Cory Stafford 29's page

If it helps, this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Number 2358, says regarding homosexuality:

“They [homosexuals] do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

So homosexuals will indeed go to Heaven, at least according to Holy Mother Church.

The "Catechism" is just human opinion. The Bible is the only authority in all religious matters. We shouldn't persecute them, but we shouldn't also perpetuate the lie that their "lifestyle choice" is okay or acceptable to God.

Well, I did quote a post that said they were glad they canned Monte, so I guess that's what did it.

I seriously don't have a clue why my post was removed. It wasn't insulting at all.

This is an unlawful prosecution in the first place. Zimmerman is overcharged, and only a group of lunatics would convict him of anything.How did they go from not having enough evidence to charge him at all, to charging him with second degree murder anyway?

Asking someone what they are up to isn't a crime. Following someone and observing their activities isn't either.Messing up someones face is however, and it is obvious that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The only injuries present on his body i am told were bloody knuckles. Also,911 dispatchers are not police, and can't "order" anybody to do anything. Martin was the only criminal involved in this whole incident.

It's blatantly obvious that he was charged not because of the evidence but from political pressure from Obama, Holder, and Jesse, Al, and the other extremely racist race baiters.

I have no problem with North Carolina admitting that they are a bunch of bigots. Its their right to be wrong. Just like it's my right to boycott businesses located in North Carolina, while letting them know why I'm boycotting them until the law is overturned or they leave North Carolina.

Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots? Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there. I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy. I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

Diffan, I agree that it may be harder to maek a subpar character in 4e, but it's still relatively easy. You can go for pure flavor with a lot of your choices and end up with a character that's mechanically gimped. The fact is as long as you have a decent number of choices, as long as those choices are significantly different, then you are going to have system mastery as a required part of the game. Some choices or combinations of choices are going to strong for certain characters,a nd some are going to be weak for certain characters. For 5E, the gap between powergamers and casual gamers should be as narrow as they can make it without making the choices seem unimportant. I personally think that the huff about system mastery is overblown. Anyone that actually takes the time to know the rules should easily be able to figure out the really bad and good choices for their character. If they deliberately choose subpar choices, then they should be prepared to play a subpar character. If they can't fiogure such obvios things out, maybe D&D (and other complex RPG's) isn't for them.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Also, a LOT of system mastery has been taken up by Char_Ops people and they do splendid Handbooks to make the choices easier for you to see. So you dont need System Mastery to figure out your best way to make a Fighter, just go the the Fighter's Handbook and it'll give you the run-down.

Well, if you need to look at a charop board to figure out how to play your character effectively, that is an extreme example of system mastery

I think there is a huge difference between needing the Char_Op guys to help you play a character and looking at their suggestions as to why X power is better than Y power. And I also said that while System Mastery is prevailent in 4E, it isn't really required since there are people who will do that for you on those boards. Do I need to know every single in/out of a Fighter, on what feats from #383 Dragon Magazine and coupled with such-and-such paragon path creates this 1,000 DRP killing machine? No, not really. But if I truely did, I wouldn't go out of my way to do the work myself, I'd just go to the Char_Ops boards and see if it's already been done. This shows me that, while System Mastery is there, any one can go out of their way to find the quick and easy answer insead of, ahem....mastering the system themselves.

And how is this different from 3.5? That's when the CharOp boards came into their own. In either edition, you could look at CharOp boards to make a killing machine. That proves nothing.

Diffan wrote:

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

In 4E, there is still System Mastery to a point and I'm sure if you go on the Character Optimization boards, they'll show you exactly where and how to achieve it. But the system itself is balanced enought that those choices (great, average, or poor) won't make or break a character or run your party into the ground. Case in point, a Fighter that takes feats that don't necessarily have to do with combat like Martial Practice, Alchemist, and Linguist can still perform pretty well in combat due to class features and abilitis inherent to a Fighter. Wtih 3.X, well that's just not the case. Not only are you specifically required to pick "Fighter" feats at 1st, 2nd, and every even level afterwards but some of those feats aren't very good. Toughness in 3E just gives you 3 HP....that's it and it's not considered a good choice by anyone for any class (except maybe Wizard at 1st level if he's human). Feats and Skill ranks are finite resources for your character to use, spend them unwisely and the system won't help you at all. 4E at least has layers where these choices are important, yet do not make or break anything your character might try to do

...

I have to disagree with you there. System mastery is alive and well in 4E and is about as important as it was in 3.5. I have personally seen 4E characters with poor race/class/feat/weapon etc. combinations that made them extremely subpar. They were so bad we wouldn't have missed them if they weren't there. They just sucked up healing resources and made the rounds longer. In fact, I never saw it that bad in 3.5 or Pathfinder.

System Mastery helps, but I've found that it doesn't make or break your character so long as you understand that you should have your top score in your Primary attack stat (so 18 in Str if your a Fighter) and boost accuracy to your attacks via feats (ex. Axe or Heavy Blade Expertise). Keeping those two aspects high and you can pretty much do whatever you want and still contribute at your...

Well, if you need to look at a charop board to figure out how to play your character effectively, that is an extreme example of system mastery

Those videos are just. Yuck!

Now I'm wondering why they didn't just abandon the setting, it's not like they didn't have 6 or 7 more. And a history of letting settings lie fallow for years. They could have let Greenwood and Salvatore write books and left the setting alone otherwise.

One more thing to dislike I guess, Perkins comes off really disingenuous in those videos, maybe it's just me.

They didn't abandon it because it was the most popular campaign setting for a long time. They couldn't let that money go. It's probably not anymore after the dreaded Spellplague, but it was for much of the 2E/3.0/3.5 era maybe even a bit in the 1E era.

Pan wrote:

So Diffan what about the folks who like system mastery? What part of 5E is for them? Could the core be simple and easy but modules stack the complexity? I have been hoping that this edition will have something for everyone but since Monte left I see a lot of folks hoping the style of game they dont like goes with him.

Well for one, whatever comes out at the Playtest will probably have Mr. Cook's hand in it becuase he helped design it for so long. I doubt the other Devs will start ripping out parts he contributed to. System Master, as I experienced it, had a lot to do with picking spells and feats in 3E/3.X that didn't hamper your character. The feat might have looked good on paper, but in practice was often a bad decision. If you've obtained System Matery, it's easier to find these faults and side step them for other, better options.

In 4E, there is still System Mastery to a point and I'm sure if you go on the Character Optimization boards, they'll show you exactly where and how to achieve it. But the system itself is balanced enought that those choices (great, average, or poor) won't make or break a character or run your party into the ground. Case in point, a Fighter that takes feats that don't necessarily have to do with combat like Martial Practice, Alchemist, and Linguist can still perform pretty well in combat due to class features and abilitis inherent to a Fighter. Wtih 3.X, well that's just not the case. Not only are you specifically required to pick "Fighter" feats at 1st, 2nd, and every even level afterwards but some of those feats aren't very good. Toughness in 3E just gives you 3 HP....that's it and it's not considered a good choice by anyone for any class (except maybe Wizard at 1st level if he's human). Feats and Skill ranks are finite resources for your character to use, spend them unwisely and the system won't help you at all. 4E at least has layers where these choices are important, yet do not make or break anything your character might try to do in combat.

As...

I have to disagree with you there. System mastery is alive and well in 4E and is about as important as it was in 3.5. I have personally seen 4E characters with poor race/class/feat/weapon etc. combinations that made them extremely subpar. They were so bad we wouldn't have missed them if they weren't there. They just sucked up healing resources and made the rounds longer. In fact, I never saw it that bad in 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Well Memorax. You are right. They do need a real playtest soon, and it better be pretty awesome to get some buzz going so people will be excited about 5E. Let's hope the playtest isn't just for show, and they actually listen to feedback. It's been confirmed that 4E's playtest was a sham since Mike Mearls admitted that it was mostly ignored. Let's hope they don't repeat this "We are playtesting just to say we playtested." scam again.

Well said PowerWord Unzip!

It's a shame that Monte has left, but I'm still interested in seeing the game and he'll have likely left some kind of mark on the design by now anyway.

ciretose wrote:

I don't believe anyone goes back to classic DnD, and with Skip Williams, Johnathan Tweet, and Monte all out, the devs of 3.5 are out.

So at this point, they are a purchased brand with little to no connection to the product which grew the brand.

Why be loyal to a label if the label is no longer on the product that earned your loyalty?

I don't know when you're drawing the 'classic D&D' line but there are still a decent amount of long serving staff at Wizards, though whether you're personally a fan of those people or not is obviously a personal opinion. Rich Baker, Bruce Cordell, James Wyatt, Miranda Horner, Kim Mohan (about as 'classic' of an editor as you can get for D&D), Chris Perkins and I'm sure others have been involved in the game on one level or another from before 3rd edition.

Well Richard Baker was canned in November and James Wyatt works on board games now. Bruce is probably the only one close to old school that's actually working on the design of 5E.

Pan wrote:

Memorax I just want to re-iterate what some of us have been saying. 5E is not doomed but with Monte leaving some of us have lost confidence or interest in 5E. Sorry if that seems negative to you but this news just cant be ignored by everyone. On the other hand there has been much jubilation at the fact that Monte is off the team. Is that justified? Is that being positive for the sake of being positive? To me it just sounds like another opinion and I don't see anything wrong with that.

Like Monte is the only man who can "save" D&D. That's just silly. Is D&D "over" if Monte decides to walk away? He wasn't even the only guy working on 3e, and if you recall that edition needed a revamp into 3.5 (not done by Monte) to deal with the issues he (and the others who designed 3.0) missed. I'm sure he's very talented and good at what he does but it seems to me his work on settings and adventures (Ptolus, Planescape) significantly outstrips his mechanical stuff. D&D didn't expire with Gygax so I don't really see why one guy is suddenly such a deal-breaker.

It's not so much as Monte would "save" 5E, but he was the only well known designer on the team that didn't work on a system that completely turned D&D upside down (4E) and caused a huge rift in the community. The concern is that he was the only one looking at things from a 3E perspective and hopefully could keep the team from just trying to pat themselves on the back and release a tweaked 4E as 5E. That may not be fair, but that is a legitimate concern for those not enthused by 4E's mechanics.

I dm'ed a game where a player did this. He ended up being nearly unhittable except with touch attacks. His damage did suffer, though. Just remember it's a tradeoff. You will either do great damage and have so so AC, or be an inpenetrable tank that does ok damage.

Every faction should have a mission that should change the canon setting of Golarion. If that faction wins the Faction War of the season, that mission should be achieved.

EG:
Shadow Lodge mission Season 4: Uncover the identity of one of the Decemvirate.
Cheliax mission Season 4: Introduce a permanent Erinyes noble into Absalom society, complete with enormous influence over Absalom politics.
Andoran mission Season 4: Replace all Absalom town guard with Eagle Knights, and have Absalom's security privatised into their hands.

So, my Grand Lodge hero might actually like the SL mission for that season, and this would influence RPing.

Of course, if Paizo don't want the canon setting changed at all, there's no point in arguing this. Nothing can happen and it'd be best reduced to a +2 to something.

This sounds like the best way to do it. If a faction wins, it means something, but they won't exactly dominate the other factions.

xorial wrote:

@James Jacobs: I agree that you guys really don't need to playtest your stuff anymore. I really don't think anybody here would suggest otherwise. It is we just LOVE getting those sneak peeks, and the feeling that we are part of the Paizo Design Team (in some small way).

I disagree. Playtesting should always be made to check for the quality of the product. I don't want a scenario of pig in a poke (explained here) to occur when I buy something, hoping for prestige classes that are worth taking without being overpowered.

I agree that playtesting is important. It doesn't necessarily have to be public, but please playtest judiciously. Don't follow in WotC's 4E footsteps where you have almost no playtesting and end up having to have a half an edition's worth of errata or "rules updates". Then again, I have way more confidence in Paizo when it comes to playtesting than WotC.

I just volunteered for Tier 1. Let's hope I was quick enough to get in.

Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was as successful as Hasbro needed it to be, and a revision of the game is not derived from its perceived success or failure, but for reason most of us only guess at.

Well quite frankly, I don't see any reason why a corporation would do something as costly and controversial as making yet another edition of D&D unless the current edition isn't making enough money to meet whatever goals they set for it. Do you really think they are going to make a new edition just because the designers feel like it or because a lot of people like that new Pathfinder game? That's just not going to happen. 4E split the community and cost them a lot of customers. They have to bring in enough customers that left (and maybe some new ones) to make D&D a big enough seller to meet Hasbro's goal for the brand or it's goodbye official D&D as a roelplaying game, and hello D&D shelved and mined for IP.

I don't think anyone is understanding what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. 4E wasn't successful by whatever metric WotC uses to judge such things, so they released Essentials (a more 1E like 4E). It wasn't successful either, or they wouldn't be announcing a new edition so soon. In what bizzaro world does anyone in their right mind think another go at the 4E rules set with better marketing and a different name will be successful this time? Do you really think they learned so little from the poor reception of 4E that they are going to try to do essentially the same thing for a third time when they know from experience that it does not work?

Well, Cory, 4e isn't actually a massive failure and it has those. It maybe hasn't been as successful as they wanted but plenty of people play it happily, even if it isn't your cup of tea, and you certainly have no basis for suggesting it has "failed" since no one but WotC have access to WotC P&L figures. I'm more likely to not be interested in 5e if it does turn into some backward-looking scramble for what some people seem to consider the "essence of D&D" - which suggests that pandering to the more atavistic element in the hobby may actually alienate current 4e players. Projecting your preferences on to the "community" ignores the diversity of opinions on this subject.

I didn't say 4E was a massive failure, but a rehashed 4E with different marketing would be. If it's similar to 4E, why would 4E fans switch? Likewise, people that don't like 4E would steer clear of it if it's similar to 4E. Who would want to buy this?

Speculation is fun, but yours really doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter how awesome the marketing is, if 5E has healing surges and powers as a core part of it's combat system (which it would have to if it's based on 4E) it will be a massive failure.

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

Who where you responding to?

I was responding to the above quote. When WotC was hyping 4E, especially before they revealed much in the way of mechanics, their 4E "marketing" was essentially trashing 3.5 or certain styles of play. James Wyatt ranted about how the 3.5 paladin sucked because he could only smite a few times a day. They put in print things like "D&D isn't about traipsing through fairy rings," and "If you used profession skills in your games, then they probably weren't very fun." If they had said, "Some people had a problem with this in 3.5, so here is how we are trying to improve it in the new edition," it would have been much better received than trashing 3.5 and any style of play that didn't revolve around killing every monster you see like murderous hobos.

They tried the 4E thing twice. The community said "No!" How can they possibly make the core of 5E use 4E mechanics and it be successful? D&D customers have shown that not enough of us like 4E mechanics to buy 4E like products and have it be commercially successful enough for WotC to support it. If they try this will show two things: 1) The talk of listening to fans and including them in shaping the game is nothing but smoke and mirrors and 2) They really haven't learned anything about what their customers want and what makes an RPG successful. This hypothetical "1e-like" 4E game will fail hard, and it will deserve to fail hard. Let's also not forget that all we know about the mechanics of 5E so far suggest strongly that 5E is not similar to 4E at all.

Your group definitely qualifies as evil, murderous hobos. It's a good thing you don't have a paladin in your group or he would have to smite all of you.

Beckett wrote:

I don't know, I'm still trying to go back and see what specifically you two are referencing here, but reasons to dislike either 4E or WotC is a subjective thing, not an objective one.

People are trying to present reasons for not liking one or the other as objective - for instance, claiming that 4e's marketing insults older gamers, or claiming that certain things do not exist in 4e (when in reality they do). Both of these things are untrue, but are claimed as reasons for not liking 4e or WotC (or both).

I also think it's kind of hilarious that people are whining in one thread about how awful it was of WotC to discuss 4e in terms of how it improved 3.5, and here we have nothing but people (some of them the same!) discussing 5e in terms of how they hope it improves from 4e.

"It's bad when the person who made the game criticizes it, but when I criticize it it's fine and not at all hypocritical!" seems to be the attitude.

It's one thing to say we can do x better. It's another to say "if you used x in your 3.5 game, then it probably wasn't much fun." That's the kind of thing that ticked people off.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

Besides, making a game that supports 1E, 2E, and 3E styles of play (which they say is there goal) would not be possible if a simplified 4E was the base system. It's simply not going to happen, because 4E is so massively different from all the editions that came before.

Agreed. Of course, you can say the same thing about supporting a 0E, 1E, and 2E style of play with 3E as your base system.

Which is why (as far as I can tell) they are designing the core of the game as a very simple basic rules set not specifically tied to any previous edition of the game.

Apostle of Gygax wrote:

Finally we get a clear statement about what modularity means.

Monte Cook wrote:

Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions, and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also, players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play.

So it appears that the goal is to bridge play styles, not rule sets. You can read the rest of the article here.

That's pretty much what I figured he meant when he first said it and why I bowed out of the 5E discussion. I'm not sure where all the "support previous editions of the game natively" talk came from.

To speculate one step further I don't think "5E" will be a new rule-set at all. I think it will be a simple version of 4E that can scale (optionally) in complexity up to the current level of 4E. That's it. Mearls has always inferred that 4E is closer to 0E than most people think. Now they are just going to publish a book or two to show how this is the case and call it "D&D Next".

It is unrealistic to think Hasbro would abandon (or diminish) 4E by publishing yet another new and incompatible rule-set. "D&D Next" absolutely has to be compatible with 4E and the only way to do this is to make it, at it's core, the same game. To me, after reading various developer comments, the goal of "D&D Next" is to make fans of old D&D (pre-3E) want to play 4E by tweaking it so it suits the their game play preferences, not their actual rules.

I don't think this is bad or wrong. It's just not for me.

Considering that the poor reception of 4E is the reason why 5E is coming so soon, making 5E a simpler version of 4E would be just plain stupid. They already tried that with Essentials, and it didn't save 4E. If they were to try essentially the same thing a third time, they would deserve the inevitable failure that would result. Besides, making a game that supports 1E, 2E, and 3E styles of play (which they say is there goal) would not be possible if a simplified 4E was the base system. It's simply not going to happen, because 4E is so massively different from all the editions that came before.

Finn K wrote:

The problem with 4E for many people (including me), though obviously not for its fans-- is that the ONLY connection it really has to prior editions of D&D IS the name. From the praise you give to that system, I'm pretty sure your opinion differs from mine.

Sure, the name is its only connection to D&D.

As long as you ignore the dice, character sheets, hit points, AC, strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, charisma, attack rolls, magic missile, fireball, beholders, illithids, dragons, dungeons, traps, monsters, treasure, adventuring, exploration, diseases, curses, fighters, wizards, rogues, clerics, paladins, rangers, elves, halflings, orcs, half-orcs, half-elves, dwarves, magic wands, magic staves, magic swords, magic armor, +1 bonuses, holy avengers, saving throws, dungeon masters, Cheetos and Mountain Dew, friends sitting around a table, demons, devils, damsels to rescue, and worlds to save. And probably literally a thousand other connections.

But yeah, really, just the name.

The designers of D&D have talked recently about the stupidity of edition wars and the fact that a lot of people focus on the differences between editions rather than the things that unite them (and their players). I look at posts like the one above, and can't help but think that they're totally right.

Quote:

For me, it's not that it's a totally bad game-- though I admit to not liking it much, and particularly, to not considering it much of a 'role-playing' game--

You said it sucked. Is there some other way we're supposed to take that, other than the usual?

Quote:

but I wouldn't find it so g*dd**n annoying if people who favor it wouldn't make such a big deal about rubbing the name in everyone else's face, the way so many fans of 4E seem to take such pleasure in.

Rubbing the name in everyone else's face? What the hell?

To be fair, there are a lot of fantasy RPG's that have most of those things as well, but they are definitely not D&D. Using your logic, you might as well call Runequest or Palladium Fantasy D&D.

First off can we drop the whole "if you don't like Vancian magic play something else" cop-out. That is what it is. Some posters like Vancian magic and I respct that. Some like me don't respect that to.

If all their doing is repacking 3.5 into a new package I'm not sure how they expect it to do as well as 3.5 did. Why would I want to buy an rpg that is similar to 3.5/Pathfinder when I already have those. Reeks of revisionist design in the hopes no one will notice. Which would work if we did not already have Pathfinder.

If I were Wotc I would keep the Vancian magic system yet at the same time offer an optional 4E alternative to magic in the PHB. That way if someone dislikes Vancian they can use something else. And no not in some 5E version of Unearthed Arcana either.

Or rather then have two classes of Wizard and Sorcerer merge them into one and allow the player to chose either type of spellcasting. Don't want the annoyance of having to rememeber what to pick for spell slots you can use the Sorcerer version. Don't like the fact that while you cna cast more spells you can cast less spells use the Wizard version.

For every person who says the 15 minute adventure does not exist I have run across 9 more that say it does. It slows the game down too much when once the arcane casters run out of spells they have to rest. Speaking for myself having to fire my measly crossbow over and over again well it gets boring. Telling me to play another class is yet another cop-out. Why it does nothing to address the problem. Sorry but I don't subscriobe to the "shut-up and suck it up and play your damn class" mentality.

The more I'm reading the more it looks like I will not be buying into 5E. Not because I don't want to or because I don;t have an open mind. More because it feels like its going to be a 3.90 version of D&D. If all your going to do is offer exaclty what the competiiton is offering why would people buy a new version. If it's the "lets bring back as many sacred cows edition" well my response is why...

From what I've heard via developers comments, the only thing abut 5E so far that even comes close to a "rehash of 3.5/Pathfinder" is vancian casting for clerics and wizards being core, so I think you are being premature in your judgement of a game that isn't even finalized yet.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

They are trying to make an edition that has the basic core elements of D&D. Vancian casting is definitely a core element of D&D whether you like it or not. It will be core, but I'm sure there will be options to have non-Vancian casting.

The more transcrips I read, the less enthusiastic I become. As for Vancian magic being a core element, how does it better the game? What mechanical advantages does it offer that make the game more enjoyable or work in a better capacity? Because I think it's thrown in there.....well just because. Same thing with say......a Paladin's alignment. In 2E and 3E and v3.5 and Pathfinder the paladin has always been required to be Lawful Good. So just because it's in there and it's a shoe-horned lable of an "element of D&D", does that mean a 5E paladin must be Lawful Good? Because, again, it doesn't really do anything that makes the game better or innovates something that hasn't already been done in the past 25 years.

If they have alternative systems to Vancian magic for Wizards and Clerics (core) then I'll be suprised. Sure, you'll have a few feats that act like at-will spells, but I feel that they'll be greatly reduced in power/diversity to allow for "true D&D" spellcasting to prevail *rolls eyes*. Monte has already expressed his desire to rewind the game back to a version that doesn't appeal to a LOT of people for the sake of nostalgia and nostalgia alone. My main problem is that if this were a good system, a system that makes the game diverse or interesting or mechanically better then I could see it. But it doesn't. It's pandering, plain and simple.

It's not like going non-Vancian (for the most part) in 4E did them much good, or we wouldn't be talking about 5e now. What else do you expect them to do? Making a system that is definitely not D&D has already failed them. Should they try it again?

So I had a potential player approach me the other day telling me that he was going to roll a level 8 Shadow Dancer/Assassin/and something else, thus breaking the game. I know he comes from a mechanic breaking heavy background, apparently.

What do I do about this? From a GMing pre and during game stand point?

1)If he is stating he wants to "break" the game, I would seriously consider not playing with him

2) If he is trying to break the game with a shadowdancer/assassin, he's already failed. The best he can do is hide in plain sight for 3 rounds and death attack, which is a subpar tactic. If he really wanted to break the game, he would go with a wizard, summoner, or barbarian.

*sigh* How about no? Or at least have them stick to the "Modular" approach and have varying systems that do the same thing? Vancian magic cna be supplemented with At-will powers and abilities that can be used infrequently (heh, encounter spell) but then we're getting back to 4E's system. But really, what is so freakin' great with Vancian magic (other than some morbid attempt at nostalgia)? Monte is quoted saying:

"There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go. There's something to be said for picking spells that match what you think is coming. Rewarding. I know it's a bit controversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D."

No. No, no, and then some more no. Simply put, I find nothing rewarding by "picking the correct spell (ie. answer) for the situation." In fact, I get the feeling of dodging a bullet because I had picked right, not wrong with spell selection. Why do you think Reserve feats received such great reviews with Complete Mage supplment? Why do you think people really like At-Will spells and Encounter Powers? Because your useful fight after fight. This is a big step backwards, rewarding psople who pick the right spells while putting people who don't at a serious disadvantage.

Do you know how frustrating it was fighting monsters that had resistances to the spells you selected, thus requring you do delve into a pretty limited supply of magical items (which, BTW, aren't going to probably see as big an impact with D&D:next)? It sucked. Example~ Group: "hey, we're getting crushed because this guy is invisible, wizard what do you have??!" Wizard: "Uh, yea sorry I didn't prepare See Invisibility guys, went with Scorching Ray instead. Sorry, we're SoL."

And I know they're making Feats that can be treated as at-will attacks but I have a sickening feeling that it'll be far far inferior to "real" spells and probably have no effects aside from some damage (heh, like crappy cantrips).

IF they're...

They are trying to make an edition that has the basic core elements of D&D. Vancian casting is definitely a core element of D&D whether you like it or not. It will be core, but I'm sure there will be options to have non-Vancian casting.

Does anyone know when this will be available in hero lab?

Sure, FR had a lot of gods, but you could ignore most of the lesser ones. Offing the likes of Mystra, Azuth, Helm, Eilistraee, Vhaerun, etc. was unnecessary and stupid. Making a bunch of deities exarchs was also lame. The way they did it was even worse, having the gods act like stars of some horrible soap opera. Anyway you look at it the spellplague and all the 4E changes to FR pretty much ruined the setting. I hope they can fix things with more support for earlier timelines and hopefully an alternate timeline, so the spellplague can be a thing of the past best forgotten like New Coke.

Yep, interesting chat today. And tomorrow's will be good too, as it will be about release schedule and all.

I liked the part from today where they said they plan on including all classes that have been in the first Player's Handbook from all the editions.

Where did you get that info? That would be about 14 classes in the 1st PHB. That would be great. No more waiting years to play a monk or assassin.

I don't think anyone expected them to use all the play test information they got or essentially have the entire game based on play test data. It would have been nice, and probably better for the game and WotC's bottom line to at least take the play test data into consideration and make the appropriate changes based on that. To say, "Here play test this and tell us what you think.", and then completely ignore that input is useless. It reeks of a lame PR stunt just so they could claim they play tested the game.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

Forget what Tito said about his groups' feedback. Look at the part that says that Mike Mearls admitted that they ignored essentially all the feedback from the 4E play test, which means that Mike Mearls admitted it to Tito, or that Tito is deliberately lying, which I find hard to believe because it would be easy for him to be called out for doing so in an online article.

Actually there is a third option that you are missing, that Mike said something to Tito and that Tito took it to mean that he was saying that they ignored the play test input. This is actually the most likely scenario.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Like adamantine dragon, I could tell from the first time I played it, that 4E had some major issues. The insane length of combat encounters was the first thing that jumped out at me. I can't see how that was overlooked by play testers. I think it's not too hard too imagine that they had lots of complaints about this and several other major components of the game, and instead of doing something to fix it, they just turned a blind eye to it. They may have had good reasons to do so, like the deadline to release 4E, but it still seems like they missed a huge opportunity to make 4E a better game, and for one reason or another didn't act on it. They are acting like they learned their lesson. I hope they truly did.

I develop math test items for ACT. Every item on the tests goes through at least three layers of outside content reviewers (active teachers in the subject area) and a round of field testing. If you like, you can think of these as playtesters.

We get a lot of comments in, and we collate those comments and track them. They end up part of each item's permanent banked history. But do we implement every suggestion? No. (In fact, there are some reviewers who rarely give us actionable feedback, but we use them because they provide an articulate representation of a particular position and because their advice, when it is useful, is advice that nobody else would ever give us.)

I'm not surprised that any one particular playtest group and its 30-page annotated list of suggestions didn't get all of its recommendations through. Given the significant changes between 3.5 and 4th Edition, I would guess that several playtesters might have been more conservative than the development team. 30 pages of "don't do that" aren't helpful in the particular.

Now if those 30 pages included "the probability equations behind skill challenges doesn't work", and the developers ignored that along with the rest of the feedback, that was unfortunate.

I guess you haven't been listening. This isn't one group upset about their play test feedback being ignored. This is a designer admitting that essentially all the play test feedback was ignored.

Forget what Tito said about his groups' feedback. Look at the part that says that Mike Mearls admitted that they ignored essentially all the feedback from the 4E play test, which means that Mike Mearls admitted it to Tito, or that Tito is deliberately lying, which I find hard to believe because it would be easy for him to be called out for doing so in an online article.

Here it is. It's directly from The Escapist article by Greg Tito

and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Diffan wrote:

@ Adamantine Dragon: thought they did that when they made the fighter good at something, the rogue be effective in combat, remove save-or-die spells, and made other healing classes besides the trope cleric in 4E? Guess all the complaining I heard in the not so distant past about the game at the time was just all my imagination.

Diffan, there have been numerous reports from 4e beta testers that WotC totally ignored their comments. Too numerous to ignore.

Except, of course, by you, Scott and other WotC apologists.

I haven't ignored it. In fact, I responded directly to it when it was brought up earlier.

The difference is that I gave it a bit of thought. When a tester provides feedback, they do so blind. They don't know what the sum total of data looks like. They only know what they themselves said. There are any number of reasons why a bunch of testers could provide feedback and request changes and not see those changes come to pass - perhaps many more groups provided opposing feedback, or perhaps the designers changed other aspects of the system in order to address an underlying issue rather than the superficial one the testers recognized. The reality is that the testers are not in any position to say whether or not their feedback was ignored.

It's like someone voting in a presidential election, and then whining, "They ignored my vote!" when the other candidate ends up winning. It's unbelievably arrogant to imagine that your personal feedback is so much more important that the hundreds of other testers out there. Provide good feedback, and accept that you are one voice among many and that you don't get to make unilateral decisions on what is or isn't right for the game.

Except this does not take into account the fact the Mike Mearls himself admitted that they pretty much ignored the playtest results. It's not, "They didn't make the changes I wanted, so they totally ignored my playtest comments." It is one of the designers saying, "Yeah, we ignored the playtest comments." That's a huge difference. One is an opinion. One is a fact.

Even more than this, they need quality adventures, both for home games and organized play games. Most of WotC's published adventures and modules for LFR are terrible. They need more story and more roleplaying hooks than, "Here's a skill challenge so you can get another milestone." Even if 4E was a great version of D&D, you'd be hard pressed to see it if you just played their published adventures and LFR mods.

Commenting as a store owner I haven't moved a 4E book in months, but with 5E on the way I can't help but think... was 4E WotC's "new coke". I'll stock 5E but the way I see it Paizo has the run of my bookshelves and it will take quite an effort from WotC for that to change.

That's a fairly apt comparison. Although, to be fair, 4E didn't fail quite as badly as New Coke did.

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

Rules updates or errata, they change the way the game is played. If they are infrequent and kept to a reasonable level, it's not a big deal. If they are coming at the pace of every other month and a book that was released a few weeks ago is already obsolete because of errata, that is a problem. If Joe's cleric is a decent healer one week and then finds out next week after he levels him and the latest errata or rules update is applied (automatically by the CB), he realizes that he is now a mediocre healer, he's going to be ticked. Then a few months later, Bob's avenger gets the same type of treatment. Those players are going to be upset and rightfully so. If this keeps happening, their frustration will grow, and they may even decide to play something else. That is what constant, never ending errata will get you, and I don't think it's at all good for the game.

I'm not sure that I have a terribly high opinion of gamers who throw a fit over having some of their too-powerful character options toned back a bit. I've seen a lot of that behavior in WoW. It's a lot of whining over a minor inconvenience that produces a very positive effect on the game as a whole.

Except, not a single one of the people I knew that were upset over the errata had a too-powerful character. There were no twin striking half-elf avenger/daggermasters, ranger/fighter/pitfighters or anything even remotely like that. They had run of mill characters that got class abilities and powers nerfed for no apparent reason. I understand that some things need to errated if they really throw the balance of the game out of whack, but what WotC was doing with the constant rules updates seemed excessive and unnecessary. The errata did nothing to improve the play experience of people I knew who played LFR, it only served to tick them off when their average characters got nerfed for no apparent reason.

Scott Betts wrote:

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:

Quote:

Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.

With half of 4E's powers moving PC's and monsters around the "board", I could see it being rather difficult to not play 4E like a miniatures wargame. It is pretty much ingrained into the mechanics of the game.

You mean 4e combat, right?

Not 4e in general.

Also oh my god people preserve your quote tags.

You've got to understand, 4e killed Cory's dog, and he's still bitter. You could copy-paste any random post of his since the announcement of 4e and it will say basically the same (mostly incorrect) things.

Edit: Actually, that's not entirely fair. I'm sure some of the things he's said have been proven correct (e.g., 4e not selling all that well). Why he continues to grind an axe on the incorrect things baffles me. You'd think it'd be enough vindication to have seen 4e doing so poorly, without also making up additional reasons to hate and despise it.

I'm not hating. I'm just saying 4E's combat system is very tactical minis oriented, and it would be pretty hard not to play it that way. I did not say it killed my dog, and WotC should go bankrupt for it. I made a simple statement. Just because it is not a glowing accolade of 4E's many virtues does not mean that I think WotC and 5e fans should die in a fire. I do hope that WotC learned a lot from it's mistakes with 4th edition, and makes the next one a game I want to play.

Also, a very small portion of the update documents is actual errata. Most of the update documents is taken up by rules updates.

Rules updates or errata, they change the way the game is played. If they are infrequent and kept to a reasonable level, it's not a big deal. If they are coming at the pace of every other month and a book that was released a few weeks ago is already obsolete because of errata, that is a problem. If Joe's cleric is a decent healer one week and then finds out next week after he levels him and the latest errata or rules update is applied (automatically by the CB), he realizes that he is now a mediocre healer, he's going to be ticked. Then a few months later, Bob's avenger gets the same type of treatment. Those players are going to be upset and rightfully so. If this keeps happening, their frustration will grow, and they may even decide to play something else. That is what constant, never ending errata will get you, and I don't think it's at all good for the game.

Yes, there are specific differences in terms of mechanics, and each game might lend itself a bit more to one style of play or another. But neither to the extreme that most folks feel.

With half of 4E's powers moving PC's and monsters around the "board", I could see it being rather difficult to not play 4E like a miniatures wargame. It is pretty much ingrained into the mechanics of the game.

4e didn't contain more errors or even more egregious errors than any edition of the game that came before.

I really can't agree here. The amount and degree of errata for 4E almost amounts to another half edition. That reeks of incompetence, a lack of playtesting, or both.

What it did do differently was actively embrace the update/errata process. For the first time, the game's rules were living in the sense that as new design paradigms were uncovered and new books were released, old material could be updated and reconfigured via the update process and DDI to meet the way D&D was being published right at that moment.

I fail to see how having to check your character every few months to see if it works the same, is a good thing. Given the choice between the rules changing every other month or no errata, I'll take the no errata. If something truly is bad enough to cause a major balance issue, the DM can disallow it.

The anti-WotC crowd has plenty of reason for their stance. You can't reduce it to a petty tantrum over magazines.

EDIT: Oh, and one other thing: if 5E is a huge success, it will necessarily have to be because it brought in some of those anti-WotC people you're trying to marginalize. Otherwise, it will just be a repeat of 4E, and doomed to failure.

Killing the magazines (and yes the online version are no substitute. They are dead.) definitely did anger some fans. I know it really ticked me off. To this day, I miss getting Dragon and Dungeon in the mail every month. That is one reason not to like WotC, but since then they have given me and so many other gamers reasons not to like them as a company that the death of the magazines is just a drop in the bucket. It probably did set the stage for hating on WotC for 4E, since many were still ticked about killing the magazines, but it's not the main reason to hate on WotC, at least not anymore.