![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Allen Stewart |
![Malyas' Shield](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9048_Malyas.jpg)
Ummm....
I am such a Paizo fanboy, but I am seeing some hypocritical talk here.
Paizo is tossing out race books too. Yes Paizo seems to focus more on adventure paths, stand-alone adventures, society stuff and all that but arguably the adventure paths have feats, classes, equipment, etc. that all add tons of stuff to the game. And they are hitting with race books and guide to XXX area books. If anything Paizo has a more ambitious publishing schedule than WOTC. It's just that they aren't bloating the rules as much, they are smothering the adventure arena.I mean come on, some people like things, some don't. If you don't like it then ignore it instead of pointing a finger and attacking.
I think adventure paths, stand alone adventures, and the like, are precisely what the company should be cranking out. By keeping the rules system relatively managable via a small number of 'core books', you can then justify the additional material, as it doesn't add to the basic rules of the game. When you've got the 'basic/core rules' of the game spread out into literally dozens of books (as 3.5 did), a GM can't then feasibly officiate the game without: A.) owning all the books (and then somehow managing to locate a rule in question on the fly), or: B.) banning the book(s) which tends to irritate the players (particularly the munchkins who buy all the splat books) and then want to use them.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Sebastian](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Sebastian.jpg)
I think adventure paths, stand alone adventures, and the like, are precisely what the company should be cranking out. By keeping the rules system relatively managable via a small number of 'core books', you can then justify the additional material, as it doesn't add to the basic rules of the game. When you've got the 'basic/core rules' of the game spread out into literally dozens of books (as 3.5 did), a GM can't then feasibly officiate the game without: A.) owning all the books (and then somehow managing to locate a rule in question on the fly), or: B.) banning the book(s) which tends to irritate the players (particularly the munchkins who buy all the splat books) and then want to use them.
DDI basically solves this problem. You can get the rules for any new book with that tool without owning the book. It's not an inconsequential expense, but it's still far less than buying each and every book.
I never felt the need to buy the 3.5 race books; designating these as "core" doesn't really change that fact. Some of my players wanted to use the race books in 3.5, and my typical response was no. I'm much more likely to allow these books in if my players do buy them given that I can always access the relevant materials on DDI.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Allen Stewart |
![Malyas' Shield](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9048_Malyas.jpg)
DDI basically solves this problem. You can get the rules for any new book with that tool without owning the book. It's not an inconsequential expense, but it's still far less than buying each and every book.
The DDI, (if it can indeed do what you have suggested) would be a very helpful tool, in that, people wouldn't have to own (much less haul around) every book in the game, just to know the necessary & applicable rules, and have them at your fingertips when you need them.
As to the 'race' books, never owned them nor allowed them, and in agreement with you there.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Bojask](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/hs_half_orc_tough_final.jpg)
Sebastian wrote:
DDI basically solves this problem. You can get the rules for any new book with that tool without owning the book. It's not an inconsequential expense, but it's still far less than buying each and every book.
The DDI, (if it can indeed do what you have suggested) would be a very helpful tool, in that, people wouldn't have to own (much less haul around) every book in the game, just to know the necessary & applicable rules, and have them at your fingertips when you need them.
As to the 'race' books, never owned them nor allowed them, and in agreement with you there.
DDI updates about once a month, and includes any new material put out by dragon or in their books. This information is then also uploading into their index where you can search it by name, and see the information right in front of you. So all you need is access to their website and you can look up any aspect of a character class.
It also makes being a 3PP suck for 4e because they can't compete with the free access to information for the low low price of ten bucks a month. Its like a magazine subscription that keeps on giving. Its easily affordable to most players, and if parents are willing to pay for WoW, they'll definitely be willing to pay for this.
Also in their character builder you can set up the rules for your game, banning certain books from the outset so that when a player goes about updating their character, it'll tell them whether or not this character is campaign legal.
The default one is Living Forgotten Realms.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Jeremy Mac Donald |
![Chuul](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/chuul.jpg)
Matthew Koelbl wrote:folks like Stefan simultaneously criticizing this for being an unnecessary product, and then criticizing it for not having enough content.Think decafe - it may help?
I think that the idea of a Fluff based publication is a good one and one NOT previously explored well by WotC (aka 3e). I think that a Crunch based publication given the current volume of Crunch seems out of place. More Crunch DOES have an effect on the game. If you recall there were numerous posts about DM's restricting a players access to material is a bad thing. More Crunch DOES mean MORE work for the DM. A DM who is made aware at the gaming table of new ability A or B is at the mercy of these rules and ill-prepared. You suggest having your cake and eating it too me thinks.
S.
I think there is a fairly good chance that they'll begin to head in a crunch lite direction. The DDI provides all ones crunch needs in a package that is pretty significantly superior then a book in terms of actually using it with ones character. Fluff on the other hand is still not all that popular to read online. In my group if the book is really crunch heavy its not bought but something like the DMG II with its heavy emphasis on fluff is snatched up in book form. One suspects that this will become increasingly apparent too WotC as time goes on as massive numbers of books stacked all over the place is just not a very good way of creating a character when compared to using the DDI's character builder and it'll likely eventually effect WotC's sales figures if they don't adjust to their own online subscription model.
Truth is I don't even know from which books some of my clerics feats and powers are from and I can't really say that I care that I don't know the book as its just not relevant in a system where everything about a feat or power is always made explicitly clear.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Wight](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/TSRDUN148b.jpg)
The 4e DMG2 is a beautiful example of a worth while "add" to the game. It builds on what we already have rules wise and explains and extends. If the racebooks do this, I'm all for them - if they just add what I call needless options to fills up pages then I'm against them. Even if they are only 32 pages long.
Exception based systems begin to fall apart as the number of exceptions increase. Worst case is exceptions that become exceptions to exceptions...
S.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Jeremy Mac Donald |
![Chuul](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/chuul.jpg)
Exception based systems begin to fall apart as the number of exceptions increase. Worst case is exceptions that become exceptions to exceptions...S.
In some significant sense I agree with you. At some point in 3.5 I just stopped buying books and refused to allow any new ones in the game. I had a compiled feat list that ran more then 30 pages and adding more to that was just insane (especially since I had to choose new feats for my monsters in an attempt to keep up with the tricked out players). However I'm not yet feeling that way in 4E.
This is especially so because the DDI automatically reduces your list of options straight down to things your character can legally choose so much of the time I'm still only going through a fairly reasonable list. The fact that the feats (the most extensive list) is well organized with headers for different types of feats keeps things under control as well. In some sense WotC has made access to the DDI near mandatory but the high quality of the product and the fact that its extremely well organized means I can probably actually handle a greater load of options then was the case in 3.5 where there was no truly effective and comprehensive character builder. Code Monkey's one (can't remember the name) was probably best (though it meant buying the subscription for each book you owned) but even it eventually seemed to collapse under the weight of the system (we eventually stopped using it as there were to many problems and errors).
The balance in the system helps in this regard as well as I don't need to plan my character out in advance to be reasonably certain that the character will be on par with my comrades so I use the system when I level up and don't bother with trying to keep on top of everything from every book.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Charles Evans 25 |
Allen Stewart wrote:
I think adventure paths, stand alone adventures, and the like, are precisely what the company should be cranking out. By keeping the rules system relatively managable via a small number of 'core books', you can then justify the additional material, as it doesn't add to the basic rules of the game. When you've got the 'basic/core rules' of the game spread out into literally dozens of books (as 3.5 did), a GM can't then feasibly officiate the game without: A.) owning all the books (and then somehow managing to locate a rule in question on the fly), or: B.) banning the book(s) which tends to irritate the players (particularly the munchkins who buy all the splat books) and then want to use them.DDI basically solves this problem. You can get the rules for any new book with that tool without owning the book. It's not an inconsequential expense, but it's still far less than buying each and every book.
I never felt the need to buy the 3.5 race books; designating these as "core" doesn't really change that fact. Some of my players wanted to use the race books in 3.5, and my typical response was no. I'm much more likely to allow these books in if my players do buy them given that I can always access the relevant materials on DDI.
(edited)
With respect, DDI may well only partially solve the problem. As a case in point all the current rules for the Magic: The Gathering are online at the moment on the Wizards of the Coast Site. The current comprehensive rules is a massive document, over a hundred pages long (*link to page where current set can be accessed*), and it's been a long time since I felt confident enough of my knowledge of the current rules to be certain what was supposed to happen in an odd situation without spending half an hour looking things up and pondering. Just because all the rules are on the DDI it doesn't mean that the game won't stop every now and then when the DM has to look something up, and the more rules are allowed into a game then the more often (unless the DM is one of those fortunates blessed with perfect recall) the DM may well have to stop to look something up. The DDI may be slightly faster to look a rule up on than by paging thorugh several dozen books (or not if the site is having a slow day), and the DM may no longer necessarily need a trolley to carry all the books to a game table, but a lag resulting from having to look up unfamiliar rules is in my opinion still likely to be a feature of the game beyond a certain point in rules/options proliferation, no matter what the format in which the rules are kept.![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Zokar Elkarid](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9043_Zokar.jpg)
Well, Wizards is being better about making the stuff they put out balanced with this edition at least. Still, I agree that if nothing else they're going to be getting into feat/power bloat soon if they don't slow down the release schedule a bit.
I wouldn't go that far. The first Powers book, at the least, was definitely a power creep over the PHB. Fighters gave up the 1h or 2h specialization feature (+1 to hit with 1h or 2h weapons) and got to choose either Tempest Technique, which essentially gave you +2 to hit and damage for dual-wielding and gave you Two Weapon Defense for free, or the Battlerager Vigor feature, which gave you a crapton of hitpoints, and with the right build could generate 5 temp hit points on a miss and 10 on a hit, at will.
Not really any more balanced than previous editions' splat books.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Davi The Eccentric |
![Sleeping Human](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Horrors-sleeper.jpg)
I wouldn't go that far. The first Powers book, at the least, was definitely a power creep over the PHB. Fighters gave up the 1h or 2h specialization feature (+1 to hit with 1h or 2h weapons) and got to choose either Tempest Technique, which essentially gave you +2 to hit and damage for dual-wielding and gave you Two Weapon Defense for free, or the Battlerager Vigor feature, which gave you a crapton of hitpoints, and with the right build could generate 5 temp hit points on a miss and 10 on a hit, at will.
Not really any more balanced than previous editions' splat books.
Tempest Technique? You mean the one where you needed to be using two off-hand weapons and not wear the best armor to get the full bonus?
You're right about Battlerager Vigor though. I'm just glad they errata'd it.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Sebastian](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/Sebastian.jpg)
With respect, DDI may well only partially solve the problem. As a case in point all the current rules for the Magic: The Gathering are online at the moment on the Wizards of the Coast Site. The current comprehensive rules is a massive document, over a hundred pages long (*link to page where current set can be accessed*), and it's been a long time since I felt confident enough of my knowledge of the current rules to be certain what was supposed to happen in an odd situation without spending half an hour looking things up and pondering. Just because all the rules are on the DDI it doesn't mean that the game won't stop every...
Except that's not the way DDI is set up, so the above is entirely irrelevant.
It'd be great if people who hadn't used DDI could quit muddying the waters with speculative bs like this. At least become familiar with the basic elements of it before you criticize it.
Also, this might be a deeper flaw in your computer literacy given that you can look up a particular MTG card on the Wizards site and see all the related errata and various FAQs.
But, if the general point is, more rules equals more time to understand any particular rule, then, yes, that is true. I'm not sure how it fits in to this particular discussion, or what it had to do with my post given that the conversation went like this:
A: Looking up rules in multiple books sucks.
B: DDI vastly reduces that problem.
Does it absolutely eliminate the problem? No. The only way to absolutely eliminate the problem is to only play with a finite number of books.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Green Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Green.jpg)
My only issue with creating race books is that, generally, race books focus on how a race fits in a certain context, usually a campaign setting. And given that WotC is doing the whole 3-book and done campaign setting model, which setting will this be focusing on? I'd be happier to see a book that expands on the implied setting from the DMG and turns it into a fully realized world.
Although I had hoped that WotC would have learned the lesson with the 3.x splatbooks. They missed more than they hit, at least for me, and I'd rather see them focus on event books, ala Monte Cook's Requiem for a God or on expanding their existing campaign settings. I was very disappointed in Eberron's 4e-ment. Where are my Quori? There's a lot on that setting that isn't currently covered by existing 4e material that could be and I'd like to see them support that line.
JM
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
doppelganger |
![Sarlottia Sardavic](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Z2-Ulavakasa-Vexidyre_rev.jpg)
I'm confused about the controversy over race books. Paizo has the Elves of Golarion, Dwarves of Golarion, and Gnomes of Golarion. Why shouldn't WotC also have race books? There are clearly uses and market for them.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Davi The Eccentric |
![Sleeping Human](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Horrors-sleeper.jpg)
I'm confused about the controversy over race books. Paizo has the Elves of Golarion, Dwarves of Golarion, and Gnomes of Golarion. Why shouldn't WotC also have race books?
We were only worried about it before we found out they were 32 pages and $10. Wizards may not have the best history with race books, but for $10 I'm willing to give them benefit of the doubt.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
tdewitt274 |
![Orcus](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Orcus.jpg)
doppelganger wrote:I'm confused about the controversy over race books. Paizo has the Elves of Golarion, Dwarves of Golarion, and Gnomes of Golarion. Why shouldn't WotC also have race books?We were only worried about it before we found out they were 32 pages and $10. Wizards may not have the best history with race books, but for $10 I'm willing to give them benefit of the doubt.
I think what they are trying to do is get away from the "consolidated race" books they did in 3e. Nobody wants to spend $30 on a book where they'll only use part of it.
With a $10 book, they can focus specifically on the race and the people will buy what they want. Using this approach, they can see what the number of books being sold is and focus on that race, or bring another race up to that level in a PH expansion.
Sometimes you just have to test the waters. I think it's a marketing gimmick to see how it would do. If it runs well, they can do a "class flavor/optimization" book for the same low price. It may even bring in the people that only buy the core books due to a tight budget. Or, based on the before mentioned "cool" description, a younger crowd.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Charles Evans 25 |
Also, this might be a deeper flaw in your computer literacy given that you can look up a particular MTG card on the Wizards site and see all the related errata and various FAQs.
Uhh, the the point and flaw of 'FAQs' is that they are the most frequently asked questions, not the ones about interactions between Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Kormus Bell, and an Ovinise.... It's either cross your fingers and hope for a reply from customer service on that one, or try to work your way through their timing and state-based effects and abilities-that-generate-effects rules, some of which seem to have been written for the benefit of their computer programmers rather than for making sense to players at a table.
Granted 4E isn't anywhere close to that point yet, but 4E has only been going for a year or so thus far.![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Jeremy Mac Donald |
![Chuul](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/chuul.jpg)
Sebastian wrote:Also, this might be a deeper flaw in your computer literacy given that you can look up a particular MTG card on the Wizards site and see all the related errata and various FAQs.Uhh, the the point and flaw of 'FAQs' is that they are the most frequently asked questions, not the ones about interactions between Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth, Kormus Bell, and an Ovinise.... It's either cross your fingers and hope for a reply from customer service on that one, or try to work your way through their timing and state-based effects and abilities-that-generate-effects rules, some of which seem to have been written for the benefit of their computer programmers rather than for making sense to players at a table.
Granted 4E isn't anywhere close to that point yet, but 4E has only been going for a year or so thus far.
Your comparing apples and oranges. Magic is meant to be comprehensive without a DM while 4E has a DM. There are a million and one corner case situations in 4E (what happens if I try and use power X while in free fall?) the answer for all but the most common and most repeated questions is 'The DM decides'. 3.5 tried to, at least in part, go down the Magic the Gathering route by making the rules as comprehensive as possible - 4E really does not do that, all the heavy lifting in this regard almost always falls on the DMs shoulders unless the same question is being asked by a large chunk of the gaming population and then its answered in the FAQ. Having access to a book with the feat or power in it won't shed any more light on the topic then the DDI will unless your using some kind of complex rules set like having Alchemy (where you'll have to understand the rules for alchemy). Hence you can get buy using the the feats and powers from the halfling book without owning the halfling book - but if the Halfling book happens to include rules on river boat racing and a feat that gives you a bonus in river boat racing then the feat is only going to be useful if you understand the riverboat racing rules (and there you'd need to own the book).
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
bugleyman |
![Sin Spawn](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/sin_spawn.jpg)
The thing I find amusing out this thread is that Paizo's business model looks more like WoTC's every day, but 3/4 of the board has yet to notice.
Stop and think about it: Even with high expectations, Paizo was clearly taken aback at the fantastic response to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook at Gencon this year. One could almost write the transcript of the meeting! What largely started as a way to keep rules in print in support of adventure and setting products has become an end unto itself; look at the schedule: Advanced Player's Guide. Bestiary 2. I promise you there are half a dozen more waiting to be announced.
Is shift in focus a bad thing? That isn't for me to say. Paizo seems to be providing what it's customers want, just as it should be, and that's rarely a mistake. What I can say with certainty is that organizations don't emerge unchanged from periods of growth like the one Paizo is currently undergoing. This isn't a dig at Paizo, or at the path they've chosen. Nor is it a defense of WoTC, which has soundly pissed me off over the past year. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that those of you who are so quick to condemn WoTC might want to consider into what, exactly, Paizo may be growing.
How does that Kelly quotation go again? "We've met the enemy..."
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Blazej |
![Magenta Ioun Stone](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9435-Magenta_90.jpeg)
The thing I find amusing out this thread is that Paizo's business model looks more like WoTC's every day, but 3/4 of the board has yet to notice.
Stop and think about it: Even with high expectations, Paizo was clearly taken aback at the fantastic response to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook at Gencon this year. One could almost write the transcript of the meeting! What largely started as a way to keep rules in print in support of adventure and setting products has become an end unto itself; look at the schedule: Advanced Player's Guide. Bestiary 2. I promise you there are half a dozen more waiting to be announced.
Is shift in focus a bad thing? That isn't for me to say. Paizo seems to be providing what it's customers want, just as it should be, and that's rarely a mistake. What I can say with certainty is that organizations don't emerge unchanged from periods of growth like the one Paizo is currently undergoing. This isn't a dig at Paizo, or at the path they've chosen. Nor is it a defense of WoTC, which has soundly pissed me off over the past year. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that those of you who are so quick to condemn WoTC might want to consider into what, exactly, Paizo may be growing.
How does that Kelly quotation go again? "We've met the enemy..."
While both of their business models are similar (I mean, both publish monthly books that use and support their RPG game, there is going to be overlap), I believe that a good deal of your statements come from faulty assumptions on what happened when, how much product Paizo is capable of producing, and how much growth they are currently undergoing.
From what I've seen from product schedule, staff posts on the forum, messages on the chat room, and information given during PaizoCon: the decision to make several Roleplaying Books was made a good while before GenCon. While they do probably at least half a dozen more books waiting to be announced, some will be waiting a good while as three RPG books will be made a year. Paizo is currently having a bit of a struggle right now following the Bestiary/RPG stress, not incredibly likely that think they can take on yet more projects.
I'm not condemning WotC's decisions, I'm just noting that your drawing lines to where you believe Paizo is going seem to be off from their stated direction.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Wax Golem](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/golemtrio21.jpg)
I think that a Crunch based publication given the current volume of Crunch seems out of place. More Crunch DOES have an effect on the game. If you recall there were numerous posts about DM's restricting a players access to material is a bad thing. More Crunch DOES mean MORE work for the DM. A DM who is made aware at the gaming table of new ability A or B is at the mercy of these rules and ill-prepared. You suggest having your cake and eating it too me thinks.
S.
While I'm not a huge fan of the flow of crunch, by and large due to the nature of 4e the new crunch is much less problematic than in 3.5 Also, a lot of the crunch has been pretty decent and flavoursome anyway. So I see the fears as overdone. As these are shortish pamphlets rather than full-on splat-books they seem pretty harmless and, to be frank, quite a buyer-friendly way of doing it (since profit margins on hardbacks are generally higher). WotC are basically in the book publishing business so it really shouldn't be much of a surprise that that is what they are doing, online ambitions notwithstanding. We can hardly complain about other people slagging 4e on this site if every time WotC bring out a new product those who play 4e throw up their hands in horror too. Plus, I like the Races of... books too (though they declined in quality from ...Stone to ...Destiny.)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Green Dragon](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Green.jpg)
I'm confused about the controversy over race books. Paizo has the Elves of Golarion, Dwarves of Golarion, and Gnomes of Golarion. Why shouldn't WotC also have race books? There are clearly uses and market for them.
My only concern is what world will these race books reference? WotC has no real default setting, unlike Golarion and Pathfinder. Instead they have the 3 books and done model, which burns through settings before heading on to the next.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
The thing I find amusing out this thread is that Paizo's business model looks more like WoTC's every day, but 3/4 of the board has yet to notice.
It's not so much that I didn't notice, but I felt that commenting about it is much like making a statement on the order of "During daylight without clouds, the color of the sky is blue."
Paizo is not a fan club, they are a professional buisness, which means they pay salaries and meet the bills by generating new product. Now this only works if the product they generate is something that customers will buy. Now some people might feel that they're obligated to purchase every book they come out with as they're in some kind of arms race with other users of the game system. That was a fallacy in 3.x and I see no reason to see that it would be any more mandatory in Pathfinder, or 4th edition for that matter.
Buying more supplements does nothing more than open more choices, frequently more choices than Players and DMs are going to want to deal with.
Think of it this way, new product means that more reasons for the company you like to stay in buisness. It's always your option to buy or not to buy what comes out.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Matthew Koelbl |
My only concern is what world will these race books reference? WotC has no real default setting, unlike Golarion and Pathfinder. Instead they have the 3 books and done model, which burns through settings before heading on to the next.
Except there is a default setting - the default "Points of Light" world, which has been fleshed out throughout almost all of their products. While unnamed and with many areas left open-ended, the goal of the core setting is to provide a framework of basic concepts and assumptions about the gameworld, which a supplement on races would seem perfectly ideal for.
Additionally, the other settings do see support - just not in extra books dedicated to that setting, but instead often within web content or other book releases. (In the Draconomicon books, we've seen various dragons of the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, etc.) I would not be surprised if a Dragonborn book included at least a few pages giving some background on the place of Dragonborn in different settings - though, of course, I would be equally unsurprised if it did not. But the option is certainly there, and I imagine this book will be just as useful to players of 4E as the Golarian race books are for users of that setting.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Matthew Koelbl |
I wouldn't go that far. The first Powers book, at the least, was definitely a power creep over the PHB. Fighters gave up the 1h or 2h specialization feature (+1 to hit with 1h or 2h weapons) and got to choose either Tempest Technique, which essentially gave you +2 to hit and damage for dual-wielding and gave you Two Weapon Defense for free, or the Battlerager Vigor feature, which gave you a crapton of hitpoints, and with the right build could generate 5 temp hit points on a miss and 10 on a hit, at will.
Not really any more balanced than previous editions' splat books.
That's not entirely accurate. Tempest Technique gave +1 to hit (same as the other class talents), along with +2 damage and Two Weapon Defense... provided you were willing to wear lighter armor and use smaller weapons. The main reason the build was an issue was because of Dual Strike, a multi-attack at-will that made the build a bit too much of a striker over a defender. Which, like with Battlerager Vigor, recieved errata to bring them properly into line with the other builds. Battlerager still gets you a decent number of temps (and works currently the way you describe it above), but removed the original issue (generating temps when hit by enemies, and thus effectively giving permanent Damage Resistance against all melee/ranged attacks.)
That said, there has definitely been power creep. But it has usually been limited to only a couple options per book, and the greatest offenders have usually been hit by errata to fix them. Even with all the tricks one can muster, the core system of 4E is much more balanced than you got with 3rd Edition - such that the most optimized character, alongside a normal character, are able to fight side-by-side and equally contribute to the combat.
In 3.x, with the splat books - and even, arguably, straight out of the PHB - you could end up with two characters side by side that simply required different combats to be challenged by. That which would challenge an optmized character would instantly destroy a non-optimized character, and that was the real issue.
As I said, this doesn't mean that power creep doesn't exist in 4E, or that the books don't have occasionally ill-chosen options within them. But thus far it has definitely been more reasonable than in the previous edition, and while you can still optimize a character, it is a lot harder to crank them into a completely different ballgame than the rest of the party.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Uchawi |
![Mephit](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/15CWaterMephit.jpg)
I believe DDI goes a long way to consolidate rule sets, but in regards to DDI, it also limits incoporating third party supplements, or even making your own, which I think is a crime.
There is a point where I will stop buying additional books. Basically once I have a working core of source material or rules, then I add my own rules, or take great ideas or concepts from wotc or third parties as necessary.
I don't mind companies releasing a multitude of source books, but it is the idea that we are forced fed when using DDI, and other WOTC tools, that only WOTC material will suffice.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Matthew Koelbl |
With respect, DDI may well only partially solve the problem. As a case in point all the current rules for the Magic: The Gathering are online at the moment on the Wizards of the Coast Site. The current comprehensive rules is a massive document, over a hundred pages long (*link to page where current set can be accessed*), and it's been a long time since I felt confident enough of my knowledge of the current rules to be certain what was supposed to happen in an odd situation without spending half an hour looking things up and pondering. Just because all the rules are on the DDI it doesn't mean that the game won't stop every now and then when the DM has to look something up, and the more rules are allowed into a game then the more often (unless the DM is one of those fortunates blessed with perfect recall) the DM may well have to stop to look something up. The DDI may be slightly faster to look a rule up on than by paging thorugh several dozen books (or not if the site is having a slow day), and the DM may no longer necessarily need a trolley to carry all the books to a game table, but a lag resulting from having to look up unfamiliar rules is in my opinion still likely to be a feature of the game beyond a certain point in rules/options proliferation, no matter what the format in which the rules are kept.
Except that 'rules proliferation' isn't nearly the issue in 4E that it was in 3rd Edition. 4E has intentionally stepped away from subsystems and mechanics that require learning independantly, and I've had to look up less rules in a full campaign than I did in a single session of the previous edition.
Instead, there are simply more options presented - and those don't need to typically be looked up during game play, since the player who chose that option will typically know what it does.
The issue with expanded options is instead greater complexity in building a character - knowing what options are out there, and looking through them. Which DDI really makes immensely easier - whether via the character builder (which puts all the options before you as you build), or the Compendium (which lets you search very easily for all "Heroic Ranger Feats" or "Level 3 Warlock Encounter Powers"). Even without the DDI itself, the tighter grouping of content focus helps as well - in 3rd Edition, if I was building a cleric, I had dozens of books to hunt through to figure out my spell list. For 4E, I check the PHB and Divine Power, and I'm pretty much covered. Possibly Dragon as well - though if I have that, I have the rest of DDI, and so it is not an issue.
I'd say that Rituals are the only thing found scattered across various books, and everything else is much more tightly focused for player accessibility. I'm not going to claim the system is perfect or anything close to it, but between DDI and their current system of releases, WotC has made incredible strides in keeping options pretty easy for players to handle, even as they are given more and more options to use.
Comments like Allen Stewart's - that WotC shouldn't release supplements like this, and instead just release adventures - just strikes me as very founded in a lack of understanding of 4E. There are adventures and adventure paths, and those are nice. But hardly what everyone wants - the players, the customers, are much more excited about new books that give them more options, more concepts, more ways to play. And those books work without adding to the rules of the game - splitting up the basics into dozens of books was one of the issues with 3.5, and one reason why WotC has avoided that in the current edition. Trying to castigate WotC for their current release system - while trying to portray that system as something it decidedly is not - would seem to be just looking for something to complain about, rather than being a legitimate comment by a player of the game...
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Matthew Koelbl |
I believe DDI goes a long way to consolidate rule sets, but in regards to DDI, it also limits incoporating third party supplements, or even making your own, which I think is a crime.
There is a point where I will stop buying additional books. Basically once I have a working core of source material or rules, then I add my own rules, or take great ideas or concepts from wotc or third parties as necessary.
I don't mind companies releasing a multitude of source books, but it is the idea that we are forced fed when using DDI, and other WOTC tools, that only WOTC material will suffice.
On the one hand, I can certainly sympathize with that view. On the other... the character builder does allow for people to put in custom rules and information, to an extent. It could be better done, but I'd far prefer having the builder as it is now - and having to put in house rules/3pp myself - rather than not having a resource like it at all.
As others have mentioned in this thread - no one is being forced to buy whatever books WotC releases. They put them out because they feel there is a market for them, and they are what their customer base wants. Same as they did in previous editions, at basically the same rate (though with generally a tighter focus on the content in each book). If a specific book has something you need, then it is worth buying! If not, then the game remains perfectly playable with whatever you already have...
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Vic Wertz](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/private/vic_abadar_avatar.jpg)
bugleyman wrote:The thing I find amusing out this thread is that Paizo's business model looks more like WoTC's every day, but 3/4 of the board has yet to notice.
Stop and think about it: Even with high expectations, Paizo was clearly taken aback at the fantastic response to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook at Gencon this year. One could almost write the transcript of the meeting! What largely started as a way to keep rules in print in support of adventure and setting products has become an end unto itself; look at the schedule: Advanced Player's Guide. Bestiary 2. I promise you there are half a dozen more waiting to be announced.
Is shift in focus a bad thing? That isn't for me to say. Paizo seems to be providing what it's customers want, just as it should be, and that's rarely a mistake. What I can say with certainty is that organizations don't emerge unchanged from periods of growth like the one Paizo is currently undergoing. This isn't a dig at Paizo, or at the path they've chosen. Nor is it a defense of WoTC, which has soundly pissed me off over the past year. Rather, I'm simply suggesting that those of you who are so quick to condemn WoTC might want to consider into what, exactly, Paizo may be growing.
How does that Kelly quotation go again? "We've met the enemy..."
While both of their business models are similar (I mean, both publish monthly books that use and support their RPG game, there is going to be overlap), I believe that a good deal of your statements come from faulty assumptions on what happened when, how much product Paizo is capable of producing, and how much growth they are currently undergoing.
From what I've seen from product schedule, staff posts on the forum, messages on the chat room, and information given during PaizoCon: the decision to make several Roleplaying Books was made a good while before GenCon. While they do probably at least half a dozen more books waiting to be announced, some will be waiting a good while as three RPG...
As soon as we realized that we needed to develop our own core rulebook, we also realized that we needed to support it. After all, if you don't support a core rulebook with at least a few releases each year, gamers begin to perceive the system as dead. However, we also decided that we didn't want to overwhelm the basic system with tons of new rules every month, so we set our sights on releasing maybe 3 or 4 products a year: probably a couple of hardcovers and hopefully one smaller product, like this year's GM screen. I'm sure that if you look at posts from us (especially those by Erik Mona) right after we announced the RPG, you'll see that's what we've said from day 1, and it's still exactly where we are.
The number of *copies* of each book we're planning to print, though, that's another story!
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Davi The Eccentric |
![Sleeping Human](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Horrors-sleeper.jpg)
Davi The Eccentric wrote:Tempest Technique? You mean the one where you needed to be using two off-hand weapons and not wear the best armor to get the full bonus?How do you get two off-hand weapons?
With the 'Nonedidextrous' Flaw?
Two weapons with the off-hand property. Two short swords or daggers, for example.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
bugleyman |
![Sin Spawn](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/sin_spawn.jpg)
As soon as we realized that we needed to develop our own core rulebook, we also realized that we needed to support it. After all, if you don't support a core rulebook with at least a few releases each year, gamers begin to perceive the system as dead. However, we also decided that we didn't want to overwhelm the basic system with tons of new rules every month, so we set our sights on releasing maybe 3 or 4 products a year: probably a couple of hardcovers and hopefully one smaller product, like this year's GM screen. I'm sure that if you look at posts from us (especially those by Erik Mona) right after we announced the RPG, you'll see that's what we've said from day 1, and it's still exactly where we are.
The number of *copies* of each book we're planning to print, though, that's another story!
I'm sure support for the RPG line was always planned. But an significant increase in the number of copies means increased investment, and continued increased sales performance to justify aforementioned increased investment, realities to which any reasonable manager must adjust...
Wait and see, my padawan. ;-)
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Argith](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Portraits-AlmirArgithViare2.jpg)
Snorter wrote:Two weapons with the off-hand property. Two short swords or daggers, for example.Davi The Eccentric wrote:Tempest Technique? You mean the one where you needed to be using two off-hand weapons and not wear the best armor to get the full bonus?How do you get two off-hand weapons?
With the 'Nonedidextrous' Flaw?
Ok, I don't follow if you're joking here or not, but there is no such thing as an "off hand property".
Weird.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Davi The Eccentric |
![Sleeping Human](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Horrors-sleeper.jpg)
Davi The Eccentric wrote:Snorter wrote:Two weapons with the off-hand property. Two short swords or daggers, for example.Davi The Eccentric wrote:Tempest Technique? You mean the one where you needed to be using two off-hand weapons and not wear the best armor to get the full bonus?How do you get two off-hand weapons?
With the 'Nonedidextrous' Flaw?Ok, I don't follow if you're joking here or not, but there is no such thing as an "off hand property".
Weird.
Let's see, this is still in the 4th edition forum so...
Well, it's a weapon property in 4th edition. There.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Matthew Koelbl |
Davi The Eccentric wrote:Snorter wrote:Two weapons with the off-hand property. Two short swords or daggers, for example.Davi The Eccentric wrote:Tempest Technique? You mean the one where you needed to be using two off-hand weapons and not wear the best armor to get the full bonus?How do you get two off-hand weapons?
With the 'Nonedidextrous' Flaw?Ok, I don't follow if you're joking here or not, but there is no such thing as an "off hand property".
Weird.
There totally is - PHB, page 217. It designates which weapons can be wielded in the off-hand. It isn't a seperate category, which might be your confusion, but it is a property found on one-handed weapons.
While it designates which weapons you can use in your off-hand, you can of course use two such weapons in each hand, and they will benefit from any feats or abilities you have that give bonuses with off-hand weapons.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Argith](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/Portraits-AlmirArgithViare2.jpg)
houstonderek wrote:Davi The Eccentric wrote:Snorter wrote:Two weapons with the off-hand property. Two short swords or daggers, for example.Davi The Eccentric wrote:Tempest Technique? You mean the one where you needed to be using two off-hand weapons and not wear the best armor to get the full bonus?How do you get two off-hand weapons?
With the 'Nonedidextrous' Flaw?Ok, I don't follow if you're joking here or not, but there is no such thing as an "off hand property".
Weird.
Let's see, this is still in the 4th edition forum so...
Well, it's a weapon property in 4th edition. There.
Wow, sorry, didn't even realize this was the 4e forum! Oops!
Ok, having admitted that, who cares if WotC publishes books on any topic pertaining to the game? They're a division of a very large multinational corporation. They need to make money, so they need to keep interest up at a decent clip. As long as the books don't slip into some of the shoddiness (playtesting and editing-wise) latter 3x books did, and they just, as previous posters noted, expand options and don't mess with core concerns, I don't see a problem at all.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kaoswzrd |
I just looked at the upcoming releases. They appear to be going to do "race" books. Welcome back to the moronic days of 2e/3e splat book blot. Great chance for WotC to inject some sensibility into D&D after 3.x or so I thought 4e would be. I thought that the multi-PHB/DMG/MM's were quite a good idea to keep things in check - one per year, simple. Then of course the "powers" books were released, but grouped so things still weren't too overloading - but heading that way. But idea of races books just annoys 3 kinds of excretment out of me. UUURRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
Yeh, yeh I know - they need to make money, yada, yada... Doesn't make it any less annoying however.
In 1e you needed a bag to carry your books, in 2e you needed a compact car, in 3e you needed a station wagon, and now in 4e it looks like a semi would be a good investment.
S.
I had a similar feeling when I found out that the Players Handbook for 4e was going to have an almost immediate sequel. I was rather pissed off in fact. As it was my 3e book collection is extensive to begin with, and that's just my personal library not counting the investment made by the rest of the players at my table.
That being said, WotC has been a lot more electronic friendly. My DDI subscription gets me access to nearly everything I need as both a player and a DM. Our table purches one of the new books after each release, but I no longer keep an extensive personal library of my own. While the SRD was available for 3.0 and 3.5, it was no where near as useful as the current DDI subscriber content and tools. I haven't seen anything this useful for electronic D&D tools since TSR came out with the Core Rules 2.0 CD-ROM for AD&D. All of it more then worth my subscriber fee when I factor in that I'm not buying expansion books once a month or so.
I also feel that the quality of the material in the new 4e products is much more uniform then the countless 3.0 and 3.5 releases. In previous edditions the other DM and I had to scrutinize every new feat, power, and class to make sure they weren't game breakingly powerful. By comparison I think we've only outlawed 1 or 2 powers in 4e and no feats at all. We had a running "house rules" list of outlawed feats, spells, and depending on the campaign even a class (the munchkins at our table broke Druids).
Just a note...I didn't read through the whole forum just responded to the OP.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Blazej |
![Magenta Ioun Stone](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/PZO9435-Magenta_90.jpeg)
Even with all the tricks one can muster, the core system of 4E is much more balanced than you got with 3rd Edition - such that the most optimized character, alongside a normal character, are able to fight side-by-side and equally contribute to the combat.
From my experience I would have to disagree, while both characters can fight alongside each other and that they both contribute to the combat, their contributions to the combat are not equal. While I think that gap between the two is less than what existed in 3.x, I don't think that it is absent. I believe that the combats that appropriately challenge the optimized character, while not posing an incredible threat to a normal character's life, will just instead minimize the effectiveness of that normal character in that battle. That during that battle the optimized character is having hard and challenging time, but the normal character would be closer to having little to contribute aside from just being an assistant to that important character.
I'm sure support for the RPG line was always planned. But an significant increase in the number of copies means increased investment, and continued increased sales performance to justify aforementioned increased investment, realities to which any reasonable manager must adjust...
Wait and see, my padawan. ;-)
Yes? I do imagine that if they sell out of books quickly that they, in response, will produce larger print runs. Which is what he mentioned at the end of his post.
I would say he is still the master and you are still the apprentice. :P
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
KaeYoss |
![The Jester](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/jester.jpg)
I'm sure support for the RPG line was always planned. But an significant increase in the number of copies means increased investment, and continued increased sales performance to justify aforementioned increased investment, realities to which any reasonable manager must adjust...Wait and see, my padawan. ;-)
I'm not quite following you. What are you hinting at?
They sell all their copies of one book and have to make an immediate re-run because people are being killed for their Pathrinder books, so they do a higher print run the next time. They sell really well again. And so forth and so on. They continue to do what they're doing, since it seems to make people really happy.
All the while, they keep selling rules stuff as well as all the stuff they've been selling all the time. I haven't seen any slacking in Chronicles or APs or anything else.
Could you spell out what your concerns are? I tried to see where something bad is happening, but I got nothing.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
KaeYoss |
![The Jester](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/jester.jpg)
bugleyman wrote:
I'm sure support for the RPG line was always planned. But an significant increase in the number of copies means increased investment, and continued increased sales performance to justify aforementioned increased investment, realities to which any reasonable manager must adjust...Wait and see, my padawan. ;-)
I'm not quite following you. What are you hinting at?
They sell all their copies of one book and have to make an immediate re-run because people are being killed for their Pathrinder books, so they do a higher print run the next time. They sell really well again. And so forth and so on. They continue to do what they're doing, since it seems to make people really happy.
All the while, they keep selling rules stuff as well as all the stuff they've been selling all the time. I haven't seen any slacking in Chronicles or APs or anything else.
Could you spell out what your concerns are? I tried to see where something bad is happening, but I got nothing.
3...2...1...
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kaoswzrd |
(edited)
With respect, DDI may well only partially solve the problem. As a case in point all the current rules for the Magic: The Gathering are online at the moment on the Wizards of the Coast Site. The current comprehensive rules is a massive document, over a hundred pages long (*link to page where current set can be accessed*), and it's been a long time since I felt confident enough of my knowledge of the current rules to be certain what was supposed to happen in an odd situation without spending half an hour looking things up and pondering. Just because all the rules are on the DDI it doesn't mean that the game won't stop every...
Let's not forget that the Character builder (part of a DDI subscription) also generates all the relevant power cards for each character and their items automatically. The power cards are direct quotes of the entries from the books, with relatively up to date errata and the number crunching already done. Most of the expansion books (at least for the classes) just offer new power options, but there's no looking up required if you've printed the power cards, they remain pretty straight forward. Add to that the standing rule from the DMG, that generally in a questionable situation the player should get the benifit unless the DM rules otherwise. Most of the expansion books have done very little to change the basic mechanics or rules of the game, those are pretty well spelled out in the original Core 3 books (PhBK 1, DMG 1, and MM 1). We actually spend less time at my table looking things up playing 4e then we ever did with 3.5.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Scott Betts |
![Sheriff Belor Hemolock](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/pathfinder_heads_final3.jpg)
Let's not forget that the Character builder (part of a DDI subscription) also generates all the relevant power cards for each character and their items automatically. The power cards are direct quotes of the entries from the books, with relatively up to date errata and the number crunching already done. Most of the expansion books (at least for the classes) just offer new power options, but there's no looking up required if you've printed the power cards, they remain pretty straight forward. Add to that the standing rule from the DMG, that generally in a questionable situation the player should get the benifit unless the DM rules otherwise. Most of the expansion books have done very little to change the basic mechanics or rules of the game, those are pretty well spelled out in the original Core 3 books (PhBK 1, DMG 1, and MM 1). We actually spend less time at my table looking things up playing 4e then we ever did with 3.5.
There are also a few other important notes to take into consideration.
Magic: the Gathering is a directly competitive game, and as such it is important that rules disputes are adjudicated fairly, in a consistent manner.
D&D is not directly competitive. While the DM does often play an adversarial role, taking a "best guess" on a rules conflict is not going to ruin the play experience, and will probably resolve things much faster.
D&D is also an exceptions-based game, and thus very few rules controversies arise in actual play; interactions between powers are concrete, based on easily understood mechanics. It certainly helps that the idea of a "stack" doesn't exist in D&D. I imagine that a pretty huge number of rules questions revolve around the order of resolution and play opportunities when dealing with spells cast and activated abilities used within the stack in M:tG.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Kaoswzrd |
D&D is not directly competitive. While the DM does often play an adversarial role, taking a "best guess" on a rules conflict is not going to ruin the play experience, and will probably resolve things much faster.
I find that "best guess" is generally the easiest and quickest way to resolve things, and if players are getting creative it's best to give them the benifit if they're able to make a reasonable justification for what they're doing. I find the biggest arguments at our table (in any eddition) come up when someone wants to argue that the rules don't accurately model how it would work in the real world. Generally, we try to run light on making house rules because too many really start to reshape the balance of the game, sometimes in unpredictable ways, and just leave certain decisions up for argument in special circumstances.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Matthew Koelbl |
Matthew Koelbl wrote:Even with all the tricks one can muster, the core system of 4E is much more balanced than you got with 3rd Edition - such that the most optimized character, alongside a normal character, are able to fight side-by-side and equally contribute to the combat.From my experience I would have to disagree, while both characters can fight alongside each other and that they both contribute to the combat, their contributions to the combat are not equal. While I think that gap between the two is less than what existed in 3.x, I don't think that it is absent. I believe that the combats that appropriately challenge the optimized character, while not posing an incredible threat to a normal character's life, will just instead minimize the effectiveness of that normal character in that battle. That during that battle the optimized character is having hard and challenging time, but the normal character would be closer to having little to contribute aside from just being an assistant to that important character.
Yeah, I totally didn't mean to use the word "equally" there! What I meant to say was more that both can fight in the same contribute and contribute a meaningful measure. The optimized striker might dish out twice the damage of the non-optimized striker - but both are having an effect on the combat that can be actively measured. The contribution of the non-optimized character is still definitively felt, as opposed to the situation in 3.x where you could legitimately have a monster that is unhittable by one character, or a monster with a "your Fort save must be this high to ride" sign. In those situations, the optimized and the non-optimized characters really can't exist in the same combat, while in 4E, they generally can.
That certainly doesn't mean that there is no difference between them, and you are definitely right to call me on that claim! But on the other hand, in any system where you have options and choices to be made, you will always have some level of difference in capability between two seperate characters. That is basically unavoidable.
Which isn't to say that WotC couldn't do a better job than they currently do - for all that I am a fan of the current system, there are plenty of areas where they have had power creep that I think could have been avoided. Even in the default rules themselves, they have at least one area (multiple-attack powers) that I think were undervalued in terms of power, and somewhat throw off the balance of the system. But even with plenty of areas that I would do differently myself, I do think the core of the system does make it a lot harder for characters to end up a full order of magnitude more effective than average characters. Having a more rigid set of bonuses, reigning in the number of ways to get those bonuses, and presenting standardized mechanics that keep everyone limited in similar fashion... those all go a long way.
So I definitely mispoke when I said contributions between the two were equal - but I will still stand by them being in the same playing field. And I've even genuinely experienced this, especially playing in LFR, where you have both power-gaming tactical geniuses side by side with those who have hit the 'auto-gen' button in the character builder and just learned the rules a week ago - and both are able to contribute in actual play.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Lyingbastard |
![Corbin](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/corbin2.jpg)
One thing I objected to about 4E's planning early on was the removal of Half-Orcs and Tieflings as player races in the PHB. Half-Orcs have been part of D&D since at least early days (I never played 1E so I can't say for certain there) and Tieflings/Aasimar a widely accepted part of 3E. More than that, removing the classes of Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorceror, and Monk. These are well established classes that there was really little reason to remove from the game. This is especially true for re-introducing them as part of the PHB2, with Monk scheduled for the PHB3.
If it had been a case of "Well, these don't fit in the new world we're establishing", a matter of design or concept, that's one thing. But it seems like instead of making things accessible, it's a planned milking of the consumer, which I am not in favor of.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
Scott Betts |
![Sheriff Belor Hemolock](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/pathfinder_heads_final3.jpg)
One thing I objected to about 4E's planning early on was the removal of Half-Orcs and Tieflings as player races in the PHB. Half-Orcs have been part of D&D since at least early days (I never played 1E so I can't say for certain there) and Tieflings/Aasimar a widely accepted part of 3E. More than that, removing the classes of Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Sorceror, and Monk. These are well established classes that there was really little reason to remove from the game. This is especially true for re-introducing them as part of the PHB2, with Monk scheduled for the PHB3.
If it had been a case of "Well, these don't fit in the new world we're establishing", a matter of design or concept, that's one thing. But it seems like instead of making things accessible, it's a planned milking of the consumer, which I am not in favor of.
This complaint has been done to death.
First, tieflings are a player race in the 4e Player's Handbook. They were not a race in the 3e Player's Handbook. If you like tieflings, that's certainly an improvement.
Second, the removal of certain classes to make room for others (see: Warlock, Warlord) was a design decision, and a good one. A number of the classes in question were very rarely played in 3e (bards were terrible, monks were terrible), and including them in a future supplement allowed them to be given the full treatment they deserved. Every one of these classes is now awesome in its own right.
Really, if you give me the choice of having 20 classes right from the get-go, but half of them are so terrible no one wants to play them, or having 10 classes now and 10 classes later, all of which are awesome, I'm going to choose the latter option.
Finally, please get used to this "planned milking of the consumer". It is a necessary part of the hobby industry. The idea that a book full of quality additions to a game is somehow a bad thing is beyond me; the fact that people are willing to complain about it demonstrates exactly why the tabletop RPG industry often finds itself struggling.
![](/WebObjects/Frameworks/Ajax.framework/WebServerResources/wait30.gif)
![]() |
![Crow](http://cdn.paizo.com/image/avatar/corbin.jpg)
A number of the classes in question were very rarely played in 3e (bards were terrible...
Really, I loved playing bards in 3.5! They're probably one of my absolute favorite classes!
I really do love bards! And seriously, what other class could be used in "KISS Saves Christmas" based games... :p
/derailment