Occam's page

The party's over for those guys, I give them a year before management changes. Either 4.0 will be a bust or Paizo out sells them. Either outcome is a failure for them.

Here's what I thought the story was building toward:

Spoiler:

The survivors notice that the zombie specimen has started to recover, that the retrovirus has begun to reverse her zombification. As they go to make their way into hiding, Will Smith's scientist character gets a kindova' sick look on his face and says something to the effect of "the cure is in her blood".

Where I thought this was headed was that he and the woman and kid were going to take refuge in the crawlspace, leaving the now human zombie girl to get messily devoured by a legion of her former friends, while the trapped humans can only try not to listen and watch--because it's through her retrovirus tainted blood that a cure will spread its way throughout zombie hives everywhere. The new humans suddenly cured and instantly eaten by their friends--thus transmitting the new cure to all who partake of them. Sortova' pandemic anti-infection.

Is the Paizo store supporting the deals WotC is offering in their Holiday Game Sale?

Well, I've been reluctant to reveal my profession in the past, but what the hell. I am a...

** spoiler omitted **

Okay, I'm actually...

** spoiler omitted **

As for me: UNIX system administrator.

Is the +1 LA worth it for Hengeyokai (the animal shapechanging people) worth it? It seems like if you get a form that can fly or breath water the +1 LA is ok, but if not you are basiclly a Tibbit. I guess for spying/hiding some of the forms are great.

Someone (or several people) have recently pointed out that we spend a lot of time bashing WotC and 4/e -- and I've certainly done my share. For the record, I think WotC is earning a lot of it. There I go again!

That said, this has always been a positive, friendly community, of which I've been proud and pleased to be a part. I think the rancor over the magazine transition (exacerbated by an impending 4/e release) is changing who and what we are, for the worse.

EN World has retained a more balanced and civil community discussion, with people on opposite sides of multiple issues avoiding the degeneration into pointless repetitive rants (uh, mostly). It's hard for me to see these boards as anything but a rabidly anti-WotC whinefest anymore, and I doubt I'm the only one that sees it that way. It's disappointing, because by avoiding these boards, I'm also missing out on all the other fun discussion that used to take place here.

Hmm, post wound up in the wrong thread.

I'll just bite the bullet and get a printer sold in my local Mac store.

No mention of Demogorgon, even though he is supposed to have originated death knights.

First introduced in Dragon and then adopted by the Greyhawk campaign setting, Saint Kargoth was a noble human knight who, along with thirteen fellow knights, became a death knight after being corrupted by Demogorgon.

I expect we will see a much greater use of new names, proper nouns, and other means to help keep 4E's fluff safely closed and thus providing distinctiveness to the official D&D brand. WotC is committed to a 4E SRD only because they have to, not out of principle. That is, if 4E remained closed, that'd create a real opportunity for someone to come in and produce a v.3.5-compatible "Wizards & Warriors" game to lure away people who might eventually upgrade to 4E. WotC doesn't want that, so 4E will be open, but I'd wager good money that it'll be done a fair bit more cynically than last time around.

Apparently gone with the death of the Great Wheel is the concept of the outer planes being an afterlife, and mortal souls turning into fiends, etc. Hurm.

The Devils and Demons article made it clear to me that what WotC is doing with 4E is creating an entirely new IP. The 3E SRD more or less "gave away the store" when it came to 30+ years of accumulated D&D story. With the exception of things like mind flayers, beholders, etc. (which were removed from the SRD after the initial release), pretty much all the iconic elements of D&D are out there for any company that wants to use them to do with as they please. I have absolutely no doubt that someone at WotC (or Hasbro, or both) looked at this and asked, "So what makes D&D, as a brand, distinctive anymore?"

Are you doubting that reimagined devils and demons won't make it into the 4e SRD? If so, I guess we can only wait and see.

I don't think too many would object to changes in the rules mechanics, provided they are cool and good, other than on the "Man, do I have to spend more money on rulebooks?" aspect. But changing key elements of the fluff is possibly a bigger deal, because it has grown up over time and is part of the D&D scenery.

What's more annoying is mechanical changes I have to undo (like turning succubi back into demons). As long as the individual creatures are mostly the same (i.e., are fairly direct mechanical translations), I can ignore their new back stories when I plug them into earlier-edition adventures. But major conceptual differences (e.g., marilith become mindless, winged, half-draconic demons that spray acid from their eyes*) mean I'd have to completely recreate the creature. The scope of those kinds of changes is still unclear.

* That is a totally hypothetical example. I have no idea what they're doing with mariliths. Just wanted to clear that up before I saw a "Mariliths are acid-spraying half-dragons!" thread pop up at ENWorld.

There is a matter of trust. Simply put, I don't trust them to be honest with us, because they haven't been honest with us in the past. How long will 4th edition last? I don't know, but I don't really expect it to make it the 12 years they're 'promising'.

Given what you know so far, are you planning to:

A) Convert! I am ready for a new D&D.

B) 3.5 or Bust! I'm sticking with the man what brought me.

C) We'll see. Need more information.

D) Other.

That answer applies to two contexts for me: one in which I'm in the planning stages for a large campaign, and another in which I'm playing in a campaign that's been going since 2002. For the campaign I'm planning, if 4e greatly simplifies things for me (which it looks like it will) while retaining enough flavor (not sure yet), I'll switch over. For the campaign where I'm a player, if 4e looks really good, I'll try to convert the rest of my group. I don't expect to make final decisions until around the time the books come out.

farewell2kings wrote:

They make you drink weird stuff.....

... and lock you in the basement, take off your shoes, and do sick and weird things to your feet.

The font is disturbingly small. I noticed it immediately and was a little bummed about it. I'm now about halfway through the book and it doesn't bother me anymore, though I am just casually reading it. If I were prepping for a game or in the middle of a game, the font size might become an issue again.

However. It's not that big a deal to me, and one of the things that I appreciate most about Pathfinder is that sense of ... space. I can tell the way that the whole thing reads and is laid out that you were aware of your ability to fit more on a page. The adventure is wonderfully 'loose' and relaxed. There is time to give us extra background and color and there's less worry about making every single word adhere to high efficiency standards. In short Pathfinder is even more rich and rewarding to read than Dungeon. I mean, it's wonderful.

But I was a bit put off by the font size. I appreciate packing in the content, and normally I'm a fan of tight text, but this was a little cramped even for me. I wouldn't mind the main body text being slightly larger.

Occam wrote:

Alternatively, you could leave his Strength at 17, and make the following changes:

1) Damage for heavy flail becomes 1d10+4.
2) Damage for mwk. composite longbow becomes 1d8+3.

Lastly, his favored enemy bonus should be +2.

I assume if you leave his Strength at 17, you should assume he has a +3 Strength Bow. Otherwise he gets a -2 attack penalty.

But yeah, if he's more reasonable and uses a +3-Strength bow, then his attack bonus with the bow improves to +8, while his damage remains 1d8 +3.

"Jack of all trades" should not mean "Useless". The spell-sword should contribute just as much as a wizard or a fighter, but in a different way. Instead a fighter/wizard is a poor substitue for both. Without proper synery between the two classes, usually provided by some hooky prestige class, the player falls behind into a secondary role much better served by a cohort or hireling.

So, looks like those annoying favored classes are out the window, which is good because my group ignored them anyway. Do you think the new level based race abilities will encourage a 'favored' class in some other way?

Q: On page 44 to 45 (area D2) Bruthazmus the Bugbear is listed as having a 17 Str (which is a +3 bonus). But the rest of his stats seem to be written with +4 bonus, and he has a +4 Strength Bow.
A: tbug: just change it to 18, in case you haven't read the other threads

1) Attack bonus for heavy flail becomes +7 (+3 BAB +4 Str).
2) Attack bonus for mwk. composite longbow becomes +8 (+3 BAB +3 Dex +1 Wpn. Focus +1 mwk.).
3) Grapple bonus becomes +7.

Alternatively, you could leave his Strength at 17, and make the following changes:

1) Damage for heavy flail becomes 1d10+4.
2) Damage for mwk. composite longbow becomes 1d8+3.

Lastly, his favored enemy bonus should be +2.

We plan to publish at least one GameMastery Module on each of these worlds, and if there is a genuine audience for this type of play I could be very easily convinced to schedule more and larger products in this vein.

No prob! You ask, I comply! T-REX IS BACK!

It is possible, I suppose, that future Maps of Mystery in WotC's online continuation of Dungeon will refer to places on the Lands of Mystery map. I would ask you folks, though: is that something you'd like to see? Or should no further places from the Lands of Mystery poster be mapped? My plan was to leave these cities and dungeons and wilderness places undeveloped, but enough people have been asking for more that I might consider revisiting them. Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?

I was already planning on using a couple of the individual site maps for future adventures in the campaign I've started for my seven-year-old daughter, and the poster map is just begging me to set the whole campaign in it. Very cool!

I don't have the magazine in front of me, but IIRC, Viktor uses Bluff and possibly other skills in his encounter with the PCs. I assume he's statted up in "Chimes at Midnight", but for those without that issue, what should Viktor's vital stats be like for this adventure?

Occam wrote:

OK, this is going to come off a lot harsher than it's meant, so hold the flames at least until you see where I'm going....

I didn't see anything harsh in your response, so no flames to follow. :)

While I think WotC managed to rebuild the gamer base with 3e, I think they are losing it for 4e. Not because 4e is a bad move, but because their PR is so poor. Of course, I love this game and I hope I'm wrong and I hope Sebastian gets his pie.

The point of all of this was that in the end, the game system, despite its radical departure from almost all of the d20/3.5 concepts, did not materially affect the outcome of the scenario or the playing time. In effect the new rules did a much better job of describing how certain things were possible or occurred, but it did not in the end change what occurred. The only real benefit derived by use of the new system was that it made everyone feel much better about the why of things. This benefit was offset by the loss of standardization and the loss of readily available supporting materials.

Hypothetical question, of course, with an eye toward evaluating 4e in the context of balancing loss of compatibility vs. improved rules. In your case, you had a new set of rules that seemed to work pretty well. If a lot of other people started playing by the same rules, and support materials were released, would it have been worth converting?

I like some of the 4.0 changes.

This one...not so much.

Seeing how 4th edition might shake up the AP, check out Rich Baker's latest blog: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386#post13606231

Shoreline, Washington (just north of Seattle)

But part of me will always be in Austin, Texas. (Which part, I don't like to talk about.)

Marc Radle 81 wrote:

That's actually an interesting thought ... I wonder if any WOTC folks do in fact read these boards? I'll bet they do, now that I think about it. I'll bet they read the Wizards boards and the Paizo boards quite a bit right now to see what people are saying about the new edition.

Or ... maybe not.

If they do, I bet their reaction is similar to that of the Lord High Muckety Mucks here at my company - jealousy. Instead of looking at what they see with an open mind, they immediately attack it as it differs from what they're used to seeing, and seems to actually work. Which makes them look bad in the process.

It's all about CYA. Corporate America at its worst.

As I've said before in other threads, I really think not having Dragon to sort of herald the impending release of 4E and give sneak peeks will prove to be a big negative to WOTC that they apparently, amazingly in fact, did not foresee.

Keeping all these secrets, "shocking" us with surprises, finishing off long standing institutions (Dragon, Dungeon), making big promises but showing us little of value, it's almost maddening how poor their PR really is. The secrets are alienating, the end of Dragon & Dungeon is infuriating, and the promises sound hallow.

...

I'm a good lurker and I have yet to hear anyone say, "I'm glad Dragon and Dungeon are digital rather than print. I'm glad they aren't telling us what their thoughts are in case my expectations get raised and then the rules change. I'm glad I'm feeling less and less like a participant of D&D and more like a consumer."

Paizo is a good example of the opposite. They listen to their customers and work hard at giving us what we want. They keep us informed of decisions, even when they are not ready to release everything. I've seen evidence of product changes due to customer input. They stay in contact. (Okay, maybe I am a fanboy, but there is a reason for it).

Paizo surprised us with the Dragon/Dungeon print cancellation just as much as WotC, dropping not a single hint when people asked about follow-up Adventure Paths and sequel Dragon articles and the like, despite knowing about it something like a year in advance. They, and the freelance writers they've employed, kept Pathfinder and the GameMastery modules secret until they had several months of product to announce in advance, and were probably already in the midst of brainstorming the second Pathfinder AP. Did they have reasons for not telling us about these things while they were still making fundamental decisions about them? Of course, very good reasons, and reasons no different than WotC's in withholding information until it's ready for release.

Were there "Design & Development" articles discussing whether goblins or orcs, giants or demons would be the main foes in Rise of the Runelords? Was there a poll on what to name Golarion? No, the Paizo folks trusted their creative talents, their familiarity with the rules, and their understanding of their customer base to make those decisions on their own. These aren't participatory decisions on the part of the community, except in the most indirect way. Certainly, they listen to their customers, and that input plays into later decisions, but if you think that isn't happening at WotC, then you're not paying attention to what they're doing. That doesn't guarantee that you'll like what they end up with, but they are trying to make things that their customers will enjoy. That is, after all, how they get to keep working in the gaming business.

A whole lot of the criticism of WotC gets wrapped up in a bunch of anti-corporate resentment, treating the WotC employees as faceless minions of the Hasbro profit-seeking world-dominating agenda. Read the D&D designers' and developers' blogs, read their posts on EN World and the WotC boards. You may not (and probably won't) agree with all their ideas, but it's absolutely clear that they are all gamers, at least as much as any of their customers. They want to make a game that they themselves will love to play, and that other gamers will love to play. They're also sharp, well-educated, and put a lot of thought into what makes games fun, and what makes D&D special. If you feel the need to criticize their work, then criticize them as human beings with interests and lifestyles probably quite similar to your own, people you'd probably game with if you met them under other circumstances, and not as evil, borg-like caricatures of real people.

Let me make clear here, Whimsy, that I don't know what your specific views on the situation are, and that I'm stating general reactions to a lot of the recent, and IMO unnecessarily vehement and unproductive, criticism. I don't mean this as a direct attack on you or anyone else in particular.

As for Paizo, they're a great bunch, undoubtedly. Their stewardship of Dragon and, especially IMO, Dungeon has been outstanding, and there's every reason to expect that same level of quality (or higher) in all their forthcoming products. A big part of that is their regular presence on these boards. In the past, WotC has done a terrible job of using Internet-based community tools as opportunities for direct contact with their customers, and they've suffered for it. Hopefully they've learned, and there's some evidence that they're starting to rectify that. But they are making an effort to keep their customers in the loop with respect to 4e development. Some people are acting as if 4e were already here, sprung from the mind of WotC fully formed. It's not. We've still got nearly a year for WotC to get more specific in their previews, and for you to decide if you're interested. That's about as customer-based a process as I could expect from a company.

Consider me chilled.

I may be remembering the ushering in of 3rd Edition with rose-colored glasses. I guess the surpise back then was a welcome one whereas this one was already tainted by what a resounding majority consider WotC's betrayal of the gaming world by ending the print run of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Add to that the fact that many, if not most, of the gaming world (I have no facts to back that up, only what I've seen and read) were mainly satisfied with the current edition of the game and would have gladly shelled out for an official errata book (ironically, we're actually getting one, but it seems like a wasted investment at this point), rather than a whole new rules system.

And pulling the licenses of Dragon and Dungeon, and ending their print runs, was certainly a blow, especially for the folks on these boards. In retrospect, I can see why they did it, and I expect it'll probably work to WotC's long-term benefit, but it's a painful change.

Granted, D&D has its problems, and it's good for the game to evolve to address those problems and maintain its appeal, but I think WOTC could change its tactics so that new editions and the subsequent plethora of supplements don't seem quite so...profit-motivated. When the latest GURPS edition was released, for example, they immediately made all the rules changes available in a single file for free download on their website, so buying the new edition was merely an option for those who wanted a spiffy new book, and older editions retained their value. They did this with previous editions too. Now that's customer appreciation. Hint, Hint, WOTC...

If the beef is with backward compatibility, that's a strong reason to consider staying away from a new edition, if you're really satisfied with the current rules and have lots of gaming material for it. But backward compatibility is a double-edged sword.

Occam wrote:

Um... are we not getting about nine months' worth of lead-in? Maybe a bit less than with 3e, but well in advance of product launch. And we're starting to see preview articles already, and we'll be getting a lot more than with 3e eventually, due to the increased online presence compared to 1999-2000.

I mean, the lead-in to 3e started with a "surprise" announcement, too.

Define, the "surprise" announcement of 3E, Occam. If you define it by Wizards denying and outright lying about it for about a year and then finally revealing it, well then, yes, I guess it's the same thing and you're right and my point of view is completely invalid. :? I don't remember it that way, though, and my memory is still pretty good. But if you feel like WotC has been completely up front with you with the annoucedment of 4E and you like their marketing strategies and customer relations tactics, then good for you. You're exactly the type of gamer they're targeting.

When 3rd edition was announced, there was an overall readiness and excitement about it. It was well documented in Dragon magazine and adds put up in FLGS's all over the country. Everyone knew it was coming and there was a lot of preparation and help to get people into it. You had all kinds of conversion articles for moving your existing characters and campaign into the new rules set. There were articles that explained how bits and pieces of the new game system worked like feats, a look at new class abilities, new monsters, etc.

...

Unlike the long lead in to 3rd edition, we get a surprise announcement and some horrible YouTube videos to usher in the big news.

And as for contrasting the 3e and 4e introductions: the first time WotC talked about 3e at Gen Con was just as much a surprise as this one, and 4e has a plenty long lead-in ahead. They don't seem substantially different in either way.

Was WotC actively obfuscating the upcoming 3e announcement prior to Gen Con 1999? No, probably not. But then, nobody (or at least, hardly anybody) was asking them about a putative 3e back then, so they didn't have to, very unlike the situation prior to this year's Gen Con.

When 3rd edition was announced, there was an overall readiness and excitement about it. It was well documented in Dragon magazine and adds put up in FLGS's all over the country. Everyone knew it was coming and there was a lot of preparation and help to get people into it. You had all kinds of conversion articles for moving your existing characters and campaign into the new rules set. There were articles that explained how bits and pieces of the new game system worked like feats, a look at new class abilities, new monsters, etc.

...

Unlike the long lead in to 3rd edition, we get a surprise announcement and some horrible YouTube videos to usher in the big news.

I mean, the lead-in to 3e started with a "surprise" announcement, too.

Yeah, but they won´t be done with it before 5e comes out.

I'm nearly done reading through "Quoth the Raven", and what an awesome scenario. Such wonderful atmosphere, and truly twisted villains. I missed "Chimes at Midnight", but this is so cool I might just have to get that, and I'm really looking forward to "Hell's Heart"!

Man, I LOVED the aurumvorax! It was the original B&W illustration that did it for me; I always wanted one as a pet. A really mean, vicious, scary pet. But cute, too!

WOTC: Look at this, this is the new and improved 3.5 D&D.

Gamers: Ooooohhhhh!

WOTC: This is the best you have ever seen. It works very well,this is the best on the market, we are going to give the d20 license to save the industry, d20 is the best, d20 gives cancer, we saved the industry, d20 is all what you need.

Gamers: Wow!

Hasbro Phone Call: Hey guys, you the Wizards of the COST, sales are low we are losing money on your department.

WOTC: Ehh! Well, d20 is not so good after all, what if you look this other system, d20 could not be so perfect if you look closer. We present you 4.0 the newest (and condemned to be replaced when we are out of money) system only for you.

Company: Look at this car/computer/RPG/salad mixer/toothbrush, it's the best we've ever made!

Consumers: Yay!

Happens all the time, it's how the consumer world goes 'round. You don't have to play that game if you don't want to.

However, I forgot about WotC saying that "d20 gives cancer". Guess I'll be tossing my old books a lot sooner than I'd planned. ;-)

I think the supposed stated premise for the release of 4.0 D&D, which is that of "Simplifying the game" is not very genuine. If the main purpose of 4.0 is indeed to simplify the game, then WHY, as the post above illustrates, will the game then require the VAST array of Books/Tomes/Manuals/Etc. that you know will be following & forthcoming after the 4.0 PH/DMG/MM have been released. A "simplified 4.0" game that was necessary to "replace a supposedly complex 3.5 system that required updating" should not by default then require DOZENS of support books that will inevitably follow the 'simplified 4.0 PH/DMG/MM'. That is a paradoxical proposition.

If the reason for the release of 4.0 is Money and an attempt to market the game to even more prospective players (which we all know it IS), then why not just say so WoTC? Spare me this intellectually dishonest mumbo-jumbo about "simplifying the game" when you (WoTC) know that the first round of "Complete" books for 4.0 are probably ALREADY on the drawing board.

A desire to simplify the basic mechanics of the game and make them more fun is not contradictory with plans to produce support material and make money. It's quite possible to do both, at the same time.

I have ALL wotc 3.0/3.5 books - and I'm quite pissed off, thinking about buying all the books like The Complete "add another description but mean warrior/Mage/Priest/Monster/Spell/MagicItem" for 4.0 AGAIN.

#4: I have seen nothing that makes me think that the DI will support house rules. Every group I have ever played with uses at least some house rules... how are we going to squeeze that in?

You stick in your position? OK, but remember (you work for Hasbro) that people like Real Brain and me have been giving our money to pay your salary and at least we deserve to be treated as customer not as enemies.

Oh man, that's funny.

I'm just wandering whether they are going to have prestige classes? Now their absence will certainly annoy some people.

Have you played the old Marvel Super Heroes system? To me, it was perfect for super heroic combat once you ignored a few of the clunkier rules.

I'm just saying that this new move furthers this separation between haves and have-nots, marginalizes a demographic of gamers that already have a hard time keeping up with the Joneses and feeds some sort of techno-elitism that quite frankly makes me queasy.

Don't knock me and adopt a sarcastic tone because I'm not skipping for joy at the thought of WotC drastically changing a game that I've enjoying for over 25 years, especially when my reaction is based on the information that WotC is releasing.

- 30-level classes
- shorter statblocks
- weapon-based abilities for fighters
- spellcasters won't run out of some kind of magical ability
- rogues use skills in ways others can't
- simpler grappling rules
- simpler AoOs or equivalent
- more flexible magic item creation
- race effects beyond 1st level

Not much, and practically no details. For instance, in terms of the combat system, I think all we've heard is that they plan on simplifying a couple of things that most people find problematic (grappling and AoOs); otherwise, do we know anything at all? It just seems like we don't have enough to go on yet, as far as making value comparisons with the current rules.

Occam wrote:

As for the rent vs. own issue, we still don't know how that's going to work for D&DI. From what I've read so far, it seems like you probably will be able to retain most of your resources (magazine issues, characters, etc.) if your membership lapses, in some form (printouts, PDFs, etc.). Clarification on this matter will have a big impact on the perceived value of D&DI membership.

Actually, there is no such thing as confidence about keeping your info. When explicitly asked this at the secrets of D&D seminar, the answer was something close to "We haven't really thought about what would happen in a lapsed membership. We'll get back to you." There is NO guarantee that you could keep your material if your membership lapsed.

Try to remember that there are two sides to this issue and many folks are unhappy.

How about the Greyhawk fans, who likely will see their favorite world retreat into oblivion for the next three or more years?