even considered for a variety of reasons.
Cool, but even so, "Classes I don't use don't need to be supported" is not much of an argument. Please note, neither is "Classes I do use need to be supported". The real argument is "Unsupported classes need to be supported", with the point of contention being "unsupported".
I didn't assume anything.
I asked if WoTC knows that some classes only attract a small percentage of players, should they devote equal time to developing more materials for those class, or an equal percentage based on interest
You assumed it was a good idea. Which it isn't because classes that recieve more support and more prominance get played more. That's simply how promotion works. If anything, they should support the classes they have with at least a modicum of effort - a sustainted burst of good extra content - and see if the statisics change. If they do, that's a good argument for keeping that class supported. But simply denying unsupported classes and races new content is based on a false premise: that they are not played because they are disliked instead of not played because they are either obscure (due to lack of promotion) or uninteresting/unworkable (due to lack of support).
I didn't assume anything.
I asked if WoTC knows that some classes only attract a small percentage of players, should they devote equal time to developing more materials for those class, or an equal percentage based on interest
You assumed it was a good idea. Which it isn't because classes that recieve more support and more prominance get played more. That's simply how promotion works. If anything, they should support the classes they have with at least a modicum of effort - a sustainted burst of good extra content - and see if the statisics change. If they do, that's a good argument for keeping that class supported. But simply denying unsupported classes and races new content is based on a false premise: that they are not played because they are disliked instead of not played because they are either obscure (due to lack of promotion) or uninteresting/unworkable (due to lack of support).
I didn't assume it was a good idea, I asked a question.
You seemed afraid of the answer. Why? Because you do think that WoTC is looking to see what material people use the most. And that might mean the classes you like don't get as much as other classes?
I find some classes woefully undersupported, and this is far more of a problem for me than anything else... especially an alleged lack of fluff. My girlfriend for example is currently trying to play a Seeker; she can see that the fighter has many times more choices at each level than her, and that is a problem. She is not conversant enough with the rules to design her own powers, and I quite frankly don't have the time to do so myself (that's why I pay WotC for their books and for the Insider). I spend what time I have on building good adventures and preparing to DM games. This lack of crunch has a direct and negative impact on my game... and it's hard enough trying to get my gf to play DnD!
Then the real questions would be:
- Why is it hard to get her to play? Is she having fun or not?
- Why did she choose the seeker and not the fighter?
- Why is she envying the fighter, instead of playing her character?
Now, you might have a valid point if the classes in question are actually unplayable or really unappealing, but otherwise, if you want to play a seeker, play a seeker. Or play something else if it's really about the # of powers.
A quick example: I'm playing a Dragonlance Kender. (I've managed to avoid being a pain in the ass so far, I believe). I talked to my DM because I felt that I wasn't doing enough damage in combat. He (and others on rpg.stackexchange) told me that Kender rogues don't do that much damage in combat, that their abilities lie elsewhere. Instead of muttering "grumble doom damn fighters" I changed my view of the character, scouted, taunted, looked for traps, and generally did the best I could. The sessions are too short to be distracted by envy.
Another point, related to the first question: does she really want to play, or are you dragging her? Maybe it's just not her cup of tea.
If she does, why is she playing that character, did she choose it or did you choose it for her, based on what the party needed?
My opinion: No one at WotC has a clue about what's going on outside of RPGA reports they get. They're playing a game in their white tower with rules, tools, items, and classes that don't exist yet in printed form. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, it means they're doing their job coming up with new content. However I just can't shake the feeling they've just run out of ideas. They've given so much support to classes like the Fighter and Warlord so that now classes like the Swordmage and Artificer are harder to fill in because they don't want to "copy" things from other classes. Suddenly now they're looking at the player base and they have no idea what to give us.
So instead we got Essentials... A rehashing of old stuff in a new style. For D&DI content we're just getting "story ideas" because you know, D&D players are the "unimaginative" types...
So here's a simple tool WotC should create, possibly build it into the web CB.
Power/Class/Feat Creator: Thats right, put the power back in our hands. Give us simple tables on damage expressions, effects, and conditions, just like how DM's get tools on making new monsters. Let us players make our own content using your system*. Then WotC can peruse that for what players want. And more importantly, people like me can safely ignore the brown nosers and WotC apologists, as well as the abso-freaking-lutely abysmal lack of anything of value in Dragon.
*(I know I can make my own content in the comfort of my own home, but if offered as a tool WotC can continue to charge me! See! Everyone wins! Really WotC, I want to give you money, I do. Give me a reason to)
So here's a simple tool WotC should create, possibly build it into the web CB.
Power/Class/Feat Creator: Thats right, put the power back in our hands. Give us simple tables on damage expressions, effects, and conditions, just like how DM's get tools on making new monsters. Let us players make our own content using your system*.
While this is possibly not a bad idea, I, as a programmer, would be content to have them correct the current and extensive batch of bugs which, in case you didn't notice, has people screaming bloody murder all over the forums. "No new features until outstanding bugs have been fixed" is a nice mantra. Especially when the feature is such a big thing.
Also, pet programmer peeve: just because you label it as "simple" doesn't make it so. Clients do this all. the. time. They also expect to pay for "simple" when they've asked to redesign their whole apps.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Also, pet programmer peeve: just because you label it as "simple" doesn't make it so. Clients do this all. the. time. They also expect to pay for "simple" when they've asked to redesign their whole apps.
I empathize with you. It's worse when refactoring your client's database is the easiest way to add that "simple" function.
Anyway, re: the "To Live Defeated" article -- I get the nagging idea that I read something very similar in a Dungeon editorial recently... let's see if I can find it.
Edit: Hm. Can't find it. I wish I could search all of the past articles for the term "Oubliette", 'cause that's what gave me the nagging feeling in the first place. Hm...
Also, pet programmer peeve: just because you label it as "simple" doesn't make it so. Clients do this all. the. time. They also expect to pay for "simple" when they've asked to redesign their whole apps.
I empathize with you. It's worse when refactoring your client's database is the easiest way to add that "simple" function.
Anyway, re: the "To Live Defeated" article -- I get the nagging idea that I read something very similar in a Dungeon editorial recently...
My favorite response to "I have a simple question for you..." is "That's great, as long as you realize it may not result in a simple answer."
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
And their paying customers want support for undersupported classes.
Welcome to creative writing.
Fantastic! It's a shame that it is so impossible to write fluff articles, and that there aren't already a million sites where you can get other people's fluff... thank the gods Wizards has decided to focus on the fluff, which is impossible to write ourselves, and to completely ignore crunch!
Of course, you are more than welcome to be completely sarcastic when someone is trying to actually help you find solutions. That tells me that you really aren't interested in anything but griefing. Sorry for trying to help.
Because your solution really wasnt one at all. He wants crunch to use w 4th edition, in a convenient form. Which would be in the character builder.
The new builder desparately needs house rules implementation anyways.
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
but the flip side is, if there was more support some classes might see more use. a personal example. the only reason i originally hybrided to fighter w my str cleric was the complete lack of power choice at some levels as well as no real viable pp, except one that looks like santa claus.
i would also say if the vast majority of your customers are saying one thing, its probably wise to listen. and as those threads show, the consensus was for more for undersupported classes. unless they were all lying?
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
And their paying customers want support for undersupported classes.
A CEO is going to look and say, you want to spend 10% of your budget on creating X, for 1-2% of the customer base, which will bring less then it costs, because some gamer thinks it's only fair?
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
Because if they put out more support for undersupported classes, more than 1-2% of people would play them?
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
but the flip side is, if there was more support some classes might see more use. a personal example. the only reason i originally hybrided to fighter w my str cleric was the complete lack of power choice at some levels as well as no real viable pp, except one that looks like santa claus.
i would also say if the vast majority of your customers are saying one thing, its probably wise to listen. and as those threads show, the consensus was for more for undersupported classes. unless they were all lying?
Sure, that sounds logical, but it's more a hope then real. Like I said, I would never play a cleric. Just not my thing. I know lots of players that feel the same way about certain classes and races. We all do. And we all probably know more players that just don't like playing certain classes or races on a personal preference then because they feel the class is undersupported.
another example. somewhere along the line as you can read in the ampersands they made a decision to make little racial books. i am convinced this was due to what they were seeing downloaded the most. the books of course are discontinued and can be found collecting dust all over game shops everywhere. so what happened? well they didnt account for the fact that lots of players were reading every class acts or racial article even if they didnt play those races or classes. also, it was included in the subscription. so they misread the market again. the only thing they kept from that short lived direction was softcovers
in short, you cant just look at WHAT is being dled or upped to cb, you have to look at WHY. the recent survey probably gave them better input than any data mining could ever do
of course its just my opinion
If you write something that one person really likes, the chances are that more than that one person will also really like it. The problem becomes instead advertisement and distribution. Wizards has that all covered.
Welcome to creative writing.
Indeed! I am a creative writer (aspiring since I was a teen), and everyone has to understand that ALL magazines recieve way more submissions than they can ever print. It's called a slush pile. Just because you wrote something you think is really great doesn't mean that it will get published. Your piece is one of thousands. The only sin I think WotC is guilty of here, is not staffing enough people to wade through the slush pile and send out rejections.
My first rejection letter is still framed.
dane the question of which to supprt came up in gd a few weeks ago and by far the most responses said that they should support classes based on their lack of support, and not by popularity
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
However, everything put out by WoTC costs money. So, in a year, if say, 10% of what the put out is only going to be used by 1-2% of their customers, is WoTC making the best use of their money? And remember, they are own by a publically traded company, who's CEO and other top executives are first responsible to the share holders wallets.
I think that is exactly what the problem is! They have to satisfy Hasbro before they can even think about satisfying their customers...
You have me blocked though so you will never see this unless someone quotes it...
My reaction the continued lack of crunch I want has been to just try to do it myself. My Paladin|Ardent of Corellon is sporting a shiny new homebrewed feat that lets him use Longswords as implements so he can use more than one longsword for the rest of the campaign, as our treasure output does not work for him needing a Holy Symbol *and* a weapon, plus it's thematic as all hell for Corellites. So I came up with a feat to let divine-classed worshipers of Corellon get longsword proficiency(eye to making it useful to non-eladrin cleric/invokers) and use longswords as implements. The DM was OK with it, and tacked on a +1/+2/+3 to Implement power damage at 5/15/25. (Which I thought was perhaps overpowered, but I'm not going to argue when the DM gives me things. :P )
Now, I'm lucky in that this is a 'home' game(Well, PbP, but), and my DM is actually open to homebrew. A lot of people aren't.
And that's why it annoys me even when I don't need it. It makes me kind of sad that, despite just making my Pally a shiny new toy, the CD:Corellon article didn't give him any shiny new toys. (If you're a Chaladin, which he is, there's no reason to take that PP over Champion of Corellon if you can pull decent DEX, which he has. And while he is half-elf and thus able to take it, other races...)
I want toys. I can make my own, I'm an elf, our centuries of enslavement to Santa Claus have taught us well, but sometimes I want toys someone else made, yeah?
:<