Ah okay I havent taken a detailed look at it, I was under the impression that it was all fluff. Still you would think that Pazzio could have gotten at least a primer from wotc to make a campaign setting book. I do like Pazzios fluff, and from what I have seen their adventure models look great, mechanics of pathfinder not so great.
Yeah, you would have thought that wouldn't you... it certainly would have been nice, but perhaps you hadn't caught the fun in the months before the 4erelease. Paizo had been one of the companies wanting to support 4e and waiting to take WotC up on their "pay us $5000 and you can get the rules early so you can put out 4e product" offer. In the end nobody paid out any money because WotC didn't deliver on that date like they didn't on a pile of others.
williamhm75 wrote:
Depends on the industry some industries that have a lot of research involved, ie new military technology cost overruns and passed deadlines are expected.
This is a sad reality and not (imho) something that should be heralded as a positive example. YMMV of course.
I disagree; the players don't put the magic items into adventures, and having all of them in PHB/AV also takes away a lot of the mystique ("Oh, so this is item X on page 116 in AV -- who wants it?"). I never saw the magic item chapter as a "shopping list" for players, either, and if someone didn't write down the details when I first related all the info on a magic item (after the PCs had identified it), they can ask me again.
Magic items are tied to classes a lot more heavily than in previous editions. In order to function I need certain items linked to my class, be they implements, weapons or armor, not to mention mounts and wonderous items. Not to mention that the players are the ones who can make items so it makes some sense for them to be able to ballpark their equipment, and since higher level play goes with a basic principle in gear it also makes creating new characters faster and easier.
The fact remains the bard and the druid were missing, period. A couple of thousand D&D players played bards and druids in 3e, and if they wanted to keep playing their characters - whereas fighter players could rebuild theirs -, they were SOOL.
Or they could have done what our group did and refluffed a warlord as a bard and the druid as either a refluffed wizard (you wildshape into a cat for a moment to use expeditious retreat or a bird to use fly, and flaming sphere is a summoned fire elemental) or cleric (if you were more into buffing) or perhaps multi-class between the two. WotC also came out with a free "How to fluff the other 3.5 classes in 4E" article shortly after 4E came out so it's not like it was impossible for them to rebuild their character unless the DM was being totally inflexible.
The players need access to all magic items, the GM does not...? So it makes perfect sense to put them into the PHB whereas the reasons for putting them in the DMG in 3e were unfathomable? Okay, if you say so.
Actually, I think the only reason they were the 3e DMG at all was legacy. Back in 1e magic items WERE the sole province of the DM (as were the To-Hit and save tables for that matter). They were rare and could NOT be found outside of an adventure. Certain high-level wizards could create basic items (like +1 swords) but this took months of campaign time to accomplish and there were no real crafting rules to speak of beyond DM fiat.
The moment they introduced rules that allowed PC's to craft items and gave them a quantifiable value they needed to have been moved to the PHB (as should mounts and common animal companions) because it's information that players will need to reference. The default setting allows PC's to make/buy magic items so magic items belong where PC's can find them. If your campaign does not allow this, that's fine, but the layout of the books was done for their default setting.
Personally, I think it was a change that 3E SHOULD have made, but the designers probably already felt they were pushing the envelope on changes to the game and so certain things ending up sticking around for legacy reasons (Vancian magic, Greyhawk deities, The Great Wheel, magic items in the DMG, etc) rather than practical design/layout reasons.
I'm rather happy 4E wasn't so attached to tradition for tradition's sake because it let them lay things out in a much more practical manner. Players no longer have a reason to ever even NEED to reference anything outside of the player books. They never have to worry that some cool magic item or feat or other option is hiding in the DMG or MM's or the Campaign Setting book. Nope, it's all the PHB's, Player's Guides, Power Books, and Adventurer's Vaults.
Well, this isn't exactly rocket science.
Then again, the forces you're playing with in building a rocket engine behave in a predictable and rational manner. Try saying the same about gamers. :D
So who said they had to add something new in place of something old? Throw out the magic items, smaller font, smaller illustrations, much less white space, and you have all the room you need.
Never going to happen. The magic items have to go someplace and given the rules for crafting and the default setting allowing their purchase with gold, the best place for magic items in the overall product (i.e. the core books) is the PHB. Anyplace else would be counter-intuitive to the new player.
Smaller font is also unlikely. They're already at the font size of a paperback novel. Any smaller and/or denser and you risk alienating a large segment who don't want to read a college text-book to be able to play a game (actually college text books are generally much better laid out than the 3E books were in this regard). Packing in information is only good until the point where the average consumer thinks there's too much for them to possibly be able to absorb.
The same goes for illustrations and white-space. The rule of thumb in the graphics design industry is an average of at least one quarter-page graphic element on every full spread (i.e. the two pages of an open book that are facing each other) or about 12.5% of the content. In another post I catelogued all the illustrations in the PHB and, surprise, surprise, the illustrations filled up right around 12.5% of the book.
White space is similar, though a bit more subjective (it's also something I have to deal with on a daily basis as a designer because my gut instinct IS to cram way too much into a small space). If you don't give the reader someplace for their eyes to rest they're going to shut the book the moment they need to rest their eyes for a moment. White space is also the reason run-on sentences are considered bad and large blocks of text are generally poor design.
In short, the only way to get more into the PHB would be to increase the page count, because every other alternative flies in the face of every graphic design standard I had hammered into me in school, which are themselves the results of copious amounts of research into human behavior. Decry it if you will, but 4E's layout is clearly designed to appeal the broadest segment of the population as possible.
DM needs them but dm will presumably have a phb not every player will or should have a dmg.
What happened to the concept of the GM giving the player the few data about their new shiny magic item to write down? It has worked for 30 years. To me, putting a shopping list of magic items into the PHB is a little like giving the players the adventure module to read and then playing it. (Well, not exactly, but you get my drift.)
I mean, sure, if you think they have a place in the PHB, fine, then that's your opinion. But the question is: Is the inclusion of magic items more important than other stuff that could have gone into the PHB?
williamhm75 wrote:
What Im saying is its okay to change the class line up. They are under no obligation to produce the classes from the last edition.
Nope, they aren't. If they should introduce fluffy pink aliens called Spurks from the planet Hurzzz as a character race in PHB3, they'll be free to do so. This isn't about obligations.
williamhm75 wrote:
I dont know why youd waste time complaining about a product to people who like it but whatever.
It's called a discussion (which I've been known to enjoy from time to time), since discussions never take place between people who agree on the subject.
williamhm75 wrote:
No but some of the same considerations apply. It takes time to develop and test a good role playing game. Its not easy making balanced usable material.
No, they don't. The guys at WotC do for a living what many of us do in our spare time. There are free RPGs out there, developed by very few people in their spare time, some even by one guy alone, varying in quality from abysmal to really good. Given the conditions - company resources, corporate working environment, game design as a dayjob, four years time -, I'm sure most of the hobby designers would laugh at any "We didn't have the time" excuse. Four years under these conditions is enough time to design, well... anything, really.
williamhm75 wrote:
Sounds like the same thing to me. I dont know why you cant simply accept their reasons for it. Then again Im not bitter and cynical.
Because I choose not to believe everything corporate employees tell me. I know from personal experience that 90% of public relations consist of blatantly lying.
Archangel62 wrote:
Well, there is the fact that they were still developing stuff for 3.5, Tome of Battle and the like. The issue is that the creative department and budget were probably much smaller for developing things since at that point 3.5 was still a growing concern.
All valid excuses, and none of them are of any interest to me as a customer. That's what I meant in my last posting - I can have the best reasons in the world, but if I don't meet the client's expectations, none of them matter.
Archangel62 wrote:
And what constitutes full delivery for you?
By that point we weren't talking about specific examples anymore, but about the principle.
Archangel62 wrote:
WotC didn't promise us the druid either, or the sorcerer or the bard, we weren't told that there would be gnomes in the first players handbook, by and large they were fairly quiet.
You're jumbling two separate subtopics here. You brought up the warlock / hexblade example, I replied to it. It didn't have anything to do with the druid / bard situation, and it still doesn't.
No, druid, bard and gnome weren't promised. Never said they were.
yrogerg wrote:
(...)
Technically I can't find much fault with what you're saying here. Our playstyles differ tremendously, though, and I guess that's where the disagreement's coming from.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
What happened to the concept of the GM giving the player the few data about their new shiny magic item to write down? It has worked for 30 years. To me, putting a shopping list of magic items into the PHB is a little like giving the players the adventure module to read and then playing it. (Well, not exactly, but you get my drift.)
Not really players can make magic items.
I mean, sure, if you think they have a place in the PHB, fine, then that's your opinion. But the question is: Is the inclusion of magic items more important than other stuff that could have gone into the PHB?
Id say yes the new books are selling well. It makes more sense to put things that are going to be used by the players in a player book.
Nope, they aren't. If they should introduce fluffy pink aliens called Spurks from the planet Hurzzz as a character race in PHB3, they'll be free to do so. This isn't about obligations.
Then Im afraid I dont see your point at all why are you complaining about it then?
It's called a discussion (which I've been known to enjoy from time to time), since discussions never take place between people who agree on the subject.
Except you just keep bringing up the same thing again and again.
No, they don't. The guys at WotC do for a living what many of us do in our spare time. There are free RPGs out there, developed by very few people in their spare time, some even by one guy alone, varying in quality from abysmal to really good. Given the conditions - company resources, corporate working environment, game design as a dayjob, four years time -, I'm sure most of the hobby designers would laugh at any "We didn't have the time" excuse. Four years under these conditions is enough time to design, well... anything, really.
So you say but most of the home brew stuff ive seen isnt very well balanced or play tested WOTCs new material at least is. They cant do everything at once 8 classes was plenty for just the first book.
Because I choose not to believe everything corporate employees tell me. I know from personal experience that 90% of public relations consist of blatantly lying.
And I choose to not care what there reason is. It was their descision to make. I dont see why their reasoning behind the descision matters in the least.
All valid excuses, and none of them are of any interest to me as a customer. That's what I meant in my last posting - I can have the best reasons in the world, but if I don't meet the client's expectations, none of them matter.
No, druid, bard and gnome weren't promised. Never said they were.
Or they could have done what our group did and refluffed a warlord as a bard and the druid as either a refluffed wizard (...)
Sure. Or they could have decided to just not purchase the new edition altogether and keep playing 3e. Or instead of waiting for the material necessary for the campaign to be complete, they could have bought another system. And I'm sure that's what some groups have done, and that's why I as a designer wouldn't have taken that risk. Knowing that a new edition sells like hot cakes regardless of what's been done with it, and knowing that 3.5's PHB2 sold extremely well for a product so late in the edition's lifespan, I would've given the existing customers no reason to wait or not purchase the new edition at all, instead of holding back popular material for PHB2 - because that would only indicate that I, the producer, don't have much confidence in the value of my product.
Chris24601 wrote:
The moment they introduced rules that allowed PC's to craft items and gave them a quantifiable value they needed to have been moved to the PHB (as should mounts and common animal companions) because it's information that players will need to reference. The default setting allows PC's to make/buy magic items so magic items belong where PC's can find them. If your campaign does not allow this, that's fine, but the layout of the books was done for their default setting.
Valid statements, to be sure. I still disagree, though, for two reasons, the first being very subjective: I don't think the only purpose of a PHB is to deliver information, I think it's equally important to create atmosphere, so I don't think putting all rules a player might need some day into the book that has to lay the groundwork is the way to go. (I had a lengthy discussion about this point in this very thread, so I'd prefer to not discuss this in detail all over again.) A chapter prominently displayed in the PHB creates the impression of prominent importance, if you will. Much to my regret, magic items were featured prominently in 3e, anchored so deep in the system that you had to improvise if you didn't want them to be a major part of the structure. But at least 3e left them out of the PHB, thusly not creating the impression with a first-time reader that they're as important as they were, so they could focus their attention on other aspects.
The second reason is that D&D is the rules background for different settings. In the past, some settings had tremendous difficulty rewriting the rules, because the importance and availability of magic items didn't harmonize with the setting. That's not going to get better.
Chris24601 wrote:
Then again, the forces you're playing with in building a rocket engine behave in a predictable and rational manner. Try saying the same about gamers. :D
A man can dream...
Chris24601 wrote:
Smaller font is also unlikely (...)
I'm by no means a graphic designer, but does what you're saying here go for the whole world or just for America? I'm genuinely interested, because my impression has always been that there was a discernable difference in layout between American and European releases. That's why I've been pretty surprised by and impressed with the amount of content the 3e core books offered. If you look at the 3e and 4e PHBs laid out next to each other, they're different like night and day, and going by the number of characters alone, 3e takes 4e out to the shed and beats it with a shovel. So would you say 3e's layout is a faux pas, from a graphic designer's point of view? Because if it is, then I don't belong to the target demographic since I love getting as much bang as possible for my buck. I admit I do have read the "The 3e PHB reads like a textbook" reproach before, but going by this standard, the 4e PHB reads like a VCR instruction manual.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
I'm by no means a graphic designer, but does what you're saying here go for the whole world or just for America? I'm genuinely interested, because my impression has always been that there was a discernable difference in layout between American and European releases. That's why I've been pretty surprised by and impressed with the amount of content the 3e core books offered. If you look at the 3e and 4e PHBs laid out next to each other, they're different like night and day, and going by the number of characters alone, 3e takes 4e out to the shed and beats it with a shovel. So would you say 3e's layout is a faux pas, from a graphic designer's point of view? Because if it is, then I don't belong to the target demographic since I love getting as much bang as possible for my buck. I admit I do have read the "The 3e PHB reads like a textbook" reproach before, but going by this standard, the 4e PHB reads like a VCR instruction manual.
DB
There's also a difference between the Western layouts and the Japanese layouts. You're making more incorrect assumptions than just "graphical layout" in this paragraph, so it's hard to tell where to start. Especially since I'm a lot more green than Chris is, but we're in the same field. It's already been proven that 4e has more character creation options than 3e, and more combat options, as well. The layout is "bad" only if the market for 3e and 4e is the same. And what market they're presenting to changes which one is bad, and sometimes both are badly done.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
Sure. Or they could have decided to just not purchase the new edition altogether and keep playing 3e. Or instead of waiting for the material necessary for the campaign to be complete, they could have bought another system. And I'm sure that's what some groups have done, and that's why I as a designer wouldn't have taken that risk. Knowing that a new edition sells like hot cakes regardless of what's been done with it, and knowing that 3.5's PHB2 sold extremely well for a product so late in the edition's lifespan, I would've given the existing customers no reason to wait or not purchase the new edition at all, instead of holding back popular material for PHB2 - because that would only indicate that I, the producer, don't have much confidence in the value of my product.
Or they could play something different. The desingers themselves said not to try to convert 3e characters to 4e it does not work very well. Personally Im not sure i would have bought it if the class list was the exact same as before same goes for race. A little shaking up was necessary.
Valid statements, to be sure. I still disagree, though, for two reasons, the first being very subjective: I don't think the only purpose of a PHB is to deliver information, I think it's equally important to create atmosphere, so I don't think putting all rules a player might need some day into the book that has to lay the groundwork is the way to go. (I had a lengthy discussion about this point in this very thread, so I'd prefer to not discuss this in detail all over again.) A chapter prominently displayed in the PHB creates the impression of prominent importance, if you will. Much to my regret, magic items were featured prominently in 3e, anchored so deep in the system that you had to improvise if you didn't want them to be a major part of the structure. But at least 3e left them out of the PHB, thusly not creating the impression with a first-time reader that they're as important as they were, so they could focus their attention on other aspects.
I disagree. Its up to the dm and group to create atmosphere. The books should be as fluff light as possible. Magic items have always been important in 4e all you need is weapon or implement armour and neck item all other items are just gravy. Magic items are important because players like getting lots of loot and new shiny things its just a part of dnd.
The second reason is that D&D is the rules background for different settings. In the past, some settings had tremendous difficulty rewriting the rules, because the importance and availability of magic items didn't harmonize with the setting. That's not going to get better.
Agreed but now that the core books have less fluff it should be fairly easy to tweak the rules for different settings.
I'm by no means a graphic designer, but does what you're saying here go for the whole world or just for America? I'm genuinely interested, because my impression has always been that there was a discernable difference in layout between American and European releases. That's why I've been pretty surprised by and impressed with the amount of content the 3e core books offered. If you look at the 3e and 4e PHBs laid out next to each other, they're different like night and day, and going by the number of characters alone, 3e takes 4e out to the shed and beats it with a shovel. So would you say 3e's layout is a faux pas, from a graphic designer's point of view? Because if it is, then I don't belong to the target demographic since I love getting as much bang as possible for my buck. I admit I do have read the "The 3e PHB reads like a textbook" reproach before, but going by this standard, the 4e PHB reads like a VCR instruction manual.
DB
I disagree. The content in the 4e phb is of a higher quality it has fewer classes but each of its classes is useful unlike 3.5. The rules for combat are also stated in less confusing fashion having all the conditions printed on one page makes the game so much easier. A smaller font would make the books more difficult to look up information in and thats the primary purpose.
Yes, and theoretically players can play kings and merchant lords, too. That doesn't mean there need to be rules for that in the PHB.
williamhm75 wrote:
Then Im afraid I dont see your point at all why are you complaining about it then?
I've already answered that.
williamhm75 wrote:
So you say but most of the home brew stuff ive seen isnt very well balanced or play tested WOTCs new material at least is. They cant do everything at once 8 classes was plenty for just the first book.
Don't just think of homebrew systems, but of systems (or system / setting combinations) that were created by players for players and grew so popular they found a publisher. Arcane Codex comes to mind. Other than that, you are extremely forgiving. If eight classes is plenty, and you can't ask more of a company in four years, then we have no basis for further discussion here.
williamhm75 wrote:
And I choose to not care what there reason is. It was their descision to make. I dont see why their reasoning behind the descision matters in the least.
No? Say you order a computer from me, delivery on Monday at the latest because you need it that day, and I don't deliver it on Monday. Excuse A: "My wife's been in a car crash, and I spent the whole weekend at her side in the hospital. I'm sorry, but I couldn't get myself to assembling your computer." Excuse B: "Oh, I just didn't feel like working, and I couldn't break away from the TV - hey, it was Simpsons weekend!" Does my reason for not delivering the damn thing matter in the least?
williamhm75 wrote:
Then why do you keep bringing up this point.
Answered that, too.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
I disagree. Its up to the dm and group to create atmosphere. The books should be as fluff light as possible. Magic items have always been important in 4e all you need is weapon or implement armour and neck item all other items are just gravy. Magic items are important because players like getting lots of loot and new shiny things its just a part of dnd.
Well, we've had this discussion before, so...
williamhm75 wrote:
Agreed but now that the core books have less fluff it should be fairly easy to tweak the rules for different settings.
No, fluff is what you can easily ignore. The rules need tweaking regardless of how much fluff is applied.
williamhm75 wrote:
I disagree. The content in the 4e phb is of a higher quality it has fewer classes but each of its classes is useful unlike 3.5. The rules for combat are also stated in less confusing fashion having all the conditions printed on one page makes the game so much easier. A smaller font would make the books more difficult to look up information in and thats the primary purpose.
I wasn't talking about (subjective) quality, but about (objective) quantity.
DB
What I think about 4e? Well, WotC pulled a Lucas on me and put too many Ewoks and Gungans in my Far, Far Away.
Remember, you read it here first: the first 5e review! (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/971)
