|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:30AM
#51
|
|
|
I want a removal of the circumstances where builds and 30 level planning dominate the game.
I agree. I don't like the idea of having to do plan so much of my character's development in advance, for any reason (be it to avoid trap options or to gain entry into a prestige class). That was one of the reasons I liked the forced entry into a Paragon Path in 4th edition and I really liked the built-in class Paragon Paths they added in Essentials, where you could just choose Slayer as your PP, I wish they went back and added something like that for all of the classes they already made just to get rid of the forced branching out from your chosen class.
However, I am not convinced by the RP-only requirement, especially for campaigns that begin at higher levels and especially if the DM is not given proper guidelines on how to stop things from becoming unbalanced. For example, without proper guidelines, one DM might believe that spending the night among the dream wraiths of the Slumbering Barrows is a good challenge for 3rd level characters, giving them access to a powerful Prestige class way too early, while another DM might think that they should be 13th level characters, giving them late access to a underwhelming Prestige class by the time they finally get in (both problems require the DM to misjudge the unbalancing nature of the prestige class in question, again, assuming it is unbalancing if not given out within a certain level range).
This is just a concern that I hope WotC keeps in mind.
I was educating someone who was in denial about 4e being dead. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Do you feel like you won? Did you convince that person (or anyone) that articles in the WotC owned and operated Dungeon and Dragons e-magazines does not count as active development?
Although, if they don't count as active development, then what does? Only real-life published books? I mean, they are paying people to write those articles and they are paying people to illustrate those articles and they are paying people to edit those articles (and I presume they are paying people to ensure that the various etools are updated with the new content from those articles), and that is all being done by WotC, but that doesn't count as active development? Certainly, it wouldnt' count as a lot of active development, but did you convince him that it didn't count as any active development?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:33AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Supplements with significant new material related to the mechanics of that edition. Near the end of each run, there were always supplements that served as "bridges". Books that were mostly fluff that could still be useful in the next iteration. So I ignored most adventures (since on that basis, 4e is still being supported via Dungeon Magazine), campaign sourcebooks, and fiction works. Die Vecna Die was an adventure.
"Actively supported", to me, is different than merely publishing materials under the moniker of that edition. It requires active support by developers, not merely writers. Right now, I do not consider 4e to be actively supported and I think Heroes of Elemental Chaos was the last book indicating a level of active support. There were further releases after each of the "End" releases I identified in each edition, but I don't consider them "active support". If I did, I would have to say 4e is being actively supported by the online magazines. But I don't think that the online magazines are enough to constitute "active support".
OK thanks for the explanation - in that context it makes more sense. I'm not sure that I agree with that definition of active support, but I understand it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:36AM
#53
|
|
|
And Elder Evils was published in December of 2007.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:42AM
#54
|
|
|
Supplements with significant new material related to the mechanics of that edition. Near the end of each run, there were always supplements that served as "bridges". Books that were mostly fluff that could still be useful in the next iteration. So I ignored most adventures (since on that basis, 4e is still being supported via Dungeon Magazine), campaign sourcebooks, and fiction works. Die Vecna Die was an adventure.
"Actively supported", to me, is different than merely publishing materials under the moniker of that edition. It requires active support by developers, not merely writers. Right now, I do not consider 4e to be actively supported and I think Heroes of Elemental Chaos was the last book indicating a level of active support. There were further releases after each of the "End" releases I identified in each edition, but I don't consider them "active support". If I did, I would have to say 4e is being actively supported by the online magazines. But I don't think that the online magazines are enough to constitute "active support".
I have to disagree. Adventures have traditionally and consistantly contained new magic items, spells, and/or monsters. While I too would not consider magazine content "active" support even in the days when they were physical magazines, I would have to consider anything physically published under the brand name of a specific edition (as Greyhawk Adventures, Die! Vecna Die!, and Elder Evils were), by the actual publisher of the game to be official and active support of that product. I would not consider something labeled as a bridge product (like the FR adventures scheduled for next summer) to be "active" support of any edition.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:45AM
#55
|
|
|
However, I am not convinced by the RP-only requirement, especially for campaigns that begin at higher levels and especially if the DM is not given proper guidelines on how to stop things from becoming unbalanced.
I never said RP-only. Only that all of them should have RP requirements. They can also have mechanical requirements, but all of them should have RP requirements.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:45AM
#56
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I have to disagree. Adventures have traditionally and consistantly contained new magic items, spells, and/or monsters. While I too would not consider magazine content "active" support even in the days when they were physical magazines, I would have to consider anything physically published under the brand name of a specific edition (as Greyhawk Adventures, Die! Vecna Die!, and Elder Evils were), by the actual publisher of the game to be official and active support of that product. I would not consider something labeled as a bridge product (like the FR adventures scheduled for next summer) to be "active" support of any edition.
I agree it's a subjective definition. I don't think there's a definitively right or wrong answer. And I can't say that UngeheuerLich is wrong for believing that 4e is still receiving support through the online magazines (the statement that started this sad derail), since they too are contributing new items, powers, and monsters to 4th edition.
All I can say is that isn't enough for me to say that an edition is receiving "active support".
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 7:52AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Regarding prestige classes, I like what was said in the article. Linking them to the campaign world rather than just focusing on mechanics is a good idea. Prestige classes should have a very clear story behind them, rather than simply being a collection of mechanics that let you do something fancy.
Considering that the survey asked if the Prestige Class "Exotic Weapon Master" had the right flavour for D&D, I'm already skeptical of how much flavour these Presitge Classes will have. You can flavour that as something with a great story, but it will be, at its core, just a mechanical PrC.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 8:00AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I know Paragon Path came around at level 11, what was the minimum level for a Prestige Class in 3.X ? Level 3-5 ?
Level 5.
5-7 is average. Some were as high as 10 or 11. One that I know of was level 3.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 8:01AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2012
|
I find it weird how the article and survey boiled down to "Remember Prestige Classes from 3.x? Remember how we fixed a lot of their problems with Paragon Paths in 4th Edition? Now tell us what your favorite 3.x version is!"
I probably won't mind if they make Prestige Classes in Next more like the Backgrounds - you get a little perk, perhaps some bonuses, and that's pretty much it. Or like the Professional Edges in Savage Worlds - if you meet the requirements (have the right feats and skills, perhaps a stat at certain level), you can take this feat which gives you some bonuses, and that's that.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 17, 2012 - 8:04AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Or like the Professional Edges in Savage Worlds - if you meet the requirements (have the right feats and skills, perhaps a stat at certain level), you can take this feat which gives you some bonuses, and that's that.
So just like the build-mandates of 3E, but with less payoff?
|
|
|
