::Passes bag of tacks::
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110222
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110308
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110301
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110208
Null persp chummer.
SHADOWRUN(1st-3rd ed only) FOREVER!!!!
Thanks, folks.
Maybe this can be our cue to turn the discussion away from things that both sides have rehashed a billion times.
I mean, we're all entitled to our opinion of that company and its products, but why not let this thread be for discussion of the blogs, not the entire issue?
Thanks, folks.
Maybe this can be our cue to turn the discussion away from things that both sides have rehashed a billion times.
I mean, we're all entitled to our opinion of that company and its products, but why not let this thread be for discussion of the blogs, not the entire issue?
I really don't think they can be separated at this point, considering the tone of that first blog post.
|
SHADOWRUN(1st-3rd ed only) FOREVER!!!!
off topic
I wish he'd just come out and say why he's polling, especially given how tight the results have been - no clear majority on any of the responses.
I really don't think they can be separated at this point, considering the tone of that first blog post.
Fair enough.
Still, I'm not a 4e player and I haven't bought a wizards product in forever — but if this is part of Mearls' design process I am mildly interested in it. At the very least, it gives an insight into what the design staff at WotC feel is sub-optimal about their own product (whether or not you agree that it is).
Best Scene from Ghostbusters.
Egon: Everything was fine till d**kless here shut off the powergrid.
Mayor: Is that true?
Venkman: Yes. This man has no d**k.
*Peck tries to attack Venkman, but gets restrained by cops while Venkman bounces away*
Venkman: Well that's what I heard!
Agreed. This is the best scene.
So ...
What is HMM?
So ...
What is HMM?
Her Majesty's Mecha.
Oh yeah, Brit's got mecha.
So ...
What is HMM?
The Hook Mountain Massacre - part 3 of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure path.
I wanted to comment, I'm not sure if Bo9S and ToM were 'best material' (and I don't recognize MMV. Monster Manual 5?)
They were experimental material (pushing the mechanics to/beyond a breaking point) but 'good' is in the eye of the beholder.
Well, I mean, that was sort of the point. It was claimed that the last couple years of WotC's 3.5 line "proved" that the quality of releases declined, and that sales were lost because of it. That's nonsense. There were tons of people who considered the Bo9S among the best books ever written for the game, both in terms of polish and how revolutionary its approach to non-magical characters was.
SHADOWRUN(1st-3rd ed only) FOREVER!!!!http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110222
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110308
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110301
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110208
Null persp chummer.
SECONDED!!
Well, I mean, that was sort of the point. It was claimed that the last couple years of WotC's 3.5 line "proved" that the quality of releases declined, and that sales were lost because of it. That's nonsense. There were tons of people who considered the Bo9S among the best books ever written for the game, both in terms of polish and how revolutionary its approach to non-magical characters was.I wanted to comment, I'm not sure if Bo9S and ToM were 'best material' (and I don't recognize MMV. Monster Manual 5?)
They were experimental material (pushing the mechanics to/beyond a breaking point) but 'good' is in the eye of the beholder.
Bo9S was a polarizing work, however. I know of no players personally who are neutral to the book, they either love it and encourage others to use it in their games or hate it and have banned it outright. I've heard similar stories about the Tome of Magic, although, interestingly enough, I've never used that last book(don't allow Bo9s in my games, however).
SHADOWRUN(1st-3rd ed only) FOREVER!!!!http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110222
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110308
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110301
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110208
Null persp chummer.
I may not get you to enjoy Firefly or Alton Brown's delicious chocolate chip cookies, but, by all that is holy, I *WILL* get you to enjoy the glory of SR4!!!
I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
A disturbance in the force?
I may not get you to enjoy Firefly or Alton Brown's delicious chocolate chip cookies, but, by all that is holy, I *WILL* get you to enjoy the glory of SR4!!!SHADOWRUN(1st-3rd ed only) FOREVER!!!!http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110222
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110308
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110301
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110208
Null persp chummer.
NEVER!!!!
Bo9S was a polarizing work, however. I know of no players personally who are neutral to the book, they either love it and encourage others to use it in their games or hate it and have banned it outright. I've heard similar stories about the Tome of Magic, although, interestingly enough, I've never used that last book(don't allow Bo9s in my games, however).Well, I mean, that was sort of the point. It was claimed that the last couple years of WotC's 3.5 line "proved" that the quality of releases declined, and that sales were lost because of it. That's nonsense. There were tons of people who considered the Bo9S among the best books ever written for the game, both in terms of polish and how revolutionary its approach to non-magical characters was.I wanted to comment, I'm not sure if Bo9S and ToM were 'best material' (and I don't recognize MMV. Monster Manual 5?)
They were experimental material (pushing the mechanics to/beyond a breaking point) but 'good' is in the eye of the beholder.
Polarizing or not, to say that books like it and Tome of Magic demonstrate a marked decline in quality is just silly. A marked change in design direction? Sure.
|
A disturbance in the force?I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since...
Polarizing or not, to say that books like it and Tome of Magic demonstrate a marked decline in quality is just silly. A marked change in design direction? Sure.
Depends on what you consider quality, particularly quality design.
|
I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since...A disturbance in the force?I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
Sack of White Castles?
Sack of White Castles?I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since...A disturbance in the force?I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
I was thinking WELCOME TO MOES!...bathroom
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Polarizing or not, to say that books like [Book of Nine Swords] and Tome of Magic demonstrate a marked decline in quality is just silly. A marked change in design direction? Sure.
I agree, Scott, particularly with Bo9S. I think it tried to address the lack of melee options at high level, and in my evaluation did a reasonable job.
Tome of Magic was not merely a compilation of magic spells which had been previously published, but it included some analysis, rejiggering, and updating of the spells as a coherent body of dwoemercraft. I think it exacerbated some poor design decisions, but there you go.
My heart sank when the Magic Items Compendium was released, and Dungeon Grrrl put her finger on the reasons why as soon as she read through it. She wrote that there were pages and pages of nothing but combat bonuses after comba bonuses, while whimsical, magical items, like feather tokens or immovable rods or submersible apparati, were nowhere to be seen.
|
Tome of Magic was not merely a compilation of magic spells which had been previously published, but it included some analysis, rejiggering, and updating of the spells as a coherent body of dwoemercraft. I think it exacerbated some poor design decisions, but there you go.
I believe you are referring to the Spell Compendium. Tome of Magic contained the Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer classes and mechanics.
I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the announcement for 5e is due for either the next GenCon or the one after (unless they announce it somewhere else - but it probably will be in the same time frame). And a year later, they'll release it.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the announcement for 5e is due for either the next GenCon or the one after (unless they announce it somewhere else - but it probably will be in the same time frame). And a year later, they'll release it.I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
Should we get a pool going?
Polarizing or not, to say that books like it and Tome of Magic demonstrate a marked decline in quality is just silly. A marked change in design direction? Sure.
Actualy...those were some of the worst books ever. So quality is just opinion really.
ToB...was ok...but did not 'fix' anything at all. It was just a play test for 4th ed. If I knew that I would not have wasted money it. You know that the book was actualy planned to be a fix for melee characters? But they changed it when they decided to dump 3.5 and deasign 4t ed. To play test the new 4th ed design ideas in a system they don't work in.
ToM: was ok...I mean Binders were...meh. And really to campaign specfic to do well. I equate them to Incarum...interesting but useless for most games. Shadow the only thing of real interest in the book...with True Name should just have been left in the domains of every caster.
MMV: Well...honestly how many Monsters manual do we really need...there were a few useful creatures in it...but overall it was a waste of space.
All these books were very dishonest. And one of the real reason I don't buy anything from WotC anymore. I hate the idea of hidden play tests.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I believe you are referring to the Spell Compendium. Tome of Magic contained the Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer classes and mechanics.
I am indeed. Thank you for the correction.
And, yeah, there's not a lot you can say to support the Shadowcaster or Truenamer mechanics.
ToB...was ok...but did not 'fix' anything at all. It was just a play test for 4th ed. If I knew that I would not have wasted money it. You know that the book was actualy planned to be a fix for melee characters? But they changed it when they decided to dump 3.5 and deasign 4t ed. To play test the new 4th ed design ideas in a system they don't work in.
ToM: was ok...I mean Binders were...meh. And really to campaign specfic to do well. I equate them to Incarum...interesting but useless for most games. Shadow the only thing of real interest in the book...with True Name should just have been left in the domains of every caster.
MMV: Well...honestly how many Monsters manual do we really need...there were a few useful creatures in it...but overall it was a waste of space.
All these books were very dishonest. And one of the real reason I don't buy anything from WotC anymore. I hate the idea of hidden play tests.
I don't even know where to start on this post. There are just way too many things in here to disagree with.
Polarizing or not, to say that books like [Book of Nine Swords] and Tome of Magic demonstrate a marked decline in quality is just silly. A marked change in design direction? Sure.I agree, Scott, particularly with Bo9S. I think it tried to address the lack of melee options at high level, and in my evaluation did a reasonable job.
Tome of Magic was not merely a compilation of magic spells which had been previously published, but it included some analysis, rejiggering, and updating of the spells as a coherent body of dwoemercraft. I think it exacerbated some poor design decisions, but there you go.
My heart sank when the Magic Items Compendium was released, and Dungeon Grrrl put her finger on the reasons why as soon as she read through it. She wrote that there were pages and pages of nothing but combat bonuses after comba bonuses, while whimsical, magical items, like feather tokens or immovable rods or submersible apparati, were nowhere to be seen.
Oh wow, I'd completely forgotten about the Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium. I probably got more use out of those two books than any books ever released for 3.5, including the PHB.
My heart sank when the Magic Items Compendium was released, and Dungeon Grrrl put her finger on the reasons why as soon as she read through it. She wrote that there were pages and pages of nothing but combat bonuses after comba bonuses, while whimsical, magical items, like feather tokens or immovable rods or submersible apparati, were nowhere to be seen.
I am confused did you actualy read though it? Or just the part on armor and weapons? There are alot of magic items in that book...shrug.
I really liked the ideas in Bo9S, and really wanted to play a swordsage, but both of my DM's looked at it and wondered "how do those mechanics fit?" as did I, tbh.
Then when 4E came out I thought I recognized those ideas, and bought the core books and the FR setting books. After reading them, I've never used them. IMHO, it took those neat ideas, and sacrificed them on the altar of game balance.
I've never looked back.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the announcement for 5e is due for either the next GenCon or the one after (unless they announce it somewhere else - but it probably will be in the same time frame). And a year later, they'll release it.Should we get a pool going?
I've got $5 on Gencon 2011 Announcement -> Gencon 2012 Release .
Something is brewing...
Oh wow, I'd completely forgotten about the Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium. I probably got more use out of those two books than any books ever released for 3.5, including the PHB.Polarizing or not, to say that books like [Book of Nine Swords] and Tome of Magic demonstrate a marked decline in quality is just silly. A marked change in design direction? Sure.I agree, Scott, particularly with Bo9S. I think it tried to address the lack of melee options at high level, and in my evaluation did a reasonable job.
Tome of Magic was not merely a compilation of magic spells which had been previously published, but it included some analysis, rejiggering, and updating of the spells as a coherent body of dwoemercraft. I think it exacerbated some poor design decisions, but there you go.
My heart sank when the Magic Items Compendium was released, and Dungeon Grrrl put her finger on the reasons why as soon as she read through it. She wrote that there were pages and pages of nothing but combat bonuses after comba bonuses, while whimsical, magical items, like feather tokens or immovable rods or submersible apparati, were nowhere to be seen.
I think the Bo9S wasn't the worst book of all time, even though I never really felt motivated to relearn mechanics to use it. Tome of Magic on the other hand was pretty bad. Didn't the Truenamer not even work at all? And adding more magic mechanics to learn, when 3.5e already had basic magic, psionics, and incarnum, didn't appeal to me as a customer. I'm sure that there are some people who loved it, and could overlook or fix the Truenamer's brokenness, but for me it didn't work.
As for the compendiums, I really like the Magic Item Compendium, which is full of things that aren't just "combat bonuses". I still use the compendium with Pathfinder to add even more variety to the treasure my players find. The Spell Compendium is less useful to me, mostly because a book of spells causes my eyes to glaze over, but it is a good resource for combining spells that are otherwise scattered over a number of different books.
Should we get a pool going?If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the announcement for 5e is due for either the next GenCon or the one after (unless they announce it somewhere else - but it probably will be in the same time frame). And a year later, they'll release it.I wonder if Mearls is trying to preemptively defuse edition wars as WOTC moves to the 5.0 edition.I've got a bad feeling in my gut about the trip to GenCon this year. It's the same feeling I had when I went to GenCon '07.
But I'm already in on that Charlie Sheen pool. "When and how is Charlie Sheen going to die?"
But that should be over in a few weeks, we can start something then.
ToB...was ok...but did not 'fix' anything at all. It was just a play test for 4th ed. If I knew that I would not have wasted money it. You know that the book was actualy planned to be a fix for melee characters? But they changed it when they decided to dump 3.5 and deasign 4t ed. To play test the new 4th ed design ideas in a system they don't work in.
Exactly. Misleading advertising. It didn't fix martial classes. It introduced characters with spellcasting disguised as warriors (and the disguise was on par with one of those false moustaches and that huge nose with plastic glasses).
It did nothing for the fighter. Fighters being those who are just good at fighting, without any pseudo-shaolin mumbo-jumbo.
Pathfinder did a better job here. The martial spellcasters are clearly labelled as such.
ToM: was ok...I mean Binders were...meh. And really to campaign specfic to do well.
ToM had some nice ideas maybe, but the execution was just horrible. Shadow Magic didn't need its own mechanics.
Truenaming was a complete mess.
And their version of pact magic didn't get the job done either. I never felt that there was a whole character in there. Secrets of Pact Magic did a better job.
I equate them to Incarum
I have three words for Incarnum: Whiskey Tango Foxtrott.
The whole thing just didn't do it for me.
3e books got really weird towards the end. Almost felt like they wanted people to dislike 3e so the transition to 4e would be smoother. But they probably just ran out of ideas.
MMV: Well...honestly how many Monsters manual do we really need
Monster Manuals? Keep them coming. Of course, I might be biased, having pre-ordered the Tome of Horrors Complete (Pathfinder Version).
Paizo: Please keep the Bestiaries coming till we shout stop!
But wasn't MMV the one where they wasted a lot of time doing monsters with class levels and inventing names for the builds?
Less a monster manual as a brainstorming session for D&D Miniatures.
Bo9S was a polarizing work, however. I know of no players personally who are neutral to the book, they either love it and encourage others to use it in their games or hate it and have banned it outright. I've heard similar stories about the Tome of Magic, although, interestingly enough, I've never used that last book(don't allow Bo9s in my games, however).
I was a hater until last fall when I decided to give it another go and found some redeeming usage out of it when cross-classing with a swordsage. It could have been done better, but it helped the concept of wanting to create some sort of an arcane fighter whose niche I've been slowly progressing.
As for ToM, I've found the Binder to be the main redeeming class in there, but it was limited. Matthew Morris espoused more on what Dr. Nardi did with his work (and much better, from what I've seen).
I don't even know where to start on this post. There are just way too many things in here to disagree with.
That is ok Scott....I know it is all about opinion and there is no right or wrong to it. But to say these books were 'high quality'...how so exactly? You say a ton of people liked them....yet I have only met one person at all interested in ToB. No one at all in in the ToM(except shadowcasters and even than it was more the concept than the excution)...and have seen maybe a DM crack open the MM5 once...maybe twice.
So how exactly can you say that these books are of high quality as anything other than stating your opinion? What facts can you point to that say there were?
Out side of Magic of Incarum and Weapons of Legacy...they are some of the worst 3.5 books out there...heck even the designers say they don't work in 3.5.
Ommm...
Motorcycle ashtray, teats on a bull, and this thread...