Have to agree with this but I disagree with the idea that the designers aren't going to be able to reconcile people like shas and myself (well i disagree with the reason the previous poster said anyway). It's not because he views my style the same way I view his as unfun but because people like him view even having the OPTIONS that I want in the game as anathema even if he never has to see them in a game he plays in.
The difference shas and those like him insist that ONLY his way could ever be fun and having anything other than those options he approves of should even be considered.
This is different from myself and most other 4e fans that I know of that are just fine with options we don't find as fun (in my case broken vancian casters, pseudo-gritty healing, boring martial classes, etc) so long as those are not the ONLY options and we can use modules to create a game WE find enjoyable. You know kinda like was described when they were promoting 5e as a game to unify folks and be a "big tent" sort of edition.
Pretty much. It's gonna be hard to make a game we can play and a game they're not arbitrarily unwilling to play because it has some things associated with something they dislike.
Pretty much. It's gonna be hard to make a game we can play and a game they're not arbitrarily unwilling to play because it has some things associated with something they dislike.
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct, as is edition warring.You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain f
But in general, I think if you're going to have a class based game, you're better off having more classes than less (assuming you'd keep the intro to the game simple with fewer classes). Why make a class based game if you're only going to have four classes? At that point shouldn't you just go generic, and build your PC al la carte with a point system?
The major appeal of a classless game is customizeability. The major appeal of classes is that they quickly and easily define a character with a single choice. A small number of highly customizeable classes is, indeed, a compromise between the two, and compromises aren't always fantastic.
An alternate way of getting more of the best of both is to create a classless system, and use it to create many distinct classes. "Advanced" players who want customizeability - rather than mucking about with modules, multi-classing or PrCs - simply build using the classless rules, while those wanting a quick, well defined character simply choose a class that appeals to them. For a game with D&D's history, the best way to do that would probably be to create the classless system first as a design tool, create and publish a number of very traditional classes, then release more classes in supplements, and, later (when the most avid fans have mostly reverse-engineered it, anyway) release the classless system.
The major appeal of a classless game is customizeability. The major appeal of classes is that they quickly and easily define a character with a single choice. A small number of highly customizeable classes is, indeed, a compromise between the two,
Beats me why WoTC are not doing offical AD&D and 4th ed kickstarters. Probably to have all the attention focused on D&DN as a rough guess.
Kickstarter for a cooporate entity is best used as a tool when you have a property you think there might be a large market for, but aren't certain, and so it's a very high risk to create material for it.
Kickstarter lets the cooporation mitigate that risk by setting a minimum value to create a base form of the product, and wait to see how many people express interest. The Veronica Mars kickstarter is a great example, they believed there was significant interest, but it's a high risk investment for Hollywood since it's been gone so long. It could turn out like X-files 2 and the property may have lost it's audience.
Kickstarter is also in it's infancy, it's primarily the domain of geeks (I am proudly a geek myself). The majority of the activity is currently in geek areas, as the video game sector demonstrated by showing explosive growth in 2012. Companies don't know what to do with it yet, as it hasn't yet been validated as a viable model for consumers and has a limited segment of the market. Which is why Hasbro isn't using it yet.
This year, it will validate it's process by pushing out the high profile products funded in 2012 such as the big video games, the Iphone watch, the Ouya, and Veronica Mars. Once those products come out, if they're successfull, the Kickstarter model will have validated itself and start to see massive growth as word of mouth starts to kick in.
It will then be mitigated by an alternative model, the investment model, where instead of pledging you buy a percentage return on a product.
At that point, the two models will exist in harmony, become a key component of a number of entertainment industries and incubators, and irreversibly alter modern economics.
By 2015-ish, it'll become a major component of a company's business plan.
Kickstarter for a cooporate entity is best used as a tool when you have a property you think there might be a large market for, but aren't certain, and so it's a very high risk to create material for it.Kickstarter lets the cooporation mitigate tha
Philosophically I would agree with you. The reality is that 4th ed was not bad but it was very different. A level 9 spell is a level 9 spell from AD&D to 3rd ed. Makes conversion very easy or people can at least relate to it.
The AD&D/3rd ed playerbse is beccoming increasingly unified BTW. Retroclones are using d20 mechainics. The AD&D players just do not like the feats, builds and powergaming endemic to 3rd ed and they do not like the build nature of 4th ed. The phrase player entitlement gets thrown around a lot. It is not that pre d20 players hate being nice to their players but 3rd and 4th made assumptions about things espicially in terms of magic item access and things like everything is core in 4th ed.
In short you have 3 very different playstyles. 2 of them are somewhat compatable so if it comes down to 2/3 is more than 1/3. My earlier post was not aboutrubbing peoples face in it but there is a huge amount of developments away fomr these forums that I assume WoTC is aware of. You can't really have some things from various editions even as options and keep everyone happy. It has not just been 4th ed that has been gutted as D&DN has very little of 3rd ed in it for example. D&DN is about not offending anyone not actually making a good game. 4th ed was a good game just one I was not interested in, I can't say the same about D&DMN and time is running out and they can't even get the fighter right.
Becoming unified where? 3e and 4e have just as much compatibility as 3e and 2e do. Both are d20 games with differences that come down to semantics in a lot of places. The core systems themselves aren't that different.
Class design is the big difference between them, and nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
If the game is easy to DM with minimal prep time, relatively well balanced, elegant, and actually has some forward thinking innovation, I'm willing to at least buy the core rulebooks. The fact that the Fighter is moving towards Tome of Battle style mechanics is very encouraging, because ToB is, in my opinion, the greatest implementation of martial mechanics D&D has ever had. If they can build on that and really take it to the next level, I'm quite happy. I actually hope the Paladin resembles the Crusader.
Things like excluding stuff simply because they're from one edition or the other, when they actually represent some of the innovation from that era, is a huge turn off. Failure to achieve modularity is basically what will lead to that. If they truly achieve modularity in this regard, I don't see myself avoiding it. The problem with the system right now is we don't know how they really plan to do this, and how our playtesting is affecting those plans. We don't know what we're playtesting.
Becoming unified where? 3e and 4e have just as much compatibility as 3e and 2e do. Both are d20 games with differences that come down to semantics in a lot of places. The core systems themselves aren't that different. Class design is the big differen
Beats me why WoTC are not doing offical AD&D and 4th ed kickstarters. Probably to have all the attention focused on D&DN as a rough guess.
Kickstarter for a cooporate entity is best used as a tool when you have a property you think there might be a large market for, but aren't certain, and so it's a very high risk to create material for it.
Kickstarter lets the cooporation mitigate that risk by setting a minimum value to create a base form of the product, and wait to see how many people express interest. The Veronica Mars kickstarter is a great example, they believed there was significant interest, but it's a high risk investment for Hollywood since it's been gone so long. It could turn out like X-files 2 and the property may have lost it's audience.
Kickstarter is also in it's infancy, it's primarily the domain of geeks (I am proudly a geek myself). The majority of the activity is currently in geek areas, as the video game sector demonstrated by showing explosive growth in 2012. Companies don't know what to do with it yet, as it hasn't yet been validated as a viable model for consumers and has a limited segment of the market. Which is why Hasbro isn't using it yet.
This year, it will validate it's process by pushing out the high profile products funded in 2012 such as the big video games, the Iphone watch, the Ouya, and Veronica Mars. Once those products come out, if they're successfull, the Kickstarter model will have validated itself and start to see massive growth as word of mouth starts to kick in.
It will then be mitigated by an alternative model, the investment model, where instead of pledging you buy a percentage return on a product.
At that point, the two models will exist in harmony, become a key component of a number of entertainment industries and incubators, and irreversibly alter modern economics.
By 2015-ish, it'll become a major component of a company's business plan.
Kickstarter is a cool thing, and I hope it really gives new ideas what they need. However, his kickstarter link for 13a was completely irrelevant to the discussion. :P It doesn't prove anything if you actually look at what the kickstarter is for.
Kickstarter for a cooporate entity is best used as a tool when you have a property you think there might be a large market for, but aren't certain, and so it's a very high risk to create material for it.Kickstarter lets the cooporation mitigate tha
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player. Healing surges and anything resembling them for example. If I was grand high poobah in charge of D&D and I did not have to worry about sales I would not rerelease AD&D or 3rd ed. SOMe good ideas from 4th that would work in D&D any edition such as round structure have been binned so they have to create words of power to do more or less the same thing. Frustration is not the right word.
The good ideas that are not universally loved outside of 4th ed are going to ahve to be presented in a way that doesn't upset everyone else. I do not think the existence of a warlord class for example does. Having a warlord with martial healing does. It is hard to say.
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player. Healing surges and anything resembling them for example. If I was grand high poobah in charge of D&D and I did not have to worry about sales I would not rerelease AD&D or
Please remember that this thread is supposed to be about the fate of the Warlord class, not how Next compares with previous editions.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct, as is edition warringYou can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease remember that this thread is supposed to be about the fate
The problem is the best ideas form 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player. Healing surges and anything resembling them for example. If I was grand high poobah in charge of D&D and I did not have to worry about sales I would not rerelease AD&D or 3rd ed.
The good ideas that are not universally loved outside of 4th ed are going to ahve to be presented in a way that doesn't upset everyone else. I do not think the existence of a warlord classfor example does. Having a warlord with martial healing does. It is hard to say.
That's why they will be part of the optional rules, just like alignment and other hot topic issues. Easy to remove and add if you see fit. The warlord class itself will be optional, if it becomes a class. If someone doesn't like what it has to offer, they can opt not to use it and go for the Fighter approach. You'll have multiple options to similar ends.
They have to assume their customers are reasonable adults.
That's why they will be part of the optional rules, just like alignment and other hot topic issues. Easy to remove and add if you see fit. The warlord class itself will be optional, if it becomes a class. If someone doesn't like what it has to offer,
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.
And I notice, once again, you seem to be insisting we want mechanics copy/pasted right from 4e, despite me JUST telling you that's not what we want.
Reading comprehension.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.And I notice, once again,
I want as much as they can possibly squeeze into the core rules as possible, looking at the game from all angles. I'll simply pluck out what I don't want. If it is truly a modular system, and the stuff I don't like isn't baked into the core, then it won't be a big deal.
I can run a Savage Worlds superhero inside of a Realms of Cthulhu game. They're both Savage Worlds systems with VERY different design philosophies. They remain completely compatible with each other because they share the same basic core. Would I do that? No. Cthulhu's grittiness and superheroes won't mix well, but it would work, technically.
Same thing with DDN. If they really go for modularity, they can take an AD&D style and put it in the same system as a 4e style. Now, technically, they'll be compatible under the same basic core rules, but you probably wouldn't do that. It really depends on where things fall and how much is baked into the core.
I want as much as they can possibly squeeze into the core rules as possible, looking at the game from all angles. I'll simply pluck out what I don't want. If it is truly a modular system, and the stuff I don't like isn't baked into the core, then it
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.
And I notice, once again, you seem to be insisting we want mechanics copy/pasted right from 4e, despite me JUST telling you that's not what we want.
Reading comprehension.
We keep telling you why 4th ed ideas keep getting knocked. Its why AEDU is out and some form of vancian is back in. But you don't believe it lol. WoTC will follow the money.
You can't really have a class built around optional mechanics put in the core book as you do need some sort of default- have a look at 2nd ed in terms of options. A fully fleshed warord class would need its one book and the 4th ed payers would go up in arms over 4th ed stuff being relegated to a splat book. Everything is optional more or less reads as allow everything or at least will encourage players to expect it. D&DN cannot really be a build your own RPG. I suppose it could but I would not buy it and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard. What thye should have doen IMHO is make a hybrid that is modular and have the other one plugged into it. AD&D+3rd ed or 3rd+4th ed a'la SWSE. If they went with the latter though plug in AD&D via the fluff so sell it on Greyhawk/Vecna/classic Drow etc with traditional MR/SR (50%+2% per level).
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.And I notice, once again,
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.
And I notice, once again, you seem to be insisting we want mechanics copy/pasted right from 4e, despite me JUST telling you that's not what we want.
Reading comprehension.
We keep telling you why 4th ed ideas keep getting knocked. Its why AEDU is out and some form of vancian is back in. But you don't believe it lol. WoTC will follow the money.
You can't really have a class built around optional mechanics put in the core book as you do need some sort of default- have a look at 2nd ed in terms of options. A fully fleshed warord class would need its one book and the 4th ed payers would go up in arms over 4th ed stuff being relegated to a splat book. Everything is optional more or less reads as allow everything or at least will encourage players to expect it. D&DN cannot really be a build your own RPG. I suppose it could but I would not buy it and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard.
AEDU isn't out. We've seen it already, and we're seeing something similar coming up in the Fighter. It's not AEDU verbatim, but nothing is verbatim. Vancian is a lot different than it was in the past.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.And I notice, once again,
Everything is optional more or less reads as allow everything or at least will encourage players to expect it. D&DN cannot really be a build your own RPG. I suppose it could but I would not buy it and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard.
No, it doesn't. That's called hearing what you want to hear. It's willful ignorance. Everything will say ask your DM's permission before using this, or check with your DM, blah blah blah. That's all it needs to do.
If you don't trust your group enough, then you have a problem with your group. Not the system.
No, it doesn't. That's called hearing what you want to hear. It's willful ignorance. Everything will say ask your DM's permission before using this, or check with your DM, blah blah blah. That's all it needs to do.If you don't trust your group enough
Agree Samrin we ran a d20 clone and he Vancian wizard is mechanically the same as the normal AD&D wizard but packs 4 spells at level 1 and 9 spells by level 3. I will quite happily make that trade if they nuke the power of the higher level spell slots and give the martial type nice things. I do not mind AEDU as an option and it would proabbly work well on martial types while the spellcaster cold go back to somehitng similar to what they have already been but defanged of the CoDzilla abuse of 3.5 (2nd ed type Druids for example).
The retroclone we played yesterday had goodberry creat 2d4 berries each healing d12 damage. Not bad for a 2nd level Druid/plant sphere spell.Thats a major change from AD&D 2nd ed. Haste and stoneskin are nerfed from their AD&D glory. Pathfinder has buffed cleric healing via channeling positive energy so I'm not opposed to change at all. Change just for the sake of change I'm not convinced on and 4th ed made changes they did not have to (AEDU across the board, the Realms etc).
Agree Samrin we ran a d20 clone and he Vancian wizard is mechanically the same as the normal AD&D wizard but packs 4 spells at level 1 and 9 spells by level 3. I will quite happily make that trade if they nuke the power of the higher level spell slot
nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred out there is at far too great a pitch to be overcome by merely asking for something reasonable.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.
And I notice, once again, you seem to be insisting we want mechanics copy/pasted right from 4e, despite me JUST telling you that's not what we want.
Reading comprehension.
We keep telling you why 4th ed ideas keep getting knocked. Its why AEDU is out and some form of vancian is back in. But you don't believe it lol. WoTC will follow the money.
You can't really have a class built around optional mechanics put in the core book as you do need some sort of default- have a look at 2nd ed in terms of options. A fully fleshed warord class would need its one book and the 4th ed payers would go up in arms over 4th ed stuff being relegated to a splat book. Everything is optional more or less reads as allow everything or at least will encourage players to expect it. D&DN cannot really be a build your own RPG. I suppose it could but I would not buy it and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard. What thye should have doen IMHO is make a hybrid that is modular and have the other one plugged into it. AD&D+3rd ed or 3rd+4th ed a'la SWSE. If they went with the latter though plug in AD&D via the fluff so sell it on Greyhawk/Vecna/classic Drow etc with traditional MR/SR (50%+2% per level).
You can have a class built around optional mechanics, because the class itself is optional. The mechanics built within it will be optional. That's how this works. If you don't like it, don't use it. I also think you're seriously underestimating the D&D playerbase and their ability to compromise. You don't represent a majority, nor do you speak for the old schoolers. You think you do, but you really don't. Like everyone on the forums, you're a vocal minority.
I'm willing to bet the majority of D&D gamers young and old can handle "This may not fit into every game. Check with your DM first". Unless the majority has severe social issues, it will be fine. I know it will be fine at my table. I know it will be fine at any table I go to, at least with me. If you can't handle that, you can't handle the real world. Nevermind a game.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.And I notice, once again,
nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred out there is at far too great a pitch to be overcome by merely asking for something reasonable.
An implementation of AEDU would be nice, but it isn't something that I specifically have to have. We've already seen aspects of it in the Warlock and Sorcerer articles, I suspect we'll eventually see different aspects of it here and there again.
The main appeal of AEDU was that it gave meaningful dynamic options to everybody on a round by round basis. That doesn't have to come in AEDU form.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred
The problem is the best ideas from 4th ed tend to annoy the pre 4th ed player.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.
And I notice, once again, you seem to be insisting we want mechanics copy/pasted right from 4e, despite me JUST telling you that's not what we want.
Reading comprehension.
We keep telling you why 4th ed ideas keep getting knocked. Its why AEDU is out and some form of vancian is back in. But you don't believe it lol. WoTC will follow the money.
You can't really have a class built around optional mechanics put in the core book as you do need some sort of default- have a look at 2nd ed in terms of options. A fully fleshed warord class would need its one book and the 4th ed payers would go up in arms over 4th ed stuff being relegated to a splat book. Everything is optional more or less reads as allow everything or at least will encourage players to expect it. D&DN cannot really be a build your own RPG. I suppose it could but I would not buy it and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard. What thye should have doen IMHO is make a hybrid that is modular and have the other one plugged into it. AD&D+3rd ed or 3rd+4th ed a'la SWSE. If they went with the latter though plug in AD&D via the fluff so sell it on Greyhawk/Vecna/classic Drow etc with traditional MR/SR (50%+2% per level).
You can have a class built around optional mechanics, because the class itself is optional. The mechanics built within it will be optional. That's how this works. If you don't like it, don't use it. I also think you're seriously underestimating the D&D playerbase and their ability to compromise. You don't represent a majority, nor do you speak for the old schoolers. You think you do, but you really don't. Like everyone on the forums, you're a vocal minority.
I'm willing to bet the majority of D&D gamers young and old can handle "This may not fit into every game. Check with your DM first". Unless the majority has severe social issues, it will be fine. I know it will be fine at my table. I know it will be fine at any table I go to, at least with me. If you can't handle that, you can't handle the real world. Nevermind a game.
If I am a vocal minority I can accept that. It conveniently ignores the exodus to PF and what has been happening in recent months in regards to AD&D retroclone kickstarters or AD&D+d20 hybrids popping up. I did not vote against 4th ed the market did. A large % do not want martial helaing even as an option for whatever reason.
So? As I recall, there's also a lot of mechanics from other editions that tend to annoy fans of other editions. Why is 4e the only one that gets knocked for it? That's no excuse for not using 4e ideas to make the game better.And I notice, once again,
nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred out there is at far too great a pitch to be overcome by merely asking for something reasonable.
One could easily fix the martial healing thing by making it supernatural. Maybe the warlord can somehow tap into the weave independent of the gods, it is a fantasy world and magic exists. A very small change and mechanically it would not matter. "Its magic" can explain away a lot and help with suspension of disbelief.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred
I think we might see AEDU in as close to its most pure form in the sorcerer to set it apart from the Wizard. It still might not be verbatim, but I think that's one place to expect it. They said that the sorcerer and warlock we saw are becoming something else, so who knows.
Personally, I'd prefer to be able to choose AEDU, vancian, spell points, etc. for every casting class. I'm not a huge wizard fan, so the fact that it is vancian only doesn't bother me, but I suspect it will bother a lot of people. I have no idea what they plan on doing in that regard, though.
I think we might see AEDU in as close to its most pure form in the sorcerer to set it apart from the Wizard. It still might not be verbatim, but I think that's one place to expect it. They said that the sorcerer and warlock we saw are becoming someth
nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred out there is at far too great a pitch to be overcome by merely asking for something reasonable.
One could easily fix the martial healingthing by making it supernatural. Maybe the warlord can somehow tap into the weave independent of the gods, it is a fantasy world and magic exists. A very small change and mechanically it would not matter. "Its magic" can explain away a lot and help with suspension of disbelief.
But it isn't supernatural. It's something we see in the real world. It happens in real life, and it isn't rare at all. It's called mind over matter. Anyone in the military has seen it many times, especially if they've been in combat. My brother is a Marine, and he has been to Afghanistan twice. I'm sure I could get some great examples just from him alone just from boot camp stories, nevermind combat.
The abstract nature of hp allows for it. It works fine to represent what it is made to represent.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred
I think we might see AEDU in as close to its most pure form in the sorcerer to set it apart from the Wizard. It still might not be verbatim, but I think that's one place to expect it. They said that the sorcerer and warlock we saw are becoming something else, so who knows.
Personally, I'd prefer to be able to choose AEDU, vancian, spell points, etc. for every casting class. I'm not a huge wizard fan, so the fact that it is vancian only doesn't bother me, but I suspect it will bother a lot of people. I have no idea what they plan on doing in that regard, though.
That would be the place I would put it myself. AEDU by itself or something similar to it would be fine and if not oh well bad luck everyone is goign to miss out on something. The 3.5 fans do not sem too care that much about the sorcerer as it was really a varient wizard already covered by the D&DN wizard. May as well make it a bit different.
That would be the place I would put it myself. AEDU by itself or something similar to it would be fine and if not oh well bad luck everyone is goign to miss out on something. The 3.5 fans do not sem too care that much about the sorcerer as it was rea
nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred out there is at far too great a pitch to be overcome by merely asking for something reasonable.
An implementation of AEDU would be nice, but it isn't something that I specifically have to have. The main appeal of AEDU was that it gave meaningful dynamic options to everybody on a round by round basis. That doesn't have to come in AEDU form.
The key isn't so much AEDU, as a common advancement structure - be it AEDU, or something else, or even something that changes for one module to another.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred
nobody is asking for 4e class design in DDN. All 4e players are asking for is relatively well balanced and consistent mechanics with some of the good ideas that 4e introduced not being butchered like hit dice did.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred out there is at far too great a pitch to be overcome by merely asking for something reasonable.
An implementation of AEDU would be nice, but it isn't something that I specifically have to have. The main appeal of AEDU was that it gave meaningful dynamic options to everybody on a round by round basis. That doesn't have to come in AEDU form.
The key isn't so much AEDU, as a common advancement structure - be it AEDU, or something else, or even something that changes for one module to another.
That would be ideal, and consistent. Two things that all other modular systems share, which is one reason I have my doubts in regards to modularity. However, we know we're not getting that, and it's a lost cause. I just hope it doesn't wind up too messy.
I would like to ask for 4e (not Essentials) class design (or some evolution thereof) in D&D Next. It's not that it would be a bad idea or that no one's asking for it, it's that we have no choice but to accept that the irrational prejudice and hatred
The key isn't so much AEDU, as a common advancement structure - be it AEDU, or something else, or even something that changes for one module to another.
That would be ideal, and consistent. Two things that all other modular systems share, which is one reason I have my doubts in regards to modularity. However, we know we're not getting that, and it's a lost cause. I just hope it doesn't wind up too messy.
I know it seems that way, but have they officially given up on modularity? I know they clearly aren't designing for modularity, but that's different than admitting they're not designing for modularity....
That would be ideal, and consistent. Two things that all other modular systems share, which is one reason I have my doubts in regards to modularity. However, we know we're not getting that, and it's a lost cause. I just hope it doesn't wind up too me
The key isn't so much AEDU, as a common advancement structure - be it AEDU, or something else, or even something that changes for one module to another.
That would be ideal, and consistent. Two things that all other modular systems share, which is one reason I have my doubts in regards to modularity. However, we know we're not getting that, and it's a lost cause. I just hope it doesn't wind up too messy.
I know it seems that way, but have they officially given up on modularity? I know they clearly aren't designing for modularity, but that's different than admitting they're not designing for modularity....
Eh, it would help if we knew what we were testing in the first place to really be able to answer that. For modularity, you'd think that hammering down the core first would be the main focus without throwing all of this stuff on top with it. You get a general idea of what you want as far as options go without any real design. All you need is the idea. You then produce a core foundation that is solid, yet flexible enough to support what you want to do with the system.
What they're doing just seems horribly inefficient.
That would be ideal, and consistent. Two things that all other modular systems share, which is one reason I have my doubts in regards to modularity. However, we know we're not getting that, and it's a lost cause. I just hope it doesn't wind up too me
I do think you kinda hit the nail on the head, though.
If you look at all of the RPG's out there that are modular, they all share one major thing in common: They're all point based system. Classes are a major obstacle to modularity. So, you say the classes are modules themselves. Now, you have to add in feats, which are like mini classes now. Now, you've got 2 mechanics achieving the same goal, just to achieve flexibility. Backgrounds don't help much, either. They're far too restrictive and rigid, too.
When all is said and done, choosing the class, specialty, and background, you're still confined to walls within your initial decisions made at character creation.
4e mitigated this somewhat by offering tons of options within each class to make different builds of one class play very different. Then you have Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Later on, you throw on themes, backgrounds, etc. It made it a very modular system for a class based system. It also made it very bloated. That's really the only way around classes if you really want modularity.
Personally, I would have gone with a point buy system, or at least a hybrid like Warhammer uses. Classes could still be present as spreads, but at least you'd know how the classes came to be, and they didn't look like a bunch of random, unrelated ideas thrown together into a pile. People would freak over this, even if it came to the same end result of classes. It would just eliminate the inconsistency, and it would solve the multiclassing problem.
Hybrids would be the most elegant solution. You start out as a class, and you branch out into multiple subclasses of your choosing the further you advance. For example:
Say you start as a rogue. Level 1 would be rogue. That level would be like... 1-5,000 experience. Let's just say 5,000 as an example. Between 1 and 5,000 experience, you would have all level 1 rogue abilities available to purchase with experience. Each ability would cost a certain amount. Once you reach 5,001 experience, you are level 2, and you can spend experience on all level 1 and 2 abilities, etc. Around 3 to 5, you branch off into more specialized subclasses, following the same pattern of spending at your level or below.
I would have liked to see more of a hybrid system.
I do think you kinda hit the nail on the head, though.If you look at all of the RPG's out there that are modular, they all share one major thing in common: They're all point based system. Classes are a major obstacle to modularity. So, you say the cl
I do think you kinda hit the nail on the head, though.
If you look at all of the RPG's out there that are modular, they all share one major thing in common: They're all point based system. Classes are a major obstacle to modularity. So, you say the classes are modules themselves. Now, you have to add in feats, which are like mini classes now. Now, you've got 2 mechanics achieving the same goal, just to achieve flexibility. Backgrounds don't help much, either. They're far too restrictive and rigid, too.
When all is said and done, choosing the class, specialty, and background, you're still confined to walls within your initial decisions made at character creation.
I can't think of one that is class based, atm.
I'm not sure it follows, though, classes could, themselves be modular, classes grouped in source are a de-facto pluggable module in 4e, for instance. Don't like psionics, those classes pop right out. Ideally, related items and monsters would, too, but it's close.
I could see how a more modular game could be an evolution of 4e, though. If there were less distinction among Class, RAce, Theme, etc, and each such choice just gave you a different set of powers to pick from as you leveled, for instance, you'd get a pretty modular character creation system.
I can't think of one that is class based, atm. I'm not sure it follows, though, classes could, themselves be modular, classes grouped in source are a de-facto pluggable module in 4e, for instance. Don't like psionics, those classes pop right out.
I do think you kinda hit the nail on the head, though.
If you look at all of the RPG's out there that are modular, they all share one major thing in common: They're all point based system. Classes are a major obstacle to modularity. So, you say the classes are modules themselves. Now, you have to add in feats, which are like mini classes now. Now, you've got 2 mechanics achieving the same goal, just to achieve flexibility. Backgrounds don't help much, either. They're far too restrictive and rigid, too.
When all is said and done, choosing the class, specialty, and background, you're still confined to walls within your initial decisions made at character creation.
I can't think of one that is class based, atm.
I'm not sure it follows, though, classes could, themselves be modular, classes grouped in source are a de-facto pluggable module in 4e, for instance. Don't like psionics, those classes pop right out. Ideally, related items and monsters would, too, but it's close.
I could see how a more modular game could be an evolution of 4e, though. If there were less distinction among Class, RAce, Theme, etc, and each such choice just gave you a different set of powers to pick from as you leveled, for instance, you'd get a pretty modular character creation system.
Classes can be modular, yes. It just requires bloat. You have to have options to have options to plug and unplug :P Hybrid systems are much more friendly to this type of design. DDN is going in the wrong direction, imo. You have feats serving as mini classes on top of classes, so you have two game mechanics covering one area of design space. It's clunky.
They have the framework for class based modularity, but they haven't really done it. They have a 3 pillar system, and 3 elements to character creation. Classes should represent one pillar, feats another, and backgrounds another. Feats and backgrounds could be a little bit more flexible pertaining to what they effect. Backgrounds need more flexibility.
I can't think of one that is class based, atm. I'm not sure it follows, though, classes could, themselves be modular, classes grouped in source are a de-facto pluggable module in 4e, for instance. Don't like psionics, those classes pop right out.
The difference shas and those like him insist that ONLY his way could ever be fun and having anything other than those options he approves of should even be considered.
Well that is not true. I am fine with people having options that I personally find to be a steaming pile.
In fact they can have as much of it as they want.
Because of them being, you know, optional.
Well that is not true. I am fine with people having options that I personally find to be a steaming pile.In fact they can have as much of it as they want.Because of them being, you know, optional.
1. The whole concept of "Modular" isn't going to work. Think about it. It would require a multipage checklist just to figure out what rules are and are not in effect in each game, something that has never existed in the core rulebooks before outside of some DM's occasional attempt at creating a campaign setting. Just with what we know today, there's an easy couple of dozen "Options". People are going to say "Everything in the core rulebooks" like they did with every other edition. Organized play is going to be the same, it's going to pick Basic or Standard and everything's allowed.
Well, you may think that, but I think that you are wrong.
I'm confident that a professional design team can make a lot of things work that amateurs like you and me might give up on.
We have to make a LOT of choices EVERY time we play D&D. The idea that we will have to agree on the game we play beforehand is hardly new. And Organized play has also needed to make clear and specific calls on a range of things before getting off the ground, that too is not new.
2. Vancian magic isn't in the game, that's not vancian magic. It's a thinly disguised 3rd edition sorcerer system. I also think you may have missed the part where I said to spin the 4th edition stuff into it's own variant, I did not say it shouldn't be present. I've been saying for weeks that instead of Basic/Standard/Advanced they need to do Basic/Traditional/Tactics where Tactics is the area 4th edition mechanics are confined to.
You might think that, but I still don't want it in my game.
Why should you get to exclude the things I want from my game while I don't get to do the same?
3. I think you need to think this through. What happens when you hand the average person dozens and dozens of "Options"? Something becomes default because it becomes too much work to track all of the options and too much hassal to deal with the negotiations and fights. In Organized play, there absolutely is a Default version where all of those "Options" aren't "Options" (Point buy versus Roll for example). It's unmanageable, and if you doubt that, start listing out all of the "Options" we know about today, and start thinking about trying to negotiate all of that at a table. Remember when doing it that your arguement is essentially that everything is optional, so we're now talking every race, every class, every character creation method, etc. Not going to happen in the real world. No one is going to do that just to play a game.
But, that's the thing.
We aren't talking about "dozens and dozens of options" for individual players. Sure a DM might have more to wade through, but we sign up for that as DMs. As long as RUNNING the game is simple I don't mind a bit of setup.
Your "Many" other options in every other edition arguement only holds true for accessories, in every other edition the Core Rulebooks weren't presented as options.
Races and classes have, individually, been optional in every edition of D&D. So have individual spells.
The 4th edition crowd *really* needs to stop playing the Victim Card constantly. It's getting old, and it's a really weak form of debate. I see it constantly here, when people express that they don't want to be forced to use 4th edition material, "Oh, you're a terrible selfish person!", "On, you don't want anyone to have fun".
Seriously, just because I like 4th Ed doesn't make my complaing a 4th Ed based one.
The Warlord is one element I want from 4th, but there are many things I'm looking forward (or already have) from previous editions.
I want Next to be the best of ALL editions.
Currently it's just an exclusionist mess... hope the new packet improves things!
I realize the tactic is designed to try and get the opposing debater to question their self-image, and walk away from the debate feeling they're a terrible person, I'm unimpressed. Given that WOTC has professional PR who are well schooled in that (and other) forms of public manipulation, I doubt they're impressed either.
Hardly.
You actually ARE being selfish.
And you actually ARE being exclusionist.
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Well, you may think that, but I think that you are wrong.I'm confident that a professional design team can make a lot of things work that amateurs like you and me might give up on.We have to make a LOT of choices EVERY time we play D&D. The idea tha
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an Wardens!)with alignment restrictions-- are in there because some players insist the alternative is unacceptable, even as an option. Meanwhile, I see 4E fans claiming the moral high-ground by wanting to be inclusive of other styles of play, but that really isn't getting you anywhere.
Because the exclusionists are winning.
Perhaps the only way to have 4E-style options included in the standard game is to give feedback that seeks to exclude other styles.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an
If I am a vocal minority I can accept that. It conveniently ignores the exodus to PF and what has been happening in recent months in regards to AD&D retroclone kickstarters or AD&D+d20 hybrids popping up. I did not vote against 4th ed the market did. A large % do not want martial helaing even as an option for whatever reason.
Look I get that you are still dancing a jig over the demise of the most hated and evil of editions.
But 4th Ed not being the success it needed to be for continuing support is only partly to do with any one specific element.
A great many anti-4th posters actually like some elements of 4th and want to use them.
They seldom agree on which ones, but that's an argument FOR including those elements as options.
So those who want to use them can, while those who don't can ignore them.
Only a TINY minority, of D&D players I know, or have dealt with in a business capacity, or see on this (or any other, including RPG.net and ENworld) forum are actually so biased that they would reject the game just because some OPTIONS they don't have to use are ones they don't like.
Look I get that you are still dancing a jig over the demise of the most hated and evil of editions.But 4th Ed not being the success it needed to be for continuing support is only partly to do with any one specific element.A great many anti-4th poster
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an Wardens!)with alignment restrictions-- are in there because some players insist the alternative is unacceptable, even as an option. Meanwhile, I see 4E fans claiming the moral high-ground by wanting to be inclusive of other styles of play, but that really isn't getting you anywhere.
Because the exclusionists are winning.
Perhaps the only way to have 4E-style options included in the standard game is to give feedback that seeks to exclude other styles.
I really hope that is not the case.
Good argument and logic should be able to carry the day, especially over ignorance and bias.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an
Good argument and logic should be able to carry the day, especially over ignorance and bias.
There's hope that a good argument can educate the ignorant. Bias is much harder to overcome. The critical thing is that the person holding the bias must recognize it. But, pointing out something like that can be construed as a personal attack.
I could give examples all day long but politics are off-topic.
There's hope that a good argument can educate the ignorant. Bias is much harder to overcome. The critical thing is that the person holding the bias must recognize it. But, pointing out something like that can be construed as a personal attack. I
This conversation regarding the Warlord shows that the designers neither understand what HP represents, nor what made the Warlord awesome and fun.
No Warlord class is yet another reason not to buy any 5e products.
This conversation regarding the Warlord shows that the designers neither understand what HP represents, nor what made the Warlord awesome and fun. No Warlord class is yet another reason not to buy any 5e products.
I'm hoping warlord fans represent a substantial enough demand for inclusion. I know I'll be continuously pushing for it.
As to the rest, there's lots of things I AM enjoying about the playtest - and, sadly, still lots of things I am NoT enjoying.
I guess all I'm saying is /megaphone on when giving feedback.
But there aren't any 5E products yet. I'm hoping warlord fans represent a substantial enough demand for inclusion. I know I'll be continuously pushing for it. As to the rest, there's lots of things I AM enjoying about the playtest - and, sadly, still
If I am a vocal minority I can accept that. It conveniently ignores the exodus to PF and what has been happening in recent months in regards to AD&D retroclone kickstarters or AD&D+d20 hybrids popping up. I did not vote against 4th ed the market did. A large % do not want martial helaing even as an option for whatever reason.
Look I get that you are still dancing a jig over the demise of the most hated and evil of editions.
But 4th Ed not being the success it needed to be for continuing support is only partly to do with any one specific element.
A great many anti-4th posters actually like some elements of 4th and want to use them.
They seldom agree on which ones, but that's an argument FOR including those elements as options.
So those who want to use them can, while those who don't can ignore them.
Only a TINY minority, of D&D players I know, or have dealt with in a business capacity, or see on this (or any other, including RPG.net and ENworld) forum are actually so biased that they would reject the game just because some OPTIONS they don't have to use are ones they don't like.
Not really dancing just frustrated with the "prove it: and "you don't know the sales figures" crowd. Some of them have nnot figured out why 4th ed died and why we are here teting D&DN. I odn't think they realise the strength of the OSR movement and the OGL which has grown beyond Paizo. If one has a look you can find tihngs like million dollar kickstarters for OGL stuff etc.
Paizo may actually e the 800 lb Gorilla in the room. Good for them yippie but it is going to be hard to get a fixed verison of D&D anytime soon of 3.5/PF is regarded as an untouchable holy grail.
Look I get that you are still dancing a jig over the demise of the most hated and evil of editions.But 4th Ed not being the success it needed to be for continuing support is only partly to do with any one specific element.A great many anti-4th poster
So, instead of proving your claim, you're just becoming frustrated with those who have the audacity to challenge assertions that you can't or won't back up?
Classy. At least you're admitting it, it's the first step.
All you know is that we are testing D&DN. You do not know why, and no amount of repeating your claims that it's because of all these things that you think people didn't like about 4e can change that.
So, instead of proving your claim, you're just becoming frustrated with those who have the audacity to challenge assertions that you can't or won't back up? Classy. At least you're admitting it, it's the first step.All you know is that we are testi
Suffice to say Paizo is now a multi million dollar company. The exact size IDK.
You know that Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro, right? The company that sells the Transformers, Nerf, My Little Pony, and Playskool brands, among many others?
Absent evidence one way or another, drawing conclusions about 4E's success relative to Pathfinder based on a comparison of Wizards of the Coast to Paizo is foolish because there's pretty much no way to compare the two companies.
You know that Wizards of the Coast is owned by Hasbro, right? The company that sells the Transformers, Nerf, My Little Pony, and Playskool brands, among many others? Absent evidence one way or another, drawing conclusions about 4E's success relative
But you can't take the knowledge that 4e is reaching the end of its run and then conclude that any particular element in 4e is the reason for that happening, and therefore shouldn't be included in Next. You can't do that, regardless of what sales figures may or may not be.
But you can't take the knowledge that 4e is reaching the end of its run and then conclude that any particular element in 4e is the reason for that happening, and therefore shouldn't be included in Next. You can't do that, regardless of what sales fi
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the defa
If the warlord class and martial healing aren't that popular, why do we have 4e fans screaming bloody murder and so many multi-hundred-post threads about them? You even acknowledge that there isn't consensus, and yet you're willing to claim that there is consensus in the prior sentence!
If the warlord class and martial healing aren't that popular, why do we have 4e fans screaming bloody murder and so many multi-hundred-post threads about them? You even acknowledge that there isn't consensus, and yet you're willing to claim that the
If you really want to turn logic on its head, simply look at 4e's run. While books were being published at a steady rate (pre essentials) 4e was the Top Selling RPG on the market. After the 4e produc schedule slowed down, 4e slid to second place.
4e had more sales during the first few years of its run than either 3e, 3.5, or Pathfinder. In fact 4e actually made it to national bestsellers lists, something never done before by a RPG.
So, follow this odd logic train to its conclusion, and you can say that 4e would continue to outsell PF if Hasbro had continued at the same production pace they had started with. Of course the bloat would be kind of crazy so they would have needed a 4.5 reboot in 2012 to start from brand new. Alternatively, they could have simply made good adventure paths (PFs method).
Frankly, I will be suprised if Next has sales approaching those of 4e's over the first few years.
If you really want to turn logic on its head, simply look at 4e's run. While books were being published at a steady rate (pre essentials) 4e was the Top Selling RPG on the market. After the 4e produc schedule slowed down, 4e slid to second place.4e
All that shows is preference of existing market segments. Is OGL showing growth? Is AD&D growing?
I don't know. I know I bought some old modules but that doesn't mean my fave edition is AD&D. Just like those modules.
Pulling out my crystal ball, I'm now divining that current market trends point to ... Niche hobbies with middle-to-upper-middle class enthusiasts have no problem raising money! Ta-Da!
I doubt anyone ever thought, "X edition of the game is SO TERRIBLE I must therefore put money in a kick starter so the aforementioned horrible edition and its fans feel just as terrible as the edition itself is."
All that shows is preference of existing market segments. Is OGL showing growth? Is AD&D growing? I don't know. I know I bought some old modules but that doesn't mean my fave edition is AD&D. Just like those modules. Pulling out my crystal ball, I'm
If you really want to turn logic on its head, simply look at 4e's run. While books were being published at a steady rate (pre essentials) 4e was the Top Selling RPG on the market. After the 4e produc schedule slowed down, 4e slid to second place.
4e had more sales during the first few years of its run than either 3e, 3.5, or Pathfinder. In fact 4e actually made it to national bestsellers lists, something never done before by a RPG.
So, follow this odd logic train to its conclusion, and you can say that 4e would continue to outsell PF if Hasbro had continued at the same production pace they had started with. Of course the bloat would be kind of crazy so they would have needed a 4.5 reboot in 2012 to start from brand new. Alternatively, they could have simply made good adventure paths (PFs method).
Frankly, I will be suprised if Next has sales approaching those of 4e's over the first few years.
No one is argueing 4th ed sold well to start with. It could not sustain those sales apparently otherwise they would have kept up the monthly splat book run.
No one is argueing 4th ed sold well to start with. It could not sustain those sales apparently otherwise they would have kept up the monthly splat book run.
If the warlord class and martial healing aren't that popular, why do we have 4e fans screaming bloody murder and so many multi-hundred-post threads about them? You even acknowledge that there isn't consensus, and yet you're willing to claim that there is consensus in the prior sentence!
It is popular with the 4th ed fans never claimed otherwise. 4th ed fans are outnumbered by everyone else though as there is a reason AEDU and the role structure of 4th ed have been feed to the fires so to speak. Why owuld tehy consider folding the WL into the fighter knowing that it is going to enrage the 4th ed fans.
D&DN is going to more or less end up as a democracy in action version of D&D. I'm not convinced that is a good thing but there you have it.
No. No.
You do not get to make any claim whatsoever about the reasons why things are or are not in the playtest. You do not have any grounds whatsoever to do so, you do not have any evidence, and you do not have any credibility. Wizards makes the choices that they make for their own reasons, which you have no access to. You are flatly wrong to make these claims, and that you continue to defiantly insist that you don't need to back them up with evidence makes you all the more wrong.
It is popular with the 4th ed fans never claimed otherwise. 4th ed fans are outnumbered by everyone else though as there is a reason AEDU and the role structure of 4th ed have been feed to the fires so to speak. Why owuld tehy consider folding the WL
Read the L&L articles they have explained how they are responding to feedback. They are trying to keep 90% happy with the 10%+ upset indicates something needs fixing.
You can look at the size of the kickstarters or the traffic on the grognard sites or sales at RPGnow.com. Events like garycon indicate the OSR movement is growing, companies are making product for them. I posted the links 2 days ago but the mods took it down. Kickstarters worth millions of dollars targeted at AD&D and 3rd ed fans the D&DN design team apparently catering to pre 4th ed fans. The evidence is there if you do not want to believe it thats on you.
Read the L&L articles they have explained how they are responding to feedback. They are trying to keep 90% happy with the 10%+ upset indicates something needs fixing. You can look at the size of the kickstarters or the traffic on the grognard sites o
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the relatively short lifespan of 4e has less to do with its popularity than with its structure. AEDU didn't leave as much room for innovation as 3e's freeform-to-a-fault class design, and even when they came out with Essentials they still had to contend with a complex action economy, complicated and quasi-mandatory magic items, a ton of finicky feats, a somewhat restrictive skill system, and so on.
Now, all of those things are also strengths of 4e in one sense - they make for a much more balanced and intricate system than previous editions - but you get to a point where 4e can't attract many new players anymore. It's overwhelming in complexity and even in cost, since everything is core and even important core mechanical stuff like hybrid rules, themes, skill powers, and martial practices are spread out over a bunch of different books. I mean, at this point, does 4e even need more splatbooks full of weird classes and extra feats and powers?
I don't agree with everything the design team does, but Mearls has a good point about one thing: D&D won't attract new players (except through osmosis from existing groups adding their friends and family) until it doesn't take an order of magnitude more time to get set up and start playing your first D&D game compared to your first game of, say, Settlers of Canaan or even Risk.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the relatively short lifespan of 4e has less to do with its popularity than with its structure. AEDU didn't leave as much room for innovation as 3e's freeform-to-a-fault class design, and even when they came out wi
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
We know how much D&D was worth in 1982. We can compare that to what we know it was worth in 2007 or so. If that figure has not been adjusted for inflation 1982 was the apex of D&Ds popularity. If it has been adjusted for inflation 3rd ed was the most popular version of D&D in terms of sales.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-adjusted, the peak of the '82 fad was higher?
In terms of unit sales, I vaguely remember that at the peak of the fad, D&D was rivaling the biggest game of all time, Monopoly. I have trouble imagining that 3e did anything like that.
And, 3e put out dozens of books, while AD&D in 82 had maybe 5 or 6, so even if 3e's revenue rivaled AD&D's before inflation, the sheer number of peoplel playing AD&D in '82 must have dwarfed 3e's fan base.
We know when Pathfinder outsold 4th ed.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-ad
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals. In short, they were expecting D&D to bring in the same level of revenue that Magic does, and that's a ludicrous expectation.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals. In short, they were expecting D&D to bring in the s
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.
Still would like to see a source for that claim. Oft repeated, never supported.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.[/quote]Still would like to see a source for that cla
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an Wardens!)with alignment restrictions-- are in there because some players insist the alternative is unacceptable, even as an option. Meanwhile, I see 4E fans claiming the moral high-ground by wanting to be inclusive of other styles of play, but that really isn't getting you anywhere.
Because the exclusionists are winning.
Perhaps the only way to have 4E-style options included in the standard game is to give feedback that seeks to exclude other styles.
There's probably a lot of truth to this.
The developers see Inclusive arguments and see "This person will buy the product even if it has X and Y, and that person wants X and Y, let's include X and Y!" meanwhile the Exclusive arguments show them "This person wants A and B, but that person won't buy the game if A and B are there... and both of them are already happy with X and Y, so let's just stick with X and Y".
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.
Still would like to see a source for that claim. Oft repeated, never supported.
There's an article about it somewhere. It's been linked to and posted up here on these forums before. I'll make a point to find it and send it to you as soon as I can.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.[/quote]Still would like to see a source for that cla
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an Wardens!)with alignment restrictions-- are in there because some players insist the alternative is unacceptable, even as an option. Meanwhile, I see 4E fans claiming the moral high-ground by wanting to be inclusive of other styles of play, but that really isn't getting you anywhere.
Because the exclusionists are winning.
Perhaps the only way to have 4E-style options included in the standard game is to give feedback that seeks to exclude other styles.
There's probably a lot of truth to this.
Not so much. I've said it before, but I'll say it again:
The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an Wardens!)with alignment restrictions-- are in there because some players insist the alternative is unacceptable, even as an option. Meanwhile, I see 4E fans claiming the moral high-ground by wanting to be inclusive of other styles of play, but that really isn't getting you anywhere.
Because the exclusionists are winning.
Perhaps the only way to have 4E-style options included in the standard game is to give feedback that seeks to exclude other styles.
There's probably a lot of truth to this.
Not so much. I've said it before, but I'll say it again:
The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design.
Hi mand.
Go away mand.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
Your proof was comparing some Paizo numbers to a kickstarter of a game completely unrelated to 4e. It wasn't just poor proof, it was poor proof to completely different argument.
And your posts were taken down because you were edition warring. Again.
Your proof was comparing some Paizo numbers to a kickstarter of a game completely unrelated to 4e. It wasn't just poor proof, it was poor proof to completely different argument.And your posts were taken down because you were edition warring. Again.
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Yes that is the correct response... though it might be NO!.... or NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! with the Os getting smaller and softer as it goes along
The question mark is wishy washy
Yes that is the correct response... though it might be NO!.... or NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! with the Os getting smaller and softer as it goes along The question mark is wishy washy :rofl:
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.
Still would like to see a source for that claim. Oft repeated, never supported.
Found it! When I make these claims, this is my source.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.[/quote]Still would like to see a source for that cla
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
Your proof was comparing some Paizo numbers to a kickstarter of a game completely unrelated to 4e. It wasn't just poor proof, it was poor proof to completely different argument.
And your posts were taken down because you were edition warring. Again.
If Zard had bothered to read what he posted, he would realize it wasn't proof at all. It wasn't even relevant to the discussion.
There is no kickstarter for 13th Age, nor has there ever been. It was a one month kickstarter for 13 True Ways, which is just a splatbook. So, a splatbook for a game that was in an extremely limited playtest (at the time) generated 70k in one month. They didn't even have a release window yet, and that was 8 months ago.
So, you're comparing a short kickstarter for a splatbook that might or might not happen for a game in an extremely limited playtest, 9 months before the main game is even released.
Your proof was comparing some Paizo numbers to a kickstarter of a game completely unrelated to 4e. It wasn't just poor proof, it was poor proof to completely different argument.And your posts were taken down because you were edition warring. Again.
Found it! When I make these claims, this is my source.
Well at least the new team does not have to meet those numbers now that the guys that promised that have gone.
I... would not necessarily expect that. That some different people have rotated in doesn't necessarily have the slightest bit of effect on how the higher-ups are classifying the brand. There's no way to know what the current status of the brand is, or even what Hasbro's current brand strategy is at all (the story in the linked article takes place seven years ago; things change). If you read the article, the reason that D&D was positioned as a potential "Core" brand in the first place, with a plan to get its sales to a certain point, was to keep it from potentially getting shelved entirely. Even if it's been reclassified, that's not necessarily some kind of boon. If I had to guess, I would guess that it's overwhelmingly likely that the new team does, in fact, have to meet those numbers.
Well at least the new team does not have to meet those numbers now that the guys that promised that have gone.[/quote]I... would not necessarily expect that. That some different people have rotated in doesn't necessarily have the slightest bit of eff
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
We know how much D&D was worth in 1982. We can compare that to what we know it was worth in 2007 or so. If that figure has not been adjusted for inflation 1982 was the apex of D&Ds popularity. If it has been adjusted for inflation 3rd ed was the most popular version of D&D in terms of sales.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-adjusted, the peak of the '82 fad was higher?
In terms of unit sales, I vaguely remember that at the peak of the fad, D&D was rivaling the biggest game of all time, Monopoly. I have trouble imagining that 3e did anything like that.
And, 3e put out dozens of books, while AD&D in 82 had maybe 5 or 6, so even if 3e's revenue rivaled AD&D's before inflation, the sheer number of peoplel playing AD&D in '82 must have dwarfed 3e's fan base.
We know when Pathfinder outsold 4th ed.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
It doesn't bother me that 1st ed/BECM in the early 80's probably was the height of D&D's popularity. Kind of proves my point that if the design team is trying to replicate that era and with the idea of basic and advanced rules and classes resembling traditional classes. I have always said the D&DN should follow the money if I get left behind so be it.
Samrin those links were to prove that there are literally millions of dollars being raised by Paizo and others who are basically trading off the reputation of Paizo and designers from D&Ds past. Paizo is also building bridges with the grognard crowd as some of them are buying their product and using or converting it. Paizo has hired Frank Mentzer and he has been away from D&D designing for 25 years but the grognards have noticed this. They are building bridges to the past.
One big difference with the forums from 2001-2008 is we did not spend much time rubbishing AD&D. The wounds in the AD&D/3rd ed divide are not that deep although ythe hard core grognards will never play 3rd ed/PF and that is their right as consumers. No big deal.
The OSR movement has also been growing and they are larger than I thought even from 2 months ago. They are organised, growing and material is being produced to cater to them that is all.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-ad
It doesn't bother me that 1st ed/BECM in the early 80's probably was the height of D&D's popularity. Kind of proves my point that if the design team is trying to replicate that era and with the idea of basic and advanced rules. I have always said the D&DN should follow the money.
No doubt about it. That's exactly what they tried to do with Essentials.
The OSR movement has also been growing and they are larger than I thought even form 2 months ago. They are organised, growing and material is being produced to cater to them that is all.
Nod, it's a classic "come back" pattern. At the rate 5e is going, it'll be perfectly positioned to latch onto it maybe a year before it peters out. Maybe.
No doubt about it. That's exactly what they tried to do with Essentials.Nod, it's a classic "come back" pattern. At the rate 5e is going, it'll be perfectly positioned to latch onto it maybe a year before it peters out. Maybe.
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
We know how much D&D was worth in 1982. We can compare that to what we know it was worth in 2007 or so. If that figure has not been adjusted for inflation 1982 was the apex of D&Ds popularity. If it has been adjusted for inflation 3rd ed was the most popular version of D&D in terms of sales.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-adjusted, the peak of the '82 fad was higher?
In terms of unit sales, I vaguely remember that at the peak of the fad, D&D was rivaling the biggest game of all time, Monopoly. I have trouble imagining that 3e did anything like that.
And, 3e put out dozens of books, while AD&D in 82 had maybe 5 or 6, so even if 3e's revenue rivaled AD&D's before inflation, the sheer number of peoplel playing AD&D in '82 must have dwarfed 3e's fan base.
We know when Pathfinder outsold 4th ed.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
It doesn't bother me that 1st ed/BECM in the early 80's probably was the height of D&D's popularity. Kind of proves my point that if the design team is trying to replicate that era and with the idea of basic and advanced rules and classes resembling traditional classes.. I have always said the D&DN should follow the money if I get left behind so be it.
Samrin those links were to prove that there are literally millions of dollars being raised by Paizo and others who are basically trading off the repputaiton of Paizo and designers from D&Ds past. Paizo is also building bridges with the grognard crowd as some of them are buying their product and using or converting it. Paizo has hired Frank Mentzer and he has been away from D&D designing for 25 years but the grognards have noticed this. They are building bridges to the past.
One big difference with the forums from 2001-2008 is we did not spend much time rubbishing AD&D. The wounds in the AD&D/3rd ed divide are not that deep although ythe hard core grognards will never play 3rd ed/PF and that is their right as consumers. No big deal.
The OSR movement has also been growing and they are larger than I thought even from 2 months ago. They are organised, growing and material is being produced to cater to them that is all.
The 13a book was irrelevant for comparison, though. That's my point. Apples to oranges.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-ad
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
We know how much D&D was worth in 1982. We can compare that to what we know it was worth in 2007 or so. If that figure has not been adjusted for inflation 1982 was the apex of D&Ds popularity. If it has been adjusted for inflation 3rd ed was the most popular version of D&D in terms of sales.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-adjusted, the peak of the '82 fad was higher?
In terms of unit sales, I vaguely remember that at the peak of the fad, D&D was rivaling the biggest game of all time, Monopoly. I have trouble imagining that 3e did anything like that.
And, 3e put out dozens of books, while AD&D in 82 had maybe 5 or 6, so even if 3e's revenue rivaled AD&D's before inflation, the sheer number of peoplel playing AD&D in '82 must have dwarfed 3e's fan base.
We know when Pathfinder outsold 4th ed.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
It doesn't bother me that 1st ed/BECM in the early 80's probably was the height of D&D's popularity. Kind of proves my point that if the design team is trying to replicate that era and with the idea of basic and advanced rules and classes resembling traditional classes.. I have always said the D&DN should follow the money if I get left behind so be it.
Samrin those links were to prove that there are literally millions of dollars being raised by Paizo and others who are basically trading off the repputaiton of Paizo and designers from D&Ds past. Paizo is also building bridges with the grognard crowd as some of them are buying their product and using or converting it. Paizo has hired Frank Mentzer and he has been away from D&D designing for 25 years but the grognards have noticed this. They are building bridges to the past.
One big difference with the forums from 2001-2008 is we did not spend much time rubbishing AD&D. The wounds in the AD&D/3rd ed divide are not that deep although ythe hard core grognards will never play 3rd ed/PF and that is their right as consumers. No big deal.
The OSR movement has also been growing and they are larger than I thought even from 2 months ago. They are organised, growing and material is being produced to cater to them that is all.
The 13a book was irrelevant for comparison, though. That's my point. Apples to oranges.
Somewhat relevent to the point Samrin. 13th eage gets mentioned here a lot as some sort of ark for 4th ed. Seems like a good game IDK but its scale is still reasonably small. It is smaller than 3rd pp supporting PF let alone Paizo itself. I have some suspicions I can't prove of course about how big the relevent editions actually are. Paizo for example now has a bigger staff than D&DN. PF is alright but I do not regard it as the one true way nor as a fixed 3.5 even if they make a sexy AP and campaign world.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-ad
I posted some proof but they were taken down by the mods.
We know how much D&D was worth in 1982. We can compare that to what we know it was worth in 2007 or so. If that figure has not been adjusted for inflation 1982 was the apex of D&Ds popularity. If it has been adjusted for inflation 3rd ed was the most popular version of D&D in terms of sales.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-adjusted, the peak of the '82 fad was higher?
In terms of unit sales, I vaguely remember that at the peak of the fad, D&D was rivaling the biggest game of all time, Monopoly. I have trouble imagining that 3e did anything like that.
And, 3e put out dozens of books, while AD&D in 82 had maybe 5 or 6, so even if 3e's revenue rivaled AD&D's before inflation, the sheer number of peoplel playing AD&D in '82 must have dwarfed 3e's fan base.
We know when Pathfinder outsold 4th ed.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
It doesn't bother me that 1st ed/BECM in the early 80's probably was the height of D&D's popularity. Kind of proves my point that if the design team is trying to replicate that era and with the idea of basic and advanced rules and classes resembling traditional classes.. I have always said the D&DN should follow the money if I get left behind so be it.
Samrin those links were to prove that there are literally millions of dollars being raised by Paizo and others who are basically trading off the repputaiton of Paizo and designers from D&Ds past. Paizo is also building bridges with the grognard crowd as some of them are buying their product and using or converting it. Paizo has hired Frank Mentzer and he has been away from D&D designing for 25 years but the grognards have noticed this. They are building bridges to the past.
One big difference with the forums from 2001-2008 is we did not spend much time rubbishing AD&D. The wounds in the AD&D/3rd ed divide are not that deep although ythe hard core grognards will never play 3rd ed/PF and that is their right as consumers. No big deal.
The OSR movement has also been growing and they are larger than I thought even from 2 months ago. They are organised, growing and material is being produced to cater to them that is all.
The 13a book was irrelevant for comparison, though. That's my point. Apples to oranges.
Somewhat relevent to the point Samrin. 13th eage gets mentioned here a lot as some sort of ark for 4th ed. Seems like a good game IDK but its scale is still reasonably small. It is smaller than 3rd pp supporting PF let alone Paizo itself. I have some suspicions I can't prove of course about how big the relevent editions actually are. Paizo for example now has a bigger staff than D&DN. PF is alright but I do not regard it as the one true way nor as a fixed 3.5 even if they make a sexy AP and campaign world.
It isn't relevant at all. Like I said, it was a limited kickstarter campaign for a splatbook. Designed for a game with no release date. At that time, the game was in playtest, but it wasn't an open playtest. It was EXTREMELY limited. 13 true ways is basically what they couldn't fit into the core rulebook, and that kickstarter was targetted to a very limited group of people. That's why they only ran it for a month. Using that book as a comparison just doesn't work.
The only people that really even knew about that kickstarter were the people in the playtest.
That doesn't add up. Inflation was under control by the mid-80s, but didn't disapear: un-adjusted 3e sales figures should be /higher/ than adjusted. Perhaps you got that backwards? Unadjusted sales figures have a peak durring 3e, but inflation-ad
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
Not surprising. Just prior is when they stopped releasing books on a regular basis. It is also when they did stuff like not selling books on Amazon, which is pretty much THE major source for the comparisons.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote]Not surprising. Just prior is when they stopped r
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
Maybe, maybe not. Rather than make assumptions, I'd rather take things as they are.
If assumptions are to be made, I'm guessing that Mike Mearls didn't like the direction that Rob Heinsoo was taking the game (even though some of the innovations in 4E -- healing surges to be specific -- were in fact mechanics found in his own 3.5E book Iron Heroes), and so the moment he was able to get his hands on the steering wheel, he threw out the various Power books and decided to go back "old school", where fluff is given even greater emphasis than what 4E already had, and even attempt to instigate changes within the system (i.e. Essentials).
One of the biggest reasons for me to suspect this is the errata on Magic Missile, which had no mechanical bearing for doing so (especially not balance), but was changed for purely thematic reasons. Personally I found pre-errata Magic Missile more sensible than post-errata and pre-4E Magic Missile -- the only reason why it even made sense pre-4E was because it was a daily spell that did piddly damage except at high levels [and even then only barely], which made the auto-hit nature of the spell a reasonable way to make up for its relatively pathetic nature (compared to other spells -- because at least it's consistent: it's an at-will magical projectile that needs no slots nor components, and if the enemy can dodge magically enchanted projectiles, why can't they dodge a projectile made up of pure magic?
EDIT: I'm still waiting for Shadow Power, Shadow Power 2, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2 and Psionic Power 2, as well as perhaps a Nerathi Campaign Guide and Nerathi Player's Guide, to say the least. Not gonna happen, sure, but if 4E was actually focused on, I'd guess that it could've gone for far longer than it had.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
Maybe, maybe not. Rather than make assumptions, I'd rather take things as they are.
If assumptions are to be made, I'm guessing that Mike Mearls didn't like the direction that Rob Heinsoo was taking the game (even though some of the innovations in 4E -- healing surges to be specific -- were in fact mechanics found in his own 3.5E book Iron Heroes), and so the moment he was able to get his hands on the steering wheel, he threw out the various Power books and decided to go back "old school", where fluff is given even greater emphasis than what 4E already had, and even attempt to instigate changes within the system (i.e. Essentials).
One of the biggest reasons for me to suspect this is the errata on Magic Missile, which had no mechanical bearing for doing so (especially not balance), but was changed for purely thematic reasons. Personally I found pre-errata Magic Missile more sensible than post-errata and pre-4E Magic Missile -- the only reason why it even made sense pre-4E was because it was a daily spell that did piddly damage except at high levels [and even then only barely], which made the auto-hit nature of the spell a reasonable way to make up for its relatively pathetic nature (compared to other spells -- because at least it's consistent: it's an at-will magical projectile that needs no slots nor components, and if the enemy can dodge magically enchanted projectiles, why can't they dodge a projectile made up of pure magic?
I suspect a bit more has gone on behind the scenes. Lisa Stevens and Tweet have hinted at this. Mealrs going from new recruit to project manager in 2007-2012 seems a little weird. Cook, Heinsoo, Tweet were all somewhat experience game designers. Office politics and a scapegoat needed is my suspicion.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
Maybe, maybe not. Rather than make assumptions, I'd rather take things as they are.
If assumptions are to be made, I'm guessing that Mike Mearls didn't like the direction that Rob Heinsoo was taking the game (even though some of the innovations in 4E -- healing surges to be specific -- were in fact mechanics found in his own 3.5E book Iron Heroes), and so the moment he was able to get his hands on the steering wheel, he threw out the various Power books and decided to go back "old school", where fluff is given even greater emphasis than what 4E already had, and even attempt to instigate changes within the system (i.e. Essentials).
One of the biggest reasons for me to suspect this is the errata on Magic Missile, which had no mechanical bearing for doing so (especially not balance), but was changed for purely thematic reasons. Personally I found pre-errata Magic Missile more sensible than post-errata and pre-4E Magic Missile -- the only reason why it even made sense pre-4E was because it was a daily spell that did piddly damage except at high levels [and even then only barely], which made the auto-hit nature of the spell a reasonable way to make up for its relatively pathetic nature (compared to other spells -- because at least it's consistent: it's an at-will magical projectile that needs no slots nor components, and if the enemy can dodge magically enchanted projectiles, why can't they dodge a projectile made up of pure magic?
I suspect a bit more has gone on behind the scenes. Lisa Stevens and Tweet have hinted at this. Mealrs going from new recruit to project manager in 2007-2012 seems a little weird. Cook, Heinsoo, Tweet were all somewhat experience game designers. Office politics and a scapegoat needed is my suspicion.
Perhaps, which is all the more why I question Mike Mearls being in charge of 5E in the first place. Especially when considering the conflicting statements from him and the rest of the dev team.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
Maybe, maybe not. Rather than make assumptions, I'd rather take things as they are.
If assumptions are to be made, I'm guessing that Mike Mearls didn't like the direction that Rob Heinsoo was taking the game (even though some of the innovations in 4E -- healing surges to be specific -- were in fact mechanics found in his own 3.5E book Iron Heroes), and so the moment he was able to get his hands on the steering wheel, he threw out the various Power books and decided to go back "old school", where fluff is given even greater emphasis than what 4E already had, and even attempt to instigate changes within the system (i.e. Essentials).
One of the biggest reasons for me to suspect this is the errata on Magic Missile, which had no mechanical bearing for doing so (especially not balance), but was changed for purely thematic reasons. Personally I found pre-errata Magic Missile more sensible than post-errata and pre-4E Magic Missile -- the only reason why it even made sense pre-4E was because it was a daily spell that did piddly damage except at high levels [and even then only barely], which made the auto-hit nature of the spell a reasonable way to make up for its relatively pathetic nature (compared to other spells -- because at least it's consistent: it's an at-will magical projectile that needs no slots nor components, and if the enemy can dodge magically enchanted projectiles, why can't they dodge a projectile made up of pure magic?
I suspect a bit more has gone on behind the scenes. Lisa Stevens and Tweet have hinted at this. Mealrs going from new recruit to project manager in 2007-2012 seems a little weird. Cook, Heinsoo, Tweet were all somewhat experience game designers. Office politics and a scapegoat needed is my suspicion.
Perhaps, which is all the more why I question Mike Mearls being in charge of 5E in the first place. Especially when considering the conflicting statements from him and the rest of the dev team.
How many times did project heads get fired during the tenure of 4e? I'm pretty sure it was more than once.
At this point the other developers may have all voted to put Mearls in charge just to protect their own job security, despite any lack of talent, insight, or other noteworthy ability. It beats any other theory I've heard.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
Maybe, maybe not. Rather than make assumptions, I'd rather take things as they are.
If assumptions are to be made, I'm guessing that Mike Mearls didn't like the direction that Rob Heinsoo was taking the game (even though some of the innovations in 4E -- healing surges to be specific -- were in fact mechanics found in his own 3.5E book Iron Heroes), and so the moment he was able to get his hands on the steering wheel, he threw out the various Power books and decided to go back "old school", where fluff is given even greater emphasis than what 4E already had, and even attempt to instigate changes within the system (i.e. Essentials).
One of the biggest reasons for me to suspect this is the errata on Magic Missile, which had no mechanical bearing for doing so (especially not balance), but was changed for purely thematic reasons. Personally I found pre-errata Magic Missile more sensible than post-errata and pre-4E Magic Missile -- the only reason why it even made sense pre-4E was because it was a daily spell that did piddly damage except at high levels [and even then only barely], which made the auto-hit nature of the spell a reasonable way to make up for its relatively pathetic nature (compared to other spells -- because at least it's consistent: it's an at-will magical projectile that needs no slots nor components, and if the enemy can dodge magically enchanted projectiles, why can't they dodge a projectile made up of pure magic?
EDIT: I'm still waiting for Shadow Power, Shadow Power 2, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2 and Psionic Power 2, as well as perhaps a Nerathi Campaign Guide and Nerathi Player's Guide, to say the least. Not gonna happen, sure, but if 4E was actually focused on, I'd guess that it could've gone for far longer than it had.
Bill Slavisek was still in charge for Essentials. It was his baby and he left shortly after, likely as a result of its reception.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.
And if essentials was a panic reaction to attract 3rd ed players 4th ed would have been in trouble a lot earlier than end of 2010.
That is the theory yes. Given it takes a year to get boxed sets out, they had to get started on the Red Box in the fall of 2009.
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]The CEO of Paizo has confirmed it was actually during Essentials or just prior. The last half of 2010. Just nitpicking.[/quote] And if essentials was a panic reaction to attrac
Not exactly no but we know PF is now the largest RPG company right now and WoTC is selling very little new product. I suppose it is possible the AD&D reprints and PDFs have outsold Paizo.
The main point s that the 4th ed players complaining about the lack of 4th ed do not seem to get it that the 1st ed.BECM and 3rd ed seem to be the height of D&Ds popularity based on the figures that we do have. You do not cancel a successful product line, you do not give a the competition a 2 year gap to establish themselves, you do not lay off most of your design staff for no good reason.
If it helps keeping your little fantasy bubble intact by all means keep saying thing like "we do not have exact figures". Open your eyes and go have a look at who is doing what and the size of some of those kick starters. Have a look at the games history including TSR era which is on the grognard sites and the figure I got for D&D in 1982 came straight from WotC mouth.
On can compare that to what we know the game was worth in the lead up to 4th ed and go to websites with inflation calculators. There is a reason they seem to be going backwards in D&D design acording to some. Draw your own conclusions the evidence is there if you stop ignoring it.
Actually Zard you don't seem to understand modern corporate business strategy. Tearing down an oil refinery in Texas and moving it to Mexico for a 2% profit increase is perfectly reasonable (this is a true story). Destroying a perfectly profitable edition of D&D because they think they can get a tiny increase in profitability is completely reasonable to these kinds of people. If for instance any other TTRPG company had the profits of the D&D name, they would probably have kept 4E running for 10 years or more, for Hasbro they simply want too much and even if 5E gets all the 1E, 2E, 3E, and 4E players as well as pathfinder and lots of new players it still may not reach Hasbro's unrealistic core brand sales goals and get shelved. That's why they are pulling out all the stops and reprinting old products and opening the floodgates with PDFs of all editions, because they are desperate...
Actually Zard you don't seem to understand modern corporate business strategy. Tearing down an oil refinery in Texas and moving it to Mexico for a 2% profit increase is perfectly reasonable (this is a true story). Destroying a perfectly profitable ed
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up.
Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.
Still would like to see a source for that claim. Oft repeated, never supported.
Here it is again. I keep posting it but apparently some peoples memory is so short lived that they can't remember...
Indeed, it was after Essentials came out and screwed things up. ;)[/quote]Also about the same time that Hasbro decided that the D&D side of WotC wasn't meeting its outrageously high monetary goals.[/quote]Still would like to see a source for that cla
EDIT: I'm still waiting for Shadow Power, Shadow Power 2, Arcane Power 2, Divine Power 2, Primal Power 2 and Psionic Power 2, as well as perhaps a Nerathi Campaign Guide and Nerathi Player's Guide, to say the least. Not gonna happen, sure, but if 4E was actually focused on, I'd guess that it could've gone for far longer than it had.
The problem with X Power 2 books is that they are always going to sell less then X Power 1 books (especially if you get all the powers for free if you are subscribed to DDI) which sell less then core books.
The problem with X Power 2 books is that they are always going to sell less then X Power 1 books (especially if you get all the powers for free if you are subscribed to DDI) which sell less then core books.
You're saying the "it's optional, you don't have to use it" argument is flawed and breaks down because you don't get to tell other people how to play? Unless you're the DM, you've never had that power. And if you are the DM, you will still have that power by being able to choose what options are allowed and which ones are not.
Two simple ways to handle this. You the DM? Ban it if you don't want people to use it. You the player? You don't have to use it. Someone else wants to use it? Well, unless the DM objects, he's using it, and you have no right to say how another player makes his character. You want to stop him from using it? Well, the door's right there, don't let it hit you on the way out.
So basically, what you're both saying is I'm right, and the "It's optional, you don't have to use it" arguement is deeply flawed. But for some odd reason, rather than state that, you had to try and find a way to make it sound like an arguement.
I think that may be the first time I've ever seen someone argue with me that I am right, and it happened twice...in two consecutive posts.
You have offered no proof that you are correct. You have offered no evidence that the everything is optional concept is actually flawed.
From there, all that remains is the "Then DM and ban it" arguement, which is just basically trying to find some niche where the "Optional" arguement might work. We all know that you're not going to be able to ban anything in the core books in organized play, or gaming groups, and it's highly unlikely you're going to get away with it in local groups.
Actually, in this instance, we know for a fact that you are wrong. You will be able to ban things from the PHB, DMG, and MM. The devs have already said that races will not be shoehorned into settings and that the dragonborn will be a playable race available at launch. Therefore you won't be forced to allow dragonborn in FR or DS or Ravenloft, actively disproving your point.
I should also point out that if you cannot get away with banning things from your local gaming group, this says more about how your tastes differ from that of local gamers than it does about the options the game provides.
Once again, let me reiterate, I firmly believe that 5th edition should be split into Basic/Traditional/Tactics and all of this 4th edition stuff isolated into it's own variant, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist.
They've said DDN will be divided into basic/standard/advanced. Basic is the traditional. Standard is traditional with extra options. And advanced will modify aspects of the system or add to them. This is as it should be. 4e stuff is not so different from the stuff of 3e, regardless of beliefs to the contrary. And demanding that 4e stuff gets segregated is not only against the inclusive spirit of DDN, but is incredibly offensive as it smacks of the notion that "4e wasn't really D&D anyway, so it should just be its own variant."
So basically, what you're both saying is I'm right, and the "It's optional, you don't have to use it" arguement is deeply flawed. But for some odd reason, rather than state that, you had to try and find a way to make it sound like an arguement.
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.[/quote]Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, sha
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
No source of information would be perfect, but if for example you have 1000 characters and only 10 are a Warlord then you can draw a reasonable good assumption that around 1% of players play a Warlord.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.[/quote]No source of information would be perfect, b
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
No source of information would be perfect, but if for example you have 1000 characters and only 10 are a Warlord then you can draw a reasonable good assumption that around 1% of players play a Warlord.
I agree that no source of information is perfect, but we must also look at how we interpret the data that we have. Just as shared subs can result in evaluators underestimating the number of warlord players, so too can going by a ratio of warlord characters to all characters result in overestimation. And, for what it's worth, no actual numbers have been released on how many characters total have been made with DDI, and what races or classes they were. So it is true that no one on the forums can actually speak with authority on the issue of how popular warlords are or are not among the gaming community as a whole. In the same way, we have no surveys that indicate the number of players of the various editions (of which there is assuredly overlap), so again, no one can speak with legitimate authority about which group of players is larger/smaller than others. Facts that often get overlooked by posters here.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.[/quote]No source of information would be perfect, b
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
I don't see how that skews the numbers. It just gives them that many warlords because that many people are playing warlords.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.[/quote]Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, sha
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
I don't see how that skews the numbers. It just gives them that many warlords because that many people are playing warlords.
It skews the numbers if they are assuming that each sub is a single player. Likewise, the numbers can be skewed if they assume that each character is a different player.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.[/quote]Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, sha
No source of information would be perfect, but if for example you have 1000 characters and only 10 are a Warlord then you can draw a reasonable good assumption that around 1% of players play a Warlord.
Absolutely not. You're assuming that every character built and saved in the CB is played.
I assure you, that could not possibly be farther from the truth. If you have 1000 characters and 10 of them are warlords, you could draw absolutely no conclusion about how many warlords are actually being played.
Absolutely not. You're assuming that every character built and saved in the CB is played.I assure you, that could not possibly be farther from the truth. If you have 1000 characters and 10 of them are warlords, you could draw absolutely no conclusi
No source of information would be perfect, but if for example you have 1000 characters and only 10 are a Warlord then you can draw a reasonable good assumption that around 1% of players play a Warlord.
Absolutely not. You're assuming that every character built and saved in the CB is played.
I assure you, that could not possibly be farther from the truth. If you have 1000 characters and 10 of them are warlords, you could draw absolutely no conclusion about how many warlords are actually being played.
With the quantity of data they recieve they can very much make good estimations. Gallop polls use less than a thousand people and are usually less than 3% off.
Absolutely not. You're assuming that every character built and saved in the CB is played.I assure you, that could not possibly be farther from the truth. If you have 1000 characters and 10 of them are warlords, you could draw absolutely no conclusi
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
Yep, pretty much this.
Friend 1: "Hey guys, I got a DDI account." Friend 2: "Cool, what's your log-in and Password, I can use it" Friend 3: "Me too, we can set up a time so that we don't conflict" Friend 4: "hey, we can all chip in a little bit and it'll cost less AND we get all the informatino for free!" Friend 5: "I'll be out of town, so I won't be able to use it." Friend 2: "Don't worry, it's all online so you can access it from anywhere." Friend 1: "Ok, so 5 people are getting all the information from one source for a fraction of the cost. Who needs a free SRD website?"
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.[/quote]Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, sha
No source of information would be perfect, but if for example you have 1000 characters and only 10 are a Warlord then you can draw a reasonable good assumption that around 1% of players play a Warlord.
Absolutely not. You're assuming that every character built and saved in the CB is played.
I assure you, that could not possibly be farther from the truth. If you have 1000 characters and 10 of them are warlords, you could draw absolutely no conclusion about how many warlords are actually being played.
Actually, Mike said that they can also access the data to show which characters are being leveled up (ie being played) rather then a one off creation.
Absolutely not. You're assuming that every character built and saved in the CB is played.I assure you, that could not possibly be farther from the truth. If you have 1000 characters and 10 of them are warlords, you could draw absolutely no conclusi
I'm offering an inclusive solution which can make everyone happy.
Rejecting it really does make you look bad.
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an Wardens!)with alignment restrictions-- are in there because some players insist the alternative is unacceptable, even as an option. Meanwhile, I see 4E fans claiming the moral high-ground by wanting to be inclusive of other styles of play, but that really isn't getting you anywhere.
Because the exclusionists are winning.
Perhaps the only way to have 4E-style options included in the standard game is to give feedback that seeks to exclude other styles.
There's probably a lot of truth to this.
Not so much. I've said it before, but I'll say it again:
The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design. The latest packet is not their latest attempt at executing a final design.
Who said anything about the playtest packet?
I'm talking about what we hear them talking about in their communication.
And everything they have been saying indicates that this is, distressingly, true.
Are you just trying to disrupt the conversation?
Unfortunately, the direction of the playtest has led me to believe that the exclusionist voices are the ones being listened to by the developers. Some things in the game-- no Warlord class, Vancian spellcasting, non-proportional healing, Paladins (an
Nope but we know about the 10% figure the design team has set. Things like the warlord class and martial healing do not seem to be that popular. Mike directly stated in a L&L artcle they can't get a consensus and thats why magical healing is the default atm. Maybe they can come up with something. The warlord being included doesn't bother me at all, martial healing only to the extent of helaing surges were a terrible idea. Martial healing not so much by itself.
The 4th ed players complaining about being left out? Its not like the design team is going out of there way to screw them over. They are responding to the feedback however. You may not like the changes but they are making them and we will know more tomorrow I suppose.
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.
Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.
Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, shared subscriptions. If a gaming group pays for a single sub, you could have more than one player in that group playing a warlord in different campaigns.
Yep, pretty much this.
Friend 1: "Hey guys, I got a DDI account." Friend 2: "Cool, what's your log-in and Password, I can use it" Friend 3: "Me too, we can set up a time so that we don't conflict" Friend 4: "hey, we can all chip in a little bit and it'll cost less AND we get all the informatino for free!" Friend 5: "I'll be out of town, so I won't be able to use it." Friend 2: "Don't worry, it's all online so you can access it from anywhere." Friend 1: "Ok, so 5 people are getting all the information from one source for a fraction of the cost. Who needs a free SRD website?"
It really does not matter how many people are using the one subscription (except that there is a limit to the number of characters that can be created of course).
Unless there is some proof that Warlord players, for example, are somehow statistically more likely to not build their characters online if they have a subscription to DDI?
That is the best thing about the DDI subscription model for getting data from 4e players.Want to know how many people are playing Warlords? Just look at the data of the number of Warlord players.[/quote]Actually, there is one flaw in that logic, sha
You're saying the "it's optional, you don't have to use it" argument is flawed and breaks down because you don't get to tell other people how to play? Unless you're the DM, you've never had that power. And if you are the DM, you will still have that power by being able to choose what options are allowed and which ones are not.
Two simple ways to handle this. You the DM? Ban it if you don't want people to use it. You the player? You don't have to use it. Someone else wants to use it? Well, unless the DM objects, he's using it, and you have no right to say how another player makes his character. You want to stop him from using it? Well, the door's right there, don't let it hit you on the way out.
So basically, what you're both saying is I'm right, and the "It's optional, you don't have to use it" arguement is deeply flawed. But for some odd reason, rather than state that, you had to try and find a way to make it sound like an arguement.
I think that may be the first time I've ever seen someone argue with me that I am right, and it happened twice...in two consecutive posts.
You have offered no proof that you are correct. You have offered no evidence that the everything is optional concept is actually flawed.
From there, all that remains is the "Then DM and ban it" arguement, which is just basically trying to find some niche where the "Optional" arguement might work. We all know that you're not going to be able to ban anything in the core books in organized play, or gaming groups, and it's highly unlikely you're going to get away with it in local groups.
Actually, in this instance, we know for a fact that you are wrong. You will be able to ban things from the PHB, DMG, and MM. The devs have already said that races will not be shoehorned into settings and that the dragonborn will be a playable race available at launch. Therefore you won't be forced to allow dragonborn in FR or DS or Ravenloft, actively disproving your point.
I should also point out that if you cannot get away with banning things from your local gaming group, this says more about how your tastes differ from that of local gamers than it does about the options the game provides.
Once again, let me reiterate, I firmly believe that 5th edition should be split into Basic/Traditional/Tactics and all of this 4th edition stuff isolated into it's own variant, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist.
They've said DDN will be divided into basic/standard/advanced. Basic is the traditional. Standard is traditional with extra options. And advanced will modify aspects of the system or add to them. This is as it should be. 4e stuff is not so different from the stuff of 3e, regardless of beliefs to the contrary. And demanding that 4e stuff gets segregated is not only against the inclusive spirit of DDN, but is incredibly offensive as it smacks of the notion that "4e wasn't really D&D anyway, so it should just be its own variant."
Exactly.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that an inclusive approach will not be effective and popular.
Optional inclusiveness is the ONLY way to ensure that ALL D&D players can play the game that they want.
If a tiny minority are so offended by material that they will NEVER have to use (and who ALSO reject using Basic, which will exclude everything but "core four" material) then they will hardly be noticed for the VASTLY larger numbers that an inclusive approach pulls in.
And only EVIDENCE to the contrary is relevant.
So basically, what you're both saying is I'm right, and the "It's optional, you don't have to use it" arguement is deeply flawed. But for some odd reason, rather than state that, you had to try and find a way to make it sound like an arguement.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of Edition Warring of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making pe
