Who says they aren't planning on electronic tools? Or widening the audience? I'm not seeing where that assertion is based from.
Well, that would have been a nice thing to do with the previous edition. They did a half-assed VTT that came out 4 years late and had less features then free fan-created ones. So they did plan to do it 5+ years ago and failed. They tried to reach a wide audience but part of that was having nice electronic tools that didnt pan out. So why scrap and start over including electronic tools when the previous edition with proper electronic tool support would probably be more profitable then 5th will be?
My assertion is that by thinking the solution to the problem of not enough profitability for Hasbro is changing the rules so they can scrounge all the old folks playing previous editions back under one large tent Mearls and co are making a strategic error. They sold 4th edition to those who would have bought the D&D books anyways. What they failed to do was generate enough DDI money, which was evidently the other 2/3+ of the revenue plan. What they should have done was get a proper VTT out and work on making money with electronic access to a rules aware table that had easy access to the compendium and was open enough that 3rd party monster creators and adventure creators could distribute stuff.
Cliff notes:
1) I never said they weren't trying to do electronic stuff. 2) I said they failed at their vision for electronic stuff and they are making a strategic error by thinking it's the rule set that's the problem. 3) History will repeat itself because they aren't studying the market objectively. Mearls and back when Cook was around, appear to be biased.
Yeah, see the problem is they think that 30 Ogres is an at level challenge for 6 level 7 characters when, and I've gone over this repeatedly, more attacks per round from more monsters equals a much greater challenge. If you have 5 characters going against 5 Ogres and they can take out 1 Ogre per round, then you end up with 4-5 Ogre attacks in the first round, 3-4 in the second round, 2-3 in the third round and 1-2 in the fourth round. If you have 5 characters going against 30 Ogres and they can take out 1 Ogre per round then you have 29-30 attacks the First round, 28-29 the second, 27-28 the third, 26-27 the fourth, and on and on and on. Adding just a few more Ogres than 5 actually ups the difficulty of the encounter geometrically, so that when you hit 30 Ogres you are talking about TPKing a party of level 7.
Actually rolling it out I did a fight with 2 level 7 characters and they killed 10 ogers in about 2 rounds.
I then had a full party, 5 characters, take on 8 trolls, less than the fight called for because I thought just like you did and that 10 trolls would be to much. Yeah the trolls didn't even get a second round. Well one did but he woke up got punched immediately back out and burned with a torch.
Now there was a wizard in both of these fights, and the AOE damage was helpful (especially the fire damage for the troll fight), but not required. Two barbarians would have been just as successfull in the oger fight. In fact that fight wouldn't be challenging enough for the two barbarians and it is currently classified as a hard fight.
Um. with the current packets math, what you said is just not possible. Two Barbarians get 1 attack each per round. That means at best they can take out 2 per round. Which means they are going to take at least 8 attacks the first round, 6 the second, 4 the third, 2 the fourth, and then if they are still alive they defeat the Ogres.
Really if you had two character defeating 10 Ogres in 2 rounds, then the game was not balanced out and sounds like your Wizard is overpowered. Again you are pointing at the effects of something else. They need to get to the source of the problem and fix it...
Actually 2 barbarians take 10 ogers in 4 rounds, 5 rounds max. 2 barbarians with the proper build can kill 3 ogres a round with no magical enhancement. 4 if they both get some lucky crits in(more likely due to every attack having advantage). Hill Dwarf barbarian, dual wielding (battle axes), two weapon defense, and cleave.
due to advantage on every attack the probability of the barbarians hitting is like near 85% for every attack. for this example we will assume everyone hits with every attack and deals average damage:
Barbarian A attacks an ogre deals on average 32 damage (d10+4d6+4+5+6), cleaves to a second target, deals on average 15 damage (d10+4+6), attacks the second target a second time(dual wielding) for on average 5 damage (1d10) thats 20 damage on the second target. Barbarian B starts on that second target and deals 15 damage on average (d10+4+6), cleaves to a third target and wastes him with 32 damage (d10+4d6+4+5+6), then with his dual wielding attack he goes to a 4th target dealing 5 damage (1d10). 3 ogres down per round.
In the 4 rounds of combat the ogres have to live they will have done about 74 damage, post raging barbarian damage reduction. That figure based on the fact that the barbarians will likely go first (twin linked initiative for barbarians and ogres have a -1 to initiative), killing 3 ogres in the first turn, 3 ogers in the second turn, three ogers in the 3rd, and the last oger in the 4th. Remember that figure, 74 damage, also entirely ignores the fact that the ogres will likely miss half of their attacks (it is not unreasonable to expect a 16 AC from the barbarians 14 dex 16 con two weapon defense: 16 AC).
Now with that much damage they will have killed 1.5 barbarians. That figure, 1.5 barbarians, is if the barbarians have a con score of 10 (yet again best possible case for the ogres), and never roll above a 7 with their 2d6 they get to use for their hit die (with a 16 con that isn't even 1 dead barbarian even still assuming nothing but 7s on the hit die rolls). That figure, 1.5 dead barbarians, is also only if they focus fired a single barbarian, something the ogres are not smart enough to do (having a 5 int sucks). The inability to focus fire is especially interesting to note considering that there can be a maximum of 6 ogres dealing the best possible damage to a barbarian at a given time. Given the way combat works, at maximum only 6 large creatures can fit around a medium creature to take attacks. That is also if they all position themselves properly which they likely wouldn't do (yet again having a 5 int sucks). Also the barbarians can position themselves in such a way as to make that impossible as far as positioning goes. So focus firing being impossible for the ogres they will not manage to kill any barbarians while the barbarians will free range wreck the ogres.
Yeah 2 properly built level 7 barbarians can totally wreck 10 ogres. I don't know what your smokin that made you think otherwise but yeah on this one your totally wrong. Even assuming nearly best possible case for all parties involved 2 level 7 barbarians totally wreck 10 ogres unless the ogres get unreasonably lucky while the barbarians become unreasonably unlucky.
There's a small survey on ENWorld that has well more than three-quarters of the responding being fairly happy or neutral. And ENW is much more edition-broad than these forums. Plus there's the the personal stuff: feedback from multiple groups, discussions at GenCon, and listening to podcasts and on Twitter....
I am unfamiliar with that poll, but there is a poll on RPG.net where the numbers are currently running 60% "Disappointing so far/Ugh" (2/1 out of 5), with only just over 20% rating it "Home Run!/Pretty Good" (5/4 out of 5).
With any of these polls, or the anecdotal evidence mentioned, it must also be taken into account that by this point, the people who don't like where things are going have probably become sufficienty indifferent that they just aren't talking about it.
For example, I jumped through hoops to get the first playtest packet. The next I downloaded within a day of it being released. The rest... I don't even know if I downloaded the most recent packet, and the others were not exactly downloaded promptly.
I've seen the same thing happen in my regular 4e group: months ago some people were very excited, some very annoyed. Now? I can't remember the last time someone even mentioned DDN. If people care at all they are hiding it well.
Like the issue of "ultimatums"; it's been pretty clear for the last few months that if what you were really looking for was an evolution building on 4e, this wasn't going to be it. It's not an ultimatum to point out that this simply isn't a product that you have any interest in.
Are the people voting in the poll judging the current version - or their impression of the game.
Because the version they had a Gen Con seems to have been weak enough that a lot of players I know played at Gen Con and lost all interest in the edition. I got one of them to agree to play 5E Encounters this season - and he got some other friends of his (who also were disheartened by the GenCon version) to play by assuring them that it looks like it has improved.
But that still leaves a whole table of people I know of - some of whom started out in the closed playtest - who played through the first packet or two of the open playtest before abandoning the game and who really have no clue where the game is now. And yet if you asked them what they thought, they wouldn't hesitate to tell you that it currently
I am highly suspect of polls addressed to the public at large.
I'd have much rather seem some polls in the Encounters packet with instructions to pass them out to the players after the end of the first Chapter to get some feedback from players who have not been part of the playtest up to that point. Sure - I am encouraging them to get involved and provide feedback themselves - but unless they add a question to the next survey to separate out those brought in by Encounters - their perspective will be lost in the shuffle.
Addendum: There is a reason why Playtests usually run under an NDA. And it isn't to protect trade secrets. At least not entirely. A major part of the reason is that playtests are ugly and bad designs and issues will crop up. And if someone judges the game based on those alone and publicises those negative impressions, others will read those negative impressions and prejudge the finished game on that basis. Especially on the internet where people are far more likely to believe negative information than positive information. Based on what I hear from those who have a negative perception of 5E, they have typically heard a few facts from an early iteration (rogue suck, you can't customize your character, etc.) and decided "this isn't the game for me" - and until the game is finished the odds are you won't get them to take another look until the game is done (if then).
Saying something doesn't make it true. I'm not issuing ultimatums. I'm simply expressing facts. I will not buy 5E if it looks anything like it currently does on release. I'm sorry but you are making mountains of assumptions based on your personal anecdotal experiences. I'm not saying he isn't right. I'm saying he should run it by the fan base before spending who knows how many man hours making something that people may or may not want.
This was sadly the case of 4e. They had limited playtesting kept carefully under wraps for NDA reasons and didn't solicit much advice because the new edition was a trade secret. And now they have to release a new edition. Three years of work and salaries with no money in return, a huge investment and gamble. They're not going to make the same mistake twice in a row.
4e/Essentials likely cost Bill Slavicsek his job. Mike Mearls has one shot. If 5e isn't a success he loses his job. And not just any job, but the job. He grew up playing D&D. And now he's in charge of it. He's not going to unnecessarily risk his job by only doing an adequate job and not putting in the extra effort of reading the feedback he asked for. Plus, this is the final chance for the RPG. They cannot do this again in four years. If D&D Next fails, D&D the RPG goes away. Hasbro's not going to liquidate the brand, not when the IP is useful for board games and for licensing.
Ask yourself: do you really think Mike Mearls wants to lose his job and kill a game he's loved for his entire adult life? Do you really think they're ignoring feedback or just going through the motions? That they're just sticking by their assumptions regardless of what the majority of fans want? Is that logical? Is that the reasonable, rational plan?
What you say has a lot of truth. The problem I think is that it's an impossible task because it appears they are trying to appeal to a small percentage of the potential market. Once you sell a book it's sold. You make more money by also selling adventurers, tiles, minis and other accessories. You would make even MORE money with electronic subscriptions. Thus DDI. But what happened to the crown product? The Virtual Table Top? Whoever was in charge of the VTT was imo responsible for the short life span of 4th.
All those complaints of slow combat and tracking a myriad of conditions dissappear with a VTT that could calc LoS, LoE, and apply the rules. Hell the rules are obviously written to be used with electronic tools. Look at MTG: Online. They sell digitial copies of cards, an entry in a database, iirc for the same price as the paper cards!!! My wife when she played MTG:O would each weekend spend $60-100 doing tournements or w/e. Tell me that wasn't part of the plan for DDI to some extent.
My point is, that I think Mearls and whomever his boss is has made a strategic error and I will not be surprised if 5th falls flat. Because the rules werent the problem.
Having played for a year on MapTools with macros set-up to calculate attack rolls, damage, and hitting it's not any faster. VTT are always going to be slower because only one person can talk and it lacks the easy gestures of being able to point. The VTT would have been a bonus but not enough to make or break an edition. Especially as there is no shortage of options for people who want a VTT already.
(For the record, the reason the initial launch of tools failed was that the head of the project killed himself necessitating restarting all the work.)
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
I must have missed the survey where I was asked whether I wanted mass combat rules that would take 2 hours to resolve. Unless of course you are talking about the grumblings of the 0.1% of play testers that post on this forum, which shouldn't be taken into account...
Where does he say it will take two hoes to resolve? Why is working on mass combat rules a problem? It strikes me as something fairly removed from the Core so it can be worked in independently while the Core is still being tweaked.
In the article he said it took two hours to resolve the combat between the Ogres and hobgoblins or Orcs or whatever. That's another problem I have. Without proper testing we don't know if his two runs were just a fluke and that normally this system will take 4-6 hours to adjudicate or less than 30 minutes. The mass combat rules according to the article use averages and percent chances to determine how many creatures are affected and how much damage they take and things like that which interacts directly with the 'mostly done' core.
That seems much more like an example of one of the other modules, the one dealing with speeding up combat with large numbers of monsters. Not knowing how long it normally takes, two hours might be faster. And we don't know how much note taking and analysis was involved.
We don't know, which is why a couple of sessions is not nearly enough to know anything about it. You might get an idea with 100 or more sessions but you won't know the full implications unless you do 40,000 sessions or the equivalent.
As to ultimatums: Its not an ultimatum its the flat out truth. If the game is not for me its simply not going to be bought. Many people feel this way. I really wish WotC would put the question "Would you buy a game based on the principles and ideas in this packet?" into each survey, they might realize they need to start over.
Ultimatum's and truths are not mutually exclusive. In fact, most ultimatums tend to be true. Just because you mean it doesn't make the ultimatum less demanding. When someone starts making ultimatums it makes them a less desirable audience. The person has made themselves irrelevant because they are not a potential consumer. Here's the hard thing to accept: if they did put a question like that into the survey, they'd get more people saying they would buy than would not. Given how few complete revisions we've seen, people are likely happy with the rules. I've seen more people who are happy (or tentatively satisfied) than unhappy. A minority of people a unhappy. You're not the voice of the silent majority.
Saying something doesn't make it true. I'm not issuing ultimatums. I'm simply expressing facts. I will not buy 5E if it looks anything like it currently does on release. I'm sorry but you are making mountains of assumptions based on your personal anecdotal experiences. I'm not saying he isn't right. I'm saying he should run it by the fan base before spending who knows how many man hours making something that people may or may not want.
ul·ti·ma·tum (lt-mtm, -mä-) n. pl. ul·ti·ma·tums or ul·ti·ma·ta (-t) 1. A final statement of terms made by one party to another. 2. A statement, especially in diplomatic negotiations, that expresses or implies the threat of serious penalties if the terms are not accepted. You've said (repeatedly) that if 5e is like what it currently is at launch, then you will not buy. That's an ultimatum. It may be true, but most ultimatums tend to be. But it doesn't denote an open mind or a potential sale. It actually suggests a sale already lost. So they move on. This doesn't mean you cannot voice your opinions or concerns, but when you make large "if X then Y" statements then you have a problem.
No, WotC has the problem, not me. If they produce a game I don't like I'm not buying it. That's a simple fact, no matter how you try to frame it. They can change how they make the game or they can lose a customer. I don't know how to make it any simpler. Now maybe that's not the majority, but I believe it is from what I've seen here and elsewhere. Unless WotC suddenly decides to release the results of the play test surveys we are in the dark.
But, most importantly, he IS running it past the fanbase. With each survey, they ask for satisfaction. Really unhappy people will mark everything low. They're interviewing the players. They're reading forum. They're paying attention on twitter.
Mearls just did a huge chunk of work that may or may not be necessary. He did not get any information about it from the surveys, twitter, or interviews. Now he may ask something after the fact, but that's not what's happening here.
I'm going to repeat what I've said every time I come on here until they get the idea. I mean when you see someone's house burning down you don't just rap on their window and call out 'your house is on fire' once and then walk away do you? Well D&D is my neighbors house and I'm watching it burn at this point...
Except 5e isn't a house on fire. It's shaping up to be a success. More successful than 4th Edition. The question now is not "will it be a success?" but "how successful will it be?" Will it be as successful as 3e? More? Less? The cries of "doom" are unwarranted and reveal a bias. You want 5e to fail at this point. You're looking for the signs of failure.
I'd like to see your data on this and verify it with an outside source. Otherwise you are spouting hot air..
There's a small survey on ENWorld that has well more than three-quarters of the responding being fairly happy or neutral. And ENW is much more edition-broad than these forums. Plus there's the the personal stuff: feedback from multiple groups, discussions at GenCon, and listening to podcasts and on Twitter.
I did a survey on these forums with mixed results, less than half of respondents would buy a game based on the latest packet. However these forums and the forums over at EnWorld are self selecting and are tiny compared to the 80 thousand that WotC claims are responding to their surveys. So until we see the results of a real survey that has over 40,000 respondents from a vareity of groups and people, we are looking at false data at best.
My 'cries of doom' are nothing more than pointing out flaws with the process and with the results. Its called clear thinking, something that apparently people aren't taught in schools anymore.
At this point.... yeah, it could actually still fail in the long term. 4e was successful in the short term, with a quick sales spike that dropped with eighteen months. 5e is sustained by its potential and the buzz from the playtest. If WotC failed to follow through and doesn't take advantage of the 80,000+ people looking at their rules and releasing a buggy game with broken spells and options, then they will have squandered both the mass playtest and the good buzz.
Another place where you don't know what you are talking about. 4E had a strong following and decent sales up til about the end of the second year or so after which they stopped publishing and the sales went down in direct proportion. then Essentials came out and they lost about half their 4E customers. At that point sales dropped. Now the entire run of 4E and 3E for that matter wasn't enough to reach the unreasonable sales goals of Hasbro. It wasn't until the 2nd year of 4E that Hasbro sent out a mandate to meet that goal. If they had put that mandate out 2 years into 3E, we would have seen the same exact thing happen to 3E. As far as I'm concerned after running the math, they have a buggy game, and if the final release looks anything like this it will be a failure.
Paizo has stated that Pathfinder overtook 4e in late 2010 at the time of Essentials but before WotC stopped selling product. However, the slashing of products and starting of 5e is NOT the first reaction to a drop in sales. It's a reaction to a long term slide. Essentials itself was a reaction to poor sales. They changed the entire product line focusing on a different audience. That's not something you do if sales are solid. Given it takes WotC year between planning a product and releasing, they had to be thinking of Essentials in 2009. So sales had to be less than expected that far back.
Paizo can state whatever it wants. The trade magazines tell the real tale. The slashing of products and starting of 5E was a direct response to not being able to meet the unrealistic sales goals that Hasbro laid on WotC and D&D. If Paizo had the sales that WotC had they would have loved it. This is their last attempt. If they don't meet those goals D&D will be shelved. Only to be dusted off for the occasional board game or video game. Now I know that many people would be ok with that, but not me.
This is actually not true. It is true that 4E fans alone didn't bring in enough money to satisfy Hasbro's unrealistic expectations. However 3.xE also did not meet their expectations, they just weren't given the mandate until 2 years into 4E. tIts more like they need most of 3.xE, most of 4E, a bunch of Pathfinder, 1E, 2E, and new fans to meet those unrealistic expectations. Something I don't see happening with the current rules...
They've said that the Hasbro policy that prompted 4e was changed and removed prior to the launch of 4e. I believe it was in an interview on the Tome Show.
I'd like to see a direct link to that and possibly a quote, because all indications I've seen is that most of 4E was done under the unrealistic expectations of making 50 million dollars per year.
Saying something doesn't make it true. I'm not issuing ultimatums. I'm simply expressing facts. I will not buy 5E if it looks anything like it currently does on release. I'm sorry but you are making mountains of assumptions based on your personal anecdotal experiences. I'm not saying he isn't right. I'm saying he should run it by the fan base before spending who knows how many man hours making something that people may or may not want.
This was sadly the case of 4e. They had limited playtesting kept carefully under wraps for NDA reasons and didn't solicit much advice because the new edition was a trade secret. And now they have to release a new edition. Three years of work and salaries with no money in return, a huge investment and gamble. They're not going to make the same mistake twice in a row.
4e/Essentials likely cost Bill Slavicsek his job. Mike Mearls has one shot. If 5e isn't a success he loses his job. And not just any job, but the job. He grew up playing D&D. And now he's in charge of it. He's not going to unnecessarily risk his job by only doing an adequate job and not putting in the extra effort of reading the feedback he asked for. Plus, this is the final chance for the RPG. They cannot do this again in four years. If D&D Next fails, D&D the RPG goes away. Hasbro's not going to liquidate the brand, not when the IP is useful for board games and for licensing.
Ask yourself: do you really think Mike Mearls wants to lose his job and kill a game he's loved for his entire adult life? Do you really think they're ignoring feedback or just going through the motions? That they're just sticking by their assumptions regardless of what the majority of fans want? Is that logical? Is that the reasonable, rational plan?
Again you are taking your personal assumptions and trying to link them to whats going on or what happened in the past. We simply don't know in most cases what was going on, but we do know in a few of the cases when the developers came out and explained what happened. Now if you want to start posting links or quotes that lead you to beleive that, I'd love to see it. For the most part I'm just seeing rampart speculation here.
Now if you want to know what I speculate, then I speculate that after the latest round of layoffs Mike Mearls was one of only a few people left that had any experience whatsoever and got promoted regardless of whether he was a good planner or designer, instead he was promoted because he was the last man standing. Of course that's all just speculation and just as meaningless as your speculation.
Yeah, see the problem is they think that 30 Ogres is an at level challenge for 6 level 7 characters when, and I've gone over this repeatedly, more attacks per round from more monsters equals a much greater challenge. If you have 5 characters going against 5 Ogres and they can take out 1 Ogre per round, then you end up with 4-5 Ogre attacks in the first round, 3-4 in the second round, 2-3 in the third round and 1-2 in the fourth round. If you have 5 characters going against 30 Ogres and they can take out 1 Ogre per round then you have 29-30 attacks the First round, 28-29 the second, 27-28 the third, 26-27 the fourth, and on and on and on. Adding just a few more Ogres than 5 actually ups the difficulty of the encounter geometrically, so that when you hit 30 Ogres you are talking about TPKing a party of level 7.
Actually rolling it out I did a fight with 2 level 7 characters and they killed 10 ogers in about 2 rounds.
I then had a full party, 5 characters, take on 8 trolls, less than the fight called for because I thought just like you did and that 10 trolls would be to much. Yeah the trolls didn't even get a second round. Well one did but he woke up got punched immediately back out and burned with a torch.
Now there was a wizard in both of these fights, and the AOE damage was helpful (especially the fire damage for the troll fight), but not required. Two barbarians would have been just as successfull in the oger fight. In fact that fight wouldn't be challenging enough for the two barbarians and it is currently classified as a hard fight.
Um. with the current packets math, what you said is just not possible. Two Barbarians get 1 attack each per round. That means at best they can take out 2 per round. Which means they are going to take at least 8 attacks the first round, 6 the second, 4 the third, 2 the fourth, and then if they are still alive they defeat the Ogres.
Really if you had two character defeating 10 Ogres in 2 rounds, then the game was not balanced out and sounds like your Wizard is overpowered. Again you are pointing at the effects of something else. They need to get to the source of the problem and fix it...
Actually 2 barbarians take 10 ogers in 4 rounds, 5 rounds max. 2 barbarians with the proper build can kill 3 ogres a round with no magical enhancement. 4 if they both get some lucky crits in(more likely due to every attack having advantage). Hill Dwarf barbarian, dual wielding (battle axes), two weapon defense, and cleave.
due to advantage on every attack the probability of the barbarians hitting is like near 85% for every attack. for this example we will assume everyone hits with every attack and deals average damage:
Barbarian A attacks an ogre deals on average 32 damage (d10+4d6+4+5+6), cleaves to a second target, deals on average 15 damage (d10+4+6), attacks the second target a second time(dual wielding) for on average 5 damage (1d10) thats 20 damage on the second target. Barbarian B starts on that second target and deals 15 damage on average (d10+4+6), cleaves to a third target and wastes him with 32 damage (d10+4d6+4+5+6), then with his dual wielding attack he goes to a 4th target dealing 5 damage (1d10). 3 ogres down per round.
In the 4 rounds of combat the ogres have to live they will have done about 74 damage, post raging barbarian damage reduction. That figure based on the fact that the barbarians will likely go first (twin linked initiative for barbarians and ogres have a -1 to initiative), killing 3 ogres in the first turn, 3 ogers in the second turn, three ogers in the 3rd, and the last oger in the 4th. Remember that figure, 74 damage, also entirely ignores the fact that the ogres will likely miss half of their attacks (it is not unreasonable to expect a 16 AC from the barbarians 14 dex 16 con two weapon defense: 16 AC).
Now with that much damage they will have killed 1.5 barbarians. That figure, 1.5 barbarians, is if the barbarians have a con score of 10 (yet again best possible case for the ogres), and never roll above a 7 with their 2d6 they get to use for their hit die (with a 16 con that isn't even 1 dead barbarian even still assuming nothing but 7s on the hit die rolls). That figure, 1.5 dead barbarians, is also only if they focus fired a single barbarian, something the ogres are not smart enough to do (having a 5 int sucks). The inability to focus fire is especially interesting to note considering that there can be a maximum of 6 ogres dealing the best possible damage to a barbarian at a given time. Given the way combat works, at maximum only 6 large creatures can fit around a medium creature to take attacks. That is also if they all position themselves properly which they likely wouldn't do (yet again having a 5 int sucks). Also the barbarians can position themselves in such a way as to make that impossible as far as positioning goes. So focus firing being impossible for the ogres they will not manage to kill any barbarians while the barbarians will free range wreck the ogres.
Yeah 2 properly built level 7 barbarians can totally wreck 10 ogres. I don't know what your smokin that made you think otherwise but yeah on this one your totally wrong. Even assuming nearly best possible case for all parties involved 2 level 7 barbarians totally wreck 10 ogres unless the ogres get unreasonably lucky while the barbarians become unreasonably unlucky.
Ah, so you aren't talking two average Barbarians. You are talking about 2 clockwork optimized Barbarians that are power gamed to the max.
What 'I'm smoking' is the fact that very few players are going to optimize to that level and the game should not assume perfect optimization. I mean I could probably optimize a Wizard character out that could do the same thing in half the time, but the game shouldn't be built on that assumption...
Saying something doesn't make it true. I'm not issuing ultimatums. I'm simply expressing facts. I will not buy 5E if it looks anything like it currently does on release. I'm sorry but you are making mountains of assumptions based on your personal anecdotal experiences. I'm not saying he isn't right. I'm saying he should run it by the fan base before spending who knows how many man hours making something that people may or may not want.
This was sadly the case of 4e. They had limited playtesting kept carefully under wraps for NDA reasons and didn't solicit much advice because the new edition was a trade secret. And now they have to release a new edition. Three years of work and salaries with no money in return, a huge investment and gamble. They're not going to make the same mistake twice in a row.
4e/Essentials likely cost Bill Slavicsek his job. Mike Mearls has one shot. If 5e isn't a success he loses his job. And not just any job, but the job. He grew up playing D&D. And now he's in charge of it. He's not going to unnecessarily risk his job by only doing an adequate job and not putting in the extra effort of reading the feedback he asked for. Plus, this is the final chance for the RPG. They cannot do this again in four years. If D&D Next fails, D&D the RPG goes away. Hasbro's not going to liquidate the brand, not when the IP is useful for board games and for licensing.
Ask yourself: do you really think Mike Mearls wants to lose his job and kill a game he's loved for his entire adult life? Do you really think they're ignoring feedback or just going through the motions? That they're just sticking by their assumptions regardless of what the majority of fans want? Is that logical? Is that the reasonable, rational plan?
What you say has a lot of truth. The problem I think is that it's an impossible task because it appears they are trying to appeal to a small percentage of the potential market. Once you sell a book it's sold. You make more money by also selling adventurers, tiles, minis and other accessories. You would make even MORE money with electronic subscriptions. Thus DDI. But what happened to the crown product? The Virtual Table Top? Whoever was in charge of the VTT was imo responsible for the short life span of 4th.
All those complaints of slow combat and tracking a myriad of conditions dissappear with a VTT that could calc LoS, LoE, and apply the rules. Hell the rules are obviously written to be used with electronic tools. Look at MTG: Online. They sell digitial copies of cards, an entry in a database, iirc for the same price as the paper cards!!! My wife when she played MTG:O would each weekend spend $60-100 doing tournements or w/e. Tell me that wasn't part of the plan for DDI to some extent.
My point is, that I think Mearls and whomever his boss is has made a strategic error and I will not be surprised if 5th falls flat. Because the rules werent the problem.
Having played for a year on MapTools with macros set-up to calculate attack rolls, damage, and hitting it's not any faster. VTT are always going to be slower because only one person can talk and it lacks the easy gestures of being able to point. The VTT would have been a bonus but not enough to make or break an edition. Especially as there is no shortage of options for people who want a VTT already.
(For the record, the reason the initial launch of tools failed was that the head of the project killed himself necessitating restarting all the work.)
And you once again show your lack of knowledge of development. With the source code a new developer could have taken over and it would have only been a delay as the new programmer got familiar with the code. No there was a lot more going on. The development wing of the company they were working with also went bankrupt and Fantasy Grounds put an Cease and Desist out on the VTT because someone used their dice visuals in a public presentation. Then there was the matter of the software contract with Atari and whether WotC had the rights to produce a software product or not even if it wasn't actually a game. Hopefully some of that has been cleared up and they can do something with 5E...
Mearls just did a huge chunk of work that may or may not be necessary. He did not get any information about it from the surveys, twitter, or interviews. Now he may ask something after the fact, but that's not what's happening here.
People DO want mob rules. They received that feedback after the first package with its multitudes of orcs and legions of rats. There were a tonne of complaints regarding that six months ago.
And mass combat rules seem like a safe bet. That comes up in a lot of fantasy worlds.
My 'cries of doom' are nothing more than pointing out flaws with the process and with the results. Its called clear thinking, something that apparently people aren't taught in schools anymore.
This is where your tone fails.
How is the failure of the public school system at all relevant to this? Are people really not taught this? It's pure hyperbole.
Paizo can state whatever it wants. The trade magazines tell the real tale. The slashing of products and starting of 5E was a direct response to not being able to meet the unrealistic sales goals that Hasbro laid on WotC and D&D. If Paizo had the sales that WotC had they would have loved it. This is their last attempt. If they don't meet those goals D&D will be shelved. Only to be dusted off for the occasional board game or video game. Now I know that many people would be ok with that, but not me.
Paizo has the same distributor as WotC, so they can get some pretty darn accurate feedback on sales. Plus, they operate a store of their own and sell both games, so they can compare sales. Plus, they can look at the Top Ten lists of Amazon and other e-retailers, see how well their products are doing and then compare the numbers they know (their sales) with the position of other products.
So trusting them is safer than ICv2 (although it's interesting that trade has suddenly become reliable instead of dismissed).
This is actually not true. It is true that 4E fans alone didn't bring in enough money to satisfy Hasbro's unrealistic expectations. However 3.xE also did not meet their expectations, they just weren't given the mandate until 2 years into 4E. tIts more like they need most of 3.xE, most of 4E, a bunch of Pathfinder, 1E, 2E, and new fans to meet those unrealistic expectations. Something I don't see happening with the current rules...
They've said that the Hasbro policy that prompted 4e was changed and removed prior to the launch of 4e. I believe it was in an interview on the Tome Show.
I'd like to see a direct link to that and possibly a quote, because all indications I've seen is that most of 4E was done under the unrealistic expectations of making 50 million dollars per year.
Again you are taking your personal assumptions and trying to link them to whats going on or what happened in the past. We simply don't know in most cases what was going on, but we do know in a few of the cases when the developers came out and explained what happened. Now if you want to start posting links or quotes that lead you to beleive that, I'd love to see it. For the most part I'm just seeing rampart speculation here.
I'd hardly use the term "rampant speculation" and more "educated guess". The facts are well know, I'm just piecing them together with what I know of production time and company policies (i.e. don't rock the boat if sales are good).
Now if you want to know what I speculate, then I speculate that after the latest round of layoffs Mike Mearls was one of only a few people left that had any experience whatsoever and got promoted regardless of whether he was a good planner or designer, instead he was promoted because he was the last man standing. Of course that's all just speculation and just as meaningless as your speculation.
This may very well be true. But he's still not going to want to be fired. Or see a game he loved die.
And your speculation is fully compatible with mine. We could both be right. Although, given the number of other staff at the company with more seniority, I doubt Mearls was promoted without reason.
And you once again show your lack of knowledge of development. With the source code a new developer could have taken over and it would have only been a delay as the new programmer got familiar with the code. No there was a lot more going on. The development wing of the company they were working with also went bankrupt and Fantasy Grounds put an Cease and Desist out on the VTT because someone used their dice visuals in a public presentation. Then there was the matter of the software contract with Atari and whether WotC had the rights to produce a software product or not even if it wasn't actually a game. Hopefully some of that has been cleared up and they can do something with 5E...
Yes and no.
In theory anyone can take over the development, but in practice this is extremely tricky. Unless they were exceedingly good at taking notes and detailing what lines of code do what. Figuring out someone else's code can be very hard, especially if you're uncertain what was finished, what was half finished, what was being worked on, and what was bugged.
Taking over someone's code is a tonne of work even if they did a good job, were prepared to hand over the work, and help talk you through it.
When someone is in the state of mind when they're willing to commit a murder-suicide. They're unlikely to leave things in a passable condition.
They started again. From scratch. If they thought they could have salvaged it they would have. They must have thought the time it would have taken to have had someone read through all the code and process was longer than starting from scratch.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?
