| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As usual give someone enough money and any hate or dislike they have towards anything disappears. I respct Monte as a designer and his work. Not much as a person. For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before. You trash talk both the rpg and the copany then you go back to work for the company. Sorry I cannot and will not respect such a person.
The flip side of that argument is that Monte might have agreed to work with Wizards precisely because he has been given the latitude to create great products under their banner. He doesn't strike me as the type of guy who would sign on for a project if he wasn't going to be allowed to make something that gamers would enjoy and was instead constrained by marketing gimmicks and "outsider" perspectives on what constitutes a good RPG product.
Monte can find work in the industry easily; he doesn't need WotC as badly as they need him. That gives me hope for whatever comes of his involvement.
As usual give someone enough money and any hate or dislike they have towards anything disappears. I respct Monte as a designer and his work. Not much as a person. For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before. You trash talk both the rpg and the copany then you go back to work for the company. Sorry I cannot and will not respect such a person.
That's not very fair. What says he didn't meet with them beforehand, and make amends? Hash things out and come to an agreement? Are you saying it's impossible for someone to possibly change their minds about something/someone?
Times change, people change.
The last time WotC decided "screw the old guard, let's grab all those videogame kids by making 4E appear as pen and paper World of Warcraft", well, we all know what happened.The funny part is this is exactly what they did before 3.5 even. There was, in fact, an actual World of Warcraft 3.0 d20 game. Didn't do so hot.
World of Warcraft released on November 23, 2004.
Dungeons & Dragons version 3.5 released in June 2003.
There was a "Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game" released on July 28, 2003.
Either your or my facts are off because World of Warcraft isn't big enough to break though time itself.
The last time WotC decided "screw the old guard, let's grab all those videogame kids by making 4E appear as pen and paper World of Warcraft", well, we all know what happened.The funny part is this is exactly what they did before 3.5 even. There was, in fact, an actual World of Warcraft 3.0 d20 game. Didn't do so hot.
World of Warcraft released on November 23, 2004.
Dungeons & Dragons version 3.5 released in June 2003.
There was a "Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game" released on July 28, 2003.
Either your or my facts are off because World of Warcraft isn't big enough to break though time itself.
I was less than a year off. Nitpick a little more whydontcha.
I have found that younger players are reacting very well to Pathfinder. They love the Golarion setting, and the fact that there are many class choices/options which enable them to customize their characters for a better role playing experience. This is demonstrated by the growth of local Pathfinder groups here in New York City, the helpfulness and openess of Pathfinder veterans to younger players, and the large numbers of FORMER 4E players who have tried or grown tired of 4E and who have been switching to Pathfinder. 4E seems to be slowly dying ( why else all this speculation about 5E if 4E was wildly successful )? As they used to say about the former communist dictatorships, "people are voting with their feet". More and more they are abandoning, or not even choosing, 4E; and instead they are flocking to a far better game= Pathfinder.
There are a lot of strong claims in here, and a lot of not supporting them with anything. The entire block of text above just reads like so much propaganda.
EDIT: Also, when people start speculating heavily about Pathfinder 2e, does this mean I have permission to say "Why would there be speculation about Pathfinder 2e if Pathfinder 1e was wildly successful?"
I think not. And by the same token, you're not getting away with it either.
I removed some posts. Just flag it an move on, please.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unclean! Monte is no longer of the body.
I was less than a year off. Nitpick a little more whydontcha.Sure! My claim was that were off by an edition than a year. Or you could have said, "an actual Warcraft 3.0 d20 game," and I wouldn't have noticed really (possibly wrong still but closer).
Warcraft is not equal to World of Warcraft.
Off by half an edition, if you want to get reeeeeeal nitpicky. Geesh, man. The Warcraft book I have looked like 3.0 rules, so I figured it came from that era.
Off by half an edition, if you want to get reeeeeeal nitpicky. Geesh, man. The Warcraft book I have looked like 3.0 rules, so I figured it came from that era.I was less than a year off. Nitpick a little more whydontcha.Sure! My claim was that were off by an edition than a year. Or you could have said, "an actual Warcraft 3.0 d20 game," and I wouldn't have noticed really (possibly wrong still but closer).
Warcraft is not equal to World of Warcraft.
The only reliable way I've ever found to tell was to hunt for Read Lips in NPC stat blocks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back to the speculation on 5e... I think the next version won't be called 5e, it will be called "Magic: the Adventure Game" and will incorporate 4e rules, M:tG background/setting, and may even resemble Wizards' incorporation of "character cards" in Magic (aka Planeswalker card). :-|
They already did that - it was called 3e.
Literally 3e developers have outright stated that 3e was intentionally designed with a lot of M:tG stuff behind it.
|
Getting back to the speculation on 5e... I think the next version won't be called 5e, it will be called "Magic: the Adventure Game" and will incorporate 4e rules, M:tG background/setting, and may even resemble Wizards' incorporation of "character cards" in Magic (aka Planeswalker card). :-|
They already did that - it was called 3e.
Literally 3e developers have outright stated that 3e was intentionally designed with a lot of M:tG stuff behind it.
Links?
Incidentally, non-conspiracy theory reason Cook is being rehired - he and Mearls are good friends that worked closely together for several years, Mearls has enough sway to get him hired, Cook doesn't mind coming back to work with his bro Mearls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? From articles I've read by M:tG developers, they've always stated that WotC wanted to keep D&D and M:tG separate, with no overlap if possible.
Links?
Getting back to the speculation on 5e... I think the next version won't be called 5e, it will be called "Magic: the Adventure Game" and will incorporate 4e rules, M:tG background/setting, and may even resemble Wizards' incorporation of "character cards" in Magic (aka Planeswalker card). :-|
They already did that - it was called 3e.
Literally 3e developers have outright stated that 3e was intentionally designed with a lot of M:tG stuff behind it.
Here is some of it.
But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic
You guys are both right. I don't have the links, but I recall WotC had plans to do an actual M:tG RPG, but scrapped it at the last minute to keep it separate from D&D. ANy from what Cirno's link says, they took some cues from Magic. I mean really, it was MASSIVELY successful, why on earth wouldn't they?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As usual give someone enough money and any hate or dislike they have towards anything disappears. I respct Monte as a designer and his work. Not much as a person. For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before. You trash talk both the rpg and the copany then you go back to work for the company. Sorry I cannot and will not respect such a person.
If Monte had said a bunch of anti-4e stuff (which, as others have mentioned, would be great to see a link to), and if Monte were going back to actually working on 4e, and if this were somehow an issue of moral absolutes and not a product development/marketing decision, then maybe you'd have a point.
Let's assume he said some anti-4e stuff, let's pretend that fundamentalism is not so entrenched that this conversation isn't worth even having, and focus on the second point for a second. If Monte came on board to make a new edition of D&D, which is more like 3e than 4e, how is that hypocritical?
There's a lot of interest here. Many people voiced dislike for 4e. WotC is showing they are (finally, hopefully) listening by bringing Monte in to create an edition which is (theoretically, possibly), more like 3e. Isn't that what everyone* wanted? And, if WotC is actually listening, is it possible their management has gotten a clue, and that the actions of the management in the past (i.e., those that Monte complained about and who were running the shop back when 3.5 was being released) can be differentiated from the actions of the current management (or even the management that launched 4e)?
*For you 4e fans, everyone is used rhetorically in this instance, and is not a factual claim that every human being wants this.
For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before.
Linkage please.
Here is some of it.
But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic
If that is the standard being used then 4E is a total rip-off copy of WOW.
And, for the record, I don't consider it a copy of WOW.
But if you are going to stand on your head and squint and turn that article about how it make sense to apply lessons learned in one place to work in other places into an article about how 3E is based on MTG then the only reasonable conclusion that same contortion leaves for 4E is that WotC probably owes Blizzard some royalties.
|
how is that hypocritical?
I have no problems with Monte doing what is best for Monte, coupled with the fact that people can and do change, I don't find it hypercritical. I give him the benefit of the doubt...
Having said that however, the ONLY thing I can find that could possibly be construed as hypercritical, is that in the fairly recent past (with the laying off of Jonathan Tweet from WotC), he said some things about WotC that were "less than rosy"...
Now, I think it would indeed be hypocritical of him to go back to Wizards IF he still felt that way towards the company and its management (but like I said, people change and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here)...
I quoted what he said one page back...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
how is that hypocritical?I have no problems with Monte doing what is best for Monte, coupled with the fact that since people can and do change, I don't find it hypercritical. I give him the benefit of the doubt...
Having said that however, the ONLY thing I can find that could possibly be construed as hypercritical, is that in the fairly recent past (with the laying off of Jonathan Tweet from WotC), he said some things about WotC that were "less than rosy"...
Now, I think it would indeed be hypocritical of him to go back to Wizards IF he still felt that way towards the company and its management (but like I said, people change and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here)...
I quoted what he said one page back...
Got it. I skimmed the quote and thought it was an old chestnut from around the launch of 3.5. I think he said similar things at that time (and was critical of the timing of 3.5).
It does look like he's learned enough about the prospects for long term employment at WotC that rumor has it he's not moving to Seattle...
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how is that hypocritical?I have no problems with Monte doing what is best for Monte, coupled with the fact that people can and do change, I don't find it hypercritical. I give him the benefit of the doubt...
Having said that however, the ONLY thing I can find that could possibly be construed as hypercritical, is that in the fairly recent past (with the laying off of Jonathan Tweet from WotC), he said some things about WotC that were "less than rosy"...
Now, I think it would indeed be hypocritical of him to go back to Wizards IF he still felt that way towards the company and its management (but like I said, people change and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here)...
I quoted what he said one page back...
It's also worth noting that there was a significant managerial switch between the time Monte posted his criticism of the way D&D and its creative staff was being managed and the way it is being managed today.
I've never seen Monte say anything bad about 4th edition. He's been critical of particular management decisions, mostly laying off good people, but mostly silent in the edition wars.
And saying that Paizo are good stewards of the d20 rules isn't same as criticizing a different rules set.
I still say that relaunching Planescape (of which they have left hooks for throughout the 4E line from the beginning) is far more likely than a new edition.
To keep this in a positive light, I will have to assume that any misgivings from Monte were a result of the times, and being released from employment by WOTC. But with that stated, I would only support any design decisions that improve on what 4E has already done. Paizo can just sit back and cherry pick the best ideas if they are a re-hash of what is already protect by the OGL. Therefore, I am guessing part of Monte’s re-employment may be to develop a game that breaks away from the OGL, or traditional D&D, which is a whole separate topic.
But with the top ten list that was provided, I do see at least a basic and advanced set for any new game that is developed. 4E already has the basic set covered, if they can improve the quality and distinction of powers that are used by each class. There is not much difference between 4E and pathfinder unless you are comparing powers to spells. The remaining differences are more about the level of detail, if you consider races, magic items, skills, etc. Overall, it would be very easy to meet the items listed in the top 10, except for political or emotional boundaries where players have drawn lines in the sand, like people who broke off all relations with WOTC when they changed D&D.
Where I am more pessimistic with current 4E designers and/or Monte, is if they have any interest in continuing forward the basic design principles of 4E when it was first released. I hope they do not use Pathfinder rule set as a gauge for success. I believe it is all the other stuff to support the Pathfinder rule set that makes Paizo successful.
As to word building, I want something new. So I hope any involvement from Monte is not to bring back a previous setting.
Heck, think of what we would have to do with Bugley every time he changed his opinion of WotC and 4E ... ;-)
Alas, nuance can be so confusing...
Heck, think of what we would have to do with Bugley every time he changed his opinion of WotC and 4E ... ;-)
I admit, I laughed probably a little too hard at this one.
And then felt a little bad about it.
Sorry, bugley.
Heck, think of what we would have to do with Bugley every time he changed his opinion of WotC and 4E ... ;-)I admit, I laughed probably a little too hard at this one.
And then felt a little bad about it.
Sorry, bugley.
*shrug*
I've changed my opinion exactly once. I often find myself defending 4E -- especially of late -- for no other reason than the egregious, hyperbolic, and unceasing attacks against it. My "not of the body" remark above was a sarcastic jab at what is sometimes a downright hostile environment on these boards for anyone daring to deny that 4E kicks puppies. I would think that you, Scott, of all people, would know what I mean.
Like I said...nuance.
But trust me, I get that the world is much easier to comprehend when everything fits into neat little boxes...
As usual give someone enough money and any hate or dislike they have towards anything disappears. I respct Monte as a designer and his work. Not much as a person. For all the negative stuff he said about 4E he coming across as a hypocrite. One that hopes no one will notice the anti-4E stuff he said before. You trash talk both the rpg and the copany then you go back to work for the company. Sorry I cannot and will not respect such a person.
That's life brother. It happens. People need to make money in this day and age, and it is not like Monte and WOTC were talking vaccines or medicine.
They were talking games. There really is no moral conundrum there that can outweigh the need for a guy to take care of his family.
Here is some of it.
But, in fact, we did take some cues from MagicIf that is the standard being used then 4E is a total rip-off copy of WOW.
And, for the record, I don't consider it a copy of WOW.
But if you are going to stand on your head and squint and turn that article about how it make sense to apply lessons learned in one place to work in other places into an article about how 3E is based on MTG then the only reasonable conclusion that same contortion leaves for 4E is that WotC probably owes Blizzard some royalties.
Hey, just because you deal in hilariously bizarre rhetoric doesn't mean I do.
Someone made a joke a obout hurrr 5e = MtG. I commented that the 3e developers openly stated they already took a lot of cues from M:tG.
But hey, if you can find me quotes that 4e developers took cues from WoW, I'm all ears!
Getting back to the speculation on 5e... I think the next version won't be called 5e, it will be called "Magic: the Adventure Game" and will incorporate 4e rules, M:tG background/setting, and may even resemble Wizards' incorporation of "character cards" in Magic (aka Planeswalker card). :-|
They already did that - it was called 3e.
Literally 3e developers have outright stated that 3e was intentionally designed with a lot of M:tG stuff behind it.
That is fine if the rules work. The rules worked. They did not however convert into a card game. That is all I care about.
I don't care if Feats resemble cards. It was executed well.
Still I will note that 3rd edition never had an official card supplement released for it. 4e and its spinoffs did, so if you are trying to equate card design as a negative, most modern game systems suffer from it.
Here is some of it.
But, in fact, we did take some cues from MagicIf that is the standard being used then 4E is a total rip-off copy of WOW.
And, for the record, I don't consider it a copy of WOW.
But if you are going to stand on your head and squint and turn that article about how it make sense to apply lessons learned in one place to work in other places into an article about how 3E is based on MTG then the only reasonable conclusion that same contortion leaves for 4E is that WotC probably owes Blizzard some royalties.
Hey, just because you deal in hilariously bizarre rhetoric doesn't mean I do.
Someone made a joke a obout hurrr 5e = MtG. I commented that the 3e developers openly stated they already took a lot of cues from M:tG.
But hey, if you can find me quotes that 4e developers took cues from WoW, I'm all ears!
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW. In fact it was stated during development they were trying to attract those players. The players that were the target audience since the older players were not. Good marketing choice.
Making 4e like a video game is not necessarily bad. However video games do it better, that is the problem.
Reducing all classes to power classes like the wizard is just one design element they used. They might as well write the powers as cooldown times instead of uses per day.
One point to consider: Exactly what were the negative things that Monte Cook said about 4E? Are they still true, or have they been corrected? If they have not been corrected, has Monte changed his mind, or is he perhaps being given the chance to do the corrections himself?
4E has definitely changed and grown since the publication of the first PHB. When all we had was that first book, I missed the nearly endless options of 3.5. That is less true today -- but there are still a few niches left unfilled, such as a 4E equivalent to the Pathfinder summoner.
Monte Cook is both a design genius and a very,very nice person. Between 3e and Ptolus, he has built up a deservedly enormous fund of goodwill with gamers everywhere. I'll check out anything he does. Even if it's for a game I don't play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW. In fact it was stated during development they were trying to attract those players. The players that were the target audience since the older players were not. Good marketing choice.
Making 4e like a video game is not necessarily bad. However video games do it better, that is the problem.
Reducing all classes to power classes like the wizard is just one design element they used. They might as well write the powers as cooldown times instead of uses per day.
First off, let me correct you.
Yes. You do need quotes. If you're going to claim 4e took things from WoW right after I provide quotes that prove 3e did so with M:tG, you do, indeed, need to provide quotes to back up what you're saying.
Secondly, if cooldowns = WoW, then every edition of D&D is WoW.
Wait.
My god.
Pathfinder classes have daily...cooldowns. And Pathfinder added new things to barbarians and rogues, such as...powers.
The Warcraft, it's everywhere
One point to consider: Exactly what were the negative things that Monte Cook said about 4E?
Nothing.
Monte Cook has literally never said anything negative about 4e, and I challenge anyone who disagrees to provide me with a quote.
The fact is, calls for these supposed negative things to be quoted have happened, what, five times in this thread? And nobody has yet to offer them up. It's nothing more then a nasty rumor.
Really? From articles I've read by M:tG developers, they've always stated that WotC wanted to keep D&D and M:tG separate, with no overlap if possible.
That is true. In fact, a Magic Campaign Setting would have been a logical step and might have introduced many TDG players to RPG and vice versa, and there were even plans for that at some point, but they were prevented by certain people within wotc who seemed to wanted to keep their game lines pure and separate.
It boggles the mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is true. In fact, a Magic Campaign Setting would have been a logical step and might have introduced many TDG players to RPG and vice versa, and there were even plans for that at some point, but they were prevented by certain people within wotc who seemed to wanted to keep their game lines pure and separate.
It boggles the mind.
I haven't played Magic for over a decade and I would buy a Magic Campaign Setting book and Monster Vault in a heartbeat.
Really? From articles I've read by M:tG developers, they've always stated that WotC wanted to keep D&D and M:tG separate, with no overlap if possible.
That is true. In fact, a Magic Campaign Setting would have been a logical step and might have introduced many TDG players to RPG and vice versa, and there were even plans for that at some point, but they were prevented by certain people within wotc who seemed to wanted to keep their game lines pure and separate.
It boggles the mind.
Yipes this thread is a busy one... I came back to see what was going on- pretty lively. KaeYoss is closer to what I meant- a game based in the M:tG omniverse, where-in the players are "Planeswalkers" (accomplished magic-weilding beings), utilizing some strange hybrid of 4E mechanics, but using cards which might look, behave very similarly to Magic cards or mechanics introduced may smack of Magic terminology- "instants" "interrupts" "tapping" etc. etc. This is what I was thinking of as the new 5e... an attempt to pull in CCG'ers as 4e seemed to be for MMO'ers. I pictured it being like Ars Magica... one player plays their uber-character (the Planeswalker) and others would play supporting roles (henchmen, hangers-on).
3e to me, at least, is not set in the M:tG world, or has quite that flavor, despite the developers being "influenced" by it. But heck of a discussion regardless! :-)
Heck, think of what we would have to do with Bugley every time he changed his opinion of WotC and 4E ... ;-)I admit, I laughed probably a little too hard at this one.
And then felt a little bad about it.
Sorry, bugley.
*shrug*
I've changed my opinion exactly once. I often find myself defending 4E -- especially of late -- for no other reason than the egregious, hyperbolic, and unceasing attacks against it. My "not of the body" remark above was a sarcastic jab at what is sometimes a downright hostile environment on these boards for anyone daring to deny that 4E kicks puppies. I would think that you, Scott, of all people, would know what I mean.
Like I said...nuance.
But trust me, I get that the world is much easier to comprehend when everything fits into neat little boxes...
Heh, I know, trust me, I understand. I chuckled at the joke and then immediately felt bad about it, like I said. It shouldn't be at your expense.
I haven't played Magic for over a decade and I would buy a Magic Campaign Setting book and Monster Vault in a heartbeat.That is true. In fact, a Magic Campaign Setting would have been a logical step and might have introduced many TDG players to RPG and vice versa, and there were even plans for that at some point, but they were prevented by certain people within wotc who seemed to wanted to keep their game lines pure and separate.
It boggles the mind.
Ditto.
|
I admit I might be being way too harsh towards Monte Cook. It just that I had some very bad experiecnes in my personal life with people saying one thing than doing another. Along with a "good" freind who was trash talking about me behind my back in attempt to make me look bad in front of my girlfreind. So yeah somewhat sentistive on the topic yet if MC can make 4E more popular or 5E better tahn 4E Im all for it.
|
|
Heck, think of what we would have to do with Bugley every time he changed his opinion of WotC and 4E ... ;-)I admit, I laughed probably a little too hard at this one.
And then felt a little bad about it.
Sorry, bugley.
*shrug*
I've changed my opinion exactly once. I often find myself defending 4E -- especially of late -- for no other reason than the egregious, hyperbolic, and unceasing attacks against it. My "not of the body" remark above was a sarcastic jab at what is sometimes a downright hostile environment on these boards for anyone daring to deny that 4E kicks puppies. I would think that you, Scott, of all people, would know what I mean.
Like I said...nuance.
But trust me, I get that the world is much easier to comprehend when everything fits into neat little boxes...
Bugley, but I *do* love you.
Unless it's a "what is Core" thread, that is. <3
You don't need quotes. It is painfully obvious they DID take queues from WoW. In fact it was stated during development they were trying to attract those players. The players that were the target audience since the older players were not. Good marketing choice.
I think your grossly underestimating how many older players actually play MMOs and other various video game RPGs. In fact, I'd like to think that most of the older players DO play video games and so they would be a part of the "target audience" as it were.
Making 4e like a video game is not necessarily bad. However video games do it better, that is the problem.Reducing all classes to power classes like the wizard is just one design element they used. They might as well write the powers as cooldown times instead of uses per day.
Sorry but I thought this aspect of D&D sucked....hard.
EXAMPLE~
Group: "Hey paladin! We REALLY need you to smite this awful dragon here, he's kickin' our butts!!"
Paladin: "Sorry guys, used it up against that nasty-bad Troll that was clawing through our rogue's face. No can do."
Group: "What?!! Why on Oerth can't Heironeous grant you some divine power?! Did you crap in his cheerios or something?"
Paladin: "Na, just don't have the Mo-jo to pull off another smite today. Gotta wait til I rest and stuff."
Group: "But it's the ONE darn thing that makes you actually effective in combat......against evil things (*whispers to the others* and not much against anything else)
Paladin: "But I've got a magical horse! And....and...some really awesome flavor!"
Group: "Good! We'll serve you to the dragon first."
Point being is that if your going to make powers, special actions, and class features a daily effect, it's gotta be encounter changing. Period. A bonus to hit (for 1 attack mind you) and some extra damage is.....well rather weak. Not only that, but it's subjected to one specific brand of creatures (evil ones). And you can do it once per day. That's it....that's the whole sha-bang! The rest of the time your a poor fighter with some heavy RP restrictions. Not only that but because it's paladin-class based, your pretty much shoe horned into that role for your entire 20th level career if you want anything significant to come from that feature.
Now if Smite was 1 per encounter and it scaled that way, then we're talking about a little bit better of a class. Feats that allow you to change your Smite's aligment are now something to take. The feature is still pretty weak as it only effects 1 whopping attack but at least it an happen once every battle.
Sorry, just can't see how anyone is happy about daily effects along these lines. They're rather poor compared to wizard and cleric and druid spells that last for minutes or even hours. They fail when compared to spells in almost every single way.
This comparison is indeed a valid point of game mechanics since monster advancement works just like PC advancement, with the ability to take PC classes and such. So when one compares their class to that of the big 3 (Wiz, Clr, Drd) it's not done because someone in their party is playing one of them and complaining that they're not measuring up (though I've found this to be the case at times too) but because when these classes are used with adversaries the PCs face.... well it becomes a TPK with DMs who actually know how the class works and what spells to select.
THis is why balance is important. This is why full-spellcasters get so much flak. This is why non-spellcasters were beefed up in 4E, because no one likes playing second fiddle to his comrades in 90% of the combat department for most of the gaming sessions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where I am more pessimistic with current 4E designers and/or Monte, is if they have any interest in continuing forward the basic design principles of 4E when it was first released. I hope they do not use Pathfinder rule set as a gauge for success. I believe it is all the other stuff to support the Pathfinder rule set that makes Paizo successful.
A big chunk of what is killing 4e is a lack of consistency. I know some people who like 4e, but even they have given up on the system because the rules change monthly. They were having to constantly rebuild their characters. While that is good for WitC's digital sales, it isn't appreciated by the customers.
I think the problem is that the marketing types have taken over and no one is enforcing a long term view of the game. It's too late for 4e, but perhaps Monte can have a impact on 5e. I'm not optimistic, because I am not seeing any signs that the management attitude has changed. I've gamed with Erik, Jason, SKR, Dave Gross, SRM and probably others at Paizo over the years, so I have far more confidence that they will be responsive to their audience.
A big chunk of what is killing 4e is a lack of consistency. I know some people who like 4e, but even they have given up on the system because the rules change monthly. They were having to constantly rebuild their characters. While that is good for WitC's digital sales, it isn't appreciated by the customers.
I can't even begin to imagine what sort of abomination of a character they were playing that necessitated them constantly rebuilding their character. The chances of any given character being affected by a particular bi-monthly (not monthly; it may even be quarterly, now) update is fairly low, and the chances of that happening both repeatedly and significantly enough to necessitate multiple instances of character rebuilding strikes me as ludicrous.
Is there any reason we shouldn't chalk this one up to hyperbole?
And for the record, there are a lot of WotC customers who are actually grateful for their persistent attention to rules after the book's been published. There are far too many systems that don't receive that reevaluation, and they suffer for it.
Really? From articles I've read by M:tG developers, they've always stated that WotC wanted to keep D&D and M:tG separate, with no overlap if possible.
Thing is both can be reasonably true. One can decide D&D is D&D and not MTG and still borrow some game elements from MTG.
An example I have heard bandied about regarding something that was 'stolen' from MTG is the idea of a keyword and the idea that keywords would lead to constant consistent mechanical elements with which other mechanical elements, often other keywords, would interact in a way that was clearly defined by the rules.
I can't even begin to imagine what sort of abomination of a character they were playing that necessitated them constantly rebuilding their character. The chances of any given character being affected by a particular bi-monthly (not monthly; it may even be quarterly, now) update is fairly low, and the chances of that happening both repeatedly and significantly enough to necessitate multiple instances of character rebuilding strikes me as ludicrous.Is there any reason we shouldn't chalk this one up to hyperbole?
And for the record, there are a lot of WotC customers who are actually grateful for their persistent attention to rules after the book's been published. There are far too many systems that don't receive that reevaluation, and they suffer for it.
I think I'm going to have to side with Sieylianna on this one here Scott. I like Errata when it's clear and done once. But 4E has been a bit wonky for this part. I mean, phantom-errata (changing things in Dragon after it's published for 3 months) is a real REAL big pain in my butt. Or the fact that they felt the need to nerf the Cleric to all hells and back. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to work with the books in front of me and if a problem occurs, see if there is errata. There is just too much of it to keep a running count going in my head.
If they put a mandate out stating that from such-and-such date, nothing else will be Erratad from the PHB and PHB2 from this moment hence-forth. And went on with narrowing down the scope of the errata to one or two publications a year, I could be happy with that. But the constant fear of the 6-month errata taking away the ranger's Twin Strike or whatever is just an unecessary worry that Player's are faced with time and time again. And honestly, I've not really come across anything that makes me say to myself "Whew, glad that got nerfed. It was a real head-ache at the table."
And honestly, I've not really come across anything that makes me say to myself "Whew, glad that got nerfed. It was a real head-ache at the table."
I sure have: battlerager, a few Barbarian powers, and a particularly ridiculous Invoker utility, to name a few.