"HARDER" compared to what? The new CB is still supposed to be a far cry better than doing it by hand. Of course, the same was said of the old CB and I personally found it worthless. Whenever a technology, especially a computer program, is "upgraded" there are always issues (even those of us without a background in programming know that). I can't tell you how many people I've heard talking about how they bought the latest OS for their computer only to find it's all buggy, or that the UI feels clunky compared to what they're used to. In time, people adapt to new technology. Sometimes, they even come to like it better than the old stuff.
So your arguement is, it's better then nothing for the same price. Brilliant!
Until someone shows me that they are biologically capable of simultaneously creating/editing more than 20 characters at a time, the character limit argument is a moot point.
Until the export feature is more than just something they are working on it is most certainly not a moot point.
I have already stated that the export feature needs to be completed. I have likewise stated the reason why I believe the new CB is being released without it. Until the export feature is in place, there is a problem (exactly how crippling it is depedns on one's level of dependance upon the CB). Once the xport feature is in place, the character limit is moot. Unless, of course, you wish to meet me at a public place where you can show me how you go about making/editing more than 20 characters simultaneously.
How exactly does working on 20 chars simultaneously figure into the equation? The whole idea behind this new CB is all your stuff is "in the cloud", NOT on your computer. It's one of the top selling points. You assumption of a 20 char workbench is silly. No self respecting developer would build something like that. If that were in fact the case, they would have built the whole thing around local storage and not bothered with a cloud based solution.
If your going to be a apologist, stick to a subject your familair with. Else your just making yourself sound silly to those of us who do this for a living.
This new 20 character limit is a vastly inferior feature for me.
Previously all my characters were synced via DropBox or a flash drive. When traveling to a convention, I had access to all of them. At a convention, I never know what I will play.
Characters in my home campaigns are at about 15 right now, but those are not good for conventions. My stable of Organized Play characters far exceeds the 20 limit. These are also the characters that would gain any (even minimal) utility from the cloud.
It is ridiculous to constantly Import and Export characters as I want to work on them. That is not a feature, it is a series of extra steps that I have to take now. It also completely defeats the purpose of a cloud. It shows that this cloud feature is clearly not for our benefit.
This is the most eloquent post in this entire thread about the odious 20 character limit. I didn't see anyone quote the author or respond directly to him, so I figured I would quote a large portion of his excellent post for those who missed it to see.
So now, onto the question of why the limit is in place.
Is it the DoS/flooding concern? I cannot possibly believe that. There are too many ways to protect the service from that kind of problem for this to be the motivating reason. Remember, only paying customers can save characters at all. Assigning some total storage quota, or a velocity limit on new characters saved, or a hard cap that was 5 or 10 times larger could handily prevent that, and if someone abuses the system, you can suspend their account and they're gone.
Is it the cost of database/storage? I don't think so, as several people have argued that file storage is cheap and the database could be kept small, but more importantly, I don't care. Wizards has demanded to save my characters themselves, as opposed to letting me do it. I expect them to solve the problem of how to do so. If it is too expensive for them, well, they should have let me keep doing it.
Is it an artificial limit to make it more difficult for me to share my account with other people? (which I do not do.) This, quite frankly, is offensive. Let me explain why. If the "average" user only uses one or two characters, then this measure doesn't help with account sharing, since 10-20 average users can use the same CB login. This only helps if the average user uses most of the slots, leaving none left over to share, which means that BY DESIGN, many users will come near to or hit the cap. For this to help with sharing wizards needs to have chosen a limit that they expect a single user to fill. I find this offensive because that means they are deliberately crippling the functionality for a single user in order to cripple it even further for multiple users.
Is it a lowballed starting point that will be raised as the kinks in the system are ironed out? Well, I hope so, but that doesn't make me feel better. Given the quality and timeliness of tools development at Wizards, I don't expect the kinks to be fixed in this new CB for a very long time. And, as it is the only way to access the freely-flowing errata and new material, I am expected to switch to it now. And saying to me "Well, maybe someday the new tool we have forced you to switch to will do what the old tool did" is not a compelling argument.
So, what does this mean to me? Well, I will hold final judgment for ten days to see what the web-CB can do. But if it can't handle even the limited houserule support of the offline-CB, is as buggy as the CB was in its early days, and has an unreasonable (for my usage) cap on the number of characters, I'll have to think long and hard about whether I think DDI is worth it for the Compendium.
And if I were making an argument related to the technology itself, I would indeed be talking about something I don't understand. As it is however, I'm speaking about the use of a technology; which requires considerably less knowledge of how it works on a scientific level.
The use of technology is suppose to make it easier to do what you want to do and to facilitate the way you want to do it.
"HARDER" compared to what? The new CB is still supposed to be a far cry better than doing it by hand. Of course, the same was said of the old CB and I personally found it worthless. Whenever a technology, especially a computer program, is "upgraded" there are always issues (even those of us without a background in programming know that). I can't tell you how many people I've heard talking about how they bought the latest OS for their computer only to find it's all buggy, or that the UI feels clunky compared to what they're used to. In time, people adapt to new technology. Sometimes, they even come to like it better than the old stuff.
Compared to the CURRENT PRODUCT. That is the POINT of the entire discussion. There is a current CB that works and fits this need. If there was not, then you comparison would work.
The workbench comparison was to users of the CB, not it's makers. When a person creates/edits a character they do it on the "workbench" (the CB). Finished projects are not meant to be stored on your workbench (although, unfortunately, that will be the situation until the export feature is added). A person's workbench only needs to be large enough for the one or two projects they're working on; not large enough that they can stack all of their projects on it at once. Also, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that they can simulaneously modify/create more than 20 characters at one time. Until I see this done, I contend that the CB really only needs 5-10 character slots; and that's frankly being generous.
Yea, 5-10 Characters should be enough for anyone. I can't believe those greedy people who like to use our product!
I have heard that a number of times from people that did not think ahead.
WOTC Podcast: "The web is a shortcut" "Piracy was a big thing"
Until someone shows me that they are biologically capable of simultaneously creating/editing more than 20 characters at a time, the character limit argument is a moot point.
Until the export feature is more than just something they are working on it is most certainly not a moot point.
I have already stated that the export feature needs to be completed. I have likewise stated the reason why I believe the new CB is being released without it. Until the export feature is in place, there is a problem (exactly how crippling it is depedns on one's level of dependance upon the CB). Once the xport feature is in place, the character limit is moot. Unless, of course, you wish to meet me at a public place where you can show me how you go about making/editing more than 20 characters simultaneously.
The only thing you have stated is your complete lack of understanding that people where using the current CB differently than you.
WOTC Podcast: "The web is a shortcut" "Piracy was a big thing"
Until someone shows me that they are biologically capable of simultaneously creating/editing more than 20 characters at a time, the character limit argument is a moot point.
Until the export feature is more than just something they are working on it is most certainly not a moot point.
I have already stated that the export feature needs to be completed. I have likewise stated the reason why I believe the new CB is being released without it. Until the export feature is in place, there is a problem (exactly how crippling it is depedns on one's level of dependance upon the CB). Once the xport feature is in place, the character limit is moot. Unless, of course, you wish to meet me at a public place where you can show me how you go about making/editing more than 20 characters simultaneously.
How exactly does working on 20 chars simultaneously figure into the equation? The whole idea behind this new CB is all your stuff is "in the cloud", NOT on your computer. It's one of the top selling points. You assumption of a 20 char workbench is silly. No self respecting developer would build something like that. If that were in fact the case, they would have built the whole thing around local storage and not bothered with a cloud based solution.
If you have a 20 character limit, then (quite clearly) all your stuff is not intended to be on the cloud. Only as many as 20 characters are intended to be on the cloud, because that is the limit they've set.
If your going to be a apologist, stick to a subject your familair with. Else your just making yourself sound silly to those of us who do this for a living.
I'm not an apologist, but I have expected to get called that from the D&D fanbase (the single most ungrateful fanbase I've ever seen in my entire life). I've admitted several times already that the lack of an export feature at launch is a problem. I have likewise said that this problem becomes compunded when taken in conjunction with the character limit. You are more than welcome to continue using the old CB, for free, and opting to suspend your DDI sub until the export feature is added to the new one. That's a perfectly reasonable course of action if the new CB is not immediately to your liking. And you won't find me calling you anti-capitalist (or any other name) for doing so, although you have opted to hurl the apologist label at me for stating my own personal opinion.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
"HARDER" compared to what? The new CB is still supposed to be a far cry better than doing it by hand. Of course, the same was said of the old CB and I personally found it worthless. Whenever a technology, especially a computer program, is "upgraded" there are always issues (even those of us without a background in programming know that). I can't tell you how many people I've heard talking about how they bought the latest OS for their computer only to find it's all buggy, or that the UI feels clunky compared to what they're used to. In time, people adapt to new technology. Sometimes, they even come to like it better than the old stuff.
So your arguement is, it's better then nothing for the same price. Brilliant!
My arguement is that (as of the 16th) the new CB is the only game in town so to speak (if you want a fully updated CB, that is). The old CB will never get any more updates, and it will grow more and more out of touch with the most current rules of the game. If you're content to make do with a CB that will get progressively farther out of date, then please continue to use the old one to your heart's content.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
"HARDER" compared to what? The new CB is still supposed to be a far cry better than doing it by hand. Of course, the same was said of the old CB and I personally found it worthless. Whenever a technology, especially a computer program, is "upgraded" there are always issues (even those of us without a background in programming know that). I can't tell you how many people I've heard talking about how they bought the latest OS for their computer only to find it's all buggy, or that the UI feels clunky compared to what they're used to. In time, people adapt to new technology. Sometimes, they even come to like it better than the old stuff.
Compared to the CURRENT PRODUCT. That is the POINT of the entire discussion. There is a current CB that works and fits this need. If there was not, then you comparison would work.
As of the 16th, there is no more current product (there is, but it will grow ever increasingly out of date with the most current D&D rules). The old CB is being put to bed, like a vehicle line that will no longer be produced. You still have your car from the old line, but it will receive no more support from the company that made it and it will grow ever older and less capable of fulfilling your needs over time. Because the old CB is no longer fully up to date and will never get more updates, it is a sunk cost and therefore irrelevant. If you are content with the old CB, in spite of it not being fully updated, then please continue to use it as you see fit. I'm not trying to say that anyone must retain their DDI sub, or that they must renew it at a later time (though they may wish to after the export feature or the next update is added). By all means, make the choice that is right for you and your gaming group.
The workbench comparison was to users of the CB, not it's makers. When a person creates/edits a character they do it on the "workbench" (the CB). Finished projects are not meant to be stored on your workbench (although, unfortunately, that will be the situation until the export feature is added). A person's workbench only needs to be large enough for the one or two projects they're working on; not large enough that they can stack all of their projects on it at once. Also, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that they can simulaneously modify/create more than 20 characters at one time. Until I see this done, I contend that the CB really only needs 5-10 character slots; and that's frankly being generous.
Yea, 5-10 Characters should be enough for anyone. I can't believe those greedy people who like to use our product!
I have heard that a number of times from people that did not think ahead.
I'm not saying people are being greedy by wanting more character slots. People always want more convenience. Since the CB is itself a convenience-based product, it's not unreasonable to expect people to want it to become more convenient over time. The thing is though, that convenience usually comes in that way: over time. The new CB is a new product. It has had no time to develop more convenience.
Until someone shows me that they are biologically capable of simultaneously creating/editing more than 20 characters at a time, the character limit argument is a moot point.
Until the export feature is more than just something they are working on it is most certainly not a moot point.
I have already stated that the export feature needs to be completed. I have likewise stated the reason why I believe the new CB is being released without it. Until the export feature is in place, there is a problem (exactly how crippling it is depedns on one's level of dependance upon the CB). Once the xport feature is in place, the character limit is moot. Unless, of course, you wish to meet me at a public place where you can show me how you go about making/editing more than 20 characters simultaneously.
The only thing you have stated is your complete lack of understanding that people where using the current CB differently than you.
I do understand that people are using the CB differently than I am. They kind of have to be using it differently than I am, because I am not using it (its inability to support homebrew material makes it useless to me). If the old CB is more appropriate to your needs than the new on is, then (again) please continue to use the one that makes the most sense for you.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
The CBC was already put to pasture, when the database had thing deleted from it and was not updated with the Essentials and Darksun material. When WEBCB comes online on the 16th, the CBC is already out of date.
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
