Community

Nov 24, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Wndstar wrote:

Nov 24, 2012 -- 12:08PM, Diffan wrote:

Nov 24, 2012 -- 7:53AM, Wndstar wrote:

Nov 24, 2012 -- 1:29AM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Aside from PDFs of books, I have no desire for e-D&D (tools, builders, blah, blah, etc), just books , thank you.

Me too..... Ddin't mind character builder, since trying to do it offline was very confusing........  But beyond that no thank you.  Keep it real Pen and Paper and real social interaction across a table with the sound of dice rolling.....

how does e-D&D tools stop this? I like the ease of these programs and thing they definitly help players and DMs alike. I've also made characters without the Character Builder, though I admit that I'll use the Compendium to speed up the search function for feats, powers, items, etc.... If there was one thing this system can get away from in relevance to 3E, it's the hour and a half character creation session for character outside the first few levels. Pouring through multiple splats, dragon magazines, 3PP material, spells that pertain to 1 class over 11 different books, setting supplements that change/alter the core mechanics, blah-blah. No thanks, i'll keep my simple program that takes me a quarter of the time and looks nice to boot (my handwriting isn't the greatest).  

would be helpful if it covered more than just one edition.  All fluff books are still going to be neeeded.  

Yes, I definitly agree. I would love a v3.5 Compendium/Character Builder. But this is probably never happen  

Nov 24, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Miladoon wrote:

Anyone know which developer put classes into roles? 

No, but if I did I'd give him a $20 right on the spot, a handshake, and a "Thank you very much" response. But then again, I hate classes that are directionless or ridiculously specific and have crappy mechanics due to those two elements (think 3E's Samurai, Marshal, Dragon Shaman, or practically any tier 5 class 3E put out OR 4E's original Assassin for it's lame mechanics or the Binder or Vampire). And even the latter ones had "roles", they just didn't fit them well enougth. The Ossassin was flavorful and fun, but the mechanics made it a wreak to work with.  

Nov 24, 2012 -- 1:43PM, Samrin wrote:

Nov 24, 2012 -- 12:30PM, The_Jester wrote:

Nov 24, 2012 -- 12:17PM, Samrin wrote:

Slavicsek was in charge of R&D. Mearls was in charge of D&D. Mearls was basically the lead designer. The design decisions would have fallen on him. 

Slavicsek was "R&D/Book Publishing Director" which meant the buck stopped with him. And Mearls didn't gain the "RPG Group Manager" until Heroes of Shadow, which was a late stage credit change as that title wasn't in any other  Essentials books. He helped write it but that was well before his promotion. Remember it can take up to six months to actually publish the books after the writing is all finished. And Heroes of Shadow was delayed to adjust it to hardcover from softcover. 
Mearls was just some guy working there for most of Essentials.

Mearls was in charge of D&D as of May 2010 when he made it official. He had been running things after Heinsoo got laid off in the annual christmas layoffs in 2009. They officially created the D&D manager position for him and let Slavicsek focus on the non RPG elements. 

I'll take your word for that. I tried to double check when he was promoted but couldn't due to a failure of Google-fu (everything Mearls and D&D is flooded with Next articles). 
However, even if he was promoted as of May, it was still too soon for Essentials, which hit stores in September, only four months after he took charge. The writing for those books had been finished for two months before his promotion. As would every book that hit stores prior to November, and books after November would have been almost been finished and he would only have had say in minor rewriting. 
Of course, boxed sets take a little longer. Which is why the Red Box features some content that is different from the books. So it was finished roughly four months prior to Mearl's promotion not two. 

Essentials wasn't Mearl's baby.  

Nov 24, 2012 -- 2:01PM, Crimson_Concerto wrote:

+1
I can even understand some people being frustated that most classes seemed to be designed with only one specific party role in mind (until Essentials when they allowed build rather than class to dictate role), but the idea in general of designing classes with the specific intent that they be able to contribute to the party in a major way (and without stepping on everybody else's toes) was brilliant. I only wish they would continue to design D&D Next in the same way.

I love build roles and hate class roles.