Werecorpse's page

This is just a further example of PC's being built differently from npc's. It was the same in the monster manual , the hit dice of the npc's, their abilities etc were what was needed to make them work. thugs and veterans get multiple melee attacks a round but not missile.

At first my players were shocked when attacked by thugs that they were being attacked by "5th level fighters" I explained that they weren't, levels and classes are a game mechanic thing, they were being attacked by bill and Ben.

I don't think it needs to be explained by what training they had etc. It's just that this NPC can do this thing.

The problem with mind flayers and beholders is the same as with using great Cthulhu in your campaign. They're way too iconic and well-known to be as strange and scary as they are supposed to be.

I find the opposite. Because 5e is new but my players are all 30+ year veterans when a beholder showed up they freaked out. They didnt know exactly what it did but they knew it was bad news. They and the hobgoblins they were fighting all just split & ran. It was kinda meta game knowledge but it had the desired effect.

I tend to play with more or less the same group of players I played AD&D and 3/3.5/pathfinder with. Some of them lean towards 'optimisation as a goal' because they can't help it. Choosing inefficient option X over efficient option Y just makes them unhappy in the long run - let me call them group A. Others pay no attention to which is optimal, they try sometimes but they can't keep up the interest in number maximisation- never have never will - let me call them group B.

Group B ended up in latter stages of 3e versions either falling behind in usefulness in many situations or getting group A to help design their characters. Even with a group A designed character they seemed to be reluctant to use it to maximum efficiency. Efficiency wasn't their goal.
Group A gained more familiarity with the rules which meant discarding more and more options as the 'best one or two choices' (in their mind) became the only options for them.

Now for group B it doesn't really matter what system we play - they make a character that kinda works mechanically and works roleplaying wise and they are happy. They are less happy if their character gets rendered redundant mechanically and they are forced to play the group A game or be a second stringer.

We haven't played anywhere near as much 5e as we had 3e and pre system mastery has the benefit that the group B designs aren't redundant and the group A don't feel the need to discard options as they experiment.

What I am finding is that because 5e has less "system mastery" secrets and toggles the group A players don't feel the need to explore and push those boundaries. It is freeing for them in that they can largely ignore the 'optimisation push demon' because there appears to be less available. They can just relax with their character creation - not feel grumpy that they didn't follow a more efficient path. Group B is happy because there are less mechanical rules to follow to not be rendered a second stringer.

So in summary IME it hasn't attracted a different type of player but it has allowed players to focus on different elements. In my groups which are comprised of group A and group B players both are happy with this not being a big element of the game.

You're a bit unusual I suspect. The improvement through getting stuff, skills or stats or level raising is a big deal in RPGs and crpgs IME.

I once had a player complain that he didn't get any "interesting" magic items. When I asked what he meant he said "like a +4 shield".

Players they love their bigger numbers, and having a stat that goes to 22 is like having an amplifier that goes to 11.

I don't understand the topic question. It assumes there is a time I'm NOT going through my 1st and 2nd edition (as well as original and Basic D&D) stuff. That is a faulty assumption.

Agreed. I am and I always have.

The first 3e campaign I ran was a conversion of the 2e adventure Night Below.

My current 5e campaign uses cauldron but includes a conversion of the basic adventure Nights Dark Terror (B10) and will have Dwellers in the Forbidden City (I1).

It's clear. I had the same puzzle. We eventually concluded it was ambiguous and went with spell level (ie cure wounds is always +2). We figured they're pretty good about explicitly using 'spell slot' when that's what they mean.

1. A first level spell would be +3 (level +2), and

Read the paragraph on page 201 about casting spells at a higher level it seems that if you use a 3rd level spell to cast cure wounds you have just cast a 3rd level spell.

Why are you quitting playing pathfinder?

I quit because it was too complex at levels 7+ and just kept getting more complex as it went up, over rewarded game mechanic mastery and took too long to design and play combats.

I initially switched to Savage Worlds a few years ago as a simpler system (I still like it) and now play 5e. It doesn't have any of the problems I mentioned above.

For me and most of my group it wasn't the complexity of character build that was a major contributor to making 3.x popular.

It was that it had a robust system for a tactical level combat. Things like flanking, attacks of opportunity, 5' step, straight line charging, miniature scale movement etc all were new for d&d. We had rarely used mini before because combat didn't really benefit from it. AD&D was more about resource management - combats were simpler - fighters at the front, magic users at the back hand wave the rest.

Suddenly 3.x added a tactical combat game to the roleplaying, adventure, storytelling game that had always been D&D.

Now I agree that the character build part was initially fun too but that side of it became more and more like homework. The imbalance between characters, problems that were created by things going slightly wrong, the maths to check each round based on buffs and the like became frustrating. But having been exposed to the added tactical element for my group we couldn't go back totally to the hand wave tactics of previous editions - not when playing D&D. I mean, we could do it a bit, but those tactical combats were fun.

So if 5e can be a roleplaying, storytelling, adventure, tactical game without making any part too complicated I am in.

Oh and I am 47 and started with the basic set in 79.

I haven't played much 5e but to me what looks like a difference in style of game between 5e & pathfinder is that pathfinder seems to suit the epic adventure path style of game and 5e a more sandbox style.

A pathfinder adventure path often involves events which are essentially a way to gain levels to allow you to trouble a BBEG. The difference between a 3rd and a 15th level character is enormous. So adventure design tends to lean towards a linear adventure progression. You don't want the 4th level characters stumbling into the 9th level adventure because that's a TPK waiting to happen. So you fight goblins, then ghouls, then ogres, then giants etc you don't want to meet a couple of giants when you should be fighting ghouls!

5e seems to have a less steep improvement curve, meaning that at 4th level if you wander into the 9th level dungeon you can survive ( probably only long enough to get out). So this means you can make the world a bit more sandboxy, let the players find their own way. Now maybe this will just lead to the players having a false sense of their ability to defeat a big threat.

Now that I look back on it when 3.0 came out I started running essentially much more linear adventure path style campaigns. I like the story element of the game anyway. Maybe now I will try a bit more sandbox.

Like I said I admit I haven't had much experience with 5e but that's my thoughts .

Imagine you build up a fantasy character—a wizard, let's say—who's all about researching the ruins of ancient civilizations to discover lost knowledge that no one else in the world knows. Researching arcane lore, and all that. You take that character to your GM and she thinks he will fit in the campaign, so you play the wizard for a while.

In one dungeon, you find a strange relic from the past that your PC has never heard of before. It's a brand new discovery—exactly what he wants to do. This weird item can clearly be held by a humanoid hand, but doesn't look like any weapon you've ever seen before. It doesn't radiate magic, so it's likely just some piece of ancient junk. Until you accidentally put pressure on one part of the item, and it shoots what looks to you, a wizard with maximum ranks in Spellcraft, like a scorching ray. If you could unlock this ages-old enigma, you'd be known the world over for your intellect. Heck, the device might even get named after you!

That's the end of the night, as the GM needs to work early tomorrow and the woman playing the fighter needs to make the last train home. You thank the GM for an incredible adventure, noting that you're so used to knowing every page of every rulebook that nothing seems to surprise you anymore, but that tonight you got to experience the wonder of discovery along with your character. Your GM just smiles and says knowingly, "just wait until you see what that strangely etched coin you found does."

If this book were called "Treasures of Numeria" and we hadn't told you that Numeria was home to a crashed spaceship and had laser guns and robots in it; if this product description didn't pull back the curtain and say, outright, that these are technological items one would expect to find in a science fiction setting; if a sword made of light and an invisible field of force were describes as magic instead, would there still be the same negative reactions to it?

Food for thought...

Yes, but fluff and description matter when playing a game of imagination. Describing an item as something that shoots forth a magical bolt of flame vs that emits a laser beam vs a ranged touch attack that does 4d6 fire damage mechanically may be the same but it does matter. In a game meant to be played partially in your imagination, how it's described is crucial. For some people the description that juxtaposes different genre's breaks their immersion. In this supplement you are not talking about strange magical treasures from another world you are talking about technological devices.

Now I know some people love that stuff, and importantly the creative minds at Paizo want to produce it so fine. Bring it on. I am very unlikely to use it but others will and that's fine. I hope you get it out of your system and start producing stuff that is more my speed again.

The AP's started off as being fairly standard fantasy exploration discovery stories but it seems like for some time this has been the exception rather than the norm.

Can I request that the AP following the Iron Gods one just be a standard old fashioned no guns, no lasers, no anachronisms adventure.

Before running an adventure path I generally comb through the boards and have a look at what other people have done to add to it or change it. These are a great source of inspiration. I run a heavily house ruled version of the game, half way between 3.5 and pathfinder ( so heavily houseruled we have essentially re written the players handbook) with emphasis on minimizing the power spikes. We have played this for about 3 years and are on version 18 of our everchanging draft rules. However i pretty much just use the stats in the ap, the monster manual or a bestiary as I see fit. Most of this isn't important but I am putting it out there so if something I say later doesn't gel with the rules you will know why.

Also the group I run ap's with can only meet 2-3 times a year when we go away and play Friday evening to Sunday evening, generally finishing 1 book per weekend session ( although we got through 2 in the first session). We have been playing together for between 20-30 years.

In starting this ap I took heed of those who ran elf only campaigns and went with that. The players were told they would be members of, or associated with, the Shin'Rakorath which I described as being a private mercenary force heavily tied to the elven nation and a cross between special forces military and secret agents. I strongly suggested they be elves, though I said half elves and to a lesser extent gnomes were acceptable. I said that while they could be any race these were the best fit for a roleplaying sense. I advised against half-orcs or dwarves. I also said they should be mostly good but could be neutral leaning toward good, and I recommended against playing paladins and to go with more standard elven stereotypes to get the most from the game.

As part of the way I decided to assist in the immersion side of things I decided that the Shin'Rakorath ( or Rath as they were known for short) were
1. one of those need to know organizations - so not everyone knew about the drow, or the fact the Rath was the military arm of the Winter Council to start with; &
2. Would change the leader of the group depending on the type of mission at hand

I also decided that as a result of the dreadful events that occurred in the upper echelons of the Winter Council which precipitated the whole ap there would be some elements of the Winter Council that wanted to find out what Allevrah was up to, others just want to find and to silence her to protect the WC, others just maintaining business of drow hunting and secret keeping as usual etc

So first session off they went to Riddleport:
The mission leader was a Mierani forest ranger who had been involved in patrols to keep 'short lives' out of the forest. She knew of the Enemy within the Rains but not what it was. She had been in the Rath for less than a decade so a command mission was a sign of approval.
She was assigned a half elf fighter who had just joined the Rath as an associate member and who had spent about a year in Riddleport with his fathers human family a couple of years previously.
She also had a Mierani forest elven wizard who was an intelligence officer, who knew about drow and was tasked to keep the secret.
She had a Kyonin elf wizard and a Kyonin cleric. The Kyonin wizard was also an intelligence officer who knew about the drow.

Upon arrival in Riddleport they had two contacts, Kwava who had been observing the city from outside and a half Orc cleric of Calistria ( yes despite my suggestions as to race someone played a half Orc).

They understood that their mission was to track down a renegade elf who was working with the Enemy within the Rains and had come to Riddleport presumably to ally with one or more of the pirates there.

I mixed up how I ran the adventures but essentially followed the script. They could t figure out where this elf was staying in town, but people had seen her talking with the cypher mages, dealing with Cromarky etc. I threw in that they traced this mysterious elf to an inn located out of the city where she had stayed on several occasions. ( here I ran a shadow plane connection adventure to foreshadow the creation of the Armageddon echo). Eventually they found the lair but Despora ( wearing a hat of disguise) got away. They did find a barrel with rotting elven flesh in it ( she had also had recorporeal incarnation cast on her, which had expired), but thought nothing of it ( beyond eww!).

Because they were playing as elven secret agents they didn't get heavily invested in Riddleport, which was fine by me as I had just run crimson throne where the leaving of Korvosa was a bit of a sore point and I heard that had become an issue for groups not wanting to leave Riddleport.

Anyway they had some wierd notes seemingly about the Cyphergate and other stuff written in a combination of elven and some strange language ( under common) and were in the process of trying to figure out where she had gone when the meteor struck.

The children of the void went as expected. The high point for me was when they met the drow. After they killed the sentry drow and headed into the complex the Mierani elf intelligence officer stayed behind, then when he though no one was looking he poured acid on the drow faces to hide their elven nature and tossed the bodies into the sea. Unfortunately the others saw this and were a bit freaked out.

The first session finished with quite a few of the drow escaping ( inculding Despora again) and the intelligence officers explaining the secret of the existence of the drow to their companions and everyone agreeing to acid up the dead dark elves and feed them to the orca.

I like BBT and Community ( position declared ) and IMO

1. BBT is a more mainstream sitcom than Community ( but they are both sitcoms). As part of the sitcom formula the characters have flaws and are periodically the butt of jokes. The characters flaws and idiosyncrasies are exaggerated, they tend to do stupid things and it generally works out alright in the end. Like all sitcoms, like Friends - Monica had her neat freak, competitiveness exaggerated, Joey is enfatuated by food and is dumb. The purpose of these exaggerated characteristics is to poke fun at these fictional characters weaknesses as they may be reflected in people we know. This is intentional, they are not intending to say all people who like things to be neat are OCD or hyper competitive, or chefs,. Or that all people who love food are dumb.

2. In BBT they do this same thing. The premise of the show is that a bunch of socially awkward but academically intelligent types struggle to be less socially awkward. By it's sitcom nature it pokes fun at all of the main characters. I guess they could have been socially awkward by being jocks or frat boys but that has probably been done before - in hundreds of frat boy movies. But they weren't, they were geeks. The geek characters ( especially leonard )are meant to be identified with and sympathized with to some extent. Yes their foibles are meant to be laughed at but that has been the same since I Love Lucy.

3. If you know people who think that because you like star trek or play RPG's you must be like Sheldon or Raj etc that is their ignorance. It is the same if they believe that all people of a certain gender should be more nurturing or all people of a certain race be better at certain sports. That ignorance is not the shows issue, it is the issue of the person who holds that belief. Just because Howard is Jewish and comes from a broken home with an odd mother relationship doesn't mean anything about anyone except Howard. BBT portrays its main characters as having certain flaws. It has portrayed scientists as cool motorcycle riding womanisers as well. So what? Surely just because William Shatner portrayed a Crazy lawyer in Boston legal people don't believe all lawyers in Boston are like Denny Crane? ( though that would be freaky)

4. The portrayal of the BBT characters does laugh at them but it also shows them as caring smart vulnerable people. In one episode Penny ( the non geek girl) watches a show recommended by Leonard ( her boyfriend ) because she is envious of the passion she sees the geeks have in the things they like. It's a passion she doesn't really have for anything. The geek hobbies are non mainstream, they are not baseball - to suggest they should not be treated as being a bit different is pointless.

5. Community has no greater relevance to the debate than Friends or Seinfeild. It is a show about characters who ( in the main) are not geeks. Jeff is a selfish lawyer, Annie is a swat, Shirley is a Christian mum, Pierce is an old bigot, Troy is a jock, Britta is a protester, Abed is somewhat Aspergers who lives his life through TV. They are not portrayed as particularly geeky in their hobbies ( apart from Abed and later Troy but that is more TV geek ). When they do portray RPG like in the second season Advanced Dungeons & Dragons episode the relevant person that is the reason they play the game is an outsider to the group who they have previously mocked and referred to as 'Fat Neil' . He is expressly described as a loser who is considering committing suicide due to his sucky life choices ( epitomized by his being overweight, playing D&D and consequently having no friends). How is this a good portrayal of geeks? The game itself ( in which senor chang plays an awesome Drow) involves a scene where one player intimately describes sex with an NPC ( thus crossing into the other roleplaying reference) . I get it's a joke but do your friends think that is an accurate portrayal of role players, or what happens in roleplaying games? How is this portrayal better than BBT.

6. Finally as someone who enjoys both these shows, but believes they are merely sitcoms and therefore no more realistic than the story about two men who walk into a bar one of them holding a duck ( ie i believe men and bars exist, and men sometimes carry ducks or walk into bars - but on this occasion it's just the set up for a joke, i do not draw any adverse inferences against bar patrons, bar tenders or duck owners because of it). I say if you don't like them it doesn't necessarily mean its badly written, or that you are too dumb to get it. It just might mean it doesn't appeal to your sense of humor. I thoroughly enjoy the warmth beneath the sense of humor of both the shows .

Optimization is not antithetical to RP. Characters if RPed are far more than the sum of their bonuses. I mean if you are against optimization have you considered playing an aristocrat or expert.

But practical optimizationers or power gamers ( " charop" from hereon ) or whatever you call it is also largely a 3e + thing isn't it?

Greater ability to customize = greater ability to optimize.

I played 1e not 2e and didn't play 2e kits rules so I guess they could have had some charop potential but in my recollection was that the whole charop thing in 1e involved not choosing to play a monk or thief or half Orc cleric ( level limit 4 d'oh!) . Or maybe choosing to use a Longsword instead of a broadsword or battle axe. But that was it.

The big charop moment came after you rolled up your stats.

Once bill had a human fighter with a Longsword if I had a human fighter with a longsword it didn't matter how much better he knew the rules of the game we would still be comparable as characters. ( stats aside, if he had 18/00 str and I had 16 I would be better off switching it to int and being a magic user)

Power gamers were the monty haul guys and that was a play style choice of the campaign, not of members within the campaign.

So it kinda makes sense that someone hankering for the old style feel of the game is turned of by charop and the way it can ( not always does) warp the balance of a party and effect enjoyment.

Btw when I saw the suggestion that getting players to write paragraphs about their characters for in game rewards to encourage roleplaying I knew that in my group the main charop player would definitely complete this task for his 225gp - making no difference to how he actually played in game. The best role players might, but would summarize their character in probably a shorter word count and still be better roleplayers in game.

IMO here are some differences between AD&D & 3.x/pathfinder.

1. The main combat and encounter rules are now in the PHB not the DMG meaning the feel of the game is one of less control and trust reposing in the DM's hands. The 'rule for everything' has taken away from the intuitive feel of the game imo. This is largely a psychological thing but to help the old world feel I suggest what has been said above about being a little fast and loose with the rules.

2. The character creation system is more like you are designing a build than rolling up a character. The magic deck builders in my group love this part. In old school you designed mechs or cars for car wars, you rolled up characters and they had abilities that sometimes suited a class, and others that didn't. Roll 4d6 in order, allow one swap and one reroll.

3. Adventures were less clinically designed. They became even more clinical in 4e with each encounter almost becoming its own mini war game. But even in 3e I (as dm and player) found myself thinking more about the encounter than the dungeon. The encounters always have to be balanced ( don't put in an encounter that is more than 4 cr's different from the party etc). This lead to some great dynamic encounters but also some monotony like the BBEG being 4 encounters into the dungeon etc. In the giant series for example you meet the big encounter in G1 almost straight away, in G2 it's way at the back, in G 3 you meet one BBEG virtually in the first room and another 3/4 of the way through the dungeon. Try and have less organized dungeon design.

4. Characters level up so much faster. I once ran a 1e game in high school and uni and beyond lasting about 15 years where the characters ended up about 18 th level. I like being able to experience some high level gaming every now and again but you now barely get to get the feeling of being 3rd level when suddenly you are 5th. We used to go through 5-10 dungeons to go up a level. Now that is a 1st - 20th campaign. What that means is if you meet a BBEG you can't beat ( say a rakshassa at 2nd level) just wander off adventuring for a month or two and you will be 8th+ level and you can splat him. Old school ( Monty haul excepted) was IMO a lower level game. Take a long time to go up levels.

4. Finally the characters are tougher now. More hit points, less SOD effects means longer to determine a way through the encounter, less risk, more warning if things are going wrong. less risk means less value to what was gained.

Most of these have one thing in common, chaos over order. The other rule is that adventuring is hard, risky and the rewards you earn are well earned.

Good luck.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

The game does not "force you to dump stats to excel at your chosen field" at all.

The game allows you to play a wide range of character concepts. The idea that the only way to "excel" in one area is to suck in another area is a pure myth foisted by those who believe that "excel" can only mean "do the absolute best out of all possible options."

That's not what "excel" means. But it does seem to be what many power gamers THINK it means.

Sure, you can tone down 'excel' to mean 'better than an average schmuck on the street.' But that's not what most people mean by the term. By excel, I mean be one of the best at-- as literary heroes are. Heros are not slightly better than the average farmer. They excel. And that's the whole point of heroic fantasy, to be a hero (There are other ways to play, naturally, but the game is pitched as heroic fantasy). But if my fighter is slightly above average intelligence, charming, and has a modicum of common sense, he is automatically worse at combat than that dumb, ugly, reckless brute. There's not a large ability range at the low end. Going from a 18 to 14 str is a substantial difference, and definitely not what people mean by ' to excel.'

I don't think heroic fantasy is always about highly superior specimens, IMO it's more about overcoming tremendous difficulties and fighting against the odds. Even if you are just a gifted tatooine farm boy, or a hobbit with some natural gifts you are not a superhero and everyone warns you to stay home. Optimization style character parties is more about doing the job everyone else would struggle to do, but you find it easier because of your superior natural gifts, because you are better than them. Like the Avengers.

I prefer my heroic fantasy rpg like the former and my superhero rpg like the latter but each are valid styles of play IMO.

I'd like to see comments from people that don't live in the US make a good point without disparaging America or her culture. I'd be more willign to not outright dismiss any points made, were that the case.

We can also stop doing the same in regards to Europe or any other nation with tougher gun legislation. We can talk about this without culture bashing. Respect, please.

Agreed, however from my reading of the thread its the people who live in America who want to keep guns who make the primary disparaging remarks about American culture. When asked why do you beleive you need to have the weapons most other countries have controlled freely available the response is sometimes along the lines of "to protect myself from gangs of armed home invading criminals/the government" or "it's necessary because of where we live (ie USA)" or "a gun control law brought in here like in other countries (Italy/Australia/UK) wouldnt be obeyed here because of our culture".

The non americans tend to say - "its not that bad, you can do it, dont be afraid just give up your guns - we did it and it has reduced gun deaths" Now apart from perhaps ascribing fear of being attacked to the American (pro gun)people (which fear has been stated as existing) and being mildly disparaging by disagreeing with them that it is a rational fear this is not really a culture bash.

I am Australian, I struggle to believe any of those reasons are actually rational. I believe your culture is better than that. I beleive that you dont have as much a reason to be afraid as some seem to think. Its the american pro gun lobby who says it isnt IMO.

I just read an article by Nicholas Kristof in the NY times which said In Australia in 1996 we had a mass shooting which resulted in political courage to impose some restrictions on gun ownership, mostly automatic weapons etc. there was a buy back scheme so they could be handed in. It reduced the number of guns by 20% ( so 80% still out there) but it restricted the type of guns. In the 18 years prior we had 13 mass killings but none in the 14 years since. In addition firearm murder rate down 50% and firearm suicide down 40%.

Worth a try?

The below ideas are all someone elses but suit the urban environment

1. have a look at the Styes adventures for crazy odd cults urban stuff

2 here is an adventure thread/series that might work- a shadowy figure who later turns out to be the mayor (or someone else important) is gathering bits for a ritual to become a half fiend. he has a vampire working for him who helps collect the bits, such as bones from a particular family crypt, a specal medallion from the museum, a delivery from an exotic location etc. He also tries to kill particular person who has a half fiend bane sword and so forth. The PC's get involved initially becuase the vamp kills a few people and they hunt him down, but eventually they realise whats going on (the bard gets knowledge rolls or whatever). after the vamp is taken down the real bad guy becomes apparrent as he seeks to culminate the ritual with a mass slaughter. (Buffy season 3)

3. A heavily pregnant wealthy woman is kidnapped, the husband seeks help to deliver the ransom. it goes bad as the kidnappers snatch the husband and the ransom & head for an abandoned district. turns out wifey is a crazy cultists about to give birth to an omen like child and wants the husband as a sacrifice (dungeon87- tharizduns love child + potential The Omen mash up)

4. kids are sick and dying, turns out they are all kids of the thieves guild which has been cursed for being involved in the theft of a maguffin and killing the guardian by burning him to death. The youngest of them will die first. A fey ghost is doing the deed. he is weak but getting more powerful. he can only be defeated by destroying the bauble he was guarding, but it has been sold to a wizard who knew what would happen but has taken magical precautions (nightmare on elm street)- find out whats happening, get the bauble back & save the children

Tell me about it. No really, tell me about it. It would make me feel marginally better to know I'm not the only one. Two of my players just cancelled on today's session with abolutely pathetic reasons. Reason A: "I've got a sore knee". Reason B: "I've got a house inspection tomorrow". I'm almost certain that the real reason in both cases is that they are just too damn lazy to get out of bed.

I think a lot of players don't really realise how much preparation it takes to make a roleplaying campaign happen. I spent about 6 hours yesterday drawing maps, making notes, and printing out handouts, then another 3 hours this morning transferring their character sheets from an illegible scrawl. All for them to just flake out and forget to show up. I've been DMing for about 15 years, and been with this same group for about 5 years. What does it take to make them realise how much work goes into this stuff? I love doing it, but sometimes I feel so taken for granted.

But your work isn't wasted, you can use the same work you did the next time you play. Because you did the prep already you won't need to spend the preceding day getting ready, just a 15 minute refresher. Don't get me wrong canceling a social occasion on short notice is rude - but the work you have done is still valuable. Maybe they will appreciate it later?

Kazarath on the other hand has a bunch of social criminals as players. Seriously, next time buy a burger instead of pizza and eat it yourself.

It is not just you.

It is ridiculously overpowered.

WotC clearly has no animosity towards 3.5, and it's a little silly to imagine all these dark motives for them when all they were trying to do was show that they understood where some of the "sticking points" of the previous edition were.

And, by and large, they did. The only reason their marketing campaign is considered half as harmful as it actually is is because the gaming community has way too many people who are unable to tell the difference.

'animosity' and 'dark motives' may be a bit strong, but you ascribe certain fairly benign and helpful motives to the marketers ( 'all they were trying to do was ...') but couldn't it be that they also had a motive of trying to suggest that the then most popular game system in the tabletop rpg world was not as good as its fans thought it was? And that they used mild ridicule as a tool in that marketing? That they wanted to project that game they were launching was 'better' than the current 'game?

( the statement about one game being overall better than the other rarely works and can be inflammatory, it's like saying my baby is prettier than yours)

Sure people may have over reacted to this marketing but marketing is all about presentation and association. Soft drink or breakfast cereal being consumed by professional athletes or hot models Doesn't mean anything but people form an association that is intended. Airlines saying they have friendlier in flight service than their rivals is probably subjective and doesnt mean they are generally better but that is the message they want people to walk away with. That is the intended message. Surely it isnt a stretch to say the intended mild ridicule of a sub system of the game MAY have been intended as a mild ridicule of the game itself? And if it wasn't foreseen as potentially being interpreted as such .... Well that's a bit of a naive marketing blunder.

It appears while some are only prepared to ascribe dark motives to the marketers of 4e, you ascribe purity of motive. Perhaps neither is entirely right.

I keep coming back to this thread hoping to read what people think 5e will look like. There was an interesting post about 2-3 pages back about the modularity. I like the ideas put forward in that post. Sadly this 3e vs 4e marketing stuff is dominant ( and yes I got sucked in too). Surely if Wotc was happy with 4e they wouldn't be launching 5e at this time.

I would be interested in hearing your views ( if you have any on the subject, you may not) of why they decided to launch 5e at this time , and more interested in how you believe it will look.

From my point of view, as someone who doesn't play 4e and enjoyed playing 3.5e and 1e I am excited and happy to hear the news that wotc is going to make a new game & the way they say they are going to make it.

I don't really understand the negativity from those who don't play 4e. I mean

- they used to make a game I liked.
- they stopped & made a different game ( me sad, but I have other games )
- now they have said they will stop making the different game and make a game like the one they made before, ie one I like.

That's a good thing right?

As I say the news that wotc are going to make a new game instead of 4e ( which I don't play so don't care about ) is all good.

If they fail to make a game I like either because they are tricksy corporate suits or because they are hamfisted bunglers I am no worse off than I was before. But if they succeed....

Yay!

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.

Pants that grant +2 enhancement bonus to Int.

Smartypants

Is this the same place they discovered frogs with teeth?

Slurks!

Here is my twist starting from

Virgil this analysis is interesting- thanks for doing the work. I dont need to point out the flaws of solo adventuring.

Whenever we have a monk in the group the first thing that happens is it gets a mage armor cast on it. It still doesnt match it with the fighters but this goes a long way IMO and is not an unreasonable assumption. Alternatively if you insist on the solo thing can you replace one of his potions with a potion of mage armor. How does this effect your numbers?

I have little interest in graphic violence in gaming, dont mind it, just doesnt do anything for me. I took no offense from anything in HMM but realised it would not be of much use to my normal group which comprises of largely 40 year old married with childredn types. I think the story was good and quality of description was evocative and I wish there was stuff of this quality (though not style) to use to run a game for my kids.

IMO There is a significant difference between cartoon violence/common D&D violence (dropped an anvil on him turning him into a pancake, hit him with a sword so he ran out of hit points and died) and the more graphic stuff. It is the former that I have grown up with in my D&D for the last 30 years- it is what I am used to. It is what I want to introduce to my kids.