memorax's page

I'm still boycotting HASBRO/WoTC and i urge all my close gaming friends to do the same.

By all means inform your friends of your feelings, but I urge you to then let them make up their own minds. The people within WotC change, policies change, the WotC now isn't the same as that 4 years ago!

WotC has done some great things and some bad, unfortunately it seems for many people any bad stuff immediately makes them forget the great stuff, but no matter how much new good stuff they do the bad will never be forgiven.

Whilst I am not a huge WotC fan and don't agree with all they have done, I like to keep an open mind and assess each thing they do on its own merits.

Paizo is also an honorable company with a genuine interest in player feedback.

From the looks of things WotC are also genuinely interested in feedback with this playtest, from blogs, to chats, to forums, and the forthcoming surveys.

Why would you ever trust them? They lied to our face. Not two weeks before 4th edition was announced (and well into development) their employees were on their own boards swearing up and down that there were no plans yet for a 4th edition. Their claim to fame was a card game designed to be addictive. Trust? why on earth would you ever? I can see liking their products, but trust them? really?

<sigh> We all know that any company will deny this until they are ready to launch officially. This has been discussed ad nauseaum before, and is reasonable. Paizo never mentioned that they were going to launch PF (a system not entirely compatible with with their early output) until they did. The only difference is that people didn't pester Paizo about what game system they were launching every five minutes. Who you trust and don't trust is up to you, but some of us don't wear lead-lined helmets.

And it is less about trust, and more about understanding how companies operate.

Sorry, I can't be bothered to post in the thirteen other identical threads, but I'm noticing a pattern:

Can't download the playtest?

Wotc's infrastructure sucks. Next is a failure, Wotc doesn't get it!

Can download the playtest?

No one wants it. Next is a failure, Wotc doesn't get it!

Boilerplate legal text?

Next is a failure, Wotc doesn't get it!

Oh, and point this out?

Irrational Wotc shill!

Spoken as someone is probably going to be playing Savage Worlds anyway: Give me a break.

How can you say that CE is useless and that trading attack bonus for AC for a fighter is bad?

Have you ever played a role play game?

Only for 20 years. I'm assuming that was an honest request for information, not a veiled insult (i.e. "STFU NOOB, U don't know what ur talking about").

Have I made characters that took CE? Sure. But not many, and in all honesty, I just started playing PF recently, so I'm less familiar with their version. The only time I've seen it used to good effect is combined with Deadly Defense from Complete Scoundrel (which was an awesome feat).

There is an infinitive number of situations in which CE is useful. If not for the 13 Int requisite, almost every full-BAB character would take it. There is a time for smashing DR with PA; there is a time to hold the line with CE.

"Infinite".

And no, there aren't. There are an extremely finite number of situations in which CE is useful. Most of the time, you will save yourself more HP by simply smashing your enemy harder (and thus rendering him incapable of killing you) than by trying to reduce how hard he hits you (defensive).
But people have gone back and forth on this for this entire post.

If you seriously think that "every full BAB character would take it", I can only assume you're trolling me. With the incredible variety of feats available, I don't think I can name any that "every full BAB" guy would take. Not even Power Attack, which is much better than CE.

I strongly urge caution before buying this game. I found the rules woefully lacking. No character creation rules (for PCs or NPCs), and I very strongly dislike the dice pool mechanic. Skills come in three levels: you don't know it, expert, and master (which roll higher dice than d6 or even d4). Not even suggestions on setting up hazardous conditions/environments (burning houses, earthquakes, etc.). Gear is either an asset or a power set, but no real discussion on the difference, and nothing stopping PCs from taking gear from enemies and using it so they get access to expanded power sets without paying XP for it. Also, apparently, some forms of "damage" give bonuses to actions, even combat actions.

This isn't simply a matter of having to be creative/imaginative with the game. The vagueness and ambiguity of this game system is ridiculous. GURPS 4th edition, the HERO System, and Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition almost all do a better job than the Cortex System. The old TSR system (FASERIP) is pretty okay, but needs to be modified a bit for new technology and developments in the Marvel universe itself (I'm mainly thinking of the vehicle, buildings/rooms, and equipment lists, as well as the Karma system which needs a little bit of tweaking; a few individual powers need to be tweaked, but most are okay as-is).

I'm sure lots of people will disagree with me on this, but I STRONGLY urge anyone thinking about running a Marvel heroes game to be very cautious about using these new rules. Find a physical copy somewhere you can read thoroughly before buying. I'm definitely glad I did.

You have to admire Paizo for their consistency and attention to detail. In keeping with the Pathfinder brand identity of re-publishing content that WotC had to pay for, the photo of Rich Baker on that Kickstarter page is hosted on images.wizards.com.

What's bloat for you is "still not enough options" for me. And the adventures, setting material and accessories are of usual quality, so I don't see a problem.

When I pick-up an adventure path that cannot be run with just the CRB and Bestiary (see: Jade Regent), then the value of that product (for me) is greatly decreased. Paizo differentiated itself (again, for me) via great stories and characters (which are in short supply), not wholly average D20 mechanics (which are decidedly NOT in short supply). YMMV, but I'd appreciate it if you quit branding me as some kind of heretic for expressing an opinion that differs from yours.

What's bloat for you is "still not enough options" for me. And the adventures, setting material and accessories are of usual quality, so I don't see a problem.

Quite honestly, I don't give my villains metagame knowledge about the PCs. A group of PCs rides up, all of them on horseback, one of them a cavalier, the rest with the regular 75 GP riding horses. The wicked witch does not suddenly go, "Ho ho ho! A cavalier! Let's see you use all those fancy ridin' feats you've got when Mr. Ed turns into Mr. Hamster! Baleful Polymorph!"

Ah but that's just it. If you actually believed that killing the typical horse with around 13 HP beneath the PC would hinder them, wouldn't you? Ignoring the fact enemies can just make an easy Knowledge (Nature) check to realize the animal before them is an advanced animal with more hit dice for a moment, and assuming you just thought it a simple mare; exactly why would you ignore it? Seems like meta-gaming to me.

There may be a witch. She may have Baleful Polymorph. But she doesn't know what class people are, she doesn't know what level people are, and she sure as hell doesn't know what their saving throws are either. She'll go with her best guess of whoever looks most dangerous or least reasonable and turn them into a hamster.

And again, ignoring the ability to just make a DC 5 + CR knowledge check to estimate a weakness in an opponent, why would it not be common knowledge that minions and pets are generally easier targets? I mean, doesn't that kind of scream out "please use phantasmal killer"? Do you really, as a bad guy, want to let the fool on the horse have the ability to potentially own you with a lance or move while shooting?

Again, you sound very metagamist.

As for targeting familiars in combat, it may be good tactics but it's bad form, earning you the enmity of witches and wizards everywhere, regardless of alignment. Ditto burning spellbooks. A house rule, certainly, but one that I find both flavorful and good for plotting. Book-burners and familiar-killers are viewed with an almost unspeakable scorn, and even a white witch or wizard would do nothing to save someone who did such a thing from righteous vengeance. At least the way I run magical society. Keeps the familiars and the spellbooks safe, and also explains why the non-magical classes have learned not to do such things.

And here the metagaming hits the peak like a tidal wave. Screw the "enmity of witches and wizards everywhere". If they are placed in harms way, then they are in harms way. End of story. If a wizard is stupid enough to be waving his spell book around in combat for it to get sundered or shattered, then the wizard needs to figure out where his Int score is coming from, since he's obviously absent a cerebral cortex. Likewise, if he has his familiar perched on his shoulder spamming wands like the predator's shoulder mounted turret, then he better get used to the idea that someone might try to remove that pest from the equation.

For example, one of the PCs in my tabletop game--a 3rd level wizard--has an owl familiar. He actively uses this familiar, and enjoys the +3 Perception bonus the familiar grants in areas of low light, and the familiar's ability to fly and its very impressive bonuses to Perception checks. He uses it as a spy, and occasionally, he uses it offensively. Now in one of our recent games, his familiar attacked some orcs who were badly wounded. However, that resulted in one of the orcs getting a lucky shot on the familiar. Later, said wizard was restoring his familiar during his downtime for a few hundred gold pieces. He has noted that he will be "a little more careful next time"; though he's still looking forward to the familiar delivering touch spells.

If his owl had been away from the fight and/or doing little to nothing in it, it would have been ignored. If his owl had been nestled in his backpack, it would have been safe and ignored. If his owl was just sitting on his shoulder saying "Don't feed me nasty crackers!", he probably would have been ignored (beyond AoEs and such that hit the space); but the familiar was up in the combat. Right where animal companions are. The familiar got whacked, and so too will Mr. Ed. Especially given DeadManWalking's insistence that Mr. Ed is obviously one of the greatest DPS enhancers around.

========================================================================

Incidentally I love how Deadmanwalking goes back and forth discussing how amazingly great and DPR enhancing Mr. Ed is, only to turn around and try to downplay it and be all like "killing Mr. Ed isn't tactically sound, and is a dick move for the GM". Sorry, both do not fly.

Mr. Ed does not have saving throws equivalent to that of PCs unless Mr. Ed is also sporting impressive +resistance items, and a number of +ability score items and effects as well. Deadmanwalking tries to ignore the fact that WHEN Mr. Ed snuffs it you have to wait a week to get him back and a whole level to get his special bond abilities back (like evasion), while Rangers do not have that problem. He also scoffs at spending 50,000 gp to get a renewable mount with super speed and awesome mount abilities, while demanding that Mr. Ed will have saves equivalent to fighters and the like.

Well look here lads, a +5 cloak of resistance is 25,000 gp. That's half the cost of CL 14 phantom steed at-will. Since apparently it's less about being a mount and more about being a DPR enhancer, we need to go ahead and spring for that amulet of mighty fists as well, since having only a +12 BAB and 24 Str at 20th level kind of sucks. Gonna need to line Mr. Ed in magic items and buffs to keep him relevant, especially since he relies on full-attacking in melee to increase DPR.

Also, my examples were pretty simple. They weren't about saying that the companion sucks. They were examples showing how easy it is that something bad can happen to your animal companion just as course for the game. Those were examples of things that you can actually run into over the course of the game, without stepping outside of the standard encounter rules. I wasn't saying "Oh look, Mr. Ed is weaksauce vs Erinyes", I was saying "Oh look, animal companions can get killed just being in harms way like everything else".

==================================

And I'll reiterate: You wanna actually prove something, make a Fighter of some level between 8 and 16, I'l make a Cavalier at the same level and show you how it's every bit as effective. And I'm not even a particularly focused optimizer, I'm just good at the basics.

So what do you want to prove? Is this some sort of DPS penis-size contest, or is this going to be a more meaningful examination of who can actually contribute to the party in a wide variety of adventuring scenarios? Because if it's just DPR calculations, sure, I'm game for that I suppose, but those rarely come out in actual play as being greatly viable.

For example, rogues can get pretty gnarly DPR on paper. In game, they're weaksauce because someone can just drop a smoke stick and then beat the ever loving stuffing out of them and all their rogue friends. Likewise, martial DPR is really awesome when you can full-attack, which is a big if when you're actually playing a game where enemies don't jump on your sword for fun.

Can't disagree with that. Spellcasters do require a fair degree of system mastery - I've played 3e D&D for years and wouldn't really suggest I have the nous to create a really good wizard. While I see what you are saying about the "spell tree" as a mechanical no-no, I can't help thinking that might be quite cool in some ways if they could get it to work...

If Urgathoa doesn't have devourer clerics already, she will after reading this thread.

What part of "devourer" would the goddess of undeath and gluttony not like?

I'm a bit annoyed, seriously like 50% of the Paizo forums concerning Paladins is "how can I make my friend's Paladin fall" or "Is this action gonna make my Paladin fall?". Cut Paladins some flak, its getting quite stale.Not all Paladins are lawful stupid!

The idea that you can't play a simple, light casual game of 3E/3.5 is amusing.

As has been stated, system mastery isn't "memorize all of the rules".

I can't play a casual game of 3.5, really - except at low levels. We do ok til about seventh or eighth level, then we start struggling and inevitably run into something which is just impossible for us. We haven't played that much PF, but it appears equally easy to end up with a subpar character.

To be honest I rarely paid attention to who writes or develops the rules or adventures starting with 4E, or Pathfinder, and going all the way back to 1E. There is only so many ways to re-package D&D, and all the hard work has been done. If Monte stayed, then those that don't like 4E would most likely find another reason not to like 5E. I always thought it was odd bringing him on, when he appears to be fixated on older editions of the game and never supported 4E. The idea behind D&D Next is to bridge the generations of the game, and truely, that will be very hard to accomplish with everyone drawing lines in the sand and digging trenches.

If you are going to be a lead designer, or any type of developer for 5E, and have a vested interest, then you are going to need a flack jacket and a thick skin just to make it through the play test. With a little bit of faith, an ear to the forums, and a bit of luck, perhaps 5E will meet it's intended purpose.

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.

Its interesting to see how many have already declared the end of 5E just before Monte left. how about we actually read the finished product first then pass judgment. Do you know how many times i heard the same thing said about Pathfinder before it was released. So Monte left big deal. We have other designers working on 5E and maybe just maybe with or without Monte they may make a great product. And one that is also profitable. As if that is a bad thing (rolls eyes). It was like watching a news reprt when the news broke. "News flash monte leaves 5E design team. New edition is doomed!. Instances of gastro on the rise! Pathfinder is doomed!"

I'm very glad he's being classy about it, but I'm really not that sorry he's leaving. From his L&L articles, he wasn't saying things that I was happy to hear and if that means (in some way or aspect) that those design choices weren't with the companies vision, I can understand boths sids parting. Lets hope that, despite this (unfortunate?) turn of evens, D&D:Next will still be a great game.

My bet is that Monte wanted a older-style OGL and Wizards didn't want to re-open that can of worms. Monte seems to me like he's very much pro 3PP and Wizards seems like they don't like the idea of their hard-earned product used against them as competition. Just a guess, mind you.

Show me on the doll where they touched you.

Since 3.5e fanbase has been pretty much taken over by Paizo and the entire 4e fanbase could fit into one small bus, the only direction that remains viable for WotC is to try and reach out to the OSR crowd. This means making the basic ruleset simple (already evidenced by removal of skills, no point buy), "empowering DMs" (likely some measures to prevent those pesky players from sneaking up with Pun Puns or divine persistent kind of stuff), return to vancian casting and other things that smell of 1e/2e.

Since the old-school crowd is currently split between a zillion of gygax-nostalgia games (Swords and Wizardry! Castles and Crusades! Swords and Castles! Wizards and Sorcery! etc. etc. etc.) with no strong brand leader, this seems like a legit move for WotC at this point.

I disagree about the size of the bus, but share your opinions on the rest. Fighting to fill the space being filled by PF would be silly, in my view.

Pathfinder has the heart and soul of D&D, but 4e has the name recognition.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't recognize the huge number of people who firmly believe that 4e embodies the heart and soul of D&D, too. Many of them believe it embodies that heart and soul better than 3.5 or Pathfinder did.

At present, I'm cautiously optimistic. We might end up with good system out of DnD Next.

This presents no threat to Paizo or Pathfinder. Paizo aren't going to put themselves in the position of being dependant on anyone else for the system used for their APs ever again, so Pathfinder is safe. Depending on the license, Paizo may even be able to devote a page of each AP to how to convert that for whatever the finished system is called - big win.

They have good folks designing this, so that's another good sign. However, what is coming out at the moment is pure marketing. The stated goal of a modular system conflicts directly with the stated goal of unifying the community. A modular system will do nothing to help the community get together and game. At best (for WotC) it will lead to a community that is just as fractured, but all playing different, incompatible sets of modular add-ons to 5ed. Everyone will have their own favoured set of modular add-ons.

They have also stated that it is up to the fans what era of the Forgotten Realms they want to play in and that they intend to support it all. That implicitly doubles the amount of development effort that they would have to apply - I don't believe it.

At present, I get the impression of a big company releasing polished statements designed to appeal to the audience. I'm going to get in on the playtest and see what the reality is before forming a further opinion.

Can we not use terms like "vomiting forth" material? It's disrespectful and unnecessary. There are other ways to get your point across rather than inflammatory language like that.

The people who are showing up with nothing more to say than, "4e is just the worst, WotC can go fornicate with undesirables, and I hope Hasbro's stock suffers momentary dips!" are only here for today, right? They're just going to post their unpleasant opinions and then leave, yeah?

I view their stated intentions positively.

Modular good. In fact could be great.

Listening to fans is better than not listening.

I am not a fan of pathfinder or 4e. I think each system has some good stuff but overall they are not my cup of tea.

I am mildly concerned with the "listen to the fans" plan. IMO the pathfinder playtest resulted in lobby groups for certain styles of play and even for certain classes (such as paladin) which resulted in the game becoming overly complex and those lobbied classes getting too powerful.

Scott Betts wrote:

I think it's more likely that the sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person who is excited about where the hobby is going next. I never saw 4e (or any edition, for that matter) as a stopping point of any kind, and I think a lot of people share that viewpoint.

Dont take this the wrong way Scott, While you may feel a lot of people share that viewpoint apparently there weren't enough you that felt or thought that way. Otherwise I dont think WOTC would be contemplating an edition change quite this soon in the lifecycle of the game.

You statement implies that the type of person who isn't excited about 4E is not excited about where the hobby is going next.

Not so. The sort of person who likes 4e is also the sort of person excited about where the hobby will go next. That doesn't mean that the sort of person who likes Pathfinder cannot also be excited. It just means that I don't think there are a huge number of 4e players who are going to take the stance of "I'm done with the edition treadmill, I don't care what 5e is like."

In fact, I would argue that this is precisely the reason WotC feels okay pushing forward like this - I just saw Chris Tulach (their organized play lead) tweet that he thinks most gamers fall into the excited-about-the-new-and-shiny camp rather than the grognard camp.

In my opinion, HASBRO should get out of the roleplaying game business altogether. Turning D&D from the iconic pre-eminent game it once was to the 4E failure it has become is a monument to their corporation's ignorance about roleplaying games and its insensitivity to the role-playing community.

I can assure you, the people in charge of 4e were neither ignorant of roleplaying games or insensitive to its community. I daresay they have a good deal more credibility speaking about RPGs than you do.

Scott Betts wrote:

Brian James wrote:

I refuse to buy any more WOTC D&D products. I stopped at 3.5. I'll let someone else continue to waste their money on new core rulebooks every 4 years or so. The world already has enough fantasy RPG materials. We do not need more of what is already available (older editions of D&D, and non-D&D systems).

If everyone shared your attitude, fantasy tabletop gaming would be a shivering husk of itself in twenty years or so.

No, it would be fine without WOTC. Their time is over. They are not the only kids on the block anymore.

You're wishing for WotC to give up because there are enough fantasy RPG materials. If everyone thought as you do, the hobby would stagnate and die. Do you honestly think it can grow (or even hold steady) without the active support of new material?

I refuse to buy any more WOTC D&D products. I stopped at 3.5. I'll let someone else continue to waste their money on new core rulebooks every 4 years or so. The world already has enough fantasy RPG materials. We do not need more of what is already available (older editions of D&D, and non-D&D systems).

If everyone shared your attitude, fantasy tabletop gaming would be a shivering husk of itself in twenty years or so.

Judging by Hasbro's past performance, I wouldn't trust them as far as I throw a treant. I'm continuing to boycott all their products until they leave the roleplaying industry.

The purpose of a boycott is usually to influence decisions in a direction you consider favorable, not to forsake a company entirely based on product decisions. The first method gets results. The second just convinces the company that they made a good decision in choosing not to support your desires in the first place - it's no longer worth trying to cater to you, because you refuse to be catered to.

Now, you could certainly call what you're doing a moral purchasing campaign, but that's a little high and mighty for something that basically amounts to "You changed my favorite game and now I hate you!"

Does the fighter charge you to intercept that ogre that's coming at you? Does the cleric charge you for cures? Does the rogue steal from you? Are you in fact, merely being greedy?

It the worst piece of game rules I've ever seen in d20.

It immediately made me take back all the mean things I've said about how screwed up 3E's VoP was. At least they *tried* to make something useable. It even is useable to druids, sorcerers, and a few other builds/classes. Being upset with 3E VoP when PF's VoP exists is like being angry with someone for coughing on you while you're being mugged at gunpoint by someone else.

Having just my first read through of the guide I have some mixed feelings about it.

The good: I love the stuff for scars and missing limbs/body parts. The Naval combat chapter is pure gold (no, really guys I cant give it enough praise). The pirate weapons are also really awesome, finally I can have a hook hand and know what it does. All of that is just awesome!

The mediocre: Maybe traits. Some of them are really interesting, others not so much.

The bad: The format for classes/races in the shackles. I feel I need to elaborate on this more. Im not terribly familiar with the shackles and other players may not be (and yet other players will be intimately familiar with the region). So at first glance I have some issues figuring how say an aqautic druid would fit into the setting. It pretty much says yeah they can be there and they'll be useful for the game but it doesnt explain how druidic characters (or really any class) fits into the setting. The same goes for races, I mean would say a half orc be common in the area and if so would they be an immigrant or born there? Would they be welcomed or have the same racial tensions as every where else?

I guess I just liked the previous formats like Carrion crown and Serpent's skull better because I felt like I could make any character and be pretty confident about why they would be there or how they would act in the area. I dont feel as comfortable with this format due to the lack of setting information

Aside from that, I don't want Paizo to publish ANYTHING that we ask for. My logic: every time we ask for something, we are unsatisfied with it. When we get surprises, we are ecstatic. I'd rather just not suggest anything and be happy with what I get.

This.

I gotta say I love Paizo as a company and glad for the support that they provide for their game. IF not for Paizo I'm not sure that I'd still be playing RPG's.

But Paizo fans (at least the ones on this board) are some of the whineyest, complaininest, unnecessarily rudest fans I've ever seen. And I've been on the WOTC boards.

I know that most of the people who are complaining about a lack of high level play support are going to be trying to CASTRATE Buhlman and whoever else works on that book if IT ISNT EXACTLY what they want.

Im dreading the release of Ultimate Races (or whatever it's called). Just for the fact that people are going to be taking Paizo to task for A. Power Creep B. The solution ISNT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED. C. The fact that they felt that there was nothing wrong with level adjustments and why couldn't they implement them whole hog so there'd be no need for a new book (Paizo just wants us to spend money on a new book! BOO!!!) . or D. all of the craziness above.

Man, I love my hobbies but sometimes I REALLY hate the fandom.

P.S. I'm not talkin about civil, constructive criticism. There's enough of it here as well and that's to be encouraged.

Monks are utility fighters. They have more tricks than a standard Fighter does, and at times, more than a Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, or Ranger does too. More tricks = slightly lower BAB. Same rule rings true for spell-casting classes.

Simple Solution: Play a class for flavor, not numbers. This is a Role-Playing Game, after all.

People can number crunch and theory craft all they want, but when it comes to game time, the dice decide everything anyway. If the rolls go well, a monk can easily out perform a fighter. Heck, a wizard with a quarterstaff could out perform a fighter too if his rolls are good, I've seen it happen.

Yeah yeah, "percentages" and all that jazz. Having a higher percent chance of doing something doesn't mean squat if your rolls suck that game.

Bottom line, just play a class you enjoy, not because they could solo a tarrasque by level X with build Y. Most GMs (and other players) hate power-gamers anyway.

You, I really hate when some self-righteous poster decides to advise the rest of us to give up our 'power-gaming ways' and just play the class for flavor. I have played monks, quite often, I will have you know. I have played monks since 1st edition back in '86. I will continue to play monks, given the opportunity to do so. Pointing out the problems with the class and suggesting solutions to them is not 'power-gaming' but rather a means of correcting imbalance within the game itself.

Master Arminas

Flavor does not keep characters alive, and weakening an already weak class is not helping anyone. I already have to go out of the way to help the monk as is in my games. This is one rule I won't be enforcing.

Wait... they aren't my personal walking rules-encyclopedias?

I'm also bothered by those who DO get answers and then trash the developers after they took the time to explain something.

Since 4E came out (minus a month or two, if generous) not a single 4E superfan has braught up a valid excuse for any of the complaints made about 4E as nauseum, here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Because all the 4E things people hate have nothing to do with desires and opinions of 5E? The fact that they still hate a game after 4 years worth of time to fix itselfs ounds like excelent grounds for talking about 5E to me.

Maybe you should go start a thread for people who can just agree with you about the 4E perfection and how people are stupid that don't agree?

First, I don't think 4E was perfect. Far from it, in fact.

Second, no one needs to make any excuses for the complaints about 4E. Do I need to defend myself for preferring Pepsi over Coke?

Third, there's been no indication that 5E will resemble 4E outside of optional modules that no one will be forced to use. In fact, the lead designer on the system right now was responsible for 3E, not 4E.

Posts like

You know, its strange but . . . I had one annoying problem with 4e. It was too radical a design for me to accept as D&D.

have nothing to do with

feelings about 5E are informed by their feelings about 4E.

I'm just one poster expressing my opinion that the 4E subforum isn't the place to have these "I hate 4E" circle jerks, and it's pathetic to do so in a 5E thread while making no pretense of discussion about 5E. The horse is dead. Stop and ask yourself what you're really trying to accomplish rehashing the same old ignorant and/or nebulous gripes and complaints.

I don't understand why the "MY FEELINGS ABOUT 5E D&D" thread has become an excuse for a bunch of haters to wander in and b**** about why they despise 4E.

Please start your own thread somewhere else. 4E has been out for almost four years now, and not a single one of you has brought up anything that hasn't already been complained about ad nauseum here and everywhere else. We all get it.

Might we get back to ill-advised and ill-informed speculation about 5E now?

And, you know, who cares about 3.5 players that didn't switch to Pathfinder? They're irrelevant to the discussion

As are you, with that attitude.

If not everyone is having fun, talk to the two players and ask them to tone down their characters. Let them know that it's great that they want their time to shine, but so do the other people playing at the table.

I hate it when (in LFR) I get someone at the table who just massacres everything in round 1 and the DM calls the combat. I want to do stuff too, dang it! I don't care that the combat was finished in that first round. That sucks and isn't fun for anyone except the one PC who did all the damage dealing.

You know what I REALLY hate?

The people of Alpha Centauri. I do... I just hate them. They've never done anything for us, or taught us better technology.

Oh... wait a minute... I just realized we haven't even seen them yet. My bad.

Get it? ;)

Its okay for everyone to have an opinion, but I find it very odd we are already seeing so much anti-5e sentiment. Some sort-of preemptive strike, perhaps?

You want to hate 4e, fine. You want to dislike WotC (which everyone forgets saved D&D from oblivion once, and brought us the system Paizo is currently using), thats okay too. But please, PLEASE stop hating something no-one has ever seen yet.

I am no fan of 4e, and absolutely loathe what they did to The Forgotten Realms, but all this hold-over hatred isn't helping anyone.

If 5e is good, and lots of people enjoy it, in the long run we are all better-off.

Yeah, there needs to be content for beyond 20 play. As for what a cap should be, I think nothing higher than 40 would be fine. I mean, I understand people want to keep going even beyond that, but at least a hard cap at 40 gives players another 20 levels to play with.

There's only so many times our table can start a campaign, get their characters up to 20 and have to stop and restart all over again. We'd all like to go beyond 20 and keep growing with these characters.

Of course, The 4E Mutual Appreciation Society failed to notice Scott's slam on Hama in his very first post.

Double standards, infull, upfront, nude and horny.

It was far from a slam, and for those that play 4E and enjoy it, there is a mutual appreciation of the game. What people don't like is Scott will not back down from an argument. And regardless of the poster, we all have our moments.

You would all be cheering him on if he only played Pathfinder, and spoke about 4E in derogatory terms any chance he gets. Then he truely would be your favorite.

But keep on fueling the fire, if that is what you enjoy. If Hama has an issue with Scott, or vice versa, then let them work it out.

I'm probably going to regret making this post, but the boards have been really toxic on edition war stuff over the last few days and I couldn't resist commenting. It was really a sad indictment that Evil Lincoln's thread calling for calm had some of the worst arguing in it. this kind of vitriol really gives gamers a bad name. Fundamentally I really don't understand how some people (on any side) aren't just happy enjoying what they enjoy. They have to put the boot into what somebody else likes and show that their game of choice is 'better'. Yes, this behaviour is by no means restricted to RPG markets. But that doesn't make it any more sensible.

4E can be fun, but it is not like other editions of D&D. 3.x may have been different from 2nd ed, but it didn't change the basic roles of the classes.

See, the problem here is that a lot of people seem to think that the above is objectively true rather than a subjective opinion. While I enjoy 3E and 4E I too found that 3E seemed very much like 2E while 4E seemed like a bigger departure. On the other hand I have friends who feel that it plays just the same and another who thinks 4E is a great throw back to the older versions of the game.

The thing is, this is the kind of issue where none of us are wrong. It just depends on what a particular individual focuses more on in a game and the differing perceptions that we have. It's tempting to feel that our own perceptions of these things are the only valid ones, especially if most of the people you know feel the same way. But it's not the case. Most of the hot button edition war items are completely subjective, things that nobody is going to convince anybody else on.

No one else calls you out on your passive aggressive edition warring here Scott.

Seriously? It seems to me that people call out Scott repeatedly. To the extent that I'm seen people pre-emptively make fun of him in threads where they expect him to show up. Now I agree that Scott's initial post in this thread was more confrontational than needed. But I don't think that excuses your own vitriol and disagree with the idea that Scott is never called out so it was warranted. Kudos on at least retracting insults to him though.

Of course, The 4E Mutual Appreciation Society failed to notice Scott's slam on Hama in his very first post.

Double standards, infull, upfront, nude and horny.

And this sort of attitude doesn't help anything. Unless what you're hoping to fuel is more 'us' against 'them' foolishness. Saying that you disagree with what Scott said to Hama is fine. Turning around and denigrating everyone who disagrees with your disagreement by suggesting their opinion is less valid than your own isn't fine.

4E can be fun, but it is not like other editions of D&D. 3.x may have been different from 2nd ed, but it didn't change the basic roles of the classes.

"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "

-Gary Gygax, 2004

Again, everyone here who thinks 3e was a perfectly accepted happy no-problems transition and embodies everything about D&D...leave the Paizo forums! Go talk to other people! Go to Dragonsfoot, where they refuse to use 3e and instead call it "The Edition That Shall Not Be named."

Go talk to some OSR folk, or some guys who are old school without using the OSR stuff. Talk to people who started at 1st and ended at 1st. Talk to guys who opened with the Red Box and never went beyond.

Ask them if they agree on 3e being the true embodiment of D&D.

...Or, ask Gygax. Who thought 3e represented comic-book superheroes more then a fantasy RPG. Who thought 3e focused on nothing but combat and character power. Who, in other words, repeated all the same complaints you have about 4e, but said them about 3e.

Chris Kenney wrote:

Whatever I know about what they did or did not do during the lead-up to 4E is hearsay at best.

Hunt down the 4e troll video. It goes like this: People kept complaining about some of the things wotc said about 4e. So they made a video where a troll (the D&D monster) sat in front of a PC and grumbled about/wrote all the things people complained about 4e. And then a dragon (the one that pretty much represented wotc as a company) shat on the troll.

Those who had these complaints considered this to mean this: Those who complain about 4e must be trolls, and wotc pretty much s@#*s on them.

Not an unreasonable interpretation I think.

Reasonable or not, people saw it that way. They said so. wotc never bothered to apologise, or even say that this was not totally what they meant.

As I said: Doesn't even matter whether people were overreacting, if you don't even comment on it, you pretty much admit guilt.

Except that's not what happened.

Here's what happened.

A group of annoying sycophants endlessly praise the dragon as their lord and master that does no wrong. At the same time, an annoying troll makes useless and meaningless comments on the internet. The dragon poops on the latter group, then lords over the former.

The whole point of the video wasn't LOL I POOP ON YOU. It was "Wow, both groups are kinda rediculous, so let's poke fun at them." Incidentally, the dragon - WotC in your own belief - is displayed as greedy and malevolent. A red dragon, the most evil creature in D&D.

The whole thing was tongue in cheek, but you and so many others were too busy nailing yourselves to a cross to notice that.

Personally I love that video because it so perfectly illustrates what IS wrong with gamers - they need, need to be martyrs. Someone has to be attacking them. Nerds put themselves in this incredible non-existent siege mentality that everything is out to get them, and that any disagreement is some kind of strange attack.

The video didn't make fun of you. It didn't make fun of me. It didn't make fun of anyone on these forums, or any other forums. It made fun of the idea of a "troll on the internet" mashing his hands on the keyboard and mumbling nonsequitors. It made fun of the idea of sycophant kobolds loving and praising their master dragon even as the dragon eats people. It made fun of dragons pooping on things. Unless you are literally a big green regenerating troll with claws, it didn't target you.

But you wanted it to.