And if you don't play 4E, then why do you post on the 4E thread at Paizo? Or a better question, would you promote/defend/discuss Paizo products on the WotC boards if there were some (I don't honestly know if there are)?
I post here because I am a fan on D&D. I do not play 4e, but I am interested in the goings-on of WotC and what affects the future of the game I do love. I don't post in the rules/gameplay 4e threads(unless I have something to actually contribute, and not edition war vitriol).
As someone who has easily handed thousands of dollars to WotC, I have every bit as much right to post in any forum regarding their products as I please, actual context withstanding.
That, and the WotC forums are an echo chamber. Even the Previous Editions forum is a ghost town, and the few times anyone does attempt to post anything, there are one or two that instantly jump in and beat you over the head with every short-coming 3e has ever had. Even the posters who supposedly still play 3e, go out of their way to paint the most extreme cases of rules loophole hopping and munchkin-ism as normal, regular occurrences in the system. Good luck mentioning PF in any other forum there, it's like trying to pet a lion while wearing bloody steak gloves. No thank you.
Let's settle for a compromise:
"4e is a D&D MMO"
Sounds good? ;)
I post here because I am a fan on D&D. I do not play 4e, but I am interested in the goings-on of WotC and what affects the future of the game I do love. I don't post in the rules/gameplay 4e threads(unless I have something to actually contribute, and not edition war vitriol).As someone who has easily handed thousands of dollars to WotC, I have every bit as much right to post in any forum regarding their products as I please, actual context withstanding.
I was speaking from a general standpoint with the 4E thread as a whole, not specifically you in the context of this specific "WotC layoff" thread. And by all means, please keep posting in which ever threads you so desire. The more - The merrier as they say. And like you, I have a great interest in the goings on at WotC because I enjoy the game and hope for it's continued success.
That, and the WotC forums are an echo chamber. Even the Previous Editions forum is a ghost town, and the few times anyone does attempt to post anything, there are one or two that instantly jump in and beat you over the head with every short-coming 3e has ever had. Even the posters who supposedly still play 3e, go out of their way to paint the most extreme cases of rules loophole hopping and munchkin-ism as normal, regular occurrences in the system. Good luck mentioning PF in any other forum there, it's like trying to pet a lion while wearing bloody steak gloves. No thank you.
I've been to the Previous Editions page and I didn't think it was all that bad. I don't create any threads there because my focus is now 4E, but were I to do so, I'd expect game-masters to swoop in and say "This is the best way to handle such-and-such." And I treat 3e game masters as I do Char_Optimizer, as people who attempt to "Win" at D&D. But I also know the flaws and problems of v3.5 (or at least, my own opinion of whats a problem) so I generally just ignore those who would not like my ideas. Chances are, there is at least some people with a shared likeness that is willing to contribute to the discussion, and that's what I'm after.
Let's settle for a compromise:
"4e is a D&D MMO"
Sounds good? ;)
Dude, that's just flame-baiting. Besides, people often fail to see 3e was the "MMO" edition, with having an honest-to-gods World of Warcraft RPG setting AND....
...DDO, the actual, living and breathing D&D MMORPG, which was created around 3.5's rules. Given just those 2 examples, is it really that huge of a surprise of the developers of 4e had some(even a small amount) MMO influence in creating the system?
I'm a 3.5 supporter and even I can admit the above.
But in all honesty, if your not interested in 4E or the people who post here, then why worry what some of them think of the Paizo commuity at large? Who cares if they all think the Pathfinder community is a bunch of 4E-haterz and all that?
I said 4E is not a game that I'm interested in playing. That doesnt mean when someone starts a thread asking if Paizo is going to support 4E that I dont have a vested interest in seeing what the response is.
Just becasue I dont play 4E doesnt mean that when several of the WOTC staff get laid off or resign that I'm not interested in the possible why or the fallout.
And it does matter to me when 4E supporters paint the whole of the the Paizo community as a bunch of rabid 4E haterz becasue I'm part of this community. And I'm not one of those people. Granted I've got other things that set me off and make me go IC (Internet Crazy) but the mere mention of 4E in a thread aint one of 'em.
C'mon - that's just being a bit pedantic.
Not really.
I said that the Paizo community is extremely insular (and have been saying this for years), to its detriment. You said that all communities are insular. I said that not all communities are equally insular, and that's the point. There's the natural sort of insularity that comes from wanting to spend one's time where one is well-understood, and then there's the sort of deep insularity that comes from not wanting to be exposed to an undesirable "other".
Paizo allows the discussion of 4e, but then you guys write threads like "Why do people not like 4e" and someone gives reasoned criticism, someone attacks them for it. We aren't allowed to not like 4e, even in a thread about why we don't like 4e.
You need to understand that, when you come online to post something in a public forum, you are allowed to have your opinion, and others are allowed to have their opinions of your opinion. This is crucial. This is the difference between discussion and not-discussion.
Let's settle for a compromise:
"4e is a D&D MMO"
Sounds good? ;)
No, "4e is a good D&D MMO" sounds much better :P. But I'm assuming Gorbacz is just trying to be funny (as am I).
Besides, people often fail to see 3e was the "MMO" edition, with having an honest-to-gods World of Warcraft RPG settingI really liked Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game. It made monstrous creature more likeable and no just mindless, raging brutes. I also really liked the rules on firearms and it's something I use all the time in my v3.5 games. That a lot of playable races for the game have Level Adjustments is something I rather hate though, so I just throw them out the window and make the races balanced myself.
What I find funny is that there was a revision to the game (can you believe that?!), called "World of Warcraft" that came out during the videogame WoW creation. This, I think, was an attempt to bridge that gap between PnP gamer and a consol/PC gamer.
Let's settle for a compromise:
"4e is a D&D MMO"
Sounds good? ;)
Dude, that's just flame-baiting. Besides, people often fail to see 3e was the "MMO" edition, with having an honest-to-gods World of Warcraft RPG setting AND....
...DDO, the actual, living and breathing D&D MMORPG, which was created around 3.5's rules. Given just those 2 examples, is it really that huge of a surprise of the developers of 4e had some(even a small amount) MMO influence in creating the system?
I'm a 3.5 supporter and even I can admit the above.
WOW was released by an independant developer. Thanks OGL.
DDO was a terrible MMO...turns out, first level wizards having 2 spells per day doesn't translate well in an MMO. 4e would translate much better.
What they should have done was make a NWN style rpg.
I've been to the Previous Editions page and I didn't think it was all that bad. I don't create any threads there because my focus is now 4E, but were I to do so, I'd expect game-masters to swoop in and say "This is the best way to handle such-and-such." And I treat 3e game masters as I do Char_Optimizer, as people who attempt to "Win" at D&D. But I also know the flaws and problems of v3.5 (or at least, my own opinion of whats a problem) so I generally just ignore those who would not like my ideas. Chances are, there is at least some people with a...
That, and the WotC forums are an echo chamber. Even the Previous Editions forum is a ghost town, and the few times anyone does attempt to post anything, there are one or two that instantly jump in and beat you over the head with every short-coming 3e has ever had. Even the posters who supposedly still play 3e, go out of their way to paint the most extreme cases of rules loophole hopping and munchkin-ism as normal, regular occurrences in the system. Good luck mentioning PF in any other forum there, it's like trying to pet a lion while wearing bloody steak gloves. No thank you.
The tone there is just...different. The more productive, generally positive threads are focused on 1e and 2e, which that board sees as "neutral ground". The regular 3e posters spend more time apologizing for and ripping apart 3e than actually discussing any fun that might be had with it.
One poster in particular regularly attacks any 3e thread with his pre-rehearsed tirade of how only druids, clerics and wizards matter, and if you dare think of rolling up any other class, "urdoinitwrong" and not having fun. He and I have gone many rounds, because hey, I like Fighters. He would go on and tell me I was wrong and not having as much as I thought I was, and I was like, "really? You've never seen me face to face, and you're gonna tell me how much fun I actually had at a table you've never played at?"
It's sad, even recently I got into it with someone who was a co-founder of a distinguished gaming publisher who pretty much said the same thing; play a cleric, wizard, or druid, or urdoinitwrong. The general mentality is "CharOp or else".
And it does matter to me when 4E supporters paint the whole of the the Paizo community as a bunch of rabid 4E haterz becasue I'm part of this community.
Again, this is a general quality. No one is saying that everyone here hates 4e. That's clearly untrue. But there are enough people here who dislike 4e/WotC/Hasbro/puppies and don't have any problem voicing that dislike that it makes those who do like those things less than comfortable. Defending those things against particularly unreasonable criticism or attack helps make it feel less like enjoying 4e makes you a crazy person, and more like enjoying 4e is a perfectly valid opinion that is actually held by others and can stand up to criticism.
And it does matter to me when 4E supporters paint the whole of the the Paizo community as a bunch of rabid 4E haterz becasue I'm part of this community.Again, this is a general quality. No one is saying that everyone here hates 4e. That's clearly untrue. But there are enough people here who dislike 4e/WotC/Hasbro/puppies and don't have any problem voicing that dislike that it makes those who do like those things less than comfortable. Defending those things against particularly unreasonable criticism or attack helps make it feel less like enjoying 4e makes you a crazy person, and more like enjoying 4e is a perfectly valid opinion that is actually held by others and can stand up to criticism.
Thanks for including my obvious hatred and disdain for puppies in your post. Glad to know I'm not the only one.
And it does matter to me when 4E supporters paint the whole of the the Paizo community as a bunch of rabid 4E haterz becasue I'm part of this community.Again, this is a general quality. No one is saying that everyone here hates 4e. That's clearly untrue. But there are enough people here who dislike 4e/WotC/Hasbro/puppies and don't have any problem voicing that dislike that it makes those who do like those things less than comfortable. Defending those things against particularly unreasonable criticism or attack helps make it feel less like enjoying 4e makes you a crazy person, and more like enjoying 4e is a perfectly valid opinion that is actually held by others and can stand up to criticism.
I object! I love puppies.
I think Scott just likes being the "pilgrim in an unholy land." No offense, of course :)
I love your argumentation, as usual. You really should consider a career in law. Or anywhere where any attention to logic is important.
"So you say Soviet Russia was bad? Well, look at Imperial Russia. It was bad was well! DUNUNUHUH."
"So okay, waterboarding is bad. But hey, pulling out fingernails is WORSE. So let's stop talking about waterboarding, because there are worse things out there, OKAY?"
I think ProfessorCirno's point was that a lot of gamers have some fairly unreasonable expectations of how game companies ought to be run. Paizo is run a certain way. That works for Paizo, and it works for Paizo's fans. That way doesn't work for WotC. WotC, however, isn't a bad business. There are bad businesses out there. How do you know they're bad businesses? Because they do stuff that is actually pretty bad, all the time.
The logic goes something like: WotC is the most prominent example of a tabletop roleplaying game owned by a large corporation. Therefore, decisions that I personally disagree with must be the result of WotC's corporate ownership, rather than a simple reality of businesses having to make careful decisions.
It's like everything that happened after WotC was acquired by Hasbro got blamed on the fact that WotC was acquired by Hasbro. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I think Scott just likes being the "pilgrim in an unholy land." No offense, of course :)
It does have its appeal. And how many unholy lands have scenery this nice?
|
I love your argumentation, as usual. You really should consider a career in law. Or anywhere where any attention to logic is important.
"So you say Soviet Russia was bad? Well, look at Imperial Russia. It was bad was well! DUNUNUHUH."
"So okay, waterboarding is bad. But hey, pulling out fingernails is WORSE. So let's stop talking about waterboarding, because there are worse things out there, OKAY?"
I think ProfessorCirno's point was that a lot of gamers have some fairly unreasonable expectations of how game companies ought to be run. Paizo is run a certain way. That works for Paizo, and it works for Paizo's fans. That way doesn't work for WotC. WotC, however, isn't a bad business. There are bad businesses out there. How do you know they're bad businesses? Because they do stuff that is actually pretty bad, all the time.
The logic goes something like: WotC is the most prominent example of a tabletop roleplaying game owned by a large corporation. Therefore, decisions that I personally disagree with must be the result of WotC's corporate ownership, rather than a simple reality of businesses having to make careful decisions.
It's like everything that happened after WotC was acquired by Hasbro got blamed on the fact that WotC was acquired by Hasbro. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I consider WotC a shoddy, ignorant and poorly managed company that makes good products.
I considered TSR a shoddy, ignorant and poorly managed company that made good products.
Now, what Cirno says is that every time I bash WotC, I should take my time off to declare "and yes, I also thought that TSR was eeevil." So I'm not like doing double standards or something.
I'm not interested in doing so in slightest, but for future reference, you can always look up this post.
As for Gygax, I get the impression he didn't think anything designed by someone other than himself was D&D, so I'm not sure that his view is really one that will prove anyone's point very well. From what I've seen and heard about him, he was a very bitter man in the period that everyone keeps trying pull his quotes from.I think the point, Sunshadow, is that you keep trying to appeal to authority ('carrying on the traditions of the game') while rejecting any similar evidence that might go against your own argument.
Look, it is 100% cool to say, "4E does not present the gaming experience I am interested in, and I feel PF offers more of the direction I want the game to go in."
But that isn't what you are saying. You keep claiming that 4E actively has turned away from classic traditions of D&D - usually making various inaccurate claims about the mechanics of the game, which you have confessed to not actually being familiar with. At the same time, when similar claims are lobbied against the version of the game you enjoy, by the original creator of the game itself... you dismiss any such possibility.
Both 3rd Edition (and, by extension, Pathfinder) and 4E are very different from the original game. Both have taken the game very far from its roots, and set aside some traditions while embracing others.
Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim that one of these is faithful to the one true vision of D&D while the other has abandoned such traditions. All you can do is claim that one of them is the version of D&D you prefer, and that the other is not.
That's fair and reasonable. But it is downright hypocritical to say, "Your version breaks with tradition for these reasons. Mine, which had nigh-identical complaints lobbied against it by the creator of the game, has seamlessly carried on the spirit of the game."
I actually stopped claiming that 4E broke from tradition completely when people brought up specific examples from earlier editions that I am not familiar with. What they broke from were the visible traditions that most people watching were familiar with without giving the revived traditions the attention they needed to be helpful. So to many people, especially those that started playing in the 3.x era, they did break from what was understood to be the traditions, since most people watching the release of 4E probably hadn't played anything before 2nd ed, and even 3.0. PF retains a lot more of the visible and known traditions, making it easier for people who started playing only in the last decade to connect the system to its roots. I'm not saying that the comparisons you are using for 4E are wrong; all I'm saying is that they only work if you first take the time to educate people who aren't familiar with the original game about them, something WOTC didn't seem to think was necessary, and something that many 4E supporters forget as well. Not all of them, obviously, as there are plenty here willing to share their knowledge, or even most of them, but many of them forget that not everyone is as steeped in D&D history as they are. The biggest problem I have with those who quote Gygax is that as part of a greater picture, they can be relevant and useful if used properly, but just by themselves, completely out of any context, they have no more value than yours or mine.
As for the bashing at the 3rd edition release, I would hope they took the time to include actual material from 3rd edition in the process. I didn't mind the tongue in cheek mocking of earlier editions at 4E's release, but the lack of solid information about the system they were supposedly previewing didn't work too well. When you spend more time talking about the editions that are formally dying or dead, at least as far as formal support is concerned, than you do about the system you want people to buy, it can come across as deliberately trying to set the bar low because your own creation can't take the bar being any higher. I'm not saying that WOTC set out to create this impression, but in the end, a lot of people were left wondering exactly what the purpose of all the previews were.
C'mon - that's just being a bit pedantic.Not really.
I said that the Paizo community is extremely insular (and have been saying this for years), to its detriment. You said that all communities are insular. I said that not all communities are equally insular, and that's the point. There's the natural sort of insularity that comes from wanting to spend one's time where one is well-understood, and then there's the sort of deep insularity that comes from not wanting to be exposed to an undesirable "other".
I would say all gaming system communities tend to be insular and equally so when all factors are taken into consideration. I consider DDI to be highly insular in ways that PF never will be simply due to the way it's set up. This isn't a good thing or a bad thing, just the nature of how WOTC wants to do business. Individual segments are going to vary, but that will always be the case. You have to expect a little more resistance and questioning from a site like Paizo than somewhere like Enworld just because of the nature of who is running the forum. That doesn't mean that everyone is trying to attack the opposing system, but it does mean that getting defensive immediately on even the simplest question is going to get a harsher and quicker reaction.
I don't see WOTC as being more "evil" than any other company, just one that because they have chosen to take a non traditional route, need to expect a certain amount of backlash from a community and market that doesn't take massive change on the scale that 4E did it kindly, regardless of the company or brand name involved. It's not the backlash that surprises me, its the lack of preparation on WOTC's part for it that surprises and worries me, though they do seem to be catching on.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Hah! The ONLY reason I know what this means is because of numerous repeated viewings of THE WEST WING on DVD.
The tone there is just...different. The more productive, generally positive threads are focused on 1e and 2e, which that board sees as "neutral ground". The regular 3e posters spend more time apologizing for and ripping apart 3e than actually discussing any fun that might be had with it.
One poster in particular regularly attacks any 3e thread with his pre-rehearsed tirade of how only druids, clerics and wizards matter, and if you dare think of rolling up any other class, "urdoinitwrong" and not having fun. He and I have gone many rounds, because hey, I like Fighters. He would go on and tell me I was wrong and not having as much as I thought I was, and I was like, "really? You've never seen me face to face, and you're gonna tell me how much fun I actually had at a table you've never played at?"
It's sad, even recently I got into it with someone who was a co-founder of a distinguished gaming publisher who pretty much said the same thing; play a cleric, wizard, or druid, or urdoinitwrong. The general mentality is "CharOp or else".
Wow, that's a shame. While I tend to agree with the person your arguing with, that Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are pretty powerful, they're not the end-all/be-all of v3.5 gaming. I rather like Fighter myself as it can be very diverse in it's fighting style. I had a Fighter that used his shield like Captain America like throwing his shield and shield bashing people. Lots of fun.
Wow, that's a shame. While I tend to agree with the person your arguing with, that Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are pretty powerful, they're not the end-all/be-all of v3.5 gaming. I rather like Fighter myself as it can be very diverse in it's fighting style. I had a Fighter that used his shield like Captain America like throwing his shield and shield bashing people. Lots of fun.The tone there is just...different. The more productive, generally positive threads are focused on 1e and 2e, which that board sees as "neutral ground". The regular 3e posters spend more time apologizing for and ripping apart 3e than actually discussing any fun that might be had with it.
One poster in particular regularly attacks any 3e thread with his pre-rehearsed tirade of how only druids, clerics and wizards matter, and if you dare think of rolling up any other class, "urdoinitwrong" and not having fun. He and I have gone many rounds, because hey, I like Fighters. He would go on and tell me I was wrong and not having as much as I thought I was, and I was like, "really? You've never seen me face to face, and you're gonna tell me how much fun I actually had at a table you've never played at?"
It's sad, even recently I got into it with someone who was a co-founder of a distinguished gaming publisher who pretty much said the same thing; play a cleric, wizard, or druid, or urdoinitwrong. The general mentality is "CharOp or else".
Funny you should mention Cap, we just ran in circles because someone compared 3e classes to the Avengers; only the super-human ones get to fly into space and fight Galactus(clerics, druids, wizards), all the normal human ones get stuck on trash duty, like Hawkeye(anything not a cleric, druid, or wizard). So I mentioned Cap. Sure, he's beyond peak human performance, but he doesn't fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, or juggle cars, yet he's the leader and no slouch in the action department. You could replicate Cap physically in an RPG pretty easily using non-cleric, druid, wizards. Heck, just a Fighter with a few stat-boosters and a Ranged shield from the Magic Item Compendium, for starters. I'm still wrong though, apparently(Iron Man makes the cut, even though he's just a guy in a fancy suit).
Funny you should mention Cap, we just ran in circles because someone compared 3e classes to the Avengers; only the super-human ones get to fly into space and fight Galactus(clerics, druids, wizards), all the normal human ones get stuck on trash duty, like Hawkeye(anything not a cleric, druid, or wizard). So I mentioned Cap. Sure, he's beyond peak human performance, but he doesn't fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, or juggle cars, yet he's the leader and no slouch in the action department. You could replicate Cap physically in an RPG pretty...Wow, that's a shame. While I tend to agree with the person your arguing with, that Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are pretty powerful, they're not the end-all/be-all of v3.5 gaming. I rather like Fighter myself as it can be very diverse in it's fighting style. I had a Fighter that used his shield like Captain America like throwing his shield and shield bashing people. Lots of fun.The tone there is just...different. The more productive, generally positive threads are focused on 1e and 2e, which that board sees as "neutral ground". The regular 3e posters spend more time apologizing for and ripping apart 3e than actually discussing any fun that might be had with it.
One poster in particular regularly attacks any 3e thread with his pre-rehearsed tirade of how only druids, clerics and wizards matter, and if you dare think of rolling up any other class, "urdoinitwrong" and not having fun. He and I have gone many rounds, because hey, I like Fighters. He would go on and tell me I was wrong and not having as much as I thought I was, and I was like, "really? You've never seen me face to face, and you're gonna tell me how much fun I actually had at a table you've never played at?"
It's sad, even recently I got into it with someone who was a co-founder of a distinguished gaming publisher who pretty much said the same thing; play a cleric, wizard, or druid, or urdoinitwrong. The general mentality is "CharOp or else".
You didn't know being rich is a superpower? For shame.
Funny you should mention Cap, we just ran in circles because someone compared 3e classes to the Avengers; only the super-human ones get to fly into space and fight Galactus(clerics, druids, wizards), all the normal human ones get stuck on trash duty, like Hawkeye(anything not a cleric, druid, or wizard). So I mentioned Cap. Sure, he's beyond peak human performance, but he doesn't fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, or juggle cars, yet he's the leader and no slouch in the action department. You could replicate Cap physically in an RPG pretty easily using non-cleric, druid, wizards. Heck, just a Fighter with a few stat-boosters and a Ranged shield from the Magic Item Compendium, for starters. I'm still wrong though, apparently(Iron Man makes the cut, even though he's just a guy in a fancy suit).
Cap is pretty easy to do. I'd make him a Fighter, with (using v3.5 mechanics) Agile Shield Fighter feat, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Sling, a few other Ranged-base feats, Weapon Spec. (spiked shield), etc... But I'd also like Tome of Battle too, so that add a little "extra" to the character.
As for Iron Man, the easiest way I see is a Human artificer that has a super-suit of steel (full-plate) with Wand enchantments for "repulsors" and a "fly" spell for the boots. Magical crossbows or even more wands for additional armaments. Very fun idea! And that's why you have super-human classes (wizard espically)....to teleport your non-magical friends to the fight!
Funny you should mention Cap, we just ran in circles because someone compared 3e classes to the Avengers; only the super-human ones get to fly into space and fight Galactus(clerics, druids, wizards), all the normal human ones get stuck on trash duty, like Hawkeye(anything not a cleric, druid, or wizard). So I mentioned Cap. Sure, he's beyond peak human performance, but he doesn't fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, or juggle cars, yet he's the leader and no slouch in the action department. You could replicate Cap physically in an RPG pretty easily using non-cleric, druid, wizards. Heck, just a Fighter with a few stat-boosters and a Ranged shield from the Magic Item Compendium, for starters. I'm still wrong though, apparently(Iron Man makes the cut, even though he's just a guy in a fancy suit).Cap is pretty easy to do. I'd make him a Fighter, with (using v3.5 mechanics) Agile Shield Fighter feat, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Sling, a few other Ranged-base feats, Weapon Spec. (spiked shield), etc... But I'd also like Tome of Battle too, so that add a little "extra" to the character.
As for Iron Man, the easiest way I see is a Human artificer that has a super-suit of steel (full-plate) with Wand enchantments for "repulsors" and a "fly" spell for the boots. Magical crossbows or even more wands for additional armaments. Very fun idea! And that's why you have super-human classes (wizard espically)....to teleport your non-magical friends to the fight!
Exactly! The guy argued that Iron Man was on par with a wizard power-wise, while someone like Hawkeye needed a special plot-altering contraption to allow him to participate... Um, isn't that all Iron Man's suit really is? Without the suit, Hawkeye would annihilate him.
I feel like a dying breed, but being able to accurately convey a character concept in a class build is more important than making the numbers bigger. I'll knowingly make sub-optimal choices if it fits the concept; that's practically heresy on the WotC boards.
Exactly! The guy argued that Iron Man was on par with a wizard power-wise, while someone like Hawkeye needed a special plot-altering contraption to allow him to participate... Um, isn't that all Iron Man's suit really is? Without the suit, Hawkeye would annihilate him.
The artificer class is pretty strong of a class and comes close to that of a wizard in balance and power (depending on the build. But what I have a problem with is how they're getting into Space? I'm not aware of any space traveling spells that are accessable to the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric. So if he's homebrewing that, why can't he make acceptions for other non-magical classes? Sounds rather sketchy to me.
I feel like a dying breed, but being able to accurately convey a character concept in a class build is more important than making the numbers bigger. I'll knowingly make sub-optimal choices if it fits the concept; that's practically heresy...
I agree that ANY Char_Op boards can make a player feel that way. It's very true if your on the 3e or 4e boards. But that's what they do. They eek out every once of power and optimization and as an after effect, shoe-horn a theme or character aspect into the build. I'm a person that really likes to optimize but not at the total expense of destroying what makes the character unique.
Prime example is the figher class. If you bring up a build that doesn't 1.) spam the use of a Spiked-Chain, 2.) spam Attacks of Opportuinity, and 3.) use a very specific build, used to make the fighter like a 4E one then well, your fighter won't work very well. I get that feeling too but I know, from experience, that it's not the case. Problem is, defending any other idea is rather pointless. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't, because there are a lof of fun, and effective builds out there that DON'T rely on a Spiked-Chain.
|
I can cop to that. But the GSL is still one of the most open licenses in the freaking industry. You think the GSL is bad? Try wanting to publish third party for just about any game out there. Try doing it with White Wolf. Or Palladium. See how well that works. Yeah, the GSL isn't as good as the OGL,...
Huh?
As far as I know, White Wolf doesn't publish under the OGL, GSL, Creative Commons or ANY of the other known "open" license agreements. You want to publish with White Wolf, you write for White Wolf ... pretty standard, if traditional, model.
Palladium actually has a very open opportunity to write for them, it's called The Rifter. Otherwise, you want to publish with Palladium, you write for Palladium.
In the creative licensing community the OGL, GSL, etc etc., derivatives are the exception, not the rule.
The flak that the GSL takes isn't about how it compares to everything else, its about how difficult it makes it for people to write for D&D itself, relative to the OGL. I think most people are pretty clear about what it takes to get published outside of those licenses.
I might point out a major difference between this site and WotC's site is this site is not only dedicated to the PFRPG system, but also to its online store. A store that sells among other things ... 4e products. WotC's site is not an online store, thus it doesn't sell other companies materials there. Being surprised that someone who purchases a product from an online store also discusses said product on the message board of that online store, is strange in itself.
I feel like a dying breed, but being able to accurately convey a character concept in a class build is more important than making the numbers bigger. I'll knowingly make sub-optimal choices if it fits the concept; that's practically heresy...I agree that ANY Char_Op boards can make a player feel that way. It's very true if your on the 3e or 4e boards. But that's what they do. They eek out every once of power and optimization and as an after effect, shoe-horn a theme or character aspect into the build. I'm a person that really likes to optimize but not at the total expense of destroying what makes the character unique.
Prime example is the figher class. If you bring up a build that doesn't 1.) spam the use of a Spiked-Chain, 2.) spam Attacks of Opportuinity, and 3.) use a very specific build, used to make the fighter like a 4E one then well, your fighter won't work very well. I get that feeling too but I know, from experience, that it's not the case. Problem is, defending any other idea is rather pointless. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't, because there are a lof of fun, and effective builds out there that DON'T rely on a Spiked-Chain.
It bothers me because it's no longer just CharOp territory, it's common place in the PE: General board. Someone new to 3.5 wanted to make something resembling a Paladin, and someone really jumped in and suggested either a druid or cleric. Cleric, maybe, with being the holy-type and all, but dang.
|
|
C'mon - that's just being a bit pedantic.Not really.
I said that the Paizo community is extremely insular (and have been saying this for years), to its detriment. You said that all communities are insular. I said that not all communities are equally insular, and that's the point. There's the natural sort of insularity that comes from wanting to spend one's time where one is well-understood, and then there's the sort of deep insularity that comes from not wanting to be exposed to an undesirable "other".
I disagree.
I think the community is becoming more open, and even more supportive, of people who PLAY PATHFINDER.
I do not personally qualify a reduction in the supportive community in other, competing products, to be a bad thing. I think it is a natural thing.
If I go to a Privateer Press forum and say "Warhammer 40K Rules, Warmachine Drools" I expect to get flamed to death. If I go to the 40K Radio forum and say "Warhammer 40K drools, Warmachine Rules" I expect to get flamed to death.
I fail to see the logic that suggests that a community needs to be equally and uncategorically supportive of every element within it, particullarly when that community is dedicated to a specific element.
Frankly, would we even be having these debates if Paizo decided to not be supportive of a forum for their competitor's product? Why are we surprised that in a forum, provided by the designer/manufacturer, of a specific product that there is greater support for that product than another? In the majority of communities I am a part of a competitors product would barely even make it in to the "Other" category of most forums.
It bothers me because it's no longer just CharOp territory, it's common place in the PE: General board. Someone new to 3.5 wanted to make something resembling a Paladin, and someone really jumped in and suggested either a druid or cleric. Cleric, maybe, with being the holy-type and all, but dang.
Hmmm...looks like I'm going to have to go over there and lay down some authority! A martial-style cleric with the Destruction domain does a good job of being a paladin-ish character, and there are feats, PrCs, and spells that help solidify that apsect further. But druid?! No, oh geez no.
@ Gary: Not sure if this thread has much more to offer to the Original Threat topic, seeing as how we've debated the crap out of what ramifications the WotC layoffs mean (for good or ill, who's to say?). It's gone down some very strange roads since then and I can't really think of anything else to add to that particular topic.
|
|
It bothers me because it's no longer just CharOp territory, it's common place in the PE: General board. Someone new to 3.5 wanted to make something resembling a Paladin, and someone really jumped in and suggested either a druid or cleric. Cleric, maybe, with being the holy-type and all, but dang.Hmmm...looks like I'm going to have to go over there and lay down some authority! A martial-style cleric with the Destruction domain does a good job of being a paladin-ish character, and there are feats, PrCs, and spells that help solidify that apsect further. But druid?! No, oh geez no.
@ Gary: Not sure if this thread has much more to offer to the Original Threat topic, seeing as how we've debated the crap out of what ramifications the WotC layoffs mean (for good or ill, who's to say?). It's gone down some very strange roads since then and I can't really think of anything else to add to that particular topic.
I agree it was interesting for the first couple of pages but then just turned into more of the same sadly.
Senior Software Developer
|
Yeah I think the topics being discussed currently here should probably get their own threads or something. I'm not terribly comfortable with threads discussing Wizards of the Coast, as a company, versus threads discussing 4th edition, which is what this forum is actually for.